Previous Article |
Table of Contents
| Next Article
* Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics, 2135 Microbiology Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742;
Communicated by Reed B. Wickner, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD, February 21, 2002 (received for review October 29, 2001)
The cis-acting mRNA elements that promote programmed The HIV type 1 (HIV-1) is the
causative agent of AIDS (1-3), and understanding the HIV-1 life cycle
at the molecular level has played an important role in the development
of antiviral agents with therapeutic properties. A successful outgrowth
of such studies has been the identification of compounds that inhibit
the activity of viral proteins, leading to dramatic reductions in the
HIV loads in patients (reviewed in refs. 1 and 4). Although these drugs
have proven successful, drug-resistant strains are emerging rapidly,
and they do not eliminate HIV completely in infected patients (1,
5-8). Thus, there is an urgent need to develop new drug targets that
ultimately will increase the repertoire of antiviral agents that can be
used to eliminate or reduce HIV loads in patients. The HIV particle
consists of a lipoprotein envelope surrounding a core composed of a
protein capsid shell, within which are reverse transcriptase,
integrase, protease, and two copies of the RNA genome (2). The
structural and enzymatic components of the viral core are synthesized
as polyproteins with a common N terminus (reviewed in ref. 1). The ORF
encoding the major viral structural 55-kDa Gag protein is located at
the 5' end of the mRNA. The pol ORF, which encodes the viral
protease, reverse transcriptase, and integrase, is 3' of and
out-of-frame with respect to the gag ORF (3), and these
HIV-1 enzymatic proteins are translated only as a result of a
programmed The bipartite Although no data exist proving the universal requirement for an RNA
pseudoknot, frameshift-stimulating pseudoknots cannot be replaced by
simple stem-loop structures of equal or greater thermodynamic stability
(26). In the
Biochemistry
The frameshift signal of HIV-1 involves a potential
intramolecular triplex RNA structure
,
,
, and
,
Chemical Biology Program, Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 364 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA 01605-2324;
¶ Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology,
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School, 675 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854; and
§ Department of Pharmacology, University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center, 4200 East 9th Avenue, Denver, CO 80262
![]()
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
1
ribosomal frameshifting present a natural target for the rational design of antiretroviral chemotherapies. It has been commonly accepted that the HIV-1 frameshifting signal is special, because its
downstream enhancer element consists of a simple mRNA stem loop rather
than a more complex secondary structure such as a pseudoknot. Here we
present three lines of evidence, bioinformatic, structural, and
genetic, showing that the biologically relevant HIV-1 frameshift signal
contains a complex RNA structure that likely includes an extended RNA
triple-helix region. We suggest that the potential intramolecular
triplex structure is essential for viral propagation and viability, and
that small molecules targeted to this RNA structure may possess
antiretroviral activities.
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
1 ribosomal frameshifting (PRF) event (9-11). In viruses
that use PRF, the majority of translational events result in the
production of the Gag protein, and a minority yield viral enzymatic
proteins. Consequently, the frameshift efficiency determines the ratio
of structural to enzymatic proteins available for viral particle
assembly. The ratio of Gag to Gag-pol synthesized in retroviruses as a
consequence of programmed frameshifting varies between a narrow window
of 20:1 to 60:1 (reviewed in ref. 12). The importance of maintaining this precise ratio on viral propagation has been demonstrated for many
different viruses from the simple L-A totivirus of yeast to HIV-1
(reviewed in ref. 13). In all such viruses examined to date, even small
alterations in frameshifting efficiencies inhibit virus propagation.
Thus, PRF presents a potential target for antiviral therapeutics.
1 PRF signal consists of a heptameric "slippery
site" followed by a downstream secondary RNA structure. The slippery
site (X XXY YYZ, where the gag reading frame is indicated by
spaces) does not have a precise sequence, but exhaustive analyses have
determined that X can be any three identical nucleotides, Y can be
three A or U residues, and Z is A, U, or C (14-17). The downstream RNA
secondary structure is typically an RNA pseudoknot located
6
nucleotides 3' of the slippery site. This structure is thought
to position elongating ribosomes to pause with their A- and P-site
tRNAs over the slippery site (15, 18-22), where they can
simultaneously slip in the 5' direction by one base, repairing their
nonwobble bases to the respective
1 frame codons after which
translation resumes in the new reading frame (14). These rules
governing
1 PRF are universal in eukaryotes, because PRF signals from
mammalian viruses function in yeast cells (9, 10, 23). A number of
parameters can influence frameshifting efficiencies including the
sequence of the slippery site and its distance from the RNA secondary
structure, the thermodynamic stability of the RNA secondary structure,
the interactions between ribosomes and tRNAs and those between the
ribosome-associated tRNAs and the mRNA template, and the interactions
between the translational apparatus and numerous host-encoded
trans-acting factors (reviewed in refs. 12, 24, and 25).
1 PRF literature, however, the HIV-1 frameshift signal
is noted as a prominent exception. The original reports characterizing
the HIV-1 frameshift signal suggested that only the UUUUUUA slippery
site heptamer was required to promote
1 PRF (10, 11). Subsequent
studies demonstrated that a simple RNA stem-loop structure 3' of the
slippery site was required to promote "efficient" frameshifting
(see Fig. 1A and refs. 27 and
28). However, there has never been a correlation between
"efficient" frameshifting and the actual efficiency
required by HIV-1 for optimal viral particle assembly. Two possible RNA pseudoknot structures 3' of the HIV-1 slippery site have been suggested. One of these structures (Fig. 1B; ref. 29)
eliminates the "spacer region" between the slippery site and the
RNA pseudoknot, presenting the close juxtaposition between these two
components of the frameshift signal that is known to interfere with
efficient
1 PRF (16, 18, 19, 24, 28, 30, 31). A subsequent analysis
demonstrated that this structure is not real (32). The short A-U-rich
stem 2 of the other suggested that RNA pseudoknot conformer probably is
too unstable to be biologically relevant (Fig. 1C; ref. 33).
However, closer examination of this structure reveals that a range of
potential RNA pseudoknot conformers may be capable of forming either by
stem 2 becoming larger at the expense of stem1 or even one containing a
potential triple-helix structure (Fig. 1D). No experimental
analyses have been conducted that would either prove or disprove such
RNA structural conformers. For example, the synthetic RNA that was used
in the physical and biochemical studies disproving the pseudoknot shown
in Fig. 1B stopped at nucleotide 44 of the HIV-1 frameshift
signal and thus did not contain all of the sequence required for
formation of the structures shown in Fig. 1 C and
D (32). Similarly, the constructs used by two other groups
(23, 34) stop at nucleotide 41. Interestingly, the potential to form
the entire range of alternative RNA pseudoknot or RNA triplex
conformers is conserved in a protease-resistant HIV-1 variant (35).
Thus, as a potential target for antiviral therapies it is critical to
define the biologically relevant mRNA secondary structure that enhances
1 PRF in HIV-1. This report addresses this problem, presenting three
lines of evidence supporting the involvement of an intramolecular
triplex RNA structure in the HIV-1
1 PRF signal.

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Different representations of the HIV-1 frameshift signal.
(A) Simple stem loop proposed by Jacks et
al. (11) and investigated by Wilson et al. (10)
and Parkin et al. (27). (B) RNA
Pseudoknot proposed by Du et al. (29).
(C) RNA pseudoknot proposed by Taylor et
al. (33). (D) Intramolecular triplex structure
proposed in this study.
| |
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Database Analysis.
A database containing all of the 20,946 reported HIV-1 sequences was compiled using a search of the GenBank nucleotide sequence database at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Said search was done on the web site of the NCBI-developed Entrez retrieval system, selecting for HIV-1 matches in the "organism" field (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Entrez/). This set of sequences was analyzed by using a PERL script program that selected for the HIV-1 frameshift signal. This set was extracted by searching for TTTTTTA (the slippery site), followed by 10 bases with no specific sequence requirement (the spacer between the slippery site and the RNA secondary structure), followed by the highly conserved sequence GG (at the beginning of stem 1). From this data set, the program extracted the relevant sequence from each reported sequence beginning at the HIV-1 slippery site TTTTTTA and extending an additional 45 nucleotides. The output file (Fasta format) containing 715 sequences was analyzed by the CLUSTAL W 1.7 program (36) to produce a global alignment of all the sequences. This program analyzes identities between these sequences and weights each variation at each of the 52 nucleotides in the target sequence, allowing us to define the allowed variations in the HIV-1 frameshift signal. Subsequently, each unique sequence was analyzed manually for its ability to form the structure depicted in Fig. 1D.
Nuclease Mapping.
All RNAs were purchased from Dharmacon Research (Lafayette, CO).
RNAs were 5' end-labeled with 0.5 µM
[
-32P]ATP (6,000 Ci/mmol; 1 Ci = 37 GBq) (ICN) per 100 pmol of nucleic acid by incubation with 16 units of T4 polynucleotide kinase (NEB, Beverly, MA) in the provided
buffer. The end-labeled RNAs were purified through 20% denaturing
gels, visualized by autoradiography, eluted out of the acrylamide, and
desalted on a reverse-phase cartridge. The sequences of the RNAs were
verified by alkaline hydrolysis and nuclease digestion. For the RNase
protection assay, 2 pmol of labeled RNA in 10 µl of final reaction
volume were incubated with: 3-7 units of S1 nuclease (Amersham
Pharmacia) in S1 nuclease cleavage buffer (30 mM sodium acetate, pH
4.6/100 mM NaCl/1 mM ZnSO4) for 4 min at
4°C or 2 min at room temperature; 1 milliunit of RNase T1 (United
States Biochemical) in 100 mM Tris·HCl, pH 8.0, for 4 min at 4°C
or 2 min at room temperature; or 3 microunits of RNase A (United States
Biochemical) in 50 mM sodium acetate, pH 5.2, for 4 min at 4°C, or 2 min at room temperature. RNA ladders were obtained by incubation of 2 pmol of RNA in hydrolysis buffer (50 mM
Na2CO3/NaHCO3,
pH 9.2) at 85°C for 10 and 12 min. All reactions were stopped by
addition with 5 µl of sample loading buffer (95% formamide/0.1%
bromophenol blue/20 mM EDTA) and immediate freezing on dry ice.
