Abstract
The biosynthesis pathways of microRNAs (miRNAs) have been well characterized with the identification of the required components. miRNAs are synthesized from the transcripts of miRNA genes and other RNAs, such as introns, transfer RNAs, ribosomal RNAs, small nucleolar RNAs, and even viral miRNAs. These small RNAs are loaded into Argonaute (AGO) proteins and recruit the effector complexes to target mRNAs, repressing their gene expression post-transcriptionally. While mature miRNAs were defined as 19–23 nucleotides (nt), tiny RNAs (tyRNAs) shorter than 19 nt have been found to bind AGOs as equivalent or lesser miRNAs compared to their full-length mature miRNAs. In contrast, my recent study revealed that when human AGO3 loads 14 nt cleavage-inducing tyRNAs (cityRNAs), comprised of the first 14 nt of their corresponding mature miRNA, it can become a comparable slicer to AGO2. This observation raises the possibility that tyRNAs play distinct roles from their mature form. This minireview focuses on human AGO-associated tyRNAs shorter than 19 nt and discusses their possible biosynthesis pathways and physiological benefits, including how tyRNAs could avoid target-directed miRNA degradation accompanied by AGO polyubiquitination.
Introduction
More than 2,000 microRNAs (miRNAs) have been reported in humans as of 2019 (). miRNAs are varied in sequence, but their lengths fall within a range of 19–23 nucleotides (nt) because precursor miRNAs (pre-miRNAs) are processed by Dicer, a molecular ruler which generates size-specific miRNA duplexes (Zhang et al., 2004). After these duplexes are loaded into Argonaute (AGO) proteins, one strand is ejected while the remaining guide strand and AGO form the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) (Figure 1A) (Nakanishi, 2016). Therefore, a length of about 22 nt is the hallmark of mature miRNAs (). This size definition was exploited to eliminate ∼18 nt RNAs during sample preparation or analysis in most early next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). However, RNA-seq without this limitation found a substantial number of 10–18 nt tiny RNAs (tyRNAs) bound to AGOs (; Kuscu et al., 2018; ). This review defines AGO-associated 19 nt or longer small RNAs as mature miRNAs, with those shorter than 19 nt as tyRNAs. Although these tyRNAs have been reported to retain a similar physiological activity to their mature miRNAs, some of 14–15 nt tyRNAs drastically increase the slicing activity of human AGO3 and named them cleavage-inducing tyRNAs (cityRNAs) (Park et al., 2020). The discovery has raised the possibility that tyRNAs confer yet-unidentified, but distinct roles on AGOs.
FIGURE 1
Precursors of Tiny RNAS
There have been only a few papers reporting tyRNAs and characterizing their physiological activity. The previous studies show that tyRNAs are derived from various types of RNAs.
tRNA-Derived tyRNAs
Transfer RNAs (tRNAs) are mediator molecules decoding genomic information into amino acids. As one of the most indispensable noncoding RNAs throughout evolution, tRNAs have been involved in and responsible for many different cellular events (Su et al., 2020). Previous studies revealed that angiogenin is induced to cleave tRNAs within anticodon loops upon starvation, ultraviolet irradiation, oxidative stress, heat/cold stress, and hypoxia (Thompson and Parker, 2009; Yamasaki et al., 2009). Human DICER1 was also reported as a tRNA slicer (Figure 1B) (), but meta-analysis suggests that the generation of tRNA-derived fragments (tRFs) is DICER1-independent because more tRFs were generated in dicer −/− mouse embryonic stem cells (). Although DICER1 is dispensable for the generation of most of 15–30 nt tRFs, tRNATrp(CCA), tRNAHis(GTG), and tRNATyr(GTA) show 2–10-fold down-regulation of their 15–19 nt fragments in the dicer1 knockout cells (Li et al., 2012), suggesting that DICER1 is required for the synthesis of 15–19 nt tRFs. Indeed, recombinant human DICER1 cleaves a body-labeled tRNAGln to 20–30 nt in vitro (). Also, DICER1 processes tRNAGly in its TψC-loop to generate a 22 nt small RNA called CU1276, which works as a miRNA (Maute et al., 2013).
Despite the strong evidence of tRNA cleavage by DICER1, how DICER1 recognizes tRNAs to generate tRFs remains unclear. In canonical miRNA biogenesis, human DICER1 recognizes the 3′ end 2 nt overhang of pre-miRNA and with its RNase III domains cleaves the position about 22 nt from the 3′ end (Park et al., 2011). Also, DICER1 generates size-defined products from two pre-miRNAs, one of which has a 34 nt stem and a 14 nt loop while the other has a 22 nt stem and a 4 nt loop (Tsutsumi et al., 2011), indicating that DICER1 measures 22 nt from the 3′ end and cleaves the pre-miRNA, regardless of stem and loop length. Likewise, if DICER1 recognizes the 3′ end 4 nt overhang of L-shaped tRNAs with its PAZ domain, where does DICER1 cleave in the tRNAs? When a tRNA is docked on the structure of human DICER1 (Liu et al., 2018), the phosphate backbone at position 54 on the TψC-loop is in the vicinity of the catalytic residues of the RNase IIIa domain (Figure 1C). This is consistent with the cleavage site of tRNAGly by DICER1 (Maute et al., 2013). An RNA sequencing analysis showed that 19 nt tRFs are the most abundant and are typically generated by cleavage at the phosphate group of position 20. In the docking model, the phosphate group at position 20 in the D-loop appears to be accessible to the catalytic centers of neither RNase IIIa nor IIIb (Figure 1C). Still, the scissile phosphate group appears to face the catalytic residues if the L-shaped tRNA is unwound by DICER1.
tRFs are classified into 10 categories (Xie et al., 2020; Zong et al., 2021). Among them, 14–30 nt tRF-5s were found in AGO1- and AGO2-associated small RNAs in HeLa cells, and their production required DICER1 (). tRF-5s are further classified into three subgroups, one of which is the 14–16 nt tRF-5a generated from a region from the 5′ end of the acceptor stem to the D-loop or its stem part (Figure 1B) (). Meanwhile, tRF-3s, which are derived from a region from TψC-loop to the 3′ CCA terminus, are known to be incorporated into AGO1 and AGO2, and their synthesis involves angiogenin, DICER1, and other RNases (Li et al., 2012). tRF-3a, a subtype of tRF-3s, is ∼18 nt. It may be plausible that after being cleaved by DICER1, tRF-5 and tRF-3 are loaded into AGO and then processed into 14–18 nt tRFs by a 3′→5′ exonuclease (Figure 1B).
Unusually Small RNAs
The genomic DNA and RNA of viruses, such as Epstein-Barr virus, bovine leukemia virus, and Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV), encode their miRNA genes (; ; Pfeffer et al., 2004). In the infected cells, the viral transcript, mimicking primary miRNAs, are processed by Microprocessor in the nucleus and/or DICER1 in the cytoplasm (the process corresponds to that of the cellular pri-miRNAs in Figure 1A) (). After the resultant viral miRNA duplexes are loaded into AGO, the hijacked RISCs manipulate mRNAs relevant to the antiviral response and apoptosis to increase the infected cell’s longevity (; Suffert et al., 2011). For example, human cytomegalovirus miR-UL112 targets the gene of the major histocompatibility complex class I-related chain B, which is a stress-induced ligand of natural killer cells and actives the receptor to kill virus-infected cells (Stern-Ginossar et al., 2007).
KSHV generates 12 viral miRNAs (). Northern blots for 22 nt K12-1 KSHV miRNA also detected a 16 nt RNA, whose sequence is identical to the first 16 nt of the 22 nt form (Li et al., 2009). This unusually small RNA (usRNA) silences the gene expression, albeit the activity is different from its mature form. The authors analyzed the previously reported RNA-seq data of AGO-associated small RNAs in HEK293 cells () and discovered cellular usRNAs whose sequence is identical to the first 18 nt of their miRNAs (Li et al., 2009). Since the MID and PIWI domains of human AGOs thoroughly recognize the 5′ end of the bound guide RNA (; Nakanishi et al., 2012; Schirle and MacRae, 2012; Nakanishi et al., 2013; Park et al., 2017; Park et al., 2019), the 5′ end seems to have no chance of being processed by 5′→3′ exonucleases. On the other hand, the 3′ end of AGO-bound guide RNAs, which is recognized by the PAZ domain in the RISC, is known to be trimmed by different 3′→5′ exonucleases (; Yoda et al., 2013). In the paper, high-throughput sequencing showed that 9–14 nt RNAs were the most abundant usRNAs, but the population was not analyzed further due to the technical difficulty in reliably mapping such short reads to the genomic coordinates (Li et al., 2009). These results suggest that usRNAs are derived from AGO-bound mature miRNAs by 3′ end trimming, but RNases and components involved in the 3′ end trimming remain to be studied.
Loop-miRs
In the canonical miRNA-biogenesis pathway, Dicer processes the hairpin-structured pre-miRNAs into miRNA duplexes while generating the cropped loops as a byproduct (Nakanishi, 2016) (Figure 1A). However, when the synthetic RNAs corresponding to the excised loop region were transfected into HEK293 cells, they repressed the luciferase activity (Winter et al., 2013), suggesting that the loop region works as guide RNA to silence the gene expression. Thus, the single-stranded loop region of pre-miRNA hairpins is named loop-miR (Figure 1B). According to the size definition of miRNAs, the loop parts of miR-33a (19 nt), miR-34a (20 nt), miR-192 (22 nt), and miR-219 (22 nt), but not any loops shorter than 19 nt, were tested for biological significance in the study. The loop excised by Dicer shows a size distribution mainly from 8 to 29 nt, with 13–15 nt being the most abundant (Winter et al., 2013). Although efficient loading of miRNA duplexes into AGOs requires chaperon machinery (; Naruse et al., 2018), 15–29 nt 5′ phosphorylated single-stranded RNAs can be autonomously incorporated into AGOs in HeLa cell cytoplasmic extract (Martinez et al., 2002). It looks like 13–15 nt loop-miRs are directly loaded into AGOs, but another study showed that when pre-miR-34 mutant has a 15 or 22 nt loop, the hairpin was processed properly regardless of the loop size but did not produce the 15 nt species loaded to fly Ago1 (Okamura et al., 2013). This study also reported that fly Ago1-loaded loop-miRs were trimmed at their 3′ end and that mouse AGO1 and AGO2 loaded shortened loop-miRs. Those results suggest that sufficient length loop-miRs are loaded into AGOs and processed into tyRNAs by 3′ end trimming.
Benefits of Synthesizing Tyrnas to the Cells
Previous studies using RNA-seq and in vivo assays demonstrated that many tyRNAs exist in cells and bind to AGOs, and that these RNAs can cause gene silencing similar to their mature miRNAs. The advantages of synthesizing tyRNAs, however, remain unclear.
cityRNA-Bound AGO3 Could Cleave Many mRNAs
In humans, AGO2 has been thought to be the only slicer when the targets have a fully complementary sequence to their guide RNA (Liu et al., 2004; Meister et al., 2004). siRNAs can be designed to perfectly pair any mRNAs and cleave them by exploiting AGO2’s slicing activity (). Only a few endogenous RNAs, however, have been reported as the substrate of miRNA-directed mRNA cleavage (Lagos-Quintana et al., 2001). HOXB8 mRNA includes a sequence fully complementary to 22 nt miR-196a (Yekta et al., 2004). Since guide RNAs do not use the base at their guide nucleotide position 1 for pairing with target RNAs, a sequence perfectly complementary to a 22 nt guide appears every 1.1 trillion nucleotides (= 421 = 4.4 × 1012). This number is quite large compared to the diploid human genome size of 6.4 billion nucleotides (6.4 × 109). Therefore, few transcripts encompass the perfectly complementary sequence, which could explain why only a few mRNAs are cleaved by AGO2 with mature miRNAs. My recent study discovered that loading 14 nt specific tyRNA catalytically activates AGO3, while reducing the slicing activity of AGO2 compared to that of their mature miRNAs (Park et al., 2020). The sequence fully complementary to a 14 nt cityRNA appears every 67 million nucleotides (= 413 = 67 × 106). Assuming that about 93% of the human genome is transcribed (), AGO3 loaded with a 14 nt cityRNA could cleave approximately 100 sites. This number decreases because among 14–15 nt tyRNAs, only ones with specific sequences can serve as cityRNAs (i.e., catalytically activate AGO3) (Park et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the synthesis of cityRNAs appears to be a powerful tool for the cell to change gene expression drastically by cleaving many transcripts. Therefore, cells would need to regulate the biogenesis of tyRNAs strictly.
Possible Pathways of Tiny RNA Biogenesis
Direct Loading of tyRNAs Into AGOs
Canonical and most non-canonical miRNA biogenesis pathways, including intron-, ribosomal RNA-, and small nuclear RNA (snoRNA)-derived miRNA syntheses, retain the hairpin or double-stranded form of their precursors until the passenger strand is ejected during RISC assembly (Figure 1B) (Okamura et al., 2007; Ruby et al., 2007; ). In contrast, it remains unclear whether tRFs are loaded into AGOs as single- or double-stranded RNAs. Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) are known to originate from single-stranded RNA precursors, and the 3′ end of their mature form is protected by a 2′ O-methyl modification from RNA degradation (; Ozata et al., 2019). Although little is known about how the single-stranded precursors of piRNAs retain the integrity during processing, they must have a yet-identified system to avoid RNA degradation.
If ∼18 nt single-stranded RNAs are generated in the cell, can they be directly loaded into AGOs as tyRNAs? Such short RNAs would be quite susceptive to cellular RNases because they are too short to fold into a hairpin structure or form a stable duplex. Supporting this idea, my recent study showed that transfection of an unmodified, 14 nt guide RNA into HEK293T cells failed to activate AGO3 (Park et al., 2020), probably due to single-stranded RNA degradation by the cellular RNases (Lima et al., 2012). However, when the same 14 nt single-stand was heavily modified, it loaded onto AGO3 and converted it to an active slicer. These results suggest that even if tyRNAs are endogenously synthesized in the cell, most are easily degraded before interacting with AGOs. How single-stranded precursors of miRNAs and piRNAs protect themselves from degradation, and whether they employ similar or distinct mechanisms, remains to be studied.
tyRNAs May Escape From Trimming- and Tailing-independent TDMD
The target specificity of miRNA-mediated gene silencing primarily relies on the base complementarity between the seed region (g2-g8) of guide RNA and target RNAs (Lewis et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2003; Zisoulis et al., 2010). Further pairing through the 3′ region of the guide reinforces their interaction (). Some miRNAs are known to be degraded when their 3′ region is extensively base paired with mRNAs. This target-directed miRNA degradation (TDMD) controls the level of specific miRNAs (de la Mata et al., 2015; ; ). In contrast, miRNAs causing gene silencing have mismatches in their 3′ region with target mRNAs, which could explain how miRNAs and their targets avoid excessive TDMD (). Structural studies revealed that when the RISC propagates the guide-target duplex toward the 3′ end of the guide, topological stress accumulates, thereby releasing the 3′ end from the PAZ domain (Wang et al., 2009; Sheu-Gruttadauria et al., 2019). Therefore, it seems likely that when the guide pairs TDMD-inducing mRNAs, the freed 3′ end becomes accessible to 3′→5′ exonucleases and terminal nucleotidyltransferases which trim and tail the 3′ end, respectively (; Warkocki et al., 2018). Although TDMD has been thought to be accompanied by trimming and tailing of the 3′ end guide RNAs, recent studies reported TDMD independent of these 3′ end modifications (; Shi et al., 2020) (Figure 2A). In this model, the RISC has a specific conformation due to the extensive pairing between the guide and TDMD-inducing mRNA and recruits Zinc Finger SWIM-Type Containing 8 (ZSWIM8) to form a cullin-RING ubiquitin ligase complex. As a result, AGO is polyubiquitinated by E2 ligase. After a 26S proteosome degrades the ubiquitinated AGO, the miRNAs are exposed to cellular RNases.
FIGURE 2
On the contrary, unlike mature miRNAs, tyRNAs, having a short 3′ region, do not appear to extensively pair with TDMD-inducing target RNAs (Figure 2B). Since the seed region of tyRNAs is intact, they would retain the ability to silence gene expression (Kuscu et al., 2018; Li et al., 2009) or like cityRNAs may play distinct roles from that of their mature form (Park et al., 2020). Viruses also exploit TDMD to neutralize the antiviral response of the cells that they infect. Herpesvirus saimiri and Murine cytomegalovirus transcribe their noncoding RNAs, H. saimiri U-rich RNA1 (HSUR1) and m169, respectively, both of which include sequences that extensively pair with the seed and 3′ region of miR-27a and thus trigger TDMD (similar to Figure 2A) (; ). Since miR-27a is involved in the antiviral response (Marcinowski et al., 2012), the degradation of key cellular miRNAs is beneficial to viral infection and replication. If the infected cells change such miRNAs into tyRNAs, the RISC could escape from virus-induced TDMD, and instead degrade the viral noncoding RNAs (Figure 2C). Therefore, the biosynthesis of tyRNAs may counter the infection as part of the antiviral response.
Statements
Author contributions
KN wrote the manuscript, elaborated the figures, and approved the review for publication.
Funding
This work was supported by the NIH (R01GM124320 and R01GM138997) to KN.
Acknowledgments
I thank the member of the Nakanishi lab for the discussion of the topics.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
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.
