Abstract
Small non-coding RNAs (sRNAs) are critical post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression. Distinct RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) influence the processing, stability and activity of bacterial small RNAs. The vast majority of bacterial sRNAs interact with mRNA targets, affecting mRNA stability and/or its translation rate. The assistance of RNA-binding proteins facilitates and brings accuracy to sRNA-mRNA basepairing and the RNA chaperones Hfq and ProQ are now recognized as the most prominent RNA matchmakers in bacteria. These RBPs exhibit distinct high affinity RNA-binding surfaces, promoting RNA strand interaction between a trans-encoding sRNA and its mRNA target. Nevertheless, some organisms lack ProQ and/or Hfq homologs, suggesting the existence of other RBPs involved in sRNA function. Along this line of thought, the global regulator CsrA was recently shown to facilitate the access of an sRNA to its target mRNA and may represent an additional factor involved in sRNA function. Ribonucleases (RNases) can be considered a class of RNA-binding proteins with nucleolytic activity that are responsible for RNA maturation and/or degradation. Presently RNase E, RNase III, and PNPase appear to be the main players not only in sRNA turnover but also in sRNA processing. Here we review the current knowledge on the most important bacterial RNA-binding proteins affecting sRNA activity and sRNA-mediated networks.
Introduction
The majority of small non-coding RNAs (sRNAs) interact with a complementary mRNA through an antisense mechanism, leading to the formation of a duplex sRNA-mRNA region. Consequently, expression from the target mRNA is affected and frequently repressed (Storz et al., 2011). sRNA-mediated networks are cost efficient and often more rapid in the reprogramming of gene expression than pathways that rely exclusively on regulatory proteins (Shimoni et al., 2007). However, the interaction between sRNAs and RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) is often critical for the regulatory activity of sRNAs. RNA-binding proteins are a diverse class of proteins ubiquitously found in all living organisms and that control all steps of the life of an RNA (Smirnov et al., 2017a). The capacity of these proteins to recognize and bind RNA molecules arises from the presence of well-defined RNA-binding domains, such as the canonical S1 domain, cold shock domain (CSD), K homology (KH) domain, amongst others (). Additional regions may also contribute to RNA-protein interactions, like the disordered regions that confer flexibility to proteins. The overall fold of the protein and the recognition of different RNA-binding motifs determines the interaction with RNA in a sequence- and/or structure-specific dependent manner. RBPs and sRNAs networks have been extensively studied in Eukarya and Bacteria, with a current lack of information about this regulation in Archaea (). Though many RBPs can be found in bacteria only few have been shown to associate with sRNAs. However, these participate in a variety of reactions that affect the catalytic and molecular recognition properties of sRNAs.
RNA chaperones constitute a specific group of RBPs that transiently bind and induce structural changes in RNA substrates by melting RNA secondary structures (Woodson et al., 2018). Such structural rearrangements influence not only the stability of sRNA and mRNA molecules but also facilitate the basepairing of sRNAs and mRNAs. Moreover, RNA chaperones that bind simultaneously the sRNA and the target mRNA, bring them closely together in a complex, promoting the annealing and formation of stable RNA-RNA interactions. Though sRNA-mRNA basepairing can occur in the absence of RNA chaperones, their presence greatly accelerates this process (Rajkowitsch and Schroeder, 2007; Panja et al., 2013). Three major RNA chaperones that assist sRNA function in bacteria are currently known: the Sm family member Hfq (Santiago-Frangos and Woodson, 2018), the FinO family member ProQ (Smirnov et al., 2016) and the prototype of its family CsrA (Müller et al., 2019). Despite being widespread, these RBPs are not evenly present in bacteria and the interactome studies of these RNA chaperones indicate they preferably bind different sRNAs (Figure 1), suggesting more specialized roles for each of them (, ; Smirnov et al., 2016; Melamed et al., 2019).
FIGURE 1
Ribonucleases (RNases) are another group of specific RBPs that interact with sRNAs. These enzymes are responsible for the catalytic cleavage of all classes of RNA (). The stability of sRNAs results from the interplay between RNA chaperones and RNases with the sRNAs, as RNA chaperones may protect or expose the sRNAs to the nucleolytic action of RNases (). The main RNases implicated in sRNA turnover are the endonucleases RNase E and RNase III and the exonuclease PNPase (Saramago et al., 2014). In this mini review, we summarize the current information on the major RNA chaperones and RNases governing the activity of bacterial sRNAs.
RNA Chaperones
Hfq
Hfq is widely recognized as a global regulator and key element of sRNA-based networks. Hundreds of sRNA molecules have been reported in Escherichia coli, and ∼30% rely on Hfq to carry on their functions (Vogel and Luisi, 2011). Hfq is particularly important for the action of trans-encoded sRNAs (which are expressed from a different genomic region than their mRNA targets), stabilizing the imperfect basepairing between sRNA/mRNA pairs. At least in Gram-negative bacteria, Hfq primary role is to promote the annealing of sRNA-mRNA duplexes, acting as a molecular “matchmaker,” but its role in Gram-positive bacteria is more controversial (Woodson et al., 2018; ). Interestingly, Hfq can bind other substrates including rRNA (), tRNA (), and even DNA molecules (). The wide substrate selection of Hfq suggests additional functions for this protein in the cell, such as its involvement in ribosome biogenesis and translation fidelity (), and DNA compaction (; ). Hfq is also involved in many protein-protein interactions (), namely with proteins involved in RNA degradation, such as RNase E (Morita et al., 2005), PNPase (Mohanty et al., 2004), and Poly(A) Polymerase (). These Hfq-based complexes hint a close relationship between Hfq and the RNA degradation machinery.
Interactome studies identified thousands of Hfq-bound RNA pairs, dominated by mRNA-sRNA pairs exhibiting sequence complementarity (; Melamed et al., 2016; Mihailovic et al., 2018). Hfq binds single-stranded RNA showing a preference for (ARN)n motifs frequently found on mRNA () and short poly(U) tails present at the 3′-end of sRNAs (Sauer and Weichenrieder, 2011; Sauer et al., 2012). Hfq binds transiently to sRNA and mRNA, dissociating from the RNA duplex soon after basepairing occurs (; ). This widely conserved protein is composed by two N-terminal structural motifs (Sm1 and Sm2) and a variable intrinsically disordered C-terminal tail. The Hfq Sm motifs are characteristic of the Sm/Lsm family of RNA-binding proteins (Møller et al., 2002). Members of this family typically adopt a multimer ring-like architecture, with Hfq assembling into an homohexamer. Multiple RNA-binding surfaces are consequently present in the Hfq ring: the proximal face, the distal face, the lateral rim and the C-terminal tail. The RNA is wrapped around the ring, causing reshaping of the RNA’s secondary structure and/or bringing two different strands of RNA into close proximity (Woodson et al., 2018).
