Origin, biogenesis and non-cell autonomous effect of small RNAs in Arabidopsis thaliana [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Felipe Fenselau de Felippes

Felipe Felippes

Sujets

• Biologie

Informations

• Publié par: eberhard_karls_universitat_tubingen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 27
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 11 Mo

Extrait

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Deutschen Akademischen Austauschdienstes.










Origin, biogenesis and non-cell autonomous effect of small
RNAs in Arabidopsis thaliana








Dissertation

der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät
der EBERHARD KARLS UNIVERSITÄT TÜBINGEN
zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors
der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.)




Vorgelegt von
Felipe Fenselau de Felippes
aus Porto Alegre, Brasilien





Tübingen
2010






































Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 10. Dezember 2010

Dekan: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Rosenstiel

1. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Detlef Weigel
2. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Klaus Harter
2 Table of contents

1 Introduction 5
1.1 Small RNAs in plants 6
1.2 Biogenesis and action of plant sRNAs 10
1.3 Biogenesis of tasiRNAs 16
1.4 Origin and evolution of new miRNAs 17
1.5 Non-autonomous effect of sRNAs 19
1.6 Aim of this work 21
2 Results 23
2.1 “Evolution of Arabidopsis thaliana microRNAs from random
sequences” 23
2.2 “Triggering the formation of tasiRNAs in Arabidopsis thaliana:
the role of microRNA miR173” 27
2.3 “Comparative analysis of non-autonomous effects of tasiRNAs
and miRNAs in Arabidopsis thaliana” 31
2.4 “MIGS: an efficient gene silencing approach for plant functional
genomics” 35
3 Conclusions 39
4 References 47
5 Appendix 55
5.1 Publications originating from this work 55
5.1.1 “Evolution of Arabidopsis thaliana microRNAs from random sequences” 55
5.1.2 “Triggering the formation of tasiRNAs in Arabidopsis thaliana: the role
of microRNA miR173” 79
5.1.3 “Comparative analysis of non-autonomous effects of tasiRNAs and miRNAs in
Arabidopsis thaliana” 99
5.1.4 “MIGS: an efficient gene silencing approach for plant functional genomics” 129
5.2 Acknowledgments 163
5.3 Curriculum vitae 165
3 4 1 Introduction

All cellular processes depend on the correct expression of different genes. Cell
growth, cell division and many other routine cellular processes are directly reliant on
accurately timed gene expression. Likewise, in response to environmental signals,
cellular organisms have to trigger, suppress or modulate gene expression to better
adapt to the new changing conditions. In multi-cellular organisms, cellular
differentiation is also dependent on the proper control of gene expression. Due to
expression of different genes, in particular developmental stages, cells with the same
genomic content can differentiate in the diverse cells types with specialized functions.
Reflecting this important role for cellular organisms, the control of gene expression
can be made at different level, spanning chromatin structure, initiation of
transcription, processing and stability of the transcript, mRNA transport to the
cytoplasm, translational and pos-translational control.
For a long time, RNA was considered to be mainly involved with the synthesis
of proteins, either by transmitting the genetic information from genes to proteins
(mRNA) or by being involved with the translation process (tRNA and rRNA).
However, this view has now changed. The discovery of small RNA (sRNA)
molecules ranging from 19-24 nt and their function has placed RNAs as one of the
main regulators of the gene expression. These sRNAs are main part of a pathway that
results in gene silencing, either by methylation of the target gene, which interferes
with the gene transcription (also known as transcriptional gene silencing; TGS), or by
affecting the transcript stability and/or mRNA translation. The last process is known
by different names depending on which organism it occurs, such as pos-
transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) in plants, RNA interference (RNAi) in animals
or quelling in fungi.
5 1.1 Small RNAs in plants

As in animals, plant sRNAs can be divided into two different classes: small
interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs) (Chapman & Carrington,
2007; Ghildiyal & Zamore, 2009; Vazquez, 2006). Together, these classes of sRNA
are involved in virtually all process of the plant life, including development, stress
and nutritional responses, chromatin structure and defense (Chuck et al, 2009; Lu &
Huang, 2008; Mallory & Vaucheret, 2006).
Long before the mechanisms of sRNAs were known, RNAi and PTGS were
already used as a tool for gene silencing. While studying the requirements for RNAi
in the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans, Fire and colleagues (1998) have
shown that perfectly-paired double stranded RNA (dsRNA) was a potent trigger of
this phenomenon. But, it was only after the work of Hamilton and Baulcombe (1999)
with plants that sRNAs were finally associated with gene silencing. These authors
showed that plants presenting transgene-induced or virus-induced gene silencing
accumulate sense and antisense sRNAs of about 25 nt specific to the silenced locus.
With the discovery that these 21-25 nt long sRNAs were directly derived from the
trigger dsRNA molecule (Bernstein et al, 2001; Yang et al, 2000) and that, in
addition, they are the molecules conferring the specificity to the cleavage of the target
RNA in the RNAi/PTGS phenomenom (Hammond et al, 2000; Zamore et al, 2000),
these sRNAs were referred to as small interfering RNAs, or siRNAs.
Initially, siRNAs were thought to be a defense mechanism against exogenous
sequences (exo-siRNA), more specifically transgenes and virus derived RNA. Many
plants virus genomes can be found, at least at some point of its life cycle, as dsRNA.
These virus-derived dsRNA trigger the production of siRNAs that, in turn, target back
the original viral sequence. In addition, these siRNAs can spread to uninfected cells,
6 where they can act avoiding the spread of the infection (Lindbo & Dougherty, 2005;
Mlotshwa et al, 2008; Wang & Metzlaff, 2005). siRNAs are also often generated from
transgenes. RNA-mediated silencing of transgenes was first described in plants (Linn
et al, 1990; Matzke et al, 1989; Napoli et al, 1990; Smith et al, 1990; van der Krol et
al, 1990). Perhaps the best known case is the one described by Napoli and colleagues
(1990). While trying to manipulate anthocyanin biosynthesis in petunia petals, the
authors generated plants over-expressing a copy of chalcone synthase (CHS), a key
enzyme of this pathway. Surprisingly, almost half of the plants presented white
flowers caused by the lack of anthocyanins, rather than deeper purplish flowers, as
expected. Analysis of the plants showed that both, transgene and endogenous CHS
copies, were silenced. This phenomenon was called co-suppression. It was not clear
why some transgenes can trigger this process more efficiently than others; however,
once it is triggered, there is the recruitment of RNA dependent polymerases (RDRs)
that are responsible for the conversion of single strand RNA (ssRNA) to dsRNA,
which is then processed into siRNA that promote methylation of the transgene and the
endogenous copy. The fact that most transgenes are introduced with strong
constitutive promoters could explain why silencing occurs. The high levels of
expression could result in many imperfect mRNA copies (uncapped or missing poly
A tail for example) to escape cell quality controls and became RDRs template
(Baulcombe, 2004; Ghildiyal & Zamore, 2009; Mello & Conte, 2004).
Apart from protecting against virus and exogenous genes, it became later clear
that plants produce a high number of siRNAs derived from endogenous sequences
(endo-siRNA). One class of endo-siRNAs comprises cis-acting siRNAs (casiRNAs).
As the name suggests, casiRNAs act in cis causing the silencing of the locus where
they originate from, which in most cases regards transposons, repetitive elements and
7 tandem repeats (note that siRNAs involved in transgenes silencing can also be
considered casiRNAs). These 24 nt long molecules cause transcriptional silencing by
promoting methilation of the target locus. Therefore, casiRNAs are seen as guardians
of the genome, controlling the multipl