Recognition of essential purines by the U1A protein
© Benitex and Baranger; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007
Received: 16 May 2007
Accepted: 02 November 2007
Published: 02 November 2007
The RNA recognition motif (RRM) is one of the largest families of RNA binding domains. The RRM is modulated so that individual proteins containing RRMs can specifically recognize RNA targets with diverse sequences and structures. Understanding the principles governing this specificity will be important for the rational modification and design of RRM-RNA complexes.
In this paper we have investigated the origins of specificity of the N terminal RRM of the U1A protein for stem loop 2 (SL2) of U1 snRNA by substituting modified bases for essential purines in SL2 RNA. In one series of modified bases, hydrogen bond donors and acceptors were replaced by aliphatic groups to probe the importance of these functional groups to binding. In a second series of modified bases, hydrogen bond donors and acceptors were incorrectly placed on the purine bases to analyze the origins of discrimination between cognate and non-cognate RNA. The results of these experiments show that three different approaches are used by the U1A protein to gain specificity for purines. Specificity for the first base in the loop, A1, is based primarily on discrimination against RNA containing the incorrect base, specificity for the fourth base in the loop, G4, is based largely on recognition of the donors and acceptors of G4, while specificity for the sixth base in the loop, A6, results from a combination of direct recognition of the base and discrimination against incorrectly placed functional groups.
These investigations identify different roles that hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on bases in both cognate and non-cognate RNA play in the specific recognition of RNA by the U1A protein. Taken together with investigations of other RNA-RRM complexes, the results contribute to a general understanding of the origins of RNA-RRM specificity and highlight, in particular, the contribution of steric and electrostatic repulsion to binding specificity.
The RRM is one of the most common RNA-binding domains [1–3] and is found in proteins that participate in all steps of gene expression and RNA processing [4, 5]. The RRM is approximately 100 amino acids and forms a general single-stranded RNA binding scaffold comprised of a four-stranded anti-parallel β-sheet flanked by two α-helices . RRMs bind RNAs of different sequences and in many different structural contexts. In general, RRMs make limited contacts with the sugar-phosphate backbone compared to other RNA-binding proteins and large cooperative networks of hydrogen bonds are formed with the nucleobases. Although individual structures of RRM-RNA complexes have been solved [7, 8], it remains unclear how this domain forms a general RNA binding scaffold, while individual proteins containing RRMs achieve high specificity for particular RNA sequences.
Stability of complexes of wild type U1A protein with SL2 RNA sequences containing A1 modifications.
3 ± 2 × 10-10
9 ± 2 × 10-10
7 ± 2 × 10-10
4 ± 1 × 10-8
4 ± 2 × 10-8
1.6 ± 0.1 × 10-8
1.4 ± 0.4 × 10-6
-13.0 ± 0.4
-12.3 ± 0.4
-12.5 ± 0.2
-10.1 ± 0.1
-10.1 ± 0.3
-10.6 ± 0.02
-8.0 ± 0.1
Stability of complexes of wild type U1A protein with SL2 RNA sequences containing G4 modifications.
3 ± 2 × 10-10
1.1 ± 0.4 × 10-10
3.1 ± 0.1 × 10-8
3 ± 1 × 10-9
4 ± 1 × 10-6
2 ± 1 × 10-6
1.1 ± 0.2 × 10-5
-13.2 ± 0.4
-13.6 ± 0.2
-10.3 ± 0.01
-11.7 ± 0.2
-7.4 ± 0.1e
-7.8 ± 0.3
-6.8 ± 0.1e
Stability of complexes of wild type U1A protein with SL2 RNA sequences containing A6 modifications.
3 ± 2 × 10-10
1 × 10-8c
1.2 × 10-8d
7 ± 1 × 10-7
1.1 ± 0.4 × 10-7
8 ± 2 × 10-6
3 × 10-5d
-13.0 ± 0.4
-8.4 ± 0.1
-9.5 ± 0.3
-6.9 ± 0.2
We have focused on investigating the specificity of U1A for the purines A1, G4, and A6 in the target SL2 RNA, because U1A is finely tuned to recognize the correct purine bases at these positions. The data we report here suggest that for A1, discrimination against non-cognate RNA is a significant contributor to specificity in the absence of substantial direct contacts between U1A and the base. In contrast, hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on G4 are essential contributors to binding and cannot be substituted with aliphatic groups. Recognition of A6 involves both positive contributions to binding by A6 hydrogen bond donors and acceptors and the destabilization of complexes with incorrectly placed functional groups. Thus, the relative contributions to specificity of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on cognate and non-cognate RNA bases vary for recognition of A1, G4, and A6 in SL2 RNA by the U1A protein.
