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.     

Evolution of the RpoS Regulon: Origin of RpoS and the Conservation of RpoS-Dependent Regulation in Bacteria

The RpoS sigma factor in proteobacteria regulates genes in stationary phase and in response to stress. Although of conserved function, the RpoS regulon may have different gene composition across species due to high genomic diversity and to known environmental conditions that select for RpoS mutants. In this study, the distribution of RpoS homologs in prokaryotes and the differential dependence of regulon members on RpoS for expression in two γ-proteobacteria (Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were examined. Using a maximum-likelihood phylogeny and reciprocal best hits analysis, we show that the RpoS sigma factor is conserved within γ-, β-, and δ-proteobacteria. Annotated RpoS of Borrelia and the enteric RpoS are postulated to have separate evolutionary origins. To determine the conservation of RpoS-dependent gene expression across species, reciprocal best hits analysis was used to identify orthologs of the E. coli RpoS regulon in the RpoS regulon of P. aeruginosa. Of the 186 RpoS-dependent genes of E. coli, 50 proteins have an ortholog within the P. aeruginosa genome. Twelve genes of the 50 orthologs are RpoS-dependent in both species, and at least four genes are regulated by RpoS in other γ-proteobacteria. Despite RpoS conservation in γ-, β-, and δ-proteobacteria, RpoS regulon composition is subject to modification between species. Environmental selection for RpoS mutants likely contributes to the evolutionary divergence and specialization of the RpoS regulon within different bacterial genomes.     

Regulation of RpoS by a novel small RNA: the characterization of RprA

Translational regulation of the stationary phase sigma factor RpoS is mediated by the formation of a double-stranded RNA stem-loop structure in the upstream region of the rpoS messenger RNA, occluding the translation initiation site. The interaction of the rpoS mRNA with a small RNA, DsrA, disrupts the double-strand pairing and allows high levels of translation initiation. We screened a multicopy library of Escherichia coli DNA fragments for novel activators of RpoS translation when DsrA is absent. Clones carrying rprA (RpoS regulator RNA) increased the translation of RpoS. The rprA gene encodes a 106 nucleotide regulatory RNA. As with DsrA, RprA is predicted to form three stem-loops and is highly conserved in Salmonella and Klebsiella species. Thus, at least two small RNAs, DsrA and RprA, participate in the positive regulation of RpoS translation. Unlike DsrA, RprA does not have an extensive region of complementarity to the RpoS leader, leaving its mechanism of action unclear. RprA is non-essential. Mutations in the gene interfere with the induction of RpoS after osmotic shock when DsrA is absent, demonstrating a physiological role for RprA. The existence of two very different small RNA regulators of RpoS translation suggests that such additional regulatory RNAs are likely to exist, both for regulation of RpoS and for regulation of other important cellular components.     

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.