Alternative Hfq‐sRNA interaction modes dictate alternative mRNA recognition

Many bacteria use small RNAs (sRNAs) and the RNA chaperone Hfq to regulate mRNA stability and translation. Hfq, a ring‐shaped homohexamer, has multiple faces that can bind both sRNAs and their mRNA targets. We find that Hfq has at least two distinct ways in which it interacts with sRNAs; these different binding properties have strong effects on the stability of the sRNA in vivo and the sequence requirements of regulated mRNAs. Class I sRNAs depend on proximal and rim Hfq sites for stability and turn over rapidly. Class II sRNAs are more stable and depend on the proximal and distal Hfq sites for stabilization. Using deletions and chimeras, we find that while Class I sRNAs regulate mRNA targets with previously defined ARN repeats, Class II sRNAs regulate mRNAs carrying UA‐rich rim‐binding sites. We discuss how these different binding modes may correlate with different roles in the cell, with Class I sRNAs acting as emergency responders and Class II sRNAs acting as silencers.     

Conserved arginines on the rim of Hfq catalyze base pair formation and exchange

The Sm-like protein Hfq is required for gene regulation by small RNAs (sRNAs) in bacteria and facilitates base pairing between sRNAs and their mRNA targets. The proximal and distal faces of the Hfq hexamer specifically bind sRNA and mRNA targets, but they do not explain how Hfq accelerates the formation and exchange of RNA base pairs. Here, we show that conserved arginines on the outer rim of the hexamer that are known to interact with sRNA bodies are required for Hfq’s chaperone activity. Mutations in the arginine patch lower the ability of Hfq to act in sRNA regulation of rpoS translation and eliminate annealing of natural sRNAs or unstructured oligonucleotides, without preventing binding to either the proximal or distal face. Stopped-flow FRET and fluorescence anisotropy show that complementary RNAs transiently form a ternary complex with Hfq, but the RNAs are not released as a double helix in the absence of rim arginines. RNAs bound to either face of Hfq quench the fluorescence of a tryptophan adjacent to the arginine patch, demonstrating that the rim can simultaneously engage two RNA strands. We propose that the arginine patch overcomes entropic and electrostatic barriers to helix nucleation and constitutes the active site for Hfq’s chaperone function.     

The RNA‐binding protein Hfq is important for ribosome biogenesis and affects translation fidelity

Ribosome biogenesis is a complex process involving multiple factors. Here, we show that the widely conserved RNA chaperone Hfq, which can regulate sRNA‐mRNA basepairing, plays a critical role in rRNA processing and ribosome assembly in Escherichia coli. Hfq binds the 17S rRNA precursor and facilitates its correct processing and folding to mature 16S rRNA. Hfq assists ribosome assembly and associates with pre‐30S particles but not with mature 30S subunits. Inactivation of Hfq strikingly decreases the pool of mature 70S ribosomes. The reduction in ribosome levels depends on residues located in the distal face of Hfq but not on residues found in the proximal and rim surfaces which govern interactions with the sRNAs. Our results indicate that Hfq‐mediated regulation of ribosomes is independent of its function as sRNA‐regulator. Furthermore, we observed that inactivation of Hfq compromises translation efficiency and fidelity, both features of aberrantly assembled ribosomes. Our work expands the functions of the Sm‐like protein Hfq beyond its function in small RNA‐mediated regulation and unveils a novel role of Hfq as crucial in ribosome biogenesis and translation.     

Dynamic Refolding of OxyS sRNA by the Hfq RNA Chaperone

The Sm protein Hfq chaperones small non-coding RNAs (sRNAs) in bacteria, facilitating sRNA regulation of target mRNAs. Hfq acts in part by remodeling the sRNA and mRNA structures, yet the basis for this remodeling activity is not understood. To understand how Hfq remodels RNA, we used single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (smFRET) to monitor conformational changes in OxyS sRNA upon Hfq binding. The results show that E. coli Hfq first compacts OxyS, bringing its 5′ and 3 ends together. Next, Hfq destabilizes an internal stem-loop in OxyS, allowing the RNA to adopt a more open conformation that is stabilized by a conserved arginine on the rim of Hfq. The frequency of transitions between compact and open conformations depend on interactions with Hfqs flexible C-terminal domain (CTD), being more rapid when the CTD is deleted, and slower when OxyS is bound to Caulobacter crescentus Hfq, which has a shorter and more stable CTD than E. coli Hfq. We propose that the CTDs gate transitions between OxyS conformations that are stabilized by interaction with one or more arginines. These results suggest a general model for how basic residues and intrinsically disordered regions of RNA chaperones act together to refold RNA.     

Competition among Hfq-binding small RNAs in Escherichia coli

A major class of small bacterial RNAs (sRNAs) regulate translation and mRNA stability by pairing with target mRNAs, dependent upon the RNA chaperone Hfq. Hfq, related to the Lsm/Sm families of splicing proteins, binds the sRNAs and stabilizes them in vivo and stimulates pairing with mRNAs in vitro. Although Hfq is abundant, the sRNAs, when induced, are similarly abundant. Therefore, Hfq may be limiting for sRNA function. We find that, when overexpressed, a number of sRNAs competed with endogenous sRNAs for binding to Hfq. This correlated with lower accumulation of the sRNAs (presumably a reflection of the loss of Hfq binding), and lower activity of the sRNAs in regulating gene expression. Hfq was limiting for both positive and negative regulation by the sRNAs. In addition, deletion of the gene for an expressed and particularly effective competitor sRNA improved the regulation of genes by other sRNAs, suggesting that Hfq is limiting during normal growth conditions. These results support the existence of a hierarchy of sRNA competition for Hfq, modulating the function of some sRNAs.     

Hfq assists small RNAs in binding to the coding sequence of ompD mRNA and in rearranging its structure

The bacterial protein Hfq participates in the regulation of translation by small noncoding RNAs (sRNAs). Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the role of Hfq in the regulation by sRNAs binding to the 5′-untranslated mRNA regions. However, it remains unknown how Hfq affects those sRNAs that target the coding sequence. Here, the contribution of Hfq to the annealing of three sRNAs, RybB, SdsR, and MicC, to the coding sequence of Salmonella ompD mRNA was investigated. Hfq bound to ompD mRNA with tight, subnanomolar affinity. Moreover, Hfq strongly accelerated the rates of annealing of RybB and MicC sRNAs to this mRNA, and it also had a small effect on the annealing of SdsR. The experiments using truncated RNAs revealed that the contributions of Hfq to the annealing of each sRNA were individually adjusted depending on the structures of interacting RNAs. In agreement with that, the mRNA structure probing revealed different structural contexts of each sRNA binding site. Additionally, the annealing of RybB and MicC sRNAs induced specific conformational changes in ompD mRNA consistent with local unfolding of mRNA secondary structure. Finally, the mutation analysis showed that the long AU-rich sequence in the 5′-untranslated mRNA region served as an Hfq binding site essential for the annealing of sRNAs to the coding sequence. Overall, the data showed that the functional specificity of Hfq in the annealing of each sRNA to the ompD mRNA coding sequence was determined by the sequence and structure of the interacting RNAs.     

Hfq proximity and orientation controls RNA annealing

Regulation of bacterial gene networks by small non-coding RNAs (sRNAs) requires base pairing with messenger RNA (mRNA) targets, which is facilitated by Hfq protein. Hfq is recruited to sRNAs and mRNAs through U-rich- and A-rich-binding sites, respectively, but their distance from the sRNA–mRNA complementary region varies widely among different genes. To determine whether distance and binding orientation affect Hfq’s chaperone function, we engineered ‘toy’ RNAs containing strong Hfq-binding sites at defined distances from the complementary target site. We show that RNA annealing is fastest when the distal face of Hfq binds an A-rich sequence immediately 3′ of the target. This recruitment advantage is lost when Hfq binds >20 nt away from the target, but is partially restored by secondary structure that shortens this distance. Although recruitment through Hfq’s distal face accelerates RNA annealing, tight binding of six Us to Hfq’s proximal face inhibits annealing. Finally, we show that ectopic A-rich motifs dramatically accelerate base pairing between DsrA sRNA and a minimal rpoS mRNA in the presence of Hfq, demonstrating that proximity and orientation predict the activity of Hfq on long RNAs.     

Paradoxical suppression of small RNA activity at high Hfq concentrations due to random-order binding

Small RNAs (sRNAs) are important regulators of gene expression during bacterial stress and pathogenesis. sRNAs act by forming duplexes with mRNAs to alter their translation and degradation. In some bacteria, duplex formation is mediated by the Hfq protein, which can bind the sRNA and mRNA in each pair in a random order. Here we investigate the consequences of this random-order binding and experimentally demonstrate that it can counterintuitively cause high Hfq concentrations to suppress rather than promote sRNA activity in Escherichia coli. As a result, maximum sRNA activity occurs when the Hfq concentration is neither too low nor too high relative to the sRNA and mRNA concentrations (‘Hfq set-point’). We further show with models and experiments that random-order binding combined with the formation of a dead-end mRNA–Hfq complex causes high concentrations of an mRNA to inhibit its own duplex formation by sequestering Hfq. In such cases, maximum sRNA activity requires an optimal mRNA concentration (‘mRNA set-point’) as well as an optimal Hfq concentration. The Hfq and mRNA set-points generate novel regulatory properties that can be harnessed by native and synthetic gene circuits to provide greater control over sRNA activity, generate non-monotonic responses and enhance the robustness of expression.     

Antagonistic functions between the RNA chaperone Hfq and an sRNA regulate sensitivity to the antibiotic colicin

The RNA chaperone Hfq is a key regulator of the function of small RNAs (sRNAs). Hfq has been shown to facilitate sRNAs binding to target mRNAs and to directly regulate translation through the action of sRNAs. Here, we present evidence that Hfq acts as the repressor of cirA mRNA translation in the absence of sRNA. Hfq binding to cirA prevents translation initiation, which correlates with cirA mRNA instability. In contrast, RyhB pairing to cirA mRNA promotes changes in RNA structure that displace Hfq, thereby allowing efficient translation as well as mRNA stabilization. Because CirA is a receptor for the antibiotic colicin Ia, in addition to acting as an Fur (Ferric Uptake Regulator)‐regulated siderophore transporter, translational activation of cirA mRNA by RyhB promotes colicin sensitivity under conditions of iron starvation. Altogether, these results indicate that Fur and RyhB modulate an unexpected feed‐forward loop mechanism related to iron physiology and colicin sensitivity.     

The rpoS mRNA leader recruits Hfq to facilitate annealing with DsrA sRNA

Small noncoding RNAs (sRNAs) regulate the response of bacteria to environmental stress in conjunction with the Sm-like RNA binding protein Hfq. DsrA sRNA stimulates translation of the RpoS stress response factor in Escherichia coli by base-pairing with the 5′ leader of the rpoS mRNA and opening a stem–loop that represses translation initiation. We report that rpoS leader sequences upstream of this stem–loop greatly increase the sensitivity of rpoS mRNA to Hfq and DsrA. Native gel mobility shift assays show that Hfq increases the rate of DsrA binding to the full 576 nt rpoS leader as much as 50-fold. By contrast, base-pairing with a 138-nt RNA containing just the repressor stem–loop is accelerated only twofold. Deletion and mutagenesis experiments showed that sensitivity to Hfq requires an upstream AAYAA sequence. Leaders long enough to contain this sequence bind Hfq tightly and form stable ternary complexes with Hfq and DsrA. A model is proposed in which Hfq recruits DsrA to the rpoS mRNA by binding both RNAs, releasing the self-repressing structure in the mRNA. Once base-pairing between DsrA and rpoS mRNA is established, interactions between Hfq and the mRNA may stabilize the RNA complex by removing Hfq from the sRNA.     

Unveiling the biotransformation mechanism of indole in a Cupriavidus sp. strain

Small RNAs (sRNAs), particularly those that act by limited base pairing with mRNAs, are part of most regulatory networks in bacteria. In many cases, the base‐pairing interaction is facilitated by the RNA chaperone Hfq. However, not all bacteria encode Hfq and some base‐pairing sRNAs do not require Hfq raising the possibility of other RNA chaperones. Candidates are proteins with homology to FinO, a factor that promotes base pairing between the FinP antisense sRNA and the traJ mRNA to control F plasmid transfer. Recent papers have shown that the Salmonella enterica FinO‐domain protein ProQ binds a large suite of sRNAs, including the RaiZ sRNA, which represses translation of the hupA mRNA, and the Legionella pneumophila protein RocC binds the RocR sRNA, which blocks expression of competence genes. Here we discuss what is known about FinO‐domain structures, including the recently solved Escherichia coli ProQ structure, as well as the RNA binding properties of this family of proteins and evidence they act as chaperones. We compare these properties with those of Hfq. We further summarize what is known about the physiological roles of FinO‐domain proteins and enumerate outstanding questions whose answers will establish whether they constitute a second major class of RNA chaperones.     

Major role for mRNA binding and restructuring in sRNA recruitment by Hfq

Bacterial small RNAs (sRNAs) modulate gene expression by base-pairing with target mRNAs. Many sRNAs require the Sm-like RNA binding protein Hfq as a cofactor. Well-characterized interactions between DsrA sRNA and the rpoS mRNA leader were used to understand how Hfq stimulates sRNA pairing with target mRNAs. DsrA annealing stimulates expression of rpoS by disrupting a secondary structure in the rpoS leader, which otherwise prevents translation. Both RNAs bind Hfq with similar affinity but interact with opposite faces of the Hfq hexamer. Using mutations that block interactions between two of the three components, we demonstrate that Hfq binding to a functionally critical (AAN)(4) motif in rpoS mRNA rescues DsrA binding to a hyperstable rpoS mutant. We also show that Hfq cannot stably bridge the RNAs. Persistent ternary complexes only form when the two RNAs are complementary. Thus, Hfq mainly acts by binding and restructuring the rpoS mRNA. However, Hfq binding to DsrA is needed for maximum annealing in vitro, indicating that transient interactions with both RNAs contribute to the regulatory mechanism.