4.7 Article

The Functional Half-Life of an mRNA Depends on the Ribosome Spacing in an Early Coding Region

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 407, 期 1, 页码 35-44

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.01.025

关键词

mRNA functional half-life; ribosome spacing; gene expression; modeling

资金

  1. Danish Research Council
  2. Lundbeck foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial mRNAs are translated by closely spaced ribosomes and degraded from the 5'-end, with half-lives of around 2 min at 37 degrees C in most cases. Ribosome-free or naked mRNA is known to be readily degraded, but the initial event that inactivates the mRNA functionally has not been fully described. Here, we characterize a determinant of the functional stability of an mRNA, which is located in the early coding region. Using literature values for the mRNA half-lives of variant lacZ mRNAs in Escherichia coli, we modeled how the ribosome spacing is affected by the translation rate of the individual codons. When comparing the ribosome spacing at various segments of the mRNA to its functional half-life, we found a clear correlation between the functional mRNA half-life and the ribosome spacing in the mRNA region approximately between codon 20 and codon 45. From this finding, we predicted that inserts of slowly translated codons before codon 20 or after codon 45 should shorten or prolong, respectively, the functional mRNA half-life by altering the ribosome density in the important region. These predictions were tested on eight new lacZ variants, and their experimentally determined mRNA half-lives all supported the model. We thus suggest that translation-rate-mediated differences in the spacing between ribosomes in this early coding region is a parameter that determines the mRNAs functional half-life. We present a model that is in accordance with many earlier observations and that allows a prediction of the functional half-life of a given mRNA sequence. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据