![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2005, The American Society for Cell Biology SUMO-1 Modification Alters ADAR1 Editing Activity * Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal † MRC Human Genetics Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, Scotland, United Kingdom ‡ Biomolecular Sciences Building, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife KY19 9ST, Scotland, United Kingdom Peter Walter, Monitoring Editor Address correspondence to: Joana M. Pinto Desterro (joanadesterro/at/fm.ul.pt). Received June 15, 2005; Revised July 25, 2005; Accepted August 16, 2005. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract We identify ADAR1, an RNA-editing enzyme with transient nucleolar localization, as a novel substrate for sumoylation. We show that ADAR1 colocalizes with SUMO-1 in a subnucleolar region that is distinct from the fibrillar center, the dense fibrillar component, and the granular component. Our results further show that human ADAR1 is modified by SUMO-1 on lysine residue 418. An arginine substitution of K418 abolishes SUMO-1 conjugation and although it does not interfere with ADAR1 proper localization, it stimulates the ability of the enzyme to edit RNA both in vivo and in vitro. Moreover, modification of wild-type recombinant ADAR1 by SUMO-1 reduces the editing activity of the enzyme in vitro. Taken together these data suggest a novel role for sumoylation in regulating RNA-editing activity. INTRODUCTION A defining feature of eukaryotic cells is the generation of protein diversity either posttranscriptionally by alternative splicing and RNA editing or posttranslationally by modification of amino acids in proteins. One of the most recently discovered posttranslational modification mechanism in eukaryotes involves the covalent attachment of the small ubiquitinlike modifier, SUMO, to target proteins. Modification of proteins by SUMO, or sumoylation, plays crucial regulatory roles in eukaryotes. Proteins known to be modified by SUMO include, among others, RanGAP1, PCNA, IκBα, p53, c-jun, topoisomerases, promyelocytic leukemia protein (PML), Sp100, and the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MEKK1). Many SUMO substrates are transcription factors and cofactors, or proteins implicated in DNA repair and replication (reviewed by Hay, 2001 ; Melchior et al., 2003 ; Seeler and Dejean, 2003 ; Hay, 2005 ). Although it is well established that SUMO can affect target protein function by altering its subcellular localization, activity, or stability, for many substrates the biological functions of sumoylation remain unknown.Sumoylation is a reversible and highly dynamic process that involves formation of an isopeptide bond between the C-terminus of SUMO and the ε-amino group of a lysine residue of the target protein. The most intensely studied human form of SUMO is the SUMO-1 protein, which is 48% identical to yeast Smt3 (Bayer et al., 1998 ; Mossessova and Lima, 2000 ). In vertebrates there are at least three additional proteins. SUMO-2 and SUMO-3 are ~45% identical to SUMO-1 (Saitoh and Hinchey, 2000 ), and SUMO-4 shows an 86% amino acid homology to SUMO-2 (Bohren et al., 2004 ). SUMO is conjugated to protein substrates via an ATP-dependent enzymatic pathway that is mechanistically similar to ubiquitination. The reaction requires a SUMO protease that removes four amino acids from the C-terminus of the 101-amino acid SUMO-1 precursor to generate the mature form; an heterodimeric SUMO-activating enzyme, SAE1/2; Ubc9, a SUMO-conjugating enzyme that ligates directly to its protein target; and an E3-like SUMO ligase (reviewed Melchior et al., 2003 ). Three SUMO E3s have been identified so far: the mammalian protein inhibitors of activated STAT (PIAS; Sachdev et al., 2001 ), the nucleoporin RanBP2 (Azuma and Dasso, 2002 ; Pichler et al., 2002 ), and the polycomb group protein PC2 (Kagey et al., 2003 ). Recent structural data provide novel insights into the mechanism used by E3s to enhance SUMO conjugation (Duda and Schulman, 2005 ; Reverter and Lima, 2005 ; Tatham et al., 2005 ).Removal of SUMO from proteins is carried out by specific cysteine proteases that have both hydrolase and isopeptidase activity (Li and Hochstrasser, 1999 , 2000 ). Most enzymes involved in the SUMO pathway are localized in the nucleus, and it is therefore believed that sumoylation is predominantly a nuclear process (Rodriguez et al., 2001 ; Zhang et al., 2002 ; Seeler and Dejean, 2003 ).Here, we describe that proteins modified by SUMO-1 are present in the nucleolus, that SUMO-1 in the nucleolus colocalizes with the RNA-editing enzyme ADAR1, and that this enzyme represents a novel substrate for sumoylation. ADAR1 (adenosine deaminase that acts on RNA) is a member of the family of enzymes that catalyze the conversion of adenosine to inosine in double-stranded