![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 23, 17288-17296, June 9, 2000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
§,
¶, and
From the
Friedrich Miescher Institute, CH-4002 Basel,
Switzerland, the § Centre for Bioengineering, Russian
Academy of Sciences, 117312 Moscow, Russia, and the
Institute of Plant Sciences, ETH Zentrum,
CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Received for publication, February 11, 2000, and in revised form, March 22, 2000
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The pregenomic 35 S RNA of cauliflower mosaic
virus (CaMV) belongs to the growing number of mRNAs known to have a
complex leader sequence. The 612-nucleotide leader contains several
short open reading frames (sORFs) and forms an extended hairpin
structure. Downstream translation of 35 S RNA is nevertheless possible
due to the ribosome shunt mechanism, by which ribosomes are directly transferred from a take-off site near the capped 5' end of the leader
to a landing site near its 3' end. There they resume scanning and reach
the first long open reading frame. We investigated in detail how the
multiple sORFs influence ribosome migration either via shunting or
linear scanning along the CaMV leader. The sORFs together constituted a
major barrier for the linear ribosome migration, whereas the most
5'-proximal sORF, sORF A, in combination with sORFs B and C, played a
positive role in translation downstream of the leader by diverting
scanning ribosomes to the shunt route. A simplified, shunt-competent
leader was constructed with the most part of the hairpin including all
the sORFs except sORF A replaced by a scanning-inhibiting structure. In
this leader as well as in the wild type leader, proper translation and
termination of sORF A was required for efficient shunt and also for the
level of shunt enhancement by a CaMV-encoded translation
transactivator. sORF A could be replaced by heterologous sORFs, but a
one-codon (start/stop) sORF was not functional. The results implicate
that in CaMV, shunt-mediated translation requires reinitiation. The efficiency of the shunt process is influenced by translational properties of the sORF.
At least three distinct steps involving 40 S ribosomal subunits
and the mRNA 5'-untranslated region
(5'-UTR)1 precede the
formation of translation competent 80 S ribosomes on most mRNAs in
eukaryotic cells. First, the 40 S subunit binds to the capped 5' end of
the mRNA; second, ribosomes translocate to the start codon by
linear scanning; and third, the start codon is recognized (1-3). A
number of ribosome- or RNA-associated protein factors are involved in
cap recognition, removal of RNA secondary structure, and initiation
complex formation (4). The helix-destabilizing capacity of the scanning
ribosome appears limited. Double-stranded regions with a free energy of
less than An increasing number of eukaryotic mRNAs have been detected with
strong secondary structures and/or alternative start sites in their
5'-UTR, particularly those of transcription factors or protooncogenes
(8). Alternative start sites may create short ORFs or N-terminally
extended variants of the major ORF. Alternative start sites are not
necessarily easily predictable, because "non-AUG" codons,
i.e. codons deviating from AUG in one position, may act as
start codons (e.g. Ref. 9), particularly in conjunction with
downstream secondary structures that may pause scanning ribosomes (10).
In general, complex 5'-UTRs have negative effects on translation
efficiency and it has been argued that their function could be to
down-regulate expression. However, such features may also be used for
more subtle post-transcriptional control of gene expression, although
only a few examples have been studied in any detail (6, 11-16). How
the eukaryotic translation machinery negotiates complex 5'-UTRs is
still far from being understood, even though a number of alternatives
to the scanning process have been described. Direct binding to internal
ribosome entry sites (IRES) was observed in many viruses and some
cellular mRNAs (17). Entry points can be directly at the start
codon or upstream of it, thus requiring a translocation step to the
start codon. The other alternative to continuous scanning is the
ribosome shunt, which leads to the bypass of scanning-inhibitory
regions by direct transfer of ribosomal subunits between two RNA
regions. Ribosome shunt has so far been described mainly for viral
RNAs: cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) (18, 19), rice tungro bacilliform
virus (RTBV) (20), Sendai virus (21, 22), adenovirus (23), human
papillomavirus (24), and budgerigar fledgling disease virus (25). In
most of these cases, viral factors are not required, even though they
may enhance the process, suggesting that ribosome shunt is a normal,
cellular mechanism and might also occur on cellular RNAs. Ribosome
shunt combines the efficient binding of ribosomes through the mRNA
cap and the versatility of internal ribosome entry. The mechanisms that
allow 40 S ribosomes to bypass RNA regions are not understood. Here we
describe analysis of some of the requirements for ribosome shunt on the
leader of the CaMV 35 S RNA. This polycistronic RNA begins with a long
leader of 612 nucleotides preceding ORF VII. The leader is inhibitory
for the scanning process, because it contains up to nine AUGs creating
sORFs, 2-35 codons in length (26), and forms an extended central
hairpin (27). Downstream translation is nevertheless possible via the
ribosome shunt (18, 19). Shunting functions in various translation
systems including plant protoplasts (19, 28), wheat germ extract (29),
rabbit reticulocyte lysate (30), and transgenic plants (31). It
requires the formation of a stable stem section at the base of the
central hairpin (stem section 1) (32, 33) and the presence of an sORF (sORF A) in front of this or a similar stable structure (19, 32, 34).
The importance of sORF A has also been underscored by revertants
obtained after infection of plants with CaMV mutants (26).
In this report, we investigated (i) combinatorial and individual
effects of the sORFs in the CaMV leader on ribosome shunt and linear
scanning along the leader and (ii) the effect of the CaMV-encoded
transactivator of polycistronic translation, TAV (35, 36), on
shunt-mediated expression. The group of sORFs constituted a major
inhibitory barrier for linear scanning, whereas the most 5'-proximal
sORF A, in combination with sORFs B and C, alleviated this inhibition
by diverting scanning ribosomes to the shunt route. Parameters of sORF
A were further investigated in a simplified shunt-competent leader. In
this leader mimicking the wild type CaMV leader, proper elongation and
termination of sORF A were required for efficient ribosome shunt and
also for the level of shunt enhancement by TAV. sORF A could be
functionally replaced by heterologous, naturally occurring sORFs;
however, a start/stop codon sequence was not functional. These results support a reinitiation model of the ribosome shunt.
Construction of Plasmids for Transient Transfections--
The
"wild type" plasmid used in this study as a base-line control has
been previously described as pLC20 (18). Its expression unit consists
of (i) the fragment of the CaMV strain CM4-184 genome comprising the
35 S RNA promoter and the complete leader, (ii) a CAT reporter gene
fused to the ORF VII AUG, and (iii) the CaMV terminator region. All
point mutations were introduced into the leader sequence by the
polymerase chain reaction ligation method (37). The polymerase chain
reaction primers and conditions used as well as the detailed
description of the mutations removing all the sORFs have been published
elsewhere (26). The sequences of various point mutations in sORF A are
depicted in the corresponding figures. The mutant versions of the
leader were subcloned from plasmid pV322 (26) into pLC20 using unique
sites EcoRV and ClaI naturally occurring in the
promoter and near the 3' end of the leader, respectively. Two large
deletions in the leader were made taking advantage of (i) new
restriction sites XhoI and HindIII created by the
point mutations of sORFs B and F, respectively, yielding
delXH and its derivatives
delXHMAtTG, delXHMAtaG,
and A::F, which carry additional point mutations in sORF A;
or (ii) the sites XhoI and ClaI, yielding
delXC and its derivative delXCMAtaG lacking sORF A. In both cases, plasmid MALL+A, which
contains sORF A in an otherwise AUG-free leader or its derivatives with the mutated sORF A (26), was cut with the corresponding enzymes, the
ends filled in with Klenow, and ligated.
The simplified shunt-competent construct delXHKS was
generated by replacing the XhoI-HindIII fragment
of MALL+A with the desired oligonucleotides, such that the
HindIII site was maintained. In the latter construct, new
XhoI and AflII sites in front of sORF A and the
KS sequence, respectively, were introduced by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (CAT54gAg and Cg113u), yielding KSXAHA.
Disruption of stem section 1 in the latter construct or modifications
in the sORF A region were performed by replacing the
XhoI-AflII fragment with the corresponding
oligonucleotides. Restoration of stem section 1 was carried out by
replacing the HindIII-ClaI fragment with an
oligonucleotide carrying the desired compensatory mutations. The Kozak
stem in the center of the full-length leader was created by replacing
the fragment between two BglII sites (positions 218 and 238)
with the self-complementary oligonucleotide
5'-GATCggggcgcgtggtggcggctgcagccgccaccacgcgcccc-3'.
Protoplast Transfections and Reporter Gene
Assays--
Protoplasts were prepared from suspension cultures of
Orychophragmus violaceus and transfected with plasmid DNA by
electroporation as described previously (28) with a few modifications.
Briefly, 0.7 ml of protoplasts (about 2 × 106) were
mixed with plasmids on ice, transferred to 0.4-cm electrode gap
cuvettes (Bio-Rad), and electroporated by discharging 960 microfarads
at 450 V and 200 ohms using the Bio-Rad Gene Pulser. After 20-24 h of
incubation at 27 °C, protoplasts were harvested by centrifugation
and protein extract prepared by three cycles of freezing and thawing in
200 µl of GUS extraction buffer (50 mM
NaH2PO4 (pH 7.0), 10 mM EDTA, 0.1%
Triton X-100, 0.1% sarcosyl). 30-µl aliquots were immediately taken
for reporter gene assays, or stored at
10 µg of CAT plasmid was always cotransfected with 2.5 µg of
GUS-expressing plasmid (pV594) to serve as an internal standard of
transfection efficiency. For transactivation, 5 µg of plasmid pV374
expressing the TAV protein was also added. The latter plasmid has been
previously described as pHELP7 (35). For each CAT construct, transfections were repeated at least three times in duplicate (± TAV)
with new DNA preparations of independent clones and in new protoplast
batches. Additional transfections were performed if deviations in the
normalized CAT expression were more than 10% of the average value. It
should be noticed that greater deviations (maximum 20%) were observed
for constructs with scanning-mediated expression. We assume that
varying cell parameters in different batches of protoplasts might
differentially affect scanning- versus shunt-mediated
expression that was set to 100% in all experiments.
Experimental Outline--
The influence of CaMV 35 S RNA leader
variants on downstream translation was tested in transiently
transfected protoplasts. Discrimination between translation by scanning
or by shunting was achieved by insertion of a stable hairpin structure,
"Kozak stem" or "KS" (5), which has been used previously as an
effective inhibitor of scanning in plant cells (36). We also tested the influence of the CaMV-derived multifunctional protein, TAV, one of
whose functions is to promote translational reinitiation on polycistronic mRNAs (36).
The Influence of sORFs and Secondary Structure on Translation
Controlled by the 35 S RNA Leader--
The transient expression level
of a chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) ORF downstream of a wild
type CaMV 35 S RNA leader was set to 100% (Fig.
1, line 1). The
removal of the start codons of all the sORFs in the leader by point
mutations increased expression about 5-fold (line
2). Additional removal of the complete leader hairpin
structure further increased expression, but only by a factor of 1.7 (line 4); the particularly stable base of the
leader hairpin (stem section 1) contributes about two thirds of this structural inhibition of translation (line 3).
These data indicate that the sORFs in the leader are the major
inhibitory elements.
The inhibitory effect of some of the individual sORFs was tested by
reintroduction of their start codons. sORF D' alone was not inhibitory,
sORF E" was only slightly inhibitory, and sORF F that overlaps ORF
VII::CAT was stronger than the others (Fig. 2A, lines
4, 5, and 6, respectively). Inhibition
by sORF combinations was not additive and not predictable. Combination
of sORFs E" and F (line 7) was more inhibitory
than E" alone but less than F alone; addition of D' to E" and F
(line 8) created a greater inhibition, although
D' alone had had no effect at all. Addition of sORFs D, E, and E' to
the latter construct only slightly reduced expression (Fig.
2B, line 9). These data could be
explained by analogy to the yeast GCN4 mRNA with
distance-dependent reinitiation (39); a fraction of
ribosomes that resume scanning and reinitiate after translation of E"
would bypass the start codon of F because of the short intervening
distance and thus the negative effect of the latter sORF is partially
alleviated. In a similar way, after translation of D', ribosomes can
efficiently reinitiate at the CAT ORF, unless they are intercepted by
the intervening sORFs. In the later cases, a potential second round of
reinitiation (after sORFs D, E, E', or E") is probably inefficient.
While individual readdition of the sORFs to the 3' half of an otherwise
AUG-free leader revealed their potential for translation inhibition,
their individual removal from the wild type, sORF-containing leader had
no effect on expression (data not shown), indicating that, in this
context, the individual sORFs have no major influence on the expression
level. This contrasts with the behavior of sORFs A, B, and C; removal
of any of these sORFs individually or in combination reduced expression
(constructs in Fig. 2B, compared with wild type), suggesting
that they alleviate the negative effect of the rest of the leader. sORF
A removal had the most striking effect, decreasing expression 5-fold
(line 12). The positive function of these sORFs
was only detectable in the context of the wild type leader. In
combination with other sORF mutations, individual sORFs A, B, and C
could also display negative effects on overall expression
(e.g. Fig. 2, pairs 16/2 or 15/9 for A, 11/10 for B, and
10/9 for C).
Mutations of sORFs A, B, and C Alter Ribosome Migration on the 35 S
RNA Leader--
Insertion of the KS into the center of the wild type
leader had only a slight effect on downstream translation (Fig.
2A), confirming our previous observations (19) and
indicating that, in this case, translation mostly depends on shunt and
only little scanning through the leader is allowed. In contrast,
insertion of KS into an AUG-free leader or a leader lacking the sORFs
A, B, and C greatly reduced expression (Fig. 2, lines
2 and 9 versus 1),
i.e. in the absence of sORFs A, B, and C, most or all
downstream translation depends on continuous, linear scanning and only
a small proportion (if any) of the ribosomes perform a shunt.
The presence of sORF A in the otherwise AUG-free leader allowed some
ribosomes to overcome the KS barrier (Fig. 2C,
line 16 versus line
2), and the presence of sORFs A, B, and C completely restored shunting (line 17 versus
line 1, with KS). In the absence of KS,
translation from these mRNAs occurs by shunting and scanning. Comparison of mutants in one or several of the respective sORFs with
and without KS revealed that removal of any of the first three sORFs
increased the contribution of scanning to overall expression and
reduced the proportion of shunting (Fig. 2B). In the
presence of the KS, the knock out mutation of sORF A (line 12) had the most drastic inhibitory effect on shunt-mediated
translation (~13-fold), while the individual mutations of sORFs B and
C (lines 13 and 14) were less
inhibitory (~1.5- and 4-fold, respectively).
Because of difficulties with quantification of the very low levels of
reporter RNA obtained from transfected protoplasts (data not shown), we
could not exclude that some mutations might affect RNA stability.
However, the fact that the same combination of the sORF point mutations
could have either positive or negative effects on expression, depending
on the leader context and consequently on the mode of ribosome
migration (Fig. 2, compare lines 1 and 2, in the absence or presence of KS), suggests that mainly
the rate and/or the mechanism of translation initiation are affected. Previously, it has been shown (29) that in a shunt-competent wheat germ
extract the CAT transcripts containing the wild type CaMV leader
without or with the Kozak stem (see Fig. 2, line
1) were as stable as the leader-less CAT transcript. This
also supports that neither the CaMV sORFs nor the Kozak stem sequence
represent instability determinants.
These results show that sORFs can fundamentally alter the translation
properties of an mRNA not just by regulating the initiation capacity of ribosomes but also by changing the mode how ribosomes access the internal mRNA regions. sORF A was confirmed as a major determinant of efficient ribosome shunting, but its effects are influenced by the more internal sORFs B and C.
Effects of the Transactivator--
The CaMV transactivator TAV
acts by enhancing the reinitiation potential of ribosomes that have
already translated one ORF (36). Here, TAV was found to enhance
expression downstream of the 35 S RNA leader by a factor of 2-3 in all
cases involving significant ribosome shunting (Fig. 2, see
Interpretation column), allowing expression
levels approaching 30% of the maximal translation potential; the
latter can be deduced from the reference construct lacking all
inhibitory elements (Fig. 1, line 4).
Scanning-mediated expression was influenced not at all or much less.
When an RNA is translated by both mechanisms, the
shunting-dependent fraction is activated by TAV whereas the
scanning-dependent fraction is hardly influenced (Fig.
2C, line 17). Shunt requires sORF A
and thus all constructs showing a strong effect of TAV contain this sORF. When the start codon was mutated to UAG (Fig. 2B,
line 12), downstream translation occurred only by
scanning and TAV had at most a small effect; however, with the non-AUG
codon UUG, a small amount of shunting is apparent in the presence of
TAV (Fig. 2B, line 11,
+KS), suggesting that the UUG is active as a start codon in
this context.
TAV may function in restoring, at least partially, the initiation
capacity of shunting ribosomes that have translated sORF A. For
scanning-dependent reinitiation after sORF A translation, this function might not be required because the distance in the leader
is long enough to acquire reinitiation capacity during the scanning
process (e.g. Fig. 2, line 16).
Translation of sORF A--
The data presented so far provide
strong evidence that sORF A is translated. To investigate how
efficiently ribosomes recognize the sORF A start codon, we fused sORF A
in the short leader containing only stem section 1 to the AUG-less
remnants of sORF F, which overlap the ORFVII::CAT for 35 nucleotides (Fig. 3, line
2). The mutation drastically reduced expression, suggesting
that only a small proportion of scanning ribosomes skips the sORF A AUG start codon. As a control, additional mutation of the latter AUG to UAG
fully derepressed translation (line 3).
Construction of a Simplified, Shunt-competent, and TAV-responsive
Leader--
To study the specific role of sORF A and TAV in shunting,
the complexity of translation events on the reporter RNA was reduced by
replacement of the upper part of the leader hairpin (including all
other sORFs) with the much shorter but energy-rich Kozak stem (Fig.
4A). In this simpler
expression unit, CAT translation was almost completely dependent on the
presence of sORF A. Expression levels, the effects of sORF A start
codon mutations to UAG or UUG (see Fig.
5A, line
8), and the response to TAV were similar to those observed
with the wild type leader (Fig. 4A), suggesting that in both
cases shunting occurs. This similarity was maintained only when the KS
was present and stem section 1 intact. In the absence of KS, sORF A
exhibited a 2.5-fold inhibition (Fig. 4B), indicating that
the respective RNA is translated mainly by scanning. In the presence of
KS, disruption of stem section 1 by multiple point mutations (Fig.
4C) completely abolished expression as expected for a
strictly scanning-dependent mRNA with a KS element.
Restoration of stem section 1 by compensatory mutations on the
descending arm restored expression, albeit not fully, and effective
response to TAV (Fig. 4C), which is consistent with our
previous results for the full-length CaMV leader (32, 33). These data
suggest that all minimal cis-elements required for shunting
are contained in the simplified construct and confirm the key role of
the combination of sORF A and stem structure at a proper distance in
the shunt mechanism, as already inferred from our previous in
vitro analysis (32, 34).
Effects of Alterations of sORF A on Shunting and
Transactivation--
For a closer analysis of the sORF A role in
shunting, we generated a number of additional mutants with alterations
of the translation start or stop site of sORF A or its coding content and evaluated their effects on shunt and its enhancement by TAV in the
simplified, shunt-competent construct (Fig. 5, A and
B). A simple alteration of the stop codon (UAG to UAA) did
not have any significant effect (Fig. 5A, line
2). In contrast, shortening or elongating sORF A by one
triplet significantly reduced the basal level of shunt-mediated
expression (1.7- and 2.7-fold, respectively). For both mutants the
response to TAV was drastically reduced (lines 3 and 4). The sORF elongation introduced a new triplet UAC
(coding for Tyr), which might be also responsible for the drastic
reduction. To clarify this point, this triplet was mutated to GAG
(coding for Glu), the codon preceding the stop codon of the original
sORF A. With this mutation, the reduced basal level of expression was not significantly changed, whereas the response to TAV was restored (line 5). Reciprocally, mutation of the GAG codon
of the original sORF A to UAC only slightly affected the basal level of
shunting but significantly reduced the response to TAV (line
6), thus implying involvement of the sORF A coding potential
in shunt enhancement by TAV.
Mutation of the second codon UGU to GCU (Cys to Ala) had only a slight
negative effect both in the absence and presence of TAV (Fig.
5A, line 7). With this mutation the
sequence context of the start codon was optimized (U+4 to
G). Weakening the sORF A AUG context (A
In a control experiment, replacement of the sORF A sequence with a
polyCU stretch of the same length that contains no non-AUG start codon
drastically reduced expression both in absence and presence of TAV
(Fig. 5B, line 12). A small residual
level of expression in this case, as well as in the case of the UAG
mutant (line 9), is most likely due to a small
fraction of scanning ribosomes that do penetrate through the Kozak stem
barrier (see also Fig. 2A, line 2,
+KS).
Replacement of sORF A by Heterologous sORFs--
Our results show
that shunt-mediated expression does not depend on a certain amino acid
sequence of the sORF, although the coding potential may modulate shunt
efficiency, especially in the presence of TAV (Fig. 5A). We
then tested a few natural sORFs derived from other plant
pararetroviruses or from the yeast GCN4 mRNA for their effects on shunting.
In the RTBV RNA that is also translated via ribosome shunt (20), the
most 5'-proximal sORF terminates 7 nucleotides upstream of the extended
hairpin. A similar configuration occurs in the pregenomic RNA leaders
of CaMV and other plant pararetroviruses (40). Replacement of the sORF
A region preceding stem section 1 by the respective, sORF-containing
sequence from RTBV did not affect shunt-mediated expression (Fig.
5C, line 13). This suggests that the
RTBV sORF 1 can functionally substitute sORF A in ribosome shunt,
despite the differences in length and coding potential. In contrast, a
start/stop sORF occurring in soybean chlorotic mottle virus (40) did
not support efficient shunting when incorporated in place of sORF A
(Fig. 5C, line 16). This was also seen
with another, independently generated one-codon sORF (Fig.
5C, line 17), excluding that the
effect of the SbCMV sORF is due to context changes, e.g. in
the sequence following the stop codon.
Finally, sORF A was replaced by two functionally distinct sORFs
involved in translation regulation of the yeast GCN4 mRNA, sORF 1 that allows efficient reinitiation and sORF 4 that inhibits reinitiation (6). Again, both sORFs were introduced together with their
flanking sequences to preserve natural initiation and termination
context; the stop codon was 7 nucleotides upstream of the base of stem
section 1. The GCN4 sORF 1 sequence slightly increased shunt-mediated
expression, whereas the sORF 4 sequence reduced the expression
significantly (2.5-fold). In both cases, effective response to TAV was
observed (Fig. 5C, lines 14 and 15).
Effect of sORF A Variants on Scanning-dependent
Reinitiation--
To evaluate whether sORF effects are simply due to
modulation of the reinitiation capacity or to modulation of a
shunt-specific feature, we tested the sORF A variants (Fig. 5) in
different leader contexts. In the wild type leader, which is negotiated
almost exclusively by shunting (Fig. 2, line 1),
sORF A variants displayed exactly the same effects as in the simplified
construct (results not shown). In contrast, the full-length leader
without all other sORFs is negotiated almost exclusively by scanning
and TAV has no notable effect (Fig. 2, line 16).
In this leader, almost all of the tested sORF A variants with only two
exceptions (Fig. 5, lines 5 and 17)
exhibited very similar effects (Fig. 5, lines 1-4, 6, and 7). The two exceptional
sORFs resulted in reduced expression, but the negative effects were
much weaker than those observed for the corresponding shunt-constructs.
In all cases, TAV resulted only in a small increment in expression
(data not shown). These findings indicate that shunt- versus
scanning-mediated expression can be influenced differentially by the
same sORF.
sORF A Is a Positive Regulator of Downstream
Translation--
Short ORFs in 5'-UTRs of eukaryotic mRNAs are
usually regarded as elements that influence downstream translation
negatively. The few exceptions described so far, including Rous sarcoma
virus (15, 41) and the yeast GCN4 system (6, 39), are always associated
with the presence of additional start codons between the first sORF and
the regulated, long ORF. For instance, the first of four sORFs in the
GCN4 mRNA is required to alleviate the negative effects of the
other sORFs in the leader sequence under conditions of amino acid
starvation. Ribosomes that have translated sORF 1 conditionally fail to
regain reinitiation capacity until they have scanned past the other
sORFs and thus can reach the GCN4 ORF. This illustrates that the effect
of an sORF is not only dependent on its translation but also on poorly
characterized properties that can influence the post-termination fate
of the ribosomes. Reinitiation frequency is influenced by the
intercistronic distance (6, 7), by the sequences surrounding the
termination codon (6, 42), by the length of the sORF (43), and by the coding potential of the sORF (e.g. Ref. 11). The additional influence of metabolic conditions (6, 13, 16) makes detection of such
effects dependent on the choice of the assay system.
The first sORF (sORF A) in the leader of the CaMV 35 S RNA is required
for translation downstream of this leader. In this respect, it is
similar to the sORF 1 of the GCN4 mRNA. Here we demonstrated that
sORF A alleviates the strong negative effect caused by the other sORFs
present in the CaMV leader by diverting ribosomes to the shunt route
(Fig. 2). We showed indirectly that sORF A is translated (Fig. 3), and
this translation event correlates with efficient ribosome shunt (Fig.
4). The coding potential and/or the precise location of the sORF A stop
codon with respect to the base of the leader hairpin modulate shunt
efficiency (Fig. 5).
Model for CaMV Shunt--
The results presented here and in
parallel work (30, 32, 34) are consistent with the model for ribosome
shunt depicted in Fig. 6. Scanning
ribosomes initiate translation at the sORF A start codon. Even in a
suboptimal context, recognition of this start codon is efficient (Figs.
3 and 5B), probably because stem section 1 is located 14 nucleotides downstream of it. Secondary structure at this distance has
been shown to enhance initiation at AUG codons in weak context and even
at non-AUG codons, probably due to pausing of scanning ribosomes (10).
Upon translation termination, the first 8 base pairs of stem section 1 should be disrupted by the translating 80 S ribosomes (see legend to
Fig. 6). This exposes the region that has been previously mapped as the
shunt landing site at the 3' end of the 5'-UTR (19), allowing binding
by a new ribosome, entering internally, or by a ribosome from the 5'
part of the leader. The internal binding model appears unlikely, since
no deletion variant of the leader was ever found which would have
supported such binding. Therefore, simple masking of the acceptor
region by upstream leader regions can not be a reason for inactivation
of an otherwise functional IRES. We favor the possibilities shown in
Fig. 6B, particularly the model involving transfer of
the same ribosome that has translated sORF A. In this case, downstream
translation involves reinitiation explaining the positive effect of
TAV, which enhances translation reinitiation (36). However, at this
stage, alternatives for TAV action as indicated in Fig. 6 cannot be
excluded.
The reinitiation model is also supported by our observation that the
replacement of sORF A by the GCN4 sORF 4, which inhibits reinitiation
in yeast, significantly reduced shunt-mediated expression (Fig.
5C). The reduction in our case was observed even though only
7 of 10 natural nucleotides downstream of the sORF 4 stop codon,
thought to be required for the inhibiting effect in yeast (42), were
preserved in our construct due to the distance constraint. In contrast,
the GCN4 sORF 1 that allows efficient reinitiation in yeast, could
substitute sORF A without any effect on shunt-mediated expression.
Together with the recent observation that an sORF encoding the peptide
MAGDIS (13), which causes ribosome stalling in mammals, also inhibited
shunt-mediated translation in place of sORF A (30), these findings
suggest that translational interactions between sORFs and ribosomes may
be quite conserved among eukaryotes.
The minimal shunt-promoting structure consists of sORF A and stem
section 1 (Refs. 32 and 34 and Fig. 4). However, in the context of the
wild type 35 S RNA leader, shunt was stimulated by further internal
sequences in the sORF B and, especially, C regions (Fig.
2B). One possible explanation is that in the absence of
sORFs B and C, the increased flow of scanning ribosomes through the
leader (as seen from Fig. 2C) should melt secondary
structure reducing the probability of reformation of stem section 1. Alternatively, the mutations in these sORFs might themselves modify the
leader structure (26). As structural elements these sequences may again ensure the proper formation of stem section 1 in the complete leader, a
function that could also be performed by the KS element in the
simplified, shunt-supporting construct (Fig. 4A). It is noteworthy that some deletion and point mutations, described previously as interfering with ribosome shunt (19), in fact disturb the proper
alignment of the same structural region. In contrast, improvement of
the base pairing in this region stimulates shunt (32).
Important Parameters of sORF A Translation--
Our previous
in planta analysis revealed that sORF A start codon
mutations reverted by restoring an in-frame AUG at various positions,
while the stop codon mutation was only restored at its wild type
location (26). This finding complements our in vitro
translation analysis (32), indicating the importance of the positioning
of sORF A with respect to stem section 1. Here we confirmed that
shifting the stop codon even for only one triplet upstream or
downstream could significantly reduce shunt efficiency (Fig.
5A). The configuration of an sORF terminating 5-10
nucleotides upstream of a stable hairpin is conserved in the leaders of
most plant pararetroviruses (40). The coding content of the respective sORFs varies, but the most frequent amino acids are Ser or Cys in the
penultimate and Glu or Gly in the last position (40). Our mutagenesis
experiments revealed that variants of sORF A are also functional, but
they could modulate translation efficiency (Fig. 5). The sORF could
affect the number of ribosomes emerging from sORF translation in a mode
that allows reinitiation, or it could directly influence the choice of
ribosomes for scanning or shunting. Reinitiation frequency was reduced
at most 2-fold (Fig. 5, line 17) but, in most
cases, less (line 5) or not at all. Therefore,
some effects (Fig. 5, lines 3, 4, and
17) are clearly shunt-specific and may directly affect the
post-termination ribosome translocation process.
None of the sORF variants tested resulted in a significantly higher
expression, suggesting that the natural sORF A with sequence MCE is
functionally optimal. Furthermore, sORF A could be replaced by the
corresponding 5'-proximal sORF from RTBV (MAQVSE) without notable
effect on shunting (Fig. 5C). Our preliminary results indicated that mutation of this sORF in the RTBV leader abolished shunt-mediated expression.2
This supports the conservation of the shunt mechanism in the family of
plant pararetroviruses.
An interesting observation reported here is that the start/stop sORFs
could not functionally replace sORF A in shunting (Fig. 5C).
Most likely, the initiation or the termination process in this
one-codon sORF without peptide-elongation phase is detrimental to
further ribosome activity. Consistent with this, we have previously shown that the mutation in CaMV sORF A creating the one-codon sORF
(Fig. 5C, line 17) drastically reduced
infectivity of the virus and resulted in second site reversions
in planta that eventually restored the wild type sORF A
(26). This findings also suggest that SbCMV indeed represents an
exceptional case in plant pararetroviruses and might not use the
shunting strategy; mapping of the transcripts is not complete for this
virus, and a predicted leader sequence is shorter and contains fewer
AUGs than in other plant pararetroviruses (40).
Mechanistic Considerations--
What could be the function of sORF
A? In its absence, no shunting could be detected and downstream
structural elements are simply inhibitory for scanning ribosomes. In
the presence of the sORF but with a disturbed shunt-supporting
structure, ribosomes can apparently re-enter a scanning mode with high
efficiency and in this state are equally susceptible to inhibition by
secondary structure (Figs. 2C and 4C). It appears
that, immediately after translation termination, ribosomes are in a
state that allows either shunting or reestablishment of scanning
properties. During the initiation event, a number of translation
factors dissociate from the ribosome. For reinitiation, some of them,
e.g. eIF2, have to be reacquired. Possibly, factors
necessary for scanning are also lost and, as long as they are lacking,
a slower and less directed mode of ribosome migration might occur. The
missing factor may be the helicase eIF4A (44). In the case of the
adenovirus major late mRNAs, shunting does not require an sORF, but
it becomes the predominant mechanism under conditions where the
activity of RNA cap-binding complex that includes eIF4A is reduced
(23). Lack of a proper set of initiation factors could also be
responsible for initiation at non-AUG start codons, since,
e.g., eIF5 has been implicated in proofreading of the
initiation step (45); eIFs 1 and 1A also seem to destabilize aberrant
preinitiation complexes (46). Non-AUG start codons can be recognized at
shunt landing sites in CaMV (30), RTBV (20), and Sendai virus (22); such codons are usually not significantly recognized by scanning ribosomes unless scanning is slowed down due to secondary structure (10).
Reinitiation after Shunting and Effect of TAV--
Since the start
codon of sORF A is recognized efficiently, downstream translation
requires reinitiation. In the GCN4 mRNA, this switch to
reinitiation seems to be the only function of sORF 1, allowing the
regulation of expression in response to the concentration of active
eIF2. For CaMV, the scanning distance between sORF A and ORF VII is
long enough to allow efficient reinitiation (Fig. 2C,
line 16; Fig. 5A). Notably, in the
latter case, almost no response to the CaMV TAV protein could be
observed. However, in the wild-type leader, reinitiation most likely
occurs already at some of the other sORFs, which are evenly spaced
throughout the leader, unlike the GCN4 mRNA, where the distance
between the regulatory sORF 4 and the main ORF is quite long. After
shunting, the scanning distance becomes much shorter and therefore
recovery of initiation capacity is probably the step that is enhanced
by TAV. The crucial step in acquiring reinitiation capacity is probably the recycling of the eIF2-GDP complex and its association with tRNA.
After dissociation from the initiating 40 S ribosome, the eIF2-GDP
complex may, at least transiently, associate with the 60 S subunit
(47), i.e. remain in close proximity to the 40 S subunit,
and the large ribosomal subunit seems to play a role in eIF2 recycling
and translation reinitiation (48). A mechanism that would make this
complex available for rebinding to the 40 S subunit after translation
of an sORF, allowing it to recycle while bound to one of the ribosomal
subunits, could allow distance-independent translation reinitiation. It
is conceivable that such a mechanism could be influenced by nascent
peptides. We observed that two sORF A variants ending in Tyr and an
sORF encoding the peptide MC had a reduced response to TAV in shunting
but did not impair reinitiation after linear scanning (Fig.
5A). The scanning-dependent and the
TAV-dependent mechanisms by which ribosomes can regain initiation capacity may therefore be different. It remains to be
investigated whether translated peptides or RNA sequence features influence TAV activity, or whether TAV may enhance not just
reinitiation but also the shunt process itself.
Implications for Other Complex mRNAs--
The translational
events on RNAs with complex leader sequence are difficult to predict by
the simple model of linear ribosome scanning. sORFs and secondary
structure not only suppress the scanning process. They can make
internal RNA regions accessible for translation initiation even under
conditions where overall translation is cap-dependent.
Ribosomes emerging from translation of an sORF may also, at least
transiently, possess a different set of initiation factors allowing
initiation at start codons not normally recognized. It is noteworthy
that most examples of naturally active non-AUG start codons are found
on RNAs with complex leader sequences or on RNAs that attract ribosomes
by means other than a cap structure (8). From the features described
here, we would predict that a ribosome shunt could function on any
mRNA containing a proper sORF ending close to a stable secondary
structure element; such an sORF may also start with a non-AUG start
codon. Although it appears that other cis-acting features can also
induce shunting (22, 23, 49), these have not been characterized to any
detail. At the present state of knowledge, it appears possible that
some cases of IRESs found in capped mRNAs could be examples of
ribosome shunting. Indeed, recent work on the c-myc
protooncogene has challenged a previous IRES hypothesis for that case,
suggesting a shunt mechanism instead (50).
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
50 kcal/mol block the scanning process (5). Besides
secondary structure, alternative translation start sites could
interfere with scanning. Since the composition of the scanning complex
is altered upon translation initiation, most notably by
"consumption" of the bound eIF2-GTP-initiator methionyl tRNA
complex, it was long assumed that eukaryotic ribosomes can initiate
only once on an mRNA. However, particularly after translation of a
short ORF (sORF), at least a fraction of ribosomes can reinitiate
translation on the same mRNA. How ribosomes regain initiation
capacity, how they reach further downstream ORFs, and how all this is
influenced by the nature of the first ORF is still unclear. In the
yeast GCN4 system (6) and in in vitro systems (7),
reinitiation is distance-dependent, suggesting that a
certain time is required to reestablish initiation competence. In GCN4,
this time (translated to a scanning distance) was inversely correlated
to the concentration of active eIF2.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
70 °C. CAT expression
levels were determined using the Roche Molecular Biochemicals CAT
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit as recommended by the
manufacturer. GUS activity was measured by a fluorimetric assay
(38).
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (10K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Overall inhibitory effect of sORFs and
secondary structure elements on translation controlled by the CaMV
leader in plant protoplasts. Primary and secondary structures
(predicted with the GCG MFold program) of the wild type leader and its
mutated variants are schematically depicted. sORFs A to F are indicated
by boxes, and their AUG mutations by crosses.
Borders of large deletions removing structural elements are shown with
vertical lines; the corresponding restriction
sites used are also indicated on the leader structure. Relative
expression levels of the downstream CAT ORF are given.

View larger version (28K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Individual and combinatorial effects of sORFs
on shunt- and scanning-dependent expression. Relative
CAT expression downstream of the AUG-free leader (A and
C) or the wild type leader (B), or their
derivatives containing the scanning-inhibitory Kozak stem (indicated by
a thick arrow), in the absence (
TAV)
or the presence (+TAV) of the CaMV TAV protein, is given.
sORFs are indicated by boxes; their AUG mutations are shown
by crosses; the resulting mutant triplets are shown for
sORFs A, B, and C, with mutated nucleotides in lowercase.
The deduced mechanisms (scanning or/and shunt) of downstream
translation are indicated with + or
in the
Interpretation column; +/
stands for
inefficient shunt (when the sORF A AUG is mutated to a non-AUG start
codon UUG, or when the sORF B and C AUGs are missing).

View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
The start codon of sORF A is efficiently
recognized by scanning ribosomes. The deletion variant of the CaMV
leader (delXH) containing sORF A (shown by a
box) and stem section 1 only is schematically represented.
Point mutations of the sORF A stop codon alone (creating an elongated
sORF that overlaps the downstream CAT ORF; construct A::F)
and in combination with its start codon (creating an sORF-free leader)
are indicated by crosses. Relative CAT expression
levels ± TAV are given.

View larger version (26K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
A simplified, shunt-competent, and
TAV-responsive leader. A, construction of the
simplified construct containing all minimal cis-elements required for
ribosome shunt including (i) sORF A, (ii) stem section 1, and (iii) a
stabilizing element represented by the KS replacing the upper part of
the leader hairpin containing all other sORFs (B-F). Point mutations
of the sORF A AUG to UUG or UAG triplets are indicated by
crosses on the schematic leader structures. The
MFold-predicted secondary structures of the leaders containing stem
section 1 without or with Kozak stem are shown on the right.
Free energies of these structures in kcal/mol were calculated with
MFold at 25 °C. Nucleotide positions are from the 5' end of the 35 S
RNA, with the modified positions in the descending arm of the modified
constructs given in parentheses; mutated nucleotides are in
lowercase. Restriction sites used for constructions are
indicated. sORF A and the beginning of the ORF VII::CAT
fusion are indicated by boxes. Relative CAT expression
levels of corresponding constructs ± TAV are given. B,
the construct containing stem section 1 only, in which sORF A is
inhibitory for downstream translation. C, disruption of stem
section 1 in the simplified construct by multiple point mutations
(shown on the right by arrows) in its ascending
arm abolishes ribosome shunt, restoration of the base pairing by the
compensatory mutations on the descending arm restores shunting.

View larger version (43K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Parameters of sORF A translation important
for shunt-mediated, TAV-responsive expression versus
scanning-dependent expression. A and
B, effect of alterations in the start site or the stop site
or the coding content of sORF A on shunt-mediated expression from the
simplified construct (depicted schematically on the top) in
the presence and absence of TAV (two penultimate columns), or on
scanning-dependent expression from the construct with a
full-length AUG-free leader (last column; see Fig.
2C, line 16). Sequence preceding the
base of stem section 1 is shown. Numbering is from the mRNA 5' end.
Mutated nucleotides are in lowercase. sORFs are
boxed; their amino acid sequences are shown below
the boxes. C, replacement of the sORF A region by
heterologous, naturally occurring sORFs with the flanking sequences
(shown in italics). Constructs of series B and C contain
additional restriction sites XhoI (underlined)
and AflII (preceding the Kozak stem sequence).
3 to
U) also did not affect expression significantly (Fig. 5B, line 11). The insignificance of the sORF A start
codon context for shunt-mediated expression is another indication that
the start codon in this particular location (see "Discussion") is
recognized very efficiently and allows only a small amount of leaky
scanning (see also Fig. 3). This efficiency allowed that even an sORF
opened by the non-AUG start codon UUG could promote some shunting
in the presence of TAV (Fig. 5A, line
8 and Fig. 2B, line
11).
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (25K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Model for ribosome shunt in CaMV.
A, ribosomes migrating from the 35 S RNA capped 5' end
initiate translation of the first sORF, sORF A (boxed),
located in front of stem section 1 (shown with flanking unstructured
regions) that forms the base of the large hairpin in the 35 S RNA
leader. The 80 S ribosome consisting of 40 and 60 S subunits
(smaller and bigger ovals,
respectively) assembled at the sORF A start codon is shown in
geometrical proportion to the RNA sequence; according to Antony and
Merrick (51), the ribosome covers about 30 nucleotides of mRNA. The
shunt landing site (shown with a thick line) in
the descending arm of the stem section 1 has been mapped between
nucleotide positions 548 and 560 (19). At this step, TAV may either
bind the structure or the shunt landing site to exert its enhancing
effect on shunting (indicated with thin arrows
and a question mark). B, after
translation of sORF A, the bottom helix of stem section 1 should have
been unwound by the ribosome, which unmasks the shunt landing site for
interaction with the post-termination 40 S ribosomal subunit (shown
with a thick arrow) or, less likely, with another
subunit (indicated with a bigger question
mark), which has not yet initiated translation but has been
stacked due to possible pausing of the 80 S translating ribosome at
sORF A stop codon. At this step, TAV may help to transfer the 40 S
subunit to the shunt landing site (indicated with a smaller
question mark). C, upon shunting, the
40 S subunit resumes scanning and reaches the downstream ORF, where it
(re)initiates translation. At this step, TAV might enhance the rate of
reinitiation, as this is believed to be its main function in
polycistronic translation (36).
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Matthias Müller, Sandra Corsten, and Herbert Angliker for expert technical assistance. We are grateful to Helen Rothnie and Lyuba Ryabova for critical reading of the manuscript, and Diana Dominguez for stimulating discussions and helpful advice.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported in part by an EMBO short term fellowship (to M. M. P.) and by a FEBS long term fellowship (to M. M. P.).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: Friedrich Miescher Inst., P. O. Box 2543, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland. Tel.: 41-61-6977266; Fax: 41-61-6973976; E-mail: thomas.hohn@fmi.ch.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 27, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M001143200
2 M. Pooggin, unpublished results.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: UTR, untranslated region; sORF, short open reading frame; ORF, open reading frame; IRES, internal ribosome entry site; KS, Kozak stem; CaMV, cauliflower mosaic virus; TAV, the CaMV-encoded transactivator protein; RTBV, rice tungro bacilliform virus, SbCMV, soybean chlorotic mottle virus; CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Kozak, M. (1989) J. Cell Biol. 108, 229-241 |
| 2. | Kozak, M. (1999) Gene (Amst.) 234, 187-208 |
| 3. | Merrick, W. C., and Hershey, J. W. B. (1996) in Translational Control (Hershey, J. W. B. , Mathews, M. B. , and Sonenberg, N., eds) , pp. 31-70, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY |
| 4. | Pestova, T. V., and Hellen, C. U. (1999) Trends Biochem. Sci. 24, 85-87 |
| 5. | Kozak, M. (1989) Mol. Cell. Biol. 9, 5134-5142 |
| 6. | Hinnebusch, A. G. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 21661-21664 |
| 7. | Kozak, M. (1987) Mol. Cell. Biol. 7, 3438-3445 |
| 8. | Willis, A. E. (1999) Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 31, 73-86 |
| 9. | Gordon, K., Fütterer, J., and Hohn, T. (1992) Plant J. 2, 809-813 |
| 10. | Kozak, M. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87, 8301-8305 |
| 11. | Alderete, J. P., Jarrahian, S., and Geballe, A. P. (1999) J. Virol. 73, 8330-8337 |
| 12. | Delbecq, P., Werner, M., Feller, A., Filipkowski, R. K., Messenguy, F., and Pierard, A. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 2378-2390 |
| 13. | Mize, G. J., Ruan, H., Low, J. J., and Morris, D. R. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 32500-32505 |
| 14. | Muckenthaler, M., Gray, N. K., and Hentze, M. W. (1998) Mol. Cell 2, 383-388 |
| 15. | Sonstegard, T. S., and Hackett, P. B. (1996) J. Virol. 70, 6642-6652 |
| 16. | Wang, Z., Fang, P., and Sachs, M. S. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 7528-7536 |
| 17. | Jackson, R. J., and Kaminski, A. (1995) RNA 1, 985-1000 |
| 18. | Fütterer, J., Gordon, K., Sanfaçon, H., Bonneville, J-M., and Hohn, T. (1990) EMBO J. 9, 1697-1707 |
| 19. | Fütterer, J., Kiss-László, Z., and Hohn, T. (1993) Cell 73, 789-802 |
| 20. | Fütterer, J., Potrykus, I., Bao, Y., Li, L., Burns, T. M., Hull, R., and Hohn, T. (1996) J. Virol. 70, 2999-3010 |
| 21. | Curran, J., and Kolakofsky, D. (1988) EMBO J. 7, 2869-2874 |
| 22. | Latorre, P., Kolakofsky, D., and Curran, J. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 5021-5031 |
| 23. | Yueh, A., and Schneider, R. J. (1996) Genes Dev. 10, 1557-1567 |
| 24. | Remm, M., Remm, A., and Ustav, M. (1999) J. Virol. 73, 3062-3070 |
| 25. | Li, J. (1996) Molecular Analysis of Gene Expression in BFDVPh.D. thesis , pp. 1-180, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany |
| 26. | Pooggin, M. M., Hohn, T., and Fütterer, J. (1998) J. Virol. 72, 4157-4169 |
| 27. | Hemmings-Mieszczak, M., Steger, G., and Hohn, T. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 267, 1075-1088 |
| 28. | Fütterer, J., Gordon, K., Pfeifer, P., Sanfaçon, H., Pisan, B., Bonneville, J.-M., and Hohn, T. (1989) Virus Genes 3, 45-55 |
| 29. | Schmidt-Puchta, W., Dominguez, D., Lewetag, D., and Hohn, T. (1997) 25, 2854-2860 |
| 30. | Ryabova, L. A., and Hohn, T. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 817-829 |
| 31. | Schärer-Hernández, N., and Hohn, T. (1998) Virology 242, 403-413 |
| 32. | Dominguez, D. I., Ryabova, L. A., Pooggin, M. M., Schmidt-Puchta, W., Fütterer, J., and Hohn, T. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 3669-3678 |
| 33. | Hemmings-Mieszczak, M., Steger, G., and Hohn, T. (1998) RNA 4, 101-111 |
| 34. | Hemmings-Mieszczak, M., and Hohn, T. (1999) RNA 5, 1149-1157 |
| 35. | Bonneville, J-M., Sanfaçon, H., Fütterer, J., and Hohn, T. (1989) Cell 59, 1135-1143 |
| 36. | Fütterer, J., and Hohn, T. (1991) EMBO J. 10, 3887-3896 |
| 37. | Galvez, A. F., and DeLumen, B. O. (1995) Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 13, 232-242 |
| 38. | Jefferson, R. A., Burgess, S. M., and Hirsh, D. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 83, 8447-8451 |
| 39. | Abastado, J. P., Miller, P. F., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1991) New Biol. 3, 511-524 |
| 40. | Pooggin, M. M., Fütterer, J., Skryabin, K. G., and Hohn, T. (1999) J. Gen. Virol. 80, 2217-2228 |
| 41. | Donzé, O., Damay, P., and Spahr, P. F. (1995) Nucleic Acids Res. 23, 861-868 |
| 42. | Grant, C. M., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 608-618 |
| 43. | Fütterer, J., and Hohn, T. (1992) Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 3851-3857 |
| 44. | Rogers, G. W., Jr, Richter, N. J., and Merrick, W. C. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 12236-12244 |
| 45. | Huang, H., Yoon, H., Hannig, E. M., and Donahue, T. F. (1997) Genes Dev. 11, 2396-2413 |
| 46. | Pestova, T. V., Borukhov, S. I., and Hellen, C. U. (1998) Nature 394, 854-859 |
| 47. | Ramaiah, K. V., Dhindsa, R. S., Chen, J. J., London, I. M., and Levin, D. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 12063-12067 |
| 48. | Mueller, P. P., Grueter, P., Hinnebusch, A. G., and Trachsel, H. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 32870-32877 |
| 49. | Yueh, A., and Schneider, R. J. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 414-421 |
| 50. | Carter, P. S., Jarquin-Pardo, M., and DeBenedetti, A. (1999) Oncogene 18, 4326-4335 |
| 51. | Anthony, D. D., and Merrick, W. C. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 1554-1562 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. Racine, C. Barry, K. Roy, S. J. Dawe, M. Shmulevitz, and R. Duncan Leaky Scanning and Scanning-independent Ribosome Migration on the Tricistronic S1 mRNA of Avian Reovirus J. Biol. Chem., August 31, 2007; 282(35): 25613 - 25622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Anderson, A. T. Johnson, J. L. Howard, and D. F. J. Purcell Both Linear and Discontinuous Ribosome Scanning Are Used for Translation Initiation from Bicistronic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 env mRNAs J. Virol., May 1, 2007; 81(9): 4664 - 4676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Y. Song, C. K. Hwang, C. S. Kim, H. S. Choi, P.-Y. Law, L.-N. Wei, and H. H. Loh Translational repression of mouse mu opioid receptor expression via leaky scanning Nucleic Acids Res., March 12, 2007; 35(5): 1501 - 1513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Moissiard and O. Voinnet RNA silencing of host transcripts by cauliflower mosaic virus requires coordinated action of the four Arabidopsis Dicer-like proteins PNAS, December 19, 2006; 103(51): 19593 - 19598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Babinger, A. Hallmann, and R. Schmitt Translational control of regA, a key gene controlling cell differentiation in Volvox carteri Development, October 15, 2006; 133(20): 4045 - 4051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |