Hindawi Publishing Corporation
International Journal of Microbiology
Volume 2009, Article ID 525491, 15 pages
KelsiL.Andersonand PaulM. Dunman
Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-6495, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to Paul M. Dunman, email@example.com
Received 22 August 2008; Accepted 14 November 2008
Recommended by Arsenio M. Fialho
The regulation of mRNA turnover is a recently appreciated phenomenon by which bacteria modulate gene expression. This review
outlines the mechanisms by which three major classes of bacterial trans-acting factors, ribonucleases (RNases), RNA binding
proteins, and small noncoding RNAs (sRNA), regulate the transcript stability and protein production of target genes. Because the
mechanisms of RNA decay and maturation are best characterized in Escherichia coli, the majority of this review will focus on how
these factors modulate mRNA stability in this organism. However, we also address the effects of RNases, RNA binding proteins,
sRNAs on mRNA turnover, and gene expression in Bacillus subtilis, which has served as a model for studying RNA processing
in gram-positive organisms. We conclude by discussing emerging studies on the role modulating mRNA stability has on gene
expression in the important human pathogen Staphylococcus aureus.
Copyright © 2009 K. L. Anderson and P. M. Dunman. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
RNA steady-state levels are a function of both transcript
synthesis and decay. Nonetheless, studies of prokaryotic
mRNA regulation have historically interpreted changes in
mRNA titers on the basis of transcript synthesis alone. It
has been recently recognized that this is likely an oversim-
plification; the modulation of mRNA decay also profoundly
affects mRNA titers and, consequently, protein production.
A growing body of literature suggests that the regulation of
many, if not all, bacterial species.
As a precursor to reviewing the factors that regulate
bacterial mRNA turnover, we provide examples of how
alterations in transcript degradation mediate bacterial adap-
tation to stress conditions, growth phase transition, and
pathogenesis. This is designed to provide the reader with
an appreciation of the magnitude of biological responses
that are regulated at the level of mRNA turnover and
introduce three classes of molecules that govern these
changes: ribonucleases (RNases), RNA binding proteins, and
noncoding RNAs (sRNA).
Bacteria have developed highly orchestrated responses
to environmental stress which, when elicited, alter the
cellular physiology in a manner that enhances survival.
Recent reports indicate that regulated changes in mRNA
turnover play a vital role in bacterial stress adaptation
protein CspA, which resolves low temperature mediated
mRNA secondary structures that would otherwise impede
translation, reaches more than 10% of the total cellular
protein concentration during cold shock conditions [2–
4]. Upon temperature downshift, increased cspA mRNA
stability, as opposed to changes in transcript synthesis,
primarily accounts for the increase in CspA production [5–
7]. This change in cspA mRNA stability reflects alterations
in the transcript’s vulnerability to digestion by the endori-
bonuclease RNase E . As described below, regulating a
target transcript’s accessibility to ribonucleases is a common
means of modulating mRNA turnover. Stress-responsive
changes in mRNA turnover are not restricted to E. coli. The
Vibrio angustum response to nutrient deprivation and the
Klebsiella pneumoniae nitrogen fixation system are mediated
by alterations in mRNA degradation [1, 9, 10]. Similarly,
2 International Journal of Microbiology
stringent, cold shock, and heat shock conditions alter
Staphylococcus aureus mRNA turnover .
In addition to stress adaptation, the modulation of
mRNA turnover may play a role in regulating bacterial
cell growth phase processes. Indeed, the transition from
log to stationary phase growth stabilizes many transcripts
within the human pathogens S. aureus and Streptococcus
pyogenes (Anderson & Dunman, unpublished; ). While
it remains to be seen what, if any, biological significance
growth phase-induced alterations in mRNA turnover might
have on these organisms, the effects of growth dependent
changes in transcript stability are well characterized for
other bacterial species. For instance, stability of the E. coli
outer membrane protein A (ompA) transcript is inversely
correlated with growth rate [13–15]. As described further
below, ribonuclease E, the RNA binding protein Hfq, and a
noncoding RNA molecule MicA/SraD coordinately regulate
ompA mRNA stability which, in turn, influences OmpA
The modulation of mRNA turnover also mediates bacte-
rial virulence factor production. Although several examples
exist, perhaps the best includes the effector of the E. coli
carbon storage regulatory system, CsrA. CsrA binds target
transcripts and alters the mRNA stability and, consequently,
translationofproteinsinvolved in carbonutilization, biofilm
formation, and motility [16–18]. Interestingly, the effects
of CsrA binding are transcript specific. For instance, bind-
ing stabilizes the flhDC transcript and leads to increased
production of proteins involved in flagellum biosynthesis.
This increase in protein production may result from either
activation of translation or protection of the message from
ribonuclease attack . Conversely, CsrA binding to the
pgaABCD leader sequence results in inhibition of ribosome
binding, transcript destabilization, and, consequently, loss
of polysaccharide adhesion (PGA) production which is
required for biofilm formation and plays a role in patho-
genesis . CsrA homologues influence virulence factor
production in Salmonella typhimurium, Erwinia carotovara
ssp. carotovora, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [19–21]. Recent
reports have also linked S. aureus’ regulation of virulence
factor mRNA turnover to corresponding changes in viru-
lence factor protein production. For instance, a product of
the pleiotropic regulatory locus, sarA, appears to stabilize the
mRNA and repress production of two S. aureus virulence
factors: protein A (spa) and collagen adhesion protein (cna)
. Likewise, Romby et al. have shown that a sRNA-like
molecule, RNAIII, and endoribonuclease III modulate the
mRNA turnover of a subset of the organism’s virulence
factors [23, 24]. Although less characterized, production of
other S. aureus virulence factors, fibronectin binding protein
B (fnbB) and coagulase (coa), is also mediated by mRNA
Admittedly, studies designed to assess the effects of
mRNA turnover on protein production are in their infancy.
Nonetheless, the aforementioned examples establish that
regulated transcript degradation, in part, modulates many
biological processes. Although the molecular components
that govern the stabilization/destabilization of individual
transcripts differ, pioneering work from the Deutscher,
Condon, Romeo, and Gottesman laboratories indicates that
they can be broadly categorized as ribonucleases (and aux-
iliary factors), RNA binding proteins, and small noncoding
RNAs. In this review, we will overview these three major
classes of trans-acting RNA turnover regulatory molecules
in the prototypic gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial
species, E. coli and Bacillus subtilis, respectively. Finally, we
describe recent S. aureus RNA turnover studies and provide
an emerging view of how these factors may contribute to the
organism’s ability to coordinately regulate virulence factors
and cause disease.
2.Control ofEscherichia coli Messenger
2.1. Ribonucleases. Ribonucleases (RNases) are a class of
enzymes that are responsible for RNA degradation and
processing. These enzymes are classified as endo- and 3?→
5?exoribonucleases (Table 1). In addition, an RNase with
unique 5?→ 3?exoribonucleolytic activity has recently been
described in B. subtilis [26, 27]. At least two ribonucleases
are components of a holoenzyme complex, the RNA degra-
dosome, which catalyzes bulk E. coli mRNA degradation.
In addition to the RNA degradosome, E. coli produces
other endo- and exoribonucleases, many of which are largely
considered to be involved in rRNA and tRNA maturation
rather than bulk mRNA decay. A subset of these enzymes
contribute to the decay of individual mRNA species, whereas
others have not yet, or have only circumstantially, been
linked to mRNA degradation. It is likely that as each of these
ribonucleases becomes better characterized, many will be
found to contribute to mRNA decay. In the pages that follow,
we describe components of the E. coli RNA degradosome
and other RNases that mediate processing/degradation of
targeted bacterial mRNA species. Moreover, we discuss
and other bacterial RNases is modulated as a means of
regulating mRNA levels during cellular proliferation and
2.1.1. The Degradosome. The E. coli degradosome is com-
posed of at least four proteins: ribonuclease E (RNase E),
polynucleotide phosphorylase (PNPase), RhlB RNA helicase,
a model for mRNA decay has been proposed in which the
degradosome loads and scans an mRNA molecule for an
RNase E cleavage site, A/U-rich sequences usually proceeded
by a stem-loop structure in 5?monophosphorylated tran-
scripts, in the 5?
→ 3?direction [29, 30]. Once this site
is encountered, RNase E catalyzes an initial endoribonucle-
olytic event and then continues to cleave the transcript at
additional downstream target sites. Fragmentation products
are subsequently degraded by the 3?
clease, PNPase . RhlB RNA helicase-mediated removal
of mRNA secondary structures is thought to facilitate
PNPase degradation , whereas enolase may participate
in bulk degradation of metabolic enzyme transcripts [28,
International Journal of Microbiology3
Table 1: E. coli, B. subtilis, and S. aureus ribonucleases.
Endoribonucleases ExoribonucleasesToxin-mediated ribonucleases
E. coli B. subtilis
B. subtilisE. coli
S. aureus S. aureus
E. coli B. subtilis
rnlA S. aureus
∗Gene symbols of putative RNases in S. aureus.
†S. aureus N315 loci of genes homologous to B. subtilis RNases.
Figure 1: Degradosome-mediated RNA decay. The E. coli degrado-
some is composed of at least four subunits: RNase E, PNPase, RhlB
helicase, and enolase. The initial RNA cleavage event is catalyzed
by the 5?→ 3?endoribonuclease RNase E (large cut-out circle)
which loads onto a transcript and scans for downstream cleavage
sites: A/U rich regions proceeded by stem-loop structures in 5?
monophosphorylated transcripts. The 3?
