Transcription and mRNA Stability: Parental Guidance Suggested

Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07103, USA.
Cell (Impact Factor: 32.24). 12/2011; 147(7):1438-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.002
Source: PubMed


The level of an mRNA within a cell depends on both its rate of synthesis and rate of decay. Now, independent studies by Bregman et al. and Trcek et al. provide evidence that these two processes are integrated. They show that transcription factors and DNA promoters can directly influence the relative stability of transcripts that they produce.

Download full-text


Available from: Vivian Bellofatto, Mar 24, 2015
  • Source
    • "Interestingly, Dbf2p is part of a larger interactome of Ccr4p/Pop2p/Not complex, implying that Dbf2p may play a role in recruiting the decay components onto the imprinted message and may even link the processes of initial imprinting the message and later recruitment of decay factors selectively onto the imprinted message. While the exact molecular mechanism of this promoter-mediated decay of these transcripts remains unknown, these studies clearly pointed out that coupling the transcription to decay in inverse manner certainly increases the efficacy of the finetuning of the expression of environmentally induced genes (Bregman et al. 2011; Bellofatto and Wilusz 2011; Dori- Bachash et al. 2011, 2012; Trcek et al. 2011). This 'counteraction' imposed by the synthetodegradeses-like Rap1p may play a critical role for the regulation of expression of many mRNAs whose induction were known to occur in stepwise response (Shalem et al. 2008; Rabani et al. 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efficient production of translation-competent mRNAs involves processing and modification events both in the nucleus and cytoplasm which require a number of complex machineries at both co-transcriptional and posttranscriptional levels. Mutations in the genomic sequence sometimes result in the formation of mutant nonfunctional defective messages. In addition, the enormous amounts of complexities involved in the biogenesis of mRNPs in the nucleus very often leads to the formation of aberrant and faulty messages along with their functional counterpart. Subsequent translation of these mutant and defective populations of messenger RNAs could possibly result in the unfaithful transmission of genetic information and thus is considered a threat to the survival of the cell. To prevent this possibility, mRNA quality control systems have evolved both in the nucleus and cytoplasm in eukaryotes to scrutinize various stages of mRNP biogenesis and translation. In this review, we will focus on the physiological role of some of these mRNA quality control systems in the simplest model eukaryote Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
    Journal of Biosciences 09/2013; 38(3):615-40. DOI:10.1007/s12038-013-9337-4 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Several studies have demonstrated the significance of a downstream element, AUUUA repeats and non-sense codons in controlling mRNA stability (Reviewed in Guti errez et al., 1999). Two very recent discoveries have shown that the promoter elements from which expression of the transcript was driven also are capable of regulating mRNA decay (Bellofatto and Wilusz, 2011; Bregman et al., 2011; Burgess, 2012; Trcek et al., 2011); therefore, a mutation within or close to the promoter may be responsible for reduced IL-10 mRNA turnover in our mutant lines. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Plants are one of the most economical platforms for large-scale production of recombinant proteins for biopharmaceutical and industrial uses. A large number of human recombinant proteins of therapeutic value have been successfully produced in plant systems. One of the main technical challenges of producing recombinant proteins in plants is to obtain sufficient level of protein. This research aims to identify the factors that control synthesis and accumulation of recombinant proteins in stable transgenic plants. A stepwise dissection of human immune-regulatory interleukin-10 (IL-10) protein production was carried out using Arabidopsis thaliana as a model system. EMS-mutagenized transgenic Arabidopsis IL-10 lines, at2762 and at3262, produced significantly higher amount of IL-10 protein than the non-mutagenized IL-10 line (WT-IL-10). The fates of trans-gene in these sets of plants were compared in detail by measuring synthesis and accumulation of IL-10 transcript, transcript stability, protein synthesis and IL-10 protein accumulation. The IL-10 transcripts were more stable in at2762 and at3262 lines than WT-IL-10, which may contribute to higher protein synthesis in these lines. To evaluate whether translational regulation of IL-10 controls its synthesis in non-mutagenized WT-IL-10 and higher IL-10 accumulating mutant lines, we measured the efficiency of the translational machinery. Our results indicate that mutant lines with higher trans-gene expression contain more robust and efficient translational machinery compared with the control line.
    Plant Biotechnology Journal 01/2013; 11(5). DOI:10.1111/pbi.12042 · 5.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cells regulate their genomes mainly at the level of transcription and at the level of mRNA decay. While regulation at the level of transcription is clearly important, the regulation of mRNA turnover by signaling networks is essential for a rapid response to external stimuli. Signaling pathways result in posttranslational modification of RNA binding proteins by phosphorylation, ubiquitination, methylation, acetylation etc. These modifications are important for rapid remodeling of dynamic ribonucleoprotein complexes and triggering mRNA decay. Understanding how these posttranslational modifications alter gene expression is therefore a fundamental question in biology. In this review we highlight recent findings on how signaling pathways and cell cycle checkpoints involving phosphorylation, ubiquitination, and arginine methylation affect mRNA turnover.
    Cellular Signalling 04/2013; 25(8):1699-1710. DOI:10.1016/j.cellsig.2013.03.026 · 4.32 Impact Factor
Show more