Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Co-crystal structure of a T-box riboswitch stem I domain in complex with its cognate tRNA


In Gram-positive bacteria, T-box riboswitches regulate the expression of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases and other proteins in response to fluctuating transfer RNA aminoacylation levels under various nutritional states1. T-boxes reside in the 5′-untranslated regions of the messenger RNAs they regulate, and consist of two conserved domains. Stem I contains the specifier trinucleotide that base pairs with the anticodon of cognate tRNA. 3′ to stem I is the antiterminator domain, which base pairs with the tRNA acceptor end and evaluates its aminoacylation state2. Despite high phylogenetic conservation and widespread occurrence in pathogens, the structural basis of tRNA recognition3,4 by this riboswitch remains ill defined. Here we demonstrate that the 100-nucleotide T-box stem I is necessary and sufficient for specific, high-affinity (dissociation constant (Kd) 150 nM) tRNA binding, and report the structure of Oceanobacillus iheyensis glyQ stem I in complex with its cognate tRNA at 3.2 Å resolution. Stem I recognizes the overall architecture of tRNA in addition to its anticodon, something accomplished by large ribonucleoproteins such as the ribosome, or proteins such as aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases5, but is unprecedented for a compact mRNA domain. The C-shaped stem I cradles the L-shaped tRNA, forming an extended (1,604 Å2) intermolecular interface. In addition to the specifier–anticodon interaction, two interdigitated T-loops near the apex of stem I stack on the tRNA elbow in a manner analogous to those of the J11/12–J12/11 motif6 of RNase P and the L1 stalk7 of the ribosomal E-site. Because these ribonucleoproteins and T-boxes are unrelated, this strategy to recognize a universal tRNA feature probably evolved convergently. Mutually induced fit of stem I and the tRNA exploiting the intrinsic flexibility of tRNA and its conserved post-transcriptional modifications results in high shape complementarity, which in addition to providing specificity and affinity, globally organizes the T-box to orchestrate tRNA-dependent transcription regulation.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


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

Figure 1: Overall structure of the T-box stem I in complex with tRNA.
Figure 2: Interactions between stem I and tRNA.
Figure 3: Induced fit of tRNA by stem I binding.
Figure 4: Stem I reorganization by tRNA binding.

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Protein Data Bank

Data deposits

Atomic coordinates and structure factor amplitudes for the T-box stem I in complex with tRNAGly and YbxF have been deposited at the Protein Data Bank under accession code 4LCK.


  1. Green, N. J., Grundy, F. J. & Henkin, T. M. The T box mechanism: tRNA as a regulatory molecule. FEBS Lett. 584, 318–324 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grundy, F. J. & Henkin, T. M. tRNA as a positive regulator of transcription antitermination in B. subtilis. Cell 74, 475–482 (1993)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Yousef, M. R., Grundy, F. J. & Henkin, T. M. Structural transitions induced by the interaction between tRNAGly and the Bacillus subtilis glyQS T box leader RNA. J. Mol. Biol. 349, 273–287 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Yousef, M. R., Grundy, F. J. & Henkin, T. M. tRNA requirements for glyQS antitermination: a new twist on tRNA. RNA 9, 1148–1156 (2003)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Perona, J. J. & Hadd, A. Structural diversity and protein engineering of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Biochemistry 51, 8705–8729 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Reiter, N. J. et al. Structure of a bacterial ribonuclease P holoenzyme in complex with tRNA. Nature 468, 784–789 (2010)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Korostelev, A., Trakhanov, S., Laurberg, M. & Noller, H. Crystal structure of a 70S ribosome–tRNA complex reveals functional interactions and rearrangements. Cell 126, 1065–1077 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Winkler, W. C., Grundy, F. J., Murphy, B. A. & Henkin, T. M. The GA motif: an RNA element common to bacterial antitermination systems, rRNA, and eukaryotic RNAs. RNA 7, 1165–1172 (2001)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Winkler, W. RNA Elements Required for T Box Antitermination. PhD thesis, Ohio State Univ. (2002)

