Shooting the messenger: small RNA as a target for antibiotics

All living cells contain DNA; the code for producing every protein needed by the cell. As DNA is important it needs to be kept safe. Plants and animals keep their DNA tightly twisted and organised inside a double-membrane bound nucleus while bacteria keep their DNA coiled up in a big circle, with the occasional loop [...]

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


All living cells contain DNA; the code for producing every protein needed by the cell. As DNA is important it needs to be kept safe. Plants and animals keep their DNA tightly twisted and organised inside a double-membrane bound nucleus while bacteria keep their DNA coiled up in a big circle, with the occasional loop floating around separately. With smaller cells, bacteria don’t have the space for large membrane-bound organelles, and they can also tolerate a bit of genetic damage slightly more than large multicellular structures.

To act as an intermediate between DNA and proteins cells also contain RNA – which is a more flexible and shorter lived molecule in the same family as DNA. If the DNA is a library with all cellular information neatly filed then RNA is a messy folder full of notes that can be scattered around the cell to wherever they are most needed. RNA has lots of jobs; it is a vital part of protein production and can also be used to regulate and control cellular processes.

Although bacterial DNA is not locked up in a nucleus, it is still useful for bacteria to be able to make and distribute copies of it. Small pieces of RNA, imaginatively called small-RNA (sRNA) can be used to control the production of proteins and other pieces of RNA. These little lines of code require little energy to produce and can regulate their targets in a coordinated manner, and because of this they are often used to help the bacteria respond quickly to changing circumstances.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Recent studies have shown that when bacteria are exposed to antibiotics they produce more sRNA. Many of the cellular processes targeted by antibiotics (including damage to the cell wall and protein production) are normally controlled by sRNA so the sudden flurry of production may be the bacteria attempting to minimise damage or activate antibiotic resistance pathways. sRNA is also important for active antibacterial resistance such as the production of protein pumps that forcibly remove the antibiotic from the cell.

More interestingly, it was found that blocking the production of sRNA leaves the cell more vulnerable to antibiotic attack. While preventing sRNA production may not be a viable antibiotic therapy by itself the targeted blocking of specific small RNA pieces could be used as an adjuvant – a therapy added along with the antibiotic to make it more powerful. As antibiotic resistance starts to spread, the need for therapies to increase the power of the antibiotics currently in circulation will always be useful, and sRNA is a fascinating little molecule to study.

Reference: Lalaouna D, Eyraud A, Chabelskaya S, Felden B, Mass? E (2014) Regulatory RNAs Involved in Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance. PLoS Pathog 10(8): e1004299. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004299

About S.E. Gould

A biochemist with a love of microbiology, the Lab Rat enjoys exploring, reading about and writing about bacteria. Having finally managed to tear herself away from university, she now works for a small company in Cambridge where she turns data into manageable words and awesome graphs.

More by S.E. Gould

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe