ADAR2 A-->I editing: site selectivity and editing efficiency are separate events

ADAR enzymes, adenosine deaminases that act on RNA, form a family of RNA editing enzymes that convert adenosine to inosine within RNA that is completely or largely double-stranded. Site-selective A→I editing has been detected at specific sites within a few structured pre-mRNAs of metazoans. We have analyzed the editing selectivity of ADAR enzymes and have chosen to study the naturally edited R/G site in the pre-mRNA of the glutamate receptor subunit B (GluR-B). A comparison of editing by ADAR1 and ADAR2 revealed differences in the specificity of editing. Our results show that ADAR2 selectively edits the R/G site, while ADAR1 edits more promiscuously at several other adenosines in the double-stranded stem. To further understand the mechanism of selective ADAR2 editing we have investigated the importance of internal loops in the RNA substrate. We have found that the immediate structure surrounding the editing site is important. A purine opposite to the editing site has a negative effect on both selectivity and efficiency of editing. More distant internal loops in the substrate were found to have minor effects on site selectivity, while efficiency of editing was found to be influenced. Finally, changes in the RNA structure that affected editing did not alter the binding abilities of ADAR2. Overall these findings suggest that binding and catalysis are independent events.     

Regulation of glutamate receptor B pre-mRNA splicing by RNA editing

RNA-editing enzymes of the ADAR family convert adenosines to inosines in double-stranded RNA substrates. Frequently, editing sites are defined by base-pairing of the editing site with a complementary intronic region. The glutamate receptor subunit B (GluR-B) pre-mRNA harbors two such exonic editing sites termed Q/R and R/G. Data from ADAR knockout mice and in vitro editing assays suggest an intimate connection between editing and splicing of GluR-B pre-mRNA.

By comparing the events at the Q/R and R/G sites, we can show that editing can both stimulate and repress splicing efficiency. The edited nucleotide, but not ADAR binding itself, is sufficient to exert this effect. The presence of an edited nucleotide at the R/G site reduces splicing efficiency of the adjacent intron facilitating alternative splicing events occurring downstream of the R/G site.

Lack of editing inhibits splicing at the Q/R site. Editing of both the Q/R nucleotide and an intronic editing hotspot are required to allow efficient splicing. Inefficient intron removal may ensure that only properly edited mRNAs become spliced and exported to the cytoplasm.

     

The neurofibromatosis type I messenger RNA undergoes base-modification RNA editing.

A functional mooring sequence, known to be required for apolipoprotein B (apoB) mRNA editing, exists in the mRNA encoding the neurofibromatosis type I (NF1) tumor suppressor. Editing of NF1 mRNA modifies cytidine in an arginine codon (CGA) at nucleotide 2914 to a uridine (UGA), creating an in frame translation stop codon. NF1 editing occurs in normal tissue but was several-fold higher in tumors. In vitro editing and transfection assays demonstrated that apoB and NF1 RNA editing will take place in both neural tumor and hepatoma cells. Unlike apoB, NF1 editing did not demonstrate dependence on rate-limiting quantities of APOBEC-1 (the apoB editing catalytic subunit) suggesting that different trans-acting factors may be involved in the two editing processes.     

Trypanosomatids: mitochondrial RNA editing

RNA editing is a genetic regulatory process that was recently discovered in the mitochondrion of trypanosomatid parasites. It alters mRNA by the addition and deletion of uridines. Much remains to be learned about this process, including identification and characterization of the macromolecules that catalyze and regulate this process and the mechanism of editing.     

The RNA editing process in Trypanosoma brucei

Twelve mitochondrial mRNAs are edited in Trypanosoma brucei, nine extensively, by addition and removal of uridines. The accumulation of the edited RNAs is regulated during the life cycle. Hundreds of different gRNAs, encoded three or four per minicircle, specify the editing and minicircle content accounts for variation in editing among species and in mutants. The current understanding of the process of gRNA utilization, the editing mechanism and the editing machinery is discussed.     

RNA editing in trypanosomes

Guide RNAs are encoded in maxicircle and minicircle DNA of trypanosome mitochondria. They play a pivotal role in RNA editing, a process during which the nucleotide sequence of mitochondrial RNAs is altered by U-insertion and deletion. Guide RNAs vary in length from 35 to 78 nucleotides, which correlates with the variation in length of the three functionally important regions of which they are composed: (i) a 4–14 nucleotide anchor sequence embedded in the 5 region, which is complementary to a target sequence on the pre-edited RNA downstream of an editing domain, (ii) a middle part containing the editing information, which ranges from guiding the insertion of just one U into one site to that of the insertion of 32 Us into 10 sites, and (iii) a 5–24 nucleotide 3 terminal oligo [U] extension. Moreover, a variable uridylation site creates gRNAs containing a varying segment of editing information for the same domain. Comparison of different guide RNAs demonstrates that, besides the U-tail, they have no obvious common primary and secondary sequence motifs, each particular sequence being unique. The occurrence in vivo and the synthesis in vitro of chimeric molecules, in which a guide RNA is covalently linked through its 3 U-tail to an editing site of a pre-edited RNA, suggests that RNA editing occurs by consecutive transesterification reactions and is evidence that the guide RNAs not only provide the genetic information, but also the Us themselves.Abbreviations gRNA guide RNA     

The evolution of chloroplast RNA editing

RNA editing alters the nucleotide sequence of an RNA molecule so that it deviates from the sequence of its DNA template. Different RNA-editing systems are found in the major eukaryotic lineages, and these systems are thought to have evolved independently. In this study, we provide a detailed analysis of data on C-to-U editing sites in land plant chloroplasts and propose a model for the evolution of RNA editing in land plants. First, our data suggest that the limited RNA-editing system of seed plants and the much more extensive systems found in hornworts and ferns are of monophyletic origin. Further, although some eukaryotic editing systems appear to have evolved to regulate gene expression, or at least are now involved in gene regulation, there is no evidence that RNA editing plays a role in gene regulation in land plant chloroplasts. Instead, our results suggest that land plant chloroplast C-to-U RNA editing originated as a mechanism to generate variation at the RNA level, which could complement variation at the DNA level. Under this model, many of the original sites, particularly in seed plants, have been subsequently lost due to mutation at the DNA level, and the function of extant sites is merely to conserve certain codons. This is the first comprehensive model for the evolution of the chloroplast RNA-editing system of land plants and may also be applicable to the evolution of RNA editing in plant mitochondria.     

RNA helicase dynamics in pre-mRNA splicing

The DExH-box NTPase/helicase Prp22p plays two important roles in pre-mRNA splicing. It promotes the second transesterification reaction and then catalyzes the ATP-dependent release of mature mRNA from the spliceosome. Evidence that helicase activity is important emerged from the analysis of Prp22p motif III (SAT) mutations that uncouple the NTPase and helicase activities. We find that S635A and T637A hydrolyse ATP, but are defective in unwinding duplex RNA and releasing mRNA from the spliceosome. The S635A mutation is lethal in vivo at 相似文献   

RNA editing by ADARs is important for normal behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans

Here we take advantage of the well-characterized and simple nervous system of Caenorhabditis elegans to further our understanding of the functions of RNA editing. We describe the two C.elegans ADAR genes, adr-1 and adr-2, and characterize strains containing homozygous deletions in each, or both, of these genes. We find that adr-1 is expressed in most, if not all, cells of the C.elegans nervous system and also in the developing vulva. Using chemotaxis assays, we show that both ADARs are important for normal behavior. Biochemical, molecular and phenotypic analyses indicate that ADR-1 and ADR-2 have distinct roles in C.elegans, but sometimes act together.     

Application of genome editing in farm animals: cattle

Milk and meat from cattle and buffaloes contribute 45% of the global animal protein supply, followed by chickens (31%), and pigs (20%). In 2016, the global cattle population of 1.0 billion head produced 6.5 billion tons of cows’ milk, and 66 million tons of beef. In the past century, cattle breeding programs have greatly increased the yield per animal with a resultant decrease in the emissions intensity per unit of milk or beef, but this has not been true in all regions. Genome editing research in cattle to date has focused on disease resistance (e.g. tuberculosis), production (e.g. myostatin knockout; production of all-male offspring), elimination of allergens (e.g. beta-lactoglobulin knockout) and welfare (e.g. polled or hornlessness) traits. Modeling has revealed how the use of genome editing to introduce beneficial alleles into cattle breeds could maintain or even accelerate the rate of genetic gain accomplished by conventional breeding programs, and is a superior approach to the lengthy process of introgressing those same alleles from distant breeds. Genome editing could be used to precisely introduce useful alleles (e.g. heat tolerance, disease resistance) and haplotypes into native locally-adapted cattle breeds, thereby helping to improve their productivity. As with earlier genetic engineering approaches, whether breeders will be able to employ genome editing in cattle genetic improvement programs will very much depend upon global decisions around the regulatory framework and governance of genome editing for food animals.

     

The process of RNA editing in plant mitochondria

RNA editing changes more than 400 cytidines to uridines in the mRNAs of mitochondria in flowering plants. In other plants such as ferns and mosses, RNA editing reactions changing C to U and U to C are observed at almost equal frequencies. Development of transfection systems with isolated mitochondria and of in vitro systems with extracts from mitochondria has considerably improved our understanding of the recognition of specific editing sites in the last few years. These assays have also yielded information about the biochemical parameters, but the enzymes involved have not yet been identified. Here we summarize our present understanding of the process of RNA editing in flowering plant mitochondria.