4.8 Article

Insights into genome recoding from the mechanism of a classic+1-frameshifting tRNA

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20373-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [GM134931, GM119386]
  2. Charles H. Revson Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship in Biomedical Science [19-24]
  3. Japanese JSPS
  4. NSF [CHE-1708759]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the translation of quadruplet codons by a +1-frameshifting tRNA SufB2, revealing that SufB2 initially uses triplet anticodon-codon pairing in the 0-frame to decode the quadruplet codon before shifting to the +1-frame during tRNA-mRNA translocation. The frameshifting mechanism of SufB2 involves perturbation of a crucial ribosome conformational change, highlighting the potential for engineering specific ribosome conformational changes to enhance genome recoding efficiency.
While genome recoding using quadruplet codons to incorporate non-proteinogenic amino acids is attractive for biotechnology and bioengineering purposes, the mechanism through which such codons are translated is poorly understood. Here we investigate translation of quadruplet codons by a +1-frameshifting tRNA, SufB2, that contains an extra nucleotide in its anticodon loop. Natural post-transcriptional modification of SufB2 in cells prevents it from frameshifting using a quadruplet-pairing mechanism such that it preferentially employs a triplet-slippage mechanism. We show that SufB2 uses triplet anticodon-codon pairing in the 0-frame to initially decode the quadruplet codon, but subsequently shifts to the +1-frame during tRNA-mRNA translocation. SufB2 frameshifting involves perturbation of an essential ribosome conformational change that facilitates tRNA-mRNA movements at a late stage of the translocation reaction. Our results provide a molecular mechanism for SufB2-induced +1 frameshifting and suggest that engineering of a specific ribosome conformational change can improve the efficiency of genome recoding.

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

4.8
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