4.8 Article

Two modes of Cue2-mediated mRNA cleavage with distinct substrate recognition initiate no-go decay

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 253-270

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkac1172

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ribosome collisions trigger the ribosome-associated quality control (RQC) and lead to the degradation of mRNA called no-go decay (NGD) through endonucleolytic cleavage. In yeast, NGD can occur in two modes, either coupled to RQC (NGD(RQC+)) or uncoupled from RQC (NGD(RQC-)), depending on the mechanism of substrate recognition by Cue2 endonuclease. The study found that the ubiquitin binding activity of Cue2 is necessary for NGD(RQC-) but not for NGD(RQC+), and it involves the first two N-terminal Cue domains of Cue2. Additionally, Trp122 of Cue2 plays a crucial role in NGD(RQC+), while Mbf1 prevents ribosomal frameshifting induced by rare codon staller.
Ribosome collisions are recognized by E3 ubiquitin ligase Hel2/ZNF598, leading to RQC (ribosome-associated quality control) and to endonucleolytic cleavage and degradation of the mRNA termed NGD (no-go decay). NGD in yeast requires the Cue2 endonuclease and occurs in two modes, either coupled to RQC (NGD(RQC+)) or RQC uncoupled (NGD(RQC-)). This is mediated by an unknown mechanism of substrate recognition by Cue2. Here, we show that the ubiquitin binding activity of Cue2 is required for NGD(RQC-) but not for NGD(RQC+), and that it involves the first two N-terminal Cue domains. In contrast, Trp122 of Cue2 is crucial for NGD(RQC+). Moreover, Mbf1 is required for quality controls by preventing +1 ribosome frameshifting induced by a rare codon staller. We propose that in Cue2-dependent cleavage upstream of the collided ribosomes (NGD(RQC-)), polyubiquitination of eS7 is recognized by two N-terminal Cue domains of Cue2. In contrast, for the cleavage within collided ribosomes (NGD(RQC+)), the UBA domain, Trp122 and the interaction between Mbf1 and uS3 are critical.

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