4.2 Article

The role of PERK and GCN2 in basal and hydrogen peroxide-regulated translation from the hepatitis C virus internal ribosome entry site

期刊

VIRUS GENES
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 208-214

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11262-011-0629-1

关键词

Hepatitis C virus; PERK; GCN2; IRES; Translation; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0000092]
  2. BBSRC JREI [JR00UMJAEQ, JR00UMJARC]
  3. MRC [G0000092] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0000092] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that translation from the HCV IRES is up-regulated by patho/physiological doses of H(2)O(2) but is still sensitive to the inhibitory effect of phospho-eIF2 alpha in hepatocytes. In this study using wild type and 'knockout' mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), we showed that two of the eIF2 alpha kinases, PERK and GCN2, were not responsible for translational regulation under physiological and a higher apoptotic doses of H(2)O(2) (100 mu M). However, a differential translational response was observed at a lower apoptotic dose of H(2)O(2) (50 mu M) between Perk+/+ and Perk-/- MEFs but not that between Gcn2+/+ and Gcn2-/- MEFs, suggesting that PERK may play a role in translational up-regulation under oxidative stress. Our results also suggest that PERK mediates such an effect via an eIF2-independent pathway. This is in contrast to the canonical role of PERK on translational inhibition under stress conditions via phosphorylation of eIF2 alpha. When tested for the role of PERK and GCN2 on basal translation from the HCV IRES under non-stressed condition, we found that basal translation from the HCV IRES was also favoured in the presence of PERK or GCN2 in MEFs over that of cap-dependent translation and was favoured in the presence of GCN2 but not PERK in Huh-7 cells. These results suggest that PERK and GCN2 also have a functional role on regulating translation under non-stressed conditions, apart from their long established roles as stress kinases.

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

4.2
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