![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 46, 45041-45044, November 14, 2003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33101
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
98% of all cellular RNA (6). | Starvation, Stationary Phase, and Slow Growth |
|---|
Degradation of ribosomes during starvation can be rapid and quite extensive, amounting to >95% in some studies (11, 13). Interestingly, ribosome degradation appears to be an "all or none" phenomenon in that once breakdown of a ribosome begins, it goes to completion, whereas residual ribosomes remain intact (9, 11, 12). Some evidence suggests that 30 S subunits may disappear more rapidly than 50 S (11), but this is not a uniform finding (9). Although not conclusively established, the pathway of ribosome degradation upon starvation appears to proceed from polysomes to monosomes to ribosome subunits (12). However, the signals controlling this progression are not known.
Most studies of starvation employ a regimen in which growing cells are resuspended in medium or buffer lacking a particular nutrient. However, it has been pointed out that this is unnatural and that cells normally would lose nutrients gradually, allowing for adaptive changes that might affect subsequent events (11). It is not understood to what extent these laboratory regimens for starvation may affect rates or extents of RNA degradation. Nevertheless, it is clear that RNA degradation begins as soon as nutrients become limiting and before growth ceases and cell viability begins to decrease (11). In Salmonella strains, rRNA degradation is taken to extremes. More than 90% of 23 S rRNA and
50% of 16 S rRNA are degraded when cells reach stationary phase (14). The reason for this extensive rRNA degradation is not yet understood.
Starvation and stationary phases have in common a dramatic slowing or complete absence of growth. Consequently, other situations in which growth slows might also affect the stability of rRNA, and such is the case following a nutritional downshift. In a relaxed mutant Escherichia coli strain, a substantial portion of newly synthesized rRNA is degraded during the first 30 min after the downshift (15). Confirmation that growth rate affects stability comes from direct measurement of stable RNA accumulation in cells growing over a wide range of rates. At low growth rates, in particular, the balance between the synthesis of rRNA and ribosomal proteins is disturbed such that excess RNA is produced and ultimately degraded (16, 17). At very low growth rates as much as 70% of the newly synthesized rRNA does not accumulate in ribosomes and apparently is degraded. Moreover, some excess of rRNA over ribosomal protein may be synthesized at all growth rates (16, 17), suggesting that mechanisms must exist for removing the excess RNA because free rRNA does not accumulate (18). Such quality control mechanisms will be discussed in more detail later. Some data suggest that at very slow growth rates a portion of newly made tRNA also may be degraded (16). However, this point has not been examined in detail.
The breakdown of ribosomes and degradation of stable RNA under conditions of starvation, stationary phase, and slow growth would appear to be of major importance to bacterial cells under natural conditions. Enteric bacteria, such as E. coli, live under "feast or famine" conditions, and processes that release the stores of nutrients present in ribosomes would thus represent an important survival strategy. Understanding how this is accomplished and identifying the regulatory signals that underlie these degradative processes will be of considerable interest.
| Agents Affecting RNA Stability |
|---|
That this scenario probably is correct comes from evidence that RNA degradation in many of these situations is because of action of the nonspecific endoribonuclease, RNase I (21, 23, 24). In cells lacking RNase I, the extensive RNA breakdown does not occur (23, 24). Moreover, 3'-mononucleotides are among the degradation products (24), as expected for RNase I action. RNase I is thought to be present largely in the periplasmic space (25), but membrane damage would allow entry of active RNase I into the cell. In addition, the loss of Mg2+, an inhibitor of RNase I, and the more exposed rRNA all combine to result in extensive RNA degradation. An interesting feature of the RNA breakdown induced by Hg2+ is that it occurs only in cells in exponential growth; cells in stationary phase are insensitive (24). It is thought that changes in the cell membrane, known to occur upon entry into stationary phase (25), may affect the entry of RNase I into the cytoplasm.
An additional feature of the Hg2+ ion activation of RNase I also needs to be considered. A portion of cellular RNase I resides in the cytoplasm, most likely in an inactive form (25, 26). This raises the possibility that bacteria may contain a Hg2+ ion-sensitive inhibitor (24, 27), as is known to be present in eukaryotic cells (28). Upon addition of Hg2+, the inhibitor would be inactivated, turning on the intracellular pool of RNase I. Circumstantial evidence for such a bacterial RNase I inhibitor exists (24, 27), and by analogy with eukaryotes, would be an interesting mechanism by which the activity of RNase I could be modulated under appropriate physiological conditions.
| Mutations That Affect RNA Stability |
|---|
One interesting mutant strain was found to rapidly degrade its rRNA and tRNA population upon cessation of RNA synthesis at 42 °C (29). Extensive analysis revealed that the phenotype was due to a gene, srnB, located on the F-plasmid, whose product, a 12-kDa protein, increases membrane permeability (30). As a consequence, RNase I, present in the periplasm, enters the cytoplasm, and as already noted, leads to massive RNA degradation. Under normal conditions, the srnB gene is turned off, and this is influenced by a chromosomal gene, srnA. Mutation of srnA or overexpression of srnB promotes degradation. Unraveling the phenotype of this mutant strain emphasizes how important it is for cells to exclude active RNase I from the cytoplasm. Mechanisms for ensuring this must be highly efficient because overexpression of RNase I by as much as 20100-fold has little effect on cell growth (27). Thus, by sequestering most RNase I in the periplasm and keeping the cytoplasmic pool in an inactive state, cells keep this destructive enzyme under control.
A variety of mutations that affect ribosome assembly or rRNA processing also lead to RNA degradation. As an example, mutations of this type could affect a ribosomal protein. One such mutation, which results in an alteration of ribosomal protein S10 (30), leads to 5060% degradation of 16 S rRNA. Possibly, this change in S10 affects ribosome structure or assembly such that the small subunit RNA is not sufficiently protected against nuclease action. It would be expected that mutations in many other proteins would have similar consequences. Alternatively, because protein S10 also serves as the antitermination factor, NusE, other more indirect effects also may be involved.
Mutations in rRNA itself may affect stability, particularly if these changes impact on ribosome assembly. For example, mutations in the leader sequence of rRNA operons affect synthesis of mature 16 S rRNA and 30 S subunit formation and ultimately 16 S RNA stability (31), despite that fact that the leader region is removed during maturation. Examination of a series of deletions of 23 S rRNA revealed that some of them lead to instability (32). RNAs with certain internal deletions are incorporated into stable RNP1 particles, whereas those in which the RNA termini are missing do not form particles and the RNA is ultimately degraded. These types of studies indicate that cells possess quality control mechanisms for assessing the accuracy of ribosome assembly (see below).
Mutations that directly eliminate RNase activity have proven particularly informative. Those mutations that remove an RNase involved in degradation will lead to stabilization of the RNA substrate. As noted earlier, many examples of this phenomenon related to RNase I removal have been documented. A similar situation was reported recently for cells lacking polynucleotide phosphorylase (PNPase) and RNase R (33). In the absence of these two exoribonucleases, mutant cells accumulate massive amounts of rRNA fragments that normally would be removed if either of the two RNases were present. Removal of other RNases may alter RNA maturation or ribosome assembly and lead to degradation of the affected RNA. Such is the case in a double mutant strain defective in RNase III and rho factor (34). In these cells, newly synthesized rRNA does not accumulate. Likewise, in cells lacking the phosphate-dependent exoribonucleases, PNPase and RNase PH, 50 S ribosomal subunits are dramatically reduced at 31 °C, and 23 S rRNA is degraded (35). The basis for these mutant phenotypes is not yet understood.
| Quality Control of RNA |
|---|
Precursors of stable RNAs that cannot be converted to their mature forms because of the absence of processing exoribonucleases become polyadenylated (38). Because polyadenylation is a signal for RNA degradation in bacteria (3, 5), this observation raised the possibility that polyadenylation of stable RNA precursors might serve a physiological role, i.e. a means to remove defective precursors that are poorly converted to mature species. This idea was tested using a temperature-sensitive mutant of tRNATrp that is more susceptible to denaturation in vivo than the wild type (39), making it a useful model for a defective tRNA. The mutant tRNA accumulates in cells to only 15% of the level of its wild type counterpart because of the fact that it is degraded (37). Most importantly, this degradation occurs primarily at the precursor level and is dependent on polyadenylation. Removal of poly(A) polymerase, the enzyme responsible for polyadenylation, and PNPase, an RNase responsible for at least some of the degradation, results in accumulation of large amounts of precursor of the defective tRNA. These data demonstrate that E. coli has a quality control mechanism for the specific elimination of a defective tRNA and may explain why stable RNAs are initially synthesized in precursor forms.
Evidence for quality control of rRNA comes from studies of a mutant strain lacking the exoribonucleases, PNPase and RNase R (33). As discussed earlier, these cells accumulate large amounts of fragments of 16 and 23 S rRNA that normally would be degraded by the RNases. How the fragments arise in the first place has not yet been ascertained. However, considering that rRNA may always be synthesized in excess of ribosomal protein (16, 17) and that a certain frequency of errors in rRNA synthesis or assembly undoubtedly occur, an ample supply of potential rRNA substrate for generation of the fragments is continually being produced. The rRNA fragments would likely be deleterious to the cell, for example, by binding to the limited supply of ribosomal proteins; in fact, cells in which the rRNA fragments are not removed ultimately lose viability (33). Thus, quality control of stable RNA metabolism would appear to be an important function for cell survival.
| RNases Contributing to Stable RNA Degradation |
|---|
One possibility suggested for the endoribonuclease was an enzyme termed RNase N, which cleaved rRNA, poly(U), and poly(C) to small oligonucleotides and 5'-mononucleotides (44). RNase N was reported to be active on all types of RNAs, to be intracellular, and to be a large protein of 120 kDa (45). Unfortunately, mutant strains lacking this activity were not obtained, so that its actual role in vivo was not established. More recent attempts to identify and isolate this enzyme have proven unsuccessful,2 leaving the status of RNase N unclear.
On the other hand, a role for RNase I in at least some aspects of stable RNA degradation seems likely, particularly in those instances in which damage to the cell membrane occurs, which would allow for entry of active enzyme into the cytoplasm (21, 23, 24). As noted earlier, the fact that certain types of RNA degradation can be eliminated in RNase I mutants and that 3'-phosphorylated products are found, which are generated only by RNase I, supports the involvement of this enzyme. However, it is also clear that at least one additional endoribonuclease will be required to initiate the stable RNA degradation that occurs during starvation or quality control of ribosome assembly.
Our understanding of exoribonuclease involvement is somewhat more advanced. Nucleoside diphosphates are one of the degradation products found as a result of carbon starvation and are not present in mutant strains lacking PNPase (43). PNPase has also been shown to be involved in quality control processes that result in degradation of defective tRNA (37) and in removal of RNA fragments derived from rRNA (33). Based on these observations, PNPase undoubtedly contributes to pathways degrading stable RNAs. Interestingly, PNPase is also a major participant in mRNA degradation (3, 5). A portion of the cell's population of PNPase is found as part of the degradosome, a complex that also contains the endonuclease, RNase E, and an RNA helicase (3, 5). Although the degradosome is thought to be primarily an important component of mRNA decay, fragments of rRNA have been found associated with it, and it can degrade rRNAs in vitro (46). Whether RNase E and/or the degradosome might play a role in stable RNA degradation in vivo remains to be established. It is already known that RNase E participates in maturation of rRNA (47, 48) and tRNA (49, 50).
Evidence suggests that the exoribonuclease, RNase R, participates in some types of stable RNA degradation. As already noted, either RNase R or PNPase are required to degrade the fragments of rRNA that are generated during quality control of rRNA metabolism (33). Likewise, RNase R may participate in the degradation of defective tRNAs.3 Inasmuch as 5'-mononucleotides are generated upon RNA degradation during carbon starvation (43) and RNase II is not involved, RNase R is a strong candidate, particularly as it is known to be able to digest rRNA (33, 51). Whether RNase R acts during starvation for other types of nutrients as well remains to be determined. If these conclusions are correct, it may be that the exoribonuclease components of the stable RNA degradation machinery already have been identified.
| Regulation |
|---|
In the case of tRNA molecules, their resistance to RNase action would derive from extensive secondary and tertiary structure and from their transient associations with aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, elongation factor, and ribosomes. The 3' terminus would be protected against exoribonucleases by aminoacylation. In fact, when aminoacylation is inhibited or during the short periods that a tRNA might be uncharged, it can be acted on by RNase T leading to removal of the 3'-terminal A residue of the CCA sequence (54). Because RNase T works very poorly at CC sequences (55), it would then fall off allowing for repair by tRNA nucleotidyltransferase. This continual removal and repair of the 3'-end of tRNA is the well known tRNA end-turnover process (56).
One prediction of this proposed model for rRNA and tRNA stability during growth is that ribosomes and tRNA should normally be resistant to attack by cellular RNases. Based on incubation of extracts, this prediction is generally borne out. The one exception is when RNase I is present because both ribosomes and tRNA are substrates for this endoribonuclease. This would explain the necessity for maintaining active RNase I in the periplasm, sequestered away from potential substrates, and the massive stable RNA degradation that occurs when RNase I does enter the cytoplasm as a consequence of treatments that damage the cell membrane. Based on these considerations, it is difficult to envision how the cell would use the periplasmic pool of RNase I for any intracellular process. Allowing such a large amount of RNase I to enter the cell would, in effect, be committing suicide. On the other hand, activation of a small intracellular pool of RNase I might be manageable.
| Outstanding Questions and Future Directions |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This minireview will be reprinted in the 2003 Minireview Compendium, which will be available in January, 2004. ![]()
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 305-243-3150; Fax: 305-243-3955; E-mail: mdeutsch{at}med.miami.edu.
1 The abbreviations used are: RNP, ribonucleoprotein; PNPase, polynucleotide phosphorylase. ![]()
2 P. R. Subbarayan and M. P. Deutscher, unpublished observations. ![]()
3 C. Kim, S. Reimers, and M. P. Deutscher, unpublished observations. ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. A. Copela, C. F. Fernandez, R. L. Sherrer, and S. L. Wolin Competition between the Rex1 exonuclease and the La protein affects both Trf4p-mediated RNA quality control and pre-tRNA maturation RNA, June 1, 2008; 14(6): 1214 - 1227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. J. Haiser, F. V. Karginov, G. J. Hannon, and M. A. Elliot Developmentally regulated cleavage of tRNAs in the bacterium Streptomyces coelicolor Nucleic Acids Res., February 11, 2008; 36(3): 732 - 741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Martin and W. Keller RNA-specific ribonucleotidyl transferases RNA, November 1, 2007; 13(11): 1834 - 1849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Joanny, J. L. Derout, D. Brechemier-Baey, V. Labas, J. Vinh, P. Regnier, and E. Hajnsdorf Polyadenylation of a functional mRNA controls gene expression in Escherichia coli Nucleic Acids Res., April 3, 2007; 35(8): 2494 - 2502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. P. Manes, J. K. Gustin, J. Rue, H. M. Mottaz, S. O. Purvine, A. D. Norbeck, M. E. Monroe, J. S. D. Zimmer, T. O. Metz, J. N. Adkins, et al. Targeted Protein Degradation by Salmonella under Phagosome-mimicking Culture Conditions Investigated Using Comparative Peptidomics Mol. Cell. Proteomics, April 1, 2007; 6(4): 717 - 727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. L. Makepeace, L. Rodgers, and A. J. Trees Rate of Elimination of Wolbachia pipientis by Doxycycline In Vitro Increases following Drug Withdrawal Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., March 1, 2006; 50(3): 922 - 927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. P. Deutscher Degradation of RNA in bacteria: comparison of mRNA and stable RNA Nucleic Acids Res., February 1, 2006; 34(2): 659 - 666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. R. Lee and K. Collins Starvation-induced Cleavage of the tRNA Anticodon Loop in Tetrahymena thermophila J. Biol. Chem., December 30, 2005; 280(52): 42744 - 42749. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Chen and M. P. Deutscher Elevation of RNase R in Response to Multiple Stress Conditions J. Biol. Chem., October 14, 2005; 280(41): 34393 - 34396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Kawano, A. A. Reynolds, J. Miranda-Rios, and G. Storz Detection of 5'- and 3'-UTR-derived small RNAs and cis-encoded antisense RNAs in Escherichia coli Nucleic Acids Res., February 17, 2005; 33(3): 1040 - 1050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. E. BAKER and C. CONDON Under the Tucson sun: A meeting in the desert on mRNA decay RNA, November 18, 2004; 10(11): 1680 - 1691. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASBMB Journals | Molecular and Cellular Proteomics |