Vol. 180, Issue 13, 3265-3275, July 1, 1998
Department of Bacteriology, University of
Wisconsin
The primary function of RNA
polymerase (RNAP) is to produce RNA transcripts optimal for a given
environmental or developmental state of a cell. RNAP accomplishes this
selection by deciding whether or not to initiate transcription of a
gene and then both how fast and how far to elongate the RNA chains.
Because each decision depends on information input to RNAP and can
produce results that influence subsequent decisions, RNAP's function
in the cell in many ways resembles an information processor. In this short review, we will (i) briefly summarize the transcription cycle
from the perspective of RNAP as a cellular information processor, (ii)
describe the structure of the transcription elongation complex (TEC)
and the protein-nucleic acid contacts that function as intrinsic inputs
to its regulatory decisions, and (iii) present a model of pausing and
Because RNAP moves along a digital tape (the DNA), reads
information from it (and from the nascent RNA chain), and then based on
this information, either writes new information to an RNA chain or
decides to halt transcription temporarily or permanently, it exhibits
many similarities to the first theoretical computer (114), which was devised by the British mathematician Alan Turing and now is
called a Turing machine. A Turing machine carries out computation by
repeated logical operations in which, based on a series of rules and
digital information it reads from a tape, it writes information back to
the tape, potentially changes its logical rules for future operations,
and moves to a new position on the tape (41). Since new RNAs
can feed back on the activity of RNAP (directly or as translated
proteins) and dictate both the selection of new start sites and its
response to pause and termination signals, like a Turing machine and
the CPU of a computer, RNAP is capable of logical operations. Unlike
the digital logic of a computer, however, RNAP's decisions are
governed by competing rates and equilibria among alternative
conformations and complexes and constitute the first step in the
conversion of the fundamentally digital language of DNA into the analog
circuitry of cellular metabolism.
To understand how RNAP makes regulatory decisions, we must describe the
structures of the competing intermediates, the inputs that influence
RNAP's decision as to which among them is formed and the mechanisms
and rates by which these intermediates interconvert in response to the
various inputs. Regulatory decisions by RNAP rely on two types of
information input to the TEC: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic inputs
are discrete segments of RNA and DNA that interact with RNAP. These
intrinsic interactions generate different TEC conformations, which vary
in their capacity for RNA chain elongation from rapid nucleotide
addition to halted chain elongation to termination. These different
conformations are in turn the targets for a variety of extrinsic inputs
that can enhance or inhibit chain elongation or termination (Table 1). These inputs are small molecules,
proteins, and other RNAs that interact with the TEC and modulate its
activity, either by directly contacting RNAP or via contacts to RNA or
DNA. The combination of distinct TEC conformations and regulatory
ligands whose affinities and actions can depend on the conformation and
the position of the TEC confers enormous regulatory flexibility on the
process of transcription. To illustrate how intrinsic and extrinsic
inputs modify regulation by RNAP, we will first describe the
transcriptional cycle. We will then direct our principal attention to
the structure of the TEC and its response to intrinsic regulatory
signals at related RNA hairpin-dependent pause and termination signals.
The regulatory intermediates of transcription are most easily
depicted in a cycle (12). The cycle can be divided into
major phases: promoter engagement, initiation, RNA chain elongation, and termination (Fig. 1). Each
intermediate represents a decision point (or logical operation in our
analogy) where inputs can alter the course of RNA synthesis.
MINIREVIEW
Information Processing by RNA Polymerase:
Recognition of Regulatory Signals during RNA Chain Elongation
Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1567
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Introduction
References
-independent termination as an example of information processing by
RNAP.
![]()
RNAP AS AN INFORMATION PROCESSOR
Regulatory inputs to the transcription complex
![]()
TRANSCRIPTION CYCLE AND INTERMEDIATES

View larger version (57K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
The transcription cycle. Intermediates in the four
phases of transcription (promoter engagement, promoter escape, RNA
chain elongation, and transcript termination) are discussed in the
text. Elongation is represented by growth of the RNA chain between two
transcription elongation complexes. Termination and arrest are shown
occurring from the paused transcription complex to reflect the
likelihood that a transcriptional pause is the first step in each.
However, not all paused complexes involve RNA secondary structures as
depicted, especially those that lead to arrest, which likely would be
blocked by an RNA hairpin that prevents reverse translocation of the
RNA transcript (see the text).
Promoter engagement.
