“…59 UTR sequences (A), predicted RNA secondary structures (B), and dimethylsulfate modification (B, C) of the nucleotides of rbc L and atpB gene transcripts that were analyzed in this study for the presence of stability elements+ The total lengths of the rbc L and atpB 59 UTRs is 92 and 340 nt, respectively (Dron et al+, 1982;Woessner et al+, 1986)+ A: The 59 sequences fused in this study to the bacterial uidA gene+ Gray boxes in the sequences covering positions ϩ38 to ϩ47 in the rbc L 59 UTR and positions ϩ31 to ϩ42 in the atpB 59 UTR mark the regions found in this work to be important for transcript stability+ The individual single base changes introduced into the 59 UTR sequences are shown in the underlined sequences below the gray boxed elements+ B: Secondary structures of the rbc L and atpB 59 sequences as predicted by the mfold program (Zuker et al+, 1999)+ Boxed bases denote the location of the stability elements defined in this study (compare with A)+ The two atpB 59 end structures shown correspond to the two transcripts probably present in the chloroplast as concluded from the primer extension and DMS methylation data+ The atpB 59 UTR structure shown to the right lacks the 25 terminal nucleotides of the primary transcript shown to the left+ Labels at the sequences indicate susceptibility to methylation with DMS as estimated from the autoradiographs of C+ I: heavy methylation; ᭹: medium methylation; ⅙ : weak methylation+ Note that bases predicted by the mfold program to be unpaired are predominantly modified, and that modification of atpB 59 sequences is consistent with the presence of the two different structures shown (see text for explanation)+ C: Methylation of rbc L and atpB 59 UTR sequences+ Autoradiographs show the primer extension products of control and DMSmethylated 59 sequences of rbc L and atpB transcripts alongside sequencing ladders that serve as molecular weight markers (to the left of the samples loaded from left to right in the order A, T, G, C)+ Methylation blocks movement of the reverse transcriptase along ribonucleic acid strands+ The control lanes are loaded with samples that were not treated with DMS but were otherwise processed like the DMS-modified samples+ Numbers to the right of the autoradiograms refer to the positions of the 59 terminal nucleotides of the cDNAs, taking the 59 terminal nucleotide of the full-length cDNAs as ϩ1+ Note that the methyl- In the 59 UTR of the atpB gene, positions ϩ31 to ϩ42 are important for accumulation of transcripts of atpB 59 end:GUS genes in the chloroplast of Chlamydomonas. Nucleotide changes in this region resulted in decreases in levels of GUS transcripts of 59% for a change in position ϩ33 to almost 100% due to a mutation in position ϩ38 (Fig+ 2)+ However, in general, mutations in the sequence of the atpB 59 UTR did not result in reductions of GUS transcript levels as conspicuous as those resulting from changes in the rbc L 59 UTR+ It is possible that the presence of two species of atpB 59 UTR:GUS transcripts in our samples-primary and processed (Fig+ 1B)-whose structures and/or stabilities could be affected differently by the introduced atpB 59 end mutations, is responsible for the less pronounced effect on atpB 59 UTR:GUS transcript abundance+ Nonetheless, apart from the ϩ35 mutation that even caused transcripts to accumulate to levels that were three times higher than levels of GUS transcripts in control cells (Fig+ 2), the effects are qualitatively comparable to the effects on GUS transcript abundance in chloroplast Abundance of chimeric GUS transcripts in Chlamydomonas chloroplast transformants harboring rbc L 59 end:GUS and atpB 59 end:GUS genes+ Total RNA was isolated from transformants growing in 12-h light/12-h dark cycles at 11 h in the dark (rbc L:GUS transformants) or 1 h in the light (atpB:GUS transformants)+ RNA sampl...…”