Curiously Circular RNA (circRNA) Gets Curiouser

  • circRNA Molecules Have, Oddly, No Beginning or End
  • circRNA Are Now Recognized as Regulators of Gene Expression 
  • A Flurry of New Findings Indicate circRNA Are Also Templates for Synthesis of Proteins Having As Yet Unknown Functions

Electron micrograph of ~3,000-nt circRNA. Taken from Matsumoto et al. PNAS (1990).

About a year ago, my blog titled Curiously Circular RNA pointed out that circular RNA (circRNA) in animals are odd molecules in that, unlike the vast majority of other RNA in animals, circRNA have no structural beginning (5’) or end (3’). This very curious feature has, not surprisingly, stimulated considerable scientific interest in knowing more about these molecules, which were serendipitously discovered some 30 years ago.

Application of next-generation sequencing has revealed that circRNA are actually relatively abundant and evolutionarily conserved, which implicates biological importance rather than inconsequential mistakes during RNA splicing mechanisms. Some circRNA have been shown to have function—circRNA can hybridize to complementary microRNA (miRNA), and thus serve as a kind of ‘sponge’ that influences miRNA-based gene expression. Evidence for circRNA involvement in gene expression continues to grow, as there are now >700 items on “circRNA [and] sponges” in Google Scholar.

Very recently published lines of research (that I’ll outline in what follows) implicate circRNA as coding templates for proteins, which heretofore has been exclusively associated with messenger RNA (mRNA). Current dogma holds that translation of mRNA into protein requires recognition of the 7-methylguanylated (m7G) 5’-cap structure to start ribosome binding, while the 3’-poly(A) tail protects the mRNA molecule from enzymatic degradation and aids in stopping translation, as depicted below.

Taken from Shoemaker & Green Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (2012).

Start and stop structural elements characteristic of mRNA are obviously not present in circRNA, which are literally just circles of RNA. Consequently, finding proteins encoded by circRNA has stirred up controversy about whether such proteins are a new and fundamentally important aspect of genetics or just inconsequential biochemical mistakes.

Translation of circRNA in Fly Head Neurons

Fruit fly. Taken from turbosquid.com

Researchers at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel in collaboration with a team at Max-Delbruck-Center for Molecular Medicine in Berlin, Germany recently reported in Molecular Cell the first compelling evidence that a subset of circRNA is translated in vivo. The study by Kadener & coworkers was carried out using the common fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster), which is known to have a number of features that lend to investigations of circRNA: (1) >2,500 fruit fly circular RNAs have been rigorously annotated, (2) these are mostly derive from back-splicing (pictured below) of protein-coding genes, (3) hundreds of which are conserved across multiple Drosophila species, and (4) exhibit commonalities to mammalian circRNA.

Direct back-splicing: a branch point in the 5’ intron attacks the splice donor of the 3’ intron. The 3’ splice donor then completes the back-splice by attacking the 5’ splice acceptor forming a circRNA. Taken from Jeck & Sharpless Nature Biotechnol (2014).

This study by Kadener & coworkers involves a plethora of technically complex experimental procedures and associated jargon, from which I’ve extracted what I believe to be some key points to share. After annotating the Drosophila circRNA open reading frames (cORFs), which, by definition,h have the potential for translation, they searched for evidence of their translation utilizing previously published ribosome footprinting (RFP). This led to identification of 37 circRNAs with at least one specific RFP read, referred to as ribo-circRNAs.

Taken from Jeck & Sharpless Nature Biotechnology (2014)

Several representative ribo-circRNAs were then constructed to each have (pictured below) a metallothionine (MT) promoter and V5 tag to facilitate translation and anti-V5 antibody-based detection of the expected protein after transfection into cells.

To determine whether circRNAs are translated in a more relevant tissue, they set up the RFP methodology in fly heads. A genetic locus named mbl that is known to produce a circRNA (circMbl3) at high abundance was selected for targeted mass spectrometry from a fly head immunoprecipitated MBL. They utilized synthetic peptides to determine characteristic spectra for which to search in the fly head immunoprecipitate and found a consistent and very high confidence hit for a peptide that can only be produced by circMbl3.

Kadener & coworkers extended these fly head findings to mammalian mouse and rat systems, but the most interesting part of this study—in my opinion—dealt with what signals ribosome binding and translation in the absence of the 5’ cap structure present in mRNA. They demonstrated circRNA translation under conditions intended to block normal 5’ cap-dependent translation of mRNA, and concluded that “[untranslated regions] of ribo-circRNAs (cUTRs) allow cap-independent translation [and that] further research is necessary to uncover how these sequences promote translation.”

Remarkably, as you’ll now read, another group of investigators have apparently found how such promotion of circRNA translation can occur.

Translation of circRNA is Driven by N6-Methyladenosine (m6A)

The most abundant modification of RNA in eukaryotes is m6A, which has been recently shown by Li et al. to recruit binding proteins that collectively facilitate the translation of specifically targeted mRNAs—i.e. those “marked” with m6A—through interactions with 40S and 60S ribosome subunit “machinery” that actually carry out translation. Contemporaneously, Yang et al. found that m6A likewise promotes efficient initiation of protein translation from circRNAs in human cells. They discovered that consensus m6A motifs are enriched in circRNAs, and a single m6A site is sufficient to drive translation initiation.

As depicted below, this m6A-driven translation requires initiation factor F4G2 and m6A “reader” YTHDF3. Experiments showed that this translation is enhanced by methyltransferase METTL3/14 and inhibited by demethylase FTO, which enzymatically “add” and “subtract” methyl (Me) groups on specific adenosines (A) in circRNAs, respectively.  It has also been shown to be upregulated upon heat shock, which is a commonly employed method to induce “stress” in cells.

Taken from Yang et al.

Further analyses through polysome profiling, computational prediction and mass spectrometry revealed that m6A-driven translation of circRNAs is widespread, with hundreds of endogenous circRNAs having translation potential. Yang et al. concluded by stating that their “study expands the coding landscape of [the] human transcriptome, and suggests a role of circRNA-derived proteins in cellular responses to environmental stress.”

Zinc Finger Protein in Muscle Cell Development

Finally, and essentially contemporaneously with above mentioned two publications, a third independent investigation reported by Legnini et al. demonstrated selective circRNA downregulation using short-interfering RNAs (siRNAs). These reagents for RNA interference (RNAi) were used in an image-based functional genetic screen of 25 circRNA species, conserved between mouse and human, expression of which are differentially expressed during myogenesis (i.e. formation of muscular tissue) in Duchenne muscular dystrophy myoblasts.

This siRNA/RNAi-based functional analysis provided one interesting case related to zinc finger protein 609 (circ-ZNF609)—a reported miRNA sponge—the phenotype of which could be specifically attributed to the circular form and not to the linear mRNA counterpart. Consistent with the circ-ZNF609 sequence having an ORF, they found that a fraction of circ-ZNF609 RNA is loaded onto polysomes and that, upon puromycin treatment, it shifted to lighter fractions, similar to mRNAs. The coding ability of this circRNA was proved through use of artificial constructs expressing circular tagged transcripts, and by CRISPR/Cas9—the trendy gene editing method about which I’ve already commented multiple times.

Despite all this evidence, Legnini et al. stated that they “have no hints on the molecular activity of the proteins derived from circ-ZNF609 and as to whether they contribute to modulate or control the activity of the counterpart deriving from the linear mRNA.”

In thinking about closing comments about this update in circRNA, I decided to emphasize that investigations in the field of RNA continue to reveal complexities that will require many more years of global attention to unravel and understand. In just the past decade or so we’ve learned about gene regulation by miRNA/siRNA, reclassification of “junk DNA” as encoding a myriad of long noncoding RNA (lncRNA), mRNA regulation by base-modifications, and curious circRNAs that are more than sponges, and likely encode hundreds (if not thousands) of proteins whose functions have yet to be elucidated. Amazing!

What are your thoughts about all of this?

Your comments are welcomed.

Postscript

After writing this blog, Panda et al. at the National Institute on Aging-Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health published a paper titled High-purity circular RNA isolation method (RPAD) reveals vast collection of intronic circRNAs. Here’s a snippet of the abstract which adds to the increasingly curious occurrence of circRNAs that begs, if you will, further research aimed at discovering functions of circRNA-derived proteins.

“Here, we describe a novel method for the isolation of highly pure circRNA populations involving RNase R treatment followed by Polyadenylation and poly(A)+ RNA Depletion (RPAD), which removes linear RNA to near completion. High-throughput sequencing of RNA prepared using RPAD from human cervical carcinoma HeLa cells and mouse C2C12 myoblasts led to two surprising discoveries: (i) many exonic circRNA (EcircRNA) isoforms share an identical backsplice sequence but have different body sizes and sequences, and (ii) thousands of novel intronic circular RNAs (IcircRNAs) are expressed in cells. In sum, isolating high-purity circRNAs using the RPAD method can enable quantitative and qualitative analyses of circRNA types and sequence composition, paving the way for the elucidation of circRNA functions.”

Evolving Polymerases to Do the Impossible

  • Polymerases Aren’t What They Used to Be! 
  • Scripps Team Evolves Polymerases That Read and Write With 2’-O-Methyl Ribonucleotides
  • Key Reagents for Romesberg’s “Molecular Moonshots” Are Supplied by TriLink BioTechnologies

Long-time devotees of these posts will likely remember a blog several years ago about Prof. Floyd Romesberg at the Department of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute who achieved a seemingly impossible feat. Namely, designing a new pair of complementary bases such that DNA replicating in E. coli would be comprised of six bases, thereby creating a six-base genetic code that is expanded from Nature’s four-base code.

Floyd E. Romesberg. Taken from utsandiego.com

More recently, Romesberg has cleverly outfoxed Nature once again, this time by evolving nucleic acid polymerases into mutant polymerases that can do what heretofore seemed impossible. He and his research team’s publication (Chen et al.) is a tour de force of experimental methodology that is not easily read, and is even harder to simply summarize in a short space like this blog. Consequently, I’ll first tell you what was accomplished, then give a short synopsis of principal new methodology, and close by commenting on the significance of this fascinating work.

Doing the Impossible

Romesberg’s lab successfully achieved what I think of as “multiple molecular moonshots,” wherein a Taq polymerase (which normally reads and writes DNA during PCR), was evolved by novel selection (SELEX) methods into mutant polymerases that are able to transcribe DNA into 2’-O-methyl (2’-OMe) RNA, and reverse transcribe 2’-OMe RNA into DNA for PCR/sequencing.

As depicted below, this was exemplified using a 60-mer DNA template and 18-mer 2’-OMe RNA primer to produce a fully-modified 48-mer 2’-OMe RNA by means of an evolved mPol and all four A, G, C and U 2’-OMe NTPs, which I’m proud to say were bought from TriLink BioTechnologies! This type of molecular evolution of a polymerase has no precedent.

DNA template   5’ ————————————- 3’

RNA primer                                 ←←← 3’ xxxxxx 5’

mPol ↓ 2’-OMe NTPs

Determining the fidelity of this seemingly impossible molecular transformation was addressed by achieving a feat of comparable impossibility! As depicted below, the aforementioned 48-mer 2’-OMe RNA product was hybridized to a DNA primer for reverse transcription into a 48-mer complementary DNA (cDNA) strand, using an evolved mPol, together with all four A, G, C and T unmodified dNTPS, which were also purchased from TriLink. This unprecedented conversion of 2’-OMe RNA into cDNA was followed by conventional PCR/sequencing, the results of which demonstrated relatively high fidelity.

2’-OMe template   5’ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3’

DNA primer                                           ←←← 3’ —— 5’

mPol ↓ dNTPs

cDNA                        3’ ————————————– 5’

How They Did It

In the selection cycle shown below, (1) phage-display libraries were used to expose individual polymerases (Pol) on E. coli. cells in proximity to chemically attached primer/template complexes of interest, which are mixed with natural or modified triphosphates including biotin (green; B)-labelled UTP to extend the primer. (2) Phage that display active mutant polymerases (mPols) are isolated with streptavidin (SA) beads. After washing to remove nonspecific binders, phage cleaved from the beads are used to re-infect E. coli. (3) Heat-treated lysates of E. coli that express the recovered mPols are next subjected to plate-based screening using 96-well plates coated with primer/template complex and extension buffer that contained natural or modified triphosphates and B-UTP, incorporation of which is chromogenically detected. (4) Mutants that give rise to the most activity are selected for individual gel-based analysis, from which (5) promising candidates are selected for further diversification (e.g., by gene shuffling, as depicted) and then subjected to additional rounds of evolution.

Taken from Chen et al. Nature Chemistry (2017)

What is the Significance

In a previous blog, I’ve commented on increasing interest in the utility of aptamers, which are oligonucleotides that can specifically bind small molecules or motifs in proteins, and thus be used to build electronic sensors or studied as potential therapeutic agents rivaling antibodies. Therapeutic aptamers, like antisense oligonucleotides, require incorporation of chemical modifications to impart stability toward nucleases in blood or cellular targets.

Burmeister et al. have previously reported methods for mPol transcription of a DNA template into a fully modified, nuclease-resistant 23-mer 2’-OMe RNA aptamer—also using TriLink’s 2’-OMe NTPs! However, they encountered considerable experimental difficulties in generating this therapeutically promising 23-mer against vascular endothelial growth factor. These technical issues have now been surmounted by the mPol-evolution approaches in the present work by Romesberg’s team, which enabled improved access to longer 2’-OMe RNA aptamers with reasonable efficiency and fidelity.

Moreover, the present study is the first to evolve an mPol for reverse transcription of fully modified 2’-OMe RNA into DNA, which can then be amplified by PCR and/or sequenced, thereby opening the door for a variety of new analytical methods. Most importantly, the molecular mechanism by which these remarkable mPol activities was evolved, namely, the stabilization of an interaction between the “thumb and fingers domains,” may be general and thus useful for the optimization of other Pols. In that case, we can look forward to further advances in evolving other Pols to do the impossible—hopefully using modified nucleotide triphosphates from TriLink!

As usual, your comments are welcome.

New CRISPR System Reported for Targeting RNA Instead of DNA

  • Current “CRISPR Craze” for DNA Editing is Catalyzing Creativity
  • Early CRISPR Innovator Feng Zhang Now Reports Targeting RNA
  • This New “C2c2” System has Specificity Issues But is Nevertheless Promising

Just when you thought that the “CRISPR craze” would soon transition from the fundamental discovery phase to the improvements phase, something entirely new for CRISPR has come along. That something, recently published by Feng Zhang and others in venerable Science magazine, targets RNA instead of DNA. Consequently, this may lead to transient vs. permanent editing, as well as other RNA- vs. DNA-based applications.

Before further commenting on this exciting new RNA-targeting approach using CRISPR, here are a few snippets about the original DNA version of CRISPR to set the stage, and substantiate my tongue-in-cheek referral to the craze about it.

Backstory

Taken from igtrcn.org

Taken from igtrcn.org

Editing with CRISPR, which is short-form for CRISPR-Cas9, uses sequence-specific guide RNA (gRNA) to target DNA for cutting by Cas9 nuclease, as depicted below. Guide RNA and Cas9 can be introduced into cells either encoded in a vector or as synthetic gRNA and synthetic Cas9 mRNA, which TriLink offers in either wild-type or base-modified forms of Cas9 mRNA. CRISPR for genome editing was publicly described in Science in 2012 by co-corresponding authors Jennifer A. Doudna, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier. But Feng Zhang, at the Broad Institute, was first to obtain a patent on the technique.

Not surprisingly, given the financial potential for DNA editing by CRISPR, which has been called the ‘biotech discovery of the century,’ there is ownership litigation. This dispute is getting rather ugly, if you will, according to an article in Science titled Accusations of errors and deception fly in CRISPR patent fight.

crispPotential financial gain aside, PubMed stats I found clearly substantiate the craze factor in numeric terms: >4,000 publications to date with a rapidly increasing trajectory, i.e. ~600 in 2014 and ~1,200 in 2015, which is an average of roughly 4 publications every day in that year!

By the way, in the chart above that I made for CRISPR publications in PubMed, there was only one report in 2002, which was the first publication to identify CRISPR. These Dutch investigators used computer analysis to find a novel family of repetitive DNA sequences that is present among both domains of the prokaryotes (Archaea and Bacteria), but absent from eukaryotes or viruses. They noted that “[t]his family is characterized by direct repeats, varying in size from 21 to 37 bp, interspaced by similarly sized non-repetitive sequences. To appreciate their characteristic structure, we will refer to this family as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR).” 

Taken from youtube.com

Taken from youtube.com

CRISPR was also selected as 2015 Science Breakthrough of the Year, and is featured in an interesting YouTube video that is definitely worth watching, in my opinion.

Enough said for CRISPR editing of DNA, let’s move on to RNA editing with CRISPR that offers a fundamentally different editing approach: whereas DNA editing makes permanent changes to the genome of a cell, CRISPR-based RNA-targeting approach may allow researchers to make temporary changes. Moreover, this can be adjusted up or down, and may one day provide greater specificity and functionality than existing methods for RNA interference (RNAi) using either siRNA or antisense oligos.

CRISPR Targeting RNA

Feng Zhang. Taken from mit.news.edu

Feng Zhang. Taken from mit.news.edu

At the risk of seeming to be too trendy, this section heading could have read “Feng Zhang 2.0” in that Zhang at the Broad Institute, along with co-corresponding author Eugene V. Koonin at NIH and uber-famous “Broadster” Eric Langer plus others on a large team, have characterized a new CRISPR system that targets RNA—but not DNA. In their recent Science publication they demonstrated that this new system involves a Class 2 type VI-A CRISPR-Cas effector—aptly abbreviated C2c2 (pronounced “see too, see too”)—that has RNA-guided RNase function.

The researchers originally identified C2c2 in the bacterium Leptotrichia shahii (L. shahii) in a systematic search for previously unidentified CRISPR systems within diverse bacterial genomes. They focused on C2c2 because its sequence contained two copies of a domain called higher eukaryotes and prokaryotes nucleotide-binding (HEPN) that has only been found in RNases. Mutating the putative catalytic site within either of C2c2’s HEPN domains demonstrated that none of the mutated enzyme versions could cut RNA in vitro, suggesting that both HEPN domains are necessary for C2c2 to work.

CRISPR-C2c2 from L. shahii reconstituted in E. coli to mediate interference of the RNA phage MS2 via crRNA facilitated by the two HEPN nuclease domains. Taken from Abudayyeh et al.

CRISPR-C2c2 from L. shahii reconstituted in E. coli to mediate interference of the RNA phage MS2 via crRNA facilitated by the two HEPN nuclease domains. Taken from Abudayyeh et al.

But C2c2 Cleaves Collateral RNA—a Case for “Lemons into Lemonade”?

Unlike Cas9, which cuts DNA only within the sequence dictated by the CRISPR gRNA, C2c2 was found to make cuts within the target sequence and adjacent, nonspecific sequences. While this collateral cleavage obviously presents a specificity problem, Zhang and his colleagues were able to create a deactivated C2c2 (dC2c2) variant by alanine substitution of any of the four predicted HEPN domain catalytic residues. To me this clever trick is like converting “lemons into lemonade” in that undesired non-specific cleavage is transformed into a programmable RNA-binding protein having potential utility.

