Accurate identification of the translation initiation codon in mRNA by ribosomes is crucial for expression of the correct cellular proteins. This process generally occurs in eukaryotic cells by a scanning mechanism, wherein the small (40S) ribosomal subunit recruits charged initiator tRNA (Met-tRNA_i^Met) in a ternary complex (TC) with eIF2-GTP, and the resulting 43S pre-initiation complex (PIC) attaches to the 5’ end of the mRNA and scans the 5’UTR for an AUG start codon. In the scanning PIC, the TC is bound in a relatively unstable state, dubbed ‘P_OUT’, suitable for inspecting successive triplets in the P decoding site for perfect complementarity with the anticodon of Met-tRNA_i. Nucleotides surrounding the AUG, particularly at the −3 and +4 positions (relative to the AUG at +1 to +3), the ‘Kozak context’, also influence the efficiency of start codon recognition. Hydrolysis of the GTP bound to eIF2 can occur, dependent on GTPase activating protein eIF5, but P_i release is blocked by eIF1, whose presence also prevents highly stable binding of Met-tRNA_i^Met in the ‘P_IN’ state. Start-codon recognition triggers dissociation of eIF1 from the 40S subunit, which in concert with other events allows P_i release from eIF2-GDP·P_i and accommodation of Met-tRNA_i^Met in the P_IN state of the 48S PIC (Figure 1A). Subsequent dissociation of eIF2-GDP and other eIFs from the 48S PIC enables eIF5B-catalyzed subunit joining and formation of an 80S initiation complex with Met-tRNA_i^Met base-paired to AUG in the P site (reviewed in [Hinnebusch, 2014] and [Hinnebusch, 2017]). eIF1 plays a dual role in the scanning mechanism, promoting rapid TC loading in the P_OUT conformation while blocking rearrangement to P_IN at non-AUG codons by clashing with Met-tRNA_i in the P_IN state (Rabl et al., 2011; Lomakin and Steitz, 2013)(Hussain et al., 2014), thus requiring dissociation of eIF1 from the 40S subunit for start codon recognition (Figure 1A). Consequently, mutations that weaken eIF1 binding to the 40S subunit reduce the rate of TC loading and elevate initiation at near-cognate codons (eg. UUG), or AUG codons in poor context, by destabilizing the open/P_OUT conformation and favoring rearrangement to the closed/P_IN state during scanning (Martin-Marcos et al., 2011; Martin-Marcos et al., 2013). Moreover, decreasing wild-type (WT) eIF1 abundance reduces initiation accuracy, whereas overexpressing eIF1 suppresses initiation at near-cognates or AUGs in poor context (Valásek et al., 2004; Alone et al., 2008; Ivanov et al., 2010; Saini et al., 2010; Martin-Marcos et al., 2011). The mechanistic link between eIF1 abundance and initiation accuracy is exploited to negatively autoregulate eIF1 expression, as the AUG codon of the eIF1 gene (SUI1 in yeast) occurs in suboptimal context and the frequency of its recognition is inversely related to eIF1 abundance (Ivanov et al., 2010; Martin-Marcos et al., 2011). Mutations that weaken 40S binding by eIF1 relax discrimination against the poor context of the SUI1 AUG codon and elevate eIF1 expression, overcoming autoregulation (Martin-Marcos et al., 2011). In contrast, mutations that enhance eIF1 binding to the 40S subunit impede rearrangement of the scanning PIC to the closed/P_IN conformation (Martin-Marcos et al., 2011; Martin-Marcos et al., 2014), which increases discrimination against the poor context of the SUI1 AUG codon, to reduce eIF1 expression, and also suppresses initiation at near-cognate UUG codons (Martin-Marcos et al., 2011; Martin-Marcos et al., 2014).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

eIF1A also has a dual role in scanning and start codon recognition. Scanning enhancer (SE) elements in the eIF1A C-terminal tail (CTT) promote TC binding in the open P_OUT conformation and impede rearrangement to the closed P_IN state, such that substitutions that impair the SE elements both impair TC recruitment and increase initiation at near-cognate start codons (Saini et al., 2010). Biochemical mapping experiments suggest that, like eIF1, the eIF1A CTT clashes with Met-tRNA_i in the P_IN state (Yu et al., 2009), and is displaced from the P site on start codon recognition (Zhang et al., 2015) to enable a functional interaction of the eIF1A CTT with the NTD of eIF5, the GTPase activating protein for eIF2, that facilitates P_i release from eIF2-GDP·P_i (Nanda et al., 2013). Scanning inhibitor elements SI₁ and SI₂ in the unstructured eIF1A N-terminal tail (NTT) and helical domain, respectively, antagonize SE function and stabilize the closed/P_IN conformation on start codon recognition (Figure 1A). Accordingly, substitutions that impair SI elements destabilize the closed complex and accelerate TC loading to the open complex in vitro, and promote continued scanning at UUG codons in hypoaccurate mutant cells (Fekete et al., 2007) (Saini et al., 2010). SI₁ mutations also increase the probability that the scanning PIC will bypass an upstream AUG codon (leaky scanning) (Fekete et al., 2007; Luna et al., 2013); and one such mutation, substituting NTT residues 17–21, decreases recognition of the suboptimal AUG codon of SUI1 mRNA to reduce eIF1 expression (Martin-Marcos et al., 2011).

