Alcohol Use Disorder Causes Profound Global Changes in Gene Expression and Splicing in the Liver

Alcohol Use Disorder Causes Profound Global Changes in Gene Expression and Splicing in the Liver | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Alcohol Use Disorder Causes Profound Global Changes in Gene Expression and Splicing in the Liver Claes Wahlestedt, Ilya Blokhin, Derek Van Booven, Josepmaria Argemi, and 7 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6507570/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objective Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a widespread illness commonly leading to alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and cirrhosis with an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the mechanisms of alcohol-related oncogenesis in the liver are incompletely understood. Splicing represents a mechanism of messenger RNA processing, and its impairment is implicated in various cancers. We tested the hypothesis that AUD predisposes to ALD and HCC via dysregulation of splicing. Methods RNA sequencing was performed on liver biopsies from patients with different stages of alcoholic liver disease: early alcoholic steatohepatitis (eASH), non-severe alcoholic hepatitis (nsAH), and severe alcoholic hepatitis (sAH); furthermore, explants were collected from patients who underwent liver transplantation due to sAH (exAH). Alignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Raw counts were processed by edgeR in Bioconductor and normalized using CPM values. Resulting bam files from the STAR alignment were indexed with samtools for use by rMATS for the analysis of missplicing events. For exon expression, DEXSeq R package was employed, with GENCODE v.19 serving as a reference. Expression of small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs) and splicing factors was measured by real-time PCR. Data on oncogenes and tumor suppressors implicated in HCC as well as RNA sequencing files from liver of patients with HCC and HCC + AUD were retrieved from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Computational analysis of the affected pathways was performed using Gene Ontology Consortium, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis, Oncogene Database, and LncRNA Ontology databases. Results We found that alcohol caused widespread changes in transcriptome in all stages of ALD: among ~ 58,000 analyzed genomic features, ~ 4,900 were altered in eASH, ~ 9,100 – in nsAH, 14,100 – in sAH, and ~ 14,300 – in exAH. We observed thousands of missplicing events in all hepatic conditions, with mutually exclusive exons (MEE) being the most common event and exon skipping (ES) – second most common event. Analysis of ~ 600,000 exons revealed that ALD is associated with a genome-wide effect on exon expression, with ~ 50,000 exons being differentially expressed in eASH, ~ 130,000 – in nsAH, ~ 150,000 – in sAH, and ~ 120,000 – in exAH. To determine whether alcohol directly perturbs splicing, we subjected rats to alcohol vapor for 7 weeks and measured hepatic expression of two components of major and minor spliceosomes: snRNAs and splicing factors. Expression of such snRNAs as snU2, snU6atac, and snU11 was drastically decreased, while expression of splicing factors was not affected. Analysis of aberrantly expressed hepatic long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) from patients with AUD and patients with HCC + AUD demonstrated that overlapping lncRNAs were functionally related to splicing and spliceosome. Screening of 26 oncogenes and tumor suppressors, commonly involved in HCC pathogenesis, revealed that AUD affected the hepatic expression and/or splicing of most of these cancer-related genes. Conclusions Alcohol causes profound genome-wide changes in gene expression and splicing in the liver, likely via affecting the spliceosome and splicing-related lncRNAs. This results in altered expression and missplicing of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors involved in HCC, suggesting a novel mechanism of oncogenesis in the liver of patients with AUD. Health sciences/Pathogenesis Biological sciences/Physiology Health sciences/Diseases/Psychiatric disorders/Addiction alcohol use disorder splicing spliceosome long non-coding RNA hepatocellular carcinoma Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Introduction Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a chronic condition characterized by a problematic pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment. According to the World Health Organization, alcohol consumption accounts for 4.7% of all deaths worldwide [ 1 ]. In the United States, 14% of adults currently meet criteria of AUD, 29% – met AUD criteria once during their lifetime [ 2 ]; in addition, prevalence of AUD is increasing [ 3 , 4 ]. Annual cost of AUD and alcohol-related disorders is ~ $ 250 billion [ 5 , 6 ]. Due to high prevalence and lack of efficient treatment modalities, AUD causes significant socioeconomic burden. Apart from direct issues associated with AUD (damaged relationships, car accidents, etc.), the burden is connected to alcohol-related medical conditions, particularly, alcoholic liver disease (ALD) which leads to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). ALD is a broad diagnosis which encompasses the continuum of alcoholic steatosis, alcoholic steatohepatitis (eASH), alcoholic hepatitis (AH), and, finally, cirrhosis [ 7 ]. Most patients develop HCC at the stage of cirrhosis, but 11–31% of HCC patients present with HCC in the absence of cirrhotic changes [ 8 , 9 ]. HCC is the most common liver cancer and one of the most aggressive cancers. Worldwide, ~ 850,000 people are diagnosed with HCC every year [ 10 , 11 ]. Therapeutic approaches for advanced stage HCC are very few. Modest improvement was observed after administration of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib [ 12 ] and immunotherapy with anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody nivolumab [ 13 ], but prognosis for patients with advanced HCC is still poor, with an overall survival of around 1 year with the best treatment implemented [ 14 ]. HCC remains the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the world claiming ~ 700,000 deaths annually [ 15 , 16 ]. The link between AUD and HCC is well established in case-control studies [ 17 ] and meta-analyses [ 18 ], and alcohol-related HCC was shown to have significantly worse prognosis than HCC related to viral hepatitides [ 19 , 20 ]. That treatment of HCC is often insufficient may result from an incomplete insight on how HCC arises and progresses. HCC represents a heterogeneous group of tumors with molecular signatures closely connected to risk factors [ 21 ]. It is possible that AUD-related HCC develops via distinct molecular mechanism [ 22 ] and that some alcohol-induced molecular changes causing or predisposing to HCC occur at the stage of AH [ 8 , 9 ]. Recent data indicate that potential mechanistic overlap between AUD and HCC may involve impaired splicing. Splicing is a nuclear process of removing introns from pre-mRNA after which mature mRNA is produced and exported into the cytoplasm for translation. Splicing is mediated by a major spliceosome, a nuclear machinery which consists of 5 small nuclear RNAs (snRNA1 (snU1), snU2, snU4, snU5, and snU6) and dozens of splicing factors [ 23 ]. Among snRNAs, snU1 and snU2 are considered to be critical. snU1 recognizes 5’ splice site forming the early splicing complex while snU2 recognizes 3’ splice site. Among chief splicing factors with an established link to cancers are SF1, SF3B1, SRSF1, SRSF2, SRSF3, ZRSR2, and U2AF1 [ 24 – 26 ]. SF1 is responsible for the recognition of the branch point [ 27 ]. When branch point pairs with snU2, SF1 is displaced and branching site is contacted by SF3B1, a core component of the U2 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (U2 snRNP), which ensures stabilization of U2 snRNP on pre-mRNA [ 23 ]. SRSF1, SRSF2, and SRSF3 belong to the family of serine-arginine (SR) splicing factors which contain a protein domain composed of SR repeats; SRSF proteins are recruited with snU1 by RNA polymerase II and function mainly to couple splicing with transcription [ 28 ]. ZRSR2 and U2AF1 are required for the recognition of 3’ splice site [ 29 , 30 ]. Regulation of splicing is poorly understood, but there is some evidence indicating that long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) might be involved. LncRNAs are non-coding RNA molecules > 200 nucleotides in length which are capable of interacting with both short RNAs and proteins [ 31 ] and thus may serve as a “screwdriver” for spliceosome. It was shown that lncRNA Gomafu (also known as myocardial infarction-associated transcript (MIAT)) affects formation of spliceosomes and inhibits splicing factor SF1 [ 32 ]. Another lncRNA, MALAT1, interacts with SR splicing factors causing deregulation of splicing in a genome-wide fashion [ 33 , 34 ]. Data on splicing in AUD are relatively scanty. Alcohol intake was shown to be associated with a missplicing of specific transcripts such as mRNA for AMPA receptors [ 35 ] and GABA-B receptors [ 36 ]. Disruption of splicing on a broader scale was observed in the brain cortex of human fetuses exposed to alcohol [ 37 ]. In our previous work, we observed AUD-induced genome-wide missplicing in different brain regions [ 38 ]. In HCC, splicing is studied more extensively. Analysis of HCC transcriptome identified > 2,000 genes with altered splicing patterns which were distinct in HBV-induced, HCV-induced, and non-viral HCC [ 39 ]. It was also shown that HCC was accompanied by 34,163 alternative splicing events in 8,985 genes, and some missplicing patterns were associated with overall survival [ 40 ]. However, the extent and mechanisms of missplicing in AUD and ALD-related HCC remain unknown. The goal of the current study was to determine if AUD may relate to HCC via missplicing in the liver. We found that chronic alcohol use causes genome-wide changes in hepatic gene expression and splicing. Mechanistically, it appears to be mediated by defects in the spliceosomal machinery as well as by an aberrant expression of lncRNAs related to splicing. Numerous oncogenes and tumor suppressors were among affected genes in all alcohol-related hepatic conditions suggesting a novel mechanism contributing to the development of AUD-related HCC. Materials and Methods Patients RNA sequencing files from liver samples were obtained from the multicentric NIH-funded InTEAM Consortium and are available in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGAP, phs001807) [ 41 ]. Patients with non-severe (nsAH) and severe alcoholic hepatitis (sAH) as well as patients with liver failure who underwent liver transplantation were enrolled in the Consortium centers in Europe and United States. Samples from patients with early alcoholic steatohepatitis (eASH) were obtained from Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Brussels, Belgium). In total, 62 patients were included in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients, and research protocols were approved by the local Ethics Committees and by the central Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Patients were selected according to different clinically relevant stage groups: patients with eASH who were non-obese with high alcohol intake and presented with a mild elevation of transaminases and histologic criteria of steatohepatitis (n = 12); patients with nsAH and sAH who were biopsied before any treatment (n = 11 for nsAH and n = 18 for sAH); and explants from patients with AH who underwent early transplantation due to a liver failure following a well-defined protocol [ 42 ] (exAH, n = 11). Samples from these groups were compared with fragments of non-diseased human livers (n = 10). Patients with malignancies were excluded from the study. Sequencing of RNA from liver samples Sequencing was performed using Illumina HiSeq2000 platform, as previously described [ 41 ]. Briefly, libraries were built using Illumina TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Ribo-Zero GOLD (Illumina). Sequencing was paired and multiplexed. 62 paired-end sequenced samples obtained an average of 36,9 million total reads. Analysis of Transcriptome Alignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Adapters were trimmed by TrimGalore. Raw counts were processed by the Bioconductor R package edgeR and normalized using the TMM method to produce CPM values. Differential expression was calculated using a negative binomial model, and a False Discovery Ratio (FDR) cutoff of < 0.05 was used to define statistical significance. Next, we analyzed consistent transcriptomic changes across all groups using the Bayesian ANOVA for microarrays (BAM) methodology developed by our group [ 43 ] which employs a specific Bayesian hierarchical model oriented towards adaptive shrinkage. By using model averaging, BAM-provided gene effect estimates are shrunken relative to the standard least square estimates. In this process, primarily the non-differentially expressing gene effects are shrunken. Such a selective shrinkage enabled BAM to optimally balance the total false detections (total number of genes falsely identified as being differentially expressed) against total false non-detections (the total number of genes falsely identified as being non-differentially expressed). This model enabled BAM to use data across all genes and all experimental groups to accurately estimate different levels of sparsity and then to selectively shrink gene effects based on the estimated complexities. BAM estimated gene differential effects (Zcut values) represented the products of posterior inference from the BAM hierarchical Bayesian model. Shrinkage plots were used to identify differentially expressed genes. Significant genes were grouped by differential expression pattern type. Gene Ontology of protein-coding genes Functional analysis of altered transcripts was performed by Gene Ontology Consortium, as described elsewhere [ 44 , 45 ]. Hierarchy of implicated Gene Ontology terms was constructed using default criteria set by developers. Analysis of missplicing events Alignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Resulting bam files from the STAR alignment were indexed with samtools for use by rMATS, as described elsewhere [ 46 ]. Briefly, rMATS pipeline used RNA sequencing reads which were mapped to different splice variants to estimate the isoform proportion, and a hierarchical framework was employed to simultaneously account for estimation uncertainty in individual replicates and variability among replicates. FDR cutoff < 0.05 was used to define statistical significance. Exon expression Analysis of the expression of exons was performed as described elsewhere [ 47 ]. Alignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Adapters were trimmed by TrimGalore. Raw counts were obtained from the dexseq_count.py script contained in the DEXSeq R package (v.1.20.2) on the reference annotation prepared by the dexseq_prepare_annotation.py script in the same package against the GENCODE reference file (v.19). These counts were then fed into DEXSeq to determine exon-specific differential splicing events. Figures were generated using the plotDEXSeq function contained in the DEXSeq package. FDR cutoff < 0.05 was used to define statistical significance. Rat model of alcohol use disorder based on vapor chamber Rats were placed in a vapor chamber with a normal air for one week for a habituation to a new environment (two rats per cage). Then alcohol vapor exposure was slowly increased in the course of 1 week until blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reached ~ 200 mg/dL. Rats were exposed to alcohol vapor for 7 weeks (5 days a week, 14 hours/day) or left unexposed (n = 12 in each group). BAC was measured once per week from one rat per cage (rats were alternating every other week). One week after the last alcohol exposure, animals were sacrificed, and liver and lung samples were collected. RNA isolation RNA was isolated from liver and lung by Qiagen RNeasy kit, in accordance to manufacturer’s instructions. Prior to RNA isolation, samples were incubated in RNAlater-ICE (Thermo Fisher Scientific) overnight at -20°C. DNase treatment was performed using RNase-Free DNase Set (Qiagen). RNA quality and concentrations were determined by Nanodrop 2000, and samples with RNA Integrity Number (A260:A280 ratio) between 1.9–2.1 were included in the study. RNA samples were kept at -80°C until analyzed. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) RNA was reversely transcribed using High Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific); reactions were run on a Veriti 96 Well Fast Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems); cycling conditions were 25°C for 10 minutes, 37°C for 2 hours, and 85°C for 5 minutes. For real-time PCR, cDNA was mixed with a master mix consisting of TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix (Roche), nuclease-free water, and 20X or 40 X TaqMan primers. qRT-PCR was performed on QuantStudio 6 Flex (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using probe-based assays from Integrated DNA Technologies. Cycling conditions were 50°C for 2 minutes, 95°C for 10 minutes, and 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 seconds and 60°C for 1 minute. Data were analyzed using the comparative threshold cycle (ΔΔCT) method, as described previously [ 48 ], normalized to β-actin, and expressed relatively to a control group. Primers for protein-coding genes were purchased from a pre-made stock of Integrated DNA Technologies. Primers for human and rat snRNAs were designed either by ourselves or by Integrated DNA Technologies, and their sequences are listed in Supplementary Table 1. Computational Analysis of Coding and Non-coding Features The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, www.cancer.gov/tcga ) was used to retrieve RNA sequencing files from patients with HCC and HCC + AUD. For most patients with HCC, alcohol intake was well documented on TCGA; however, since DSM-5-defined criteria of AUD were not included in TCGA social history, we arbitrarily defined AUD group as individuals consuming 4 or more drinks a day at least 4 days a week; control group included subjects with no alcohol intake. Other inclusion criterion was being alive at the time of cancerous tissue harvest (to avoid possible RNA degradation in postmortem samples). 10 patients were included in each group. All datasets incorporated in the analysis were generated by aligning reads to GRCh38 using STAR; genes were annotated using GENCODE v.22, and their expression was presented in a FPKM-UQ format. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis database [ 49 ] was used to obtain the list of spliceosomal proteins and to create the lists of proteins involved in gluconeogenesis and spermatogenesis as well as the list of 26 random genes which included at least 1 gene from each chromosome. List of cancer-related genes was retrieved form the Oncogene Database [ 50 ], a literature-based curated database of oncogenes and tumor suppressors. Functional status of altered lncRNAs of interest was studied using “LncRNA Ontology” database [ 51 ] which employs the pipeline based on transcriptional and epigenetic profiles of lncRNAs and protein-coding genes; default criteria set by developers were used to execute the ontology. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis between two groups was performed using two-tailed Student’s t test. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM unless otherwise stated. Proportions in events in different groups were assessed using chi-square test; rejection of the null hypothesis (that proportions are the same across groups) indicated that proportion is different in at least one group. Difference between expression of splicing factors was determined using the Test for Fold Change of Two Means. Differences with P < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Results Subjects Demographics and pertinent clinical data are listed in Table 1. Patients with alcohol-induced liver damage did not differ in age or gender. Child-Pugh, MELD, and ABIC scores all increased from nsAH to sAH, but there was no difference between sAH and exAH groups. Frequency of symptoms of hepatic decompensation such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury, and infections tended to increase from nsAH to sAH. White blood cell counts increased and hemoglobin and platelet counts decreased throughout eASH-nsAH-sAH-exAH continuum. As expected, levels of bilirubin alkaline phosphatase were higher in patients with AUD-related liver damage. Liver diseases were also associated with low albumin, hyponatremia, and increased prothrombin time (expressed as International Normalized Ratio (INR)). Of note, creatinine levels were normal across phenotypes, ruling out the presence of hepatorenal syndrome. Effect of AUD of hepatic transcriptome We have previously shown that there are extensive transcriptomic changes imparted by some stages of ALD [ 41 ], but the assessment of ALD-related transcriptomic reprogramming encompassed only protein-coding genes and did not interrogate splice variants. We therefore decided to interrogate RNA sequences datasets in order to evaluate the extent of differential expression and missplicing of both coding and non-coding features. The analysis of expression of 57,820 features confirmed that AUD caused genome-wide changes in hepatic transcriptome, with a number of differentially expressed genes positively correlating with a disease severity. In eASH, 4,928 were altered (8.5%), in nsAH – 9,075 (15.7%), in sAH – 14,100 (24.4%), and in exAH – 14,292 (24.7%) (Fig. 1). When considering the RNA biotypes, the composition of altered transcriptomes was relatively similar in all alcohol-related condition, with a majority of affected genes (60–70%) being represented by protein-coding genes (Supplementary Fig. 1). Altered transcriptome profiles demonstrated a considerable overlap (data not shown) suggesting that alcohol-related transcriptomic changes are persistent, cumulative along the progression of ALD, and unlikely to be random. To address functional implications of altered transcriptomes, we analyzed transcriptomic overlaps between eASH and later stages of AUD-induced hepatic damage such as sAH and exAH. Gene Ontology analysis of overlapping suppressed genes revealed that downregulated features are mainly involved in oncogenesis: affected pathways included DNA replication, DNA damage response, cell cycle, and regulation of mitosis (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3). Next, we asked if there are transcriptional changes that persist across all stages of alcohol-induced hepatic damage and assessed determined genes up- or downregulated in all four groups. In total, expression of 1,265 were either increased or decreased throughout eASH-nsAH-sAH-exAH continuum (Fig. 2). 440 genes were upregulated in all groups, 825 – downregulated in all groups (Supplementary Table 4) indicating the broad character of alcohol-induced transcriptomic changes across all conditions. Effect of AUD on splicing Effect of alcohol on splicing in the liver has not been well studied, and extent and characteristics of hepatic missplicing in AUD are not known. We employed MATS program [ 46 ] to unbiasedly detect such missplicing events as 5’ alternative splice sites (5’-SS), 3’ alternative splice sites (3’-SS), intron retention (IR), exon skipping (ES) and mutually exclusive exons (MEE). In all alcohol-related conditions, ES and MEE were the most common events (Fig. 3). Number of ES was relatively similar across all conditions: 1,542, 1,668, 1660, and 1,623 in eASH, nsAH, sAH, and exAH, respectively. MEE, on the other hand, differed significantly in various conditions. The number of MEEs was 1,186 in eASH, rose to 3,119 in nsAH, and then subsided to 2,668 and 2,094 in sAH and exAH, respectively. Frequency of 5’-SS, 3’-SS, and IR was much lower in comparison to ES and MEE, and the dynamics of their quantitative changes was similar, being observed at the stage of eASH, occurring most frequently at the stage of nsAH, and returning to eASH levels at sAH and exAH stages. Effect of AUD on exon expression Based on the high number of alcohol-induced missplicing events across all conditions, we hypothesized that the variety of differentially expressed transcripts in the liver may be larger than detected on standard differential expression analysis (Fig. 1). We reasoned that missplicing may cause changes in the expression and presence of specific exons without altering a total expression counts of a specific gene, as quantified by conventional pipelines. In such a case, the quantification of individual exons might therefore provide a more accurate insight into alcohol-induced changes in transcriptional landscape and give clues of potentially relevant changes in mRNA and amino acid sequence of key molecular drivers. We used DEXSeq R package to perform exon expression analysis. The interrogation of 588,998 exons showed that alcohol causes genome-wide changes in exon expression, with number of affected exons positively correlating with the stage of disease. Thus, 46,045 (7.8%) exons were altered in eASH, 126,145 (21.4%) – in nsAH, 152,335 (25.9%) – in sAH, and 123,282 (20.9%) – in sAH (Fig. 4). Effect of alcohol on snRNAs We next asked which mechanism may be responsible for such broad alcohol-induced alterations of splicing landscape. Splicing is governed mainly by a major spliceosome, a nuclear machinery which consists of 5 small nuclear RNAs (snRNA) and multiple proteins, known as splicing factors. The snRNAs are involved in the recognition of introns, formation of splicing complexes, and splicing reactions. The major spliceosome includes 5 snRNAs: snU1, snU2, snU4, snU5, and snU6. Although data on AUD-induced changes in splicing began to accumulate [ 37 , 38 , 52 ], the impact of alcohol on snRNA has not been explored. In most publicly available RNA sequencing datasets in alcohol-related disease studies, snRNAs are not well represented. Only in one of them [ 53 ] did we find robust expression values for most snRNAs; this study showed that treatment of primary hepatocytes with alcohol resulted in decreased expression of snU1 and snU4. That snRNAomes from most public RNA sequencing sources (such as NCBI or TCGA) are missing or unreliable may be due to the length of snRNAs: mature snRNAs are relatively short (< 200 nucleotides) and may not be detected by standard RNA sequencing protocols. Therefore, to investigate the direct effect of alcohol on the snRNAome in vivo , we treated rats with alcohol vapor or left untreated for 7 weeks and measured the expression of snRNAs in the liver by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) (Supplementary Table 1). Blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) levels were three times higher in exposed animals (Supplementary Fig. 2). Importantly, the expression of snU2 was 94% downregulated and snU1 was not changed; snU4 and snU6 were not detected (Fig. 5). We also studied the components of the minor spliceosome which is responsible for splicing of atypical snU12-type introns. This specific type of introns constitutes ~ 0.5% of all introns in human genome, and their removal by minor spliceosome is known as non-canonical splicing [ 54 ]. In the minor spliceosome, the expression of snU6atac was completely abolished, and expression of snU11 was 92% reduced; snU12 was not detected (Fig. 5). Since in our model alcohol was delivered in the form of vapor, we reasoned that similar changes in snRNA expression may be also observed in the lung. We found that snU2 and snU11, but not snU6-atac, were significantly downregulated in the lung of rats subjected to alcohol vapor (Supplementary Fig. 3), although changes were less drastic than in the liver, indicating that the intensity or mode of alcohol-mediated alteration of the spliceosome could be organ-specific. Effect of alcohol on splicing factors Next, we addressed if alcohol affects expression of splicing factors. Among the main splicing factors with an established link to cancers are SF1, SF3B1, SRSF1, SRSF2, SRSF3, U2AF1, and ZRSR2 [ 24 , 25 ]. Analysis of their expression showed no differences between control rats and rats treated with alcohol both in the liver (Fig. 6) and the lungs (Supplementary Fig. 4). To determine if these factors were changed in patients with alcohol-related hepatic conditions, we retrieved and analyzed RNA sequencing data from patients with eASH, nsAH, sAH, and exAH and again found no difference between groups (Fig. 6). It appears that in contrast to snRNAs which are markedly decreased by alcohol, cancer-related splicing factors remain unaltered. Further, since we observed that many of these factors tended to decrease liver and lung of rats exposed to alcohol (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Fig. 4, P > 0.05), we reasoned that an effort to address the functional status of spliceosome by analyzing only 6 splicing factors may be inaccurate, as it may not fully reflect upon how the whole spliceosome may be affected. We compiled the list of all spliceosomal factors using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) (Supplementary Table 5) and checked if alcohol has a concerted effect on spliceosomal proteome. Although there was a statistically significant reduction in global expression of spliceosomal mRNAome, the magnitude of decrease was only in the range 1–7% (Fig. 7) suggesting that protein components of spliceosome are unlikely to be considerably affected by alcohol. Effect of alcohol on splicing-related lncRNAs We observed substantial changes in hepatic lncRNAs in patients with ALD, which correlated with the severity of liver damage. In eASH, 1,108 lncRNAs were differentially expressed, in nsAH – 1854, in sAH – 3,349, and in exAH – 3,353 (Supplementary Fig. 5). Furthermore, the proportion of altered lncRNAs biotypes was different between early and late stages of ALD: while in early stages the pseudogenes were most commonly affected, in non-severe and severe AH stages there was an increased involvement of long intergenic non-coding RNAs and antisense lncRNAs (Supplementary Fig. 5). We then aimed at analyzing if these alterations were also present in alcohol-related HCC. The analysis of gene expression profiles from TCGA showed that patients with HCC + AUD had 514 differentially-expressed lncRNAs in the liver. The comparison of 3,349 lncRNAs altered in sAH with 514 lncRNAs altered in HCC + AUD demonstrated that 101 were common in these two conditions (Supplementary Fig. 6). Finally, a lncRNA ontology revealed that these lncRNAs are functionally related to splicing, as 3 out of 5 top pathways were represented by splicing and RNA processing (Table 2). Effect of AUD on oncogenes To address to what extent alcohol-induced changes in the liver affect oncogenes and tumor suppressors, we aligned 14,100 genes altered in sAH with the list of 803 oncogenes from Oncogene Database [ 50 ]. 414 were differentially expressed in both conditions (data not shown) suggesting that alcohol-induced transcriptomic changes in the liver posttranscriptionally affect large portion of all cancer-related genes. At the same time, since different cancers are accompanied by specific oncogenes, we thought that we should undertake the analysis of oncogenes specific for HCC. In the past few years, extensive efforts by TCGA revealed genes mutated in specific cancers [ 21 , 55 , 56 ], and 26 genes were most commonly mutated in HCC [ 21 ]. Screened of these genes using our computational pipeline showed that 7 of them were differentially expressed and/or misspliced in eASH, 14 – in nsAH, 17 – in sAH, and 13 – in exAH (Chi-square test = 8.12, p = 0.04, Table 3). Next, we asked if such a dose-dependent effect is limited to cancer-related genes. We compiled and analyzed the list of 26 random genes which included at least one gene from each chromosome. The similar pattern of increase was found: 5 genes were affected in eASH, 8 – nsAH, 9 – in sAH, and 12 – exAH (Chi-square = 4.37, p = 0.22, Supplementary Table 6). Furthermore, we analyzed 26 genes implicated in spermatogenesis (as a pathway unrelated to the liver) and 26 genes involved in gluconeogenesis (as a pathway related to the liver). For both pathways, we once again observed a similar pattern condition-dependent increase: in eASH-nsAH-sAH-exAH continuum, 6-13-13-14 genes were affected in spermatogenesis (Chi-square = 13.91, p = 0.003, Supplementary Table 7) and 7-14-16-14 – in gluconeogenesis (Chi-square = 7.19, p = 0.06, Supplementary Table 8). We reasoned, therefore, that degree of damage is unrelated to the pathway and rather mirrors the number of genes affected in a specific alcohol-related hepatic disease. We set out to merge and count all differentially expressed and misspliced genes in every alcohol-induced liver condition. Results demonstrated that number of affected genes indeed increases with the severity of hepatic damage: 11.8% genes were affected in eASH, 20.1% – in nsAH, 29.8 – in sAH, and 27.7% – in exAH (p = 0, Supplementary Fig. 7). Next, we asked if alcohol use may impart broader transcriptomic changes in HCC and compared gene expression profiles from HCC samples between patients with and without AUD. Analysis showed that patients with HCC + AUD have 2-fold increase in a number of differentially increased genes in comparison to patients with HCC alone (Supplementary Fig. 8). Discussion The salient findings of the current study are: 1) Alcohol causes pervasive changes in hepatic transcriptomes in all AUD-associated liver diseases; 2) Alcohol causes genome-wide changes in splicing and expression of exons in all AUD-associated liver diseases; 3) Alcohol suppresses hepatic expression of snRNAs of major and minor spliceosomes; 4) Alcohol does not affect expression of splicing factors; 5) Alcohol affects lncRNAs related to splicing, and 6) Alcohol posttranscriptionally affects genes involved in HCC. In the past few years, alcohol-induced changes in gene expression were relatively well studied in the brain. For example, gene expression profiling on the prefrontal cortex identified 129 altered genes in patients with AUD [ 57 ]. It was shown that alcohol-induced changes in the brain are dependent on a cellular lineage, as RNA sequencing demonstrated unique transcriptomic signatures in murine astrocytes [ 58 ] or microglial cells [ 59 ]. Furthermore, it was demonstrated in mice that alcohol exposure alters expression of microRNAs (miRs) in prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, and amygdala and that affected miRomes matched expression profiles of protein-coding genes in corresponding regions [ 60 ]. In the current study, we show that alcohol causes genome-wide changes in the liver, and these changes appear to be far more pervasive than those in the brain as indicated by our own data from different brain regions [ 38 ] as well as by results from previous studies [ 57 – 59 ]. As of now, it is not known how alcohol may affect gene expression in the liver. Besides splicing, which was the focus of the current study, there are other molecular mechanisms that might be involved. For example, alcohol is associated with aberrant patterns of DNA methylation of CpG islands [ 61 , 62 ] and changes in histone code [ 63 ]; as mentioned, alcohol is also capable of changing the expression of miRs which fine-tune the transcriptome in the cytoplasm [ 60 ]. Of note, as extent of transcriptomic damage appears to be distinctly different in the liver and brain, it is possible that mechanism of alcohol-induced changes may be organ-specific and should likely be studied separately across specific tissues. Splicing takes a central place in a cellular biology: constitutive splicing is responsible for a removal of introns, and alternative splicing generates a proteomic diversity. We observed that in addition to changes in gene expression, AUD conferred multiple missplicing events. There have been very few studies on the effect of alcohol on splicing, and initial investigations mainly focused on missplicing of specific genes. Thus, alcohol was shown to be associated with a missplicing of AMPA