![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 21, 18545-18551, May 24, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the
Received for publication, January 30, 2002, and in revised form, March 5, 2002
eEF1A, the eukaryotic homologue of bacterial
elongation factor Tu, is a well characterized translation elongation
factor responsible for delivering aminoacyl-tRNAs to the A-site at the
ribosome. Here we show for the first time that eEF1A also associates
with the nascent chain distal to the peptidyltransferase center. This is demonstrated for a variety of nascent chains of different lengths and sequences. Interestingly, unlike other ribosome-associated factors,
eEF1A also interacts with polypeptides after their release from the
ribosome. We demonstrate that eEF1A does not bind to correctly folded
full-length proteins but interacts specifically with proteins that are
unable to fold correctly in a cytosolic environment. This association
was demonstrated both by photo-cross-linking and by a functional
refolding assay.
Newly synthesized proteins first encounter the crowded cytosolic
environment where total protein concentrations can be as high as 500 mg/ml (1, 2) when they are still nascent chains (NCs)1 being translated on
the ribosome. These NCs then have to find their way to their proper
destination (3) and adopt the one correct conformation of the many that
are possible (4) while avoiding inappropriate interactions with other
cytosolic proteins. To ensure fidelity in this highly complex process,
eukaryotic cells contain sophisticated targeting and translocation
machinery for the transport of proteins to different intracellular
destinations and a system of chaperones and chaperonins to help the
protein fold correctly. Both protein transport and folding have been
major topics of research for the last decade, and we have a fairly
detailed understanding of both processes (4-9). Nevertheless, recent
findings demonstrate that up to 50% of all newly synthesized
polypeptides are immediately degraded and emphasize how error prone and
complicated the synthesis and maturation of proteins actually must be
(10, 11).
Many of the proteins that oversee the maturation of newly synthesized
polypeptides associate with the ribosome during growth of the NC. To
the best of our knowledge, nascent polypeptide-associated complex (NAC)
is the first non-ribosomal protein that the growing NC encounters. Its
major function is to shield the NC from premature encounters as it
emerges from the ribosome. NAC is also involved in regulating ribosome
binding to the endoplasmic reticulum membrane (12-14) and in
mitochondrial protein import (15, 16).
As the NC lengthens, NAC binding can be competed by other
ribosome-associated factors (RAFs) such as signal recognition particle (SRP). NAC, which is highly abundant, has a low affinity for the ribosome nascent-chain complexes (RNCs), regardless of which NC is
being translated. Unlike NAC, SRP is of low abundance (~20 nM) but has high affinity (Kd
~10 Many proteins that remain in the cytosol must bind to chaperones such
as HSP70/40 to avoid inappropriate aggregation and acquire the correct
conformation. Chaperones may be able to bind to NCs as they emerge from
the ribosome but clearly can also associate with proteins
post-translationally and can also protect proteins that are denatured
under conditions of stress. Members of the HSP70 family of chaperones
are also involved in post-translational transport of proteins into the
ER and mitochondria (7, 8, 18).
Several of the known RAFs, including SRP and NAC, were initially
characterized as associating with NCs by demonstrating that they could
be photo-cross-linked to NCs (19, 20). Here, we identify and
characterize a 50-kDa RAF as eEF1A. eEF1A is implicated in several
cellular processes. It is well known to play a principal role in
translation by catalyzing GTP-dependent binding of
aminoacyl-tRNA to the A-site at the ribosome. eEF1A has also been
demonstrated to bind actin (21) and to sever microtubules, a
prerequisite for cytoskeletal rearrangements that occur during the cell
cycle (22). Here we show that eEF1A binds to RNCs and to unfolded polypeptides that are no longer associated with the ribosome but not to
correctly folded proteins. Based on these data as well as previous
reports that eEF1A stimulates ubiquitin-dependent degradation of N-acetylated proteins (23), we suggest that
eEF1A may also play a role in quality surveillance of newly synthesized proteins.
Plasmids--
The truncated polypeptides and full-length
proteins used in these studies are summarized in
Table I, which notes the positions of all
methionines and lysines and the restriction enzymes used to produce the
truncated templates. Firefly luciferase (ffLuc) polypeptides are
encoded by the plasmid pT3-luciferase, a gift of Dr. M. Strauss.
Wild-type bovine pre-prolactin (pPL) is encoded by pSPBP4, whereas
pPL-M is encoded by pGEM4-PPL/SSKO, and they are gifts of Drs. P. Walter and B. Dobberstein, respectively. In pPL-M, the signal peptide
has been altered by three aa substitutions (leucine 15 to proline,
valine 19 to glutamic acid, and leucine 23 to arginine) that destroy
its ability to bind SRP. pPL-MN was constructed starting with
pPL-N, the kind gift of Drs. W. Mothes and T. A. Rapoport (24).
pPL-N encodes pPL in which every lysine codon has been mutated to an
arginine or asparagine as follows: lysines 4, 9, 72, and 78 to arginine
and lysines 99, 136, and 154 to asparagine. To make pPL-MN, the DNA
encoding the signal sequence (aa 1-30) of pPL-N was excised and
replaced with the corresponding sequence from pPL-M. As seen in Table
I, this produced a plasmid-encoding pPL with lysines only at positions
4 and 9 and additionally with a non-functional signal sequence.