PNPase (small cut-out circle) catalyzes cleavage of RNase E-
generated decay intermediates. Otherwise inhibitory secondary
structures to PNPase-mediated degradation are resolved by RhlB
helicase (cross). The role of enolase (hexagon) in mRNA decay is
not well characterized.
Components of the degradosome are localized to the
cell membrane and are organized into helical filaments that
coil around the length of the cell [34–36]. This organization
may provide a means for the apparatus to interact with
other cell membrane-associated macromolecular complexes
[35, 36]. Indeed, the degradosome appears to be a dynamic
organelle; during cold shock conditions, the complex’s RNA
CsdA . The cold shock protein CspE also interacts
with degradosome-associated ribonucleases . Further,
the heat shock proteins GroEL and DnaK have been shown
to be associated with the degradosome . It remains to
be seen whether these auxiliary factors affect global mRNA
decay. Rather, it seems likely that they may redirect the
efficiency with which the degradosome catalyzes turnover of
individual or subsets of mRNA species. This would provide
an efficient means of modulating protein production in a
manner that allows cells to quickly adapt to otherwise delete-
rious conditions. It is very likely that as the field matures,
additional degradosome auxiliary factors will be identified
and characterized. As a first step toward understanding
how the holoenzyme’s function can be altered in response
to endogenous and exogenous cues, one must first appre-
ciate the components of the “native” RNA degradosome
RNase E [rne; 118 kilodalton (kDa)] is an essential
endoribonuclease that organizes other components of the E.
coli degradosome and initiates bulk RNA decay . The
C-terminal region of RNase E acts, in part, as a scaffold
for assembly of the other major degradosome components
[39–41]. The protein’s internal domain is required for cell
membrane association, whereas its N-terminus is required
for cell viability and RNA cleavage [31, 41, 42]. In addition
to its role in mediating bulk mRNA degradation, RNase E is
4 International Journal of Microbiology
involved in the maturation of both ribosomal and transfer
RNA molecules [43–46].
Because RNase E is responsible for many RNA decay
and maturation processes, it stands to reason that it must
be tightly regulated. Indeed, RNase E autoregulates itself by
controlling the cleavage of its cognate mRNA [47, 48]. When
RNase E activity is low or when substrate transcripts reach
increased RNase E production . As substrate molecules
aredepleted, rne mRNAdegradation andproteinproduction
return to basal levels . As discussed further below,
trans-acting factors such as noncoding RNAs, RNA binding
proteins, and the translation apparatus frequently indirectly
affect RNase E function by altering a target transcript’s
accessibility to the enzyme.
During normal laboratory growth conditions, polynu-
cleotide phosphorylase (PNPase; pnp; 80kDa) functions as
a nonessential, 3?→ 5?exoribonuclease component of the
degradosome . Although other cellular exoribonucleases
can rescue a loss of PNPase activity, they do so with
reduced efficiency; pnp-mutants produce transcripts with
mildly increased steady-state levels . As opposed to
normal growth conditions, PNPase is essential for survival
at low temperatures (<20◦C). Following cold acclimation,
the enzyme is required for degradation of low temperature
stabilized transcripts whose accumulation would other-
wise be lethal . The temperature mediated change
in cellular PNPase dependence suggests that ribonuclease
functions/importance changes in response to internal and/or
external stimuli. As the field matures, it is likely that
this phenomenon will be observed for additional RNases.
In addition to its role in degradosome-mediated RNA
degradation and cold shock adaptation, PNPase may also
participate in 3?polyadenylation of mRNA [50, 53, 54].
Although not ribonucleases, RhlB helicase and eno-
lase are integral members of the E. coli degradosome.
RhlB (rhlB; 47kDa) is a DEAD box RNA helicase that
unwinds RNA secondary structures via energy generated by
ATP hydrolysis . Presumably, RhlB facilitates PNPase-
mediated digestion of RNase E-generated fragments .
The glycolytic enzyme enolase (eno; 46kDa) is an abundant
E. coli protein; ∼10% of all cellular enolase is associated
as part of the degradosome has not been elucidated, some
studies have indicated a possible role for enolase in bulk
mRNA turnover of some metabolic enzymes [28, 33].
2.1.2. Endoribonucleases. RNase III (rnc; 26kDa) is an
endoribonuclease that cleaves double-stranded RNA .
Although the enzyme is best known for its role in rRNA mat-
uration, RNase III also regulates the mRNA decay of a subset
of RNA species, including pnp, which contain a 5?stem
loop structure. Other noted RNase III substrates include
the intergenic regions of rplL-rpoB , rpsO-pnp [58, 59],
dicA-dicF-dicB , and metY-nusA  transcripts. In
addition to its role in degrading target RNA molecules,
RNase III has been shown to bind the 5?untranslated
region (UTR) of bacteriophage λ cIII transcripts. Binding
alters the mRNA conformation and alleviates an otherwise
translation-inhibitory structure [62, 63]. Thus, RNase III
has at least two post-transcriptional regulatory mechanisms
which are facilitated by its RNA binding and/or RNA
RNase P is a holoenzyme consisting of a ribozyme
(rnpB; 377 nucleotides) and at least one protein subunit,
RnpA (rnpA; 14kDa) . The major function of the
ribonucleoprotein complex has been considered to be cat-
alyzing cleavage of the 5?leader sequence of precursor
tRNAs [65, 66]. It is well established that the ribozyme is
the catalytic unit, whereas the protein component aids in
substrate recognition [65, 67]. Interestingly, although both
the RNase P ribozyme and protein subunits are essential in
tRNA processing . RNase P has also been implicated in
the cleavage of intergenic regions of polycistronic mRNA
molecules and the degradation of guide RNAs [68, 69].
Thus, RNase P may facilitate both tRNA maturation and
degradation of subsets of mRNA species during distinct
conditions. Indeed, RNase P activity is regulated in response
to nutrient limitation [70, 71].
Two ribonuclease H genes exist within E. coli. Although
they have similar functions, they share limited sequence
similarity. RNase HI (rnhA; 18kDa) was the first to be
identified. The enzyme degrades the RNA component of
beendetermined forRNaseHI.However,potential functions
havebeenproposed including theremovalOkazakifragment
primers as well as primers at sites other than the vegetative
origin of replication [72, 73]. The second E. coli ribonuclease
H gene, RNase HII (rnhB; 23kDa), also degrades the RNA
component of RNA/DNA hybrid molecules [74, 75]. Like
RNase HI, the enzyme’s biological function is unknown.
RNase G (rng/cafA; 55kDa) was initially termed CafA
because it was first determined to be involved in cell division
and the formation of cytoplasmic axial filaments . CafA
shares N-terminal amino acid homology with RNase E,
thus, it was not surprising when the protein was found to
sequences and was subsequently renamed RNase G. Despite
responsible for bulk E. coli mRNA decay . Nonetheless,
RNase G appears to affect the mRNA turnover of at least two
transcripts: fermentative aldehyde dehydrogenase (adhE)
and enolase (eno) [76–78].
RNase BN/Z (elaC; 33kDa) is a nonessential endori-
bonuclease in E. coli. In other organisms, the enzyme
cleaves CCA-less tRNA molecules endonucleolytically [79,
80]. However, all E. coli tRNAs have chromosomally encoded
CCAs and thus are not cleaved by RNase Z. Nonetheless,
RNase Z is able to mature tRNAs in the absence of the
other 4 tRNA maturation exoribonucleases (see below) .
Furthermore, the steady-state levels of over 150 transcripts
increased in the absence of RNase Z including rpsT, cspE,
htpG, glpQ, and adhE .
RNase LS (rnlA; 40kDa) was initially identified as a
regulator of bacteriophage T4 late gene silencing, which is
International Journal of Microbiology5
Table 2: E. coli 3?→ 5?exoribonucleases.
tRNA processing mechanism
Final processing of 3?terminus
Removal of +4, +3, and +2 residues after the 3?CCA
Removal of +4, +3, and +1 residues after the 3?CCA
RNase LS also moderately affects the turnover of several E.
coli transcripts and profoundly affects the stability of bla and
an accumulated fragment of 23S rRNA . It has been
suggested that RNase LS exists in a multiprotein 1000kDa
complex which indicates that the activity of the enzyme is
dependent on interactions with other proteins .
RNase I (rna; 29kDa) is a nonessential and nonspecific
endoribonuclease that resides in the E. coli periplasmic
space which provides a unique mechanism by which the
enzyme’s activity can be tightly regulated. During nonstress
conditions, the cytoplasmic concentration of RNase I is pre-
arrest, RNase I leaks from the periplasmic space into the
cytoplasm where it rapidly degrades rRNA and tRNA .
Variants of RNase I (RNase M and RNase I∗) are present in
E. coli and have been shown to degrade mRNA [86, 87].
Expression of chromosomally encoded toxin-antitoxin
systems enables cells to rapidly shut down cellular processes
in response to changes in growth conditions [88, 89].
and a stable toxin. Under normal growth conditions, the
antitoxin silences the toxin. However, in stress-inducing
antitoxin is rapidly degraded resulting in derepression of
the toxin. Studies on the targets of the toxin components
of these systems have indicated some function as ribonu-
cleases (Table 1; [88, 89]). There are two classes of toxin-
mediated ribonucleases in E. coli: (1) toxins that cleave
mRNA molecules present in ribosomes which include RelE
 and YoeB  and (2) toxins that cleave mRNAs
ChpBK . Both classes of toxin-mediated ribonucleases
inhibit translation and, consequently, protein production by
degrading target transcripts.
2.1.3. Exoribonucleases. Seven E. coli exoribonucleases have
been identified (Table 2). Of these PNPase, RNase II, RNase
R, and Oligo-RNase are established to affect mRNA degrada-
tion and, consequently, protein production. The remaining
exoribonucleases RNase PH [96, 97], RNase D , and
RNase T . are believed to function primarily as tRNA
maturation enzymes; none have been identified to modulate
mRNA turnover. However, it is important to recognize that
formal studies designed to globally measure what effect,
if any, these enzymes have on mRNA turnover have not
been described. Thus, one cannot rule out the possibility
that they may also affect mRNA degradation, and until
proven otherwise, it is possible that virtually any defined
ribonuclease may play a role in the mRNA turnover of
individual or subsets of bacterial transcripts.
RNase R (rnr; 95kDa) is a processive 3?
exoribonuclease that cleaves structured polyadenylated
[poly(A)]mRNA, tRNA, and rRNAs in vitro [100, 101].
Thus, it is thought that the in vivo role of RNase R
is to degrade highly structured RNA molecules, such as
which are associated with stable stem-loops . RNase
R can degrade these secondary structures in the absence
of an RNA helicase provided there is a 3?single-stranded
region, such as a poly(A) tail, available for the enzyme to
bind and initiate decay . RNase R activity increases in
response to several stress conditions including entry into
stationary phase, starvation, and cold shock [102, 103].
During these conditions, RNase R has been proposed to
catalyze degradation of structured RNA molecules when
protein production needs to be stalled .
RNase II (rnb; 72kDa) is a processive 3?→ 5?exori-
bonuclease that accounts for ∼90% of all exoribonucleolytic
activity of poly(A) RNA [51, 104]. The enzyme processes the
3?tail of immature tRNA . It also regulates the stability
of mRNA by removing poly(A) tails which makes them less
accessible to the degradosome [51, 106].
Oligo-RNase (orn; 38kDa) is an essential, processive
cleaves short oligoribonucleotides. The enzyme copurifies
with PNPase suggesting that it may catalyze digestion of
mediated mRNA decay [107, 108].
5?exoribonuclease which, as the name implies,
2.2. RNA Binding Proteins. Another major class of mRNA
turnover regulatory molecules includes RNA binding pro-
teins. As shown in Figure 2, their binding frequently sta-
bilizes or destabilizes mRNA species by affecting the tran-
scripts susceptibility to ribonuclease digestion. Examples of
two well-characterized RNA binding proteins are discussed
The Host factor I protein (Hfq; 11kDa) is an RNA
binding protein that affects mRNA stability by facilitating
base pairing between sRNAs (described below) and their
mRNA targets. This, in turn, can increase or decrease
a transcript’s accessibility to ribonucleases [109–112]. For
example, in rapidly growing cells, outer membrane protein
6 International Journal of Microbiology
RNA binding protein
DestabilizedmRNA Stabilized mRNA
Figure 2: RNA binding proteins affect mRNA stability. RNA bind-
ing proteins affect gene expression by stabilizing or destabilizing
mRNA targets by altering their susceptibility to RNases. RNA
binding proteins may inhibit protein production by destabilizing
mRNA molecules which results in RNase-mediated degradation.
Alternatively, RNases may be inhibited by RNA binding proteins
which stabilizes the mRNA resulting in increased protein produc-
A (ompA) mRNA is stabilized by elements in its 5?UTR
[113, 114]. However, upon entry into stationary phase, the
noncoding sRNA, MicA/SraD, is induced and binds ompA
mRNA [13, 14]. Hfq binds both ompA and the sRNA
in vitro and presumably facilitates base pairing between
these RNAs in vivo [13, 14]. Pairing inhibits ribosome
binding and promotes RNase E-dependent degradation [13,
14]. Additional examples of Hfq-mediated sRNA:mRNA
pairing are discussed below (see Section 2.3). In addition
to catalyzing RNA degradation, Hfq has been shown to
stabilize DsrA, RyhB, and OxyS transcripts, all of which are
well-studied sRNAs. In these cases, Hfq binding overlaps
with RNase E cleavage sites thereby reducing the transcripts’
accessibility to ribonuclease attack . In addition to
its role in facilitating sRNA:mRNA pairing, Hfq stabilizes
transcripts by enhancing the PAP I-mediated elongation of
poly(A) tails in vivo and in vitro .
The carbon storage regulator protein (CsrA; 7kDa)
is a negative regulator of postexponentially induced
metabolic pathways; a positive regulator of glycolysis, acetate
metabolism, and motility; and a repressor of biofilm forma-
tion in E. coli [16–18]. The protein’s regulatory effects are,
in part, due to its ability to modulate the mRNA turnover
of target transcripts. This has been best characterized for
the polycistronic glycogen biosynthesis transcript, glgCAP.
During exponential phase growth when nutrient sources are
readily available, CsrA binds to the 5?UTR of glgCAP mRNA
which, in turn, inhibits ribosome loading and promotes
transcript degradation [18, 117, 118]. During stationary
phase growth, glycogen biosynthesis is upregulated, in part,
because CsrA no longer efficiently binds glgCAP transcripts.
Rather, the protein becomes predominantly sequestered into
a ribonucleoprotein complex comprised of 18 CsrA subunits
and one small RNA, CsrB .
Although not as extensively characterized, CsrA also
seems to regulate the transcript stability and, consequently,
protein production of several virulence factors [16, 17].
However, the effects of CsrA binding appear to be tran-
script specific. For instance, CsrA decreases the half-life of
pgaABCD which prevents PGA (poly-beta-1,6-N-acetyl-d-
glucosamine) production; a cell surface polysaccharide that
promotes biofilm formation . Thus, CsrA’s mechanism
of action may be similar to its role in glgCAP regulation;
binding may inhibit translation initiation and increase
ribonuclease degradation . Conversely, CsrA stabilizes
the flagellar transcriptional activator genes flhDC, presum-
ably by binding to the transcript . Thus, CsrA promotes
motility either by acting as an activator of translation or by
protecting the transcript from ribonuclease digestion .
As described above, Hfq and CsrA are two well-
characterized E. coli RNA binding proteins that influence
protein production by altering mRNA stability. In addition,
the histone-like protein H-NS regulates mRNA stability by
binding to target transcripts . Other H-NS like proteins
regulate mRNA stability as well . Further studies will
likely identify additional RNA binding proteins that regulate
gene expression by altering mRNA stability.
2.3. Small RNAs. The third class of regulatory molecules
80 sRNAs have been identified in E. coli; many of these are
components of stress responsive regulons [122, 123]. sRNAs
typically do not have a discernable open reading frame
encoded in their sequence, thus the RNA molecule rather
than a protein product is thought to affect gene expression.
As described by the Aiba laboratory, the regulatory effects
of sRNAs are mediated largely by their binding to mRNA
and affecting translation which, in turn, mediates turnover
of target transcripts, as shown in Figure 3 . Other
sRNAs such as the ribozyme rnpB, tmRNA, and 4.5S regulate
gene expression through entirely different processes. rnpB
processes tRNA molecules and thus affects translation ,
4.5S is part of the signal recognition particle ribonucleopro-
tein complex that targets membrane and secreted proteins
for translocation during translation , and tmRNA is
a quality control regulator that rescues stalled ribosomes
and facilitates the elimination of proteins whose translation
has been prematurely terminated . In the following
section, we will overview sRNAs that function as antisense
regulatory molecules to influence transcript stability. For
more detailed information regarding the identification and
other mechanisms of sRNA regulation, we refer the reader to
several excellent reviews [122, 123, 127, 128].
One of the best-studied sRNAs is DsrA which affects the
mRNA turnover of at least two target transcripts: hns and
rpoS . As in the case of the RNA binding protein CsrA,
DsrA catalyzes digestion of certain transcripts but stabilizes
International Journal of Microbiology7
Figure 3: Small RNAs base pair with mRNA targets to affect mRNA
stability. Antisense base pairing between sRNAs and their target
transcripts mediates mRNA stability by altering the susceptibility
of the message to RNases and the translation machinery. Pairing
may destabilize mRNA by facilitating RNase-mediated degradation
resulting in translation inhibition. In contrast, pairing may stabilize
mRNA by inhibiting RNase-mediated degradation resulting in
translation of the message and increased protein production.
others. For example, under normal growth conditions,
the stationary phase RNA polymerase sigma factor, rpoS,
transcript is destabilized by the formation of a stable hairpin
in its 5?UTR. Doing so sequesters the ribosome binding
. However, during nonoptimal growth conditions, Hfq
catalyzes antisense base pairing between DsrA and rpoS
enabling efficient translation which stabilizes the message
and results in increased protein production [131, 132]. In
contrast, DsrA base pairing with the histone-like protein
transcript hns inhibits ribosome entry which destabilizes the
message resulting in decreased H-NS abundance .
The ferric uptake regulator, Fur, has classically been
considered a repressor protein but also indirectly activates
gene expression in response to iron availability via an sRNA.
