Two functionally distinct steps mediate high affinity ... · Two functionally distinct steps...
Transcript of Two functionally distinct steps mediate high affinity ... · Two functionally distinct steps...
1
Corresponding author: Ite A. Laird-Offringa, Ph.D. Tel. (323) 865-0655 Fax: (323) 865-0158 E-mail: [email protected]
TITLE:
Two functionally distinct steps mediate high affinity binding
of U1A protein to U1 hairpin II RNA
Phinikoula S. Katsamba1, David G. Myszka2 and Ite A. Laird-Offringa1,3
Running title: Two steps in binding of U1A protein to U1 hairpin II RNA
1Norris Cancer Center/University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los
Angeles, California 90089-9176, USA. 2Center for Biomolecular Interaction Analysis,
University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA.
3Corresponding author: e-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
JBC Papers in Press. Published on April 10, 2001 as Manuscript M101624200 by guest on June 11, 2018
http://ww
w.jbc.org/
Dow
nloaded from
2
SUMMARY
Binding of the U1A protein to its RNA target U1 hairpin II has been extensively
studied as a model for a high-affinity RNA/protein interaction. However, the
mechanism and kinetics by which this complex is formed remain largely unknown.
Here we use real-time biomolecular interaction analysis to dissect the roles various
protein and RNA structural elements play in the formation of the U1A/U1 hairpin II
complex. We show that neutralization of positive charges on the protein or increasing
the salt concentration slows the association rate, suggesting that electrostatic
interactions play an important role in bringing RNA and protein together. In contrast,
removal of hydrogen-bonding or stacking interactions within the RNA/protein
interface, or reducing the size of the RNA loop, dramatically destabilizes the complex,
as seen by a strong increase in the dissociation rate. Our data support a binding
mechanism consisting of a rapid initial association based on electrostatic interactions
and a subsequent locking step based on close-range interactions that occur during the
induced fit of RNA and protein. Remarkably, these two steps can be clearly
distinguished using U1A mutants containing single amino acid substitutions. Our
observations explain the extraordinary affinity of U1A for its target, and may suggest a
general mechanism for high affinity RNA/protein interactions.
Keywords: BIACORE / RNA-binding protein / RNA-protein interaction / RRM / U1A
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
3
INTRODUCTION
In order to execute their widely differing functions, RNA-binding proteins must be able to
bind to their correct RNA targets with appropriate kinetics, affinities, and specificities (1).
In contrast to most DNA-binding proteins, which are presented with a double-stranded B-
form helix of uniform structure in which bases can be contacted through the major groove,
RNA-binding proteins must be able to bind targets with widely differing structures. Since
the steep and narrow groove of double-stranded RNA does not provide proteins easy access
to the bases for sequence-specific recognition, most RNA-binding proteins recognize single-
stranded regions or distorted double-stranded regions in which the major groove has been
widened by bulges, hairpins, or loops (2). The natural variety of RNA targets is bound by a
limited collection of RNA-binding motifs (1,2). The most common of these motifs is the
ribonucleoprotein (RNP) consensus domain or the RNA-binding domain (RBD), also
referred to as the RNA recognition motif (RRM). This motif is characterized by two
conserved stretches of 8 and 6 amino acid residues (RNP-1 and RNP-2) and a β−α−β−β−α−β
secondary structure (Fig. 1A) (3,4). RRMs fold into a baseball glove-like structure in which
the β-sheet and the surrounding regions form the RNA-binding surface. Proteins containing
one or more RRMs recognize a variety of RNA sequences and structures (3,4). An RRM
that binds very tightly to its RNA target is the N-terminal RRM of the spliceosomal protein
U1A, which binds to an RNA hairpin in the U1snRNP (U1 hairpin II or U1hpII) (Fig. 1).
The U1A/U1hpII interaction has been used as a paradigm for RNA-binding by a
single RRM and has been the subject of a multitude of biochemical and structural analyses
(4). In spite of these extensive studies, little is known to date about the mechanism and
kinetics of this protein/RNA interaction. Using the previously solved structure of the
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
4
U1A/U1hpII complex, we have engineered a series of mutants designed to individually
examine the roles of electrostatics, hydrogen bonding, aromatic stacking, and RNA loop
length, all of which have been implicated in formation of the U1A/U1hpII complex (5-16).
The effects of these mutations on the binding dynamics were studied using a surface
plasmon resonance-based biosensor (BIACORE), which permits the real-time monitoring of
complex formation and dissociation (17-19). Our analyses show that complex formation
occurs by two clearly distinguishable steps. First, well-placed positively charged residues on
the protein allow it to rapidly associate with the RNA. Next, close-range interactions at the
RNA/protein interface allow the formation of a very stable complex. Together, these steps
result in the high affinity of U1A for its U1 hairpin II RNA target (KD ~ 32 pM). A similar
two-step mechanism may play a role in many high-affinity RNA/protein interactions.
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
5
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Construction of the U1A mutants and protein purification - The expression plasmid for the
human recombinant U1A protein (amino acids 1-101) was described previously (20). Using
this plasmid, a U1A clone with a collection of engineered restriction sites throughout the
coding region (U1A-MSHEB) was made by site-directed mutagenesis. All engineered
restriction sites were silent at the amino acid level, except a BssHII site which resulted in a
Lys88 to Arg88 substitution. Proteins from both plasmids had identical binding properties
(data not shown). The MSHEB plasmid was used to generate the mutants used here by
digesting the plasmid with the unique restriction sites flanking the amino acid to be mutated
and replacing the released fragment with annealed complementary oligonucleotides
encoding the specific substitution (in addition to translationally silent restriction sites
included for easy identity verification). The mutation in each of the clones was confirmed by
sequencing and/or restriction digests. All of the clones contained a C-terminally fused MYC
tag and a hexahistidine tag used in protein purification. Constructs were transformed into E.
coli strain BL21/DE3 (Novagen, Madison, WI). Proteins were expressed and purified as
described previously (21), with only one modification: a reduced NaCl concentration in the
sonication and elution buffers (150 mM NaCl). The active concentration of each protein
preparation was determined as described by Christensen (22).
Gel shifts - U1hpII RNA for the gel shift was made as described previously (20) and gel
shifts were carried out in 10 µl final volume of binding buffer (10 mM Tris/HCl pH 8.0, 150
mM NaCl, 0.5% Triton X-100, 0.25 mg ml-1 bovine serum albumin, 1 mM DTT, 0.5 mg ml-1
tRNA, and 10% glycerol) as described previously (21). Dried gels were analyzed using a
Molecular Dynamics Phosphorimager and bands were quantitated with the ImageQuant
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
6
software (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech Inc., Piscataway NJ). The KD value was calculated
by plotting the logarithm of the ratio of the complexed/free RNA against the logarithm of
the protein concentration (20). The final KD value given is an average of 3 independent
experiments.
Biosensor Analysis - Surface plasmon resonance was used to monitor the interactions of a
set of variant U1A proteins binding to a variety of RNA targets under different buffer
conditions. Kinetic experiments were performed on both BIACORE 2000 and BIACORE
3000 biosensors (Biacore, Inc., Piscataway, NJ). RNA targets were chemically synthesized
(Dharmacon Research, Boulder, CO) with a 5' biotin tag to allow the capturing of RNA
molecules on streptavidin-coated (SA) sensor chips. RNA was diluted to 1 µM in HBS
buffer (10 mM HEPES pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 3.4 mM EDTA, 0.005% surfactant P20),
heated at 80 °C for 10 min, cooled to room temperature to allow annealing of the stem,
diluted 500-fold in running buffer (10 mM Tris/HCl pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol,
62.5 µg ml-1 bovine serum albumin, 125 µg ml-1 tRNA, 1 mM DTT and 0.05% surfactant
P20), and injected at 10 µl min-1. For U1hpII, 25-35 resonance units (RU) of RNA were
captured on the SA sensor chip, while for the mutant RNAs 100-125 RU were captured, as
binding to these mutants was significantly weaker and therefore more RNA was required to
generate a reliable binding response. To study the U1A/U1hpII interactions, the proteins
were diluted in running buffer and injected at the concentrations indicated in the
sensorgrams. In the experiments aimed at determining the effect of the NaCl concentration,
the running buffer contained NaCl at 150, 275, 500, and 1000 mM. Binding experiments
were carried out at 20 °C and a flow rate of 50 µl min-1. Any protein that remained bound
after a five-minute dissociation phase was removed by injecting 2 M NaCl for 60 sec at 20
µl min-1, which regenerated the RNA surface completely. Analysis of each protein
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
7
concentration was repeated at least twice and samples were run in random order. Any
background signal from a streptavidin-only reference flow cell was subtracted from every
data set. Data were fit to a simple 1:1 Langmuir interaction model with a correction for mass
transport (23) using the global data analysis program CLAMP (24).
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Equilibrium analysis of the U1A/U1hpII interaction - The U1A protein, which has a
structural role in U1snRNP, has two RRMs (25). Only the N-terminal RRM domain,
however, is required for binding to U1hpII RNA (26-28). The same RRM also mediates
binding of U1A to two adjacent target sites in the 3' untranslated region of its own mRNA,
thereby autoregulating U1A expression by preventing polyadenylation (29). We used a 101-
amino acid N-terminal U1A fragment (referred to here as U1A; previously shown to be
required and sufficient for specific, high-affinity binding to U1hpII RNA (27,28); Fig. 1A).
Before initiating kinetic analyses on the biosensor, we assessed the equilibrium binding
affinity of the recombinant human U1A polypeptide using traditional gel shift experiments
(Fig. 2A). Triplicate experiments yielded an equilibrium binding constant (KD) of 4.7 + 0.7
x 10-11 M, which agreed well with published values (13,30,31). While equilibrium analysis
provides information about the affinity of a molecular interaction, it provides no insight into
the kinetics underlying the binding mechanism. In order to obtain kinetic data for the
U1A/U1hpII interaction, a BIACORE surface plasmon resonance-based biosensor was used
to monitor the formation of the complexes in real time (32,33).
Kinetics of the U1A/U1hpII interaction - To study the kinetics of the U1A/U1hpII
interaction on the biosensor, chemically synthesized 5'-biotinylated U1hpII (Fig. 1B) was
captured on one BIACORE chip flow cell, while a second, unmodified flow cell served as a
reference surface. A representative data set for the U1A/U1hpII interaction is shown in Fig.
2B. The overlay of triplicate injections of each U1A concentration demonstrates that the
biosensor assay is highly reproducible. As expected, the responses during the association
phase are concentration dependent. The dissociation is slow, demonstrating the stability of
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
9
the U1A/U1hpII complex over time. No binding was detected when a mutated target (in
which the order of the loop residues had been inverted) or an unrelated RRM (RRM3 from
yeast poly(A)-binding protein) were used (data not shown). The kinetic data in Fig. 2B
were modeled using a simple 1:1 Langmuir interaction that included a term for mass
transport (23) and were analyzed using global analysis (24). The use of the 1:1 interaction
model resulted in an excellent fit to the data, as evidenced by the overlay of the simulated
curve (red lines in Fig. 2B) and the experimental results. The entire biosensor experiment
was repeated three times using individually prepared samples and sensor surfaces. The
kinetic results obtained from these independent studies were very similar (see Table I.A),
further demonstrating the reproducibility of the U1A biological system and the biosensor
technology.
The kinetics of the U1A/U1hp interaction are marked by a fast association rate (ka =
1.1+0.2 x 107 M-1 s-1) as well as a slow dissociation rate (kd = 3.6+1 x 10-4 s-1), resulting in a
high affinity complex (KD = 32+7 pM, Table I.A). The close agreement of the KD value
obtained using BIACORE with that obtained by gel shift analysis indicates that attachment
of the RNA to the BIACORE sensor chip surface does not perturb the reaction
thermodynamics. The fast association rate is consistent with the need to include a transport
step in the data analysis (23). The association rate surpasses the expected diffusion-based
rate constant for two macromolecules in solution [~106 M-1 s-1 (34)], suggesting that
association may be influenced by electrostatic interactions that increase the odds of
productive collisions between the molecules.
Positively charged residues facilitate rapid association - To dissect the role of electrostatic
interactions in U1A/U1hpII complex formation, we used the U1A/U1hpII co-crystal
structure (5) to identify positively charged residues that are located near the RNA-binding
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
10
pocket, but are not implicated in hydrogen bonding interactions. Consequently, we excluded
a number of residues that interact with RNA bases in the splayed-out loop (Arg47 to G11,
Arg52 to A1, Lys80 to U3, Arg83 to U3, and Lys88 to C5 (5,7,11)). In addition, we avoided
mutating Lys96 and Lys98 because the C-terminal region of the RRM had been reported to
be required for high-affinity binding (13,14). This left the positively charged residues
Lys20, Lys22 and Lys50, all of which are conserved in U1A from mammals (25,35),
Drosophila (36), Xenopus (X57953), and plants (37), and are also present in the related
RNA-binding protein U2B, which binds to a similar stemloop in U2snRNP (25,38). In the
RNA/protein complex, Lys20 and Lys22 lie near the base of the RNA stem, in an area
between β-strand 1 and α-helix 1 that follows the curve of the double-stranded stem. Lys20
and Lys22 could play a role in drawing in the RNA by interacting with the phosphate
moiety of nucleotides A-4, U-3 and C-2 (Fig. 3A). Lys50 lies in the β2-β3 loop region and
points into solution in the free protein, while in the complex it protrudes through the RNA
loop (Fig. 3C). Thus it appears to be well positioned to play a role in attracting the RNA to
the binding pocket. In order to investigate the role of these lysine residues in electrostatic
interactions, we replaced them with alanine. Lys20 and Lys22 were altered together
(Lys20,22Ala mutant), since they appeared to be making similar contacts with the phosphate
backbone. Kinetic data for Lys20,22Ala and Lys50Ala binding to immobilized U1hpII were
fit well by a simple 1:1 bimolecular interaction model (Fig. 3B and D). The Lys20,22Ala
and Lys50Ala mutations resulted in a 39- and 16-fold loss of affinity, respectively (Table
I.B). In both cases a ~10-fold decrease in the association rate contributed inordinately to this
loss. The Lys50Ala mutation had a minimal effect on dissociation of the complex,
indicating that the primary role of this positively charged residue is likely to be in the initial
positioning of the RNA loop, possibly through interaction with the exposed phosphate
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
11
backbone of the free RNA loop. Besides the reduction in its association rate, the
Lys20,22Ala mutant also showed a ~4-fold increase in its dissociation rate, indicating that
Lys20 and Lys22 also play a moderate role in complex stability. However, for both
Lys20,22Ala and Lys50Ala, the major effect on binding resulted from the reduced
association rate, indicating the importance of these residues in bringing RNA and protein
together.
Increasing the NaCl concentration reduces the association rate - If the roles of the lysine
residues are to promote electrostatic interactions with the phosphate backbone, it would be
expected that increasing the salt concentration in the buffer would lead to a loss in binding
affinity of U1A for U1hpII. Indeed, filter-binding experiments showed a hundred-fold loss
in U1A/U1hpII equilibrium binding affinity as the NaCl concentration was increased from
150 to 500 mM (31). In order to assess how the increased NaCl concentration affects the
reaction kinetics, we analyzed the U1A/U1hpII interaction at NaCl concentrations of 150
mM, 275 mM, 500 mM, and 1M (Fig. 4). In agreement with results from filter-binding
assays, we observed a hundred-fold increase in the KD as the NaCl concentration was raised
from 150 mM to 500 mM (Table I.C). Binding was completely abolished in 1 M NaCl (data
not shown). From the analysis of the kinetic data we determined that the loss in affinity was
attributable to a decrease in the association rate, which dropped 59-fold as the NaCl
concentration was increased to 500 mM. In contrast, the dissociation rate remained
relatively constant, varying less than three-fold across this NaCl concentration range (Table
1.C).
The marked effect of NaCl concentration on the association rate strongly suggests
that the initial interaction of U1A with its RNA target is based on electrostatic interactions,
which may play a role in prolonging the time the molecules collide as well as in enhancing
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
12
the probability of correct alignment (34). If this assumption is correct, mutation of positively
charged residues involved purely in electrostatic interactions should diminish the effect of
the NaCl concentration. We measured the effect of NaCl concentration on the association
rate of the Lys20,22Ala and Lys50Ala mutants and compared them to that obtained for wild
type U1A (Fig. 4D and Table I). The slopes of the log(ka) vs. log[NaCl] plots were reduced
from -3.3 (U1A wild type) to -2.8 for Lys50Ala and -2.4 for Lys20,22Ala. While both
mutants remained sensitive to the salt concentration (which is not unexpected since the
remaining positively charged residues were left intact), the reduction in this effect provides
support for a model in which electrostatic interactions play an important role in the rapid
association of U1A and U1hpII.
Aromatic stacking and hydrogen bonding interactions stabilize the complex - We next
examined the kinetic effects of mutations that would prevent stacking or hydrogen bonding
interactions that occur in the U1A/U1hpII RNA interface. To this end, the interaction
between U1A mutant Phe56Ala and wild type U1hpII, and U1hpII mutant G4C (Fig. 1B)
and wild type U1A were studied. Phe56 stacks on base A6 in the RNA loop, which in turn
stacks on base C7 and Asp92 (Fig. 5A). In the free protein, Phe56 is hidden from the solvent
and covered by Ile93. The Phe56:A6 stacking must therefore be accompanied by
rearrangements in the protein (12). Base G4 stacks on amino acid Gln54 and also makes
hydrogen bond contacts with residues Asn15 and Glu19 (Fig. 5C). Mutation of G4 to C
would cause loss of these hydrogen bonds while the ability of the base to stack on Gln54
would be maintained. A G4 to A mutation had been previously reported to decrease the
affinity three to four orders of magnitude (14,15). Based on previous structural analyses,
both the mutant protein and the mutant RNA would be predicted to show strong effects on
the dissociation kinetics of the complex because they are involved in short range interactions
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
13
that form during the induced fit of RNA and protein. Kinetic analyses of the binding
interactions showed that Phe56Ala exhibited a 1400-fold increase in dissociation rate, while
showing less than 5-fold decrease in association rate (Fig. 5B and Table I.D). Similarly, the
U1hpIIG4C RNA showed a 2500-fold increase in dissociation rate, but displayed a less than
4-fold decrease in association rate (Fig. 5D and Table I.D). Our observations support the
idea that aromatic stacking and hydrogen bonding interactions that mediate the intimate
contact of the RNA-binding surface and the splayed-out bases do not play a strong role in
the initial step of association, but are critical for the ability to form a stable complex.
