The binding of nine noncoding regulatory RNAs (sRNAs) to the E. coli Hfq protein was compared using a high-throughput double filter retention assay. Despite the fact that these sRNAs have different lengths, sequences and secondary structures their Hfq binding affinities were surprisingly uniform. The analysis of sRNAs binding to Hfq mutants showed that the proximal face of Hfq, known as the binding site for DsrA RNA, is a universal sRNA binding site. Moreover, all sRNAs bound Hfq with similar association rates limited only by the rate of diffusion, while the rates of dissociation, measured in the dilution experiments, were uniformly slow. Despite that, the data showed that there was a hierarchy of sRNAs in regard to their performance in competition for access to Hfq and in their ability to facilitate the dissociation of other sRNAs from Hfq. The sRNAs also differed in their salt dependence of binding to this protein. Overall, the results suggest that despite the uniform binding of different sRNAs to the same site on Hfq their exchange on this protein is dependent on the identities of the competing sRNAs.

Summary 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.

The binding of seven tRNA anticodons to their complementary codons on Escherichia coli ribosomes was substantially impaired, as compared with the binding of their natural tRNAs, when they were transplanted into tRNA(2)(Ala). An analysis of chimeras composed of tRNA(2)(Ala) and various amounts of either tRNA(3)(Gly) or tRNA(2)(Arg) indicates that the presence of the parental 32-38 nucleotide pair is sufficient to restore ribosome binding of the transplanted anticodons. Furthermore, mutagenesis of tRNA(2)(Ala) showed that its highly conserved A32-U38 pair serves to weaken ribosome affinity. We propose that this negative binding determinant is used to offset the very tight codon-anticodon interaction of tRNA(2)(Ala). This suggests that each tRNA sequence has coevolved with its anticodon to tune ribosome affinity to a value that is the same for all tRNAs.

Mutating the rare A32-U38 nucleotide pair at the top of the anticodon loop of E. coli tRNAGGCAla to a more common U32-A38 pair results in a tRNA that performs almost normally on cognate codons but is unusually efficient in reading near-cognate codons. Pre-steady state kinetic measurements on E. coli ribosomes show that unlike the wild-type tRNAGGCAla, the misreading mutant tRNAGGCAla shows rapid GTP hydrolysis and no detectable proofreading on near-cognate codons. Similarly, tRNAGGCAla mutated to contain C32-G38, a pair which is found in some bacterial tRNAGGCAla sequences, was able to decode only the cognate codons, while tRNAGGCAla containing a more common C32-A38 pair was able to decode all cognate and near-cognate codons tested. We propose that many of the phylogenetically conserved sequence elements present in each tRNA have evolved to suppress translation of near-cognate codons.

No abstract

Bacterial regulatory RNAs require the chaperone protein Hfq to enable their pairing to mRNAs. Recent data showed that there is a hierarchy among sRNAs in the competition for access to Hfq, which could be important for the tuning of sRNA-dependent translation regulation. Here, seven structurally different sRNAs were compared using filter-based competition assays. Moreover, chimeric sRNA constructs were designed to identify structure elements important for competition performance. The data showed that besides the 3'-terminal oligouridine sequences also the 5'-terminal structure elements of sRNAs were essential for their competition performance. When the binding of sRNAs to Hfq mutants was compared, the data showed the important role of the proximal and rim sites of Hfq for the binding of six out of seven sRNAs. However, ChiX sRNA, which was the most efficient competitor, bound Hfq in a unique way using the opposite-distal and proximal-faces of this ring-shaped protein. The data indicated that the simultaneous binding to the opposite faces of Hfq was enabled by separate adenosine-rich and uridine-rich sequences in the long, single-stranded region of ChiX. Overall, the results suggest that the individual structural composition of sRNAs serves to tune their performance to different levels resulting in a hierarchy of sRNAs in the competition for access to the Hfq protein.

The regulation of gene expression by small RNAs in Escherichia coli depends on RNA binding proteins Hfq and ProQ, which bind mostly distinct RNA pools. To understand how ProQ discriminates between RNA substrates, we compared its binding to six different RNA molecules. Full-length ProQ bound all six RNAs similarly, while the isolated N-terminal FinO domain (NTD) of ProQ specifically recognized RNAs with Rho-independent terminators. Analysis of malM 3′-UTR mutants showed that tight RNA binding by the ProQ NTD required a terminator hairpin of at least 2 bp preceding an 3′ oligoU tail of at least four uridine residues. Substitution of an A-rich sequence on the 5′ side of the terminator to uridines strengthened the binding of several ProQ-specific RNAs to the Hfq protein, but not to the ProQ NTD. Substitution of the motif in the malM-3′ and cspE-3′ RNAs also conferred the ability to bind Hfq in E. coli cells, as measured using a three-hybrid assay. In summary, these data suggest that the ProQ NTD specifically recognizes 3′ intrinsic terminators of RNA substrates, and that the discrimination between RNA ligands by E. coli ProQ and Hfq depends both on positive determinants for binding to ProQ and negative determinants against binding to Hfq.

The TAR hairpin of the HIV-1 RNA genome is indispensable for trans-activation of the viral promoter and virus replication. The TAR structure has been studied extensively, but most attention has been directed at the three-nucleotide bulge that constitutes the binding site of the viral Tat protein. In contrast, the conformational properties of the apical loop have remained elusive. We performed biochemical studies and molecular dynamics simulations, which indicate that the TAR loop is structured and stabilized by a cross-loop base pair between residues C 30 and G 34 . Mutational disruption of the crossloop base pair results in reduced Tat response of the LTR promoter, which can be rescued by compensatory mutations that restore the base pair. Thus, Tat-mediated transcriptional activation depends on the structure of the TAR apical loop. The C 30 -G 34 cross-loop base pair classes TAR in a growing family of hairpins with a structured loop that was recently identified in ribosomal RNA, tRNA, and several viral and cellular mRNAs.