When Fe2+is abundant, Fur becomes activated and inhibits
expression of genes involved in various iron acquisition
systems . Other genes including those involved in
iron storage and intracellular usage are activated by Fur
during these same conditions. Mass´ e and Gottesman have
shown that Fur-mediated gene activation is indirect and
involves the sRNA RyhB . In that study, it was found
that Fur represses RyhB synthesis when iron is abundant
which, in turn, induces the expression of proteins that bind
intracellular iron. However, when iron availability is limited,
Fur becomes inactivated resulting in RyhB upregulation and
repression of target genes. RyhB represses gene expression by
binding to target transcripts in an Hfq-dependent manner
which facilitates RNase E-mediated mRNA degradation
(oxidative stress; ), OmrA/B (osmotic shock; ),
RprA (cell surface stress; ), MicA/SraD (stationary
phase; [13, 14]), MicF (oxidative/antibiotic stress; ),
SgrS (glucose phosphate accumulation; ), and Spot 42
(glucose limitation; ).
We do not intend to give the impression that the
three classes of molecules discussed above, RNases, RNA
binding proteins, and sRNAs, are the sole mediators of
bacterial mRNA turnover. In fact, Deborah Steege published
an excellent review highlighting the identification, charac-
terization, and cellular role of polyadenylation in bacteria
. Poly(A) polymerase I (pcnB; 53kDa) is responsible
for adding 10–40nt poly(A) tails to bacterial RNA species
[142, 143]. Although polyadenylated transcripts account
for only 0.01–2% of the total cellular mRNA content,
polyadenylation plays a significant role in regulating the
stability of target transcripts [142, 143]. Indeed, E. coli
3?→ 5?exoribonucleases RNaseIIandPNPase.Itisbelieved
that poly(A) tails provide a single-stranded extension region
upon which these RNases can bind and initiate decay when
otherwise inhibitory secondary structures are present [142,
144]. For example, increased polyadenylation due to overex-
pression of pcnB in E. coli destabilizes rpoS, trxA, lpp, ompA,
and total RNA . Although polyadenylation promotes
bacterial mRNA decay, the presence of these elements may
also recruit poly(A)-binding proteins, such as CspE, which
when bound to poly(A) tails interfere with RNase activity
. Nonetheless, RNase E can remove poly(A) tails by
poly(A) binding proteins . As mentioned above, RNase
the rpoS poly(A) tail making the transcript less susceptible to
PNPase-mediated decay .
Collectively, ribonucleases, RNA binding proteins, and
noncoding RNA molecules dynamically regulate E. coli gene
expression by affecting mRNA stability. As will become
evident (discussed below), these factors likely modulate
mRNA stability in the model gram-positive organism B.
subtilis and the human pathogen S. aureus as well.
3.Control ofBacillus subtilis Messenger
While studies of the mechanism(s) of E. coli mRNA degra-
dation are still in their infancy, even less is known about the
factors that affect gram-positive bacterial mRNA turnover,
even within the model organism B. subtilis. Here, we will
overview the similarities and differences between B. subtilis
and E. coli mRNA turnover factors.
E. coli and B. subtilis share several ribonuclease sequence
homologues, whereas others are unique to each organism
(Table 1). Particularly striking is the absence of a B. subtilis
sequence homolog to the major component of the E. coli
RNA degradosome RNase E, which, in turn, has delayed
characterization of a B. subtilis RNA degradosome. The lack
of an RNase E homolog is not specific to B. subtilis, rather it
is a common characteristic among gram-positive organisms
with low G-C content. Nonetheless, two ribonucleases,
RNase J1 (rnjA; 61kDa) and J2 (rnjB; 57kDa), have recently
been reported to perform as functional homologues to E. coli
8International Journal of Microbiology
been shown to cleave the B. subtilis thrS mRNA leader with
behavior expected of an RNase E functional homolog .
In addition to affecting transcript specific mRNA decay, the
role of J1/J2 in global mRNA turnover has recently been
described . Interestingly, RNase J1 also functions as a
5?→ 3?exoribonuclease in the maturation of 16S rRNA
and in regulating the mRNA stability of the B. thuringiensis
stationary phase insecticidal protein transcript cryIIIA and
the trp leader sequence [26, 27].
In addition to its role in tRNA processing, the B.
subtilis ribonuclease, RNase P, has been shown to affect
the mRNA stability of the adenine efflux pump transcript,
pbuE . Other ribonucleases that affect the organism’s
mRNA turnover are currently being sought after. Table 1
lists the ensemble of putative B. subtilis ribonucleases that
have been identified to date. It is highly likely that as their
characterization intensifies, a subset of these ribonucleases
will be determined to affect mRNA stability.
As with the B. subtilis RNA degradation machinery,
the organism’s RNA binding proteins have not been fully
characterized. Studies have revealed that certain RNA bind-
ing protein functions are conserved across species, whereas
others are not. For instance, as in the case of E. coli, B. subtilis
CsrA may affect mRNA degradation . The protein
binds to the hag (flagellin) transcript, inhibits translation
initiation, and prevents cell motility. However, it remains to
be seen whether CsrA binding effects hag mRNA stability
. Conversely, despite its importance in mediating
for B. subtilis sRNA:mRNA duplex formation .
Likewise, the biological role(s) and mechanism of action
of B. subtilis sRNAs have not been as extensively char-
acterized as their E. coli counterparts. Nonetheless, recent
work suggests that B. subtilis sRNAs are produced and do
have regulatory functions. Silvaggi et al. found a set of
sRNAs that are induced in response to sporulation .
Further, Heidrich et al. have shown that the B. subtilis
catabolism [150, 152]. As these and other investigators
unravel the details of B. subtilis sRNA production, effects,
and mechanism of action, it will be exciting to determine the
As described above, several studies are in progress to
characterize mechanisms that alter mRNA turnover in B.
subtilis. However, additional studies in this organism are
certainly required to further characterize the components
described here and identify additional factors that influence
this mechanism of gene regulation. Although B. subtilis is
considered the model gram-positive organism for studying
cellular processes, it is in fact quite different from other
gram-positive bacteria. For example, the organism is motile
and undergoes sporulation, whereas other gram-positive
bacteria, such as S. aureus, do not. Likewise, RNA turnover
mechanisms may not be conserved across all gram-positive
have recently been described and may play a dynamic role in
virulence and adaptation to stress responses in the human
pathogen S. aureus.
4.Control ofStaphylococcus aureus
Messenger RNA Degradation
As discussed above, studies from E. coli and B. subtilis have
provided insight into the processes that regulate bacterial
RNA stability. Until recently, this mechanism of gene regula-
tion was largely uncharacterized within the human pathogen
S. aureus. In this final section, we discuss emerging efforts to
characterize factors that contribute to RNA turnover in this
Recent studies have revealed that S. aureus mRNA
turnover is a highly dynamic process. Indeed, during log
phase growth the half-life of ∼85% of S. aureus transcripts
is ≤2.5 minutes, yet many transcripts are stabilized as cells
transition to stationary phase growth; the half-life of only
∼48% of mRNA species is ≤2.5 minutes (Anderson and
Dunman, unpublished; [11, 22]). While the biological sig-
unknown, a similar phenotype has been observed following
induction of heat shock, cold shock, the stringent response,
acid shock, and alkaline shock responses (Anderson and
Dunman, unpublished; ). Collectively, these results
indicate that altering mRNA stability may provide a dynamic
means by which S. aureus cells can rapidly adapt to adverse
growth conditions without the need to induce de novo
Although the ribonucleases that contribute to S. aureus
global mRNA turnover have not yet been characterized, a
transcript specific ribonuclease, RNase III, has been shown
to affect the mRNA decay of virulence factors [23, 24].
During the postexponential growth phase, the noncoding-
like RNA molecule, RNAIII, base pairs with spa (protein
A). This, in turn, facilitates RNase III-mediated spa mRNA
decay [23, 24]. One additional RNase, RNase P, has been
previously studied in S. aureus [64, 153]. As described for
E. coli, this ribonuclease is presumably responsible for tRNA
maturation but may contribute to mRNA decay as well.
BLAST analyses suggest that S. aureus harbors at least 14
B. subtilis RNase homologues (Table 1; [92, 154]). At least
one of these, PNPase (pnpA; 77kDa), affects global mRNA
turnover. As in the case for E. coli, disruption of the S.
aureus pnpA gene results in a mild global change in mRNA
stability (Figure 4) suggesting that other ribonucleases can
S. aureus pnpA-mutant cells demonstrate appreciable cold
sensitivity when transferred to 10◦C suggesting that mRNA
turnover may play a significant role in the organism’s ability
of S. aureus mRNA turnover, coupled to the importance
of PNPase in cold shock adaptation, it is likely that the
modulation of mRNA turnover is an important regulatory
system for this organism to adapt to otherwise deleterious
Nonetheless, an Hfqhomolog hasbeen identified butin con-
trast to E. coli, S. aureus Hfq is not required for sRNA:mRNA
duplex formation, stress adaptation, virulence, or metabolic
acid binding protein staphylococcal accessory regulator,
International Journal of Microbiology9
0.0010.010.11 10 100100010000
0.0010.010.11 10 100 1000 10000
Figure 4: Degradation profiles of S. aureus wild type and pnpA-mutant cells. RNA signal intensity values for each GeneChip transcript are
plotted at 0 minute (T0; X-axis) and 5 minutes (T5; Y-axis) posttranscriptional arrest. Red represents transcripts considered “present” in
both T0 and T5 samples (Affymetrix algorithms). Yellow represents transcripts that are “absent” in both samples. Blue represents transcripts
that are present in one sample but absent in the second. Grey dashed lines indicate calculated lower limit of sensitivity for each sample.
