4.6 Article

Single-molecule dynamics suggest that ribosomes assemble at sites of translation in Bacillus subtilis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.999176

关键词

bacterial cell biology; Bacillus subtilis; translation; GTPase; ribosome assembly; single molecule tracking; nucleoid occlusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacteria have nucleolus-like structures where ribosomal synthesis and maturation occur in close proximity at the cell poles, facilitating efficient ribosome maturation even under nutrient-deprived conditions.
Eukaryotic cells transcribe ribosomal RNA and largely assemble ribosomes in a structure called the nucleolus, where chromosomal regions containing rRNA operons are clustered. In bacteria, many rRNA operons cluster close to the origin regions that are positioned on the outer borders of nucleoids, close to polar areas, where translating 70S ribosomes are located. Because outer regions of the nucleoids contain the highest accumulation of RNA polymerase, it has been hypothesized that bacteria contain nucleolus-like structures. However, ribosome subunits freely diffuse through the entire cells, and could thus be assembled and matured throughout the non-compartmentalized cell. By tracking single molecules of two GTPases that play an essential role in ribosomal folding and processing in Bacillus subtilis, we show that this process takes place at sites of translation, i.e., predominantly at the cell poles. Induction of the stringent response led to a change in the population of GTPases assumed to be active in maturation, but did not abolish nucleoid occlusion of ribosomes or of GTPases. Our findings strongly support the idea of the conceptualization of nucleolus-like structures in bacteria, i.e., rRNA synthesis, ribosomal protein synthesis and subunit assembly occurring in close proximity at the cell poles, facilitating the efficiency of ribosome maturation even under conditions of transient nutrient deprivation.

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