Protein-RNA interactions: a structural analysis

A detailed computational analysis of 32 protein–RNA complexes is presented. A number of physical and chemical properties of the intermolecular interfaces are calculated and compared with those observed in protein–double-stranded DNA and protein–single-stranded DNA complexes. The interface properties of the protein–RNA complexes reveal the diverse nature of the binding sites. van der Waals contacts played a more prevalent role than hydrogen bond contacts, and preferential binding to guanine and uracil was observed. The positively charged residue, arginine, and the single aromatic residues, phenylalanine and tyrosine, all played key roles in the RNA binding sites. A comparison between protein–RNA and protein–DNA complexes showed that whilst base and backbone contacts (both hydrogen bonding and van der Waals) were observed with equal frequency in the protein–RNA complexes, backbone contacts were more dominant in the protein–DNA complexes. Although similar modes of secondary structure interactions have been observed in RNA and DNA binding proteins, the current analysis emphasises the differences that exist between the two types of nucleic acid binding protein at the atomic contact level.     

The zipcode-binding protein ZBP1 influences the subcellular location of the Ro 60-kDa autoantigen and the noncoding Y3 RNA

The Ro 60-kDa autoantigen, a ring-shaped RNA-binding protein, traffics between the nucleus and cytoplasm in vertebrate cells. In some vertebrate nuclei, Ro binds misfolded noncoding RNAs and may function in quality control. In the cytoplasm, Ro binds noncoding RNAs called Y RNAs. Y RNA binding blocks a nuclear accumulation signal, retaining Ro in the cytoplasm. Following UV irradiation, this signal becomes accessible, allowing Ro to accumulate in nuclei. To investigate how other cellular components influence the function and subcellular location of Ro, we identified several proteins that copurify with the mouse Ro protein. Here, we report that the zipcode-binding protein ZBP1 influences the subcellular localization of both Ro and the Y3 RNA. Binding of ZBP1 to the Ro/Y3 complex increases after UV irradiation and requires the Y3 RNA. Despite the lack of an identifiable CRM1-dependent export signal, nuclear export of Ro is sensitive to the CRM1 inhibitor leptomycin B. In agreement with a previous report, we find that ZBP1 export is partly dependent on CRM1. Both Ro and Y3 RNA accumulate in nuclei when ZBP1 is depleted. Our data indicate that ZBP1 may function as an adapter to export the Ro/Y3 RNA complex from nuclei.     

Specific contacts between protein S4 and ribosomal RNA are required at multiple stages of ribosome assembly

Assembly of bacterial 30S ribosomal subunits requires structural rearrangements to both its 16S rRNA and ribosomal protein components. Ribosomal protein S4 nucleates 30S assembly and associates rapidly with the 5′ domain of the 16S rRNA. In vitro, transformation of initial S4–rRNA complexes to long-lived, mature complexes involves refolding of 16S helix 18, which forms part of the decoding center. Here we use targeted mutagenesis of Geobacillus stearothermophilus S4 to show that remodeling of S4–rRNA complexes is perturbed by ram alleles associated with reduced translational accuracy. Gel mobility shift assays, SHAPE chemical probing, and in vivo complementation show that the S4 N-terminal extension is required for RNA binding and viability. Alanine substitutions in Y47 and L51 that interact with 16S helix 18 decrease S4 affinity and destabilize the helix 18 pseudoknot. These changes to the protein–RNA interface correlate with no growth (L51A) or cold-sensitive growth, 30S assembly defects, and accumulation of 17S pre-rRNA (Y47A). A third mutation, R200A, over-stabilizes the helix 18 pseudoknot yet results in temperature-sensitive growth, indicating that complex stability is finely tuned by natural selection. Our results show that early S4–RNA interactions guide rRNA folding and impact late steps of 30S assembly.     

Ribonucleoprotein particles containing non-coding Y RNAs, Ro60, La and nucleolin are not required for Y RNA function in DNA replication

Background

Ro ribonucleoprotein particles (Ro RNPs) consist of a non-coding Y RNA bound by Ro60, La and possibly other proteins. The physiological function of Ro RNPs is controversial as divergent functions have been reported for its different constituents. We have recently shown that Y RNAs are essential for the initiation of mammalian chromosomal DNA replication, whereas Ro RNPs are implicated in RNA stability and RNA quality control. Therefore, we investigate here the functional consequences of RNP formation between Ro60, La and nucleolin proteins with hY RNAs for human chromosomal DNA replication.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We first immunoprecipitated Ro60, La and nucleolin together with associated hY RNAs from HeLa cytosolic cell extract, and analysed the protein and RNA compositions of these precipitated RNPs by Western blotting and quantitative RT-PCR. We found that Y RNAs exist in several RNP complexes. One RNP comprises Ro60, La and hY RNA, and a different RNP comprises nucleolin and hY RNA. In addition about 50% of the Y RNAs in the extract are present outside of these two RNPs. Next, we immunodepleted these RNP complexes from the cytosolic extract and tested the ability of the depleted extracts to reconstitute DNA replication in a human cell-free system. We found that depletion of these RNP complexes from the cytosolic extract does not inhibit DNA replication in vitro. Finally, we tested if an excess of recombinant pure Ro or La protein inhibits Y RNA-dependent DNA replication in this cell-free system. We found that Ro60 and La proteins do not inhibit DNA replication in vitro.

Conclusions/Significance

We conclude that RNPs containing hY RNAs and Ro60, La or nucleolin are not required for the function of hY RNAs in chromosomal DNA replication in a human cell-free system, which can be mediated by Y RNAs outside of these RNPs. These data suggest that Y RNAs can support different cellular functions depending on associated proteins.     

Analysis of the molecular composition of Ro ribonucleoprotein complexes. Identification of novel Y RNA-binding proteins.

Human Ro ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) are composed of one of the four small Y RNAs and at least two proteins, Ro60 and La; association of additional proteins including the Ro52 protein and calreticulin has been suggested, but clear-cut evidence is still lacking. Partial purification of Ro RNPs from HeLa S100 extracts allowed characterization of several subpopulations of Ro RNPs with estimated molecular masses of between 150 and 550 kDa. The majority of these complexes contained Ro60 and La, whereas only a small proportion of Ro52 appeared to be associated with Ro RNPs. To identify novel Y RNA-associated proteins in vitro, binding of cytoplasmic proteins to biotinylated Y RNAs was investigated. In these reconstitution experiments, several proteins with estimated molecular masses of 80, 68, 65, 62, 60 and 53 kDa, the latter two being immunologically distinct from Ro60 and Ro52, respectively, appeared to bind specifically to Y RNAs. Furthermore, autoantibodies to these proteins were found in sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. The proteins bound preferentially to Y1 and Y3 RNA but, with the exception of the 53-kDa protein, only weakly to Y4 RNA and not at all to Y5 RNA. Coprecipitation of the 80, 68, 65, and 53-kDa proteins by antibodies to Ro60 and La was observed, suggesting that at least a proportion of the novel proteins may reside on the same particles as La and/or Ro60. Finally, the binding sites for these proteins on Y1 RNA were clearly distinct from the Ro60-binding site involving a portion of the large central loop 2, which was found to be indispensable for binding of the 80, 68, 65 and 53-kDa proteins, as well as the stem 3-loop 3 and stem 2-loop 1 regions. Interestingly, truncation of the La-binding site resulted in decreased binding of the novel proteins (but not of Ro60), indicating La to be required for efficient association. Taken together, these results suggest the existence of further subpopulations of Ro RNPs or Y RNPs, consistent with the heterogeneous characteristics observed for these particles in the biochemical fractionation experiments.     

Probing binding hot spots at protein–RNA recognition sites

We use evolutionary conservation derived from structure alignment of polypeptide sequences along with structural and physicochemical attributes of protein–RNA interfaces to probe the binding hot spots at protein–RNA recognition sites. We find that the degree of conservation varies across the RNA binding proteins; some evolve rapidly compared to others. Additionally, irrespective of the structural class of the complexes, residues at the RNA binding sites are evolutionary better conserved than those at the solvent exposed surfaces. For recognitions involving duplex RNA, residues interacting with the major groove are better conserved than those interacting with the minor groove. We identify multi-interface residues participating simultaneously in protein–protein and protein–RNA interfaces in complexes where more than one polypeptide is involved in RNA recognition, and show that they are better conserved compared to any other RNA binding residues. We find that the residues at water preservation site are better conserved than those at hydrated or at dehydrated sites. Finally, we develop a Random Forests model using structural and physicochemical attributes for predicting binding hot spots. The model accurately predicts 80% of the instances of experimental ΔΔG values in a particular class, and provides a stepping-stone towards the engineering of protein–RNA recognition sites with desired affinity.     

Mutual interactions between subunits of the human RNase MRP ribonucleoprotein complex

The eukaryotic ribonuclease for mitochondrial RNA processing (RNase MRP) is mainly located in the nucleoli and belongs to the small nucleolar ribonucleoprotein (snoRNP) particles. RNase MRP is involved in the processing of pre-rRNA and the generation of RNA primers for mitochondrial DNA replication. A closely related snoRNP, which shares protein subunits with RNase MRP and contains a structurally related RNA subunit, is the pre-tRNA processing factor RNase P. Up to now, 10 protein subunits of these complexes have been described, designated hPop1, hPop4, hPop5, Rpp14, Rpp20, Rpp21, Rpp25, Rpp30, Rpp38 and Rpp40. To get more insight into the assembly of the human RNase MRP complex we studied protein–protein and protein–RNA interactions by means of GST pull-down experiments. A total of 19 direct protein–protein and six direct protein–RNA interactions were observed. The analysis of mutant RNase MRP RNAs showed that distinct regions are involved in the direct interaction with protein subunits. The results provide insight into the way the protein and RNA subunits assemble into a ribonucleoprotein particle. Based upon these data a new model for the architecture of the human RNase MRP complex was generated.     

RNA chaperone activity of protein components of human Ro RNPs

Ro ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes are composed of one molecule of a small noncoding cytoplasmic RNA, termed Y RNA, and the two proteins Ro60 and La. Additional proteins such as hnRNP I, hnRNP K, or nucleolin have recently been shown to be associated with subpopulations of Y RNAs. Ro RNPs appear to be localized in the cytoplasm of all higher eukaryotic cells but their functions have remained elusive. To shed light on possible functions of Ro RNPs, we tested protein components of these complexes for RNA chaperone properties employing two in vitro chaperone assays and additionally an in vivo chaperone assay. In these assays the splicing activity of a group I intron is measured. La showed pronounced RNA chaperone activity in the cis-splicing assay in vitro and also in vivo, whereas no activity was seen in the trans-splicing assay in vitro. Both hnRNP I and hnRNP K exhibited strong chaperone activity in the two in vitro assays, however, proved to be cytotoxic in the in vivo assay. No chaperone activity was observed for Ro60 in vitro and a moderate activity was detected in vivo. In vitro chaperone activities of La and hnRNP I were completely inhibited upon binding of Y RNA. Taken together, these data suggest that the Ro RNP components La, hnRNP K, and hnRNP I possess RNA chaperone activity, while Ro60-Y RNA complexes might function as transporters, bringing other Y RNA binding proteins to their specific targets.     

A new hydrogen-bonding potential for the design of protein-RNA interactions predicts specific contacts and discriminates decoys

RNA-binding proteins play many essential roles in the regulation of gene expression in the cell. Despite the significant increase in the number of structures for RNA–protein complexes in the last few years, the molecular basis of specificity remains unclear even for the best-studied protein families. We have developed a distance and orientation-dependent hydrogen-bonding potential based on the statistical analysis of hydrogen-bonding geometries that are observed in high-resolution crystal structures of protein–DNA and protein–RNA complexes. We observe very strong geometrical preferences that reflect significant energetic constraints on the relative placement of hydrogen-bonding atom pairs at protein–nucleic acid interfaces. A scoring function based on the hydrogen-bonding potential discriminates native protein–RNA structures from incorrectly docked decoys with remarkable predictive power. By incorporating the new hydrogen-bonding potential into a physical model of protein–RNA interfaces with full atom representation, we were able to recover native amino acids at protein–RNA interfaces.     

Dissecting protein-RNA recognition sites

We analyze the protein–RNA interfaces in 81 transient binary complexes taken from the Protein Data Bank. Those with tRNA or duplex RNA are larger than with single-stranded RNA, and comparable in size to protein–DNA interfaces. The protein side bears a strong positive electrostatic potential and resembles protein–DNA interfaces in its amino acid composition. On the RNA side, the phosphate contributes less, and the sugar much more, to the interaction than in protein–DNA complexes. On average, protein–RNA interfaces contain 20 hydrogen bonds, 7 that involve the phosphates, 5 the sugar 2′OH, and 6 the bases, and 32 water molecules. The average H-bond density per unit buried surface area is less with tRNA or single-stranded RNA than with duplex RNA. The atomic packing is also less compact in interfaces with tRNA. On the protein side, the main chain NH and Arg/Lys side chains account for nearly half of all H-bonds to RNA; the main chain CO and side chain acceptor groups, for a quarter. The 2′OH is a major player in protein–RNA recognition, and shape complementarity an important determinant, whereas electrostatics and direct base–protein interactions play a lesser part than in protein–DNA recognition.     

Hydration of protein–RNA recognition sites

We investigate the role of water molecules in 89 protein–RNA complexes taken from the Protein Data Bank. Those with tRNA and single-stranded RNA are less hydrated than with duplex or ribosomal proteins. Protein–RNA interfaces are hydrated less than protein–DNA interfaces, but more than protein–protein interfaces. Majority of the waters at protein–RNA interfaces makes multiple H-bonds; however, a fraction do not make any. Those making H-bonds have preferences for the polar groups of RNA than its partner protein. The spatial distribution of waters makes interfaces with ribosomal proteins and single-stranded RNA relatively ‘dry’ than interfaces with tRNA and duplex RNA. In contrast to protein–DNA interfaces, mainly due to the presence of the 2′OH, the ribose in protein–RNA interfaces is hydrated more than the phosphate or the bases. The minor groove in protein–RNA interfaces is hydrated more than the major groove, while in protein–DNA interfaces it is reverse. The strands make the highest number of water-mediated H-bonds per unit interface area followed by the helices and the non-regular structures. The preserved waters at protein–RNA interfaces make higher number of H-bonds than the other waters. Preserved waters contribute toward the affinity in protein–RNA recognition and should be carefully treated while engineering protein–RNA interfaces.     

RACK1 is a ribosome scaffold protein for β-actin mRNA/ZBP1 complex

In neurons, specific mRNAs are transported in a translationally repressed manner along dendrites or axons by transport ribonucleic-protein complexes called RNA granules. ZBP1 is one RNA binding protein present in transport RNPs, where it transports and represses the translation of cotransported mRNAs, including β-actin mRNA. The release of β-actin mRNA from ZBP1 and its subsequent translation depends on the phosphorylation of ZBP1 by Src kinase, but little is known about how this process is regulated. Here we demonstrate that the ribosomal-associated protein RACK1, another substrate of Src, binds the β-actin mRNA/ZBP1 complex on ribosomes and contributes to the release of β-actin mRNA from ZBP1 and to its translation. We identify the Src binding and phosphorylation site Y246 on RACK1 as the critical site for the binding to the β-actin mRNA/ZBP1 complex. Based on these results we propose RACK1 as a ribosomal scaffold protein for specific mRNA-RBP complexes to tightly regulate the translation of specific mRNAs.     

Short, synthetic and selectively 13C-labeled RNA sequences for the NMR structure determination of protein–RNA complexes

We report an optimized synthesis of all canonical 2′-O-TOM protected ribonucleoside phosphoramidites and solid supports containing [¹³C₅]-labeled ribose moieties, their sequence-specific introduction into very short RNA sequences and their use for the structure determination of two protein–RNA complexes. These specifically labeled sequences facilitate RNA resonance assignments and are essential to assign a high number of sugar–sugar and intermolecular NOEs, which ultimately improve the precision and accuracy of the resulting structures. This labeling strategy is particularly useful for the study of protein–RNA complexes with single-stranded RNA in solution, which is rapidly an increasingly relevant research area in biology.     

Signature amino acids enable the archaeal L7Ae box C/D RNP core protein to recognize and bind the K-loop RNA motif

The archaeal L7Ae and eukaryotic 15.5kD protein homologs are members of the L7Ae/15.5kD protein family that characteristically recognize K-turn motifs found in both archaeal and eukaryotic RNAs. In Archaea, the L7Ae protein uniquely binds the K-loop motif found in box C/D and H/ACA sRNAs, whereas the eukaryotic 15.5kD homolog is unable to recognize this variant K-turn RNA. Comparative sequence and structural analyses, coupled with amino acid replacement experiments, have demonstrated that five amino acids enable the archaeal L7Ae core protein to recognize and bind the K-loop motif. These signature residues are highly conserved in the archaeal L7Ae and eukaryotic 15.5kD homologs, but differ between the two domains of life. Interestingly, loss of K-loop binding by archaeal L7Ae does not disrupt C′/D′ RNP formation or RNA-guided nucleotide modification. L7Ae is still incorporated into the C′/D′ RNP despite its inability to bind the K-loop, thus indicating the importance of protein–protein interactions for RNP assembly and function. Finally, these five signature amino acids are distinct for each of the L7Ae/L30 family members, suggesting an evolutionary continuum of these RNA-binding proteins for recognition of the various K-turn motifs contained in their cognate RNAs.     

Cavities in protein–DNA and protein–RNA interfaces

An analysis of cavities present in protein–DNA and protein–RNA complexes is presented. In terms of the number of cavities and their total volume, the interfaces formed in these complexes are akin to those in transient protein–protein heterocomplexes. With homodimeric proteins protein–DNA interfaces may contain cavities involving both the protein subunits and DNA, and these are more than twice as large as cavities involving a single protein subunit and DNA. A parameter, cavity index, measuring the degree of surface complementarity, indicates that the packing of atoms in protein–protein/DNA/RNA is very similar, but it is about two times less efficient in the permanent interfaces formed between subunits in homodimers. As within the tertiary structure and protein–protein interfaces, protein–DNA interfaces have a higher inclination to be lined by β-sheet residues; from the DNA side, base atoms, in particular those in minor grooves, have a higher tendency to be located in cavities. The larger cavities tend to be less spherical and solvated. A small fraction of water molecules are found to mediate hydrogen-bond interactions with both the components, suggesting their primary role is to fill in the void left due to the local non-complementary nature of the surface patches.     

Visualization and characterization of RNA–protein interactions in living cells

RNA–protein interactions are the structural and functional basis of significant numbers of RNA molecules. RNA–protein interaction assays though, still mainly depend on biochemical tests in vitro. Here, we establish a convenient and reliable RNA fluorescent three-hybrid (rF3H) method to detect/interrogate the interactions between RNAs and proteins in cells. A GFP tagged highly specific RNA trap is constructed to anchor the RNA of interest to an artificial or natural subcellular structure, and RNA–protein interactions can be detected and visualized by the enrichment of RNA binding proteins (RBPs) at these structures. Different RNA trapping systems are developed and detection of RNA–protein complexes at multiple subcellular structures are assayed. With this new toolset, interactions between proteins and mRNA or noncoding RNAs are characterized, including the interaction between a long noncoding RNA and an epigenetic modulator. Our approach provides a flexible and reliable method for the characterization of RNA–protein interactions in living cells.     

Processing of Drosophila endo-siRNAs depends on a specific Loquacious isoform

Drosophila melanogaster expresses three classes of small RNAs, which are classified according to their mechanisms of biogenesis. MicroRNAs are ∼22–23 nucleotides (nt), ubiquitously expressed small RNAs that are sequentially processed from hairpin-like precursors by Drosha/Pasha and Dcr-1/Loquacious complexes. MicroRNAs usually associate with AGO1 and regulate the expression of protein-coding genes. Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) of ∼24–28 nt associate with Piwi-family proteins and can arise from single-stranded precursors. piRNAs function in transposon silencing and are mainly restricted to gonadal tissues. Endo-siRNAs are found in both germline and somatic tissues. These ∼21-nt RNAs are produced by a distinct Dicer, Dcr-2, and do not depend on Drosha/Pasha complexes. They predominantly bind to AGO2 and target both mobile elements and protein-coding genes. Surprisingly, a subset of endo-siRNAs strongly depend for their production on the dsRNA-binding protein Loquacious (Loqs), thought generally to be a partner for Dcr-1 and a cofactor for miRNA biogenesis. Endo-siRNA production depends on a specific Loqs isoform, Loqs-PD, which is distinct from the one, Loqs-PB, required for the production of microRNAs. Paralleling their roles in the biogenesis of distinct small RNA classes, Loqs-PD and Loqs-PB bind to different Dicer proteins, with Dcr-1/Loqs-PB complexes and Dcr-2/Loqs-PD complexes driving microRNA and endo-siRNA biogenesis, respectively.