Identification of key sequence features required for microRNA biogenesis in plants

Rojas, Arantxa M. L.; Drusin, Salvador I.; Chorostecki, Uciel; Mateos, Julieta L.; Moro, Belén; Bologna, Nicolas G.; Bresso, Edgardo G.; Schapire, Arnaldo; Rasia, Rodolfo M.; Moreno, Diego M.; Palatnik, Javier F.

doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19129-6

Download PDF

Article
Open access
Published: 21 October 2020

Identification of key sequence features required for microRNA biogenesis in plants

Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 5320 (2020) Cite this article

5895 Accesses
21 Citations
41 Altmetric
Metrics details

Subjects

Abstract

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are endogenous small RNAs of ∼21 nt that regulate multiple biological pathways in multicellular organisms. They derive from longer transcripts that harbor an imperfect stem-loop structure. In plants, the ribonuclease type III DICER-LIKE1 assisted by accessory proteins cleaves the precursor to release the mature miRNA. Numerous studies highlight the role of the precursor secondary structure during plant miRNA biogenesis; however, little is known about the relevance of the precursor sequence. Here, we analyzed the sequence composition of plant miRNA primary transcripts and found specifically located sequence biases. We show that changes in the identity of specific nucleotides can increase or abolish miRNA biogenesis. Most conspicuously, our analysis revealed that the identity of the nucleotides at unpaired positions of the precursor plays a crucial role during miRNA biogenesis in Arabidopsis.

R-loops at microRNA encoding loci promote co-transcriptional processing of pri-miRNAs in plants

Article Open access 21 April 2022

Prevalent cytidylation and uridylation of precursor miRNAs in Arabidopsis

Article 02 December 2019

FIERY1 promotes microRNA accumulation by suppressing rRNA-derived small interfering RNAs in Arabidopsis

Article Open access 27 September 2019

Introduction

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are one class of small RNAs that perform essential functions as post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression in animals and plants. Plant miRNAs are transcribed as longer transcripts by RNA polymerase II, which are capped and polyadenylated (reviewed in refs. ^1,2). These primary transcripts harbor an imperfect foldback structure with the miRNA embedded in one of its arms. In plants, all the processing steps necessary to release the mature miRNA from the precursor are carried out in the nucleus by a complex formed by DICER-LIKE1 (DCL1) and accessory proteins, such as HYPONASTIC LEAVES1 (HYL1) and SERRATE (SE) (reviewed in refs. ^1,2). DCL1 performs cuts in the foldback at positions flanking the miRNA, releasing two paired RNA strands of ~21 nt with two nt 3′ overhangs, the miRNA/miRNA* duplex. One of these small RNAs, generally the miRNA, becomes incorporated into an ARGONAUTE (AGO) protein where it provides sequence specificity to identify target RNAs (reviewed in refs. ^3,4). The Arabidopsis genome encodes ten AGO proteins and the miRNA pathway usually recruits AGO1 that preferentially binds small RNAs with 5′ U, which is the most common nucleotide at the 5′-end of plant miRNAs^3,4.

The precise excision of the mature miRNA from the precursor is a key aspect of miRNA biogenesis, and relevant for the specific regulation of target RNAs. Many evolutionarily conserved miRNAs regulate transcription factors with important roles in plant development and hormone signaling, hence, mutations in the miRNA biogenesis machinery lead to important defects in plant growth and/or lethality¹. Plant miRNA precursors are largely variable in size and shape, yet they are accurately processed to release rather specific miRNA sequences^5,6,7. Previous work has identified structural determinants present in the precursors that guide the miRNA processing machinery to produce specific cuts along the precursor sequence^{5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}.

Numerous precursors have a 15–17 bp dsRNA segment above an inner loop and below the miRNA/miRNA* duplex, which guides a first cleavage by DCL1 at the proximal part of the precursor (base-to-loop processing)^7,9,10,11. Other precursors have a dsRNA segment above the miRNA/miRNA* duplex and below a small terminal loop^5,12,13,14. In these precursors, the processing machinery produces a first cut that releases the terminal loop and then continues towards the base of the precursor to release the miRNA/miRNA* duplex (loop-to-base processing)^5,13,14. In either case, after a first cut is generated, DCL1 produces a subsequent cut ~21 bp away from the first one, releasing a miRNA/miRNA* duplex^7,15.

Although previous work has shown the essential role of the precursor secondary structure for miRNA biogenesis, little is known about the importance of the precursor primary sequence. Here, by analyzing precursors from different plant species we found sequence biases at specific locations. Based on this information, we were able to increase or decrease the processing efficiency by introducing changes in the precursor sequence. Furthermore, our analysis revealed that the identity of nucleotides at mismatched positions along the precursor structure can play a significant role during miRNA processing. Most conspicuously, we found that C-C mismatches consistently impair miRNA biogenesis, and that they are absent from DCL1 cleavage sites.

Results

Identification of sequence biases in plant miRNA precursors

To examine whether MIRNAs from Arabidopsis and other angiosperms show any nucleotide bias beyond the miRNA sequence, we analyzed miRNA precursors from 30 eudicot species (Source Data). First, we determined the frequency of Watson–Crick base pairs (WC), G-U wobbles, and mismatches (MM) in the secondary structure of Arabidopsis precursors, considering 56 pairs in length, therefore including the miRNA/miRNA* as well as regions below and above this duplex (Fig. 1a). We found that ~65% of the positions were paired, which is consistent with the structured nature of the miRNA precursors (Fig. 1b, c). Still, the G-U wobble (~8%) was less frequent than a A-U or G-C canonical Watson–Crick base pair (>30% each one) (Fig. 1b, c). We found similar proportions when we analyzed the MIRNAs in different eudicots (Fig. 1b, c).

**Fig. 1: Frequency of nucleotide pairs in plant miRNA precursors.**

Despite mismatches being less frequent than paired positions, we were able to analyze 10273 mismatched positions belonging to 1681 precursors of 30 eudicot species. Interestingly, we observed variation in the identity of the nucleotides composing the mismatches. The most common pair was U-U present in ~3% of the positions analyzed. On the other hand, C-C and G-G mismatches were present in <0.5% of the cases (Fig. 1b, c).

Next, we focused on the secondary structure of the two DCL1 cleavage sites flanking the miRNA/miRNA* duplex, which correspond to positions −1, 1, 2, 3 and 21, 22, 23, 24 for the first and the second cleavage site (Fig. 1d, e, Supplementary Fig. 1) (Source Data). Watson–Crick base pairs were the most frequent interactions, especially at positions 1, 3, and 23 (Fig. 1d, e). In contrast to these positions, position −1 was unpaired in ~40% of the precursors (Fig. 1d, e). The preferred mismatch at this position was an A-C/C-A with an overall frequency of 25% (Arabidopsis) and 24% (eudicots) (Fig. 1d, e). Interestingly, C-C mismatches, which were infrequent in the overall precursor structures (Fig. 1b, c), were absent from DCL1 cleavage sites (Fig. 1d, e). These biases were not explained by the frequencies of the individual nucleotides, as they were similar to each other (Supplementary Table 1).

As a comparison, we analyzed the composition of the cleavage sites of human miRNA precursors. All the positions corresponding to the first cleavage site were rather similar in human precursors with ~70% of Watson–Crick base pairs (Supplementary Fig. 2). No obvious bias in the preference of the nucleotide pairs was observed, and C-C mismatches were present at similar frequencies as other mismatch variants (Supplementary Fig. 2), suggesting that the features we found were plant specific.

A single-nucleotide polymorphism increases the processing efficiency of MIR172A

Of the different nucleotide pairs forming the first DCL1 cleavage site, the G-C/C-G pair at position 1 had the highest frequency, being present at 59% and 55% of the precursors of Arabidopsis and eudicots, respectively (Fig. 1d, e). Furthermore, this position is paired in 90% or more of the plant miRNA precursors. Exceptions to this rule are the Arabidopsis MIR827 and MIR172A precursors (Supplementary Fig. 3). We analyzed the importance of the pairing at position 1 in MIR172A, which causes obvious phenotypes after overexpression, namely early flowering time and flower-patterning defects, that quantitatively correlate with the mature miRNA levels^10,11,16,17. MIR172A harbors a C-U mismatch at position 1 (Fig. 2a, Source Data), so we introduced a single change by site-directed mutagenesis in the MIR172A precursor and generated a C-G variant.

**Fig. 2: A single-nucleotide modification enhances miRNA biogenesis in vivo.**

We analyzed miR172 levels in inflorescences of primary transgenic (T1) plants overexpressing the wild-type (wt) and the C-G variant precursor from the 35S viral promoter using small RNA blots (Fig. 2b). Overexpression of the MIR172 C-G mutant variant precursor resulted in >60% increase in the accumulation of mature miRNA with respect to control inflorescences transformed with wt MIR172 precursor (Fig. 2b). Although both precursors caused a strong acceleration of flowering (Supplementary Fig. 4a), we found that the C-G variant produced stronger flower-patterning defects (Fig. 2c), as expected from the higher levels of mature miRNA. To further validate these results, we determined the levels of pri-miR172 and mature miR172 by RT-qPCR in seedlings (Fig. 2d, f) and inflorescences (Fig. 2g, i). Overall, we observed that the MIR172 C-G mutant variant accumulated higher levels of miR172 than the wt MIR172 C-U precursor (Fig. 2e, h), whereas the levels of pri-miR172 were similar or lower (Fig. 2d, g). In consequence, the ratio miR172/pri-miR172 was consistently higher for the MIR172 C-G mutant variant compared with the wt MIR172 C-U (Fig. 2f, i). The MIR172 C-G variant accumulated slightly more miR172* than the wt precursor, but the difference was not statistically significant (Supplementary Fig. 4b).

The change C-U to C-G is located in a structured region of the MIR172A precursor (Fig. 2a). To test whether this single change affects the structure of the region, we probed the precursor using Terbium (Tb III), which induces the cleavage of RNA in a sequence-independent manner preferring flexible single-stranded and non-Watson–Crick base-paired regions^18,19. Probing the two precursors with Tb (III) showed that the C-G variant reduced the flexibility of the precursor (Fig. 2j). Most conspicuously, the analysis revealed that three phosphodiester bonds in the vicinity of the mutation were selectively stabilized in the MIR172A C-G mutant precursor (Fig. 2j), suggesting a further stabilization of the base pairs near the mutation. Interestingly, MIR172A has been shown to be the most active member of the miR172 family in Arabidopsis^16,17. Our results show that a single change can increase its processing efficiency and activity even further in vivo.

The nucleotide identity at the DCL1 cleavage site significantly affects MIR172 processing

Next, we systematically analyzed the importance of the base pair composition at position 1 of the MIR172A pri-miRNA by generating mutant variants with the 16 different possible combinations of nucleotides (Fig. 3). These precursors were cloned under the control of the 35 S viral promoter and transformed into plants. We first compared the wild-type precursors with mutant variants harboring closed pairs, either with canonical Watson–Crick base pairs or G-U wobble (Fig. 3a). All these variants accumulated miRNA levels similar to the wild-type precursor, with the exception of the MIR172A C-G variant that accumulated the highest levels of the small RNA (Fig. 3a and Supplementary Fig. 5a). We also determined mature miR172 and pri-miR172 by RT-qPCR in these mutants and confirmed that the MIR172 C-G variant had the highest ratio miR172/pri-miR172 (Supplementary Fig. 5b–d).

