The Accumulation of Three Yeast Ribosomal Proteins under Conditions of Excess mRNA is Determined Primarily by Fast Protein Decay

Maicas, E; Pluthero, Fred G; Friesen, James D.

doi:10.1128/mcb.8.1.169-175.1988

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We therefore ascertained that after plating of cells on cycloheximidecontaining plates, no microcolonies indicative of residual growth of cells with the CF (carrying the CYHs2 allele) could be observed. This phenomenon may in part be due to the rapid decay of excess amounts of ribosomal protein L29, which is encoded by the CYH2 gene (36).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vivo Analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Centromere CDEIII Sequence: Requirements for Mitotic Chromosome Segregation

Jehn

Niedenthal

Hegemann

1991

Molecular and Cellular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the complete information needed in cis to specify a fully functional mitotic and meiotic centromere is contained within 120 bp arranged in the three conserved centromeric (CEN) DNA elements CDEI, -II, and -III. The 25-bp CDEIII is most important for faithful chromosome segregation. We have constructed single- and double-base substitutions in all highly conserved residues and one nonconserved residue of this element and analyzed the mitotic in vivo function of the mutated CEN DNAs, using an artificial chromosome. The effects of the mutations on chromosome segregation vary between wild-type-like activity (chromosome loss rate of 4.8 x 10(-4)) and a complete loss of CEN function. Data obtained by saturation mutagenesis of the palindromic core sequence suggest asymmetric involvement of the palindromic half-sites in mitotic CEN function. The poor CEN activity of certain single mutations could be improved by introducing an additional single mutation. These second-site suppressors can be found at conserved and nonconserved positions in CDEIII. Our suppression data are discussed in the context of natural CDEIII sequence variations found in the CEN sequences of different yeast chromosomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vivo Analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Centromere CDEIII Sequence: Requirements for Mitotic Chromosome Segregation

Jehn

Niedenthal

Hegemann

1991

Molecular and Cellular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Protein kinase A-catalyzed phosphorylation of heat shock protein 60 chaperone regulates its attachment to histone 2B in the T lymphocyte plasma membrane

Khan

Wallin

Gupta

et al. 1998

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulating evidence suggests that the mitochondrial molecular chaperone heat shock protein 60 (hsp60) also can localize in extramitochondrial sites. However, direct evidence that hsp60 functions as a chaperone outside of mitochondria is presently lacking. A 60-kDa protein that is present in the plasma membrane of a human leukemic CD4 ؉ CEM-SS T cell line and is phosphorylated by protein kinase A (PKA) was identified as hsp60. An 18-kDa plasma membrane-associated protein coimmunoprecipitated with hsp60 and was identified as histone 2B (H2B). Hsp60 physically associated with H2B when both molecules were in their dephospho forms. By contrast, PKA-catalyzed phosphorylation of both hsp60 and H2B caused dissociation of H2B from hsp60 and loss of H2B from the plasma membrane of intact T cells. These results suggest that (i) hsp60 and H2B can localize in the T cell plasma membrane; (ii) hsp60 functions as a molecular chaperone for H2B; and (iii) PKAcatalyzed phosphorylation of both hsp60 and H2B appears to regulate the attachment of H2B to hsp60. We propose a model in which phosphorylation͞dephosphorylation regulates chaperoning of H2B by hsp60 in the plasma membrane.

show abstract

Regulation of Ribosome Biosynthesis in Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae : Diversity and Common Principles

Nomura

1999

J Bacteriol

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In celebrating the centennial of the American Society for Microbiology, many people will surely recall the central importance that research using microbial systems played in the birth and the subsequent development of molecular biology in the latter half of the 100-year history. Starting from the demonstration of DNA as the genetic material, a series of key experiments, such as the proof of semiconservative replication of DNA, the discovery of mRNA as the information carrier between DNA and protein, and the eventual elucidation of the genetic code, were done mostly with microbial systems, the enteric bacterium Escherichia coli and its bacteriophages in particular. These basic principles in molecular genetics discovered with bacterial systems soon proved to be true for almost all organisms. Consequently, early research activities in molecular biology were concentrated on E. coli and related bacterial and phage systems, generating the initial attitude of many molecular biologists reflected in the well-publicized phrase, "What is true for E. coli is true for elephants." (The acceptance of such an attitude at that time was not very surprising. Prior to the successful development of molecular biology, research in the field of intermediary metabolism from the 1920s through 1940s had demonstrated abundant evidence for the unity of biochemistry from microorganisms to humans, e.g., the mechanism of energy [ATP] production and its use for anabolic reactions [see also reference 42)]. Starting my first research as a student of fermentation biochemistry in 1950, I was certainly influenced by the prevalent belief, the unity of biochemistry, at that time.) Of course, in view of the bewildering diversity known in biology, especially some fundamental differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes or single-cell versus multicellular organisms, such a view was expected to be too simple and naïve. Thus, it was soon realized that the actual mechanisms and principles underlying certain biological functions, including diverse modes found in regulation of gene expression, are the consequences of evolutionary tinkering and may not necessarily be universal among diverse organisms (for a detailed discussion on evolution and tinkering, see reference 27). Nevertheless, attempts to extend factual observations or concepts obtained in one system (e.g., prokaryotes) to another (e.g., eukaryotes) have been made repeatedly and often turned out to be stimulating if not successful. As a person who was engaged in studies of synthesis of ribosomes and ribosomal components first in E. coli and later in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, I will recount some of the research activities on this subject which I have touched upon in this context. REGULATION OF SYNTHESIS OF RIBOSOMES AND RIBOSOMAL COMPONENTS IN E. COLI

show abstract

The Accumulation of Three Yeast Ribosomal Proteins under Conditions of Excess mRNA is Determined Primarily by Fast Protein Decay

Cited by 11 publications

References 44 publications

In Vivo Analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Centromere CDEIII Sequence: Requirements for Mitotic Chromosome Segregation

In Vivo Analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Centromere CDEIII Sequence: Requirements for Mitotic Chromosome Segregation

Protein kinase A-catalyzed phosphorylation of heat shock protein 60 chaperone regulates its attachment to histone 2B in the T lymphocyte plasma membrane

Regulation of Ribosome Biosynthesis in Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae : Diversity and Common Principles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About