Exonic circular RNAs (circRNAs) are covalently closed RNA molecules generated by a process named back‐splicing. circRNAs are highly abundant in eukaryotes, and many of them are evolutionary conserved. In metazoans, circular RNAs are expressed in a tissue‐specific manner, are highly stable, and accumulate with age in neural tissues. circRNA biogenesis can regulate the production of the linear RNA counterpart in cis as back‐splicing competes with linear splicing. Recent reports also demonstrate functions for some circRNAs in trans: Certain circRNAs interact with microRNAs, some are translated, and circRNAs have been shown to regulate immune responses and behavior. Here, we review current knowledge about animal circRNAs and summarize new insights into potential circRNA functions, concepts of their origin, and possible future directions in the field.

Exonic circular RNAs (circRNAs) are mostly generated from exons of protein-coding genes and, in many cases, are more abundant that the linear product from their hosting gene. Certain circRNAs are very abundant in the brain and in non-dividing cells; and many also show physiological-specific and tissue-specific expression. Moreover, recent work has demonstrated that some circRNAs are functional. Lately an important number of research articles have pointed a relation between cancer and certain circRNAs. In this review, we describe general advances in the field regarding circRNA biogenesis and functions in relationship with cancer. Also, we summarize some necessary precautions to work with circRNA that are particularly relevant to cancer-related studies.

According to receptor theory, the effect of a ligand depends on the amount of agonist–receptor complex. Therefore, changes in receptor abundance should have quantitative effects. However, the response to pheromone in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is robust (unaltered) to increases or reductions in the abundance of the G‐protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR), Ste2, responding instead to the fraction of occupied receptor. We found experimentally that this robustness originates during G‐protein activation. We developed a complete mathematical model of this step, which suggested the ability to compute fractional occupancy depends on the physical interaction between the inhibitory regulator of G‐protein signaling (RGS), Sst2, and the receptor. Accordingly, replacing Sst2 by the heterologous hsRGS4, incapable of interacting with the receptor, abolished robustness. Conversely, forcing hsRGS4:Ste2 interaction restored robustness. Taken together with other results of our work, we conclude that this GPCR pathway computes fractional occupancy because ligand‐bound GPCR–RGS complexes stimulate signaling while unoccupied complexes actively inhibit it. In eukaryotes, many RGSs bind to specific GPCRs, suggesting these complexes with opposing activities also detect fraction occupancy by a ratiometric measurement. Such complexes operate as push‐pull devices, which we have recently described.

Circadian rhythms are generated by the cyclic transcription, translation, and degradation of clock gene products, including timeless (tim), but how the circadian clock senses and adapts to temperature changes is not completely understood. Here, we show that temperature dramatically changes the splicing pattern of tim in Drosophila. We found that at 18°C, TIM levels are low because of the induction of two cold-specific isoforms: tim-cold and tim-short and cold. At 29°C, another isoform, tim-medium, is upregulated. Isoform switching regulates the levels and activity of TIM as each isoform has a specific function. We found that tim-short and cold encodes a protein that rescues the behavioral defects of tim01 mutants, and that flies in which tim-short and cold is abrogated have abnormal locomotor activity. In addition, miRNA-mediated control limits the expression of some of these isoforms. Finally, data that we obtained using minigenes suggest that tim alternative splicing might act as a thermometer for the circadian clock.