Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

In situ structures of the genome and genome-delivery apparatus in a single-stranded RNA virus

Nature volume 541, pages 112–116 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Packaging of the genome into a protein capsid and its subsequent delivery into a host cell are two fundamental processes in the life cycle of a virus. Unlike double-stranded DNA viruses, which pump their genome into a preformed capsid1,2,3, single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) viruses, such as bacteriophage MS2, co-assemble their capsid with the genome4,5,6,7; however, the structural basis of this co-assembly is poorly understood. MS2 infects Escherichia coli via the host ‘sex pilus’ (F-pilus)8; it was the first fully sequenced organism9 and is a model system for studies of translational gene regulation10,11, RNA–protein interactions12,13,14, and RNA virus assembly15,16,17. Its positive-sense ssRNA genome of 3,569 bases is enclosed in a capsid with one maturation protein monomer and 89 coat protein dimers arranged in a T = 3 icosahedral lattice18,19. The maturation protein is responsible for attaching the virus to an F-pilus and delivering the viral genome into the host during infection8, but how the genome is organized and delivered is not known. Here we describe the MS2 structure at 3.6 Å resolution, determined by electron-counting cryo-electron microscopy (cryoEM) and asymmetric reconstruction. We traced approximately 80% of the backbone of the viral genome, built atomic models for 16 RNA stem–loops, and identified three conserved motifs of RNA–coat protein interactions among 15 of these stem–loops with diverse sequences. The stem–loop at the 3′ end of the genome interacts extensively with the maturation protein, which, with just a six-helix bundle and a six-stranded β-sheet, forms a genome-delivery apparatus and joins 89 coat protein dimers to form a capsid. This atomic description of genome–capsid interactions in a spherical ssRNA virus provides insight into genome delivery via the host sex pilus and mechanisms underlying ssRNA–capsid co-assembly, and inspires speculation about the links between nucleoprotein complexes and the origins of viruses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: CryoEM asymmetric reconstruction of MS2 at 3.6 Å resolution.
Figure 2: Modelling the ssRNA genome.
Figure 3: Conserved interaction motifs between RNA stem–loops and coat protein dimers.
Figure 4: Maturation protein and its interactions with the 3′-end stem–loop.
Figure 5: Binding of maturation protein to genome and bacterial F-pilus.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Electron Microscopy Data Bank

Protein Data Bank

References

  1. Jiang, W. et al. Structure of epsilon15 bacteriophage reveals genome organization and DNA packaging/injection apparatus. Nature 439, 612–616 (2006)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lander, G. C. et al. The structure of an infectious P22 virion shows the signal for headful DNA packaging. Science 312, 1791–1795 (2006)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Catalano, C. E. Viral Genome Packaging Machines: Genetics, Structure, and Mechanism (Springer, 2005)

  4. Basnak, G. et al. Viral genomic single-stranded RNA directs the pathway toward a T=3 capsid. J. Mol. Biol. 395, 924–936 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sun, S., Rao, V. B. & Rossmann, M. G. Genome packaging in viruses. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 20, 114–120 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Perlmutter, J. D. & Hagan, M. F. Mechanisms of virus assembly. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 66, 217–239 (2015)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Klug, A. The tobacco mosaic virus particle: structure and assembly. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 354, 531–535 (1999)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Valentine, R. C. & Strand, M. Complexes of F-pili and RNA bacteriophage. Science 148, 511–513 (1965)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fiers, W. et al. Complete nucleotide sequence of bacteriophage MS2 RNA: primary and secondary structure of the replicase gene. Nature 260, 500–507 (1976)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schmidt, B. F., Berkhout, B., Overbeek, G. P., van Strien, A. & van Duin, J. Determination of the RNA secondary structure that regulates lysis gene expression in bacteriophage MS2. J. Mol. Biol. 195, 505–516 (1987)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Poot, R. A., Tsareva, N. V., Boni, I. V. & van Duin, J. RNA folding kinetics regulates translation of phage MS2 maturation gene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 10110–10115 (1997)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Valegård, K., Murray, J. B., Stockley, P. G., Stonehouse, N. J. & Liljas, L. Crystal structure of an RNA bacteriophage coat protein-operator complex. Nature 371, 623–626 (1994)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Convery, M. A. et al. Crystal structure of an RNA aptamer-protein complex at 2.8 Å resolution. Nat. Struct. Biol. 5, 133–139 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rowsell, S. et al. Crystal structures of a series of RNA aptamers complexed to the same protein target. Nat. Struct. Biol. 5, 970–975 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Borodavka, A., Tuma, R. & Stockley, P. G. Evidence that viral RNAs have evolved for efficient, two-stage packaging. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 15769–15774 (2012)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Patel, N. et al. Revealing the density of encoded functions in a viral RNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 2227–2232 (2015)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rolfsson, Ó. et al. Direct evidence for packaging signal-mediated assembly of bacteriophage MS2. J. Mol. Biol. 428, 431–448 (2016)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Valegård, K., Liljas, L., Fridborg, K. & Unge, T. The three-dimensional structure of the bacterial virus MS2. Nature 345, 36–41 (1990)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dent, K. C. et al. The asymmetric structure of an icosahedral virus bound to its receptor suggests a mechanism for genome release. Structure 21, 1225–1234 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Golmohammadi, R., Valegård, K., Fridborg, K. & Liljas, L. The refined structure of bacteriophage MS2 at 2.8 A resolution. J. Mol. Biol. 234, 620–639 (1993)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dykeman, E. C., Stockley, P. G. & Twarock, R. Packaging signals in two single-stranded RNA viruses imply a conserved assembly mechanism and geometry of the packaged genome. J. Mol. Biol. 425, 3235–3249 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Witherell, G. W., Gott, J. M. & Uhlenbeck, O. C. Specific interaction between RNA phage coat proteins and RNA. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 40, 185–220 (1991)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Plevka, P., Tars, K. & Liljas, L. Crystal packing of a bacteriophage MS2 coat protein mutant corresponds to octahedral particles. Protein Sci. 17, 1731–1739 (2008)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Toropova, K., Stockley, P. G. & Ranson, N. A. Visualising a viral RNA genome poised for release from its receptor complex. J. Mol. Biol. 408, 408–419 (2011)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Danziger, R. E. & Paranchych, W. Stages in phage R17 infection. 3. Energy requirements for the F-pili mediated eclipse of viral infectivity. Virology 40, 554–564 (1970)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Clarke, M., Maddera, L., Harris, R. L. & Silverman, P. M. F-pili dynamics by live-cell imaging. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17978–17981 (2008)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Krahn, P. M., O’Callaghan, R. J. & Paranchych, W. Stages in phage R17 infection. VI. Injection of A protein and RNA into the host cell. Virology 47, 628–637 (1972)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kozak, M. & Nathans, D. Fate of maturation protein during infection by coliphage MS2. Nat. New Biol. 234, 209–211 (1971)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Silverman, P. M. & Valentine, R. C. The RNA injection step of bacteriophage f2 infection. J. Gen. Virol. 4, 111–124 (1969)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shiba, T. & Miyake, T. New type of infectious complex of E. coli RNA phage. Nature 254, 157–158 (1975)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Suloway, C. et al. Automated molecular microscopy: the new Leginon system. J. Struct. Biol. 151, 41–60 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Li, X. et al. Electron counting and beam-induced motion correction enable near-atomic-resolution single-particle cryo-EM. Nat. Methods 10, 584–590 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mindell, J. A. & Grigorieff, N. Accurate determination of local defocus and specimen tilt in electron microscopy. J. Struct. Biol. 142, 334–347 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kivioja, T., Ravantti, J., Verkhovsky, A., Ukkonen, E. & Bamford, D. Local average intensity-based method for identifying spherical particles in electron micrographs. J. Struct. Biol. 131, 126–134 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ludtke, S. J., Baldwin, P. R. & Chiu, W. EMAN: semiautomated software for high-resolution single-particle reconstructions. J. Struct. Biol. 128, 82–97 (1999)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Scheres, S. H. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. J. Struct. Biol. 180, 519–530 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang, X. et al. In situ structures of the segmented genome and RNA polymerase complex inside a dsRNA virus. Nature 527, 531–534 (2015)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu, H. & Cheng, L. Cryo-EM shows the polymerase structures and a nonspooled genome within a dsRNA virus. Science 349, 1347–1350 (2015)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Grigorieff, N. FREALIGN: high-resolution refinement of single particle structures. J. Struct. Biol. 157, 117–125 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rosenthal, P. B. & Henderson, R. Optimal determination of particle orientation, absolute hand, and contrast loss in single-particle electron cryomicroscopy. J. Mol. Biol. 333, 721–745 (2003)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kucukelbir, A., Sigworth, F. J. & Tagare, H. D. Quantifying the local resolution of cryo-EM density maps. Nat. Methods 11, 63–65 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 486–501 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1605–1612 (2004)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Adams, P. D. et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 213–221 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Horn, W. T. et al. Structural basis of RNA binding discrimination between bacteriophages Qbeta and MS2. Structure 14, 487–495 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lim, C. Y. et al. The MTE, a new core promoter element for transcription by RNA polymerase II. Genes Dev. 18, 1606–1617 (2004)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Lorenz, R. et al. ViennaRNA package 2.0. Algorithms Mol. Biol. 6, 26 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (GM071940, DE025567, DE023591, CA177322 and AI094386) and National Science Foundation (DMR-1548924). We acknowledge the use of instruments at the Electron Imaging Center for Nanomachines (supported by UCLA and by instrumentation grants from the NIH (1S10OD018111, 1U24GM116792) and NSF (DBI-1338135)). X.D. and Z.L. were supported in part by fellowships from the China Scholarship Council. We appreciate critical reading of the manuscript by F. Guo.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, 90095, California, USA

