![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright : © 2008 Singh et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. A Competition between Stimulators and Antagonists of Upf Complex Recruitment Governs Human Nonsense-Mediated mRNA Decay Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America Marv Wickens, Academic Editor University of Wisconsin, United States of America * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Jens.Lykke-Andersen/at/colorado.edu Received January 30, 2008; Accepted March 21, 2008. See "Posttranscriptional Gene Regulation by Spatial Rearrangement of the 3′ Untranslated Region" , e92. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract The nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) pathway subjects mRNAs with premature termination codons (PTCs) to rapid decay. The conserved Upf1–3 complex interacts with the eukaryotic translation release factors, eRF3 and eRF1, and triggers NMD when translation termination takes place at a PTC. Contrasting models postulate central roles in PTC-recognition for the exon junction complex in mammals versus the cytoplasmic poly(A)-binding protein (PABP) in other eukaryotes. Here we present evidence for a unified model for NMD, in which PTC recognition in human cells is mediated by a competition between 3′ UTR–associated factors that stimulate or antagonize recruitment of the Upf complex to the terminating ribosome. We identify cytoplasmic PABP as a human NMD antagonizing factor, which inhibits the interaction between eRF3 and Upf1 in vitro and prevents NMD in cells when positioned in proximity to the termination codon. Surprisingly, only when an extended 3′ UTR places cytoplasmic PABP distally to the termination codon does a downstream exon junction complex enhance NMD, likely through increasing the affinity of Upf proteins for the 3′ UTR. Interestingly, while an artificial 3′ UTR of >420 nucleotides triggers NMD, a large subset of human mRNAs contain longer 3′ UTRs but evade NMD. We speculate that these have evolved to concentrate NMD-inhibiting factors, such as PABP, in spatial proximity of the termination codon. Author Summary The nonsense-mediated mRNA decay pathway is responsible for rapidly degrading mRNAs with premature termination codons. This is important because it prevents the production of potentially deleterious truncated proteins from aberrant mRNAs, such as those that have undergone erroneous processing. How does the cell discriminate aberrant mRNAs from those that are normal? Here we present evidence that in human cells, the targeting of an mRNA to nonsense-mediated mRNA decay depends on a competition between proteins associated with the mRNA 3′ UTR that stimulate or antagonize mRNA decay. We show that cytoplasmic poly(A)-binding protein, a protein associated with the mRNA 3′ end poly(A) tail, antagonizes mRNA decay. By contrast, a protein complex deposited onto mRNAs upon pre-mRNA splicing, called the exon junction complex, stimulates mRNA decay. Our observations suggest that the competition between these proteins, and probably other unknown proteins with similar activities, determines whether a key protein complex in the pathway, the Upf complex, is recruited to the mRNA upon translation termination, which leads to mRNA decay. Introduction The process of nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) subjects mRNAs with premature termination codons (PTCs) to rapid decay. This helps rid the cell of aberrant mRNAs that have acquired PTCs through mutation or faulty processing [1–3]. Moreover, several lines of evidence suggest that NMD is also used as a posttranscriptional mechanism of normal gene regulation [4]. The NMD pathway employs a set of factors that are conserved amongst eukaryotes. Central to the NMD pathway is the Upf complex, which consists of the proteins Upf1, Upf2, and Upf3 [1–3]. The Upf complex interacts with the eukaryotic translation release factors, eRF3 and eRF1, and triggers NMD when translation termination takes place at a PTC [1–3]. In addition, the Smg proteins, which are conserved in metazoans, regulate Upf1 function by phosphorylation and dephosphorylation [2,3]. A fundamental question is how mRNAs with PTCs are distinguished from those with normal termination codons. Despite the conservation of core NMD factors, contrasting models have been proposed in mammalian cells as opposed to other eukaryotes. Evidence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and in cell lines from Drosophila melanogaster suggests that termination codons are recognized as PTCs when positioned too far upstream of the poly(A) tail [5–7]. This is thought to be a consequence of an impaired interaction between eRF3 at the terminating ribosome and factors associated with the normal 3′ UTR, including cytoplasmic poly(A)-binding protein (PABP) [1,5,7], which on mRNAs with regular stop codons (proximal to the poly(A) tail) stimulates normal translation termination [8]. Consistent with this model for NMD, termed the “faux 3′ UTR” model [1,7], 3′ UTRs of S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster mRNAs are generally short, on average ~100 and ~330 nucleotides in length, respectively [9,10]. Interestingly, recent observations show evidence that cytoplasmic PABP is not required for the discrimination of normal termination codons from PTCs in S. cerevisiae [11]. Thus, cytoplasmic PABP may function redundantly with other 3′ UTR–associated factors to antagonize NMD. 3′ UTRs of human mRNAs are on average longer (~750–800 nucleotides [12]) than those of S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster, and current models for NMD in mammalian cells do not involve the length of the 3′ UTR. Rather, the exon junction complex (EJC), which is deposited 20–25 nucleotides upstream of mRNA exon-exon junctions after pre-mRNA splicing [13], is thought to play a central role. A termination event more than ~30 nucleotides upstream of one or more EJCs is thought to trigger NMD through EJC-mediated recruitment of the Upf complex [2,3]. This is consistent with observed direct interactions between EJC components and Upf3 proteins [14–18]. However, the EJC plays no apparent role in NMD in D. melanogaster [19] or in Caenorhabditis elegans [20] and no evidence for the existence of an EJC has been reported in yeast. Nevertheless, a conceptually similar model to the EJC model was proposed earlier for NMD of the PGK1 mRNA in yeast, in which a “downstream sequence element” (DSE), when present downstream of a termination codon, promotes NMD through recruitment of the protein Hrp1p, which interacts with Upf proteins [21,22]. A fundamental difference between the faux 3′ UTR and the EJC/DSE models for NMD is that the EJC/DSE models propose that NMD-stimulating factors (the EJC and Hrp1p, respectively) trigger NMD when positioned downstream of a termination codon, whereas the faux 3′ UTR model postulates that NMD is caused instead by the absence of NMD-antagonizing factors, such as cytoplasmic PABP, which normally positively influence translation termination and mRNA stability. Here, we present evidence for a merged model for NMD in human cells, which likely can be extended to other eukaryotes. According to this model, PTC recognition is determined by a competition between 3′ UTR–associated factors, which stimulate (including the EJC) or antagonize (including cytoplasmic PABP) the recruitment of the Upf complex to the terminating ribosome. Our observations suggest that the fundamental principles of the NMD pathway are much more conserved between mammals and other eukaryotes than previously anticipated. Results 3′ UTR Introns Are Not Sufficient for Triggering Human NMD The EJC model for human NMD postulates that any translation termination event taking place >50–55 nucleotides upstream of an exon-exon junction should result in NMD. However, during our studies of the human NMD pathway, we observed that a β-globin mRNA, in which the adenovirus major late (AdML) intron was inserted into the 3′ UTR 175 nucleotides downstream of the normal β-globin mRNA translation termination codon, did not show enhanced mRNA decay as compared to the wild-type β-globin mRNA in human HeLa Tet-off cells (compare Figure 1
The observation in Figure 1 Extended 3′ UTRs Trigger Human NMD Our observation that 3′ UTR introns are not sufficient for triggering human NMD spurred us to test whether cytoplasmic PABP may antagonize NMD in human cells, as it does in S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster. We therefore first manipulated the position of the poly(A) tail relative to the termination codons of β-globin and TPI reporter mRNAs and tested the effect on mRNA decay. As seen in Figure 2
An Intron-Less mRNA Can Undergo NMD Having observed that 3′ UTR introns are not required for NMD, we asked whether a completely intron-less mRNA can undergo NMD. It was observed previously that introduction of PTCs in the naturally intron-less Hsp70 and histone H2A mRNAs does not result in their decreased steady-state levels, which led to speculations that intron-less mRNAs are immune to NMD [30]. However, it has been pointed out that wild-type Hsp70 and histone H2A mRNAs are both highly unstable and may thus not be further destabilized by a PTC [5]. We therefore tested the stability of three naturally occurring intron-less mRNAs (encoding eRF3b, SFN, and TBCC) and found that both wild-type and PTC containing versions of these mRNAs were unstable (~100- to 150-min half-lives, unpublished data). Thus, mRNA instability may be a general feature of natural intron-less mRNAs. However, when the only intron in the Glutathione Peroxidase 1 (GPx1) mRNA is removed, introduction of a PTC triggers NMD, although not as efficiently as in the presence of the intron (Figure 2 Cytoplasmic PABP Antagonizes Human NMD To more directly test whether cytoplasmic PABP antagonizes NMD in human cells, we examined the effect of positioning cytoplasmic PABP in proximity of a PTC using two different approaches. First, as seen in Figure 3
As a second independent approach to ask whether PABP can antagonize human NMD, we tested the effect of inserting a binding site for PABP downstream of the PTCs. As seen in Figure 3 A Subset of Naturally Occurring Long 3′ UTRs Can Antagonize NMD Our observations raise the question of whether naturally occurring mammalian mRNAs with long 3′ UTRs, which can be several kilobases in length, are normal targets of NMD or whether they have evolved mechanisms to evade the NMD pathway. We noted that mRNAs identified by microarray assays to be upregulated upon hUpf1 knockdown in HeLa cells [32] contain on average significantly longer 3′ UTRs than those mRNAs unaffected by hUpf1 knockdown (Figure S7). Moreover, the majority of these 3′ UTRs (75%) are longer than the ~420 nucleotides observed here to trigger NMD in the βGAP reporter mRNA (Figures S4 and S7). It is possible that at least a subset of these transcripts undergo NMD due to an increased distance between the termination codon and the poly(A) tail. Indeed, when the 1,342-nucleotide 3′ UTR of one of these mRNAs, encoding hSmg5, is replaced for the β-globin 3′ UTR (βSmg5), the chimeric mRNA undergoes NMD (Figure 4
A 3′ UTR Intron Can Enhance Human NMD Our observations that 3′ UTR introns are neither necessary (Figure 2
PABPC1 Can Out-Compete the Interaction between hUpf1 and eRF3 In Vitro How does cytoplasmic PABP antagonize NMD when positioned in proximity of the termination codon? Both cytoplasmic PABP and Upf1 have been previously observed to stimulate translation termination in yeast cells [8,34] and to associate with translation release factor eRF3 [35–40]. This raised the possibility that cytoplasmic PABP inhibits NMD by preventing Upf1 from interacting with eRF3 and the terminating ribosome. As seen in the co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP) assays in Figure 6
To test whether PABPC1 can antagonize the interaction between eRF3 and hUpf1 in vitro, we immunopurified transiently expressed epitope-tagged eRF3, PABPC1, and hUpf1 proteins from HEK 293T cells and tested the ability of hUpf1 to associate with eRF3 in the presence of increasing amounts of PABPC1. As seen in Figure 6 To test whether amino acid residues of eRF3, which are important for cytoplasmic PABP interaction, are also important for the interaction with hUpf1, we constructed a eRF3 protein (eRF3 KAKA) mutated in four N-terminal residues that are conserved between cytoplasmic PABP-binding proteins [38,43]. As seen in the co-IP assays in Figure 6 Discussion Previous contrasting models for PTC-recognition in NMD invoke either 3′ UTR–associated factors that stimulate NMD, the EJC in human cells [2,44], and DSE-binding proteins in yeast [21], or factors that stimulate normal translation termination and antagonize NMD [1,45]. Our observations, together with the observations in the paper by Eberle et al. [46], are consistent with a unified model for human NMD, in which the balance between NMD-antagonizing (such as PABPC1) and NMD-stimulating (such as the EJC) factor(s) that are associated with the mRNA 3′ UTR, determines whether termination is considered normal or premature (Figure 7
How does cytoplasmic PABP antagonize NMD? While PABPC1 can out-compete the association of hUpf1 with eRF3 in vitro (Figure 6 It is likely that 3′ UTR–associated factors (indicated by a question mark in Figure 7 Our observations suggest that while artificial long 3′ UTRs trigger NMD (Figure 2 Materials and Methods Plasmid constructs. All plasmid sequences are available upon request. Plasmids expressing different β-globin reporter mRNAs were derived from the pcTET2-βwt plasmid that was constructed by inserting the human β-globin gene between HindIII and ApaI sites of a pcDNA3-based plasmid containing six copies of the Tet-operator sequences upstream of the TATA box. For extended 3′ UTR constructs, parts of the GAPDH mRNA coding sequence and the entire GAPDH 3′ UTR (pcTET2-βGAP) or the GFP ORF (pcTET2-βGFP) were inserted between NotI and XbaI sites of the pcTET2-βwt plasmid, thus replacing the β-globin 3′ UTR. The β-globin stop codon was mutated to UAC by site-directed mutagenesis to generate pcTET2-βGAP-UAC and pcTET2-βGFP-UAC. Plasmids expressing βGAP-UAC-696, βGAP-UAC-485, and βGAP-UAC-422 mRNAs were generated by site-directed mutagenesis of pcTET2-βGAP-UAC to introduce a stop codon (UAA) in the GAPDH sequence, respectively, 696, 485, or 422 nucleotides upstream of the polyadenylation site. The plasmid expressing βwt mRNA was described earlier [47]. To construct plasmids expressing β39–2xMS2-Ex2, β39–2xMS2-Ex3, and β39–2xMS2-3UTR, the 2xMS2 cassette from the previously described plasmid pcβ-2bs [47] was inserted into the BamHI, EcoRI, or NotI sites, respectively, of the pPC-β39 plasmid described earlier [62]. A stretch of A30 (pPC-β39-A30) or N30 (pPC-β39-N30) was inserted into the BamHI site of pPC-β39 plasmid using annealed DNA oligos. Similarly, A30 (pcTET2-βGAP-A30) or N30 (pcTET2-βGAP-N30) was inserted into the XbaI site of the pcTET2-βGAP plasmid. To construct the pcTET2-βGAP-4xMS2 plasmid, four MS2 binding sites were amplified from a previously described plasmid pcβ-4bs [47] and inserted into the XbaI site of pcTET2-βGAP. Plasmids expressing βAdML, βAdML-UAC, and βTPIi6 mRNAs were constructed by cloning the AdML intron or TPI intron 6 (TPIi6) and flanking exon sequences into the XbaI site in pcTET2-βwt or pcTET2-βwt-UAC plasmids. βGAP-AdML and βAdML-GAP mRNA– expressing plasmids were constructed by inserting the same AdML intron into XbaI and EcoRI sites, respectively, in the pcTET2-βwtGAP plasmid. Plasmids expressing chimeric β-globin mRNAs with 3′ UTRs from Smg5, Cript1, and Tram1 genes, the respective 3′ UTRs, were cloned into the NotI-XbaI sites of pcTET2-βwt. Plasmids expressing TPI reporter mRNAs were constructed by inserting the entire human TPI gene between HindIII and XbaI sites of the pcTET2 plasmid. A NotI site was inserted into exon 6 (in a manner that preserved the encoded protein) by site-directed mutagenesis. Codon 189 