Single-mRNA imaging and modeling reveal coupled translation initiation and elongation rates

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Lamberti et al. investigate how translation initiation and elongation are coordinated at the single-mRNA level in mammalian cells. The authors aim to uncover whether and how cells dynamically adjust initiation rates in response to elongation dynamics, with the overarching goal of understanding how translational homeostasis is maintained. To this end, the study combines single-molecule live-cell imaging using the SunTag system with a kinetic modeling framework grounded in the Totally Asymmetric Simple Exclusion Process (TASEP). By applying this approach to custom reporter constructs with different coding sequences, and under perturbations of the initiation/elongation factor eIF5A, the authors infer initiation and elongation rates from individual mRNAs and examine how these rates covary.

The central finding is that initiation and elongation rates are strongly correlated across a range of coding sequences, resulting in consistently low ribosome density ({less than or equal to}12% of the coding sequence occupied). This coupling is preserved under partial pharmacological inhibition of eIF5A, which slows elongation but is matched by a proportional decrease in initiation, thereby maintaining ribosome density. However, a complete genetic knockout of eIF5A disrupts this coordination, leading to reduced ribosome density, potentially due to changes in ribosome stalling resolution or degradation.

Strengths:

A key strength of this work is its methodological innovation. The authors develop and validate a TASEP-based Hidden Markov Model (HMM) to infer translation kinetics at single-mRNA resolution. This approach provides a substantial advance over previous population-level or averaged models and enables dynamic reconstruction of ribosome behavior from experimental traces. The model is carefully benchmarked against simulated data and appropriately applied. The experimental design is also strong. The authors construct matched SunTag reporters differing only in codon composition in a defined region of the coding sequence, allowing them to isolate the effects of elongation-related features while controlling for other regulatory elements. The use of both pharmacological and genetic perturbations of eIF5A adds robustness and depth to the biological conclusions. The results are compelling: across all constructs and conditions, ribosome density remains low, and initiation and elongation appear tightly coordinated, suggesting an intrinsic feedback mechanism in translational regulation. These findings challenge the classical view of translation initiation as the sole rate-limiting step and provide new insights into how cells may dynamically maintain translation efficiency and avoid ribosome collisions.

Weaknesses:

A limitation of the study is its reliance on exogenous reporter mRNAs in HeLa cells, which may not fully capture the complexity of endogenous translation regulation. While the authors acknowledge this, it remains unclear how generalizable the observed coupling is to native mRNAs or in different cellular contexts.

Additionally, the model assumes homogeneous elongation rates and does not explicitly account for ribosome pausing or collisions, which could affect inference accuracy, particularly in constructs designed to induce stalling. While the model is validated under low-density assumptions, more work may be needed to understand how deviations from these assumptions affect parameter estimates in real data.

Furthermore, although the study observes translation "bursting" behavior, this is not explicitly modeled. Given the growing recognition of translational bursting as a regulatory feature, incorporating or quantifying this behavior more rigorously could strengthen the work's impact.

Assessment of Goals and Conclusions:

The authors successfully achieve their stated aims: they quantify translation initiation and elongation at the single-mRNA level and show that these processes are dynamically coupled to maintain low ribosome density. The modeling framework is well suited to this task, and the conclusions are supported by multiple lines of evidence, including inferred kinetic parameters, independent ribosome counts, and consistent behavior under perturbation.

Impact and Utility:

This work makes a significant conceptual and technical contribution to the field of translation biology. The modeling framework developed here opens the door to more detailed and quantitative studies of ribosome dynamics on single mRNAs and could be adapted to other imaging systems or perturbations. The discovery of initiation-elongation coupling as a general feature of translation in mammalian cells will likely influence how researchers think about translational regulation under homeostatic and stress conditions.

The data, models, and tools developed in this study will be of broad utility to the community, particularly for researchers studying translation dynamics, ribosome behavior, or the effects of codon usage and mRNA structure on protein synthesis.

Context and Interpretation:

This study contributes to a growing body of evidence that translation is not merely controlled at initiation but involves feedback between elongation and initiation. It supports the emerging view that ribosome collisions, stalling, and quality control pathways play active roles in regulating initiation rates in cis. The findings are consistent with recent studies in yeast and metazoans showing translation initiation repression following stalling events. However, the mechanistic details of this feedback remain incompletely understood and merit further investigation, particularly in physiological or stress contexts.

In summary, this is a thoughtfully executed and timely study that provides valuable insights into the dynamic regulation of translation and introduces a modeling framework with broad applicability. It will be of interest to a wide audience in molecular biology, systems biology, and quantitative imaging.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses single-molecule run-off experiments and TASEP/HMM models to estimate biophysical parameters, i.e., ribosomal initiation and elongation rates. Combining inferred initiation and elongation rates, the authors quantify ribosomal density. TASEP modeling was used to simulate the mechanistic dynamics of ribosomal translation, and the HMM is used to link ribosomal dynamics to microscope intensity measurements. The authors' main conclusions and findings are:

(1) Ribosomal elongation rates and initiation rates are strongly coordinated.

(2) Elongation rates were estimated between 1-4.5 aa/sec. Initiation rates were estimated between 0.5-2.5 events/min. These values agree with previously reported values.

(3) Ribosomal density was determined below 12% for all constructs and conditions.

(4) eIF5A-perturbations (KO and GC7 inhibition) resulted in non-significant changes in translational bursting and ribosome density.

(5) eIF5A perturbations resulted in increases in elongation and decreases in initiation rates.

Strengths:

This manuscript presents an interesting scientific hypothesis to study ribosome initiation and elongation concurrently. This topic is highly relevant for the field. The manuscript presents a novel quantitative methodology to estimate ribosomal initiation rates from Harringtonine run-off assays. This is relevant because run-off assays have been used to estimate, exclusively, elongation rates.

Weaknesses:

The conclusion of the strong coordination between initiation and elongation rates is interesting, but some results are unexpected, and further experimental validation is needed to ensure this coordination is valid.

(1) eIF5a perturbations resulted in a non-significant effect on the fraction of translating mRNA, translation duration, and bursting periods. Given the central role of eIF5a, I would have expected a different outcome. I would recommend that the authors expand the discussion and review more literature to justify these findings.

(2) The AAG construct leading to slow elongation is very surprising. It is the opposite of the field consensus, where codon-optimized gene sequences are expected to elongate faster. More information about each construct should be provided. I would recommend more bioinformatic analysis on this, for example, calculating CAI for all constructs, or predicting the structures of the proteins.

(3) The authors should consider using their methodology to study the effects of modifying the 5'UTR, resulting in changes in initiation rate and bursting, such as previously shown in reference Livingston et al., 2023. This may be outside of the scope of this project, but the authors could add this as a future direction and discuss if this may corroborate their conclusions.

(4) The mathematical model and parameter inference routines are central to the conclusions of this manuscript. In order to support reproducibility, the computational code should be made available and well-documented, with a requirements file indicating the dependencies and their versions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Disclaimer:

My expertise is in live single-molecule imaging of RNA and transcription, as well as associated data analysis and modeling. While this aligns well with the technical aspects of the manuscript, my background in translation is more limited, and I am not best positioned to assess the novelty of the biological conclusions.

Summary:

This study combines live-cell imaging of nascent proteins on single mRNAs with time-series analysis to investigate the kinetics of mRNA translation.

The authors (i) used a calibration method for estimating absolute ribosome counts, and (ii) developed a new Bayesian approach to infer ribosome counts over time from run-off experiments, enabling estimation of elongation rates and ribosome density across conditions.

They report (i) translational bursting at the single-mRNA level, (ii) low ribosome density (~10% occupancy {plus minus} a few percents), (iii) that ribosome density is minimally affected by perturbations of elongation (using a drug and/or different coding sequences in the reporter), suggesting a homeostatic mechanism potentially involving a feedback of elongation onto initiation, although (iv) this coupling breaks down upon knockout of elongation factor eIF5A.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript is well written, and the conclusions are, in general, appropriately cautious (besides the few improvements I suggest below).

(2) The time-series inference method is interesting and promising for broader applications.

(3) Simulations provide convincing support for the modeling (though some improvements are possible).

(4) The reported homeostatic effect on ribosome density is surprising and carefully validated with multiple perturbations.

(5) Imaging quality and corrections (e.g., flat-fielding, laser power measurements) are robust.

(6) Mathematical modeling is clearly described and precise; a few clarifications could improve it further.

Weaknesses:

(1) The absolute quantification of ribosome numbers (via the measurement of $i_{MP}$​) should be improved. This only affects the finding that ribosome density is low, not that it appears to be under homeostatic control. However, if $i_{MP}$​ turns out to be substantially overestimated (hence ribosome density underestimated), then "ribosomes queuing up to the initiation site and physically blocking initiation" could become a relevant hypothesis. In my detailed recommendations to the authors, I list points that need clarification in their quantifications and suggest an independent validation experiment (measuring the intensity of an object with a known number of GFP molecules, e.g., MS2-GFP MS2-GFP-labeled RNAs, or individual GEMs).

(2) The proposed initiation-elongation coupling is plausible, but alternative explanations, such as changes in abortive elongation frequency, should be considered more carefully. The authors mention this possibility, but should test or rule it out quantitatively.

(3) The observation of translational bursting is presented as novel, but similar findings were reported by Livingston et al. (2023) using a similar SunTag-MS2 system. This prior work should be acknowledged, and the added value of the current approach clarified.

(4) It is unclear what the single-mRNA nature of the inference method is bringing since it is only used here to report _average_ ribosome elongation rate and density (averaged across mRNAs and across time during the run-off experiments - although the method, in principle, has the power to resolve these two aspects).

(5) I did not find any statement about data availability. The data should be made available. Their absence limits the ability to fully assess and reproduce the findings.

Author response:

In response to Reviewer 2, we have provided a code link under Code availability