In Vitro Transcription, Translation, and Cross-linking
Assay--
In vitro transcription and translation of
truncated mRNAs are as described elsewhere (20, 25). Truncated
mRNAs were produced by in vitro transcription with SP6
or T7 polymerase after linearization of the plasmid with the
appropriate restriction enzyme. In vitro translation was
performed using rabbit reticulocyte lysate (26) for 20 min at 26 °C,
a temperature that best preserves the RNC complexes. Translation
reactions included 1 mCi/ml [35S]methionine (specific
activity ~1000 Ci/mmol, Amersham Biosciences) and
4-[3-(trifluoromethyl)diazirino] benzoic acid-lysyl-tRNA as described
in detail by Görlich et al. (27). In general, the translation initiation was allowed to proceed for 5 min and then be
blocked by the addition of aurintricarboxylic acid and
7-methylguanosine-5'-monophosphate (Sigma) to 75 µM and 2 mM, respectively, followed by further incubation at
26 °C for 15 min. The only exception was the experiment shown in
Fig. 5A in which the inhibitors were added after 3 min to
concentrations of 50 µM and 1.8 mM. The
addition of inhibitors of initiation effectively synchronized
the translations and uniformly produced NCs translated to the limit of
the truncated mRNA. The reactions were stopped on ice, irradiated
when indicated, and then treated with RNase A and analyzed on 6%
NuPAGE Bis-Tris gel in MES buffer and visualized by
autoradiography (XAR-5, Eastman Kodak Co.) except as noted.
Isolation of the High Salt-stripped Nascent Chains and
Cross-linking Assay--
To strip RAFs from ribosomes, translation
reactions were diluted into 10 volumes of ice-cold high salt buffer
(50 mM HEPES-KOH, pH 7.5, 700 mM potassium
acetate, 5 mM magnesium acetate, 1 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), and 0.4 units/µl placental RNase inhibitor). After 10-min incubation at 4 °C, samples were isolated by
centrifugation (100,000 rpm at 4 °C for 20 min, TLA 120.1 rotor,
Beckman) through a high salt-sucrose cushion (0.5 M sucrose
in high salt buffer). The ratio of the volumes of sucrose cushion to
sample was ~2:1. RNCs were resuspended in one-volume translation
blank buffer (50 mM HEPES-KOH, pH 7.5, 100 mM
potassium acetate, 5 mM magnesium acetate, 1 mM
DTT, protease inhibitor mixture as described by Erickson and Blobel
(28), and 0.4 units/µl placental RNase inhibitor), and the high salt
stripping was repeated as described above to completely remove
associated proteins. The isolated high salt-stripped RNCs were
incubated at 26 °C for 5 min with buffer A (50 mM
HEPES-KOH, pH 7.5, 50 mM potassium acetate, 5 mM magnesium acetate, and 1 mM DTT), rabbit
reticulocyte lysate (precipitated with 66% ammonium sulfate and
dialyzed against buffer A), or purified protein in buffer A
supplemented with RNase inhibitor and protease inhibitors.
Release of Polypeptide Chains from the Ribosome--
RNCs were
incubated on ice for 30 min with 2 mM puromycin and then at
26 °C for 10 min with 0.1 mg/ml RNase A to release the newly
synthesized polypeptides. After treatment, the reaction mixture was
centrifuged (100,000 rpm at 4 °C for 20 min, TLA 120.1 rotor)
through a low salt-sucrose cushion (0.5 M sucrose in
translation blank buffer) to separate ribosomes (pellet) from released
polypeptides and RAFs (supernatant).
Purification of eEF1A--
eEF1A was isolated from rabbit
reticulocyte lysate prepared as described previously (26). After
sedimentation of the ribosomes by centrifugation for 60 min at 100,000 rpm in a Beckman rotor TLA 100.4, proteins were precipitated with 66%
ammonium sulfate, dialyzed against buffer A overnight, and applied to a
Q-Sepharose column (Amersham Biosciences). The flow-through was applied
to an S-Sepharose column (Amersham Biosciences) and eluted with a linear gradient of 10-1000 mM potassium acetate in buffer
A. A single protein was obtained at 390-450 mM potassium
acetate concentration. The protein was dialyzed against 15% glycerol
in buffer A. From 35 ml of rabbit reticulocyte lysate, 200 µg of
purified eEF1A was obtained.
Recombinant Protein Expression and Purification--
A plasmid
encoding a GST-eEF1A fusion protein is a generous gift of J. Condeelis
(29). Escherichia coli DH5 Luciferase Refolding Assay--
Firefly luciferase (10 µM) (Promega) was denatured in 6 M
guanidinium-HCl, 30 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, and 2 mM DTT at 25 °C for 1 h. For refolding assays,
denatured luciferase was diluted 200-fold into refolding buffer (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.2, 50 mM KCl, 3 mM
MgCl2, and 2 mM DTT), supplemented as indicated
in Fig. 6. The rabbit reticulocyte lysate contained ATP, GTP,
and creatine kinase and creatine phosphate (Promega). After incubation
at 30 °C for the indicated times, 20-µl aliquots were diluted
5-fold into luciferase assay reagent. Luciferase activities were
measured using a Promega luciferase assay kit according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
RAFs can be identified by their ability to co-fractionate with
ribosomes under physiological salt conditions. We are interested specifically in a subset of these RAFs, which physically interact with
NCs emerging from the ribosome. Previously, we and others have
identified several proteins to be in contact with NCs including SRP,
DnaJ, NAC, and Ssb (17, 19, 20, 30, 31). Our approach was to
combine the co-purification of RAFs with a site-specific photo-cross-linking technology where the cross-linker is positioned in
a known position of the growing polypeptide chain (for review see Ref.
27). This technique to probe the environment of the NC for RAFs
requires the formation of a stable RNC with photoactivatable cross-linker in the NC followed by UV irradiation to activate the
cross-linking reagent. To accomplish this task, a truncated mRNA is
generated in vitro using restriction enzyme-cut DNA as template (25) and then translated in the presence of
[35S]methionine and lysyl-tRNA derivatized with
4-[3-(trifluoromethyl)diazirino] benzoic acid at the The experiment illustrated in Fig. 1 used
a truncated mRNA-encoding 169 aa pPL-MN, which carries only two
lysines at positions 4 and 9 (see Table
I). At this distance from the
peptidyltransferase center, NAC is not efficiently cross-linked to NCs.
Instead, we observed two major cross-linked products of ~70 and 140 kDa representing cross-linking partners of ~50 and 120 kDa,
respectively. The focus of this study is the identification and
characterization of the 50-kDa protein.
By definition, RAFs but not components of the ribosome are removed by
treatment with high salt. The separation of the RNCs from released
factors is accomplished by incubation of the translation mixture with
high salt followed by centrifugation over a high salt-sucrose cushion
(see "Materials and Methods"). Such high salt stripping of 169 aa
pPL-MN RNCs greatly reduced the intensity of both cross-linking
products to the level of the non-irradiated control (Fig. 1, compare
lanes 1 and 4). The addition of rabbit reticulocyte lysate to the high salt-stripped RNCs before irradiation restored the cross-link to the 50- and 120-kDa proteins (Fig. 1,
compare lanes 2 and 5). Collectively, these
results indicate that the 50- and 120-kDa proteins are salt-extractable
proteins and can rebind to the 169 aa pPL-MN NC after extraction. The
rebinding of the 50-kDa protein provided an assay that we have used for its purification.
Purification of 50-kDa NC Associated Protein--
The 50-kDa
protein that cross-links to 169 aa pPL-MN NC was purified from rabbit
reticulocyte lysate as follows. The supernatant from a high speed
centrifugation to sediment the ribosomes was precipitated with 66%
ammonium sulfate, dialyzed, and applied to a Q-Sepharose column. The
flow-through, which contained the 50-kDa cross-linking partner (Fig.
2A), was applied to an
S-Sepharose column and eluted with a gradient of potassium acetate
(10-1000 mM, the fraction shown is 390-450
mM). Fig. 2A, lanes 1-4, shows the
silver stain of the protein pattern after SDS-PAGE for the different
purification steps. In addition, samples were assayed for cross-linking
to 169 aa pPL-MN NCs as shown in Fig. 2A, lanes 5-10. High salt-stripped RNCs irradiated in buffer alone (Fig. 2A, lane 6) show that the removal of the 50-kDa
cross-linking partner was efficient. Fig. 2A, lane
10, shows the cross-linking products obtained with the active
fractions from the S-Sepharose columns. The only major cross-link
observed is at 70 kDa, indicating a 50-kDa cross-linking partner. The
faint band at ~120 kDa is most probable a double cross-link to this
protein. The active fraction from the S-Sepharose chromatography
analyzed by SDS-PAGE revealed a single band of 50 kDa (Fig.
2A, lane 4). Mass spectrometry of seven peptides
obtained from the excised protein from the SDS gel identified the
purified protein as eEF1A. The experimental data found are in good
agreement with the predicted sizes shown in parentheses (in daltons):
466.2 (466.25), 537.2 (537.29), 652.3 (652.32), 765.4 (765.40), 878.4 (878.48), 979.5 (979.53), and 1078.6 (1078.60). However, the
possibility remained that eEF1A, an abundant cytosolic protein, is
contaminated by another protein that is the actual cross-linking
partner. To rule out this possibility, we purified recombinant eEF1A
expressed as a GST fusion protein in E. coli (see
"Materials and Methods") and assayed it for cross-linking to 169 aa
pPL-MN NCs. We found that both GST-eEF1A fusion protein and eEF1A
produced by limited thrombin digestion of the fusion protein were able
to cross-link to the 169 aa pPL-MN NC (Fig. 2B). These data
prove that it is indeed eEF1A that interacts with the RNCs.
eEF1A Associates with a Wide Range of Nascent Chains--
We next
examined whether eEF1A can interact with other NCs of varying lengths
and amino acid sequences. Both purified eEF1A and rabbit reticulocyte
lysate were assayed for the production of cross-links to the following
NCs: 85 and 221 aa eEF1A Associates with Unfolded Polypeptide Chains Released from the
Ribosome--
To test this idea, high salt-stripped 133 aa
It has been shown previously that most RAFs interacting with NCs do so
only in the context of the ribosome. The experiments described above
for Fig. 4 indicate that eEF1A is in this way different and confirm
that other RAFs do not cross-link to released polypeptides. NCs
cross-link to a variety of RAFs including eEF1A and
The experiments described above establish that eEF1A can bind both to
NCs and to released polypeptides, but they shed no light on the
possible function of eEF1A in this context. We next tested the time
dependence of the interaction using full-length transcripts encoding
two different proteins, ffLuc and pPL-M (Fig.
5), to further explore the interaction of
eEF1A with polypeptides. pPL-M harbors three-point mutations in the
signal peptide of pPL, which prevents the protein from interacting with
SRP, and consequently blocks its secretion from cells. During its
folding in the lumen of the ER, prolactin forms three disulfide
bridges, which cannot be formed in the cytosolic environment. This is
one reason why pPL-M cannot fold correctly under the conditions
provided by the reticulocyte translation system. In contrast, ffLuc, a
peroxisomal protein, is able to fold in reticulocyte lysate as
demonstrated by its acquisition of enzymatic activity (30).
Synchronized translations were sampled at intervals up to 44 min
(including a 3-min initiation time, see "Materials and Methods") and assayed for cross-links to translated proteins released by normal
termination from the ribosome. Fig. 5A shows that
full-length ffLuc, readily apparent in the supernatant starting from
the 14-min time point, shows no major cross-linking product. This is
also the time when enzymatic activity is first observed (30). In contrast, full-length pPL-M, first detected in the supernatant at the
7-min time point, displays a major cross-linking band of ~70 kDa,
indicating the association of pPL-M with eEF1A (Fig. 5B,
asterisk). This experiment demonstrates that eEF1A interacts with the unfolded pPL-M protein but not with the correctly folded ffLuc.
eEF1A Mediates the Refolding of Firefly Luciferase--
The
ability to associate with unfolded polypeptide chains after their
release from the ribosome is reminiscent of chaperones, a class of
proteins that have refolding activity when assayed on denatured
proteins. In addition, it has been established that the prokaryotic
homologue of eEF1A has chaperone-like activity (33, 34). This finding,
together with our observation that eEF1A only interacts with proteins
that are unable to fold in the cytosolic environment, suggests that
eEF1A may be able to refold proteins. To test this hypothesis, we asked
whether eEF1A could mediate the refolding of chemically denatured
ffLuc. ffLuc was denatured in the presence of 6 M
guanidinium-HCl and allowed to refold upon dilution of the denaturant
in the absence or presence of purified eEF1A. Refolding was followed by
assaying the luciferase enzymatic activity (see "Materials and
Methods"). A time course shown in Fig
6A demonstrated that maximum
refolding is complete by 20-30 min. In this experiment, both eEF1A and
the GST-eEF1A fusion protein at 130 nM were able to restore
~30% native ffLuc activity compared with ~5% spontaneous
refolding on dilution into buffer alone or buffer containing 200 nM GST. Refolding was also concentration-dependent with as little as 10 nM
eEF1A restoring 12% ffLuc activity. Maximum activity of ~35%
control required 150-180 nM eEF1A. This concentration of
eEF1A is present in 5% rabbit reticulocyte lysate (100% rabbit
reticulocyte lysate is ~2.5 µM eEF1A), and indeed 150 nM eEF1A, 180 nM GST-eEF1A, and 5% RRL all
produce a comparable degree of refolding of ffLuc at ~35% (Fig.
6C). Although this is the maximum degree of refolding seen
with eEF1A at any concentration, increased concentrations of RRL (up to
30%) restore additional ffLuc activity to a maximum of 60%. As a
negative control, 150 nM IgG, an irrelevant protein, did
not significantly restore ffLuc activity. Because most chaperones are
ATP-dependent, we next tested whether eEF1A-stimulated
refolding of ffLuc requires a source of energy. Refolding in the
presence of GST-eEF1A was not affected by the addition of GTP, GDP,
GTP Macromolecular crowding in the cytosolic environment necessitates
protection of the growing NC as it is translated on the ribosome (2,
4). In addition, some NCs require specific covalent modifications
and/or targeting to an organelle such as endoplasmic reticulum,
mitochondria, chloroplast, peroxisomes, or the nucleus (3). Finally,
although translation is remarkably error-free (one mistake in 10,000 aa
(35)), rigorous quality control at the co-translational and
post-translational stages is essential to remove protein that for
whatever reason cannot attain its functional state. In fact, it has
recently been found that in eukaryotic cells, up to 50% of newly
translated proteins are immediately degraded (10, 11). Many of the
above functions are implemented by RAFs. A physical association of NCs
with several RAFs including SRP, NAC, and Ssb was initially
demonstrated by using in vitro transcription/translation
systems in combination with a site-specific photo-cross-linking
approach (for example review Refs. 19, 20, and 31).
In this report, we identify and characterize a 50-kDa protein that
cross-links to a wide variety of NCs as eEF1A, an elongation factor
with a well known function in translation, i.e. delivering aminoacyl-tRNAs to the A-site at the ribosome. This is the first report
that eEF1A binds to NCs and additionally to released polypeptides. We
have demonstrated the latter point in two distinct ways, a functional
assay (i.e. refolding of a denatured protein) and an assay
of direct physical association (i.e. cross-linking).
Although eEF1A was found to bind to a variety of different NCs (Fig.
3), its binding to released proteins was more selective. As assayed by
cross-linking, eEF1A binds to pPL-M (Fig. 5B), a protein
that cannot fold correctly under the conditions of the in
vitro translation system but not to ffLuc (Fig. 5A), a
cytosolic protein that does fold correctly. However, eEF1A is in
contact with ffLuc NCs (see Fig. 3), and it can be inferred from eEF1A
stimulation of ffLuc refolding (Fig. 6) that it also binds to unfolded
ffLuc. In addition, a truncated A released polypeptide has previously been observed to cross-link to a
50-kDa protein, but the identity of the protein was not determined. In
this study, Plath and Rapoport (36) performed cross-linking experiments
using yeast pre-pro- It is worth noting that the binding of eEF1A to NCs is clearly at a
site distal from the peptidyltransferase center in which eEF1A is known
to deliver charged tRNAs necessary for the elongation of the NC. The
experimental basis for this is as follows. 1) eEF1A cross-links to both
86 aa and 169 aa pPL-MN, which have lysines for cross-linking only at
positions 4 and 9, over 76 aa away from the peptidyltransferase center
(Figs. 1 and 3B). 2) eEF1A cross-links more efficiently to
longer than shorter NCs (Fig. 3, A and B). 3)
Full-length pPL-M naturally released from the ribosome also cross-links
to eEF1A (Fig. 5B). These results point to a novel function
for eEF1A that is distinct from the delivery of aminoacyl-tRNA.
It has been shown before that EF-Tu, the bacterial homologue of eEF1A,
has chaperone-like activity (33, 34). We demonstrate here that eEF1A
also has chaperone-like activity, and that half-maximal refolding of
denatured ffLuc occurs at a molar ratio of ~1:2 of substrate to eEF1A
(Fig. 6B). This finding compares well with ratios of 1:1 to
1:10 discovered for rhodanese to EF-Tu or citrate synthase to EF-Tu,
respectively. In contrast, HSP70 acts at a ratio of 1:50 (37).
eEF1A and EF-Tu both bind GTP, which must be hydrolyzed for bound
aminoacyl-tRNA to be released at the ribosome. An exchange of the bound
GDP for a new molecule of GTP requires an accessory protein, eEF1B It is well recognized that post-translational triage of unfolded or
damaged protein can result in rescue by chaperones or in targeting for
degradation by proteases (39). Previous studies have shown that eEF1A
could stimulate ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis of histone
H2A, actin, and We thank Drs. P. Tempst and H. Erdjument-Bromage (Protein Center of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center) for performing the mass spectrometry and Dr. Shu Wang for the
plasmid construction. We appreciate the contribution of Colleen
Aitchison, Russell C. Michael, and John Naughton, especially during the
final stages of manuscript preparation.
*
This work was supported in part by fellowships from the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (to B. B. and K. v. L.), the
Sloan-Kettering Institute (to M. W.), National Institutes of Health
Grant GM50920-01 (to M. W.), and a grant-in-aid from the Ministry of
Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan.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: Cellular Biochemistry
and Biophysics Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10021. Tel.: 212-639-8549; Fax: 212-717-3604;
E-mail: m-wiedmann@ski.mskcc.org.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 13, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M201022200
The abbreviations used are:
NC, nascent
chain;
NAC, nascent polypeptide-associated complex;
RAF, ribosome-associated factor;
SRP, signal recognition particle;
RNC, ribosome nascent-chain complex;
ffLuc, firefly luciferase;
aa, amino
acids;
EF-Tu, elongation factor Tu;
eEF1A, eukaryotic elongation factor
1A, formerly known as EF1
Interaction of the Eukaryotic Elongation Factor 1A with Newly
Synthesized Polypeptides*
§,
,
¶,
,
,
,
**
Cellular Biochemistry and Biophysics
Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
10021, the § Department of Radiology and Cancer Biology and
the ¶ Department of Orthodontics, Nagasaki University School of
Dentistry, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8588, Japan, and
Institut für Kristallographie, Freie Universität
Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
10 M) specifically for the hydrophobic
residues present in a signal peptide (17). SRP binding is essential for
co-translational translocation into the lumen of the ER and entrance of
proteins into the secretory pathway (6).
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Protein nomenclature and positions of relevant amino acids
cells were transformed with
this plasmid, and a 2-liter culture in 2× YT was incubated at
room temperature until it reached an optical density of 0.8 (600 nm)
followed by the addition of
isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside to 0.2 mM. After 7-8 h, the cells were collected by
centrifugation, resuspended in 100 ml of buffer (50 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 300 mM KCl, 15% glycerol, 1% Triton
X-100, 1 mM DTT, and protease inhibitor), and broken by one
pass through an Avestin cell disrupter (Ottawa, Canada) at greater than
10,000 p.s.i. After centrifugation of the lysate at 12,000 rpm for 10 min in a SA600 rotor (Sorvall), the resulting supernatant was spun at
35,000 rpm in a Ti45 rotor (Beckman) for 60 min. The supernatant was
then incubated overnight at 4 °C with 2 ml of glutathione-Sepharose
4B beads (Amersham Biosciences). After centrifugation and wash, the
beads were resuspended in 1 ml of glutathione elution buffer (Amersham
Biosciences) and incubated at room temperature for 10 min to elute the
GST-eEF1A fusion protein from the beads. Finally, the beads were
sedimented, and the GST-eEF1A fusion protein was recovered from the
supernatant. To cleave the GST from eEF1A, the GST-eEF1A protein was
treated with thrombin (4 units/ml) and incubated at room temperature
for 16 h. Thrombin was inactivated by the addition of
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (1 mM) and AEBSF (0.5 mM) for 30 min followed by dialysis against buffer A
containing 15% glycerol. Recombinant eEF1A protein was recovered from
the supernatant after incubation of the mixture with
glutathione-Sepharose 4B beads.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-amino group
of the lysine. In the absence of a stop codon on the mRNA, the NC
remains stably associated with the ribosome. Subsequent photoactivation
by UV irradiation results in the formation of a highly reactive carbene
on the derivatized lysines. The chemical instability of the carbene
ensures that only molecules closely associated with the NC will be
cross-linked. The high specificity of this photo-cross-linking approach
comes with the disadvantage that this reagent also rapidly reacts with water molecules, generally resulting in a low efficiency of
cross-linking (32) especially for ribosome-associated molecules with
fast on and off rates of binding.

View larger version (56K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
A 50-kDa protein associates with 169 aa
pPL-MN nascent chains. 169 aa pPL-MN RNCs were either irradiated
with UV (lanes 2, 4, and 5) or not
irradiated (lanes 1 and 3). RNCs were stripped of
RAFs with high salt and then incubated with buffer A (lanes
3 and 4) or 2 µl of rabbit reticulocyte lysate in a
total volume of 12 µl (lane 5) prior to irradiation.
Molecular masses in kDa are indicated on the left.

View larger version (46K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
The 50-kDa protein that associates with 169 aa pPL-MN NCs is eEF1A. A, protein fractions from the
purification of eEF1A from rabbit reticulocyte lysate were analyzed in
parallel by separation on a 10% SDS-PAGE (Laemmli, 1970)
visualized by silver staining (lanes1-4) or by the standard
cross-linking assay (lanes 5-10). The cross-linking assay
employed high salt-stripped 169 aa pPL-MN RNCs (lanes 5-10)
incubated with buffer A (lanes 5 and 6) or
protein fractions (lanes 7-10) prior to irradiation or as a
negative control without irradiation (lane 5). Protein
fractions are RRL depleted of ribosome by sedimentation (lanes
1 and 7), 66% w/v ammonium sulfate fraction
(lanes 2 and 8), Q-Sepharose flow-through
(lanes 3 and 9), and the active fraction eluted
from S-Sepharose (lanes 4 and 10). B,
recombinant GST-eEF1A fusion protein was analyzed after elution
from glutathione-Sepharose (lanes 1 and 3) or
after limited thrombin cleavage (lanes 2 and 4)
by 10% SDS-PAGE and silver staining of the gel (lanes 1 and
2) or by cross-linking (lanes 3 and 4)
and autoradiography as described above. Molecular masses in kDa are
indicated on the left.
