miRISC and the CCR4–NOT complex silence mRNA targets independently of 43S ribosomal scanning

miRNAs associate with Argonaute (AGO) proteins to silence the expression of mRNA targets by inhibiting translation and promoting deadenylation, decapping, and mRNA degradation. A current model for silencing suggests that AGOs mediate these effects through the sequential recruitment of GW182 proteins, the CCR4–NOT deadenylase complex and the translational repressor and decapping activator DDX6. An alternative model posits that AGOs repress translation by interfering with eIF4A function during 43S ribosomal scanning and that this mechanism is independent of GW182 and the CCR4–NOT complex in Drosophila melanogaster. Here, we show that miRNAs, AGOs, GW182, the CCR4–NOT complex, and DDX6/Me31B repress and degrade polyadenylated mRNA targets that are translated via scanning‐independent mechanisms in both human and Dm cells. This and additional observations indicate a common mechanism used by these proteins and miRNAs to mediate silencing. This mechanism does not require eIF4A function during ribosomal scanning.     

GW182 proteins cause PABP dissociation from silenced miRNA targets in the absence of deadenylation

GW182 family proteins interact with Argonaute proteins and are required for the translational repression, deadenylation and decay of miRNA targets. To elicit these effects, GW182 proteins interact with poly(A)‐binding protein (PABP) and the CCR4–NOT deadenylase complex. Although the mechanism of miRNA target deadenylation is relatively well understood, how GW182 proteins repress translation is not known. Here, we demonstrate that GW182 proteins decrease the association of eIF4E, eIF4G and PABP with miRNA targets. eIF4E association is restored in cells in which miRNA targets are deadenylated, but decapping is inhibited. In these cells, eIF4G binding is not restored, indicating that eIF4G dissociates as a consequence of deadenylation. In contrast, PABP dissociates from silenced targets in the absence of deadenylation. PABP dissociation requires the interaction of GW182 proteins with the CCR4–NOT complex. Accordingly, NOT1 and POP2 cause dissociation of PABP from bound mRNAs in the absence of deadenylation. Our findings indicate that the recruitment of the CCR4–NOT complex by GW182 proteins releases PABP from the mRNA poly(A) tail, thereby disrupting mRNA circularization and facilitating translational repression and deadenylation.     

Rapid ATP-dependent deadenylation of nanos mRNA in a cell-free system from Drosophila embryos

Shortening of the poly(A) tail (deadenylation) is the first and often rate-limiting step in the degradation pathway of most eukaryotic mRNAs and is also used as a means of translational repression, in particular in early embryonic development. The nanos mRNA is translationally repressed by the protein Smaug in Drosophila embryos. The RNA has a short poly(A) tail at steady state and decays gradually during the first 2-3 h of development. Smaug has recently also been implicated in mRNA deadenylation. To study the mechanism of sequence-dependent deadenylation, we have developed a cell-free system from Drosophila embryos that displays rapid deadenylation of nanos mRNA. The Smaug response elements contained in the nanos 3'-untranslated region are necessary and sufficient to induce deadenylation; thus, Smaug is likely to be involved. Unexpectedly, deadenylation requires the presence of an ATP regenerating system. The activity can be pelleted by ultracentrifugation, and both the Smaug protein and the CCR4.NOT complex, a known deadenylase, are enriched in the active fraction. The same extracts show pronounced translational repression mediated by the Smaug response elements. RNAs lacking a poly(A) tail are poorly translated in the extract; therefore, SRE-dependent deadenylation contributes to translational repression. However, repression is strong even with RNAs either bearing a poly(A) tract that cannot be removed or lacking poly(A) altogether; thus, an additional aspect of translational repression functions independently of deadenylation.     

Human DDX6 effects miRNA-mediated gene silencing via direct binding to CNOT1

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play critical roles in a variety of biological processes through widespread effects on protein synthesis. Upon association with the miRNA-induced silencing complex (miRISC), miRNAs repress target mRNA translation and accelerate mRNA decay. Degradation of the mRNA is initiated by shortening of the poly(A) tail by the CCR4–NOT deadenylase complex followed by the removal of the 5′ cap structure and exonucleolytic decay of the mRNA. Here, we report a direct interaction between the large scaffolding subunit of CCR4–NOT, CNOT1, with the translational repressor and decapping activator protein, DDX6. DDX6 binds to a conserved CNOT1 subdomain in a manner resembling the interaction of the translation initiation factor eIF4A with eIF4G. Importantly, mutations that disrupt the DDX6–CNOT1 interaction impair miRISC-mediated gene silencing in human cells. Thus, CNOT1 facilitates recruitment of DDX6 to miRNA-targeted mRNAs, placing DDX6 as a downstream effector in the miRNA silencing pathway.     

The interactions of GW182 proteins with PABP and deadenylases are required for both translational repression and degradation of miRNA targets

Animal miRNAs silence the expression of mRNA targets through translational repression, deadenylation and subsequent mRNA degradation. Silencing requires association of miRNAs with an Argonaute protein and a GW182 family protein. In turn, GW182 proteins interact with poly(A)-binding protein (PABP) and the PAN2–PAN3 and CCR4–NOT deadenylase complexes. These interactions are required for the deadenylation and decay of miRNA targets. Recent studies have indicated that miRNAs repress translation before inducing target deadenylation and decay; however, whether translational repression and deadenylation are coupled or represent independent repressive mechanisms is unclear. Another remaining question is whether translational repression also requires GW182 proteins to interact with both PABP and deadenylases. To address these questions, we characterized the interaction of Drosophila melanogaster GW182 with deadenylases and defined the minimal requirements for a functional GW182 protein. Functional assays in D. melanogaster and human cells indicate that miRNA-mediated translational repression and degradation are mechanistically linked and are triggered through the interactions of GW182 proteins with PABP and deadenylases.     

Xenopus CAF1 requires NOT1-mediated interaction with 4E-T to repress translation in vivo

RNA-regulatory factors bound to 3′ UTRs control translation and stability. Repression often is associated with poly(A) removal. The deadenylase CAF1 is a core component of the CCR4–NOT complex. Our prior studies established that CAF1 represses translation independent of deadenylation. We sought the mechanism of its deadenylation-independent repression in Xenopus oocytes. Our data reveal a chain of interacting proteins that links CAF1 to CCR4–NOT and to Xp54 and 4E-T. Association of CAF1 with NOT1, the major subunit of CCR4–NOT, is required for repression by CAF1 tethered to a reporter mRNA. Affinity purification-mass spectrometry and coimmunoprecipitation revealed that at least five members of the CCR4–NOT complex were recruited by CAF1. The recruitment of these proteins required NOT1, as did the ability of tethered CAF1 to repress translation. In turn, NOT1 was needed to recruit Xp54 and 4E-T. We examined the role of 4E-T in repression using mutations that disrupted either eIF4E-dependent or -independent mechanisms. Expression of a 4E-T truncation that still bound eIF4E alleviated repression by tethered CAF1, NOT1, and Xp54. In contrast, a mutant 4E-T that failed to bind eIF4E did not. Repression of global translation was affected only by the eIF4E-dependent mechanism. Reporters bearing IRES elements revealed that repression via tethered CAF1 and Xp54 is cap- and eIF4E-independent, but requires one or more of eIF4A, eIF4B, and eIF4G. We propose that RNA-binding proteins, and perhaps miRNAs, repress translation through an analogous chain of interactions that begin with the 3′ UTR-bound repressor and end with the noncanonical activity of 4E-T.     

Distinct modes of recruitment of the CCR4–NOT complex by Drosophila and vertebrate Nanos

Nanos proteins repress the expression of target mRNAs by recruiting effector complexes through non‐conserved N‐terminal regions. In vertebrates, Nanos proteins interact with the NOT1 subunit of the CCR4–NOT effector complex through a NOT1 interacting motif (NIM), which is absent in Nanos orthologs from several invertebrate species. Therefore, it has remained unclear whether the Nanos repressive mechanism is conserved and whether it also involves direct interactions with the CCR4–NOT deadenylase complex in invertebrates. Here, we identify an effector domain (NED) that is necessary for the Drosophila melanogaster (Dm) Nanos to repress mRNA targets. The NED recruits the CCR4–NOT complex through multiple and redundant binding sites, including a central region that interacts with the NOT module, which comprises the C‐terminal domains of NOT1–3. The crystal structure of the NED central region bound to the NOT module reveals an unanticipated bipartite binding interface that contacts NOT1 and NOT3 and is distinct from the NIM of vertebrate Nanos. Thus, despite the absence of sequence conservation, the N‐terminal regions of Nanos proteins recruit CCR4–NOT to assemble analogous repressive complexes.     

Coordinated control of lumen size and collective migration in the salivary gland

Drosophila Smaug is a sequence-specific RNA-binding protein that can repress the translation and induce the degradation of target mRNAs in the early Drosophila embryo. Our recent work has uncovered a new mechanism of Smaug-mediated translational repression whereby it interacts with and recruits the Argonaute 1 (Ago1) protein to an mRNA. Argonaute proteins are typically recruited to mRNAs through an associated small RNA, such as a microRNA (miRNA). Surprisingly, we found that Smaug is able to recruit Ago1 to an mRNA in a miRNA-independent manner. This work suggests that other RNA-binding proteins are likely to employ a similar mechanism of miRNA-independent Ago recruitment to control mRNA expression. Our work also adds yet another mechanism to the list that Smaug can use to regulate its targets and here we discuss some of the issues that are raised by Smaug’s multi-functional nature.     

Distinct expression patterns of the subunits of the CCR4-NOT deadenylase complex during neural development

The stability of mRNA influences the dynamics of gene expression. The mammalian CCR4–NOT complex is associated with deadenylase activity, which shortens the mRNA poly(A) tail and thereby contributes to destabilization of mRNAs. The complex consists of at least nine subunits and predominantly forms a 2.0 MDa protein complex in HeLa cells. Accumulating evidence suggests that the CCR4–NOT complex is involved in cell growth and survival; however, the regulatory mechanisms of its biological activity remain obscure. Here, we analyzed the expression levels of the subunits of the CCR4–NOT complex in various mouse tissues and found that they showed distinct expression patterns. CNOT6, 6L, 7, and 10 were expressed nearly ubiquitously, whereas others were expressed in tissue-specific manners, such as those displaying especially high expression in the brain. Furthermore, CNOT2, 3, 6, and 8 were rapidly downregulated during differentiation of neural stem cells. These findings suggest that subunit composition of the CCR4–NOT complex differs among tissues and is altered during neural development, thereby imparting an additional layer of specificity in the control of gene expression.