Small RNAs Con­sid­ered

Note. Trans­fer­ring our more than 2,000 posts from one plat­form to an­other, Word­Press, is a cum­ber­some task. Thus, many of our posts still con­tain bro­ken links. We will fix this one by one. We ask for your pa­tience.

by Janie

With the dis­cov­ery of the trp at­ten­u­a­tor in the 1970s, fol­lowed short­ly by the ColE1 plas­mid RNA I, RNA be­came a much more inter­esting per­son­ality. The bio­molecule turned out to wear far more hats than mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA. In all its mul­ti­tudes, RNA seems to boast an infin­ite func­tional reper­toire, from modul­ating mRNA sta­bility to cata­lyzing chem­ical reac­tions to sens­ing small mole­cules to more.

We've had a smat­tering of regul­atory RNA appre­ciation on the blog. First, we had a guest author's bird's‑eye view of the world of small RNAs. Last week, Christoph wrote of a multi­talented RNA mole­cule in­volved in regul­ating V. cholerae viru­lence. We've also cover­ed the tm­RNA in two posts, first in an enthu­siastic Twit­ter-based over­view and then in a look at its remark­able cross-king­dom role (post likely lost in tran­la­tion) in the Vib­rio fis­cheri-Hawai­ian bob­tail squid sym­biosis. In the forty-odd years since the dis­covery of the trp atten­uator and RNA I, a smorgas­bord of such regul­atory RNAs has been charac­terized espe­cially in fa­mil­iar faces like E. coli and Pseudomonas, but sym­bionts – endo­symbionts, even more so – haven't re­ceived as much scru­tiny.

Fig­ure 1. P. bur­saria with al­gal endo­sym­bionts. Source. Fron­­tis­piece.

Now we high­light an­other fascin­ating case of cross-king­dom RNA ex­change that fea­tures an endo­symbiosis in­stead (mark­ing the first time the blog has cov­ered a eu­kary­ote-in-eu­kar­y­ote endo­symbiosis). The microb­ial duo in this re­cent study by Jenk­ins et al. con­sists of Para­me­cium bur­saria and its green al­gal endo­symbionts, Chlorella spp. The two are en­gaged in a fac­ul­ta­tive photo­symbiosis, the al­gae prov­iding sug­ars pro­duced via photo­synthesis and the Para­me­cium prov­iding or­ganic nitro­gen to meet its end of the evolu­tionary deal. This all sounds very peace­ful and plea­sant, but what Jenk­ins et al. find is that a dog-eat-dog (cell-eat-cell?) mech­anism may under­lie this sym­biosis. A punchy line from the pa­per: "Con­flict is an in­evitable out­come of all sym­bioses, the resolu­tion of which can sig­nifi­cantly im­pact the sta­bility of an inter­action. Enforce­ment mech­anisms that pun­ish mis­behavior can act to sta­bilize sym­bioses."

The au­thors ask, what dri­ves the tran­sition from mere en­gulfed cell to a more sta­ble intra­cellular res­i­dent, and then what keeps that res­i­dent from be­ing di­gested? It turns out that part of the nar­rative may be dri­ven by cross-king­dom RNA inter­actions, and the "punish­ment" for the pro­tist host arises when it di­gests its endo­symbionts.

P. bur­saria di­ges­tion of endo­symbionts can be trig­gered by ex­po­sure to cyclo­heximide. The ribo­somal trans­lational inhib­itor sets off a surge in lyso­somal ac­tiv­ity within P. bur­saria, which di­gests and wipes out the endo­symbiotic al­gae. This loss throws a wrench in the protist's growth (Fig. 2), so the pres­ence of its endo­symbionts is in­deed im­portant.

Fig­ure 2. From Fig­ure 1 of the pa­per. (A) P. bur­saria cell num­ber (gray) ver­sus al­gal chloro­phyll flu­o­res­cent in­tensity (pink) in sta­tion­ary phase cul­tures treated with cy­clo­heximide com­pared to un­treated con­trols. Loss of al­gal flu­o­res­cent in­ten­sity in­di­cates al­gal death/loss of func­tion in re­sponse to cy­clo­hex­imide treat­ment. (B) Stages of en­dosym­biont elim­i­na­tion in rep­re­sentative P. bur­saria cells over 3 days of cyclohex­imide treat­ment. Lyso­Tracker Green flu­o­res­cence (green; ') in­di­cates in­creas­ed host lyso­so­mal ac­tiv­ity in res­ponse to cyclo­hexi­mide treat­ment. Al­gal chloro­phyll flu­o­res­cence (pink; '') high­lights en­dosym­bi­otic al­gae within the P. bur­saria cell. Source

This endo­symbiont break­down is like a hy­brid of burst­ing a piñata and open­ing Pandora's box: it's true that digest­ing endo­symbionts may have tasty ben­e­fits like nu­tri­ents, but the other mole­cular de­tri­tus left in the wake of the de­stroyed endo­symbionts can't be forgot­ten. That in­cludes RNA. Jenk­ins et al. demon­strate that in cy­clo­hex­imide-treated P. bur­saria, the host RNAi machin­ery mov­ing about in the cyto­plasm slice and dice re­leased endo­symbiont mR­NAs to pro­duce 23-nt sR­NAs. This recog­nition and pro­ces­sing of the RNA is done by a band of pro­teins like Dicer and the Arg­onaute pro­teins. The resul­ting sR­NAs go on to si­lence P. bur­saria genes, inter­acting with tran­scripts such as elon­gation fac­tor 1α (EF-1α), tubu­lin β chain (tub‑β), and a heat-shock pro­tein (HSP90) and ulti­mately restrict­ing host growth.

P. bur­saria RNAi mach­inery is thus ca­pa­ble of pro­cessing both endo­genous and exo­genous mRNA, con­firmed by the nor­mal growth re­stored by a Dicer knock­down. This was dou­ble-checked by ex­pos­ing P. bur­saria to syn­thetic frag­ments of al­gal mRNA, which again ham­pered growth. And just as be­fore, this growth de­fect was re­lieved by knock­down of host RNAi mach­inery. Both syn­thetic dsRNA and the more biologi­cally rele­vant syn­thetic ss­RNA did the trick – but in the lat­ter case, only for ss­RNA in the sense orient­ation, the same orient­ation as the source mRNA tran­scripts in vivo.

So, the host's dig­estion of al­gal endo­symbionts re­leases al­gal RNA that slips into the host's RNAi cir­cuits and then ham­pers host growth. The endo­symbiont's mR­NAs are mole­cular sleeper agents, kick­ing into retrib­utory ac­tion on the host only if touched by host RNAi mach­inery: a canny way of en­forc­ing "endo­symbionts are friends, not food." Jenk­ins et al. dub these inter­actions "RNAi col­lisions." It's a tit-for-tat game, ex­cept the game pieces here are made of RNA and it spans evolu­tionary his­tory.

Cost-ben­e­fit analy­ses like these play into endo­symbiont pop­ulation den­sity across species. Endo­symbionts pro­vide nut­rients and de­fense, but too high of an endo­symbiont titer can siphon away host re­sources, for ex­ample. The host must fine tune its res­i­dent pop­ulation at dif­ferent life stages, in dif­ferent am­bi­ent con­ditions. In aphids, endo­symbiont titer af­fects re­sis­tance to heat, and in Wol­bachia–in­fected Drosophila, it af­fects host pheno­types like oocyte develop­ment. P. bur­saria it­self has been found to tin­ker with its endo­symbiont load in vary­ing light con­ditions, too. Some endo­symbiont di­ges­tion is neces­sary at times, so what RNAi col­lisions accom­plish, the au­thors sug­gest, is to pre­vent elim­ination of endo­symbionts en masse.

This is also not the first RNA rodeo of its kind: en­dosym­biont-host RNA-RNA inter­play has prev­iously been ob­served in other cel­lu­lar Ma­tryoshka doll set-ups. For ex­am­ple, tRNA-de­rived sR­NAs of sev­eral ni­tro­gen-fix­ing rhizo­bial endo­symbionts are ex­ported to the legume host through a yet un­known mech­anism, where they reg­u­late host genes in­volved in root nod­ule for­mation by co-opt­ing their hosts' RNAi mach­inery. There, si­lenc­ing tar­get genes pro­motes root nod­ulation. Wol­bachia, too, taps into RNA as a tool for manip­ulating its host. Some Wol­bachia sR­NAs reg­u­late not only Wol­bachia tran­script lev­els, but also reg­u­late tran­script lev­els of its Drosophila host's genes – in­cluding dynein heavy chain mRNA, thereby pos­sibly reg­ulating its own intracel­lular traf­ficking.

What's un­known in these two pre­vi­ous ex­am­ples is whether endo­symbiont degrad­ation has any­thing to do with them. The Wol­bachia sR­NAs were iden­tified through sim­ple frac­tion­ation of whole en­dosym­biont-con­tain­ing mos­quito cells and North­ern blot­ting, and the rhizo­bial sR­NAs were iden­tified by com­paring RNA-seq data from free-liv­ing Rhi­zo­bia, col­o­nized root nod­ules, and un­colonized root nod­ules. Per­haps here, too, RNA-RNA inter­actions are inter­linked with endo­symbiont diges­tion.

What other reg­ulatory RNAs will be discov­ered that might reg­u­late endo­symbioses? Def­i­nitely, reg­ulation by RNA has advan­tages parti­cularly rele­vant to the reduced–genome con­texts of many endo­symbionts. Par­tial base-pair­ing of sR­NAs with tar­get mR­NAs al­lows for broad reg­ulation by a sin­gle RNA mole­cule, which is use­ful when a cell must be econ­omical with its genome's cod­ing ca­pac­ity. RNA-based regul­ation is also less meta­bolic­ally costly than pro­tein-based regul­ation, which frees up a cell's re­sources for key sym­biotic du­ties like churn­ing out defen­sive secon­dary metab­olites. It's also quick: regul­atory RNA doesn't need to be trans­lated, so it's inher­ently a speedy means of adapt­ing to chang­ing con­ditions like host life stage and nu­tri­ent de­mand. And the poten­tial for chem­ical modifi­cations of RNA leads to the oppor­tunity for stag­gering mole­cular diver­sity.

So, we keep a vigil­ant eye out for more cases of microb­ial cre­ativ­ity with RNA!

 

 
 

Other Posts

  • Of Terms in Bi­ol­ogy: Moon­light­ing

    by Christoph — The Cam­bridge Dic­tio­nary de­fines "moon­light­ing" as: the act of work­ing at an ex­tra job, es­pe­cially with­out telling your main em­ployer. (Far) off the job mar­ket, "moon­light­ing pro­teins" are sin­gle polypep­tide chains that per­form mul­ti­ple bio­chem­i­cal or bio­phys­i­cal func­tions in ar­chaeal, bac­te­r­ial, and eu­kary­otic cells.

  • Chemo­taxis Praxis

    by Janie — In sto­ry­telling, there is a fa­mous prin­ci­ple called Chekhov's gun. "If in the first act you have hung a pis­tol on the wall, then in the fol­low­ing one it should be fired. Oth­er­wise, don't put it there." This pithy (and very de­bat­able) di­rec­tive, at­trib­uted to the epony­mous play­wright, smells a whole lot like the (sim­i­larly very de­bat­able) view­point of adap­ta­tion­ism...

  • Waste­water Mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy

    by Me­chas — Us­ing waste­water to mon­i­tor hu­man pop­u­la­tions is a grow­ing trend. The waste prod­ucts found in the wa­ter dis­carded af­ter do­mes­tic, com­mer­cial, or in­dus­trial use re­flects the habits and con­sump­tions of so­ci­ety and pro­vide a pool of in­for­ma­tion on our cus­toms and be­hav­iors.

  • Peer Pres­sure In­duces Biofilm Pro­duc­tion

    by S. Mar­vin Fried­man — Bac­te­ria are ex­pert cen­sus tak­ers. Us­ing chem­i­cal sig­nals they can rec­og­nize when they are in a crowd, and then they re­spond with ap­pro­pri­ate col­lec­tive be­hav­iors. This cen­sus tak­ing, termed quo­rum sens­ing, ac­ti­vates such di­verse cel­lu­lar processes as bi­o­lu­mi­nes­cence, vir­u­lence fac­tor pro­duc­tion, biofilm for­ma­tion, and sporu­la­tion. Pathogens of­ten con­struct…

  • My­c­or­rhizal Fungi: The World's Biggest Drink­ing Straws And...

    ...Largest Un­seen Com­mu­ni­ca­tion Sys­tem by Elio — Quick, which is the biggest sym­bi­otic as­so­ci­a­tion on Earth? Did you guess the my­c­or­rhizae? They are the huge sym­bioses be­tween fungi and the roots of most ter­res­trial plants. Their to­tal size is not easy to mea­sure be­cause not all the fun­gal fil­a­ments in soils are my­c­or­rhizal nor are the my­c­or­rhizal…

  • Ad­her­ing To The 'Repli­con Model' The Sloppy Way

    by Christoph — Sixty years ago Ja­cob, Bren­ner and Cuzin de­vised their 'Repli­con Model', in­spir­ing and use­ful guide­line for repli­ca­tion re­search ever since. Ac­cord­ing to the model, a 'Repli­con' is a ge­netic el­e­ment repli­cated from a sin­gle 'Repli­ca­tor' – repli­ca­tion ori­gin, in mod­ern terms – and repli­ca­tion is trig­gered by a pos­i­tive trans-act­ing fac­tor, the 'Ini­tia­tor'…