For example, the investigators speculate that the ability of dC2c2 to bind to specified sequences could be used in the following ways:

  • Bring effector modules to specific transcripts in order to modulate their function or translation, which could be used for large-scale screening, construction of synthetic regulatory circuits, and other purposes.
  • Fluorescently tag specific RNAs in order to visualize their trafficking and/or localization.
  • Alter RNA localization through domains with affinity for specific subcellular compartments.
  • Capture specific transcripts through direct pull-down of dC2c2 in order to enrich for proximal molecular partners including RNAs and proteins.

Listen to Zhang’s Grad Students 

While the details of this seminal work published in Science is not easily summarized, its practical implications have been concisely translated, if you will, by first coauthor Omar O. Abudayyeh, and second coauthor Jonathan S. Gootenberg—both graduate student members of the Zhang lab—in three short videos that I encourage you to watch at this link.

Left: Omar Abudayyeh. Taken from zlab.mit.edu Right: Jonathan Gootenberg Taken from zlab.mit.edu

Left: Omar Abudayyeh. Taken from zlab.mit.edu Right: Jonathan Gootenberg Taken from zlab.mit.edu

Publication protocol generally lists coauthors in order of contribution, so in this C2c2 publication that has many coauthors, these fellows know what they’re talking about because they did lots of the lab work. Congrats to them, Feng Zhang (again), and all of the other contributors.

As always, your comments are welcomed and encouraged.

RNA World Revisited

  • Scripps Researchers ‘Evolve’ an RNA-Amplifying RNA Polymerase 
  • It’s Used for First Ever All-RNA Amplification Called “riboPCR”
  • TriLink Reagent Plays a Role in this Remarkably Selective in Vitro Evolution Method 
Prof. Gerald Joyce & Dr. David Horning. Photo by Madeline McCurry-Schmidt. Taken from scripps.edu

Prof. Gerald Joyce & Dr. David Horning. Photo by Madeline McCurry-Schmidt. Taken from scripps.edu

Those of you who regularly read my blog will recall an earlier posting on “the RNA World,” which was envisioned by Prof. Walter Gilbert in the 1980s as a prebiotic place billions of years ago when life began without DNA. That post recommended reading more about this intriguing hypothesis by consulting a lengthy review by Prof. Gerald Joyce. Now, Prof. Joyce and postdoc David Horning have advanced the hypothesis one step further by reporting the first ever amplification of RNA by an in vitro-selected RNA polymerase, thus providing significant supportive evidence for the RNA World. Following are their key findings, which were enabled in part by a TriLink reagent—read on to find out which one and how!

In Vitro Evolution of an RNA Polymerase

Horning & Joyce designed an in vitro selection method to chemically “evolve” an RNA polymerase capable of copying a relatively long RNA template with relatively high fidelity. The double emphasis on “relatively” takes into account that the RNA World would have many millions of years to evolve functionally better RNA polymerases capable of copying increasingly longer RNA templates with increasingly higher fidelity.

As depicted below, they started with a synthetic, highly structured ribozyme (black) wherein random mutations were introduced throughout the molecule at a frequency of 10% per nucleotide position to generate a population of 1014 (100,000,000,000,000) distinct variants to initiate the in vitro evolution process. Step 1 involved 5’-5’ click-mediated 1,2,3-trazole (Ø) attachment of an 11-nt RNA primer (magenta) partially complementary to a synthetic 41-nt RNA template (brown) encoding an aptamer that binds guanosine triphosphate (GTP). In Steps 2 and 3, the primer hybridizes to template and is extended by polymerization of A, G, C and U triphosphates (cyan).

Taken from Horning & Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2016

Taken from Horning & Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2016

GTP aptamer showing red and cyan sequences corresponding to above cartoon. Taken from Horning & Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2016

GTP aptamer showing red and cyan sequences corresponding to above cartoon. Taken from Horning & Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2016

Step 4 involves binding of aptameric structures to immobilized GTP (green), then photocleavage of the 1,2,3-triazole linkage in Step 5, followed by reverse transcription to cDNA and conventional PCR in Step 6 for transcription into ribozymes in Step 7. Twenty-four rounds of this evolution by selection were carried out, progressively increasing the stringency by increasing the length of RNA to be synthesized by decreasing the time allowed for polymerization. By the 24th round, the population could readily complete the GTP aptamer shown below. Subsequent cloning, sequencing and screening were then used to characterize the most active polymerase, which was designated “24-3.”

The TriLink “Connection”

2'-Azido-dUTP (aka 2'-azido-UTP)

2′-Azido-dUTP (aka 2′-azido-UTP)

The aforementioned in vitro evolution process actually involves tons of experimental details that interested readers will need to consult in the published paper, which is accompanied by an extensive Supporting Information section. In the latter, a subsection titled Primer Extension Reaction describes 3’ biotinylation of the template RNA strand (brown in above scheme) using TriLink “2’-azido-UTP” (more properly named 2’-azido-dUTP) and yeast poly(A) polymerase, followed by click connection of the RNA template’s 3’-terminal 2’-azido moiety to biotin-alkyne. This very clever functionalization of the RNA template strand allowed for subsequent capture of the double-stranded primer extension reaction products on streptavidin-coated beads, followed by elution of the desired nonbiotinylated strand for GTP aptamer selection (Step 4 above).

