Skip to main content
Biophysical Journal logoLink to Biophysical Journal
. 2012 Dec 5;103(11):2320–2330. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.10.026

Gene Regulation by Riboswitches with and without Negative Feedback Loop

Jong-Chin Lin 1,∗∗, D Thirumalai 1,
PMCID: PMC3514527  PMID: 23283231

Abstract

Riboswitches, structured elements in the untranslated regions of messenger RNAs, regulate gene expression by binding specific metabolites. We introduce a kinetic network model that describes the functions of riboswitches at the systems level. Using experimental data for flavin mononucleotide riboswitch as a guide, we show that efficient function, implying a large dynamic range without compromising the requirement to suppress transcription, is determined by a balance between the transcription speed, the folding and unfolding rates of the aptamer, and the binding rates of the metabolite. We also investigated the effect of negative feedback accounting for binding to metabolites, which are themselves the products of genes that are being regulated. For a range of transcription rates negative feedback suppresses gene expression by nearly 10-fold. Negative feedback speeds the gene expression response time, and suppresses the change of steady-state protein concentration by half relative to that without feedback, when there is a modest spike in DNA concentration. A dynamic phase diagram expressed in terms of transcription speed, folding rates, and metabolite binding rates predicts different scenarios in riboswitch-mediated transcription regulation.

Introduction

Riboswitches are cis-acting RNA elements located in the untranslated region of mRNAs that regulate associated gene expression by sensing and binding target cellular metabolites (1–3). In bacteria, binding of metabolites to the conserved aptamer domain allosterically alters the folding patterns of the downstream expression platform, whose conformation controls transcription termination or translation initiation (2,4,5). The target metabolites are usually the products or their derivatives of the downstream gene that riboswitches control. Hence, metabolite binding to riboswitches serves as a feedback signal to control RNA transcription or translation initiation. The feedback through metabolite binding is naturally designed to be a fundamental network motif for riboswitches. For example, tandem riboswitches respond to multiple metabolites to control a single gene with greater regulatory complexity (6,7), whereas single glmS riboswitch has been shown to respond to multiple signals using both negative and positive feedback (8). Understanding the various in vivo riboswitch functions requires a theoretical framework that takes into account the interplay between speed of RNA transcription, folding kinetics of the nascent RNA transcript, and kinetics of metabolite binding to the nascent RNA transcript, and the role of feedback arising from interactions between synthesized metabolities and the transcript. The effects of speed of RNA transcription and metabolite binding kinetics have been examined in vitro in an insightful study involving the flavin mononucleotide (FMN) riboswitches (9). They argued that FMN riboswitch is kinetically driven implying that the riboswitch does not reach thermodynamic equilibrium with FMN before a decision between continued transcription and transcription termination needs to be made.

The regulatory roles played by riboswitches have also inspired the design of novel RNA-based gene-control elements that respond to small molecules (10,11). Several models have been proposed to describe how riboswitches function and meet their regulatory demands (12,13). However, they focused solely on the transcription process without accounting for the feedback effect from the metabolite produced by the gene encoding the riboswitch. Here, we introduce a general kinetic network model that can be used to describe both in vivo and in vitro functions of riboswitches. Our coarse-grained kinetic network model, which takes into account the interplay of cotranscriptional folding, speed of transcription, and kinetics of metabolite binding, also models effects of a negative feedback loop so that predictions for in vivo functions of riboswitches can be made. As an illustration of the theory, we first consider the dependence of metabolite concentration on the regulation of in vitro transcription termination of FMN riboswitches without a feedback loop, which enables us to obtain the range of folding rates and transcription rates that produce results consistent with experiments (9). We then include the negative feedback loop in the network to study how riboswitches regulate gene expression at the systems level.

Methods

General kinetic model

The riboswitch is transcribed from the leader, the nonprotein-coding region, of the associated gene (Fig. 1). We simplify the multiple complex in vitro biochemical steps in the function of the off riboswitch, involving transcription, cotranscriptional RNA folding, and metabolite binding, to a few key kinetic steps (Fig. 1). Without feedback, the first stage is the transcription of the aptamer domain (B). The antiterminator sequence is transcribed (B2) in the second step. At each stage, the aptamer domain of the RNA transcript can either cotranscriptionally fold or unfold. Only when the aptamer domain is folded (B, B2) can the RNA transcript bind the metabolite (M). At the second stage, when the aptamer domain is unfolded, the RNA transcript is in an alternative folding pattern with the formation of the antiterminator stem (B2). The final stage of the transcription occurs when the terminator sequence is transcribed (Ri). If the terminator sequence is transcribed following B2, the antiterminator structure prevents the formation of a terminator stem and the transcription proceeds until the downstream coding region is fully transcribed (Rf). If the terminator sequence is transcribed following B2 or B2M, the absence of antiterminator allows the terminator to form, which subsequently leads to the dissociation of RNA transcript (B2t and B2tM) from the DNA template and terminates the transcription. The feedback effect involved with translation and metabolite synthesis will be discussed in later sections.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

(A) Kinetic network model for RNA transcription mediated by riboswitches. The leader, upstream of the protein-coding gene, consists of sequences that can be transcribed to the aptamer domain (B), antiterminator (B2) and terminator region (Ri) of the riboswitch. After transcription initiation, elongation, folding of RNA transcript, and metabolite binding are simplified to several key steps. Starting from the transcript B, where the aptamer sequence is transcribed, transcription can continue to B2 (antiterminator sequence transcribed) at a transcription rate constant kt1. Further elongation through the terminator sequence with transcription rate constant kt2 results in the synthesis of full RNA without termination. Ri is the transcript with the sequence of the protein-coding region starting to be transcribed, and eventually grows to Rf, the full protein-coding region transcribed, with a rate of kt3. Besides transcription elongation, each of the transcript states, B and B2, can form states with aptamer domain folded (B and B2) with a folding rate of kf1 and kf2, respectively. The aptamer folded states can bind metabolite (M) leading to the bound states (BM and B2M) with association rate constant kb. The transcripts in state B2 and B2M can continue elongating until the terminator sequence is transcribed with their expression platform forming a transcription terminator stem and dissociate from the DNA template terminating transcription, with a rate of kter (B2t and B2tM). The fraction of transcription termination, fter, is determined from the amount of the terminated transcripts (in green block) versus nonterminated transcripts (in blue block). In the presence of a negative feedback loop (steps included by the box in dashes) additional biochemical steps have to be included. In this case after RNA is fully synthesized, it can produce protein P at a rate k2 or get degraded with a rate kd1. The fate of P is either degradation (rate kd2) or production of an inactive metabolite M0, which is activated by the enzyme (E) encoded by the gene OF. The activated enzyme can bind to the folded aptamer and can abort transcription. (B) Simplification of the step from B2 to Ri for FMN riboswitch. In the application to FMN riboswitch, B2 represents the transcript out of the RNA polymerase at the second pause site (9). The step B2Ri is a simplification of the potential multiple chemical process, including pausing and emerging of the antiterminator sequence (B2B3), and transcription to the terminator sequence (B3Ri). The rate kt2 is approximated as the pausing rate kp, because pausing is likely to be the rate-limiting step in the transcription process.

To assess how the metabolite concentration, [M], regulates transcription termination, we computed the fraction of terminated transcript, fter, given an initial concentration of RNA transcript with aptamer sequence transcribed (B). Some of the rate constants can be estimated from the in vitro experiments (9) for FMN riboswitches, which we use to illustrate the efficacy of the theory. The experimental values of the FMN association rate constant kb for the FMN aptamer is 0.1 μM−1s−1, and the dissociation rate constant kb is 103 s−1, giving the equilibrium KDkb/kb=10 nM. RNA polymerases (RNAP) pause at certain transcription sites during transcription. There are two pause sites for the FMN riboswitch, one after the aptamer domain sequence with a lifetime of the paused complex being ∼10 s, and the other at the end of the antiterminator sequence with a lifetime ∼1 min. To approximately account for the pause times in our simplified model, we observe that B2 represents the transcript of the FMN riboswitch with part of the antiterminator out of RNAP, when RNAP pauses at the second pause site. Even with only part of the antiterminator sequence, the transcript still has high probability of forming alternate folding patterns (9), similar to a full antiterminator sequence. Hence, we set the effective transcription rates kt1=0.1 s−1 and kt2=0.016 s−1, which reflects the pause times for the FMN riboswtich (see Fig. 1 B for additional explanation of this approximation).

Extraction of minimal set of parameters from in vitro transcription experiments

To make testable predictions using our model, we need estimates of the cotranscriptional folding and unfolding rates of the aptamer B as well as B2, the aptamer with the antiterminator sequence. The kinetic model described mathematically in the Supporting Material can be used to extract parameters that most closely fit the measured dependence on [M] for the FMN riboswitch (9). When the aptamer sequence is transcribed, the transcript favors the aptamer folded state, and when the antiterminator sequence is transcribed, the folding pattern changes in favor of forming the antiterminator stem with disruption of the aptamer folded structure (9). Thus, there are restraints on the folding rates, kf1>kf1 and kf2<kf2. We also assume the same association (dissociation) rate constant for metabolite binding to B, B2, and B2t because there is little change in the results when the values of kb2 and kb3 are drastically altered. In addition, because we only allow the folded states of the aptamer to bind M the effective KD is a convolution of the folding rates and the binding rate. Thus, even though kb is the same the decrease in the folding rate as the transcript length increases effectively decreases KD. The values of the transitions rates that reproduce the measured fter (blue squares in Fig. 2) are listed in Table 1. The folding rates kf1 and kf2 are within an order of magnitude of the theoretical prediction based on, kfk0eN, k0106 s−1, where N is the number of nucleotides (14,15). Moreover, the rate kf1 we obtained is in the same order of magnitude of the folding rate of other riboswitch aptamer with similar lengths observed in experiments (16). Thus, for the purposes of quantitatively describing the in vitro experiments we need only two kinetic rates (kf1 and kf2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Dependence of transcription termination on metabolite concentration without feedback. (A) Fraction of terminated RNA transcripts, fter, as a function of the logarithm of the metabolite concentration for different values of K2kf2/kf2 with kb2=kb3=kb. Parameters that reproduce the in vitro experimental fter are listed in Table 1. The inset in (A) shows the half-response metabolite concentration, T50, as a function of K2. (B) Sensitivity of fter to different values of kb2 and kb3. Except for modest changes in T50 there is little change in fter when the binding rates are drastically altered. The blue points in (A) and (B) are data from experiments on FMN riboswitch (9).

Table 1.

Kinetic parameters for model in Fig. 1 without feedback

kf1 kf1 kf2 kf2 kt1 kt2 kb†§ k−b
0.1 0.04 2.5 × 10−3 0.04 0.1 0.016 0.1 10−3

In unit of s−1 for all rates except kb.

Values from experimental data (9).

§

In unit of μM−1s−1.

The folding rate of the aptamer is comparable to kt1 (Fig. 1). The transition rate (kf2) from B2 (Fig. 1) to B2 is 2–3 times the rate of transcription elongation to the stage where the terminator sequence is transcribed (kt2). Because the results are not sensitive to kf1, if the other rates are fixed, we choose kf1kf2 because both involve unfolding of the folded aptamer structure. With this assumption, the parameter set that emerges when our model is used to quantitatively describe (see Fig. 2) the in vitro kinetic experiments is unique. In addition, under these conditions, the regulation of transcription termination works when [M] is in large excess over RNA transcript, when [M]0/[B]0>10. With [M]=1 μM for metabolite concentration and kb=0.1 μM1s1, the binding time is ∼10 s, which is of the same order of magnitude as the transcription elongation rate and the folding rate of the antiterminator stem. Consequently, the metabolite binding is unlikely to reach equilibrium before formation of the antiterminator stem. Large excess of metabolite, exceeding the equilibrium KD (∼10 nM) for FMN binding to B2, over RNA transcript is needed for the metabolites to bind the riboswitches with sufficient speed to regulate transcription under the conditions explored in experiments (9).

Results

Dependence of fter on K2

We investigated how fter depends on variations in the transition rates around the parameter set listed in Table 1. Fig. 2 shows that the fraction of terminated transcripts converges to the same value in the limit of high metabolite concentration, independent of K2kf2/kf2, while keeping the other parameters fixed. At high [M], B and B2 are always metabolite bound, which results in very low [B2]. Hence, varying kf2 does not affect fter at high [M]. In the limit of low [M], fter decreases as K2 increases because kf2 exceeds the effective binding rate kb[M] so that B2 is preferentially populated.

The effective metabolite concentration T50, at which

fter(T50)fterLfterHfterL=0.5, (1)

where fterH(fterL) is the value of fter at high (low) [M], does not change much as K2 is varied (see the inset in Fig. 2). Even when K2 is small T50/KD>1 implying the concentration of [M] is in excess of the equilibrium KD to effect binding to B2. Because the population of B2 is favored as K2 increases, it follows that fter decreases at all concentrations of the metabolite as K2 is changed from a low to a high value (Fig. 2). In addition, the transcription rate from B2 (or B2) to the next stage where terminator sequence forms (kt2) is about one order of magnitude larger than kf2, which means that at low or normal metabolite concentration, transitions between B2 and B2 states do not reach equilibrium before the terminator sequence is transcribed—a result that also follows from the inequality T50>KD. Finally, the dissociation rate constant is much smaller than kt2, which indicates that once the metabolite is bound, the bound state remains stable through transcription termination. Hence, the riboswitch is in the kinetically driven regime with the parameters used here—a conclusion that was reached in the previous study (9).

Dynamic range and thermodynamic control

Thermodynamic equilibrium between B2 and B2 can be reached only if the transcription speed is much slower than the transition rates between different folding patterns and the association rate with metabolites (Fig. 1). We varied the transcription speed to probe how the riboswitch can be driven from kinetic to thermodynamic control, which can be experimentally realized by increasing the pausing time, achievable by adding transcription factors, such as NusA. The dependence of fter on [M] at various γ2kt2/kf2 values shows that, in the limit of low metabolite concentration, fter is roughly equal to the fraction of folded aptamer fB2kf2/(kf2+kf2)0.06. At high metabolite concentrations, almost all riboswitches are metabolite bound, and transcription is terminated with high probability (Fig. 3 A). As γ2 increases, the system transitions to a kinetically driven regime and the probability that the transcription is terminated at high [M] decreases, whereas the fraction of terminated transcript at low [M] increases.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Speed of transcription and gene expression. (A) Fraction of terminated RNA transcripts, fter, as a function of the logarithm of metabolite concentration for different values of γ2kt2/kf2. The parameters that reproduce the experimental fter results in γ2=6. The inset shows log (T50) as a function of log (γ2). (B) The dynamic range ηfterHfterL, where fterH(fterL) is the value of fter at high (low) metabolite concentration, as a function of K2. (C) Variation of T50 as a function of K2. (D) Fraction of terminated RNA transcripts as a function of the logarithm of metabolite concentration for different values of K2 with γ2=102. Other parameters used are listed in Table 1.

Interestingly, at high [M] we find that fter decreases as γ2 increases because in this limit the folded B2 has insufficient time to make a transition to B2. As a result the population of B2 decreases at high γ2, resulting in a reduction in fter (Fig. 3 A). Surprisingly, the exact opposite result is obtained at low [M] as γ2 is varied. At low [M] and small γ2 the binding rate kb[M] is small enough that the transition to B2 occurs with high probability resulting in a decrease in fter. As γ2 increases, the flux from B2 to B2 decreases and the pathway to B2 from B becomes relevant leading to an increase in fter at low [M] (Fig. 3 A). Thus, at high γ2 and low [M] the extent of transcription termination is controlled by K1kf1/kf1 and γ1kt1/kf1. The value of T50 increases substantially relative to KD as γ2 increases (see the inset in Fig. 3 A). Even when γ2 is very small T50 exceeds KD implying that it is difficult to drive the FMN riboswitch to thermodynamic control under the conditions used in experiments (9).

Fig. 3 B shows the dynamic range ηfterHfterL as a function of K2 for different values of γ2. The riboswitch functions with maximal dynamic range when the system is nearly under thermodynamic control corresponding to small K2 values. The range of T50 is between 0.1 μM (100KD) and 1 μM (1000KD) for γ2>1 (Fig. 3 C). When the unfolding rate of the aptamer folded structure (B2) is comparable to the speed of transcription to the terminator sequence, K2γ2, T50 has the smallest value. The minimum T50 decreases as γ2 decreases, and T50 becomes less dependent on K2 when K2<1. When γ21, as shown in Fig. 3 D, the probability of transcription termination approaches unity in the limit of high metabolite concentration at all values of K2. On the other hand, in the limit of low metabolite concentration (kb[M] is small), fter increases and T50 decreases as K2 decreases. The results in Fig. 3 show that the efficiency of the riboswitch function is determined by a compromise between the need to maximize η (γ2 should be small) and the ability to terminate transcription (γ2 should be large).

Effect of aptamer folding rates on fter

In the kinetically driven regime (γ2>1), the probability of transcription termination depends on the fraction of the aptamer formed state before transcription of the antiterminator sequence. This fraction can be changed by altering kf1, or equivalently the ratio K1kf1/kf1, or by varying the transcription speed from the aptamer domain sequence to antiterminator sequence, kt1. When K11, most of the riboswitches do not form stable folded aptamer domain B (Fig. 1), resulting in a very small fraction of transcription termination and low response to changes in the metabolite concentration. As the transition rate from the unfolded state (B) to the folded aptamer state (B) increases relative to the reverse transition rate, the fraction of terminated transcripts and dynamic range increases (Fig. 4 A). In the limit of high [M], the probability of transcription termination approaches 1 when K11, whereas in the low [M] limit, almost all the riboswitches are aptamer folded but without metabolite bound (B) before transcription to antiterminator sequence. Just as in Fig. 2, T50 is not sensitive to changes in K1 (see inset in Fig. 4 A).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Aptamer folding rates and fter. (A) Fraction of terminated RNA transcripts as a function of log ([M]) for different values of K1kf1/kf1 using the parameters listed in Table 1 except for kf1. (B) Fraction of terminated RNA transcripts as a function of log ([M]) for different values of γ1kt1/kf1. Inset shows the dependence of T50 on γ1.

Fig. 4 B shows the concentration dependence of the fraction of terminated transcripts for different transcription rates to the antiterminator sequence, or the ratio γ1kt1/kf1. When the transcription rate is much faster than the folding rate, the riboswitch does not have enough time to form the aptamer folded structure, which results in a low fraction of terminated transcripts and low response to metabolite concentration change. When the transcription rate is much slower than the folding rate, the folded and unfolded states of the aptamer are able to reach equilibrium before transcription to antiterminator sequence. In the high metabolite concentration limit, the riboswitch is always metabolite bound resulting in transcription termination. At low [M], the riboswitch does not bind the metabolite. The fraction of aptamer formed state without bound metabolite is kf1/(kf1+kf1)fter before transcription to the antiterminator sequence. There is substantial variation in T50 as γ1 changes as the inset in Fig. 4 B shows. Thus, besides the speed of transcription and the binding rates, the folding rates of the aptamers have considerable influence on fter (compare insets in Fig. 3 A and Fig. 4 B).

Transcription with negative feedback loop

Most riboswitches regulate gene expression of the downstream platform that encodes for proteins involved in the production of the specific metabolite that itself binds to the riboswitch (Fig. 1). Therefore, sensing and binding of its own metabolite by the riboswitch acts as a feedback to control gene expression. For riboswitches that suppress gene expression by binding to metabolites with high selectivity (for example, guanine riboswitches or FMN riboswitches) such feedback loop is an example of negative autoregulation, which has been widely studied in gene regulation networks associated with transcription factors (17). We include the role negative feedback plays in regulating transcription termination by generalizing the in vitro kinetic model considered in the previous section. Our minimal model, illustrated in Fig. 1 and described in detail in the Supporting Material, provides a framework for interpreting future in vivo experiments.

We consider transcription and translation in a cell and take into account RNA degradation and cell expansion. The transcription process is similar to that described without a feedback loop, except now we include the effect of cell expansion and RNA degradation. We assume that the cell grows at a rate of μ=5×104 s−1, resulting in a typical doubling time of ln2/μ20 minutes for an Escherichia coli cell, and that the degradation rate of the fully transcribed RNA or terminated RNA transcript is kd1. The values of kd1, and other parameters in the feedback loop are in Table 2. The fully transcribed RNA serves as a template for the translation of the protein (P) that synthesizes metabolite M0, which is then converted to an active form M by the enzyme E encoded by the gene OF (Fig. 1). The species M, with a degradation rate of kd3, is the target metabolite that binds to the riboswitch.

Table 2.

Additional kinetic parameters for model in Fig. 1 with negative feedback

kt3 K1 k2 k3 kd1§ kd2 kd3ǁ μ
0.01 0.016 0.3 0.064 2.3 × 10−3 2.7 × 10−4 4.5 × 10−3 5 × 10−4

In unit of s−1 for all rates.

Ref. (26).

Ref. (27).

§

Ref. (28).

Ref. (29).

ǁ

See the Supporting Material.

In the case of FMN riboswitches, M0 represents riboflavin, the eventual product encoded by the gene ribD (OR), which is subsequently converted to FMN by flavokinase (E), synthesized by the gene ribC (OF). The degradation rate kd3 takes into account the effect of conversion from FMN to FAD (flavin adenine dinucleotide) by FAD synthetase in vivo (see the Supporting Material for more details). However, we neglect the potential binding of FAD to the riboswitch because there is a 60-fold difference (or potentially even larger factor in the absence of FMN) in the binding of FMN and FAD to the FMN riboswitch (18). In the model with negative feedback the extent of regulation by riboswitches is expressed in terms of the production of the protein P (Fig. 1).

We assume that the activated level of the operon, OR, for transcription initiation of the riboswitch is a constant, and set [DNA]=[OR]=2.5 nM, which is equivalent to one DNA molecule in an E. coli cell, and assume that the aptamer sequence, B, is produced with an effective rate constant k1=0.016 s1, taking into account the transcription initiation rate (50 s between initiation events (19,20)) and the typical transcription speed, 1035 nucleotides/s (21). With these parameters fixed, which are used for illustrative purposes only, we can study the effect of feedback by varying the effective rate kF, at which E is produced from OF. We set [OF]=[OR]. If E is produced at a rate similar to that of protein P, without feedback, then kF1 s−1, which we set as a reference rate kF0 (see the Supporting Material for details). At this rate, the steady-state level of enzyme E is ∼103 copies per cell. The variation of rate kF can result from delays or speed up in the process of the transcription from OF or translation of E, or even deficiency in OF.

Dependence of [P] on enzyme production and metabolite binding rates

We assess the extent of regulation due to feedback by the changes in the protein level expression, [P], as the parameters in the network are varied. The results in Fig. 5 A show that when kF/kF0 is low, very few active metabolites are formed to suppress protein expression. Consequently, the expression level of protein does not change at low kF/kF0 at all values of γ2 (Fig. 5 A). This finding explains the observation that deficiency in ribC (OF in Fig. 1), the gene that encodes for flavokinase (E in Fig. 1), causes accumulation of riboflavin (M0 in Fig. 1) without converting it to FMN, and thus cannot suppress the synthesis of riboflavin (22,23). When kF increases to about 103kF0, the expression of the protein starts to be suppressed. There is a substantial suppression of protein concentration (Fig. 5 A) at all γ2 values when kF/kF0>102. As kF exceeds 0.1kF0, the suppression begins to saturate (Fig. 5 A) because most of M0 produced are converted to M, and the [P] level is essentially determined by the production of [M]0, which is independent of kF. Thus, at all γ2 values, [P] level varies between two steady-state values as kF is changed.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Effect of negative feedback. (A) Protein (P in Fig. 1) concentration at different γ2 values as a function of the logarithm of kF, the production rate constant of enzyme E that produces the metabolite M, relative to kF0=1 s−1. The parameters are given in Table 1 and Table 2 except kt2. (B) The extent of regulation expressed in terms of protein level as a function of the logarithm of association rate constant kb for metabolite binding. The parameters are listed in Table 1 and Table 2 except kb and kb. KD is fixed at 10 nM.

In contrast to the results in Fig. 5 A, the extent of regulation ([P] levels) varies greatly with the binding rate constant of metabolites while keeping KD fixed at 10 nM (Fig. 5 B). Changes in [P] as kb is varied, which affect synthesis of M0 (Fig. 1), depend on kF/kF0. When kFkF0, most of the aptamer folded structures are metabolite bound at the experimental value of kb=0.1 μM−1s−1, and hence the level of protein expression is suppressed. Therefore, with ∼103 copies of enzyme E in a cell, the production of [P] decreases substantially even if the binding rate constant is small. Binding occurs because the concentration of active metabolites (∼25 μM) is far larger than RNA transcripts (∼10 nM), resulting in a high effective binding rate kb[M]. The ability to suppress protein production decreases if the binding rate constant is smaller than the experimental value by more than one order of magnitude, or when the value of kF decreases. Not surprisingly, when kF is very low, the dependence of binding rate on expression of P decreases. As a consequence the changes in P production decrease greatly as kF/kF0 decreases (Fig. 5 B). Thus, only over a small range of kb and kF/kF0 does the riboswitch function with sufficient dynamic range.

Interplay between cotranscriptional folding and transcription speed

The dependence of transcription rate on the extent of regulation, shown in Fig. 6, exhibits three distinct functional modality depending on the value of kt2 relative to kf2. First, consider the case with kF=0 (black line in Fig. 6 A). If kt2kf2, the fraction of fully transcribed RNA (Fig. 6 A), ftra=1fter, becomes

ftra[RNA][RNA]0K1(1+kt1+μkf1)1+K1(1+kt1+μkf1), (2)

where [RNA]0 is the sum of concentration of the fully transcribed and terminated RNA transcripts, and K1kf1/kf1. In this limit, ftra depends predominantly on the folding transition rate before the antiterminator sequence (B2) is transcribed (Fig. 1). Hence, ftra is a function of kt1, kf1, and the rate of cell expansion. When kt2/kf2 decreases, cotranscriptional folding results in the formation of the antiterminator stem, which prevents transcription termination. If kt2kf2 and μkf2, then

ftraK2K2+1=kf2kf2+kf2, (3)

where K2kf2/kf2. In this limit, B2 and B2 (Fig. 1) are in equilibrium. These results are the same as those in the limit of low metabolite concentration without the feedback loop (Fig. 3 A).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Role of kt2 on negative feedback. (A) The fraction of fully transcribed RNA, ftra=1fter, as a function of kt2/kf2. The numbers give values of kF/kF0 with kF0=1 s−1. The dependence of ftra on kt2/kf2 shows three regimes: thermodynamic controlled regime for low kt2 (kt2/kf2<0.025, or kt2<0.1kb), aptamer folding dominated regime for high kt2(kt2>kf2), and intermediate regime with significant metabolite binding. (B) The P concentration as a function of kt2/kf2 at different kF/kF0 values (as described in (A)).

For finite kF, when kt2 is fast relative to kf2 the expression level of protein P is nearly independent of kt2 (Fig. 6 B). In this regime transcription termination and hence the extent of completed transcription is determined by the folding rates of the aptamer, which is not greatly affected by negative feedback. When the transcription speed decreases, the expression of protein P increases for small kF (Fig. 6 B). The expression level of P reaches a peak when kt2/kf20.11, and it disappears when kF/kF01 because the metabolite binding becomes significant enough to stabilize the folded aptamer structure and offset the effect of formation of the antiterminator stem. This is illustrated in Fig. 6 A, which shows that ftra decreases significantly when kt2 goes below 0.1kf2 and reaches a minimum at kt2/kf20.01. The dependence of [P] on kt2/kf2 is maximal when kt2/kf20.010.1. When the transcription rate decreases further (kt20.1kb, or kt2/kf22.5×103 as shown by the left dashed line in Fig. 6 A), the fraction of fully transcribed RNA increases sharply because the transcription rate is slow enough for the dissociation of metabolites from riboswitches to occur significantly. The system can establish thermodynamic equilibrium, which increases the favorability of the formation of antiterminator stem when kt2 decreases resulting in decreasing effective binding rate kb[M]. However, the overall expression level of protein P becomes very low because slow transcription results in a decrease in P production. In addition, there is also significant probability of RNA degradation, which also results in a decrease in P expression. Therefore, the extent of regulation due to the negative feedback of metabolite binding has a maximal effect when kt2/kf20.01 where the protein expression is suppressed by metabolite binding by as large as 85%.

Dynamic phase diagram: competition between folding, transcription, and binding rates

To have a more complete picture on how the interplay between folding of RNA transcripts, transcription, and metabolite binding regulate the expression of P, we study the dependence of [P] on the transcription rates and the effective binding rate kb[M]. The dynamic phase diagram in Fig. 7 is calculated by varying both kt1, (kt2), and kb with KD=10 nM. In the first stage of transcription elongation, i.e., after the aptamer sequence is transcribed, the formation of the aptamer structure is the key step in regulating transcription termination. Thus, the folding rate kf1 and the effective metabolite binding rate are the key rates in competition with kt1 for regulation of [P]. Fig. 7 A shows three regimes for the dependence of [P] on kt1 and kb[M]. In regime I, kt1>kf1, the folding rate is slow relative to transcription to the next stage (Fig. 1). Thus, the aptamer structure does not have enough time to form. The dominant flux is from B to B2, which leads to high probability of fully transcribed RNA downstream because of the low transition rate from B2 to B2. The metabolite binding has little effect on protein expression in this regime, particularly for large kt1/kf1, and hence the protein is highly expressed. In regime II, kb[M]<kt1<kf1, the aptamer has enough time to fold but the metabolite binding is slow. The dominant flux is BBB2, leading to formation of antitermination stem (B2B2) or transcription termination (B2B2t). The expression level of protein is thus mainly determined by kf2 and kt2, and the protein production is partially suppressed in this regime. In regime III, kt1<kf1 and kt1<kb[M], the aptamer has sufficient time to both fold and bind metabolite, the dominant pathway is BBBMB2M, leading to transcription termination. The protein production is highly suppressed in this regime. The results using parameters from Table 1 and Table 2 (kt1=kf1 and kb[M]/kf125) fall on the interface of regime I and regime III, as shown by the arrow in Fig. 7 A. The metabolite binding does not reach thermodynamic equilibrium due to a low dissociation constant. However, the effective binding rate is high because the steady-state concentration of metabolites (∼25 μM) is in large excess over RNA transcripts. Thus, the riboswitch is kinetically driven under this condition even when feedback is included.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Dependence of protein production on the network parameters with feedback. (A) Protein levels as functions of kt1/kf1 and kb with negative feedback using parameters in Table 1 and Table 2. The scale for the [P] production is shown in the color spectrum. The dependence of [P] on kt1 and kb is categorized into three regimes (see text for details). Points on the dashed line separating regime II and regime III satisfy kb[M]=kt1. The major pathway in the transcription process in each regime is shown on the right. The arrow indicates the data point resulting from using the value of kt1 and kb in Table 1. (B) Expression level of proteins as functions of kt2/kf2 and kb with negative feedback using the parameters in Table 1 and Table 2. The dependence of [P] on kt2 and kb[M] is categorized into three regimes. Points on the dashed line separating regime I and regime II/III satisfy kb[M]=kf2. The corresponding major transcription pathways are shown on the right. The data point corresponding to the arrow results from using the value of kt2 and kb in Table 1.

With kt1 comparable to kf1, at the second stage of transcription elongation the key step against transcription termination is the formation of the antiterminator stem (B2B2). Fig. 7 B also shows three regimes for the dependence of [P] on kt2 and kb[M] relative to kf2, and the associated most probable pathways are displayed on the right. In regime I, kb[M]>kf2, the effective binding rate competes favorably with B2B2 transition so that B2, if populated, is not likely to form the antiterminator stem. However, in this regime, the effective binding rate is also likely to be larger than kt1, resulting in most of the metabolite binding occurring at the first stage of transcription. Protein production is partially suppressed with the flux toward transcription termination flowing through BMB2MT (terminated transcript). In regime II, kb[M]<kf2<kt2, both the metabolite binding and B2B2 transition are too slow to occur. The protein production level is mainly determined by kt1 and kf1. The major pathways are BB2RNA and BBB2T, leading to partial protein suppression. In regime III, kb[M]<kf2 and kt2<kf2, metabolite binding is too slow to occur, but the riboswitch has enough time to form the antiterminator stem before the terminator sequence is transcribed. The major flux from B2 flows to B2, leading to fully transcribed RNA, and proteins are highly expressed. We note that using the parameters from Table 1 and Table 2 (kt2/kf2=0.4 and kbM/kf260), the result falls in regime I with partial protein suppression. Among the three regimes, regime I has efficient negative feedback, whereas the slow metabolite binding in regime II and regime III make results resemble those without feedback. The dynamic phase diagrams predict results with limiting cases of various parameters, whose values may be within range in vivo and most certainly in vitro.

Role of feedback in response to DNA bursts

To assess how feedback affects the response to a sudden burst in DNA concentration we calculated the time dependent changes in the protein concentration,

ΔP(t)ΔPst=P[DNA]f(t)P[DNA]i(t)P[DNA]fstP[DNA]ist, (4)

when the DNA concentration is switched from [DNA]i to [DNA]f. In Eq. 4 st stands for steady state. Fig. 8 A shows the response time, defined as the time needed to reach halfway to the new steady-state level (dashed line in Fig. 8 A), for [DNA]f = 3.75 nM and [DNA]i = 2.5 nM using folding and unfolding rates one order of magnitude larger than those in Table 1. Small transient fluctuations in DNA concentration could arise from environmental stresses, and hence it is interesting to examine the response of the network to such changes. The values of the folding rates from Table 1 result in little difference in response time between cases with negative feedback and without feedback. However, with larger folding rates, the response time for the systems with negative feedback is significantly shorter than without feedback (Fig. 8 A). The fractional change of the fully transcribed RNA, ΔF(t)ftra([DNA]f,t)ftra([DNA]i,t) (Fig. 8 B), shows a slight increase with overshoot initially before settling into a steady-state level lower than the original one in the case of negative feedback (blue line in Fig. 8 B). For the case without feedback, the fraction of fully transcribed RNA decreases initially before reaching the expected steady-state level (red line in Fig. 8 B).

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Role of feedback to a spike in the DNA concentration. (A) Response of protein level (ΔP) relative to the change of steady-state level (ΔPst) when the DNA level increases by 50%. The response time is 850 s with negative feedback (blue line) and 1450 s without feedback (red line). The values of folding and unfolding rates used are 10-fold larger than those given in Table 1. (B) Response of the fraction of fully transcribed RNA, ΔF, when the DNA level increases by 50%. The fraction of fully transcribed RNA increases initially with negative feedback (blue line) and decreases initially without feedback (red line) before settling to a new steady state. (C) Fractional change in protein steady-state level relative to that in DNA concentration, δPst/δD, in response to a 50% rise in DNA level, as a function of kt2/kf2 and kb for the riboswitch network with negative feedback using parameters in Table 1. Points on the dashed line separating regime I and regime II/III satisfy kb[M]=kf2. (D) Same as (C) with the overall folding and unfolding rates being 10-fold greater than those in Table 1. The arrow indicates the data point when kt2 and kb are at the values from Table 1.

With negative feedback and 10-fold increase in overall folding and unfolding rates, the fractional increase in the protein steady-state level, δPst(P[DNA]fstP[DNA]ist)/P[DNA]ist, in response to the increase in DNA level, δD=([DNA]f[DNA]i)/[DNA]i, is reduced by more than half of that in the case without feedback for a certain range of parameters, as shown in Fig. 8, C and D. Without feedback, δPst=δD. Negative feedback noticeably reduces the variations of expression in protein due to DNA level change. Substantial reduction occurs when the effective binding rate is comparable to kf2 and when kt2kf2 (the interface between regime I and regime III in Fig. 8 D).

Discussion

Transcription, regulated by metabolite binding to riboswitches, depends on interplay of a number of timescales that are intrinsic to the cotranscriptional folding of the riboswitch as well as those determined by cellular conditions. For a riboswitch to function with a large dynamic range, transcription levels should change significantly as the metabolite concentration increases from a low to high value. In the high concentration limit, RNA transcript in the aptamer folded state binds a metabolite. Low dissociation rate constant results in the formation of a terminator stem, which subsequently terminates transcription. In the low concentration limit, the aptamer folded state is mostly unbound and can remain folded until transcription termination or can fold to the antiterminator state leading to the transcription of the full RNA. The levels of transcription termination are thus controlled by the transition rates between the aptamer folded and unfolded states.

For in vitro description the efficiency of riboswitch is determined by two conflicting requirements. If η, the dynamic range, is to be maximized, then γ2 has to be sufficiently low. However, at low γ2 and realistic values of the metabolite concentration, fter1, implies the switching function (needed to abort transcription) cannot be achieved. Thus, γ2 has to have an optimal range (γ2(110)) for the riboswitch to have sufficient dynamic range without compromising the ability to switch from an on to off state.

In the presence of a negative feedback loop the concentration of target metabolites is also regulated by gene expression. Under nominal operating conditions (kt2/kf20.010.1) binding of target metabolites, products of the downstream gene that riboswitches regulate, significantly suppresses the expression of proteins. Negative feedback suppresses the protein level by about half relative to the case without feedback. In vivo, the presence of RNA binding proteins, such as NusA, may increase the pausing times, thus effectively reducing the transcription rates. Thus, the repression of the protein level by the riboswitch through metabolite binding may be up to 10-fold. Faster RNA folding and unfolding rates than those we obtained may also increase the suppression by negative feedback and broaden the range of transcription rates over which maximal suppression occurs. These predictions are amenable to experimental test.

In response to changes in the active operon level, the negative feedback speeds up the response time of expression and modestly reduces the percentage change in the protein level relative to change in the operon level. The steady-state level of expression for autoregulation varies as a square root of the DNA concentration. Adaptive biological systems may minimize the variation in gene expression to keep the systems functioning normally even when the environments change drastically. One may need to consider more complex networks than the single autoregulation in the transcription network to find near perfect adaptation to the environmental change (24).

Riboswitches provide novel ways to engineer biological circuits to control gene expression by binding small molecules. As found in tandem riboswitches (6,7), multiple riboswitches can be engineered to control a single gene with greater regulatory complexity or increase in the dynamic range of gene control. Synthetic riboswitches have been successfully used to control the chemotaxis of bacteria (25). Our study provides a physical basis for not only analyzing future experiments but also in anticipating their outcomes.

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Hinczewski for constructive suggestions and advice.

This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation through grant No. CHE09-10433.

Contributor Information

Jong-Chin Lin, Email: jclin@umd.edu.

D. Thirumalai, Email: thirum@umd.edu.

Supporting Material

Document S1. Kinetic model and steady state solutions
mmc1.pdf (179.9KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Cheah M.T., Wachter A., Breaker R.R. Control of alternative RNA splicing and gene expression by eukaryotic riboswitches. Nature. 2007;447:497–500. doi: 10.1038/nature05769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Montange R.K., Batey R.T. Riboswitches: emerging themes in RNA structure and function. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2008;37:117–133. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.130000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Winkler W.C., Breaker R.R. Regulation of bacterial gene expression by riboswitches. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2005;59:487–517. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.59.030804.121336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Batey R.T., Gilbert S.D., Montange R.K. Structure of a natural guanine-responsive riboswitch complexed with the metabolite hypoxanthine. Nature. 2004;432:411–415. doi: 10.1038/nature03037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Serganov A., Yuan Y.R., Patel D.J. Structural basis for discriminative regulation of gene expression by adenine- and guanine-sensing mRNAs. Chem. Biol. 2004;11:1729–1741. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2004.11.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Breaker R.R. Complex riboswitches. Science. 2008;319:1795–1797. doi: 10.1126/science.1152621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sudarsan N., Hammond M.C., Breaker R.R. Tandem riboswitch architectures exhibit complex gene control functions. Science. 2006;314:300–304. doi: 10.1126/science.1130716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Watson P.Y., Fedor M.J. The glmS riboswitch integrates signals from activating and inhibitory metabolites in vivo. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011;18:359–363. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wickiser J.K., Winkler W.C., Crothers D.M. The speed of RNA transcription and metabolite binding kinetics operate an FMN riboswitch. Mol. Cell. 2005;18:49–60. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.02.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Carothers J.M., Goler J.A., Keasling J.D. Model-driven engineering of RNA devices to quantitatively program gene expression. Science. 2011;334:1716–1719. doi: 10.1126/science.1212209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Link K.H., Breaker R.R. Engineering ligand-responsive gene-control elements: lessons learned from natural riboswitches. Gene Ther. 2009;16:1189–1201. doi: 10.1038/gt.2009.81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Beisel C.L., Smolke C.D. Design principles for riboswitch function. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2009;5:e1000363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chen X., Ellington A.D. Design principles for ligand-sensing, conformation-switching ribozymes. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2009;5:e1000620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hyeon C., Thirumalai D. Chain length determines the folding rates of RNA. Biophys. J. 2012;102:L11–L13. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.01.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Thirumalai D. From minimal models to real proteins: time scales for protein folding kinetics. J. Phys. I. 1995;5:1457–1467. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Perdrizet G.A., 2nd, Artsimovitch I., Pan T. Transcriptional pausing coordinates folding of the aptamer domain and the expression platform of a riboswitch. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2012;109:3323–3328. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113086109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Alon U. Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007;8:450–461. doi: 10.1038/nrg2102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Winkler W.C., Cohen-Chalamish S., Breaker R.R. An mRNA structure that controls gene expression by binding FMN. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:15908–15913. doi: 10.1073/pnas.212628899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Iyer V., Struhl K. Absolute mRNA levels and transcriptional initiation rates in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1996;93:5208–5212. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.11.5208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Larson D.R., Zenklusen D., Singer R.H. Real-time observation of transcription initiation and elongation on an endogenous yeast gene. Science. 2011;332:475–478. doi: 10.1126/science.1202142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Uptain S.M., Kane C.M., Chamberlin M.J. Basic mechanisms of transcript elongation and its regulation. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1997;66:117–172. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.66.1.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gusarov I.I., Kreneva R.A., Perumov D.A. Primary structure and functional activity of the Bacillus subtilis ribC gene. Mol. Biol. (Mosk.) 1997;31:820–825. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mack M.A., van Loon A.P., Hohmann H.P. Regulation of riboflavin biosynthesis in Bacillus subtilis is affected by the activity of the flavokinase/flavin adenine dinucleotide synthetase encoded by ribC. J. Bacteriol. 1998;180:950–955. doi: 10.1128/jb.180.4.950-955.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ma W., Trusina A., Tang C. Defining network topologies that can achieve biochemical adaptation. Cell. 2009;138:760–773. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.06.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Topp S., Gallivan J.P. Guiding bacteria with small molecules and RNA. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:6807–6811. doi: 10.1021/ja0692480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.McAdams H.H., Arkin A. Stochastic mechanisms in gene expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1997;94:814–819. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.3.814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schramek N., Bracher A., Bacher A. Biosynthesis of riboflavin. Single turnover kinetic analysis of GTP cyclohydrolase II. J. Biol. Chem. 2001;276:44157–44162. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M107306200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bernstein J.A., Khodursky A.B., Cohen S.N. Global analysis of mRNA decay and abundance in Escherichia coli at single-gene resolution using two-color fluorescent DNA microarrays. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:9697–9702. doi: 10.1073/pnas.112318199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Belle A., Tanay A., O’Shea E.K. Quantification of protein half-lives in the budding yeast proteome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:13004–13009. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605420103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Document S1. Kinetic model and steady state solutions
mmc1.pdf (179.9KB, pdf)

Articles from Biophysical Journal are provided here courtesy of The Biophysical Society

RESOURCES