We compared cleavage efficiencies of mono-molecular and bipartite model RNAs as substrates for RNase P RNAs (M1 RNAs) and holoenzymes from E. coli and Thermus thermophilus, an extreme thermophilic eubacterium. Acceptor stem and T arm of pre-tRNA substrates are essential recognition elements for both enzymes. Impairing coaxial stacking of acceptor and T stems and omitting the T loop led to reduced cleavage efficiencies. Small model substrates were less efficiently cleaved by M1 RNA and RNase P from T. thermophilus than by the corresponding E. coli activities. Competition kinetics and gel retardation studies showed that truncated tRNA substrates are less tightly bound by RNase P and M1 RNA from both bacteria. Our data further indicate that (pre-)tRNA interacts stronger with E. coli than T. thermophilus M1 RNA. Thus, low cleavage efficiencies of truncated model substrates by T. thermophilus RNase P or M1 RNA could be explained by a critical loss of important contact points between enzyme and substrate. In addition, acceptor stem--T arm substrates, composed of two synthetic RNA fragments, have been designed to mimic internal cleavage of any target RNA molecule available for base pairing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schlegl et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: