mRNA 3' end processing and more--multiple functions of mammalian cleavage factor I-68

Are Evolution and the Intracellular Innate Immune System Key Determinants in HIV Transmission?

HIV-1 is the single most important sexually transmitted disease in humans from a global health perspective. Among human lentiviruses, HIV-1 M group has uniquely achieved pandemic levels of human-to-human transmission. The requirement to transmit between hosts likely provides the strongest selective forces on a virus, as without transmission, there can be no new infections within a host population. Our perspective is that evolution of all of the virus-host interactions, which are inherited and perpetuated from host-to-host, must be consistent with transmission. For example, CXCR4 use, which often evolves late in infection, does not favor transmission and is therefore lost when a virus transmits to a new host. Thus, transmission inevitably influences all aspects of virus biology, including interactions with the innate immune system, and dictates the biological niche in which the virus exists in the host. A viable viral niche typically does not select features that disfavor transmission. The innate immune response represents a significant selective pressure during the transmission process. In fact, all viruses must antagonize and/or evade the mechanisms of the host innate and adaptive immune systems that they encounter. We believe that viewing host-virus interactions from a transmission perspective helps us understand the mechanistic details of antiviral immunity and viral escape. This is particularly true for the innate immune system, which typically acts from the very earliest stages of the host-virus interaction, and must be bypassed to achieve successful infection. With this in mind, here we review the innate sensing of HIV, the consequent downstream signaling cascades and the viral restriction that results. The centrality of these mechanisms to host defense is illustrated by the array of countermeasures that HIV deploys to escape them, despite the coding constraint of a 10 kb genome. We consider evasion strategies in detail, in particular the role of the HIV capsid and the viral accessory proteins highlighting important unanswered questions and discussing future perspectives.

Multilayer regulatory mechanisms control cleavage factor I proteins in filamentous fungi

Cleavage factor I (CFI) proteins are core components of the polyadenylation machinery that can regulate several steps of mRNA life cycle, including alternative polyadenylation, splicing, export and decay. Here, we describe the regulatory mechanisms that control two fungal CFI protein classes in Magnaporthe oryzae: Rbp35/CfI25 complex and Hrp1. Using mutational, genetic and biochemical studies we demonstrate that cellular concentration of CFI mRNAs is a limited indicator of their protein abundance. Our results suggest that several post-transcriptional mechanisms regulate Rbp35/CfI25 complex and Hrp1 in the rice blast fungus, some of which are also conserved in other ascomycetes. With respect to Rbp35, these include C-terminal processing, RGG-dependent localization and cleavage, C-terminal autoregulatory domain and regulation by an upstream open reading frame of Rbp35-dependent TOR signalling pathway. Our proteomic analyses suggest that Rbp35 regulates the levels of proteins involved in melanin and phenylpropanoids synthesis, among others. The drastic reduction of fungal CFI proteins in carbon-starved cells suggests that the pre-mRNA processing pathway is altered. Our findings uncover broad and multilayer regulatory mechanisms controlling fungal polyadenylation factors, which have profound implications in pre-mRNA maturation. This area of research offers new avenues for fungicide design by targeting fungal-specific proteins that globally affect thousands of mRNAs.

Structure and function of pre-mRNA 5'-end capping quality control and 3'-end processing

Messenger RNA precursors (pre-mRNAs) are produced as the nascent transcripts of RNA polymerase II (Pol II) in eukaryotes and must undergo extensive maturational processing, including 5′-end capping, splicing, and 3′-end cleavage and polyadenylation. This review will summarize the structural and functional information reported over the past few years on the large machinery required for the 3′-end processing of most pre-mRNAs, as well as the distinct machinery for the 3′-end processing of replication-dependent histone pre-mRNAs, which have provided great insights into the proteins and their subcomplexes in these machineries. Structural and biochemical studies have also led to the identification of a new class of enzymes (the DXO family enzymes) with activity toward intermediates of the 5′-end capping pathway. Functional studies demonstrate that these enzymes are part of a novel quality surveillance mechanism for pre-mRNA 5′-end capping. Incompletely capped pre-mRNAs are produced in yeast and human cells, in contrast to the general belief in the field that capping always proceeds to completion, and incomplete capping leads to defects in splicing and 3′-end cleavage in human cells. The DXO family enzymes are required for the detection and degradation of these defective RNAs.

