| Title |
eIF2A, an initiator tRNA carrier refractory to eIF2α kinases, functions synergistically with eIF5B
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00018-018-2870-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eunah Kim, Joon Hyun Kim, Keunhee Seo, Ka Young Hong, Seon Woo A. An, Junyoung Kwon, Seung-Jae V. Lee, Sung Key Jang |
| Abstract |
The initiator tRNA (Met-tRNA iMet ) at the P site of the small ribosomal subunit plays an important role in the recognition of an mRNA start codon. In bacteria, the initiator tRNA carrier, IF2, facilitates the positioning of Met-tRNA iMet on the small ribosomal subunit. Eukarya contain the Met-tRNA iMet carrier, eIF2 (unrelated to IF2), whose carrier activity is inhibited under stress conditions by the phosphorylation of its α-subunit by stress-activated eIF2α kinases. The stress-resistant initiator tRNA carrier, eIF2A, was recently uncovered and shown to load Met-tRNA iMet on the 40S ribosomal subunit associated with a stress-resistant mRNA under stress conditions. Here, we report that eIF2A interacts and functionally cooperates with eIF5B (a homolog of IF2), and we describe the functional domains of eIF2A that are required for its binding of Met-tRNA iMet , eIF5B, and a stress-resistant mRNA. The results indicate that the eukaryotic eIF5B-eIF2A complex functionally mimics the bacterial IF2 containing ribosome-, GTP-, and initiator tRNA-binding domains in a single polypeptide. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 45% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,492,086
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#2,969
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,266
of 297,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#26
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.