Characterization of DnmA, the Dnmt2 homolog in Dictyostelium discoideum

Eukaryotic DNA m5C methyltransferases (MTases) play a major role in many epigenetic regulatory processes like genomic imprinting, X-chromosome inactivation, silencing of transposons and gene expression. Members of the two DNA m5C MTase families, Dnmt1 and Dnmt3, are relatively well studied and many details of their biological functions, biochemical properties as well as interaction partners are known. In contrast, the biological functions of the highly conserved Dnmt2 family, which appear to have non-canonical dual substrate specificity, remain enigmatic despite the efforts of many researchers. The genome of the social amoeba Dictyostelium encodes Dnmt2-homolog, the DnmA, as the only DNA m5C MTase which allowed us to study Dnmt2 function in this organism without interference by the other enzymes. The dnmA gene can be easily disrupted but the knock-out clones did not show obvious phenotypes under normal lab conditions, suggesting that the function of DnmA is not vital for the organism. It appears that the dnmA gene has a low expression profile during vegetative growth and is only 5-fold upregulated during development. Fluorescence microscopy indicated that DnmA-GFP fusions were distributed between both the nucleus and cytoplasm with some enrichment in nuclei. Interestingly, the experiments showed specific dynamics of DnmA-GFP distribution during the cell cycle. The proteins colocalized with DNA in the interphase and were mainly removed from nuclei during mitosis. DnmA functions as an active DNA m5C MTase in vivo and is responsible for weak but detectable DNA methylation of several regions in the Dictyostelium genome. Nevertheless, gel retardation assays showed only slightly higher affinity of the enzyme to dsDNA compared to ssDNA and no specificity towards various sequence contexts, although weak but detectable specificity towards AT-rich sequences was observed. This could be due to intrinsic curvature of such sequences. Furthermore, DnmA did not show denaturant-resistant covalent complexes with dsDNA in vitro, although it could form covalent adducts with ssDNA. Low binding and methyltransfer activity in vitro suggest the necessity of additional factor in DnmA function. Nevertheless, no candidates could be identified in affinity purification experiments with different tagged DnmA fusions. In this respect, it should be noted that tagged DnmA fusion preparations from Dictyostelium showed somewhat higher activity in both covalent adduct formation and methylation assays than DnmA expressed in E.coli. Thus, the presence of co-purified factors cannot be excluded. The low efficiency of complex formation by the recombinant enzyme and the failure to define interacting proteins that could be required for DNA methylation in vivo, brought up the assumption that post-translational modifications could influence target recognition and enzymatic activity. Indeed, sites of phosphorylation, methylation and acetylation were identified within the target recognition domain (TRD) of DnmA by mass spectrometry. For phosphorylation, the combination of MS data and bioinformatic analysis revealed that some of the sites could well be targets for specific kinases in vivo. Preliminary 3D modeling of DnmA protein based on homology with hDNMT2 allowed us to show that several identified phosphorylation sites located on the surface of the molecule, where they would be available for kinases. The presence of modifications almost solely within the TRD domain of DnmA could potentially modulate the mode of its interaction with the target nucleic acids. DnmA was able to form denaturant-resistant covalent intermediates with several Dictyostelium tRNAs, using as a target C38 in the anticodon loop. The formation of complexes not always correlated with the data from methylation assays, and seemed to be dependent on both sequence and structure of the tRNA substrate. The pattern, previously suggested by the Helm group for optimal methyltransferase activity of hDNMT2, appeared to contribute significantly in the formation of covalent adducts but was not the only feature of the substrate required for DnmA and hDNMT2 functions. Both enzymes required Mg2+ to form covalent complexes, which indicated that the specific structure of the target tRNA was indispensable. The dynamics of covalent adduct accumulation was different for DnmA and different tRNAs. Interestingly, the profiles of covalent adduct accumulation for different tRNAs were somewhat similar for DnmA and hDNMT2 enzymes. According to the proposed catalytic mechanism for DNA m5C MTases, the observed denaturant-resistant complexes corresponded to covalent enamine intermediates. The apparent discrepancies in the data from covalent complex formation and methylation assays may be interpreted by the possibility of alternative pathways of the catalytic mechanism, leading not to methylation but to exchange or demethylation reactions. The reversibility of enamine intermediate formation should also be considered. Curiously, native gel retardation assays showed no or little difference in binding affinities of DnmA to different RNA substrates and thus the absence of specificity in the initial enzyme binding. The meaning of the tRNA methylation as well as identification of novel RNA substrates in vivo should be the aim of further experiments.

HelF und sein Interaktionspartner Xrn1: zwei Regulatoren der RNA-Interferenz in D. discoideum

Hauptziel dieser Arbeit ist die Identifizierung, Verifizierung und Charakterisierung von Interaktionspartnern von HelF, einem Negativregulator der RNA-Interferenz in Dictyostelium discoideum (Popova et al. 2006). Es ist gelungen, die Interaktion von HelF und der 5‘ 3‘ Exonuklease Xrn1 nachzu-weisen, aber alle anderen Versuchen, bisher unbekannte Protein-Interaktionspartner zu identifizieren, schlugen fehl. Xrn1 ist in den Organismen D. melanogaster (Orban und Izaurralde 2005), C. elegans (Newbury und Woollard 2004) und A. thaliana (Gazzani et al. 2004) bereits als Regulator der RNA-Interferenz bekannt. Mit Aufreinigungen nach der TAP-Methode und mit dem Nanotrap wurde ebenfalls versucht, RNA-Interaktionspartner von HelF zu identifizieren. Es konnten in einigen Aufreinigungen putative, für HelF spezifische RNAs identifiziert werden, doch entweder es handelte sich nachweislich nicht um RNA oder die Reproduktion der Daten schlug trotz mehrfacher Versuche fehl. Bezüglich der zellulären Lokalisation von HelF und Xrn1 konnte gezeigt werden, dass HelF zusätzlich zur bekannten Lokalisation in Foci im Nukleus (Popova et al. 2006) vermutlich auch im Cytoplasma und dort angeordnet in mehreren Granula zu finden ist. Xrn1 ist nahezu ausschließlich im Cytoplasma lokalisiert, wo es in mehreren Foci organisiert ist. Es wird vermutet, dass es sich bei diesen Foci um Processing-Bodies (P-Bodies) handelt und dass möglicherweise Xrn1 und HelF in eben diesen P-Bodies co-lokalisieren. In der Entwicklung vom Einzeller zum mehrzelligen Organismus zeigen die Xrn1KO- und die HelFKO-Mutante jeweils einen eindeutigen Phänotyp, der vom Wildtyp abweicht. Die Phänotypen der beiden Mutanten unterscheiden sich deutlich voneinander. Beim Mischen von HelF-Knockout-Zellen mit grün fluoreszierenden Wildtyp-Zellen zeigt sich, dass beide Stämme innerhalb des sich entwickelnden Organismus an definierten Stellen lokalisieren. Entgegen den Erwartungen befinden sich die Zellen der Mutante in den Stadien „Finger“ und „Slug“ nicht hauptsächlich im vorderen Teil des Organismus, sondern sind auch im hinteren Teil, der später die Sporenmasse bildet, vertreten. Dies lässt vermuten, dass HelF-Knockout-Mutanten in gleichem Maße wie Wildtypzellen als Sporen in die nächste Generation übergehen. Weitere Mix-Experimente, in denen HelFKO-Zellen und Xrn1KO-Zellen mit grün fluoreszierenden Wildtypzellen gemischt wurden, belegen eindeutig, dass beide Knockoutmutanten in Konkurrenz zum Wildtyp bei der Generierung von Sporen und somit beim Übergang in die nächste Generation benachteiligt sind. Dies steht im Gegensatz zu den Ergebnissen der vorher beschriebenen Mix-Experimente, in denen der Organismus als Ganzes betrachtet wurde. Weiterhin konnte herausgefunden werden, dass Xrn1 ebenso wie HelF (Popova et al. 2006) eine Rolle als Negativregulator in der RNA-Interferenz innehat. Fraglich ist aber, ob HelF wie bisher angenommen auch Einfluss auf den Weg der Generierung von miRNAs nimmt, da in HelFKO für keinen der beiden miRNA-Kandidaten eine Hoch- bzw. Runterregulierung der reifen miRNAs im Vergleich zum Wildtyp beobachtet werden kann. Im Xrn1KO hingegen ist die reife miRNA ddi-mir-1176 im Vergleich zum Wildtyp hochreguliert. In Bezug auf die Generierung von siRNAs konnte herausgefunden werden, dass Xrn1 und HelF im Fall der Generierung von Skipper siRNAs regulierend eingreifen, dass aber nicht alle siRNAs von der negativen Regulierung durch HelF und Xrn1betroffen sind, was am Beispiel der DIRS-1-siRNAs belegt werden kann. Das von B. Popova entwickelte Modell (Popova 2005) bezüglich der Rolle von HelF in der RNA-Interferenz wurde basierend auf den neu gewonnenen Daten weiterentwickelt und um Xrn1 ergänzt, um die Funktionen von HelF und Xrn1 als Antagonisten der RNA-Interferenz näher zu beleuchten. Literatur: Gazzani, S., T. Lawrenson, et al. (2004). "A link between mRNA turnover and RNA interference in Arabidopsis." Science 306(5698): 1046-8. Newbury, S. and A. Woollard (2004). "The 5'-3' exoribonuclease xrn-1 is essential for ventral epithelial enclosure during C. elegans embryogenesis." Rna 10(1): 59-65. Orban, T. I. and E. Izaurralde (2005). "Decay of mRNAs targeted by RISC requires XRN1, the Ski complex, and the exosome." Rna 11(4): 459-69. Popova, B. (2005). HelF, a suppressor of RNAi mediated gene silencing in Dictyostelium discoideum. Genetik. Kassel, Universität Kassel. PhD: 200. Popova, B., M. Kuhlmann, et al. (2006). "HelF, a putative RNA helicase acts as a nuclear suppressor of RNAi but not antisense mediated gene silencing." Nucleic Acids Res 34(3): 773-84.

tRNA anticodon loop modifications ensure protein homeostasis and cell morphogenesis in yeast

Using budding yeast, we investigated a negative interaction network among genes for tRNA modifications previously implicated in anticodon-codon interaction: 5-methoxy-carbonyl-methyl-2-thio-uridine (mcm5s2U34: ELP3, URM1), pseudouridine (Ψ38/39: DEG1) and cyclic N6-threonyl-carbamoyl-adenosine (ct6A37: TCD1). In line with functional cross talk between these modifications, we find that combined removal of either ct6A37 or Ψ38/39 and mcm5U34 or s2U34 results in morphologically altered cells with synthetic growth defects. Phenotypic suppression by tRNA overexpression suggests that these defects are caused by malfunction of tRNALysUUU or tRNAGlnUUG, respectively. Indeed, mRNA translation and synthesis of the Gln-rich prion Rnq1 are severely impaired in the absence of Ψ38/39 and mcm5U34 or s2U34, and this defect can be rescued by overexpression of tRNAGlnUUG. Surprisingly, we find that combined modification defects in the anticodon loops of different tRNAs induce similar cell polarity- and nuclear segregation defects that are accompanied by increased aggregation of cellular proteins. Since conditional expression of an artificial aggregation-prone protein triggered similar cytological aberrancies, protein aggregation is likely responsible for loss of morphogenesis and cytokinesis control in mutants with inappropriate tRNA anticodon loop modifications.