Scott D Kennedy1, Ryszard Kierzek, Douglas H Turner. 1. Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York 14642, United States.
Abstract
The RNA duplex, (5'GACGAGUGUCA)(2), has two conformations in equilibrium. The nuclear magnetic resonance solution structure reveals that the major conformation of the loop, 5'GAGU/3'UGAG, is novel and contains two unusual Watson-Crick/Hoogsteen GG pairs with G residues in the syn conformation, two A residues stacked on each other in the center of the helix with inverted sugars, and two bulged-out U residues. The structure provides a benchmark for testing approaches for predicting local RNA structure and a sequence that allows the design of a unique arrangement of functional groups and/or a conformational switch into nucleic acids.
The RNA duplex, (5'GACGAGUGUCA)(2), has two conformations in equilibrium. The nuclear magnetic resonance solution structure reveals that the major conformation of the loop, 5'GAGU/3'UGAG, is novel and contains two unusual Watson-Crick/Hoogsteen GG pairs with G residues in the syn conformation, two A residues stacked on each other in the center of the helix with inverted sugars, and two bulged-out U residues. The structure provides a benchmark for testing approaches for predicting local RNA structure and a sequence that allows the design of a unique arrangement of functional groups and/or a conformational switch into nucleic acids.
RNA performs a plethora of important functions in the cell,[1] and it has been estimated that more than 75%
of human DNA is transcribed into RNA.[2] While
a huge number of RNA sequences are known, there is a much smaller
database of three-dimensional (3D) RNA structures. In contrast, only
∼5% of human DNA encodes protein, but the database of protein
structures is large (http://www.pdb.org).[3] That database has facilitated the development of accurate
methods for predicting and designing 3D structures of proteins from
sequence using homology modeling and/or force fields.[4−7] These methods can also be applied to RNA[8−13] and will become more accurate as more RNA motifs are discovered[14] and as the interactions determining these motifs
are better understood.Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra reveal two conformations
for the RNA duplex, (5′GACGAGUGUCA3′)2, where the 3′ unpaired A increases duplex stability.[15] The internal loop of the major conformation
has two bulged-out U residues and two GG pairs with the G residues
having syn glycosidic bonds, but it was not possible
to deduce the entire structure of the internal loop. Here, we show
that the two A residues in the internal loop are unpaired but stacked
on each other and that their sugars are inverted. This defines a novel
RNA structure that provides a new benchmark for programs predicting
structure from sequence.Determining all the structural features of the major conformation
of the 5′GAGU3′ internal loop
required assignment of at least four ambiguous nuclear Overhauser
effects (NOEs) in (5′GACGAGUGUCA3′)2. This was accomplished by measuring spectra for the non-self-complementary
duplexes, 5′GACGAGUGAGA3′/3′ACUGUGAGCUC5′, 5′GACGAGUGAGA3′/3′ACUGUGAGCUC5′, and 5′GACGAGUGAGA3′/3′ACUGUGAGCUC5′, where BrG represents 8-Br-G and MeG represents 8-Me-G. As with (5′GACGAGUGUCA3′)2, the unmodified duplex has two conformations,
but the 8-Br-G and 8-Me-G substitutions eliminate the minor species
because the modified G residues are restricted to a syn conformation.[15−19] Comparisons of one-dimensional (Figure 1)
and two-dimensional spectra reveal that the 5′GAGU3′ internal loop of the major species has essentially identical
conformations in all the duplexes studied. The average standard deviation
of chemical shifts of equivalent loop protons in all six duplexes
is 0.03 ppm, with a maximum of 0.09 ppm for G6 H1′ (Supporting Information). The non-self-complementary
duplexes allowed assignment of NOEs to A5 that previously were ambiguous
(Figure 2), e.g., A5 H2–G4* H1, A5 H8–G6
H1, A5 H1′–G6 H1, and A5 H8–G4* H8 (where an
asterisk means the opposite strand). In the self-complementary duplexes,
these could have been intra- or interstrand NOEs, allowing for 16
possible structures. Assignment allows definition of the positions
of the A5 bases. In addition, a G4 H8–G8* H1 NOE was identified
because an overlap was uncovered. This NOE confirms the GG pairing.