Results show that following 5 minutes of transcriptional arrest, 51.1% (1287 transcripts) of mRNA species are completely degraded within
wild type S. aureus cells. Conversely, 17.6% (444 transcripts) of mRNA species were undetectable within isogenic pnpA-mutant cells at 5
minutes posttranscriptional arrest, suggesting that PNPase plays a role in global S. aureus mRNA turnover.
SarA, may affect mRNA turnover. That study showed that a
product of the sarA locus influences the stability of several
transcripts including two surface expressed virulence factor
transcripts, spa and cna (collagen adhesion protein) .
SarA may directly or indirectly affect mRNA stability by
binding target transcripts or regulating another factor which
binds mRNA, respectively.
As mentioned above, S. aureus produces a well-
characterized noncoding-like RNA regulator, RNAIII, which
modulates virulence factor transcript stability [23, 24].
The regulatory effects of RNAIII are modulated by the
RNA molecule rather than the protein product of this
locus . Thus, there is precedence for the existence of
additional S. aureus sRNA-like regulators. Indeed, Pichon
and Felden identified twelve sRNA-like molecules that are
specific manner. Seven of these are encoded on S. aureus
pathogenicity islands and are presumably involved in the
regulation of virulence factors. Of these, one was shown, in
vitro, to base pair with the 3?UTR of an ABC transporter
mRNA . Although not formally evaluated, it is likely
that duplex formation affects mRNA stability. Moreover,
we recently found that S. aureus produces 139 small stable
(half-lives ≥30 minutes following transcriptional arrest)
RNA molecules [11, 22]. Based on their size, absence of an
transcriptional unit, it is likely that they constitute additional
sRNA-like molecules. Nearly all of these small stable RNAs
are differentially expressed in response to growth phase and
stress conditions. Thus, we predict that S. aureus small RNAs
metabolism, and adaptation to otherwise deleterious growth
Global and transcript specific studies indicate that the
regulation of gene expression by altering mRNA stability is a
dynamic and previously unappreciated means of controlling
gene expression in S. aureus. Certainly, further studies are
needed to determine the function of each ribonuclease,
identify the regulatory cues that mediate alterations to
mRNA stability, and establish the biological significance of
altering mRNA stability in this important human pathogen.
5. Concluding Remarks
The modulation of mRNA turnover is a recently appreciated
regulatory phenomenon that spans most, if not all, bac-
terial species. Presumably, altering the mRNA degradation
properties of individual or subsets of mRNA species allows
the cell to quickly adapt to endogenous or exogenous
cues without having to expend the energy required for
de novo transcript synthesis. A survey of the three factors
described here, ribonucleases, RNA binding proteins, and
sRNAs among three genetically divergent organisms, sug-
gests that mechanisms of modulating mRNA turnover are
generally conserved across bacteria. As the field matures,
it is likely that additional conserved RNA stabilization and
destabilization processes will be identified. Despite these
similarities, it is also obvious that species specific differences
do occur. Perhaps this is most evident by the absence
of a sequence homolog to the central component of the
E. coli RNA degradosome, RNase E, among gram-positive
10International Journal of Microbiology
bacteria. Clearly, further studies are required to better
characterize already identified members of each organism’s
mRNA turnover machinery and to expand identification of
previously unrecognized components.
The authors would like to thank Lisa J. Kuechenmeister
for technical assistance in figure preparation and Patrick
D. Olson for his dedication to characterizing S. aureus
ribonucleases. The second author is supported by University
of Nebraska Medical Center development funds, American
Heart Association award 0535037N, and NIH/NIAID award
Heart Association predoctoral fellowship 0715547Z.
 K. Takayama and S. Kjelleberg, “The role of RNA stability
during bacterial stress responses and starvation,” Environ-
mental Microbiology, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 355–365, 2000.
 J. Goldstein, N. S. Pollitt, and M. Inouye, “Major cold
shock protein of Escherichia coli,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 87,
no. 1, pp. 283–287, 1990.
 W. Jiang, Y. Hou, and M. Inouye, “CspA, the major cold-
shock protein of Escherichia coli, is an RNA chaperone,”
Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 272, no. 1, pp. 196–202,
 P. G. Jones, M. Mitta, Y. Kim, W. Jiang, and M. Inouye,
“Cold shock induces a major ribosomal-associated protein
that unwinds double-stranded RNA in Escherichia coli,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 76–80, 1996.
 L. Fang, W. Jiang, W. Bae, and M. Inouye, “Promoter-
independent cold-shock induction of cspA and its derepres-
vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 355–364, 1997.
 L. Fang, B. Xia, and M. Inouye, “Transcription of cpsA, the
gene for the major cold-shock protein of Escherichia coli, is
negatively regulated at 37◦C by the 5?-untranslated region of
its mRNA,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 176, no. 1, pp.
 D. Goldenberg, I. Azar, and A. B. Oppenheim, “Differential
mRNA stability of the cspA gene in the cold-shock response
of Escherichia coli,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
 J.S.Hankins,C.Zappavigna,A.Prud’homme-G´ en´ ereux,and
G. A. Mackie, “Role of RNA structure and susceptibility to
RNase E in regulation of a cold shock mRNA, cspA mRNA,”
Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 189, no. 12, pp. 4353–4358, 2007.
control of Klebsiella pneumoniae nif mRNA stability by the
 D. Kahn, M. Hawkins, and R. R. Eady, “Metabolic control of
of fixed nitrogen,” Journal of General Microbiology, vol. 128,
no. 12, pp. 3011–3018, 1982.
 K. L. Anderson, C. Roberts, T. Disz, et al., “Characterization
and SOS responses and their effects on log-phase mRNA
turnover,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 188, no. 19, pp. 6739–
 T. C. Barnett, J. V. Bugrysheva, and J. R. Scott, “Role of
mRNA stability in growth phase regulation of gene expres-
sion in the group A Streptococcus,” Journal of Bacteriology,
vol. 189, no. 5, pp. 1866–1873, 2007.
 A. A. Rasmussen, M. Eriksen, K. Gilany, et al., “Regulation
of ompA mRNA stability: the role of a small regulatory RNA
vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1421–1429, 2005.
 K. I. Udekwu, F. Darfeuille, J. Vogel, J. Reimeg˚ ard, E.
Holmqvist, and E. G. H. Wagner, “Hfq-dependent regulation
of OmpA synthesis is mediated by an antisense RNA,” Genes
& Development, vol. 19, no. 19, pp. 2355–2366, 2005.
 O. Vytvytska, J. S. Jakobsen, G. Balcunaite, J. S. Andersen,
M. Baccarini, and A. von Gabain, “Host factor I, Hfq, binds
to Escherichia coli ompA mRNA in a growth rate-dependent
fashion and regulates its stability,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95,
no. 24, pp. 14118–14123, 1998.
T. Romeo, “CsrA post-transcriptionally represses pgaABCD,
responsible for synthesis of a biofilm polysaccharide adhesin
of Escherichia coli,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp.
 B. L. Wei, A.-M. Brun-Zinkernagel, J. W. Simecka, B. M.
Pr¨ uß, P. Babitzke, and T. Romeo, “Positive regulation of
motility and flhDC expression by the RNA-binding protein
CsrA of Escherichia coli,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 40, no.
1, pp. 245–256, 2001.
 M. Y. Liu and T. Romeo, “The global regulator CsrA of
Escherichia coli is a specific mRNA- binding protein,” Journal
of Bacteriology, vol. 179, no. 14, pp. 4639–4642, 1997.
 C. Altier, M. Suyemoto, and S. D. Lawhon, “Regulation of
Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium invasion genes by
csrA,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 6790–6797,
 J. Johansson and P. Cossart, “RNA-mediated control of
virulence gene expression in bacterial pathogens,” Trends in
Microbiology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 280–285, 2003.
 G. Pessi, F. Williams, Z. Hindle, et al., “The global post-
transcriptional regulator RsmA modulates production of
virulence determinants and N-acylhomoserine lactones in
Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 183,
no. 22, pp. 6676–6683, 2001.
the effect of the Staphylococcus aureus virulence factor
regulator, SarA, on log-phase mRNA half-lives,” Journal of
Bacteriology, vol. 188, no. 7, pp. 2593–2603, 2006.
 E. Huntzinger, S. Boisset, C. Saveanu, et al., “Staphylococcus
aureus RNAIII and the endoribonuclease III coordinately
regulate spa gene expression,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 24, no.
4, pp. 824–835, 2005.
 S. Boisset, T. Geissmann, E. Huntzinger, et al., “Staphylo-
coccus aureus RNAIII coordinately represses the synthesis of
virulence factors and the transcription regulator Rot by an
antisense mechanism,” Genes & Development, vol. 21, no. 11,
pp. 1353–1366, 2007.
 M. Blickwede, C. Wolz, P. Valentin-Weigand, and S. Schwarz,
“Influence of clindamycin on the stability of coa and fnbB
Newman,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 252, no. 1, pp. 73–
International Journal of Microbiology11
subtilis RNase J1 endonuclease and 5?-exonuclease activities
in trp leader RNA turnover,” Journal of Biological Chemistry,
vol. 283, no. 25, pp. 17158–17167, 2008.