Samples then were separated through 20% denaturing gels at 90 W (33 mA) for 1.5 and 3 h and visualized by phosphorimagery.
Plasmids and Frameshift Assays.
For yeast-based assays, the plasmid pJD160.0 was used as the
0-frame control (37). The synthetic oligonucleotides (Integrated DNA
Technologies, Coralville, IA)
5'-CCCCGGATCCATTTTTTAGGGAAGATCTGGCCTTCCCACAAGGGGAGGCCAGGGAATTTTCTTCAGGTACCCCCC-3' (forward) and
5'-GGGGGGTACCT-GAAGAAAATTCCCTGGCCTCCCCTTGTGGGAAG-GCCAGATCTTCCCTAAAAAATGGATCCGGGG-3' (reverse) were used to construct the
1 frameshift reporter
pJD160.HIV-wild type (wt). The complementary oligonucleotides
were annealed with one another, digested with BamHI and
KpnI, and cloned into similarly digested pJD160.0 such that
the lacZ reporter gene was in the
1 reading frame with
respect to the translational start site, and thus could be translated
only as a result of a
1 PRF. The reporter plasmids pJD160.HIV-c1,
pJD160.HIV-c3, and pJD160.HIV-c2, harboring mutant RNA pseudoknot, were
constructed similarly. To measure
1 PRF efficiencies, these plasmids
were introduced into yeast cells [JD111: MAT
ura3-52 lys2-801 trp1
leu2=his3= (L-AHNB
M1)] by lithium-acetate transformation,
transformants were selected on H-trp medium, and
-galactosidase
activities and PRF efficiencies were determined as described (15). All assays were performed in triplicate, and each assay was repeated at
least three times.
Frameshifting in HeLa cells was monitored by using a dual luciferase
reporter plasmid system (34). Synthetic reporter mRNAs were
transiently transfected into HeLa cells, cells were cultured for
24 h and lysed, and the activities of Renilla (first
ORF, Luc-R) versus firefly luciferase (second ORF, Luc-F) were
determined by using a dual luciferase kit (Promega) and a Turner (Palo
Alto, CA) 20/20 luminometer. The construct in which Luc-F is in the same frame as Luc-R, p2luci (34), serves to generate a 0-frame baseline
of translation of the second ORF. In the pHIVluc-wt and pHIVluc-m2
constructs, the two different HIV-1-derived frameshift signals were
positioned between Luc-R and Luc-F, and Luc-F is in the
1 frame with
regard to Luc-R. Thus, the firefly luciferase can be produced only as a
consequence of a
1 PRF event. Synthetic mRNAs generated by p2luc
(Luc-F in the
1 frame with respect to Luc-R with no intervening
sequence; ref. 34) serve to control for undirected frameshift events.
With these reporter mRNAs, the ratio of Luc-F to Luc-R activities
provides a normalized measurement of translation of the second ORF.
Further, comparison of this ratio as generated from the test mRNAs to
that of the 0-frame control (p2luci) yields a measure of directed (by
pHIVluc-wt or pHIVluc-m2) or nondirected (by p2luci)
1 ribosomal
frameshift efficiencies.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The Potential RNA Triple-Helix Structure Is Highly Conserved.
If HIV-1 frameshifting requires the RNA triplex, then this structure should be highly conserved among all isolates of HIV-1. Examination of all of the 715 frameshift signal-containing HIV-1 sequences in our database shows that the overwhelming majority of the sequences were able to form an RNA triplex structure (Table 1). Eighty six percent (618 sequences total) conserved the ability to form the triplex at all seven positions. A further 5% of the sequences contained single changes that would affect base pairing at either positions 46 or 52, i.e., at the ends of strand 3 of the triplex. Thus, in 91% of the sequences in the database, a contiguous stretch of six of the seven possible base triples are conserved. Indeed, less than 8% of the sequences contained one or more internal mismatches between strands 2 and 3, with the remainder perturbing the strand 1/strand 2 base pairing. Of particular relevance, the identity of the nucleotide at position 34 was distributed almost evenly between G and A. Although the base at position 47 was U in over 90% of the sequences, in all but one of the instances where nucleotide 47 was a C the nucleotide at position 34 was a G. This analysis supports the notion that the ability to form a stable intramolecular RNA triple-helix structure has been evolutionarily conserved in the HIV-1 frameshift signal.
|
Biochemical Analyses Indicate the Presence of an RNA Triplex Structure.
Formation of triple helices requires the third strand to hydrogen-bond to purine bases present in the underlying Watson-Crick duplex. In the wt HIV-1 frameshift signal sequence, there is a stable stem-loop structure that is followed by a pyrimidine-rich sequence. We reasoned that a pyrimidine·purine·pyrimidine triplex structure can exist in this RNA sequence, and this structure could have functional significance in frameshifting. To test this hypothesis, we synthesized two RNA sequences, HIV-wt and HIV-m2 (Fig. 2A). To map single- and double-stranded regions within the sequence, secondary structure-specific RNA cutting enzymes were used; nuclease S1 nonspecifically cuts all single-stranded nucleotides, RNase T1 cuts at single-stranded G residues, and RNase A cleaves preferentially at single-stranded pyrimidine bases. The RNA cleavage pattern of the wt sequence was compared with mutant sequences.
|
Three different ribonucleases were used, and in each case the HIV-wt and HIV-m2 RNAs displayed different patterns of hydrolysis (Fig. 2B). We performed ribonuclease reactions at various pH values (6.8-8.0), temperatures (4-37°C), and salt conditions (50 mM NaCl with and without 5 mM MgCl2). Digestion with RNase S1 enzyme highlights the absence of hydrogen bonding of strand 3 with the duplex region of the stem-loop RNA structure (m2), because all nucleotides at the 3' end, starting from position 42, are cleaved efficiently (Fig. 2, lane 8). In contrast, a minor cleavage of the third strand in HIV-wt RNA indicates a conformational equilibrium existing between the triplex and nontriplex form (Fig. 2, lane 2). As expected, both RNAs are cleaved equally by RNase S1 nuclease in the loop 1 region. Digestion of HIV-m2 by nuclease T1 again shows the presence of the single-stranded region in strand 3 beyond nucleotide 42 (lane 9). Cleavage of HIV-wt RNA by nuclease T1 shows the presence of a duplex RNA and loop 2; however, because there are no Gs at the 3' end of HIV-wt, no evidence of stem 2 formation can be inferred.
RNase A digestion further confirms the single-stranded structure of HIV-m2 RNA after nucleotide 42. RNase A cleavage of HIV-wt, the putative strand 3 of which in triplex structure is very pyrimidine-rich, is very interesting. As shown in Fig. 2B, there is a single weak cleavage site at position 49 in the strand 3 region. Mutant RNA was cleaved efficiently at U47 and U49 by RNase A (lane 10). A second cleavage occurs at U28 in loop 1 as well as in loop 1 of HIV-m2 RNA. These comparative RNase cleavage results demonstrate the presence of a triplex RNA structure in HIV-wt, whereas only the stem-loop duplex RNA is present in HIV-m2. It is also notable that the bases in loop 2 (G42-A45) are relatively well protected from nucleolytic attack, suggesting that they actively participate in a complex RNA tertiary structure that promises to be interesting and unique. Further, we did not observe any ribonuclease cleavage at the C22-U25 region, supporting the idea that this strand was part of triplex-like structure and was not single-stranded region.
To examine the formation of a triplex RNA further, we designed two more constructs, c1 and c3, in which C-G-U base triples were either substituted with U-G-C (construct c1, Fig. 3 A and B) to preserve the intramolecular triplex RNA structure or disrupt it (construct c3, Fig. 3 C and D). To resolve two regions of the RNA structure at high resolution, we ran gels for various periods of time. As shown in Fig. 3, the 5'-end regions of the RNAs were better resolved when gels were run for 1.5 h. The 3'-end regions were visualized by running gels for 3 h. For the c1 construct (Fig. 3A), two loop regions (G26-A30 and U13-A15) were hydrolyzed by ribonucleases (3 h gel, lanes 2-8), indicating that the overall triplex-like structure was similar to the wt sequence. However, it is interesting to note that although the major cleavage by S1 was observed at U14-A15 (lanes 2 and 3, 11/2 h gel), there was some minor cleavage at three U residues below the loop. These results suggest that strands 1 and 3 are in a dynamic equilibrium with the strand 2 sequence. No such dynamic situation was observed in the wt sequence, possibly because of the U-rich third strand instead of U-rich strand 1. In contrast, structural mapping of construct c3 revealed that this RNA sequence adopted a stable secondary structure that did not resemble wt or m2 mutant RNA (Fig. 4 C and D). As discussed below, these structural dynamics also could explain the higher frameshift efficiencies for construct c1. Taken together, these results strongly support the notion that an intramolecular triplex RNA structure is formed in the HIV-wt frameshift signal sequence.
|
|
The Intramolecular Triplex Is Required for Maximal Enhancement
of
1 PRF in Intact Yeast and HeLa Cells.
If the HIV-1 RNA triplex structure is biologically significant, then
disrupting it should impact negatively on frameshift efficiencies. To
test this hypothesis, wt and mutant frameshift signals differing only
in their abilities to form the intramolecular triplex were cloned into
both yeast- and HeLa cell-based frameshift reporters, and
1 PRF
efficiencies were determined. The results are shown in Fig. 4.
In yeast cells, the wt sequence promoted frameshifting with an
efficiency of 6.13 ± 0.89%. In contrast, disruption of the
triplex resulted in an approximately two-thirds decrease in
frameshifting efficiencies (m2 = 2.23 ± 0.65%, and c3 = 2.00 ± 0.56%). In HeLa cells, the frameshift efficiency
generated by pHIVluc-wt (5.0 ± 0.6%) was consistent with
previously measured frameshift efficiencies and the 20:1 ratio of Gag
to integrase in mature viral particles and, similar to the yeast system
disruption of stem 2 (pHIVluc-m2), reduced frameshifting to less than
40% of wt levels (1.9 ± 0.4%). Undirected
1 frameshifting
(0.06%) was nearly 2 orders of magnitude less than wt levels in both
yeast and HeLa systems (data not shown). Further investigations using the yeast system revealed that substitution of C-G-U base triples with
U-G-C sequence in construct c1 enhanced frameshifting (8.12 ± 1.25%). Although actual frameshift efficiencies varied between different experiments, in all seven repetitions the c1 construct always
promoted
1 PRF to a significantly greater extent than the wt sequence
in individual experimental repetitions. The significance of this
finding is discussed below. These results clearly show that high
efficiency frameshifting by HIV-1 depends on the presence of a unique
and stable RNA structure that potentially folds into an intramolecular triplex.
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Rational drug design requires a full understanding of the target
molecule, and in the case of the HIV-1 frameshift signal, the existing
literature falls short of this requirement. Specifically, it has been
accepted as common knowledge that HIV-1 had dispensed with the
requirement for an RNA pseudoknot as the downstream enhancer element,
because its stem-loop structure was very thermodynamically stable. This
belief has led many other researchers in the field to delete
sequences downstream of the presumed stem loop from reporter
constructs, which in at least one published case probably invalidated
the results of a high-throughput drug screen (38). The findings
presented here seek to address this issue, demonstrating that the
downstream enhancer element in the HIV-1 frameshift signal is a complex
RNA structure that likely contains an extended RNA triple-helix region.
Our findings that simple stem loops can only promote approximately
one-third of wt frameshifting efficiencies are significant with regard
to antiviral therapeutic approaches. Previous studies examining the
effects of changes in
1 PRF in other viral systems show that the
viral propagation is significantly more sensitive to small decreases in
1 PRF efficiencies than they are to increases of similar magnitude.
For example, similar decreases in
1 PRF efficiencies caused by the
presence of anisomycin (39) or to mutations in 5S rRNA (40) were
sufficient to cure yeast cells of the L-A virus completely. Similarly,
a 50% decrease in +1 frameshifting efficiency inhibited Ty1
retrotransposition in yeast by 98% (41). Thus, our findings suggest
that the potential intramolecular triplex structure is essential for
viral propagation and viability, and small molecules targeted to this
RNA structure may possess antiretroviral activities.
Structure/Function: Why Not a Stem Loop?
Although a stem loop does promote levels of frameshifting that
are significantly greater than normal, they still are not sufficient to
meet the demands of the virus. A more complex secondary structure, typically an RNA pseudoknot but in this case the intramolecular triplex, is required as a specific enhancer of
1 PRF. We have proposed previously a "torsional resistance" model to explain the
requirement for such structures (25). By this model, the specific
location on the mRNA at which a ribosome stalls is determined by
distance and resistance: how far the ribosome can elongate into the
secondary structure before it is stopped in the slippery site proximal
region of the structure (i.e., strand 1/strand 2) by the negative
supercoiling forces imposed as a consequence of the distal region's
(i.e., the strand 2/strand 3 interactions) limiting the rotational
freedom of loop 1. By enforcing a specific equilibrium point between
forward and reverse forces, these structures specifically direct
ribosomes to pause with their A- and P-site tRNAs positioned directly
over the slippery site, thus increasing the proportion of ribosomes
that can slip. The results presented here support this view. In cases
where loop 1 was torsionally restrained (wt and c1 constructs),
1 PRF
efficiencies were stimulated relative to those where it had greater
rotational freedom (m2 and c3). In particular, although the RNA
structure of the c3 construct is quite complex, loop 1 is not
torsionally constrained; as predicted by the model, the increased
rotational freedom of loop 1 resulted in decreased
1 PRF
efficiencies. A second point of interest with regard to these data
addresses the notion that, whereas the slippery site proximal region is
unwound by the ribosome in cis, unwinding of the distal
region of the structure must be in trans (either passively
by simple thermodynamic "breathing" or actively by a distributive
RNA helicase, e.g., Upf1p; see refs. 42 and 43). In either case,
stabilization of the distal region of the structure would increase the
amount of time that elongating ribosomes would be paused at the
frameshift signal, increasing the chance of slippage. Thus, although
the distal region of the structure should not affect where
the ribosome is directed to stall, its stability should influence the
amount of time that it pauses. Our observation that increasing the
thermodynamic stability of the strand 2/strand 3 interaction serves
to stimulate programmed frameshifting further is consistent with this
notion (compare the HIV-c1 to the HIV-wt constructs in Fig. 4).
In addition to forming well documented double-helix structures, nucleic acids have been found also to form three- and four-stranded complexes under some circumstances (44-50). Formation of triple helices requires the third strand to hydrogen-bond to purine bases present in the underlying Watson-Crick duplex. Triplexes can be subdivided into intramolecular versus intermolecular complexes. Intramolecular triplexes occur in H·DNA structure (51-53). Our results strongly suggest the formation of an intrastrand RNA triplex structure in the HIV-1 frameshift signal where a C-G repeat in duplex RNA provides a site for hydrogen bonding with a U-rich third strand. It is interesting to note that these are not typical C+-G-C or T-A-T triplet bases known to form stable triplex structures. Given the flexibility of RNA to form unusual structures and well known G-U interactions in RNA, we propose that stable C-G-U triplets are present under physiological conditions in HIV-1 frameshift signal. It is intriguing that although isolated base triplets occur in tRNA, ribozyme, and transactivation response element RNA structures (54-57), no intrastrand triple helices with consecutive stacked triplets have yet been observed in the folded structures of natural RNAs. Our results presenting the notion of short intramolecular triplex RNA involvement in HIV-1 frameshift signal suggest that such structures could play important roles in other biological functions.
| |
Acknowledgements |
|---|
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants GM 58859 (to J.D.D.) and AI 45466 and AI 43198 (to T.M.R.).
| |
Abbreviations |
|---|
PRF, programmed ribosomal frameshifting; wt, wild type.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
To whom reprint requests may be addressed. E-mail:
jd280{at}umail.umd.edu or Tariq.Rana{at}umassmed.edu.
Present address: Oncology Department, Novartis, 556 Morris Avenue, LSB 3630, Summit, NJ 07901-1398.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Coffin, J. M.
(1995)
Science
267,
483-489 |
| 2. |
Levy, J. A.
(1993)
Microbiol. Rev.
57,
183-289 |
| 3. |
Vaishnav, Y. N.
& Wong-Staal, F.
(1991)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
60,
577-630[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 4. |
Balzarini, J.
, Pelemans, H.
, Karlsson, A.
, De ClercQ, E.
& Kleim, J. P.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93,
13152-13157 |
| 5. |
Song, Q.
, Yang, G.
, Goff, S. P.
& Prasad, V. R.
(1992)
J. Virol.
66,
7568-7571 |
| 6. |
Kew, Y.
, Qingbin, S.
& Prasad, V. R.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
15331-15336 |
| 7. |
Moutouh, L.
, Corbeil, J.
& Richman, D. D.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93,
6106-6111 |
| 8. |
Wainberg, M. A.
, Drosopoulos, W. C.
, Salomon, H.
, Hsu, M.
, Borkow, G.
, Parniak, M.
, Gu, Z.
, Song, Q.
, Manne, J.
, Islam, S.
,
et al.
(1996)
Science
271,
1282-1285[Abstract] |
| 9. |
Bidou, L.
, Stahl, G.
, Grima, B.
, Liu, H.
, Cassan, M.
& Rousset, J.-P.
(1997)
RNA
3,
1153-1158[Abstract] |
| 10. |
Wilson, W.
, Braddock, M.
, Adams, S. E.
, Rathjen, P. D.
, Kingsman, S. M.
& Kingsman, A. J.
(1988)
Cell
55,
1159-1169[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 11. |
Jacks, T.
, Power, M. D.
, Masiarz, F. R.
, Luciw, P. A.
, Barr, P. J.
& Varmus, H. E.
(1988)
Nature (London)
331,
280-283[CrossRef][Medline]
|
| 12. | Farabaugh, P. J. (1997) Programmed Alternative Reading of the Genetic Code (Landes, Austin, TX). |
| 13. |
Dinman, J. D.
, Ruiz-Echevarria, M. J.
& Peltz, S. W.
(1998)
Trends Biotechnol.
16,
190-196[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 14. |
Jacks, T.
, Madhani, H. D.
, Masiraz, F. R.
& Varmus, H. E.
(1988)
Cell
55,
447-458[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 15. |
Dinman, J. D.