RNA (dsRNA; reviewed in Keegan et al., 2001 ; Bass, 2002 ; Schaub and Keller, 2002 ). Because inosine acts as guanosine during translation, A-to-I conversion in coding sequences leads to amino acid changes and often entails changes in protein function. In addition to amino acid changes, A-to-I RNA editing can also occur in 5′ and 3′ UTR (Morse and Bass, 1999 ), in introns (Higuchi et al., 1993 ), and at splicing branch site (Beghini et al., 2000 ). Editing can also generate a 3′ splice acceptor (Rueter et al., 1999 ) and relieve a stop codon (Polson et al., 1996 ). In mammals there are three ADAR enzymes, termed ADAR1, ADAR2, and ADAR3. Inactivation of editing enzymes in mice (Higuchi et al., 2000 ) and in the fruit fly (Palladino et al., 2000b ) has resulted in profound neurological phenotypes. All ADAR proteins have a highly conserved catalytic domain at the C-terminus and one to three dsRNA-binding domains. ADAR1 differs from the other members of the family in its extended N-terminus that is enriched in RG residues and contains two tandemly arranged Z-DNA-binding domains (Keegan et al., 2001 , 2004 ). In humans, there are two ADAR1 forms: a 150-kDa protein (comprising amino acids 1–1226) that is induced by interferon and localizes predominantly in the cytoplasm, and a 110-kDa protein (encompassing residues 296-1226) that is constitutively expressed and localizes to the nucleus (Patterson and Samuel, 1995 ; George and Samuel, 1999b , a ).Several lines of evidence suggest that ADAR activity is tightly controlled in the cell. ADARs act as dimers and heterodimer formation between different ADAR forms can contribute to regulate enzyme activity and substrate specificity (Cho et al., 2003 ; Gallo et al., 2003 ). In Drosophila, ADAR can edit its own pre-mRNA (Palladino et al., 2000a ), whereas in mammals a self-editing process leads to alternative splicing of ADAR2 (Rueter et al., 1999 ). Furthermore, ADAR1 expression in mammals is regulated by interferon (Patterson and Samuel, 1995 ).In this work we demonstrate that ADAR1 is modified by SUMO at lysine residue 418. Substitution of this amino acid residue by arginine, which cannot be modified by SUMO, affects the editing activity of the enzyme. Our results therefore suggest a novel role for SUMO in regulating ADAR1 editing activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS Antibodies Endogenous ADAR1 was detected with rabbit polyclonal antibodies (antibody 007 and antibody 668; Desterro et al., 2003 ). Proteins tagged with a histidine hexamer were detected with an anti-His monoclonal antibody (mAb; Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and hemaglutinin (HA)-tagged proteins were detected with the anti-HA mAb 11 (Babco, Richmond, CA). Green fluorescence protein (GFP) was detected with a mixture of two mouse monoclonal antibodies (anti-GFP clones 7.1 and 13.1; Boehringer Mannheim, Indianapolis, IN) and endogenous SUMO-1 was detected with a rabbit polyclonal antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA). PML was detected with anti-PML mouse mAb (PGM-3; Santa Cruz Biotechnology). Additionally, the following antibodies were used to detect nucleolar proteins: anti-B23/nucleophosmin goat polyclonal antibody C-19 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology); anti-fibrillarin mAb 71B9 (Reimer et al., 1987 ); anti-UBF rabbit polyclonal antibody E29 (O'Mahony et al., 1992 ); and auto-immune human anti-RNA polymerase I serum S18 (kindly provided by Dr U. Scheer).Plasmids Plasmids expressing full-length hADAR1 (Desterro et al., 2003 ), the RC construct (Herbert et al., 2002 ), and GFP-SUMO (Gostissa et al., 1999 ) have been described previously.Site-directed Mutagenesis The point mutation in the lysine within the SUMO-1 consensus sequence was generated by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis using the QuickChange site directed mutagenesis kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) and the following oligonucleotides: 5′-GGAACCTGTCATAAGGTTAGAAAACAGGC-3′ and 5′-GCCTGTTTTCTAACCTTATGACAGGTTCC-3′. The nucleotides changed in this mutagenesis are indicated in bold. Mutagenesis was performed on ADAR1 cloned in different plasmids, pEGFP, pFlis, and pPICZA but always with the same set of oligonucleotides. All constructs were confirmed by DNA sequencing. Cell Culture and Transfections HeLa and COS7 cells were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum. To inhibit nuclear export, leptomycin B (LMB; Sigma, St. Louis, MO) was added to a final concentration of 50 nM to the tissue culture medium before fixation. DNA for transfections assays was purified with a Qiagen plasmid Midi-prep kit (Qiagen). HeLa subconfluent cells grown on glass coverslips in 35 × 10-mm tissue culture dishes were transiently transfected with 1 mg of purified plasmid DNA and FuGene6 reagent (Roche