4.5 Review

Translational fidelity and mistranslation in the cellular response to stress

期刊

NATURE MICROBIOLOGY
卷 2, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.117

关键词

-

资金

  1. Army Research Office [W911NF1510105]
  2. National Science Foundation [MCB1412611]
  3. Ohio State University Center for RNA Biology Fellowship
  4. NIH [T32 GM086252]
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [1412611] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) [W911NF1510105] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Faithful translation of mRNA into the corresponding polypeptide is a complex multistep process, requiring accurate amino acid selection, transfer RNA (tRNA) charging and mRNA decoding on the ribosome. Key players in this process are aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs), which not only catalyse the attachment of cognate amino acids to their respective tRNAs, but also selectively hydrolyse incorrectly activated non-cognate amino acids and/or misaminoacylated tRNAs. This aaRS proofreading provides quality control checkpoints that exclude non-cognate amino acids during translation, and in so doing helps to prevent the formation of an aberrant proteome. However, despite the intrinsic need for high accuracy during translation, and the widespread evolutionary conservation of aaRS proofreading pathways, requirements for translation quality control vary depending on cellular physiology and changes in growth conditions, and translation errors are not always detrimental. Recent work has demonstrated that mistranslation can also be beneficial to cells, and some organisms have selected for a higher degree of mistranslation than others. The aims of this Review Article are to summarize the known mechanisms of protein translational fidelity and explore the diversity and impact of mistranslation events as a potentially beneficial response to environmental and cellular stress.

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

4.5
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