| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||





* Korea Nanobiotechnology Center, Pusan National University, Jangjeon-dong, Keumjeong-gu, Busan, Korea;
Structural Biology Department, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California; and
Department of Chemistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
Correspondence: Address reprint requests to S. B. Jang, Tel.: 82-51-510-2523; E-mail: sbjang{at}pusan.ac.kr; or S. R. Holbrook, Tel.: 1-510-486-6059; E-mail: srholbrook{at}lbl.gov.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The crystal structures of several RNA oligonucleotides incorporating symmetric internal loops have been previously determined (8
14
) and shown to have continuous basepairing with formation of UG, GA, UC, UU, and other non-Watson-Crick pairs. The helices containing these internal loops generally retain A-form geometry. The solution structures of r(GAGUGGUC)2 and r(GGCGUGCC)2 duplexes have been determined by NMR and restrained simulated annealing (7
). The global geometry of both duplexes is close to A-form, with some distortions localized in the tandem GU pair region. The striking observation was that in r(GGCGUGCC)2 each GU pair apparently has only one hydrogen bond instead of the two expected for a canonical wobble pair.
Here we present the crystal structure of the RNA octamer, r(GGCGUGCC) at 1.5 Å resolution. Basepairing between the central nucleotides within a double helix leads to the formation of a tandem GU/UG motif in which the GU basepairs each have two hydrogen bonds. This contrasts with the NMR structure of the same duplex (7
).
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
= 112.09°, ß = 99.03°, and
= 89.96°. The Rmerge for this data was 14.0% and the average F2/
was 2.0 for all data to 1.5 Å and 3.3 for the data to 2.5 Å. The data were processed with the programs DENZO and SCALEPACK (15
Structure determination
The structure was determined by the molecular replacement methods AMORE (16
) and EPMR (17
). The NMR solution structure of r(GGCGUGCC)2 (7
) with 20 Å2 temperature factors was used as the successful search model for the crystal structure of r(GGCGUGCC)2. The search was carried out with data between 12.0 and 4.5 Å and four molecules were located with a correlation coefficient of 55.4 (R = 44.0%) using AMORE. For the structure determination of the fifth molecule, the original (7
) and refined models were tried as search models using AMORE, but all attempts failed. Subsequently, the structure of the fourth molecule refined by CNS was used as a search model for the fifth molecule (18
). The positioning of the fifth duplex was by a six-parameter search, using data between 15.0 and 3.0 Å resolution and the solution with EPMR including all five duplexes, had a correlation coefficient of 69.2 (R = 43.1%).
Model refinement
The data between 20.0 and 1.5 Å resolution were used for all refinement cycles. Each cycle consisted of positional, followed by simulated annealing, and finally B-factor refinement using the CNS program of Brunger (18
). Restraints were placed on bond lengths, bond angles, nonbonded contacts, temperature factors of neighboring atoms, planarity of the bases, and noncrystallographic symmetry. Difference Fourier and 2Fo-Fc electron density maps, as well as omit maps, were calculated at regular intervals to allow manual modification. The rebuilding of the model and addition of solvent were done using the O graphics program (19
). Solvent molecules were added conservatively, with due regard for their environment including potential interactions with hydrogen-bonded partners. At the end of the refinement of r(GGCGUGCC)2 the crystallographic R-factor was 22.6% and Rfree was 28.5% with 614 bound water molecules as shown in Table 1. Electron density was well defined for all nonhydrogen atoms. The models exhibit good geometry with root mean-square deviation (RMSD) from ideal bond lengths and angles of 0.004 Å and 0.890°.
|
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
In the NMR structure (7
) shown in Fig. 4 f, a bifurcated hydrogen bond is seen between O2(U) and N1(G) and N2(G), implying that the minor groove water may not be binding in the same manner. The two GU basepairs are symmetrically related and show only this single base-base bifurcated hydrogen bond in contrast to the examples observed in the crystal structure.