Molecular insight into the deduced function of the eIF1A-NTT of promoting AUG recognition during scanning came from the cryo-EM structure of a partial yeast 48S PIC (py48S) containing eIF1, eIF1A, TC and mRNA, with the Met-tRNA_i base-paired to the AUG codon in a P_IN state. All but the first four residues of the eIF1A NTT were visible in this structure, and basic NTT residues Lys7, Lys10, Arg13, and Lys16 contact either the anticodon or the +4 to +6 mRNA nucleotides adjacent to the AUG codon, while Arg14 interacts with the 18S rRNA (Figure 1B) (Hussain et al., 2014). These findings suggest that the eIF1A NTT can directly stabilize the P_IN state, and help to explain how NTT substitutions in SI_1, which spans residues 1–26 (Saini et al., 2010), increase discrimination against non-AUG codons, which form less stable codon:anticodon duplexes than do AUG codons. Other studies have implicated NTT residues 7–11 and 12–16, encompassing the aforementioned basic NTT residues, in interactions with eIF1 and the eIF5-CTD that appear to promote assembly of the open, scanning PIC (Fekete et al., 2007; Luna et al., 2013). The β-subunit of eIF2 also harbors a highly basic NTT, which interacts with the eIF5-CTD to promote eIF1 dissociation from the closed complex at the start codon (Luna et al., 2012). It was suggested that interaction of the eIF5-CTD with the eIF1A-NTT would stabilize the open conformation of the PIC prior to AUG recognition, whereas alternative interaction of the eIF5-CTD with the eIF2β-NTT would stabilize the closed conformation of the PIC on AUG recognition (Luna et al., 2013). The proposed dissociation of the eIF1A-NTT from the eIF5-CTD on AUG recognition would free the eIF1A-NTT for interactions with the mRNA and anticodon evident in the py48S PIC (Hussain et al., 2014). Thus, the eIF1A-NTT would play a dual role of promoting the open conformation of the PIC through interaction with the eIF5-CTD and subsequently stabilizing the closed state by interacting with the mRNA and anticodon.

Somatic mutations in the human gene EIF1AX encoding eIF1A are frequently associated with uveal melanomas (UM) associated with disomy for chromosome 3, and all of the EIF1AX mutations sequenced thus far produce in-frame substitutions or deletions of one or more residues in the first 15 residues of the NTT (Martin et al., 2013). A subset of these mutations substitute or delete two of the four basic residues that contact mRNA or the tRNA_i anticodon in the yeast py48S PIC (Lys7 and Arg13), others introduce acidic residues that might electrostatically repel the phosphodiester backbone of the mRNA or tRNA_i, while others affect a Gly-Gly turn that is important for correct positioning of the basic residues in the PIC (Figure 1B–C) (Hussain et al., 2014). Thus, all of the UM mutations might affect eIF1A function by the same mechanism, of weakening the ability of the eIF1A NTT to stabilize the P_IN conformation of the tRNA_i. As such, they would be expected to increase discrimination against poor initiation sites in vivo. Alternatively, they could impair the proposed function of the eIF1A-NTT in stabilizing the open conformation (Luna et al., 2013), in which case they would have the opposite effect and relax discrimination against suboptimal start codons. We set out to distinguish between these possibilities by examining the consequences of seven yeast eIF1A-NTT substitutions equivalent to those associated with UM in residues Lys3, Lys4, Thr6, Gly8, Arg13 and Gly15, and also of altering the five NTT basic residues that interact with the mRNA or anticodon in the py48S PIC (Lys7, Lys10, Arg13, Arg14 and Lys16) (Figure 1C). Our genetic and biochemical analyses indicate that UM-associated eIF1A substitutions disrupt NTT interactions with the mRNA or tRNA_i to destabilize the closed/P_IN conformation of the PIC and increase discrimination against near-cognate codons or AUGs in suboptimal context, with particularly strong effects observed for substitutions of Arg13—one of five basic residues that interacts with the mRNA/tRNA_i anticodon. Ribosome profiling of the potent UM-associated mutant eIF1A-R13P reveals widespread increased discrimination against AUG codons in poor context, which can alter recognition of the start codon for the main coding sequences (CDS) or indirectly affect translation by modulating recognition of upstream open reading frames (uORFs) in the mRNA leader. These findings allow us to predict that eIF1A-NTT mutations alter gene expression in UM tumor cells by shifting translation initiation at main CDS and regulatory uORFs from poor to optimum initiation sites.

In this report we show that all seven substitutions in the NTT of yeast eIF1A associated with uveal melanoma in humans confer hyperaccuracy phenotypes in yeast cells. They suppress inappropriate initiation at a UUG start codon in his4-301 mRNA to prevent growth in the absence of a histidine supplement. They also reduce the UUG: AUG initiation ratio of a HIS4-lacZ reporter, in cells harboring the Sui^- mutation in eIF2ß (SUI3-2) that reduces accuracy and elevates UUG initiation. Like previously identified Ssu^- substitutions in eIF1 (Martin-Marcos et al., 2011), these eIF1A NTT substitutions also suppress the toxicity of SUI5 to cell growth at elevated temperatures. Moreover, they decrease initiation at the AUG codons of both SUI1 mRNA (encoding eIF1) and the GCN4 uORF1 specifically when they reside in unfavorable Kozak context. The recent structure of a yeast partial 48S PIC predicts that the UM-associated substitutions in the C-terminal portion of the NTT affect direct contacts of the NTT with mRNA nucleotides adjacent to the AUG codon, or in the anticodon of tRNA_i, and both interactions are thought to stabilize the PIC in the closed conformation with Met-tRNA_i accommodated in the P_IN state (Hussain et al., 2014; Llácer et al., 2015). Accordingly, the effects of the UM substitutions in reducing near-cognate UUG and poor-context AUG utilization can be attributed to destabilization of the P_IN state with attendant increased requirement for a perfect codon-anticodon duplex and optimal context. Two main lines of evidence support this interpretation. First, an identical set of phenotypes was observed for directed substitutions of conserved basic residues in the NTT that also make direct contacts with mRNA or anticodon nucleotides, namely K7, K10, K16, and R14. Substitutions of these residues with Asp have stronger phenotypes than Ala substitutions, consistent with replacing electrostatic attraction (Lys/Arg) with repulsion (Asp) for the phosphodiester backbone of mRNA or tRNA_i. The same was true for Asp and Ala substitutions of R13, which is replaced with Pro or His by UM-associated mutations. Second, biochemical experiments reveal that the R13P UM substitution and the directed K16D substitution specifically destabilize the P_IN state at UUG codons in vitro, increasing both the fraction of reconstituted PICs from which TC dissociates and the rate of this reaction (k_off) with a UUG, but not AUG, start codon in the mRNA. These substitutions also increase the rate of eIF1A dissociation, signifying a reduced fraction of PICs in the closed conformation and decreased overall stability of these complexes, with either UUG or AUG start codons. Together, these results help to account for the decreased usage of UUGs and AUGs in poor context conferred by these mutations in vivo, and support the notion that their hyperaccuracy phenotypes result from reduced occupancy and stability of the closed/P_IN state that, in turn, confers a heightened requirement for optimal initiation sites.

Although reduced initiation at near-cognate UUG codons in Sui^- mutants (Ssu^- phenotype) was reported previously for clustered alanine substitutions of eIF1A NTT residues 7–11, 12–16, and 17–21 (Fekete et al., 2007), belonging to the scanning inhibitor element designated SI₁ (Saini et al., 2010), it was unknown which residues in these three segments are most critical for increasing UUG initiation, nor whether any residues in the 7–11 and 12–16 intervals increase initiation at AUGs in poor context. Our findings establish that all five basic residues conserved between yeast and humans that contact mRNA, the anticodon, or 18S rRNA in the decoding center of the py48S PIC (K7, K10, R13, R14, and K16) are critical for efficient utilization of these suboptimal initiation sites, as is the conserved Gly8-Gly9 turn required for making these key contacts (Figure 1B–C) (Hussain et al., 2014). Accordingly, the Ala substitutions of K7 and K10 generated by the 7–11 mutation, and of R13, R14, and K16 by mutation 12–16 are likely responsible for the Ssu^- phenotypes of these multiple-residue substitutions (Fekete et al., 2007). Although the 17–21 mutation does not substitute any of the key basic residues, it might impair interactions of the C-terminal section of the eIF1A NTT with PIC components and indirectly prevent the basic residues in the N-terminal portion of the NTT from engaging with the decoding center (Figure 1B). Finally, our results implicate eIF1A residues K3 and K4 (N4 in humans), also substituted in UM, in controlling initiation accuracy, but their molecular functions remain to be determined, as they were not resolved in the py48S structure.

In addition to suppressing the elevated UUG initiation (Sui^- phenotype) conferred by the eIF2ß mutation SUI3-2, the eIF1A NTT substitutions we analyzed also suppress the derepressed GCN4-lacZ expression (Gcd^- phenotype) produced by SUI3-2. eIF1 stabilizes the open conformation of the PIC, to which TC binds most rapidly (P_OUT state) (Figure 1A) (Passmore et al., 2007). The Gcd^- phenotypes conferred by other Sui^- mutations affecting eIF1, eIF1A, and tRNA_i have been attributed to destabilization of this P_OUT state of TC binding. This interpretation was based partly on the finding that they are suppressed by Ssu^- substitutions in the SI₁ and SI₂ elements of eIF1A that destabilize the closed/P_IN conformation and thus shift the system in the opposite direction towards the open/P_OUT state, which should accelerate TC binding (Saini et al., 2010) (Dong et al., 2014; Martin-Marcos et al., 2014). Destabilization of the open/P_OUT state probably also contributes to the Gcd^- phenotype of SUI3-2 because it is suppressed by Ssu^- substitutions in SI₁ and SI₂ of eIF1A (Saini et al., 2010). Thus, the marked co-suppression of the Sui^- and Gcd^- phenotypes of SUI3-2 observed here for substitutions of the key basic residues K7, K10, R13, and K16 of the NTT, particularly for the acidic Asp replacements, provides additional genetic evidence that they preferentially destabilize the closed/P_IN state and shift the system towards the open conformation to which TC loads during assembly of scanning PICs.

We used ribosome footprint profiling to demonstrate that the R13P UM substitution confers a broad decrease in utilization of AUG codons with poor Kozak context in the yeast translatome, mimicking the effect of R13P in reducing eIF1 synthesis from SUI1 mRNA. R13P also reduced recognition of a subset of the ~100 uORFs whose translation we detected in both mutant and WT cells when their AUG codons reside in poor context, mimicking the effect of R13P of increasing leaky scanning through the elongated version of GCN4 uORF1 specifically when its AUG codon resides in poor context. R13P cells also display somewhat increased discrimination against the near-cognate ACG start codon of the ALA1 mRNA that initiates an N-terminal extension of the encoded alanyl tRNA synthetase, decreasing the ratio of reads in the extension versus the CDS by ~1/3^rd. ALA1 is one of only two annotated genes with non-AUG start codons in yeast (Chen et al., 2008; Chang et al., 2010), and the other such gene, GRS1, showed no reduction in initiation from the UUG codon initiating the N-terminal extension of glycyl-tRNA synthetase. This different behavior might be explained by the fact that the context of the GRS1 UUG matches closely the optimum consensus sequence in yeast in containing A’s at −4 to −1, and U at +4, whereas the ALA1 ACG deviates from this consensus by lacking A’s at −1 and −4 and containing A at +4. On the other hand, R13P modestly decreased initiation at the UUG codon of the HIS4-lacZ reporter, even though it contains preferred A’s at −4,–3, and −1. Thus, it remains to be seen whether poor context will be a significant determinant of increased usage of near-cognate start codons conferred by eIF1A NTT Ssu^- substitutions.

Considering that the sequence of the yeast and human eIF1A-NTT are quite similar, and that R13 is conserved between the two species (Figure 1C), our findings for the UM substitutions in yeast eIF1A lead us to propose that the corresponding substitutions in the human eIF1A NTT will favor oncogenic transformation by increasing discrimination against AUG codons with poor context or near-cognate start codons. If one or more tumor suppressor genes contains such a poor initiation site, the UM substitutions can be expected to increase its relative translation rate and thereby impair one or more control mechanisms governing cell proliferation. A recent study on UM tumor cell lines expressing either WT or the G6D variant of EIF1AX provided evidence that the G6D substitution reduces the critical function of EIF1AX in bulk translation initiation. Interestingly, sequencing of total polysomal mRNA indicated that ribosomal protein genes (RPGs) as a group have a heightened requirement for EIF1AX and that the translation of these mRNAs is reduced in G6D vs WT cells (Johnson et al., 2017). Given their high rates of translation during rapid cell growth, it seems likely that RPGs would exhibit favorable Kozak context, and by analogy with our findings in yeast on the eIF1A R13P substitution, the RPGs would not be expected to show decreased translation as the result of heightened discrimination against poor context. However, the yeast equivalent of G6D, T6D, did not significantly increase discrimination against the suboptimal eIF1 AUG codon in yeast in the manner observed for R13P. Moreover, unlike G6D in the tumor cells, we found no evidence that the UM-related substitutions in yeast eIF1A reduce bulk initiation. Thus, it is possible that the reduction in RPG expression in G6D tumor cells is a response to reduced bulk translation and cell growth; and it will be interesting to determine whether the R13P substitution in EIF1AX increases discrimination against AUGs in poor context in human cells.

Sequencing data from this study have been submitted to the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) and the accession numbers are listed in the Additional Files under Major datasets.

1. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) eIF1A residues implicated in cancer stabilize translation preinitiation complexes and favor suboptimal initiation sites in yeast

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSE108334).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE108334
2. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_WT(for SUI1-L96P)_with_CHX_1

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895470).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895470
3. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_WT(for SUI1-L96P)_with_CHX_2

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895471).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895471
4. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_SUI1-L96P_w/o_CHX_1

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895472).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895472
5. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_SUI1-L96P_w/o_CHX_2

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895473).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895473
6. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_SUI1-L96P_with_CHX_1

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895468).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895468
7. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_SUI1-L96P_with_CHX_2

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895469).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895469
8. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_WT(for SUI1-T15A)_1

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895458).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895458
9. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
   2. Fujun Zhou
   3. Charm Karunasiri
   4. Fan Zhang
   5. Jinsheng Dong
   6. Jagpreet Nanda
   7. Shardul D Kulkarni
   8. Neelam Dabas Sen
   9. Mercedes Tamame
   10. Michael Zeschnigk
   11. Jon R Lorsch
   12. Alan G Hinnebusch

   (2017) ribo_WT(for SUI1-T15A)_2

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895459.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895459
10. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI1-T15A_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895456).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895456
11. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI-T15A_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895457).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895457
12. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Mercedes Tamame
    9. Michael Zeschnigk
    10. Jon R Lorsch
    11. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2(for SUI1_T15A)_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895460).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895460
13. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2(for SUI1_T15A)_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895461).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895461
14. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2/SUI-T15A_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895462).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895462
15. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2/SUI-T15A_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895463).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895463
16. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_20_WT_with_CHX_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895476).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895476
17. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_WT(for TIF11_R13P)_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895450).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895450
18. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_WT(for TIF11_R13P)_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895451).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895451
19. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_TIF11_R13P_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895448).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895448
20. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Charm Karunasiri
    3. Fujun Zhou
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2(for TIF11-R13P)_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895452).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895452
21. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2(for TIF11-R13P)_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895453).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895453
22. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2/TIF11_R13P_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895454).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895454
23. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_SUI3-2/TIF11_R13P_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895455).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895455
24. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_WT(for SUI1-L96P)_w/o_CHX_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895474).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895474
25. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Jinsheng Dong
    5. Jagpreet Nanda
    6. Shardul D Kulkarni
    7. Neelam Dabas Sen
    8. Mercedes Tamame
    9. Michael Zeschnigk
    10. Jon R Lorsch
    11. Alan G Hinnebusch
    12. Fan Zhang

    (2017) ribo_WT(for SUI1-L96P)_w/o_CHX_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895475.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895475
26. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_37_WT_w/o_CHX_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895491).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895491
27. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_WT(for tif3)_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895466).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895466
28. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_WT(for tif3)_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895467).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895467
29. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_tif3△_1

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895464).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895464
30. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_tif3△_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895465).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895465
31. 1. Pilar Martin-Marcos
    2. Fujun Zhou
    3. Charm Karunasiri
    4. Fan Zhang
    5. Jinsheng Dong
    6. Jagpreet Nanda
    7. Shardul D Kulkarni
    8. Neelam Dabas Sen
    9. Mercedes Tamame
    10. Michael Zeschnigk
    11. Jon R Lorsch
    12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    (2017) ribo_TIF11_R13P_2

    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no. GSM2895449).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM2895449

1. 1. Gerashchenko M
   2. Gladyshev V

   (2014) Translation Inhibitors Cause Abnormalities in Ribosome Profiling Experiments

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE59573).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE59573
2. 1. Guydosh NR
   2. Green R

   (2013) Ribosome profiling study of dom34 and hbs1 knockout strains using short (16-nt) and long (28-nt) monosome-protected footprints and disome-protected footprints

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE52968).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE52968
3. 1. Sen ND
   2. Zhou F
   3. Ingolia NT
   4. Hinnebusch AG

   (2015) Genome-wide analysis of translational efficiency reveals distinct but overlapping functions of yeast DEAD-box RNA helicases Ded1 and eIF4A

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE66411).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE66411
4. 1. Sen ND
   2. Zhou F
   3. Harris MS
   4. Ingolia NT
   5. Hinnebusch AG

   (2016) eIF4B preferentially stimulates translation of long mRNAs with structured 5'UTRs and low closed-loop potential but weak dependence on eIF4G

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE81966).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE81966
5. 1. Young DJ
   2. Guydosh NR
   3. Zhang F
   4. Hinnebusch AG
   5. Green R

   (2015) Ribosome profiling study of rli1 depeletion strain

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE69414).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE69414
6. 1. Kertesz M
   2. Wan Y
   3. Mazor E
   4. Rinn JL
   5. Nutter RC
   6. Chang HY
   7. Segal E

   (2010) Genome-wide Measurement of RNA Secondary Structure in Yeast

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE22393).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE22393
7. 1. Pelechano V
   2. Wei W
   3. Steinmetz LM

   (2013) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Transcript Isoform mapping

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE39128).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE39128

1. 1. Acker MG
   2. Kolitz SE
   3. Mitchell SF
   4. Nanda JS
   5. Lorsch JR

   (2007) Reconstitution of yeast translation initiation

   Methods in Enzymology 430:111–145.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(07)30006-2

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Algire MA
   2. Maag D
   3. Savio P
   4. Acker MG
   5. Tarun SZ
   6. Sachs AB
   7. Asano K
   8. Nielsen KH
   9. Olsen DS
   10. Phan L
   11. Hinnebusch AG
   12. Lorsch JR

   (2002) Development and characterization of a reconstituted yeast translation initiation system

   RNA 8:382–397.

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355838202029527

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alone PV
   2. Cao C
   3. Dever TE

   (2008) Translation initiation factor 2gamma mutant alters start codon selection independent of Met-tRNA binding

   Molecular and Cellular Biology 28:6877–6888.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01147-08

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anders S
   2. Huber W

   (2010) Differential expression analysis for sequence count data

   Genome Biology 11:R106.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Brar GA
   2. Yassour M
   3. Friedman N
   4. Regev A
   5. Ingolia NT
   6. Weissman JS

   (2012) High-resolution view of the yeast meiotic program revealed by ribosome profiling

   Science 335:552–557.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215110

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bushman JL
   2. Foiani M
   3. Cigan AM
   4. Paddon CJ
   5. Hinnebusch AG

   (1993)

   Guanine nucleotide exchange factor for eIF-2 in yeast: genetic and biochemical analysis of interactions between essential subunits GCD2, GCD6 and GCD7 and regulatory subunit GCN3

   Molecular and Cellular Biology 13:4618–4631.

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chang CP
   2. Chen SJ
   3. Lin CH
   4. Wang TL
   5. Wang CC

   (2010) A single sequence context cannot satisfy all non-AUG initiator codons in yeast

   BMC Microbiology 10:188.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-188

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chen SJ
   2. Lin G
   3. Chang KJ
   4. Yeh LS
   5. Wang CC

   (2008) Translational efficiency of a non-AUG initiation codon is significantly affected by its sequence context in yeast

   Journal of Biological Chemistry 283:3173–3180.

   https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M706968200

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Choi SK
   2. Olsen DS
   3. Roll-Mecak A
   4. Martung A
   5. Remo KL
   6. Burley SK
   7. Hinnebusch AG
   8. Dever TE

   (2000) Physical and functional interaction between the eukaryotic orthologs of prokaryotic translation initiation factors IF1 and IF2

   Molecular and Cellular Biology 20:7183–7191.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.20.19.7183-7191.2000

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Ding Y
    2. Shah P
    3. Plotkin JB

    (2012) Weak 5'-mRNA secondary structures in short eukaryotic genes

    Genome Biology and Evolution 4:1046–1053.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evs082

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Donahue TF
    2. Cigan AM

    (1988) Genetic selection for mutations that reduce or abolish ribosomal recognition of the HIS4 translational initiator region

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 8:2955–2963.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.8.7.2955

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. Book

    1. Donahue T

    (2000)

    Genetic approaches to translation initiation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    In: Sonenberg N, Hershey J. W. B, Mathews M. B, editors. Translational Control of Gene Expression. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. pp. 487–502.

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dong J
    2. Munoz A
    3. Kolitz SE
    4. Saini AK
    5. Chiu WL
    6. Rahman H
    7. Lorsch JR
    8. Hinnebusch AG

    (2014) Conserved residues in yeast initiator tRNA calibrate initiation accuracy by regulating preinitiation complex stability at the start codon

    Genes & Development 28:502–520.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.236547.113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Fekete CA
    2. Applefield DJ
    3. Blakely SA
    4. Shirokikh N
    5. Pestova T
    6. Lorsch JR
    7. Hinnebusch AG

    (2005) The eIF1A C-terminal domain promotes initiation complex assembly, scanning and AUG selection in vivo

    The EMBO Journal 24:3588–3601.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7600821

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Fekete CA
    2. Mitchell SF
    3. Cherkasova VA
    4. Applefield D
    5. Algire MA
    6. Maag D
    7. Saini AK
    8. Lorsch JR
    9. Hinnebusch AG

    (2007) N- and C-terminal residues of eIF1A have opposing effects on the fidelity of start codon selection

    The EMBO Journal 26:1602–1614.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601613

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Gaba A
    2. Jacobson A
    3. Sachs MS

    (2005) Ribosome occupancy of the yeast CPA1 upstream open reading frame termination codon modulates nonsense-mediated mRNA decay

    Molecular Cell 20:449–460.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.09.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Gietz RD
    2. Sugino A

    (1988) New yeast-Escherichia coli shuttle vectors constructed with in vitro mutagenized yeast genes lacking six-base pair restriction sites

    Gene 74:527–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(88)90185-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Grant CM
    2. Miller PF
    3. Hinnebusch AG

    (1994) Requirements for intercistronic distance and level of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 activity in reinitiation on GCN4 mRNA vary with the downstream cistron

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 14:2616–2628.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.14.4.2616

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Guydosh NR
    2. Green R

    (2014) Dom34 rescues ribosomes in 3' untranslated regions

    Cell 156:950–962.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Hinnebusch AG

    (1985) A hierarchy of trans-acting factors modulates translation of an activator of amino acid biosynthetic genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 5:2349–2360.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.5.9.2349

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hinnebusch AG

    (2005) Translational regulation of GCN4 and the general amino acid control of yeast

    Annual Review of Microbiology 59:407–450.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.59.031805.133833

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Hinnebusch AG

    (2011) Molecular mechanism of scanning and start codon selection in eukaryotes

    Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 75:434–467.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00008-11

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hinnebusch AG

    (2014) The scanning mechanism of eukaryotic translation initiation

    Annual Review of Biochemistry 83:779–812.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060713-035802

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hinnebusch AG

    (2017) Structural Insights into the Mechanism of Scanning and Start Codon Recognition in Eukaryotic Translation Initiation

    Trends in Biochemical Sciences 42:589–611.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2017.03.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Huang HK
    2. Yoon H
    3. Hannig EM
    4. Donahue TF

    (1997) GTP hydrolysis controls stringent selection of the AUG start codon during translation initiation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    Genes & Development 11:2396–2413.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.11.18.2396

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hussain T
    2. Llácer JL
    3. Fernández IS
    4. Munoz A
    5. Martin-Marcos P
    6. Savva CG
    7. Lorsch JR
    8. Hinnebusch AG
    9. Ramakrishnan V

    (2014) Structural changes enable start codon recognition by the eukaryotic translation initiation complex

    Cell 159:597–607.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Ingolia NT
    2. Brar GA
    3. Rouskin S
    4. McGeachy AM
    5. Weissman JS

    (2012) The ribosome profiling strategy for monitoring translation in vivo by deep sequencing of ribosome-protected mRNA fragments

    Nature Protocols 7:1534–1550.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2012.086

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Ivanov IP
    2. Loughran G
    3. Sachs MS
    4. Atkins JF

    (2010) Initiation context modulates autoregulation of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1 (eIF1)

    PNAS 107:18056–18060.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009269107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ji Z
    2. Song R
    3. Regev A
    4. Struhl K

    (2015) Many lncRNAs, 5'UTRs, and pseudogenes are translated and some are likely to express functional proteins

    eLife 4:e08890.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08890

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Johnson CP
    2. Kim IK
    3. Esmaeli B
    4. Amin-Mansour A
    5. Treacy DJ
    6. Carter SL
    7. Hodis E
    8. Wagle N
    9. Seepo S
    10. Yu X
    11. Lane AM
    12. Gragoudas ES
    13. Vazquez F
    14. Nickerson E
    15. Cibulskis K
    16. McKenna A
    17. Gabriel SB
    18. Getz G
    19. Van Allen EM
    20. 't Hoen PAC
    21. Garraway LA
    22. Woodman SE

    (2017) Systematic genomic and translational efficiency studies of uveal melanoma

    PLoS One 12:e0178189.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178189

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kertesz M
    2. Wan Y
    3. Mazor E
    4. Rinn JL
    5. Nutter RC
    6. Chang HY
    7. Segal E

    (2010) Genome-wide measurement of RNA secondary structure in yeast

    Nature 467:103–107.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09322

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Kolitz SE
    2. Takacs JE
    3. Lorsch JR

    (2009) Kinetic and thermodynamic analysis of the role of start codon/anticodon base pairing during eukaryotic translation initiation

    RNA 15:138–152.

    https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.1318509

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kozak M

    (1991)

    A short leader sequence impairs the fidelity of initiation by eukaryotic ribosomes

    Gene Expression 1:111–115.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Langmead B
    2. Trapnell C
    3. Pop M
    4. Salzberg SL

    (2009) Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome

    Genome Biology 10:R25.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Lawless C
    2. Pearson RD
    3. Selley JN
    4. Smirnova JB
    5. Grant CM
    6. Ashe MP
    7. Pavitt GD
    8. Hubbard SJ

    (2009) Upstream sequence elements direct post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression under stress conditions in yeast

    BMC Genomics 10:7–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Llácer JL
    2. Hussain T
    3. Marler L
    4. Aitken CE
    5. Thakur A
    6. Lorsch JR
    7. Hinnebusch AG
    8. Ramakrishnan V

    (2015) Conformational Differences between Open and Closed States of the Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Complex

    Molecular Cell 59:399–412.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2015.06.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Lomakin IB
    2. Steitz TA