Properties of RNA Polymerase 24-3

Needless to say—but I will—enzymologists and RNA aficionados will undoubtedly be interested in musing over the kinetic and fidelity properties of RNA polymerase 24-3.

The rate of 24-3 polymerase catalyzed addition to a template-bound primer was measured using an 11-nt template that is cited extensively in the literature to evaluate various ribozymes. It was found that the average rate of primer extension by 24-3 is 1.2 nt/min, which is ∼100-fold faster than that of the starting ribozyme polymerase randomly mutagenized for in vitro selection.

The NTP incorporation fidelities of the starting and 24-3 ribozyme polymerases on this 11-nt test template, at comparable yields of product, are 96.6% and 92.0%, respectively. Horning & Joyce noted that the higher error rate of 24-3 is due primarily to an increased tendency for G•U wobble pairing.

Phenylalanyl tRNA. Taken from Horning & Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2016

Phenylalanyl tRNA. Taken from Horning & Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2016

Other longer RNA templates having various base compositions or intramolecular structures were also studied, with the stated “final test of polymerase generality” being use of 24-3 to synthesize yeast phenylalanyl tRNA from a 15-nt primer (in red right). The authors humorously describe the results as follows:

“Despite the stable and complex structure of the template, full-length tRNA was obtained in 0.07% yield after 72 h. This RNA product is close to the limit of what can be achieved with the polymerase, but is likely the first time a tRNA molecule has been synthesized by a ribozyme since the end of the RNA world, nearly four billion years ago.”

Exponential Amplification of RNA

PCR is the most widely used method for amplifying nucleic acids, and involves repeated cycles of heat denaturation and primer extension. The 24-3 RNA polymerase was used to carry out PCR-like amplification, but in an all-RNA system (named riboPCR by Horning & Joyce) using A, G, C, and U triphosphates and a 24-nt RNA template composed of two 10-nt primer-binding sites flanking the sequence AGAG. Somewhat special conditions were employed:

  • The concentration of Mg2+ was reduced to minimize spontaneous RNA cleavage
  • PEG8000 was used as a “molecular crowding” agent to improve ribozyme activity at the reduced Mg2+ concentration
  • Tetrapropylammonium chloride was added to lower the melting temperature of the duplex RNA

Under these conditions, 1 nM of the 24-nt RNA template was driven through >40 repeated thermal cycles, resulting in 98 nM newly synthesized template and 106 nM of its complement, corresponding to 100-fold amplification. Sequencing of the amplified products revealed that the central AGAG sequence was largely preserved, albeit with a propensity to mutate the third position from A to G, reflecting the low barrier to wobble pairing.

Amplification of a 20-nt template (without the central insert) was monitored in real time, using FRET from fluorescently labeled primers, and input template concentrations ranging from 10 nM to 1 pM. The resulting amplification profiles shown in the paper are typical for real-time PCR, shifted by a constant number of cycles per log-change in starting template concentration. A plot of cycle-to-threshold vs. logarithm of template concentration, also shown in the paper, was linear across the entire range of dilutions indicating exponential amplification of the template RNA with a per-cycle amplification efficiency of 1.3-fold.

Implications for the Ancient RNA World

It would be an injustice to Horning & Joyce if I would try to paraphrase their concluding discussion of this investigation, so here is what they say:

The vestiges of the late RNA world appear to be shared by all extant life on Earth, most notably in the catalytic center of the ribosome, but most features of RNA-based life likely were lost in the Archaean era. Whatever forms of RNA life existed, they must have had the ability to replicate genetic information and express it as functional molecules. The 24-3 polymerase is the first known ribozyme that is able to amplify RNA and to synthesize complex functional RNAs. To achieve fully autonomous RNA replication, these two activities must be combined and further improved to provide a polymerase ribozyme that can replicate itself and other ribozymes of similar complexity. Such a system could, under appropriate conditions, be capable of self-sustained Darwinian evolution and would constitute a synthetic form of RNA life.

Applications for Today’s World of Biotechnology

The aforementioned report by Horning & Joyce has received wide acclaim in the scientific press and world-wide public media as supporting the existence of a prebiotic RNA World, billions of years ago, from which life on Earth evolved.

While the academic part of my brain, if you will, fully appreciates the significance of these new insights on “living” RNA eons ago, the technical applications part of my brain is more piqued by possible practical uses of all-RNA copying or all-RNA riboPCR.

I, for one, plan to muse over possible applications of such all-RNA systems in today’s world of biotechnology, and hope that you do too, and are willing to share any ideas as comments here.

Death of DNA Dogma?