sRNAs have been classified in two major classes according to their dependence on Hfq contact surfaces. The vast majority of bacterial sRNAs belong to class I. Hfq contacts these transcripts through binding of its proximal face to the unstructured U-rich stretches present at the 3′-end of sRNAs. On the other hand, the distal face of the Hfq ring preferentially interacts with ARN motifs in mRNAs. The basic patched rim surface may then interact with UA-rich sites present in both RNAs, coordinating the successful annealing between the sRNA-mRNA pair (Panja et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2013; Schu et al., 2015). As an example, the iron-responsive class I sRNA RyhB relies on Hfq for successful interaction with its targets (). The less abundant class II sRNAs bind Hfq more tightly, as the interaction is done via the proximal and distal faces of the ring (Panja et al., 2013). Class II sRNAs also use Hfq as a hub for promoting duplex formation to their target mRNAs. This is the case for the MgrR sRNA regulation of the eptB and ygdQ transcripts (). In both sRNA classes, the C-terminal acidic region of Hfq is suggested to help displace unmatched sRNA-mRNA by transiently competing with the core binding surfaces (Woodson et al., 2018). This competition not only allows for a rapid cycling through the pool of cellular RNAs, but also seems to drive substrate RNA specificity in different bacteria (Santiago-Frangos et al., 2017, 2019).
Hfq remodels RNA conformation by disrupting secondary structures, without the need to hydrolyze ATP. This intrinsic RNA chaperone capability is important to unfold structured RNAs, exposing unpaired RNA stretches for basepairing between complementary strands. One of the best characterized Hfq-dependent sRNAs is MicA, which was found to target the ompA mRNA (Udekwu et al., 2005). The RNA chaperone activity of Hfq is also important for remodeling MicA structural elements, altering its stability and binding specificities. Hfq binding rearranges MicA fold to allow exposure of the ompA-binding site for pairing that leads to translation repression (; ). Interestingly, target downregulation may require both Hfq and sRNA independently of an sRNA/Hfq complex formation. The two-step regulation of the dgcM mRNA was firstly shown to require Hfq to unfold a 5′-end secondary structure that otherwise occludes the binding sites for the OmrA and OmrB sRNAs. Successful binding of OmrA/B to the early coding sequence of dgcM results in translation inhibition of the target mRNA ().
ProQ
ProQ is a recently identified RNA chaperone of the FinO family of RNA-binding proteins commonly found in Proteobacteria (Olejniczak and Storz, 2017). Most of the work on ProQ RNA substrates came from studies performed in E. coli, Salmonella enterica, and Legionella pneumophila, which identified a hundred mRNA transcripts and more than fifty sRNAs as ProQ ligands (; Smirnov et al., 2016; ; Westermann et al., 2019). ProQ is a monomeric protein with 25 kDa, composed of a α-helical N-terminal domain similar to the RNA-binding domain FinO and a β-sheet C-terminal region partially resembling the eukaryotic Tudor domain. Both regions are connected by a highly flexible and extended linker that is thought to allow the binding and protection of a class of sRNAs that form extended duplexes (; ; Olejniczak and Storz, 2017). Although both domains contribute to the pairing of complementary RNA molecules, the C-terminal is critical for the RNA strand exchange activity (). Unlike Hfq, ProQ binding to RNA is sequence-independent but shows structure preference. ProQ binds double-stranded RNA and prefers highly structured RNAs (Smirnov et al., 2017b; Melamed et al., 2019). The FinO-like domain of ProQ is responsible for this substrate preference ().
Most sRNAs that bind ProQ have unknown functions so far. In contrast to Hfq, the majority of known ProQ-associated sRNAs act in cis promoting extensive perfect basepairing with the target mRNA encoded on the opposite strand (Smirnov et al., 2017b). However, ProQ was also found to regulate trans-acting sRNAs, assisting the imperfect basepairing with their target mRNAs. Two well characterized examples in Salmonella are known: the RaiZ sRNA-hupA mRNA and STnc540 sRNA-mgtB mRNA (Smirnov et al., 2017b; Westermann et al., 2019). ProQ binds RaiZ through its 3′-terminal stem-loops and promotes interaction of a linear region of this sRNA with the hupA mRNA. This three-partner ProQ/RaiZ/hupA mRNA complex results in impairment of hupA mRNA translation by preventing loading of the 30S ribosome subunit (Smirnov et al., 2017b). STnc540 sRNA also represses the expression of its target mRNA in a ProQ-dependent manner (Westermann et al., 2019). In both examples, ProQ is absolutely required for stability of the sRNAs, affecting their abundance.
Recent work in E. coli explores the RNA-RNA interactomes of Hfq and ProQ chaperones using RIL-seq (Melamed et al., 2019). Even though the interactome of ProQ was smaller than the one of Hfq, about a third of the RNA-RNA interactions were common between the two RNA chaperones, with examples like RybB and MalM sRNAs. This suggests complementary or competitive roles for these RBPs. An additional example is found in Salmonella, in the regulation mediated by the SraL sRNA. This sRNA binds to the 5′-UTR of the rho mRNA, an interaction that can be mediated by ProQ and/or Hfq (Silva et al., 2019). However, the RNAs bound by ProQ generally differ from those bound by Hfq. RIL-seq data revealed that while Hfq-bound RNAs were enriched in both sRNAs and mRNAs, ProQ-bound RNAs were mainly enriched for coding sequences (Melamed et al., 2019). This suggests that the RNA-RNA matchmaking activity of ProQ may not be generalized, unlike observed with Hfq that is primarily involved in sRNA-mediated regulation of mRNA translation. Additional roles for ProQ may include RNA protection from RNase attack or a participation in RNA modification.
CsrA
The CsrA protein was first discovered in E. coli and its function attributed to carbon storage and glycogen production, acting as a translational repressor of the glgC mRNA (Romeo et al., 1993; Romeo and Babitzke, 2018). In Pseudomonas aeruginosa the homolog protein is termed RsmA (for regulator of secondary metabolism) with paralogs (RsmF/N, RsmE, and RsmI) found in different Pseudomonas species (Reimmann et al., 2005; ; Morris et al., 2013). Members of the CsrA/RsmA family are conserved among Gammaproteobacteria and have been described as global bacterial regulators (Vakulskas et al., 2015). Here we will focus on the information available on the enterobacterial CsrA.
The E. coli CsrA is a ∼7 kDa RNA-binding protein and consists of a homodimer, each subunit with five β-strands, one α-helix and an unstructured C-terminal (; ). The recognition motif is the AUGGA sequence typically localized in the loop of a stem-loop, as determined by SELEX and confirmed through CLIP-seq (; ; ). The most well characterized activity of CsrA is the binding of mRNA, resulting in repression or activation of translation. Typically, CsrA binding occurs in the RBS sequence or overlaps with the initiation codon, leading to a direct inhibition of translation. CsrA can also regulate transcript stability, either by promoting or blocking the access of the mRNA to ribonucleases (; Schubert et al., 2007; Yakhnin et al., 2013). CsrA also protects sRNAs from RNase E-mediated degradation, as it was shown for the small RNAs CsrB and CsrC (Weilbacher et al., 2003; Vakulskas et al., 2016). Interestingly, CsrA activity on target mRNAs is mostly regulated by the action of the CsrB and CsrC sRNAs (RsmY and RsmZ in Pseudomonads). These highly structured sRNAs are composed of repetitive sequence elements of the recognition motif GGA (22 per molecule in CsrB and 13 in CsrC) with high affinity for the CsrA binding site (; Weilbacher et al., 2003; ). Consequently, CsrB and CsrC act as “sponges” that sequester CsrA protein and prevent its activity (Romeo et al., 2013). The sRNA McaS is also able to modulate CsrA activity though it contains only two recognition sites (). Transcriptomic studies performed in E. coli showed that CsrA affects the abundance of 11 sRNAs, including CsrB and CsrC. Additionally, CLIP-seq analysis followed by in vitro studies confirmed CsrA binds other sRNAs with high affinity (Potts et al., 2017). In particular, the interaction of CsrA with the sRNAs GadY, Spot 42, and GcvB was shown to significantly overlap with known basepairing regions for these sRNA–mRNA pairs, suggesting that CsrA binding inhibits formation of these RNA duplexes.
CsrA was recently described to act as an RNA chaperone that indirectly promotes the basepairing between the trans-acting SR1 sRNA and its primary target the ahrC mRNA, which encodes the transcription activator of the arginine catabolic operons in Bacillus subtilis (Müller et al., 2019). In vitro binding studies demonstrated that CsrA binds these RNAs with high affinity, in the nanomolar range, even in the presence of an mRNA competitor. Further mutational analysis of the SR1 sRNA and the ahrC mRNA confirmed binding of CsrA to both transcripts. CsrA facilitates the binding of the SR1 sRNA downstream the start codon of the ahrC mRNA and induces conformational changes in the RBS preventing its translation (Müller et al., 2019). Importantly, Hfq was not found to catalyze this interaction and ProQ is not expressed in B. subtilis. Interestingly, this suggests that CsrA may act as an alternative RNA chaperone to Hfq and ProQ in assisting sRNA-mRNA basepairing.
RNA- and DNA-Binding Multifunctional Proteins as RNA Chaperones
While Hfq, ProQ, and CsrA may be considered the major RNA chaperones interacting with sRNAs, additional RBPs are known to assist RNA folding and bind sRNAs. Two of such examples include the cold shock proteins (CSPs) and the StpA protein. CSPs are a group of small proteins that display the RNA-binding cold shock domain (CSD) (Phadtare and Severinov, 2010) and can passively remodel RNA structures (Woodson et al., 2018). The major cold shock protein of E. coli is CspA that binds RNA with low sequence specificity and in a cooperative fashion (). CspA activity results in the melting of RNA secondary structures, which favors the unfolded state of transcripts enabling their translation (Rennella et al., 2017). In Staphylococcus aureus, a RIP-chip assay identified the RNA targets of CspA, which included several sRNAs (). Accordingly, it is likely that CspA assists sRNA-mediated regulation. Though not all members of the CSP family are induced by cold, they may be relevant for adaptation to other stresses (Yamanaka et al., 1998). For example, CspC and CspE stimulate translation of rpoS (encoding the stress sigma factor S) possibly by altering the secondary structure of the rpoS mRNA in E. coli (Phadtare and Inouye, 2001; Phadtare et al., 2006) and affect virulence in Salmonella (Michaux et al., 2017). E. coli StpA is another example of an RNA chaperone that remodels RNA structures without hydrolyzing ATP. StpA has RNA annealing and RNA strand displacement activities (Zhang et al., 1995, 1996). It binds weakly to RNA with preference for unstructured molecules, promoting RNA conformational changes by loosening RNA secondary structures (). Importantly, the RNA chaperone StpA was found to interact with the small RNA MicF. StpA regulates the stability of MicF sRNA and accelerates its base pairing with the target ompF mRNA, acting as a major regulator of the OmpF porin expression ().
RNases
RNase E
Homologs of E. coli RNase E have been identified in the majority of Proteobacteria classes (). This endoribonuclease is composed by a conserved N-terminal catalytic region with an embedded RNA-binding S1 domain, and the unstructured C-terminal non-catalytic region (). RNase E cleaves single-stranded RNA, preferably enriched in A/U nucleotides with a stem-loop upstream (). Although it prefers substrates with 5′-end monophosphorylated, in vivo it is also functional in a 5′-monophosphate-independent pathway (). Upon Hfq dissociation from the sRNA-mRNA pairs, RNase E can reach and cleave the target mRNA in a linear stretch at the 3′-end of the duplex region (Waters et al., 2017). The sRNAs RyhB and GcvB are typical examples in which sRNA pairing with the coding region promotes mRNA decay via the recruitment of RNase E (; Morita et al., 2005; ). Often the base paired sRNA is also degraded with the mRNA. McaS sRNA bound to Hfq interacts with both RNase E and its substrate csgD mRNA, leading to the cleavage of both RNAs (). RNase E is also critical for the processing of sRNAs from the 3′ UTR of mRNAs, including the release of the CpxQ sRNA from the 3′-end of the cpxP mRNA () and the processing of the precursor RNA to originate the functional ArcZ (). A paralog named RNase G that contains only the catalytic domain of RNase E is also present in E. coli and other bacteria (). Although this non-essential enzyme shares common activities with RNase E, including rRNA processing and mRNA turnover, no role has been ascribed for RNase G in sRNA processing (). Interestingly, RNase E activity on sRNAs can be modulated by other RNA-binding proteins. This is the case of RapZ, an RBP that functions as an adaptor protein in E. coli. RapZ binds to the central stem loop of the sRNA GlmZ and RNase E is then recruited for the processing of this sRNA (), which regulates the glmS mRNA encoding the glucosamine-6-phosphate (GlcN6P) synthase. RapZ was recently found to be the receptor for GlcN6P ().
RNase III
RNase III is a widely distributed endoribonuclease involved in the processing of double-stranded RNAs (dsRNAs). E. coli RNase III acts as a 52 kDa homodimer, with the catalytic N-terminal domain connected by a short linker to the C-terminal dsRNA-binding domain (). RNase III can cleave the duplex RNA formed between complementary regions of sRNA and its target mRNA (; ). The target-coupled pathway for RNase III degradation mediated via sRNAs is commonly observed in bacteria. In Salmonella, RNase III is responsible for the degradation of the dsRNA formed between MicA and its target ompA mRNA upon basepairing (Viegas et al., 2011). In B. subtilis, the 3′-end of the antitoxin RatA sRNA forms a large duplex with the txpA mRNA that is cleaved by RNase III and prevents the translation of TxpA toxin (). In Streptococcus pyogenes, the type II CRISPR-Cas system depends on the maturation of CRISPR RNA by RNase III ().
PNPase
Polynucleotide phosphorylase (PNPase) is a highly conserved 3′–5′ exoribonuclease that processively degrades RNA (Saramago et al., 2014; ). PNPase adopts a homotrimeric organization with a ring-like structure, each monomer having a molecular weight of 78 kDa and holding two RNA-binding domains, KH and S1, on the C-terminal (Shi et al., 2008). In E. coli, PNPase is the main enzyme involved in the degradation of sRNAs that are not bound to Hfq, as shown for the regulation of different Hfq-dependent sRNAs, such as MicA, GlmY, RyhB, and SgrS levels (, ). This effect is growth-phase regulated and agrees with previous work in which PNPase was found to degrade sRNAs in the absence of their primary target mRNAs (). Additionally, PNPase has an unexpected role in Listeria monocytogenes, being responsible for the correct processing of an orphan CRISPR RNA (Sesto et al., 2014).
Although to a lesser extent, additional RNases are involved in the regulation of sRNAs. The degradative enzymes YbeY and RNase R are illustrative examples. YbeY is a highly conserved endoribonuclease commonly associated with rRNA processing (). However, YbeY was shown to bind sRNAs and regulate the levels of sRNAs and mRNAs (Pandey et al., 2011). In Sinorhizobium meliloti it was shown that YbeY could cleave sRNA-mRNA pairs (Saramago et al., 2017). Inactivation of YbeY in E. coli cells exposed to hydroxyurea resulted in the upregulation of many sRNAs involved in the adaptation to oxidative stress (Pandey et al., 2014). Additionally, Vibrio cholerae YbeY was found to regulate the abundance of the sRNAs Qrr1-4 (Vercruysse et al., 2014), which are involved in quorum-sensing and virulence (Tu and Bassler, 2007). RNase R is a unique 3′–5′ exoribonuclease able to degrade highly structured RNAs (). There are few described examples of RNase R involved in the regulation of sRNAs. During cold shock in E. coli, RNase R is required for the correct processing of the sRNA SsrA/tmRNA (transfer-messenger RNA), involved in protein quality control and ribosome recycling (). RNase R was also described to control sRNA stability of the sRNA SR4 and its target bsrG mRNA that together constitute a temperature-dependent type I toxin/antitoxin system in Bacillus subtilis ().
Conclusion
RNA chaperones can modify sRNA structure, facilitate the basepairing of sRNAs to their target mRNAs and together with RNases control sRNA stability (Figure 2). However, some RNA chaperones seem to be specific of some species and the activities performed by these regulators may be compensated by other still unidentified RNA-binding proteins. Several RBPs with unorthodox RNA-binding domains have been identified in humans, expanding the number of proteins that can associate with RNA (). Therefore, it is also possible that additional and probably unconventional RBPs interacting with sRNA are going to be discovered in bacteria. The RNA chaperone ProQ offers us a good example of this potential. A new RNA-seq methodology associated to sample fractionation (Grad-seq) contributed to the identification of ProQ as a novel RBP interacting with sRNAs (Smirnov et al., 2016). Application of this and similar methods may contribute to expand the number of sRNA-protein partners and helps to shed light on the many still unknown functions and physiological roles of sRNAs.
FIGURE 2
Statements
Author contributions
JA outlined the manuscript. AQ, AS, and RS prepared the figures. CA and JA supervised the work. All authors wrote and participated in preparation of the final manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by Project LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-007660 (Microbiologia Molecular, Estrutural e Celular) funded by FEDER through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal), including Program IF (IF/00961/2014) and Grants PTDC/IMI-MIC/4463/2014 and PTDC/BIA-MIC/32525/2017 to JA, Grant PTDC/BIA-MIC/1399/2014 to CA, the Doctoral fellowships PD/BD/135487/2018 to AQ, and PD/BD/146136/2019 to AS.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
Aït-BaraS.CarpousisA. J. (2015). RNA degradosomes in bacteria and chloroplasts: classification, distribution and evolution of RNase E homologs.Mol. Microbiol.971021–113510.1111/mmi.13095
2
AltuviaY.BarA.ReissN.KaravaniE.ArgamanL.MargalitH. (2018). In vivo cleavage rules and target repertoire of RNase III in Escherichia coli.Nucleic Acids Res.4610380–10394. 10.1093/nar/gky684
3
AndradeJ. M.ArraianoC. M. (2008). PNPase is a key player in the regulation of small RNAs that control the expression of outer membrane proteins.RNA14543–551. 10.1261/rna.683308
4
AndradeJ. M.Dos SantosR. F.ChelyshevaI.IgnatovaZ.ArraianoC. M. (2018). The RNA-binding protein Hfq is important for ribosome biogenesis and affects translation fidelity.EMBO J.37:e97631. 10.15252/embj.201797631
5
AndradeJ. M.PobreV.ArraianoC. M. (2013). Small RNA modules confer different stabilities and interact differently with multiple targets.PLoS One8:e52866. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052866
6
AndradeJ. M.PobreV.MatosA. M.ArraianoC. M. (2012). The crucial role of PNPase in the degradation of small RNAs that are not associated with Hfq.RNA18844–855. 10.1261/rna.029413.111
7
AndreassenP. R.PettersenJ. S.SzczerbaM.Valentin-HansenP.Møller-JensenJ.JørgensenM. G. (2018). sRNA-dependent control of curli biosynthesis in Escherichia coli: McaS directs endonucleolytic cleavage of csgD mRNA.Nucleic Acids Res.466746–6760. 10.1093/nar/gky479
8
ArraianoC. M.AndradeJ. M.DominguesS.GuinoteI. B.MaleckiM.MatosR. G.et al (2010). The critical role of RNA processing and degradation in the control of gene expression.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.34883–923. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00242.x
9
