Barnase and Binase: Twins with Distinct Fates Vera Ulyanova, Valentina Vershinina and Olga Ilinskaya
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEW ARTICLE Barnase and binase: twins with distinct fates Vera Ulyanova, Valentina Vershinina and Olga Ilinskaya Department of Microbiology, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia Keywords RNases are enzymes that cleave RNAs, resulting in remarkably diverse Bacillus; bacterial RNases; barnase; binase; biological consequences. Many RNases are cytotoxic. In some cases, they biosynthesis; cancer therapy; cytotoxicity; attack selectively malignant cells triggering an apoptotic response. A num- physiological role; practical application; ber of eukaryotic and bacterial RNase-based strategies are being developed RNase inhibitor for use in anticancer and antiviral therapy. However, the physiological Correspondence functions of these RNases are often poorly understood. This review focuses O. Ilinskaya, Department of Microbiology, on the properties of the extracellular RNases from Bacillus amyloliquefac- Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, iens (barnase) and Bacillus intermedius (binase), the characteristics of their 18 Kremlyovskaya Street, Kazan 420008, biosynthesis regulation and their physiological role, with an emphasis on Russia the similarities and differences. Barnase and binase can be regarded as Fax: +7843 292 7418 molecular twins according to their highly similar structure, physical–chemi- Tel: +7843 233 7855 E-mail: [email protected] cal and catalytic properties. Nevertheless, the ‘life paths’ of these enzymes are not the same, as their expression in bacteria is controlled by diverse sig- (Received 3 March 2011, revised 29 July nals. Binase is predominantly synthesized under phosphate starvation, 2011, accepted 4 August 2011) whereas barnase production is strictly dependent on the multifunctional Spo0A regulator controlling sporulation, biofilm formation and cannibal- doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08294.x ism. Barnase and binase also have some distinctions in practical applica- tions. Barnase was initially suggested to be useful in research and biotechnology as a tool for studying protein–protein interactions, for RNA elimination from biological samples, for affinity purification of RNase fusion proteins, for the development of cloning vectors and for sterility acquisition by transgenic plants. Binase, as later barnase, was tested for antiviral, antitumour and immunogenic effects. Both RNases have found their own niche in cancer research as a result of success in targeted delivery and selectivity towards tumour cells. Introduction In addition to their basic functions in RNA metabo- inhibition of tumour cell growth has been established lism, RNases are involved in the control of gene for close analogues of onconase from Rana catesbiana expression, cell growth and differentiation, host defence and Rana japonica oocytes [9], bull semen RNase [10], and physiological cell death pathways [1–4]. Many precursor of human eosinophil-derived neurotoxin [11] RNases show potent antineoplastic activity, but do not and human eosinophil cationic protein [12]. Although exhibit appreciable immunogenicity or nonspecific tox- the first paper demonstrating the antitumour activity of icity [5–7]. RNases are potential antitumour drugs bacterial nuclease from Serratia marcescens appeared because of their selective cytotoxicity. Their therapeutic in 1964 [13], the development of bacterial RNases into value has been demonstrated by an RNase derived antitumour drugs has remained almost uncharted terri- from the frog Rana pipiens, onconase (Alfacell, Inc., tory for many years. Recently, microbial RNases have Monmouth Junction, NJ, USA), which has advanced stepped out of the shadow of their well-known animal to phase IIIb confirmatory clinical trials for the treat- relatives, demonstrating different biological activities ment of unresectable malignant mesothelioma [8]. The suitable for practical applications. FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 3633–3643 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS 3633 Barnase and binase V. Ulyanova et al. The superfamily of microbial N1 ⁄ T1 RNases physical–chemical and catalytic properties of binase and (EC 3.1.27.3) consists of about 25 members of fungal ⁄ barnase should be very similar. bacterial a + b proteins that share sequence and tertiary Indeed, both barnase and binase are cationic pro- structural similarities [14]. They are small extracellular teins with isoelectric points of 9.2 and 9.5, respectively. enzymes that catalyse the overall hydrolysis of single- The enzymes are highly thermostable over a broad pH stranded RNA preferentially at guanylyl residues, range (pH 3–9). They cleave RNA molecules predomi- yielding new guanosine 3¢-phosphate and 5¢-OH ends. nantly after purine (guanine) residues with the forma- This occurs in a two-step process with cleavage of the tion of 3¢-mononucleotides and 3¢-dinucleotides as the RNA chain by transesterification of a 5¢-phosphoester final products. The optimum temperature for hydroly- bond to form a guanosine 2¢,3¢-cyclic phosphate termi- sis is 37 °C and the optimum pH value is pH 8.5. The nus in the first step, followed by its hydrolysis to a enzymes do not require any cofactors for activity. 3¢-phosphate product in the second independent step. Inside the cell, barnase is specifically inhibited by The best known member of this family is RNase T1, barstar, a small protein of 89 amino acids [23,24]. an extremely well-characterized fungal RNase from Barnase and barstar form a noncovalent one-to-one Aspergillus oryzae. Here, we introduce its bacterial rel- complex (Fig. 1B), which is one of the tightest known atives, ‘molecular twins’ barnase (Bacillus amylolique- and fastest forming [25]. The shape and charge of the faciens RNase) and binase (Bacillus intermedius interacting surfaces are highly complementary [26]. RNase) (Figs 1A and S1A). According to recent geno- Barstar inhibits barnase activity by sterically blocking typic identification, the strain known as B. intermedius its active site with an a-helix and adjacent loop. The belongs to the species of B. pumilus and is renamed association is stabilized by charge interaction involving appropriately (GenBank Accession No. HQ650161.1). the positively charged amino acid residues Lys27, However, given the historical preference, we address Arg59, Arg83 and Arg87 of barnase and the negatively the guanyl-preferring RNase as binase. Binase and charged Asp35, Asp39 and Glu76 of barstar [25,27]. barnase are unrelated to any mammalian RNases, and Binase has also been shown to be blocked by barstar therefore are not susceptible to omnipresent eukaryotic in vitro, but with much lower affinity [28,29]. Neverthe- RNase inhibitor [16]. As a consequence, they are more less, all attempts to purify a physiological inhibitor of toxic towards mammalian tumour cells than are RNas- binase have failed. es belonging to the pancreatic RNase A superfamily. Thus, binase and barnase can be regarded as molec- This makes bacterial RNases favourable for the devel- ular twins sharing the same phenotypic traits. The opment of new antitumour drugs. question is whether the ‘life paths’ of the RNases are Here, we summarize our current knowledge on the similar. To obtain a better understanding of their properties of binase and barnase, as well as their bio- physiological roles, one has to explore their origins. synthesis regulation, with an emphasis on the similari- ties and differences. We also discuss possible Two branches of the genealogical tree: physiological reasons for their production by bacteria, the basis of similarity and recent advances in the application of these toxic RNases. The Bacillus genus is a large group including 244 val- idly described species to date (http://www.bacte- rio.cict.fr/b/bacillus.html). The genus is phenotypically Two peas in a pod: phenotypic and genotypically heterogeneous, and researchers con- similarity tinue to separate new genera from it. Although B. am- Both barnase and binase are small, single-domain pro- yloliquefaciens and B. pumilus do not belong to the teins consisting of 110 and 109 amino acid residues with same phylogenetic cluster generally referred to as the molecular masses of 12 382 and 12 213 Da, respectively ‘Bacillus subtilis group’, their ‘branches’ on the phylo- [17,18]. Their primary structures share 85% identity. genetic tree of Bacillus species are adjacent (Fig. S1B Their secondary and tertiary NMR [19,20] and X-ray [15]). The physiology of the two species is quite [21,22] structures are almost superimposable (Fig. 1A). similar. The main habitat is soil, from which bacteria All functionally important amino acids incorporated are spread to other areas. Both B. amyloliquefaciens into the active centre, the substrate binding site and the and B. pumilus are often found in the rhizosphere. hydrophobic core are conserved among these two They are able to promote plant growth and suppress enzymes; substitutions are confined to the surface resi- plant pathogens [30]. Thus, B. amyloliquefaciens and dues only. The number of charged amino acids differs B. pumilus constitute closely related species that by just one additional Asp in barnase. Therefore, the occupy the same ecological niches. 3634 FEBS Journal 278 (2011) 3633–3643 ª 2011 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2011 FEBS V. Ulyanova et al. Barnase and binase A B C D Barnase -146 CGGAAGAACGCCGAAAAACCTTACTAAGGAATTTCAATAAGAAGAAAAATCCCGGTTGGTTCACCGGGGTTTATTTTTCGCTAGATAAAAAGT -10 +1 RBS fMet -53 ACTATTTTTAAATTCTTTCTATTCCTTTCTTTCGTTGCTGATACAATGAAAAGGAATCAGCTTCACATGATGAAAATGGGAGGTATTGCTTTG Binase -122 GACGCAGGATTCGGAGCTGCGTCTTTTTATTTATTTCATCAGAAGGTTATCAGTGAAAAAGCCTCATTTTAGCAAAGAACCTGTTTCTTTACA