  • Current Genetic Dogma is DNA → RNA → Protein
  • Two Research Teams Independently Implicate Sperm Short RNA Can Transmit Paternal Genetics
  • More Research Needed to Elaborate the New Dogma

The Central Dogma of all life on Earth is currently understood to be DNA encoding RNA that in turn encodes protein. That genetic inheritance is transferred as DNA was first posited by uber-famous Francis Crick, who coined the term Central Dogma. While dogmatic principles, by definition, should have no exceptions, a few species of viruses can be considered to be exceptional cases in this regard.

The Central Dogma. Taken from biology.tutorvista.com

The Central Dogma. Taken from biology.tutorvista.com

That said, there is now quite a scientific buzz—if not shudder by some—over reports implicating RNA molecules as direct (i.e. non-DNA) agents for mammalian inheritance. My instantaneous mental responses to these surprising—if not shocking—revelations was first, “Wow, who would have thunk?” and then, “I’ve got to share this news in a blog.” So here it is.

Surprising Science in Sperm

Human sperm. Taken from leavingbio.net

Human sperm. Taken from leavingbio.net

While most of us are probably at least passingly familiar with textbook descriptions of the basic structure of sperm and its functional role in reproductive molecular biology, more detailed information on its nucleic acid content is less known. Consequently, shown below is a depiction of the basic structural components of a sperm, DNA content, and primary functions for doing its job, so to speak, in fertilization of an egg.

By way of background, here’s information that I thought was worth sharing. My Google Scholar search results for nucleic acid content of sperm included a very impressive technological accomplishment reported by uber-famous professor/entrepreneur Stephen Quake and co-workers in 2012 on microfluidic separation methods for the first ever genome-wide single-cell DNA sequencing of human sperm. Contrary to what one might intuitively expect, 91 genomes of sperm from a single individual were not identical. Since DNA from only one sperm and one egg combine during fertilization, the exact paternal DNA genotypes in the resultant offspring involves “pot luck,” so to speak.

Regarding RNA, my Google Scholar search led to a paper in 2011 by Krawetz et al. on the first ever report of deep-sequencing of short (18-30 bases) RNA (sRNA) in human sperm (for which TriLink offers a high-performance CleanTag™ kit for sRNA library prep as detailed on this poster). Krawetz et al. found microRNA (miRNA) (≈7%), piwi-interacting RNA (piRNA) (≈17%), and repeat-associated sRNA (≈65%). A minor subset of sRNA within the transcription start site/promoter fraction (≈11%) frames the histone promoter-associated regions enriched in genes of early embryonic development. However, reproductive roles for this molecular menagerie (what I tongue-in-cheek call these various sRNAs) remain speculative.

Fast forwarding to present time leads us to the two “wow” publications in venerable Science that triggered this blog:

While you’ll need to read these publications for details, they collectively raise the following controversial question vis-à-vis the Central Dogma for strictly DNA-based inheritance.

Are You Inheriting More Than Genes from Your Father?

Yes, is the surprising—if not bombshell—answer to this question, which I borrowed from Mitch Leslie’s Science editorial headline. If this conclusion is supported by further studies, it forces a fundamental revision of reproductive molecular cell biology. That’s a very big deal, so to speak, with ramifications not to be under appreciated.

Using sRNA library preparation methods analogous to TriLink CleanTag™ for Illumina deep-sequencing, the USA-Canadian team analyzed sperm from male mice fed a low-protein diet, progeny of which showed elevated activity of genes involved in cholesterol and lipid metabolism. They found that >80% of sRNA were fragments from several kinds of transfer RNAs (tRNAs). Most notably, 5′ fragments of tRNA-Gly-CCC, -TCC, and -GCC shown below all exhibited an approximately 2- to 3-fold increase in low-protein sperm.

Arrows indicate ~30- to 34-nt 5′ tRFs. Taken Upasna Sharma et al. Science (2016)

Arrows indicate ~30- to 34-nt 5′ tRFs. Taken Upasna Sharma et al. Science (2016)

To understand when, where, and how these tRNA fragments were formed, as well as unravel functional significance, the researchers describe an experimental tour de force—in my opinion. This included antisense modified-oligonucleotide “knock-out” of these tRNA fragments, as well as “knock-in” injection of <40-nt sRNA populations purified from control and low-protein sperm into control zygotes.

The researchers concluded that the sperm acquired most of these fragments while passing through the epididymis, a duct from the testicle where the cells mature. Functionally, they also link tRNA fragments to regulation of endogenous retro-elements active in the preimplantation embryo.

In the second study, the China-USA team also found tRNA fragments by deep-sequencing of sRNA. After feeding male mice either a high-fat or low-fat diet, the scientists injected the animals’ sperm into unfertilized eggs, and then measured metabolic performance of the offspring, which ate a normal diet. Progeny of fat-eating fathers remained lean; however, they showed two abnormalities often found in their dads and in humans who are obese or diabetic—abnormal absorption of glucose and insensitivity to insulin.

Like the first study, these researchers also did “knock-in” experiments wherein they inserted the tRNA fragments into eggs fertilized with other sperm. Fragments that came from fathers that ate the high-fat diet resulted in offspring that also showed impaired glucose absorption.

