The influence of the nucleotide at position ‐3 relative to the AUG initiation codon on the initiation of protein synthesis was studied in two different in vitro translation systems using synthetic mRNAs. The four mRNAs, transcribed from cDNAs directed by an SP6 promoter, were identical except for mutations at nucleotide ‐3. In each case, translation of mRNAs produced a single protein of Mr = 12,600. Relative translational efficiencies showed a hierarchy in the reticulocyte lysate system (100, 85, 61 and 38% for A, G, U and C in position ‐3, respectively) but no differences in the wheat germ system. Differential mRNA degradation or polypeptide chain elongation were excluded as causes of the differences observed in translation in the reticulocyte lysate. mRNA competition increased the differences observed in translational efficiencies in reticulocyte lysate but showed no effect in wheat germ. Analysis of 61 plant and 209 animal mRNA sequences revealed qualitative and quantitative differences between the consensus sequences surrounding AUG initiation codons. Whereas the consensus sequence for animals was CACCAUG that for plants was AACAAUGGC. Both the structural and functional findings suggest that the factors which select AUG initiation codons in plants and animals differ significantly.

Correct folding of newly synthesized proteins is proposed to be assisted by molecular chaperones and folding catalysts. To

The signal-recognition particle (SRP) is important for the targeting of many secretory and membrane proteins to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Targeting is regulated by three GTPases, the 54K subunit of SRP (SRP54), and the alpha- and beta-subunits of the SRP receptor. When a signal sequence emerges from the ribosome, SRP interacts with it and targets the resulting complex to the ER membrane by binding to the SRP receptor. Subsequently, SRP releases the signal sequence into the translocation channel. Here we use a complex of a ribosome with a nascent peptide chain, the SRP and its receptor, to investigate GTP binding to SRP54, and GTP hydrolysis. Our findings indicate that a ribosomal component promotes GTP binding to the SRP54 subunit of SRP. GTP-bound SRP54 is essential for high-affinity interaction between SRP and its receptor in the ER membrane. This interaction induces the release of the signal sequence from SRP, the insertion of the nascent polypeptide chain into the translocation channel, and GTP hydrolysis. The contribution of the ribosome had previously escaped detection because only synthetic signal peptides were used in the analysis.

The signal recognition particle (SRP) binds to signal sequences when they emerge from a translating ribosome and targets the complex of ribosome, nascent chain and SRP to the membrane of the rough endoplasmic reticulum (rER) allowing the co‐translational translocation of the nascent chain. By photo‐crosslinking it has been shown that the signal sequence of preprolactin (PPL) only interacts with the methionine‐rich (M) domain of the 54 kDa protein subunit (SRP54) of SRP. Here we show that (i) a signal‐anchor sequence is likewise crosslinked only to the methionine‐rich domain of SRP54, (ii) free SRP54 can interact with signal sequences independently of the other components of SRP, (iii) its M domain suffices to perform this function, and (iv) an essentially intact M domain is required for signal sequence recognition. Alkylation of the N+G domain in intact SRP54 with N‐ethyl maleimide (NEM), but not after cleavage with V8 protease, prevents the binding of a signal sequence to the M domain. This suggests a proximity between the N+G and M domains of SRP54 and raises the possibility that the role of the N+G domain may be to regulate the binding and/or the release of signal sequences.

In higher eukaryotes, most secretory and membrane proteins are synthesised by ribosomes which are attached to the membrane of the rough endoplasmic reticulum (RER). This allows the proteins to be translocated across that membrane already during their synthesis. The ribosomes are directed to the RER membrane by a cytoplasmic ribonucleoprotein particle, the signal recognition particle (SRP). SRP fulfills its task by virtue of three distinguishable activities: the binding of a signal sequence which, being part of the nascent polypeptide to be translocated, is exposed on the surface of a translating ribosome; the retardation of any further elongation; and the SRP‐receptor‐mediated binding of the complex of ribosome, nascent polypetide and SRP to the RER membrane which results in the detachment of SRP from the signal sequence and the ribosome and the insertion of the nascent polypeptide into the membrane. Evidence is accumulating that SRP is not restricted to eukaryotes: SRP‐related particles and SRP‐receptor‐related molecules are found ubiquitously and may function in protein translocation in every living organism. This review focusses on the mammalian SRP. A brief discussion of its overall structure is followed by a detailed description of the structures of its RNA and protein constituents and the requirements for their assembly into the particle. Homologues of SRP components from organisms other than mammals are mentioned to emphasize the components' conserved or less conserved features. Subsequently, the functions of each of the SRP constitutents are discussed. This sets the stage for a presentation of a model for the mechanism by which SRP cyclically assembles and disassembles with translating ribosomes and the RER membrane. It may be expected that similar mechanisms are used by SRP homologues in organisms other than mammals. However, the mammalian SRP‐mediated translocation mechanism may not be conserved in its entirety in organisms like Escherichia coli whose SRP lack components required for the function of the mammalian SRP. Possible translocation pathways involving the rudimentary SRP are discussed in view of the existence of alternative, chaperone‐mediated translocation pathways with which they may intersect. The concluding two sections deal with open questions in two areas of SRP research. One formulates basic questions regarding the little‐investigated biogenesis of SRP. The other gives an outlook over the insights into the mechanisms of each of the known activities of the SRP that are to be expected in the short and medium‐term future.