Promoter engagement encompasses several
steps: promoter location and recognition by the RNAP holoenzyme (core
enzyme complexed with one of several sigma factors), initial and
reversible binding of RNAP to duplex promoter DNA (closed complex
formation), and formation of an open complex in which ~12 bp of DNA,
including the transcription start site, are melted (Fig. 1). At least
four important intrinsic inputs affect promoter engagement: the hexamer centered at position
10 upstream from the transcription start site
(
10 region), the hexamer at position
35 (
35 region), the region
of DNA between these two elements (spacer region), and a region located
between
40 and
60 (the UP element). The mechanisms by which RNAP
recognizes these promoter elements and positions itself at a promoter
sequence were recently reviewed in detail (25). Briefly,
RNAP holoenzyme initially binds to one face of double-stranded DNA at
the promoter. Footprinting of these closed complexes indicate a
protected region of 75 to 80 bp, extending from
55 to approximately
+20 (87). The DNA strands are then melted, from
10 to +1
(26), forming open complexes. The process of open-complex
formation may also be accompanied by major conformational changes in
RNAP (25, 87, 97), which may include the closing of the
jaw-like clamp that appears to be open in the holoenzyme but closed in
the core polymerase (86).
subunit of RNAP to
the
10 and
35 regions of the DNA (reviewed in reference 36) and sometimes by the
-subunit C-terminal
domain to the UP element (98). Open-complex stability can be
further affected by the next step in the pathway, nucleoside
triphosphate (NTP) binding, which in turn is affected by the spacer
region between the
10 hexamer and the start site, as well as by the
identity of nucleotide to be incorporated at the 5' end of the RNA
(33, 65).
Initiation.
After the open complex has bound the initiating
NTPs, it becomes an initial transcription complex and can follow
several alternative reaction pathways (Fig. 1): (i) the synthesis and
release of short (2 to 8 nucleotides [nt]) RNA transcripts (abortive
initiation); (ii) reiterative synthesis resulting in homopolymer
extensions of the initial RNA transcripts (stuttering; not depicted in
Fig. 1, see references 13 and
64); and (iii) release of
, translocation away
from the promoter, and formation of a TEC with loss of upstream DNA
contacts, usually when the transcript is 8 to 9 nt in length (promoter
escape). The relative rates of abortive initiation, stuttering, and
promoter escape determine how fast productive RNA chain elongation
begins and how soon the promoter is vacated to allow another RNAP
molecule to bind. These rates appear to be determined principally by
intrinsic interactions with promoter elements and with the initially
transcribed 8 to 10 nt of RNA or corresponding DNA, but at least in
vitro can also be modulated by extrinsic factors such as the transcript
cleavage factors GreA and GreB, which stimulate escape from certain
promoters by suppressing abortive initiation (32, 42). A
better understanding of initiation will require learning the following:
(i) to what extent do abortive initiation and stuttering occur in vivo
and are they regulated at some promoters; (ii) what determines the
relative rates of promoter escape, abortive initiation, and stuttering;
and (iii) do the GreA and GreB transcript cleavage factors regulate
promoter escape in vivo?
Elongation. Once RNAP converts from initial transcription complex to TEC (i.e., escapes the promoter), it becomes stably associated with the RNA and DNA chains (most TECs resist dissociation in 1 M KCl or at 65°C) and can elongate the RNA chain 30 to 100 nt/s in vivo. These are average, not maximal, rates (see the next section). Two distinct types of translocations in the TEC must occur to allow this rapid movement: (i) translocation of the RNA 3' end from position i+1 to i in the active site (modified from reference 30 to use the 3'-terminal nucleotide as the index position) as successive nucleotides are added (RNA 3'-end translocation; see Fig. 2) and (ii) translocation of DNA and RNA chains through RNAP (RNA and DNA translocation). The extent to which these two types of translocations are coupled has been a source of considerable controversy in the transcription field (reviewed in reference 54). RNAP could translocate the RNA 3' end and RNA transcript and DNA chains in a monotonic manner, advancing 1 bp with each nucleotide addition (123). Alternatively, the addition of 2 or more nt could occur without the complete translocation of DNA and RNA through RNAP and be followed by chain translocation of 2 or more bp (discontinuous movement, sometimes called inchworming [14, 18]). Evidence for this model came from variably sized footprints of halted complexes (53, 80). New evidence allows the reinterpretation of these footprints within the context of a monotonic model by demonstrating that a potentially rigid RNAP can sometimes slide freely along the RNA and DNA chains and displace the 3' end from the active site, resulting in larger or smaller footprints depending on the extent and frequency of sliding relative to cutting by footprinting reagents (49, 82, 88). Thus, a recent model for translocation postulates that the RNAP is distributed among all accessible positions by rapid sliding, with the occupancy of each template position dependent on its relative free energy (positional equilibrium [38, 50, 54]). In this view, the energy for directional translocation along DNA is derived when nucleotide addition shifts the positional equilibrium of the RNAP sliding back and forth along the RNA and DNA chains towards the forwardly translocated conformation (known as a thermal ratchet mechanism; reviewed in reference 34). The alternative possibility is that RNAP is a mechanoenzyme that usually maintains tight contacts to RNA and DNA and uses the energy of phosphodiester bond hydrolysis to generate internal movements (active locomotion or power-stroke mechanism; reviewed in reference 34).
|
subunit up to 8 nt (76). Three questions are particularly important to answer. (i) Are the two
translocation cycles of RNAP tightly coupled, or can nucleotide addition occur without RNAP movement along DNA to produce significantly different conformations of the transcription complex at different template positions? (ii) If different conformations are possible, can
they exist at a single template position; that is, can RNAP transcribe
DNA in different phases such that only a fraction of elongating
molecules reach a given template position in a particular conformation
(see reference 18)? (iii) Does RNAP move by a
thermal ratchet or power-stroke mechanism? Whether RNAP senses
information as a rigid body that slides along the RNA and DNA chains
nearly isoenergetically or undergoes significant internal movements
between nucleic acid contacts or protein domains and requires energy
input for translocation is a central issue for understanding how it processes the information in the nucleic acid chains.
Arrest, pausing, and termination. RNA chain elongation is punctuated by certain sites where nucleotide addition is slowed by pause, arrest, and termination signals. Pause signals cause RNAP to isomerize from the rapidly elongating TEC to alternative conformations in which RNA chain extension is reversibly inhibited (by factors of 102 to 104). Arrest signals block elongation irreversibly in vitro; arrest has not yet been demonstrated to occur in vivo. Termination signals cause the release of RNA and DNA and can be positively or negatively regulated by a variety of extrinsic inputs (Table 1). At some terminators, these inputs can instruct the enzyme to read through the signal and continue transcription (antitermination).
Pausing and arrest both occur because the RNA 3' OH and NTP substrate fail to maintain alignment in the active site, but may reflect different changes in TEC structure. In arrested transcription complexes, the RNA transcript appears to be threaded through the active site so that NTP binding is blocked, until 5 to 10 nt of 3'-proximal RNA is removed by hydrolytic cleavage. This cleavage reaction is catalyzed by RNAP's active site and greatly stimulated by the GreA or GreB transcript cleavage factor (8, 83). Key questions about arrest are (i) does transcriptional arrest occur in vivo, and is it involved in the slow growth phenotype of
greA
greB
strains; and (ii) how do the GreA and GreB cleavage factors, which
contact both RNAP and the nascent RNA, stimulate transcript cleavage of
arrested complexes?
There are several types of paused transcription complexes
modulated by different intrinsic or extrinsic interactions. At
some pause sites, elongation is slowed at unfavorable sequences,
without mediating specific regulatory decisions. Other pauses are
specific regulatory intermediates that both prevent transcription
beyond a region where regulatory input is effective and put RNAP in the proper conformation to interact with regulatory molecules. An example of a regulatory pause is the class of
hairpin-dependent pause sites that occur midway through the leader
regions of all Escherichia coli or Salmonella
amino acid biosynthetic operons that are regulated by attenuation
(58). Pausing at these sites halts RNAP until a ribosome
initiates synthesis of the leader peptide, which can cause attenuator
readthrough during amino acid limitation, or until it eventually
escapes spontaneously, which leads to superattenuation (58).
The ribosome releases RNAP from the pause either by melting the RNA
hairpin or through direct interaction with the enzyme. By slowing chain
elongation to allow further rearrangements of the TEC, pausing likely
is an initial step in arrest and termination (96). Finally,
pausing allows surveillance for defective mRNAs by slowing RNAP at
pause sites until it is released either by a translating ribosome or,
if the RNA is not translatable, by the
termination factor
(55). Thus, in our comparison of RNAP to an informational
processor, pause signals instruct RNAP to halt and await regulatory
input.
When RNAP encounters a termination signal, RNAP stops adding
nucleotides to the RNA, separates the DNA-RNA hybrid, releases the
newly synthesized transcript, and dissociates from the DNA template.
Three types of termination signals for bacterial RNAP have been
described to date: (i) intrinsic terminators (
-independent terminators) which require a stable RNA hairpin formed 7 to 9 nt from
the terminated RNA 3' end and immediately followed by at least 3 U residues, but no extrinsic factors (recently reviewed in
references 85, 93, 96, and 116);
(ii)
-dependent terminators, which depend on the presence of
factor, a hexameric RNA-binding protein with ATPase activity
(recently reviewed in references 85 and
92); and (iii) persistent RNA-DNA hybrid terminators at which pairing of nascent RNA to the template just upstream from the
TEC dissociates a complex containing 3'-proximal U-rich RNA
(113).
We will return to a discussion of pausing and termination later by
describing a model for the related mechanisms of hairpin-dependent pausing and
-independent termination.
| |
STRUCTURE OF THE TEC |
|---|
Both intrinsic and extrinsic inputs alter the behavior of RNAP
(and thus its RNA transcript output) by modulating either the alignment
of nucleotides and catalytic moieties in the active site or the
contacts of RNAP to the DNA or RNA. We must first understand the
fundamental mechanisms that govern nucleotide addition and TEC
stability before we can meaningfully address how extrinsic inputs
modify them. We will focus the remainder of this short review on the
intrinsic inputs that govern RNA chain elongation, pausing, and
termination by first describing relevant features of RNAP's
three-dimensional structure and RNAP's two large subunits,
' and
, where most intrinsic interactions during elongation occur. We will
then detail the critical intrinsic inputs, how these interactions
program RNAP for hairpin-dependent pausing and
-independent
termination, and briefly describe how an extrinsic factor, NusA, can
modify these intrinsic interactions.
Three-dimensional structure of RNAP.
Electron crystallographic
methods have been used by Kornberg, Darst, and others to deduce
low-resolution (16- to 25-Å resolution) structures of E. coli holo- and core RNAPs and Saccharomyces cerevisiae RNAPs I and II (21, 22, 86, 100). These structures reveal common features likely shared by all multisubunit RNAPs: (i) a large,
~25-Å channel surrounded by "jaws" that have been suggested to
close around the downstream duplex DNA in the transition from RNAP
complexed with initiator proteins (
in bacteria) to TEC (5,
86); (ii) other features that may accommodate single-stranded RNA
(ssRNA) or DNA; and (iii) two tunnels that run through the enzyme from
near the channel to the opposite side, one of which may function as the
RNA exit tunnel (21, 48). This overall structure resembles
the hand-like motif of DNA polymerases whose X-ray crystal structures
have been determined to atomic resolution (for a recent review see
reference 46). The correlation of RNAP's structure
with its function will require answers to the following questions: (i)
what are the paths of the RNA and DNA chains within the RNAP structure;
(ii) where are the
',
,
, and
subunits of RNAP located,
particularly the conserved segments (see below); and (iii) which parts
of the structure, if any, move during different stages of the
transcription cycle?
Contacts in RNAP subunits.
The elongating form of RNAP
consists of the
and
' subunits and a dimer of
subunits.
and
' appear to make most of the important DNA and RNA contacts
during elongation and are responsible for RNAP's catalytic activity
(Fig. 3).
and
' homologs are evident in all multisubunit RNAPs based on colinear sequence
similarities, designated A-I for
and A-H for
' (Fig. 3) (2,
45, 126). As a framework for describing RNAP's intrinsic inputs,
we will summarize the known contacts of RNA and DNA to RNAP's
and
' subunits (Fig. 3). Many of these contacts, which were deduced from
cross-linking or genetic analysis, correspond to sequences within both
the
and
' subunits of RNAP that are known to influence pausing
and termination (44, 57, 110, 120).
|
and one bound to
'
(122), and two or more Mg2+ ions that are
required for full activity (reference 77 and references therein; 127, 128). The Mg2+
ions catalyze nucleotide addition (see the next section) and may be
involved in DNA melting (109). The
' Zn2+ in
bacteria and both the
and
' Zn2+ ions in eukaryotes
are complexed by Cys residues in an apparent Zn-finger-like arrangement
(Fig. 3). The Zn2+-finger-like motifs, which are near the N
terminus of
' and the C terminus of
(in eukaryotes), were shown
to interact genetically (125) and may be responsible for
closing RNAP's clamp around DNA (56, 79). The site of
Zn2+ binding to
in bacteria is unknown.
Interestingly, downstream-to-upstream contacts in the TEC mostly move C
to N terminal in
and N to C terminal in
' (Fig. 3).
Additionally, the similar locations of some mutations and split sites,
the likely genesis of
and
' by gene duplication (120), and the viability of a strain in which the C terminus of
is fused to the N terminus of
' (103) all are
consistent with a model in which key contacts in the TEC may occur at
the interface of these two weakly homologous but oppositely oriented large subunits (56). Surprisingly, essentially nothing is
known about the secondary or tertiary structures of any conserved
segment of
and
'; so far they have defied the increasingly
powerful structure prediction and folding algorithms based on sequence similarities. Thus, improving understanding of structure in the conserved regions is a key objective for current study of the
and
' subunits.
| |
INTRINSIC INPUTS |
|---|
Multiple intrinsic inputs govern RNA chain elongation: (i) an active site that aligns the RNA 3' end and incoming NTP, (ii) 10 to 18 bp of duplex DNA held by RNAP in a clamp-like structure at the front edge of the complex, (iii) an ~18 bp melted region of DNA within which the nontemplate strand appears to be channeled to the outside of the TEC, (iv) an ~8-bp RNA-DNA hybrid that positions the RNA 3' end in the active site 1 to 3 nt from the point of DNA strand separation, (v) at least one region of contact to single-stranded RNA upstream from the hybrid (an exit tunnel), and (vi) an interaction site for nascent RNA secondary structures.
Active site.
RNAP's active site catalyzes an
SN2-type nucleophilic displacement of the NTP
-
pyrophosphate moiety by the RNA 3' oxygen (30). It
closely resembles the active sites of DNA polymerase, reverse
transcriptases, and T7 RNA polymerase, all of which catalyze the same
reaction using two Mg2+ ions that are positioned by
coordination bonds to the carboxylates of Asp or Glu residues and that
direct the 3' OH and
phosphate into a trigonal bipyramidyl
transition state (46, 108). In RNAP, Asp side chains in the
highly conserved sequence DFDGD at
' positions 460 to 464 (
'460-464) are proposed to chelate the Mg2+ ions
(27, 128), whereas the
phosphate on the RNA 3'
terminal nucleotide is near
K1065 and
H1237 (75). The
3' base is near
515-660 (the "Rif" region),
1100, and
'460 in the reactive conformation, but relocates to near
'940
after arrest (7, 69, 75). Two observations may indicate the
involvement of additional metal ions in positioning nucleotides in the
active site: (i) the [Mg2+] dependence of DNA strand
melting is consistent with binding of three rather than two
Mg2+ ions (109), and (ii) nuclear magnetic
resonance measurements suggest that the
-bound Zn2+ ion
may contact the 3' base in the active site (6, 29). The
major mechanistic implications of these results make confirmation by
alternative methods critical objectives for future study.
phosphate), and the complementary template nucleotides may be over 15 Å apart and involve several different portions of
and
', based both on cross-linking (Fig. 3) and the
recent mapping of multiple free-radical cleavages in both subunits
resulting from Fe2+ being substituted for the active-site
Mg2+ (77). Thus, regulatory interactions outside
the active site may ultimately be transduced to altered nucleotide
addition through this set of interconnections.
