The final step of 40S ribosomal subunit maturation is controlled by a dual key lock
Abstract
Preventing premature interaction of pre-ribosomes with the translation apparatus is essential for translational accuracy. Hence, the final maturation step releasing functional 40S ribosomal subunits, namely processing of the 18S ribosomal RNA 3' end, is safeguarded by the protein DIM2, which both interacts with the endoribonuclease NOB1 and masks the rRNA cleavage site. To elucidate the control mechanism that unlocks NOB1 activity, we performed cryo-EM analysis of late human pre-40S particles purified using a catalytically-inactive form of the ATPase RIO1. These structures, together with in vivo and in vitro functional analyses, support a model in which ATP-loaded RIO1 cooperates with ribosomal protein RPS26/eS26 to displace DIM2 from the 18S rRNA 3' end, thereby triggering final cleavage by NOB1; release of ADP then leads to RIO1 dissociation from the 40S subunit. This dual key lock mechanism requiring RIO1 and RPS26 guarantees the precise timing of pre-40S particle conversion into translation-competent ribosomal subunits.
Data availability
Mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD019270. Cryo-EM maps have been deposited in the Electron Microscopy Data Bank (EMDB), under the accession codes : EMD-11440 (State A multi-body composite map); EMD-11441 (State B multi-body composite map); EMD-11446 (State A, head); EMD-11445 (State A, body); EMD-11447 (State A, platform); EMD-11443 (State B, head); EMD-11442 (State B, body); EMD-11444 (State B, platform). Atomic coordinate models of State A and State B RIO1(kd)-StHA pre-40S particles have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), with respective PDB accession codes 6ZUO and 6ZV6.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (16-CE11-0029)
- Laura Plassart
- Ramtin Shayan
- Natacha Larburu
- Simon Lebaron
- Julien Marcoux
- Pierre-Emmanuel Gleizes
- Celia Plisson-Chastang
Swiss National Science Fundation (31003A_166565)
- Christian Montellese
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Copyright
© 2021, Plassart 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
-
- 2,606
- views
-
- 293
- downloads
-
- 28
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- 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.
-
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
- Developmental Biology
About 70% of human cleavage stage embryos show chromosomal mosaicism, falling to 20% in blastocysts. Chromosomally mosaic human blastocysts can implant and lead to healthy new-borns with normal karyotypes. Studies in mouse embryos and human gastruloids showed that aneuploid cells are eliminated from the epiblast by p53-mediated apoptosis while being tolerated in the trophectoderm. These observations suggest a selective loss of aneuploid cells from human embryos, but the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood. Here, we investigated the cellular consequences of aneuploidy in a total of 125 human blastocysts. RNA-sequencing of trophectoderm cells showed activated p53 pathway and apoptosis proportionate to the level of chromosomal imbalance. Immunostaining corroborated that aneuploidy triggers proteotoxic stress, autophagy, p53-signaling, and apoptosis independent from DNA damage. Total cell numbers were lower in aneuploid embryos, due to a decline both in trophectoderm and in epiblast/primitive endoderm cell numbers. While lower cell numbers in trophectoderm may be attributed to apoptosis, aneuploidy impaired the second lineage segregation, particularly primitive endoderm formation. This might be reinforced by retention of NANOG. Our findings might explain why fully aneuploid embryos fail to further develop and we hypothesize that the same mechanisms lead to the removal of aneuploid cells from mosaic embryos.