Each year, malaria kills more than 600,000 people, mostly children younger than 5 years old. Humans who have been bitten by mosquitoes infected with malaria-causing parasites become ill as the parasites rapidly multiply in blood cells. Although there are several drugs that are currently used to treat malaria, the parasites are rapidly developing resistance to them, setting off an urgent hunt for new malaria drugs.

Developing new antimalarial medications from scratch is likely to take decades—too long to combat the current public health threat posed by emerging strains of drug-resistant parasites. To speed up the process, scientists are investigating whether drugs developed for other illnesses may also act as therapies for malaria, either when used alone or in combination with existing malaria drugs.

Certain antibiotics—including one called emetine—have already shown promise as antimalarial drugs. These antibiotics prevent the parasites from multiplying by interfering with the ribosome—the part of a cell that builds new proteins. However, humans become ill after taking emetine for long periods because it also blocks the production of human proteins.

Tweaking emetine so that it acts only against the production of parasite proteins would make it a safer malaria treatment. To do this, scientists must first map the precise interactions between the drug and the ribosomes in parasites. Wong et al. have now used a technique called cryo-electron microscopy to examine the ribosome of the most virulent form of malaria parasite. This technique uses very cold temperatures to rapidly freeze molecules, allowing scientists to look at molecular-level details without distorting the structure of the molecule—a problem sometimes encountered in other techniques.

The images of the parasitic ribosome taken by Wong, Bai, Brown et al. show that emetine binds to the end of the ribosome where the instructions for how to assemble amino acids into a protein are copied from strands of RNA. In addition, the images revealed features of the parasitic ribosome that are not found in the human form. Drug makers could exploit these features to improve emetine so that it more specifically targets the production of proteins by the parasite and is less toxic to humans.

Malaria is responsible for an estimated 627,000 annual deaths worldwide, with the majority of victims being children under 5 years of age (WHO, 2012). At present there is no licensed malaria vaccine and parasites have developed resistance to all front-line anti-malarial drugs. As such, there is an urgent need for novel therapeutics that can be used as monotherapies or as partner drugs for combinatorial regimes (Kremsner and Krishna, 2004). An alternative to novel candidates is the repurposing or repositioning of clinically approved drugs that can be used in combination with known anti-malarials, such as chloroquine, antifolates, and artemisinin, to increase their useable lifespan by reducing resistance (Grimberg and Mehlotra, 2011).

The etiological agents for malaria are a family of unicellular protozoan pathogens of the genus Plasmodium. The parasite has a complex two-host lifecycle with a sexual stage occurring in the mosquito vector and an asexual stage in the human host. It is during the asexual blood stage that disease symptoms in humans first appear, including those associated with severe malaria, and it is often at this stage that the need for clinical intervention becomes apparent (Miller et al., 2002). Much of malaria pathology is the result of exponential growth of the parasite within erythrocytes, and given the critical role that protein synthesis plays in this, the translational machinery is an attractive drug target.

Protein translation in the parasite is focused on three centers (Jackson et al., 2011): the cytoplasmic ribosome, responsible for the vast majority of protein synthesis, and organellar ribosomes of the mitochondrion and non-photosynthetic plastid, termed the apicoplast (McFadden et al., 1996). In addition, and unusually for a eukaryotic cell, Plasmodium species have two distinct types of cytoplasmic ribosome that differ in their ribosomal RNA (rRNA) composition. These are expressed at different stages of the lifecycle, one predominantly in the mosquito vector and the other in the mammalian host, with evidence that both can occur simultaneously for limited periods (Waters et al., 1989).

Antibiotics known to target the apicoplast ribosome, such as the macrolide azithromycin, demonstrate a delayed-death effect, whereby treated parasites die in the second generation of drug exposure, and therefore have slow clinical onset (Dahl and Rosenthal, 2007 ; Goodman et al., 2007 ). However, because anti-malarial treatment at the blood-stage requires rapid intervention, we focused on the dominant, blood stage-specific cytoplasmic ribosome from the most virulent form of Plasmodium, P. falciparum (Pf80S) (Waters et al., 1989), as inhibition of cytosolic translation would be expected to be direct and fast-acting. Pf80S is both a candidate for development of novel therapeutics that target specific differences between itself and its counterpart in the human cytosol, and also for repurposing of anti-protozoan inhibitors, such as emetine (Matthews et al., 2013).

In this present study, we solved the structure of Pf80S–emetine complex at 3.2 Å resolution and built a fully-refined all-atom model. This represents, to our knowledge, the first structure of an entire eukaryotic ribosome at atomic resolution solved by electron cryo-microscopy (cryo-EM). Pf80S has a broad distribution of Pf-specific elements across its surface, with particularly long rRNA expansion segments (ESs) in the small subunit. The atomic structure of Pf80S in complex with emetine reveals the molecular basis of this clinically relevant anti-protozoan translation inhibitor. In doing so, we establish cryo-EM as a powerful tool for structure-based drug design.

Cytoplasmic ribosomes were isolated from the 3D7 strain of P. falciparum parasites maintained in human erythrocytes (Figure 1A,B). Limitations in parasite culture volume, yielding ∼10¹⁰ parasitized red blood cells and low yield of sample material (1 g of parasites yielded 0.35 mg Pf80S), precluded an ability to crystallize Pf80S to solve the structure by conventional X-ray crystallography. We therefore exploited recent advances in direct electron detection and statistical image processing (Bai et al., 2013; Allegretti et al., 2014) to determine the structure by cryo-EM at an overall resolution of 3.2 Å (Figure 1C–E, Figure 1—figure supplement 1).

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Protein side chains and RNA bases were clearly resolved in our maps (Figure 1D). The use of model building and refinement tools that were adapted from X-ray crystallography (Amunts et al., 2014) led to a near-complete atomic model with excellent geometrical properties (Figure 2A,B; Table 1). The ribosome model comprises the large (Pf60S) and small subunit (Pf40S) with a total of 74 proteins (Tables 2 and 3) as well as the 5S, 5.8S, 18S, and 28S rRNAs and a tRNA bound at the E-site. The head region of Pf40S has weaker density than the rest of the ribosome due to the inherent flexibility at the neck (centered around h28). This meant that eS31, located in the beak of the 40S head (Rabl et al., 2011), could not be positioned accurately, and has therefore been omitted from the final model. Using base-pair information extracted directly from the atomic model it was possible to revise secondary structure diagrams for P. falciparum rRNA (Figure 2—figure supplements 1–3), facilitating comparison with rRNA of other species.

Figure 2 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Currently, high resolution structures of eukaryotic ribosomes have been solved using X-ray crystallography and are limited to just three structures; the individual subunits from a ciliated protozoan, Tetrahymena thermophila (Klinge et al., 2011; Rabl et al., 2011), and the complete 80S ribosome from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Ben-Shem et al., 2011). These models have been used to interpret lower resolution structures solved by cryo-EM of other species including the yeast Kluyveromyces lactis (Fernandez et al., 2014), Drosophila melanogaster (Anger et al., 2013), Trypanosoma brucei (Hashem et al., 2013), as well as human ribosomes (Anger et al., 2013) and provide the basis of the nomenclature used for describing the structures.

To examine overall architectural differences, we compared the model of Pf80S to yeast 80S (Ben-Shem et al., 2011). Perhaps the largest difference is the absence of RACK1 (Figure 1A,B), which associates with the head of the 40S in the vicinity of the mRNA exit channel (Sengupta et al., 2004; Rabl et al., 2011) and has been identified in all eukaryotic ribosome structures solved to-date. RACK1 serves as a signaling scaffold that can recruit other proteins to the ribosome and may link the ribosome with signal transduction pathways, thus allowing translation regulation in response to stimuli. It has also been proposed that RACK1 promotes the docking of ribosomes at sites where local translation is required (Nilsson et al., 2004).

PfRACK1 is conserved with its human homolog with an identity of 60%. The binding site on the ribosome, which comprises eS17, uS3, and 18S rRNA helices h39 and h40 (Figure 1A,B), also appears highly conserved (Rabl et al., 2011). However, the C-terminus of uS3 is not resolved in our structure and probably only becomes ordered upon binding RACK1. The absence of PfRACK1 as an integral member of the small subunit indicates either a different mode of interaction between the ribosome and PfRACK1 in Plasmodium compared to humans, or that under the culturing conditions used PfRACK1 is not expressed, or expressed in a form that does not interact with the ribosome. In yeast, RACK1 has been shown to be present in both a ribosome- and a non-ribosome-bound form dependent on growth conditions (Baum et al., 2004). If the interaction between PfRACK1 and the Pf40S is weaker than in other organisms, the possibility that PfRACK1 dissociated during purification and grid preparation cannot be discounted.

The yeast 80S structure was also solved in the presence of STM1, a translation repressor protein, that binds to the head region of the 40S and blocks mRNA entry and binding of tRNA to the A- and P-sites (Rabl et al., 2011). The human and D. melanogaster structures also co-purified with an STM1-like protein (SERBP1 and VIG2 respectively) (Anger et al., 2013). Pf80S is not bound by a suppressor molecule, as also observed for the T. brucei structure (Hashem et al., 2013), and hence reflects a ribosome capable of active translation.

Pf80S co-purifies with a tRNA bound to the E-site. Although the density is not well resolved, presumably as a result of low and mixed occupancy, it could be interpreted by positioning a model of tRNA^Met. The presence of tRNA helps to partially stabilise the L1 stalk near the elbow of the tRNA, however the stalk remains considerably flexible and is averaged out of the high-resolution reconstruction.

Perhaps due to the absence of RACK1 and/or STM1 or the presence of an E-site tRNA, the head of Pf40S adopts an orientation with respect to the body that is different to the yeast structure, with uS11 at the beak of the small subunit displaced by more than 10 Å. The root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the two small subunits is 2.9 Ų, however if the head and body are superimposed independently this improves to 1.0 Ų and 1.5 Ų respectively. The structure of Pf60S superimposes with the yeast 60S with a RMSD of 1.6 Ų. The largest morphological differences in this subunit result from a cluster of rRNA helices (ES7AL, ES15L, and ES7CL) protruding at the solvent side.

Given the potential of Pf80S as a drug target, we sought to describe its detailed structure in comparison to its direct counterpart in the human cytoplasm, where a 4.8 Å cryo-EM 80S structure represents the highest resolution solved to-date (Anger et al., 2013). Therefore, all protein extensions and rRNA expansion segments (ESs) are annotated on the basis of comparison with human ribosomes. While the core of the Pf80S and human ribosome are conserved, the periphery of the ribosomes differs extensively in the nature and length of rRNA ESs and protein extensions. The constraints on rRNA expansion appear to be fewer than on protein extension, as rRNA contributes greater to the mass difference between species.

Compared to human ribosomes, P. falciparum typically has shorter ESs, some of which are entirely absent in the large subunit (ES7D-HL, ES9AL, ES10L, ES20L, ES30L) (Table 4). The functions, if any, of many of these ESs are not well known. ES7E, which is highly conserved in vertebrates, is implicated in selenoprotein synthesis by binding the SBP2 protein that specifically recruits the selenocysteine-specific tRNA and elongation factor (Kossinova et al., 2014). While P. falciparum does utilize selenocysteine, it is incorporated into very few proteins (Lobanov et al., 2006) and there is no homolog of SBP2, providing a possible explanation for why ES7E is not present in Plasmodium.

The largest Pf-specific ESs are concentrated in the 18S rRNA, with ES6S and ES9S being particularly extended (Figure 2C,D; Figure 2—figure supplement 1). These ESs, like those described in both the human (Anger et al., 2013) and Trypanosoma brucei (Hashem et al., 2013) ribosome structures, are highly flexible and, in our structure, are only partly visible using a map filtered at 6 Å (Figure 2C,D). We have therefore not included these sections in our atomic model. ES10S is located at the top of the 40S head and has been partially built.

P. falciparum ribosomes resemble those of T. brucei in that both have large ES6S and ES7S, although these are slightly larger in T. brucei (Hashem et al., 2013). ES6S is in contact with ribosomal components that form part of the mRNA entry and exit sites and was therefore suggested as being involved in translation initiation (Jenner et al., 2012). Recently, ES6/7S have been implicated in binding of the conserved translation initiation factor eIF3 based on superposition with a mammalian 43S complex (Hashem et al., 2013). Almost 90 nucleotides of ES6AS are averaged out of our high-resolution reconstruction indicating this stalk is highly flexible, perhaps acting in a manner similar to the P stalk (known as the L7/L12 stalk in prokaryotes) by recruiting factors necessary for translation (in this case eIF3). The other large ES of the 18S rRNA, ES9S, is positioned at the head of the 40S. Given both the intrinsic mobility of the head and presumably the ES itself, there is no density for this ∼150 nucleotide Pf-specific element and the role it plays remains unclear.

The sites of Pf-specific elements are broadly distributed across the solvent-accessible surface of the ribosome, although the region surrounding the exit tunnel is conserved (Klinge et al., 2011) and undecorated with ESs and protein extensions (Figure 2C,D). The subunit interface and eukaryotic-specific bridges, which in addition to having structural roles help transmit information to coordinate activity during translation (Ben-Shem et al., 2011), are generally highly conserved in Pf80S. There are a couple of examples of stabilizing interactions that are not observed in human ribosomes. Firstly, eL41, the smallest ribosomal protein, bridges the two subunits (Ben-Shem et al., 2011) and has a 14-residue Pf-specific N-terminal extension that reaches into a pocket formed by 18S rRNA of the small subunit and tightly anchors the protein (Figure 3A). Secondly, an additional small bridge (∼200 Ų) is formed between the platform of Pf40S and the region around the L1 stalk by the C-terminal helix extension of eL8 interacting with the C-terminal helix of eS1 (Figure 3B).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Further ordered Pf-specific elements are concentrated near the L1 and P stalks of Pf60S. Directly above the P stalk, the Pf-specific ES7B1L forms a diverted part of ES7CL that is stabilized by several electrostatic interactions with a C-terminal helix extension of uL4 (Figure 3C). Towards the back of the P-stalk, the C-terminal helix extension of eL14 caps the stem loop of ES7BL (Figure 3C). On the opposite side of the ribosome, near the E-site tRNA, the Pf-specific stem loop ES34L is positioned directly above the L1 stalk (Figure 3D). This ES appears to have caused a 60° rotation of the C-terminal helix of eL13 relative to its position in human ribosomes (Figure 3D). The tip of the helix is displaced by ∼28 Å away from the L1 stalk and now stabilizes the interaction between ES34L and the loop of h22. Since the L1 stalk is required for coordinating the movement of tRNAs and the P stalk is required for coordinating the movement of translation factors during the various steps of protein synthesis (Gonzalo and Reboud, 2003), the expanded mass around the stalks of Pf80S may have functional implications for translation in P. falciparum.

The ability to determine atomic-resolution structures of Pf80S provides a platform for investigating the action of anti-malarial therapeutics that target the ribosome. The clinically used, broad-spectrum eukaryotic translation inhibitor emetine (Figure 4A) (Grollman, 1968), has been reported to act as a translocation inhibitor targeting the ribosome (Jimenez et al., 1977; Dinos et al., 2004), although its precise mode of action is unknown. Emetine is a natural product alkaloid from the plant Carapichea ipecacuanha, and an approved medicine for the treatment of amoebiasis (Goodwin et al., 1948). Although its toxicity associated with chronic usage in humans has limited its clinical use against malaria in its current formulation (Dempsey and Salem, 1966), emetine does demonstrate potent antimalarial activity with a 50% inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) of 47 nM against the blood stage of multidrug resistant strains of P. falciparum (Matthews et al., 2013). Moreover, the immediate therapeutic effect it offers by rapid killing of blood stage parasites may warrant re-consideration of the use of emetine or its derivatives for short periods during acute malaria infection (James, 1985).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Incubation of purified Pf80S with a 1 mM emetine solution prior to cryo-EM grid preparation, led to a 3.2 Å resolution structure of the complex. Using soft masking, the resolution for the large subunit improved to 3.1 Å, with the small subunit at 3.3 Å (Figure 1C). A difference map was calculated from the reconstructions with and without emetine and showed a single, continuous feature near the E-site of Pf40S with a shape and size congruent with a single emetine molecule when thresholded at 5 standard deviations, and with a maximum value of 11 standard deviations (Figure 4B). At this position in our map, the density provided sufficient detail to confidently model the emetine molecule (Figure 4C–E). The emetine binding pocket is formed at the interface between 18S rRNA helices 23, 24, 45, and the C-terminus of uS11 (Figure 5A). Comparison with the unliganded map showed that binding of emetine does not induce changes to the pocket (Figure 4C,D). The benzo[a]quinolizine ring of emetine mimics a base-stacking interaction with G973 of h23 and its ethyl group forms a hydrophobic interaction with C1075 and C1076 of h24, whereas the isoquinoline ring is stacked against the C-terminal Leu151 of uS11 (Figure 5B,C). The interaction is stabilized by a hydrogen bond formed between the NH group of the isoquinoline ring in emetine and an oxygen atom on the backbone of U2061 of h45 (Figure 5B,C). Although there is no high-resolution structure of the human cytoplasmic ribosome, comparison of the emetine binding site in Pf80S with the equivalent region in the 4.8 Å human structure (Anger et al., 2013) revealed that each of the core binding elements are conserved (Figure 5—figure supplement 1) indicating that emetine likely binds to the cytoplasmic host ribosomes in the same way, potentially accounting for the observed cytotoxicity in humans.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

The identified binding site is consistent with mutations of Arg149 and Arg150 of uS11 in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells that have been found to confer resistance to emetine (Madjar et al., 1982). At the emetine-binding pocket, h24 is sandwiched between the apexes of h23 and h45. The C-terminus of uS11 adopts a long coil with seven basic residues (residues 141–151; RKKSGRRGRRL), which form electrostatic interactions with the phosphate backbones of h45, h23 and h24, thereby stabilizing the conformation of this coil together with the 18S rRNA (Figure 5A). This would explain the molecular basis for resistance whereby mutations of the C-terminal arginine residues of uS11 destabilize h23 and h45, disrupting the binding pocket.

The mode of binding of emetine resembles the way in which pactamycin, previously thought to be a unique class of antibiotic, binds to the bacterial 30S (Brodersen et al., 2000). In both structures the guanine base at the tip of h23 (G973 in Pf; G693 in bacteria) forms a stacking interaction with the hydrophobic rings of either compound. Moreover, the two cytosine bases of h24 (C1075 and 1076 in Pf; C795 and 796 in bacteria) are each involved in drug binding (Brodersen et al., 2000; Figure 6). The hydrogen bond to the backbone of h45 and the hydrophobic interaction with Leu151 of uS11 are specific to the Pf80S–emetine interaction. In the 30S-pactamycin complex, the last base of the E-site codon of the mRNA was displaced 12.5 Å compared to the native path of mRNA (Brodersen et al., 2000) thereby blocking mRNA/tRNA entry into the E-site during the translocation step of protein synthesis (Dinos et al., 2004). Based on these structures, emetine appears to elicit its inhibitory effect by the same mechanism as pactamycin.

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

The resolution revolution in cryo-EM (Kühlbrandt, 2014) is the product of a new generation of sensors that detect electrons directly (without first converting to light) and have improved quantum efficiencies. These cameras are fast enough to follow beam-induced movement of the particles caused by irradiation with electrons. Statistical movie processing can compensate for this movement allowing for structures to be solved at atomic precision. We have harnessed these technological advances to determine the first structure of a ribosome from a parasite at atomic resolution. Previously, structures of eukaryotic cytosolic 80S ribosomes at a similar resolution had only been possible using X-ray crystallography (Ben-Shem et al., 2011). From the reconstruction of Pf80S–emetine complex at 3.2 Å, we determined a stereochemically accurate all-atom model using recent developments in model building, refinement, and validation (Amunts et al., 2014).

The structure of Pf80S further demonstrates the diversity of ribosome structures among eukaryotes, especially in terms of the location and nature of ESs at the periphery, while maintaining a conserved core. The observation of Pf-specific features could serve as the basis for exploring their functional relevance as an essential, first step towards finding efficacious and clinically safe anti-malarial drugs. An alternative to drug development against Pf-specific ribosomal elements is the repurposing of existing antibiotics as anti-malarials. By determining the structure of Pf80S in both a liganded and unliganded state, we were able to locate the binding site of the anti-protozoan inhibitor, emetine, using an unbiased difference map. That emetine and pactamycin share a binding pocket in eukaryotic ribosomes could not be predicted based on the chemical structures of the drug molecules only. Pactamycin itself has been shown to have potent antiprotozoal activity against both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant strains of P. falciparum (Otoguro et al., 2010). Chemical modifications to pactamycin have yielded analogs that maintain antimalarial activity but with reduced cytotoxicity against mammalian cells (Lu et al., 2011). Similarly, an emetine derivative, dehydroemetine, which differs by the presence of a double bond next to the ethyl group of benzo[a]quinolizine ring, exhibits less toxic effects than the parental compound while maintaining anti-parasitic properties (Dempsey and Salem, 1966; Chintana et al., 1986). This suggests that compounds targeting the emetine/pactamycin binding site are amenable to optimization, potentially leading to drugs more suited to clinical use. The Pf80S–emetine structure reveals an edge centered on the ethyl group of the molecule that could be subjected to modification to increase the affinity of emetine for the binding pocket (Figure 5B, labelled as the ‘contour edge’). Although based on the similarity with the binding site in humans it is unlikely that emetine can be structurally modified to not bind the mammalian system, as demonstrated in the case of dehydroemetine modifications can reduce its cytotoxicity. Although the mechanism for such reduced cytotoxicity mediated by pactamycin and emetine analogs is not known, it may be possible that these derived compounds selectively target tumor/parasite cells that are rapidly dividing, whereby protein synthesis is more sensitive to drug action in these cells. As in the case of antibiotics repurposed as antitumor agents, there is a clinical role for eukaryotic antibiotics that target systems with differential rates of translation provided usage is carefully directed. In malaria, eukaryotic antibiotics, such as emetine, could be used in combination with the slow-acting, but more specific apicoplast-targeting antibiotics (Dahl and Rosenthal, 2007).

This work demonstrates the power of contemporary cryo-EM for drug discovery. A drug, with a previously unknown binding site, can be visualized inside a macromolecular complex that is almost 10,000 times larger in molecular weight and at a level of detail comparable to that obtained by X-ray crystallography. By avoiding the need for crystallization one of the bottlenecks of solving a structure is bypassed. It allows structures to be solved from very small sample quantities, with sample heterogeneity improved through image processing. As such, cryo-EM is of particular use for solving the structures of macromolecules in their native state, isolated from pathogenic organisms where culturing large quantities is not possible.

In summary, our cryo-EM analyses reveal the first structure of a ribosome from a parasite at atomic resolution, along with detailed insights into the molecular basis of a known anti-protozoan translation inhibitor. Finally, it demonstrates that cryo-EM offers an attractive route towards the development of new compounds that target macromolecules by facilitating structure–activity relationships in otherwise intractable biological systems.

1. 1. Wong W
   2. Bai X-C
   3. Brown A
   4. Fernandez IS
   5. Hanssen E
   6. Condron C
   7. Tan YH
   8. Baum J
   9. Scheres SHW

   (2014) Plasmodium falciparum 80S ribosome bound to the anti-protozoan drug emetine

   Publicly available at Electron Microscopy Data Bank.

   http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/EMD-2660
2. 1. Wong W
   2. Bai X-C
   3. Brown A
   4. Fernandez IS
   5. Hanssen E
   6. Condron C
   7. Tan YH
   8. Baum J
   9. Scheres SHW

   (2014) Plasmodium falciparum 80S ribosome

   Publicly available at Electron Microscopy Data Bank.

   http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/EMD-2661
3. 1. Wong W
   2. Bai X-C
   3. Brown A
   4. Fernandez IS
   5. Hanssen E
   6. Condron C
   7. Tan YH
   8. Baum J
   9. Scheres SHW

   (2014) Cryo-EM structure of the Plasmodium falciparum 80S ribosome bound to the anti-protozoan drug emetine; large subunit

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3J79
4. 1. Wong W
   2. Bai X-C
   3. Brown A
   4. Fernandez IS
   5. Hanssen E
   6. Condron C
   7. Tan YH
   8. Baum J
   9. Scheres SHW

   (2014) Cryo-EM structure of the Plasmodium falciparum 80S ribosome bound to the anti-protozoan drug emetine; small subunit

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3J7A

1. 1. Bai X-C
   2. Fernadez IS
   3. McMullan G
   4. Scheres SHW

   (2013) Ribosome structures at near-atomic resolution from thirty thousand cryo-EM particles

   Publicly available at Electron Microscopy Data Bank.

   http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/EMD-2275
2. 1. Ben-Shem A
   2. Garreau de Loubresse N
   3. Meinikov S
   4. Jenner L
   5. Yusupov G
   6. Yusupov M

   (2011) The structure of the eukaryotic ribosome at 3.0 Å resolution

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3U5B
3. 1. Ben-Shem A
   2. Garreau de Loubresse N
   3. Meinikov S
   4. Jenner L
   5. Yusupov G
   6. Yusupov M

   (2011) The structure of the eukaryotic ribosome at 3.0 Å resolution

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3U5C
4. 1. Ben-Shem A
   2. Garreau de Loubresse N
   3. Meinikov S
   4. Jenner L
   5. Yusupov G
   6. Yusupov M

   (2011) The structure of the eukaryotic ribosome at 3.0 Å resolution

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3U5D
5. 1. Ben-Shem A
   2. Garreau de Loubresse N
   3. Meinikov S
   4. Jenner L
   5. Yusupov G
   6. Yusupov M

   (2011) The structure of the eukaryotic ribosome at 3.0 Å resolution

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3U5E
6. 1. Anger AM
   2. Armache JP
   3. Berninghausen O
   4. Habeck M
   5. Subklewe M
   6. Wilson DN
   7. Beckmann R

   (2013) Structure of the human 40S ribosomal proteins

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3J3A
7. 1. Anger AM
   2. Armache JP
   3. Berninghausen O
   4. Habeck M
   5. Subklewe M
   6. Wilson DN
   7. Beckmann R

   (2013) Structure of the human 60S ribosomal proteins

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3J3B
8. 1. Anger AM
   2. Armache JP
   3. Berninghausen O
   4. Habeck M
   5. Subklewe M
   6. Wilson DN
   7. Beckmann R

   (2013) Structure of the H. sapiens 40S rRNA and E-tRNA

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3J3D
9. 1. Anger AM
   2. Armache JP
   3. Berninghausen O
   4. Habeck M
   5. Subklewe M
   6. Wilson DN
   7. Beckmann R

   (2013) Structure of the H. sapiens 60S rRNA

   Publicly available at RCSB Protein Data Bank.

