2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06466.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Translation initiation factor IF1 of Bacillus stearothermophilus and Thermus thermophilus substitute for Escherichia coli IF1 in vivo and in vitro without a direct IF1–IF2 interaction

Abstract: SummaryBacterial translation initiation factor IF1 is homologous to archaeal aIF1A and eukaryal eIF1A, which form a complex with their homologous IF2-like factors (aIF5B and eIF5B respectively) during initiation of protein synthesis. A similar IF1-IF2 interaction is assumed to occur in all bacteria and supported by cross-linking data and stabilization of the 30S-IF2 interaction by IF1. Here we compare Escherichia coli IF1 with thermophilic factors from Bacillus stearothermophilus and Thermus thermophilus. All … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

5
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The present results suggest that the stimulatory effect of IF1 may be mediated by a direct contact with the NTD of IF2. In contrast, thermophilic IF1 does not interact with the NTD of IF2 and does not augment IF2 functions [54]; consistently, no direct contact between IF1 and IF2 was found in the T. thermophilus 30S IC reconstruction [11]. The NTD region is significantly shorter in IF2 from T. thermophilus compared to E. coli , suggesting that the IF1–IF2 interaction is not universally conserved [54].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The present results suggest that the stimulatory effect of IF1 may be mediated by a direct contact with the NTD of IF2. In contrast, thermophilic IF1 does not interact with the NTD of IF2 and does not augment IF2 functions [54]; consistently, no direct contact between IF1 and IF2 was found in the T. thermophilus 30S IC reconstruction [11]. The NTD region is significantly shorter in IF2 from T. thermophilus compared to E. coli , suggesting that the IF1–IF2 interaction is not universally conserved [54].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Furthermore, unlike domain IV of eIF5B, which binds eIF1A, IF2-C2 does not contain the C-terminal helices H13 and H14 responsible for the eIF1A–eIF5B interaction and binds instead to the initiator tRNA; also doubtful is the occurrence of an IF2-IF1 contact on the ribosome (39). Finally, although the eukaryotic suppressor mutations affect directly the ribosomal binding of eIF5B but do not affect its GTPase activity, the E571K and E424K likely represent ‘conformational’ mutants, which cause the complete inactivation of the GTPase activity of IF2 and affect indirectly its interaction with the ribosome.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The precise IF2 topology derived from the present data and refined as a full-length model by MM simulations (Experimental Procedures) allows a detailed interpretation of the cryo-EM maps of the 30S and 70S ICs. The structure shows the presence of a kink around Pro355 in helix H8, close to where S12 and IF1 are bound on the 30S subunit; this proximity suggests that directly or indirectly, and without significantly affecting the thermodynamic stability of the IF2-ribosome complex (34), S12 (and part of IF1) may contribute to positioning domains C1 and C2 in such a way that interactions can be established with the fMet-tRNA fMet on the 30S IC. The structure reveals that in the functional 30S context IF2 adopts a well-defined, extended conformation; furthermore, the C1 and C2 domains are rather flexible in solution, in the crystal structure, or on the 70S IC after release of the interactions with the fMet-tRNA fMet (unless the N domain is removed, in which case these domains remain positioned like in the 30S IC and thereby prevent correct fMettRNA fMet binding in the P site, which is consistent with reduced dipeptide formation).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%