RESUMEN

Genotoxic stress leads to DNA damage which can be detrimental to the cell. A well-orchestrated cellular response is mounted to manage and repair the genotoxic stress-induced DNA damage. Our understanding of genotoxic stress response is derived mainly from studies focused on transcription, mRNA splicing, and protein turnover. Surprisingly not as much is understood about the role of mRNA translation and decay in genotoxic stress response. This is despite the fact that regulation of gene expression at the level of mRNA translation and decay plays a critical role in a myriad of cellular processes. This review aims to summarize some of the known findings of the role of mRNA translation and decay by focusing on two categories of examples. We discuss examples of mRNA whose fates are regulated in the cytoplasm and RNA-binding proteins that regulate mRNA fates in response to genotoxic stress.

Asunto(s)

Daño del ADN , Biosíntesis de Proteínas , Citoplasma/metabolismo , Daño del ADN/genética , Biosíntesis de Proteínas/genética , ARN Mensajero/genética , ARN Mensajero/metabolismo , Proteínas de Unión al ARN/metabolismo

RESUMEN

Scd6 is a conserved RGG-motif protein which represses translation by binding eIF4G through its RGG-motif. Lsm and FDF are two other conserved domains present in the protein, however the role of both these domains is unclear. We provide evidence in this report that the Lsm domain is important for the role of Scd6 in translation. Mutant of Scd6 lacking the Lsm domain does not cause overexpression growth defect in a manner comparable to the wild type. Similar results were observed with two distinct point mutants of Scd6 wherein putative RNA-binding motifs DxEKxTV and YVG were mutated. Upon overexpression, the three mutants were defective in inducing formation of P-bodies and stress granules which are conserved sites of translation repression. Importantly localization to granules in response to glucose deprivation and sodium azide stress was defective for Lsm domain mutants indicating that the inability to localize to granules could be a reason for their defective role in translation. Deletion of scd6 impairs Lsm1 foci formation upon glucose deprivation stress which could not be rescued by complementation with Lsm-domain deletion mutant of Scd6 when compared to the full-length protein. Put together, our results highlight the role of Lsm domain and its specific motifs in Scd6 activity and provide crucial insight into its function.

Asunto(s)

Biosíntesis de Proteínas , Ribonucleoproteínas/química , Ribonucleoproteínas/metabolismo , Proteínas de Saccharomyces cerevisiae/química , Proteínas de Saccharomyces cerevisiae/metabolismo , Secuencias de Aminoácidos , Secuencia de Aminoácidos , Gránulos Citoplasmáticos/metabolismo , Lipoproteínas/genética , Lipoproteínas/metabolismo , Mutación , Feromonas/genética , Feromonas/metabolismo , Dominios Proteicos , ARN Mensajero/metabolismo , Ribonucleoproteínas/genética , Proteínas de Saccharomyces cerevisiae/genética , Alineación de Secuencia , Estrés Fisiológico

RESUMEN

Background: RNA binding proteins play crucial role in determining if a given mRNA will be translated, stored, or degraded. Sbp1 is an RGG-motif containing protein that is implicated in affecting mRNA decapping and translation. Sbp1 represses translation by binding eIF4G1 through its RGG-motif and activates decapping when overexpressed. In this report, we have assessed the genetic interaction of Sbp1 with decapping activators such as Dhh1, Pat1, and Scd6. We have further analyzed the importance of different domains and specific conserved residues of Sbp1 in its ability to cause over-expression mediated growth defect. Method: Sequence alignment was performed to identify conserved aromatic residues to be mutated. Using site-directed mutagenesis several point mutations and domain deletions were created in Sbp1 expressed under a galactose-inducible promoter. The mutants were tested for their ability to cause growth defect upon over-expression. The ability of Sbp1 to affect over-expression mediated growth defect of other decapping activators was tested using growth assay. Live cell imaging was done to study localization of Sbp1 and its RRM-deletion mutants to RNA granules upon glucose starvation. Results: Mutation of several aromatic residues in the RGG-motif and that of the phosphorylation sites in the RRM domain of Sbp1 did not affect the growth defect phenotype. Deletion of another eIF4G1-binding RGG-motif protein Scd6 does not affect the ability of Sbp1 to cause growth defect. Moreover, absence of Sbp1 did not affect the growth defect phenotypes observed upon overexpression of decapping activators Dhh1 and Pat1. Strikingly deletion of both the RRM domains (RRM1 and RRM2) and not the RNP motifs within them compromised the growth defect phenotype. Sbp1 mutant lacking both RRM1 and RRM2 was highly defective in localizing to RNA granules.   Conclusion: This study identifies an important role of RRM domains independent of the RNP motif in Sbp1 function.