![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 32, 22423-22427, August 6, 1999
,From the Research Department, Glaxo Wellcome SA, PTM, C/Severo Ochoa 2, 28760-Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Sordarin derivatives are selective inhibitors of
fungal protein synthesis, which specifically impair elongation factor 2 (EF-2) function. We have studied the effect of sordarin on the
ribosome-dependent GTPase activity of EF-2 from
Candida albicans in the absence of any other component of
the translation system. The effect of sordarin turned out to be
dependent both on the ratio of ribosomes to EF-2 and on the nature of
the ribosomes. When the amount of EF-2 exceeded that of ribosomes
sordarin inhibited the GTPase activity following an inverted
bell-shaped dose-response curve, whereas when EF-2 and ribosomes were
in equimolar concentrations sordarin yielded a typical sigmoidal
dose-dependent inhibition. However, when ricin-treated ribosomes were used, sordarin stimulated the hydrolysis of GTP. These
results were compared with those obtained with fusidic acid, showing
that both drugs act in a different manner. All these data are
consistent with sordarin blocking the elongation cycle at the initial
steps of translocation, prior to GTP hydrolysis. In agreement with this
conclusion, sordarin prevented the formation of
peptidyl-[3H]puromycin on polysomes from Candida
albicans.
Sordarin is a natural product originally isolated from broths of
Sordaria araneosa (1) (see chemical structure in Fig. 1). The potential of sordarin derivatives
as new antifungal drugs of promising therapeutic value has been
evidenced recently. Their spectrum includes most fungal pathogens that
affect immunocompromised patients, i.e. Candida
spp., Cryptococcus neoformans, Pneumocystis carinii, and several endemic American fungi as well as
dermatophytes (2). These compounds exert their antifungal activity by
selectively inhibiting the elongation step of protein synthesis in the
target organisms, but not in higher eukaryotes (3).
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Chemical structure of sordarin.
Protein synthesis is an essential process common to all living cells. It is composed of three phases, namely initiation, elongation, and termination. The machinery involved in the process includes mRNA, tRNAs, ribosomes, and several soluble non-ribosomal protein factors. It has been shown recently that elongation factor 2 (EF-2)1 is the only component of the whole system that is able to bind sordarin; although EF-2 itself can bind the drug, high affinity binding requires the presence of ribosomes (4). On the other hand, mutations either in EF-2 or in the ribosomal protein P0 may confer resistance to sordarins in otherwise sensitive strains (5-7). This evidence has led to EF-2 being considered as the primary sordarin-binding protein and the EF-2·ribosome complex as the functional target.
By interacting with the ribosome, EF-2 promotes translocation and catalyzes the hydrolysis of GTP. Translocation is a crucial step in the elongation cycle of protein synthesis. Briefly, it consists of the simultaneous movement of the newly formed peptidyl-tRNA and the recently deacylated tRNA from the ribosomal A site to the P site and from the P site to the E site, respectively, while the ribosome moves ahead one codon on the mRNA. It proceeds through a complicated mechanism where several events take place in a coordinate and precise fashion to maintain translational accuracy. Translocation has been thoroughly studied in prokaryotes, and there are several models attempting to explain the process (see Refs. 8 and 9 for recent reviews), but it is still far from being completely understood. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the ribosome oscillates between a pre- and a posttranslocational state, which refers to two small scale, but significantly different, conformational arrangements within the particle. Both states are separated by a high activation energy barrier of 90 kJ/mol, which is reduced by EF-2 in eukaryotes or EF-G in prokaryotes in the direction from PRE to POST (10, 11). The role of GTP hydrolysis in this scenario is not clearly defined. For many years, it was believed that GTP acted as a modulator of the affinity of the elongation factor for the ribosome, as described for G-proteins (12). Accordingly, the EF-2·GTP complex would have high affinity for the PRE ribosome, whereas the EF-2·GDP complex would have low affinity for the POST ribosome. Translocation would thus precede GTP hydrolysis, and the resulting GDP molecule would trigger the release of EF-2 from the ribosome (13). However, it has been postulated recently that GTP hydrolysis occurs before translocation, providing the energy needed for the process (14). Consequently, EF-2 would behave as a mechanical protein more than as a G-protein. Nevertheless, this interpretation is still a matter of debate and has not yet been fully accepted (15, 16).
In the present paper we study the effect of sordarin on GTP hydrolysis
catalyzed by EF-2 and ribosomes from the pathogenic yeast Candida
albicans, in the absence of any other elements of the protein
synthesis machinery (i.e. the so-called "uncoupled GTPase"). The results obtained have allowed us to propose a model that may clarify the mode of action of sordarin and validate this family of compounds, not only as therapeutic agents, but also as useful
tools for studying the molecular mechanisms underlying protein synthesis.
| |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Elongation factor 2, salt-washed ribosomes, and polysomes were
isolated from C. albicans 2005E as described previously (4). EF-2 concentration was determined spectrophotometrically using E280 = 67310 M
1·cm
1 as deduced from its
amino acid sequence. Ribosome concentration was also calculated
spectrophotometrically assuming one A260 unit corresponds to 18 pmol of ribosomes (17). Sordarin was provided by the
Bioprocessing Unit at Glaxo Wellcome R & D (Stevenage, United
Kingdom). [
-32P]GTP (370 MBq/ml, >185 MBq/nmol) was
from Amersham Pharmacia Biotech (Uppsala, Sweden).
[8-3H]Puromycin (18.5 MBq/ml, 370 MBq/µmol) was from
Moravek Biochemicals (Brea, CA). All other chemicals were from Sigma.
GTPase Activity--
EF-2 and ribosome-dependent
GTPase activity was determined in 25-µl reaction mixtures containing
10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 100 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 10 mM
DL-dithiothreitol, 500 µM
[
-32P]GTP (3.5 kBq), 0.5 µM ribosomes,
0.5 µM or 2 µM EF-2 and the corresponding
amount of compound tested. Samples were preincubated at room
temperature for 15 min with the corresponding drug in the absence of
GTP; GTP was added, and mixtures were incubated at 37 °C during 30 min. The released [32P]phosphate was extracted as
phosphomolybdate with a cyclohexane:isobutanol, 1:1 (v/v) mixture and
the radioactivity measured. Blanks corresponding to spontaneous GTP
hydrolysis (in the absence of EF-2 and ribosomes) were subtracted from
each determination provided their values never exceeded 5% of the
overall. Likewise, GTP hydrolysis due to EF-2 alone and to ribosomes
alone were measured and discounted for each sample. For ricin
treatment, ribosomes were preincubated for 15 min at 37 °C in the
presence of ricin (molar ratio ricin/ribosomes = 10/1) and then
used as explained above.
Puromycin Reaction--
Freshly prepared polysomes from C. albicans were tested for their ability to synthesize
peptidyl-[3H]puromycin according to (18). Samples
containing 5 A260 units of polysomes were
incubated with the corresponding drug for 15 min at 30 °C in the
presence of 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 80 mM KCl,
10 mM MgCl2, 100 µM GTP, 500 µM ATP, 25 mM phosphocreatine, 70 µg/ml
creatine phosphokinase, 200 µg/ml yeast tRNA, 65 µM
each of 20 amino acids, and C. albicans lysate (3) (1 mg
protein from the lysate/ml of assay). 0.5 nmol of
[3H]puromycin was added to each sample and the incubation
extended for 60 min at 30 °C in a final volume of 500 µl. The
reaction was stopped by the addition of 500 µl of 10%
trichloroacetic acid followed by heating at 90 °C for 15 min.
Samples were harvested on GF/C filters (Millipore, Bedford, CA)
followed by thorough washing with 5% trichloroacetic acid and 90%
ethanol, and their radioactivity was counted. Blanks were prepared by
addition of trichloroacetic acid before [3H]puromycin,
and their values were subtracted in all cases.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Before starting to study the effect of sordarin on the uncoupled
GTPase, optimal conditions to perform the assay were explored. Maximum
signal to noise ratios were obtained using a 4:1 molar ratio of EF-2 to
ribosomes, which led to a 15-fold increase in GTPase activity with
respect to that of EF-2 alone (data not shown). The effect of sordarin
concentration was studied under these conditions and compared with that
of fusidic acid (Fig. 2). While the
latter yielded a clear inhibition curve, sordarin produced an inverted bell-shaped dose-response curve. Sordarin caused some inhibition at
intermediate concentrations (0.1 µM), but this effect
disappeared either at lower or higher levels of the drug. This peculiar
behavior can be interpreted as a combination of two processes. As the
effect of sordarin in whole-cell and in cell-free protein synthesis is a single dose-response curve (with higher inhibition at increasing concentrations of drug) (3), this result can be considered as an
artificial consequence of the nonphysiological conditions of this
in vitro assay, most notably the absence of any other components of the elongation cycle apart from EF-2 and ribosomes. Nevertheless, this result may still be indicative of some event which
could give a clue to the mode of action of the drug.
|
To date, one of the most convincing models that fit the artificial uncoupled GTPase reaction to the physiological events that take place in the translocation process is the one proposed by Nygård and Nilsson (19). This model assumes that both ribosomal conformations (PRE and POST) are able to stimulate the intrinsic GTPase activity of EF-2, but with different efficiencies. In addition, both conformations are able to interact with EF-2·GTP, but with different affinities. Essentially, PRE shows high affinity for the EF-2·GTP complex, but low efficiency in stimulating GTPase, whereas POST shows low affinity for the EF-2·GTP complex, but high efficiency in stimulating GTP hydrolysis. This combination of opposite affinities and efficiencies could explain our results if we assume that the high affinity/low catalysis process (due to PRE) is inhibited by sordarin, while the low affinity/high catalysis process (due to POST) is stimulated by the drug. It should be noted that the ribosome preparation used in this assay is a heterogeneous mixture of PRE and POST ribosomes, but according to previous results, the PRE population outnumbers the POST by 4 to 1 (19-21). Consequently, in the absence of any inhibitor, the EF-2·GTP complex would interact mainly with PRE ribosomes as (i) they are present in excess over POST ribosomes and (ii) they show higher affinity for the complex than POST ribosomes. The presence of sordarin would lead to the formation of a nonproductive PRE·EF-2·GTP·sordarin complex, thus explaining the descending half of the curve. On the other hand, the excess of EF-2 present in the assay medium may undergo interaction with the POST ribosomes; this interaction would be negligible in the absence of sordarin as previously proposed (19), but become significant with increasing concentrations of the drug, overcoming the low affinity between POST and EF-2·GTP and giving rise to the second, ascending half of the curve. To summarize, increasing the amount of sordarin would inhibit the first process and stimulate the second one.
All this reasoning is based on the interpretation that the POST ribosomes are responsible for the recovery of GTPase activity at high sordarin concentrations, based on two assumptions: (a) it can only happen when there is an excess of EF-2 in the system and (b) sordarin stimulates the otherwise rare binding of EF-2·GTP to POST. It is obviously essential to confirm whether the experimental data support these assumptions.
The importance of the excess EF-2 can be easily tested by simply
decreasing the amount of the protein. The assay was repeated with
equimolar mixtures of EF-2 and ribosomes. Under these conditions, sordarin clearly impaired the uncoupled GTPase reaction as shown in
Fig. 3, where in contrast to Fig. 2, a
"typical" inhibition curve is obtained. It is worth noting that the
IC50 value deduced from Fig. 3 is 0.1 µM,
which is in good agreement with the corresponding value inferred from
the inhibitory half of the curve in Fig. 2 (0.2 µM).
|
Testing the stimulatory effect of sordarin on the interaction between
POST ribosomes and EF-2·GTP is more easily done when a homogeneous
population of POST ribosomes is available. This can be achieved by
treating the ribosomal preparation with ricin. Ricin is a toxin lectin
isolated from the seeds of Ricinus communis. It promotes
selective depurination of one base in the larger rRNA molecule (22).
This modification destroys the dynamic properties of the ribosome,
freezing the particle in a single conformation that has been identified
with the POST ribosome (23). Fig. 4 shows
the effect of sordarin and fusidic acid on the uncoupled GTPase of
equimolar EF-2·ribosomes mixtures, when ribosomes were incubated
previously with ricin. The result clearly shows an stimulatory effect
of sordarin, whereas fusidic acid inhibited the reaction as in the
previous experiment. It is interesting to observe that the maximum
stimulatory effect is reached at 1.0 µM sordarin, the
same concentration at which maximum recovery of activity was observed
in Fig. 2.
|
Results shown in Figs. 3 and 4 are in agreement with the assumptions made above. It can also be clearly seen in Fig. 4 that sordarin is not a direct inhibitor of the GTPase activity. Hence, the inhibition observed in Fig. 3 (and partially in Fig. 2) must be considered more as a consequence than as a primary effect. Previous data on the binding of sordarin to EF-2·ribosome complexes (4) make it unlikely that sordarin prevents the interaction between PRE ribosomes (the majority) and EF-2·GTP. It follows that sordarin may directly impair the transition from PRE to POST, thus blocking the ribosome in the pretranslocational state.
To test this conclusion we studied the effect of sordarin on the so-called puromycin reaction (18, 24) and compared it to that of cycloheximide and fusidic acid. This is a classical tool for exploring the mode of action of protein synthesis inhibitors. It is based on the different accessibility of the ribosomal A site to radiolabeled puromycin depending on whether the ribosome is in PRE (i.e. A site inaccessible to puromycin) or in POST (A site accessible).
Actively translating polysomes were isolated from C. albicans. In the absence of any other drug,
[3H]puromycin was incorporated to the nascent peptide
chains (Fig. 5). This same result was
obtained when polysomes were previously incubated with fusidic acid, as
expected (25). However, a significant decrease in the incorporation of
[3H]puromycin was observed when polysomes were
preincubated with sordarin, a result similar to that obtained with
cycloheximide. Anisomycin, a known inhibitor of peptide bond formation
(20), also reduced the amount of peptidyl-[3H]puromycin
formed. The effect of sordarin was clearly dose-dependent as deduced from Fig. 6, although it was
not possible to reach total inhibition of the reaction. This fact is
explained by the spontaneous translocation undergone by a fraction of
the polysomes during the isolation procedure previous to incubation
with the inhibitor. Consequently, the mode of action of sordarin seems to be closer to that of cycloheximide (inhibition of the translocation step (20)) than to that of fusidic acid (inhibition of the turnover of
EF-2·GDP from the POST ribosome (26)).
|
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The unexpected shape of the dose-response curve obtained when studying the effect of sordarin on the uncoupled GTPase reaction catalyzed by C. albicans EF-2 may give a clue to the precise mode of action of the drug. The curve has been interpreted on the basis of the two reciprocating conformations of the ribosome and has been considered a consequence of the experimental conditions used in the assay, mainly the large excess of EF-2 over ribosomes and the heterogeneous nature of the ribosomal preparation, which is a mixture of PRE and POST particles. Changing these conditions gives rise to a complete change of the curve shape. From a qualitative point of view, the sordarin curve in Fig. 2 can be considered a combination of the corresponding curves in Figs. 3 and 4, in agreement with the interpretation that the former result is due to a combination of two processes. A full cycle describing the molecular events taking place in vitro in the uncoupled GTPase assay is depicted in Fig. 7, an adaptation of the model described by Nygård and Nilsson (19). According to our results, sordarin is not a direct inhibitor of the GTPase activity, since the drug is able to stimulate GTP hydrolysis under certain conditions. Inhibition of this activity, when observed, seems to be a consequence of blocking the elongation cycle at a point prior to GTP hydrolysis, in agreement with the inhibition of the puromycin reaction achieved with sordarin. There are two ways to inhibit the cycle upstream of GTP hydrolysis: by preventing the interaction between PRE and EF-2·GTP or by blocking the transition from PRE·EF-2·GTP to POST·EF-2·GTP. The first possibility is considered unlikely in the light of previous results showing high affinity binding between sordarin and the ribosome·EF-2 complex. The evidence points therefore to the transition from PRE·EF-2·GTP to POST·EF-2·GTP as the protein synthesis step inhibited by sordarin.
In the previous paragraphs we have interpreted our results according to
the classical model of translocation suggested by Nygård and Nilsson
(19) 10 years ago. Presently more detailed models have been proposed.
All of them are based on experimental data obtained with bacteria
systems. However there are no apparent reasons not to apply them to
eukaryotic systems. The first one is the "hybrid states" model
proposed by Moazed and Noller (27), which has evolved into the
"elaborated hybrid states" model (8). The latter incorporates the
hypothesis formulated by Rodnina et al. (14, 28) that places
GTP hydrolysis before translocation and considers GTP the source of
energy that allows the mechanical movement of tRNAs and mRNA. The
tRNAs move in alternate fashion with respect to ribosomal subunits,
thus yielding the designated hybrid states: the acceptor arms of the
tRNAs are in the E or P sites of the large ribosomal subunit, while the
anticodon arms remain in the P or A sites of the small subunit,
respectively. One of the main implications of this model is that the
structural rearrangements that take place in the ribosome are subtle
local changes rather than gross conformational changes. The model is composed of several intermediate states that are generated in the
following sequence: 1) generation of a puromycin-unreactive hybrid
state on the pretranslocated ribosome immediately after peptide bond
formation, 2) binding of EF-2·GTP, 3) transition to a
puromycin-reactive hybrid state, 4) GTP hydrolysis, 5) translocation of
the anticodon arms, and 6) release of EF-2·GDP. This sequence of
events is compatible with the proposed scheme in Fig.
7. Step 3 may be the one that shifts the
PRE conformation of the ribosome into the POST. The subsequent events
may exclusively affect tRNAs, mRNA and EF-2·GTP. Accordingly,
step 3 would be the one targeted by sordarin.
|
The alternative model is the so-called alpha-epsilon model, proposed by
Nierhaus and co-workers (29). This model suggests the existence of a
movable ribosomal domain (called "
-
"), which shifts from the
A and P sites to the P and E sites during translocation, carrying with
it the tRNAs. The precise role of EF-2 and GTP hydrolysis is not
clearly assigned, but by analogy to the previous model, it seems
reasonable to propose that the ultimate effect of sordarin may be
blocking the movement of the domain.
Recently, Justice et al. (5) have suggested that sordarins stabilize the POST·EF-2·GDP complex in a manner identical to fusidic acid. This conclusion was based on the observation that sordarin hampered the exchange between unlabeled GTP and [3H]GTP previously bound to EF-2 and ribosomes from S. cerevisiae, the ribosomes being in 7-fold excess over the factor. Our results, however, show a completely dissimilar behavior between sordarin and fusidic acid. The result reported by Justice et al. (5) may be explained by the experimental conditions used. A 7-fold excess of ribosomes over EF-2 would lead to most EF-2 molecules being bound by the high affinity PRE ribosomes, which would be locked into a nonproductive PRE·EF-2·GTP complex by sordarins, according to the model in Fig. 7.
Sordarins have proved to be a family of drugs of potential medical and
scientific value. Their therapeutic efficacy, their unpaired
specificity, and their novel mode of action in the field of antifungals
justify their interest. However, the molecular details that account for
sordarin activity still remain elusive as the precise events of
translocation do. More studies orientated to elucidate the former will
also be useful to understand the latter.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank J. F. Garcia-Bustos for his scientific contribution and discussion of the results, J. P. Garcia-Ballesta for critical reading of the manuscript, and V. A. Kelly for kind linguistic revision.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 34-91-8070301;
Fax: 34-91-8070595; E-mail: jmd18916@GlaxoWellcome.co.uk.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: EF-2, elongation factor 2; EF-G, elongation factor G; PRE, pretranslocated ribosome; POST, posttranslocated ribosome.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Hauser, D., and Sigg, H. P. (1971) Helv. Chim. Acta 54, 1178-1190[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. |
Herreros, E.,
Martinez, C. M.,
Almela, M. J.,
Marriott, M. S.,
Gomez de las Heras, F.,
and Gargallo-Viola, D.
(1998)
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
42,
2863-2869 |
| 3. |
Domínguez, J. M.,
Kelly, V. A.,
Kinsman, O. S.,
Marriott, M. S.,
Gomez de las Heras, F.,
and Martin, J. J.
(1998)
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
42,
2274-2278 |
| 4. |
Domínguez, J. M.,
and Martin, J. J.
(1998)
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
42,
2279-2283 |
| 5. |
Justice, M. C.,
Hsu, M. J.,
Tse, B.,
Ku, T.,
Balkovec, J.,
Schmatz, D.,
and Nielsen, J.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
3148-3151 |
| 6. |
Capa, L.,
Mendoza, A.,
Lavandera, J. L.,
Gomez de las Heras, F.,
and Garcia-Bustos, J. F.