Biochemicals, Indianapolis, IN) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Cells were analyzed 24–48 h after transfections. For Ni2+-NTA-agarose pulldowns COS7 cells were transfected with Lipofectamine (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) according to the manufacturer's protocol. After transfections, cells were seeded in 75-cm2 flasks and the incubation continued for an additional 36 h. His-epitope-tagged proteins were isolated as described (Rodriguez et al., 1999 ).Immunofluorescence Cells on coverslips were briefly rinsed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), fixed in 3.7% formaldehyde (freshly prepared from paraformaldehyde), diluted in PBS for 10 min at room temperature, and washed with PBS. The cells were then permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 for 15 min or 0.05% SDS for 10 min at room temperature and washed with PBS. Immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy was performed as described (Calado et al., 2000 ).In Situ Hybridization GluR-B DNA was obtained by SmaI and XbaI digestion of the GluR-B/pRK plasmid (Higuchi et al., 1993 ) and RC DNA from EcoRI and XbaI digestion of the RC plasmid (Herbert et al., 2002 ). Both fragments were purified, labeled with digoxigenin-11-dUTP by nick translation, and used as probes for in situ hybridization. Cells were fixed and permeabilized as described previously for immunofluorescence. Immediately before hybridization, cells were incubated in hybridization mixture for 5 min at 37°C. Cells were hybridized for 4 h at 37°C in 50% formamide, 2× SSC, 10% dextran sulfate, 50 nM sodium phosphate, pH 7.0, with probes at 2 ng/μl. Posthybridization washes were in 50% formamide, 2× SSC (three times for 5 min at 45°C) and in 2× SSC (three times for 5 min at 45°C). The sites of hybridization were visualized with cy3 anti-digoxigenin secondary antibody (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) diluted in 4× SSC-Tween, 2% bovine serum albumin, and 0.2% gelatin.Microscopy Samples were examined on a Zeiss LSM 510 microscope (Thornwood, NY) with a Planapochromat 63×/1.4 objective. Western Blot Analysis Western blot analysis of transfected cells was performed with whole cell extracts that were prepared in SDS sample buffer. Lysates were boiled for 10 min before electrophoresis on either 8.5 or 10% polyacrylamide gels and transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane by electroblotting. Anti-His, anti-ADAR1, and anti-GFP were used as primary antibodies. Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-mouse IgG and anti-rabbit IgG (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Richmond, CA) were used as secondary antibodies. Blots were developed with the enhanced chemiluminescence detection system (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ). Expression and Purification of Recombinant Proteins SUMO-1, Ubc9, and SAE1/SAE2 were expressed and purified from Escherichia coli B834 as described previously (Desterro et al., 1997 ; Tatham et al., 2001 ). Both ADAR wild-type and K418R mutant were overexpressed in the yeast Pichia pastoris and purified as described (Gallo et al., 2003 ).In Vitro Expression of Proteins In vitro-coupled transcription/translation of ADAR1 proteins was performed with 1 μg of plasmid DNA and a wheat germ-coupled transcription/translation system according to the manufacturer's instructions (Promega, Madison, WI). [35S]methionine (Amersham Biosciences) was used in the reactions to generate radiolabeled protein. In Vitro SUMO-1 Conjugation Assay SUMO-1 conjugation assays were performed in 10 μl reactions containing an ATP regenerating system, 1 μl of [35S]methionine-labeled ADAR1 or 10 ng of either WT or K418R purified recombinant ADAR1 and purified recombinant SUMO-1, Ubc9, and SAE proteins as previously described (Tatham et al., 2001 ). Reaction products were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and either detected by Western blotting analysis using an anti-ADAR1 antibody or the gel was dried before overnight exposure to film.In Vitro Editing The nonspecific dsRNA substrate, a shorter form of BScat was prepared by in vitro transcription as previously reported and the editing assay was performed as previously described (O'Connell and Keller, 1994 ). The assay mixture contained dsRNA containing 200 fmoles of 32P-labeled adenosine, and the reaction was performed at 37°C for 60 min with purified recombinant ADAR1-WT and ADAR1-K418R.Analysis of editing of a transcript encoded by the GluR-B mini-gene B13 was performed by primer extension assay with the BHS-RT primer specific for hotspot1 as previously described (Melcher et al., 1995 ). In the assay 10 fmol of in vitro-transcribed RNA was incubated with either purified recombinant protein or previously in vitro SUMO-1 modified protein for 1 h at 37°C. The reaction