Nevena Cvetesic

Partitioning of tRNA-dependent Editing between Pre- and Post-transfer Pathways in Class I Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases

Hydrolytic editing activities are present in aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases possessing reduced amino acid discrimination in the synthetic reactions. Post-transfer hydrolysis of misacylated tRNA in class I editing enzymes occurs in a spatially separate domain inserted into the catalytic Rossmann fold, but the location and mechanisms of pre-transfer hydrolysis of misactivated amino acids have been uncertain. Here, we use novel kinetic approaches to distinguish among three models for pre-transfer editing by Escherichia coli isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase (IleRS). We demonstrate that tRNA-dependent hydrolysis of noncognate valyl-adenylate by IleRS is largely insensitive to mutations in the editing domain of the enzyme and that noncatalytic hydrolysis after release is too slow to account for the observed rate of clearing. Measurements of the microscopic rate constants for amino acid transfer to tRNA in IleRS and the related valyl-tRNA synthetase (ValRS) further suggest that pre-transfer editing in IleRS is an enzyme-catalyzed activity residing in the synthetic active site. In this model, the balance between pre-transfer and post-transfer editing pathways is controlled by kinetic partitioning of the noncognate aminoacyl-adenylate. Rate constants for hydrolysis and transfer of a noncognate intermediate are roughly equal in IleRS, whereas in ValRS transfer to tRNA is 200-fold faster than hydrolysis. In consequence, editing by ValRS occurs nearly exclusively by post-transfer hydrolysis in the editing domain, whereas in IleRS both pre- and post-transfer editing are important. In both enzymes, the rates of amino acid transfer to tRNA are similar for cognate and noncognate aminoacyl-adenylates, providing a significant contrast with editing DNA polymerases.

Kinetic Partitioning between Synthetic and Editing Pathways in Class I Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases Occurs at Both Pre-transfer and Post-transfer Hydrolytic Steps

Background: Error-prone aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases clear noncognate aminoacyl-adenylates and misacylated tRNAs within synthetic and editing sites, respectively. Results: Product release limits the rate of post-transfer editing by leucyl-tRNA synthetase. Conclusion: Kinetic partitioning of misacylated tRNA determines the relative contribution of cis and trans editing. Significance: In contrast to DNA polymerases, error correction in class I tRNA synthetases relies on substrate selection by the editing site. Comprehensive steady-state and transient kinetic studies of the synthetic and editing activities of Escherichia coli leucyl-tRNA synthetase (LeuRS) demonstrate that the enzyme depends almost entirely on post-transfer editing to endow the cell with specificity against incorporation of norvaline into protein. Among the three class I tRNA synthetases possessing a dedicated post-transfer editing domain (connective peptide 1; CP1 domain), LeuRS resembles valyl-tRNA synthetase in its reliance on post-transfer editing, whereas isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase differs in retaining a distinct tRNA-dependent synthetic site pre-transfer editing activity to clear noncognate amino acids before misacylation. Further characterization of the post-transfer editing activity in LeuRS by single-turnover kinetics demonstrates that the rate-limiting step is dissociation of deacylated tRNA and/or amino acid product and highlights the critical role of a conserved aspartate residue in mediating the first-order hydrolytic steps on the enzyme. Parallel analyses of adenylate and aminoacyl-tRNA formation reactions by wild-type and mutant LeuRS demonstrate that the efficiency of post-transfer editing is controlled by kinetic partitioning between hydrolysis and dissociation of misacylated tRNA and shows that trans editing after rebinding is a competent kinetic pathway. Together with prior analyses of isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase and valyl-tRNA synthetase, these experiments provide the basis for a comprehensive model of editing by class I tRNA synthetases, in which kinetic partitioning plays an essential role at both pre-transfer and post-transfer steps.

The physiological target for LeuRS translational quality control is norvaline

The fidelity of protein synthesis depends on the capacity of aminoacyl‐tRNA synthetases (AARSs) to couple only cognate amino acid‐tRNA pairs. If amino acid selectivity is compromised, fidelity can be ensured by an inherent AARS editing activity that hydrolyses mischarged tRNAs. Here, we show that the editing activity of Escherichia coli leucyl‐tRNA synthetase (EcLeuRS) is not required to prevent incorrect isoleucine incorporation. Rather, as shown by kinetic, structural and in vivo approaches, the prime biological function of LeuRS editing is to prevent mis‐incorporation of the non‐standard amino acid norvaline. This conclusion follows from a reassessment of the discriminatory power of LeuRS against isoleucine and the demonstration that a LeuRS editing‐deficient E. coli strain grows normally in high concentrations of isoleucine but not under oxygen deprivation conditions when norvaline accumulates to substantial levels. Thus, AARS‐based translational quality control is a key feature for bacterial adaptive response to oxygen deprivation. The non‐essential role for editing under normal bacterial growth has important implications for the development of resistance to antimicrobial agents targeting the LeuRS editing site.