receptors [ 35 ] and GABA-B receptors [ 36 ]. Ethanol also affected alternative splicing of DRD2 (dopamine D2 receptor) in the pituitary [ 64 ]. Later, it was established that alcohol impacts splicing on a broader scale. Kawasawa et al. [ 37 ] found 382 alternative splicing events in the brain cortex of human fetuses exposed to alcohol. Qualitatively, 8 missplicing events were detected: 5’-SS, 3’-SS, MEE, IR, cassette exon, coordinate cassette exon, alternative first exon, and alternative last exon (ES was likely not detectable by employed computational pipeline), with IR being the most frequent event. In our previous work, we observed that AUD caused a genome-wide missplicing in different brain regions, most commonly – ES and MEE [ 38 ]. In the current study, analysis of hepatic transcriptomes revealed that ES and MEE were again the major AUD-induced events. These results are different from the missplicing patterns of another alcohol-related cancer, HNSCC, which was associated with genome-wide changes in splicing, but alternative splice sites (5’-SS and 3’-SS) and canonical exon skipping were the most common missplicing events [ 65 ]. It appears that mechanism and extent of alcohol-induced missplicing, as mechanism of alcohol-induced alterations in transcriptome, may differ from one tissue to another. Scattered data indicate that aberrant splicing in HCC may be a result of a damaged spliceosome; for example, HCC is frequently associated with mutations in splicing factor SF3B1 [ 21 , 66 ]. The effect of alcohol on spliceosome has not been well studied, but indirect evidence suggests that the link between AUD and spliceosomal activity may exist. It was shown that vulnerability of neuroprogenitor cells to toxic effects of alcohol was related to the expression of genes related to spliceosome [ 67 ]. It was also shown that exposure of neurons to alcohol reduced the expression of SRSF1 [ 68 ]. Likewise, in murine placenta and embryos, alcohol affected several spliceosomal genes including SRSF1 [ 69 ]. In our study, we did not see differential expression in cancer-related splicing factors (SF1, SF3B1, SRSF1, SRSF2, SRSF3, U2AF1, and ZRSR2); neither did we see any change in the expression of all components of the spliceosomal proteome. Instead, we observed that alcohol imparted a marked decrease of snRNAs. That snRNAs were affected and splicing factors were not and it was still induced broad missplicing events suggests a primary role of snRNAs in splicing. It is difficult to address if suppression of snRNAs is the only mechanism of missplicing in AUD. Such an experiment would likely require the “snRNAome rescue” experiment, and a precise normalization snRNAome may be technically hard to achieve. HCC has the second highest worldwide cancer mortality rate, and therapeutic options for metastatic HCC are very limited and modestly efficacious. Many drugs failed to demonstrate efficacy in phase III [ 70 ], likely due to incomplete understanding of mechanisms of HCC in AUD. One explanation of such a poor insight may be a traditional focus on DNA mutations as a driving force of carcinogenesis. Many studies question such an approach. TCGA work on HCC showed that many patients without p53 mutation have inactive functional p53 [ 21 ] suggesting that oncogenes may be affected via posttranscriptional mechanism, including splicing. HCC was previously shown to be accompanied by a dysregulated expression of splice isoforms of various genes including DNMT3b, TP53, KLF6 [ 71 ], ketohexokinase [ 72 ], and hepcidin [ 73 ]. It is possible that AUD-induced HCC represents a separate entity different from, for example, HCC associated with hepatitis C. Such a scenario was shown for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in which genome sequencing identified six mutational signatures, with one of them specifically linked to alcohol intake [ 74 ]. Clearly, other genetic and epigenetic mechanisms are implicated and should be evaluated. For example, it was found that impaired functional status of p53 protein in patients with HCC and non-mutated TP53 could at least partly be attributed to high levels of MDM4, a p53 inhibitor [ 21 ]. One could speculate that each of tumor suppressors (oncogenes) involved in HCC may have protein inhibitors (activators). Also, it was shown that alcohol affects such processes related to gene-to-protein flow as RNA transport, ribosomes, and protein processing in the endoplasmic reticulum [ 67 ], and it might be of interest to assess a relative contribution of these mechanisms in processing of HCC-related genes. In the current study, patients with eASH, nsAH, sAH, and exAH did not differ in terms of alcohol use which is in line with previous findings demonstrating the lack of correlation between alcohol intake and incidence/severity of AH [ 75 , 76 ]. Why are transcriptional and splicing landscapes so different in patients with similar alcohol intake? One may speculate that it is likely related to a genetic predisposition to missplicing. Since splicing is regulated by spliceosome, culprit(s) should be either snRNAs and/or splicing factors. We observed that splicing factors were not affected in all groups. We did not analyze snRNAome in human RNA sequencing datasets, but we cannot rule out the possibility that mutations in genomic snRNAs genes may be involved, and this would warrant a further investigation. It is of interest that both spliceosomes were affected in mice exposed to alcohol suggesting a common mechanism by which AUD may downregulate spliceosomes. Such a mechanism may involve transcription factor(s) orchestrating transcription of snRNAs. Another, posttranscriptional, mechanism of regulation may be represented by lncRNAs. Spliceosome represents a gigantic machinery consisting of snRNAs and splicing factors, and it is functionally coupled with gene expression [ 77 ]. Since lncRNAs can interact with DNA, RNA, and proteins, it is possible that they serve as master regulator of spliceosome. In our work, distribution of altered lncRNAomes differed between groups, with pseudogenes dominating early phase of alcohol-induced hepatic damage and lincRNAs and antisense lncRNA – later phases. Some evidence indicates that even individual lncRNAs may cause changes in splicing. Thus, lncRNA MALAT1, an established oncogene activated in many cancers including HCC [ 78 ] and also upregulated in the brain of alcoholics [ 79 ], affected splicing factors HNRNPF and HNRNPF1 as well as levels of serine-arginine-rich splicing factors and affected alternative splicing of hundreds of transcripts [ 80 ]. Alternative splicing is globally regulated by sno-lncRNAs, lncRNA flanked by small nucleolar RNA (snoRNAs) [ 81 ] which are a family of conserved nuclear RNAs located in Cajal bodies or nucleoli and participating in snRNAs modifications. Several lncRNAs are able to interact with specific splicing factors [ 82 ]. New exciting field is represented by circular RNAs (circRNAs), a covalently closed single-stranded RNA complexes arising from back-splicing. These complexes are highly stable, and it is speculated that they might be capable of competing with pre-mRNA for spliceosome [ 83 ]. We interrogated lncRNAs and found that lncRNAs affected in AUD and HCC + AUD were functionally related to splicing. The link between lncRNAs and spliceosomes is currently unknown. One possibility is that lncRNAs may function as “snRNAs sponges”, as a similar function was described for circRNAs which are capable of “sponging” miRs [ 84 ]. Our tentative model is shown in Fig. 8. We showed that AUD perturbs gene expression and splicing in genome-wide fashion across all alcohol-related hepatic diseases. Mechanistically, missplicing appears to be mediated by suppression of snRNAs of major and minor spliceosome. AUD was also associated with altered expression of lncRNAs, but the link between lncRNAs and spliceosome is to be elucidated. Among affected genes are oncogenes and tumor suppressors implicated in the development and progression of HCC. Declarations Sources of funding This work was supported by HIN grant GR 009105 (and supplement GR 011827). Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest. References Anderson, B.O., et al., Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption . Lancet Public Health, 2023. 8(1): p. e6-e7. Grant, B.F., et al., Epidemiology of DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III . JAMA Psychiatry, 2015. 72(8): p. 757–66. Grant, B.F., et al., Prevalence of 12-Month Alcohol Use, High-Risk Drinking, and DSM-IV Alcohol Use Disorder in the United States, 2001–2002 to 2012–2013: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions . JAMA Psychiatry, 2017. 74(9): p. 911–923. Mekonen, T., et al., Treatment rates for alcohol use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Addiction, 2021. 116(10): p. 2617–2634. Sacks, J.J., et al., 2010 National and State Costs of Excessive Alcohol Consumption. Am J Prev Med, 2015. 49(5): p. e73-e79. Li, M., et al., Medical Costs of Substance Use Disorders in the US Employer-Sponsored Insurance Population . JAMA Netw Open, 2023. 6(1): p. e2252378. Seitz, H.K., et al., Alcoholic liver disease . Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2018. 4(1): p. 16. Mittal, S., et al., Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Absence of Cirrhosis in United States Veterans is Associated With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease . Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016. 14(1): p. 124 – 31.e1. Tokushige, K., et al., Hepatocellular carcinoma in Japanese patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and alcoholic liver disease: multicenter survey . J Gastroenterol, 2016. 51(6): p. 586–96. Bosetti, C., F. Turati, and C. La Vecchia, Hepatocellular carcinoma epidemiology . Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 2014. 28(5): p. 753–70. Samant, H., H.S. Amiri, and G.B. Zibari, Addressing the worldwide hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology, prevention and management . J Gastrointest Oncol, 2021. 12(Suppl 2): p. S361-s373. Llovet, J.M., et al., Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma . N Engl J Med, 2008. 359(4): p. 378–90. El-Khoueiry, A.B., et al., Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial . Lancet, 2017. 389(10088): p. 2492–2502. Brown, Z.J., et al., Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review . JAMA Surg, 2023. 158(4): p. 410–420. Dhanasekaran, R., A. Limaye, and R. Cabrera, Hepatocellular carcinoma: current trends in worldwide epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and therapeutics . Hepat Med, 2012. 4: p. 19–37. Oh, J.H. and D.W. Jun, The latest global burden of liver cancer: A past and present threat . Clin Mol Hepatol, 2023. 29(2): p. 355–357. Hassan, M.M., et al., Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma: synergism of alcohol with viral hepatitis and diabetes mellitus . Hepatology, 2002. 36(5): p. 1206–13. Chuang, S.C., et al., Alcohol consumption and liver cancer risk: a meta-analysis . Cancer Causes Control, 2015. 26(9): p. 1205–31. Marot, A., et al., Alcoholic liver disease confers a worse prognosis than HCV infection and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease among patients with cirrhosis: An observational study . PLoS One, 2017. 12(10): p. e0186715. West, J., et al., Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma among individuals with different aetiologies of cirrhosis: a population-based cohort study . Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2017. 45(7): p. 983–990. Comprehensive and Integrative Genomic Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma . Cell, 2017. 169(7): p. 1327–1341.e23. Ramadori, P., et al., Alcohol and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Adding Fuel to the Flame . Cancers (Basel), 2017. 9(10). Will, C.L. and R. Luhrmann, Spliceosome structure and function . Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, 2011. 3(7). Anczukow, O. and A.R. Krainer, Splicing-factor alterations in cancers . Rna, 2016. 22(9): p. 1285–301. Dvinge, H., et al., RNA splicing factors as oncoproteins and tumour suppressors . Nat Rev Cancer, 2016. 16(7): p. 413–30. Zhang, Q., Y. Ai, and O. Abdel-Wahab, Molecular impact of mutations in RNA splicing factors in cancer . Mol Cell, 2024. 84(19): p. 3667–3680. Wahl, M.C., C.L. Will, and R. Luhrmann, The spliceosome: design principles of a dynamic RNP machine . Cell, 2009. 136(4): p. 701–18. Twyffels, L., C. Gueydan, and V. Kruys, Shuttling SR proteins: more than splicing factors . Febs j, 2011. 278(18): p. 3246–55. Madan, V., et al., Aberrant splicing of U12-type introns is the hallmark of ZRSR2 mutant myelodysplastic syndrome . Nat Commun, 2015. 6: p. 6042. Okeyo-Owuor, T., et al., U2AF1 mutations alter sequence specificity of pre-mRNA binding and splicing . Leukemia, 2015. 29(4): p. 909–17. Blokhin, I., et al., Developments in lncRNA drug discovery: where are we heading? Expert Opin Drug Discov, 2018. 13(9): p. 837–849. Tsuiji, H., et al., Competition between a noncoding exon and introns: Gomafu contains tandem UACUAAC repeats and associates with splicing factor-1 . Genes Cells, 2011. 16(5): p. 479–90. Bernard, D., et al., A long nuclear-retained non-coding RNA regulates synaptogenesis by modulating gene expression . Embo j, 2010. 29(18): p. 3082–93. Tripathi, V., et al., The nuclear-retained noncoding RNA MALAT1 regulates alternative splicing by modulating SR splicing factor phosphorylation . Mol Cell, 2010. 39(6): p. 925–38. Acosta, G., et al., Alternative splicing of AMPA subunits in prefrontal cortical fields of cynomolgus monkeys following chronic ethanol self-administration . Front Psychiatry, 2011. 2: p. 72. Lee, C., R.D. Mayfield, and R.A. Harris, Altered gamma-aminobutyric acid type B receptor subunit 1 splicing in alcoholics . Biol Psychiatry, 2014. 75(10): p. 765–73. Kawasawa, Y.I., et al., Genome-wide profiling of differentially spliced mRNAs in human fetal cortical tissue exposed to alcohol . Alcohol, 2017. 62: p. 1–9. Van Booven, D., et al., Alcohol use disorder causes global changes in splicing in the human brain . Transl Psychiatry, 2021. 11(1): p. 2. Tremblay, M.P., et al., Global profiling of alternative RNA splicing events provides insights into molecular differences between various types of hepatocellular carcinoma . BMC Genomics, 2016. 17: p. 683. Zhu, G.Q., et al., Prognostic alternative mRNA splicing signature in hepatocellular carcinoma: a study based on large-scale sequencing data . Carcinogenesis, 2019. Argemi, J., et al., Defective HNF4alpha-dependent gene expression as a driver of hepatocellular failure in alcoholic hepatitis . Nat Commun, 2019. 10(1): p. 3126. Mathurin, P., et al., Early liver transplantation for severe alcoholic hepatitis . N Engl J Med, 2011. 365(19): p. 1790–800. Ishwaran, H., J.S. Rao, and U.B. Kogalur, BAMarraytrade mark: Java software for Bayesian analysis of variance for microarray data . BMC Bioinformatics, 2006. 7: p. 59. The Gene Ontology Resource: 20 years and still GOing strong . Nucleic Acids Res, 2019. 47(D1): p. D330-d338. Ashburner, M., et al., Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium . Nat Genet, 2000. 25(1): p. 25–9. Shen, S., et al., rMATS: robust and flexible detection of differential alternative splicing from replicate RNA-Seq data . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2014. 111(51): p. E5593-601. Anders, S., A. Reyes, and W. Huber, Detecting differential usage of exons from RNA-seq data . Genome Res, 2012. 22(10): p. 2008–17. Livak, K.J. and T.D. Schmittgen, Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method . Methods, 2001. 25(4): p. 402–8. Subramanian, A., et al., Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2005. 102(43): p. 15545–50. Liu, Y., J. Sun, and M. Zhao, ONGene: A literature-based database for human oncogenes . J Genet Genomics, 2017. 44(2): p. 119–121. Li, Y., et al., LncRNA ontology: inferring lncRNA functions based on chromatin states and expression patterns . Oncotarget, 2015. 6(37): p. 39793–805. Huggett, S.B., et al., Genome- and transcriptome-wide splicing associations with alcohol use disorder . Sci Rep, 2023. 13(1): p. 3950. Schmidt-Heck, W., et al., Global Transcriptional Response of Human Liver Cells to Ethanol Stress of Different Strength Reveals Hormetic Behavior . Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2017. 41(5): p. 883–894. Turunen, J.J., et al., The significant other: splicing by the minor spliceosome . Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA, 2013. 4(1): p. 61–76. Integrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma . Nature, 2017. 541(7636): p. 169–175. Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer . Nature, 2017. 543(7645): p. 378–384. Kapoor, M., et al., Analysis of whole genome-transcriptomic organization in brain to identify genes associated with alcoholism . Transl Psychiatry, 2019. 9(1): p. 89. Erickson, E.K., et al., Astrocyte-specific transcriptome responses to chronic ethanol consumption . Pharmacogenomics J, 2018. 18(4): p. 578–589. McCarthy, G.M., et al., Microglial-specific transcriptome changes following chronic alcohol consumption . Neuropharmacology, 2018. 128: p. 416–424. Osterndorff-Kahanek, E.A., et al., Long-term ethanol exposure: Temporal pattern of microRNA expression and associated mRNA gene networks in mouse brain . PLoS One, 2018. 13(1): p. e0190841. Liu, C., et al., A DNA methylation biomarker of alcohol consumption . Mol Psychiatry, 2018. 23(2): p. 422–433. Zheng, Q., et al., DNA Methylation in Alcohol Use Disorder . Int J Mol Sci, 2023. 24(12). Park, P.H., R. Miller, and S.D. Shukla, Acetylation of histone H3 at lysine 9 by ethanol in rat hepatocytes . Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2003. 306(2): p. 501–4. Oomizu, S., N. Boyadjieva, and D.K. Sarkar, Ethanol and estradiol modulate alternative splicing of dopamine D2 receptor messenger RNA and abolish the inhibitory action of bromocriptine on prolactin release from the pituitary gland . Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2003. 27(6): p. 975–80. Guo, T., et al., A Novel Functional Splice Variant of AKT3 Defined by Analysis of Alternative Splice Expression in HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancers . Cancer Res, 2017. 77(19): p. 5248–5258. Bejar, R., Splicing Factor Mutations in Cancer . Adv Exp Med Biol, 2016. 907: p. 215–28. Garic, A., M.E. Berres, and S.M. Smith, High-throughput transcriptome sequencing identifies candidate genetic modifiers of vulnerability to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders . Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2014. 38(7): p. 1874–82. Sariyer, R., et al., Alcohol-Mediated Missplicing of Mcl-1 Pre-mRNA is Involved in Neurotoxicity . Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2017. 41(10): p. 1715–1724. Downing, C., et al., Gene expression changes in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice following prenatal alcohol exposure . Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2012. 36(9): p. 1519–29. Llovet, J.M. and V. Hernandez-Gea, Hepatocellular carcinoma: reasons for phase III failure and novel perspectives on trial design . Clin Cancer Res, 2014. 20(8): p. 2072–9. Berasain, C., et al., Impairment of pre-mRNA splicing in liver disease: mechanisms and consequences . World J Gastroenterol, 2010. 16(25): p. 3091–102. Li, X., et al., A splicing switch from ketohexokinase-C to ketohexokinase-A drives hepatocellular carcinoma formation . Nat Cell Biol, 2016. 18(5): p. 561–71. Toki, Y., et al., A selective splicing variant of hepcidin mRNA in hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines . Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2016. 476(4): p. 501–507. Chang, J., et al., Genomic analysis of oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma identifies alcohol drinking-related mutation signature and genomic alterations . Nat Commun, 2017. 8: p. 15290. Liangpunsakul, S., et al., Effects of Age, Sex, Body Weight, and Quantity of Alcohol Consumption on Occurrence and Severity of Alcoholic Hepatitis . Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016. 14(12): p. 1831–1838.e3. Sozio, M.S., S. Liangpunsakul, and D. Crabb, The role of lipid metabolism in the pathogenesis of alcoholic and nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis . Semin Liver Dis, 2010. 30(4): p. 378–90. Tholen, J. and W.P. Galej, Structural studies of the spliceosome: Bridging the gaps . Curr Opin Struct Biol, 2022. 77: p. 102461. Malakar, P., et al., Long Noncoding RNA MALAT1 Promotes Hepatocellular Carcinoma Development by SRSF1 Upregulation and mTOR Activation . Cancer Res, 2017. 77(5): p. 1155–1167. Kryger, R., et al., MALAT-1, a non protein-coding RNA is upregulated in the cerebellum, hippocampus and brain stem of human alcoholics . Alcohol, 2012. 46(7): p. 629–34. Cardamone, G., et al., Not only cancer: the long non-coding RNA MALAT1 affects the repertoire of alternatively spliced transcripts and circular RNAs in multiple sclerosis . Hum Mol Genet, 2019. 28(9): p. 1414–1428. Yin, Q.F., et al., Long noncoding RNAs with snoRNA ends . Mol Cell, 2012. 48(2): p. 219–30. Romero-Barrios, N., et al., Splicing regulation by long noncoding RNAs . Nucleic Acids Res, 2018. 46(5): p. 2169–2184. Chen, L.L., The biogenesis and emerging roles of circular RNAs . Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2016. 17(4): p. 205–11. Hansen, T.B., et al., Natural RNA circles function as efficient microRNA sponges . Nature, 2013. 495(7441): p. 384–8. Tables Table 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations The authors have declared there is NO conflict of interest to disclose Supplementary Files Table1.PatientCharacteristics.tif Table 1. Patient Characteristics Table2.LncRNAOntologyofLncRNAsAlteredinsAHandHCCAUD.xlsx Table 2. LncRNA Ontology of LncRNAs Altered in sAH and HCC+AUD Table3.OncogenesAffectedintheLiverofPatientswithVariousStagesofAlcoholinducedDamage.xlsx Table 3. Oncogenes Affected in the Liver of Patients with Various Stages of Alcohol-induced Damage SupplementaryTable1.snRNAsprimers.xlsx Supplementary Table 1 SupplementaryTable2.OverlappingDownregulatedTranscriptomeineASHandsAH.xlsx Supplementary Table 2 SupplementaryTable3.OverlappingDownregulatedTranscriptomeineASHandexAH.xlsx Supplementary Table 3 SupplementaryTable4.ConsistentTranscriptomicChanges.xlsx Supplementary Table 4 SupplementaryTable5.ListofSpliceosomalGenes.xlsx Supplementary Table 5 SupplementaryTable6.GenesfromDifferentChromosomes.xlsx Supplementary Table 6 SupplementaryTable7.GenesInvolvedinSpermatogenesis.xlsx Supplementary Table 7 SupplementaryTable8.GenesInvolvedinGluconeogenesis.xlsx Supplementary Table 8 SupplementaryFigures.docx Supplementary Figures Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6507570","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":449285753,"identity":"86923f5a-76fb-42d3-b054-0ef9e5c66714","order_by":0,"name":"Claes Wahlestedt","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4471-5916","institution":"University of Miami Miller School of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Claes","middleName":"","lastName":"Wahlestedt","suffix":""},{"id":449285754,"identity":"2b1cc183-4d2f-40ee-90e1-84850e7aea1e","order_by":1,"name":"Ilya Blokhin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Center for Therapeutic Innovation and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ilya","middleName":"","lastName":"Blokhin","suffix":""},{"id":449285755,"identity":"d5f4d9ed-3540-4cac-8b15-9f8e6a0b7a50","order_by":2,"name":"Derek Van Booven","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Derek","middleName":"Van","lastName":"Booven","suffix":""},{"id":449285756,"identity":"fa52c58c-8c43-4d06-9a70-c99657ca1485","order_by":3,"name":"Josepmaria Argemi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Josepmaria","middleName":"","lastName":"Argemi","suffix":""},{"id":449285757,"identity":"84909d9e-982d-4871-9b92-86ad05f87cdd","order_by":4,"name":"Mengying Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mengying","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":449285758,"identity":"bcfc9406-4fba-44e3-ace0-62738bb6a342","order_by":5,"name":"J. Sunil Rao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"J.","middleName":"Sunil","lastName":"Rao","suffix":""},{"id":449285759,"identity":"a30ed73c-b704-4002-ac45-a19ef658ce08","order_by":6,"name":"Estelle Barbier","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6924-1855","institution":"Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience,","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Estelle","middleName":"","lastName":"Barbier","suffix":""},{"id":449285760,"identity":"fcced08c-382b-4c6c-b892-7e60f5c1576b","order_by":7,"name":"Markus Heilig","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2706-2482","institution":"Linkoping University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Markus","middleName":"","lastName":"Heilig","suffix":""},{"id":449285761,"identity":"ceb3207d-dfb6-4bcf-9445-20944e44c0ce","order_by":8,"name":"Jin Cheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jin","middleName":"","lastName":"Cheng","suffix":""},{"id":449285762,"identity":"59b7aa42-e3e6-4518-a437-977d7ab9c872","order_by":9,"name":"Antoine Douaihy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Antoine","middleName":"","lastName":"Douaihy","suffix":""},{"id":449285763,"identity":"2a71ab3a-cff1-414a-b75a-17e485de91c4","order_by":10,"name":"Ramon Bataller","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ramon","middleName":"","lastName":"Bataller","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-22 23:20:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6507570/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6507570/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82274785,"identity":"72b68bb7-cdf8-430f-868d-6dc142944ea2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:08","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":52702,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/cd6b6f7139f76bce1ec0ba0f.png"},{"id":82277512,"identity":"9735ce57-d82a-437a-818a-43e0fe05a435","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:52:08","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":279882,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/a42e8da08851d7c086b7c722.png"},{"id":82274786,"identity":"2e2e5510-2b37-4853-bdaf-b8623ef88379","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:08","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":99154,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/e0054454a7ad8d85680fb9d4.png"},{"id":82274802,"identity":"651af161-753e-429e-8d0e-a0c78a189ce0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:08","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55357,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/e594d473d43302b86a63025a.png"},{"id":82279122,"identity":"8f73d488-d906-41a0-ba7d-0d30353c07b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 15:00:08","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36527,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/0f2500afdedf7dd6282a470d.png"},{"id":82274783,"identity":"ecc90655-579c-4fd8-8fff-b75dd667d61a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:08","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":65398,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/2ac0953511e1a24aa93b6c6d.png"},{"id":82274829,"identity":"b8c20c70-8606-459d-96c3-b87bad8cb5f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:09","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61042,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/fa6155cb33f570736a508e33.png"},{"id":82274787,"identity":"4d73a22b-ca54-4348-932b-b7fc493baec1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:08","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":73753,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/c04efe0d9a930369a02060a8.png"},{"id":85755551,"identity":"99f3fb33-8bd6-4720-8106-5435252e14f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-01 10:44:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1333491,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/e731d006-efef-43f2-80de-ac51759d6dd1.pdf"},{"id":82274817,"identity":"f80579be-2eb1-4c01-a52c-b5793c41e6b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:09","extension":"tif","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":30952886,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Table 1. Patient Characteristics","description":"","filename":"Table1.PatientCharacteristics.tif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/056d47a0193441dac596355b.tif"},{"id":82277515,"identity":"cf24fbcf-9970-43bf-9684-2ca05d3c9e15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:52:09","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10474,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTable 2. LncRNA Ontology of LncRNAs Altered in sAH and HCC+AUD\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Table2.LncRNAOntologyofLncRNAsAlteredinsAHandHCCAUD.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/24d0121ee45b189a5b2c09b0.xlsx"},{"id":82275840,"identity":"3f833073-8323-457c-9c53-96e76fdcbcef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:44:08","extension":"xlsx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10518,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Oncogenes Affected in the Liver of Patients with Various Stages of Alcohol-induced Damage\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Table3.OncogenesAffectedintheLiverofPatientswithVariousStagesofAlcoholinducedDamage.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/f99230adb73f17d68366a46d.xlsx"},{"id":82274789,"identity":"b9bf76ac-42e0-452b-8e73-0c082dd09231","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:08","extension":"xlsx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10913,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 1\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable1.snRNAsprimers.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/05d873d65f558e6546826cec.xlsx"},{"id":82274822,"identity":"1f8cc0d9-72b4-4bb2-a0bd-6bc887c3c575","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:09","extension":"xlsx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10783,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 2\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable2.OverlappingDownregulatedTranscriptomeineASHandsAH.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/57899aeee18199098d3e2865.xlsx"},{"id":82277518,"identity":"4dbfb3bd-363d-4a03-b98b-56bcd613398f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:52:09","extension":"xlsx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10786,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 3\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable3.OverlappingDownregulatedTranscriptomeineASHandexAH.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/e913b043450efe70031798a2.xlsx"},{"id":82275846,"identity":"00fa191a-c5c7-4231-9590-e45cc293556d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:44:09","extension":"xlsx","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":75697,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 4\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable4.ConsistentTranscriptomicChanges.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/89419c0679edb22a8f237b5e.xlsx"},{"id":82275841,"identity":"138e56d4-6f52-48df-b84a-477b32739b06","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:44:08","extension":"xlsx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10573,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 5\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable5.ListofSpliceosomalGenes.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/15b8a1d41f9386d6f2585799.xlsx"},{"id":82279126,"identity":"a206dac3-c18b-4176-9b9b-1e2eee6b36e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 15:00:09","extension":"xlsx","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10651,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 6\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable6.GenesfromDifferentChromosomes.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/4891a679b4b287050d64a9d6.xlsx"},{"id":82274801,"identity":"f0e5a554-e1f3-4f22-a269-56bc0d166569","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:08","extension":"xlsx","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10571,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 7\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable7.GenesInvolvedinSpermatogenesis.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/25b03f52e0e0ef1841d5aa70.xlsx"},{"id":82275849,"identity":"b8a9d41f-388b-48af-a151-61836ddc570d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:44:09","extension":"xlsx","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10556,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 8\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable8.GenesInvolvedinGluconeogenesis.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/05d177ffee559f0ac8faf1d2.xlsx"},{"id":82274825,"identity":"a9a94541-6640-414f-bc21-45f6f64cce24","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 14:36:09","extension":"docx","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":13531410,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Figures\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFigures.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6507570/v1/f92f143e868e4e1695509f58.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors have declared there is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e conflict of interest to disclose","formattedTitle":"Alcohol Use Disorder Causes Profound Global Changes in Gene Expression and Splicing in the Liver","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAlcohol use disorder (AUD) is a chronic condition characterized by a problematic pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment. According to the World Health Organization, alcohol consumption accounts for 4.7% of all deaths worldwide [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. In the United States, 14% of adults currently meet criteria of AUD, 29% \u0026ndash; met AUD criteria once during their lifetime [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]; in addition, prevalence of AUD is increasing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Annual cost of AUD and alcohol-related disorders is ~\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e250\u0026nbsp;billion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Due to high prevalence and lack of efficient treatment modalities, AUD causes significant socioeconomic burden. Apart from direct issues associated with AUD (damaged relationships, car accidents, etc.), the burden is connected to alcohol-related medical conditions, particularly, alcoholic liver disease (ALD) which leads to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eALD is a broad diagnosis which encompasses the continuum of alcoholic steatosis, alcoholic steatohepatitis (eASH), alcoholic hepatitis (AH), and, finally, cirrhosis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Most patients develop HCC at the stage of cirrhosis, but 11\u0026ndash;31% of HCC patients present with HCC in the absence of cirrhotic changes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. HCC is the most common liver cancer and one of the most aggressive cancers. Worldwide, ~\u0026thinsp;850,000 people are diagnosed with HCC every year [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Therapeutic approaches for advanced stage HCC are very few. Modest improvement was observed after administration of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] and immunotherapy with anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody nivolumab [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], but prognosis for patients with advanced HCC is still poor, with an overall survival of around 1 year with the best treatment implemented [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. HCC remains the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the world claiming\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;700,000 deaths annually [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. The link between AUD and HCC is well established in case-control studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] and meta-analyses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e], and alcohol-related HCC was shown to have significantly worse prognosis than HCC related to viral hepatitides [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat treatment of HCC is often insufficient may result from an incomplete insight on how HCC arises and progresses. HCC represents a heterogeneous group of tumors with molecular signatures closely connected to risk factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. It is possible that AUD-related HCC develops via distinct molecular mechanism [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] and that some alcohol-induced molecular changes causing or predisposing to HCC occur at the stage of AH [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Recent data indicate that potential mechanistic overlap between AUD and HCC may involve impaired splicing. Splicing is a nuclear process of removing introns from pre-mRNA after which mature mRNA is produced and exported into the cytoplasm for translation. Splicing is mediated by a major spliceosome, a nuclear machinery which consists of 5 small nuclear RNAs (snRNA1 (snU1), snU2, snU4, snU5, and snU6) and dozens of splicing factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Among snRNAs, snU1 and snU2 are considered to be critical. snU1 recognizes 5\u0026rsquo; splice site forming the early splicing complex while snU2 recognizes 3\u0026rsquo; splice site. Among chief splicing factors with an established link to cancers are SF1, SF3B1, SRSF1, SRSF2, SRSF3, ZRSR2, and U2AF1 [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR25\" citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. SF1 is responsible for the recognition of the branch point [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. When branch point pairs with snU2, SF1 is displaced and branching site is contacted by SF3B1, a core component of the U2 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (U2 snRNP), which ensures stabilization of U2 snRNP on pre-mRNA [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. SRSF1, SRSF2, and SRSF3 belong to the family of serine-arginine (SR) splicing factors which contain a protein domain composed of SR repeats; SRSF proteins are recruited with snU1 by RNA polymerase II and function mainly to couple splicing with transcription [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. ZRSR2 and U2AF1 are required for the recognition of 3\u0026rsquo; splice site [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Regulation of splicing is poorly understood, but there is some evidence indicating that long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) might be involved. LncRNAs are non-coding RNA molecules\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;200 nucleotides in length which are capable of interacting with both short RNAs and proteins [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] and thus may serve as a \u0026ldquo;screwdriver\u0026rdquo; for spliceosome. It was shown that lncRNA Gomafu (also known as myocardial infarction-associated transcript (MIAT)) affects formation of spliceosomes and inhibits splicing factor SF1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Another lncRNA, MALAT1, interacts with SR splicing factors causing deregulation of splicing in a genome-wide fashion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData on splicing in AUD are relatively scanty. Alcohol intake was shown to be associated with a missplicing of specific transcripts such as mRNA for AMPA receptors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] and GABA-B receptors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Disruption of splicing on a broader scale was observed in the brain cortex of human fetuses exposed to alcohol [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. In our previous work, we observed AUD-induced genome-wide missplicing in different brain regions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. In HCC, splicing is studied more extensively. Analysis of HCC transcriptome identified\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2,000 genes with altered splicing patterns which were distinct in HBV-induced, HCV-induced, and non-viral HCC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. It was also shown that HCC was accompanied by 34,163 alternative splicing events in 8,985 genes, and some missplicing patterns were associated with overall survival [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the extent and mechanisms of missplicing in AUD and ALD-related HCC remain unknown.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe goal of the current study was to determine if AUD may relate to HCC via missplicing in the liver. We found that chronic alcohol use causes genome-wide changes in hepatic gene expression and splicing. Mechanistically, it appears to be mediated by defects in the spliceosomal machinery as well as by an aberrant expression of lncRNAs related to splicing. Numerous oncogenes and tumor suppressors were among affected genes in all alcohol-related hepatic conditions suggesting a novel mechanism contributing to the development of AUD-related HCC.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePatients\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRNA sequencing files from liver samples were obtained from the multicentric NIH-funded InTEAM Consortium and are available in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGAP, phs001807) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. Patients with non-severe (nsAH) and severe alcoholic hepatitis (sAH) as well as patients with liver failure who underwent liver transplantation were enrolled in the Consortium centers in Europe and United States. Samples from patients with early alcoholic steatohepatitis (eASH) were obtained from Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Brussels, Belgium). In total, 62 patients were included in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients, and research protocols were approved by the local Ethics Committees and by the central Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Patients were selected according to different clinically relevant stage groups: patients with eASH who were non-obese with high alcohol intake and presented with a mild elevation of transaminases and histologic criteria of steatohepatitis (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12); patients with nsAH and sAH who were biopsied before any treatment (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11 for nsAH and n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18 for sAH); and explants from patients with AH who underwent early transplantation due to a liver failure following a well-defined protocol [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] (exAH, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11). Samples from these groups were compared with fragments of non-diseased human livers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10). Patients with malignancies were excluded from the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSequencing of RNA from liver samples\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSequencing was performed using Illumina HiSeq2000 platform, as previously described [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. Briefly, libraries were built using Illumina TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Ribo-Zero GOLD (Illumina). Sequencing was paired and multiplexed. 62 paired-end sequenced samples obtained an average of 36,9\u0026nbsp;million total reads.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalysis of Transcriptome\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Adapters were trimmed by TrimGalore. Raw counts were processed by the Bioconductor R package edgeR and normalized using the TMM method to produce CPM values. Differential expression was calculated using a negative binomial model, and a False Discovery Ratio (FDR) cutoff of \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was used to define statistical significance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we analyzed consistent transcriptomic changes across all groups using the Bayesian ANOVA for microarrays (BAM) methodology developed by our group [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] which employs a specific Bayesian hierarchical model oriented towards adaptive shrinkage. By using model averaging, BAM-provided gene effect estimates are shrunken relative to the standard least square estimates. In this process, primarily the non-differentially expressing gene effects are shrunken. Such a selective shrinkage enabled BAM to optimally balance the total false detections (total number of genes falsely identified as being differentially expressed) against total false non-detections (the total number of genes falsely identified as being non-differentially expressed). This model enabled BAM to use data across all genes and all experimental groups to accurately estimate different levels of sparsity and then to selectively shrink gene effects based on the estimated complexities. BAM estimated gene differential effects (Zcut values) represented the products of posterior inference from the BAM hierarchical Bayesian model. Shrinkage plots were used to identify differentially expressed genes. Significant genes were grouped by differential expression pattern type.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGene Ontology of protein-coding genes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunctional analysis of altered transcripts was performed by Gene Ontology Consortium, as described elsewhere [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Hierarchy of implicated Gene Ontology terms was constructed using default criteria set by developers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalysis of missplicing events\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Resulting bam files from the STAR alignment were indexed with samtools for use by rMATS, as described elsewhere [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. Briefly, rMATS pipeline used RNA sequencing reads which were mapped to different splice variants to estimate the isoform proportion, and a hierarchical framework was employed to simultaneously account for estimation uncertainty in individual replicates and variability among replicates. FDR cutoff\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was used to define statistical significance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExon expression\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the expression of exons was performed as described elsewhere [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. Alignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Adapters were trimmed by TrimGalore. Raw counts were obtained from the dexseq_count.py script contained in the DEXSeq R package (v.1.20.2) on the reference annotation prepared by the dexseq_prepare_annotation.py script in the same package against the GENCODE reference file (v.19). These counts were then fed into DEXSeq to determine exon-specific differential splicing events. Figures were generated using the plotDEXSeq function contained in the DEXSeq package. FDR cutoff\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was used to define statistical significance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRat model of alcohol use disorder based on vapor chamber\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRats were placed in a vapor chamber with a normal air for one week for a habituation to a new environment (two rats per cage). Then alcohol vapor exposure was slowly increased in the course of 1 week until blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reached\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;200 mg/dL. Rats were exposed to alcohol vapor for 7 weeks (5 days a week, 14 hours/day) or left unexposed (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12 in each group). BAC was measured once per week from one rat per cage (rats were alternating every other week). One week after the last alcohol exposure, animals were sacrificed, and liver and lung samples were collected.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRNA isolation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRNA was isolated from liver and lung by Qiagen RNeasy kit, in accordance to manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions. Prior to RNA isolation, samples were incubated in RNAlater-ICE (Thermo Fisher Scientific) overnight at -20\u0026deg;C. DNase treatment was performed using RNase-Free DNase Set (Qiagen). RNA quality and concentrations were determined by Nanodrop 2000, and samples with RNA Integrity Number (A260:A280 ratio) between 1.9\u0026ndash;2.1 were included in the study. RNA samples were kept at -80\u0026deg;C until analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRNA was reversely transcribed using High Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific); reactions were run on a Veriti 96 Well Fast Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems); cycling conditions were 25\u0026deg;C for 10 minutes, 37\u0026deg;C for 2 hours, and 85\u0026deg;C for 5 minutes. For real-time PCR, cDNA was mixed with a master mix consisting of TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix (Roche), nuclease-free water, and 20X or 40 X TaqMan primers. qRT-PCR was performed on QuantStudio 6 Flex (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using probe-based assays from Integrated DNA Technologies. Cycling conditions were 50\u0026deg;C for 2 minutes, 95\u0026deg;C for 10 minutes, and 40 cycles of 95\u0026deg;C for 15 seconds and 60\u0026deg;C for 1 minute. Data were analyzed using the comparative threshold cycle (ΔΔCT) method, as described previously [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e], normalized to β-actin, and expressed relatively to a control group. Primers for protein-coding genes were purchased from a pre-made stock of Integrated DNA Technologies. Primers for human and rat snRNAs were designed either by ourselves or by Integrated DNA Technologies, and their sequences are listed in Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComputational Analysis of Coding and Non-coding Features\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ewww.cancer.gov/tcga\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.cancer.gov/tcga\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) was used to retrieve RNA sequencing files from patients with HCC and HCC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;AUD. For most patients with HCC, alcohol intake was well documented on TCGA; however, since DSM-5-defined criteria of AUD were not included in TCGA social history, we arbitrarily defined AUD group as individuals consuming 4 or more drinks a day at least 4 days a week; control group included subjects with no alcohol intake. Other inclusion criterion was being alive at the time of cancerous tissue harvest (to avoid possible RNA degradation in postmortem samples). 10 patients were included in each group. All datasets incorporated in the analysis were generated by aligning reads to GRCh38 using STAR; genes were annotated using GENCODE v.22, and their expression was presented in a FPKM-UQ format.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGene Set Enrichment Analysis database [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] was used to obtain the list of spliceosomal proteins and to create the lists of proteins involved in gluconeogenesis and spermatogenesis as well as the list of 26 random genes which included at least 1 gene from each chromosome. List of cancer-related genes was retrieved form the Oncogene Database [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e], a literature-based curated database of oncogenes and tumor suppressors. Functional status of altered lncRNAs of interest was studied using \u0026ldquo;LncRNA Ontology\u0026rdquo; database [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e] which employs the pipeline based on transcriptional and epigenetic profiles of lncRNAs and protein-coding genes; default criteria set by developers were used to execute the ontology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis between two groups was performed using two-tailed Student\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test. Data are expressed as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SEM unless otherwise stated. Proportions in events in different groups were assessed using chi-square test; rejection of the null hypothesis (that proportions are the same across groups) indicated that proportion is different in at least one group. Difference between expression of splicing factors was determined using the Test for Fold Change of Two Means. Differences with \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSubjects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographics and pertinent clinical data are listed in Table\u0026nbsp;1. Patients with alcohol-induced liver damage did not differ in age or gender. Child-Pugh, MELD, and ABIC scores all increased from nsAH to sAH, but there was no difference between sAH and exAH groups. Frequency of symptoms of hepatic decompensation such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury, and infections tended to increase from nsAH to sAH. White blood cell counts increased and hemoglobin and platelet counts decreased throughout eASH-nsAH-sAH-exAH continuum. As expected, levels of bilirubin alkaline phosphatase were higher in patients with AUD-related liver damage. Liver diseases were also associated with low albumin, hyponatremia, and increased prothrombin time (expressed as International Normalized Ratio (INR)). Of note, creatinine levels were normal across phenotypes, ruling out the presence of hepatorenal syndrome.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of AUD of hepatic transcriptome\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe have previously shown that there are extensive transcriptomic changes imparted by some stages of ALD [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e], but the assessment of ALD-related transcriptomic reprogramming encompassed only protein-coding genes and did not interrogate splice variants. We therefore decided to interrogate RNA sequences datasets in order to evaluate the extent of differential expression and missplicing of both coding and non-coding features. The analysis of expression of 57,820 features confirmed that AUD caused genome-wide changes in hepatic transcriptome, with a number of differentially expressed genes positively correlating with a disease severity. In eASH, 4,928 were altered (8.5%), in nsAH \u0026ndash; 9,075 (15.7%), in sAH \u0026ndash; 14,100 (24.4%), and in exAH \u0026ndash; 14,292 (24.7%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). When considering the RNA biotypes, the composition of altered transcriptomes was relatively similar in all alcohol-related condition, with a majority of affected genes (60\u0026ndash;70%) being represented by protein-coding genes (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). Altered transcriptome profiles demonstrated a considerable overlap (data not shown) suggesting that alcohol-related transcriptomic changes are persistent, cumulative along the progression of ALD, and unlikely to be random. To address functional implications of altered transcriptomes, we analyzed transcriptomic overlaps between eASH and later stages of AUD-induced hepatic damage such as sAH and exAH. Gene Ontology analysis of overlapping suppressed genes revealed that downregulated features are mainly involved in oncogenesis: affected pathways included DNA replication, DNA damage response, cell cycle, and regulation of mitosis (Supplementary Tables\u0026nbsp;2 and 3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we asked if there are transcriptional changes that persist across all stages of alcohol-induced hepatic damage and assessed determined genes up- or downregulated in all four groups. In total, expression of 1,265 were either increased or decreased throughout eASH-nsAH-sAH-exAH continuum (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). 440 genes were upregulated in all groups, 825 \u0026ndash; downregulated in all groups (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;4) indicating the broad character of alcohol-induced transcriptomic changes across all conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of AUD on splicing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect of alcohol on splicing in the liver has not been well studied, and extent and characteristics of hepatic missplicing in AUD are not known. We employed MATS program [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e] to unbiasedly detect such missplicing events as 5\u0026rsquo; alternative splice sites (5\u0026rsquo;-SS), 3\u0026rsquo; alternative splice sites (3\u0026rsquo;-SS), intron retention (IR), exon skipping (ES) and mutually exclusive exons (MEE). In all alcohol-related conditions, ES and MEE were the most common events (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). Number of ES was relatively similar across all conditions: 1,542, 1,668, 1660, and 1,623 in eASH, nsAH, sAH, and exAH, respectively. MEE, on the other hand, differed significantly in various conditions. The number of MEEs was 1,186 in eASH, rose to 3,119 in nsAH, and then subsided to 2,668 and 2,094 in sAH and exAH, respectively. Frequency of 5\u0026rsquo;-SS, 3\u0026rsquo;-SS, and IR was much lower in comparison to ES and MEE, and the dynamics of their quantitative changes was similar, being observed at the stage of eASH, occurring most frequently at the stage of nsAH, and returning to eASH levels at sAH and exAH stages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of AUD on exon expression\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the high number of alcohol-induced missplicing events across all conditions, we hypothesized that the variety of differentially expressed transcripts in the liver may be larger than detected on standard differential expression analysis (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). We reasoned that missplicing may cause changes in the expression and presence of specific exons without altering a total expression counts of a specific gene, as quantified by conventional pipelines. In such a case, the quantification of individual exons might therefore provide a more accurate insight into alcohol-induced changes in transcriptional landscape and give clues of potentially relevant changes in mRNA and amino acid sequence of key molecular drivers. We used DEXSeq R package to perform exon expression analysis. The interrogation of 588,998 exons showed that alcohol causes genome-wide changes in exon expression, with number of affected exons positively correlating with the stage of disease. Thus, 46,045 (7.8%) exons were altered in eASH, 126,145 (21.4%) \u0026ndash; in nsAH, 152,335 (25.9%) \u0026ndash; in sAH, and 123,282 (20.9%) \u0026ndash; in sAH (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of alcohol on snRNAs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe next asked which mechanism may be responsible for such broad alcohol-induced alterations of splicing landscape. Splicing is governed mainly by a major spliceosome, a nuclear machinery which consists of 5 small nuclear RNAs (snRNA) and multiple proteins, known as splicing factors. The snRNAs are involved in the recognition of introns, formation of splicing complexes, and splicing reactions. The major spliceosome includes 5 snRNAs: snU1, snU2, snU4, snU5, and snU6. Although data on AUD-induced changes in splicing began to accumulate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], the impact of alcohol on snRNA has not been explored. In most publicly available RNA sequencing datasets in alcohol-related disease studies, snRNAs are not well represented. Only in one of them [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e] did we find robust expression values for most snRNAs; this study showed that treatment of primary hepatocytes with alcohol resulted in decreased expression of snU1 and snU4. That snRNAomes from most public RNA sequencing sources (such as NCBI or TCGA) are missing or unreliable may be due to the length of snRNAs: mature snRNAs are relatively short (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;200 nucleotides) and may not be detected by standard RNA sequencing protocols. Therefore, to investigate the direct effect of alcohol on the snRNAome \u003cem\u003ein vivo\u003c/em\u003e, we treated rats with alcohol vapor or left untreated for 7 weeks and measured the expression of snRNAs in the liver by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1). Blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) levels were three times higher in exposed animals (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). Importantly, the expression of snU2 was 94% downregulated and snU1 was not changed; snU4 and snU6 were not detected (Fig.\u0026nbsp;5). We also studied the components of the minor spliceosome which is responsible for splicing of atypical snU12-type introns. This specific type of introns constitutes\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;0.5% of all introns in human genome, and their removal by minor spliceosome is known as non-canonical splicing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. In the minor spliceosome, the expression of snU6atac was completely abolished, and expression of snU11 was 92% reduced; snU12 was not detected (Fig.\u0026nbsp;5). Since in our model alcohol was delivered in the form of vapor, we reasoned that similar changes in snRNA expression may be also observed in the lung. We found that snU2 and snU11, but not snU6-atac, were significantly downregulated in the lung of rats subjected to alcohol vapor (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;3), although changes were less drastic than in the liver, indicating that the intensity or mode of alcohol-mediated alteration of the spliceosome could be organ-specific.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of alcohol on splicing factors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we addressed if alcohol affects expression of splicing factors. Among the main splicing factors with an established link to cancers are SF1, SF3B1, SRSF1, SRSF2, SRSF3, U2AF1, and ZRSR2 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Analysis of their expression showed no differences between control rats and rats treated with alcohol both in the liver (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6) and the lungs (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;4). To determine if these factors were changed in patients with alcohol-related hepatic conditions, we retrieved and analyzed RNA sequencing data from patients with eASH, nsAH, sAH, and exAH and again found no difference between groups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6). It appears that in contrast to snRNAs which are markedly decreased by alcohol, cancer-related splicing factors remain unaltered.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, since we observed that many of these factors tended to decrease liver and lung of rats exposed to alcohol (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6 and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;4, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), we reasoned that an effort to address the functional status of spliceosome by analyzing only 6 splicing factors may be inaccurate, as it may not fully reflect upon how the whole spliceosome may be affected. We compiled the list of all spliceosomal factors using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;5) and checked if alcohol has a concerted effect on spliceosomal proteome. Although there was a statistically significant reduction in global expression of spliceosomal mRNAome, the magnitude of decrease was only in the range 1\u0026ndash;7% (Fig.\u0026nbsp;7) suggesting that protein components of spliceosome are unlikely to be considerably affected by alcohol.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of alcohol on splicing-related lncRNAs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe observed substantial changes in hepatic lncRNAs in patients with ALD, which correlated with the severity of liver damage. In eASH, 1,108 lncRNAs were differentially expressed, in nsAH \u0026ndash; 1854, in sAH \u0026ndash; 3,349, and in exAH \u0026ndash; 3,353 (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;5). Furthermore, the proportion of altered lncRNAs biotypes was different between early and late stages of ALD: while in early stages the pseudogenes were most commonly affected, in non-severe and severe AH stages there was an increased involvement of long intergenic non-coding RNAs and antisense lncRNAs (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe then aimed at analyzing if these alterations were also present in alcohol-related HCC. The analysis of gene expression profiles from TCGA showed that patients with HCC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;AUD had 514 differentially-expressed lncRNAs in the liver. The comparison of 3,349 lncRNAs altered in sAH with 514 lncRNAs altered in HCC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;AUD demonstrated that 101 were common in these two conditions (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;6). Finally, a lncRNA ontology revealed that these lncRNAs are functionally related to splicing, as 3 out of 5 top pathways were represented by splicing and RNA processing (Table\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of AUD on oncogenes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address to what extent alcohol-induced changes in the liver affect oncogenes and tumor suppressors, we aligned 14,100 genes altered in sAH with the list of 803 oncogenes from Oncogene Database [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. 414 were differentially expressed in both conditions (data not shown) suggesting that alcohol-induced transcriptomic changes in the liver posttranscriptionally affect large portion of all cancer-related genes. At the same time, since different cancers are accompanied by specific oncogenes, we thought that we should undertake the analysis of oncogenes specific for HCC. In the past few years, extensive efforts by TCGA revealed genes mutated in specific cancers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e], and 26 genes were most commonly mutated in HCC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Screened of these genes using our computational pipeline showed that 7 of them were differentially expressed and/or misspliced in eASH, 14 \u0026ndash; in nsAH, 17 \u0026ndash; in sAH, and 13 \u0026ndash; in exAH (Chi-square test\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.12, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04, Table\u0026nbsp;3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we asked if such a dose-dependent effect is limited to cancer-related genes. We compiled and analyzed the list of 26 random genes which included at least one gene from each chromosome. The similar pattern of increase was found: 5 genes were affected in eASH, 8 \u0026ndash; nsAH, 9 \u0026ndash; in sAH, and 12 \u0026ndash; exAH (Chi-square\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.37, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22, Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;6). Furthermore, we analyzed 26 genes implicated in spermatogenesis (as a pathway unrelated to the liver) and 26 genes involved in gluconeogenesis (as a pathway related to the liver). For both pathways, we once again observed a similar pattern condition-dependent increase: in eASH-nsAH-sAH-exAH continuum, 6-13-13-14 genes were affected in spermatogenesis (Chi-square\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.91, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003, Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;7) and 7-14-16-14 \u0026ndash; in gluconeogenesis (Chi-square\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.19, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;8). We reasoned, therefore, that degree of damage is unrelated to the pathway and rather mirrors the number of genes affected in a specific alcohol-related hepatic disease. We set out to merge and count all differentially expressed and misspliced genes in every alcohol-induced liver condition. Results demonstrated that number of affected genes indeed increases with the severity of hepatic damage: 11.8% genes were affected in eASH, 20.1% \u0026ndash; in nsAH, 29.8 \u0026ndash; in sAH, and 27.7% \u0026ndash; in exAH (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0, Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;7).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we asked if alcohol use may impart broader transcriptomic changes in HCC and compared gene expression profiles from HCC samples between patients with and without AUD. Analysis showed that patients with HCC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;AUD have 2-fold increase in a number of differentially increased genes in comparison to patients with HCC alone (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;8).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe salient findings of the current study are: 1) Alcohol causes pervasive changes in hepatic transcriptomes in all AUD-associated liver diseases; 2) Alcohol causes genome-wide changes in splicing and expression of exons in all AUD-associated liver diseases; 3) Alcohol suppresses hepatic expression of snRNAs of major and minor spliceosomes; 4) Alcohol does not affect expression of splicing factors; 5) Alcohol affects lncRNAs related to splicing, and 6) Alcohol posttranscriptionally affects genes involved in HCC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the past few years, alcohol-induced changes in gene expression were relatively well studied in the brain. For example, gene expression profiling on the prefrontal cortex identified 129 altered genes in patients with AUD [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. It was shown that alcohol-induced changes in the brain are dependent on a cellular lineage, as RNA sequencing demonstrated unique transcriptomic signatures in murine astrocytes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e] or microglial cells [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, it was demonstrated in mice that alcohol exposure alters expression of microRNAs (miRs) in prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, and amygdala and that affected miRomes matched expression profiles of protein-coding genes in corresponding regions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. In the current study, we show that alcohol causes genome-wide changes in the liver, and these changes appear to be far more pervasive than those in the brain as indicated by our own data from different brain regions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] as well as by results from previous studies [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR58\" citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. As of now, it is not known how alcohol may affect gene expression in the liver. Besides splicing, which was the focus of the current study, there are other molecular mechanisms that might be involved. For example, alcohol is associated with aberrant patterns of DNA methylation of CpG islands [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e] and changes in histone code [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e]; as mentioned, alcohol is also capable of changing the expression of miRs which fine-tune the transcriptome in the cytoplasm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. Of note, as extent of transcriptomic damage appears to be distinctly different in the liver and brain, it is possible that mechanism of alcohol-induced changes may be organ-specific and should likely be studied separately across specific tissues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSplicing takes a central place in a cellular biology: constitutive splicing is responsible for a removal of introns, and alternative splicing generates a proteomic diversity. We observed that in addition to changes in gene expression, AUD conferred multiple missplicing events. There have been very few studies on the effect of alcohol on splicing, and initial investigations mainly focused on missplicing of specific genes. Thus, alcohol was shown to be associated with a missplicing of AMPA receptors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] and GABA-B receptors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Ethanol also affected alternative splicing of DRD2 (dopamine D2 receptor) in the pituitary [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. Later, it was established that alcohol impacts splicing on a broader scale. Kawasawa et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] found 382 alternative splicing events in the brain cortex of human fetuses exposed to alcohol. Qualitatively, 8 missplicing events were detected: 5\u0026rsquo;-SS, 3\u0026rsquo;-SS, MEE, IR, cassette exon, coordinate cassette exon, alternative first exon, and alternative last exon (ES was likely not detectable by employed computational pipeline), with IR being the most frequent event. In our previous work, we observed that AUD caused a genome-wide missplicing in different brain regions, most commonly \u0026ndash; ES and MEE [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. In the current study, analysis of hepatic transcriptomes revealed that ES and MEE were again the major AUD-induced events. These results are different from the missplicing patterns of another alcohol-related cancer, HNSCC, which was associated with genome-wide changes in splicing, but alternative splice sites (5\u0026rsquo;-SS and 3\u0026rsquo;-SS) and canonical exon skipping were the most common missplicing events [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e]. It appears that mechanism and extent of alcohol-induced missplicing, as mechanism of alcohol-induced alterations in transcriptome, may differ from one tissue to another.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScattered data indicate that aberrant splicing in HCC may be a result of a damaged spliceosome; for example, HCC is frequently associated with mutations in splicing factor SF3B1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e]. The effect of alcohol on spliceosome has not been well studied, but indirect evidence suggests that the link between AUD and spliceosomal activity may exist. It was shown that vulnerability of neuroprogenitor cells to toxic effects of alcohol was related to the expression of genes related to spliceosome [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e]. It was also shown that exposure of neurons to alcohol reduced the expression of SRSF1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]. Likewise, in murine placenta and embryos, alcohol affected several spliceosomal genes including SRSF1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e]. In our study, we did not see differential expression in cancer-related splicing factors (SF1, SF3B1, SRSF1, SRSF2, SRSF3, U2AF1, and ZRSR2); neither did we see any change in the expression of all components of the spliceosomal proteome. Instead, we observed that alcohol imparted a marked decrease of snRNAs. That snRNAs were affected and splicing factors were not and it was still induced broad missplicing events suggests a primary role of snRNAs in splicing. It is difficult to address if suppression of snRNAs is the only mechanism of missplicing in AUD. Such an experiment would likely require the \u0026ldquo;snRNAome rescue\u0026rdquo; experiment, and a precise normalization snRNAome may be technically hard to achieve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHCC has the second highest worldwide cancer mortality rate, and therapeutic options for metastatic HCC are very limited and modestly efficacious. Many drugs failed to demonstrate efficacy in phase III [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e], likely due to incomplete understanding of mechanisms of HCC in AUD. One explanation of such a poor insight may be a traditional focus on DNA mutations as a driving force of carcinogenesis. Many studies question such an approach. TCGA work on HCC showed that many patients without p53 mutation have inactive functional p53 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] suggesting that oncogenes may be affected via posttranscriptional mechanism, including splicing. HCC was previously shown to be accompanied by a dysregulated expression of splice isoforms of various genes including DNMT3b, TP53, KLF6 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e], ketohexokinase [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e], and hepcidin [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e]. It is possible that AUD-induced HCC represents a separate entity different from, for example, HCC associated with hepatitis C. Such a scenario was shown for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in which genome sequencing identified six mutational signatures, with one of them specifically linked to alcohol intake [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e]. Clearly, other genetic and epigenetic mechanisms are implicated and should be evaluated. For example, it was found that impaired functional status of p53 protein in patients with HCC and non-mutated TP53 could at least partly be attributed to high levels of MDM4, a p53 inhibitor [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. One could speculate that each of tumor suppressors (oncogenes) involved in HCC may have protein inhibitors (activators). Also, it was shown that alcohol affects such processes related to gene-to-protein flow as RNA transport, ribosomes, and protein processing in the endoplasmic reticulum [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e], and it might be of interest to assess a relative contribution of these mechanisms in processing of HCC-related genes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the current study, patients with eASH, nsAH, sAH, and exAH did not differ in terms of alcohol use which is in line with previous findings demonstrating the lack of correlation between alcohol intake and incidence/severity of AH [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e]. Why are transcriptional and splicing landscapes so different in patients with similar alcohol intake? One may speculate that it is likely related to a genetic predisposition to missplicing. Since splicing is regulated by spliceosome, culprit(s) should be either snRNAs and/or splicing factors. We observed that splicing factors were not affected in all groups. We did not analyze snRNAome in human RNA sequencing datasets, but we cannot rule out the possibility that mutations in genomic snRNAs genes may be involved, and this would warrant a further investigation. It is of interest that both spliceosomes were affected in mice exposed to alcohol suggesting a common mechanism by which AUD may downregulate spliceosomes. Such a mechanism may involve transcription factor(s) orchestrating transcription of snRNAs. Another, posttranscriptional, mechanism of regulation may be represented by lncRNAs. Spliceosome represents a gigantic machinery consisting of snRNAs and splicing factors, and it is functionally coupled with gene expression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]. Since lncRNAs can interact with DNA, RNA, and proteins, it is possible that they serve as master regulator of spliceosome. In our work, distribution of altered lncRNAomes differed between groups, with pseudogenes dominating early phase of alcohol-induced hepatic damage and lincRNAs and antisense lncRNA \u0026ndash; later phases. Some evidence indicates that even individual lncRNAs may cause changes in splicing. Thus, lncRNA MALAT1, an established oncogene activated in many cancers including HCC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e] and also upregulated in the brain of alcoholics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e], affected splicing factors HNRNPF and HNRNPF1 as well as levels of serine-arginine-rich splicing factors and affected alternative splicing of hundreds of transcripts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e]. Alternative splicing is globally regulated by sno-lncRNAs, lncRNA flanked by small nucleolar RNA (snoRNAs) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e] which are a family of conserved nuclear RNAs located in Cajal bodies or nucleoli and participating in snRNAs modifications. Several lncRNAs are able to interact with specific splicing factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e]. New exciting field is represented by circular RNAs (circRNAs), a covalently closed single-stranded RNA complexes arising from back-splicing. These complexes are highly stable, and it is speculated that they might be capable of competing with pre-mRNA for spliceosome [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e]. We interrogated lncRNAs and found that lncRNAs affected in AUD and HCC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;AUD were functionally related to splicing. The link between lncRNAs and spliceosomes is currently unknown. One possibility is that lncRNAs may function as \u0026ldquo;snRNAs sponges\u0026rdquo;, as a similar function was described for circRNAs which are capable of \u0026ldquo;sponging\u0026rdquo; miRs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur tentative model is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;8. We showed that AUD perturbs gene expression and splicing in genome-wide fashion across all alcohol-related hepatic diseases. Mechanistically, missplicing appears to be mediated by suppression of snRNAs of major and minor spliceosome. AUD was also associated with altered expression of lncRNAs, but the link between lncRNAs and spliceosome is to be elucidated. Among affected genes are oncogenes and tumor suppressors implicated in the development and progression of HCC.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSources of funding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by HIN grant GR 009105 (and supplement GR 011827).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson, B.O., et al., \u003cem\u003eHealth and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption\u003c/em\u003e. Lancet Public Health, 2023. 8(1): p. e6-e7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrant, B.F., et al., \u003cem\u003eEpidemiology of DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III\u003c/em\u003e. JAMA Psychiatry, 2015. 72(8): p. 757\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrant, B.F., et al., \u003cem\u003ePrevalence of 12-Month Alcohol Use, High-Risk Drinking, and DSM-IV Alcohol Use Disorder in the United States, 2001\u0026ndash;2002 to 2012\u0026ndash;2013: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions\u003c/em\u003e. JAMA Psychiatry, 2017. 74(9): p. 911\u0026ndash;923.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMekonen, T., et al., \u003cem\u003eTreatment rates for alcohol use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Addiction, 2021. 116(10): p. 2617\u0026ndash;2634.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSacks, J.J., et al., 2010 \u003cem\u003eNational and State Costs of Excessive Alcohol Consumption.\u003c/em\u003e Am J Prev Med, 2015. 49(5): p. e73-e79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eMedical Costs of Substance Use Disorders in the US Employer-Sponsored Insurance Population\u003c/em\u003e. JAMA Netw Open, 2023. 6(1): p. e2252378.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeitz, H.K., et al., \u003cem\u003eAlcoholic liver disease\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2018. 4(1): p. 16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMittal, S., et al., \u003cem\u003eHepatocellular Carcinoma in the Absence of Cirrhosis in United States Veterans is Associated With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease\u003c/em\u003e. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016. 14(1): p. 124\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;31.e1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTokushige, K., et al., \u003cem\u003eHepatocellular carcinoma in Japanese patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and alcoholic liver disease: multicenter survey\u003c/em\u003e. J Gastroenterol, 2016. 51(6): p. 586\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBosetti, C., F. Turati, and C. La Vecchia, \u003cem\u003eHepatocellular carcinoma epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 2014. 28(5): p. 753\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSamant, H., H.S. Amiri, and G.B. Zibari, \u003cem\u003eAddressing the worldwide hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology, prevention and management\u003c/em\u003e. J Gastrointest Oncol, 2021. 12(Suppl 2): p. S361-s373.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLlovet, J.M., et al., \u003cem\u003eSorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma\u003c/em\u003e. N Engl J Med, 2008. 359(4): p. 378\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl-Khoueiry, A.B., et al., \u003cem\u003eNivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial\u003c/em\u003e. Lancet, 2017. 389(10088): p. 2492\u0026ndash;2502.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown, Z.J., et al., \u003cem\u003eManagement of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review\u003c/em\u003e. JAMA Surg, 2023. 158(4): p. 410\u0026ndash;420.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDhanasekaran, R., A. Limaye, and R. Cabrera, \u003cem\u003eHepatocellular carcinoma: current trends in worldwide epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and therapeutics\u003c/em\u003e. Hepat Med, 2012. 4: p. 19\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOh, J.H. and D.W. Jun, \u003cem\u003eThe latest global burden of liver cancer: A past and present threat\u003c/em\u003e. Clin Mol Hepatol, 2023. 29(2): p. 355\u0026ndash;357.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHassan, M.M., et al., \u003cem\u003eRisk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma: synergism of alcohol with viral hepatitis and diabetes mellitus\u003c/em\u003e. Hepatology, 2002. 36(5): p. 1206\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChuang, S.C., et al., \u003cem\u003eAlcohol consumption and liver cancer risk: a meta-analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Cancer Causes Control, 2015. 26(9): p. 1205\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarot, A., et al., \u003cem\u003eAlcoholic liver disease confers a worse prognosis than HCV infection and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease among patients with cirrhosis: An observational study\u003c/em\u003e. PLoS One, 2017. 12(10): p. e0186715.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWest, J., et al., \u003cem\u003eRisk of hepatocellular carcinoma among individuals with different aetiologies of cirrhosis: a population-based cohort study\u003c/em\u003e. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2017. 45(7): p. 983\u0026ndash;990.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eComprehensive and Integrative Genomic Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma\u003c/em\u003e. Cell, 2017. 169(7): p. 1327\u0026ndash;1341.e23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamadori, P., et al., \u003cem\u003eAlcohol and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Adding Fuel to the Flame\u003c/em\u003e. Cancers (Basel), 2017. 9(10).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWill, C.L. and R. Luhrmann, \u003cem\u003eSpliceosome structure and function\u003c/em\u003e. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, 2011. 3(7).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnczukow, O. and A.R. Krainer, \u003cem\u003eSplicing-factor alterations in cancers\u003c/em\u003e. Rna, 2016. 22(9): p. 1285\u0026ndash;301.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDvinge, H., et al., \u003cem\u003eRNA splicing factors as oncoproteins and tumour suppressors\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Rev Cancer, 2016. 16(7): p. 413\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, Q., Y. Ai, and O. Abdel-Wahab, \u003cem\u003eMolecular impact of mutations in RNA splicing factors in cancer\u003c/em\u003e. Mol Cell, 2024. 84(19): p. 3667\u0026ndash;3680.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWahl, M.C., C.L. Will, and R. Luhrmann, \u003cem\u003eThe spliceosome: design principles of a dynamic RNP machine\u003c/em\u003e. Cell, 2009. 136(4): p. 701\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTwyffels, L., C. Gueydan, and V. Kruys, \u003cem\u003eShuttling SR proteins: more than splicing factors\u003c/em\u003e. Febs j, 2011. 278(18): p. 3246\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMadan, V., et al., \u003cem\u003eAberrant splicing of U12-type introns is the hallmark of ZRSR2 mutant myelodysplastic syndrome\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Commun, 2015. 6: p. 6042.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOkeyo-Owuor, T., et al., \u003cem\u003eU2AF1 mutations alter sequence specificity of pre-mRNA binding and splicing\u003c/em\u003e. Leukemia, 2015. 29(4): p. 909\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlokhin, I., et al., \u003cem\u003eDevelopments in lncRNA drug discovery: where are we heading?\u003c/em\u003e Expert Opin Drug Discov, 2018. 13(9): p. 837\u0026ndash;849.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsuiji, H., et al., \u003cem\u003eCompetition between a noncoding exon and introns: Gomafu contains tandem UACUAAC repeats and associates with splicing factor-1\u003c/em\u003e. Genes Cells, 2011. 