| Literature DB >> 32727859 |
Hailee M Sorensen1,2, Rebecca A Keogh1, Marcus A Wittekind1, Andrew R Caillet1, Richard E Wiemels1, Elizabeth A Laner1, Ronan K Carroll3,4.
Abstract
Regulatory small RNAs (sRNAs) are known to play important roles in the Gram-positive bacterial pathogen Staphylococcus aureus; however, their existence is often overlooked, primarily because sRNA genes are absent from genome annotation files. Consequently, transcriptome sequencing (RNA-Seq)-based experimental approaches, performed using standard genome annotation files as a reference, have likely overlooked data for sRNAs. Previously, we created an updated S. aureus genome annotation file, which included annotations for 303 known sRNAs in USA300. Here, we utilized this updated reference file to reexamine publicly available RNA-Seq data sets in an attempt to recover lost information on sRNA expression, stability, and potential to encode peptides. First, we used transcriptomic data from 22 studies to identify how the expression of 303 sRNAs changed under 64 different experimental conditions. Next, we used RNA-Seq data from an RNA stability assay to identify highly stable/unstable sRNAs. We went on to reanalyze a ribosome profiling (Ribo-seq) data set to identify sRNAs that have the potential to encode peptides and to experimentally confirm the presence of three of these peptides in the USA300 background. Interestingly, one of these sRNAs/peptides, encoded at the tsr37 locus, influences the ability of S. aureus cells to autoaggregate. Finally, we reexamined two recently published in vivo RNA-Seq data sets, from the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung and a murine vaginal colonization study, and identified 29 sRNAs that may play a role in vivo Collectively, these results can help inform future studies of these important regulatory elements in S. aureus and highlight the need for ongoing curating and updating of genome annotation files.IMPORTANCE Regulatory small RNAs (sRNAs) are a class of RNA molecules that are produced in bacterial cells but that typically do not encode proteins. Instead, they perform a variety of critical functions within the cell as RNA. Most bacterial genomes do not include annotations for sRNA genes, and any type of analysis that is performed using a bacterial genome as a reference will therefore overlook data for sRNAs. In this study, we reexamined hundreds of previously generated S. aureus RNA-Seq data sets and reanalyzed them to generate data for sRNAs. To do so, we utilized an updated S. aureus genome annotation file, previously generated by our group, which contains annotations for 303 sRNAs. The data generated (which were previously discarded) shed new light on sRNAs in S. aureus, most of which are unstudied, and highlight certain sRNAs that are likely to play important roles in the cell.Entities:
Keywords: RNA stability; RNA-Seq; Staphylococcus aureuszzm321990; genome annotation; regulatory RNA; sRNA; small peptides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32727859 PMCID: PMC7392542 DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00439-20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: mSphere ISSN: 2379-5042 Impact factor: 4.389
FIG 1Overall design of global sRNA expression study. Numbers in parentheses represent numbers of studies, data sets, or analyses as indicated.
22 studies used for global sRNA expression analysis
| Study | GEO project title | SRA ID | Total | Total no. of | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | Response of |
| 30 | 30 | NA |
| 002 | Characterization of the LFR Genomic Islet in |
| 14 | 14 | NA |
| 003 | Changes in relative transcript amounts resulting from hydrogen sulfide treatment, |
| 18 | 18 |
|
| 004 | RNASeq analysis of untreated versus treated |
| 6 | 6 |
|
| 005 | A master virulence regulator of |
| 12 | 12 |
|
| 006 | RNA-Seq-mediated transcriptome analysis of |
| 8 | 8 |
|
| 007 | The conserved regulatory RNA RsaE down-regulates the arginine degradation |
| 10 | 10 |
|
| 008 | Changes in relative transcript amounts caused by treatment of streptozotocin |
| 9 | 9 |
|
| 009 | Effects of fosfomycin on biofilm of a clinical |
| 12 | 12 |
|
| 010 | Linoleic Acid Stimulation of WT |
| 6 | 6 |
|
| 011 | RNA-Seq of Wildtype |
| 6 | 6 |
|
| 012 | RNA-Seq based comparison of |
| 4 | 4 |
|
| 013 | The |
| 4 | 4 |
|
| 014 | Response to low-level phage predation in |
| 6 | 6 |
|
| 015 | Phenotype and RNA-Seq-Based Transcriptome Profiling of |
| 4 | 4 | NA |
| 016 | Comparative virulence studies and transcriptome analysis of |
| 4 | 4 |
|
| 017 | Decay-initiating endoribonucleolytic cleavage by RNase Y is kept under |
| 24 | 4 |
|
| 018 | Next Generation Sequencing Facilitates Quantitative Analysis of Wild Type |
| 4 | 4 |
|
| 019 | RNA-SEQ Reveals Changes in the |
| 4 | 4 |
|
| 020 | The C-terminal region of the RNA helicase CshA is required for the |
| 24 | 6 |
|
| 021 | SaeRS-dependent inhibition of biofilm formation in |
| 10 | 10 |
|
| 022 | Steady-state hydrogen peroxide induces glycolysis via metabolic |
| 8 | 4 |
|
DHBP, 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone; ID, identifier; NA, not applicable; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; nor, nitric oxide reductase gene; nos, nitric oxide synthase gene; ssRNA, single-stranded RNA; WT, wild type.
64 pairwise analyses
| Study | Pairwise | Expt no. | Details | No. of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1 | 001.1 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 0 min vs | 5 |
| 2 | 001.2 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 120 min vs | 9 | |
| 3 | 001.3 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 240 min vs | 14 | |
| 4 | 001.4 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 0 min vs | 68 | |
| 5 | 001.5 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 120 min vs | 102 | |
| 6 | 001.6 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 240 min vs | 3 | |
| 7 | 001.7 | UAMS-1 0 mM DEA NONOate vs WT 2mM DEA NONOate | 11 | |
| 8 | 001.8 | UAMS-1 0 mM DEA NONOate vs | 9 | |
| 9 | 001.9 | UAMS-1 0 mM DEA NONOate vs | 4 | |
| 10 | 001.10 | UAMS-1 2 mM DEA NONOate vs | 12 | |
| 11 | 001.11 | UAMS-1 2 mM DEA NONOate vs | 26 | |
| 12 | 001.12 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 0 min vs UAMS-1 anaerobic 120 min | 8 | |
| 13 | 001.13 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 0 min vs UAMS-1 anaerobic 240 min | 18 | |
| 002 | 14 | 002.1 | UAMS-1 ES vs delta | 3 |
| 15 | 002.2 | UAMS-1 ES vs delta | 12 | |
| 16 | 002.3 | UAMS-1 ES vs UAMS-1 LE | 26 | |
| 17 | 002.4 | UAMS-1 ES vs UAMS-1 EE | 34 | |
| 18 | 002.5 | UAMS-1 LE vs WT EE | 15 | |
| 19 | 002.6 | UAMS-1 LE vs delta | 7 | |
| 20 | 002.7 | UAMS-1 EE vs delta | 3 | |