**Fig. 3: Nucleotide pair variants control miR172 biogenesis.**

Differently to the results obtained with MIR172A mutants that harbored closed pairs, we found that precursors with mismatches accumulate largely variable amounts of mature miRNA levels, which can decrease >10-fold depending on the identity of nucleotides forming the mismatch (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. 6). Interestingly, the A-C and C-C mismatch variants, which generate miRNAs of identical sequences, accumulated largely different levels of miRNAs (Fig. 3b). Although the A-C mutant accumulated nearly half the levels of mature miRNA with respect to the wild-type precursor, the levels of miR172 were barely detected in the C-C mismatch variant (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Figure 6). Furthermore, the mutant variants A-A, A-G, and G-A accumulated ~10% mature miRNA levels with respect to the C-U wt MIR172A (Fig. 3b).

We determined the levels of miR172* (Fig. 3b, lower panel) and found a similar pattern of accumulation for both guide and passenger miR172 (Fig. 3b, upper panel), suggesting that differences in miR172 levels were not caused by preferentially loading miR172* into an AGO complex. We analyzed the pri-miRNA levels by RT-qPCR of the mutants that failed to accumulate miR172 and found that the mutant precursors accumulate larger amounts of primary transcripts (Fig. 3c). These results indicate that these mutants were affected at the level of the precursor processing. In good agreement with the low miR172 levels, overexpression of the MIR172 C-C variant caused only a minor effect on flowering time and no defects on the flower patterning (Fig. 3d, e).

C-C mismatches systematically affect plant miRNA processing

As the identity of the unpaired nucleotides at position 1 of MIR172A significantly affected miRNA biogenesis, we decided to test their importance in other precursors and positions (Fig. 4). At position −1, MIR165A has a mismatch followed by a Watson–Crick G-C pair at position 1 (Fig. 4a). Introducing a mutation at position 1 that generated two continuous mismatches affected the biogenesis of miR165a (Fig. 4a, b and Supplementary Fig. 7a, b), in good agreement with previous work highlighting the importance of the secondary structure in MIRNA processing^9,10,11. However, the C-C mismatch at position 1 reduced even further the biogenesis of miR165a than the U-C mismatch (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 7a, b). We also generated two new mutants in MIR172A, an A-C and C-C mismatch at position −1. Although both mismatches affected miR172 biogenesis, the C-C mismatch had a stronger effect than the A-C variant (Fig. 4c and Supplementary Fig. 7e, f). These results confirm the deleterious impact of C-C mismatches in the first DCL1 cleavage site.

**Fig. 4: miRNA biogenesis is strongly affected by the nucleotide identity at the precursor unpaired positions.**

Next, we analyzed mutations in the second DCL1 cleavage site. The MIR397A precursor has an A-C mismatch at position 21 (Fig. 4e). We introduced C-C and A-G mismatches and observed that the C-C was detrimental for miR397 biogenesis while the A-G variant was not (Fig. 4e and Supplementary Fig. 7c, d). MIR164C has a G-C pair at position 23, and we generated five variants by site-directed mutagenesis, A-C, U-C, G-U, C-C, and G-G (Fig. 4g, Supplementary Fig. 7g). We observed a broad distribution of miR164 accumulation depending on the identity of nucleotides (Fig. 4g, Supplementary Fig. 7g), similar to what we observed previously for miR172 (Fig. 3). We observed that C-C and G-G mutants accumulated much less miR164 than A-C, U-C, and G-U variants (Fig. 4g and Supplementary Figure 7g).

As expected, we observed a correlation between the miRNA levels generated by the different mutant precursors and the strength of the developmental defects (miR165, miR164) or the target transcript levels (miR397) (Supplementary Fig. 8). In addition, all the MIRNA mutants that failed to accumulate substantial levels of the mature miRNA expressed primary transcripts at similar or higher levels than their cognate wild-type MIRNAs (Fig. 4b, d, f, h), demonstrating that the low levels of the mature miRNAs were not caused by a poor expression of their precursors.

Overall, the results show that the identity of unpaired nucleotides in the miRNA precursors has a strong effect on the accumulation of the mature miRNA in vivo (Figs. 3 and 4). Although the final impact caused by the unpaired nucleotides is likely affected by the precursor context, we found that C-C mismatches consistently impaired miRNA biogenesis. Contrarily, the biogenesis of precursors harboring A-C, U-U, and U-C mismatches is similar to those with WC pairs. Interestingly, the latter mismatches were the most frequent in miRNA precursors (Fig. 1).

Next, we studied the effect of the identities of mismatches in the miRNA/miRNA* duplex region. Introducing a mismatch at position 6 of miR172/miR172* to generate an A-C mismatch had a small effect on miR172 accumulation (Fig. 4i–j, Supplementary Fig. 7h–i and Supplementary Fig. 8d, e). We observed, however, a different effect after introducing a C-C mismatch variant at the same position. On the one hand it diminished miR172 accumulation (Fig. 4i and Supplementary Fig. 7h, i). On the other hand, it caused the generation of two small RNA variants from the MIR172A precursor (Fig. 4i). So, although C-C mismatches impair the processing quantitatively in all the cases analyzed so far, the mutation in the miRNA/miRNA* region affected the biogenesis qualitatively. It has been recently shown that the flexibility on miR168/miR168* interaction can be linked to miR168 variants of different lengths and sequences²⁰. We inspected the miR168/miR168* duplex and found a C-C mismatch that is conserved in miR168/miR168* duplexes in 37 out of 38 precursors (Supplementary Fig. 9), so that conservation of this particular mismatch is also consistent with particular properties of the precursor processing.

