Unique Cost Dynamics Elucidate the Role of Frameshifting Errors in Promoting Translational Robustness

There is now considerable evidence supporting the view that codon usage is frequently under selection for translational accuracy. There are, however, multiple forms of inaccuracy (missense, premature termination, and frameshifting errors) and pinpointing a particular error process behind apparently adaptive mRNA anatomy is rarely straightforward. Understanding differences in the fitness costs associated with different types of translational error can help us devise critical tests that can implicate one error process to the exclusion of others. To this end, we present a model that captures distinct features of frameshifting cost and apply this to 641 prokaryotic genomes. We demonstrate that, although it is commonly assumed that the ribosome encounters an off-frame stop codon soon after the frameshift and costs of mis-elongation are therefore limited, genomes with high GC content typically incur much larger per-error costs. We go on to derive the prediction, unique to frameshifting errors, that differences in translational robustness between the 5′ and 3′ ends of genes should be less pronounced in genomes with higher GC content. This prediction we show to be correct. Surprisingly, this does not mean that GC-rich organisms necessarily carry a greater fitness burden as a consequence of accidental frameshifting. Indeed, increased per-error costs are often more than counterbalanced by lower predicted error rates owing to more diverse anticodon repertoires in GC-rich genomes. We therefore propose that selection on tRNA repertoires may operate to reduce frameshifting errors.

[1]  Toshimichi Ikemura,et al.  tRNADB-CE 2011: tRNA gene database curated manually by experts , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  P. Higgs,et al.  The influence of anticodon-codon interactions and modified bases on codon usage bias in bacteria. , 2010, Molecular biology and evolution.

[3]  U. Alon,et al.  Cost of unneeded proteins in E. coli is reduced after several generations in exponential growth. , 2010, Molecular cell.

[4]  Y. Pilpel,et al.  An Evolutionarily Conserved Mechanism for Controlling the Efficiency of Protein Translation , 2010, Cell.

[5]  Bruce Futcher,et al.  King of the castle: competition between repressors and activators on the Mcm1 platform. , 2010, Molecular cell.

[6]  V. de Crécy-Lagard,et al.  Deciphering synonymous codons in the three domains of life: Co‐evolution with specific tRNA modification enzymes , 2010, FEBS letters.

[7]  C. Wilke,et al.  The evolutionary consequences of erroneous protein synthesis , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[8]  D. Lipman,et al.  Selection for minimization of translational frameshifting errors as a factor in the evolution of codon usage , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[9]  P. Higgs,et al.  Coevolution of codon usage and tRNA genes leads to alternative stable states of biased codon usage. , 2008, Molecular biology and evolution.

[10]  Toshimichi Ikemura,et al.  tRNADB-CE: tRNA gene database curated manually by experts , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[11]  Claus O. Wilke,et al.  Mistranslation-Induced Protein Misfolding as a Dominant Constraint on Coding-Sequence Evolution , 2008, Cell.

[12]  Daniel M. Stoebel,et al.  The Cost of Expression of Escherichia coli lac Operon Proteins Is in the Process, Not in the Products , 2008, Genetics.

[13]  Hendrik J. Viljoen,et al.  Ribosome kinetics and aa-tRNA competition determine rate and fidelity of peptide synthesis , 2007, Comput. Biol. Chem..

[14]  Andreas Wagner,et al.  Energy costs constrain the evolution of gene expression. , 2007, Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution.

[15]  J. Conery,et al.  Anticodon-dependent conservation of bacterial tRNA gene sequences. , 2007, RNA.

[16]  Uri Alon,et al.  The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences. , 2007, Genome research.

[17]  J. Dinman,et al.  Optimization of Ribosome Structure and Function by rRNA Base Modification , 2007, PloS one.

[18]  A. Eyre-Walker,et al.  Synonymous codon usage in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[19]  M. Rodnina,et al.  The ribosome's response to codon-anticodon mismatches. , 2006, Biochimie.

[20]  Andreas Wagner,et al.  Energy constraints on the evolution of gene expression. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[21]  R. Green,et al.  An Active Role for tRNA in Decoding Beyond Codon:Anticodon Pairing , 2005, Science.

[22]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  Intragenic Spatial Patterns of Codon Usage Bias in Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Genomes , 2004, Genetics.

[23]  E. Rocha Codon usage bias from tRNA's point of view: redundancy, specialization, and efficient decoding for translation optimization. , 2004, Genome research.

[24]  M. Rodnina,et al.  Kinetic determinants of high-fidelity tRNA discrimination on the ribosome. , 2004, Molecular cell.

[25]  P. Farabaugh,et al.  Transfer RNA modifications that alter +1 frameshifting in general fail to affect -1 frameshifting. , 2003, RNA.

[26]  M. Rodnina,et al.  Ribosome fidelity: tRNA discrimination, proofreading and induced fit. , 2001, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[27]  S. Kanaya,et al.  Studies of codon usage and tRNA genes of 18 unicellular organisms and quantification of Bacillus subtilis tRNAs: gene expression level and species-specific diversity of codon usage based on multivariate analysis. , 1999, Gene.

[28]  G. Björk,et al.  Transfer RNA modification: influence on translational frameshifting and metabolism , 1999, FEBS letters.

[29]  R. Gesteland,et al.  Mutations which alter the elbow region of tRNA2Gly reduce T4 gene 60 translational bypassing efficiency , 1999, The EMBO journal.

[30]  P. Farabaugh,et al.  How translational accuracy influences reading frame maintenance , 1999, The EMBO journal.

[31]  G. Björk,et al.  Structural alterations far from the anticodon of the tRNAProGGG of Salmonella typhimurium induce +1 frameshifting at the peptidyl-site. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  C. Kurland,et al.  Co-variation of tRNA abundance and codon usage in Escherichia coli at different growth rates. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  A. Eyre-Walker,et al.  Synonymous codon bias is related to gene length in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy? , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[34]  P. Farabaugh Programmed translational frameshifting. , 1996, Annual review of genetics.

[35]  J. Gallant,et al.  Ribosome frameshifting at hungry codons: sequence rules, directional specificity and possible relationship to mobile element behaviour. , 1993, Biochemical Society transactions.

[36]  E. Goldman,et al.  Increased ribosomal accuracy increases a programmed translational frameshift in Escherichia coli. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  J. Gallant,et al.  On the role of the P-site in leftward ribosome frameshifting at a hungry codon. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[38]  J. Gallant,et al.  Leftward ribosome frameshifting at a hungry codon. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  M Yarus,et al.  Rates of aminoacyl-tRNA selection at 29 sense codons in vivo. , 1989, Journal of molecular biology.

[40]  J. Parker,et al.  Errors and alternatives in reading the universal genetic code. , 1989, Microbiological reviews.

[41]  J. F. Atkins,et al.  Normal tRNAs promote ribosomal frameshifting , 1979, Cell.

[42]  R. Sorek,et al.  Prokaryotic transcriptomics: a new view on regulation, physiology and pathogenicity , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[43]  S. Osawa,et al.  The guanine and cytosine content of genomic DNA and bacterial evolution. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.