  10. Lehmann, J., Jossinet, F. & Gautheret, D. A universal RNA structural motif docking the elbow of tRNA in the ribosome, RNase P and T-box leaders. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 5494–5502 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gutiérrez-Preciado, A., Henkin, T. M., Grundy, F. J., Yanofsky, C. & Merino, E. Biochemical features and functional implications of the RNA-based T-Box regulatory mechanism. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 73, 36–61 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klein, D. J., Schmeing, T. M., Moore, P. B. & Steitz, T. A. The kink-turn: a new RNA secondary structure motif. EMBO J. 20, 4214–4221 (2001)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Baird, N. J., Zhang, J., Hamma, T. & Ferré-D’Amaré, A. R. YbxF and YlxQ are bacterial homologs of L7Ae and bind K-turns but not K-loops. RNA 18, 759–770 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Leontis, N. B. & Westhof, E. The 5S rRNA loop E: chemical probing and phylogenetic data versus crystal structure. RNA 4, 1134–1153 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chan, C. W., Chetnani, B. & Mondragón, A. Structure and function of the T-loop structural motif in noncoding RNAs. Wiley Interdiscip Rev. RNA (23 June 2013)

  16. Edwards, T. E., Klein, D. J. & Ferré-D’Amaré, A. R. Riboswitches: small-molecule recognition by gene regulatory RNAs. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 273–279 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Selmer, M. et al. Structure of the 70S ribosome complexed with mRNA and tRNA. Science 313, 1935–1942 (2006)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rock, F. L. et al. An antifungal agent inhibits an aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase by trapping tRNA in the editing eite. Science 316, 1759–1761 (2007)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fukai, S. et al. Structural basis for double-sieve discrimination of L-valine from L-isoleucine and L-threonine by the complex of tRNAVal and valyl-tRNA synthetase. Cell 103, 793–803 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dalluge, J. J., Hashizume, T., Sopchik, A. E., McCloskey, J. A. & Davis, D. R. Conformational flexibility in RNA: the role of dihydrouridine. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 1073–1079 (1996)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Grigg, J. C. et al. T box RNA decodes both the information content and geometry of tRNA to affect gene expression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 7240–7245 (2013)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Krasilnikov, A. S., Yang, X., Pan, T. & Mondragón, A. Crystal structure of the specificity domain of ribonuclease P. Nature 421, 760–764 (2003)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nikulin, A. et al. Structure of the L1 protuberance in the ribosome. Nature Struct. Biol. 10, 104–108 (2003)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang, A. T. & Nikonowicz, E. P. Solution nuclear magnetic resonance analyses of the anticodon arms of proteinogenic and nonproteinogenic tRNAGly. Biochemistry 51, 3662–3674 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Valle, M. et al. Incorporation of aminoacyl-tRNA into the ribosome as seen by cryo-electron microscopy. Nature Struct. Biol. 10, 899–906 (2003)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dunkle, J. A. et al. Structures of the bacterial ribosome in classical and hybrid states of tRNA binding. Science 332, 981–984 (2011)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Schmeing, T. M. et al. The crystal structure of the ribosome bound to EF-Tu and aminoacyl-tRNA. Science 326, 688–694 (2009)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang, J. & Nikonowicz, E. P. Solution structure of the K-turn and specifier loop domains from the Bacillus subtilis tyrS T-Box leader RNA. J. Mol. Biol. 408, 99–117 (2011)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Vitreschak, A. G., Mironov, A. A., Lyubetsky, V. A. & Gelfand, M. S. Comparative genomic analysis of T-box regulatory systems in bacteria. RNA 14, 717–735 (2008)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Leontis, N. B. & Westhof, E. Geometric nomenclature and classification of RNA base pairs. RNA 7, 499–512 (2001)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Xiao, H., Edwards, T. E. & Ferré-D’Amaré, A. R. Structural basis for specific, high-affinity tetracycline binding by an in vitro evolved aptamer and artificial riboswitch. Chem. Biol. 15, 1125–1137 (2008)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Baird, N. J. & Ferré-D'Amaré, A. R. Idiosyncratically tuned switching behavior of riboswitch aptamer domains revealed by comparative small-angle X-ray scattering analysis. RNA 16, 598–609 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kulshina, N., Edwards, T. E. & Ferré-D’Amaré, A. R. Thermodynamic analysis of ligand binding and ligand binding-induced tertiary structure formation by the thiamine pyrophosphate riboswitch. RNA 16, 186–196 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Baird, N. J. & Ferré-D’Amaré, A. R. Modulation of quaternary structure and enhancement of ligand binding by the K-turn of tandem glycine riboswitches. RNA 19, 167–176 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Schuck, P. Size distribution analysis of macromolecules by sedimentation velocity ultracentrifugation and Lamm equation modeling. Biophys. J. 78, 1606–1619 (2000)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. Keller, S. et al. High-precision isothermal titration calorimetry with automated peak-shape analysis. Anal. Chem. 84, 5066–5073 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kabsch, W. XDS. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 125–132 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Evans, P. Scaling and assessment of data quality. Acta Crystallogr. D 62, 72–82 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Otwinowski, Z. & Minor, W. Processing of diffraction data collected in oscillation mode. Methods Enzymol. 276, 307–326 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sheldrick, G. M. A short history of SHELX. Acta Crystallogr. A 64, 112–122 (2008)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pape, T. & Schneider, T. R. HKL2MAP: a graphical user interface for macromolecular phasing with SHELX programs. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 37, 843–844 (2004)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Byrne, R. T., Konevega, A. L., Rodnina, M. V. & Antson, A. A. The crystal structure of unmodified tRNAPhe from Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 4154–4162 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Vagin, A. & Teplyakov, A. MOLREP: an automated program for molecular replacement. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 30, 1022–1025 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Xiao, H., Murakami, H., Suga, H. & Ferré-D’Amaré, A. R. Structural basis of specific tRNA aminoacylation by a small in vitro selected ribozyme. Nature 454, 358–361 (2008)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. McCoy, A. J. et al. Phaser crystallographic software. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 40, 658–674 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Afonine, P. V. et al. Towards automated crystallographic structure refinement with phenix.refine. Acta Crystallogr. D 68, 352–367 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Terwilliger, T. C. Maximum-likelihood density modification. Acta Crystallogr. D 56, 965–972 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Shi, H. & Moore, P. B. The crystal structure of yeast phenylalanine tRNA at 1.93 Å resolution: a classic structure revisited. RNA 6, 1091–1105 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Correll, C. C., Freeborn, B., Moore, P. B. & Steitz, T. A. Metals, motifs, and recognition in the crystal structure of a 5S rRNA domain. Cell 91, 705–712 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. DeLano, W. L. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System (DeLano Scientific, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lescoute, A., Leontis, N. B., Massire, C. & Westhof, E. Recurrent structural RNA motifs, isostericity matrices and sequence alignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 2395–2409 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the staff at beamlines 24-ID-C and 24-ID-E of APS and 5.0.1 and 5.0.2 of the ALS for crystallographic data collection support, G. Piszczek for ITC support, R. Levine and D.-Y. Lee for help with mass spectrometry, K. Perry and K. R. Rajashankar for assistance with initial crystallographic phasing, and N. Baird, T. Hamma, C. Jones, M. Lau, J. Posakony, A. Roll-Mecak, O. Uhlenbeck and K. Warner for discussions. This work is partly based on research conducted at the APS on the Northeastern Collaborative Access Team (NE-CAT) beamlines, and at the ALS on the Berkeley Center for Structural Biology beamlines, which are both supported by the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH). Use of ALS and APS was supported by the US Department of Energy. This work was supported in part by the intramural program of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.Z. and A.R.F.-D. designed experiments, J.Z. carried out all biochemistry and ITC experiments, J.Z. prepared co-crystals, J.Z. and A.R.F.-D. collected diffraction data, solved and refined the crystal structures, and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian R. Ferré-D’Amaré.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Sequence of the B. subtilis glyQS T-box.

Unlike some other T-boxes, tRNAGly-responsive T-boxes (such as the B. subtilis glyQS T-box and the closely related O. iheyensis glyQ T-box) do not contain stems II and II A/B in the linker region. Conservation across known T-boxes is indicated in orange and yellow circles (from ref. 11). Base pairing between the specifier sequence in stem I and the antiterminator domain of the T-box and the anticodon and acceptor end, respectively, of tRNAGly is indicated. The functionally important K-turn8 is boxed. The sequences of tRNAGly of B. subtilis and O. iheyensis are identical.

Extended Data Figure 2 Representative isothermal calorimetric titrations.

af, Full-length tRNAGly (ae) and an isolated tRNAGly ASL (f) were titrated into various truncated B. subtilis glyQS T-box stem I constructs (Methods). The specifier trinucleotide GGC is in bold. g, Superposition of the experimental data and fits for the experiments shown in Fig. 1a–c, colour-coded to correspond to schematic RNA construct depictions. h, ITC analysis of binding by the engineered tRNAGly construct used for co-crystallization. Results of all fits (Methods) are in Extended Data Table 1.

Extended Data Figure 3 Intermolecular interface of the stem-I–tRNA complex and phylogenetic conservation.

a, The residue 29–30 bulge allows the O. iheyensis stem I to bend and track the tRNA backbone. b, Structure21 of the equivalent region of the Geobacillus kaustophilus T-box, which folds as a C-loop52. c, Solvent-accessible surface coloured according to area buried from blue or white (no burial) to red (>75 Å2 per residue). d, Open-book view. e, Surfaces coloured by phylogenetic conservation of stem I residues (see Extended Data Fig. 1). Conservation of tRNA is not indicated. f, Open-book view. For comparison, RNase P binding to pre-tRNA buries6 2,959 Å2.

Extended Data Figure 4 T-box can accommodate bulky post-transcriptional modifications at tRNA position 37.

A86 of the T-box stem I is unstacked from the duplex formed by pairing of the tRNA anticodon and the T-box specifier by its participation in the sheared A•A pair at the base of the loop E motif. This results in a pocket (dotted line) that could accommodate the large, modified nucleobases (for example, the three-ring heterocycle wybutine in yeast tRNAPhe) often present at position 37 of tRNAs (Fig. 2a). Note the single hydrogen bond between tU32 and tA38.

Extended Data Figure 5 Structural organization of the interdigitated T-loop motifs of the T-box stem I.

a, Six base-paired layers form the stem I distal domain core (view as in Fig. 2b). Dashed black lines denote base–base hydrogen bonding. Dashed yellow lines denote Sr2+-ion–water (green and red spheres, respectively) interactions. Leontis–Westhof symbols30 depict non-canonical pairing. b, Orthogonal view. c, View from the tRNA elbow. di, Detail of layers 1–6. The position of each nucleotide within the pentaloop (1–5) or outside of it (negative and positive denote 5′ and 3′ directions, respectively) is in parentheses (Supplementary Discussion).

Extended Data Figure 6 Comparison of the interdigitated T-loops of RNase P, the L1 stalk and the T-box.

a, b, RNase P (a) and the L1 stalk (b) use equivalent surfaces formed by two purines—namely, nucleotide −2 of T-loop 1 and nucleotide 3 of T-loop 2 (asterisk)—to stack on the elbows of pre-tRNA and the E-site tRNA, respectively. c, By contrast, the T-box uses the opposite surface, using a triple (Fig. 2c) formed by nucleotide 3 of T-loop 1 (dagger symbol), nucleotide −2 from T-loop 2, and nucleotide +1 from T-loop 2 to stack on the tRNA elbow.

Extended Data Figure 7 Displacement of the tRNA elbow induced by T-box binding.

Although the anticodon stem of the free tRNAPhe (orange) superimposes well on that of the T-box-bound tRNAGly (T-loop and acceptor stem in violet; D-loop and ASL in pale green; Fig. 3b, c), the elbow (tG19–tC56) clashes with the stem I distal domain. T-box binding induces bending about the t26•t44 hinge (Fig. 3c) that displaces the tRNA elbow and acceptor stem away from the distal region of stem I by 11 Å (arrows), allowing the tRNA elbow to associate with the T-box. a, Side view. b, Top view.

Extended Data Figure 8 Representative electron density maps.

Portions of electron density maps corresponding to the interdigitated stem I T-loops and the tRNA elbow (oriented like Fig. 2b). a, Unbiased, 3.2-Å-resolution density-modified SAD electron density (1.0 s.d. above mean peak height) shown as grey mesh superimposed on the refined model. b, Electron density resulting from combination of SAD and molecular replacement (using a search model consisting of two copies each of tRNAPhe and a K-turn in complex with YbxF; Methods) phases followed by density modification (1.5 s.d.) c, Composite simulated anneal-omit 2|Fo| − |Fc| electron density calculated using the final model (2.0 s.d.).

Extended Data Table 1 Thermodynamic parameters from ITC analysis
Extended Data Table 2 Data collection and refinement statistics

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains a Supplementary Discussion and additional references. (PDF 165 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, J., Ferré-D’Amaré, A. Co-crystal structure of a T-box riboswitch stem I domain in complex with its cognate tRNA. Nature 500, 363–366 (2013).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


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.


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