Molecular dynamics analysis revealed differences in the mismatch variants of MIR172A

The surprisingly different effects on miRNA biogenesis caused by the identity of nucleotides prompted us to study the system in more detail. We resorted to molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in order to obtain atomistic details about the influence of the base pair nature on the precursor behavior. To achieve this goal, the 16 variants for position 1 of a segment of the MIR172A precursor (Figs. 3 and 5a) were built in silico and subjected to 100 ns of MD simulations. A representative snapshot of the system was built for the wt variant, composed of the dsRNA, solvent box and NaCl (Supplementary Data 1). To check the stability of the MIRNAs through the simulations, the total axial bend of each model was calculated, which showed a similar stable behavior in all cases (Supplementary Data 1). These simulations were used to analyze in detail all the structural features of all the base pairs belonging to each nucleic acid chain (Supplementary Data 1 and 3). The structural parameter that showed the most distinct behaviors among the different mutant variants was the shear parameter, which represents the relative displacement between the bases on a plane perpendicular to the RNA axis (Fig. 5a–d, Supplementary Data 1).

**Fig. 5: A C-C variant increases the flexibility of the precursor structure.**

Although canonical Watson–Crick base pairs as well as G-U wobbles showed a stable value of the shear parameter along the MD simulation (Supplementary Data 1), mismatch variants, displayed higher fluctuation of values. Some variants, such as C-U and A-C showed some fluctuation between stable values. Others, such as C-C had a higher fluctuation and no stable values at all (Fig. 5d). To better illustrate the different behavior of the nucleotide pair variants, we performed a clustering of the different conformations visited through the MD simulation (Fig. 5b, Supplementary Data 3) and an analysis of the formation and permanence of hydrogen bonds between the bases (Fig. 5c, Supplementary Data 3).

Canonical Watson–Crick base pairs and G-U wobbles had a single stable conformation, in agreement with the shear values. Variants such as G-G and A-C showed different positions for the bases along time (Supplementary Data 3), reflecting periodical changes between different conformations that are stabilized through hydrogen bonds (Supplementary Data 3). In contrast, analysis of the C-C mismatch showed constant movement between the different conformations, consistent with the lack of any stable conformation for this variant (Fig. 5b–d, Supplementary Data 1 and 3). Results for the C-C variant suggest significantly higher flexibility than in the wild-type precursor harboring a C-U mismatch. We also analyzed the variants at position 23 of MIR164C (Fig. 4g and Supplementary Fig. 10a) by MD. In good agreement, the shear parameter showed again an unstable behavior of the C-C pair (Supplementary Fig. 10b and Supplementary Data 2 and 3).

In order to confirm these results, we used Terbium (III) to probe the structure of the wild-type MIR172A precursor harboring C-U and the mutant with a C-C mismatch. Despite both precursors having a mismatch at position 1, we found that the MIR172A C-C precursor variant was more sensitive to Terbium (Tb III) than the wild-type precursor at the location of the C-C mismatch as well as at neighboring nucleotides (Fig. 5e), supporting our MD calculations, and demonstrating an increase of structural flexibility caused by the C-C mismatch.

In addition, we mapped the processing intermediates for MIR172A with a C-C mismatch and observed a random distribution of the cuts (Fig. 5f), in contrast to the wild-type precursor that harbored ~70% of the cuts flanking the miRNA/miRNA*. Altogether, the results show that the identity of the unpaired nucleotides confer different structural constraints that can be translated into an aberrant or altered miRNA precursor processing.

Discussion

MiRNAs are processed from precursors harboring imperfect foldback structures. Many reports have demonstrated the importance of the precursor secondary structure during miRNA biogenesis^{5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}. These structural determinants are mostly represented by dsRNA segments of 15–17 bp located below or above the miRNA/miRNA*^{5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}. In addition, the identity of the 5′ nucleotide as well as mismatches in the miRNA/miRNA* region have been shown to be important for selection of the specific AGO protein^{21,22,23,24,25,26}.

Here, we describe a new set of sequence features that are important to define a plant miRNA primary transcript. We identified certain preferred nucleotide pairs at the precursors’ cleavage site, which might contribute to the recognition and/or activity of the processing complex. However, an unexpected new finding is that the identity of the nucleotides located at mismatched positions of the imperfect dsRNA that serves as a miRNA precursor can have a deep impact on the processing efficiency. This is in turn reflected in the evolution of MIRNAs, as certain mismatches such as C-C and G-G are largely excluded from the precursor structures, especially from DCL1 cleavage sites. Although we did not find a similar bias in the nucleotide pairs at the cleavage sites of human precursors, a general analysis of the frequency of nucleotide pairs in other RNA structures shows that the C-C mismatch is the least frequent pair^27,28,29, suggesting that it might have an adverse effect in other pathways too.

We found that, at least during plant miRNA biogenesis, the C-C pair is detrimental in different locations within a miRNA precursor. A MD analysis showed that bases at this pair are in continuous movement (shear), while Terbium (III) probing revealed that a dsRNA containing a C-C mismatch is more flexible than one harboring a C-U mismatch. Taken together, these results show that mismatches formed by different nucleotides can affect the structural properties of the foldbacks, which in turn is reflected in a differential miRNA processing efficiency. Other mismatches such as G-G, A-G/G-A are also found at low frequency in plant miRNA precursors and, at least in certain contexts, also impaired miRNA biogenesis. Mutations in the first cleavage site of the MIR172A precursor that impaired miRNA biogenesis resulted in an increased accumulation of the pri-miR172 levels, indicating that the first cleavage reaction was compromised, however we cannot rule out the C-C mismatches interfere with other steps of the miRNA pathway as well, such as AGO loading.

Although C-C mismatches are usually excluded from the precursors’ foldbacks, we found a few cases where C-C mismatches are evolutionarily conserved in the precursor structure, such as the one found in the miRNA/miRNA* duplexes of MIR168. The later precursor has been shown to produce isomiRs with different features, which in turn is relevant for the selection of the cognate AGO protein^20,30. A flexible miR168/miR168* duplex structure has been shown to be responsible for the miR168 isomiRs²⁰. In this line, the flexibility introduced by a C-C mismatch to dsRNA segments might fulfill specific roles in certain specific contexts. Of all the MIR172A variants tested, the only one that generated isomiRs was a precursor harboring a C-C mismatch in the miRNA/miRNA* duplex, thus supporting this possibility.

We found that positions 1, 3, and 23 of the precursors are mostly paired, and showed that closing the secondary structure of MIR172A that has an unusual mismatch at position 1 increased miR172 accumulation. In a similar way, introducing a mismatch at position 23 of MIR164C systematically reduced its biogenesis. In good agreement, recent results have shown that the processing of the precursors is also favored by a G-C-rich signature in the miRNA/miRNA* duplex³¹, highlighting the importance of a stable secondary structure at certain regions of the plant miRNA precursors.

Structure–function analyses of RNA foldbacks usually focus on the secondary structure, disregarding the importance of the nucleotide identity at unpaired positions. Artificial miRNA (amiRNA) technology is used to downregulate gene expression, and is based on the replacement of the small RNA sequence of a natural miRNA precursor maintaining its secondary structure^32,33,34. amiRNAs are especially suited to downregulate gene expression in specific tissues by driving their expression from different promoters. Our findings show the importance of considering the identity of the unpaired nucleotides during the design of these experiments. In the case of artificial miRNAs, we suggest designing precursors harboring only A-C, U-C, or U-U mismatches. Our results could be useful for the design of targeted modifications of MIRNA genes in order to modify the expression levels without altering the small RNA sequence. Furthermore, it might be interesting to test whether the identity of the mismatch pairs, especially C-C mismatches, also affects other biological processes.

Methods

Sequence analysis of MIRNAs

Analysis of nucleotide pairs in the precursors’ sequences was performed for MIRNAs conserved in eudicots, using publicly available sequence data¹². Sixty-one sequences of conserved precursors from Arabidopsis thaliana, and 1681 sequences of precursors from eudicot species were analyzed (Supplementary Fig. 1 and Source Data). Secondary structures of miRNA precursors were predicted with the Mfold web server (http://unafold.rna.albany.edu/?q=mfold/RNA-Folding-Form) using default parameters³⁵. For human miRNA analysis, information of 477 precursors available in miRBase v22 were included³⁶. Data used for these analyses is available in Source Data file.

Plant material

A. thaliana ecotype Columbia was used for all experiments. Plants were grown at 22 °C under continuous light at 100 µmol photons m⁻² s⁻¹. Transgenic plants were selected on Murashige and Skoog media with 50 µg/ml kanamycin. For the experiments included in Figs. 2c, 3d–e, and Supplementary Figs 4a, 8d, e, transgenic plants were transferred to soil after seven days and continued growing in long days. Upon flowering, primary inflorescences were collected and phenotypic analysis was performed (see Source Data file for additional details). Seedlings were collected after 10 days for RNA extraction (experiments included in Figs. 3–5 and related Supplementary Figures).

Transgenic lines

miRNA precursors corresponding to MIR165A (AT1G01183), MIR164C (AT5G27807), MIR172A (AT2G28056), and MIR397A (AT4G05105) were expressed under the control of the CaMV 35 S promoter of the binary vector CHF3³⁷. Sequences of all the constructs used and prepared in this article are indicated in Supplementary Table 3.

RNA analysis

Ten-day old seedlings or inflorescences were ground in liquid nitrogen, and RNA extraction was performed with TRI Reagent® (MRC) following the product instructions. Each sample analyzed contained material from 10 independent primary transgenic plants. Small RNA blots were performed as described previously³⁸. Probes used for detection of each miRNA are listed in Supplementary Table 3. Note that we used 19 or 20 nt long probes that perfectly match to all the mutant miRNAs generated in our experiments. In brief, 3–15 µg of total RNA were resolved on 17% polyacrylamide denaturing gels (7 M Urea), transferred to a Nytran SPC membrane (GE Healthcare) and UV-crosslinked. Probes were 5′-end-labeled with [γ-³²P] ATP using T4 polynucleotide kinase (Thermo Scientific). Detection of miR172a* was carried out first, the membraned stripped and checked, and then used for miR172. Images were obtained with a Typhoon FLA 7000 (GE Healthcare) and the signal intensity of each band was determined using the GelQuant.NET software (biochemlabsolutions.com). The intensity values of the bands detected with the miRNA probes were normalized to the signal obtained with the U6 snRNA probe. These values were then divided by the normalized signal intensity of the sample corresponding to the transgenics with the empty vector or with the wt precursor. All the quantifications are detailed in Source Data file.

Primary transcripts and small RNAs were measured by RT-qPCR in at least three independent samples (two technical replicates) as described before¹². In brief, 500 ng of total RNA were treated with RQ1 RNAse-free DNase (Promega). First strand synthesis was carried out with M-MLV reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) using dTV oligonucleotides for polyadenylated RNAs and stem-loop oligonucleotides for mature miRNAs or miR172a*^39,40. PCR reactions were performed in an AriaMx Real-time PCR System (Agilent) using SYBR Green I (Roche) to monitor double-stranded DNA synthesis. Pri-miRNA levels were normalized to RPS26 (AT3G56340) expression. Oligonucleotides used are listed in Supplementary Table 2.

The rapid amplification of 5′ cDNA ends (5′ RACE) method to detect cuts in the precursors was carried out as described previously¹⁴. In brief, total RNA was treated with DNAse, purified and the 5′-end of processing intermediates were ligated to a RNA adapter (GeneRacer™ RNA, Thermofisher). Then, polyadenylated RNA was purified with PolyATtract® mRNA Isolation Systems (Promega). First strand synthesis was carried out with an oligonucleotide specific for transcripts derived from CHF3 vector. Hemi-nested PCRs were performed with two vector-specific reverse oligonucleotides. PCR products were purified, cloned, and sequenced. Oligonucleotides used are listed in Supplementary Table 2.

RNA structure

Pri-miR172a wt (C-U), 1C-G, and 1C-C versions were transcribed in vitro using T7 RNA polymerase as described before⁶. Alkaline hydrolysis of transcripts was used as a ruler, as well as MW standards. Terbium (Tb III) induced autohydrolysis reactions were carried out by incubating 1.5 µl RNA (1 µM), 1 µl folding buffer (20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 25 mM KCl and 10 mM MgCl2), 0.3 µl of Escherichia coli tRNA (0.1 mg/ml) and 6.2 µl water for 15 min at room temperature, after which 1 µl of 100 mM Tb (III) was added. The reaction was carried out for 15 min, and then stopped by precipitating the RNA overnight. For control, 1 µl of water was added instead of Tb (III). After RNA precipitation and resuspension, the digested products were analyzed in 8% or 12% (w/v) denaturing polyacrylamide gels, respectively. The results were visualized by Phosphor Imaging (Typhoon FLA 7000, GE). Image processing, band profile acquisition and quantification were performed with the FIJI software⁴¹.

Statistical methods

Tests applied are indicated in the Figure captions. Information about size of samples (n), and the respective tables of each statistical test are included in Source Data file. RT-qPCR and plant phenotype data were analyzed with InfoStat software⁴².

MD simulations

The initial structural models for the dsRNAs were built from a portion of the sequences of MIR172A from position −10 to position 10 and MIR164C from position 13 to position 32 using NAB⁴³ (Fig. 5a and Supplementary Fig. 10a). Each model was immersed in a truncated octahedral periodic box with a minimum solute-wall distance of 8 Å filled with around 10,000 water molecules and 0.1 M NaCl. Each system was then subjected to 50 ns of MD simulation (detailed below). Subsequently, the nucleotide pair at position 1 of MIR172A and position 23 of MIR164C were mutated in silico to generate the 16 different possible combinations of the 4 nucleotides. All models were further subjected to 100 ns of MD simulations, during which their structures were analyzed. MD simulations were performed with the Amber 14 package⁴⁴. The force field used was ff99bsc0 with χOL3 modifications^45,40 for dsRNAs and TIP3P for water⁴⁶. Particle-mesh Ewald⁴⁷ was implemented for long range interactions and a cutoff distance of 12 Å was used. Temperature and pressure were regulated with Berendsen thermostat and barostat⁴⁸ with a coupling constant of 2 ps. In addition, we performed two extra versions of each MD simulation of MIR172A using Langevin thermostat with a collision frequency of 5 ps⁻¹ to improve statistical significance and ensure results are not dependent on thermostat choice. A comparison of the calculated shear parameter (see below) is shown in Fig. 5d and Supplementary Data 1, in which the reproducibility of the results can be seen. The simulation protocols, validated in previous work⁴⁹, started with an energy minimization of the initial structure, followed by a heating phase from 0 K to 300 K through 20 ps at constant volume and an equilibration phase at 300 K and 1 bar of constant pressure through 20 ps to reach proper density. These equilibrated structures were the starting point for 100 ns of MD simulations at 300 K in the NVT ensemble. To avoid artifacts of unpairing at the base pairs of the ends of the models, a simple distance restraint was applied to base pairs located at the ends of the strands so that their hydrogen bonds are maintained. Structural parameters for the dsRNAs were calculated using Curves+⁵⁰, which include axial bend, shear, buckle, stretch, propeller, stagger, opening, shift, tilt, slide, rill, rise, and twist (Supplementary Data 1 and 2). Base pair conformational clustering was performed using the hierarchical agglomerative approach from the cpptraj module of Amber14 (Supplementary Data 3).

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

All relevant data are included in the paper and/or its Supplementay Information files. Data corresponding to Figures 1–5, Supplementary Figure 2 and Supplementary Figures 4-9 are detailed in Source Data file provided with this manuscript.

References

Yu, Y., Jia, T. & Chen, X. The ‘how’ and ‘where’ of plant microRNAs. N. Phytol. 216, 1002–1017 (2017).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Achkar, N. P., Cambiagno, D. A. & Manavella, P. A. miRNA biogenesis: a dynamic pathway. Trends Plant Sci. 21, 1034–1044 (2016).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ma, Z. & Zhang, X. Actions of plant Argonautes: predictable or unpredictable? Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 45, 59–67 (2018).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Fang, X. & Qi, Y. RNAi in plants: an Argonaute-centered view. Plant Cell 28, 272–285 (2016).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Bologna, N. G. et al. Multiple RNA recognition patterns during microRNA biogenesis in plants. Genome Res. 23, 1675–1689 (2013).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Moro, B. et al. Efficiency and precision of microRNA biogenesis modes in plants. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 10709–10723 (2018).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zhu, H. et al. Bidirectional processing of pri-miRNAs with branched terminal loops by Arabidopsis Dicer-like1. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 1106–1115 (2013).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Cuperus, J. T. et al. Identification of MIR390a precursor processing-defective mutants in Arabidopsis by direct genome sequencing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 466–471 (2010).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Song, L., Axtell, M. J. & Fedoroff, N. V. RNA secondary structural determinants of miRNA precursor processing in Arabidopsis. Curr. Biol. 20, 37–41 (2010).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Werner, S., Wollmann, H., Schneeberger, K. & Weigel, D. Structure determinants for accurate processing of miR172a in Arabidopsis thaliana. Curr. Biol. 20, 42–48 (2010).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Mateos, J. L., Bologna, N. G., Chorostecki, U. & Palatnik, J. F. Identification of microRNA processing determinants by random mutagenesis of Arabidopsis MIR172a precursor. Curr. Biol. 20, 49–54 (2010).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Chorostecki, U. et al. Evolutionary footprints reveal insights into plant MicroRNA biogenesis. Plant Cell 29, 1248–1261 (2017).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Addo-Quaye, C. et al. Sliced microRNA targets and precise loop-first processing of MIR319 hairpins revealed by analysis of the Physcomitrella patens degradome. RNA 15, 2112–2121 (2009).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Bologna, N. G., Mateos, J. L., Bresso, E. G. & Palatnik, J. F. A loop-to-base processing mechanism underlies the biogenesis of plant microRNAs miR319 and miR159. EMBO J. 28, 3646–3656 (2009).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kurihara, Y. & Watanabe, Y. Arabidopsis micro-RNA biogenesis through Dicer-like 1 protein functions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 12753–12758 (2004).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Aukerman, M. J. & Sakai, H. Regulation of flowering time and floral organ identity by a MicroRNA and its APETALA2-like target genes. Plant Cell 15, 2730–2741 (2003).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Chen, X. A microRNA as a translational repressor of APETALA2 in Arabidopsis flower development. Science 303, 2022–2025 (2004).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Choudhary, P. K., Gallo, S. & Sigel, R. K. Monitoring global structural changes and specific metal-ion-binding sites in RNA by in-line probing and Tb(III) cleavage. Methods Mol. Biol. 1086, 143–158 (2014).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Harris, D. A. & Walter, N. G. Probing RNA structure and metal-binding sites using terbium(III) footprinting. Curr. Protoc. Nucleic Acid Chem. Chapter 6, 8 (2003).
PubMed Google Scholar
Iki, T. et al. Structural flexibility enables alternative maturation, ARGONAUTE sorting and activities of mir168, a global gene silencing regulator in plants. Mol. Plant 6, 1008–1023 (2018).
Endo, Y., Iwakawa, H. O. & Tomari, Y. Arabidopsis ARGONAUTE7 selects miR390 through multiple checkpoints during RISC assembly. EMBO Rep. 14, 652–658 (2013).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zhang, X. et al. ARGONAUTE PIWI domain and microRNA duplex structure regulate small RNA sorting in Arabidopsis. Nat. Commun. 5, 5468 (2014).
Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar
Zhu, H. et al. Arabidopsis Argonaute10 specifically sequesters miR166/165 to regulate shoot apical meristem development. Cell 145, 242–256 (2011).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mi, S. et al. Sorting of small RNAs into Arabidopsis argonaute complexes is directed by the 5′ terminal nucleotide. Cell 133, 116–127 (2008).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Montgomery, T. A. et al. Specificity of ARGONAUTE7-miR390 interaction and dual functionality in TAS3 trans-acting siRNA formation. Cell 133, 128–141 (2008).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Takeda, A., Iwasaki, S., Watanabe, T., Utsumi, M. & Watanabe, Y. The mechanism selecting the guide strand from small RNA duplexes is different among argonaute proteins. Plant Cell Physiol. 49, 493–500 (2008).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Davis, A. R. & Znosko, B. M. Thermodynamic characterization of single mismatches found in naturally occurring RNA. Biochemistry 46, 13425–13436 (2007).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Davis, A. R., Kirkpatrick, C. C. & Znosko, B. M. Structural characterization of naturally occurring RNA single mismatches. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 1081–1094 (2011).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Danaee, P. et al. bpRNA: large-scale automated annotation and analysis of RNA secondary structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 5381–5394 (2018).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Maunoury, N. & Vaucheret, H. AGO1 and AGO2 act redundantly in miR408-mediated plantacyanin regulation. PLoS ONE 6, e28729 (2011).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Narjala, A., Nair, A., Tirumalai, V., Hari Sundar, G. V. & Shivaprasad, P. V. A conserved sequence signature is essential for robust plant miRNA biogenesis. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 3103–3118 (2020).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Schwab, R., Ossowski, S., Riester, M., Warthmann, N. & Weigel, D. Highly specific gene silencing by artificial microRNAs in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 18, 1121–1133 (2006).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Alvarez, J. P. et al. Endogenous and synthetic microRNAs stimulate simultaneous, efficient, and localized regulation of multiple targets in diverse species. Plant Cell 18, 1134–1151 (2006).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Carbonell, A. et al. New generation of artificial MicroRNA and synthetic trans-acting small interfering RNA vectors for efficient gene silencing in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 165, 15–29 (2014).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zuker, M. Mfold web server for nucleic acid folding and hybridization prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3406–3415 (2003).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kozomara, A., Birgaoanu, M. & Griffiths-Jones, S. miRBase: from microRNA sequences to function. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D155–D162 (2019).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jarvis, P. et al. An Arabidopsis mutant defective in the plastid general protein import apparatus. Science 282, 100–103 (1998).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Wang, L. et al. miR396-targeted AtGRF transcription factors are required for coordination of cell division and differentiation during leaf development in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 62, 761–773 (2011).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Chen, C. et al. Real-time quantification of microRNAs by stem-loop RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, e179 (2005).
Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
Varkonyi-Gasic, E. & Hellens, R. P. Quantitative stem-loop RT-PCR for detection of microRNAs. Methods Mol. Biol. 744, 145–157 (2011).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Di Rienzo, J. et al. InfoStat v.2018 (Centro de Transferencia InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina, 2018).
Macke, T. J. & Case D. A. Modeling unusual nucleic acid structures. In ACS Symposium Series (ACS Publications, Washington D.C., 1998).
Case, D. A. et al. Amber 14 (University of California, San Francisco, 2014).
Google Scholar
Pérez, A. et al. Refinement of the AMBER force field for nucleic acids: improving the description of α/γ conformers. Biophys. J. 92, 3817–3829 (2007).
Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
Jorgensen, W. L., Chandrasekhar, J., Madura, J. D., Impey, R. W. & Klein, M. L. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926–935 (1983).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Brock A., Luty I. G. T. and W. F. van Gunsteren. Lattice-sum methods for calculating electrostatic interactions in molecular simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 103 (1995).
Berendsen, H. J., Jv, Postma, van Gunsteren, W. F., DiNola, A. & Haak, J. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J. Chem. Phys. 81, 3684–3690 (1984).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Drusin, S. I., Suarez, I. P., Gauto, D. F., Rasia, R. M. & Moreno, D. M. dsRNA-protein interactions studied by molecular dynamics techniques. Unravelling dsRNA recognition by DCL1. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 596, 118–125 (2016).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lavery, R., Moakher, M., Maddocks, J. H., Petkeviciute, D. & Zakrzewska, K. Conformational analysis of nucleic acids revisited: curves+. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 5917–5929 (2009).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Daniela Liebsch and members of the Palatnik lab for comments and discussion. We thank Silvana Spinelli and Ramiro Rodriguez for MIR164C and MIR397A vectors. Also, we thank the technical support received from Diego Aguirre. We thank different agencies for funding: Bunge and Born fellow (to U.C.) and CONICET fellows (to A.M.L.R., S.I.D., J.L.M., N.B., B.M., E.G.B.); and J.F.P., R.M.R., and D.M.M. are members of CONICET. Research was supported by grants from the Argentinean Ministry of Science (PICT-2015-3557) and International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB CRP/ARG17-01).

Author information

Uciel Chorostecki
Present address: Barcelona Supercomputing Centre (BSC-CNS), Barcelona, (08034), Spain
Uciel Chorostecki
Present address: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, (08028), Spain
Julieta L. Mateos
Present address: Instituto de Fisiología, Biología Molecular y Neurociencias (IFIBYNE), CONICET-UBA, Buenos Aires, (1428), Argentina
Belén Moro & Nicolas G. Bologna
Present address: Centre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG), CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB, Campus UAB, Barcelona, (08193), Spain

Authors and Affiliations

IBR (Instituto de Biología Molecular y Celular de Rosario), CONICET and Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Rosario, 2000, Argentina
Arantxa M. L. Rojas, Salvador I. Drusin, Uciel Chorostecki, Julieta L. Mateos, Belén Moro, Nicolas G. Bologna, Edgardo G. Bresso, Arnaldo Schapire, Rodolfo M. Rasia & Javier F. Palatnik
Área Física, Departamento de Química-Física, Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, S2002LRK Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
Salvador I. Drusin
Área Biofísica, Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Suipacha 531, S2002LRK, Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
Rodolfo M. Rasia
Instituto de Química de Rosario (CONICET-UNR), Suipacha 570, S2002LRK, Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
Diego M. Moreno
Área Química General e Inorgánica, Departamento de Química-Física, Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Suipacha 531, S2002LRK, Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
Diego M. Moreno
Centro de Estudios Interdisciplinarios, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Rosario, 2000, Argentina
Javier F. Palatnik

Authors

Arantxa M. L. Rojas
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Salvador I. Drusin
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Uciel Chorostecki
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Julieta L. Mateos
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Belén Moro
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Nicolas G. Bologna
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Edgardo G. Bresso
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Arnaldo Schapire
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rodolfo M. Rasia
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Diego M. Moreno
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Javier F. Palatnik
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Bioinformatic analysis: A.M.L.R. and U.C. Analysis of mutant MIRNAs in Arabidopsis: B.M., A.S., E.G.B., N.B., J.L.M., and A.M.L.R. In vitro precursor structural studies: A.M.L.R. aided by B.M. and R.M.R. MD: S.I.D. and D.M.M. Experimental design A.M.L.R., S.I.D., D.M.M., and J.F.P. Wrote the manuscript: A.M.L.R., S.I.D., D.M.M., and J.F.P.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier F. Palatnik.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Michael Axtell, Xuhui Huang, and Beixin Mo for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Data 1

Supplementary Data 2

Supplementary Data 3

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rojas, A.M.L., Drusin, S.I., Chorostecki, U. et al. Identification of key sequence features required for microRNA biogenesis in plants. Nat Commun 11, 5320 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19129-6

Download citation

Received: 23 January 2020
Accepted: 24 September 2020
Published: 21 October 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19129-6

This article is cited by

MicroRNAs associated with AGL6 and IAA9 function in tomato fruit set
- Barbara Molesini
- Federica Pennisi
- Tiziana Pandolfini
BMC Research Notes (2023)
Comparative analysis of the carrot miRNAome in response to salt stress
- Kamil Szymonik
- Magdalena Klimek-Chodacka
- Rafal Baranski
Scientific Reports (2023)
R-loops at microRNA encoding loci promote co-transcriptional processing of pri-miRNAs in plants
- Lucia Gonzalo
- Ileana Tossolini
- Pablo A. Manavella
Nature Plants (2022)
Regulation of pri-MIRNA processing: mechanistic insights into the miRNA homeostasis in plant
- Jayanti Jodder
Plant Cell Reports (2021)
A prescient evolutionary model for genesis, duplication and differentiation of MIR160 homologs in Brassicaceae
- Swati Singh
- Anandita Singh
Molecular Genetics and Genomics (2021)

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.