4.4 Article

RraAS2 requires both scaffold domains of RNase ES for high-affinity binding and inhibitory action on the ribonucleolytic activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 10, 页码 660-666

出版社

MICROBIOLOGICAL SOCIETY KOREA
DOI: 10.1007/s12275-016-6417-9

关键词

Streptomyces coelicolor; RNA stability; RNase ES; RraAS2

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014R1A2A2A09052791]
  2. Chung-Ang University
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014R1A2A2A09052791] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RraA is a protein inhibitor of RNase E (Rne), which catalyzes the endoribonucleolytic cleavage of a large proportion of RNAs in Escherichia coli. The antibiotic-producing bacterium Streptomyces coelicolor also contains homologs of RNase E and RraA, designated as RNase ES (Rns), RraAS1, and RraAS2, respectively. Here, we report that RraAS2 requires both scaffold domains of RNase ES for high-affinity binding and inhibitory action on the ribonucleolytic activity. Analyses of the steady-state level of RNase E substrates indicated that coexpression of RraAS2 in E. coli cells overproducing Rns effectively inhibits the ribonucleolytic activity of full-length RNase ES, but its inhibitory effects were moderate or undetectable on other truncated forms of Rns, in which the N- or/and C-terminal scaffold domain was deleted. In addition, RraAS2 more efficiently inhibited the in vitro ribonucleolytic activity of RNase ES than that of a truncated form containing the catalytic domain only. Coimmunoprecipitation and in vivo cross-linking experiments further showed necessity of both scaffold domains of RNase ES for high-affinity binding of RraAS2 to the enzyme, resulting in decreased RNA-binding capacity of RNase ES. Our results indicate that RraAS2 is a protein inhibitor of RNase ES and provide clues to how this inhibitor affects the ribonucleolytic activity of RNase ES.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据