Strategy for Probing Specificity
To investigate the specificity requirements of the U1A protein, we have measured the affinity of the U1A protein for SL2 RNA target sites containing modified purine bases. In one series of modifications, individual hydrogen bond donors or acceptors were eliminated or substituted with aliphatic groups to probe the energetic contributions of these functional groups to binding. In a second series of modifications, the purines were substituted with alternative hydrogen bond donors or acceptors to investigate the ability of the U1A protein to discriminate against incorrectly placed functional groups. It should be noted that these experiments do not identify the molecular origins of changes in binding affinity observed when altering a hydrogen bond donor or acceptor in the complex. The effects of these base modifications on binding are likely to be complex because they may alter the complex interface, change the structure and dynamics of both the free RNA and the complex, alter cooperative networks of interactions involved in binding, or change solvation effects. The experiments reported here probe the importance of selected functional groups to the specificity of binding, and this importance may arise by altering any or all of these contributions to binding affinity.
Recognition of A1
To probe the role of base functional groups without introducing new functional groups A1 was substituted with purine, in which the 6-NH2 group is replaced with hydrogen, and with c1A in which N1 is replaced with C-H. Both substitutions resulted in very small destabilizations of the complex (0.5–0.7 kcal/mol) even though a hydrogen bond is formed between N1 and the side chain of Arg52 in the X-ray structure. In contrast, base substitutions that altered the pattern of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, such as A1I, or added hydrogen bond donors or acceptors, such as A1DAP or A1-2AP, resulted in a much larger destabilization of the complex of 2.4–2.9 kcal/mol. Within the wild type structure the 2AP and DAP substitutions would introduce unfavorable steric interactions between the side chain of Leu49 and the 2-NH2 group, while the substitution of inosine for A1 would introduce an electrostatic repulsion between N1-H and the side chain of Arg52. These unfavorable interactions may contribute to the destabilization of the complexes containing A1-2AP and A1-DAP, which could contribute to alternate structures being formed in these complexes. These data suggest that the poor affinity of A1G SL2 RNA for U1A is due to the altered pattern of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on G compared to A, rather than a loss of specific hydrogen bonding interactions. Thus, at this position, specificity is a consequence primarily of the destabilization of complexes containing non-cognate bases.
Recognition of G4
G4 is packed between U3 and a number of amino acids in the U1A protein (Figure 2C) . G4 forms the largest number of hydrogen bonds with the U1A protein of any base in the AUUGCAC sequence. Hydrogen bonds are formed between N7 and the amide side chain of Asn15, O6 and the main chain amide of Asn16, O6 and the main chain carbonyl of Leu17 (water-mediated), 2-NH2 and O2 of U2, 2-NH2 and the side chain of Glu19, and N1-H and the side chain of Glu19. Substitution of A for G4 resulted in a 6.4 kcal/mol loss of binding affinity. This value is comparable to that reported previously .
The binding affinities of U1A for SL2 RNAs containing a series of base analogs substituted for G4 are reported in Table 2. Representative gel mobility shift analyses and binding curves are shown in Figure 3. The elimination of 2-NH2 (G4I) or the substitution of N7 with C-H (G4c7G) resulted in destabilizations of the complex of 1.5 and 3.3 kcal/mol, respectively. The greater loss in binding free energy upon substitution of G4 with c7G than with I suggests that N7 is a more important contributor to binding than is the 2-NH2 group even though two hydrogen bonds are observed between the 2-NH2 group and the U1A protein in the X-ray structure, compared to one hydrogen bond between N7 and the U1A protein. \These results are consistent with previously performed protein substitutions. The substitution of Asn15, which forms a hydrogen bond between the amide side chain and N7 of G4, with Val abolished binding . In contrast, the substitution of Glu19, which forms a hydrogen bond between the side chain and 2-NH2, with Ser destabilized the complex, but did not abolish binding .
