Relative specificity: all substrates are not created equal

Relative specificity as an important consideration in the big data era

Technological breakthroughs such as high-throughput methods, genomics, single-cell studies, and machine learning have fundamentally transformed research and ushered in the big data era of biology. Nevertheless, current data collections, analyses, and modeling frequently overlook relative specificity, a crucial property of molecular interactions in biochemical systems. Relative specificity describes how, for example, an enzyme reacts with its many substrates at different rates, and how this discriminatory action alone is sufficient to modulate the substrates and downstream events. As a corollary, it is not only important to comprehensively identify an enzyme’s substrates, but also critical to quantitatively determine how the enzyme interacts with the substrates and to evaluate how it shapes subsequent biological outcomes. Genomics and high-throughput techniques have greatly facilitated the studies of relative specificity in the 21st century, and its functional significance has been demonstrated in complex biochemical systems including transcription, translation, protein kinases, RNA-binding proteins, and animal microRNAs (miRNAs), although it remains ignored in most work. Here we analyze recent findings in big data and relative specificity studies and explain how the incorporation of relative specificity concept might enhance our mechanistic understanding of gene functions, biological phenomena, and human diseases.

Conservation of Differential Animal MicroRNA Processing by Drosha and Dicer

In complex biochemical systems, an enzyme, protein, or RNA, symbolized as E, has hundreds or thousands of substrates or interacting partners. The relative specificity hypothesis proposes that such an E would differentially interact with and influence its many distinct, downstream substrates, thereby regulating the underlying biological process (es). The importance of relative specificity has been underappreciated, and evidence of its physiological consequences particularly lacking. Previously we showed that human Drosha and Dicer ribonucleases (RNases) both discriminate their respective microRNA (miRNA) substrates, and that differential cleavage by Drosha contributes to global differential miRNA expression. If relative specificity is an important biological mechanism, it should be evolutionarily conserved. To test this hypothesis, we hereby examined the cleavage of hundreds of zebrafish and fruitfly miRNA intermediates by Drosha and Dicer and the impact on miRNA biogenesis in these organisms. We showed that Drosha action regulates differential miRNA expression in zebrafish and fruitflies and identified the conserved secondary structure features and sequences in miRNA transcripts that control Drosha activity and miRNA expression. Our results established the conservation of miRNA processing mechanisms and regulatory functions by Drosha and Dicer, greatly strengthened the evidence for the physiological consequences of relative specificity as well as demonstrated its evolutionary significance.