Translation: Finding sense in the context
Ribosomal profiling has shed new light on how ribosomes can ignore stop codons in messenger RNA.
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States
- Gregory Fleming James Cystic Fibrosis Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States
When a ribosome is translating a molecule of messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce a protein, it stops when it encounters a triplet of nucleotides called a termination codon. Ribosomes recognize three different termination codons – UAG, UAA and UGA – but a genetic event called a nonsense mutation can change a codon that normally codes for an amino acid – such as UAU, which codes for tyrosine – into a codon that stops translation prematurely. This results in the production of a truncated protein that does not work properly. Indeed, nonsense mutations cause a wide range of genetic conditions in millions of people worldwide, representing as much as 11% of all disease-associated gene lesions (Mort et al., 2008).
One way to treat the conditions caused by nonsense mutations would be to target premature termination events (Lee and Dougherty, 2012; Keeling et al., 2014; Dabrowski et al., 2018). For example, small molecules such as aminoglycoside antibiotics can help ribosomes to ignore premature termination codons and produce some full-length working proteins, an event called ‘readthrough’. However, aminoglycosides may also help ribosomes to readthrough normal termination codons: this can produce longer-than-normal proteins that are harmful to cells.
Now, in eLife, Jamie Wangen and Rachel Green of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine report new insights into the way that aminoglycosides suppress termination (Wangen and Green, 2020; Figure 1). To do so, they harnessed and adapted a method known as ribosomal profiling, which reveals all the mRNAs that are being translated at a given time in a cell. In particular, the technique can highlight where ribosomes start and stop translation (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Using ribosomal profiling to assess the efficiency of translation termination.
At any given time, a number of ribosomes (grey ovals) will be attached to messenger RNA molecules at different positions. Ribosomal profiling is a technique that can help to locate ribosomes on the mRNA they are translating at the scale of the genome. First, each ribosome (and the region of mRNA it is attached to) is isolated. These segments are then treated with nucleases, releasing the RNA sequences the ribosomes were bound to. These are then purified and sequenced. During efficient termination (left), most of the ribosomes are between the start codon (green) and the stop codon (red), with the majority accumulating at the stop codon (graph on the bottom left), where translation stops. During inefficient termination (right), for example under the influence of small molecules such as G418, ribosomes can ‘readthrough’ the termination codon and carry on translating downstream (graph on the bottom right).
First, Wangen and Green used ribosomal profiling to examine translation in human cells treated with the aminoglycoside G418. Cells that were exposed to G418 had fewer ribosomes attached to normal termination codons; more ribosomes, however, were bound to regions of mRNA downstream of these termination codons, indicating that readthrough had occurred (thus allowing ribosomes to continue to translate past the normal stop points). Together, these findings indicate that G418 helps ribosomes to bypass normal termination codons; other results also suggest that the drug broadly interferes with other steps of the translation process.
Second, ribosomal profiling was used to examine how the mRNA sequence around a termination codon influences readthrough: this approach confirmed and built upon results from a number of previous studies (Martin, 1994; Phillips-Jones et al., 1995; Manuvakhova et al., 2000; Cassan and Rousset, 2001; Namy et al., 2001). Whether the termination codon was UAG, UAA or UGA, the identity of the two nucleotides directly downstream of these sequences had the greatest impact on readthrough. In addition, if neighboring sequences were rich in adenine and uridine, readthrough became more frequent.
Third, in cells treated with G418, readthrough events happened less often for normal termination codons than they did for other, downstream termination codons (which are not normally read by ribosomes). This indicates that normal termination codons have evolved safeguards to protect themselves from readthrough. It also suggests it may be possible to target premature termination codons – which may be more vulnerable since they have not been through a similar selection process – without disrupting accurate termination events.
Fourth, Wangen and Green explored the biological consequences of G418 inducing readthrough of normal termination codons. The majority of mRNAs were only modestly affected, but certain genes were more sensitive to the translation events induced by the drug – namely, the histone, selenoprotein, and S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase genes.
Multiple genetic and biochemical studies have investigated the mechanisms of nonsense suppression, but only for a few transcripts at a time. The work by Wangen and Green, on the other hand, highlights how ribosomal profiling can confirm these findings at a genomic level. This confirmation is important when considering how to suppress premature termination codons for therapeutic purposes. By adapting ribosomal profiling to explore translation termination, Wangen and Green have created an important tool to investigate nonsense suppression in normal circumstances and under the influence of aminoglycosides. The method could also be used to examine how other readthrough agents act on premature and normal termination codons, as well as on global gene expression. This work could potentially help to identify new, safe and effective molecules that could be developed for clinical use.
References
-
Therapeutics based on stop codon readthroughAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 15:371–394.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-091212-153527
-
Pharmaceutical therapies to recode nonsense mutations in inherited diseasesPharmacology & Therapeutics 136:227–266.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2012.07.007
-
A meta-analysis of nonsense mutations causing human genetic diseaseHuman Mutation 29:1037–1047.https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20763
-
Context effects on misreading and suppression at UAG codons in human cellsMolecular and Cellular Biology 15:6593–6600.https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.15.12.6593
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2020, Keeling and Bedwell
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,077
- views
-
- 121
- downloads
-
- 1
- 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)
Translation: Finding sense in the context
eLife 9:e55960.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55960
Further reading
-
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Cells evoke the DNA damage checkpoint (DDC) to inhibit mitosis in the presence of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) to allow more time for DNA repair. In budding yeast, a single irreparable DSB is sufficient to activate the DDC and induce cell cycle arrest prior to anaphase for about 12–15 hr, after which cells ‘adapt’ to the damage by extinguishing the DDC and resuming the cell cycle. While activation of the DNA damage-dependent cell cycle arrest is well understood, how it is maintained remains unclear. To address this, we conditionally depleted key DDC proteins after the DDC was fully activated and monitored changes in the maintenance of cell cycle arrest. Degradation of Ddc2ATRIP, Rad9, Rad24, or Rad53CHK2 results in premature resumption of the cell cycle, indicating that these DDC factors are required both to establish and maintain the arrest. Dun1 is required for the establishment, but not the maintenance, of arrest, whereas Chk1 is required for prolonged maintenance but not for initial establishment of the mitotic arrest. When the cells are challenged with two persistent DSBs, they remain permanently arrested. This permanent arrest is initially dependent on the continuous presence of Ddc2, Rad9, and Rad53; however, after 15 hr these proteins become dispensable. Instead, the continued mitotic arrest is sustained by spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) proteins Mad1, Mad2, and Bub2 but not by Bub2’s binding partner Bfa1. These data suggest that prolonged cell cycle arrest in response to 2 DSBs is achieved by a handoff from the DDC to specific components of the SAC. Furthermore, the establishment and maintenance of DNA damage-induced cell cycle arrest require overlapping but different sets of factors.
-
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
- Developmental Biology
Transcription often occurs in bursts as gene promoters switch stochastically between active and inactive states. Enhancers can dictate transcriptional activity in animal development through the modulation of burst frequency, duration, or amplitude. Previous studies observed that different enhancers can achieve a wide range of transcriptional outputs through the same strategies of bursting control. For example, in Berrocal et al., 2020, we showed that despite responding to different transcription factors, all even-skipped enhancers increase transcription by upregulating burst frequency and amplitude while burst duration remains largely constant. These shared bursting strategies suggest that a unified molecular mechanism constraints how enhancers modulate transcriptional output. Alternatively, different enhancers could have converged on the same bursting control strategy because of natural selection favoring one of these particular strategies. To distinguish between these two scenarios, we compared transcriptional bursting between endogenous and ectopic gene expression patterns. Because enhancers act under different regulatory inputs in ectopic patterns, dissimilar bursting control strategies between endogenous and ectopic patterns would suggest that enhancers adapted their bursting strategies to their trans-regulatory environment. Here, we generated ectopic even-skipped transcription patterns in fruit fly embryos and discovered that bursting strategies remain consistent in endogenous and ectopic even-skipped expression. These results provide evidence for a unified molecular mechanism shaping even-skipped bursting strategies and serve as a starting point to uncover the realm of strategies employed by other enhancers.