AttaiechL.BoughammouraA.Brochier-ArmanetC.AllatifO.Peillard-FiorenteF.EdwardsR. A.et al (2016). Silencing of natural transformation by an RNA chaperone and a multitarget small RNA.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1138813–8818. 10.1073/pnas.1601626113
10
AttaiechL.GloverJ. N. M.CharpentierX. (2017). RNA chaperones step out of Hfq’s shadow.Trends Microbiol.25247–249. 10.1016/j.tim.2017.01.006
11
BandyraK. J.LuisiB. F. (2018). RNase E and the high-fidelity orchestration of RNA metabolism.Microbiol. Spectr.6:RWR-0008-2017. 10.1128/microbiolspec.RWR-0008-2017
12
CaballeroC. J.Menendez-GilP.Catalan-MorenoA.Vergara-IrigarayM.GarcíaB.SeguraV.et al (2018). The regulon of the RNA chaperone CspA and its auto-regulation in Staphylococcus aureus.Nucleic Acids Res.461345–1361. 10.1093/nar/gkx1284
13
CailletJ.BaronB.BoniI. V.Caillet-SaguyC.HajnsdorfE. (2019). Identification of protein-protein and ribonucleoprotein complexes containing Hfq.Sci. Rep.9:14054. 10.1038/s41598-019-50562-w
14
CairrãoF.CruzA.MoriH.ArraianoC. M. (2003). Cold shock induction of RNase R and its role in the maturation of the quality control mediator SsrA/tmRNA.Mol. Microbiol.501349–1360. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03766.x
15
CastelloA.FischerB.FreseC. K.HorosR.AlleaumeA.-M.FoehrS.et al (2016). Comprehensive identification of RNA-binding domains in human cells.Mol. Cell63696–710. 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.06.029
16
CechG. M.Szalewska-PałaszA.KubiakK.MalabiradeA.GrangeW.ArluisonV.et al (2016). The Escherichia coli Hfq protein: an unattended DNA-transactions regulator.Front. Mol. Biosci.3:36. 10.3389/fmolb.2016.00036
17
ChaoY.LiL.GirodatD.FörstnerK. U.SaidN.CorcoranC.et al (2017). In vivo cleavage map illuminates the central role of RNase E in coding and non-coding RNA pathways.Mol. Cell6539–51. 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.11.002
18
ChaoY.VogelJ. (2016). A 3’ UTR-derived small RNA provides the regulatory noncoding arm of the inner membrane stress response.Mol. Cell61352–363. 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.023
19
ChaulkS. G.Smith FriedayM. N.ArthurD. C.CulhamD. E.EdwardsR. A.SooP.et al (2011). ProQ is an RNA chaperone that controls ProP levels in Escherichia coli.Biochemistry503095–3106. 10.1021/bi101683a
20
ClarkeJ. E.KimeL.RomeroA. D.McDowallK. J. (2014). Direct entry by RNase E is a major pathway for the degradation and processing of RNA in Escherichia coli.Nucleic Acids Res.4211733–11751. 10.1093/nar/gku808
21
DaviesB. W.KöhrerC.JacobA. I.SimmonsL. A.ZhuJ.AlemanL. M.et al (2010). Role of Escherichia coli YbeY, a highly conserved protein, in rRNA processing.Mol. Microbiol.78506–518. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07351.x
22
DeighanP.FreeA.DormanC. J. (2000). A role for the Escherichia coli H-NS-like protein StpA in OmpF porin expression through modulation of micF RNA stability.Mol. Microbiol.38126–139. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.02120.x
23
Del CampoC.BartholomäusA.FedyuninI.IgnatovaZ. (2015). Secondary structure across the bacterial transcriptome reveals versatile roles in mRNA regulation and function.PLoS Genet.11:e1005613. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005613
24
DeltchevaE.ChylinskiK.SharmaC. M.GonzalesK.ChaoY.PirzadaZ. A.et al (2011). CRISPR RNA maturation by trans-encoded small RNA and host factor RNase III.Nature471602–607. 10.1038/nature09886
25
Dos SantosR. F.ArraianoC. M.AndradeJ. M. (2019). New molecular interactions broaden the functions of the RNA chaperone Hfq.Curr. Genet.651313–1319. 10.1007/s00294-019-00990-y
26
Dos SantosR. F.QuenderaA. P.BoavidaS.SeixasA. F.ArraianoC. M.AndradeJ. M. (2018). Major 3’-5’ exoribonucleases in the metabolism of coding and non-coding RNA.Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl. Sci.159101–155. 10.1016/bs.pmbts.2018.07.005
27
DubeyA. K.BakerC. S.RomeoT.BabitzkeP. (2005). RNA sequence and secondary structure participate in high-affinity CsrA-RNA interaction.RNA111579–1587. 10.1261/rna.2990205
28
DurandS.GiletL.BessièresP.NicolasP.CondonC. (2012). Three essential ribonucleases-RNase Y, J1, and III-control the abundance of a majority of Bacillus subtilis mRNAs.PLoS Genet.8:e1002520. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002520
29
DussO.MichelE.Dit KontéN. D.SchubertM.AllainF. H. T. (2014a). Molecular basis for the wide range of affinity found in Csr/Rsm protein-RNA recognition.Nucleic Acids Res.425332–5346. 10.1093/nar/gku141
30
DussO.MichelE.YulikovM.SchubertM.JeschkeG.AllainF. H.-T. (2014b). Structural basis of the non-coding RNA RsmZ acting as a protein sponge.Nature509588–592. 10.1038/nature13271
31
FenderA.ElfJ.HampelK.ZimmermannB.WagnerE. G. H. (2010). RNAs actively cycle on the Sm-like protein Hfq.Genes Dev.242621–2626. 10.1101/gad.591310
32
GelsingerD. R.DiRuggieroJ. (2018). The non-coding regulatory RNA revolution in archaea.Genes (Basel)9:141. 10.3390/genes9030141
33
GonzalezG. M.HardwickS. W.MaslenS. L.SkehelJ. M.HolmqvistE.VogelJ.et al (2017). Structure of the Escherichia coli ProQ RNA-binding protein.RNA23696–711. 10.1261/rna.060343.116
34
GöpelY.PapenfortK.ReichenbachB.VogelJ.GörkeB. (2013). Targeted decay of a regulatory small RNA by an adaptor protein for RNase E and counteraction by an anti-adaptor RNA.Genes Dev.27552–564. 10.1101/gad.210112.112
35
GutiérrezP.LiY.OsborneM. J.PomerantsevaE.LiuQ.GehringK. (2005). Solution structure of the carbon storage regulator protein CsrA from Escherichia coli.J. Bacteriol.1873496–3501. 10.1128/JB.187.10.3496-3501.2005
36
HendersonC. A.VincentH. A.StoneC. M.PhillipsJ. O.CaryP. D.GowersD. M.et al (2013). Characterization of MicA interactions suggests a potential novel means of gene regulation by small non-coding RNAs.Nucleic Acids Res.413386–3397. 10.1093/nar/gkt008
37
HoekzemaM.RomillyC.HolmqvistE.WagnerE. G. H. (2019). Hfq−dependent mRNA unfolding promotes sRNA −based inhibition of translation.EMBO J.38:e101199. 10.15252/embj.2018101199