, Icho, T.
& Wickner, R. B.
(1991)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
88,
174-178 |
| 16. |
Dinman, J. D.
& Wickner, R. B.
(1992)
J. Virol.
66,
3669-3676 |
| 17. |
Brierley, I. A.
, Jenner, A. J.
& Inglis, S. C.
(1992)
J. Mol. Biol.
227,
463-479[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 18. |
Brierley, I. A.
, Dingard, P.
& Inglis, S. C.
(1989)
Cell
57,
537-547[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 19. |
Morikawa, S.
& Bishop, D. H. L.
(1992)
Virology
186,
389-397[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 20. |
Somogyi, P.
, Jenner, A. J.
, Brierley, I. A.
& Inglis, S. C.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
6931-6940 |
| 21. |
Tu, C.
, Tzeng, T.-H.
& Bruenn, J. A.
(1992)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
89,
8636-8640 |
| 22. |
Lopinski, J. D.
, Dinman, J. D.
& Bruenn, J. A.
(2000)
Mol. Cell Biol.
20,
1095-1103 |
| 23. |
Stahl, G.
, Bidou, L.
, Rousset, J.-P.
& Cassan, M.
(1995)
Nucleic Acids Res.
23,
1557-1560 |
| 24. |
Brierley, I.
(1995)
J. Gen. Virol.
76,
1885-1892 |
| 25. |
Dinman, J. D.
(1995)
Yeast
11,
1115-1127[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 26. |
Brierley, I. A.
, Rolley, N. J.
, Jenner, A. J.
& Inglis, S. C.
(1991)
J. Mol. Biol.
220,
889-902[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 27. |
Parkin, N. T.
, Chamorro, M.
& Varmus, H. E.
(1992)
J. Virol.
66,
5147-5151 |
| 28. |
Kollmus, H.
, Hentze, M. W.
& Hauser, H.
(1996)
RNA
2,
316-323[Abstract] |
| 29. |
Du, Z.
, Giedroc, D. P.
& Hoffman, D. W.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
4187-4198[CrossRef][Medline]
|
| 30. |
Kollmus, H.
, Honigman, A.
, Panet, A.
& Hauser, H.
(1994)
J. Virol.
68,
6087-6091 |
| 31. |
Honda, A.
, Nakamura, T.
& Nishimura, S.
(1995)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
213,
575-582[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 32. |
Kang, H.
(1998)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1397,
73-78[Medline]
|
| 33. |
Taylor, E. W.
, Ramanathan, C. S.
, Jalluri, R. K.
& Nadimpalli, R. G.
(1994)
J. Med. Chem.
37,
2637-2654[Medline]
|
| 34. |
Grentzmann, G.
, Ingram, J. A.
, Kelly, P. J.
, Gesteland, R. F.
& Atkins, J. F.
(1998)
RNA
4,
479-486[Abstract] |
| 35. |
Doyon, L.
, Payant, C.
, Brakier-Gingras, L.
& Lamarre, D.
(1998)
J. Virol.
72,
6146-6150 |
| 36. |
Thompson, J. D.
, Higgins, D. G.
& Gibson, T. J.
(1994)
Nucleic Acids Res.
22,
4673-4680 |
| 37. |
Hammell, A. B.
, Taylor, R. L.
, Peltz, S. W.
& Dinman, J. D.
(1999)
Genome Res.
9,
417-427 |
| 38. |
Hung, M.
, Patel, P.
, Davis, S.
& Green, S. R.
(1998)
J. Virol.
72,
4819-4824 |
| 39. |
Dinman, J. D.
, Ruiz-Echevarria, M. J.
, Czaplinski, K.
& Peltz, S. W.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94,
6606-6611 |
| 40. |
Smith, M. W.
, Meskauskas, A.
, Wang, P.
, Sergiev, P. V.
& Dinman, J. D.
(2001)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
21,
8264-8275 |
| 41. |
Harger, J. W.
, Meskauskas, A.
, Nielsen, N.
, Justice, M. C.
& Dinman, J. D.
(2001)
Virology
286,
216-224[CrossRef][Medline]
|
| 42. |
Czaplinski, K.
, Weng, Y.
, Hagan, K.
& Peltz, S. W.
(1995)
RNA
1,
610-623[Abstract] |
| 43. |
Cui, Y.
, Dinman, J. D.
& Peltz, S. W.
(1996)
EMBO J.
15,
5726-5736[ISI][Medline]
|
| 44. |
Kang, C.
, Zhang, X.
, Ratliff, R.
, Moyzis, R.
& Rich, A.
(1992)
Nature (London)
356,
126-131[CrossRef][Medline]
|
| 45. |
Chastain, M.
& Tinoco, I., Jr.
(1992)
Nucleic Acids Res.
20,
315-318 |
| 46. |
Sen, D.
& Gilbert, W.
(1990)
Nature (London)
344,
410-414[CrossRef][Medline]
|
| 47. |
Maher, L. J., III
(1992)
BioEssays
14,
807-815[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 48. |
Guschlbauer, W.
, Chantot, J. F.
& Thiele, D.
(1990)
J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn.
8,
491-511[ISI][Medline]
|
| 49. |
Moser, H. E.
& Dervan, P. B.
(1987)
Science
238,
645-650 |
| 50. |
Rettberg, C. C.
, Prere, M. F.
, Gesteland, R. F.
, Atkins, J. F.
& Fayet, O.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
286,
1365-1378[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 51. |
Lyamichev, V. I.
, Mirkin, S. M.
, Danilevskaya, O. N.
, Voloshin, O. N.
, Balatskaya, S. V.
, Dobrynin, V. N.
, Filippov, S. A.
& Frank-Kamenetskii, M. D.
(1989)
Nature (London)
339,
634-637[CrossRef][Medline]
|
| 52. |
Htun, H.
& Dahlberg, J. E.
(1989)
Science
243,
1571-1576 |
| 53. |
Htun, H.
& Dahlberg, J. E.
(1988)
Science
241,
1791-1796 |
| 54. |
Goddard, J. P.
(1977)
Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol.
32,
233-308[ISI][Medline]
|
| 55. |
Westhof, E.
, Romby, P.
, Romaniuk, P. J.
, Ebel, J. P.
, Ehresmann, C.
& Ehresmann, B.
(1989)
J. Mol. Biol.
207,
417-431[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 56. |
Michel, F.
& Westhof, E.
(1990)
J. Mol. Biol.
216,
585-610[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
|
| 57. |
Puglisi, J. D.
, Tan, R.
, Calnan, B. J.
, Frankel, A. D.
& Williamson, J. R.
(1992)
Science
257,
76-80 |
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
S. Chaudhuri, K. Vyas, P. Kapasi, A. A. Komar, J. D. Dinman, S. Barik, and B. Mazumder Human ribosomal protein L13a is dispensable for canonical ribosome function but indispensable for efficient rRNA methylation RNA, December 1, 2007; 13(12): 2224 - 2237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Girnary, L. King, L. Robinson, R. Elston, and I. Brierley Structure-function analysis of the ribosomal frameshifting signal of two human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates with increased resistance to viral protease inhibitors J. Gen. Virol., January 1, 2007; 88(1): 226 - 235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.-C. Su, C.-T. Chang, C.-H. Chu, C.-H. Tsai, and K.-Y. Chang An atypical RNA pseudoknot stimulator and an upstream attenuation signal for -1 ribosomal frameshifting of SARS coronavirus Nucleic Acids Res., July 29, 2005; 33(13): 4265 - 4275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Makelainen and K. Makinen Factors affecting translation at the programmed -1 ribosomal frameshifting site of Cocksfoot mottle virus RNA in vivo Nucleic Acids Res., April 20, 2005; 33(7): 2239 - 2247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. P. Plant and J. D. Dinman Torsional restraint: a new twist on frameshifting pseudoknots Nucleic Acids Res., March 30, 2005; 33(6): 1825 - 1833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. T. HOWARD, R. F. GESTELAND, and J. F. ATKINS Efficient stimulation of site-specific ribosome frameshifting by antisense oligonucleotides RNA, October 20, 2004; 10(10): 1653 - 1661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Cardinaud, A. Moris, M. Fevrier, P.-S. Rohrlich, L. Weiss, P. Langlade-Demoyen, F. A. Lemonnier, O. Schwartz, and A. Habel Identification of Cryptic MHC I-restricted Epitopes Encoded by HIV-1 Alternative Reading Frames J. Exp. Med., April 19, 2004; 199(8): 1053 - 1063. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Biswas, X. Jiang, A. L. Pacchia, J. P. Dougherty, and S. W. Peltz The Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Ribosomal Frameshifting Site Is an Invariant Sequence Determinant and an Important Target for Antiviral Therapy J. Virol., February 15, 2004; 78(4): 2082 - 2087. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. BARIL, D. DULUDE, K. GENDRON, G. LEMAY, and L. BRAKIER-GINGRAS Efficiency of a programmed -1 ribosomal frameshift in the different subtypes of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M RNA, October 1, 2003; 9(10): 1246 - 1253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Chen and R. C. Montelaro Characterization of RNA Elements That Regulate Gag-Pol Ribosomal Frameshifting in Equine Infectious Anemia Virus J. Virol., October 1, 2003; 77(19): 10280 - 10287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. W. HARGER and J. D. DINMAN An in vivo dual-luciferase assay system for studying translational recoding in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae RNA, August 1, 2003; 9(8): 1019 - 1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. W. Staple and S. E. Butcher Solution structure of the HIV-1 frameshift inducing stem-loop RNA Nucleic Acids Res., |