Translational control in eukaryotes

The vast majority of eukaryotic mRNAs utilize a 7-Methylguanosine-5′-triphosphate (m-7-GTP) cap to mark their 5′ ends and harbor a 3′ polyA tail, both of which influence mRNA stability and translation. To begin translation, ribosomes are recruited by a diverse array of eukaryotic initiation factors (eIFs; Fig 1) [4]. A multiprotein complex called eIF4F binds the 5′ cap and interacts with a second 40S ribosome-associated complex, eIF3. Together, these complexes load 40S subunits on the 5′ end of mRNAs to begin the process of scanning, whereby the 40S ribosome “reads” the mRNA 5′ untranslated region (UTR) in search of a start codon (usually, but not always, an AUG). 5’UTR structure influences scanning and rates of initiation for individual mRNAs. Upon AUG recognition, facilitated by another complex called eIF2, the 60S ribosomal subunit joins to form a translation-competent 80S ribosome. The open reading frame (ORF) is then decoded to produce a polypeptide until such time as the ribosome encounters a stop codon. 3′ UTR sequences, including the polyA tail, can facilitate the reinitiation of translation on the same mRNA. The polyA tail serves a number of other important functions, including stimulating initiation through protein-mediated interactions with eIF4F, as well as functioning in mRNA quality control. In this latter function, if an aberrant mRNA is produced that is out of frame, induces ribosome frameshifts, or lacks a stop codon, ribosome decoding of the polyA tail results in 2 events. First, ribosomes have difficulty with long homopolymeric adenosine stretches and “slide” bidirectionally, reiterating lysines from AAA codons. Secondly, these decoded lysines cause ribosome stalling, signaling decay of the mRNA [5].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. In uninfected cells (top), the 40S ribosomal subunit is recruited to the mRNA m-7-GTP cap through the combined actions of eIF4F and eIF3.

The ribosome then scans (blue arrow) the 5′UTR in search of a start codon, at which point the 60S ribosomal subunit joins to initiate translation. Ribosomes slide (red arrows) on polyA stretches, and 5′ polyA leaders do not act as enhancers in mammalian cells. In VacV-infected cells (bottom), the vRNAP slips on intermediate and late promoters, reiterating adenosine residues to create randomly sized polyA leaders. Viral enzymes control mRNA capping and decapping in infected cells, where polyA leaders enable either cap-dependent or cap-independent translation of viral mRNAs; whether cap-independent translation occurs on viral mRNAs that have been decapped or were never capped remains unknown (?). Modification of RACK1 by the viral B1 kinase contributes to the ability of polyA leaders to function in infected cells. eIF, eukaryotic initiation factor; m-7-GTP, 7-Methylguanosine-5’-triphosphate; RACK1, receptor for activated C kinase 1; UTR, untranslated region; VacV, vaccinia virus; vRNAP, viral RNA polymerase.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006634.g001

Poxviruses and translational control

The study of poxviruses was fundamental to the discovery of the cap and polyA tail that we now know to be present on most eukaryotic mRNAs. Indeed, poxviruses encode their own capping, decapping, and polyadenylation enzymes [3]. While capable of producing their own mRNAs, poxviruses go to incredible lengths to gain control of host ribosomes needed for their translation. In self-defense, host cells go to equivalent lengths to prevent this. A major host antiviral response involves the inactivation of eIF2 by protein kinase RNA-activated (PKR), leading to widespread suppression of translation [4]. To evade this, poxviruses encode several proteins that either directly target PKR, limit the production of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), or shield dsRNA from detection [4, 6, 7]. In an incredible form of evolutionary arms race, PKR can adapt to new virus-encoded antagonists. In response, the VacV genome can amplify multiple copies of the K3L gene, allowing for random mutations as a means to explore counteradaptation [8]. Once an adaptive fitness that potently counters PKR emerges in a K3L gene copy, the “gene accordion” can collapse again to retain the newly adapted PKR antagonist. Poxviruses have also been found to activate host signal pathways that stimulate eIFs, enhancing viral protein synthesis and countering host interferon production [9–11]. Although poxviruses suppress host translation through mRNA decapping and other strategies, a limited number of host mRNAs are selectively retained on ribosomes to maintain the synthesis of proteins that perform important tasks, such as cellular energy production [12]. As such, poxviruses are clearly master manipulators of their hosts’ translation system.

While poxvirus mRNAs broadly resemble those of their host, one unusual feature of postreplicative or late-stage mRNAs is the presence of 5′ polyA leaders, or “polyA heads” [3]. Synthesis of postreplicative mRNAs requires an intact TTT sequence motif at the transcription start site, and substitution of even a single T residue drastically impairs transcription [13]. However, the viral RNA polymerase slips at this TTT motif, resulting in reiteration of adenosine residues, thereby forming the polyA leaders that immediately precede the translation start codon in poxvirus postreplicative mRNAs (Fig 1). While randomly generated and at times exceeding 50 nucleotides in length, these leaders average 12–30 nucleotides, studies suggest [3, 14, 15]. For decades, why poxviruses do this and whether these leaders have any biological function has remained enigmatic. Earlier studies suggested they enable translation initiation in the absence of eIFs in vitro [16], although poxvirus protein synthesis in infected cells exhibits varying degrees of sensitivity to eIF4F perturbation [17–19]. While high abundance of viral mRNAs might contribute to apparent eIF4F independence, recent findings show that polyA leaders do indeed confer the ability to employ either cap-dependent or cap-independent modes of initiation but, importantly, do not function as internal ribosome entry sites (IRESs) commonly used by RNA viruses [4, 20]. This capacity for dual modes of initiation likely maximizes the competitiveness of viral mRNAs for ribosomes or may allow them to initiate despite the presence of 2 virus-encoded, indiscriminate decapping enzymes (Fig 1). After ribosome loading, however, these leaders would appear to be an unwise choice because adenosine runs of 11 nucleotides or more cause bidirectional sliding of ribosomes, also dubbed “phase-less wandering” [5, 16]. Intriguingly, mRNAs with polyA leaders show no translational advantage in uninfected cells, yet their translation is enhanced in VacV-infected cells, suggesting that infection modifies the host environment to accommodate viral mRNAs [20, 21]. In a remarkable form of viral “customization” of ribosomes, it has recently been revealed that the VacV kinase B1 phosphorylates residues in a flexible loop in the small ribosomal subunit protein, receptor for activated C kinase 1 (RACK1) [21]. This appears to slow initiation rates to facilitate leader activity, potentially compensating for sliding and/or allowing cap-independent viral transcripts to dominate. This finding also begins to illuminate yet another long-standing mystery: polyA leaders and the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) “Omega Leader,” which consists of CAA repeats, show little or no activity in mammals but act as translational enhancers in plant cell extracts [20–23]. Why this is, and why poxviruses that replicate in mammals would produce such leaders, has remained unclear. However, although RACK1 is structurally highly conserved, the loop region targeted by VacV varies between species. Notably, in plants, the loop contains naturally negatively charged amino acids that are not present in mammals. Through unique phosphorylation events in human RACK1, poxviruses mimic the charged state found in plant RACK1 [21]. While some of their mysteries have begun to be solved, there is undoubtedly much more to learn about how these enigmatic elements function. Moreover, what might once have been seen as the random generation of odd leaders through “erroneous” slippage of the viral RNA polymerase is now clearly part of a well-orchestrated strategy to confer translational advantages to viral mRNAs. Curiously, both transcriptional and translational process hinge on nucleotide sequences that cause viral RNA polymerase or ribosome slippage, but the mystery of how this unusual coupled strategy evolved may prove the most challenging of all to illuminate.

Acknowledgments

Zhilong Yang kindly shared his group’s recent manuscript prior to online publication.