16(5): p. 479\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernard, D., et al., \u003cem\u003eA long nuclear-retained non-coding RNA regulates synaptogenesis by modulating gene expression\u003c/em\u003e. Embo j, 2010. 29(18): p. 3082\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTripathi, V., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe nuclear-retained noncoding RNA MALAT1 regulates alternative splicing by modulating SR splicing factor phosphorylation\u003c/em\u003e. Mol Cell, 2010. 39(6): p. 925\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcosta, G., et al., \u003cem\u003eAlternative splicing of AMPA subunits in prefrontal cortical fields of cynomolgus monkeys following chronic ethanol self-administration\u003c/em\u003e. Front Psychiatry, 2011. 2: p. 72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, C., R.D. Mayfield, and R.A. Harris, \u003cem\u003eAltered gamma-aminobutyric acid type B receptor subunit 1 splicing in alcoholics\u003c/em\u003e. Biol Psychiatry, 2014. 75(10): p. 765\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawasawa, Y.I., et al., \u003cem\u003eGenome-wide profiling of differentially spliced mRNAs in human fetal cortical tissue exposed to alcohol\u003c/em\u003e. Alcohol, 2017. 62: p. 1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Booven, D., et al., \u003cem\u003eAlcohol use disorder causes global changes in splicing in the human brain\u003c/em\u003e. Transl Psychiatry, 2021. 11(1): p. 2.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTremblay, M.P., et al., \u003cem\u003eGlobal profiling of alternative RNA splicing events provides insights into molecular differences between various types of hepatocellular carcinoma\u003c/em\u003e. BMC Genomics, 2016. 17: p. 683.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu, G.Q., et al., \u003cem\u003ePrognostic alternative mRNA splicing signature in hepatocellular carcinoma: a study based on large-scale sequencing data\u003c/em\u003e. Carcinogenesis, 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArgemi, J., et al., \u003cem\u003eDefective HNF4alpha-dependent gene expression as a driver of hepatocellular failure in alcoholic hepatitis\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Commun, 2019. 10(1): p. 3126.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMathurin, P., et al., \u003cem\u003eEarly liver transplantation for severe alcoholic hepatitis\u003c/em\u003e. N Engl J Med, 2011. 365(19): p. 1790\u0026ndash;800.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIshwaran, H., J.S. Rao, and U.B. Kogalur, \u003cem\u003eBAMarraytrade mark: Java software for Bayesian analysis of variance for microarray data\u003c/em\u003e. BMC Bioinformatics, 2006. 7: p. 59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Gene Ontology Resource: 20 years and still GOing strong\u003c/em\u003e. Nucleic Acids Res, 2019. 47(D1): p. D330-d338.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshburner, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eGene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Genet, 2000. 25(1): p. 25\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen, S., et al., \u003cem\u003erMATS: robust and flexible detection of differential alternative splicing from replicate RNA-Seq data\u003c/em\u003e. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2014. 111(51): p. E5593-601.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnders, S., A. Reyes, and W. Huber, \u003cem\u003eDetecting differential usage of exons from RNA-seq data\u003c/em\u003e. Genome Res, 2012. 22(10): p. 2008\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLivak, K.J. and T.D. Schmittgen, \u003cem\u003eAnalysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method\u003c/em\u003e. Methods, 2001. 25(4): p. 402\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubramanian, A., et al., \u003cem\u003eGene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles\u003c/em\u003e. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2005. 102(43): p. 15545\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, Y., J. Sun, and M. Zhao, \u003cem\u003eONGene: A literature-based database for human oncogenes\u003c/em\u003e. J Genet Genomics, 2017. 44(2): p. 119\u0026ndash;121.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, Y., et al., \u003cem\u003eLncRNA ontology: inferring lncRNA functions based on chromatin states and expression patterns\u003c/em\u003e. Oncotarget, 2015. 6(37): p. 39793\u0026ndash;805.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuggett, S.B., et al., \u003cem\u003eGenome- and transcriptome-wide splicing associations with alcohol use disorder\u003c/em\u003e. Sci Rep, 2023. 13(1): p. 3950.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmidt-Heck, W., et al., \u003cem\u003eGlobal Transcriptional Response of Human Liver Cells to Ethanol Stress of Different Strength Reveals Hormetic Behavior\u003c/em\u003e. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2017. 41(5): p. 883\u0026ndash;894.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurunen, J.J., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe significant other: splicing by the minor spliceosome\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA, 2013. 4(1): p. 61\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntegrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma\u003c/em\u003e. Nature, 2017. 541(7636): p. 169\u0026ndash;175.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntegrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer\u003c/em\u003e. Nature, 2017. 543(7645): p. 378\u0026ndash;384.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKapoor, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eAnalysis of whole genome-transcriptomic organization in brain to identify genes associated with alcoholism\u003c/em\u003e. Transl Psychiatry, 2019. 9(1): p. 89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErickson, E.K., et al., \u003cem\u003eAstrocyte-specific transcriptome responses to chronic ethanol consumption\u003c/em\u003e. Pharmacogenomics J, 2018. 18(4): p. 578\u0026ndash;589.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCarthy, G.M., et al., \u003cem\u003eMicroglial-specific transcriptome changes following chronic alcohol consumption\u003c/em\u003e. Neuropharmacology, 2018. 128: p. 416\u0026ndash;424.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsterndorff-Kahanek, E.A., et al., \u003cem\u003eLong-term ethanol exposure: Temporal pattern of microRNA expression and associated mRNA gene networks in mouse brain\u003c/em\u003e. PLoS One, 2018. 13(1): p. e0190841.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, C., et al., \u003cem\u003eA DNA methylation biomarker of alcohol consumption\u003c/em\u003e. Mol Psychiatry, 2018. 23(2): p. 422\u0026ndash;433.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng, Q., et al., \u003cem\u003eDNA Methylation in Alcohol Use Disorder\u003c/em\u003e. Int J Mol Sci, 2023. 24(12).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark, P.H., R. Miller, and S.D. Shukla, \u003cem\u003eAcetylation of histone H3 at lysine 9 by ethanol in rat hepatocytes\u003c/em\u003e. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2003. 306(2): p. 501\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOomizu, S., N. Boyadjieva, and D.K. Sarkar, \u003cem\u003eEthanol and estradiol modulate alternative splicing of dopamine D2 receptor messenger RNA and abolish the inhibitory action of bromocriptine on prolactin release from the pituitary gland\u003c/em\u003e. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2003. 27(6): p. 975\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuo, T., et al., \u003cem\u003eA Novel Functional Splice Variant of AKT3 Defined by Analysis of Alternative Splice Expression in HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancers\u003c/em\u003e. Cancer Res, 2017. 77(19): p. 5248\u0026ndash;5258.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBejar, R., \u003cem\u003eSplicing Factor Mutations in Cancer\u003c/em\u003e. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2016. 907: p. 215\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaric, A., M.E. Berres, and S.M. Smith, \u003cem\u003eHigh-throughput transcriptome sequencing identifies candidate genetic modifiers of vulnerability to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders\u003c/em\u003e. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2014. 38(7): p. 1874\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSariyer, R., et al., \u003cem\u003eAlcohol-Mediated Missplicing of Mcl-1 Pre-mRNA is Involved in Neurotoxicity\u003c/em\u003e. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2017. 41(10): p. 1715\u0026ndash;1724.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDowning, C., et al., \u003cem\u003eGene expression changes in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice following prenatal alcohol exposure\u003c/em\u003e. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2012. 36(9): p. 1519\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLlovet, J.M. and V. Hernandez-Gea, \u003cem\u003eHepatocellular carcinoma: reasons for phase III failure and novel perspectives on trial design\u003c/em\u003e. Clin Cancer Res, 2014. 20(8): p. 2072\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerasain, C., et al., \u003cem\u003eImpairment of pre-mRNA splicing in liver disease: mechanisms and consequences\u003c/em\u003e. World J Gastroenterol, 2010. 16(25): p. 3091\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, X., et al., \u003cem\u003eA splicing switch from ketohexokinase-C to ketohexokinase-A drives hepatocellular carcinoma formation\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Cell Biol, 2016. 18(5): p. 561\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eToki, Y., et al., \u003cem\u003eA selective splicing variant of hepcidin mRNA in hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines\u003c/em\u003e. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2016. 476(4): p. 501\u0026ndash;507.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChang, J., et al., \u003cem\u003eGenomic analysis of oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma identifies alcohol drinking-related mutation signature and genomic alterations\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Commun, 2017. 8: p. 15290.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiangpunsakul, S., et al., \u003cem\u003eEffects of Age, Sex, Body Weight, and Quantity of Alcohol Consumption on Occurrence and Severity of Alcoholic Hepatitis\u003c/em\u003e. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016. 14(12): p. 1831\u0026ndash;1838.e3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSozio, M.S., S. Liangpunsakul, and D. Crabb, \u003cem\u003eThe role of lipid metabolism in the pathogenesis of alcoholic and nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis\u003c/em\u003e. Semin Liver Dis, 2010. 30(4): p. 378\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTholen, J. and W.P. Galej, \u003cem\u003eStructural studies of the spliceosome: Bridging the gaps\u003c/em\u003e. Curr Opin Struct Biol, 2022. 77: p. 102461.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalakar, P., et al., \u003cem\u003eLong Noncoding RNA MALAT1 Promotes Hepatocellular Carcinoma Development by SRSF1 Upregulation and mTOR Activation\u003c/em\u003e. Cancer Res, 2017. 77(5): p. 1155\u0026ndash;1167.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKryger, R., et al., \u003cem\u003eMALAT-1, a non protein-coding RNA is upregulated in the cerebellum, hippocampus and brain stem of human alcoholics\u003c/em\u003e. Alcohol, 2012. 46(7): p. 629\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCardamone, G., et al., \u003cem\u003eNot only cancer: the long non-coding RNA MALAT1 affects the repertoire of alternatively spliced transcripts and circular RNAs in multiple sclerosis\u003c/em\u003e. Hum Mol Genet, 2019. 28(9): p. 1414\u0026ndash;1428.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin, Q.F., et al., \u003cem\u003eLong noncoding RNAs with snoRNA ends\u003c/em\u003e. Mol Cell, 2012. 48(2): p. 219\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRomero-Barrios, N., et al., \u003cem\u003eSplicing regulation by long noncoding RNAs\u003c/em\u003e. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018. 46(5): p. 2169\u0026ndash;2184.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, L.L., \u003cem\u003eThe biogenesis and emerging roles of circular RNAs\u003c/em\u003e. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2016. 17(4): p. 205\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHansen, T.B., et al., \u003cem\u003eNatural RNA circles function as efficient microRNA sponges\u003c/em\u003e. Nature, 2013. 495(7441): p. 384\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"alcohol use disorder, splicing, spliceosome, long non-coding RNA, hepatocellular carcinoma","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6507570/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6507570/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlcohol use disorder (AUD) is a widespread illness commonly leading to alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and cirrhosis with an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the mechanisms of alcohol-related oncogenesis in the liver are incompletely understood. Splicing represents a mechanism of messenger RNA processing, and its impairment is implicated in various cancers. We tested the hypothesis that AUD predisposes to ALD and HCC via dysregulation of splicing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRNA sequencing was performed on liver biopsies from patients with different stages of alcoholic liver disease: early alcoholic steatohepatitis (eASH), non-severe alcoholic hepatitis (nsAH), and severe alcoholic hepatitis (sAH); furthermore, explants were collected from patients who underwent liver transplantation due to sAH (exAH). Alignment was performed with the STAR aligner (v.2.5.2a) against the hg19 human genome. Raw counts were processed by edgeR in Bioconductor and normalized using CPM values. Resulting bam files from the STAR alignment were indexed with samtools for use by rMATS for the analysis of missplicing events. For exon expression, DEXSeq R package was employed, with GENCODE v.19 serving as a reference. Expression of small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs) and splicing factors was measured by real-time PCR. Data on oncogenes and tumor suppressors implicated in HCC as well as RNA sequencing files from liver of patients with HCC and HCC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;AUD were retrieved from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Computational analysis of the affected pathways was performed using Gene Ontology Consortium, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis, Oncogene Database, and LncRNA Ontology databases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe found that alcohol caused widespread changes in transcriptome in all stages of ALD: among ~\u0026thinsp;58,000 analyzed genomic features, ~\u0026thinsp;4,900 were altered in eASH, ~\u0026thinsp;9,100 \u0026ndash; in nsAH, 14,100 \u0026ndash; in sAH, and ~\u0026thinsp;14,300 \u0026ndash; in exAH. We observed thousands of missplicing events in all hepatic conditions, with mutually exclusive exons (MEE) being the most common event and exon skipping (ES) \u0026ndash; second most common event. Analysis of ~\u0026thinsp;600,000 exons revealed that ALD is associated with a genome-wide effect on exon expression, with ~\u0026thinsp;50,000 exons being differentially expressed in eASH, ~\u0026thinsp;130,000 \u0026ndash; in nsAH, ~\u0026thinsp;150,000 \u0026ndash; in sAH, and ~\u0026thinsp;120,000 \u0026ndash; in exAH. To determine whether alcohol directly perturbs splicing, we subjected rats to alcohol vapor for 7 weeks and measured hepatic expression of two components of major and minor spliceosomes: snRNAs and splicing factors. Expression of such snRNAs as snU2, snU6atac, and snU11 was drastically decreased, while expression of splicing factors was not affected. Analysis of aberrantly expressed hepatic long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) from patients with AUD and patients with HCC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;AUD demonstrated that overlapping lncRNAs were functionally related to splicing and spliceosome. Screening of 26 oncogenes and tumor suppressors, commonly involved in HCC pathogenesis, revealed that AUD affected the hepatic expression and/or splicing of most of these cancer-related genes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlcohol causes profound genome-wide changes in gene expression and splicing in the liver, likely via affecting the spliceosome and splicing-related lncRNAs. This results in altered expression and missplicing of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors involved in HCC, suggesting a novel mechanism of oncogenesis in the liver of patients with AUD.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Alcohol Use Disorder Causes Profound Global Changes in Gene Expression and Splicing in the Liver","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-08 14:36:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6507570/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0040d98a-daaa-4f2f-9793-13050ec135f8","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":47811358,"name":"Health sciences/Pathogenesis"},{"id":47811359,"name":"Biological sciences/Physiology"},{"id":47811360,"name":"Health sciences/Diseases/Psychiatric disorders/Addiction"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-01T10:36:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-08 14:36:03","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6507570","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6507570","identity":"rs-6507570","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}