4.6 Article

Nonsense Codons Trigger an RNA Partitioning Shift

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 284, 期 7, 页码 4062-4072

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M805193200

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM058595]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

T-cell receptor-beta (TCR beta) genes naturally acquire premature termination codons (PTCs) as a result of programmed gene rearrangements. PTC-bearing TCR beta transcripts are dramatically down-regulated to protect T-cells from the deleterious effects of the truncated proteins that would otherwise be produced. Here we provide evidence that two responses collaborate to elicit this dramatic down-regulation. One is rapid mRNA decay triggered by the nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) RNA surveillance pathway. We demonstrate that this occurs in highly purified nuclei lacking detectable levels of three different cytoplasmic markers, but containing an outer nuclear membrane marker, suggesting that decay occurs either in the nucleoplasm or at the outer nuclear membrane. The second response is a dramatic partitioning shift in the nuclear fraction-to-cytoplasmic fraction mRNA ratio that results in few TCR beta transcripts escaping to the cytoplasmic fraction of cells. Analysis of TCR beta mRNA kinetics after either transcriptional repression or induction suggested that this nonsense codon-induced partitioning shift ( NIPS) response is not the result of cytoplasmic NMD but instead reflects retention of PTC+ TCR beta mRNA in the nuclear fraction of cells. We identified TCR beta sequences crucial for NIPS but found that NIPS is not exclusively a property of TCR beta transcripts, and we identified non-TCR beta sequences that elicit NIPS. RNA interference experiments indicated that NIPS depends on the NMD factors UPF1 and eIF4AIII but not the NMD factor UPF3B. We propose that NIPS collaborates with NMD to retain and degrade a subset of PTC+ transcripts at the outer nuclear membrane and/or within the nucleoplasm.

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

4.6
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