Human eIF2A has a minimal role in translation initiation and in uORF-mediated translational control
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
In this valuable study, Roiuk et al employed a combination of ribosome profiling and reporter assays to provide convincing evidence that eIF2A is not involved in translational regulation in cultured human cells. In conjunction with several recent publications (spanning yeast to mammalian systems), these findings disaffirm the previously proposed role of eIF2A in directing protein synthesis, including its implication in translational reprogramming under stress. Whilst clearly delinating something eIF2A does not do, identifying cellular role(s) for eIF2A could further strengthen this article.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Initiation of translation on eukaryotic mRNAs requires a 40S ribosome loaded with an initiator tRNA in order to scan for, and to identify, an initiation codon. Under most conditions, the initiator tRNA is recruited to the ribosome as part of a ternary complex composed of initiator tRNA, eIF2 and GTP. Although this function of recruiting the initiator tRNA was originally ascribed to another factor, eIF2A, it was later disproven and shown to belong to eIF2. Nonetheless, eIF2A is still considered a translation initiation factor because it binds the ribosome and shows genetic interactions with other initiation factors such as eIF4E. The exact function of eIF2A during translation initiation, however, remains unclear. We systematically test here by ribosome profiling and luciferase reporter assays the role of eIF2A in translation initiation, including translation of upstream ORFs that are either initiated with a canonical AUG or near-cognate codons. Since eIF2A is thought to take over the function of eIF2 when eIF2 is inhibited, we also test conditions where the integrate stress response is activated, thereby leading to eIF2 inactivation. In none of our assays, however, could we detect a role of eIF2A in translation initiation. We propose that instead eIF2A may be playing a function related to other aspects of RNA biology.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
Author response:
Reviewer #1:
Summary:
Beyond what is stated in the title of this paper, not much needs to be summarized. eIF2A in HeLa cells promotes translation initiation of neither the main ORFs nor short uORFs under any of the conditions tested.
Strengths:
Very comprehensive, in fact, given the huge amount of purely negative data, an admirably comprehensive and well-executed analysis of the factor of interest.
Weaknesses:
The study is limited to the HeLa cell line, focusing primarily on KO of eIF2A and neglecting the opposite scenario, higher eIF2A expression which could potentially result in an increase in non-canonical initiation events.
We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation. As suggested by the reviewer in the detailed recommendations, we will clarify in the title, abstract and text that our conclusions are limited …
Author response:
Reviewer #1:
Summary:
Beyond what is stated in the title of this paper, not much needs to be summarized. eIF2A in HeLa cells promotes translation initiation of neither the main ORFs nor short uORFs under any of the conditions tested.
Strengths:
Very comprehensive, in fact, given the huge amount of purely negative data, an admirably comprehensive and well-executed analysis of the factor of interest.
Weaknesses:
The study is limited to the HeLa cell line, focusing primarily on KO of eIF2A and neglecting the opposite scenario, higher eIF2A expression which could potentially result in an increase in non-canonical initiation events.
We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation. As suggested by the reviewer in the detailed recommendations, we will clarify in the title, abstract and text that our conclusions are limited to HeLa cells. Furthermore, as suggested we will test the effect of eIF2A overexpression on the luciferase reporter constructs, and will upload a revised manuscript.
Reviewer #2:
Summary
Roiuk et al describe a work in which they have investigated the role of eIF2A in translation initiation in mammals without much success. Thus, the manuscript focuses on negative results. Further, the results, while original, are generally not novel, but confirmatory, since related claims have been made before independently in different systems with Haikwad et al study recently published in eLife being the most relevant.
Despite this, we find this work highly important. This is because of a massive wealth of unreliable information and speculations regarding eIF2A role in translation arising from series of artifacts that began at the moment of eIF2A discovery. This, in combination with its misfortunate naming (eIF2A is often mixed up with alpha subunit of eIF2, eIF2S1) has generated a widespread confusion among researchers who are not experts in eukaryotic translation initiation. Given this, it is not only justifiable but critical to make independent efforts to clear up this confusion and I very much appreciate the authors' efforts in this regard.
Strengths
The experimental investigation described in this manuscript is thorough, appropriate and convincing.
Weaknesses
However, we are not entirely satisfied with the presentation of this work which we think should be improved.
We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation. We will revise the manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestions made in the detailed recommendations.
Reviewer #3:
Summary:
This is a valuable study providing solid evidence that the putative non-canonical initiation factor eIF2A has little or no role in the translation of any expressed mRNAs in cultured human (primarily HeLa) cells. Previous studies have implicated eIF2A in GTP-independent recruitment of initiator tRNA to the small (40S) ribosomal subunit, a function analogous to canonical initiation factor eIF2, and in supporting initiation on mRNAs that do not require scanning to select the AUG codon or that contain near-cognate start codons, especially upstream ORFs with non-AUG start codons, and may use the cognate elongator tRNA for initiation. Moreover, the detected functions for eIF2A were limited to, or enhanced by, stress conditions where canonical eIF2 is phosphorylated and inactivated, suggesting that eIF2A provides a back-up function for eIF2 in such stress conditions. CRISPR gene editing was used to construct two different knock-out cell lines that were compared to the parental cell line in a large battery of assays for bulk or gene-specific translation in both unstressed conditions and when cells were treated with inhibitors that induce eIF2 phosphorylation. None of these assays identified any effects of eIF2A KO on translation in unstressed or stressed cells, indicating little or no role for eIF2A as a back-up to eIF2 and in translation initiation at near-cognate start codons, in these cultured cells.
The study is very thorough and generally well executed, examining bulk translation by puromycin labeling and polysome analysis and translational efficiencies of all expressed mRNAs by ribosome profiling, with extensive utilization of reporters equipped with the 5'UTRs of many different native transcripts to follow up on the limited number of genes whose transcripts showed significant differences in translational efficiencies (TEs) in the profiling experiments. They also looked for differences in translation of uORFs in the profiling data and examined reporters of uORF-containing mRNAs known to be translationally regulated by their uORFs in response to stress, going so far as to monitor peptide production from a uORF itself. The high precision and reproducibility of the replicate measurements instil strong confidence that the myriad of negative results they obtained reflects the lack of eIF2A function in these cells rather than data that would be too noisy to detect small effects on the eIF2A mutations. They also tested and found no evidence for a recent claim that eIF2A localizes to the cytoplasm in stress and exerts a global inhibition of translation. Given the numerous papers that have been published reporting functions of eIF2A in specific and general translational control, this study is important in providing abundant, high-quality data to the contrary, at least in these cultured cells.
Strengths:
The paper employed two CRISPR knock-out cell lines and subjected them to a combination of high-quality ribosome profiling experiments, interrogating both main coding sequences and uORFs throughout the translatome, which was complemented by extensive reporter analysis, and cell imaging in cells both unstressed and subjected to conditions of eIF2 phosphorylation, all in an effort to test previous conclusions about eIF2A functioning as an alternative to eIF2.
Weaknesses:
There is some question about whether their induction of eIF2 phosphorylation using tunicamycin was extensive enough to state forcefully that eIF2A has little or no role in the translatome when eIF2 function is strongly impaired. Also, similar conclusions regarding the minimal role of eIF2A were reached previously for a different human cell line from a study that also enlisted ribosome profiling under conditions of extensive eIF2 phosphorylation; although that study lacked the extensive use of reporters to confirm or refute the identification by ribosome profiling of a small group of mRNAs regulated by eIF2A during stress.
We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation. We will revise the manuscript according to the recommendations made in the detailed recommendations. Regarding the two points mentioned here:
(1) the reason eIF2alpha phosphorylation does not increase appreciably is because unfortunately the antibody is very poor. The fact that the Integrated Stress Response (ISR) is induced by our treatment can be seen, for instance, by the fact that ATF4 protein levels increase strongly (in the very same samples where eIF2alpha phosphorylation does not increase much, in Suppl. Fig. 5E). We will strengthen the conclusion that the ISR is indeed activated with additional experiments/data as suggested by the reviewer.
(2) We agree that our results are in line with results from the previous study mentioned by the reviewer, so we will revise the manuscript to mention this other study more extensively in the discussion.
-
eLife Assessment
In this valuable study, Roiuk et al employed a combination of ribosome profiling and reporter assays to provide convincing evidence that eIF2A is not involved in translational regulation in cultured human cells. In conjunction with several recent publications (spanning yeast to mammalian systems), these findings disaffirm the previously proposed role of eIF2A in directing protein synthesis, including its implication in translational reprogramming under stress. Whilst clearly delinating something eIF2A does not do, identifying cellular role(s) for eIF2A could further strengthen this article.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Beyond what is stated in the title of this paper, not much needs to be summarized. eIF2A in HeLa cells promotes translation initiation of neither the main ORFs nor short uORFs under any of the conditions tested.
Strengths:
Very comprehensive, in fact, given the huge amount of purely negative data, an admirably comprehensive and well-executed analysis of the factor of interest.
Weaknesses:
The study is limited to the HeLa cell line, focusing primarily on KO of eIF2A and neglecting the opposite scenario, higher eIF2A expression which could potentially result in an increase in non-canonical initiation events.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary
Roiuk et al describe a work in which they have investigated the role of eIF2A in translation initiation in mammals without much success. Thus, the manuscript focuses on negative results. Further, the results, while original, are generally not novel, but confirmatory, since related claims have been made before independently in different systems with Haikwad et al study recently published in eLife being the most relevant.
Despite this, we find this work highly important. This is because of a massive wealth of unreliable information and speculations regarding eIF2A role in translation arising from series of artifacts that began at the moment of eIF2A discovery. This, in combination with its misfortunate naming (eIF2A is often mixed up with alpha subunit of eIF2, eIF2S1) has generated a widespread …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary
Roiuk et al describe a work in which they have investigated the role of eIF2A in translation initiation in mammals without much success. Thus, the manuscript focuses on negative results. Further, the results, while original, are generally not novel, but confirmatory, since related claims have been made before independently in different systems with Haikwad et al study recently published in eLife being the most relevant.
Despite this, we find this work highly important. This is because of a massive wealth of unreliable information and speculations regarding eIF2A role in translation arising from series of artifacts that began at the moment of eIF2A discovery. This, in combination with its misfortunate naming (eIF2A is often mixed up with alpha subunit of eIF2, eIF2S1) has generated a widespread confusion among researchers who are not experts in eukaryotic translation initiation. Given this, it is not only justifiable but critical to make independent efforts to clear up this confusion and I very much appreciate the authors' efforts in this regard.
Strengths
The experimental investigation described in this manuscript is thorough, appropriate and convincing.
Weaknesses
However, we are not entirely satisfied with the presentation of this work which we think should be improved.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This is a valuable study providing solid evidence that the putative non-canonical initiation factor eIF2A has little or no role in the translation of any expressed mRNAs in cultured human (primarily HeLa) cells. Previous studies have implicated eIF2A in GTP-independent recruitment of initiator tRNA to the small (40S) ribosomal subunit, a function analogous to canonical initiation factor eIF2, and in supporting initiation on mRNAs that do not require scanning to select the AUG codon or that contain near-cognate start codons, especially upstream ORFs with non-AUG start codons, and may use the cognate elongator tRNA for initiation. Moreover, the detected functions for eIF2A were limited to, or enhanced by, stress conditions where canonical eIF2 is phosphorylated and inactivated, suggesting that eIF2A …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This is a valuable study providing solid evidence that the putative non-canonical initiation factor eIF2A has little or no role in the translation of any expressed mRNAs in cultured human (primarily HeLa) cells. Previous studies have implicated eIF2A in GTP-independent recruitment of initiator tRNA to the small (40S) ribosomal subunit, a function analogous to canonical initiation factor eIF2, and in supporting initiation on mRNAs that do not require scanning to select the AUG codon or that contain near-cognate start codons, especially upstream ORFs with non-AUG start codons, and may use the cognate elongator tRNA for initiation. Moreover, the detected functions for eIF2A were limited to, or enhanced by, stress conditions where canonical eIF2 is phosphorylated and inactivated, suggesting that eIF2A provides a back-up function for eIF2 in such stress conditions. CRISPR gene editing was used to construct two different knock-out cell lines that were compared to the parental cell line in a large battery of assays for bulk or gene-specific translation in both unstressed conditions and when cells were treated with inhibitors that induce eIF2 phosphorylation. None of these assays identified any effects of eIF2A KO on translation in unstressed or stressed cells, indicating little or no role for eIF2A as a back-up to eIF2 and in translation initiation at near-cognate start codons, in these cultured cells.
The study is very thorough and generally well executed, examining bulk translation by puromycin labeling and polysome analysis and translational efficiencies of all expressed mRNAs by ribosome profiling, with extensive utilization of reporters equipped with the 5'UTRs of many different native transcripts to follow up on the limited number of genes whose transcripts showed significant differences in translational efficiencies (TEs) in the profiling experiments. They also looked for differences in translation of uORFs in the profiling data and examined reporters of uORF-containing mRNAs known to be translationally regulated by their uORFs in response to stress, going so far as to monitor peptide production from a uORF itself. The high precision and reproducibility of the replicate measurements instil strong confidence that the myriad of negative results they obtained reflects the lack of eIF2A function in these cells rather than data that would be too noisy to detect small effects on the eIF2A mutations. They also tested and found no evidence for a recent claim that eIF2A localizes to the cytoplasm in stress and exerts a global inhibition of translation. Given the numerous papers that have been published reporting functions of eIF2A in specific and general translational control, this study is important in providing abundant, high-quality data to the contrary, at least in these cultured cells.
Strengths:
The paper employed two CRISPR knock-out cell lines and subjected them to a combination of high-quality ribosome profiling experiments, interrogating both main coding sequences and uORFs throughout the translatome, which was complemented by extensive reporter analysis, and cell imaging in cells both unstressed and subjected to conditions of eIF2 phosphorylation, all in an effort to test previous conclusions about eIF2A functioning as an alternative to eIF2.
Weaknesses:
There is some question about whether their induction of eIF2 phosphorylation using tunicamycin was extensive enough to state forcefully that eIF2A has little or no role in the translatome when eIF2 function is strongly impaired. Also, similar conclusions regarding the minimal role of eIF2A were reached previously for a different human cell line from a study that also enlisted ribosome profiling under conditions of extensive eIF2 phosphorylation; although that study lacked the extensive use of reporters to confirm or refute the identification by ribosome profiling of a small group of mRNAs regulated by eIF2A during stress.
-
