Using EMOTE to Map the Exact 5′-Ends of Processed RNA on a Transcriptome-Wide Scale

  • Peter RedderEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1259)


The presence or absence of structure in an RNA is often crucial to its function. This is evident for highly structured RNAs such as rRNA, tRNA, or riboswitches, but it is also the case for many mRNAs, where secondary structures in the 5′ or 3′ UTR can determine the efficiency of translation or the half-life of the RNA. There are paths to modify such secondary structures, (1) by the action of a helicase that allows an alternative RNA structure to form, (2) by the formation of a duplex with another RNA, or (3) by cleavage of the RNA in a way that favors a different secondary structure. None of the three exclude the others, and in vivo it is common that two or all three work together to remodel an RNA to the desired form. However, while the first two solutions can be reversible, the cleavage of RNA is final, and there is no chance to go back. In this chapter, a method for tracking the 5′ end created by RNA processing on a transcriptome-wide scale is presented. The Exact Mapping Of Transcriptome Ends (EMOTE) allows the large-scale identification of mono-phosphorylated RNA 5′-ends and provides the exact processing sites.

Key words

RNA processing 5′-end mapping Transcriptome-wide analysis EMOTE RNase cleavage sites RNA maturation RNA degradation intermediates 



The critical reading of this manuscript by Vanessa Guimarães and Patrick Linder was highly appreciated. Work in the laboratory is funded by SwissLife Jubiläumsstiftung, Novartis Consumer Health Foundation, the Faculty of Medicine at University of Geneva, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the Canton of Geneva.


  1. 1.
    Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular cloning. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharma CM, Hoffmann S, Darfeuille F et al (2010) The primary transcriptome of the major human pathogen Helicobacter pylori. Nature 464:250–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dugar G, Herbig A, Förstner KU et al (2013) High-resolution transcriptome maps reveal strain-specific regulatory features of multiple Campylobacter jejuni isolates. PLoS Genet 9:e1003495PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jorjani H, Zavolan M (2014) TSSer: an automated method to identify transcription start sites in prokaryotic genomes from differential RNA sequencing data. Bioinformatics 30:971–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deana A, Celesnik H, Belasco JG (2008) The bacterial enzyme RppH triggers messenger RNA degradation by 5′ pyrophosphate removal. Nature 451:355–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hsieh PK, Richards J, Liu Q et al (2013) Specificity of RppH-dependent RNA degradation in Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:8864–8869PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Piton J, Larue V, Thillier Y et al (2013) Bacillus subtilis RNA deprotection enzyme RppH recognizes guanosine in the second position of its substrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:8858–8863PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Linder P, Lemeille S, Redder P (2014) Transcriptome-wide analyses of 5′-ends in RNase J mutants of a gram-positive pathogen reveal a role in RNA maturation, regulation and degradation. PLoS Genet 10:e1004207PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of GenevaGeneve 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations