↓ Skip to main content

Internal initiation of translation of mRNA in the methylotrophic yeast Hansenula polymorpha

Overview of attention for article published in Biochemistry, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Internal initiation of translation of mRNA in the methylotrophic yeast Hansenula polymorpha
Published in
Biochemistry, May 2016
DOI 10.1134/s0006297916050096
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. S. Mardanova, A. V. Beletsky, N. V. Ravin

Abstract

Besides regular cap-dependent translation of mRNA, eukaryotes exploit internal initiation of translation driven by internal ribosome entry sites (IRESs). It is supposed that internal initiation provides translation of cellular mRNAs under stress conditions where the cap-dependent initiation is reduced. A number of IRESs have been characterized in mammalian mRNAs, but only a few examples are known in lower eukaryotes, particularly in yeasts. Here we identified two IRESs in the thermotolerant methylotrophic yeast Hansenula polymorpha DL-1. These sites are located in 5'-untranslated regions of genes HPODL_02249 and HPODL_04025 encoding a hypothetical membrane protein and actin-binding protein, respectively. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, both IRESs drive expression of a second gene of a bicistronic mRNA, as well as translation of hairpin-containing monocistronic mRNA. The possibility of spurious splicing or presence of a cryptic promoter in the IRES sequences was ruled out, indicating that expression of a second gene of a bicistronic mRNA was IRES-dependent. We evaluated IRES activity of both elements and found that under normal physiological conditions its contribution to the overall translation of the respective mRNAs in yeast cells is about 0.3-0.4%. Therefore, these results suggest that the IRES-dependent translation initiation mechanism exists in Hansenula polymorpha.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 45%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Professor 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 18%
Unknown 1 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,936,829
of 25,714,183 outputs
Outputs from Biochemistry
#20,772
of 22,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,924
of 350,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biochemistry
#129
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,714,183 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,374 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 350,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.