Drosophila Nanos acts as a molecular clamp that modulates the RNA-binding and repression activities of Pumilio

  1. Chase A Weidmann
  2. Chen Qiu
  3. René M Arvola
  4. Tzu-Fang Lou
  5. Jordan Killingsworth
  6. Zachary T Campbell
  7. Traci M Tanaka Hall  Is a corresponding author
  8. Aaron C Goldstrohm  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. National Institutes of Health, United States
  3. University of Texas at Dallas, United States

Abstract

Collaboration among the multitude of RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) is ubiquitous, yet our understanding of these key regulatory complexes has been limited to single RBPs. We investigated combinatorial translational regulation by Drosophila Pumilio (Pum) and Nanos (Nos), which control development, fertility, and neuronal functions. Our results show how the specificity of one RBP (Pum) is modulated by cooperative RNA recognition with a second RBP (Nos) to synergistically repress mRNAs. Crystal structures of Nos-Pum-RNA complexes reveal that Nos embraces Pum and RNA, contributes sequence-specific contacts, and increases Pum RNA-binding affinity. Nos shifts the recognition sequence and promotes repression complex formation on mRNAs that are not stably bound by Pum alone, explaining the preponderance of sub-optimal Pum sites regulated in vivo. Our results illuminate the molecular mechanism of a regulatory switch controlling crucial gene expression programs, and provide a framework for understanding how the partnering of RBPs evokes changes in binding specificity that underlie regulatory network dynamics.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Chase A Weidmann

    Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Chen Qiu

    Epigenetics and Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. René M Arvola

    Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Tzu-Fang Lou

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jordan Killingsworth

    Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Zachary T Campbell

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Traci M Tanaka Hall

    Epigenetics and Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, United States
    For correspondence
    hall4@niehs.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Aaron C Goldstrohm

    Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    agoldstr@umn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1867-8763

Funding

National Institutes of Health (NIGMS R01GM105707)

  • Chase A Weidmann
  • René M Arvola
  • Jordan Killingsworth
  • Aaron C Goldstrohm

National Institutes of Health (NRSA 5T32GM007544)

  • Chase A Weidmann
  • René M Arvola

American Cancer Society (RSG-13-080-01-RMC)

  • Chase A Weidmann
  • Aaron C Goldstrohm

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Intramural Research Program)

  • Chen Qiu
  • Traci M Tanaka Hall

U.S. Department of Energy (W-31-109-Eng-38)

  • Chen Qiu
  • Traci M Tanaka Hall

National Science Foundation (DGE 1256260)

  • René M Arvola

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Leemor Joshua-Tor, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, United States

Version history

  1. Received: April 20, 2016
  2. Accepted: August 1, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 2, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 23, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 4,101
    views
  • 832
    downloads
  • 58
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Chase A Weidmann
  2. Chen Qiu
  3. René M Arvola
  4. Tzu-Fang Lou
  5. Jordan Killingsworth
  6. Zachary T Campbell
  7. Traci M Tanaka Hall
  8. Aaron C Goldstrohm
(2016)
Drosophila Nanos acts as a molecular clamp that modulates the RNA-binding and repression activities of Pumilio
eLife 5:e17096.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17096

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17096

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli ... Sefika Banu Ozkan
    Research Article

    We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.