Delineating the structural blueprint of the pre-mRNA 3'-end processing machinery

Processing of mRNA precursors (pre-mRNAs) by polyadenylation is an essential step in gene expression. Polyadenylation consists of two steps, cleavage and poly(A) synthesis, and requires multiple cis elements in the pre-mRNA and a megadalton protein complex bearing the two essential enzymatic activities. While genetic and biochemical studies remain the major approaches in characterizing these factors, structural biology has emerged during the past decade to help understand the molecular assembly and mechanistic details of the process. With structural information about more proteins and higher-order complexes becoming available, we are coming closer to obtaining a structural blueprint of the polyadenylation machinery that explains both how this complex functions and how it is regulated and connected to other cellular processes.

HIV-1 evades innate immune recognition through specific cofactor recruitment

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 is able to replicate in primary human macrophages without stimulating innate immunity despite reverse transcription of genomic RNA into double-stranded DNA, an activity that might be expected to trigger innate pattern recognition receptors. We reasoned that if correctly orchestrated HIV-1 uncoating and nuclear entry is important for evasion of innate sensors then manipulation of specific interactions between HIV-1 capsid and host factors that putatively regulate these processes should trigger pattern recognition receptors and stimulate type 1 interferon (IFN) secretion. Here we show that HIV-1 capsid mutants N74D and P90A, which are impaired for interaction with cofactors cleavage and polyadenylation specificity factor subunit 6 (CPSF6) and cyclophilins (Nup358 and CypA), respectively, cannot replicate in primary human monocyte-derived macrophages because they trigger innate sensors leading to nuclear translocation of NF-κB and IRF3, the production of soluble type 1 IFN and induction of an antiviral state. Depletion of CPSF6 with short hairpin RNA expression allows wild-type virus to trigger innate sensors and IFN production. In each case, suppressed replication is rescued by IFN-receptor blockade, demonstrating a role for IFN in restriction. IFN production is dependent on viral reverse transcription but not integration, indicating that a viral reverse transcription product comprises the HIV-1 pathogen-associated molecular pattern. Finally, we show that we can pharmacologically induce wild-type HIV-1 infection to stimulate IFN secretion and an antiviral state using a non-immunosuppressive cyclosporine analogue. We conclude that HIV-1 has evolved to use CPSF6 and cyclophilins to cloak its replication, allowing evasion of innate immune sensors and induction of a cell-autonomous innate immune response in primary human macrophages.

Biogenesis, assembly, and export of viral messenger ribonucleoproteins in the influenza A virus infected cell

The flow of genetic information from sites of transcription within the nucleus to the cytoplasmic translational machinery of eukaryotic cells is obstructed by a physical blockade, the nuclear double membrane, which must be overcome in order to adhere to the central dogma of molecular biology, DNA makes RNA makes protein. Advancement in the field of cellular and molecular biology has painted a detailed picture of the molecular mechanisms from transcription of genes to mRNAs and their processing that is closely coupled to export from the nucleus. The rules that govern delivering messenger transcripts from the nucleus must be obeyed by influenza A virus, a member of the Orthomyxoviridae that has adopted a nuclear replication cycle. The negative-sense genome of influenza A virus is segmented into eight individual viral ribonucleoprotein (vRNP) complexes containing the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and single-stranded RNA encapsidated in viral nucleoprotein. Influenza A virus mRNAs fall into three major categories, intronless, intron-containing unspliced and spliced. During evolutionary history, influenza A virus has conceived a way of negotiating the passage of viral transcripts from the nucleus to cytoplasmic sites of protein synthesis. The major mRNA nuclear export NXF1 pathway is increasingly implicated in viral mRNA export and this review considers and discusses the current understanding of how influenza A virus exploits the host mRNA export pathway for replication.