mixture was then treated with proteinase K for 30 min., phenol/chloroformed was extracted, and ethanol was precipitated. Radioactive BHS-RT primer, 10 fmol, was added and annealed at 52°C overnight. Subsequently an RT reaction was performed in the presence of ddTTP and after ethanol precipitation the extension products were electrophoresed on a 15% denaturing polyacrylamide gel. The gel was dried and quantified on a PhosphorImager.RESULTS Proteins Modified by SUMO-1 Localize to the Nucleolus To date, most known sumoylated proteins are either nuclear proteins or proteins that shuttle to the nucleus. Within the nucleus, proteins modified by SUMO have been localized to the nucleoplasm, PML nuclear bodies and nuclear pore complexes (Melchior et al., 2003 ; Seeler and Dejean, 2003 ). To further characterize the subcellular distribution of SUMO-conjugated proteins, a fusion of SUMO-1 to the green fluorescence protein (GFP-SUMO-1) was transiently expressed in HeLa cells. GFP-SUMO-1 can replace endogenous SUMO (pmt3) in fission yeast, suggesting that the GFP tag does not interfere with SUMO-1 function in vivo (Tanaka et al., 1999 ). Analysis of HeLa cells expressing GFP-SUMO-1 reveals nuclear staining with accumulation at the nuclear pore complexes and in nuclear bodies, as previously described (Figure 1A ). Western blot analysis using antibodies against GFP shows that GFP-SUMO-1Δ6 is detected as a single band of the expected size (Figure 1B
Next, we analyzed in more detail the subnucleolar distribution of SUMO-1. In mammalian cells, the nucleolus comprises three major regions involved in ribosomal biogenesis: the fibrillar centers, the dense fibrillar component, and the granular component (Carmo-Fonseca et al., 2000 ). Transcription of rRNA genes localized at the fibrillar centers produces rRNA precursors (pre-rRNAs) that move away from the rDNA template and undergo a series of posttranscriptional processing reactions. The initial processing steps occur while the pre-rRNAs reside in the dense fibrillar component, whereas late processing events take place in the granular component. Reflecting the vectorial organization of ribosomal synthesis, the fibrillar centers contain proteins required for transcription of the rRNA genes, notably RNA polymerase I (pol I) and the pol I transcription initiation factor UBF (upstream binding factor); the dense fibrillar component contains proteins involved in early steps of pre-rRNA processing such as fibrillarin, and the granular component is highly enriched in proteins involved in the assembly of preribosomes, an example of which is B23 also called nucleophosmin (Scheer et al., 1993 ). Double-labeling of HeLa cells expressing GFP-SUMO-1 with antibodies specific for RNA polymerase I, UBF, fibrillarin, and nucleophosmin reveals lack of colocalization (Figure 1EADAR1 Is Modified by SUMO-1 In Vitro and In Vivo We have recently shown that the RNA-editing enzymes ADAR1 and ADAR2 localize transiently to the nucleolus in a region that is distinct from the fibrillar centers, the dense fibrillar component, and the granular component (Desterro et al., 2003 ). We therefore double-labeled HeLa cells expressing GFP-SUMO-1 with an antibody specific for ADAR1 (Figure 2A ). The results show a perfect colocalization at the nucleolus, raising the possibility that ADAR1 is a target for SUMO-1 conjugation. Most of the proteins modified by SUMO-1 contain the consensus motif ψKXE, where ψ is a hydrophobic large amino acid, K the modified lysine, X any amino acid, and E a glutamic acid (Rodriguez et al., 2001 ). Sequence analysis of the long form of ADAR1 (amino acids 1–1226) shows two lysines that conform to this consensus sequence (Figure 2B ). Analysis of the reaction products by SDS-PAGE indicates that a proportion of ADAR1 is converted to a more slowly migrating form that is dependent on the presence of SUMO reaction components (Figure 3A
The Subcellular Distribution of ADAR1 Is Independent from Modification by SUMO-1 Because SUMO-1 modification can alter the localization of target proteins, we decided to investigate whether this modification modulates ADAR1 subcellular distribution. When HeLa cells are transfected with full-length hADAR1 tagged with GFP at the N-terminus, the fusion protein (GFP-ADAR1) is detected predominantly in the cytoplasm (Desterro et al., 2003 ). Although at steady state this fusion protein appears exclusively cytoplasmic, GFP-ADAR1 shuttles constantly between the nucleus and the cytoplasm due to a CRM1-dependent nuclear export signal (NES; Poulsen et al., 2001 ; Desterro et al., 2003 ). Treatment of cells with leptomycin B (LMB), a specific CRM1 inhibitor, prevents nuclear export, causing accumulation of the protein in the nucleus with higher concentration in the nucleolus (Poulsen et al., 2001 ; Desterro et al., 2003 ). As shown in Figure 5 ).
Recent studies have shown that ADAR1 is in constant flux in and out of the nucleolus and that when cells express the editing-competent glutamate receptor GluR-B mini-gene B13 in the nucleoplasm, ADAR1 is no longer detected in the nucleolus (Desterro et al., 2003 ; Sansam et al., 2003 ). To investigate whether the nucleolar SUMO-1 signal is dependent on the presence of ADAR1 in the nucleolus, HeLa cells were cotransfected with GFP-SUMO-1 and a plasmid containing the editing-competent murine GluR-B mini-gene B13 (Higuchi et al., 1993 ). Visualization of GluR-B mini-gene B13 by fluorescence in situ hybridization reveals staining of the nucleoplasm excluding the nucleolus (Figure 6A
Modification of ADAR1 by SUMO-1 Reduces RNA-editing Activity The ability of SUMO to directly affect the activity of an enzyme has only been described for the thymine DNA glycosylase (TDG). SUMO-1 conjugation of TDG reduces its DNA substrate binding affinity and induces higher enzymatic turnover (Hardeland et al., 2002 ). To investigate whether the modification of ADAR1 by SUMO-1 affects RNA-editing activity, we performed in vivo and in vitro experiments. First, we took advantage of the editing reporter construct described by Herbert et al. (2002 ). The RC reporter was designed with two start codons and a stop codon. The first start codon is not used under normal circumstances, and the stop codon is embedded in a short stretch of dsRNA that is recognized as an editing substrate by ADAR1. A-to-I editing converts the stop codon (UAG) into UIG, allowing translation from the first start codon. This results in production of a fusion protein that contains both HA and GFP tags. If the reporter mRNA is not edited, the stop codon is not eliminated and translation of the messenger starts in the second start codon giving rise to a GFP fusion protein that lacks the N-terminal HA tag (Figure 7A ; Marx, 2005 ).
The labile nature of SUMO-1 modification due to the high activity of SUMO specific proteases and the absence of a mechanism to induce SUMO-1 modification in vivo do not facilitate the investigation of a direct effect of SUMO-1 on ADAR1 activity in the cell. We therefore decided to perform further studies using in vitro systems. Both ADAR1-WT and ADAR1-K418R were expressed in the yeast P. pastoris, and the recombinant proteins containing HIS and FLAG tags were purified to homogeneity by chromatography over both Ni2+-NTA and FLAG affinity matrices (Ring et al., 2004 ). Consistent with the in vivo data, the in vitro results indicate that recombinant ADAR1-WT is consistently less active than recombinant ADAR1-K418R in editing a long duplex RNA in a nonspecific assay (Figure 8A ). Western blot analysis of the recombinant proteins confirmed that a fraction of ADAR1-WT is modified by SUMO-1 (unpublished data). This observation prompted us to compare the editing activity of ADAR1-WT and ADAR1-K418R recombinant proteins on a specific substrate, the GluR-B mini-gene B13 (Figure 8B ). As clearly shown in Figure 8B ), whereas if SUMO-1 modification was necessary ATP addition would be essential. Taken together these results support a direct role of SUMO-1 modification on reducing the RNA-editing activity of ADAR1.
DISCUSSION Posttranslational modification of proteins by SUMO is known to play a regulatory role in many cellular processes, and the identification of novel SUMO-targeted proteins is currently attracting much attention (for recent reviews see Johnson, 2004 ; Melchior et al., 2003 ). In general, only a limited fraction of a certain protein is modified by SUMO in the cell, making it difficult to detect the low abundant pool of endogenously sumoylated proteins. In this study we show that GFP-tagged SUMO-1 accumulates in the nucleolus. In contrast, a GFP-tagged mutant version of SUMO-1 that lacks the C-terminal amino acids required for covalent attachment to target proteins fails to localize to the nucleolus (Figure 1, A and B ) who observed that YFP-SUMO-1, but not YFP-SUMO-2 or YFP-SUMO-3, localizes to the nucleolus. This strongly suggests that a subset of nucleolar proteins is modified by SUMO. Interestingly, some of the enzymes involved in the sumoylation pathway have been previously localized to the nucleolus, namely the E3 SUMO-1 ligase PIAS1 (Valdez et al., 1997 ), and the SUMO/Smt3-1-specific isopeptidase SMT3IP1 (SENP3; Nishida et al., 2000 ; Leung et al., 2003 ). Thus, it is possible that certain protein targets are reversibly modified by SUMO-1 in the nucleolus.Noteworthy, SUMO was not detected in recent MS studies on isolated nucleoli from HeLa cells (Scheer et al., 1993 ; Andersen et al., 2002 ). However, this is not surprising, taking into account that many endogenously sumoylated proteins are present at a level below normal detection limit. Moreover, sumoylation is a highly dynamic and reversible reaction, making it difficult to preserve SUMO conjugation during cell fractionation and subcellular purification procedures.The nucleolus is a subnuclear compartment dedicated to the biogenesis of ribosomes. The nucleolus is where the rRNA genes are kept and transcribed and the rRNAs are processed and assembled with proteins to form preribosomes. However, an increasing body of evidence indicates that the nucleolus is not exclusively a ribosome factory, but plays additional roles in the cell. According to a current view, the nucleolus may act as a molecular “safe” or “sink” that regulates protein activity by sequestration (review Leung et al., 2003 ).DNA topoisomerase I (topo I) is a nuclear protein that concentrates in the nucleolus and is modified by SUMO. However, topo I rapidly moves out of the nucleolus, and this nucleolar delocalization is associated with conjugation of the protein with SUMO (Mo et al., 2002 ). Thus, to date, no nucleolar proteins modified by SUMO were identified. In the present work we show that GFP-tagged SUMO-1 accumulates in a nucleolar region that is distinct from the well-characterized nucleolar domains involved in ribosomal biogenesis, i.e., the fibrillar center, the dense fibrillar component, and the granular component (Figure 1EAlthough ADAR1 colocalizes with ADAR2 in the nucleolus (Desterro et al., 2003 ), the ADAR2 protein lacks the amino-terminal region containing the SUMO conjugation site. Sequence analysis of ADAR2 does not reveal any SUMO-1 consensus motif and ADAR2 is not modified by SUMO-1 in vitro (unpublished data). Because both ADAR1 and ADAR2 concentrate in the nucleolus and only ADAR1 is modified by SUMO, it is unlikely that sumoylation of ADAR1 is required for targeting the enzyme to the nucleolus. According to this prediction, a mutant form of ADAR1 that is not sumoylated because it contains an arginine substitution of lysine 418 (ADAR1-K418R) localizes to the nucleolus similarly to the wild-type protein (Figure 5Our work further provides in vivo and in vitro evidence that modification of ADAR1 by SUMO reduces the RNA-editing activity of the enzyme. ADAR1 can edit RNAs both in a specific and nonspecific manner, depending on the nature of the substrate. ADAR1 can edit specific transcripts encoding receptor proteins of CNS and these can result in recoding events. The best studied specific mammalian substrates for ADAR1 are the pre-mRNAs encoding the serotonin HT-2c receptor and those encoding ionotropic glutamate receptor (GluR) subunits. However, more recent studies have identified widespread A-to-I RNA-editing sites in the human transcriptome (Athanasiadis et al., 2004 ; Kim et al., 2004 ; Levanon et al., 2004 ). Approximately 1500 human mRNAs were found to be subject to RNA editing at more than 13,000 sites that typically map in Alu repeats. Additionally, micro-RNA precursors have been shown to be modified by A-to-I editing (Luciano et al., 2004 ), and ADAR1 was implicated in gene silencing by short interfering RNA (Yang et al., 2005 ).Here we show that the mutant form of ADAR1 that is not modified by SUMO (ADAR1-K418R) is more active than the wild-type enzyme in editing a reporter RNA in vivo, and modification of the wild-type enzyme by SUMO reduces editing of a GluR-B mini-gene B13 in vitro (Figures (Figures77 ADAR activity is known to be tightly regulated in different species. In vertebrates, ADARs shuttle between the cytoplasm, the nucleoplasm, and the nucleolus (Desterro et al., 2003 ; Sansam et al., 2003 ), and it is currently thought that sequestration in the nucleolus contributes to prevent aberrant editing activity in the nucleoplasm. On the basis of our observations that ADAR1 colocalizes with SUMO-1 in the nucleolus and that sumoylation of ADAR1 reduces editing activity, we propose that the nucleolus represents a “sink” for inactive ADAR1 in the cell. In agreement with this view, it has been recently reported that ADAR2-but not ADAR1-mediated RNA editing occurs in the nucleolus (Vitali et al., 2005 ). Considering that both ADAR1 and ADAR2 colocalize in the nucleolus, it was unexpected to find that ADAR1 does not perform nucleolar RNA editing. This apparent inconsistency can be explained by our findings suggesting that SUMO-1 conjugation renders ADAR1 inactive in the nucleolus while ADAR2 is not modified by SUMO.Whether ADAR1 is preferentially sumoylated in the nucleolus remains to be established. Another important issue to be addressed concerns the mechanism by which sumoylation affects editing activity. Interestingly, ADAR enzymes act as a dimer and dimerization is essential for editing activity. It remains to be elucidated how the monomers bind to dsRNA and dimerize. Preliminary results for ADAR1 have shown that the N-terminal region containing the Z-DNA domain is not required as heterodimers can form between the p150 and p110 isoforms of ADAR1 (Cho et al., 2003 ). However, the minimum region required for the dimerization of Drosophila ADAR is the N-terminus including and the first dsRNA-binding domain (dsRBD; Gallo et al., 2003 ). Dimerization affects the enzymatic activity as well as substrate specificity of ADAR1 and ADAR2 and is essential for editing activity in Drosophila (Gallo et al., 2003 ). Considering that the SUMO-1 acceptor lysine lies between the Z-DNA and the first dsRBD one could consider SUMO as a stereochemical obstacle for both binding to the dsRNA and subsequent dimerization.In conclusion, together with the recent finding that SUMO modifies several heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins, which are key players in mRNA biogenesis (Li et al., 2004 ), our results support a novel role for sumoylation in regulating RNA metabolism.Acknowledgments We thank Walter Keller (Biozentrum, Basel, Switzerland) for kindly providing anti-ADAR1 antibodies, Alan Herbert (Boston University School of Medicine) for the RC plasmid and G. Del Sal for the GFP-SUMO plasmid constructs (Laboratorio Nazionale Consorzio Interuniversitario Biotecnologie, Trieste, Italy). This study was supported by grants from “Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, POCTI/36547/MGI/00” (Portugal), the European Commission “QLG2-CT-2001-01554” and the MRC (United Kingdom). Notes This article was published online ahead of print in MBC in Press (http://www.molbiolcell.org/cgi/doi/10.1091/mbc.E05–06–0536) on August 24, 2005. Abbreviations used: SUMO, small ubiquitin modifier; ADAR, adenosine deaminase that act on RNA; SAE, SUMO-activating enzyme; UBC9, SUMO-conjugating enzyme. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Trends Biochem Sci. 2001 May; 26(5):332-3.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2001]Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Nov; 28(11):612-8.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2003]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003 Sep; 4(9):690-9.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003]Mol Cell. 2005 Apr 1; 18(1):1-12.
[Mol Cell. 2005]J Mol Biol. 1998 Jul 10; 280(2):275-86.
[J Mol Biol. 1998]Mol Cell. 2000 May; 5(5):865-76.
[Mol Cell. 2000]J Biol Chem. 2000 Mar 3; 275(9):6252-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2000]J Biol Chem. 2004 Jun 25; 279(26):27233-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Nov; 28(11):612-8.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2003]Nature. 1999 Mar 18; 398(6724):246-51.
[Nature. 1999]Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Apr; 20(7):2367-77.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2000]J Biol Chem. 2001 Apr 20; 276(16):12654-9.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Sep; 22(18):6498-508.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003 Sep; 4(9):690-9.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003]Annu Rev Biochem. 2002; 71():817-46.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 May 25; 96(11):6048-53.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Cell. 1993 Dec 31; 75(7):1361-70.
[Cell. 1993]Hum Mol Genet. 2000 Sep 22; 9(15):2297-304.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2000]Nature. 1999 May 6; 399(6731):75-80.
[Nature. 1999]J Biol Chem. 2003 May 9; 278(19):17093-102.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]EMBO J. 2003 Jul 1; 22(13):3421-30.
[EMBO J. 2003]RNA. 2000 Jul; 6(7):1004-18.
[RNA. 2000]Nature. 1999 May 6; 399(6731):75-80.
[Nature. 1999]Mol Cell Biol. 1995 Oct; 15(10):5376-88.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1995]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol Incl Mol Pathol. 1987; 54(3):131-43.
[Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol Incl Mol Pathol. 1987]J Biol Chem. 1992 Jan 5; 267(1):35-8.
[J Biol Chem. 1992]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]EMBO J. 1999 Nov 15; 18(22):6462-71.
[EMBO J. 1999]EMBO J. 1999 Nov 15; 18(22):6455-61.
[EMBO J. 1999]RNA. 2000 Feb; 6(2):245-56.
[RNA. 2000]Cell. 1993 Dec 31; 75(7):1361-70.
[Cell. 1993]FEBS Lett. 1997 Nov 17; 417(3):297-300.
[FEBS Lett. 1997]J Biol Chem. 2001 Sep 21; 276(38):35368-74.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]EMBO J. 2003 Jul 1; 22(13):3421-30.
[EMBO J. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2001 Sep 21; 276(38):35368-74.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 25; 91(22):10596-600.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]J Biol Chem. 1995 Apr 14; 270(15):8566-70.
[J Biol Chem. 1995]Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Nov; 28(11):612-8.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2003]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003 Sep; 4(9):690-9.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003]Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Dec; 19(12):8660-72.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1999]EMBO J. 1997 Sep 15; 16(18):5509-19.
[EMBO J. 1997]Nat Cell Biol. 2000 Jun; 2(6):E107-12.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2000]Trends Cell Biol. 1993 Jul; 3(7):236-41.
[Trends Cell Biol. 1993]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2001 Apr 20; 276(16):12654-9.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]J Cell Biol. 1997 Dec 29; 139(7):1621-34.
[J Cell Biol. 1997]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Mol Cell Biol. 2001 Nov; 21(22):7862-71.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2001]EMBO J. 2003 Jul 1; 22(13):3421-30.
[EMBO J. 2003]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25; 100(24):14018-23.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Cell. 1993 Dec 31; 75(7):1361-70.
[Cell. 1993]EMBO J. 2002 Mar 15; 21(6):1456-64.
[EMBO J. 2002]Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Nov; 28(11):612-8.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2003]Science. 2005 Feb 11; 307(5711):836-9.
[Science. 2005]Methods Mol Biol. 2004; 265():219-38.
[Methods Mol Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 25; 91(22):10596-600.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]Cell. 1993 Dec 31; 75(7):1361-70.
[Cell. 1993]Annu Rev Biochem. 2004; 73():355-82.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 2004]Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Nov; 28(11):612-8.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2003]Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Dec; 15(12):5208-18.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2004]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997 May 19; 234(2):335-40.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997]Eur J Biochem. 2000 Nov; 267(21):6423-7.
[Eur J Biochem. 2000]Trends Cell Biol. 1993 Jul; 3(7):236-41.
[Trends Cell Biol. 1993]Curr Biol. 2002 Jan 8; 12(1):1-11.
[Curr Biol. 2002]Biochem J. 2003 Dec 15; 376(Pt 3):553-69.
[Biochem J. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2002 Jan 25; 277(4):2958-64.
[J Biol Chem. 2002]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]PLoS Biol. 2004 Dec; 2(12):e391.
[PLoS Biol. 2004]Genome Res. 2004 Sep; 14(9):1719-25.
[Genome Res. 2004]Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Aug; 22(8):1001-5.
[Nat Biotechnol. 2004]RNA. 2004 Aug; 10(8):1174-7.
[RNA. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2005 Feb 4; 280(5):3946-53.
[J Biol Chem. 2005]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25; 100(24):14018-23.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]J Cell Biol. 2005 Jun 6; 169(5):745-53.
[J Cell Biol. 2005]J Biol Chem. 2003 May 9; 278(19):17093-102.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]EMBO J. 2003 Jul 1; 22(13):3421-30.
[EMBO J. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jun 8; 101(23):8551-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 1; 116(Pt 9):1805-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Cell. 1993 Dec 31; 75(7):1361-70.
[Cell. 1993]