References
1
AbendJ. R.UldrickT.ZiegelbauerJ. M. (2010). Regulation of Tumor Necrosis Factor-like Weak Inducer of Apoptosis Receptor Protein (TWEAKR) Expression by Kaposi's Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus microRNA Prevents TWEAK-Induced Apoptosis and Inflammatory Cytokine Expression. J. Virol.84, 12139–12151. 10.1128/JVI.00884-10
2
AmbrosV.BartelB.BartelD. P.BurgeC. B.CarringtonJ. C.ChenX.et al (2003). A Uniform System for microRNA Annotation. RNA9, 277–279. 10.1261/rna.2183803
3
AmeresS. L.HorwichM. D.HungJ.-H.XuJ.GhildiyalM.WengZ.et al (2010). Target RNA-Directed Trimming and Tailing of Small Silencing RNAs. Science328, 1534–1539. 10.1126/science.1187058
4
BaldrichP.RutterB. D.KarimiH. Z.PodichetiR.MeyersB. C.InnesR. W. (2019). Plant Extracellular Vesicles Contain Diverse Small RNA Species and Are Enriched in 10- to 17-Nucleotide “Tiny” RNAs. Plant Cell31, 315–324. 10.1105/tpc.18.00872
5
BuckA. H.PerotJ.ChisholmM. A.KumarD. S.TuddenhamL.CognatV.et al (2010). Post-transcriptional Regulation of miR-27 in Murine Cytomegalovirus Infection. RNA16, 307–315. 10.1261/rna.1819210
6
CazallaD.YarioT.SteitzJ. A. (2010). Down-regulation of a Host microRNA by a Herpesvirus saimiri Noncoding RNA. Science328, 1563–1566. 10.1126/science.1187197
7
ColeC.SobalaA.LuC.ThatcherS. R.BowmanA.BrownJ. W. S.et al (2009). Filtering of Deep Sequencing Data Reveals the Existence of Abundant Dicer-dependent Small RNAs Derived from tRNAs. RNA15, 2147–2160. 10.1261/rna.1738409
8
ConsortiumE. P.BirneyE.StamatoyannopoulosJ. A.DuttaA.GuigóR.GingerasT. R.et al (2007). Identification and Analysis of Functional Elements in 1% of the Human Genome by the ENCODE Pilot Project. Nature447, 799–816. 10.1038/nature05874
9
CzechB.MunafòM.CiabrelliF.EastwoodE. L.FabryM. H.KneussE.et al (2018). piRNA-Guided Genome Defense: From Biogenesis to Silencing. Annu. Rev. Genet.52, 131–157. 10.1146/annurev-genet-120417-031441
10
DenzlerR.McGearyS. E.TitleA. C.AgarwalV.BartelD. P.StoffelM. (2016). Impact of MicroRNA Levels, Target-Site Complementarity, and Cooperativity on Competing Endogenous RNA-Regulated Gene Expression. Mol. Cel.64, 565–579. 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.027
11
ElbashirS. M.HarborthJ.LendeckelW.YalcinA.WeberK.TuschlT. (2001). Duplexes of 21-nucleotide RNAs Mediate RNA Interference in Cultured Mammalian Cells. Nature411, 494–498. 10.1038/35078107
12
ElkayamE.KuhnC.-D.TociljA.HaaseA. D.GreeneE. M.HannonG. J.et al (2012). The Structure of Human Argonaute-2 in Complex with miR-20a. Cell150, 100–110. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.017
13
EnderC.KrekA.FriedländerM. R.BeitzingerM.WeinmannL.ChenW.et al (2008). A Human snoRNA with microRNA-like Functions. Mol. Cel.32, 519–528. 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.10.017
14
Fuchs WightmanF.GionoL. E.FededaJ. P.de la MataM. (2018). Target RNAs Strike Back on MicroRNAs. Front. Genet.9, 435. 10.3389/fgene.2018.00435
15
GangrasP.DayehD. M.MabinJ. W.NakanishiK.SinghG. (2018). Cloning and Identification of Recombinant Argonaute-Bound Small RNAs Using Next-Generation Sequencing. Methods Mol. Biol.1680, 1–28. 10.1007/978-1-4939-7339-2_1
16
GottweinE.MukherjeeN.SachseC.FrenzelC.MajorosW. H.ChiJ.-T. A.et al (2007). A Viral microRNA Functions as an Orthologue of Cellular miR-155. Nature450, 1096–1099. 10.1038/nature05992
17
GrimsonA.FarhK. K.-H.JohnstonW. K.Garrett-EngeleP.LimL. P.BartelD. P. (2007). MicroRNA Targeting Specificity in Mammals: Determinants beyond Seed Pairing. Mol. Cel.27, 91–105. 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.06.017
18
GrundhoffA.SullivanC. S.GanemD. (2006). A Combined Computational and Microarray-Based Approach Identifies Novel microRNAs Encoded by Human Gamma-Herpesviruses. RNA12, 733–750. 10.1261/rna.2326106
19
HaasG.CetinS.MessmerM.Chane-Woon-MingB.TerenziO.ChicherJ.et al (2016). Identification of Factors Involved in Target RNA-Directed microRNA Degradation. Nucleic Acids Res.44, 2873–2887. 10.1093/nar/gkw040
20
HanJ.LaVigneC. A.JonesB. T.ZhangH.GillettF.MendellJ. T. (2020). A Ubiquitin Ligase Mediates Target-Directed microRNA Decay Independently of Tailing and Trimming. Science370. 10.1126/science.abc9546
21
IwasakiS.SasakiH. M.SakaguchiY.SuzukiT.TadakumaH.TomariY. (2015). Defining Fundamental Steps in the Assembly of the Drosophila RNAi Enzyme Complex. Nature521, 533–536. 10.1038/nature14254
22
JuvvunaP. K.KhandeliaP.LeeL. M.MakeyevE. V. (2012). Argonaute Identity Defines the Length of Mature Mammalian microRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res.40, 6808–6820. 10.1093/nar/gks293
23
KincaidR. P.BurkeJ. M.SullivanC. S. (2012). RNA Virus microRNA that Mimics a B-Cell oncomiR. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.109, 3077–3082. 10.1073/pnas.1116107109
24
KincaidR. P.SullivanC. S. (2012). Virus-encoded microRNAs: an Overview and a Look to the Future. Plos Pathog.8, e1003018. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003018
25
KozomaraA.BirgaoanuM.Griffiths-JonesS. (2019). miRBase: from microRNA Sequences to Function. Nucleic Acids Res.47, D155–D162. 10.1093/nar/gky1141
26
KumarP.AnayaJ.MudunuriS. B.DuttaA. (2014). Meta-analysis of tRNA Derived RNA Fragments Reveals that They Are Evolutionarily Conserved and Associate with AGO Proteins to Recognize Specific RNA Targets. BMC Biol.12, 78. 10.1186/s12915-014-0078-0
27
KuscuC.KumarP.KiranM.SuZ.MalikA.DuttaA. (2018). tRNA Fragments (tRFs) Guide Ago to Regulate Gene Expression post-transcriptionally in a Dicer-independent Manner. RNA24, 1093–1105. 10.1261/rna.066126.118
28
la MataM.GaidatzisD.VitanescuM.StadlerM. B.WentzelC.ScheiffeleP.et al (2015). Potent Degradation of Neuronal Mi RNA S Induced by Highly Complementary Targets. EMBO Rep.16, 500–511. 10.15252/embr.201540078
29
Lagos-QuintanaM.RauhutR.LendeckelW.TuschlT. (2001). Identification of Novel Genes Coding for Small Expressed RNAs. Science294, 853–858. 10.1126/science.1064921
30
LewisB. P.BurgeC. B.BartelD. P. (2005). Conserved Seed Pairing, Often Flanked by Adenosines, Indicates that Thousands of Human Genes Are microRNA Targets. Cell120, 15–20. 10.1016/j.cell.2004.12.035
31
LewisB. P.ShihI.-h.Jones-RhoadesM. W.BartelD. P.BurgeC. B. (2003). Prediction of Mammalian microRNA Targets. Cell115, 787–798. 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)01018-3
32
LiZ.EnderC.MeisterG.MooreP. S.ChangY.JohnB. (2012). Extensive Terminal and Asymmetric Processing of Small RNAs from rRNAs, snoRNAs, snRNAs, and tRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res.40, 6787–6799. 10.1093/nar/gks307
33
LiZ.KimS. W.LinY.MooreP. S.ChangY.JohnB. (2009). Characterization of Viral and Human RNAs Smaller Than Canonical MicroRNAs. J. Virol.83, 12751–12758. 10.1128/JVI.01325-09
34
LimaW. F.PrakashT. P.MurrayH. M.KinbergerG. A.LiW.ChappellA. E.et al (2012). Single-stranded siRNAs Activate RNAi in Animals. Cell150, 883–894. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.014
35
LiuJ.CarmellM. A.RivasF. V.MarsdenC. G.ThomsonJ. M.SongJ.-J.et al (2004). Argonaute2 Is the Catalytic Engine of Mammalian RNAi. Science305, 1437–1441. 10.1126/science.1102513
36
LiuZ.WangJ.ChengH.KeX.SunL.ZhangQ. C.et al (2018). Cryo-EM Structure of Human Dicer and its Complexes with a Pre-miRNA Substrate. Cell173, 1191–1203. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.080
37
MarcinowskiL.TanguyM.KrmpoticA.RädleB.LisnićV. J.TuddenhamL.et al (2012). Degradation of Cellular Mir-27 by a Novel, Highly Abundant Viral Transcript Is Important for Efficient Virus Replication In Vivo. Plos Pathog.8, e1002510. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002510
38
MartinezJ.PatkaniowskaA.UrlaubH.LührmannR.TuschlT. (2002). Single-stranded Antisense siRNAs Guide Target RNA Cleavage in RNAi. Cell110, 563–574. 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00908-x
39
MauteR. L.SchneiderC.SumazinP.HolmesA.CalifanoA.BassoK.et al (2013). tRNA-Derived microRNA Modulates Proliferation and the DNA Damage Response and Is Down-Regulated in B Cell Lymphoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA110, 1404–1409. 10.1073/pnas.1206761110
40
MeisterG.LandthalerM.PatkaniowskaA.DorsettY.TengG.TuschlT. (2004). Human Argonaute2 Mediates RNA Cleavage Targeted by miRNAs and siRNAs. Mol. Cel.15, 185–197. 10.1016/j.molcel.2004.07.007
41
NakanishiK. (2016). Anatomy of RISC : How Do Small RNAs and Chaperones Activate Argonaute Proteins?WIREs RNA7, 637–660. 10.1002/wrna.1356
42
NakanishiK.AscanoM.GogakosT.Ishibe-MurakamiS.SerganovA. A.BriskinD.et al (2013). Eukaryote-specific Insertion Elements Control Human ARGONAUTE Slicer Activity. Cel. Rep.3, 1893–1900. 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.06.010
43
NakanishiK.WeinbergD. E.BartelD. P.PatelD. J. (2012). Structure of Yeast Argonaute with Guide RNA. Nature486, 368–374. 10.1038/nature11211
44
NaruseK.Matsuura-SuzukiE.WatanabeM.IwasakiS.TomariY. (2018). In Vitro reconstitution of Chaperone-Mediated Human RISC Assembly. RNA24, 6–11. 10.1261/rna.063891.117
45
OkamuraK.HagenJ. W.DuanH.TylerD. M.LaiE. C. (2007). The Mirtron Pathway Generates microRNA-Class Regulatory RNAs in Drosophila. Cell130, 89–100. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.06.028
46
OkamuraK.LadewigE.ZhouL.LaiE. C. (2013). Functional Small RNAs Are Generated from Select miRNA Hairpin Loops in Flies and Mammals. Genes Dev.27, 778–792. 10.1101/gad.211698.112
47
OzataD. M.GainetdinovI.ZochA.O’CarrollD.ZamoreP. D. (2019). PIWI-interacting RNAs: Small RNAs with Big Functions. Nat. Rev. Genet.20, 89–108. 10.1038/s41576-018-0073-3
48
ParkJ.-E.HeoI.TianY.SimanshuD. K.ChangH.JeeD.et al (2011). Dicer Recognizes the 5′ End of RNA for Efficient and Accurate Processing. Nature475, 201–205. 10.1038/nature10198
49
ParkM. S.Araya-SecchiR.BrackbillJ. A.PhanH.-D.KehlingA. C.Abd El-WahabE. W.et al (2019). Multidomain Convergence of Argonaute during RISC Assembly Correlates with the Formation of Internal Water Clusters. Mol. Cel.75, 725–740. 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.06.011
50
ParkM. S.PhanH.-D.BuschF.HinckleyS. H.BrackbillJ. A.WysockiV. H.et al (2017). Human Argonaute3 Has Slicer Activity. Nucleic Acids Res.45, 11867–11877. 10.1093/nar/gkx916
51
ParkM. S.SimG.KehlingA. C.NakanishiK. (2020). Human Argonaute2 and Argonaute3 Are Catalytically Activated by Different Lengths of Guide RNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA117, 28576–28578. 10.1073/pnas.2015026117
52
PfefferS.ZavolanM.GrässerF. A.ChienM.RussoJ. J.JuJ.et al (2004). Identification of Virus-Encoded microRNAs. Science304, 734–736. 10.1126/science.1096781
53
RubyJ. G.JanC. H.BartelD. P. (2007). Intronic microRNA Precursors that Bypass Drosha Processing. Nature448, 83–86. 10.1038/nature05983
54
SchirleN. T.MacRaeI. J. (2012). The crystal Structure of Human Argonaute2. Science336, 1037–1040. 10.1126/science.1221551
55
Sheu-GruttadauriaJ.PawlicaP.KlumS. M.WangS.YarioT. A.Schirle OakdaleN. T.et al (2019). Structural Basis for Target-Directed MicroRNA Degradation. Mol. Cel.75, 1243–1255. 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.06.019
56
ShiC. Y.KingstonE. R.KleavelandB.LinD. H.StubnaM. W.BartelD. P. (2020). The ZSWIM8 Ubiquitin Ligase Mediates Target-Directed microRNA Degradation. Science370. 10.1126/science.abc9359
57
Stern-GinossarN.ElefantN.ZimmermannA.WolfD. G.SalehN.BitonM.et al (2007). Host Immune System Gene Targeting by a Viral miRNA. Science317, 376–381. 10.1126/science.1140956
58
SuZ.WilsonB.KumarP.DuttaA. (2020). Noncanonical Roles of tRNAs: tRNA Fragments and beyond. Annu. Rev. Genet.54, 47–69. 10.1146/annurev-genet-022620-101840
59
SuffertG.MaltererG.HausserJ.ViiliäinenJ.FenderA.ContrantM.et al (2011). Kaposi's Sarcoma Herpesvirus microRNAs Target Caspase 3 and Regulate Apoptosis. Plos Pathog.7, e1002405. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002405
60
ThompsonD. M.ParkerR. (2009). Stressing Out over tRNA Cleavage. Cell138, 215–219. 10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.001
61
TsutsumiA.KawamataT.IzumiN.SeitzH.TomariY. (2011). Recognition of the Pre-miRNA Structure by Drosophila Dicer-1. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.18, 1153–1158. 10.1038/nsmb.2125
62
WangY.JuranekS.LiH.ShengG.WardleG. S.TuschlT.et al (2009). Nucleation, Propagation and Cleavage of Target RNAs in Ago Silencing Complexes. Nature461, 754–761. 10.1038/nature08434
63
WarkockiZ.LiudkovskaV.GewartowskaO.MroczekS.DziembowskiA. (2018). Terminal Nucleotidyl Transferases (TENTs) in Mammalian RNA Metabolism. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B373, 20180162. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0162
64
WinterJ.LinkS.WitzigmannD.HildenbrandC.PrevitiC.DiederichsS. (2013). Loop-miRs: Active microRNAs Generated from Single-Stranded Loop Regions. Nucleic Acids Res.41, 5503–5512. 10.1093/nar/gkt251
65
XieY.YaoL.YuX.RuanY.LiZ.GuoJ. (2020). Action Mechanisms and Research Methods of tRNA-Derived Small RNAs. Sig. Transduct. Target. Ther.5, 109. 10.1038/s41392-020-00217-4
66
YamasakiS.IvanovP.HuG.-f.AndersonP. (2009). Angiogenin Cleaves tRNA and Promotes Stress-Induced Translational Repression. J. Cel. Biol.185, 35–42. 10.1083/jcb.200811106
67
YektaS.ShihI.-h.BartelD. P. (2004). MicroRNA-directed Cleavage of HOXB8 mRNA. Science304, 594–596. 10.1126/science.1097434
68
YodaM.CifuentesD.IzumiN.SakaguchiY.SuzukiT.GiraldezA. J.et al (2013). Poly(A)-Specific Ribonuclease Mediates 3′-End Trimming of Argonaute2-Cleaved Precursor MicroRNAs. Cel. Rep.5, 715–726. 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.09.029
69
ZhangH.KolbF. A.JaskiewiczL.WesthofE.FilipowiczW. (2004). Single Processing center Models for Human Dicer and Bacterial RNase III. Cell118, 57–68. 10.1016/j.cell.2004.06.017
70
ZisoulisD. G.LovciM. T.WilbertM. L.HuttK. R.LiangT. Y.PasquinelliA. E.et al (2010). Comprehensive Discovery of Endogenous Argonaute Binding Sites in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.17, 173–179. 10.1038/nsmb.1745
71
ZongT.YangY.ZhaoH.LiL.LiuM.FuX.et al (2021). tsRNAs: Novel Small Molecules from Cell Function and Regulatory Mechanism to Therapeutic Targets. Cell Prolif.54, e12977. 10.1111/cpr.12977
Summary
Keywords
argonaute, dicer, tiny RNA, miRNA, tRNA, siRNA, miRNA trimming, miRNA degradation
Citation
Nakanishi K (2021) Are Argonaute-Associated Tiny RNAs Junk, Inferior miRNAs, or a New Type of Functional RNAs?. Front. Mol. Biosci. 8:795356. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.795356
Received
14 October 2021
Accepted
01 November 2021
Published
03 December 2021
Volume
8 - 2021
Edited by
Daniel Cifuentes, Boston University, United States
Reviewed by
Katsutomo Okamura, Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST), Japan
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Nakanishi.
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: Kotaro Nakanishi, nakanishi.9@osu.edu
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.