    Xinghong Dai, Sara Shu, Yushen Du & Ren Sun

  2. The California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI), UCLA, Los Angeles, 90095, California, USA

    Xinghong Dai, Zhihai Li, Z. Hong Zhou & Ren Sun

  3. Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics, UCLA, Los Angeles, 90095, California, USA

    Zhihai Li, Mason Lai & Z. Hong Zhou

  4. State Key Laboratory of Molecular Vaccinology and Molecular Diagnostics, School of Life Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361102, Fujian, China

    Zhihai Li

Authors
  1. Xinghong Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhihai Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mason Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara Shu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yushen Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Z. Hong Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ren Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

X.D., Z.H.Z. and R.S. designed the project; X.D., Z.L. and S.S. prepared the sample and acquired cryoEM data; X.D. solved the structure; X.D. and M.L. built the model; X.D., M.L., Y.D., Z.H.Z. and R.S. interpreted the results; X.D. and Z.H.Z. wrote the paper; and all authors contributed to the editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Z. Hong Zhou or Ren Sun.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information

Nature thanks W. Dai and J. E. Johnson for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Resolution assessment of the cryoEM reconstruction.

a, ‘Gold-standard’ FSC curve of the cryoEM reconstruction. The average resolution of the final density map is 3.6 Å as determined by the FSC = 0.143 criterion40. b, Local resolution assessed by ResMap41. Density voxels are coloured according to their local resolution as defined in the colour scale on the right. Only half of the capsid is shown to expose the RNA densities inside. c, d, CryoEM densities of a coat protein dimer (c) or the maturation protein (d) with their bound RNA stem–loops to show quality of the density map. In both cases, the cryoEM densities are semitransparent to show the fitted atomic models of the protein and RNA.

Extended Data Figure 2 Three-dimensional classification.

The entire dataset of the cryoEM images were subjected to 3D classification and refinement starting from a single initial model of the asymmetric reconstruction. Ten classes were arbitrarily set. The resulting density maps were compared with the reconstruction of the whole dataset and with each other. The overall structures of the ten classes are almost identical, except for small regions as exemplified by the region enclosed in the dashed circle in the superimposed map. The RNA fragments of these regions have multiple conformations, and are thus not traced in our model. Overall, we were able to trace an RNA density amounting to 80% of the genome.

Extended Data Figure 3 Backbone model of MS2 genome segment 1–615.

Part of the traced backbone model of MS2 genome (top panel; rainbow-coloured blue to red from 5′ to 3′) is compared with the predicted secondary structure (bottom panel) of genome sequence 1–615. Matching stem–loops in the two are marked with the same letter. Atomic models of high-resolution stem–loops (ribbons in top panel) contained in the segment are also shown. Some of the base pairings in the predicted secondary structure have been modified to make it more consistent with the observed structure. Dashed box in the bottom panel denotes flexible stem–loop that is not well resolved in the cryoEM density map and thus not traceable for the backbone.

Extended Data Figure 4 Backbone model of MS2 genome segment 881–1290.

Part of the traced backbone model of MS2 genome (top panel; rainbow-coloured blue to red from 5′ to 3′) is compared with the predicted secondary structure (bottom panel) of genome sequence 881–1290. Matching stem–loops in the two are marked with the same letter. Atomic models of high-resolution stem–loops (ribbons in top panel) contained in the segment are also shown. Some of the base pairings in the predicted secondary structure have been modified to make it more consistent with the observed structure.

Extended Data Figure 5 Backbone model of MS2 genome segment 1711–2340.

Part of the traced backbone model of MS2 genome (top panels; rainbow-coloured blue to red from 5′ to 3′) is compared with the predicted secondary structure (bottom panel) of genome sequence 1711–2340. Matching stem–loops in the two are marked with the same letter. Atomic models of high-resolution stem–loops (ribbons in top panels) contained in the segment are also shown. Some of the base pairings in the predicted secondary structure have been modified to make it more consistent with the observed structure.

Extended Data Figure 6 Backbone model of MS2 genome segment 2753–3388.

Part of the traced backbone model of MS2 genome (top panel; rainbow-coloured blue to red from 5′ to 3′) is compared with the predicted secondary structure (bottom panel) of genome sequence 2753–3388. Matching stem–loops in the two are marked with the same letter. Atomic models of high-resolution stem–loops (ribbons in top panel) contained in the segment are also shown. Some of the base pairings in the predicted secondary structure have been modified to make it more consistent with the observed structure. Dashed boxes in the bottom panel denote flexible stem–loops that are not well resolved in the cryoEM density map and thus not traceable for the backbone. Black wire in the top panel denotes RNA segment 2341–2359 that has long-range base-pairing interactions (also illustrated in Fig. 2d) with this segment, and the pairing bases are marked with black arc in the bottom panel.

Extended Data Figure 7 Backbone model of MS2 genome segment 3418–3569.

Part of the traced backbone model of MS2 genome (top panel; rainbow-coloured blue to red from 5′ to 3′) is compared with the predicted secondary structure (bottom panel) of genome sequence 3418–3569. Matching stem–loops in the two are marked with the same letter. Some of the base pairings in the predicted secondary structure have been modified to make it more consistent with the observed structure.

Extended Data Figure 8 Secondary structure of the MS2 genome.

Secondary structures of all genome segments in Fig. 2d and Extended Data Figs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are assembled to show the secondary structure of the entire MS2 genome. The genome sequences are coloured according to the genes encoded as depicted in the schematic diagram at the bottom, except for the lysis gene which overlaps with the coat protein gene and the replicase gene. The star signs denote the positions of the 16 high-resolution stem–loops. Segments enclosed with dotted boxes or ellipses are flexible.

Extended Data Figure 9 CryoEM densities (mesh) and atomic models (stick) of the 15 high-resolution RNA stem–loops that interact with coat protein dimers (ribbon).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Data 1 and 2

This zipped file contains 2 files showing (1) Secondary structure of the MS2 genome in FASTA file format and (2) Secondary structure of the MS2 genome in JSON file format. (ZIP 2903 kb)

Supplementary Data 3

This file shows the traced backbone of the MS2 genome. This backbone model was generated by manually tracing RNA densities in the MS2 asymmetric reconstruction low-pass filtered to 6Å resolution, using the “C-alpha Baton Mode” tool in Coot. It should be noticed that “C-alphas” in this model do not represent positions of individual ribonucleotides. Here, only the connected path of the C-alphas is meaningful and represents the path of the ssRNA chain. (TXT 311 kb)

CryoEM asymmetric reconstruction of MS2 virion

The video begins with the surface view of MS2 at 3.6Å resolution. The density map was then low-pass filtered to 6Å resolution, and half or all of the capsid shell was removed to expose the well-organized ssRNA genome packaged inside the capsid. (MP4 26188 kb)

3D classification reveals marginal flexibility of the MS2

3D classification of the cryoEM dataset produced 10 (arbitrarily set) classes. RNA densities in the asymmetric reconstruction from the entire dataset (the first one, radially coloured), or from each class, are shown one by one. They are also superimposed for comparison. Overall structure of the ssRNA genome is consistent among all classes, but some segments do not completely fit to each other in the 11 structures, indicating some level of flexibility. (MP4 13433 kb)

Interactions between a RNA stem-loop and a CP-dimer

Stem-loop 1746-1764 encompassing the start codon of the MS2 replicase gene is shown with the bound CP-dimer as an example to demonstrate the three conserved interaction motifs between RNA and capsid shell. (MP4 24655 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dai, X., Li, Z., Lai, M. et al. In situ structures of the genome and genome-delivery apparatus in a single-stranded RNA virus. Nature 541, 112–116 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20589

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20589

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing