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.     

MicA sRNA links the PhoP regulon to cell envelope stress

Numerous small RNAs regulators of gene expression exist in bacteria. A large class of them binds to the RNA chaperone Hfq and act by base pairing interactions with their target mRNA, thereby affecting their translation and/or stability. They often have multiple direct targets, some of which may be regulators themselves, and production of a single sRNA can therefore affect the expression of dozens of genes. We show in this study that the synthesis of the Escherichia coli pleiotropic PhoPQ two‐component system is repressed by MicA, a σ^E‐dependent sRNA regulator of porin biogenesis. MicA directly pairs with phoPQ mRNA in the translation initiation region of phoP and presumably inhibits translation by competing with ribosome binding. Consequently, MicA downregulates several members of the PhoPQ regulon. By linking PhoPQ to σ^E, our findings suggest that major cellular processes such as Mg²⁺ transport, virulence, LPS modification or resistance to antimicrobial peptides are modulated in response to envelope stress. In addition, we found that Hfq strongly affects the expression of phoP independently of MicA, raising the possibility that even more sRNAs, which remain to be identified, could regulate PhoPQ synthesis.     

Rapid binding and release of Hfq from ternary complexes during RNA annealing

The Sm protein Hfq binds small non-coding RNA (sRNAs) in bacteria and facilitates their base pairing with mRNA targets. Molecular beacons and a 16 nt RNA derived from the Hfq binding site in DsrA sRNA were used to investigate how Hfq accelerates base pairing between complementary strands of RNA. Stopped-flow fluorescence experiments showed that annealing became faster with Hfq concentration but was impaired by mutations in RNA binding sites on either face of the Hfq ring or by competition with excess RNA substrate. A fast bimolecular Hfq binding step (∼10⁸ M⁻¹s⁻¹) observed with Cy3-Hfq was followed by a slow transition (0.5 s⁻¹) to a stable Hfq–RNA complex that exchanges RNA ligands more slowly. Release of Hfq upon addition of complementary RNA was faster than duplex formation, suggesting that the nucleic acid strands dissociate from Hfq before base pairing is complete. A working model is presented in which rapid co-binding and release of two RNA strands from the Hfq ternary complex accelerates helix initiation 10 000 times above the Hfq-independent rate. Thus, Hfq acts to overcome barriers to helix initiation, but the net reaction flux depends on how tightly Hfq binds the reactants and products and the potential for unproductive binding interactions.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Mutations in Interaction Surfaces Differentially Impact E. coli Hfq Association with Small RNAs and Their mRNA Targets

The RNA chaperone protein Hfq is required for the function of all small RNAs (sRNAs) that regulate mRNA stability or translation by limited base pairing in Escherichia coli. While there have been numerous in vitro studies to characterize Hfq activity and the importance of specific residues, there has been only limited characterization of Hfq mutants in vivo. Here, we use a set of reporters as well as co-immunoprecipitation to examine 14 Hfq mutants expressed from the E. coli chromosome. The majority of the proximal face residues, as expected, were important for the function of sRNAs. The failure of sRNAs to regulate target mRNAs in these mutants can be explained by reduced sRNA accumulation. Two of the proximal mutants, D9A and F39A, acted differently from the others in that they had mixed effects on different sRNA/mRNA pairs and, in the case of F39A, showed differential sRNA accumulation. Mutations of charged residues at the rim of Hfq interfered with positive regulation and gave mixed effects for negative regulation. Some, but not all, sRNAs accumulated to lower levels in rim mutants, suggesting qualitative differences in how individual sRNAs are affected by Hfq. The distal face mutants were expected to disrupt binding of ARN motifs found in mRNAs. They were more defective for positive regulation than negative regulation at low mRNA expression, but the defects could be suppressed by higher levels of mRNA expression. We discuss the implications of these observations for Hfq binding to RNA and mechanisms of action.     

Small RNA interactome of pathogenic E. coli revealed through crosslinking of RNase E

RNA sequencing studies have identified hundreds of non‐coding RNAs in bacteria, including regulatory small RNA (sRNA). However, our understanding of sRNA function has lagged behind their identification due to a lack of tools for the high‐throughput analysis of RNA–RNA interactions in bacteria. Here we demonstrate that in vivo sRNA–mRNA duplexes can be recovered using UV‐crosslinking, ligation and sequencing of hybrids (CLASH). Many sRNAs recruit the endoribonuclease, RNase E, to facilitate processing of mRNAs. We were able to recover base‐paired sRNA–mRNA duplexes in association with RNase E, allowing proximity‐dependent ligation and sequencing of cognate sRNA–mRNA pairs as chimeric reads. We verified that this approach captures bona fide sRNA–mRNA interactions. Clustering analyses identified novel sRNA seed regions and sets of potentially co‐regulated target mRNAs. We identified multiple mRNA targets for the pathotype‐specific sRNA Esr41, which was shown to regulate colicin sensitivity and iron transport in E. coli. Numerous sRNA interactions were also identified with non‐coding RNAs, including sRNAs and tRNAs, demonstrating the high complexity of the sRNA interactome.