4.8 Article

Two Arabidopsis Loci Encode Novel Eukaryotic Initiation Factor 4E Isoforms That Are Functionally Distinct from the Conserved Plant Eukaryotic Initiation Factor 4E

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 164, 期 4, 页码 1820-1830

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1104/pp.113.227785

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [MCB1052530, Arabidopsis 2010 S-0000335]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Canonical translation initiation in eukaryotes begins with the Eukaryotic Initiation Factor 4F (eIF4F) complex, made up of eIF4E, which recognizes the 7-methylguanosine cap of messenger RNA, and eIF4G, which serves as a scaffold to recruit other translation initiation factors that ultimately assemble the 80S ribosome. Many eukaryotes have secondary EIF4E genes with divergent properties. The model plant Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) encodes two such genes in tandem loci on chromosome 1, EIF4E1B (At1g29550) and EIF4E1C (At1g29590). This work identifies EIF4E1B/EIF4E1C-type genes as a Brassicaceae-specific diverged form of EIF4E. There is little evidence for EIF4E1C gene expression; however, the EIF4E1B gene appears to be expressed at low levels in most tissues, though microarray and RNA Sequencing data support enrichment in reproductive tissue. Purified recombinant eIF4E1b and eIF4E1c proteins retain cap-binding ability and form functional complexes in vitro with eIF4G. The eIF4E1b/eIF4E1c-type proteins support translation in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) but promote translation initiation in vitro at a lower rate compared with eIF4E. Findings from surface plasmon resonance studies indicate that eIF4E1b and eIF4E1c are unlikely to bind eIF4G in vivo when in competition with eIF4E. This study concludes that eIF4E1b/eIF4E1c-type proteins, although bona fide cap-binding proteins, have divergent properties and, based on apparent limited tissue distribution in Arabidopsis, should be considered functionally distinct from the canonical plant eIF4E involved in translation initiation.

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