Proteome-wide measurement of non-canonical bacterial mistranslation by quantitative mass spectrometry of protein modifications

The genetic code is virtually universal in biology and was likely established before the advent of cellular life. The extent to which mistranslation occurs is poorly understood and presents a fundamental question in basic research and production of recombinant proteins. Here we used shotgun proteomics combined with unbiased protein modification analysis to quantitatively analyze in vivo mistranslation in an E. coli strain with a defect in the editing mechanism of leucyl-tRNA synthetase. We detected the misincorporation of a non-proteinogenic amino acid norvaline on 10% of all measured leucine residues under microaerobic conditions and revealed preferential deployment of a tRNALeu(CAG) isoacceptor during norvaline misincorporation. The strain with the norvalylated proteome demonstrated a substantial reduction in cell fitness under both prolonged aerobic and microaerobic cultivation. Unlike norvaline, isoleucine did not substitute for leucine even under harsh error-prone conditions. Our study introduces shotgun proteomics as a powerful tool in quantitative analysis of mistranslation.

The tRNA A76 Hydroxyl Groups Control Partitioning of the tRNA-dependent Pre- and Post-transfer Editing Pathways in Class I tRNA Synthetase

Background: Isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase uses cognate tRNA to stimulate hydrolysis of non-cognate aminoacyl-adenylates within the synthetic site. Results: The 3′-terminal hydroxyl groups of tRNAIle have no role in pre-transfer editing. Conclusion: The tRNAIle body, rather than the 3′-end of tRNAIle alone, promotes assembly of the improved ribonuclear protein synthetic site. Significance: Isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase acts as a ribonuclear protein to adjust amino acid recognition to the cellular environment. Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases catalyze ATP-dependent covalent coupling of cognate amino acids and tRNAs for ribosomal protein synthesis. Escherichia coli isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase (IleRS) exploits both the tRNA-dependent pre- and post-transfer editing pathways to minimize errors in translation. However, the molecular mechanisms by which tRNAIle organizes the synthetic site to enhance pre-transfer editing, an idiosyncratic feature of IleRS, remains elusive. Here we show that tRNAIle affects both the synthetic and editing reactions localized within the IleRS synthetic site. In a complex with cognate tRNA, IleRS exhibits a 10-fold faster aminoacyl-AMP hydrolysis and a 10-fold drop in amino acid affinity relative to the free enzyme. Remarkably, the specificity against non-cognate valine was not improved by the presence of tRNA in either of these processes. Instead, amino acid specificity is determined by the protein component per se, whereas the tRNA promotes catalytic performance of the synthetic site, bringing about less error-prone and kinetically optimized isoleucyl-tRNAIle synthesis under cellular conditions. Finally, the extent to which tRNAIle modulates activation and pre-transfer editing is independent of the intactness of its 3′-end. This finding decouples aminoacylation and pre-transfer editing within the IleRS synthetic site and further demonstrates that the A76 hydroxyl groups participate in post-transfer editing only. The data are consistent with a model whereby the 3′-end of the tRNA remains free to sample different positions within the IleRS·tRNA complex, whereas the fine-tuning of the synthetic site is attained via conformational rearrangement of the enzyme through the interactions with the remaining parts of the tRNA body.

Synthetic and editing reactions of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases using cognate and non-cognate amino acid substrates

The covalent coupling of cognate amino acid-tRNA pairs by corresponding aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRS) defines the genetic code and provides aminoacylated tRNAs for ribosomal protein synthesis. Besides the cognate substrate, some non-cognate amino acids may also compete for tRNA aminoacylation. However, their participation in protein synthesis is generally prevented by an aaRS proofreading activity located in the synthetic site and in a separate editing domain. These mechanisms, coupled with the ability of certain aaRSs to discriminate well against non-cognate amino acids in the synthetic reaction alone, define the accuracy of the aminoacylation reaction. aaRS quality control may also act as a gatekeeper for the standard genetic code and prevents infiltration by natural amino acids that are not normally coded for protein biosynthesis. This latter finding has reinforced interest in understanding the principles that govern discrimination against a range of potential non-cognate amino acids. This paper presents an overview of the kinetic assays that have been established for monitoring synthetic and editing reactions with cognate and non-cognate amino acid substrates. Taking into account the peculiarities of non-cognate reactions, the specific controls needed and the dedicated experimental designs are discussed in detail. Kinetic partitioning within the synthetic and editing sites controls the balance between editing and aminoacylation. We describe in detail steady-state and single-turnover approaches for the analysis of synthetic and editing reactions, which ultimately enable mechanisms of amino acid discrimination to be determined.

Naturally Occurring Isoleucyl-tRNA Synthetase without tRNA-dependent Pre-transfer Editing

Isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase (IleRS) is unusual among aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases in having a tRNA-dependent pre-transfer editing activity. Alongside the typical bacterial IleRS (such as Escherichia coli IleRS), some bacteria also have the enzymes (eukaryote-like) that cluster with eukaryotic IleRSs and exhibit low sensitivity to the antibiotic mupirocin. Our phylogenetic analysis suggests that the ileS1 and ileS2 genes of contemporary bacteria are the descendants of genes that might have arisen by an ancient duplication event before the separation of bacteria and archaea. We present the analysis of evolutionary constraints of the synthetic and editing reactions in eukaryotic/eukaryote-like IleRSs, which share a common origin but diverged through adaptation to different cell environments. The enzyme from the yeast cytosol exhibits tRNA-dependent pre-transfer editing analogous to E. coli IleRS. This argues for the presence of this proofreading in the common ancestor of both IleRS types and an ancient origin of the synthetic site-based quality control step. Yet surprisingly, the eukaryote-like enzyme from Streptomyces griseus IleRS lacks this capacity; at the same time, its synthetic site displays the 103-fold drop in sensitivity to antibiotic mupirocin relative to the yeast enzyme. The discovery that pre-transfer editing is optional in IleRSs lends support to the notion that the conserved post-transfer editing domain is the main checkpoint in these enzymes. We substantiated this by showing that under error-prone conditions S. griseus IleRS is able to rescue the growth of an E. coli lacking functional IleRS, providing the first evidence that tRNA-dependent pre-transfer editing in IleRS is not essential for cell viability.

Core promoters across the genome

123 Nevena Cvetesic and Boris Lenhard are at the Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK, and the MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, London, UK. e-mail: b.lenhard@imperial.ac.uk; ncvetesi@imperial.ac.uk allows detection of transcription start sites from nascent transcripts. First, a nuclear run-on assay is performed to select nascent RNAs, followed by removal of the uncapped RNA through enzymatic treatment. However, none of these approaches can deconvolute the effects of promoter sequences measure mature accumulated RNA. Both methods select only intact and/or capped mRNA either by biotinylation of the cap and affinity purification using streptavidin resin (CAGE), or by treatment with the enzymes CIP and TAP to leave a ligatable 5′ end only on capped mRNA. A more recent method called GRO-cap2 Promoters, the sites that define where transcription starts, are fundamental to genome function. Although methods have been developed to map promoter activity genome-wide1,2, we still lack a systematic understanding of the sequence requirements for promoter activity. Existing approaches measure only the integrated effect of everything that influences promoter activity, including proximal and distal enhancers, other sequence features, and chromatin environment and spatial organization. Thus, the specific contribution of promoter sequences themselves is unknown. Two reports in this issue, by Arnold et al.3 and van Arensbergen et al.4, present methods for measuring the autonomous promoter activity of random sequences genome-wide. In addition, the system of Arnold et al.3 detects promoter sequences that respond (non-autonomously) to an enhancer. Promoters are recognized by proteins in the transcription initiation complex and in many cases are regulated by context-specific regulatory elements, both proximal and distal. Core promoters encompass roughly 40 bp upstream and downstream of the transcription starts sites and are where the transcription initiation machinery (general transcription factors, GTFs) binds and directs initiation by RNA polymerase II. They have multiple, functionally distinct5 and sometimes physically overlapping6 architectures, which determine their responsiveness to long-range regulation and to developmental and differ entiation regulatory programs (reviewed in ref. 7). Methods to study promoter activity genomewide include CAGE8 and CapSeq1, which Core promoters across the genome