The substitution of either 2AP or DAP for G4 results in a larger destabilization of the complex, 5.8 and 5.4 kcal/mol, respectively, than was observed for either the G4I or G4c7G substitutions, perhaps because these substitutions alter functionality at both the 1 and 6 positions of the purine ring. Because of the weak binding affinity of U1A for these RNA sequences full binding curves were not obtained leading to more uncertainty in the reported dissociation constants compared to those for other RNA sequences. However, the large destabilization of the complex with the G4-2AP substitution suggests that the 6-O or N1-H groups are essential for binding to U1A. In the structure of the wild type complex G4DAP and G4-2AP substitutions would introduce an electrostatic repulsion between the lone pair of N1 and the side chain of Glu19. However, based on the low binding affinity of U1A for SL2 RNA containing these substitutions, it is likely that the structure of these complexes are altered from the wild type structure. The significant destabilization of the complex observed upon substitution of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on G4 with aliphatic groups and the substitution of G4 with 2AP suggest that the specificity of the U1A protein for G4 is dependent in large part on direct and indirect contributions of the G4 functional groups to complex stability.
Recognition of A6
The interactions between A6 and U1A in the X-ray cocrystal structure are shown in Figure 2D. A6 stacks between Phe56 and C7. The substitution of non-aromatic amino acids for Phe56 results in a large destabilization of the complex [15, 21, 34]. N1 forms a hydrogen bond with the side chain of Ser91, the 6-NH2 forms a hydrogen bond with the main chain carbonyl of Thr89, and N7 forms a water-mediated hydrogen bond with the main chain amide of Thr89. We previously showed that the substitution of A with any other base results in a large destabilization of the complex of 6.3–6.7 kcal/mol, while the elimination of individual hydrogen bond donors or acceptors resulted in a 0.8–1.9 kcal/mol destabilization of the complex . The substitution of Ser91 with Ala resulted in a similar destabilization of the complex as resulted from the substitution of N1 of A6 with a C-H group . In addition, we observed energetic coupling between Phe56 and hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on A6 . Thus, the hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on A6 play direct and indirect roles in stabilizing the complex.
The exchange of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors (for example, A6I) or the addition of a hydrogen bond donor (A6DAP) resulted in a much larger destabilization of the complex than the elimination of individual hydrogen bond donors and acceptors (Table 3, Figure 3). Within the context of the wild type structure, the introduction of the 2-NH2 would introduce unfavorable steric interactions with the side chain of Leu44, an amino acid previously suggested to be important for specific recognition of SL2 RNA , and the substitution of inosine for A6 would result in unfavorable steric interactions between N1-H and the side chain of Ser91 and an unfavorable electrostatic interaction between O6 and the main chain carbonyl of Asp90. These unfavorable interactions may destabilize the complex, which could contribute to alternative complex structures being formed upon incorporation of these modified bases. Together, the results from the experiments eliminating hydrogen bond donors and acceptors from A6 reported previously  and those exchanging hydrogen bond donor and acceptors reported here suggest that specific recognition of A6 involves both direct recognition of the base and discrimination against incorrectly placed functional groups.
The large destabilizations of the complexes formed with U1A upon incorporation of many of the base analogs described here suggests considerable variation in free RNA or complex structure as a result of these base substitutions. The RNA loop is dynamic when free, making it difficult to characterize the effect of the base substitutions for A1, G4, and A6 on RNA structure. Because the base analogs contain modified hydrogen bond donor and acceptor patterns that are similar in polarity and stacking ability to G and A, it is likely that the primary effect of the base analogs is to alter the structure of the complex. However, we were concerned that the A1G SL2 RNA and perhaps the A1I SL2 RNA could form an additional base pair, thus stabilizing SL2 RNA and reducing the size of the loop.
Results of temperature dependent melting analyses of SL2 RNAs.
60.5 ± 0.6
59.5 ± 0.9
62 ± 1
61 ± 2
62 ± 1
61 ± 2
64.2 ± 0.5
61.6 ± 0.9
56.8 ± 0.6
60.1 ± 0.2
59 ± 1
60 ± 2
58.9 ± 0.3
60 ± 1
59.7 ± 0.5
60.6 ± 0.7
The substitution of the three essential purines in SL2 RNA with bases in which hydrogen bond donors and acceptors are replaced with aliphatic groups and with bases in which hydrogen bond donors and acceptors are placed incorrectly on the base has enabled us to compare the positive contributions of correct functional groups with the negative contributions of incorrectly placed functional groups to the binding specificity of the U1A protein. These comparisons have suggested that specific recognition of essential purines by the U1A protein varies from primarily discrimination against non-cognate bases for A1 to direct contributions of the base functional groups for G4. The base modifications introduced in these experiments are likely to not only eliminate and introduce individual interactions that either destabilize or stabilize the complex, but to affect other interactions in the complex that are energetically coupled with the modified base. Cooperative networks of interactions involving both protein and RNA residues have been identified experimentally and suggested computationally in the U1A system [13, 18, 22, 27–31]. These studies have focused more on cooperative networks in the free and bound proteins than on networks involving RNA. However, experiments have suggested energetic coupling between A6 and Phe56 and between loop 3 of U1A, Tyr13, Gln54 and the RNA [13, 18], and an analysis of collective atomic fluctuations in MD simulations of the U1A-SL2 RNA complex suggest large networks of interactions involving both protein and RNA that have not yet been explored experimentally [22, 30]. Thus, the energetic roles of individual hydrogen bond donors and acceptors that we have identified to be important for the discrimination by U1A between cognate and non-cognate RNA sequences are likely to be complex.
Previously, Shamoo and coworkers investigated the recognition of purines by two linked RRMs from hnRNPA, called UP1 . UP1 is a significantly different RRM than U1A and a comparison of U1A and UP1 should be valuable for developing principles of RRM-RNA specificity. Shamoo and coworkers suggested three generalizations of RNA recognition by RRMs based on experiments with UP1. First, interactions with main chain amides might provide greater base discrimination than interactions with side chains. Although this idea has not yet been fully evaluated in the U1A-RNA complex, binding studies that have been performed with RNAs containing modified bases have suggested that interactions with main chain amides are not necessarily more important than those with side chains in the U1A-RNA complex. For example, N7 of G4 forms a hydrogen bond with the side chain of Asn15. As reported in Table 2, substitution of N7 with C-H results in a significant destabilization of the complex. In contrast, the substitution of A6 with purine, which eliminates the 6-NH2 group that forms a hydrogen bond with the main chain carbonyl of Thr89 destabilizes the complex comparably as the substitution of N1, which forms a hydrogen bond with the side chain of Ser91, with C-H [15, 19]. Second, hydrogen bonds to bases involving charged amino acids are more energetically important than those involving neutral amino acid functional groups. U1A does not have a large number of hydrogen bonds with charged residues, so these are not required for tight binding. Third, steric repulsion is a key discriminatory tool for gaining sequence specificity. In fact, for the U1A-RNA complex, steric and electrostatic repulsion due to incorrectly placed functional groups can be more important than direct base recognition in controlling specificity. Thus, specific recognition of RNA target sites by UP1 and U1A are similarly guided by discrimination against non-cognate RNA.
In conclusion, these investigations show three different approaches used by the U1A protein to specifically recognize essential purines in the SL2 RNA target site and underscore the ability of steric and electrostatic repulsion to be important for specificity even in the absence of a direct hydrogen bond network with the base. The contributions of negative recognition to specificity have been shown to be important in RNA recognition by other proteins, for example by the MS2 coat protein and tRNA synthetases, and also in DNA-protein recognition [37–45]. Thus, the data from the U1A-SL2 RNA and UP1-RNA complexes extend this generalization to the RRM-RNA complexes. Together, these results form part of a growing body of data that shows the importance of steric and electrostatic discrimination against incorrectly placed functional groups on non-cognate bases in governing the specificity of RNA-protein complexes. These general principles describing the origins of specificity of protein-RNA complexes will be invaluable in understanding and controlling complex formation.
Protein Expression and Purification
An expression vector for the N-terminal RRM of U1A (amino acids 1–102) was obtained from Nagai . The wild type protein was expressed and purified as described previously . The molecular weight was confirmed by ESI mass spectrometry and the concentration was determined by amino acid analysis.
RNA Synthesis and Purification
RNA containing c7G was synthesized at the KECK facility at Yale Medical School. Other oligonucleotides were purchased from Dharmacon and IDT. The RNA and chimeric oligomers were purified using denaturing gel electrophoresis. Concentrations were determined by UV at 260 nm. All oligonucleotides were characterized by MALDI mass spectrometry.
Equilibrium Binding Assays
Protein-RNA equilibrium dissociation constants were measured by gel mobility shift assays. Reaction mixtures containing 25 pM 32P-labeled RNA and protein in 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 250 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5% Triton X-100 and 1 mg/mL tRNA in a total volume of 14 μL were equilibrated for at least 45 min. After addition of glycerol to a final concentration of 5%, the reactions were separated on an 8% polyacrylamide gel in a buffer containing 100 mM Tris-borate (pH 8.3), 1 mM EDTA, and 0.1% Triton X-100 for 35 min at 350 V. The temperature of the gel was maintained at 25°C by a circulating water bath. Gels were analyzed on a Molecular Dynamics Storm Phosphorimager. Fraction RNA bound versus protein concentration was plotted and curves were fit to the equation: fraction bound = 1/(1+KD/[P]), where [P] is the total protein concentration. In gel mobility shift assays that did not saturate at approximately 100% bound, this equation was modified to: fraction bound = A/(1+KD/[P]), where A was allowed to vary between 0.7 and 1. This modification was necessary to estimate the KD's of some of the least stable complexes. Representative gel mobility shift assays and plots illustrating fraction RNA bound as a function of U1A concentration are shown in Figure 3. The KD's obtained from these experiments are listed in Tables 1, 2, 3. The errors listed in the tables are the standard deviations of the results of at least three independent binding experiments and thus, represent the reproducibility of the experimental data.
RNA Melting Experiments
UV melting curves were performed on a Shimadzu UV-2401PC spectrophotometer using 2–10 μM RNA samples in 100 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM EDTA, and 10 mM sodium phosphate at pH 7. The samples were heated from 10 to 95 °C with a heating rate of 1 °C/min, while monitoring absorbance at 280 nm. The melting curves were fit using the program Meltwin 3.5.
We are grateful to Prof. K. Nagai for the expression vector for U1A. Acknowledgement is made to the donors of the Petroleum Research Fund, administered by the American Chemical Society, for partial support of this work. Funding was also provided by the NIH (GM-056857).
- Birney E, Kumar S, Krainer AR: Analysis of the RNA-recognition motif and RS and RGG domains: conservation in metazoan pre-mRNA splicing factors. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993, 21: 5803-5816. 10.1093/nar/21.25.5803.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lorkovic ZJ, Barta A: Genome analysis: RNA recognition motif (RRM) and K homology (KH) domain RNA-binding proteins from the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30: 623-635. 10.1093/nar/30.3.623.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rubin GM, Yandell MD, Wortman JR, Miklos GLG, Nelson CR, Hariharan IK, Fortini ME, Li PW, Apweiler R, Fleischmann W, Cherry JM, Henikoff S, Skupski MP, Misra S, Ashburner M, Birney E, Boguski MS, Brody T, Brokstein P, Celniker SE, Chervitz SA, Coates D, Cravchik A, Gabrielian A, Galle RF, Gelbart WM, George RA, Goldstein LSB, Gong F, P.Guan, Harris NL, Hay BA, Hoskins RA, Li J, Li Z, Hynes RO, Jones SJM, Kuehl PM, Lemaitre B, Litleton JT, Morrison DK, Mungall C, O'Farrell PH, Pickeral OK, Shue C, Vosshall LB, Zhang J, Zhao Q, Zheng XH, Zhong F, W.Zhong, Gibbs R, Venter JC, Adams MD, Lewis S: Comparitive Genomics of the Eukaryotes. Science. 2000, 287: 2204-2215. 10.1126/science.287.5461.2204.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krecic AM, Swanson MS: hnRNP complexes: composition, structure and function. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1999, 11: 363-371. 10.1016/S0955-0674(99)80051-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Varani G, Nagai K: RNA recognition by RNP proteins during RNA processing. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 1998, 27: 407-445. 10.1146/annurev.biophys.27.1.407.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Burd CG, Dreyfuss G: Conserved structures and diversity of functions of RNA-binding proteins. Science. 1994, 265: 615-621. 10.1126/science.8036511.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sickmier EA, Frato KE, Shen H, Paranawithana SR, Green MR, Kielkopf CL: Structural Basis for Polypyrimidine Tract Recognition by the Essential Pre-mRNA Splicing Factor U2AF65. Mol Cell. 2006, 23: 49-59. 10.1016/j.molcel.2006.05.025.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Maris C, Dominguez C, Allain FHT: The RNA recognition motif, a plastic RNA-binding platform to regulate post-transcriptional gene expression. FEBS J. 2005, 272: 2118-2131. 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.04653.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hall KB: Interaction of RNA hairpins with the human U1A N-terminal RNA binding domain. Biochemistry. 1994, 33: 10076-10088. 10.1021/bi00199a035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hall KB, Stump WT: Interaction of N-terminal domain of U1A protein with an RNA stem/loop. Nucleic Acids Res. 1992, 20: 4283-4290. 10.1093/nar/20.16.4283.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jessen TH, Oubridge C, Teo CH, Pritchard C, Nagai K: Identification of molecular contacts between the U1A small nuclear ribonucleoprotein and U1 RNA. EMBO J. 1991, 10: 3447-3456.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Katsamba PS, Bayramyan M, Haworth IS, Myszka DG, Laird-Offringa IA: Complex role of the b2-b3 Loop in the Interaction of U1A with U1 Hairpin II RNA. J Biol Chem. 2002, 277: 33267-33274. 10.1074/jbc.M200304200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kranz JK, Hall KB: RNA recognition by the human U1A protein is mediated by a network of local cooperative interactions that create the optimal binding surface. J Mol Biol. 1999, 285: 215-231. 10.1006/jmbi.1998.2296.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Law MJ, Chambers EJ, Katsamba PS, Haworth IS, Laird-Offinga IA: Kinetic analysis of the role of the tyrosine 13, phenylalanine 56 and glutamine 54 network in the U1A/U1 hairpin II interaction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33: 2917-2928. 10.1093/nar/gki602.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nolan SJ, Shiels JC, Tuite JB, Cecere KL, Baranger AM: Recognition of an essential adenine at a protein-RNA interface: comparison of the contributions of hydrogen bonds and a stacking interaction. J Am Chem Soc. 1999, 121: 8951-8952. 10.1021/ja991617n.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oubridge C, Ito N, Evans PR, Teo CH, Nagai K: Crystal structure at 1.92 Å resolution of the RNA-binding domain of the U1A spliceosomal protein complexed with an RNA hairpin. Nature. 1994, 372: 432-438. 10.1038/372432a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rimmele ME, Belasco JG: Target discrimination by RNA-binding proteins: Role of the ancillary protein U2A' and a critical leucine residue in differentiating the RNA-binding specificity of spliceosomal proteins U1A and U2B". RNA. 1998, 4: 1386-1396. 10.1017/S1355838298981171.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shiels JC, Tuite JB, Nolan SJ, Baranger AM: Investigation of a conserved stacking interaction in target site recognition by the U1A protein. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30: 550-558. 10.1093/nar/30.2.550.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tuite JB, Shiels JC, Baranger AM: Substitution of an Essential Adenine in the U1A-RNA Complex with a Non-polar Isostere. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30: 5269-5275. 10.1093/nar/gkf636.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Varani L, Gunderson SI, Mattaj IW, Kay LE, Neuhaus D, Varani G: The NMR structure of the 38 kDa U1A protein-PIE RNA complex reveals the basis of cooperativity in regulation of polyadenylation by human U1A protein. Nature Struct Biol. 2000, 7: 329-335. 10.1038/74101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zhao Y, Baranger AM: Design of an Adenosine Analog that Selectively Improves the Affinity of a Mutant U1A Protein for RNA. J Am Chem Soc. 2003, 125: 2480-2488. 10.1021/ja021267w.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kormos BL, Baranger AM, Beveridge DL: Do Collective Atomic Fluctuations Account for Cooperative Effects? Molecular Dynamics Studies of the U1A-RNA Complex. J Am Chem Soc. 2006, 128: 8992-8993. 10.1021/ja0606071.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boelens WC, Jansen EJR, van Venrooij WJ, Stripecke R, Mattaj IW, Gunderson SI: The human U1 snRNP-specific U1A protein inhibits polyadenylation of its own pre-mRNA. Cell. 1993, 72: 881-892. 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90577-D.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Green MR: Biochemical mechanisms of constitutive and regulated pre-mRNA splicing. Annu Rev Cell Biol. 1991, 7: 559-599. 10.1146/annurev.cb.07.110191.003015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stark H, Dube P, Lührmann R, Kastner B: Arrangement of RNA and proteins in the spliceosomal U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein particle. Nature. 2001, 409: 539-542. 10.1038/35054102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tsai DE, Harper DS, Keene JD: U1-snRNP-A selects a ten nucleotide consensus sequence from a degenerate RNA pool presented in various structural contexts. Nucl Acids Res. 1991, 19: 4931-4936. 10.1093/nar/19.18.4931.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Showalter SA, Hall KB: A Functional Role for Correlated Motion in the N-terminal RNA-binding Domain of Human U1A Protein. J Mol Biol. 2002, 322: 533-542. 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00804-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Showalter SA, Hall KB: Altering the RNA-binding Mode of the U1A RBD1 Protein. J Mol Biol. 2004, 335: 465-480. 10.1016/j.jmb.2003.10.055.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Showalter SA, Hall KB: Correlated Motions in the U1 snRNA Stem/Loop 2: U1A RBD1 Complex. Biophys J. 2005, 89: 2046-2058. 10.1529/biophysj.104.058032.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kormos BL, Baranger AM, Beveridge DL: A Study of Collective Atomic Fluctuations and Cooperativity in a U1A-RNA Complex Based on Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J Struct Biol. 2007, 157: 500-513. 10.1016/j.jsb.2006.10.022.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kranz JK, Hall KB: RNA binding mediates the local cooperativity between the b-sheet and the C-terminal tail of the human U1A RBD1 protein. J Mol Biol. 1998, 275: 465-481. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1441.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nagai K, Oubridge C, Jessen TH, J.Li, Evans PR: Crystal structure of the RNA-binding domain of the U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein A. Nature. 1990, 348: 515-520. 10.1038/348515a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boelens W, Scherly D, Jansen EJR, Kolen K, Mattaj IW, van Venrooij WJ: Analysis of in vitro binding of U1-A protein mutants to U1 snRNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991, 19: 4611-4618. 10.1093/nar/19.17.4611.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Katsamba PS, Myszka DG, Laird-Offringa IA: Two functionally distinct steps mediate high affinity binding of U1A protein to U1 hairpin II RNA. J Biol Chem. 2001, 276: 21476-21481. 10.1074/jbc.M101624200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Scherly D, Boelens W, Dathan NA, van Venrooij WJ, Mattaj IW: Major determinants of the specificity of interaction between small nuclear ribonucleoprotein U1A and U2B" and their cognate RNAs. Nature. 1990, 345: 502-506. 10.1038/345502a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Myers JC, Shamoo Y: Human UP1 as a Model for Understanding Purine Recognition in the Family of Protein Containing the RNA Recognition Motif (RRM). J Mol BIol. 2004, 342: 743-756. 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.07.029.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dertinger D, Dale T, Uhlenbeck OC: Modifying the Specificity of an RNA Backbone Contact. J Mol Biol. 2001, 314: 649-654. 10.1006/jmbi.2001.5132.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Horn WT, Tars K, Grahn E, Helgstrand C, Baron AJ, Lago H, Adams CJ, Peabody DS, Phillips SEV, Stonehouse NJ, Liljas L, Stockley PG: Structural Basis of RNA Binding Discrimination between Bacteriophages QB and MS2. Structure. 2006, 14: 487-495. 10.1016/j.str.2005.12.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kiesewetter S, Ott G, Sprinzl M: The role of modified purine 64 in initiator/elongator discrimination of tRNAiMet from yeast and wheat germ. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990, 18: 4677-4682. 10.1093/nar/18.16.4677.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perret V, Garcia A, Grosjean H, Ebel JP, Flroentz C, Giegé R: Relaxation of a transfer RNA specificity by removal of modified nucleotides. Nature. 1990, 344: 783-789. 10.1038/344787a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tardif KD, Horowitz J: Functional group recognition at the aminoacylation and editing sites of E. coli valyl-tRNA synthetase. RNA. 2004, 10: 493-503. 10.1261/rna.5166704.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lesser DR, Kurpiewski MR, Jen-Jacobson L: The Energetic Basis of Specificity in the Eco RI Endonuclease-DNA Interaction. Science. 1990, 250: 776-786. 10.1126/science.2237428.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- von Hippel PH, Berg OG: On the specificity of DNA-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1986, 83: 1608-1612. 10.1073/pnas.83.6.1608.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Härd T, Lundbäck T: Thermodynamics of sequence-specific protein-DNA interactions. Biophys Chem. 1996, 62: 121-139. 10.1016/S0301-4622(96)02197-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morozova N, Allers J, Myers J, Shamoo Y: Protein-RNA interactions: exploring binding patterns with three-dimensional superposition analysis of high resolution structures. Bioinformatics. 2006, 22: 2746-2752. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl470.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.