The five independent duplexes can be compared in several ways including least-squares superposition, torsion angles, and helical parameters. Global helical parameters for the central six basepairs of each of the five independent duplexes, the NMR solution structure (7
) (PDB code 1EKD), and canonical A-form RNA, calculated with the CURVES program (22
) are compared in Table 2. The overall curvature of the NMR duplex model is much greater than that of the crystal structure duplexes.
|
|
(O3'-P) torsion between the GU and UG basepairs differs from the standard gauche angle (
60°) occurring in the Watson-Crick regions. In the crystal structure, this conformational angle varies between 77° and 94° with an average value of 86 (SD 4.7°). In the NMR structure, 1EKD, this angle is 96.5°.
Fig. 5, ac, shows the basepair stacking between the tandem GU pairs and their adjacent Watson-Crick pairs. Although both Watson-Crick to GU steps show extensive cross-strand purine-purine (guanine-guanine) stacking with little or no overlap between the uracil and cytosine, there is good same-strand stacking between the tandem GU pairs. This is in contrast to the situation for r(GAGUGCUC)2 duplexes (7
) in which the Watson-Crick to GU pair steps have good same-strand stacking, but there is cross-strand purine-purine stacking between the tandem GU pairs with no uracil overlap.
|
|
|
2.4 Å (Table 4) are intermediate between that expected for magnesium and that expected for water or sodium. The occupancy is comparable to that of a water molecule as evaluated by the refined B-factor. This electron density peak is not found in the other four duplexes. The other position has a fully hydrated metal ion, presumably magnesium, involved in intermolecular bridging between duplexes B and E (Fig. 7 b).
|
|
1.48 Å are located at the central tandem pairs region. These results indicate that the big conformational changes between the isolated GGC/GCC and the whole structure are mostly the two central tandem mismatches region. | DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The solution structure of the same sequence has been solved by NMR methods (7
) and proposed to have only a single hydrogen bond (three-centered, O2(U)-N2(G), N1(G)) for each GU pair (Fig. 4 f). A distance of 3.4 Å was reported between the imino hydrogen at N3(U) and O6(G), which is too long for a hydrogen bond.
Substitution of a methyl group for the imino hydrogen at the N3 of each U made duplex formation less favorable by 2.6 kcal/mol at 37°C, which was a smaller effect than the average destabilization by 6.0 kcal/mol observed for duplexes with tandem GU pairs having two hydrogen bonds (7
). Thus, thermodynamic measurements were consistent with the interpretation of the NMR data.
In the crystal structure, two hydrogen bonds, O2(U)-N1(G) and N3(U)-O6(G), are formed for all GU basepairs, with average distances of 2.83 Å (SD 0.09 Å) and 2.96 Å (SD 0.05 Å), respectively. Thus, in the crystal, the N3(U)-O6(G) hydrogen bond, although longer and therefore weaker than the O2(U)-N1(G) bond, is clearly formed. A bridging water molecule with three ligands is present in the minor groove in 9 of the 10 examples, and in the major groove a bridging water is present with two ligands in 7 of 10 cases (see Fig. 4), perhaps resulting in greater stabilization of the O2(U)-N1(G) hydrogen bond compared to the O6(G)-N3(U) hydrogen bond.
The NMR and crystal structures clearly differ in the hydrogen bonding within the GU pairs. There are several possible reasons for this. There are no NMR data that specifically forbid an N3(U)-O6(G) hydrogen bond and without employing molecular dynamics it was possible to locate a reasonable A-form RNA-like structure for r(GGCGUGCC)2 that contained GU pairs with two hydrogen bonds and that did not have major violations with the NMR data (7
). Thus, the structure is dependent on the force field used for modeling with NMR restraints. Modeling that used a force constant of 100 kcal/(mol A2) to force two hydrogen bonds still gave the one hydrogen-bond structure, however, so the energy calculations strongly favor the one hydrogen-bond model (7
). The imino resonances for the GU pairs were broad and both gave unusually strong cross-peaks to water, which suggest a dynamic structure. Moreover, the modeling was done in the absence of water. It is likely, however, that the energetics of binding water are different in solution and crystal phases due to different entropy changes. The crystal structure is definitive at this resolution. It is nevertheless possible that the average solution structure differs slightly from the crystal structures. A molecular dynamics study of tandem GU pairs suggests a range of conformations in solution (24
). Moreover, crystal structures can be affected by packing interactions. Another possibility for the structural differences is that Mg2+ is present in the crystals but not in the NMR samples. The Mg2+ coordination shown in Fig. 7 a, which bridges the O2 and O6 atoms of the tandem GU pairs, although only observed for duplex C, may play a role in stabilization of the second hydrogen bond. The available data, therefore, suggest that tandem GU pairs are structurally pliable.