| 003 | 21 | 003.1 | Newman vs sulfide treated | 15 |
| 22 | 003.2 | Newman vs delta | 44 | |
| 23 | 003.3 | Newman vs nitroxyl treated | 66 | |
| 24 | 003.4 | Newman vs calprotectin treated | 77 | |
| 004 | 25 | 004.1 | USA300 vs PBT2 and Zinc treated | 15 |
| 005 | 26 | 005.1 | JE2 vs NE13041 | 12 |
| 27 | 005.2 | JE2 vs patient P nasal | 64 | |
| 28 | 005.3 | JE2 vs patient P blood | 69 | |
| 29 | 005.4 | JE2 vs patient S nasal | 73 | |
| 30 | 005.5 | JE2 vs patient S blood | 73 | |
| 31 | 005.6 | Patient P nasal vs patient P blood | 17 | |
| 32 | 005.7 | Patient S nasal vs patient S blood | 7 | |
| 006 | 33 | 006.1 | Newman vs | 50 |
| 34 | 006.2 | Newman vs | 51 | |
| 35 | 006.3 | Newman vs DHBP treated | 15 | |
| 007 | 36 | 007.1 | HG003 vs | 6 |
| 37 | 007.2 | HG003 vs | 57 | |
| 38 | 007.3 | HG003 vs | 52 | |
| 39 | 007.4 | 70 | ||
| 40 | 007.5 | 55 | ||
| 41 | 007.6 | 6 | ||
| 008 | 42 | 008.1 | USA300 vs floxuridine treated | 85 |
| 43 | 008.2 | USA300 vs streptozotocin treated | 37 | |
| 009 | 44 | 009.1 | LYO-S2 4-h biofilm no treatment vs 4-h biofilm fosfomycin treatment | 52 |
| 45 | 009.2 | LYO-S2 24-h biofilm no treatment vs 24-h biofilm fosfomycin treatment | 127 | |
| 46 | 009.3 | LYO-S2 4-h biofilm no treatment vs 24-h biofilm no treatment | 53 | |
| 47 | 009.4 | 4-h biofilm fosfomycin treated vs 24-h biofilm fosfomycin treated | 103 | |
| 010 | 48 | 010.1 | USA300 untreated vs 10 μM linoleic acid treated | 19 |
| 011 | 49 | 011.1 | USA300 30°C vs 37°C | 13 |
| 012 | 50 | 012.1 | JE2 MT02-sensitive treated with MT02 vs JE2 MT02-resistant treated with MT02 | 17 |
| 013 | 51 | 013.1 | USA300 untreated vs treated with spermine NONOate | 58 |
| 014 | 52 | 014.1 | IPLA 1 biofilm vs treated with phage phiIPLA-RODI | 78 |
| 015 | 53 | 015.1 | ATCC 29213 biofilm untreated vs biofilm treated with TTO | 16 |
| 016 | 54 | 016.1 | MRSA1679a vs ATCC 29213 | 57 |
| 017 | 55 | 017.1 | PR01 vs RNase Y deletion | 52 |
| 018 | 56 | 018.1 | MRSA BD02-25 vs delta | 42 |
| 019 | 57 | 019.1 | BUSA2288 blue light treatment vs no light treatment | 29 |
| 020 | 58 | 020.1 | PR01 0-s decay vs C-terminal deletion of | 27 |
| 020 | 59 | 020.2 | PR01 0-s decay vs delta | 18 |
| 60 | 020.3 | C-terminal deletion of | 32 | |
| 021 | 61 | 021.1 | Newman vs delta | 23 |
| 62 | 021.2 | Newman vs | 18 | |
| 63 | 021.3 | Delta | 31 | |
| 022 | 64 | 022.1 | Newman untreated vs 10 mM hydrogen peroxide treated | 18 |
KO, knockout; nor, nitric oxide reductase gene; nos, nitric oxide synthase gene; DEA NONOate, nitric oxide donor diethylamine NONOate; ES, early stationary; LE, late exponential; EE, early exponential; fad, fatty acid desaturase gene; mocR, mocR regulator gene; cstR, CsoR-like sulfurtransferase repressor gene; PBT2, zinc ionophore; walK, sensor kinase of WalKR two-component system gene; DHBP, 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone; aTc, anhydrotetracycline; floxuridine, chemotherapy drug (liver cancer); streptozotocin, chemotherapy drug (pancreatic cancer); fosfomycin, cell wall synthesis inhibiting antibiotic; linoleic acid, polyunsaturated omega-6 fatty acid; MT02, DNA replication inhibiting antibiotic; spermine NONOate, nitric oxide donor; TTO, tea tree oil; MRSA16791, methicillin-resistant chicken isolate; ATCC 29213, methicillin-sensitive strain; rsp, transcriptional regulator gene; BUSA2288, human nasal isolate; saeS, histidine kinase sensor of SaePQRS system gene.
Values represent numbers of sRNAs with expression increased or decreased >3-fold (total = 303).
sRNAs displaying altered expression in >20 of the 64 pairwise analyses
| Feature ID | sRNA name | Chromosome | Chromosome | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAUSA300s182 | Sau-6079 | 461303 | 462824 | 26 |
| SAUSA300s195 | Sau-6745 | 2713518 | 2714477 | 25 |
| SAUSA300s296 | tsr32 | 2337921 | 2338072 | 25 |
| SAUSA300s080 | rsaOV | 2696303 | 2696430 | 23 |
| SAUSA300s078 | rsaOT | 2608637 | 2608828 | 22 |
| SAUSA300s303 | tsr39 | 2811277 | 2811330 | 22 |
| SAUSA300s248 | sRNA330 | 2257272 | 2257416 | 21 |
| SAUSA300s289 | tsr25 | 1442861 | 1443042 | 21 |
| SAUSA300s168 | Sau-76 | 643211 | 643332 | 20 |
| SAUSA300s270 | tsr6 | 120784 | 120897 | 20 |
| SAUSA300s298 | tsr34 | 2591031 | 2591131 | 20 |
Conditions under which Teg41 expression is altered
| Expt | Conditions | Fold change | Expression | Expression |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001.6 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 240 min vs | 3.7 | 0.47 | 1.74 |
| 001.12 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 0 min vs UAMS-1 anaerobic 120 min | 3.86 | 77.38 | 299.04 |
| 001.13 | UAMS-1 anaerobic 0 min vs UAMS-1 anaerobic 240 min | 25.71 | 6.82 | 175.42 |
| 002.3 | UAMS-1 ES vs UAMS-1 LE | 5.5 | 299.73 | 1,648.35 |
| 003.1 | Newman vs sulfide treated | 4.51 | 566.14 | 125.58 |
| 003.3 | Newman vs nitroxyl treated | 3.02 | 371.41 | 123.06 |
| 003.4 | Newman vs calprotectin treated | 3.61 | 211.92 | 765.35 |
| 005.4 | JE2 vs patient S nasal | 3.07 | 19.53 | 6.36 |
| 007.2 | HG003 vs | 3.57 | 256.33 | 916.27 |
| 007.4 | 3.24 | 255.62 | 828.92 | |
| 014.1 | IPLA 1 biofilm vs treated with phage phiIPLA-RODI | 4.94 | 48.48 | 9.81 |
| 017.1 | PR01 vs RNase Y deletion | 13.65 | 73.12 | 997.88 |
| 018.1 | MRSA BD02-25 vs delta | 8.75 | 9.95 | 87.05 |
Expression values are expressed in RPKM. Expression value 1 and expression value 2 represent the expression values of Teg41 under the two conditions tested. For details of each specific condition, see Supplemental Data Set S2.
FIG 2Analysis of sRNA stability. All sRNA expression values were normalized using the expression values for hup, which is included as a comparison (blue line). (A) Highly stable sRNAs. Thirty four sRNAs were deemed highly stable based on an overall stability profile similar to that of hup. The highly stable sRNAs were either more stable than hup or their stability was 2-fold less than that of hup. FMN, flavin mononucleotide; SAM, S-adenosylmethionine. (B) Highly unstable sRNAs. A total of 23 sRNAs were deemed highly unstable, with stability 100-fold less than that of hup.
FIG 3Northern blot analysis of selected stable sRNAs. (A) RNAIII. (B) Teg41. Order of lanes: L (RNA ladder), 0 (0 min sample—prior to rifampin addition), 2.5 (2.5 min after rifampin addition), 5 (5 min after rifampin addition), 10 (10 min after rifampin addition). The T10/T0 values for RNAIII and Teg41 were 1.39 and 0.89, respectively.
FIG 4Analysis of sRNA ribosome protected fragments. (A) RPF/expression ratios of 303 sRNAs from S. aureus. A total of 65.68% of sRNAs had an RPF/expression ratio of >3. (B) RPF/expression ratios of 2,649 CDS genes from S. aureus.
FIG 5Ribosome profiling data for the RNAIII locus. Visualization of reads mapped to the RNAIII locus is provided. RPF alignment, read alignment of duplicate ribosome protected fragment data sets; RNAseq alignment, read alignment of duplicate RNA-Seq transcriptomic data sets. Mapping was generated using the CLC Genomics Workbench software package.
FIG 8Analysis of sRNA expression in vivo. (A) A total of 93 sRNAs were upregulated >2-fold in the CF lung, whereas 60 sRNAs were upregulated >2-fold in the mouse vagina. A total of 29 sRNAs were upregulated in both data sets. (B) Table of 29 sRNAs upregulated in both in vivo data sets. Fold increase in expression in the vagina is indicated for each time point and compared to CDM/SCFM data. Also included are stability values (taken from Data Set S3), RPF/expression ratios (taken from Data Set S4), and the number of pairwise analyses where a >2-fold change in expression was observed (taken from Data Set S2).
FIG 6Western immunoblot detection of tsr-encoded potential small peptides. (A) Western blot analysis, performed using an anti-his antibody, to detect His-tagged, tsr-encoded peptides/proteins. Protein samples from the cell envelope, cytoplasm, and secreted fraction were analyzed. (B) Table of predicted sizes of potential tsr-encoded small peptides. (C) Predicted membrane topology of peptides encoded by tsr21C, tsr22, and trs37. All three peptides are predicted to contain transmembrane regions. Membrane topology was predicted using SACS MEMSAT2 Transmembrane Prediction (18).
FIG 7Quantitative analysis of clumping phenotype observed in tsr37 overexpressor strain. A clumping assay was performed using S. aureus strain AH1263 overexpressing tsr37 (pMK4 tsr37-his), and results were compared to those seen with an empty vector control (pMK4 empty vector). The proportion of clumping of the empty vector control after 2 h was 7.9% compared to 79.2% for the tsr37-overexpressing strain.
Strains and plasmids
| Strain or plasmid | Characteristic(s) | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Strains | ||
| | USA300 LAC isolate cured of plasmid LAC-p03 |
|
| | Restriction-deficient transformation recipient |
|
| | AH1263 pTsr17-his | This study |
| | AH1263 pTsr18-his | This study |
| | AH1263 pTsr21B-his | This study |
| | AH1263 pTsr21C-his | This study |
| | AH1263 pTsr22-his | This study |
| | AH1263 pTsr37-his | This study |
| | AH1263 pTsr9-his | This study |
| | Cloning strain | Invitrogen |
| Plasmids | ||
| pMK4 | Gram-positive shuttle vector (CMr) |
|
| pRKC679 | pMK4_Tsr37_6x-his (vector overexpressing His-tagged | This study |
| pRKC885 | pMK4_Tsr17_6x-his (vector overexpressing His-tagged | This study |
| pRKC886 | pMK4_Tsr18_6x-his (vector overexpressing His-tagged | This study |
| pRKC887 | pMK4_Tsr21B_6x-his (vector overexpressing His-tagged | This study |
| pRKC888 | pMK4_Tsr21C_6x-his (vector overexpressing His-tagged | This study |
| pRKC889 | pMK4_Tsr22_6x-his (vector overexpressing His-tagged | This study |
| pRKC892 | pMK4_Tsr9_6x-his (vector overexpressing His-tagged | This study |
CMr, chloramphenicol resistance.