4.6 Article

New Universal Rules of Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Fidelity

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003136

关键词

-

资金

  1. Edmond J. Safra Center for Bioinformatics at Tel-Aviv University
  2. Minerva ARCHES award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accepted model of eukaryotic translation initiation begins with the scanning of the transcript by the pre-initiation complex from the 5'end until an ATG codon with a specific nucleotide (nt) context surrounding it is recognized (Kozak rule). According to this model, ATG codons upstream to the beginning of the ORF should affect translation. We perform for the first time, a genome-wide statistical analysis, uncovering a new, more comprehensive and quantitative, set of initiation rules for improving the cost of translation and its efficiency. Analyzing dozens of eukaryotic genomes, we find that in all frames there is a universal trend of selection for low numbers of ATG codons; specifically, 16-27 codons upstream, but also 5-11 codons downstream of the START ATG, include less ATG codons than expected. We further suggest that there is selection for anti optimal ATG contexts in the vicinity of the START ATG. Thus, the efficiency and fidelity of translation initiation is encoded in the 5'UTR as required by the scanning model, but also at the beginning of the ORF. The observed nt patterns suggest that in all the analyzed organisms the pre-initiation complex often misses the START ATG of the ORF, and may start translation from an alternative initiation start-site. Thus, to prevent the translation of undesired proteins, there is selection for nucleotide sequences with low affinity to the pre-initiation complex near the beginning of the ORF. With the new suggested rules we were able to obtain a twice higher correlation with ribosomal density and protein levels in comparison to the Kozak rule alone (e. g. for protein levels r = 0.7 vs. r = 0.31; p<10(-12)).

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