Translational initiation factor eIF5 replaces eIF1 on the 40S ribosomal subunit to promote start-codon recognition

  1. José Luis Llácer
  2. Tanweer Hussain
  3. Adesh K Saini
  4. Jagpreet Singh Nanda
  5. Sukhvir Kaur
  6. Yuliya Gordiyenko
  7. Rakesh Kumar
  8. Alan G Hinnebusch  Is a corresponding author
  9. Jon R Lorsch  Is a corresponding author
  10. Venki Ramakrishnan  Is a corresponding author
  1. MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom
  2. Indian Institute of Science, India
  3. Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, India
  4. National Institutes of Health, United States

Abstract

In eukaryotic translation initiation AUG recognition of the mRNA requires accommodation of Met-tRNAi in a 'PIN' state, which is antagonized by the factor eIF1. eIF5 is a GTPase activating protein (GAP) of eIF2 that additionally promotes stringent AUG selection, but the molecular basis of its dual function was unknown. We present a cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) reconstruction of a yeast 48S pre-initiation complex (PIC), at an overall resolution of 3.0 Å, featuring the N-terminal domain (NTD) of eIF5 bound to the 40S subunit at the location vacated by eIF1. eIF5 interacts with and allows a more accommodated orientation of Met-tRNAi. Substitutions of eIF5 residues involved in the eIF5-NTD/tRNAi interaction influenced initiation at near-cognate UUG codons in vivo, and the closed/open PIC conformation in vitro, consistent with direct stabilization of the codon:anticodon duplex by the wild-type eIF5-NTD. The present structure reveals the basis for a key role of eIF5 in start-codon selection.

Data availability

Five maps have been deposited in the EMDB with accession codes EMDB: 4328, EMDB: 4330, EMDB: 4331, EMDB: 4327, EMDB: 4329, for the sample 1 map, Map A, Map B, Map C1 and Map C2, respectively. Two atomic coordinate models have been deposited in the PDB with accession codes PDB: 6FYX, PDB: 6FYY, for models showing TC in conformation 1 and conformation 2, respectively.All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 4 and 5

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. José Luis Llácer

    MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5304-1795
  2. Tanweer Hussain

    Molecular Reproduction, Development and Genetics (MRDG), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Adesh K Saini

    Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, Solan, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Jagpreet Singh Nanda

    Laboratory on the Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Sukhvir Kaur

    Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, Solan, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Yuliya Gordiyenko

    MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Rakesh Kumar

    Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, Solan, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Alan G Hinnebusch

    Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, Eunice K. Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    alanh@mail.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    Alan G Hinnebusch, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  9. Jon R Lorsch

    Laboratory on the Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    jon.lorsch@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4521-4999
  10. Venki Ramakrishnan

    MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ramak@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Funding

Medical Research Council (MC_U105184332)

  • Venki Ramakrishnan

Wellcome (WT096570)

  • Venki Ramakrishnan

Agouron Institute

  • Venki Ramakrishnan

Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology (Int/NZ/P-2/13)

  • Adesh K Saini

National Institutes of Health (GM62128)

  • Jon R Lorsch

Human Frontier Science Program (RGP-0028/2009)

  • Alan G Hinnebusch

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

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 4,932
    views
  • 765
    downloads
  • 89
    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. José Luis Llácer
  2. Tanweer Hussain
  3. Adesh K Saini
  4. Jagpreet Singh Nanda
  5. Sukhvir Kaur
  6. Yuliya Gordiyenko
  7. Rakesh Kumar
  8. Alan G Hinnebusch
  9. Jon R Lorsch
  10. Venki Ramakrishnan
(2018)
Translational initiation factor eIF5 replaces eIF1 on the 40S ribosomal subunit to promote start-codon recognition
eLife 7:e39273.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39273

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39273

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.