 N. Mathy, L. B´ enard, O. Pellegrini, R. Daou, T. Wen, and C.
Condon, “5?-to-3?exoribonuclease activity in bacteria: role
of RNase J1 in rRNA maturation and 5?stability of mRNA,”
Cell, vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 681–692, 2007.
 J. A. Bernstein, P.-H. Lin, S. N. Cohen, and S. Lin-
Chao, “Global analysis of Escherichia coli RNA degradosome
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 101,
no. 9, pp. 2758–2763, 2004.
 G. A. Mackie, J. L. Genereaux, and S. K. Masterman,
“Modulation of the activity of RNase E in vitro by RNA
sequences and secondary structures 5?to cleavage sites,”
Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 272, no. 1, pp. 609–616,
 G. A. Mackie, “Ribonuclease E is a 5?-end-dependent
endonuclease,” Nature, vol. 395, no. 6703, pp. 720–723, 1998.
 R. Rauhut and G. Klug, “mRNA degradation in bacteria,”
 G.-G. Liou, H.-Y. Chang, C.-S. Lin, and S. Lin-Chao, “Dead
box RhlB RNA helicase physically associates with exoribonu-
of the degradosome-assembling region of RNase E,” Journal
of Biological Chemistry, vol. 277, no. 43, pp. 41157–41162,
 V. Chandran and B. F. Luisi, “Recognition of enolase in
the Escherichia coli RNA degradosome,” Journal of Molecular
Biology, vol. 358, no. 1, pp. 8–15, 2006.
 G.-G. Liou, W.-N. Jane, S. N. Cohen, N.-S. Lin, and S. Lin-
Chao, “RNA degradosomes exist in vivo in Escherichia coli as
multicomponent complexes associated with the cytoplasmic
membrane via the N-terminal region of ribonuclease E,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 63–68, 2001.
 A. Taghbalout and L. Rothfield, “RNaseE and the other
constituents of the RNA degradosome are components of the
bacterial cytoskeleton,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 5, pp.
 A. Taghbalout and L. Rothfield, “RNaseE and RNA helicase B
play central roles in the cytoskeletal organization of the RNA
degradosome,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 283, no.
20, pp. 13850–13855, 2008.
 A. Prud’homme-G´ e´ nreux, R. K. Beran, I. Iost, C. S. Ramey,
G. A. Mackie, and R. W. Simons, “Physical and functional
interactions among RNase E, polynucleotide phosphorylase
and the cold-shock protein, CsdA: evidence for a ‘cold shock
degradosome’,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 54, no. 5, pp.
 Y. Feng, H. Huang, J. Liao, and S. N. Cohen, “Escherichia coli
Poly(A)-binding proteins that interact with components of
degradosomes or impede RNA decay mediated by polynu-
cleotide phosphorylase and RNase E,” Journal of Biological
Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 34, pp. 31651–31656, 2001.
 A. Miczak, V. R. Kaberdin, C.-L. Wei, and S. Lin-Chao, “Pro-
teins associated with RNase E in a multicomponent ribonu-
cleolytic complex,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 9, pp.
 M. E. Regonesi, M. Del Favero, F. Basilico, et al., “Analysis
of the Escherichia coli RNA degradosome composition by a
proteomic approach,” Biochimie, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 151–161,
 N. F. Vanzo, Y. S. Li, B. Py, et al., “Ribonuclease E
organizes the protein interactions in the Escherichia coli RNA
degradosome,” Genes & Development, vol. 12, no. 17, pp.
 X. Jiang, A. Diwa, and J. G. Belasco, “Regions of RNase E
important for 5?-end-dependent RNA cleavage and autoreg-
ulated synthesis,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 182, no. 9, pp.
 Z. Li and M. P. Deutscher, “RNase E plays an essential role
in the maturation of Escherichia coli tRNA precursors,” RNA,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 97–109, 2002.
 M. C. Ow and S. R. Kushner, “Initiation of tRNA maturation
by RNase E is essential for cell viability in E. coli,” Genes &
Development, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1102–1115, 2002.
 R. S. Cormack and G. A. Mackie, “Structural requirements
for the processing of Escherichia coli 5 S ribosomal RNA by
RNase E in vitro,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 228, no.
4, pp. 1078–1090, 1992.
 Z. Li, S. Pandit, and M. P. Deutscher, “RNase G (CafA
protein) and RNase E are both required for the 5?maturation
of 16S ribosomal RNA,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 18, no. 10,
pp. 2878–2885, 1999.
 A. Diwa, A. L. Bricker, C. Jain, and J. G. Belasco, “An
evolutionarily conserved RNA stem-loop functions as a
sensor that directs feedback regulation of RNase E gene
expression,” Genes & Development, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1249–
 C. Jain and J. G. Belasco, “RNase E autoregulates its synthesis
by controlling the degradation rate of its own mRNA in
Escherichia coli: unusual sensitivity of the rne transcript to
RNase E activity,” Genes & Development, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 84–
 S. Sousa, I. Marchand, and M. Dreyfus, “Autoregulation
allows Escherichia coli RNase E to adjust continuously its
synthesis to that of its substrates,” Molecular Microbiology,
vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 867–878, 2001.
of polynucleotide phosphorylase structure and functions,”
Biochimie, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 145–157, 2007.
 B. K. Mohanty and S. R. Kushner, “Genomic analysis in
Escherichia coli demonstrates differential roles for polynu-
cleotide phosphorylase and RNase II in mRNA abundance
and decay,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 645–
 K. Yamanaka and M. Inouye, “Selective mRNA degradation
by polynucleotide phosphorylase in cold shock adaptation in
Escherichia coli,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 183, no. 9, pp.
 B. K. Mohanty and S. R. Kushner, “The majority of
Escherichia coli mRNAs undergo post-transcriptional mod-
ification in exponentially growing cells,” Nucleic Acids
Research, vol. 34, no. 19, pp. 5695–5704, 2006.
 B. K. Mohanty and S. R. Kushner, “Polynucleotide phospho-
rylase functions both as a 3?→ 5?exonuclease and a poly(A)
polymerase in Escherichia coli,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 97,
no. 22, pp. 11966–11971, 2000.
12International Journal of Microbiology
 V. Chandran, L. Poljak, N. F. Vanzo, et al., “Recognition and
cooperation between the ATP-dependent RNA helicase RhlB
and ribonuclease RNase E,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol.
367, no. 1, pp. 113–132, 2007.
 D. Drider and C. Condon, “The continuing story of
endoribonuclease III,” Journal of Molecular Microbiology and
Biotechnology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 195–200, 2004.
 G. Barry, C. Squires, and C. L. Squires, “Attenuation and
of Escherichia coli,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 77, no. 6, pp.
 C. Portier, L. Dondon, M. Grunberg-Manago, and P.
R´ egnier, “The first step in the functional inactivation of the
Escherichia coli polynucleotide phosphorylase messenger is a
vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 2165–2170, 1987.
 R. Takata, T. Mukai, and K. Hori, “RNA processing by RNase
III is involved in the synthesis of Escherichia coli polynu-
cleotide phosphorylase,” Molecular and General Genetics, vol.
209, no. 1, pp. 28–32, 1987.
division inhibitor DicF-RNA of the dicB operon. Evidence
for its generation in vivo by transcription termination and
by RNase III and RNase E-dependent processing,” Journal of
Molecular Biology, vol. 212, no. 3, pp. 461–471, 1990.
 P. Regnier and M. Grunberg-Manago, “Cleavage by RNase
III in the transcripts of the metY-nusA-infB operon of
Escherichia coli releases the tRNA and initiates the decay of
the downstream mRNA,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol.
210, no. 2, pp. 293–302, 1989.
 A. B. Oppenheim, D. Kornitzer, S. Altuvia, and D. L. Court,
“Posttranscriptional control of the lysogenic pathway in
bacteriophage lambda,” Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and
Molecular Biology, vol. 46, pp. 37–49, 1993.
 S. Altuvia, H. Locker-Giladi, S. Koby, O. Ben-Nun, and A. B.
Oppenheim, “RNase III stimulates the translation of the cIII
gene of bacteriophage lambda,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 84,
no. 18, pp. 6511–6515, 1987.
 H.-Y. Tsai, B. Masquida, R. Biswas, E. Westhof, and V.
Gopalan, “Molecular modeling of the three-dimensional
structure of the bacterial RNase P holoenzyme,” Journal of
Molecular Biology, vol. 325, no. 4, pp. 661–675, 2003.
 A. H. Buck, A. B. Dalby, A. W. Poole, A. V. Kazantsev, and
N. R. Pace, “Protein activation of a ribozyme: the role of
bacterial RNase P protein,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 24, no.
19, pp. 3360–3368, 2005.
 B. Wegscheid and R. K. Hartmann, “The precursor tRNA
3?-CCA interaction with Escherichia coli RNase P RNA is
essential for catalysis by RNase P in vivo,” RNA, vol. 12, no.
12, pp. 2135–2148, 2006.
 A. V. Kazantsev and N. R. Pace, “Bacterial RNase P: a new
view of an ancient enzyme,” Nature Reviews Microbiology,
vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 729–740, 2006.
 Y. Li and S. Altman, “A specific endoribonuclease, RNase
P, affects gene expression of polycistronic operon mRNAs,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, vol. 100, no. 23, pp. 13213–13218, 2003.