    (2013) The initiation of mammalian protein synthesis and mRNA scanning mechanism

    Nature 500:307–311.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12355

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Luna RE
    2. Arthanari H
    3. Hiraishi H
    4. Nanda J
    5. Martin-Marcos P
    6. Markus MA
    7. Akabayov B
    8. Milbradt AG
    9. Luna LE
    10. Seo HC
    11. Hyberts SG
    12. Fahmy A
    13. Reibarkh M
    14. Miles D
    15. Hagner PR
    16. O'Day EM
    17. Yi T
    18. Marintchev A
    19. Hinnebusch AG
    20. Lorsch JR
    21. Asano K
    22. Wagner G

    (2012) The C-terminal domain of eukaryotic initiation factor 5 promotes start codon recognition by its dynamic interplay with eIF1 and eIF2β

    Cell Reports 1:689–702.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2012.04.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Luna RE
    2. Arthanari H
    3. Hiraishi H
    4. Akabayov B
    5. Tang L
    6. Cox C
    7. Markus MA
    8. Luna LE
    9. Ikeda Y
    10. Watanabe R
    11. Bedoya E
    12. Yu C
    13. Alikhan S
    14. Wagner G
    15. Asano K

    (2013) The interaction between eukaryotic initiation factor 1A and eIF5 retains eIF1 within scanning preinitiation complexes

    Biochemistry 52:9510–9518.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bi4009775

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Maag D
    2. Lorsch JR

    (2003) Communication between eukaryotic translation initiation factors 1 and 1A on the yeast small ribosomal subunit

    Journal of Molecular Biology 330:917–924.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(03)00665-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Maag D
    2. Algire MA
    3. Lorsch JR

    (2006) Communication between eukaryotic translation initiation factors 5 and 1A within the ribosomal pre-initiation complex plays a role in start site selection

    Journal of Molecular Biology 356:724–737.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2005.11.083

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Martin M
    2. Maßhöfer L
    3. Temming P
    4. Rahmann S
    5. Metz C
    6. Bornfeld N
    7. van de Nes J
    8. Klein-Hitpass L
    9. Hinnebusch AG
    10. Horsthemke B
    11. Lohmann DR
    12. Zeschnigk M

    (2013) Exome sequencing identifies recurrent somatic mutations in EIF1AX and SF3B1 in uveal melanoma with disomy 3

    Nature Genetics 45:933–936.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2674

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Martin-Marcos P
    2. Cheung YN
    3. Hinnebusch AG

    (2011) Functional elements in initiation factors 1, 1A, and 2β discriminate against poor AUG context and non-AUG start codons

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 31:4814–4831.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.05819-11

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Martin-Marcos P
    2. Nanda J
    3. Luna RE
    4. Wagner G
    5. Lorsch JR
    6. Hinnebusch AG

    (2013) β-Hairpin loop of eukaryotic initiation factor 1 (eIF1) mediates 40 S ribosome binding to regulate initiator tRNA(Met) recruitment and accuracy of AUG selection in vivo

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 288:27546–27562.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.498642

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Martin-Marcos P
    2. Nanda JS
    3. Luna RE
    4. Zhang F
    5. Saini AK
    6. Cherkasova VA
    7. Wagner G
    8. Lorsch JR
    9. Hinnebusch AG

    (2014) Enhanced eIF1 binding to the 40S ribosome impedes conformational rearrangements of the preinitiation complex and elevates initiation accuracy

    RNA 20:150–167.

    https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.042069.113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Miyasaka H

    (1999) The positive relationship between codon usage bias and translation initiation AUG context in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    Yeast 15:633–637.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(19990615)15:8<633::AID-YEA407>3.0.CO;2-O

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Moehle CM
    2. Hinnebusch AG

    (1991) Association of RAP1 binding sites with stringent control of ribosomal protein gene transcription in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 11:2723–2735.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.11.5.2723

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Nagalakshmi U
    2. Wang Z
    3. Waern K
    4. Shou C
    5. Raha D
    6. Gerstein M
    7. Snyder M

    (2008) The transcriptional landscape of the yeast genome defined by RNA sequencing

    Science 320:1344–1349.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158441

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Nanda JS
    2. Cheung YN
    3. Takacs JE
    4. Martin-Marcos P
    5. Saini AK
    6. Hinnebusch AG
    7. Lorsch JR

    (2009) eIF1 controls multiple steps in start codon recognition during eukaryotic translation initiation

    Journal of Molecular Biology 394:268–285.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2009.09.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Nanda JS
    2. Saini AK
    3. Muñoz AM
    4. Hinnebusch AG
    5. Lorsch JR

    (2013) Coordinated movements of eukaryotic translation initiation factors eIF1, eIF1A, and eIF5 trigger phosphate release from eIF2 in response to start codon recognition by the ribosomal preinitiation complex

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 288:5316–5329.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.440693

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Olsen DS
    2. Savner EM
    3. Mathew A
    4. Zhang F
    5. Krishnamoorthy T
    6. Phan L
    7. Hinnebusch AG

    (2003) Domains of eIF1A that mediate binding to eIF2, eIF3 and eIF5B and promote ternary complex recruitment in vivo

    The EMBO Journal 22:193–204.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdg030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Passmore LA
    2. Schmeing TM
    3. Maag D
    4. Applefield DJ
    5. Acker MG
    6. Algire MA
    7. Lorsch JR
    8. Ramakrishnan V

    (2007) The eukaryotic translation initiation factors eIF1 and eIF1A induce an open conformation of the 40S ribosome

    Molecular Cell 26:41–50.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2007.03.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Pavitt GD
    2. Ramaiah KV
    3. Kimball SR
    4. Hinnebusch AG

    (1998) eIF2 independently binds two distinct eIF2B subcomplexes that catalyze and regulate guanine-nucleotide exchange

    Genes & Development 12:514–526.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.12.4.514

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Pelechano V
    2. Wei W
    3. Steinmetz LM

    (2013) Extensive transcriptional heterogeneity revealed by isoform profiling

    Nature 497:127–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12121

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 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

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Reid GA
    2. Schatz G

    (1982)

    Import of proteins into mitochondria. Yeast cells grown in the presence of carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone accumulate massive amounts of some mitochondrial precursor polypeptides

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 257:13056–13061.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Saini AK
    2. Nanda JS
    3. Lorsch JR
    4. Hinnebusch AG

    (2010) Regulatory elements in eIF1A control the fidelity of start codon selection by modulating tRNA(i)(Met) binding to the ribosome

    Genes & Development 24:97–110.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1871910

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Saini AK
    2. Nanda JS
    3. Martin-Marcos P
    4. Dong J
    5. Zhang F
    6. Bhardwaj M
    7. Lorsch JR
    8. Hinnebusch AG

    (2014) Eukaryotic translation initiation factor eIF5 promotes the accuracy of start codon recognition by regulating Pi release and conformational transitions of the preinitiation complex

    Nucleic Acids Research 42:9623–9640.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku653

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Sen ND
    2. Zhou F
    3. Ingolia NT
    4. Hinnebusch AG

    (2015) Genome-wide analysis of translational efficiency reveals distinct but overlapping functions of yeast DEAD-box RNA helicases Ded1 and eIF4A

    Genome Research 25:1196–1205.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.191601.115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Sen ND
    2. Zhou F
    3. Harris MS
    4. Ingolia NT
    5. Hinnebusch AG

    (2016) eIF4B stimulates translation of long mRNAs with structured 5' UTRs and low closed-loop potential but weak dependence on eIF4G

    PNAS 113:10464–10472.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612398113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Shabalina SA
    2. Ogurtsov AY
    3. Rogozin IB
    4. Koonin EV
    5. Lipman DJ

    (2004) Comparative analysis of orthologous eukaryotic mRNAs: potential hidden functional signals

    Nucleic Acids Research 32:1774–1782.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh313

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Trapnell C
    2. Pachter L
    3. Salzberg SL

    (2009) TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq

    Bioinformatics 25:1105–1111.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp120

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Valásek L
    2. Nielsen KH
    3. Zhang F
    4. Fekete CA
    5. Hinnebusch AG

    (2004) Interactions of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 3 (eIF3) subunit NIP1/c with eIF1 and eIF5 promote preinitiation complex assembly and regulate start codon selection

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 24:9437–9455.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.24.21.9437-9455.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Visweswaraiah J
    2. Pittman Y
    3. Dever TE
    4. Hinnebusch AG

    (2015) The β-hairpin of 40S exit channel protein Rps5/uS7 promotes efficient and accurate translation initiation in vivo

    eLife 4:e07939.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07939

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Werner M
    2. Feller A
    3. Messenguy F
    4. Piérard A

    (1987) The leader peptide of yeast gene CPA1 is essential for the translational repression of its expression

    Cell 49:805–813.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(87)90618-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Xu Z
    2. Wei W
    3. Gagneur J
    4. Perocchi F
    5. Clauder-Münster S
    6. Camblong J
    7. Guffanti E
    8. Stutz F
    9. Huber W
    10. Steinmetz LM

    (2009) Bidirectional promoters generate pervasive transcription in yeast

    Nature 457:1033–1037.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07728

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Yu Y
    2. Marintchev A
    3. Kolupaeva VG
    4. Unbehaun A
    5. Veryasova T
    6. Lai SC
    7. Hong P
    8. Wagner G
    9. Hellen CU
    10. Pestova TV

    (2009) Position of eukaryotic translation initiation factor eIF1A on the 40S ribosomal subunit mapped by directed hydroxyl radical probing

    Nucleic Acids Research 37:5167–5182.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp519

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Zhang F
    2. Saini AK
    3. Shin BS
    4. Nanda J
    5. Hinnebusch AG

    (2015) Conformational changes in the P site and mRNA entry channel evoked by AUG recognition in yeast translation preinitiation complexes

    Nucleic Acids Research 43:2293–2312.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Zur H
    2. Tuller T

    (2013) New universal rules of eukaryotic translation initiation fidelity

    PLoS Computational Biology 9:e1003136.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003136

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Pilar Martin-Marcos

   1. Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
   2. Instituto de Biología Funcional y Genómica, IBFG-CSIC, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8897-099X

2. Fujun Zhou

   Laboratory on the Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Charm Karunasiri

   Laboratory on the Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Fan Zhang

   Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Jinsheng Dong

   Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing—original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Jagpreet Nanda

   Laboratory on the Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Shardul D Kulkarni

   Laboratory on the Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Neelam Dabas Sen

   Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Mercedes Tamame

   Instituto de Biología Funcional y Genómica, IBFG-CSIC, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Michael Zeschnigk

    1. Institute of Human Genetics, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
    2. Eye Cancer Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Contribution

    Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Jon R Lorsch

    Laboratory on the Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Funding acquisition, Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

    For correspondence

    jon.lorsch@nih.gov

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4521-4999

12. Alan G Hinnebusch

    Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States

    Contribution

    Investigation, Formal analysis

    For correspondence

    ahinnebusch@nih.gov

    Competing interests

    Reviewing editor, eLife

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1627-8395

• 45

  citations

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