Quantitative characteristics of gene regulation by small RNA

An increasing number of small RNAs (sRNAs) have been shown to regulate critical pathways in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. In bacteria, regulation by trans-encoded sRNAs is predominantly found in the coordination of intricate stress responses. The mechanisms by which sRNAs modulate expression of its targets are diverse. In common to most is the possibility that interference with the translation of mRNA targets may also alter the abundance of functional sRNAs. Aiming to understand the unique role played by sRNAs in gene regulation, we studied examples from two distinct classes of bacterial sRNAs in Escherichia coli using a quantitative approach combining experiment and theory. Our results demonstrate that sRNA provides a novel mode of gene regulation, with characteristics distinct from those of protein-mediated gene regulation. These include a threshold-linear response with a tunable threshold, a robust noise resistance characteristic, and a built-in capability for hierarchical cross-talk. Knowledge of these special features of sRNA-mediated regulation may be crucial toward understanding the subtle functions that sRNAs can play in coordinating various stress-relief pathways. Our results may also help guide the design of synthetic genetic circuits that have properties difficult to attain with protein regulators alone.     

Identifying Hfq-binding small RNA targets in Escherichia coli

The Hfq-binding small RNAs (sRNAs) have recently drawn much attention as regulators of translation in Escherichia coli. We attempt to identify the targets of this class of sRNAs in genome scale and gain further insight into the complexity of translational regulation induced by Hfq-binding sRNAs. Using a new alignment algorithm, most known negatively regulated targets of Hfq-binding sRNAs were identified. The results also show several interesting aspects of the regulatory function of Hfq-binding sRNAs.     

Proteins that interact with bacterial small RNA regulators

Small regulatory RNAs have been identified in a wide range of organisms, where they modify mRNA stability, translation or protein function. Small RNA regulators (sRNAs) either pair with mRNA targets or modify protein activities. Here we discuss current knowledge of the various proteins that interact with RNA regulators and review the physiologic implications of sRNA-protein complexes in DNA, RNA and protein metabolism, as well as in RNA and protein quality control in prokaryotes. Proteins that interact with the sRNAs can possess catalytic activity, induce conformational changes of the sRNA, or be sequestered by the sRNA to prevent the action of the protein.     

细菌小RNA的研究

小RNA(smallRNA,sRNA)在基因表达调控和生长发育等方面发挥着重要作用。细菌sRNA多通过与靶mRNA配对,转录后水平影响目的mRNA翻译或(和)稳定性,对基因的表达进行调节,以影响细胞的多种生理功能。本文从细菌sRNA与真核生物微RNA(microRNA,miRNA)的比较,sRNA的分类,sRNA分子伴侣Hfq及sRNA鉴别方法等方面综述了sRNA的研究进展,指出目前sRNA研究仍然存在的问题。原核生物中sRNA的大量发现和深入研究,有可能使人们对生物进化和生命的发展过程有更为深入的认识与了解。     

Dual-function RNA regulators in bacteria

The importance of small RNA (sRNA) regulators has been recognized across all domains of life. In bacteria, sRNAs typically control the expression of virulence and stress response genes via antisense base pairing with mRNA targets. Originally dubbed “non-coding RNAs,” a number of bacterial antisense sRNAs have been found to encode functional proteins. Although very few of these dual-function sRNAs have been characterized, they have been found in both gram-negative and gram-positive organisms. Among the few known examples, the functions and mechanisms of regulation by dual-function sRNAs are variable. Some dual-function sRNAs depend on the RNA chaperone Hfq for base pairing-dependent regulation (riboregulation); this feature appears so far exclusive to gram-negative bacterial sRNAs. Other variations can be found in the spatial organization of the coding region with respect to the riboregulation determinants. How the functions of encoded proteins relate to riboregulation is for the most part not understood. However, in one case it appears that there is physiological redundancy between protein and riboregulation functions. This mini-review focuses on the two best-studied bacterial dual-function sRNAs: RNAIII from Staphylococcus aureus and SgrS from Escherichia coli and includes a discussion of what is known about the structure, function and physiological roles of these sRNAs as well as what questions remain outstanding.     

Molecular call and response: the physiology of bacterial small RNAs

The vital role of bacterial small RNAs (sRNAs) in cellular regulation is now well-established. Although many diverse mechanisms by which sRNAs bring about changes in gene expression have been thoroughly described, comparatively less is known about their biological roles and effects on cell physiology. Nevertheless, for some sRNAs, insight has been gained into the intricate regulatory interplay that is required to sense external environmental and internal metabolic cues and turn them into physiological outcomes. Here, we review examples of regulation by selected sRNAs, emphasizing signals and regulators required for sRNA expression, sRNA regulatory targets, and the resulting consequences for the cell. We highlight sRNAs involved in regulation of the processes of iron homeostasis (RyhB, PrrF, and FsrA) and carbon metabolism (Spot 42, CyaR, and SgrS).     

Identification of novel non-coding RNAs as potential antisense regulators in the archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus

By generating a specialized cDNA library from the archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus, we have identified 57 novel small non-coding RNA (ncRNA) candidates and confirmed their expression by Northern blot analysis. The majority was found to belong to one of two classes, either antisense or antisense-box RNAs, where the latter only exhibit partial complementarity to RNA targets. The most prominent group of antisense RNAs is transcribed in the opposite orientation to the transposase genes, encoded by insertion elements (transposons). Thus, these antisense RNAs may regulate transposition of insertion elements by inhibiting expression of the transposase mRNA. Surprisingly, the class of antisense RNAs also contained RNAs complementary to tRNAs or sRNAs (small-nucleolar-like RNAs). For the antisense-box ncRNAs, the majority could be assigned to the class of C/D sRNAs, which specify 2'-O-methylation sites on rRNAs or tRNAs. Five C/D sRNAs of this group are predicted to target methylation at six sites in 13 different tRNAs, thus pointing to the widespread role of these sRNA species in tRNA modification in Archaea. Another group of antisense-box RNAs, lacking typical C/D sRNA motifs, was predicted to target the 3'-untranslated regions of certain mRNAs. Furthermore, one of the ncRNAs that does not show antisense elements is transcribed from a repeat unit of a cluster of small regularly spaced repeats in S. solfataricus which is potentially involved in replicon partitioning. In conclusion, this is the first report of stably expressed antisense RNAs in an archaeal species and it raises the prospect that antisense-based mechanisms are also used widely in Archaea to regulate gene expression.