How cells get the message: dynamic assembly and function of mRNA-protein complexes

mRNA is packaged into ribonucleoprotein particles called mRNPs. A multitude of RNA-binding proteins as well as a host of associated proteins participate in the fate of mRNA from transcription and processing in the nucleus to translation and decay in the cytoplasm. Methodological innovations in cell biology and genome-wide high-throughput approaches have revealed an unexpected diversity of mRNA-associated proteins and unforeseen interconnections between mRNA-processing steps. Recent insights into mRNP formation in vivo have also highlighted the importance of mRNP packaging, which can sort RNAs on the basis of their length and determine mRNA fate through alternative mRNP assembly, processing and export pathways.

The structure of human cleavage factor I(m) hints at functions beyond UGUA-specific RNA binding: a role in alternative polyadenylation and a potential link to 5' capping and splicing

3'-end cleavage and subsequent polyadenylation are critical steps in mRNA maturation. The precise location where cleavage occurs (referred to as poly(A) site) is determined by a tripartite mechanism in which a A(A/U)UAAA hexamer, GU rich downstream element and UGUA upstream element are recognized by the cleavage and polyadenylation factor (CPSF), cleavage stimulation factor (CstF) and cleavage factor I(m) (CFI(m)), respectively. CFI(m) is composed of a smaller 25 kDa subunit (CFI(m)25) and a larger 59, 68 or 72 kDa subunit. CFI(m)68 interacts with CFI(m)25 through its N-terminal RNA recognition motif (RRM). We recently solved the crystal structures of CFI(m)25 bound to RNA and of a complex of CFI(m)25, the RRM domain of CFI(m)68 and RNA. Our study illustrated the molecular basis for UGUA recognition by the CFI(m) complex, suggested a possible mechanism for CFI(m) mediated alternative polyadenylation, and revealed potential links between CFI(m) and other mRNA processing factors, such as the 20 kDa subunit of the cap binding protein (CBP20), and the splicing regulator U2AF65.

Structural biology of poly(A) site definition

3' processing is an essential step in the maturation of all messenger RNAs (mRNAs) and is a tightly coupled two-step reaction: endonucleolytic cleavage at the poly(A) site is followed by the addition of a poly(A) tail, except for metazoan histone mRNAs, which are cleaved but not polyadenylated. The recognition of a poly(A) site is coordinated by the sequence elements in the mRNA 3' UTR and associated protein factors. In mammalian cells, three well-studied sequence elements, UGUA, AAUAAA, and GU-rich, are recognized by three multisubunit factors: cleavage factor I(m) (CFI(m) ), cleavage and polyadenylation specificity factor (CPSF), and cleavage stimulation factor (CstF), respectively. In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, UA repeats and A-rich sequence elements are recognized by Hrp1p and cleavage factor IA. Structural studies of protein-RNA complexes have helped decipher the mechanisms underlying sequence recognition and shed light on the role of protein factors in poly(A) site selection and 3' processing machinery assembly. In this review we focus on the interactions between the mRNA cis-elements and the protein factors (CFI(m) , CPSF, CstF, and homologous factors from yeast and other eukaryotes) that define the poly(A) site. WIREs RNA 2011 2 732-747 DOI: 10.1002/wrna.88 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Crystal structure of a human cleavage factor CFI(m)25/CFI(m)68/RNA complex provides an insight into poly(A) site recognition and RNA looping

Cleavage factor I(m) (CFI(m)) is a highly conserved component of the eukaryotic mRNA 3' processing machinery that functions in sequence-specific poly(A) site recognition through the collaboration of a 25 kDa subunit containing a Nudix domain and a larger subunit of 59, 68, or 72 kDa containing an RNA recognition motif (RRM). Our previous work demonstrated that CFI(m)25 is both necessary and sufficient for sequence-specific binding of the poly(A) site upstream element UGUA. Here, we report the crystal structure of CFI(m)25 complexed with the RRM domain of CFI(m)68 and RNA. The CFI(m)25 dimer is clasped on opposite sides by two CFI(m)68 RRM domains. Each CFI(m)25 subunit binds one UGUA element specifically. Biochemical analysis indicates that the CFI(m)68 RRMs serve to enhance RNA binding and facilitate RNA looping. The intrinsic ability of CFI(m) to direct RNA looping may provide a mechanism for its function in the regulation of alternative poly(A) site selection.