A single alteration 20 nt 5′ to an editing target inhibits chloroplast RNA editing in vivo

Transcripts of typical dicot plant plastid genes undergo C→U RNA editing at approximately 30 locations, but there is no consensus sequence surrounding the C targets of editing. The cis-acting elements required for editing of the C located at tobacco rpoB editing site II were investigated by introducing translatable chimeric minigenes containing sequence –20 to +6 surrounding the C target of editing. When the –20 to +6 sequence specified by the homologous region present in the black pine chloroplast genome was incorporated, virtually no editing of the transcripts occurred in transgenic tobacco plastids. Nucleotides that differ between the black pine and tobacco sequence were tested for their role in C→U editing by designing chimeric genes containing one or more of these divergent nucleotides. Surprisingly, the divergent nucleotide that had the strongest negative effect on editing of the minigene transcript was located –20 nt 5′ to the C target of editing. Expression of transgene transcripts carrying the 27 nt sequence did not affect the editing extent of the endogenous rpoB transcripts, even though the chimeric transcripts were much more abundant than those of the endogenous gene. In plants carrying a 93 nt rpoB editing site sequence, transgene transcripts accumulated to a level three times greater than transgene transcripts in the plants carrying the 27 nt rpoB editing sites and resulted in editing of the endogenous transcripts from 100 to 50%. Both a lower affinity of the 27 nt site for a trans-acting factor and lower abundance of the transcript could explain why expression of minigene transcripts containing the 27 nt sequence did not affect endogenous editing.

Crystal structures of the vitamin D receptor complexed to superagonist 20-epi ligands

The crystal structures of the ligand-binding domain (LBD) of the vitamin D receptor complexed to 1α,25(OH)2D3 and the 20-epi analogs, MC1288 and KH1060, show that the protein conformation is identical, conferring a general character to the observation first made for retinoic acid receptor (RAR) that, for a given LBD, the agonist conformation is unique, the ligands adapting to the binding pocket. In all complexes, the A- to D-ring moieties of the ligands adopt the same conformation and form identical contacts with the protein. Differences are observed only for the 17β-aliphatic chains that adapt their conformation to anchor the 25-hydroxyl group to His-305 and His-397. The inverted geometry of the C20 methyl group induces different paths of the aliphatic chains. The ligands exhibit a low-energy conformation for MC1288 and a more strained conformation for the two others. KH1060 compensates this energy cost by additional contacts. Based on the present data, the explanation of the superagonist effect is to be found in higher stability and longer half-life of the active complex, thereby excluding different conformations of the ligand binding domain.