E. coli tRNA Leucine Identity and Recognition Sets

E. coli contains five different tRNAs which recognize the six leucine codons. These tRNAs are all recognized by the single leucyl-tRNA synthetase (LeuRS). We have used in vitro and in vivo methods to determine the set of identity elements which distinguish the set of leucine tRNAs from all other tRNAs allowing the faithful translation of the leucine codons. An identity swap experiment has been used to determine which of the nucleotides conserved in all leucine tRNAs are identity elements. In this experiment the identity of an amber suppressor tRNASer was changed completely to leucine. This experiment was effective because the anticodons in tRNASer and tRNALeu are not recognized by their respective synthetases and consequently in both cases tRNAs containing the CUA anticodon required in amber suppressors are fully active. In its minimal form the Ser-Leu swap required six changes, five of which altered the tertiary structure of the tRNA: the G15-C48 tertiary "Levitt base-pair" in tRNASer was changed to Al5-U48 found in all leucine tRNAs; it was necessary to insert one nucleotide and to delete one nucleotide so as to position the conserved D-loop Gl8, Gl9 nucleotides as they are in all leucine tRNAs; a base was inserted at position 47n between the base-paired extra stem and the T-stem to achieve a configuration found in all leucine tRNAs; in addition it was necessary to change the G73 "discriminator" base in tRNASer to A73, found in all leucine tRNAs. This minimally altered tRNASer inserted exclusively leucine as an amber suppressor and it was an excellent in vitro substrate for LeuRS. Both tRNASer and tRNALeu are type II tRNAs containing large base-paired extra stem loops. In the case of tRNASer the extra stem loop is a crucial identity element but for tRNALeu earlier in vitro and in vivo experiments had indicated that it is not an identity element. To investigate the role of tRNA tertiary structure in leucine identity we carried out a parallel swap experiment in which the glutamine identity of the amber suppressor tRNASerΔ (in which the type II extra stem loop had been replaced by a consensus type I loop) was converted to leucine. This "type I" swap experiment was also successful both in vivo and in vitro. Interesting differences in the role of conserved leucine base-pairs in the acceptor stems of leucine tRNAs were observed in the two experiments. In the type II swap the conserved acceptor stem bases were not important. In the type I swap their absence had a large effect both in vivo and in vitro. This result indicates that the presence of the extra stem loop in leucine tRNAs has an effect on the tertiary structure of the tRNA. When this structure is altered conserved nucleotides, unimportant in its presence, take on an important role. Possible reasons for this effect are discussed.</p

A large scale hearing loss screen reveals an extensive unexplored genetic landscape for auditory dysfunction

The developmental and physiological complexity of the auditory system is likely reflected in the underlying set of genes involved in auditory function. In humans, over 150 non-syndromic loci have been identified, and there are more than 400 human genetic syndromes with a hearing loss component. Over 100 non-syndromic hearing loss genes have been identified in mouse and human, but we remain ignorant of the full extent of the genetic landscape involved in auditory dysfunction. As part of the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium, we undertook a hearing loss screen in a cohort of 3006 mouse knockout strains. In total, we identify 67 candidate hearing loss genes. We detect known hearing loss genes, but the vast majority, 52, of the candidate genes were novel. Our analysis reveals a large and unexplored genetic landscape involved with auditory function

Archaeal tRNA-Splicing Endonuclease as an Effector for RNA Recombination and Novel Trans-Splicing Pathways in Eukaryotes

We have characterized a homodimeric tRNA endonuclease from the euryarchaeota Ferroplasma acidarmanus (FERAC), a facultative anaerobe which can grow at temperatures ranging from 35 to 42 °C. This enzyme, contrary to the eukaryal tRNA endonucleases and the homotetrameric Methanocaldococcus jannaschii (METJA) homologs, is able to cleave minimal BHB (bulge–helix–bulge) substrates at 30 °C. The expression of this enzyme in Schizosaccharomyces pombe (SCHPO) enables the use of its properties as effectors by inserting BHB motif introns into hairpin loops normally seen in mRNA transcripts. In addition, the FERAC endonuclease can create proteins with new functionalities through the recombination of protein domains

Identification of genetic elements in metabolism by high-throughput mouse phenotyping

Metabolic diseases are a worldwide problem but the underlying genetic factors and their relevance to metabolic disease remain incompletely understood. Genome-wide research is needed to characterize so-far unannotated mammalian metabolic genes. Here, we generate and analyze metabolic phenotypic data of 2016 knockout mouse strains under the aegis of the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC) and find 974 gene knockouts with strong metabolic phenotypes. 429 of those had no previous link to metabolism and 51 genes remain functionally completely unannotated. We compared human orthologues of these uncharacterized genes in five GWAS consortia and indeed 23 candidate genes are associated with metabolic disease. We further identify common regulatory elements in promoters of candidate genes. As each regulatory element is composed of several transcription factor binding sites, our data reveal an extensive metabolic phenotype-associated network of co-regulated genes. Our systematic mouse phenotype analysis thus paves the way for full functional annotation of the genome

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field