1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
  2. Computational and Systems Biology
Download icon

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
Research Advance
  • Cited 11
  • Views 1,732
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e32563 doi: 10.7554/eLife.32563

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Nahum Sonenberg, McGill University, Canada

Publication history

  1. Received: October 17, 2017
  2. Accepted: June 21, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 22, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 5, 2018 (version 2)

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

  • 1,732
    Page views
  • 234
    Downloads
  • 11
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    David Mauduit et al.
    Research Article

    Understanding how enhancers drive cell type specificity and efficiently identifying them is essential for the development of innovative therapeutic strategies. In melanoma, the melanocytic (MEL) and the mesenchymal-like (MES) states present themselves with different responses to therapy, making the identification of specific enhancers highly relevant. Using massively parallel reporter assays (MPRA) in a panel of patient-derived melanoma lines (MM lines), we set to identify and decipher melanoma enhancers by first focusing on regions with state specific H3K27 acetylation close to differentially expressed genes. An in-depth evaluation of those regions was then pursued by investigating the activity of overlapping ATAC-seq peaks along with a full tiling of the acetylated regions with 190 bp sequences. Activity was observed in more than 60% of the selected regions and we were able to precisely locate the active enhancers within ATAC-seq peaks. Comparison of sequence content with activity, using the deep learning model DeepMEL2, revealed that AP-1 alone is responsible for the MES enhancer activity. In contrast, SOX10 and MITF both influence MEL enhancer function with SOX10 being required to achieve high levels of activity. Overall, our MPRAs shed light on the relationship between long and short sequences in terms of their sequence content, enhancer activity, and specificity across melanoma cell states.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Jugal Mohapatra et al.
    Tools and Resources

    Serine ADP-ribosylation (ADPr) is a DNA damage-induced post-translational modification catalyzed by the PARP1/2:HPF1 complex. As the list of PARP1/2:HPF1 substrates continues to expand, there is a need for technologies to prepare mono- and poly-ADP-ribosylated proteins for biochemical interrogation. Here we investigate the unique peptide ADPr activities catalyzed by PARP1 in the absence and presence of HPF1. We then exploit these activities to develop a method that facilitates installation of ADP-ribose polymers onto peptides with precise control over chain length and modification site. Importantly, the enzymatically mono- and poly-ADP-ribosylated peptides are fully compatible with protein ligation technologies. This chemoenzymatic protein synthesis strategy was employed to assemble a series of full-length, ADP-ribosylated histones and show that ADPr at H2BS6 or H3S10 converts nucleosomes into robust substrates for the chromatin remodeler ALC1. We found ALC1 preferentially remodels 'activated' substrates within heterogeneous mononucleosome populations and asymmetrically ADP-ribosylated dinucleosome substrates, and that nucleosome serine ADPr is sufficient to stimulate ALC1 activity in nuclear extracts. Our study identifies a biochemical function for nucleosome serine ADPr and describes a new, highly modular approach to explore the impact that site-specific serine mono- and poly-ADPr have on protein function.