-actin (Fig. 3A), 86 and 169 aa pPL-MN
(Fig. 3B), and 77 and 197 aa ffLuc (Fig. 3C).
Purified eEF1A cross-linked to all NCs tested (Fig. 3, A-C, lanes 2 and 5, arrow). In general, the
incubation of RNCs with rabbit reticulocyte lysate also produced the
cross-linking product expected of eEF1A (Fig. 3, A-C,
lane 6, and C, lane 3,
arrow). However, in two cases, 85 aa
-actin (Fig.
3A, lane 3) and 86 aa pPL-MN (Fig. 3B,
lane 3), the expected band was faint, but the longer
versions of the same NCs 169 aa pPL-MN and 221aa
-actin did
cross-link efficiently with eEF1A in the reticulocyte lysate. Given
that the shorter NCs cross-linked to purified eEF1A, this finding
suggests that other components in the reticulocyte lysate may compete
for binding to the NCs and that eEF1A competes better for binding to
the longer NCs. In agreement with this hypothesis, rabbit
reticulocyte lysate (RRL) incubated with NCs clearly yields other
cross-linked products such as
NAC for 85 aa
-actin (Fig. 3A, lane 3), p120 for 86 aa pPL-MN (Fig.
3B, lane 3), and both NAC subunits and p120 for
ffLuc (Fig. 3C, lane 3). In some cases, the
decreased intensity of the cross-link to eEF1A for the shorter NC may
be because of fewer lysines available for cross-linking. For example,
85 aa
-actin has only five lysines compared with 10 lysines in 221aa
-actin (see Table I). However, this is not the case for pPL-MN,
which has only two lysines at positions 4 and 9, the same for 86 aa
pPL-MN as for 169 aa pPL-MN. This finding suggests that eEF1A may be
more effective than other factors at binding to the distal end of the
NC where it is no longer associated with the ribosome. An extension of
this reasoning is to ask whether eEF1A can bind to newly synthesized
polypeptides even after their release from the ribosome.

View larger version (40K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Association of purified eEF1A with nascent
chains. A, 85 or 221 aa
-actin RNCs were high
salt-stripped and then incubated with buffer A (lanes 1 and
4), purified eEF1A at a concentration of 160 nM
(lane 2 and 5), or 2 µl of rabbit reticulocyte
lysate in 18 µl total assay (lane 3 and 6)
prior to UV irradiation. B, 86 and 169 aa pPL-MN RNCs were
analyzed as described above. C, 77 and 197 aa ffLuc RNCs
were analyzed as above. Arrows indicate the position of
eEF1A cross-linked to NC, whereas "
" and
"
" mark the cross-links to both subunits of NAC and
"p" marks the cross-links to p120. Molecular masses in
kDa are indicated on the left.
-actin
RNCs were incubated with purified eEF1A or rabbit reticulocyte lysate, depleted of ribosomes. Puromycin and RNase A were then added to release
the NCs from the ribosome. After centrifugation through a high
salt-sucrose cushion, the ribosomes with bound NCs were obtained in the
pellet, and the released NCs together with the RAFs were recovered from
the supernatant. Both fractions were collected and then irradiated in
parallel. Without puromycin or RNase A, very few NCs were released from
the ribosome, and consequently, neither
-actin nor a cross-linked
band was detected in the supernatant fraction (Fig.
4, lanes 4 and 8).
In the presence of puromycin and RNase A, a larger fraction of NCs was
released from the ribosome, and a band of puromycin-released 133 aa
-actin cross-linked to eEF1A was detected in the supernatant
fraction (Fig. 4, lanes 5 and 9). Note that more
than half of the released 133 aa
-actin polypeptide cross-links to
eEF1A regardless of whether purified protein (Fig. 4, lane
5) or reticulocyte lysate (Fig. 4, lane 9) was used.
These results indicate that eEF1A still associates with polypeptide
chains even after their release from the ribosome. Similar results were
obtained when the NCs were first released and then eEF1A was added
(data not shown).

View larger version (51K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Association of purified eEF1A to polypeptide
chains released from the ribosome. 133 aa
-actin RNCs were high
salt-stripped and then incubated with buffer A (lane 1), 160 nM purified eEF1A (lanes 2-5), or 3 µl of RRL
in 18 µl total assay (lanes 6-9) for 5 min at 26 °C.
Puromycin and RNase A were added as indicated, and then ribosomes and
released polypeptide chains were obtained as pellet (p) and
supernatant (s), respectively, after centrifugation (see
"Materials and Methods") and subjected to UV irradiation. Molecular
masses in kDa are indicated on the left.
- and
-NAC
and p120 (Fig. 4, compare lanes 1 and 6). As expected, the other RAFs such as NAC and p120 are not seen
cross-linking to puromycin-released
-actin (Fig. 4, lane
9), consistent with previous findings (20).

View larger version (68K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
eEF1A binds to pPL-M but not to ffLuc after
their release from the ribosome. Synchronized translations of
ffLuc (A) or pPL-M (B) were stopped by the
addition of cycloheximide to a final concentration of 5 mM
at time points indicated on top of the gel. After UV
irradiation or no irradiation (lane 12 in A and
lane 10 in B), RNCs were removed by sedimentation
(see "Materials and Methods"), and the supernatants were analyzed
by 10% SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. Asterisk indicates the
position of eEF1A cross-linked to pPL-M. Molecular masses in kDa are
indicated on the left.
S, ATP, or apyrase (Fig. 6D and data not shown). Taken
together, these results show that eEF1A has chaperone-like
activity.

View larger version (39K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Purified eEF1A mediates refolding of
denatured ffLuc. A, denatured ffLuc was diluted into
refolding buffer containing 130 nM GST-eEF1A, 130 nM eEF1A, or 200 nM GST (see "Materials and
Methods") and incubated at 30 °C for the indicated time. Enzyme
activity was expressed as a percentage of the maximum of native enzyme
control. B, refolding buffer contained the indicated
concentration of eEF1A or GST-eEF1A. Enzyme activity was measured after
incubation at 30 °C for 60 min and expressed as a percentage of the
native enzyme control. C, refolding buffer contained no
additional protein (buffer) or the indicated concentrations of purified
proteins or rabbit reticulocyte lysate. Enzyme activity was measured
after 60 min as described above. The data represent the average of
three independent refolding reactions. D, refolding buffer
contained no additional protein (a) or 40 nM purified
GST-eEF1A alone (b) or were supplemented with the indicated
nucleotide at 1 mM. c, GTP; d, GDP;
e, guanosine 5'-3-O-(thio)triphosphate
(GTP
S); and f, ATP. Enzyme activity was
measured and reported as described above. Similar results were obtained
at a concentration of 20 nM GST-eEF1A.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-actin released from the ribosome
with puromycin cross-links to eEF1A (Fig. 4). Taken together, this data
suggest that eEF1A binds primarily to unfolded or not completely folded proteins.
-factor-translated in a rabbit reticulocyte
lysate supplemented with yeast microsomes. Pre-pro-
-factor probably
does not fold efficiently in the cytosol, because it is translocated
into microsomes post-translationally. If the cross-linked 50-kDa
protein is indeed eEF1A, their result is then in agreement with our
proposal that eEF1A binds to unfolded proteins.
for the eukaryotic system and EF-Ts for prokaryotes. Our studies of
eEF1A-mediated refolding could not detect either a requirement for or
inhibition by nucleotides, nucleotide analogues, or apyrase treatment.
However, these findings for EF-Tu-assisted refolding are controversial.
Caldas et al. (33) report that the GDP-bound form of EF-Tu
is active in catalyzing refolding of citrate synthase and the GTP-bound
form is inactive, although it is not clear from their data whether
refolding requires GTP hydrolysis. In contrast, Kudlicki et
al. (34) find increased refolding of rhodanese in the presence of
GTP and inhibition by GDP or a non-hydrolyzable GTP analogue. They
further show that EF-Tu-assisted refolding is greatly stimulated by
EF-Ts in the presence of GTP to a maximum of 90% native activity. It
is possible that in our experiments GTP and GDP had no effect on ffLuc
refolding, because all of the eEF1A used was already bound to
nucleotide and our apyrase treatment was incomplete. It would then be
necessary to supplement the reaction with eEF1B
to fully resolve
this question. However, we think that it is not very likely that
chaperone activity is a major function of either EF-Tu in bacteria or
of eEF1A in eukaryotes. This is emphasized for eEF1A by our finding
that it stimulates a maximum refolding of ffLuc of only ~30%
compared with 60% obtained with rabbit reticulocyte lysate (Fig.
6C). In agreement with this finding, studies by
Frydman et al. (38) demonstrate that the majority of
chaperone activity in reticulocyte lysate is because of HSP70. In the
context of this study, the significance of eEF1A-assisted refolding of
a denatured protein is its demonstration that eEF1A binds to unfolded
protein, and we have not focused on the energy requirement of the process.
-crystalline (23). In general, the signals that
trigger ubiquitination and/or protease degradation of newly synthesized
proteins are not known. Here, we propose a model in which eEF1A may
function as a key component of such a quality control mechanism. We
suggest that once eEF1A has released its cargo of charged tRNA, it is
free to bind to the growing NC. Its binding can be successfully
competed by other RAFs including NAC, SRP, and HSP70/40. The high
concentration of cytosolic eEF1A especially close to the ribosome would
ensure that a permanent scanning of the NC is possible and eEF1A
binding would then hasten the degradation of these proteins. We will
test this hypothesis in future experiments.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
;
GST, glutathione
S-transferase;
GST-eEF1A, GST-eEF1A fusion protein;
DTT, dithiothreitol;
pPL, pre-prolactin;
MES, 4-morpholineethanesulfonic
acid;
MOPS, 4-morpholinepropanesulfonic acid;
RRL, rabbit reticulocyte
lysate.
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Möller, I.,
Beatrix, B.,
Kreibich, G.,
Sakai, H.,
Lauring, B.,
and Wiedmann, M.
(1998)
FEBS Lett
441,
1-5[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Ellis, R. J.
(2001)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
26,
597-604[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
3.
Blobel, G.
(1980)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
77,
1496-1500 4.
Naylor, D. J., and Hartl, F. U. (2001) Biochem. Soc.
Symp. 45-68
5.
Rapoport, T. A.,
Jungnickel, B.,
and Kutay, U.
(1996)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
65,
271-303[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
6.
Keenan, R. J.,
Freymann, D. M.,
Stroud, R. M.,
and Walter, P.
(2001)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
70,
755-775[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Paschen, S. A.,
and Neupert, W.
(2001)
IUBMB Life
52,
101-112[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
8.
Pfanner, N.,
and Geissler, A.
(2001)
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol.
2,
339-349[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Bukau, B.,
Deuerling, E.,
Pfund, C.,
and Craig, E. A.
(2000)
Cell
101,
119-122[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
10.
Turner, G. C.,
and Varshavsky, A.
(2000)
Science
289,
2117-2120 11.
Schubert, U.,
Anton, L. C.,
Gibbs, J.,
Norbury, C. C.,
Yewdell, J. W.,
and Bennink, J. R.
(2000)
Nature
404,
770-774[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
12.
Lauring, B.,
Kreibich, G.,
and Wiedmann, M.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
9435-9439 13.
Möller, I.,
Jung, M.,
Beatrix, B.,
Levy, R.,
Kreibich, G.,
Zimmermann, R.,
Wiedmann, M.,
and Lauring, B.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
13425-13430 14.
Beatrix, B.,
Sakai, H.,
and Wiedmann, M.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
37838-37845 15.
George, R.,
Beddoe, T.,
Landl, K.,
and Lithgow, T.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
2296-2301 16.
Fünfschilling, U.,
and Rospert, S.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
3289-3299 17.
Walter, P.,
Ibrahimi, I.,
and Blobel, G.
(1981)
J. Cell Biol.
91,
545-550 18.
Deshaies, R. J.,
Koch, B. D.,
and Schekman, R.
(1988)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
13,
384-388[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Kurzchalia, T. V.,
Wiedmann, M.,
Girshovich, A. S.,
Bochkareva, E. S.,
Bielka, H.,
and Rapoport, T. A.
(1986)
Nature
320,
634-636[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
20.
Wiedmann, B.,
Sakai, H.,
Davis, T. A.,
and Wiedmann, M.
(1994)
Nature
370,
434-440[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
21.
Condeelis, J.
(1995)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
20,
169-170[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
22.
Shiina, N.,
Gotoh, Y.,
Kubomura, N.,
Iwamatsu, A.,
and Nishida, E.
(1994)
Science
266,
282-285 23.
Gonen, H.,
Smith, C. E.,
Siegel, N. R.,
Kahana, C.,
Merrick, W. C.,
Chakraburtty, K.,
Schwartz, A. L.,
and Ciechanover, A.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
7648-7652 24.
Mothes, W.,
Prehn, S.,
and Rapoport, T. A.
(1994)
EMBO J.
13,
3973-3982[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
25.
Gilmore, R.,
Collins, P.,
Johnson, J.,
Kellaris, K.,
and Rapiejko, P.
(1991)
Methods Cell Biol.
34,
223-239[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
26.
Jackson, R. J.,
and Hunt, T.
(1983)
Methods Enzymol.
96,
50-74[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Görlich, D.,
Kurzchalia, T. V.,
Wiedmann, M.,
and Rapoport, T. A.
(1991)
Methods Cell Biol.
34,
241-262[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
28.
Erickson, A. H.,
and Blobel, G.
(1983)
Methods Enzymol.
96,
38-50[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
29.
Liu, G.,
Tang, J.,
Edmonds, B. T.,
Murray, J.,
Levin, S.,
and Condeelis, J.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
135,
953-963 30.
Hendrick, J. P.,
Langer, T.,
Davis, T. A.,
Hartl, F. U.,
and Wiedmann, M.
(1993)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
90,
10216-10220 31.
Pfund, C.,
Lopez-Hoyo, N.,
Ziegelhoffer, T.,
Schilke, B. A.,
Lopez-Buesa, P.,
Walter, W. A.,
Wiedmann, M.,
and Craig, E. A.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
3981-3989[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
32.
Brunner, J.
(1993)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
62,
483-514[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
33.
Caldas, T. D., El,
Yaagoubi, A.,
and Richarme, G.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
11478-11482 34.
Kudlicki, W.,
Coffman, A.,
Kramer, G.,
and Hardesty, B.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
32206-32210 35.
Stryer, L.
(1995)
Biochemistry
, 4th Ed.
, pp. 898-899, W. H. Freeman & Company, New York
36.
Plath, K.,
and Rapoport, T. A.
(2000)
J. Cell Biol.
151,
167-178 37.
Frydman, J.,
Nimmesgern, E.,
Erdjument-Bromage, H.,
Wall, J. S.,
Tempst, P.,
and Hartl, F. U.
(1992)
EMBO J.
11,
4767-4778[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
38.
Frydman, J.,
Nimmesgern, E.,
Ohtsuka, K.,
and Hartl, F. U.
(1994)
Nature
370,
111-117[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
39.
Wickner, S.,
Maurizi, M. R.,
and Gottesman, S.
(1999)
Science
286,
1888-1893 40.
Laemmli, U. K.
(1970)
Nature
227,
680-685[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. Zhou, J. Liu, Q. Wang, X. Liu, X. Li, P. Li, Q. Ma, and C. Cao The Nucleocapsid Protein of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Inhibits Cell Cytokinesis and Proliferation by Interacting with Translation Elongation Factor 1{alpha} J. Virol., July 15, 2008; 82(14): 6962 - 6971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. F. Raven, D. Baltzis, S. Wang, Z. Mounir, A. I. Papadakis, H. Q. Gao, and A. E. Koromilas PKR and PKR-like Endoplasmic Reticulum Kinase Induce the Proteasome-dependent Degradation of Cyclin D1 via a Mechanism Requiring Eukaryotic Initiation Factor 2{alpha} Phosphorylation J. Biol. Chem., February 8, 2008; 283(6): 3097 - 3108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. A. Kirkland, C. J. Reuter, and J. A. Maupin-Furlow Effect of proteasome inhibitor clasto-lactacystin-beta-lactone on the proteome of the haloarchaeon Haloferax volcanii Microbiology, July 1, 2007; 153(7): 2271 - 2280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. R. Gross and T. G. Kinzy Improper Organization of the Actin Cytoskeleton Affects Protein Synthesis at Initiation Mol. Cell. Biol., March 1, 2007; 27(5): 1974 - 1989. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Suzuki, T. Ueda, H. Taguchi, and N. Takeuchi Chaperone Properties of Mammalian Mitochondrial Translation Elongation Factor Tu J. Biol. Chem., February 9, 2007; 282(6): 4076 - 4084. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Belyi, R. Niggeweg, B. Opitz, M. Vogelsgesang, S. Hippenstiel, M. Wilm, and K. Aktories Legionella pneumophila glucosyltransferase inhibits host elongation factor 1A PNAS, November 7, 2006; 103(45): 16953 - 16958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||