   http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3J3F

1. 1. Allegretti M
   2. Mills DJ
   3. McMullan G
   4. Kuhlbrandt W
   5. Vonck J

   (2014) Atomic model of the F420-reducing [NiFe] hydrogenase by electron cryo-microscopy using a direct electron detector

   eLife 3:e01963.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01963

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Amunts A
   2. Brown A
   3. Bai XC
   4. Llacer JL
   5. Hussain T
   6. Emsley P
   7. Long F
   8. Murshudov G
   9. Scheres SH
   10. Ramakrishnan V

   (2014) Structure of the yeast mitochondrial large ribosomal subunit

   Science 343:1485–1489.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1249410

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Anger AM
   2. Armache JP
   3. Berninghausen O
   4. Habeck M
   5. Subklewe M
   6. Wilson DN
   7. Beckmann R

   (2013) Structures of the human and Drosophila 80S ribosome

   Nature 497:80–85.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12104

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bai XC
   2. Fernandez IS
   3. McMullan G
   4. Scheres SH

   (2013) Ribosome structures to near-atomic resolution from thirty thousand cryo-EM particles

   eLife 2:e00461.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00461

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Ban N
   2. Beckmann R
   3. Cate JH
   4. Dinman JD
   5. Dragon F
   6. Ellis SR
   7. Lafontaine DL
   8. Lindahl L
   9. Liljas A
   10. Lipton JM
   11. McAlear MA
   12. Moore PB
   13. Noller HF
   14. Ortega J
   15. Panse VG
   16. Ramakrishnan V
   17. Spahn CM
   18. Steitz TA
   19. Tchorzewski M
   20. Tollervey D
   21. Warren AJ
   22. Williamson JR
   23. Wilson D
   24. Yonath A
   25. Yusupov M

   (2014) A new system for naming ribosomal proteins

   Current Opinion in Structural Biology 24:165–169.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2014.01.002

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Baum S
   2. Bittins M
   3. Frey S
   4. Seedorf M

   (2004) Asc1p, a WD40-domain containing adaptor protein, is required for the interaction of the RNA-binding protein Scp160p with polysomes

   The Biochemical Journal 380:823–830.

   https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20031962

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Ben-Shem A
   2. Jenner L
   3. Yusupova G
   4. Yusupov M

   (2010) Crystal structure of the eukaryotic ribosome

   Science 330:1203–1209.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194294

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Ben-Shem A
   2. Garreau de Loubresse N
   3. Melnikov S
   4. Jenner L
   5. Yusupova G
   6. Yusupov M

   (2011) The structure of the eukaryotic ribosome at 3.0 Å resolution

   Science 334:1524–1529.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212642

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Brodersen DE
   2. Clemons WM Jnr
   3. Carter AP
   4. Morgan-Warren RJ
   5. Wimberly BT
   6. Ramakrishnan V

   (2000) The structural basis for the action of the antibiotics tetracycline, pactamycin, and hygromycin B on the 30S ribosomal subunit

   Cell 103:1143–1154.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00216-6

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cannone JJ
    2. Subramanian S
    3. Schnare MN
    4. Collett JR
    5. D'Souza LM
    6. Du Y
    7. Feng B
    8. Lin N
    9. Madabusi LV
    10. Müller KM
    11. Pande N
    12. Shang Z
    13. Yu N
    14. Gutell RR

    (2002) The comparative RNA web (CRW) site: an online database of comparative sequence and structure information for ribosomal, intron, and other RNAs

    BMC Bioinformatics 3:2.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-3-2

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Chen VB
    2. Arendall WB III
    3. Headd JJ
    4. Keedy DA
    5. Immormino RM
    6. Kapral GJ
    7. Murray LW
    8. Richardson JS
    9. Richardson DC

    (2010) MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography

    Acta Crystallographica Section D, Biological Crystallography 66:12–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444909042073

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chen S
    2. McMullan G
    3. Faruqi AR
    4. Murshudov GN
    5. Short JM
    6. Scheres SH
    7. Henderson R

    (2013) High-resolution noise substitution to measure overfitting and validate resolution in 3D structure determination by single particle electron cryomicroscopy

    Ultramicroscopy 135:24–35.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2013.06.004

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chintana T
    2. Sucharit P
    3. Mahakittikun V
    4. Siripanth C
    5. Suphadtanaphongs W

    (1986)

    In vitro studies on the sensitivity of local Entamoeba histolytica to anti-amoebic drugs

    The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 17:591–594.

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Chou FC
    2. Sripakdeevong P
    3. Dibrov SM
    4. Hermann T
    5. Das R

    (2013) Correcting pervasive errors in RNA crystallography through enumerative structure prediction

    Nature Methods 10:74–76.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2262

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Dahl EL
    2. Rosenthal PJ

    (2007) Multiple antibiotics exert delayed effects against the Plasmodium falciparum apicoplast

    Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 51:3485–3490.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00527-07

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Dempsey JJ
    2. Salem HH

    (1966) An enzymatic electrocardiographic study on toxicity of dehydroemetine

    British Heart Journal 28:505–511.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.28.4.505

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Dinos G
    2. Wilson DN
    3. Teraoka Y
    4. Szaflarski W
    5. Fucini P
    6. Kalpaxis D
    7. Nierhaus KH

    (2004) Dissecting the ribosomal inhibition mechanisms of edeine and pactamycin: the universally conserved residues G693 and C795 regulate P-site RNA binding

    Molecular Cell 13:113–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(04)00002-4

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Emsley P
    2. Lohkamp B
    3. Scott WG
    4. Cowtan K

    (2010) Features and development of Coot

    Acta Crystallographica Section D, Biological Crystallography 66:486–501.

    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444910007493

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Fernandez IS
    2. Bai XC
    3. Murshudov G
    4. Scheres SH
    5. Ramakrishnan V

    (2014) Initiation of translation by cricket paralysis virus IRES requires its translocation in the ribosome

    Cell 157:823–831.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.015

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Gonzalo P
    2. Reboud JP

    (2003) The puzzling lateral flexible stalk of the ribosome

    Biology of the Cell 95:179–193.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0248-4900(03)00034-0

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Goodman CD
    2. Su V
    3. McFadden GI

    (2007) The effects of anti-bacterials on the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum

    Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 152:181–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molbiopara.2007.01.005

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Goodwin LG
    2. Hoare CA
    3. Sharp TM

    (1948) The chemotherapy of amoebiasis; introduction and methods of biological assay

    British Journal of Pharmacology and Chemotherapy 3:44–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.1948.tb00351.x

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Grimberg BT
    2. Mehlotra RK

    (2011) Expanding the antimalarial drug Arsenal-now, but how?

    Pharmaceuticals 4:681–712.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ph4050681

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Grollman AP

    (1968)

    Inhibitors of protein biosynthesis. V. Effects of emetine on protein and nucleic acid biosynthesis in HeLa cells

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 243:4089–4094.

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hashem Y
    2. des Georges A
    3. Dhote V
    4. Langlois R
    5. Liao HY
    6. Grassucci RA
    7. Hellen CU
    8. Pestova TV
    9. Frank J

    (2013) Structure of the mammalian ribosomal 43S preinitiation complex bound to the scanning factor DHX29

    Cell 153:1108–1119.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.036

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hashem Y
    2. des Georges A
    3. Fu J
    4. Buss SN
    5. Jossinet F
    6. Jobe A
    7. Zhang Q
    8. Liao HY
    9. Grassucci RA
    10. Bajaj C
    11. Westhof E
    12. Madison-Antenucci S
    13. Frank J

    (2013) High-resolution cryo-electron microscopy structure of the Trypanosoma brucei ribosome

    Nature 494:385–389.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11872

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Jackson KE
    2. Habib S
    3. Frugier M
    4. Hoen R
    5. Khan S
    6. Pham JS
    7. Ribas de Pouplana L
    8. Royo M
    9. Santos MA
    10. Sharma A
    11. Ralph SA

    (2011) Protein translation in Plasmodium parasites

    Trends in Parasitology 27:467–476.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2011.05.005

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. James RF

    (1985) Malaria treated with emetine or metronidazole

    Lancet 2:498.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(85)90425-8

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Jenner L
    2. Melnikov S
    3. Garreau de Loubresse N
    4. Ben-Shem A
    5. Iskakova M
    6. Urzhumtsev A
    7. Meskauskas A
    8. Dinman J
    9. Yusupova G
    10. Yusupov M

    (2012) Crystal structure of the 80S yeast ribosome

    Current Opinion in Structural Biology 22:759–767.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2012.07.013

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Jimenez A
    2. Carrasco L
    3. Vazquez D

    (1977) Enzymic and nonenzymic translocation by yeast polysomes. Site of action of a number of inhibitors

    Biochemistry 16:4727–4730.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00640a030

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Klinge S
    2. Voigts-Hoffmann F
    3. Leibundgut M
    4. Arpagaus S
    5. Ban N

    (2011) Crystal structure of the eukaryotic 60S ribosomal subunit in complex with initiation factor 6

    Science 334:941–948.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1211204

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Kossinova O
    2. Malygin A
    3. Krol A
    4. Karpova G

    (2014) The SBP2 protein central to selenoprotein synthesis contacts the human ribosome at expansion segment 7L of the 28S rRNA

    RNA 20:1046–1056.

    https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.044917.114

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kremsner PG
    2. Krishna S

    (2004) Antimalarial combinations

    Lancet 364:285–294.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16680-4

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kucukelbir A
    2. Sigworth FJ
    3. Tagare HD

    (2014) Quantifying the local resolution of cryo-EM density maps

    Nature Methods 11:63–65.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2727

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kühlbrandt W

    (2014) The resolution revolution

    Science 343:1443.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251652

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Lobanov AV
    2. Delgado C
    3. Rahlfs S
    4. Novoselov SV
    5. Kryukov GV
    6. Gromer S
    7. Hatfield DL
    8. Becker K
    9. Gladyshev VN

    (2006) The plasmodium selenoproteome

    Nucleic Acids Research 34:496–505.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkj450

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Lu W
    2. Roongsawang N
    3. Mahmud T

    (2011) Biosynthetic studies and genetic engineering of pactamycin analogs with improved selectivity toward malarial parasites

    Chemistry & Biology 18:425–431.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.01.016

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Madjar JJ
    2. Nielsen-Smith K
    3. Frahm M
    4. Roufa DJ

    (1982) Emetine resistance in chinese hamster ovary cells is associated with an altered ribosomal protein S14 mRNA

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 79:1003–1007.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.79.4.1003

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Matthews H
    2. Usman-Idris M
    3. Khan F
    4. Read M
    5. Nirmalan N

    (2013) Drug repositioning as a route to anti-malarial drug discovery: preliminary investigation of the in vitro anti-malarial efficacy of emetine dihydrochloride hydrate

    Malaria Journal 12:359.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-12-359

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. McFadden GI
    2. Reith ME
    3. Munholland J
    4. Lang-Unnasch N

    (1996) Plastid in human parasites

    Nature 381:482.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/381482a0

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Miller LH
    2. Baruch DI
    3. Marsh K
    4. Doumbo OK

    (2002) The pathogenic basis of malaria

    Nature 415:673–679.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/415673a

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Mindell JA
    2. Grigorieff N

    (2003) Accurate determination of local defocus and specimen tilt in electron microscopy

    Journal of Structural Biology 142:334–347.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8477(03)00069-8

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Murshudov GN
    2. Skubak P
    3. Lebedev AA
    4. Pannu NS
    5. Steiner RA
    6. Nicholls RA
    7. Winn MD
    8. Long F
    9. Vagin AA

    (2011) REFMAC5 for the refinement of macromolecular crystal structures

    Acta Crystallographica Section D, Biological Crystallography 67:355–367.

    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444911001314

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Nicholls RA
    2. Long F
    3. Murshudov GN

    (2012) Low-resolution refinement tools in REFMAC5

    Acta Crystallographica Section D, Biological Crystallography 68:404–417.

    https://doi.org/10.1107/S090744491105606X

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Nilsson J
    2. Sengupta J
    3. Frank J
    4. Nissen P

    (2004) Regulation of eukaryotic translation by the RACK1 protein: a platform for signalling molecules on the ribosome

    EMBO Reports 5:1137–1141.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400291

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Otoguro K
    2. Iwatsuki M
    3. Ishiyama A
    4. Namatame M
    5. Nishihara-Tukashima A
    6. Shibahara S
    7. Kondo S
    8. Yamada H
    9. Omura S

    (2010) Promising lead compounds for novel antiprotozoals

    The Journal of Antibiotics 63:381–384.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ja.2010.50

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Pettersen EF
    2. Goddard TD
    3. Huang CC
    4. Couch GS
    5. Greenblatt DM
    6. Meng EC
    7. Ferrin TE

    (2004) UCSF Chimera–a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis

    Journal of Computational Chemistry 25:1605–1612.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20084

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Rabl J
    2. Leibundgut M
    3. Ataide SF
    4. Haag A
    5. Ban N

    (2011) Crystal structure of the eukaryotic 40S ribosomal subunit in complex with initiation factor 1

    Science 331:730–736.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198308

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Rosenthal PB
    2. Henderson R

    (2003) Optimal determination of particle orientation, absolute hand, and contrast loss in single-particle electron cryomicroscopy

    Journal of Molecular Biology 333:721–745.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2003.07.013

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Roy A
    2. Kucukural A
    3. Zhang Y

    (2010) I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction

    Nature Protocols 5:725–738.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2010.5

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Scheres SH

    (2012) RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination

    Journal of Structural Biology 180:519–530.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2012.09.006

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Sengupta J
    2. Nilsson J
    3. Gursky R
    4. Spahn CM
    5. Nissen P
    6. Frank J

    (2004) Identification of the versatile scaffold protein RACK1 on the eukaryotic ribosome by cryo-EM

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 11:957–962.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb822

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Sievers F
    2. Wilm A
    3. Dineen D
    4. Gibson TJ
    5. Karplus K
    6. Li W
    7. Lopez R
    8. McWilliam H
    9. Remmert M
    10. Söding J
    11. Thompson JD
    12. Higgins DG

    (2011) Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using clustal Omega

    Molecular Systems Biology 7:539.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2011.75

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. The Plasmodium Genome Database Collaborative

    (2001) PlasmoDB: an integrative database of the Plasmodium falciparum genome. Tools for accessing and analyzing finished and unfinished sequence data

    Nucleic Acids Research 29:66–69.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/29.1.66

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Waters AP
    2. Syin C
    3. McCutchan TF

    (1989) Developmental regulation of stage-specific ribosome populations in Plasmodium

    Nature 342:438–440.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/342438a0

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. WHO

    (2012)

    WHO (2012) world malaria report 2012

    WHO.

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Wilson Wong

   1. Division of Infection and Immunity, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
   2. Department of Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

   Contribution

   WW, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Contributed equally with

   Xiao-chen Bai and Alan Brown

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

2. Xiao-chen Bai

   Structural Studies, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   X-B, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Contributed equally with

   Wilson Wong and Alan Brown

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Alan Brown

   Structural Studies, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   AB, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Contributed equally with

   Wilson Wong and Xiao-chen Bai

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

4. Israel S Fernandez

   Structural Studies, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   ISF, Ribosome purification, Approval of final manuscript, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

5. Eric Hanssen

   Electron Microscopy Unit, Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

   Contribution

   EH, Conducted preliminary negative stain and cryo-EM data collection, Approval of final manuscript, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

6. Melanie Condron

   1. Division of Infection and Immunity, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
   2. Department of Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

   Contribution

   MC, Prepared parasite lysates for ribosome purification, Approval of final manuscript, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

7. Yan Hong Tan

   1. Division of Infection and Immunity, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
   2. Department of Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

   Contribution

   YHT, Prepared parasite lysates for ribosome purification, Approval of final manuscript, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

8. Jake Baum

   1. Division of Infection and Immunity, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
   2. Department of Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

   Present address

   Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   JB, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   jake.baum@imperial.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0275-352X

9. Sjors HW Scheres

   Structural Studies, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   SHWS, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   scheres@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

• 13,574

  views

• 1,421

  downloads

• 277

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.