FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2068830076> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2068830076 endingPage "626" @default.
• W2068830076 startingPage "623" @default.
• W2068830076 abstract "The eIF4 group initiation factors carry out recognition of the mRNA cap, unwinding of mRNA secondary structure, and binding of mRNA to the 43 S preinitiation complex. Infection by picornaviruses results in proteolytic cleavage of one of these factors, eIF4G, an event that severely restricts cap-dependent translation but permits cap-independent initiation to proceed from internal ribosome entry sequences in picornaviral RNAs. The 5′-untranslated region (5′-UTR) of eIF4G mRNA resembles such picornaviral sequences in being unusually long and containing multiple open reading frames and a polypyrimidine tract. When inserted upstream of a luciferase reporter gene, this 5′-UTR served as a translational enhancer in four different cell lines. Mutation of all four upstream ATG codons to AAG did not alter the translational enhancement. The presence of the eIF4G 5′-UTR between an RNA hairpin and the luciferase cistron stimulated expression 119-fold. Similarly, the presence of the 5′-UTR between the two cistrons of a bicistronic mRNA stimulated expression of the downstream cistron 42-fold. These results indicate that the eIF4G 5′-UTR directs internal initiation. The ability to continue synthesis of eIF4G when the cell is unable to carry out normal cap-dependent translation may represent an autoregulatory mechanism or be part of the cellular response to stresses that interrupt cap-dependent translation. The eIF4 group initiation factors carry out recognition of the mRNA cap, unwinding of mRNA secondary structure, and binding of mRNA to the 43 S preinitiation complex. Infection by picornaviruses results in proteolytic cleavage of one of these factors, eIF4G, an event that severely restricts cap-dependent translation but permits cap-independent initiation to proceed from internal ribosome entry sequences in picornaviral RNAs. The 5′-untranslated region (5′-UTR) of eIF4G mRNA resembles such picornaviral sequences in being unusually long and containing multiple open reading frames and a polypyrimidine tract. When inserted upstream of a luciferase reporter gene, this 5′-UTR served as a translational enhancer in four different cell lines. Mutation of all four upstream ATG codons to AAG did not alter the translational enhancement. The presence of the eIF4G 5′-UTR between an RNA hairpin and the luciferase cistron stimulated expression 119-fold. Similarly, the presence of the 5′-UTR between the two cistrons of a bicistronic mRNA stimulated expression of the downstream cistron 42-fold. These results indicate that the eIF4G 5′-UTR directs internal initiation. The ability to continue synthesis of eIF4G when the cell is unable to carry out normal cap-dependent translation may represent an autoregulatory mechanism or be part of the cellular response to stresses that interrupt cap-dependent translation. Initiation of the overwhelming majority of eukaryotic mRNAs proceeds by a cap-dependent mechanism whereby the AUG nearest the 5′-end serves as the initiation codon(1Kozak M. Annu. Rev. Cell Biol. 1992; 8: 197-225Crossref PubMed Scopus (415) Google Scholar). Yet other modes of initiation codon selection are used in special cases, e.g. leaky scanning, termination-reinitiation, and internal initiation(2Jackson R.J. Hunt S.L. Reynolds J.E. Kaminski A. Sarnow P. Cap-independent Translation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin1995: 1-29Google Scholar). In the latter case, ribosomes are directed to internal AUGs by an internal ribosome entry sequence (IRES) 1The abbreviations used are: IRESinternal ribosome entry sequence(s)5′-UTR5′-untranslated regionBiPimmunoglobulin heavy chain-binding proteinbpbase pair(s)CATchloramphenicol acetyltransferaseeIFeukaryotic initiation factorHSPheat shock proteinntnucleotidesPCRpolymerase chain reaction. (3Pelletier J. Sonenberg N. Nature. 1988; 334: 320-325Crossref PubMed Scopus (1395) Google Scholar, 4Jang S.K. Krausslich H.-G. Nicklin M.J.H. Duke G.M. Palmenberg A.C. Wimmer E. J. Virol. 1988; 62: 2636-2643Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). Internal initiation has been demonstrated by both in vivo and in vitro experimentation for picornaviruses, including various members of entero-, rhino-, cardio-, and aphthovirus groups (5Kaminski A. Hunt S.L. Gibbs C.L. Jackson R.J. Setlow J.K. Genetic Engineering. Plenum Press, New York1994: 115-155Google Scholar), certain other viruses(6Tsukiyama-Kohara K. Iizuka N. Kohara M. Nomoto A. J. Virol. 