TASEP modelling provides a parsimonious explanation for the ability of a single uORF to derepress translation during the Integrated Stress Response

  1. Dmitry E Andreev
  2. Maxim Arnold
  3. Stephen J Kiniry
  4. Gary Loughran
  5. Audrey M Michel
  6. Dmitry Rachinskiy  Is a corresponding author
  7. Pavel V Baranov  Is a corresponding author
  1. University College Cork, Ireland
  2. University of Texas at Dallas, United States

Abstract

Translation initiation is the rate-limiting step of protein synthesis that is downregulated during the Integrated Stress Response (ISR). Previously we demonstrated that most human mRNAs resistant to this inhibition possess translated uORFs, and that in some cases a single uORF is sufficient for the resistance (Andreev et al., 2015). Here we developed a computational model of Initiation Complexes Interference with Elongating Ribosomes (ICIER) to gain insight into the mechanism. We explored the relationship between the flux of scanning ribosomes upstream and downstream of a single uORF depending on uORF features. Paradoxically our analysis predicts that reducing ribosome flux upstream of certain uORFs increases initiation downstream. The model supports the derepression of downstream translation as a general mechanism of uORF-mediated stress resistance. It predicts that stress resistance can be achieved with long slowly decoded uORFs that do not favor translation reinitiation and start with initiators of low leakiness.

Data availability

All data generated during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2 to 7.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Dmitry E Andreev

    School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Maxim Arnold

    Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Stephen J Kiniry

    School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gary Loughran

    School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2683-5597
  5. Audrey M Michel

    School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dmitry Rachinskiy

    Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    Dmitry.Rachinskiy@utdallas.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Pavel V Baranov

    School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
    For correspondence
    p.baranov@ucc.ie
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9017-0270

Funding

Science Foundation Ireland (12/IA/1335))

  • Pavel V Baranov

National Science Foundation (DMS-1413223)

  • Dmitry Rachinskiy

Russian Science Foundation (RSF16-14-10065)

  • Dmitry E Andreev

Irish Research Council

  • Stephen J Kiniry
  • Audrey M Michel

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2018, Andreev 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

  • 2,313
    views
  • 287
    downloads
  • 34
    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. Dmitry E Andreev
  2. Maxim Arnold
  3. Stephen J Kiniry
  4. Gary Loughran
  5. Audrey M Michel
  6. Dmitry Rachinskiy
  7. Pavel V Baranov
(2018)
TASEP modelling provides a parsimonious explanation for the ability of a single uORF to derepress translation during the Integrated Stress Response
eLife 7:e32563.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32563

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32563

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Liza Dahal, Thomas GW Graham ... Xavier Darzacq
    Research Article

    Type II nuclear receptors (T2NRs) require heterodimerization with a common partner, the retinoid X receptor (RXR), to bind cognate DNA recognition sites in chromatin. Based on previous biochemical and overexpression studies, binding of T2NRs to chromatin is proposed to be regulated by competition for a limiting pool of the core RXR subunit. However, this mechanism has not yet been tested for endogenous proteins in live cells. Using single-molecule tracking (SMT) and proximity-assisted photoactivation (PAPA), we monitored interactions between endogenously tagged RXR and retinoic acid receptor (RAR) in live cells. Unexpectedly, we find that higher expression of RAR, but not RXR, increases heterodimerization and chromatin binding in U2OS cells. This surprising finding indicates the limiting factor is not RXR but likely its cadre of obligate dimer binding partners. SMT and PAPA thus provide a direct way to probe which components are functionally limiting within a complex TF interaction network providing new insights into mechanisms of gene regulation in vivo with implications for drug development targeting nuclear receptors.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ananda Kishore Mukherjee, Subhajit Dutta ... Shantanu Chowdhury
    Research Article

    Telomeres are crucial for cancer progression. Immune signalling in the tumour microenvironment has been shown to be very important in cancer prognosis. However, the mechanisms by which telomeres might affect tumour immune response remain poorly understood. Here, we observed that interleukin-1 signalling is telomere-length dependent in cancer cells. Mechanistically, non-telomeric TRF2 (telomeric repeat binding factor 2) binding at the IL-1-receptor type-1 (IL1R1) promoter was found to be affected by telomere length. Enhanced TRF2 binding at the IL1R1 promoter in cells with short telomeres directly recruited the histone-acetyl-transferase (HAT) p300, and consequent H3K27 acetylation activated IL1R1. This altered NF-kappa B signalling and affected downstream cytokines like IL6, IL8, and TNF. Further, IL1R1 expression was telomere-sensitive in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) clinical samples. Infiltration of tumour-associated macrophages (TAM) was also sensitive to the length of tumour cell telomeres and highly correlated with IL1R1 expression. The use of both IL1 Receptor antagonist (IL1RA) and IL1R1 targeting ligands could abrogate M2 macrophage infiltration in TNBC tumour organoids. In summary, using TNBC cancer tissue (>90 patients), tumour-derived organoids, cancer cells, and xenograft tumours with either long or short telomeres, we uncovered a heretofore undeciphered function of telomeres in modulating IL1 signalling and tumour immunity.