Take Home Messages

At the risk of over simplifying or over generalizing, the aforementioned two studies of sRNA in sperm provide compelling—and stunning—evidence for how tRNA fragments in sperm are responsible for inheritance independent of sperm DNA sequences. So much for dogma.

With regard to specifics, researchers now need to investigate how permanent these changes are, and how quickly they can be reversed by changing diet.

The flip-side of a bad diet adversely influencing offspring is to investigate if and how a good diet imparts better health to offspring.

Please share your thoughts about these reports, conclusion, and implications by commenting here.

Postscript

If you enjoy hip hop music—or just want to chuckle—this YouTube video for the Central Dogma song will get your head bobbing in sync with the music, lead you to smile, and give you a cool visual display of the central dogma.

Curiously Circular RNA

  • Circular RNA (circRNA) Formation Serendipitously Discovered in 1991  
  • Next-Generation Sequencing Reveals circRNA to be Ubiquitous
  • circRNA can Function as MicroRNA ‘Sponges’ to Regulate Gene Expression

There’s something seductively simple—and curious—about circles, which are unique in having no beginning or end, unlike most other things. On a less philosophical plane, thinking about circles conjures up incongruent memories of delicious doughnuts and geometric definitions from my youthful days going to the neighborhood bakery and diligently taking notes in my high school geometry class, respectively.

donuts

Continue reading

Norovirus: Science Behind the Headline

  • The Virus is Quite Common with 267 Million Cases and 200,000 Deaths Annually
  • RT-PCR is the Detection Method of Choice
  • First Cell-Culture System May Speed Drug and Vaccine Development

We’ve all seen TV news stories about disgruntled passengers disembarking cruise ships returning to port early because of an outbreak of nasty gastroenteritis (i.e. inflammation of the stomach and intestines leading to nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach cramps). Norovirus (NoV) is the causative agent of these frequently reoccurring “nightmare” cruises, of which 13 have been reported since 2012, sickening some 200-600 passengers. It’s not just limited to cruises, the virus affected 100+ students at a school in Eugene, Oregon last year. And now there’s new evidence for transmission of NoV by eating oysters—which I will therefore not eat in the future.

Taken from counselheal.com.

Taken from counselheal.com.

But perhaps the most NoV-related media attention—and investor ire or litigant action—has been recently focused on gastroenteritis outbreaks at Chipotle—a popular restaurant chain. A criminal investigation is under way at Chipotle, and according to an Associated Press report the company has been served with a federal subpoena.

Continue reading

RNA in DNA—Mistake or Mystery?

  • Human DNA Misincorporates >1,000,000 Ribonucleotides Per Replication Cycle
  • These Mistakes are Likely Biological Mysteries
  • Four New Sequencing Methods May Demystify Why There’s “R in DNA”

When I came across a publication on the presence of RNA in DNA my initial reaction, frankly, was great surprise, if not outright disbelief. As the so-called “blueprint” of life, I reckoned that DNA is virtually sacred in terms of its chemical composition, albeit subject to base mutations as well as insertions and deletions of sequence. In other words, I had heretofore been under the impression that DNA’s repeating units are 100% deoxyribonucleotide (and conversely that RNA’s are ribonucleotides), thus giving DNA (and RNA) the eponymous name is has. So, I thought to myself, if that’s reportedly not the case for DNA, what are the facts and implications, i.e., is RNA in DNA just a rare “mistake” or is this yet another example of a “mystery” of Nature. Below is what I’ve learned about this revelation.
Continue reading

Liquid Biopsies Are Viewed as “Liquid Gold” for Diagnostics

  • Invasive Needles and Scalpels Seen as Passé
  • Noninvasive Sampling Advocates Focusing on Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) 
  • New Companies are Pursuing the Liquid Biopsy “Gold Rush”

Biopsy Basics

Ultrasound is a real-time procedure that makes it possible to follow the motion of the biopsy needle as it moves through the breast tissue to the region of concern, as discussed elsewhere (taken from oncopathology.info via Bing Images).

Ultrasound is a real-time procedure that makes it possible to follow the motion of the biopsy needle as it moves through the breast tissue to the region of concern, as discussed elsewhere (taken from oncopathology.info via Bing Images).

As defined in Wikipedia, a biopsy is ‘a medical test commonly performed by a surgeon or an interventional radiologist involving sampling of cells or tissues for examination.’ Biopsies can be excisional (removal of a lump or area), incisional (removal of only a sample of tissue), or a needle aspiration (tissue or fluid removal). Despite the value of these traditional types of biopsies, they are more or less invasive, lack applicability in certain instances, and require accurately “going to the source” of concern, as pictured to the right, for ultrasound-guided breast cancer biopsy. Better methodology is highly desirable and is the topic of this post. By the way, if you want to peruse a lengthy list of scary risks associated with various type of common invasive biopsies, click here to see what I found in Google Scholar by searching “incidence of complications from biopsies.”

Continue reading