4.6 Article

Translation of Viral mRNA without Active eIF2: The Case of Picornaviruses

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022230

关键词

-

资金

  1. Direccion General de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnica (DGICYT) [BFU2009-07352]
  2. Fundacion Ramon Areces

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous work by several laboratories has established that translation of picornavirus RNA requires active eIF2 alpha for translation in cell free systems or after transfection in culture cells. Strikingly, we have found that encephalomyocarditis virus protein synthesis at late infection times is resistant to inhibitors that induce the phosphorylation of eIF2 alpha whereas translation of encephalomyocarditis virus early during infection is blocked upon inactivation of eIF2 alpha by phosphorylation induced by arsenite. The presence of this compound during the first hour of infection leads to a delay in the appearance of late protein synthesis in encephalomyocarditis virus-infected cells. Depletion of eIF2 alpha also provokes a delay in the kinetics of encephalomyocarditis virus protein synthesis, whereas at late times the levels of viral translation are similar in control or eIF2 alpha-depleted HeLa cells. Immunofluorescence analysis reveals that eIF2 alpha, contrary to eIF4GI, does not colocalize with ribosomes or with encephalomyocarditis virus 3D polymerase. Taken together, these findings support the novel idea that eIF2 is not involved in the translation of encephalomyocarditis virus RNA during late infection. Moreover, other picornaviruses such as foot-and-mouth disease virus, mengovirus and poliovirus do not require active eIF2 alpha when maximal viral translation is taking place. Therefore, translation of picornavirus RNA may exhibit a dual mechanism as regards the participation of eIF2. This factor would be necessary to translate the input genomic RNA, but after viral RNA replication, the mechanism of viral RNA translation switches to one independent of eIF2.

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