Previously, on the story of MS2 in yeast: Last year, Roy Parker published a short article, in which he claimed that using the MS2 system in yeast causes the accumulation of 3′ RNA fragments, probably due to inhibition of mRNA degradation by the 5′ to 3′ exoribonuclease Xrn1. He argued that these findings put in question all the work on mRNA localization in yeast using the MS2 system. About a year later, we wrote a response to that article. We argued that, yes, such fragments exist, but 1. most of it stems from over-expression of the labeled mRNA. Parker agreed with that. 2. That these fragments accumulate in P-bodies, and are distinguishable from single mRNAs and we can discard cells which show these structures. 3. We argued that this might not be the case for every mRNA and should be tested on a case by case basis. 4. We and Parker agreed that the best way to determine if such fragments exist is by performing single-molecule FISH (smFISH) with double labeling – a set of probes for the length of the mRNA and a set of probes for the MS2 stem-loops. Now, a new paper from Karsten Weis’ lab shows more evidence, by doing smFISH, for the existence of these fragments.
Translating the information encoded in mRNAs into proteins is one of the most basic processes in biology. The mechanism requires a machinery (i.e. ribosomes) and components (mRNA template, charged tRNAs, regulatory factors, energy) that are shared by all organisms on Earth. We’ve learned a great deal about translation over the last century. We know how it works, how it is being regulated at many levels and under varuious conditions. We know the structures of the components. We have drugs that can inhibit translation. With the emergance of next-gen sequencing, we can now perform ribosome profiling and determine exatly which mRNAs are being translated, how many ribosomes occupay each mRNA species and where these ribosomes “sit” on the mRNA, on average. New biochemical approaches like SILAC and PUNCH-P can quantifiy newly synthesized proteins & peptides. Yet, all of that information comes from population studies, typically whole cell populations. Rarely, whole transcriptome/ribosome analysis of a single cell is performed. Still, there is no dynamic information of translation, since cells are fixed and/or lysed. And there is no spatial information regarding where in the cell translation occurs (poor spatial information can be determined if cell fractionation is performed, which is never a perfect separation of organelles/regions and we are still not at the stage of single organelle sequencing).
Imaging translation in single cells is intended to provide both spatial and dynamic information on translation at the single cell and, hopefully, single mRNA molecule resolution. Recently, four papers were published (on the same day!) providing information on translation of single mRNAs. Here is a summary of these papers.
Posted in Fluorescent microscopy, Gene expression, Journal club, MS2-like systems, Organelles, signaling, stress response, Transport & Trafficking
Tagged ER, GFP, HaloTag, HHMI Janelia, Mammalian cell, MS2, neurons, PP7, quantitative microscopy, Singer lab, single molecule, spaghetti monster, Suntag, translation
Roy Parker recently sent a “Letter to the Editor“, published in RNA journal, in which he suggested that the MS2 system might not be best suited for live imaging of mRNA in budding yeast. According to Parker, the MS2 system inhibits the function of Xrn1, the major cytoplasmic 5′ to 3′ RNA exonuclease in budding yeast, causing us to image mostly the remaining 3’UTR fragments. Thus, he claims, it is possible that interpertation of mRNA localization data using this system in yeast can be faulty. We wrote a response to his letter which just opened the debate even further.
But lets start with his Letter:
Posted in FISH, Gene expression, Journal club, MS2-like systems
Tagged FISH-Quant, mRNA decay, MS2, my pics, personal experience, quantitative microscopy, Singer lab, yeast
The hottest buzz-word in biology today is CRISPR: an adaptive immune system in bacteria and archea. At its basis is a nuclease, named Cas9, which is targeted to DNA by a short single-guide RNA (sgRNA). This turned out to be a very useful system for genome engineering in any organism due to its specificity (provided by the sgRNA) and its simplicity (all you need is to express the Cas9 and sgRNA in the cell). However, this system can also be used for other purposes. One such use is modulation of gene expression, for example by targeting a nuclease dead Cas9 (dCas9) fused to a transcription activator or repressor to promoter regions. Another such use is for imaging.
Here, I’ll described how Cas9 can be used to visualize specific DNA loci or specific RNA transcripts in fixed and live cells.
Posted in CRISPR/Cas9, FISH, Gene expression, Genetics, Journal club, Whole tissue imaging
Tagged CASFISH, CRISPR, DNA FISH, HaloTag, Mammalian cell, quantitative microscopy, RCas9, Singer lab, stress granules
I ended Part 1 after the morning session on pushing the boundaries of imaging.
After the amazing talks on imaging, I browsed the halls, visited some exhibitors, sampled a couple of exhibitor tech-talks. I later went to a mycrosymposium (#2: signaling in health & disease). This was mainly to see how this ePoster thing works, but also I promised Qunxiang Ong – with whom I discussed optogenetics the day before – to be at his presentation. He used a light-induced dimerization of signaling proteins to study the effect on neurite growth. The nice thing in his system was that the cells were plated in wells which were partly dark – so light-induction cannot take place in these regions. This allowed for analysis of neurite growth in lit vs “light-protected” regions of the same cell.
After this session, I attended my first “discussion table”. Continue reading
Posted in conferences & courses, epi, FISH, Gene expression, MS2-like systems, Optogenetics, Organelles, stress response, Transport & Trafficking, virology
Tagged ASAPbio, ascb15, bioRxiv, Mammalian cell, mRNA export, mRNA localization, PP7, QCBNet, quantitative microscopy, single molecule, yeast
Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote a post regarding my concerns with SmartFlare, supposedly a novel method for live imaging of RNA in cells.
In a nutshell, SmartFlare are gold nanoparticles covered in oligos specific to a certain mRNA of interest. Supposedly, cells internalize these particles and, once the mRNA hybridize to the oligo, a complementary fluorecently labeled oligo is being unquenchhed and “flares”, indicating the present of said mRNA.
You can read about my concerns in that older post, but apparently I wasn’t the only one concerned about their validity.
Raphaël Lévy from U. of Liverpool (UK) was concerned as well. He endeavored into an open science project to try and answer his concerns (which is why I allow myself to openly review his paper).
Unlike transcription, it is much harder to image translation at the single molecule level. The reasons are numerous. For starters, transcription sites (TS) are fairly immobile, whereas mRNAs, ribosomes and proteins move freely in the cytoplasm, often very fast. Then there are only a few TS per nucleus, but multiple mRNAs are translating in the cytoplasm. Next, there’s the issue of signal to noise – at the transcription site, the cell often produces multiple RNAs, thus any tagging on the RNA is amplified at the transcription site. Last, it is fairly easy to detect the transcription product – RNA – at a single-molecule resolution due to multiple tagging on a single molecule (either by FISH or MS2-like systems). However, it is much more difficult to detect a single protein, be it by fluorescent protein tagging, or other ways (e.g. FabLEMs).
The rate of translation is ~5 amino acids per second, less than 4 minutes to a protein 1000 amino-acids long. This is faster than the folding and maturation rate of most of even the fastest-folding fluorescent proteins. This means that by the time the protein fluoresce, it already left the ribosome. However, attempts were made in the past with some success.
Posted in development, Fluorescent microscopy, Gene expression, Journal club, MS2-like systems
Tagged FlAsH, FUNCAT, Mammalian cell, maturation, MS2, PP7, quantitative microscopy, Singer lab, single molecule, superfolder, translation, TRICK