38
HolmqvistE.LiL.BischlerT.BarquistL.VogelJ. (2018). Global maps of ProQ binding In Vivo reveal target recognition via RNA structure and stability control at mRNA 3’ ends.Mol. Cell70971–982.e6. 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.04.017
39
HolmqvistE.VogelJ. (2018). RNA-binding proteins in bacteria.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.16601–615. 10.1038/s41579-018-0049-5
40
HolmqvistE.WrightP. R.LiL.BischlerT.BarquistL.ReinhardtR.et al (2016). Global RNA recognition patterns of post-transcriptional regulators Hfq and CsrA revealed by UV crosslinking in vivo.EMBO J.35991–1011. 10.15252/embj.201593360
41
HwangW.ArluisonV.HohngS. (2011). Dynamic competition of DsrA and rpoS fragments for the proximal binding site of Hfq as a means for efficient annealing.Nucleic Acids Res.395131–5139. 10.1093/nar/gkr075
42
JahnN.PreisH.WiedemannC.BrantlS. (2012). BsrG/SR4 from Bacillus subtilis - the first temperature-dependent type I toxin-antitoxin system.Mol. Microbiol.83579–598. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2011.07952.x
43
JiangK.ZhangC.GuttulaD.LiuF.Van KanJ. A.LavelleC.et al (2015). Effects of Hfq on the conformation and compaction of DNA.Nucleic Acids Res.434332–4341. 10.1093/nar/gkv268
44
JiangW.HouY.InouyeM. (1997). CspA, the major cold-shock protein of Escherichia coli, is an RNA chaperone.J. Biol. Chem.272196–202. 10.1074/jbc.272.1.196
45
JørgensenM. G.ThomasonM. K.HavelundJ.Valentin-HansenP.StorzG. (2013). Dual function of the McaS small RNA in controlling biofilm formation.Genes Dev.271132–1145. 10.1101/gad.214734.113
46
KhanM. A.Durica-MiticS.GöpelY.HeermannR.GörkeB. (2020). Small RNA-binding protein RapZ mediates cell envelope precursor sensing and signaling in Escherichia coli.EMBO J.39:e103848. 10.15252/embj.2019103848
47
KwiatkowskaJ.WroblewskaZ.JohnsonK. A.OlejniczakM. (2018). The binding of Class II sRNA MgrR to two different sites on matchmaker protein Hfq enables efficient competition for Hfq and annealing to regulated mRNAs.RNA241761–1784. 10.1261/rna.067777.118
48
LalaounaD.EyraudA.DevinckA.PrévostK.MasséE. (2019). GcvB small RNA uses two distinct seed regions to regulate an extensive targetome.Mol. Microbiol.111473–486. 10.1111/mmi.14168
49
Le DeroutJ.FolichonM.BrianiF.DehòG.RégnierP.HajnsdorfE. (2003). Hfq affects the length and the frequency of short oligo(A) tails at the 3’ end of Escherichia coli rpsO mRNAs.Nucleic Acids Res.314017–4023. 10.1093/nar/gkg456
50
LeeT.FeigA. L. (2008). The RNA binding protein Hfq interacts specifically with tRNAs.RNA14514–523. 10.1261/rna.531408
51
LiH.NicholsonA. W. (1996). Defining the enzyme binding domain of a ribonuclease III processing signal. Ethylation interference and hydroxyl radical footprinting using catalytically inactive RNase III mutants.EMBO J.151421–1433. 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00484.x
52
LinkT. M.Valentin-HansenP.BrennanR. G. (2009). Structure of Escherichia coli Hfq bound to polyriboadenylate RNA.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10619292–19297. 10.1073/pnas.0908744106
53
LiuM. Y.GuiG.WeiB.PrestonJ. F.OakfordL.YükselU.et al (1997). The RNA molecule CsrB binds to the global regulatory protein CsrA and antagonizes its activity in Escherichia coli.J. Biol. Chem.27217502–17510. 10.1074/jbc.272.28.17502
54
LybeckerM.ZimmermannB.BilusicI.TukhtubaevaN.SchroederR. (2014). The double-stranded transcriptome of Escherichia coli.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1113134–3139. 10.1073/pnas.1315974111
55
MackieG. A. (2013). RNase E: at the interface of bacterial RNA processing and decay.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.1145–57. 10.1038/nrmicro2930
56
MalabiradeA.JiangK.KubiakK.Diaz-MendozaA.LiuF.van KanJ. A.et al (2017). Compaction and condensation of DNA mediated by the C-terminal domain of Hfq.Nucleic Acids Res.457299–7308. 10.1093/nar/gkx431
57
MardenJ. N.DiazM. R.WaltonW. G.GodeC. J.BettsL.UrbanowskiM. L.et al (2013). An unusual CsrA family member operates in series with RsmA to amplify posttranscriptional responses in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.11015055–15060. 10.1073/pnas.1307217110
58
MasséE.EscorciaF. E.GottesmanS. (2003). Coupled degradation of a small regulatory RNA and its mRNA targets in Escherichia coli.Genes Dev.172374–2383. 10.1101/gad.1127103
59
MayerO.RajkowitschL.LorenzC.KonratR.SchroederR. (2007). RNA chaperone activity and RNA-binding properties of the E. coli protein StpA.Nucleic Acids Res.351257–1269. 10.1093/nar/gkl1143
60
MelamedS.AdamsP. P.ZhangA.ZhangH.StorzG. (2019). RNA-RNA Interactomes of ProQ and Hfq reveal overlapping and competing roles.Mol. Cell77411–425.e7. 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.022
61
MelamedS.PeerA.Faigenbaum-RommR.GattY. E.ReissN.BarA.et al (2016). Global mapping of small RNA-target interactions in bacteria.Mol. Cell63884–897. 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.07.026
62
MichauxC.HolmqvistE.VasicekE.SharanM.BarquistL.WestermannA. J.et al (2017). RNA target profiles direct the discovery of virulence functions for the cold-shock proteins CspC and CspE.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1146824–6829. 10.1073/pnas.1620772114
63
MihailovicM. K.Vazquez-AndersonJ.LiY.FryV.VimalathasP.HerreraD.et al (2018). High-throughput in vivo mapping of RNA accessible interfaces to identify functional sRNA binding sites.Nat. Commun.9:4084. 10.1038/s41467-018-06207-z
64
MohantyB. K.MaplesV. F.KushnerS. R. (2004). The Sm-like protein Hfq regulates polyadenylation dependent mRNA decay in Escherichia coli.Mol. Microbiol.54905–920. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04337.x
65
MøllerT.FranchT.HøjrupP.KeeneD. R.BächingerH. P.BrennanR. G.et al (2002). Hfq: a bacterial Sm-like protein that mediates RNA-RNA interaction.Mol. Cell923–30. 10.1016/s1097-2765(01)00436-1
66
MoritaT.MakiK.AibaH. (2005). RNase E-based ribonucleoprotein complexes: mechanical basis of mRNA destabilization mediated by bacterial noncoding RNAs.Genes Dev.192176–2186. 10.1101/gad.1330405
67
MorrisE. R.HallG.LiC.HeebS.KulkarniR. V.LovelockL.et al (2013). Structural rearrangement in an RsmA/CsrA Ortholog of Pseudomonas aeruginosa creates a dimeric RNA-binding protein, RsmN.Structure211659–1671. 10.1016/j.str.2013.07.007
68
MüllerP.GimpelM.WildenhainT.BrantlS. (2019). A new role for CsrA: promotion of complex formation between an sRNA and its mRNA target in Bacillus subtilis.RNA Biol.16972–987. 10.1080/15476286.2019.1605811
69
OlejniczakM.StorzG. (2017). ProQ/FinO-domain proteins: another ubiquitous family of RNA matchmakers?Mol. Microbiol.104905–915. 10.1111/mmi.13679
70
PandeyS. P.MinesingerB. K.KumarJ.WalkerG. C. (2011). A highly conserved protein of unknown function in Sinorhizobium meliloti affects sRNA regulation similar to Hfq.Nucleic Acids Res.394691–4708. 10.1093/nar/gkr060
71
PandeyS. P.WinklerJ. A.LiH.CamachoD. M.CollinsJ. J.WalkerG. C. (2014). Central role for RNase YbeY in Hfq-dependent and Hfq-independent small-RNA regulation in bacteria.BMC Genomics15:121. 10.1186/1471-2164-15-121
72
PanjaS.SchuD. J.WoodsonS. A. (2013). Conserved arginines on the rim of Hfq catalyze base pair formation and exchange.Nucleic Acids Res.417536–7546. 10.1093/nar/gkt521
73
PhadtareS.InouyeM. (2001). Role of CspC and CspE in regulation of expression of RpoS and UspA, the stress response proteins in Escherichia coli.J. Bacteriol.1831205–1214. 10.1128/JB.183.4.1205-1214.2001
74
PhadtareS.SeverinovK. (2010). RNA remodeling and gene regulation by cold shock proteins.RNA Biol.7788–795. 10.4161/rna.7.6.13482
75
PhadtareS.TadigotlaV.ShinW. H.SenguptaA.SeverinovK. (2006). Analysis of Escherichia coli global gene expression profiles in response to overexpression and deletion of CspC and CspE.J. Bacteriol.1882521–2527. 10.1128/JB.188.7.2521-2527.2006
76
PottsA. H.VakulskasC. A.PannuriA.YakhninH.BabitzkeP.RomeoT. (2017). Global role of the bacterial post-transcriptional regulator CsrA revealed by integrated transcriptomics.Nat. Commun.8:1596. 10.1038/s41467-017-01613-1
77
RajkowitschL.SchroederR. (2007). Dissecting RNA chaperone activity.RNA132053–2060. 10.1261/rna.671807
78
ReimmannC.ValverdeC.KayE.HaasD. (2005). Posttranscriptional repression of GacS/GacA-controlled genes by the RNA-binding protein RsmE acting together with RsmA in the biocontrol strain Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0.J. Bacteriol.187276–285. 10.1128/JB.187.1.276-285.2005
79
RennellaE.SáraT.JuenM.WunderlichC.ImbertL.SolyomZ.et al (2017). RNA binding and chaperone activity of the E. coli cold-shock protein CspA.Nucleic Acids Res.454255–4268. 10.1093/nar/gkx044
80
RomeoT.BabitzkeP. (2018). Global Regulation by CsrA and Its RNA Antagonists.Microbiol. Spectr.6:RWR–0009–2017. 10.1128/microbiolspec.rwr-0009-2017
81
RomeoT.GongM.LiuM. Y.Brun-ZinkernagelA. M. (1993). Identification and molecular characterization of csrA, a pleiotropic gene from Escherichia coli that affects glycogen biosynthesis, gluconeogenesis, cell size, and surface properties.J. Bacteriol.1754744–4755. 10.1128/jb.175.15.4744-4755.1993
82
RomeoT.VakulskasC. A.BabitzkeP. (2013). Post-transcriptional regulation on a global scale: form and function of Csr/Rsm systems.Environ. Microbiol.15313–324. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02794.x
83
Santiago-FrangosA.FröhlichK. S.JeliazkovJ. R.MałeckaE. M.MarinoG.GrayJ. J.et al (2019). Caulobacter crescentus Hfq structure reveals a conserved mechanism of RNA annealing regulation.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.16610978–10987. 10.1073/pnas.1814428116
84
Santiago-FrangosA.JeliazkovJ. R.GrayJ. J.WoodsonS. A. (2017). Acidic C-terminal domains autoregulate the RNA chaperone Hfq.eLife6:e27049. 10.7554/eLife.27049
85
Santiago-FrangosA.WoodsonS. A. (2018). Hfq chaperone brings speed dating to bacterial sRNA.Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA9:e1475. 10.1002/wrna.1475
86
SaramagoM.BárriaC.Dos SantosR. F.SilvaI. J.PobreV.DominguesS.et al (2014). The role of RNases in the regulation of small RNAs.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.18105–115. 10.1016/j.mib.2014.02.009
87
SaramagoM.PeregrinaA.RobledoM.MatosR. G.HilkerR.SerraniaJ.et al (2017). Sinorhizobium meliloti YbeY is an endoribonuclease with unprecedented catalytic features, acting as silencing enzyme in riboregulation.Nucleic Acids Res.451371–1391. 10.1093/nar/gkw1234
88
SauerE.SchmidtS.WeichenriederO. (2012). Small RNA binding to the lateral surface of Hfq hexamers and structural rearrangements upon mRNA target recognition.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1099396–9401. 10.1073/pnas.1202521109
89
SauerE.WeichenriederO. (2011). Structural basis for RNA 3’-end recognition by Hfq.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10813065–13070. 10.1073/pnas.1103420108
90
SchuD. J.ZhangA.GottesmanS.StorzG. (2015). Alternative Hfq-sRNA interaction modes dictate alternative mRNA recognition.EMBO J.342557–2573. 10.15252/embj.201591569
91
SchubertM.LapougeK.DussO.OberstrassF. C.JelesarovI.HaasD.et al (2007). Molecular basis of messenger RNA recognition by the specific bacterial repressing clamp RsmA/CsrA.Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.14807–813. 10.1038/nsmb1285
92
SestoN.TouchonM.AndradeJ. M.KondoJ.RochaE. P. C.ArraianoC. M.et al (2014). A PNPase dependent CRISPR System in Listeria.PLoS Genet.10:e1004065. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004065
93
ShiZ.YangW.-Z.Lin-ChaoS.ChakK.-F.YuanH. S. (2008). Crystal structure of Escherichia coli PNPase: central channel residues are involved in processive RNA degradation.RNA142361–2371. 10.1261/rna.1244308
94
ShimoniY.FriedlanderG.HetzroniG.NivG.AltuviaS.BihamO.et al (2007). Regulation of gene expression by small non-coding RNAs: a quantitative view.Mol. Syst. Biol.3:138. 10.1038/msb4100181
95
SilvaI. J.BarahonaS.EyraudA.LalaounaD.Figueroa-BossiN.MasséE.et al (2019). SraL sRNA interaction regulates the terminator by preventing premature transcription termination of rho mRNA.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1163042–3051. 10.1073/pnas.1811589116
96
SmirnovA.FörstnerK. U.HolmqvistE.OttoA.GünsterR.BecherD.et al (2016). Grad-seq guides the discovery of ProQ as a major small RNA-binding protein.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.11311591–11596. 10.1073/pnas.1609981113
97
SmirnovA.SchneiderC.HörJ.VogelJ. (2017a). Discovery of new RNA classes and global RNA-binding proteins.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.39152–160. 10.1016/j.mib.2017.11.016
98
SmirnovA.WangC.DrewryL. L.VogelJ. (2017b). Molecular mechanism of mRNA repression in trans by a ProQ-dependent small RNA.EMBO J.361029–1045. 10.15252/embj.201696127
99
StorzG.VogelJ.WassarmanK. M. (2011). Regulation by small RNAs in bacteria: expanding frontiers.Mol. Cell43880–891. 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.022
100
SzklarczykD.MorrisJ. H.CookH.KuhnM.WyderS.SimonovicM.et al (2017). The STRING database in 2017: quality-controlled protein-protein association networks, made broadly accessible.Nucleic Acids Res.45D362–D368. 10.1093/nar/gkw937
101
TuK. C.BasslerB. L. (2007). Multiple small RNAs act additively to integrate sensory information and control quorum sensing in Vibrio harveyi.Genes Dev.21221–233. 10.1101/gad.1502407
102
UdekwuK. I.DarfeuilleF.VogelJ.ReimegårdJ.HolmqvistE.WagnerE. G. H. (2005). Hfq-dependent regulation of OmpA synthesis is mediated by an antisense RNA.Genes Dev.192355–2366. 10.1101/gad.354405
103
VakulskasC. A.LengY.AbeH.AmakiT.OkayamaA.BabitzkeP.et al (2016). Antagonistic control of the turnover pathway for the global regulatory sRNA CsrB by the CsrA and CsrD proteins.Nucleic Acids Res.447896–7910. 10.1093/nar/gkw484
104
VakulskasC. A.PottsA. H.BabitzkeP.AhmerB. M. M.RomeoT. (2015). Regulation of Bacterial Virulence by Csr (Rsm) Systems.Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.79193–224. 10.1128/mmbr.00052-14
105
VercruysseM.KöhrerC.DaviesB. W.ArnoldM. F. F.MekalanosJ. J.RajBhandaryU. L.et al (2014). The highly conserved bacterial RNase YbeY is essential in Vibrio cholerae, playing a critical role in virulence, stress regulation, and RNA processing.PLoS Pathog.10:e1004175. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004175
106
ViegasS. C.SilvaI. J.SaramagoM.DominguesS.ArraianoC. M. (2011). Regulation of the small regulatory RNA MicA by ribonuclease III: a target-dependent pathway.Nucleic Acids Res.392918–2930. 10.1093/nar/gkq1239
107
VogelJ.LuisiB. F. (2011). Hfq and its constellation of RNA.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.9578–589. 10.1038/nrmicro2615
108
WatersS. A.McAteerS. P.KudlaG.PangI.DeshpandeN. P.AmosT. G.et al (2017). Small RNA interactome of pathogenic E. coli revealed through crosslinking of RNase E.EMBO J.36374–387. 10.15252/embj.201694639
109
WeilbacherT.SuzukiK.DubeyA. K.WangX.GudapatyS.MorozovI.et al (2003). A novel sRNA component of the carbon storage regulatory system of Escherichia coli.Mol. Microbiol.48657–670. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03459.x
110
WestermannA. J.VenturiniE.SellinM. E.FörstnerK. U.HardtW.-D.VogelJ. (2019). The Major RNA-Binding Protein ProQ Impacts Virulence Gene Expression in Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium.mBio10:e02504-18. 10.1128/mBio.02504-18
111
WoodsonS. A.PanjaS.Santiago-FrangosA. (2018). Proteins That Chaperone RNA Regulation.Microbiol. Spectr.6385–397. 10.1128/microbiolspec.RWR-0026-2018
112
YakhninA. V.BakerC. S.VakulskasC. A.YakhninH.BerezinI.RomeoT.et al (2013). CsrA activates flhDC expression by protecting flhDC mRNA from RNase E-mediated cleavage.Mol. Microbiol.87851–866. 10.1111/mmi.12136
113
YamanakaK.FangL.InouyeM. (1998). The CspA family in Escherichia coli: multiple gene duplication for stress adaptation.Mol. Microbiol.27247–255. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.00683.x
114
ZhangA.DerbyshireV.Galloway SalvoJ. L.BelfortM. (1995). Escherichia coli protein StpA stimulates self-splicing by promoting RNA assembly in vitro.RNA1783–793.
115
ZhangA.RimskyS.ReabanM. E.BucH.BelfortM. (1996). Escherichia coli protein analogs StpA and H-NS: regulatory loops, similar and disparate effects on nucleic acid dynamics.EMBO J.151340–1349. 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00476.x
116
ZhangA.SchuD. J.TjadenB. C.StorzG.GottesmanS. (2013). Mutations in interaction surfaces differentially impact E. coli Hfq association with small RNAs and their mRNA targets.J. Mol. Biol.4253678–3697. 10.1016/j.jmb.2013.01.006
Summary
Keywords
RNA-binding proteins, RNA chaperone, ribonucleases, small non-coding RNAs, CsrA, Hfq, ProQ
Citation
Quendera AP, Seixas AF, dos Santos RF, Santos I, Silva JPN, Arraiano CM and Andrade JM (2020) RNA-Binding Proteins Driving the Regulatory Activity of Small Non-coding RNAs in Bacteria. Front. Mol. Biosci. 7:78. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.00078
Received
20 January 2020
Accepted
06 April 2020
Published
13 May 2020
Volume
7 - 2020
Edited by
Olga N. Ozoline, Institute of Cell Biophysics (RAS), Russia
Reviewed by
Irina Masulis, Institute of Cell Biophysics (RAS), Russia; Claudio Valverde, National University of Quilmes, Argentina
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Quendera, Seixas, dos Santos, Santos, Silva, Arraiano and Andrade.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: José M. Andrade, andrade@itqb.unl.pt
This article was submitted to Protein and RNA Networks, a section of the journal Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.