CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278RNA and protein synthesis mechanismsRNA modifications and cancerRNA Interference and Gene Delivery

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

N1-methyl-pseudouridine in mRNA enhances translation through eIF2α-dependent and independent mechanisms by increasing ribosome density

Open access
Svitkin, Yuri V., Cheng, Yi Min, Chakraborty, Tirtha, Presnyak, Vladimir, John, Matthias, Sonenberg, Nahum·2017·Nucleic Acids Research
DOI 10.1093/nar/gkx135PMC PMC5449617
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Certain chemical modifications confer increased stability and low immunogenicity to in vitro transcribed mRNAs, thereby facilitating expression of therapeutically important proteins. Here, we demonstrate that N1-methyl-pseudouridine (N1mΨ) outperforms several other nucleoside modifications and their combinations in terms of translation capacity. Through extensive analysis of various modified transcripts in cell-free translation systems, we deconvolute the different components of the effect on protein expression independent of mRNA stability mechanisms. We show that in addition to turning off the immune/eIF2α phosphorylation-dependent inhibition of translation, the incorporated N1mΨ nucleotides dramatically alter the dynamics of the translation process by increasing ribosome pausing and density on the mRNA. Our results indicate that the increased ribosome loading of modified mRNAs renders them more permissive for initiation by favoring either ribosome recycling on the same mRNA or de novo ribosome recruitment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nar/gkx135

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Recapitulation of the translational enhancement by modified nucleosides in mRNA in Krebs extract. (A) Nucleoside modifications conferring enhanced translation to Luc mRNA in cells. Luc mRNAs, either not containing (Unmod) or containing the 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ (N1-methyl-pseudouridine), 5 mC and N1mΨ nucleoside modifications, were transfected into HEK293T cells. Cells were lysed 4.5 h after transfection and luc activity was measured in 1% aliquots of the lysates. (B) Time course analysis of luc synthesis in untreated Krebs extracts supplemented with unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNAs (4 μg/ml). At the indicated time points after beginning of translation at 30°C, 1-μl aliquots of the reaction mixtures were assayed for luc activity. (C) Unmodified and N1mΨ-modified Luc mRNA dose response of translation in Krebs extract. Luc and N1mΨ–Luc mRNAs were translated in untreated Krebs extracts at the indicated concentrations. Following incubation at 30°C for 4 h, 1-μl aliquots of the translation mixtures were assayed for luc activity. Data are means from three assays ± SD (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01). Relative luciferase units (RLU).
Figure 1. Recapitulation of the translational enhancement by modified nucleosides in mRNA in Krebs extract. (A) Nucleoside modifications conferring enhanced translation to Luc mRNA in cells. Luc mRNAs, either not containing (Unmod) or containing the 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ (N1-methyl-pseudouridine), 5 mC and N1mΨ nucleoside modifications, were transfected into HEK293T cells. Cells were lysed 4.5 h after transfection and luc activity was measured in 1% aliquots of the lysates. (B) Time course analysis of luc synthesis in untreated Krebs extracts supplemented with unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNAs (4 μg/ml). At the indicated time points after beginning of translation at 30°C, 1-μl aliquots of the reaction mixtures were assayed for luc activity. (C) Unmodified and N1mΨ-modified Luc mRNA dose response of translation in Krebs extract. Luc and N1mΨ–Luc mRNAs were translated in untreated Krebs extracts at the indicated concentrations. Following incubation at 30°C for 4 h, 1-μl aliquots of the translation mixtures were assayed for luc activity. Data are means from three assays ± SD (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01). Relative luciferase units (RLU).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Kinetics of luc synthesis in cell-free extracts translating unmodified or modified Luc mRNAs as determined by real-time measurements of Luc activity. Unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNAs (20 μg/ml) were translated in untreated HeLa S10 extract (A) or RNase-treated RRL (B). The representative kinetic curves of luc synthesis and the background levels (None) are shown. The first time point at which the recorded signal is significantly above the background are taken as the durations of single translation cycle of mRNAs (indicated by arrows in matching colors). For details, see ‘Materials and Methods’ section.
Figure 2. Kinetics of luc synthesis in cell-free extracts translating unmodified or modified Luc mRNAs as determined by real-time measurements of Luc activity. Unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNAs (20 μg/ml) were translated in untreated HeLa S10 extract (A) or RNase-treated RRL (B). The representative kinetic curves of luc synthesis and the background levels (None) are shown. The first time point at which the recorded signal is significantly above the background are taken as the durations of single translation cycle of mRNAs (indicated by arrows in matching colors). For details, see ‘Materials and Methods’ section.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Time course of synthesis of polypeptides in Krebs extracts programmed with unmodified or modified Luc mRNAs. Unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNAs (4 μg/ml) were translated in RNase-treated Krebs extracts in the presence of 35S-methionine. At the indicated time points, aliquots of the reaction mixtures were withdrawn and fixed with SDS-sample buffer. Translation products were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. Molecular mass markers are indicated on the right.
Figure 3. Time course of synthesis of polypeptides in Krebs extracts programmed with unmodified or modified Luc mRNAs. Unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNAs (4 μg/ml) were translated in RNase-treated Krebs extracts in the presence of 35S-methionine. At the indicated time points, aliquots of the reaction mixtures were withdrawn and fixed with SDS-sample buffer. Translation products were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. Molecular mass markers are indicated on the right.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Time course of GFP synthesis in cell-free extracts translating unmodified or modified GFP mRNAs. (A) Unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated GFP mRNAs (4 μg/ml) were translated in RNase-treated Krebs extracts in the presence of 35S-methionine. At the indicated time points, aliquots of the reaction mixtures were withdrawn for analysis by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. The positions of molecular mass markers are indicated on the right. (B) Real-time kinetic analysis of active GFP synthesis in untreated HeLa S10 extract programmed with unmodified or 5 mC/N1mΨ and N1mΨ-incorporated GFP mRNAs (see the legend to Figure 2A for details). Relative fluorescence units (RFU).
Figure 4. Time course of GFP synthesis in cell-free extracts translating unmodified or modified GFP mRNAs. (A) Unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated GFP mRNAs (4 μg/ml) were translated in RNase-treated Krebs extracts in the presence of 35S-methionine. At the indicated time points, aliquots of the reaction mixtures were withdrawn for analysis by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. The positions of molecular mass markers are indicated on the right. (B) Real-time kinetic analysis of active GFP synthesis in untreated HeLa S10 extract programmed with unmodified or 5 mC/N1mΨ and N1mΨ-incorporated GFP mRNAs (see the legend to Figure 2A for details). Relative fluorescence units (RFU).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Unmodified, but not modified, mRNAs induce eIF2α phosphorylation and RNA-dependent protein kinase (PKR) activation in cell extracts. (A–D) Western blot analyzes of eIF2α phosphorylation in RNase untreated RRL (A, top panel), Krebs (B and C) or HeLa (D) S10 extracts not supplemented (none) or supplemented with unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc or GFP mRNAs (4 μg/ml), as indicated. GADD34 (6 μg/ml), either alone or in combination with K3L (16 μg/ml), was present where indicated. Extracts were either not incubated (RRL, Krebs S10 and HeLa S10) or incubated at 30°C for 30 min (A, top panel) or 60 min (B–D). The blots for Phospho-eIF2α (eIF2α-P) and total eIF2α (loading control) are shown. Phosphorylation (band intensity) of eIF2α normalized to the phosphorylation in the mRNA minus samples (none) is indicated below each panel. Asterisks indicate unspecific bands. (A, bottom panel) Phosphorylation states of eIF2α in RRL as analyzed by a combination of isoelectric focusing and western blotting. Arrows indicate the positions of phosphorylated and unphosphorylated forms of eIF2α. (E) Effects of unmodified and N1mΨ-incorporated mRNAs on protein phosphorylation in HeLa S10 extract. The assays were conducted in the absence (none) or presence of unmodified or N1mΨ-incorporated Luc and GFP mRNAs and [γ-32P]ATP as indicated. Molecular mass markers are indicated on the left. Arrow indicates the position of a phosphorylated 68-kDa protein.
Figure 5. Unmodified, but not modified, mRNAs induce eIF2α phosphorylation and RNA-dependent protein kinase (PKR) activation in cell extracts. (A–D) Western blot analyzes of eIF2α phosphorylation in RNase untreated RRL (A, top panel), Krebs (B and C) or HeLa (D) S10 extracts not supplemented (none) or supplemented with unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated Luc or GFP mRNAs (4 μg/ml), as indicated. GADD34 (6 μg/ml), either alone or in combination with K3L (16 μg/ml), was present where indicated. Extracts were either not incubated (RRL, Krebs S10 and HeLa S10) or incubated at 30°C for 30 min (A, top panel) or 60 min (B–D). The blots for Phospho-eIF2α (eIF2α-P) and total eIF2α (loading control) are shown. Phosphorylation (band intensity) of eIF2α normalized to the phosphorylation in the mRNA minus samples (none) is indicated below each panel. Asterisks indicate unspecific bands. (A, bottom panel) Phosphorylation states of eIF2α in RRL as analyzed by a combination of isoelectric focusing and western blotting. Arrows indicate the positions of phosphorylated and unphosphorylated forms of eIF2α. (E) Effects of unmodified and N1mΨ-incorporated mRNAs on protein phosphorylation in HeLa S10 extract. The assays were conducted in the absence (none) or presence of unmodified or N1mΨ-incorporated Luc and GFP mRNAs and [γ-32P]ATP as indicated. Molecular mass markers are indicated on the left. Arrow indicates the position of a phosphorylated 68-kDa protein.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 6. Unmodified, but not modified, mRNA induces general eIF2α phosphorylation-dependent translation repression. (A) Endogenous protein synthesis in the untreated Krebs extract as affected by unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated GFP mRNAs. The extracts were pre-incubated at 30°C for 15 min with the indicated mRNAs (4 μg/ml) in the absence (Buffer) or presence of GADD34 (6 μg/ml) and K3L (16 μg/ml). 35S-methionine was then added to the samples, and the incubation was allowed to proceed for 60 min. 35S-methionine incorporation was measured in 1-μl aliquots of the samples. (B and C) GADD34 and eIF2 preferentially stimulate the in vitro translation of Luc as compared to N1mΨ–Luc mRNA. The untreated Krebs (B) or HeLa (C) S10 extracts were programed with unmodified or N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNA (4 μg/ml) in the absence or presence of GADD34 (6 μg/ml) or eIF2 (40 μg/ml). Following incubation at 30°C for 120 min, luc activity was measured in 1-μl aliquots of extracts. Fold stimulation of translation of Luc and N1mΨ–Luc mRNAs by GADD34 or eIF2 relative to Buffer controls and the ratios of translation of N1mΨ–Luc to Luc mRNA are indicated. (D) The 5 mC/Ψ nucleoside modification confers enhanced translation to Luc mRNA in wild-type (WT) and eIF2α-phosphorylation deficient (A/A) MEFs. Luc mRNAs, either not containing (Unmod) or containing the N1mΨ nucleoside modification, were transfected into WT or A/A MEFs. Cells were lysed 4.5 h after transfection. Luc activity was measured in 1% aliquots of the lysates. Data are means from three assays ± SD (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ns—non-significant).
Figure 6. Unmodified, but not modified, mRNA induces general eIF2α phosphorylation-dependent translation repression. (A) Endogenous protein synthesis in the untreated Krebs extract as affected by unmodified or 5 mC/Ψ, 5 mC/N1mΨ, 5 mC and N1mΨ-incorporated GFP mRNAs. The extracts were pre-incubated at 30°C for 15 min with the indicated mRNAs (4 μg/ml) in the absence (Buffer) or presence of GADD34 (6 μg/ml) and K3L (16 μg/ml). 35S-methionine was then added to the samples, and the incubation was allowed to proceed for 60 min. 35S-methionine incorporation was measured in 1-μl aliquots of the samples. (B and C) GADD34 and eIF2 preferentially stimulate the in vitro translation of Luc as compared to N1mΨ–Luc mRNA. The untreated Krebs (B) or HeLa (C) S10 extracts were programed with unmodified or N1mΨ-incorporated Luc mRNA (4 μg/ml) in the absence or presence of GADD34 (6 μg/ml) or eIF2 (40 μg/ml). Following incubation at 30°C for 120 min, luc activity was measured in 1-μl aliquots of extracts. Fold stimulation of translation of Luc and N1mΨ–Luc mRNAs by GADD34 or eIF2 relative to Buffer controls and the ratios of translation of N1mΨ–Luc to Luc mRNA are indicated. (D) The 5 mC/Ψ nucleoside modification confers enhanced translation to Luc mRNA in wild-type (WT) and eIF2α-phosphorylation deficient (A/A) MEFs. Luc mRNAs, either not containing (Unmod) or containing the N1mΨ nucleoside modification, were transfected into WT or A/A MEFs. Cells were lysed 4.5 h after transfection. Luc activity was measured in 1% aliquots of the lysates. Data are means from three assays ± SD (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ns—non-significant).