4.4 Article

The frequency of translational misreading errors in E. coli is largely determined by tRNA competition

期刊

RNA
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 87-96

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1261/rna.294907

关键词

protein synthesis; accuracy; misreading errors; paromomycin; streptomycin

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R56GM029480, R01GM029480] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R56 GM029480, GM 29480, R01 GM029480] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estimates of missense error rates (misreading) during protein synthesis vary from 10(-3) to 10(-4) per codon. The experiments reporting these rates have measured several distinct errors using several methods and reporter systems. Variation in reported rates may reflect real differences in rates among the errors tested or in sensitivity of the reporter systems. To develop a more accurate understanding of the range of error rates, we developed a system to quantify the frequency of every possible misreading error at a defined codon in Escherichia coli. This system uses an essential lysine in the active site of firefly luciferase. Mutations in Lys529 result in up to a 1600-fold reduction in activity, but the phenotype varies with amino acid. We hypothesized that residual activity of some of the mutant genes might result from misreading of the mutant codons by tRNA(UUU)(Lys), the cognate tRNA for the lysine codons, AAA and AAG. Our data validate this hypothesis and reveal details about relative missense error rates of near-cognate codons. The error rates in E. coli do, in fact, vary widely. One source of variation is the effect of competition by cognate tRNAs for the mutant codons; higher error frequencies result from lower competition from low-abundance tRNAs. We also used the system to study the effect of ribosomal protein mutations known to affect error rates and the effect of error-inducing antibiotics, finding that they affect misreading on only a subset of near-cognate codons and that their effect may be less general than previously thought.

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

4.4
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