Downstream DNA duplex.
About 18 bp of duplex DNA downstream
from the active site are protected by RNAP. The sequence of this
downstream DNA influences recognition of at least some pause sites and
terminators (62, 111) through interactions unrelated to its
ease of melting (62). Recently, Nudler et al. found that
the downstream DNA duplex cross-links to
1230-1272 and
'30-102,
that this interaction confers salt resistance to the TEC, and that the
substitution of Ala for two Cys residues in the
' Zn-finger-like
motif caused the TEC to terminate indiscriminately shortly after
initiation (79). Clerget et al. have found that other
substitutions in the
' Zn-finger-like motif abrogate HK022
put-dependent antitermination (20). It seems
likely that these segments of
and
' comprise the downstream DNA
clamp and that interactions between them hold RNAP on DNA similarly to
the clamps of the DNA replication processivity factors (51,
52). Key questions now are (i) does the downstream DNA clamp
actually contact the DNA template molecule nonionically (79), or does salt resistance reflect principally
hydrophobic protein-protein interactions that hold the clamp on the DNA
despite electrostatic interactions; (ii) how do certain DNA sequences in the clamp alter the properties of the TEC at pause sites and terminators; and (iii) what drives the opening and closing of the
downstream DNA clamp?
Nontemplate DNA.
The DNA strands separate only 1 to 3 nt
downstream of the site of polymerization in halted complexes. The
upstream portion of the nontemplate strand appears to lie on the
outside of RNAP with the bases exposed, based on its accessibility to
nucleases and hydroxyl radical, and to rejoin the template strand just
as the latter exits the TEC (60, 61, 117). No formal
reannealing site in RNAP may be necessary. The transcription bubble may
be propagated nearly isoenergetically by dissociation of 1 bp as the
nontemplate strand enters its exit channel in concert with the
formation of a new base pair at the upstream edge of the complex (117). This arrangement makes the exposed nontemplate strand bases attractive targets for regulatory factor interaction.
Interestingly, Ring et al. recently reported the first example of such
an interaction: stimulation of promoter-proximal pausing at +16 of the
late operon by
binding to this segment of nontemplate strand
DNA (95). Sequence-specific contacts to core RNAP itself
have not been reported and are less likely in the upstream portion if
the bases are oriented outwards, but could occur in the exit channel. Key questions are (i) which parts of core RNAP contact the nontemplate strand; (ii) are the bases in the upstream portion of the melted nontemplate strand exposed, as suggested by sensitivity to micrococcal nuclease (117), and are they the target of regulatory
factors; and (iii) since nuclease digestion of the nontemplate strand
leads to backtracking of RNAP (117), how does this region of
DNA contribute to the lateral stability of the TEC?
RNA-DNA hybrid.
The length and role of the RNA-DNA hybrid have
been heatedly debated in the transcription field. In one model, the
existence of a ~12-bp RNA-DNA hybrid in the TEC is postulated based
on RNA footprinting, the ability of the 5' end of
12-nt nascent RNAs to cross-link to DNA during initiation, and the inhibition of self-cleavage of a nascent RNA hammerhead <12 nt from the 3' end (summarized in reference 124). These results taken
together with thermodynamical analysis led Yager and von Hippel to
hypothesize that a 12-bp hybrid compensated energetically for the
melted DNA bubble to produce a stable TEC and that weakening the hybrid
by hairpin invasion and an rU · dA base pair at a
-independent terminator led to TEC instability and dissociation
(124). In an alternative model, Chamberlin hypothesized that
the hybrid was only 2 to 3 nt in length and was not the main source of
TEC stability (14). This argument was based on the
observation that all but 2 to 3 nt of RNA can be removed by RNase
digestion without loss of elongation competence (91) and is
also supported by the demonstration that TECs lacking the template DNA
strand upstream from the active site are stable (79).
Although it may not be the source of the resistance to dissociation, an
~8-bp hybrid does appear to be present in TECs based on protection of
template DNA bases from single-strand-specific reagents (47,
61) and RNA-DNA cross-linking (82). This hybrid may
control the lateral stability of the TEC (resistance to backtracking
along the RNA and DNA with RNA 3'-end displacement)
(54 and see below) and thus play a central role in
the response of the TEC to regulatory signals. Lateral stability is decreased by an unstable rU · dA base pair, destabilizing
base analogs, or misincorporation and is increased by stabilizing
base analogs (82).
RNA transcript exit.
In the TEC, 18 to 22 nt of RNA are
partially protected from RNase digestion (61, 91, 119),
suggesting interactions of ssRNA upstream of the 8-bp hybrid with RNAP.
This segment of RNA, 9 to 20 nt upstream from the 3' end, cross-links
to both
and
' (39), with at least portions of the
and
' interactions mapping to
904-950 and
'1-81
(118). In the absence of NusA, RNA >14 nt from the 3' end
also can cross-link to the
-subunit C-terminal domain (apparently to
the same surface that contacts upstream DNA at some promoters)
(67). Thus, if the transcript exits RNAP through one of the
tunnels visible in the three-dimensional structure, nt
9 to
13 may
lie within it (upstream from the RNA-DNA hybrid and downstream from the
contact that occurs in the absence of NusA). Several lines of
evidence are consistent with the idea that entry of nascent RNA into
the exit channel confers stability to the TEC, perhaps, as suggested by
Nudler et al. (79), by triggering the closing of the
downstream DNA clamp: (i) abortive RNAs are typically 8 nt or less;
(ii)
release and the conversion to a stable TEC occurs when the RNA
grows to >8 nt (13); (iii) occasionally stable complexes
can be produced with short transcripts (~6 nt) that are not
completely complementary to the template, apparently because the
upstream RNA shifts into the exit channel and allows re-pairing of the
downstream RNA to the vacated template positions (primer shifting
[9, 32, 101]). Rifampin, which binds 15 Å from the
priming nucleotide (78) and blocks synthesis of RNAs >3 or
4 nt (72), may bind to amino acid side chains normally
contacting the upstream portion of the RNA-DNA hybrid near the entrance
to the RNA exit channel (Fig. 2 and 3) (78). Key questions
about the interactions of the RNA transcript as it exits RNAP are (i)
does RNA exit through an internal tunnel in the RNAP structure; (ii) if
so, what type of RNA-protein interactions occur within the tunnel; and
(iii) do these interactions stabilize the closed form of the downstream
DNA clamp?
Nascent RNA hairpins.
RNA hairpins that form as the transcript
emerges from the TEC are integral parts of some pause signals; are
required at
-independent terminators (23, 94, 96), where
they trigger dissociation of the transcription complex; and can
function as antiterminators, which modify the transcription complex to
block recognition of both pause sites and terminators, either alone
(e.g., HK022 put [20]) or in association
with proteins (e.g.,
N-nut contact) (23, 93).
The key question about how hairpins modulate RNA chain growth is
whether they act through direct contact with RNAP or, indirectly, by
disrupting an interaction of ssRNA with RNAP or DNA.
904-950 in a paused complex and loses
the interaction with
'1-81 that is characteristic of TEC and
involved in stabilizing the downstream DNA clamp (79, 118).
However, recent experiments comparing the effects of antisense
oligonucleotides suggest that hairpin-RNAP interactions play a direct
role in pausing but that the indirect effect of disrupting ssRNA
interaction with RNAP or DNA is sufficient to dissociate a preformed
paused transcription complex when pairing extends to within 8 nt of the
RNA 3' end (4). A role for direct interaction at the pause
is indicated because all oligonucleotides that pair to the pause RNA
hairpin reduce pausing by factors of 10 or more, including DNA or RNA oligonucleotides that exactly recapitulate the 11-nt 3'-proximal spacing (4). We return to consideration of the possible
direct and indirect effects of RNA hairpins in the following section. Other key questions about nascent RNA hairpins now are (i) what part of
RNAP makes ionic contact to hairpins, (ii) what is the molecular basis
of RNA hairpin-RNAP interactions, and (iii) what structural changes
accompany hairpin formation at pause sites and
-independent
terminators (see the next section)?
| |
HAIRPIN-DEPENDENT PAUSING AND -INDEPENDENT
TERMINATION |
|---|
To illustrate how subtle changes in the intrinsic interactions of
RNA and DNA with RNAP alter its regulatory output, we will describe
here a two-branchpoint, kinetic-competition mechanism by which RNAP may
recognize a hairpin-dependent pause signal, the his leader
pause, and a related regulatory signal, a
-independent terminator
(Fig. 4) (16, 31, 119). Using
enzyme kinetics and the known intrinsic interactions of the TEC, this
mechanism provides a biochemical explanation for how RNAP accomplishes
a computational event: deciding between two possible outcomes (pausing or termination) based on information it reads from the RNA and DNA
chains.
|
Both hairpin-dependent pause signals and
-independent terminators
depend on multiple and similar intrinsic inputs, cause a reduction in
lateral stability of the TEC that correlates with pausing or
termination efficiency, and require formation of a nascent RNA hairpin
at a precise template position to trigger pausing or termination. The
his leader pause signal consists of four different intrinsic
inputs that cooperatively direct pausing: (i) the 5-bp-stem, 8-nt-loop
pause RNA hairpin that forms 11 nt from the RNA 3' end; (ii) the
3'-proximal region of RNA or DNA between the hairpin and 3' end; (iii)
alignment of the 3'-terminal nucleotide and the incoming NTP; and (iv)
the downstream DNA duplex (Fig. 4) (16-18, 54).
-independent terminators also depend on (i) a stable RNA hairpin;
(ii) a 7- to 9-nt 3'-proximal region that usually contains 6 to 8 U's
(rather than a 10- or 11-nt, less-U-rich 3'-proximal region found at a
pause); (iii) the rate of nucleotide addition in the active site; and
(iv) in cases where few U's are present in the 3'-proximal region, a
specific downstream DNA sequence (24, 73, 89, 90, 93, 96, 111,
121, 124).
When the TEC first encounters a pause or termination signal, intrinsic interactions appear to slow nucleotide addition to facilitate hairpin formation at the appropriate template position (decelerate, Fig. 4). This deceleration appears to be caused by increased blockage of the i+1 site (Fig. 2) by the nascent RNA because relative instability of the RNA-DNA hybrid and downstream DNA contacts lead to transient backtracking (49, 50, 54, 81, 82, 119). This deceleration puts the TEC at the first branchpoint in the kinetic mechanism, where isomerization to the paused TEC (pause, Fig. 4) competes with chain elongation (bypass, Fig. 4). The nature of the effects on the isomerization-versus-bypass competition of the downstream DNA, the RNA-DNA hybrid, and the bases in the active site remain important questions for future study.
At the second branchpoint in the mechanism, the paused TEC either
escapes back to the elongation pathway by binding NTP substrate and
reestablishing the active site geometry, or dissociates if the
remaining interactions are too weak. All four components of the
his pause signal additively slow escape from the pause,
suggesting the presence of a single paused intermediate
(16). The pause RNA 3' end appears to be pulled upstream out
of the active site because the his and trp leader
paused complexes are resistant to transcript cleavage or
pyrophosphorolysis (4). In contrast, backtracked TECs such
as complexes approaching the his pause site or
-independent terminators and some other types of paused complexes are sensitive to GreA-stimulated transcript cleavage or
pyrophosphorolysis (32), suggesting that the RNA is reverse
translocated through the active site. Thus, the pause hairpin, once
formed, appears to prevent backtracking by RNAP.
This kinetic mechanism can explain how small differences in the intrinsic interactions of RNAP with RNA and DNA can result in either pausing or termination. Once the paused intermediate forms, whether or not it persists long enough to escape or instead dissociates depends on the stability of the paused complex and the likelihood that the RNA 3' end can reestablish a reactive alignment with the NTP in the active site. The short, U-rich 3'-proximal RNA at a terminator both destabilizes the complex and makes escape unlikely. The longer 3'-proximal RNA in the paused complex allows stable interaction of the pause hairpin with RNAP, retention of some ssRNA-RNAP interactions in the exit channel, and 3' OH alignment in the active site.
The key role of spacing between the hairpin and RNA 3' end in the
pause-versus-termination decision is supported by several observations.
First, the his pause signal can be converted to an
inefficient
-independent terminator merely by extending the hairpin
stem to within the 7- to 9-nt 3'-proximal spacing observed at
terminators (16). Second, separation of the hairpin from a
run of 5 U's by 10 to 12 nt at a pause site in the pyrBI
leader region leads to pausing, not termination (28).
Finally, nascent RNA hairpins that extend to within 9 nt of the RNA 3'
end also destabilize halted transcription complexes at high salt
concentrations or 20 mM EDTA (3).
Precisely how the paused intermediate is destabilized at a terminator
remains uncertain but appears to involve both a weak RNA-DNA hybrid and
a loss of ssRNA contact to the downstream DNA clamp. The requirement
for a weak hybrid is evident because extension of base pairing to
within 8 nt of the RNA 3' end dissociates the TEC only at high salt
concentrations unless three or more U's immediately follow the hairpin
(3, 4, 16). Thus, the U run may play two roles in
termination: (i) decelerating the TEC to facilitate hairpin formation
in the first step of the mechanism and (ii) creating a particularly
weak hybrid once hairpin formation is complete. The requirement for
loss of ssRNA-RNAP contact was suggested by Nudler et al. to explain
how the downstream DNA clamp that appears to close during initiation
when ssRNA-RNAP contact is established is reopened at a terminator
(79). This suggestion is consistent with the loss of
RNA-
' interaction observed in the his paused
transcription complex, where the loop region of the pause
hairpin instead makes strong contacts to
-subunit region 904-950
(118), raising the question of whether the clamp may be at
least partially destabilized in the paused transcription complex as well (Fig. 4). The recent report that
-independent terminators work while being transcribed as single-stranded DNA (115) is consistent with these roles of RNA-DNA and
RNA-protein interactions, but this result probably cannot be
compared directly to the thermodynamics of transcription of duplex DNA.
This mechanism also can explain how RNA hairpins can play either direct or indirect roles in pausing and termination, respectively (see the section on RNA hairpins above), and why reaction conditions can have different effects at different terminators (89). Stabilization of the paused intermediate against escape appears to involve direct RNA hairpin interaction with RNAP, which cannot be accomplished by pairing to oligonucleotides (4). However, dissociation of the paused complex at a terminator may require only the indirect effect of disrupting ssRNA-RNAP or RNA-DNA interaction by base pairing to within 8 nt of the RNA 3' end (4). Reynolds et al. (89) interpreted the varying effects of solutes and NTP concentration on termination efficiency at different terminators to mean that termination must be a multistep mechanism in which different steps could be rate limiting. The mechanism described here with two branchpoints preceding termination is consistent with this idea. In principle, termination efficiency can be determined either by competition between pausing and escape at the first branchpoint or between dissociation and escape at the second branchpoint (Fig. 4).
Key questions about the intrinsic contributions to pausing and termination now under investigation are (i) does hairpin-RNAP interaction modulate formation of nascent RNA secondary structures; (ii) does hairpin-RNAP interaction play a direct allosteric role in active-site collapse, pull the RNA 3' end out of the active site, or simply obscure NTP binding; (iii) does a terminator hairpin form within the RNA exit channel, pull the RNA through the exit channel making the RNA-DNA hybrid even smaller than 8 bp, or pull the RNA completely out of the exit channel; (iv) what are the exact sequence requirements for the contributions of 3'-proximal and downstream DNA sequences to pausing and termination, and do they differ between the two steps in the mechanism or between pausing and termination; (v) is release of RNA and DNA from the TEC ordered (RNA first or DNA first) or random; and (vi) do the contributions of the pause-versus-bypass and terminate-versus-escape pathways to termination efficiency differ at different terminators, as suggested by varying responses to ionic conditions (89).
| |
EXTRINSIC INPUTS |
|---|
We have described how interactions of RNAP with RNA and DNA can generate different conformations of the transcription complex. These conformations can serve as targets for further regulation by extrinsic transcription factors (Table 1). These factors can modify the rules by which RNAP responds to future intrinsic inputs, resembling the change in logical rules in a Turing computational device upon input of information. The key to a mechanistic understanding of these extrinsic inputs is to decipher how they alter the intrinsic interactions of RNA, DNA, and NTPs with RNAP to change its enzymatic properties.
To illustrate this point briefly, we consider the effect of the
extrinsic factor NusA on pausing and termination (Table 1). E. coli NusA is a 55-kDa acidic protein that interacts with Rho,
N, and RNA through one or more interaction regions and RNAP through
contacts to the
-subunit C-terminal domain and either
' or
(68, 93). NusA was discovered as a cellular factor necessary
for
N-dependent antitermination but enhances both pausing and
-independent termination in the absence of other cellular or phage
proteins, is found in all prokaryotes and archaebacteria sequenced to
date, and is essential in E. coli unless Rho activity is
reduced by a mutation (130). With low affinity it competes for NTP binding and with higher affinity enhances pausing in a site-specific fashion (99, 112) that may involve interaction with RNA secondary structures (59, 66). NusA can also alter the 3'-end location of an arrested RNA (129). Despite its
central role in the regulation of RNA chain elongation, however,
precisely how NusA either enhances or inhibits pausing and termination
depending on the presence of other factors remains unclear. Does it
stabilize the paused intermediate simply by further stabilizing the RNA hairpin-RNAP interaction that already inhibits escape, or does it
directly affect RNA 3'-end positioning? How are the effects of NusA
reversed when
N protein is present? Answering these questions will
require both a fuller understanding of how intrinsic interactions of
the transcription complex direct the pausing/termination mechanism
(Fig. 4) and careful dissection of NusA's effect on these
interactions.
The same is true of the many other extrinsic factors that couple transcription elongation to cellular metabolism. By first understanding how intrinsic interactions in the transcription complex mediate its logical operations and then elucidating how extrinsic transcription factors modify these operations, we can build a comprehensive biochemical model of the information processing activities of RNAP.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Bacteriology, 1550 Linden Dr., University of Wisconsin
Madison,
Madison, WI 53706-1567. Phone: (608) 265-8475. Fax: (608) 262-9865. E-mail: landick{at}macc.wisc.edu.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
an overview
in
RNA polymerase. (Losick, R., and Chamberlin, M., eds), pp. 17-68, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
subunit of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase define the target for streptolydigin resistance.
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
25369-25375
-subunit of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase alter transcription pausing and termination.
Genes Dev.
4,
1623-1636
70), promoters, and the kinetics of the steps of transcription initiation
in
Escherichia coli and Salmonella: cellular and molecular biology (Neidhardt, F. C., Curtiss III, R., Ingraham, J. L., Lin, E. C. C., Low, K. B., Magasanik, B., Reznikoff, W. S., Riley, M., Schaechter, M., and Umbarger, H. E., eds), 2nd ed., pp. 792-821, ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
factor
70 in promoter-proximal pausing.
Cell
86,
485-493[Medline].
' subunit of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase.
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
23926-23929
subunit fragments.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
92,
4591-4595
subunit residues 904-950 correlates with strong transcriptional pausing.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94,
8433-8438
' subunit of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase identify regions involved in RNA chain elongation.
Genes Dev.
8,
2913-2917This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»