sRNA‐FISH: versatile fluorescent in situ detection of small RNAs in plants

Localization of mRNA and small RNAs (sRNAs) is important for understanding their function. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) has been used extensively in animal systems to study the localization and expression of sRNAs. However, current methods for fluorescent in situ detection of sRNA in plant tissues are less developed. Here we report a protocol (sRNA‐FISH) for efficient fluorescent detection of sRNAs in plants. This protocol is suitable for application in diverse plant species and tissue types. The use of locked nucleic acid probes and antibodies conjugated with different fluorophores allows the detection of two sRNAs in the same sample. Using this method, we have successfully detected the co‐localization of miR2275 and a 24‐nucleotide phased small interfering RNA in maize anther tapetal and archesporial cells. We describe how to overcome the common problem of the wide range of autofluorescence in embedded plant tissue using linear spectral unmixing on a laser scanning confocal microscope. For highly autofluorescent samples, we show that multi‐photon fluorescence excitation microscopy can be used to separate the target sRNA‐FISH signal from background autofluorescence. In contrast to colorimetric in situ hybridization, sRNA‐FISH signals can be imaged using super‐resolution microscopy to examine the subcellular localization of sRNAs. We detected maize miR2275 by super‐resolution structured illumination microscopy and direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy. In this study, we describe how we overcame the challenges of adapting FISH for imaging in plant tissue and provide a step‐by‐step sRNA‐FISH protocol for studying sRNAs at the cellular and even subcellular level.     

GTSF‐1 is required for formation of a functional RNA‐dependent RNA Polymerase complex in Caenorhabditis elegans

Argonaute proteins and their associated small RNAs (sRNAs) are evolutionarily conserved regulators of gene expression. Gametocyte‐specific factor 1 (Gtsf1) proteins, characterized by two tandem CHHC zinc fingers and an unstructured C‐terminal tail, are conserved in animals and have been shown to interact with Piwi clade Argonautes, thereby assisting their activity. We identified the Caenorhabditis elegans Gtsf1 homolog, named it gtsf‐1 and characterized it in the context of the sRNA pathways of C. elegans. We report that GTSF‐1 is not required for Piwi‐mediated gene silencing. Instead, gtsf‐1 mutants show a striking depletion of 26G‐RNAs, a class of endogenous sRNAs, fully phenocopying rrf‐3 mutants. We show, both in vivo and in vitro, that GTSF‐1 interacts with RRF‐3 via its CHHC zinc fingers. Furthermore, we demonstrate that GTSF‐1 is required for the assembly of a larger RRF‐3 and DCR‐1‐containing complex (ERIC), thereby allowing for 26G‐RNA generation. We propose that GTSF‐1 homologs may act to drive the assembly of larger complexes that act in sRNA production and/or in imposing sRNA‐mediated silencing activities.     

Translational control and target recognition by Escherichia coli small RNAs in vivo

Small non-coding RNAs (sRNAs) are an emerging class of regulators of bacterial gene expression. Most of the regulatory Escherichia coli sRNAs known to date modulate translation of trans-encoded target mRNAs. We studied the specificity of sRNA target interactions using gene fusions to green fluorescent protein (GFP) as a novel reporter of translational control by bacterial sRNAs in vivo. Target sequences were selected from both monocistronic and polycistronic mRNAs. Upon expression of the cognate sRNA (DsrA, GcvB, MicA, MicC, MicF, RprA, RyhB, SgrS and Spot42), we observed highly specific translation repression/activation of target fusions under various growth conditions. Target regulation was also tested in mutants that lacked Hfq or RNase III, or which expressed a truncated RNase E (rne701). We found that translational regulation by these sRNAs was largely independent of full-length RNase E, e.g. despite the fact that ompA fusion mRNA decay could no longer be promoted by MicA. This is the first study in which multiple well-defined E.coli sRNA target pairs have been studied in a uniform manner in vivo. We expect our GFP fusion approach to be applicable to sRNA targets of other bacteria, and also demonstrate that Vibrio RyhB sRNA represses a Vibrio sodB fusion when co-expressed in E.coli.     

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.     

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.     

Coincident Hfq binding and RNase E cleavage sites on mRNA and small regulatory RNAs

The Escherichia coli RNA chaperone Hfq was discovered originally as an accessory factor of the phage Qbeta replicase. More recent work suggested a role of Hfq in cellular physiology through its interaction with ompA mRNA and small RNAs (sRNAs), some of which are involved in translational regulation. Despite their stability under certain conditions, E. coli sRNAs contain putative RNase E recognition sites, that is, A/U-rich sequences and adjacent stem-loop structures. We show herein that an RNase E cleavage site coincides with the Hfq-binding site in the 5'-untranslated region of E. coli ompA mRNA as well as with that in the sRNA, DsrA. Likewise, Hfq protects RyhB RNA from in vitro cleavage by RNase E. These in vitro data are supported by the increased abundance of DsrA and RyhB sRNAs in an RNase E mutant strain as well as by their decreased stability in a hfq(-) strain. It is commonly believed that the RNA chaperone Hfq facilitates or promotes the interaction between sRNAs and their mRNA targets. This study reveals another role for Hfq, that is, protection of sRNAs from endonucleolytic attack.     

The RtcB RNA ligase is an essential component of the metazoan unfolded protein response

RNA ligation can regulate RNA function by altering RNA sequence, structure and coding potential. For example, the function of XBP1 in mediating the unfolded protein response requires RNA ligation, as does the maturation of some tRNAs. Here, we describe a novel in vivo model in Caenorhabditis elegans for the conserved RNA ligase RtcB and show that RtcB ligates the xbp‐1 mRNA during the IRE‐1 branch of the unfolded protein response. Without RtcB, protein stress results in the accumulation of unligated xbp‐1 mRNA fragments, defects in the unfolded protein response, and decreased lifespan. RtcB also ligates endogenous pre‐tRNA halves, and RtcB mutants have defects in growth and lifespan that can be bypassed by expression of pre‐spliced tRNAs. In addition, animals that lack RtcB have defects that are independent of tRNA maturation and the unfolded protein response. Thus, RNA ligation by RtcB is required for the function of multiple endogenous target RNAs including both xbp‐1 and tRNAs. RtcB is uniquely capable of performing these ligation functions, and RNA ligation by RtcB mediates multiple essential processes in vivo.     

Turn-over of the small non-coding RNA RprA in E. coli is influenced by osmolarity

The sRNA RprA is known to activate rpoS translation in E. coli in an osmolarity-dependent manner. We asked whether RprA stability contributes to osmolarity-dependent regulation and how the RNA binding protein Hfq and the major E. coli endonucleases contribute to this turn-over. The study reveals that osmolarity-dependent turn-over of RprA indeed contributes to its osmolarity-dependent abundance. RprA is stabilized by the RNA chaperone Hfq and in absence of Hfq its turn-over is no longer osmolarity-dependent. The stability of the RprA target mRNA rpoS shows a lower extent of osmolarity dependence, which differs from the profile observed for RprA. Thus, the effect of sucrose is specific for individual RNAs. We can attribute a role of the endoribonuclease RNase E in turn-over of RprA and an indirect effect of the endoribonuclease III in vivo. In addition, RprA is stabilized by the presence of rpoS suggesting that hybrid formation with its target may protect it against ribonucleases. In vitro RprA is cleaved by the RNase E containing degradosome and by RNase III and rpoS interferes with RNase III cleavage. We also show that temperature affects the stabilities of the sRNAs binding to rpoS and of rpoS mRNA itself differentially and that higher stability of DsrA with decreasing temperature may contribute to its high abundance at lower temperatures. This study demonstrates that environmental parameters can affect the stability of sRNAs and consequently their abundance.     

Characterization of DCL4 missense alleles provides insights into its ability to process distinct classes of dsRNA substrates

In the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, four Dicer‐like proteins (DCL1–4) mediate the production of various classes of small RNAs (sRNAs). Among these four proteins, DCL4 is by far the most versatile RNaseIII‐like enzyme, and previously identified dcl4 missense alleles were shown to uncouple the production of the various classes of DCL4‐dependent sRNAs. Yet little is known about the molecular mechanism behind this uncoupling. Here, by studying the subcellular localization, interactome and binding to the sRNA precursors of three distinct dcl4 missense alleles, we simultaneously highlight the absolute requirement of a specific residue in the helicase domain for the efficient production of all DCL4‐dependent sRNAs, and identify, within the PAZ domain, an important determinant of DCL4 versatility that is mandatory for the efficient processing of intramolecular fold‐back double‐stranded RNA (dsRNA) precursors, but that is dispensable for the production of small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) from RDR‐dependent dsRNA susbtrates. This study not only provides insights into the DCL4 mode of action, but also delineates interesting tools to further study the complexity of RNA silencing pathways in plants, and possibly other organisms.