A quantitative RNA code for mRNA target selection by the germline fate determinant GLD-1

Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.
The EMBO Journal (Impact Factor: 10.75). 02/2011; 30(3):533-45. DOI: 10.1038/emboj.2010.334
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) are critical regulators of gene expression. To understand and predict the outcome of RBP-mediated regulation a comprehensive analysis of their interaction with RNA is necessary. The signal transduction and activation of RNA (STAR) family of RBPs includes developmental regulators and tumour suppressors such as Caenorhabditis elegans GLD-1, which is a key regulator of germ cell development. To obtain a comprehensive picture of GLD-1 interactions with the transcriptome, we identified GLD-1-associated mRNAs by RNA immunoprecipitation followed by microarray detection. Based on the computational analysis of these mRNAs we generated a predictive model, where GLD-1 association with mRNA is determined by the strength and number of 7-mer GLD-1-binding motifs (GBMs) within UTRs. We verified this quantitative model both in vitro, by competition GLD-1/GBM-binding experiments to determine relative affinity, and in vivo, by 'transplantation' experiments, where 'weak' and 'strong' GBMs imposed translational repression of increasing strength on a non-target mRNA. This study demonstrates that transcriptome-wide identification of RBP mRNA targets combined with quantitative computational analysis can generate highly predictive models of post-transcriptional regulatory networks.

Download full-text


Available from: Eric Westhof, Jul 07, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To understand the function of the hundreds of RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) that are encoded in animal genomes it is important to identify their target RNAs. Although it is generally accepted that the binding specificity of an RBP is well described in terms of the nucleotide sequence of its binding sites, other factors such as the structural accessibility of binding sites or their clustering, to enable binding of RBP multimers, are also believed to play a role. Here we focus on GLD-1, a translational regulator of Caenorhabditis elegans, whose binding specificity and targets have been studied with a variety of methods such as CLIP (cross-linking and immunoprecipitation), RIP-Chip (microarray measurement of RNAs associated with an immunoprecipitated protein), profiling of polysome-associated mRNAs and biophysical determination of binding affinities of GLD-1 for short nucleotide sequences. We show that a simple biophysical model explains the binding of GLD-1 to mRNA targets to a large extent, and that taking into account the accessibility of putative target sites significantly improves the prediction of GLD-1 binding, particularly due to a more accurate prediction of binding in transcript coding regions. Relating GLD-1 binding to translational repression and stabilization of its target transcripts we find that binding sites along the entire transcripts contribute to functional responses, and that CDS-located sites contribute most to translational repression. Finally, biophysical measurements of GLD-1 affinity for a small number of oligonucleotides appear to allow an accurate reconstruction of the sequence specificity of the protein. This approach can be applied to uncover the specificity and function of other RBPs.
    RNA 08/2013; DOI:10.1261/rna.037531.112 · 4.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mammalian Quaking (QKI) and its Caenorhabditis elegans homolog, GLD-1 (defective in germ line development), are evolutionarily conserved RNA-binding proteins, which post-transcriptionally regulate target genes essential for developmental processes and myelination. We present X-ray structures of the STAR (signal transduction and activation of RNA) domain, composed of Qua1, K homology (KH), and Qua2 motifs of QKI and GLD-1 bound to high-affinity in vivo RNA targets containing YUAAY RNA recognition elements (RREs). The KH and Qua2 motifs of the STAR domain synergize to specifically interact with bases and sugar-phosphate backbones of the bound RRE. Qua1-mediated homodimerization generates a scaffold that enables concurrent recognition of two RREs, thereby plausibly targeting tandem RREs present in many QKI-targeted transcripts. Structure-guided mutations reduced QKI RNA-binding affinity in vitro and in vivo, and expression of QKI mutants in human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293) significantly decreased the abundance of QKI target mRNAs. Overall, our studies define principles underlying RNA target selection by STAR homodimers and provide insights into the post-transcriptional regulatory function of mammalian QKI proteins.
    Genes & development 04/2013; 27(8):928-40. DOI:10.1101/gad.216531.113 · 12.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the past 12 years, since the first description of C. elegans germ cell apoptosis, this area of research rapidly expanded. It became evident that multiple genetic pathways lead to the apoptotic demise of germ cells. We are only beginning to understand how these pathways that all require the CED-9/Bcl-2, Apaf-1/CED-4 and CED-3 caspase core apoptosis components are regulated. Physiological apoptosis, which likely accounts for the elimination of more than 50% of all germ cells, even in unperturbed conditions, is likely to be required to maintain tissue homeostasis. The best-studied pathways lead to DNA damage-induced germ cell apoptosis in response to a variety of genotoxic stimuli. This apoptosis appears to be regulated similar to DNA damage-induced apoptosis in the mouse germ line and converges on p53 family transcription factors. DNA damage response pathways not only lead to apoptosis induction, but also directly affect DNA repair, and a transient cell cycle arrest of mitotic germ cells. Finally, distinct pathways activate germ cell apoptosis in response to defects in meiotic recombination and meiotic chromosome pairing.
    Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 01/2013; 757:249-76. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-4015-4_9 · 2.01 Impact Factor