If the second hydrogen bond is at least partially formed between GU pairs with this flanking sequence (..CGUG..), then how can we explain the lower stability of this sequence with respect to other symmetric tandem GU motifs (7
) and the relatively rare occurrence of this motif in biological RNAs?
The stacking diagrams of Fig. 5 suggest one possible explanation. While the self-complementary duplex of sequence r(GAGUGCUC)2 has poor base stacking between the tandem G-U pairs (7
), the GU8 sequence has poor stacking between the GU pairs and their adjacent Watson-Crick pairs, with good stacking between the GU pairs themselves. Thus, the two basepair steps with reduced stacking in GU8 may result in less stability and occurrence than other sequences with only one step with reduced overlap. Overlap of bases is probably not the only determinant of stability, however. For example, the NMR structure of the (GGUC)2 motif in the (GAGGUCUC)2 duplex (6
) shows overlap similar to that of the (CGUG)2 motif in (GGCGUGCC)2 (Fig. 5), but is 3.8 kcal/mol more stable at 37°C (6
).
In summary, we have determined the crystal structure of a self-complementary octameric RNA sequence that forms five unique duplexes in the crystal and compared it with the solution structure determined by NMR methods. Among the five unique duplexes observed in this crystal structure, we have found all GU pairs stabilized by two base-base hydrogen bonds, O2(U)-N1(G) and N3(U)-O6(G), as well as either one or two bridging water molecules linking O2(U)-N2(G) and sometimes O4(U)-O6(G) hydrogen bonds. Based on the difference in stacking between duplexes with the (..CGUG..) motif compared to the (..GUGC..) motif, we propose that the difference in thermodynamic stability may be due to poor stacking between the Watson-Crick and GU basepairs as observed in the GU8 crystal structure.
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The authors acknowledge the significant contributions of Hanna Walukievicz and Ramona Pufan in purification and crystallization of this RNA.
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant No. GM 4921501 to S.R.H., grant No. GM 22939 to D.H.T., and by Korea Research Foundation grant No. KRF-2005-041-E00510 to S.B.J. Facilities and equipment were provided through support of the Office of Energy Research, Office of Health and Environmental Research, and Health Effects Research Division of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Submitted on January 9, 2006; accepted for publication February 28, 2006.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Strobel, S. A., and T. R. Cech. 1995. Minor groove recognition of the conserved GU pair at the Tetrahymena ribozyme reaction site. Science. 267:675679.
3. He, L., R. Kierzek, J. SantaLucia, Jr., A. E. Walter, and D. H. Turner. 1991. Nearest-neighbor parameters for GU mismatches: 5'GU3'/3'UG5' is destabilizing CGUG/GUGC, UGUA/AUGU, and AGUU/UUGA but stabilizing in GGUC/CUGG. Biochemistry. 30:1112411132.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Gautheret, D., D. Konings, and R. R. Gutell. 1995. GU basepairing motifs in ribosomal RNA. RNA. 1:807814.[Abstract]
5. Mathews, D. H., J. Sabina, M. Zuker, and D. H. Turner. 1999. Expanded sequence dependence of thermodynamic parameters improves prediction of RNA secondary structure. J. Mol. Biol. 288:911940.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. McDowell, J. A., and D. H. Turner. 1996. Investigation of the structural basis for thermodynamic stabilities of tandem GU mismatches: solution structure of (rGAGGUCUC)2 by two-dimensional NMR and simulated annealing. Biochemistry. 35:1407714089.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Chen, X., J. A. MacDowell, R. Kierzek, T. R. Krugh, and D. H. Turner. 2000. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and molecular modeling reveal that different hydrogen bonding patterns are possible for GU pairs: one hydrogen bond for each GU pair in r(GGCGUGCC)2 and two for each GU pair in r(GAGUGCUC)2. Biochemistry. 39:89708982.[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Holbrook, S. R., C. Cheong, I. Tinoco, Jr., and S. H. Kim. 1991. Crystal structure of an RNA double helix incorporating a track of non-Watson-Crick basepairs. Nature. 353:579581.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Cruse, W. B. T., P. Saludijan, E. Biala, P. Strazewski, T. Prange, and O. Kennard. 1994. Structure of a mispaired RNA double helix at 1.6 Å resolution and implications for the prediction of RNA secondary structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 91:41604164.
10. Baeyens, K. J., H. L. DeBondt, and S. R. Holbrook. 1995. Structure of an RNA double helix including uracil-uracil basepairs in an internal loop. Nature Struct. Biol. 2:5662.[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Baeyens, K. J., H. L. De Bondt, A. Pardi, and S. R. Holbrook. 1996. A curved RNA helix incorporating an internal loop with GA and AA non-Watson-Crick basepairing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 93:1285112855.
12. Lietzke, S. E., C. L. Barnes, J. A. Berglund, and C. E. Kundrot. 1996. The structure of an RNA dodecamer shows how tandem UU basepairs increase the range of stable RNA structures and the diversity of recognition sites. Structure. 4:917930.[Medline]
13. Jang, S. B., L.-W. Hung, Y.-I. Chi, E. L. Holbrook, R. Carter, and S. R. Holbrook. 1998. Structure of an RNA internal loop consisting of tandem CA+ basepairs. Biochemistry. 37:1172611731.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Jang, S. B., K. J. Baeyens, M. S. Jeong, J. SantaLucia, Jr., D. H. Turner, and S. R. Holbrook. 2004. Structures of two RNA octamers containing tandem GA basepairs. Acta Crystallogr. D60:829835.
15. Otwinowski, Z., and W. Minor. 1997. Processing of x-ray diffraction data collected in oscillation mode. Methods Enzymol. 276:307326.
16. Navaza, J. 1994. AMORE: an automated package for molecular replacement. Acta Crystallogr. A50:157163.
17. Kissinger, C. R., D. K. Gehlhaar, and D. B. Fogel. 1999. Rapid automated molecular replacement by evolutionary search. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 55:484491.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Brunger, A. T., P. D. Adams, G. M. Clore, W. L. DeLano, P. Gros, R. W. Grosse-Kunstleve, J. S. Jiang, J. Kuszewski, M. Nilges, N. S. Pannu, R. J. Read, L. M. Rice, T. Simonson, and G. L. Warren. 1998. Crystallography and NMR system: a new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 54:905921.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Jones, T. A., J.-Y. Zou, S. W. Cowan, and M. Kjeldgaard. 1991. Improved methods for building protein models in electron density maps and the location of errors in these models. Acta Crystallogr. A47:110119.[Medline]
20. Serra, M. J., P. E. Smolter, and E. Westhof. 2004. Pronounced instability of tandem IU basepairs in RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:18241828.
21. Reference deleted in proof.
22. Lavery, R., and H. Sklenar. 1989. Defining the structure of irregular nucleic acids: convention and principles. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 6:655667.[Medline]
23. Gagnon, M. G., and S. V. Steinberg. 2002. GU receptors of double helices mediate tRNA movement in the ribosome. RNA. 8:873877.[Abstract]
24. Pan, Y. P., U. D. Priyakuman, and A. D. MacKerell. 2005. Conformational determinants of tandem GU mismatches in RNA: insights from molecular dynamics simulations and quantum mechanical calculations. Biochemistry. 44:14331443.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Berman, H. M., W. K. Olson, D. L. Beveridge, J. Westbrook, A. Gelbin, T. Demeny, S.-H. Hsieh, A. R. Srinivasan, and B. Schneider. 1992. The Nucleic Acid Database: a comprehensive relational database of three-dimensional structures of nucleic acids. Biophys. J. 63:751759.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |