The aminoglycoside antibiotic neomycin B inhibits translation in prokaryotes and interferes with RNA–protein interactions in HIV both in vivo and in vitro. Hitherto, inhibition of ribozyme catalysis has only been observed in vitro. We therefore monitored the activity of neomycin B and several other aminoglycoside antibiotics on splicing of the T4 phage thymidylate synthase (td) intron in vivo. All antibiotics tested inhibited splicing, even chloramphenicol, which does not inhibit splicing in vitro. Splicing of the td intron in vivo requires translation for proper folding of the pre-mRNA. In the absence of translation, two interactions between sequences in the upstream exon and the 5′ and 3′ splice sites trap the pre-mRNA in splicing-incompetent conformations. Their disruption by mutations rendered splicing less dependent on translation and also less sensitive to neomycin B. Intron splicing was affected by neither neomycin B nor gentamicin in Escherichia coli strains carrying antibiotic-resistance genes that modify the ribosomal RNA. Taken together, this demonstrates that in vivo splicing of td intron is not directly inhibited by aminoglycosides, but rather indirectly by their interference with translation. This was further confirmed by assaying splicing of the Tetrahymena group I intron, which is inserted in the E. coli 23 S rRNA and, thus, not translated. Furthermore, neomycin B, paromomycin, and streptomycin enhanced missplicing in antibiotic-sensitive strains. Missplicing is caused by an alternative structural element containing a cryptic 5′ splice site, which serves as a substrate for the ribozyme. Our results demonstrate that aminoglycoside antibiotics display different effects on ribozymes in vivo and in vitro.

A rare class of introns in higher eukaryotes is processed by the recently discovered AT-AC spliceosome. AT-AC introns are processed inefficiently in vitro, but the reaction is stimulated by exon-definition interactions involving binding of U1 snRNP to the 5′ splice site of the downstream conventional intron. We report that purine-rich exonic splicing enhancers also strongly stimulate sodium channel AT-AC splicing. Intact U2, U4, or U6 snRNAs are not required for enhancer function or for exon definition. Enhancer function is independent of U1 snRNP, showing that splicing stimulation by a downstream 5′ splice site and by an exonic enhancer differ mechanistically.

We present here the first insights into the organization of proteins on the RNA in the U5 snRNP of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Photo-crosslinking with uniformly labeled U5 RNA in snRNPs reconstituted in vitro revealed five contacting proteins, Prp8p, Snu114p, p30, p16, and p10, contact by the three smaller proteins requiring an intact Sm site. Site-specific crosslinking showed that Snu114p contacts the 5′ side of internal loop 1, whereas Prp8p interacts with five different regions of the 5′ stem-loop, but not with the Sm site or 3′ stem-loop. Both internal loops in the 5′ domain are essential for Prp8p to associate with the snRNP, but the conserved loop 1 is not, although this is the region to which Prp8p crosslinks most strongly. The extensive contacts between Prp8p and the 5′ stem-loop of U5 RNA support the hypothesis that, in spliceosomes, Prp8p stabilizes loop 1–exon interactions. Moreover, data showing that Prp8p contacts the exons even in the absence of loop 1 indicate that Prp8p may be the principal anchoring factor for exons in the spliceosome. This and the close proximity of the spliceosomal translocase, Snu114p, to U5 loop 1 and Prp8p support and extend the proposal that Snu114p mimics U5 loop 1 during a translocation event in the spliceosome.