RNA loop size is important for stable complex formation - Several features of U1hpII RNA
are critical for recognition, including the presence of a stem, the identity of the closing base
pair, and the identity of the first seven of ten loop nucleotides (AUUGCAC)(15,26,39). The
last three loop nucleotides are thought to function as a spacer and can be replaced by a
polyethylene glycol linker without loss of binding affinity (30). Indeed, in the 3'UTR
targets, which are very similar in structure and sequence, two of these three nucleotides form
part of a stem linking the two targets (40). The need for the spacer nucleotides is linked to
the fact that the loop between β-strands 2 and 3 of the protein protrudes through the RNA
loop, where it appears to aid in the splaying out of the loop bases so that contacts can be
made with the protein β-sheet surface (5). Previous studies of the 10-nucleotide RNA loop
had shown that the length of this loop is important for optimal binding (30). While the
identity of the last three loop nucleotides of the RNA target is irrelevant (39), removal of
one or more of these nucleotides strongly reduced the binding affinity. We were curious as
to how much of this effect was due to the inability of the RNA and protein to achieve initial
association, and how much of it to the inability to form a stable complex. It is clear from the
co-crystal structure of the U1A/U1hpII complex that a minimal length of the loop is needed
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
14
in order to link the last conserved nucleotide (C7) with the top of the RNA stem. The
distance between C7 and the top of the stem is approximately 17Å, a distance that could not
be bridged by less than two nucleotides. Optimally, 3 nucleotides may be required to
comfortably accommodate the protein β2-β3 loop. Reducing the loop size by too much
would clearly prevent the final complex from forming. On the other hand, it could be argued
that reducing the size of the loop may affect the structure of the free RNA in solution, and
may therefore change the way the RNA is presented to the protein. In order to distinguish
between these possibilities, we analyzed the kinetics of the interaction between U1A and
RNAs lacking C9 (U1hpII∆C9) and U8-C9 (U1hpII∆UC). Deletion of a single C resulted in a
loss of affinity of two orders of magnitude, in accordance with previous equilibrium binding
studies (30). Our kinetic analysis demonstrates that this could be attributed almost
completely to a 70-fold increase in the dissociation rate of the complex (Fig. 6A and Table
I.E). The association rate was decreased by less than 4-fold. These data suggest that the role
of the three linker nucleotides is indeed that of a spacer, which allows the first seven loop
nucleotides to be accommodated on the protein surface. This is supported by the observation
that loop nucleotides 8-10 are not visible in the co-crystal due to disorganization (5).
Removal of two loop residues had an even more pronounced effect: the KD increased by over
three orders of magnitude (Fig. 6B and Table I.E). Again most of this loss in affinity was
due to a dramatic increase in the rate of dissociation (~240-fold). Thus we conclude that a
minimal length of the loop is critical to allow assembly of a stable complex. This is
consistent with the requirement for the loop to circle the protein β2-β3 loop bulge.
In addition to the dramatic increase in the dissociation rate, a 15-fold loss in the
association rate was also seen with the U1hpII∆UC RNA, suggesting that too much
shortening also affects the initial stage of complex formation. Based on NMR studies (11)
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
15
and molecular dynamics simulations (16), nucleotides 4-10 of the free wild type RNA loop
do not appear to be strongly constrained. Perhaps the flexibility of the loop is helpful in
establishing initial contacts. This view is supported by the observation that increasing the
length of the loop by replacement of U8-C10 with polyethylene glycol linkers two or three
times the natural length had a negligible effect on the KD (30).
A multi-step model for binding - Our kinetic analyses, combined with structural information
about the free and bound protein and RNA, suggests that formation of the U1A/U1hpII
complex proceeds in at least two steps, which we call "lure" and "lock". First, the protein
and RNA are electrostatically attracted through well-placed positive charges on the protein
and negative charges on the RNA (the phosphate backbone). This initial interaction is
followed by a rapid induced-fit event, which locks the RNA and protein into a stable
complex. The presence of positively charged residues surrounding the RNA binding pocket
supports this notion. These positive charges could aid association by increasing the time that
the free RNA and protein remain close together following a random collision, thereby
increasing the odds that during subsequent collisions, both molecules will adopt an
orientation compatible with locking (34,41). In this scenario, flexibility of the free RNA
loop would facilitate establishment of the initial electrostatic contacts, allowing the RNA
backbone to "mold" onto the RNA-binding site. As soon as the orientations of the RNA and
protein are compatible, close-range interactions could initiate between the two molecules,
resulting in interactions that require rearrangements in protein and RNA (such as stacking of
Phe56 on A6). An induced-fit mechanism in which the RNA, the protein, or both adapt
during complex formation appears to play a role in many RNA/protein interactions (42).
Our observation that this induced fit ("lock") is be preceded by an electrostatically mediated
binding step ("lure") warrants detailed kinetic investigations of other RNA/protein
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
16
complexes. The distribution of positively charged residues along the RNA-binding tract of
poly(A) binding protein (43), Sex-lethal (44), and nucleolin (45), three multi-RRM proteins,
suggests these proteins bind RNA by a similar two-step mechanism. The initial
electrostatically-based association step may offer a way of engineering RNA-binding
proteins with increased affinity for their targets, through the introduction of more positively
charged residues near the RNA-binding area, leading to an increase in the association rate.
Acknowledgements - We thank Ian Haworth, Huynh-Hoa Bui, Meline Bayramyan, and Peter
Laird for useful comments, and help with the structure analysis and figures, and members of
the Laird-Offringa lab for helpful criticism. We dedicate this manuscript to the memory of
Eri Mettler, who with his wife Mary Lou, generously supported our work.
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
17
REFERENCES
1. Burd, C. G., and Dreyfuss, G. (1994) Science 265, 615-621
2. Draper, D. E. (1999) J. Mol. Biol. 293, 255-270
3. Nagai, K., Oubridge, C., Ito, N., Avis, J., and Evans, P. (1995) Trends Biochem Sci.
20, 235-240
4. Varani, G., and Nagai, K. (1998) Ann. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 27, 407-445
5. Oubridge, C., Ito, N., Evans, P. R., Teo, C. H., and Nagai, K. (1994) Nature 372,
432-438
6. Reyes, C. M., and Kollman, P. A. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 297, 1145-1158
7. Mittermaier, A., Varani, L., Muhandiram, D. R., Kay, L. E., and Varani, G. (1999) J.
Mol. Biol. 294, 967-979
8. Jessen, T. H., Oubridge, C., Teo, C. H., Pritchard, C., and Nagai, K. (1991) EMBO J.
10, 3447-56
9. Allain, F. H., Gubser, C. C., Howe, P. W., Nagai, K., Neuhaus, D., and Varani, G.
(1996) Nature 380, 646-650
10. Allain, F. H. T., Howe, P. A., Neuhaus, D., and Varani, G. (1997) EMBO J. 16,
5764-5772
11. Howe, P. W., Nagai, K., Neuhaus, D., and Varani, G. (1994) EMBO J. 13, 3873-
3881
12. Avis, J. M., Allain, F. H., Howe, P. W., Varani, G., Nagai, K., and Neuhaus, D.
(1996) J. Mol. Biol. 257, 398-411
13. Kranz, J. K., and Hall, K. B. (1998) J. Mol. Biol. 275, 465-481
14. Stump, W. T., and Hall, K. B. (1995) RNA 1, 55-63
15. Hall, K. B. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 10076-10088
16. Tang, Y., and Nilsson, L. (1999) Biophys. J. 77, 1284-1305
17. Morton, T. A., and Myszka, D. G. (1998) Methods Enzymol. 295, 268-294
18. Myszka, D. G. (1999) J. Mol. Recog. 12, 1-6
19. Myszka, D. G. (2000) Meth. Enzymol. 323, 325-340
20. Laird-Offringa, I. A., and Belasco, J. G. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92,
11859-11863
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
18
21. Park, S., Myszka, D. G., Yu, M., Littler, S. J., and Laird-Offringa, I. A. (2000) Mol.
Cell. Biol. 20, 4765-4772
22. Christensen, L. L. H. (1997) Anal. Biochem. 249, 153-164
23. Myszka, D. G., He, X., Dembo, M., Morton, T. A., and Goldstein, B. (1998)
Biophys. J. 75, 583-594
24. Myszka, D. G., and Morton, T. A. (1998) Trends Biochem. Sci. 23, 149-150
25. Sillekens, P. T., Habets, W. J., Beijer, R. P., and van Venrooij, W. J. (1987) EMBO
J. 6, 3841-8
26. Scherly, D., Boelens, W., van Venrooij, W. J., Dathan, N. A., Hamm, J., and Mattaj,
I. W. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 4163-70
27. Lutz-Freyermuth, C., Query, C. C., and Keene, J. D. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 87, 6393-7
28. Boelens, W., Scherly, D., Jansen, E. J., Kolen, K., Mattaj, I. W., and van Venrooij,
W. J. (1991) Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 4611-8
29. Boelens, W. C., Jansen, E. J., van Venrooij, W. J., Stripecke, R., Mattaj, I. W., and
Gunderson, S. I. (1993) Cell 72, 881-92
30. Williams, D. J., and Hall, K. B. (1996) J. Mol. Biol. 257, 265-275
31. Hall, K. B., and Stump, W. T. (1992) Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 4283-90
32. Rich, R. L., and Myszka, D. G. (2000) Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11, 54-61
33. Myszka, D. G. (1997) Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 8, 50-57
34. Northrup, S. H., and Erickson, H. P. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89, 3338-
3342
35. Bennett, M. M., Baron, M. A., and Craft, J. (1993) Nucleic Acids Res. 21, 4404
36. Flickinger, T. W., and Salz, H. K. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 914-925
37. Simpson, G. G., Clark, G. P., Rothnie, H. M., Boelens, W., van Venrooij, W., and
Brown, J. W. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 4540-4550
38. Scherly, D., Boelens, W., Dathan, N. A., van Venrooij, W. J., and Mattaj, I. W.
(1990) Nature 345, 502-6
39. Tsai, D. E., Harper, D. S., and Keene, J. D. (1991) Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 4931-4936
40. van Gelder, C. W., Gunderson, S. I., Jansen, E. J., Boelens, W. C., Polycarpou-
Schwarz, M., Mattaj, I. W., and van Venrooij, W. J. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 5191-200
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
19
41. Berg, O. G., and von Hippel, P. H. (1985) Ann. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem. 14,
131-160
42. Williamson, J. R. (2000) Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 834-837
43. Deo, R. C., Bonanno, J. B., Sonenberg, N., and Burley, S. K. (1999) Cell 98, 835-
845
44. Handa, N., Nureki, O., Kurimoto, K., Kim, I., Sakamoto, H., Shimura, Y., Muto, Y.,
and Yokoyama, S. (1999) Nature 398, 579-585
45. Allain, F. H.-T., Bouvet, P., Dieckmann, T., and Feigon, J. (2000) EMBO J. 19,
6870-6881
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
20
Fig. 1. U1A protein and U1hpII RNA. (A) Amino acid sequence of the N-terminal RRM
domain (amino acids 1-101) of the human U1A protein. Residues whose interaction with
U1hpII were studied are indicated in bold typeface. Residues that were mutated are: Lys20
and 22 (Lys20,22Ala), Lys50 (Lys50Ala) and Phe56 (Phe56Ala). Asn15, Glu19, and Gln54
interact with nucleotide G4 in U1hpII. The RNP-1 and -2 consensus sequences are marked
by an overline. Secondary structure features are marked below the sequence (underline). (B)
Sequence of the U1hpII RNA used for the biosensor analyses. Nucleotides U-5 to G15 are
identical to the wild type sequence. G4 (underlined) was mutated to C in the U1hpIIG4C
variant. The “spacer” nucleotides, whose identity is unimportant for U1A binding, are U8-
C10. The molecule is biotinylated at the 5´end.
Fig. 2. Binding studies of U1A with U1hpII RNA. (A) Gel shift analysis of U1A with
U1hpII. Radiolabeled U1hpII RNA was incubated with increasing concentrations of U1A
protein (given in pM below the lanes). Free radiolabeled U1hpII in indicated by F while C
represents the shifted complex. The experiment was performed in triplicate. (B) BIACORE
analysis of the U1A/U1hpII interaction. Biotinylated U1hpII RNA was captured on a
streptavidin-coated sensor chip and increasing concentrations of protein were injected over
the surface. The black lines represent protein injections performed in triplicate at the
indicated concentration. The red lines represent the global fit of the entire data set to a single
site interaction model including a term for mass transport component. Injections were
performed for 60 seconds followed by a 5 minute of buffer flow. The kinetic parameters for
each of three independent experiments are shown in Table I.A.
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
21
Fig. 3. The role of electrostatic interactions in the U1A/U1hpII complex. (A)
U1A/U1hpII complex as seen from the back. The RNA loop is splayed out on the β-sheet
surface, which is facing away. Lys20 and Lys22 (indicated in blue) in the U1A N-terminal
RRM (gray) lie close to the phosphates groups (orange) of stem nucleotides A-4-C-2 of the
RNA (purple). (B) BIACORE analysis of the interaction of Lys20,22Ala with U1hpII (also
see legend Fig. 2B). (C) U1A/U1hpII complex seen from the front. Lys50 (blue) is located
in the protein loop connecting β-strands 2 and 3 and protrudes through the RNA loop
(purple). (D) BIACORE analysis of the interaction of Lys50Ala with U1hpII (also see the
legend for Fig. 2B).
Fig. 4. The effect of salt concentration on U1A/U1hpII interaction. Sensorgrams show
the binding curves for U1A/U1hpII interaction in buffer containing 150 mM NaCl (A), 275
mM NaCl (B), and 500 mM NaCl (C). Protein concentrations used were, in (A) and (B):
0.1; 0.3; 0.9; 2.7; 8; 24 and 73 nM and in (C): 1; 3; 9; 27; 81 and 245 nM. No binding was
detected at 1 M NaCl ( data not shown). All NaCl concentrations were assayed on the same
RNA surface. (D) Effect of the NaCl concentration on ka. Experiments similar to those
shown in (A)-(C) were performed for the Lys20,22Ala and Lys 50Ala mutants, using the
same U1hpII RNA surface. Log(ka ) vs. log [NaCl] plots for wild type U1A (�),
Lys20,22Ala (∆) and Lys50Ala (�, solid line) show a linear relationship.
Fig. 5. The role of stacking and hydrogen bonding interactions in the U1A/U1hpII
complex. (A) Diagram of the position of Phe56 in the complex: Phe56 (green) stacks on A6
(orange), which in turn stacks on C7 (purple), and Asp92 (dark gray) within the protein. Other
parts of the RNA and protein are indicated by smaller size sticks in purple and gray
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
22
respectively. (B) BIACORE analysis of the interaction of Phe56Ala with U1hpII (also see
legend Fig. 2B). (C) Diagram of the position of nucleotide G4 in the complex. G4 (orange)
stacks onto Gln54 (green) and forms hydrogen bonds with Asn15 (yellow) and Glu19 (blue).
Other parts of the RNA and protein are indicated by smaller size sticks in purple and gray
respectively. (D) BIACORE analysis of the interaction of U1A with U1hpIIG4C (also see
legend Fig. 2B). Due to the weak interaction between the mutated RNA and the protein, an
RNA surface with higher capacity was used in order to obtain enough information for the
kinetic analysis.
Fig. 6. Effects of RNA loop size reduction on U1A binding. (A) BIACORE analysis of
the interaction of U1A with U1hpII∆C9 RNA (also see legend Fig. 2B). (B) BIACORE
analysis of the interaction of U1A with U1hpII∆UC RNA (also see legend Fig. 2B). Due to
the weak interaction between the mutated RNA and the protein, an RNA surface with higher
capacity was used in order to obtain enough information for the kinetic analysis.
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
23
Table I Kinetic and affinity constants for U1A/U1hpII interaction
ka
1
(M-1 s-1)
fold
decrease2
kd
3
(s-1)
fold
increase2
KD
4
A. Wild type U1A and U1hpII
Experiment 1 0.958[3]x107 2.416[9]x10-4 25.2[1] pM
Experiment 2 1.290[3]x107 4.07[2]x10-4 31.6[2] pM
Experiment 3 1.061[3]x107 4.22[3]x10-4 39.8[3] pM
Average 1.1+0.2x107 3.6+1x10-4 32+7 pM
B. Lysine mutations
Lys20,22Ala 1.119[3]x106 9.8 1.397[5]x10-3 3.9 1.248[6] nM
Lys50Ala 1.081[2]x106 10 5.42[2]x10-4 1.5 0.502[2] nM
C. Effect of NaCl on binding
U1A 275 mM 1.311[6]x106 8.4 1.81[5]x10-4 0.5 138.2[7] pM
U1A 500 mM 1.87[1]x105 59 7.93[6]x10-4 2.2 4.23[2] nM
Lys20,22Ala 275 mM 2.53[3]x105 4.4* 2.59[3]x10-3 1.8* 10.2[1] nM
Lys20,22Ala 500 mM 7.92[3]x104 14* 1.059[3]x10-2 7.6* 134[6] nM
Lys50Ala 275 mM 4.59[2]x105 2.4* 1.64[3]x10-4 0.3* 0.357[1] nM
Lys50Ala 500 mM 5.75[3]x104 19* 3.94[1]x10-3 7.3* 68.5[4] nM
D. RNA/protein interface mutations
Phe56Ala 2.32[7]x106 4.7 5.0[1]x10-1 1400 0.213[9] µM
U1hpIIG4C 3.13[6]x106 3.5 9.1[1]x10-1 2500 0.291[7] µM
E. RNA loop deletions
U1hpII∆C9 3.102[9]x106 3.5 2.523[9]x10-2 70 8.13[4] nM
U1hpII∆UC 7.33[6]x105 15 8.54[2]x10-2 240 0.116[1] µM
1: the number in brackets represents the standard error in the last significant digit of the ka value from each experiment
(consisting of randomized injections repeated at least twice). 2: fold decrease or increase is given with respect to the
U1A/U1hpII interaction, using the average values given in A, except in C (where indicated with *), in which the values
were compared to the interaction of the same mutant protein with U1hpII in 150 mM NaCl. 3: the number in brackets
represents the standard error in the last significant digit of the kd value from each experiment. 4: the number in brackets
gives the calculated standard error in the last significant digit of the KD value (KD = kd/ka). The most prominent differences
are highlighted in italic bold typeface.
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
Phinikoula S. Katsamba, David G. Myszka and Ite A. Laird-Offringahairpin II RNA
Two functionally distinct steps mediate high affinity binding of U1A protein to U1
published online April 10, 2001J. Biol. Chem.
10.1074/jbc.M101624200Access the most updated version of this article at doi:
Alerts:
When a correction for this article is posted•
When this article is cited•
to choose from all of JBC's e-mail alertsClick here
by guest on June 11, 2018http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from