Mapping translation 'hot-spots' in live cells by tracking single molecules of mRNA and ribosomes

  1. Zachary B Katz
  2. Brian p English
  3. Timothée Lionnet
  4. Young J Yoon
  5. Nilah Monnier
  6. Ben Ovryn
  7. Mark Bathe
  8. Robert H Singer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States
  2. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States
  3. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States

Abstract

Messenger RNA localization is important for cell motility by local protein translation. However, while single mRNAs can be imaged and their movements tracked in single cells, it has not yet been possible to determine whether these mRNAs are actively translating. Therefore, we imaged single β-actin mRNAs tagged with MS2 stem loops colocalizing with labeled ribosomes to determine when polysomes formed. A dataset of tracking information consisting of thousands of trajectories per cell demonstrated that mRNAs co-moving with ribosomes have significantly different diffusion properties from non-translating mRNAs that were exposed to translation inhibitors. This data indicates that ribosome load changes mRNA movement and therefore highly translating mRNAs move slower. Importantly, β-actin mRNA near focal adhesions exhibited sub-diffusive corralled movement characteristic of increased translation. This method can identify where ribosomes become engaged for local protein production and how spatial regulation of mRNA-protein interactions mediates cell directionality.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zachary B Katz

    Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Brian p English

    Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Timothée Lionnet

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Young J Yoon

    Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Nilah Monnier

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Ben Ovryn

    Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Mark Bathe

    Department of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Robert H Singer

    Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    robert.singer@einstein.yu.edu
    Competing interests
    Robert H Singer, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Copyright

© 2016, Katz et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 10,317
    views
  • 2,075
    downloads
  • 114
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Zachary B Katz
  2. Brian p English
  3. Timothée Lionnet
  4. Young J Yoon
  5. Nilah Monnier
  6. Ben Ovryn
  7. Mark Bathe
  8. Robert H Singer
(2016)
Mapping translation 'hot-spots' in live cells by tracking single molecules of mRNA and ribosomes
eLife 5:e10415.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10415

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10415

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.