Cited by 451Antibiotic Resistance in BacteriaRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 103 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Ribosomal Protection Proteins and Their Mechanism ofTetracyclineResistance

Open access
Connell, Sean R., Tracz, Dobryan M., Nierhaus, Knud H., Taylor, Diane E.·2003·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

Ribosomal protection represents an important tactic for promoting tetracycline resistance in both gram-positive and -negative species. Tet(O) and Tet(M) are the best studied of these determinants and were originally isolated from Campylobacter jejuni and Streptococcus spp., respectively, although both are widely distributed (10). These are the only two ribosomal protection proteins (RPPs) that have been studied in detail, and therefore, they have been dealt with extensively in this review. It is assumed, however, that the other members of this class of RPPs [Tet(S), Tet(T), Tet(Q), TetB(P), Tet(W), and OtrA] function through similar mechanisms. The distribution of these determinants in the eubacteria has been extensively reviewed by Chopra and Roberts (10) and more recent information can also be found at http://faculty.washington.edu/marilynr/. Although this review focuses primarily on RPPs, it should be noted that a great variety of tetracycline resistance mechanisms exist (for a review, see reference 10). These determinants include (i) the efflux-based mechanisms found in gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria (10), (ii) the enzymatic degradation of tetracyclines found in Bacteroides (46), (iii) the rRNA mutations found in Propionibacterium acnes and Helicobacter pylori (19, 40, 55), and (iv) a host of undetermined mechanisms which bear little resemblance to the well-documented determinants mentioned above (10). In this review, we will survey recent advances in the study of the ribosome, tetracycline, and the RPPs that further the understanding of RPP activity. Earlier work dealing with Tet(M) and Tet(O) as well as the other RPPs has been reviewed previously (51, 52).

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Ribosomal protection proteins (RPPs) such as Tet(O) and Tet(M) confer tetracycline resistance by binding the ribosome in a GTP-dependent manner and releasing tetracycline from the primary 30S binding site, restoring A-site tRNA accommodation. The review integrates biochemical and structural data into an allosteric model in which Tet(O) contacts h34 and perturbs the decoding center.

Key findings

  • Tetracycline inhibits elongation by blocking aminoacyl-tRNA accommodation into the ribosomal A site; the high-affinity 30S binding site has a \(K_d\) of 1 to 20 µM, while crystal structures show tetracycline bound to either two or six sites on the 30S subunit. The primary/Tet-1 site near h34 and h31 is the likely inhibitory site.
  • Tet(O) and Tet(M) are soluble cytoplasmic RPPs of ~72 kDa with 75% sequence similarity; they dislodge tetracycline from the ribosome and increase the apparent \(K_d\) of tetracycline binding from 5 to 30 µM, and Tet(M) protects A-site tRNA binding from tetracycline inhibition.
  • RPPs bind the elongation factor site on the ribosome. A 16-Å cryo-EM reconstruction shows Tet(O) at the subunit interface, contacting mostly rRNA; its domain IV contacts h18/34 of 16S rRNA, unlike EF-G domain IV, which contacts H69 of 23S rRNA. DMS probing shows Tet(O) protects C1214 and enhances A1408.
  • Proposed mechanism: Tet(O) binds a tetracycline-blocked ribosome with an open A site, triggers allosteric release of tetracycline via disturbance of h34, hydrolyzes GTP, and dissociates, returning the ribosome to the elongation cycle.

Methods

  • Minireview synthesizing published biochemical, chemical probing, cryo-EM, and crystal structure studies; no new experimental data are reported.
  • Focuses on Tet(O) and Tet(M), the only two RPPs studied in detail, and assumes other RPPs [Tet(S), Tet(T), Tet(Q), TetB(P), Tet(W), and OtrA] function through similar mechanisms.
  • Main analysis integrates ribosome-tetracycline structures and RPP binding data into a model of tetracycline action and RPP-mediated tetracycline release.

Limitations

  • Stated: only Tet(O) and Tet(M) have been studied in detail; other RPPs are assumed to function similarly.
  • Stated: it remains unanswered whether RPPs actively prevent tetracycline rebinding after release; also, there is a discrepancy about GTP hydrolysis, as a nonhydrolyzable GTP analogue was active with Tet(O) but only partially active with Tet(M).
  • Evident from the text: several mechanistic steps, including a tetracycline-induced conformational change and the role of h44 rearrangement, are proposed but not conclusively established.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aac.47.12.3675-3681.2003

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

59 Not checked yet · 8 Own interpretation

Verify all 103 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 18
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 10
25 of 25
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The other members of the RPP class [Tet(S), Tet(T), Tet(Q), TetB(P), Tet(W), and OtrA] function through mechanisms similar to those of Tet(O) and Tet(M).

    “It is assumed, however, that the other members of this class of RPPs [Tet(S), Tet(T), Tet(Q), TetB(P), Tet(W), and OtrA] function through similar mechanisms.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    After being released, tetracycline is free to rebind the ribosome and again inhibit protein synthesis.

    “after being released, tetracycline is free to rebind the ribosome and again inhibit protein synthesis.”
2 of 2

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Connell, S. R., Tracz, D. M., Nierhaus, K. H., & Taylor, D. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics (DE)
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2003-12
Volume
47
Issue
12
Pages
3675-3681
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2168967909
Cited by
449
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Keywords
ribosomal protection proteins, tetracycline resistance, tetM, tetO, ribosome protection, Campylobacter jejuni, Streptococcus, rRNA mutations, OTRA, tetW
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Bacterial Proteins, Models, Molecular, Ribosomes, Tetracycline Resistance

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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