Exploring the role of RRM domains and conserved aromatic residues in RGG motif of eIF4G-binding translation repressor protein Sbp1 [version 3; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

• Main Authors: Nupur Bhatter, Rajan Iyyappan, Gayatri Mohanan, Purusharth I Rajyaguru
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wellcome 2021-09-01
• Series: Wellcome Open Research
• Online Access: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/3-102/v3

Background: RNA binding proteins play crucial role in determining if a given mRNA will be translated, stored, or degraded. Sbp1 is an RGG-motif containing protein that is implicated in affecting mRNA decapping and translation. Sbp1 represses translation by binding eIF4G1 through its RGG-motif and activates decapping when overexpressed. In this report, we have assessed the genetic interaction of Sbp1 with decapping activators such as Dhh1, Pat1, and Scd6. We have further analyzed the importance of different domains and specific conserved residues of Sbp1 in its ability to cause over-expression mediated growth defect. Method: Sequence alignment was performed to identify conserved aromatic residues to be mutated. Using site-directed mutagenesis several point mutations and domain deletions were created in Sbp1 expressed under a galactose-inducible promoter. The mutants were tested for their ability to cause growth defect upon over-expression. The ability of Sbp1 to affect over-expression mediated growth defect of other decapping activators was tested using growth assay. Live cell imaging was done to study localization of Sbp1 and its RRM-deletion mutants to RNA granules upon glucose starvation. Results: Mutation of several aromatic residues in the RGG-motif and that of the phosphorylation sites in the RRM domain of Sbp1 did not affect the growth defect phenotype. Deletion of another eIF4G1-binding RGG-motif protein Scd6 does not affect the ability of Sbp1 to cause growth defect. Moreover, absence of Sbp1 did not affect the growth defect phenotypes observed upon overexpression of decapping activators Dhh1 and Pat1. Strikingly deletion of both the RRM domains (RRM1 and RRM2) and not the RNP motifs within them compromised the growth defect phenotype. Sbp1 mutant lacking both RRM1 and RRM2 was highly defective in localizing to RNA granules.   Conclusion: This study identifies an important role of RRM domains independent of the RNP motif in Sbp1 function.