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 7. Incorporation of N1mΨ in Luc mRNA increases the fraction of translated mRNA in cell-free extracts. Krebs extracts (A–C) or RRLs (D–F) untreated with RNase were incubated with 3΄ end labeled Luc or N1mΨ–Luc mRNAs. Polysomes were analyzed after 15 min (A and D) or 30 min (B and E) of incubation of the reaction mixtures at 30°C. 80S initiation complex formation in cycloheximide-supplemented Krebs extract (C) or RRL (F) is also shown. For details, see ‘Materials and Methods’ section. In the profiles of RRL, the discernible peaks of light polysomes (disomes, trisomes and qudrosomes) are indicated. In Krebs extract after 15 and 30 min of incubation, the formation of heavy polysomes (fractions 24–31) was more efficient on N1mΨ–Luc than Luc mRNA (A and B). In RRL, the engagement of N1mΨ–Luc mRNA in heavy polysomes, which contain more than four ribosomes (fractions 24–32), was >3.1-fold and >5.5-fold greater than Luc mRNA after 15 min (D) and 30 min (E) of incubation, respectively. In RRL, the N1mΨ–Luc mRNA was more efficient than Luc mRNA in 80S initiation complex formation (∼1.4-fold, fractions 11–15, panel F). Six top fractions of the gradients are omitted for greater clarity.
Figure 7. Incorporation of N1mΨ in Luc mRNA increases the fraction of translated mRNA in cell-free extracts. Krebs extracts (A–C) or RRLs (D–F) untreated with RNase were incubated with 3΄ end labeled Luc or N1mΨ–Luc mRNAs. Polysomes were analyzed after 15 min (A and D) or 30 min (B and E) of incubation of the reaction mixtures at 30°C. 80S initiation complex formation in cycloheximide-supplemented Krebs extract (C) or RRL (F) is also shown. For details, see ‘Materials and Methods’ section. In the profiles of RRL, the discernible peaks of light polysomes (disomes, trisomes and qudrosomes) are indicated. In Krebs extract after 15 and 30 min of incubation, the formation of heavy polysomes (fractions 24–31) was more efficient on N1mΨ–Luc than Luc mRNA (A and B). In RRL, the engagement of N1mΨ–Luc mRNA in heavy polysomes, which contain more than four ribosomes (fractions 24–32), was >3.1-fold and >5.5-fold greater than Luc mRNA after 15 min (D) and 30 min (E) of incubation, respectively. In RRL, the N1mΨ–Luc mRNA was more efficient than Luc mRNA in 80S initiation complex formation (∼1.4-fold, fractions 11–15, panel F). Six top fractions of the gradients are omitted for greater clarity.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 278

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Svitkin, Y. V., Cheng, Y. M., Chakraborty, T., Presnyak, V., John, M., & Sonenberg, N.
Affiliations
  • Institut du cancer Rosalind & Morris Goodman (CA)
  • Moderna Therapeutics (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Svitkin, Yuri V.
  • Sonenberg, Nahum
ORCID
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2017-02-23
Volume
45
Issue
10
Pages
6023-6036
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
DOI
10.1093/nar/gkx135
PMC
PMC5449617
OpenAlex
W2589945527
Cited by
278
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA modifications and cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Keywords
nucleoside-modified mRNA, translation efficiency, eIF2α phosphorylation, ribosome density, ribosome pausing, ribosome recycling, in vitro translation, in vitro transcribed mRNA
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Line, Cell-Free System, Enzyme Activation, Fibroblasts, HeLa Cells, Humans, Phosphorylation, Polyribosomes, Protein Processing, Post-Translational, Pseudouridine, RNA, RNA, Messenger, Transfection, Protein Biosynthesis, Eukaryotic Initiation Factor-2, eIF-2 Kinase, RNA Stability, Mice, HEK293 Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review