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.     

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.     

Small RNAs as regulators of primary and secondary metabolism in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pseudomonas</Emphasis> species

Small RNAs (sRNAs) exert important functions in pseudomonads. Classical sRNAs comprise the 4.5S, 6S, 10Sa and 10Sb RNAs, which are known in enteric bacteria as part of the signal recognition particle, a regulatory component of RNA polymerase, transfer–messenger RNA (tmRNA) and the RNA component of RNase P, respectively. Their homologues in pseudomonads are presumed to have analogous functions. Other sRNAs of pseudomonads generally have little or no sequence similarity with sRNAs of enteric bacteria. Numerous sRNAs repress or activate the translation of target mRNAs by a base-pairing mechanism. Examples of this group in Pseudomonas aeruginosa are the iron-repressible PrrF1 and PrrF2 sRNAs, which repress the translation of genes encoding iron-containing proteins, and PhrS, an anaerobically inducible sRNA, which activates the expression of PqsR, a regulator of the Pseudomonas quinolone signal. Other sRNAs sequester RNA-binding proteins that act as translational repressors. Examples of this group in P. aeruginosa include RsmY and RsmZ, which are central regulatory elements in the GacS/GacA signal transduction pathway, and CrcZ, which is a key regulator in the CbrA/CbrB signal transduction pathway. These pathways largely control the extracellular activities (including virulence traits) and the selection of the energetically most favourable carbon sources, respectively, in pseudomonads.     

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.     

Requirement of upstream Hfq-binding (ARN)x elements in glmS and the Hfq C-terminal region for GlmS upregulation by sRNAs GlmZ and GlmY{dagger}

Hfq is an important RNA-binding protein that helps bacteria adapt to stress. Its primary function is to promote pairing between trans-acting small non-coding RNAs (sRNAs) and their target mRNAs. Identification of essential Hfq-binding motifs in up-stream regions of rpoS and fhlA led us to ask the question whether these elements are a common occurrence among other Hfq-dependent mRNAs as well. Here, we confirm the presence of a similar (ARN)(x) motif in glmS RNA, a gene controlled by two sRNAs (GlmZ and GlmY) in an Hfq-dependent manner. GlmZ represents a canonical sRNA:mRNA pairing system, whereas GlmY is non-canonical, interfacing with the RNA processing protein YhbJ. We show that glmS interacts with both Hfq-binding surfaces in the absence of sRNAs. Even though two (ARN)(x) motifs are present, using a glmS:gfp fusion system, we determined that only one specific (ARN)(x) element is essential for regulation. Furthermore, we show that residues 66-72 in the C-terminal extension of Escherichia coli Hfq are essential for activation of GlmS expression by GlmY, but not with GlmZ. This result shows that the C-terminal extension of Hfq may be required for some forms of non-canonical sRNA regulation involving ancillary components such as additional RNAs or proteins.     

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.     

RNA‐based fluorescent biosensors for live cell detection of bacterial sRNA

Bacteria contain a diverse set of RNAs to provide tight regulation of gene expression in response to environmental stimuli. Bacterial small RNAs (sRNAs) work in conjunction with protein cofactors to bind complementary mRNA sequences in the cell, leading to up‐ or downregulation of protein synthesis. In vivo imaging of sRNAs can aid in understanding their spatiotemporal dynamics in real time, which inspires new ways to manipulate these systems for a variety of applications including synthetic biology and therapeutics. Current methods for sRNA imaging are quite limited in vivo and do not provide real‐time information about fluctuations in sRNA levels. Herein, we describe our efforts toward the development of an RNA‐based fluorescent biosensor for bacterial sRNA both in vitro and in vivo. We validated these sensors for three different bacterial sRNAs in Escherichia coli and demonstrated that the designs provide a bright, sequence‐specific signal output in response to exogenous and endogenous RNA targets.