4.7 Article

Codon bias confers stability to human mRNAs

Journal

EMBO REPORTS
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/embr.201948220

Keywords

codon bias; codon optimality; GC-content; mRNA stability; translation efficiency

Funding

  1. NIH [S10 OD018174]
  2. Bioinformatics Analysis Environment Service on RIKEN Cloud at RIKEN ACCC
  3. JSPS KAKENHI [18H05278]
  4. AMED-CREST from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  5. JSPS
  6. Joint Usage/Research Center program of Institute for Frontier Life and Medical Sciences
  7. Takeda Science Foundation
  8. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  9. JSPS [JP17H05679, JP17H04998]
  10. RIKEN
  11. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18H05278] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Codon bias has been implicated as one of the major factors contributing to mRNA stability in several model organisms. However, the molecular mechanisms of codon bias on mRNA stability remain unclear in humans. Here, we show that human cells possess a mechanism to modulate RNA stability through a unique codon bias. Bioinformatics analysis showed that codons could be clustered into two distinct groups-codons with G or C at the third base position (GC3) and codons with either A or T at the third base position (AT3): the former stabilizing while the latter destabilizing mRNA. Quantification of codon bias showed that increased GC3-content entails proportionately higher GC-content. Through bioinformatics, ribosome profiling, and in vitro analysis, we show that decoupling the effects of codon bias reveals two modes of mRNA regulation, one GC3- and one GC-content dependent. Employing an immunoprecipitation-based strategy, we identify ILF2 and ILF3 as RNA-binding proteins that differentially regulate global mRNA abundances based on codon bias. Our results demonstrate that codon bias is a two-pronged system that governs mRNA abundance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available