(1998)
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
42,
2694-2699 |
| 7. |
Gómez-Lorenzo, M. G.,
and Garcia-Bustos, J. F.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
25041-25044 |
| 8. | Wilson, K. S., and Noller, H. F. (1998) Cell 92, 337-349[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 9. | Nierhaus, K. H., Stuhrmann, H. B., and Svergun, D. (1998) Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 59, 177-204[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. | Nierhaus, K. H. (1996) Nature 379, 491-492[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. | Wilson, K. S., and Noller, H. F. (1998) Cell 92, 131-139[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. | Liljas, A., Aevarsson, A., Al-Karadaghi, S., Garber, M., Zheltonosova, J., and Brazhnikov, E. (1995) Biochem. Cell Biol. 73, 1209-1216[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. | Nygård, O., and Nilsson, L. (1990) Eur. J. Biochem. 191, 1-17[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 14. | Rodnina, M. V., Savelsbergh, A., Katunin, V. I., and Wintermeyer, W. (1997) Nature 385, 37-41[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 15. | Czworkowski, J., and Moore, P. B. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 10327-10334[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 16. | Spahn, C. M. T., and Nierhaus, K. H. (1998) Biol. Chem. 379, 753-772[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. | Spedding, G. (1990) in Ribosomes and Protein Synthesis: A Practical Approach (Spedding, G., ed) , pp. 1-29, IRL Press, Oxford |
| 18. | Modolell, J., and Vazquez, D. (1977) Eur. J. Biochem. 81, 491-497[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 19. | Nygård, O., and Nilsson, L. (1989) Eur. J. Biochem. 179, 603-608[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. | Barbacid, M., Fresno, M., and Vazquez, D. (1975) J. Antibiot. (Tokyo) 28, 453-462[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 21. | Baliga, B. S., Cohen, S. A., and Munro, H. N. (1970) FEBS Lett. 8, 249-252[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 22. |
Endo, Y.,
and Tsurugi, K.
(1987)
J. Biol. Chem.
262,
8128-8130 |
| 23. | Holmberg, L., and Nygård, O. (1996) J. Mol. Biol. 259, 81-94[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 24. | Traut, R. R., and Monro, R. E. (1964) J. Mol. Biol. 10, 63-72[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. | Celma, M. L., Vazquez, D., and Modolell, J. (1972) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 48, 1240-1246[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 26. | Burns, K., Cannon, M., and Cundliffe, E. (1974) FEBS Lett. 40, 219-223[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 27. | Moazed, D., and Noller, H. F. (1989) Nature 342, 142-148[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 28. |
Rodnina, M. V.,
and Wintermeyer, W.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
7237-7239 |
| 29. |
Dabrowski, M.,
Spahn, C. M. T.,
Schäfer, M. A.,
Patzke, S.,
and Nierhaus, K. H.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
32793-32800 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. S. Bommakanti, L. Lindahl, and J. M. Zengel Mutation from guanine to adenine in 25S rRNA at the position equivalent to E. coli A2058 does not confer erythromycin sensitivity in Sacchromyces cerevisae RNA, March 1, 2008; 14(3): 460 - 464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Demeshkina, G. Hirokawa, A. Kaji, and H. Kaji Novel activity of eukaryotic translocase, eEF2: dissociation of the 80S ribosome into subunits with ATP but not with GTP Nucleic Acids Res., July 9, 2007; 35(14): 4597 - 4607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Soe, R. T. Mosley, M. Justice, J. Nielsen-Kahn, M. Shastry, A. R. Merrill, and G. R. Andersen Sordarin Derivatives Induce a Novel Conformation of the Yeast Ribosome Translocation Factor eEF2 J. Biol. Chem., January 5, 2007; 282(1): 657 - 666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Santos, M. A. Rodriguez-Gabriel, M. Remacha, and J. P. G. Ballesta Ribosomal P0 Protein Domain Involved in Selectivity of Antifungal Sordarin Derivatives Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., August 1, 2004; 48(8): 2930 - 2936. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Herreros, M. J. Almela, S. Lozano, F. Gomez De Las Heras, and D. Gargallo-Viola Antifungal Activities and Cytotoxicity Studies of Six New Azasordarins Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., November 1, 2001; 45(11): 3132 - 3139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Shastry, J. Nielsen, T. Ku, M.-J. Hsu, P. Liberator, J. Anderson, D. Schmatz, and M. C. Justice Species-specific inhibition of fungal protein synthesis by sordarin: identification of a sordarin-specificity region in eukaryotic elongation factor 2 Microbiology, February 1, 2001; 147(2): 383 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
C. Briones and J. P. G. Ballesta Conformational changes induced in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae GTPase-associated rRNA by ribosomal stalk components and a translocation inhibitor Nucleic Acids Res., November 15, 2000; 28(22): 4497 - 4505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Dominguez and J. J. Martin Identification of a Putative Sordarin Binding Site in Candida albicans Elongation Factor 2 by Photoaffinity Labeling J. Biol. Chem., August 10, 2001; 276(33): 31402 - 31407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASBMB Journals | Molecular and Cellular Proteomics |
| Journal of Lipid Research | ASBMB Today |