Figure 1
Imino proton spectra for RNA duplexes with the 5′GAGU/3′UGAG
internal loop. Secondary structures of the major conformations are
shown at the right. Peaks labeled with X are from the minor duplex
conformation. The peak at 14.3 ppm in trace a is from a minor hairpin
species. (a and b) Self-complementary sequences. (c and d) Non-self-complementary
sequences. Black peaks and nucleotides are from the duplex half that
is equivalent to the self-complementary duplex, and green peaks and
nucleotides are from the duplex half that has a different sequence.
(a and c) Natural nucleotides. (b and d) Duplexes with 8-Br-G6. Sample
conditions: 80 mM NaCl, 0.05 mM EDTA, 20 mM sodium phosphate, pH 6,
1 °C.
Figure 2
Watergate–NOESY spectrum of 5′GACGAGUGAGA/3′ACUGUGAGCUC. Residues labeled with an asterisk are in the
second strand. The regions displayed include cross-peaks for A5 and
A5* aromatic protons. Two large cross-peaks labeled with blue filled
circles are G4 H8–G4 H1′ and G4* H8–G4* H1′
cross-peaks and indicate that G4 and G4* are in the glycosidic syn conformation. Data were acquired at −2 °C
with a 200 ms mixing time, except the diagonal panel, which was acquired
at 1 °C with a 400 ms mixing time.
Imino proton spectra for RNA duplexes with the 5′GAGU/3′UGAG
internal loop. Secondary structures of the major conformations are
shown at the right. Peaks labeled with X are from the minor duplex
conformation. The peak at 14.3 ppm in trace a is from a minor hairpin
species. (a and b) Self-complementary sequences. (c and d) Non-self-complementary
sequences. Black peaks and nucleotides are from the duplex half that
is equivalent to the self-complementary duplex, and green peaks and
nucleotides are from the duplex half that has a different sequence.
(a and c) Natural nucleotides. (b and d) Duplexes with 8-Br-G6. Sample
conditions: 80 mM NaCl, 0.05 mM EDTA, 20 mM sodium phosphate, pH 6,
1 °C.Watergate–NOESY spectrum of 5′GACGAGUGAGA/3′ACUGUGAGCUC. Residues labeled with an asterisk are in the
second strand. The regions displayed include cross-peaks for A5 and
A5* aromatic protons. Two large cross-peaks labeled with blue filled
circles are G4 H8–G4 H1′ and G4* H8–G4* H1′
cross-peaks and indicate that G4 and G4* are in the glycosidic syn conformation. Data were acquired at −2 °C
with a 200 ms mixing time, except the diagonal panel, which was acquired
at 1 °C with a 400 ms mixing time.For modeling the structure, the majority of restraints were obtained
from the 8-Br-G6-modified self-complementary duplex because the equilibrium
between two conformations of the unmodified duplex can influence NOE
volumes and make the spectra complex with many overlaps. Moreover,
distance restraints derived for the modified self-complementary duplex
and the major conformation of the unmodified duplex are in good agreement
(Supporting Information). Six hundred rounds
of simulated annealing in Generalized-Born implicit solvent with an
initial temperature of 2000 K (protocol in the Supporting Information) with the NOE distance restraints and
cross-strand hydrogen bond restraints for the GG pair produced only
27 structures that satisfied all NMR restraints. The root-mean-square
deviation relative to the mean of 19 of these 27 structures subsequently
refined without the GG hydrogen bond restraints was 0.89 Å, and a representative structure is shown in Figure 3. Structural statistics are given in the Supporting Information. The small fraction of
structures consistent with NMR spectra may reflect approximations
in the force field, effects of water, or the fact that the simulated
annealing protocol does not easily allow transitions between conformations.
No violations were found between the final structure and distances
measured for the modified self-complementary duplex and the subset
of distances measured for the major conformation of the unmodified
duplex. Coordinates, restraints, and chemical shifts have been deposited
in the Protein Data Bank as entry 2LX1.
Figure 3
Major conformation of the 5′GAGU3′/3′UGAG5′ RNA internal loop. The secondary structure
is shown at the top with residues colored as in the 3D model: (a)
front view and (b) 90° rotation. (c) Potential stabilizing hydrogen
bonds from A5 amino protons to 2′-oxygens of cross-strand G4*
and A5*.
Major conformation of the 5′GAGU3′/3′UGAG5′ RNA internal loop. The secondary structure
is shown at the top with residues colored as in the 3D model: (a)
front view and (b) 90° rotation. (c) Potential stabilizing hydrogen
bonds from A5 amino protons to 2′-oxygens of cross-strand G4*
and A5*.Notable features of the GAGU loop structure include (1) two U residues
flipped out of the helix, (2) two GG* pairs with syn glycosidic bonds and G6–G4* trans Watson–Crick/Hoogsteen
pairing, (3) C2′-endo sugar puckers for all loop residues (residues
4–7), (4) an A5/A5* stack within the helix, and (5) inverted
A5 sugars. Key NOEs defining the inverted sugars include A5 H2′–G4
H3′ and A5 H4′–G6 H2′ NOEs (Supporting Information). Also, the chemical shift
of A5 H5′ is ∼1.5 ppm upfield from typical A-form values,[20] consistent with the position of that proton
being directly below the ring of G6 as in the model. The relatively
downfield chemical shift of G6 H2′ is consistent with that
proton adjacent to the G6 base due to the syn conformation
and C2′-endo sugar pucker.The structure in Figure 3 is unique and
was surprising for several reasons. The other five 5′XAGY3′ sequence symmetric internal loops,[15,21] where XY is UG or any Watson–Crick pair, all have the expected
canonical pairing between X and Y and the AG pairs have G imino to
AN1 and GO6 to A amino hydrogen bonds (cis Watson–Crick/Watson–Crick
conformation[22]). Inverted sugars are not
common.[23−26] Moreover, there are no obvious interactions driving the structure.
The structure is consistent, however, with base stacking being sequence-dependent,
as indicated by stacking of dangling ends on helices[27,28] and by quantum mechanical calculations.[29,30] The acceptable structures generated by simulated annealing contain
hydrogen bonds between A5 amino protons and the 2′-oxygens
of the cross-strand G4* and A5* that could be stabilizing interactions
(Figure 3c). The inversion of the sugars apparently
provides extra space to allow A5 to fit between G4* and A5* bases
and positions G4* and A5* 2′-oxygens for hydrogen bonding.
In addition, the models include intraresidue hydrogen bonds between
a G4 amino proton and phosphateoxygen that may provide further stabilization.
There is, however, no direct NMR evidence of any of these hydrogen
bonds.Methods for predicting 3D structures of RNA and an understanding
of the interactions driving structure are at an early stage of development.[8,31] The structure in Figure 3 presents a new
benchmark for testing progress in both areas. Additionally, the structure
provides a module with a unique arrangement of exposed chemical groups,
such as A5 H2, A5 N1, G4 H1, and G4 NH2, that could be
incorporated into designs for nucleic acid structures.[32,33] The novel structure can be assured by including chemically modified
nucleotides such as 8-Br-G, or it could serve as an environmentally
sensitive switch. For example, small molecules could be designed or
selected to shift the equilibrium to the minor or major structure
of the GAGU internal loop. Identification of
the minor conformation will facilitate such design and provide a known
conformational equilibrium for testing force field predictions.
Authors: Jonathan L Chen; Damian M VanEtten; Matthew A Fountain; Ilyas Yildirim; Matthew D Disney Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Kyle D Berger; Scott D Kennedy; Susan J Schroeder; Brent M Znosko; Hongying Sun; David H Mathews; Douglas H Turner Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: David E Condon; Scott D Kennedy; Brendan C Mort; Ryszard Kierzek; Ilyas Yildirim; Douglas H Turner Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: Eric J Montemayor; Elizabeth C Curran; Hong Hong Liao; Kristie L Andrews; Christine N Treba; Samuel E Butcher; David A Brow Journal: Nat Struct Mol Biol Date: 2014-05-18 Impact factor: 15.369
Authors: Jonathan L Chen; Stanislav Bellaousov; Jason D Tubbs; Scott D Kennedy; Michael J Lopez; David H Mathews; Douglas H Turner Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.162