was mutated to TGA using site-directed mutagenesis to generate pcTET2-TPI-189. To remove intron 6, a NotI-XbaI fragment containing exon6-intron6-exon7 was replaced by the same region amplified from TPI cDNA, to generate pcTET2-TPIΔi6–189. To extend the TPI 3′ UTR, a fragment containing part of the GAPDH coding region and 3′ UTR was inserted into the NotI site of pcTET2-TPIΔi6–189 to generate pcTET2-TPIΔi6–189-GAP, or into the NotI site of pcTET2-TPIΔi6 to give rise to pcTET2-TPIΔi6-GAP. TPI-AdML mRNA–expressing plasmid was constructed by inserting the AdML intron and flanking exonic sequences into the XbaI site of pcTET2-TPI. The plasmid expressing intron-containing GPx1 mRNA with a PTC (pPC-GPx1-UAA) was described earlier [18]. GPx1 cDNA (HindIII-XbaI) sequence replaced the intron-containing sequence in pPC-GPx1Δi-UAA. The constructs for knockdowns were based on the pSHAG plasmid (a gift from Dr. G. Hannon) and contained inserts expressing precursors to hUpf1, hUpf2, or eIF4AIII siRNAs described earlier [63,64]. Plasmids expressing FLAG-hUpf1, FLAG-PABPC1, FLAG-hnRNP A1, and Myc-hnRNP A1 were described earlier [47,62]. pcDNA3-Myc-eRF3 was constructed by inserting the ORF of eRF3 (longer isoform) between BamHI and NotI sites of the pcDNA3-Myc vector previously described [65]. pcDNA3-Myc-eRF3 KAKA was prepared using site-directed mutagenesis (the mutations are: L66K, N69A, A70K, F73A). pcDNA3-MS2-FLAG-PABPC1 or pcDNA3-MS2-FLAG-PABPN1 were obtained by inserting PABPC1 and PABPN1 cDNAs, respectively, into BamHI-NotI sites of pcDNA3-MS2-FLAG described previously [62]. NMD factor knockdown. NMD factor knockdowns were performed by co-transfecting cells with reporter mRNA plasmids and plasmids encoding small hairpin (sh)RNAs targeting hUpf1, hUp2, or eIF4AIII, 60 h before pulse-chase mRNA decay assays were carried out. mRNA decay assays and Northern blots. mRNA decay assays were performed in HeLa Tet-off cells in DMEM/10% FBS/tetracycline (50 ng/ml) transfected with β-globin mRNA expression plasmids. For each 2-cm well of HeLa Tet-off cells, 10 ng of pcβG or pcβwt (as an internal control) and 0.2 μg of tetracycline-regulated reporter mRNA expression plasmids were co-transfected using TransIT HeLa Monster reagent (Mirus). For knockdowns, 0.5 μg of pSHAG plasmids were co-transfected. In each transfection, empty pcDNA3 vector was added to 1 μg of total plasmid. 36–40 h after transfection, or approximately 60 h in the case of knockdowns, transcription of reporter mRNAs was induced by removal of tetracycline through washing cells with 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and adding DMEM/10% FBS. 6 h later, transcription was shut off by adding tetracycline to a final concentration of 1 μg/ml. Cells were washed with 1 ml PBS and taken up in 500 μl of TRIzol (Invitrogen) starting 30 min after tetracycline addition (0 min time point), and subsequently at time points indicated in each figure. For analysis of knockdown of endogenous hUpf1, hUpf2, and eIF4AIII, 0.2 μg of the plasmid pSUPERpuro was co-transfected instead of the plasmids expressing β-globin mRNA, and cells were treated and harvested as described earlier [66]. Total cellular RNA was isolated and analyzed by Northern blots as described earlier [47]. The anti-sense RNA probe used for β-globin mRNA detection was described earlier [47]. Northern blots for exogenously expressed TPI mRNAs were probed using UltraHyb reagent following the manufacturer's protocol (Ambion), with a short anti-sense RNA probe complementary to the bovine growth hormone 3′ UTR sequence encoded from the pcDNA3 plasmid. GPx1 mRNAs were probed as described earlier [18]. Antibodies and Western blots. Rabbit polyclonal anti-sera raised against eIF4AIII (amino acids 1–41), hUpf1 (amino acids 1–416), hUpf2 (C-terminal 206 amino acids), and hUpf3b (full-length) were described earlier [18,47]. Monoclonal mouse antibodies were commercially obtained (anti-FLAG M2, Sigma; anti-Myc 9B11, Cell Signaling). Monoclonal mouse anti-HuR antibodies were described earlier [67]. Rabbit polyclonal eRF3 (#ab-49878) and mouse monoclonal PABPC1 (#ab-6125–100) antibodies were from Abcam. Immunoprecipitation assays. In immunoprecipitations shown in Figure 6 Co-IPs between wild-type or KAKA-mutant eRF3 and eRF1 were performed as described above from the cells co-transfected with 0.5 μg of plasmids expressing FLAG-tagged proteins (eRF3, eRF3-KAKA, or MS2 as control), 0.5 μg of plasmids expressing Myc-eRF1, and 0.1 μg of Myc-hnRNP A1 expressing plasmid. Endogenous eRF3 IPs (Figure 6 In vitro competition assay. Approximately 107 HEK293T cells from a 10-cm plate expressing Myc-eRF3, or Myc-peptide as a negative control, were lysed in 1 ml hypotonic gentle lysis buffer as described above. The RNase A–treated, cleared extracts were subsequently incubated with 40 μl anti-Myc resin (Sigma) at 4 °C for 2–3 h, following which the beads were washed eight times with 1 ml of NET-2 buffer. The beads were divided into eight equal parts, and indicated amounts of FLAG-hUpf1, FLAG-PABP1, or FLAG-hnRNP A1 proteins, which had each been affinity-purified from RNase A–treated HEK293T cell extracts (protein concentrations estimated by comparison in anti-FLAG Western blot to a GST-FLAG fusion protein of known concentration), were incubated in 50 μl of NET-2 supplemented with 0.1 mg/ml BSA and 0.2 mg/ml FLAG peptide. The reactions were gently shaken at 4 °C for 2–3 h following which the beads were washed eight times with 1 ml of NET-2 buffer. The beads were resuspended in 25 μl of SDS-loading buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 6.8], 2% SDS, 10% glycerol, 0.5% bromophenol blue, and 50 mM DTT), and 10 μl of the protein sample was resolved on SDS-PAGE followed by Western blot analysis using anti-FLAG M2 antibody (Sigma, 1:1,000 dilution). Figure S1: Knockdown Efficiencies of NMD and EJC Factors Western blots showing the efficiency of knockdown of hUpf1 (lanes 5 and 11), hUpf2 (lane 6), and eIF4AIII (lane 12). Protein levels are compared to 100%, 50%, 25%, and 10% of cell extract from cells expressing an siRNA against F-Luciferase (lanes 1–4 and 7–10). hUpf3b levels served as a loading control. (1.4 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file.(1.3M, tif) Figure S2: An Extended 3′ UTR in TPI mRNA Triggers NMD mRNA decay assays showing decay rates of TPI mRNAs with different length 3′ UTRs, due to insertion of a fragment of GAPDH mRNA (see schematics below), in human HeLa Tet-off cells co-expressing siRNAs targeting hUpf1 or Luciferase (Luc; as a control) as indicated. Constitutively expressed βwt mRNA was used as an internal control for quantification. Numbers indicated above the panels indicate time after transcriptional repression. Schematics on the bottom show the used construct with TPI exons indicated as light-gray bars (not to scale), introns as lines, and GAPDH sequences as dark-gray bars. PTC(189) refers to a PTC at codon 189. Numbers on the right indicate mRNA half-lives (t1/2; in minutes) calculated from the shown experiment with the average fold increase and standard deviation over the half-life of TPI-189Δi6-GAP mRNA in the presence of Luc siRNA calculated from three or more experiments given in parentheses below. (5.1 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file.(5.0M, tif) Figure S3: βGAP mRNA Is Stabilized by Knockdown of the EJC Factor eIF4AIII mRNA decay assays showing decay rates of the β-globin-derived βGAP mRNA with an extended 3′ UTR in human HeLa Tet-off cells knocked down (using RNAi) for eIF4AIII, or as a negative control, Luciferase (Luc), as indicated on the left of each panel (the knockdown efficiency for eIF4AIII is shown in Figure S1). Constitutively expressed βwt mRNA was used as an internal control for quantification. The mRNA half-lives are shown on the right, and the average fold increase in comparison to the Luc control is given with standard deviation in parentheses below. (1.6 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file.(1.5M, tif) Figure S4: Minimal 3′ UTR Length That Can Trigger NMD of β-globin mRNA Northern blots showing the decay rates of βGAP or βGAP-UAC mRNAs with successively shorter 3′ UTRs. The siRNAs co-expressed are indicated on the left. The mRNA half-lives are given on the right in minutes. The schematics of the pre-mRNAs from which the reporter mRNAs are derived are given below each panel with the distance between the termination codon and the poly(A) tail indicated. (1.1 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file.(1.0M, tif) Figure S5: Exogenously Expressed PABPs Express at Comparable Levels Western blots showing expression levels of different FLAG-tagged proteins expressed in Figure 3 (1.7 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file.(1.6M, tif) Figure S6: Proximal Recruitment of PABPC1 Rescues β39 mRNA from NMD More Efficiently as Compared to More Distally Recruited PABPC1 Northern blots showing the decay rates of β39 mRNAs with 2XMS2 binding sites at different positions downstream of the PTC (shown in the schematic below). The exogenously expressed proteins are indicated on the left. The decay rates and fold change as compared to the control (expression of MS2 alone) are given with standard deviation (n = 3) on the right. (5.6 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file.(5.4M, tif) Figure S7: 3′ UTRs of mRNAs Upregulated Upon hUpf1 Knockdown Are Longer than Average Cumulative histograms showing the distribution of the estimated lengths of 83 human intron-less (black solid line) 3′ UTRs from mRNAs upregulated upon hUpf1 knockdown, as compared to the 3′ UTR lengths of 83 randomly selected mRNAs not regulated by hUpf1 (dashed line). The table shows the median 3′ UTR length and percent of mRNAs with 3′ UTRs > 420 nt for upregulated and control mRNAs. (9.2 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file.(8.9M, tif) Acknowledgments We thank Oliver Mühlemann for communication of results prior to publication. Oliver Mühlemann and Tom Blumenthal are thanked for critical comments on the manuscript. Nicole Kennerly is thanked for constructing the βCript1 and βTram1 plasmids. Nicholas Farina is thanked for help with analysis of hUpf1-GEO profiles. Abbreviations
Footnotes ¤ Current address: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America Author contributions. GS, IR, and JL-A conceived and designed the experiments. GS and IR performed the experiments. GS, IR, and JL-A analyzed the data. GS and IR contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. GS and JL-A wrote the paper. Funding. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (MCB-0645798), and a young investigator award from the Pew Scholars program in medical sciences (#3279sc) to JL-A. Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Jun; 7(6):415-25.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006]Genes Dev. 2007 Aug 1; 21(15):1833-56.
[Genes Dev. 2007]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005 Jun; 17(3):316-25.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005]EMBO J. 2007 Mar 21; 26(6):1591-601.
[EMBO J. 2007]Nature. 2004 Nov 4; 432(7013):112-8.
[Nature. 2004]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Jun; 7(6):415-25.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 2002 May; 22(10):3301-15.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Apr 15; 30(8):1851-8.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2002]Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Feb; 28(2):91-8.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2003]EMBO J. 2000 Dec 15; 19(24):6860-9.
[EMBO J. 2000]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005 Jun; 17(3):316-25.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005]Genes Dev. 2007 Aug 1; 21(15):1833-56.
[Genes Dev. 2007]Science. 2001 Sep 7; 293(5536):1832-6.
[Science. 2001]EMBO J. 2000 Dec 15; 19(24):6860-9.
[EMBO J. 2000]EMBO J. 1998 Jun 15; 17(12):3484-94.
[EMBO J. 1998]EMBO J. 2000 Dec 15; 19(24):6860-9.
[EMBO J. 2000]Genes Dev. 2004 Jan 15; 18(2):210-22.
[Genes Dev. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 30; 100(20):11327-32.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Feb; 28(2):91-8.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2003]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2006 May; 13(5):462-4.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2006]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007 Oct; 14(10):974-9.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007]RNA. 2001 Mar; 7(3):445-56.
[RNA. 2001]EMBO J. 2007 Mar 21; 26(6):1591-601.
[EMBO J. 2007]Genome Biol. 2003; 4(7):223.
[Genome Biol. 2003]Nature. 2004 Nov 4; 432(7013):112-8.
[Nature. 2004]EMBO J. 2007 Mar 21; 26(6):1591-601.
[EMBO J. 2007]Mol Cell. 2008 Jan 18; 29(1):134-40.
[Mol Cell. 2008]Nat Genet. 2004 Oct; 36(10):1073-8.
[Nat Genet. 2004]Genes Dev. 2006 Jan 15; 20(2):153-8.
[Genes Dev. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 2002 May; 22(10):3301-15.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Mol Cell Biol. 1996 Oct; 16(10):5491-506.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1996]Genes Dev. 1998 Jun 1; 12(11):1665-77.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Biochemistry (Mosc). 1999 Dec; 64(12):1367-72.
[Biochemistry (Mosc). 1999]Exp Cell Res. 1994 Apr; 211(2):400-7.
[Exp Cell Res. 1994]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Apr 10; 98(8):4409-13.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001]EMBO J. 2004 Jan 28; 23(2):272-81.
[EMBO J. 2004]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005 Jun; 17(3):316-25.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005]J Cell Sci. 2005 May 1; 118(Pt 9):1773-6.
[J Cell Sci. 2005]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):489-99.
[Mol Cell. 2000]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Jun; 7(6):415-25.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006]RNA. 1999 Jun; 5(6):711-9.
[RNA. 1999]Nature. 2004 Nov 4; 432(7013):112-8.
[Nature. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2003 Oct 3; 278(40):38287-91.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Cell. 2003 May 16; 113(4):533-45.
[Cell. 2003]Mol Cell. 2003 May; 11(5):1405-13.
[Mol Cell. 2003]Mol Cell. 2008 Jan 18; 29(1):134-40.
[Mol Cell. 2008]Cell. 2000 Jun 23; 101(7):741-51.
[Cell. 2000]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):489-99.
[Mol Cell. 2000]Cell. 2005 Jan 28; 120(2):195-208.
[Cell. 2005]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2005 Sep; 12(9):794-800.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2005]EMBO J. 2007 Mar 21; 26(6):1591-601.
[EMBO J. 2007]Nature. 2004 Nov 4; 432(7013):112-8.
[Nature. 2004]PLoS Biol. 2008 Apr 29; 6(4):e92.
[PLoS Biol. 2008]EMBO J. 2008 Mar 5; 27(5):736-47.
[EMBO J. 2008]RNA. 2008 Mar; 14(3):563-76.
[RNA. 2008]Cell. 2000 Dec 22; 103(7):1121-31.
[Cell. 2000]Genes Dev. 2005 Feb 1; 19(3):351-61.
[Genes Dev. 2005]Mol Cell. 2007 Sep 7; 27(5):780-92.
[Mol Cell. 2007]Science. 2002 Oct 11; 298(5592):419-22.
[Science. 2002]Nature. 2004 Feb 19; 427(6976):753-7.
[Nature. 2004]Cell. 2000 Dec 22; 103(7):1121-31.
[Cell. 2000]Genes Dev. 2005 Feb 1; 19(3):351-61.
[Genes Dev. 2005]Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Dec; 22(23):8114-21.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Mar 30; 33(6):e54.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2005]Cell. 2000 Dec 22; 103(7):1121-31.
[Cell. 2000]Mol Cell. 2007 Sep 7; 27(5):780-92.
[Mol Cell. 2007]Mol Cell. 2007 Sep 7; 27(5):780-92.
[Mol Cell. 2007]Cell. 2000 Dec 22; 103(7):1121-31.
[Cell. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Mar 28; 97(7):3073-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]