4.8 Article

Pathogenic mechanism of a human mitochondrial tRNAPhe mutation associated with myoclonic epilepsy with ragged red fibers syndrome

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0704441104

关键词

aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase; translation; mitochondria

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM072528, GM072528] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human mitochondrial tRNA (hmt-tRNA) mutations are associated with a variety of diseases including mitochondrial myopathies, diabetes, encephalopathies, and deafness. Because the current understanding of the precise molecular mechanisms of these mutations is limited, there is no efficient method to treat their associated mitochondrial diseases. Here, we use a variety of known mutations in hmt-tRNA(Phe) to investigate the mechanisms that lead to malfunctions. We tested the impact of hmt-tRNA(Phe) mutations on aminoacylation, structure, and translation elongation-factor binding. The majority of the mutants were pleiotropic, exhibiting defects in aminoacylation, global structure, and elongation-factor binding. One notable exception was the G34A anticodon mutation of hmt-tRNA(Phe) (mitochondrial DNA mutation G611A), which is associated with MERRF (myoclonic epilepsy with ragged red fibers). In vitro, the G34A mutation decreases aminoacylation activity by 100-fold, but does not affect global folding or recognition by elongation factor. Furthermore, G34A hmt-tRNA(Phe) does not undergo adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) editing, ruling out miscoding as a possible mechanism for mitochondrial malfunction. To improve the aminoacylation state of the mutant tRNA, we modified the tRNA binding domain of the nucleus-encoded human mitochondrial phenylalanyl-tRNA synthetase, which aminoacylates hmt-tRNA(Phe) with cognate phenylalanine. This variant enzyme displayed significantly improved aminoacylation efficiency for the G34A mutant, suggesting a general strategy to treat certain classes of mitochondrial diseases by modification of the corresponding nuclear gene.

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