 Y. Li, C. Guerrier-Takada, and S. Altman, “Targeted cleavage
of mRNA in vitro by RNase P from Escherichia coli,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, vol. 89, no. 8, pp. 3185–3189, 1992.
 Y. H. Jung and Y. Lee, “Escherichia coli rnpB promoter
mutants altered in stringent response,” Biochemical and
Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 230, no. 3, pp.
 J. W. Park, Y. Jung, J. L. Sang, D. J. Jin, and Y. Lee, “Alteration
of stringent response of the Escherichia coli rnpB promoter
by mutations in the −35 region,” Biochemical and Biophysical
Research Communications, vol. 290, no. 4, pp. 1183–1187,
 X. Hong and T. Kogoma, “Absence of a direct role for RNase
HI in initiation of DNA replication at the oriC site on the
Escherichia coli chromosome,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol.
175, no. 20, pp. 6731–6734, 1993.
 T. Ogawa and T. Okazaki, “Function of RNase H in
DNA replication revealed by RNase H defective mutants of
2, pp. 231–237, 1984.
 M. Itaya, “Isolation and characterization of a second RNase
H (RNase HII) of Escherichia coli K-12 encoded by the rnhB
gene,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
 N. Ohtani, M. Haruki, A. Muroya, M. Morikawa, and
S. Kanaya, “Characterization of ribonuclease HII from
Escherichia coli overproduced in a soluble form,” Journal of
Biochemistry, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 895–899, 2000.
 M. C. Ow, T. Perwez, and S. R. Kushner, “RNase G of
Escherichia coli exhibits only limited functional overlap with
its essential homologue, RNase E,” Molecular Microbiology,
vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 607–622, 2003.
 N. Kaga, G. Umitsuki, K. Nagai, and M. Wachi, “RNase
G-dependent degradation of the eno mRNA encoding a
glycolysis enzyme enolase in Escherichia coli,” Bioscience,
Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2216–
 G. Umitsuki, M. Wachi, A. Takada, T. Hikichi, and K. Nagai,
“Involvement of RNase G in in vivo mRNA metabolism in
Escherichia coli,” Genes to Cells, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 403–410,
 O. Pellegrini, J. Nezzar, A. Marchfelder, H. Putzer, and C.
Condon, “Endonucleolytic processing of CCA-less tRNA
precursors by RNase Z in Bacillus subtilis,” The EMBO
Journal, vol. 22, no. 17, pp. 4534–4543, 2003.
 Y. Redko, I. L. de la Sierra-Gallay, and C. Condon, “When
all’s zed and done: the structure and function of RNase Z in
prokaryotes,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
 K. O. Kelly and M. P. Deutscher, “The presence of only one
of five exoribonucleases is sufficient to support the growth of
Escherichia coli,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 174, no. 20, pp.
 T. Perwez and S. R. Kushner, “RNase Z in Escherichia
coli plays a significant role in mRNA decay,” Molecular
Microbiology, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 723–737, 2006.
LS, in Escherichia coli,” Genetics, vol. 169, no. 1, pp. 13–20,
 Y. Otsuka, M. Koga, A. Iwamoto, and T. Yonesaki, “A role of
RnlA in the RNase LS activity from Escherichia coli,” Genes
and Genetic Systems, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 291–299, 2007.
 R. Ito and Y. Ohnishi, “The roles of RNA polymerase and
RNAase I in stable RNA degradation in Escherichia coli
carrying the srnB+gene,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol.
739, no. 1, pp. 27–34, 1983.
International Journal of Microbiology 13
 V. J. Cannistrato and D. Kennell, “RNase I∗, a form of RNase
I, and mRNA degradation in Escherichia coli,” Journal of
Bacteriology, vol. 173, no. 15, pp. 4653–4659, 1991.
M, is a multiply altered form of RNase I,” RNA, vol. 7, no. 12,
pp. 1702–1707, 2001.
 C. Condon, “Shutdown decay of mRNA,” Molecular Microbi-
ology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 573–583, 2006.
 K. Gerdes, S. K. Christensen, and A. Løbner-Olesen,
“Prokaryotic toxin-antitoxin stress response loci,” Nature
Reviews Microbiology, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 371–382, 2005.
 S. K. Christensen and K. Gerdes, “RelE toxins from Bacteria
and Archaea cleave mRNAs on translating ribosomes, which
are rescued by tmRNA,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 48, no.
5, pp. 1389–1400, 2003.
 M. Christensen-Dalsgaard and K. Gerdes, “Translation
affects YoeB and MazF messenger RNA interferase activities
by different mechanisms,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 36, no.
20, pp. 6472–6481, 2008.
 Z. Fu, N. P. Donegan, G. Memmi, and A. L. Cheung,
“Characterization of mazFSa, an endoribonuclease from
Staphylococcus aureus,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 189, no.
24, pp. 8871–8879, 2007.
 O. Pellegrini, N. Mathy, A. Gogos, L. Shapiro, and C. Con-
don, “The Bacillus subtilis ydcDE operon encodes an endori-
bonuclease of the MazF/PemK family and its inhibitor,”
Molecular Microbiology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1139–1148, 2005.
 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, K. P. Hoeflich, M. Ikura, G. Qing, and
to block protein synthesis in Escherichia coli,” Molecular Cell,
vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 913–923, 2003.
 Y. Zhang,L. Zhu,J.Zhang, andM.Inouye, “Characterization
of ChpBK, an mRNA interferase from Escherichia coli,” The
Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280, no. 28, pp. 26080–
 M. P. Deutscher, G. T. Marshall, and H. Cudny, “RNase
PH: an Escherichia coli phosphate-dependent nuclease dis-
tinct from polynucleotide phosphorylase,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
vol. 85, no. 13, pp. 4710–4714, 1988.
 K. O. Kelly and M. P. Deutscher, “Characterization of
Escherichia coli RNase PH,” The Journal of Biological Chem-
istry, vol. 267, no. 24, pp. 17153–17158, 1992.
 H. Cudny, R. Zaniewski, and M. P. Deutscher, “Escherichia
coli RNase D. Catalytic properties and substrate specificity,”
The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 256, no. 11, pp.
 M. P. Deutscher, C. W. Marlor, and R. Zaniewski, “RNase T is
responsible for the end-turnover of tRNA in Escherichia coli,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, vol. 82, no. 19, pp. 6427–6430, 1985.
 Z.-F. Cheng and M. P. Deutscher, “Purification and char-
acterization of the Escherichia coli exoribonuclease RNase
R. Comparison with RNase II,” The Journal of Biological
Chemistry, vol. 277, no. 24, pp. 21624–21629, 2002.
 Z.-F. Cheng and M. P. Deutscher, “An important role for
RNase R in mRNA decay,” Molecular Cell, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.
 C. Chen and M. P. Deutscher, “Elevation of RNase R
in response to multiple stress conditions,” The Journal of
 F. Cairr˜ ao, A. Cruz, H. Mori, and C. M. Arraiano, “Cold
shock induction of RNase R and its role in the maturation
of the quality control mediator SsrA/tmRNA,” Molecular
Microbiology, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1349–1360, 2003.
 M. P. Deutscher and N. B. Reuven, “Enzymatic basis for
hydrolytic versus phosphorolytic mRNA degradation in
Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
vol. 88, no. 8, pp. 3277–3280, 1991.
 Z. Li and M. P. Deutscher, “The role of individual exoribonu-
cleases in processing at the 3?end of Escherichia coli tRNA
precursors,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 269, no.
8, pp. 6064–6071, 1994.
 P. E. Marujo, E. Hajnsdorf, J. Le Derout, R. Andrade, C. M.
6, no. 8, pp. 1185–1193, 2000.
 D. Yu and M. P. Deutscher, “Oligoribonuclease is distinct
from the other known exoribonucleases of Escherichia coli,”
Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 177, no. 14, pp. 4137–4139, 1995.
 S. Ghosh and M. P. Deutscher, “Oligoribonuclease is an
essential component of the mRNA decay pathway,” Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 4372–4377, 1999.
 B.Veˇ cerek,I.Moll,T.Afonyushkin,V.Kaberdin,andU.Bl¨ asi,
“Interaction of the RNA chaperone Hfq with mRNAs: direct
and indirect roles of Hfq in iron metabolism of Escherichia
coli,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 897–909,
 B. Veˇ cerek, I. Moll, and U. Bl¨ asi, “Translational autocontrol
of the Escherichia coli hfq RNA chaperone gene,” RNA, vol.
11, no. 6, pp. 976–984, 2005.
 O. Vytvytska, I. Moll, V. R. Kaberdin, A. von Gabain, and
U. Bl¨ asi, “Hfq (HF1) stimulates ompA mRNA decay by
interfering with ribosome binding,” Genes & Development,
vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1109–1118, 2000.
 T. Nogueira and M. Springer, “Post-transcriptional control
by global regulators of gene expression in bacteria,” Current
Opinion in Microbiology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 154–158, 2000.
loop structure can stabilize mRNA in Escherichia coli,” Genes
& Development, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 135–148, 1992.
 T. E. Arnold, J. Yu, and J. G. Belasco, “mRNA stabilization
by the ompA 5?untranslated region: two protective elements
hinder distinct pathways for mRNA degradation,” RNA, vol.
4, no. 3, pp. 319–330, 1998.
 I. Moll, T. Afonyushkin, O. Vytvytska, V. R. Kaberdin, and U.
Bl¨ asi, “Coincident Hfq binding and RNase E cleavage sites on
mRNA and small regulatory RNAs,” RNA, vol. 9, no. 11, pp.
 E. Hajnsdorf and P. R´ egnier, “Host factor Hfq of Escherichia
coli stimulates elongation of poly(A) tails by poly(A) poly-
merase I,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 1501–1505,
“CsrA regulates glycogen biosynthesis by preventing transla-
tion of glgC in Escherichia coli,” Molecular Microbiology, vol.
44, no. 6, pp. 1599–1610, 2002.
 M. Y. Liu, H. Yang, and T. Romeo, “The product of the
pleiotropic Escherichia coli gene csrA modulates glycogen
biosynthesis via effects on mRNA stability,” Journal of
Bacteriology, vol. 177, no. 10, pp. 2663–2672, 1995.
14 International Journal of Microbiology
 M. Y. Liu, G. Gui, B. Wei, et al., “The RNA molecule CsrB
binds to the global regulatory protein CsrA and antagonizes
its activity in Escherichia coli,” The Journal of Biological
Chemistry, vol. 272, no. 28, pp. 17502–17510, 1997.
 C. C. Brescia, M. K. Kaw, and D. D. Sledjeski, “The DNA
in vitro and in vivo,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 339,
no. 3, pp. 505–514, 2004.
 P. Deighan, A. Free, and C. J. Dorman, “A role for the
Escherichia coli H-NS-like protein StpA in OmpF porin
expression through modulation of micF RNA stability,”
Molecular Microbiology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 126–139, 2000.
 S. Gottesman, “Micros for microbes: non-coding regulatory
RNAs in bacteria,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 399–
regulators and the bacterial response to stress,” Cold Spring
Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol. 71, pp. 1–11,
 T. Morita, Y. Mochizuki, and H. Aiba, “Translational
repression is sufficient for gene silencing by bacterial small
noncoding RNAs in the absence of mRNA destruction,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, vol. 103, no. 13, pp. 4858–4863, 2006.
 F. Y. Siu, R. J. Spanggord, and J. A. Doudna, “SRP RNA
provides the physiologically essential GTPase activation
function in cotranslational protein targeting,” RNA, vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 240–250, 2007.
 S. Lee, M. Ishii, T. Tadaki, A. Muto, and H. Himeno, “Deter-
minants on tmRNA for initiating efficient and precise trans-
translation: some mutations upstream of the tag-encoding
sequence of Escherichia coli tmRNA shift the initiation point
of trans-translation in vitro,” RNA, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 999–
 S. Gottesman, “The small RNA regulators of Escherichia coli:
roles and mechanisms,” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol.
58, pp. 303–328, 2004.
 S. Gottesman, “Stealth regulation: biological circuits with
small RNA switches,” Genes & Development, vol. 16, no. 22,
pp. 2829–2842, 2002.
 R. A. Lease and M. Belfort, “A trans-acting RNA as a
control switch in Escherichia coli: DsrA modulates function
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 97,
no. 18, pp. 9919–9924, 2000.
 A. Resch, T. Afonyushkin, T. B. Lombo, K. J. McDowall,
U. Bl¨ asi, and V. R. Kaberdin, “Translational activation by
the noncoding RNA DsrA involves alternative RNase III
processing in the rpoS 5?-leader,” RNA, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
 N. Majoalani, C. Cunning, D. Sledjeski, T. Elliott, and
S. Gottesman, “DsrA RNA regulates translation of RpoS
message by an anti-antisense mechanism, independent of its
action as an antisilencer of transcription,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
vol. 95, no. 21, pp. 12462–12467, 1998.
 T. J. Soper and S. A. Woodson, “The rpoS mRNA leader
recruits Hfq to facilitate annealing with DsrA sRNA,” RNA,
vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1907–1917, 2008.
 L. Escolar, J. P´ erez-Mart´ ın, and V. de Lorenzo, “Opening
the iron box: transcriptional metalloregulation by the Fur
protein,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 181, no. 20, pp. 6223–
 E. Mass´ e and S. Gottesman, “A small RNA regulates
the expression of genes involved in iron metabolism in
Escherichia coli,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 99, no. 7, pp.
 E. Mass´ e, F. E. Escorcia, and S. Gottesman, “Coupled
degradation of a small regulatory RNA and its mRNA targets
in Escherichia coli,” Genes & Development, vol. 17, no. 19, pp.
 S. Altuvia, D. Weinstein-Fischer, A. Zhang, L. Postow, and G.
Storz, “A small, stable RNA induced by oxidative stress: role
as a pleiotropic regulator and antimutator,” Cell, vol. 90, no.
1, pp. 43–53, 1997.
 M. Guillier and S. Gottesman, “Remodelling of the
Escherichia coli outer membrane by two small regulatory
RNAs,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 231–247,
 N. Majdalani, S. Chen, J. Murrow, K. St. John, and S.
Gottesman, “Regulation of RpoS by a novel small RNA: the
characterization of RprA,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 39,
no. 5, pp. 1382–1394, 2001.
 N. Delihas and S. Forst, “MicF: an antisense RNA gene
involved in response of Escherichia coli to global stress
factors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 313, no. 1, pp. 1–
 C. K. Vanderpool and S. Gottesman, “Involvement of a
novel transcriptional activator and small RNA in post-
transcriptional regulation of the glucose phosphoenolpyru-
vate phosphotransferase system,” Molecular Microbiology,
vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1076–1089, 2004.
 T. Møller, T. Franch, C. Udesen, K. Gerdes, and P. Valentin-
Hansen, “Spot 42 RNA mediates discoordinate expression of
the E. coli galactose operon,” Genes & Development, vol. 16,
no. 13, pp. 1696–1706, 2002.
RNA, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1079–1090, 2000.
 B. K. Mohanty and S. R. Kushner, “Analysis of the function
Molecular Microbiology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1094–1108, 1999.
 E. Blum, A. J. Carpousis, and C. F. Higgins, “Polyadeny-
lation promotes degradation of 3?-structured RNA by the
Escherichia coli mRNA degradosome in vitro,” The Journal of
Biological Chemistry, vol. 274, no. 7, pp. 4009–4016, 1999.
 A. P. Walsh, M. R. Tock, M. H. Mallen, V. R. Kaberdin, A. von
3?-end of RNA by ribonuclease E of Escherichia coli,” Nucleic
Acids Research, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1864–1871, 2001.
 S. Even, O. Pellegrini, L. Zig, et al., “Ribonucleases J1 and
J2: two novel endoribonucleases in B.subtilis with functional
homology to E.coli RNase E,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 33,
no. 7, pp. 2141–2152, 2005.
 U. M¨ ader, L. Zig, J. Kretschmer, G. Homuth, and H.
Putzer, “mRNA processing by RNases J1 and J2 affects
Bacillus subtilis gene expression on a global scale,” Molecular
Microbiology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 183–196, 2008.
 E. Seif and S. Altman, “RNase P cleaves the adenine
riboswitch and stabilizes pbuE mRNA in Bacillus subtilis,”
RNA, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1237–1243, 2008.
 H. Yakhnin, P. Pandit, T. J. Petty, C. S. Baker, T. Romeo, and
P. Babitzke, “CsrA of Bacillus subtilis regulates translation
initiation of the gene encoding the flagellin protein (hag) by
blocking ribosome binding,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 64,
no. 6, pp. 1605–1620, 2007.
International Journal of Microbiology15
 N. Heidrich, A. Chinali, U. Gerth, and S. Brantl, “The small
untranslated RNA SR1 from the Bacillus subtilis genome is
involved in the regulation of arginine catabolism,” Molecular
Microbiology, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 520–536, 2006.
 J. M. Silvaggi, J. B. Perkins, and R. Losick, “Genes for
subtilis,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 532–541,
 N. Heidrich, I. Moll, and S. Brantl, “In vitro analysis of
the interaction between the small RNA SR1 and its primary
target ahrC mRNA,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 35, no. 13,
pp. 4331–4346, 2007.
 C. Spitzfaden, N. Nicholson, J. J. Jones, et al., “The structure
of ribonuclease P protein from Staphylococcus aureus reveals
a unique binding site for single-stranded RNA,” Journal of
Molecular Biology, vol. 295, no. 1, pp. 105–115, 2000.
 C. Condon, “RNA processing and degradation in Bacillus
subtilis,” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, vol. 67,
no. 2, pp. 157–174, 2003.
 C. Bohn, C. Rigoulay, and P. Bouloc, “No detectable effect of
RNA-binding protein Hfq absence in Staphylococcus aureus,”
BMC Microbiology, vol. 7, article 10, pp. 1–9, 2007.
 C. Pichon and B. Felden, “Small RNA genes expressed from
Staphylococcus aureus genomic and pathogenicity islands
with specific expression among pathogenic strains,” Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, vol. 102, no. 40, pp. 14249–14254, 2005.
 M. A. Schumacher, R. F. Pearson, T. Møller, P. Valentin-
Hansen, and R. G. Brennan, “Structures of the pleiotropic
translational regulator Hfq and an Hfq-RNA complex: a
bacterial Sm-like protein,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 21, no.
13, pp. 3546–3556, 2002.
 R. P. Novick, H. F. Ross, S. J. Projan, J. Kornblum, B.
Kreiswirth, and S. Moghazeh, “Synthesis of staphylococ-
cal virulence factors is controlled by a regulatory RNA