1992; 66: 1476-1483Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 7Liu D.X. Inglis S.C. J. Virol. 1992; 66: 6143-6154Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 8Berlioz C. Darlix J.L. J. Virol. 1995; 69: 2214-2222Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), and a few non-viral, cellular mRNAs(9Macejak D.G. Sarnow P. Nature. 1991; 353: 90-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (422) Google Scholar, 10Oh S.-K. Scott M.P. Sarnow P. Genes & Dev. 1992; 6: 1643-1653Crossref PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar, 11Vagner S. Gensac M.C. Maret A. Bayard F. Amalric F. Prats H. Prats A.C. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1995; 15: 35-44Crossref PubMed Scopus (286) Google Scholar). For Picornaviridae, the rationale for a cap-independent route is evident: entero-, rhino-, and aphthoviruses encode a protease that cleaves translation initiation factor eIF4G. 2This was formerly known as eIF-4γ, eIF-4Fγ, and p220 but was recently renamed eIF4G by an Expert Panel of the IUBMB convened on 4 8, 1995. This action severely inhibits cap-dependent translation (12Thomas A.A.M. Scheper G.C. Kleijn M. Deboer M. Voorma H.O. Eur. J. Biochem. 1992; 207: 471-477Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar, 13Liebig H.-D. Ziegler E. Yan R. Hartmuth K. Klump H. Kowalski H. Blaas D. Sommergruber W. Frasel L. Lamphear B. Rhoads R.E. Kuechler E. Skern T. Biochemistry. 1993; 32: 7581-7588Crossref PubMed Scopus (164) Google Scholar) but permits IRES-driven internal initiation to continue, actually stimulating it in the case of entero- and rhinoviruses(13Liebig H.-D. Ziegler E. Yan R. Hartmuth K. Klump H. Kowalski H. Blaas D. Sommergruber W. Frasel L. Lamphear B. Rhoads R.E. Kuechler E. Skern T. Biochemistry. 1993; 32: 7581-7588Crossref PubMed Scopus (164) Google Scholar, 14Hambidge S.J. Sarnow P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1992; 89: 10272-10276Crossref PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar, 15Ziegler E. Borman A.M. Kirchweger R. Skern T. Kean K.M. J. Virol. 1995; 69: 3465-3474Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). internal ribosome entry sequence(s) 5′-untranslated region immunoglobulin heavy chain-binding protein base pair(s) chloramphenicol acetyltransferase eukaryotic initiation factor heat shock protein nucleotides polymerase chain reaction. eIF4G forms a heterotrimeric complex termed eIF4F together with eIF4E, the cap-binding protein, and eIF4A, an RNA helicase. The eIF4 group initiation factors (eIF-4A, eIF-4B, eIF4E, and eIF4G) collectively catalyze the recognition of the mRNA cap, the unwinding of mRNA secondary structure, and the binding of mRNA to the 43 S preinitiation complex(16Merrick W.C. Microbiol. Rev. 1992; 56: 291-315Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 17Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1993; 268: 3017-3020Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). eIF4G contains binding sites for eIF4E (18Mader S. Lee H. Pause A. Sonenberg N. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1995; 15: 4990-4997Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 19Lamphear B.J. Kirchweger R. Skern T. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 21975-21983Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (471) Google Scholar) as well as eIF4A and eIF3(19Lamphear B.J. Kirchweger R. Skern T. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 21975-21983Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (471) Google Scholar), the latter being a component of the 43 S preinitiation complex. The cleavage of eIF4G by picornaviral proteases separates the N-terminal one-third of the molecule, which binds eIF4E, from the C-terminal two-thirds, which binds eIF4A and eIF3, effectively dissociating the cap recognition function from the RNA helicase and ribosome binding functions of the eIF4 factors(19Lamphear B.J. Kirchweger R. Skern T. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 21975-21983Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (471) Google Scholar). The cleaved eIF4G molecule is unable to participate in cap-dependent initiation but continues to carry out internal initiation of picornaviral RNAs(2Jackson R.J. Hunt S.L. Reynolds J.E. Kaminski A. Sarnow P. Cap-independent Translation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin1995: 1-29Google Scholar). The 5′-UTRs of human (20Yan R. Rychlik W. Etchison D. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 23226-23231Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar) and yeast (TIF4631 and TIF4632 (21Goyer C. Altmann M. Lee H.S. Blanc A. Deshmukh M. Woolford Jr., J.L. Trachsel H. Sonenberg N. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1993; 13: 4860-4874Crossref PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar)) eIF4G mRNA are unusual in several respects. First, they are considerably longer (368 for human, 528 for yeast) than the average eukaryotic mRNA 5′-UTR(22Kozak M. Nucleic Acids Res. 1987; 15: 8125-8148Crossref PubMed Scopus (4168) Google Scholar). Second, they contain multiple short, open reading frames (4 for human, 11 for TIF4631, 4 for TIF4632). Third, human and yeast TIF4631 mRNAs contain a polypyrimidine tract of 9-11 nt located 50-53 nt upstream from the initiation codon. (There is a corresponding U-rich region in TIF4632 mRNA.) All of these features are reminiscent of picornaviral IRES(5Kaminski A. Hunt S.L. Gibbs C.L. Jackson R.J. Setlow J.K. Genetic Engineering. Plenum Press, New York1994: 115-155Google Scholar). We present evidence here that the 5′-UTR of eIF4G mRNA, like picornaviral IRES, acts as a strong translational enhancer and can efficiently direct internal initiation in vivo. The luciferase expression vector pGL2-Control (Promega) was either used directly (here designated pGL2/LUC) or modified to contain the 5′-UTR of eIF4G mRNA (pGL2/4G/LUC). cDNA corresponding to nt 1-357 of human eIF4G mRNA was amplified by PCR from pHFC5 (20Yan R. Rychlik W. Etchison D. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 23226-23231Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar) with the primers 5′-CCCAAGCTTTCTAGATGGGGGTCC-3′ and 5′-CCCAAGCTTTGATATCCTTTCCTCC-3′, which created a HindIII site at each end. The product was inserted into the unique HindIII site of pGL2/LUC. The second, third, and fourth upstream ATG codons were changed to AAG by PCR mutagenesis of the above PCR product (23Cormack B. Ausubel F.M. Brent R. Kingston R.E. Moore D.D. Seidman J.G. Smith J.A. Struhl K. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. Greene Publishing Associates, Inc. and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York1994: 8.5.1-8.5.9Google Scholar) to create pGL2/4G2-4/LUC, and all four upstream ATG codons were changed to AAG to create pGL2/4G1-4/LUC. For construction of vectors encoding an RNA hairpin, a 72-bp palindromic sequence consisting of an inverted repeat of the multiple cloning site of pBluescript II KS (Stratagene) from the XbaI to EcoRV sites was ligated into the unique StuI site of pGL2/4G/LUC to produce pGL2/H/4G/LUC. A similar insertion was made in pGL2/LUC to produce pGL2/H/LUC. Because the StuI site is itself palindromic, the total length of the palindrome when inserted is 78 bp. For construction of vectors expressing a bicistronic mRNA, a 736-bp fragment containing the CAT coding region, flanked by 5′- and 3′-UTRs of 54 and 23 bp, respectively, was obtained from pCAT-Basic Vector (Promega) by digestion with BanI and SalI and blunt end-ligated into the StuI site of pGL2/LUC and pGL2/4G/LUC to produce pGL2/CAT/LUC and pGL2/CAT/4G/LUC, respectively. In all cases, constructions were verified by DNA sequencing or restriction endonuclease analysis. K562, HeLa CCL2, HEL 92.1.7, and Jurkat cells (ATCC, Rockville, MD) were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum. Cells were transfected with 30 μg of each luciferase-expressing plasmid and 5 μg of pCMVβ (Clontech Laboratories, Inc.), the latter being a control plasmid that encodes β-galactosidase. Electroporation was performed in triplicate using a Gene Pulser (Bio-Rad) set at ∞ ohms, 960 microfarads, and 0.22 kV. The number of cells electroporated was 8 × 106 for K562, 4 × 105 for HeLa, and 6 × 108 for HEL and Jurkat. Cells were cultured for an additional 18 h and collected, and aliquots of 1 × 103 cells were assayed for luciferase activity (24Braster A.R. Tate J.E. Habener J.F. BioTechniques. 1989; 7: 1116-1122PubMed Google Scholar) using a Monolight 2010 luminometer (Analytical Luminescence Laboratory) and β-galactosidase activity(25Blanchard K.L. Acquaviva A.M. Galson D.A. Bunn H.F. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1992; 12: 5373-5385Crossref PubMed Scopus (193) Google Scholar). Variations in transfection efficiency were corrected by normalizing luciferase activity in each sample with β-galactosidase activity. CAT activity was measured in aliquots of 4.5 × 103 cells using D-threo-[1,2-14C]chloramphenicol (ICN) as described previously(26Kingston R.E. Sheen J. Ausubel F.M. Brent R. Kingston R.E. Moore D.D. Seidman J.G. Smith J.A. Struhl K. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. Greene Publishing Associates, Inc. and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York1994: 9.6.2-9.6.9Google Scholar). A probe for ribonuclease protection assays was prepared by digestion of pGL2/LUC with XbaI and EcoRI to produce a 540-bp fragment from the luciferase coding region. This was inserted into pBluescript II SK (Stratagene), which had been cut with the same enzymes. Antisense RNA against luciferase mRNA was produced in vitro with T7 polymerase, and ribonuclease protection assays were performed as described(27Gilman M. Ausubel F.M. Brent R. Kingston R.E. Moore D.D. Seidman J.G. Smith J.A. Struhl K. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. Greene Publishing Associates, Inc. and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York1994: 4.7.1-4.7.8Google Scholar). Human eIF4G mRNA contains open reading frames at nt 6-39, 67-88, 90-108, and 165-171, all upstream of the 4188-nt open reading frame that encodes the protein(20Yan R. Rychlik W. Etchison D. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 23226-23231Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). According to the ribosome scanning model, such a 5′-UTR would be expected to down-regulate translation in a manner highly dependent on the presence of the upstream AUGs. To test this, we placed a DNA segment encoding the first 357 nt of eIF4G mRNA 29 bp upstream of the coding region for a luciferase reporter gene, driven by the SV40 promoter (Fig. 1A). The control vector (pGL2/LUC) and the eIF4G 5′-UTR-containing vector (pGL2/4G/LUC) were used to transfect the human chronic myelogenous leukemia cell line K562. Surprisingly, the 5′-UTR enhanced, rather than repressed, luciferase expression 7.3-fold (Fig. 1B). To determine whether the upstream open reading frames played a role in translation driven by the eIF4G 5′-UTR, we mutated the vector so as to produce mRNAs lacking either the second through fourth AUGs (pGL2/4G2-4/LUC) or all four upstream AUGs (pGL2/4G1-4/LUC; Fig. 1A). The expression of luciferase, however, was unaltered (Fig. 1B), indicating that the upstream AUGs do not play a significant role in the translational enhancement. The presence of the eIF4G 5′-UTR could conceivably alter steady-state levels of the luciferase mRNA. Hence, we performed ribonuclease protection analysis of luciferase mRNA in cells transfected with each of the four constructs (Fig. 1B, inset). The finding that mRNA levels were similar in all cell lines, and not proportional to luciferase expression, indicates that the 5′-UTR acts at the level of translation rather than transcription, splicing, or mRNA stability. To determine whether the translational enhancement was unique to K562 cells, we tested other human cell lines of diverse origins. HeLa cells, derived from a cervical carcinoma, HEL 92.1.7 cells, an erythroleukemia line derived from malignant peripheral blood, and Jurkat cells, derived from an acute T cell leukemia, were transfected with pGL2/LUC and pGL2/4G/LUC (Fig. 2). Even though the level of luciferase expression was considerably lower in all three cell lines compared with K562 cells (note scale change), the presence of the 5′-UTR of eIF4G mRNA stimulated rather than inhibited expression in each case (2.1-fold in HeLa, 3.4-fold in HEL, and 3.7-fold in Jurkat). The possibility that expression of luciferase from these constructs is due to leaky scanning or termination-reinitiation is unlikely for several reasons. Some of the upstream AUG triplets in the 5′-UTR of eIF4G mRNA have good sequence contexts for initiation(20Yan R. Rychlik W. Etchison D. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 23226-23231Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar); the second AUG in the 5′-UTR is out of frame with the luciferase coding region; and there was no significant change in expression when these AUGs were altered (Fig. 1B). We tested directly for an internal entry mechanism by two different approaches. First, we placed a palindromic sequence 45 bp upstream of the luciferase coding region (pGL2/H/LUC; see Fig. 3A). The free energy of formation of the transcribed 78-nt RNA hairpin was calculated to be −78.9 kcal/mol using the computer program OLIGO (National Biosciences), considerably more stable than the −50 kcal/mol previously shown to be sufficient for preventing movement of the scanning small ribosomal subunit(28Kozak M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1986; 83: 2850-2854Crossref PubMed Scopus (501) Google Scholar). The hairpin reduced luciferase expression to 2.5% of the control vector containing no palindrome (pGL2/H/LUC versus pGL2/LUC; Fig. 3B). However, when sequences encoding the 5′-UTR of eIF4G mRNA were placed between the palindrome and the luciferase cistron, expression was stimulated 119-fold (pGL2/H/4G/LUC versus pGL2/H/LUC). The presence of the palindrome in the eIF4G 5′-UTR-containing vectors caused only a slight drop (26%) in luciferase expression (pGL2/4G/LUC versus pGL2/H/4G/LUC). Bicistronic mRNAs have been effectively used in vivo to demonstrate the existence of IRES in both picornaviral (3Pelletier J. Sonenberg N. Nature. 1988; 334: 320-325Crossref PubMed Scopus (1395) Google Scholar, 29Belsham G.J. Brangwyn J.K. J. Virol. 1990; 64: 5389-5395Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 30Bandyopadhyay P.K. Wang C.Y. Lipton H.L. J. Virol. 1992; 66: 6249-6256Crossref PubMed Google Scholar) and non-picornaviral (9Macejak D.G. Sarnow P. Nature. 1991; 353: 90-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (422) Google Scholar, 10Oh S.-K. Scott M.P. Sarnow P. Genes & Dev. 1992; 6: 1643-1653Crossref PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar) RNAs. As most ribosomes fail to continue through the intercistronic region, the relative translational efficiency of the downstream cistron is greatly reduced unless preceded by an IRES. As a second approach to test for internal initiation, we inserted DNA encoding the eIF4G 5′-UTR into the 68-bp spacer separating CAT and luciferase cistrons (Fig. 4A). Expression of the downstream cistron was stimulated 42-fold compared with the bicistronic construct containing the spacer alone (Fig. 4C). CAT was synthesized in cells containing both constructs (Fig. 4B), although the presence of the eIF4G 5′-UTR depressed its expression. This has also been observed for in vivo expression driven by both BiP and poliovirus IRES (9Macejak D.G. Sarnow P. Nature. 1991; 353: 90-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (422) Google Scholar) and is thought to represent competition between cap-dependent and IRES-dependent translation of bicistronic mRNA. The foregoing results suggest that eIF4G mRNA is translated in vivo by a cap-independent mechanism involving internal initiation. The presence of multiple upstream open reading frames would normally diminish mRNA translation severely(31Hinnebusch A.G. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1990; 15: 148-152Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar), but the 5′-UTR of eIF4G mRNA actually stimulates translation (Figure 1:, Figure 2:). An upstream RNA hairpin drastically inhibits translation, presumably by stopping the scanning small ribosomal subunit(28Kozak M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1986; 83: 2850-2854Crossref PubMed Scopus (501) Google Scholar), but insertion of the 5′-UTR of eIF4G rescues translation (Fig. 3). Finally, the dramatic increase in translation of the downstream cistron of a bicistronic mRNA (Fig. 4) is difficult to explain without invoking internal initiation. Yet it should be noted that all of the experiments described here involve stimulation of a reporter gene and not eIF4G itself. Although there seems to be a clear rationale for the use of internal initiation by viruses, the advantage of this mechanism of initiation for the cellular mRNAs encoding BiP(9Macejak D.G. Sarnow P. Nature. 1991; 353: 90-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (422) Google Scholar), Antennapedia (10Oh S.-K. Scott M.P. Sarnow P. Genes & Dev. 1992; 6: 1643-1653Crossref PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar), and basic fibroblast growth factor (11Vagner S. Gensac M.C. Maret A. Bayard F. Amalric F. Prats H. Prats A.C. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1995; 15: 35-44Crossref PubMed Scopus (286) Google Scholar) is more difficult to understand. In the case of eIF4G, which is essential for cap-dependent translation but not for internal initiation, at least in its intact form, there are some intriguing possibilities why its mRNA would utilize internal initiation. First, this may represent a normal homeostatic mechanism for the maintenance of intracellular levels of eIF4G. If eIF4G levels decreased, the capacity of the cell to carry out cap-dependent initiation would also decrease. The requirement of eIF4G for internal initiation may be less than that for cap-dependent initiation, although this is yet to be demonstrated. If so, the ribosomes and other components of the translational machinery would then become more available for increased translation of mRNAs that can utilize a cap-independent route. This would in turn increase eIF4G levels, completing an autoregulatory loop. Second, there are physiological events that suddenly switch the cell's predominant mode of initiation from cap-dependent to cap-independent(32Sarnow P.(ed.) Cap-independent Translation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin1995Crossref Google Scholar). The best understood of these is infection by entero-, rhino-, and aphthoviruses, in which cap-dependent translation decreases drastically while cap-independent translation persists. If eIF4G synthesis continues during infection, it may provide a host defense mechanism whereby viral takeover would be slowed, or recovery from infection accelerated, by replenishment of intact eIF4G in order to restore cap-dependent initiation. An alternative view is that the virus would actually take advantage of the continued synthesis of eIF4G during infection. Since internal initiation from the IRES of entero- and rhinoviruses is stimulated by eIF4G cleavage(13Liebig H.-D. Ziegler E. Yan R. Hartmuth K. Klump H. Kowalski H. Blaas D. Sommergruber W. Frasel L. Lamphear B. Rhoads R.E. Kuechler E. Skern T. Biochemistry. 1993; 32: 7581-7588Crossref PubMed Scopus (164) Google Scholar, 14Hambidge S.J. Sarnow P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1992; 89: 10272-10276Crossref PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar, 15Ziegler E. Borman A.M. Kirchweger R. Skern T. Kean K.M. J. Virol. 1995; 69: 3465-3474Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), presumably through the generation of cleavage products, continued synthesis of eIF4G may provide more cleavage products to aid in viral translation. Distinguishing between these possibilities will require additional experimentation. Another physiological situation in which the predominant mode of translation can switch from cap-dependent to cap-independent is heat shock (reviewed in (33Rhoads R.E. Lamphear B. Sarnow P. Cap-independent Translation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin1995: 131-153Google Scholar)). In a variety of cell types and species, heat shock causes the synthesis of non-HSP proteins to decrease rapidly, but the synthesis of HSPs remains the same or increases. The change in translational specificity does not require transcription of HSP genes or the appearance of new HSPs in the cytosol. The defect produced by heat shock is preserved in cell lysates and can be corrected in both Ehrlich (34Lamphear B.J. Panniers R. J. Biol. Chem. 1990; 265: 5333-5336Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar) and Drosophila (35Zapata J.M. Maroto F.G. Sierra J.M. J. Biol. Chem. 1991; 266: 16007-16014Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar) cell lysates by a complex of eIF4E and eIF4G. Cells with very low levels of both factors do not recover from heat shock(36Joshi-Barve S. DeBenedetti A. Rhoads R.E. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 21038-21043Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). Notably, BiP, which is produced by internal initiation (9Macejak D.G. Sarnow P. Nature. 1991; 353: 90-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (422) Google Scholar) and continues to be translated in poliovirus-infected cells(37Sarnow P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1989; 86: 5795-5799Crossref PubMed Scopus (87) Google Scholar), shares many properties with HSPs. It has partial sequence homology with HSP70 and becomes elevated during a variety of stress-inducing conditions. The finding that the 5′-UTR of eIF4G mRNA directs internal initiation suggests that eIF4G may also continue to be synthesized after heat shock and may accelerate recovery. We thank Dr. Kerry Blanchard for plasmids and assistance with luciferase and β-galactosidase assays, Dr. G. R. Vandenbark for cell lines and assistance with electroporation, Linyi Zhang for assistance with recombinant DNA constructions, and Drs. Barry Lamphear, Brett Keiper, Bhavesh Joshi, Ann Kaminski, Sarah Hunt, and Richard Jackson for helpful discussions." @default.
• W2068830076 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2068830076 creator A5011407022 @default.
• W2068830076 creator A5040441436 @default.
• W2068830076 date "1996-01-01" @default.
• W2068830076 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2068830076 title "Internal Initiation of Translation Directed by the 5′-Untranslated Region of the mRNA for eIF4G, a Factor Involved in the Picornavirus-induced Switch from Cap-dependent to Internal Initiation" @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1486005348 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1512206644 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1547705375 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1573368268 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1581245087 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1587044218 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1608907028 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1763877169 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1790289424 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1807212217 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1815753558 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1821987583 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1914838920 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W1971140237 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2017356464 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2045348184 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2048035509 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2048731469 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2049747157 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2068378422 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2072971665 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2099136664 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2105554008 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2107163098 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2112503642 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2115789978 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2144226840 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2162390980 @default.
• W2068830076 cites W2166661434 @default.
• W2068830076 doi "https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.271.2.623" @default.
• W2068830076 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8557663" @default.
• W2068830076 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W2068830076 type Work @default.
• W2068830076 sameAs 2068830076 @default.
• W2068830076 citedByCount "105" @default.
• W2068830076 countsByYear W20688300762013 @default.
• W2068830076 countsByYear W20688300762014 @default.
• W2068830076 countsByYear W20688300762018 @default.
• W2068830076 countsByYear W20688300762019 @default.
• W2068830076 countsByYear W20688300762020 @default.
• W2068830076 countsByYear W20688300762021 @default.
• W2068830076 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2068830076 hasAuthorship W2068830076A5011407022 @default.
• W2068830076 hasAuthorship W2068830076A5040441436 @default.
• W2068830076 hasBestOaLocation W20688300761 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C105580179 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C12464233 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C149364088 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C161295673 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C22667442 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C2776054693 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C2778009244 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C4718897 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C62493599 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C67705224 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C77430603 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C89604277 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConcept C97154109 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C104317684 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C105580179 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C12464233 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C149364088 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C161295673 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C22667442 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C2776054693 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C2778009244 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C4718897 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C54355233 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C62493599 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C67705224 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C77430603 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C86803240 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C89604277 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C95444343 @default.
• W2068830076 hasConceptScore W2068830076C97154109 @default.
• W2068830076 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2068830076 hasLocation W20688300761 @default.
• W2068830076 hasOpenAccess W2068830076 @default.
• W2068830076 hasPrimaryLocation W20688300761 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W1998128885 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W2004143350 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W2068830076 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W2099414144 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W2113826266 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W2116988757 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W2122563452 @default.
• W2068830076 hasRelatedWork W2232117585 @default.

• next