text:
Search the eLife site
Limit my search to Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
The shape of the bacterial ribosome exit tunnel affects cotranslational protein folding
Renuka Kudva,
Pengfei Tian,
Fátima Pardo-Avila,
Marta Carroni,
Robert B Best,
Harris D Bernstein,
Gunnar von Heijne ,
Stockholm University, Sweden;
National Institutes of Health, United States;
Stanford University, United States;
Short Report Nov 26, 2018
Cited 7
Open annotations. The current annotation count on this page is being calculated.
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e36326 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36326
Figures and data
Decision letter
Author response
Article and author information
The E. coli ribosome exit tunnel can accommodate small folded proteins, while larger ones fold outside. It remains unclear, however, to what extent the geometry of the tunnel influences protein folding. Here, using E. coli ribosomes with deletions in loops in proteins uL23 and uL24 that protrude into the tunnel, we investigate how tunnel geometry determines where proteins of different sizes fold. We find that a 29-residue zinc-finger domain normally folding close to the uL23 loop folds deeper in the tunnel in uL23 Δloop ribosomes, while two ~ 100 residue proteins normally folding close to the uL24 loop near the tunnel exit port fold at deeper locations in uL24 Δloop ribosomes, in good agreement with results obtained by coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations. This supports the idea that cotranslational folding commences once a protein domain reaches a location in the exit tunnel where there is sufficient space to house the folded structure.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36326.001
A large fraction of cellular proteins likely start to fold cotranslationally in the ~100 Å long exit tunnel in the ribosomal large subunit (Milligan and Unwin, 1986; Ban et al., 2000; Nissen et al., 2000), before they emerge into the cytosolic environment. In E. coli ribosomes, portions of the 23S rRNA and a few universally conserved proteins line the exit tunnel, Figure 1A. The tunnel proteins uL4, uL22, and uL23 consist of globular domains that are buried within the rRNA, and β-hairpin loops that protrude into the tunnel (Klein et al., 2004). These loops help stabilize the tertiary structure of 23S rRNA (Lawrence et al., 2016) and contribute towards the unique geometry of the tunnel (Ban et al., 2000; Nissen et al., 2000; Harms et al., 2001). uL24 and uL29 are located near the end of the tunnel, and a hairpin loop in uL24 forms a finger-like structure that partially obstructs the tunnel exit port.
Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all
Download asset Open asset
Cotranslational protein folding assay.
(A) Front view of the 50S subunit of the E.coli ribosome adapted from PDB 3JBU (Zhang et al., 2015), with tunnel proteins uL4 and uL22 indicated in gray. The globular domain of uL23 is indicated in orange with the β-hairpin loop depicted in yellow. uL24 is shown in dark blue, with the loop at the tunnel exit shown in light blue. The exit tunnel, outlined by a stalled SecM nascent chain (purple), is ~100 Å in length. (B) The arrest-peptide assay (Nilsson et al., 2015). The domain to be studied is placed L residues upstream of the critical proline at the C-terminal end of the 17-residue long arrest peptide (AP) from the E. coli SecM protein. A 23-residue long stretch of the E. coli LepB protein is attached downstream of the AP, allowing us to separate the arrested (A) and full-length (FL) products by SDS-PAGE after translation. Constructs are translated in the PURExpress in vitro translation system supplemented with WT, uL23 Δloop, or uL24 Δloop high-salt washed ribosomes for 20 min. The relative amounts of arrested and full-length protein were estimated by quantification of SDS-PAGE gels, and the fraction of full-length protein was calculated as fFL = IFL/(IA +IFL) where IA and IFL are the intensities of the bands corresponding to the A and FL products. (c) fFL is a proxy for the force F that cotranslational folding of a protein domain exerts on the AP. At short linker lengths, both F and fFL ≈ 0 because the domain is unable to fold due to lack of space in the exit tunnel. At intermediate linker lengths, F and fFL > 0 because the domain pulls on the nascent chain as it folds. At longer linker lengths, F and fFL ≈ 0 because the domain is already folded when the ribosome reaches the end of the AP.
Inspired by observation that protein domains fold in different parts of the exit tunnel depending on their molecular weight (O'Brien et al., 2010; O'Brien et al., 2011; Trovato and O'Brien, 2016; Samelson et al., 2018; Farías-Rico et al., 2018), we now ask what role the geometry of the exit tunnel plays in determining where these domains fold. To explore this question, we employ the same arrest peptide-based approach (and coarse-grained MD simulations) used in our previous studies of cotranslational protein folding (Nilsson et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2017), but with ribosomes that carry deletions in either the uL23 or the uL24 hairpin loop. Our findings provide strong evidence that the tunnel geometry determines where in the tunnel a protein starts to fold.
The folding assay
Our experimental set-up, Figure 1B, exploits the ability of the SecM translational arrest peptide (AP) (Nakatogawa and Ito, 2001) to act as a force sensor (Ismail et al., 2015; Ismail et al., 2012; Goldman et al., 2015), making it possible to detect the folding of protein domains in the exit tunnel (Nilsson et al., 2015; Goldman et al., 2015). In brief, the domain to be studied is cloned, via a linker, to the AP, L residues away from its C-terminal proline. The AP is followed by a C-terminal tail, to ensure that arrested (A) nascent chains can be cleanly separated from full-length (FL) chains by SDS-PAGE. Constructs with different L are translated in the PURE in vitro translation system (Shimizu et al., 2005), and the fraction full-length protein (fFL) is determined for each L. For linkers that, when stretched, are long enough to allow the protein to reach a part of the exit tunnel where it can fold, force will be exerted on the AP by the folding protein, reducing stalling and increasing fFL. (Tian et al., 2018), Figure 1C. A plot of fFL vs. L thus shows where in the exit tunnel a protein starts to fold and at which linker length folding no longer causes increased tension in the nascent chain.
A number of earlier studies have provided strong support for the notion that the dominant peak in a fFL profile corresponds to folding into the native state (as opposed to, e.g., non-specific compaction of the nascent chain): (i) folded proteins have been visualized in the exit tunnel by cryo-EM of ribosome-nascent chain complexes at L-values corresponding to the dominant fFL peak (Nilsson et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2017; Tian et al., 2018), (ii) the dominant fFL peak disappears when proteins that depend on metals or other ligands for folding are translated in the absence of the ligand (Farías-Rico et al., 2018; Nilsson et al., 2015), (iii) the dominant fFL peak corresponds closely to the tether length at which protein domains become resistant to on-ribosome pulse-proteolysis by thermolysin (Farías-Rico et al., 2018) or at which folding can be detected by other techniques such as NMR or FRET (Kemp et al., 2018), (iv) the amplitude of the fFL peak correlates with the folding free energy of a domain (Farías-Rico et al., 2018).
uL23 Δloop and uL24 Δloop ribosomes
The E. coli strains HDB143 (uL23 Δloop; uL23 residues 65–74 deleted) and HDB144 (uL24 Δloop; uL24 residues 43–57 deleted) have previously been shown to be viable (Peterson et al., 2010), as is a strain where uL23 has been replaced by a homologue from spinach chloroplast ribosomes that also lacks the β-hairpin loop (Bubunenko et al., 1994; Bieri et al., 2017). These strains were used to purify high-salt-washed ribosomes that were used to translate proteins in the commercially available PURExpress Δ-Ribosome kit. Analysis of the purified ribosomes by SDS-PAGE and western blotting demonstrated the expected size differences compared to wildtype for the uL23 Δloop and uL24 Δloop proteins, Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
Cryo-EM structure of uL23 Δloop ribosomes
The loop deleted in the uL24 Δloop ribosomes does not interact with neighboring parts of the ribosome, Figure 2A, and hence its removal would not be expected to alter the structure of other parts of the exit tunnel. In contrast, the loop deleted in uL23 Δloop ribosomes is located deep in the exit tunnel, Figure 2B, ~40–50 Å from the exit and it is not clear a priori whether its removal may cause rearrangements in other tunnel components. For this reason, we determined a cryoEM structure of the uL23 Δloop 70S ribosome at an average resolution of 3.3 Å, Figure 2C, Figure 2—figure supplement 1, and found that the shape of the tunnel remains unchanged in the uL23 Δloop ribosome when compared with wildtype (WT) E. coli ribosomes, except for an increase in volume resulting from the absence of the uL23 loop Figure 2C–D. We estimated this increase using the POVME algorithm (Durrant et al., 2011; Durrant et al., 2014). Compared to WT E. coli ribosomes, the tunnel volume increases by 2,064 Å3 in uL23 Δloop ribosomes, see Video 1, about 1/3 of the size of ADR1a (5,880 Å3) calculated by the same method.
Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all
Structural consequences of removing the hairpin loops in uL24 and uL23 modeled after PDB 3JBU of the SecM stalled ribosome.
(A) In wildtype ribosomes, the loop in uL24 partially obstructs the exit tunnel (top panel). Its removal in uL24 Δloop ribosomes creates a wide opening into the tunnel (bottom panel). (B) In wildtype ribosomes, the loop in uL23 extends into the exit tunnel (top panel). Its removal in uL23 Δloop ribosomes creates an open space around the area where the ADR1a domain is known to fold (Nilsson et al., 2015). The ADR1a structure is from PDB 5A7U. (C) Cryo-EM structure of the uL23 Δloop 70 S ribosome (EMD-4319), fitted to PDB 3JBU (that includes a Gly-tRNA and a 26-residue long arrested SecM AP) to locate uL23 (orange) and the exit tunnel. The enlarged region shows a difference map (in mesh) obtained by subtracting the cryo-EM map of the uL23 Δloop 70 S ribosome from a map generated from 3JBU in Chimera. The difference map shows that the only difference in volume between the two maps is the tRNA (in magenta), the SecM AP (in pink), and the loop deleted from uL23. (D) Extracted cryo-EM density (in mesh) for uL23 in the uL23 Δloop ribosome EMD-4319. Wildtype uL23 (orange) and a de novo-built model for the mutant uL23 Δloop protein (PDB 6FU8; red) are shown in ribbon representation.
This video cannot be played in place because your browser does support HTML5 video. You may still download the video for offline viewing.
Download as MPEG-4
Download as WebM
Download as Ogg
The ribosome exit tunnel (mesh), as calculated for PDB 3JBU, uL23 Δloop and uL24 Δloop ribosomes by POVME.
See Figure 1A for coloring scheme. The b-hairpin loops deleted in uL23 Δloop and uL24 Δloop ribosomes are shown in yellow and light blue, respectively. To facilitate the visualization of the exit tunnel, spheres left outside the exit tunnel after POVME processing were manually removed.
ADR1a folds deeper in the exit tunnel in uL23 Δloop but not in uL24 Δloop ribosomes
ADR1a constructs of different linker lengths (L) were translated in the PURExpress Δ-Ribosome kit supplemented with purified WT, uL23 Δloop, or uL24 Δloop ribosomes, either in the presence of 50 μM Zn2+ (to promote folding of ADR1a) or in the presence of 50 μM of the zinc-specific chelating agent TPEN (to prevent folding of ADR1a; TPEN is required to remove residual amounts of Zn2+ from the PURE lysate) (Figure 3A, Figure 3—figure supplements 1–4). Translation rates in PURE are ~10 fold slower than in vivo (Capece et al., 2015), but since the proteins studied here fold on micro-to-millisecond time scales, that is considerably faster than the in vivo translation rate, it is safe to assume that the folding reaction has time to equilibrate between each translation step both in vivo and in the PURE system.
Figure 3 with 10 supplements see all
Cotranslational folding in WT, uL23 delta-loop, and uL24 delta-loop ribosomes.
(A) ΔfFL profiles (ΔfFL = fFL(50 μM Zn2+) – fFL(50 μM TPEN)) for ADR1a constructs translated in the PURE system supplemented with in-house purified WT (gray), uL23 Δloop (red), and uL24 Δloop (blue) E. coil ribosomes. (B) fFL profiles for spectrin R16 constructs translated in the PURE system supplemented with in-house purified WT (gray), uL23 Δloop (red), and uL24 Δloop (blue) E. coli ribosomes. (C) fFL profiles for titin I27 constructs translated in the PURE system supplemented with in-house purified WT (gray), uL23 Δloop (red), and uL24 Δloop (blue) E. coli ribosomes. Error bars in panels a-c show SEM values calculated from at least three independent experiments. Dashed lines indicate Lonset and Lend values, c.f., Table 1. fFL profiles for non-folding mutants of R16 and I27 are found in (Nilsson et al., 2017; Tian et al., 2018). (D) Simulated fFL profiles (full lines) for ADR1a, spectrin R16, and titin I27 obtained with WT (gray), uL23 Δloop (red), and uL24 Δloop (blue) ribosomes. The corresponding experimental fFL profiles from panels a-c are shown as dashed lines. The simulated ADR1a fFL profile marked by X's was obtained with a uL23 Δloop(70-72) ribosome model. Simulated fFL profiles for ADR1a with uL24 Δloop ribosomes, and for R16 and I27 with uL23 Δloop ribosomes, are essentially identical to the corresponding profiles obtained with WT ribosomes, and are shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 10.
Similar to previous results (Nilsson et al., 2015), we saw efficient stalling when ADR1a was translated in the presence of TPEN at L ≥ 19 residues, Figure 3—figure supplement 8. Further, there is a slight but significant increase in fFL at L = 17 residues in the presence of TPEN (hence not related to folding); this has been observed before (Nilsson et al., 2015) and we hypothesize that it is due to a weakening in the arrest potency of SecM by the ADR1a residues that abut the AP in this construct (see Figure 3—figure supplement 9 for sequences). To correct for this effect, we calculated ΔfFL = fFL(Zn2+) – fFL(TPEN), Figure 3A. In the presence of Zn2+, the ΔfFL profiles for WT and uL24 Δloop ribosomes are very similar: ΔfFL starts to increase around L = 20–21 residues and peaks at L = 25 residues (gray and blue curves). In contrast, for the uL23 Δloop ribosomes, ΔfFL starts to increase already at L = 17 residues and peaks at L = 21–24 residues (red curve). To quantify these differences, for each fFL curve we calculated the linker lengths characterizing the onset and end of the peak (Lonset and Lend; defined as the L-values for which the curve has half-maximal height, as indicated in Figure 3A), as well as the L-value corresponding to the peak of the curve (Lmax), Table 1.
Lonset, Lmax, and Lend values calculated from the fFL profiles in Figure 3.
ADR1a
uL23 Δloop
Lonset 21 17 20 31 31 29 32 33 28
Lmax 25 22 25 35 35 33 35 35 35
Lend 27 26 27 42 39 40 38 38 41
A previous cryo-EM study demonstrated that the 29-residue ADR1a domain folds deep inside the ribosome exit tunnel in a location where it is in contact with the uL23 loop (Nilsson et al., 2015), Figure 2B. The additional space available in uL23 Δloop ribosomes makes it possible for ADR1a to start to fold at 3–4 residues shorter linker lengths (Lonset). Assuming an extended conformation of the linker segment (~3 Å per residue), ADR1a folds ~9–12 Å deeper in the exit tunnel in uL23 Δloop ribosomes than in WT ribosomes.
Spectrin and titin domains fold deeper in the exit tunnel in uL24 Δloop ribosomes
The 109-residue α-spectrin R16 domain has been shown to fold cotranslationally at L ≈ 35 residues, in close proximity to uL24 in the exit port region (Nilsson et al., 2017). As seen in Figure 3B and Table 1, with both WT and uL23 Δloop ribosomes, R16 has Lonset = 31 residues and Lmax = 35 residues (gray and red curves). For the uL24 Δloop ribosomes however, Lonset = 29 residues and Lmax = 33 residues (Table 1), suggesting that that spectrin R16 folds ~6–7 Å deeper in the exit tunnel when the uL24 loop does not obstruct the tunnel exit port.
Similar results were obtained for the 89-residue titin I27 domain, Figure 3C. Previous studies have shown that the I27 domain folds at linker lengths L = 35–39 residues and that it folds in about the same location as does spectrin R16, in close proximity to the uL24 loop (Tian et al., 2018). The fFL profile is not affected by the uL23 loop deletion, but folding commences at ~4 residues shorter linker lengths in uL24 Δloop ribosomes, similar to R16 (Table 1).
Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations
In order to provide a more detailed structural framework for interpreting the fFL profile results, we performed coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations of the cotranslational folding of ADR1a, spectrin R16, and titin I27 in WT, uL23 Δloop, and uL24 Δloop ribosomes, using a recently described model that allows us to calculate fFL profiles from the simulations (Tian et al., 2018). The essence of the method is that the simulations are used to determine folded and unfolded populations at each linker length, and the forces associated with them. Combining this information with the experimentally determined force-dependent escape rate of the AP from the ribosome (Goldman et al., 2015) in a kinetic model allows fFL to be calculated. Simulated (full lines) and experimental (dashed lines) fFL profiles are shown in Figure 3D–F, and detailed simulation results, together with representative snapshots from the simulations of the folded domains at L ≈ Lonset, are shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 10. For all three proteins, the Lonset values are well reproduced by the simulations, both in WT and Δloop ribosomes. Lmax values are also well captured by the simulations for ADR1a (WT ribosomes) and I27 (both WT and uL24 Δloop ribosomes), but are shifted to somewhat lower values in the R16 simulations.
The simulated ADR1a fFL profile for uL23 Δloop ribosomes, while showing an early onset of folding in agreement with the experimental profile, has a much smaller Lmax value. We also performed a simulation using a ribosome model with a smaller deletion in the uL23 loop (residues 70–72; red curve marked by X's); in this case, the peak in the simulated profile extends between Lonset and Lend values that are more similar to the experimental profile for uL23 Δloop ribosomes. The shape of the fFL profile for ADR1a is clearly highly sensitive to fine structural details of the exit tunnel and therefore somewhat difficult to reproduce by coarse-grained simulations.
In summary, both the experimental and simulation results are consistent with the idea that proteins start to fold as soon as they reach a part of the exit tunnel that is large enough to hold the folded protein. Judging from the fFL profiles, the 29-residue ADR1a domain folds approximately ~9–12 Å deeper in the exit tunnel in uL23 Δloop ribosomes than in WT and uL24 Δloop ribosomes, while the 89- and 109-residue titin and spectrin domains fold ~6–10 Å deeper inside the tunnel in uL24 Δloop ribosomes than in WT and uL23 Δloop ribosomes; the corresponding values estimated from the simulations are ~6 Å for ADR1a and ~13–15 Å for I27 and R16 (Figure 3—figure supplement 10 panel B).
Both the uL23 and uL24 loops thus serve to reduce the space available for folding, but in different parts of the exit tunnel. The uL24 loop is particularly interesting in this regard. In bacterial ribosomes, it partially blocks the tunnel exit port, closing off what would otherwise be a wide, funnel-like opening, Figure 2A, and thereby prevents domains of Mw ≥10 kDa from folding inside the exit tunnel. It is conserved (in length, if not in sequence) in bacterial ribosomes, Figure 1—figure supplement 2, suggesting that this will be the case not only for E. coli ribosomes but for bacterial ribosomes in general. Eukaryotic ribosome tunnels have different geometries owing to expansion segments in their rRNA as well as an increased number of proteins and a wider exit port (Wilson and Doudna Cate, 2012; Filipovska and Rackham, 2013); uL24 is among the most divergent proteins compared to bacteria (Melnikov et al., 2015). We therefore expect the precise relation between the onset of folding and protein Mw to be somewhat different in eukaryotic ribosomes, as also suggested by a recent study (Schiller et al., 2017). At present, we do not know to what extent the shape of the ribosome exit tunnel has evolved to optimize the conditions for cotranslational protein folding in different organisms and organelles, but it is not unlikely that such a connection exists.
Key resources table
Reagent type
(species) or
Source or reference
Strain, strain
(Escherichia coli) HDB140, HDB143,
HDB144, Strain
background N281 10.1111/j.1365–2958
.2010.07325.x NA Strains used to isolate
high-salt washed
ribosomes in this study.
Antibody uL23, uL24 10.1111/j.1365–2958
.2010.07325.x NA 1:8000 dilution used
(incubated for one hour).
Secondary antibody:
Mouse (1:20,000 dilution
incubated for one hour).
Nitrocellulose membrane
blocked with 5% Milk in
TBS-T for an hour.
Peptide,
protein uL23 Δ loop,
uL24 Δ loop 10.1111/j.1365–2958
.2010.07325.x UniProtKB- P0ADZ0 (rplW)
UniProtKB-P60624 (rplX) Referred to as HDB 143
and HDB 144 in original
paper. Refers to genes
rplWΔ65–74 and rplX
Δ43–57 respectively.
assay or kit GeneJET Plasmid
miniprep kit Thermo Fisher
RRID:SCR_008452 Cat no. K0502 Used to purify plasmids
assay or kit PURExpress Δ
Ribosome kit New England Biolabs Cat no. E3313S Kit was supplemented
with ribosomes purified
in the lab. Translation
carried out at 37°C for 20 min.
algorithm EasyQuant doi: 10.1038/
nsmb.2376 NA Used to quantify relative
fraction full-length of
translated protein from
SDS-PAGE
algorithm cryoSPARC version v2 Structura
Biotechnology Inc NA Used for ab-initio
reconstruction of uL23Δloop
ribosomes. The following
operations were carried
out as part of the
cryoSPARC workflow: 2D
classification, Ab initio
reconstruction, Homogeneous
refinement, Sharpening and
map flipping to correct for
handedness, local resolution.
algorithm UCSF ChimeraX SCR_015872 Used to make Figure 2A
algorithm UCSF Chimera v. 1.12 J Comput Chem.
2004 Oct;25
(Nilsson et al., 2015):
1605–12. SCR_004097 Used to visualise the cryoEM
map, fit PDB models 3JBU,
4YBB to check for differences
in maps. Used to make figures.
algorithm Jalview v 2.10.4 doi: 10.1093/
bioinformatics/btp033 SCR_006459 Use for generating multiple
sequence alignments of
uL23 and uL24 in the
supplementary figures.
Chemical Potassium acetate Sigma-Aldrich
(SCR_008988) Cat no. P1190 Source of potassium
ions to stabilise ribosomes
Chemical Magnesium acetate Sigma-Aldrich
(SCR_008988) Cat no. M5661 Source of Magnesium
Chemical cOmplete protease
inhibitor cocktail Sigma-Aldrich
(SCR_008988) Cat no. 04693116001 Used as a protease
inhibitor during cell
lysis to obtain ribosomes
Chemical N,N,N′,N′-Tetrakis
(2-pyridylmethyl)
ethylenediamine Sigma Aldrich
(SCR_008988) Cat no. P4413 Used to chelate Zn
for the -Zn reactions
in the ADR1 plot.
Chemical threo-1,4-Dimercapto-2,
3-butanediol
DL-Dithiothreitol Sigma Aldrich
(SCR_008988) Cat no. DTT-RO Reducing agent added
to buffers during ribosome
purification and as a
reductant for SDS-PAGE
Chemical Tris Base Sigma-Aldrich (SCR_008988) Cat no. T1503 Buffering agent during
ribosome preparation
Chemical 35S Methionine Perkin-Elmer Cat no.
NEG009T001MC 35S Methionine is
incorporated into the
protein during in vitro
translation and aids
detection by
phosphorimaging.
Enzymes and chemicals
Request a detailed protocol
The PURExpress Δ Ribosome kit was purchased from New England Biolabs (Cat no. E3313S). The components used to prepare Lysogeny Broth (LB Medium) for ribosome isolation were obtained from BD Biosciences and all other chemicals used were sourced from Merck Sigma Aldrich. (35S) Methionine was purchased from Perkin Elmer. Bis-Tris gels and plasmid isolation kits were obtained from Thermo Scientific.
All ADR1, spectrin and titin constructs fused to the E. coli SecM AP via a variable linker were expressed from the pET19b vector, as described previously (Nilsson et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2017; Tian et al., 2018). The spectrin constructs used in this study lacked the soluble domain of LepB at the N-terminus.
Strains and antisera
Strains HDB140 (referred to as WT), HDB143 (referred to as uL23 Δloop) and HDB144 (referred to as uL24 Δloop), as well as rabbit polyclonal antisera against uL23 and uL24, are described in (Peterson et al., 2010).
Isolation of ribosomes
Ribosomes were purified from the strains HDB140, HDB143, and HDB144. The strains were cultured in Lysogeny broth (LB) to an A600 of 1.0 at 37°C and chilled on ice for 15 min before they were harvested by centrifugation at 4000 g for 10 min. The cell pellet was washed twice with Buffer A at pH 7.5 (10 mM Tris-OAc, 14 mM Mg(OAc)2, 60 mM KOAc, 1 mM DTT, 0.1% Complete Protease Inhibitor) and lysed using the Emulsifex (Avestin) at a pressure of 8000 psi. The cell lysate was loaded on a sucrose cushion at pH 7.5 (50 mM Tris-OAc, 1 M KOAc, 15 mM Mg(OAc)2,1.44 M sucrose, 1 mM DTT, 0.1% Complete Protease Inhibitor) and centrifuged at 80,000xg in a Ti70 rotor (Beckman-Coulter) for 17 hr. The obtained ribosomal pellet was resuspended in Buffer B at pH 7.5 (50 mM Tris-OAc, 50 mM KOAc, 5 mM Mg(OAc)2, 1 mM DTT), flask frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C. This suspension of ribosomes is presumed to consist of a pool of non-translating 30S, 50S and 70S particles due to the concentration of Mg2+ in the buffer they are in. Each batch of ribosomes that was prepared was tested for optimal translation by titrating different volumes in the PURExpress Δ-Ribosome kit.
In vitro transcription and translation
The generated constructs were translated for 20 min. in the PURExpress Δ-Ribosome kit supplemented with high-salt-washed ribosomes isolated from HDB140, HDB143 (uL23 Δloop), or HDB144 (uL24 Δloop). Plasmid DNA of each construct (300 ng) was used as a template for polypeptide synthesis, and translation was carried out in the presence of (35S) Methionine at 37°C for 20 min and shaking at 500 r.p.m. For ADR1a constructs, the translation reactions also included either 50 μM zinc acetate or 50 μM of the Zn2+ chelator TPEN. Translation was stopped by treating the sample with a final concentration of 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) and incubated on ice for 30 min. The TCA precipitated samples were subsequently centrifuged at 20,000 g for 10 min in a tabletop centrifuge (Eppendorf) and the pellet obtained was solubilized in sample buffer, supplemented with RNaseA (400 μg/ml), and incubated at 37°C for 15 min. The samples were resolved on 12% Bis-Tris gels (Thermo Scientific) in MOPS buffer for ADR1 and MES buffer for Spectrin and Titin. Gels were dried and subjected to autoradiography and scanned using the Fujifilm FLA-9000 phosphorimager for visualization of radioactively labeled translated proteins.
Quantification of radioactively labelled proteins
The protein bands on the gel were quantified using MultiGauge (Fujifilm) from which one-dimensional intensity profiles of each gel lane was extracted. This information was subsequently fit to a Gaussian distribution using EasyQuant (Rickard Hedman, Stockholm University). The sum of the arrested and full-length bands was calculated, and this was used to estimate the fraction full-length protein for each construct.
Cryo-EM sample preparation and data processing
The uL23 Δloop ribosomes (4 A260/ml) diluted in grid buffer (20 mM HEPES-KOH, 50 mM KOAc, 10 mM Mg(OAc)2, 125 mM sucrose, 2 mM Trp, 0.03% DDM) were loaded on Pelco TEM 400 mesh Cu grids pre-coated with 2 nm thick carbon and frozen using the Vitrobot Mark IV (FEI). Data were collected on the Titan Krios (FEI) microscope operated at 300 keV and equipped with a Falcon II direct electron detector. The camera was set to a nominal magnification of 75,000X, which resulted in a pixel size of 1.09 Å at the sample level and a defocus range of −1 to −3 μm.
The frame dose used was 1.17 e/Å2, and 20 frames were aligned using MotionCor2 (Li et al., 2013) within the Scipion software suite (de la Rosa-Trevín et al., 2016). The micrographs were visually inspected and those within a resolution threshold of 5 Å were selected, yielding 3522 micrographs.
471,272 particles were picked using Xmipp manual-pick followed by particle extraction within Scipion and further processing in CryoSPARC (Punjani et al., 2017). Two rounds of 2D classification were done, and particles resembling 30S and 50S subunits alone were discarded after visual inspection of the classes. The remaining 297,363 particles of the 70S ribosome were subjected to ab initio reconstruction into three classes to further sort out heterogeneity. A single homogeneous class consisting of 132,029 particles was used for final homogeneous refinement that resulted in a final map with an average FSC resolution at 0.143 of 3.28 Å. The obtained map of the 70S ribosome was sharpened and corrected for handedness in CryoSPARC fitted with PDBs 3JBU and 4YBB in Chimera (Pettersen et al., 2004). Local resolution and FSC at 0.143 was estimated in cryoSPARC. The electron microscopy map was deposited in the Electron Microscopy Data Bank.
The initial model for uL23 Δloop was built with Coot, and improved by energy minimization in a solvated dodecahedron box of explicit TIP3P waters, neutralized with chloride ions and using the Amber 99SB-ILDN force field (Lindorff-Larsen et al., 2010). The steepest descent minimization method implemented in GROMACS 2016.1 was used (Abraham et al., 2015; Pal et al., 2014). Even after minimization, the backbone of the new loop formed after the deletion of residues 65–74 still showed improper geometry and Ramachandran outliers, so we used kinematic sampling (Bhardwaj et al., 2016) to model alternative loop conformations, and then we selected the loop that could fit the electron density and had the best Ramachandran score.
Figures were prepared using MacPymol 1.8.6.2 (Schrödinger LLC), Chimera (Pettersen et al., 2004), and ChimeraX (Goddard et al., 2018).
Calculation of tunnel volume
The volume calculations were performed with POVME 2.0 (1). We used the E. coli SecM structure PDB 3JBU as a reference. To determine the inclusion region, we generated a series of overlapping spheres- eight with a 20 Å radius, and one with a 40 Å radius. In order to have a complete coverage of the exit tunnel, the centers of the spheres were chosen to match the coordinates corresponding to alternating Cα atoms of the amino acids of the SecM arrest peptide located within the exit tunnel (for the 20 Å radius spheres the residues use as centers were D11, F13, T15, V17, I19, Q21, Q23, I25, A27, G28 and for the 40 Å radius sphere the residue was E3). Grid Spacing was set to 2.0 Å, and the distance cut-off to 1.09 Å. For all three cases (WT, uL24 Δ loop, uL23 Δ loop), we used the same inclusion region. We also removed the SecM arrest peptide located within the exit tunnel. For uL23 Δloop ribosomes residues 65–75 were removed from uL23, and for uL24 Δloop ribosomes residues 42–57 were removed from uL24 (numbering based on PDB 3JBU) prior to the calculation.
Kinetic model to calculate fraction full length protein fFL(t)
The theoretical force profiles (Figure 3D–F) for ADR1a, I27, and R16 were calculated based on a kinetic model introduced in our previous study (Tian et al., 2018). Briefly, the rate, ke, of the arrest peptide sequence escape from the peptidyl transfer center with a force (F) exerted by the folding protein can be calculated using the Bell model:
ke(F)=k0eFΔx‡/kBT,
where Δx‡ is the distance from the free energy minimum to the transition state, k0 the rupture rate when force equals to zero, kB is Boltzmann's constant, and T the absolute temperature. In this study, k0 and Δx‡ are set to be 3.4 ×10−4 s−1 and 4.5 Å, respectively, based on a previous experimental study (Goldman et al., 2015) in which k0 and Δx‡ were estimated to be in the range of 0.5 ×10−4 to 20 ×10−4 s−1 and 1-8 Å, respectively.
We assume that the folding and unfolding of the protein is much faster than the escape from the ribosome. Then the time-dependent force profile fFLt can be obtained approximately by the mean pulling forces exerted when the protein is unfolded, Fu, or folded, Ff, and the unfolded and folded populations of Pu and Pf respectively,
fFL(t)≈1-exp-tPukeFu+PfkeFf.
Note that the values of Fu, Ff, Pu, Pf are dependent on the linker length L, and can be determined by molecular dynamics simulations.
Molecular dynamics simulations of ribosome-nascent chain complex
A coarse-grained model was employed to simulate folding of ADR1a, titin I27, and spectrin R16 on the ribosome. The ribosome was modelled on the 50S subunit of the E. coli ribosome (PDB 3OFR; Dunkle et al., 2010) Each amino acid in the nascent chain and ribosome was represented by one bead at the position of the α-carbon atom, each RNA residue was modelled by three beads located at the positions of phosphate P, sugar C4', and base N3 atoms (Voss and Gerstein, 2005). The uL23 ∆loop ribosome was modelled by replacing the coordinates of the wildtype uL23 protein with the cryo-EM structure of the uL23 ∆loop protein from this study (PDB 6FU8), after being aligned to the wild type protein. The uL24 ∆loop ribosome was modelled by replacing the coordinates of the wildtype uL24 protein with the structure of the uL24 ∆loop protein built by homology modelling with Modeller (Eswar et al., 2006).
The interactions within the nascent chain were governed by a standard structure-based model (Karanicolas and Brooks, 2002), which allowed it to reversibly fold to the native state and unfold. Interactions between the protein and ribosome beads were purely repulsive. The pulling force (F) exerted on the arrest peptide by the folding of the protein (ADR1a, R16, or I27) was measured by the extension of the harmonic pseudobond potential between the last and the second last amino acid of the SecM arrest peptide. More details can be found in our previous study (Tian et al., 2018).
" Open annotations. The current annotation count on this page is being calculated.
GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers
T Murtola
R Schulz
S Páll
JC Smith
B Hess
E Lindahl
SoftwareX 1-2:19–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001
The complete atomic structure of the large ribosomal subunit at 2.4 A resolution
N Ban
P Nissen
J Hansen
PB Moore
TA Steitz
Science 289:905–920.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5481.905
Accurate de novo design of hyperstable constrained peptides
G Bhardwaj
VK Mulligan
CD Bahl
JM Gilmore
O Cheneval
GW Buchko
SV Pulavarti
Q Kaas
A Eletsky
PS Huang
WA Johnsen
PJ Greisen
GJ Rocklin
Y Song
TW Linsky
A Watkins
SA Rettie
X Xu
LP Carter
R Bonneau
JM Olson
E Coutsias
CE Correnti
T Szyperski
DJ Craik
D Baker
Nature 538:329–335.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19791
The complete structure of the chloroplast 70S ribosome in complex with translation factor pY
P Bieri
M Leibundgut
M Saurer
D Boehringer
The EMBO Journal 36:475–486.
https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201695959
Protein substitution in chloroplast ribosome evolution. A eukaryotic cytosolic protein has replaced its organelle homologue (L23) in spinach
MG Bubunenko
J Schmidt
AR Subramanian
Journal of molecular biology 240:28–41.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1994.1415
A simple real-time assay for in vitro translation
MC Capece
GL Kornberg
A Petrov
JD Puglisi
RNA 21:296–305.
https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.047159.114
Scipion: A software framework toward integration, reproducibility and validation in 3D electron microscopy
JM de la Rosa-Trevín
A Quintana
L Del Cano
A Zaldívar
I Foche
J Gutiérrez
J Gómez-Blanco
J Burguet-Castell
J Cuenca-Alba
V Abrishami
J Vargas
J Otón
G Sharov
JL Vilas
J Navas
P Conesa
M Kazemi
R Marabini
CO Sorzano
JM Carazo
Journal of Structural Biology 195:93–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2016.04.010
Structures of the Escherichia coli ribosome with antibiotics bound near the peptidyl transferase center explain spectra of drug action
JA Dunkle
L Xiong
AS Mankin
JH Cate
PNAS 107:17152–17157.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007988107
POVME: an algorithm for measuring binding-pocket volumes
JD Durrant
CA de Oliveira
JA McCammon
Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling 29:773–776.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2010.10.007
POVME 2.0: An Enhanced Tool for Determining Pocket Shape and Volume Characteristics
L Votapka
J Sørensen
RE Amaro
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 10:5047–5056.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ct500381c
Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller
N Eswar
B Webb
MA Marti-Renom
MS Madhusudhan
D Eramian
MY Shen
U Pieper
A Sali
Current Protocols in Bioinformatics Chapter 5:5.6.1–5.6.5.
https://doi.org/10.1002/0471250953.bi0506s15
Effects of protein size, thermodynamic stability, and net charge on cotranslational folding on the ribosome
JA Farías-Rico
F Ruud Selin
I Myronidi
M Frühauf
G von Heijne
PNAS 115:E9280–E9287.
Specialization from synthesis: how ribosome diversity can customize protein function
A Filipovska
O Rackham
FEBS Letters 587:1189–1197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2013.02.032
UCSF ChimeraX: Meeting modern challenges in visualization and analysis
TD Goddard
CC Huang
EC Meng
EF Pettersen
GS Couch
JH Morris
TE Ferrin
Protein Science 27:14–25.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.3235
Ribosome. Mechanical force releases nascent chain-mediated ribosome arrest in vitro and in vivo
DH Goldman
CM Kaiser
A Milin
M Righini
I Tinoco
C Bustamante
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261909
High resolution structure of the large ribosomal subunit from a mesophilic eubacterium
J Harms
F Schluenzen
R Zarivach
A Bashan
S Gat
I Agmon
H Bartels
F Franceschi
A Yonath
Cell 107:679–688.
A biphasic pulling force acts on transmembrane helices during translocon-mediated membrane integration
N Ismail
R Hedman
N Schiller
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 19:1018–1022.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2376
Charge-driven dynamics of nascent-chain movement through the SecYEG translocon
M Lindén
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 22:145–149.
The origins of asymmetry in the folding transition states of protein L and protein G
J Karanicolas
CL Brooks
Protein Science 11:2351–2361.
https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.0205402
Force-profile analysis of the cotranslational folding of HemK and filamin domains: Comparison of biochemical and biophysical folding assays
G Kemp
R Kudva
A de la Rosa
bioRxiv.
The roles of ribosomal proteins in the structure assembly, and evolution of the large ribosomal subunit
DJ Klein
Journal of Molecular Biology 340:141–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2004.03.076
The extended loops of ribosomal proteins uL4 and uL22 of Escherichia coli contribute to ribosome assembly and protein translation
MG Lawrence
M Shamsuzzaman
M Kondopaka
C Pascual
JM Zengel
L Lindahl
Nucleic Acids Research 44:5798–5810.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw493
Electron counting and beam-induced motion correction enable near-atomic-resolution single-particle cryo-EM
X Li
P Mooney
S Zheng
CR Booth
MB Braunfeld
S Gubbens
DA Agard
Y Cheng
Nature Methods 10:584–590.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2472
Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field
K Lindorff-Larsen
S Piana
K Palmo
P Maragakis
JL Klepeis
RO Dror
DE Shaw
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 78:1950–1958.
https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.22711
Insights into the origin of the nuclear localization signals in conserved ribosomal proteins
S Melnikov
A Ben-Shem
G Yusupova
M Yusupov
Nature Communications 6:7382.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8382
Location of exit channel for nascent protein in 80S ribosome
RA Milligan
PN Unwin
https://doi.org/10.1038/319693a0
Secretion monitor, SecM, undergoes self-translation arrest in the cytosol
H Nakatogawa
K Ito
Molecular Cell 7:185–192.
Cotranslational protein folding inside the ribosome exit tunnel
OB Nilsson
J Marino
S Wickles
L Bischoff
M Johansson
A Müller-Lucks
F Trovato
EP O'Brien
R Beckmann
Cell Reports 12:1533–1540.
Cotranslational folding of spectrin domains via partially structured states
AA Nickson
JJ Hollins
A Steward
J Clarke
The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis
Transient tertiary structure formation within the ribosome exit port
ST Hsu
J Christodoulou
M Vendruscolo
CM Dobson
Journal of the American Chemical Society 132:16928–16937.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja106530y
New scenarios of protein folding can occur on the ribosome
Journal of the American Chemical Society 133:513–526.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja107863z
Solving Software Challenges for Exascale
S Pal
C Kutzner
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
The conformation of a nascent polypeptide inside the ribosome tunnel affects protein targeting and protein folding
JH Peterson
CA Woolhead
HD Bernstein
Molecular Microbiology 78:203–217.
UCSF Chimera--a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis
DM Greenblatt
Journal of Computational Chemistry 25:1605–1612.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20084
cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination
A Punjani
JL Rubinstein
DJ Fleet
MA Brubaker
Kinetic and structural comparison of a protein's cotranslational folding and refolding pathways
AJ Samelson
E Bolin
SM Costello
AK Sharma
S Marqusee
Science Advances 4:eaas9098.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aas9098
Mutational analysis of the human Xbp1 translational arrest peptide and construction of arrest-enhanced variants
A Magoulopoulou
F Cymer
Protein synthesis by pure translation systems
Y Shimizu
T Kanamori
T Ueda
Methods 36:299–304.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2005.04.006
Folding pathway of an Ig domain is conserved on and off the ribosome
P Tian
T Su
PJ Shilling
RB Best
PNAS 201810523.
Insights into cotranslational nascent protein behavior from computer simulations
Annual Review of Biophysics 45:345–369.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-070915-094153
Calculation of standard atomic volumes for RNA and comparison with proteins: RNA is packed more tightly
NR Voss
M Gerstein
The structure and function of the eukaryotic ribosome
DN Wilson
JH Doudna Cate
Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 4:a011536.
https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a011536
Mechanisms of ribosome stalling by SecM at multiple elongation steps
X Pan
K Yan
S Sun
N Gao
SF Sui
eLife 4:e09684.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09684
John Kuriyan
Senior and Reviewing Editor; University of California, Berkeley, United States
In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.
[Editors' note: this article was originally rejected after discussions between the reviewers, but the authors were invited to resubmit after an appeal against the decision.]
Thank you for submitting your work entitled "The Shape of the Ribosome Exit Tunnel Affects Cotranslational Protein Folding" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by John Kuriyan as the Senior and Reviewing Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.
Based on discussions with the reviewers and the individual reviews below, we regret to inform you that your work will not be considered further for publication in eLife. The reviewers and the editors agree that this paper is an interesting and important study of the folding of nascent peptides, and how the shape of the ribosome exit tunnel governs that folding. Despite the interest in the work, after discussion with the reviewers, we have concluded that the paper is not quite definitive enough in its conclusions for further consideration at eLife. We remain interested in the work, and if you are able to provide additional data to support the conclusions and to address the reviewer comments satisfactorily, we would welcome a resubmission. We recognize, however, that you might wish to submit the manuscript elsewhere at this point.
The three individual reviews are appended below.
Reviewer 1:
This paper demonstrates the influence that changes in geometry of the peptide exit tunnel can have on the timing of co-translational protein folding. The authors conduct in vitro translation assays to translate folding domain fused to the SecM stalling sequence with varying linker length to measure at which linker lengths the nascent chain starts to fold on the ribosome, applying a tugging force to rescue the stall and translate the full protein. After using Cryo-EM to confirm that the loop deletion mutations on uL23 and uL24 doesn't change the architecture of the peptide exit tunnel, the authors indeed show that the loop deletions alter where the nascent chain folding occurs in the tunnel. Overall, the findings show a straightforward method to probe the location within the peptide exit tunnel where the protein folding occurs, and is indeed an advance in the field. The novelty here is in the manipulation of the tunnel itself, and the correlation to structural data. However, the question remains whether the science presented here rises to the level of publication in eLife. There are some critiques that the authors should address outlined below:
1) It is not explicitly mentioned whether the uL23Δloop ribosomes prepared for Cryo-EM is a 50S, empty 70S, or stalled translation complexes. This needs to be made in the Materials and methods section under the "Cryo-EM sample preparation and data processing" part.
2) Why is there an "increase in fFL seen at L = 17 residues in the presence of TPEN"? What does TPEN do to cause the increase in fFL? A brief statement in the text commenting on this effect would be helpful. If indeed this is an effect of TPEN, is there a way to do the same experiment in the absence of Zn2+ or TPEN to confirm this?
3) The authors commented on the universality of the uL24 loop in bacteria. It would be great to also comment on the non-universality of uL23 or uL24 loops in other domains of life (like the absence of uL23 loop in spinach chloroplast ribosomes mentioned in the paper) and how it may suggest that co-translational protein folding may work differently in another organism due to differences in geometry of its ribosomal peptide exit tunnel.
Kudva et al. investigate how the geometry of the ribosomal tunnel affects folding. The main intent of this study is to understand how modifications on the ribosome influence the location of co-translational folding of proteins of different sizes. The authors first describe the folding assay; briefly, the force that protein folding close to the exit vestibule can exert on the SecM stalling sequence can consequently cause ribosome readthrough the mRNA and translate additional residues.
The authors explain the basis of the modified ribosomes HDB143 (ΔuL23) and HDB144 (ΔuL24) and solve the cryoEM structure of ΔL23 ribosomes. They further characterise the structural differences between wt and mutant by comparing the tunnel volumes. The authors then analyse the force profile of the ADR1, spectrin and titin domains on the wt, ΔL23 and ΔL24 ribosomes in an attempt to dissect the contribution of the two loops from these proteins in protein folding. They observe that ADR1 folds in the exit tunnel in the absence of loop in uL23 but not uL24, whereas the titin and spectrin (R15, R16) domains fold inside the tunnel in ΔL24 rather than the wt and ΔL23.
This study attempts to deconvolute the tunnel components that may be important for co-translational folding using the force assay which the authors are known for. This is a valuable, complex and rich experiment. It seems to me, however, not enough to interpret such complex events of translational and folding. This is my main concern: all conclusions are drawn based on the force experiments alone. Also, although some structural data are presented they are not used to rationalize the force results. It seems therefore the authors try to overstretch interpretation of their data.
Overall the manuscript contains some nice experiments and this is an interesting study. The study however, seems to need more substance to support some of its more far reaching statements. For example, the broader implications at the end would be excellent, had the paper have more depth. For me, this study in its current form leaves too many open questions.
1) Can the authors comment on the experimental conditions used for translation. Do the mutant ribosomes have the same translational kinetics as for wt? Are any differences likely to influence the force plots?
2) The cryoEM structure of the uL23 ribosomes is interesting, but why the authors did not investigate programmed ribosomes as they have previously? However, using the uL23 structure, can the authors comment further on the structural environment that the ADR1a would have in the uL23 ribosome compared to WT ribosomes? Does it have more space than in the original location? Given the rationale that the authors use to describe where folding begins to takes place (e.g. ca. 17aa in uL23 deletion). More information regarding the significance of structure would help.
3) It is not very clear to me how the authors define folding. Descriptions of the plots include words like "starting to increase, starting to fold". More information is needed on how these points are determined because to me it seems very subjective. In the absence of unfolded controls (e.g. in R15 and R16), the context for the "dips" and "rise/peaks" are difficult to rationalise.
4) On a similar point, overall, the analysis of Figure 3 appears ambiguous. For example, in Figure 3B red (uL23), data points from L=21-24 are effectively identical, all in error range, which casts potential doubt on the contention that there is a shift by 2-3 residues. The same types of difficulties arise in following analysis Figure 3D and 3E. One cannot clearly say there is 2-3 residue shifts. In order to focus on this small difference between the profiles, there should be more detailed analysis on other differences between the force profiles, for instance, why there are significant differences in fFL values between different ribosomes with the same length of nascent chains.
5) In ADR1a in the ΔuL23 ribosomes the first point (17aa) is non-zero even after subtracting the unfolded control. This suggests that the ADR1a is beginning to fold 51Ang (3ang per aa) from the PTC, approximately near uL22. If this is a folding, why is there never a clear peak? The authors say that the EM data tells us that the tunnel hasn't changed – even if the uL23 loop is gone and folding 'begins' early, (a) why isn't a complete fold reached (b) why would the ADR1a complete its fold in a narrow region of the tunnel rather than the vestibule exit? The "spring constant" idea is attractive – if the tunnel has opened up, then the NC can begin to sample conformations immediately, and in this case never reaches a maximum point of tension in the tunnel.
6) There are differences in Figure 1B observed between wt ribosomes in the PURE-kit or those prepared n-house and no explanation is given as to why? The WT and the WT(purified) ribosomes also show different patterns, even if the peak appears to be retained. Can the authors comment on the general reproducibility? Additionally, the PURE-derived force profile has no error bars – were replicates performed? Why is Δf used solely for this graph?
7) The use of unfolded controls for ADR1a shows clearly need to subtract data – why was this not done for R15, R16 and I27 plots?
8) Overall, the inclusion of both R15 and R16 is perhaps somewhat strange: on one hand, analysis of R15 is more convincing that other nascent chains are used to elaborate on the differences in force profiles. However, can the authors elaborate further on the significance of R15 and R16 and how these results relate to their previous work? For the R15 force profile, the peak of the wild type does not look the same as the previously reported, as it has a peak of 37 amino acids. Although the authors explain that this is because a folding intermediate is formed this is not clear or supported by other data. They also attribute the observed difference in force amplitude between wt and ΔuL23 to the lower "spring constant" due to the wider tunnel in the latter. The discussion of a 'spring tension' was interesting, but not explored and it seemed a pity in this context. Again, supporting data are needed.
9) The folding intermediate proposed in R15 – why would this intermediate only exist in uL23 deleted and WT ribosomes, but not in uL24 deleted ribosome? This seemed to be unclear. If the protein off the ribosome is renatured from an unfolded state does it form intermediates on its folding pathway?
10) It is not clear where in the ribosome the 6-9 Å measurement corresponds to in both the ΔuL23 ribosomes (subsection "ADR1a folds deeper in the exit tunnel in uL23 Δloop but not in uL24 Δloop ribosomes", last paragraph) and in ΔuL24 ribosomes (subsection "Spectrin and titin domains fold deeper in the exit tunnel in uL24 Δloop ribosomes", third paragraph). How does this correlate to the structure – i.e. is it consistent with the approximate location for the uL23 deletion?
11) The concluding statements appear to extrapolate from the data too much, and don't appear to be supported by the experimental data presented in the study – for example: "may prevent premature folding".…."that depend on interactions with TF…" Similarly, the uL24 loop statements about correlating length and sequence is not particularly well supported either – it seems to be a rather loose conclusion to an otherwise interesting paper.
This manuscript reports a study of cotranslational folding, with the major conclusion that the shape of the exit tunnel modulates the cotranslational folding process. This conclusion is reached by studying two different proteins and two different forms of the ribosome, with the clever idea of truncating parts of L23 and L24.
My major concern with this manuscript is that the data presented do not adequately support the conclusions. The only experimental technique used is an assay in which of a SecM translational arrest peptide acts, broadly speaking, as a force sensor, whereby the measurements are performed by SDS-PAGE.
It is very difficult to assess the errors associated with this assay, in part because the primary data are not reported.
Most importantly, however, these conclusions should be validated using an independent technique. In the absence of this validation, one should put an excessive trust in the assay used, which would seem to be low resolution at best.
Overall, the publication of this work would be premature.
[Editors' note: what now follows is the decision letter after the authors submitted for further consideration.]
Thank you for submitting your article "The Shape of the Ribosome Exit Tunnel Affects Cotranslational Protein Folding" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by two peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by John Kuriyan as the Reviewing Editor and Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.
Your paper is now, in principle, acceptable for publication, but we are asking for some minor revisions (see below).
Your paper was seen by two of the original reviewers. One of the reviewers approves the revised manuscript. The other reviewer continues to object to the experimental basis for the paper, stating:
"The issue here is whether a single technique can be used to draw conclusions in a high impact paper. I am afraid that I believe that the answer is negative. I take the point made by the authors that this technique has been validated on other systems, but the fact remains that it is not as high resolution and clear cut as other techniques, such as cryo-EM or NMR.
Although I appreciate the quality and the scope of this manuscript, I do not think that the reliability of the conclusions meets the standard required by eLife."
We are making an editorial decision to proceed with publication of your paper at eLife. As someone outside the field, I find the entire body of work describing co-translational folding (either inside the ribosome or in its vicinity) to be extremely interesting, and yielding results that could not have been anticipated a few years ago. Although the results may now seem obvious to people in the field, I feel that the results are still very intriguing. I also note that there are controversies, but this reflects the complexity of the phenomena, and the limited view provided by different experimental techniques. Time will sort this out.
Regarding the objection that the paper relies on only one experimental technique, we accept your argument that this method (protease sensitivity with arrest peptide fusions) has been sufficiently validated in past work. While it would be nice to have the results of other experimental probes, we recognize that you have submitted this work as a short report. Also, I am not sure that NMR and cryoEM necessarily provide definitive answers in cases where a dynamic process is being observed. They too are subject to artifacts arising from restrictions on what can be observed.
Before publication, we encourage you to include in the paper more context for the importance and significance of the work, such as provided in your recent PNAS paper (Farias-Rico et al., 2018). We also suggest that you include some additional explanation for the validation of the method, as you suggest in your response to reviewers. You may do this as you think best suits your purposes, and we will approve your revised manuscript for publication without further delay.
[Editors' note: the author responses to the first round of peer review follow.]
Thanks for the thorough review of our manuscript. We take heart in the fact that you say that you're still interested in the work, despite the rejection (which we understand, given some of the reviewer comments).
Our reading of the reviewer reports (especially reviewers 2 and 3) suggests that the main critique of the manuscript in its present form is that we use only the arrest-peptide based force-measurement assay in the paper, an assay that reviewer 3 in particular feels is not well validated against other techniques for studying cotranslational folding. As detailed in the response to reviewer 3 below, we (emphatically…) do not agree that the technique has not been properly validated, but realize that we should have been more explicit in summarizing previously published data to address this issue.
The second general issue we want to raise is that we wrote this paper in an attempt to make a single, major point based on just one experiment (well, one experiment for each protein domain and each type of mutant ribosome) and therefore, following the eLife Author Instructions, submitted it as a Short Report. Judging from their comments, we're not sure that the reviewers appreciated that it wasn't intended as a full paper.
The cryo-EM was done with non-translating 70S ribosomes. This is now stated and highlighted in the Materials and methods section.
In the L=17 construct, ADR1a is appended directly upstream of the SecM arrest peptide (Figure 3—figure supplement 9). Although we haven't tested this, we believe that the slight increase in fFL seen in the presence of TPEN reflects a weakening of the arrest potency of the AP caused by the abutting residues. It is unlikely that TPEN is responsible for the effect, as this would require some kind of highly specific interaction of TPEN and this precise construct. Since PURE has some residual Zn2+, it is necessary to use TPEN for the no-Zn2+ controls. This is now stated in the text.
We now include multiple-sequence alignments of uL23 and uL24 homologs as Figure 1—figure supplement 2, showing the absence/presence of the loops in different phyla (as a case in point, both the uL23 and uL24 loops are absent in mammalian ribosomes). We have also added a comment that the uL24 homolog in mammalian ribosomes does not obstruct the exit tunnel to the extent that it does in bacterial ribosomes, leaving a wider exit area. Indeed, in a recent paper (available on BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/201913), we show that ADR1a folds at a somewhat shorter tether length in mammalian ribosomes than in E. coli ribosomes.
[…] This study attempts to deconvolute the tunnel components that may be important for co-translational folding using the force assay which the authors are known for. This is a valuable, complex and rich experiment. It seems to me, however, not enough to interpret such complex events of translational and folding. This is my main concern: all conclusions are drawn based on the force experiments alone. Also, although some structural data are presented they are not used to rationalize the force results. It seems therefore the authors try to overstretch interpretation of their data.
We address the criticism that the conclusions are based on the force experiments alone in our response to reviewer 3 below. The structural data is included to show that the tunnel is indeed larger in size in uL23 Δloop ribosomes and that no other structural alterations are induced by the deletion, beyond the removal of the loop itself.
Concerning the cryo-EM, we have of course considered obtaining cryo-EM structures for each of the mutant ribosomes with folded domains in the tunnel. However, based on our previous studies where we have complemented the force-measurement assay with cryo-EM maps, we can conclude that there is a very good correlation between where in the tunnel protein domains fold as determined by force-profiles and as deduced from cryo-EM maps. Obtaining cryo-EM maps for ADR1a, spectrin, and I27 for each ribosome mutant is a massive project in itself, that at best would make it possible to be a little more precise in determining the location in the tunnel where folding is initiated but would not alter the main conclusion about the effects of tunnel size on folding.
As an alternative approach to cryo-EM, we now include coarse-grained MD simulations of the cotranslational folding of the ADR1a, R16, and I27 domains in WT, uL23 Δloop, and uL24 Δloop ribosomes, Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 10. Lonset values (see below) are reproduced surprisingly well by these simulations, allowing us to visualize the location on the exit tunnel where these proteins start to fold, as shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 10B.
Indeed, as do most studies, the study raises new questions that will require substantial work to address; we nevertheless feel that it makes a clear and (hopefully) interesting point. This is why we submitted it as a Short Report.
The ribosomes used have been tested for translational kinetics. Their translation rate in the PURE system used is between 0.4 – 0.5 amino acids/s, similar to published data (Capece et al., 2015). This is 10x slower than in vivo, but the proteins studied fold on micro-to-millisecond time scales, i.e., considerably faster than the in vivo translation rate. It thus seems safe to assume that the folding reaction equilibrates between each translation step both in vivo and in the PURE system. We have included a comment on this in the text.
See comment above on the use of cryo-EM. Our data indicates that ADR1 starts to fold at L ≈ 17 residues in uL23 δ-loop ribosomes. Based on the MD simulations (above), we now provide more structural detail on how the deletion of the uL23 loop creates sufficient space for ADR1a to fold deeper in the tunnel.
We have clarified this point. To be precise, we extract three L-values from a given force profile: Lonset (the L-value for which fFL has risen to its half-maximal value), Lmax (the L-value where fFL is maximal), and Lend(the L-value where fFL has dropped to its half-maximal value). The interval Lonset to Lend corresponds to the tether lengths at which folding affects fFL. See comment below on validation of the force-measurement assay. Non-folding controls for both the spectrin domains and the I27 domain can be found in previous publications; we now refer to these publications in the legend of Figure 3.
These shifts are now discussed based on the Lonset and Lmax values presented in Table 1. We hope that this helps clarify our reasoning.
Concerning the L=17 point, see the response to reviewer 1. Concerning the tunnel in uL23 Δloop ribosomes, what we say is that the shape of the tunnel doesn't change in any appreciable way beyond what is expected from the absence of the loop. Our main point is that the wider tunnel in the area normally occupied by the uL23 loop allows ADR1a to complete folding in this (no longer "narrow") part of the tunnel. We now further illustrate this point with the MD simulations, Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 10.
We did not do replicates for the PURE-kit ribosomes because we were only interested in checking whether there were any obvious differences between the two preparations (there aren't), not in making a precise comparison. All other results reported in the paper were obtained with the in-house preparation, and hence can be directly compared. Not to unnecessarily confuse the reader, we have removed the PURE-kit-ribosome data from the manuscript.
A force-profile for a non-folding point mutant of I27 has already been published (Nilsson et al., 2017); it's at background levels throughout and subtraction would make little difference. For the spectrin domains, fFL was measured for non-folding mutants at a few L-values close to Lmax and also shown to reduce fFL to near background (ref 13). We now refer to these data explicitly in the legend to Figure 3.
For R16, Lonset and Lend are clearly 2-3 residues smaller in uL24 Δloop ribosomes than in wt ribosomes; Lmax also appears shifted, but because fFL ≈ 1 around L = Lmaxit is difficult to determine Lmax precisely in this case. Because of the generally low fFL values for R15 and the apparent "dip" at L=37 seen for WT ribosomes, it is difficult to unambiguously determine Lonset and Lmax. We have abided by the reviewer's advice and have removed the R15 data from the manuscript.
This is an observation that is somewhat tangential to the main point we're trying to make in the paper. As said in above, we have removed the R15 data from the paper rather than making speculative suggestions concerning a possible intermediate.
The 6-9 Å calculation is based on assuming a largely extended conformation of the tether connecting the AP to the protein domains, i.e., ~3 Å per residue. We now further address the same point based on the new MD data.
Obviously, these are speculative ideas that we bring up in order to delineate questions for further study. We have removed this speculation.
[…] My major concern with this manuscript is that the data presented do not adequately support the conclusions. The only experimental technique used is an assay in which of a SecM translational arrest peptide acts, broadly speaking, as a force sensor, whereby the measurements are performed by SDS-PAGE.
We now provide Figure 3—figure supplements 1-7 with gel images, and an excel sheet with source data.
We realize that we should have been more explicit in summarizing previously published data that validate the force-measurement technique in studies of cotranslational folding. In short, (i) folded proteins have been visualized in the ribosome tunnel by cryo-EM of RNCs at L-values close to Lmax (ADR1a, spectrin R16) and Lonset(the I27 domain), (ii) the ± Zn2+ data for ADR1a shows that the fFL peak is caused by folding into the native state; this is further supported by an Ala-scan of the entire ADR1a domain showing that the only mutations (except for the Zn-binding residues) that affect fFL at L = Lmax are Leu(18) to Ala and Phe(12) to Ala (Samelson et al., 2018), the two residues that define the hydrophobic core of the protein, (iii) Lonset has been shown to correspond closely to the tether length at which protein domains become resistant to on-ribosome pulse-proteolysis by thermolysin (Farias-Rico et al., 2018 https://doi.org/10.1101/303784) for proteins SOD1, ILBP, and S6, (iv) peaks in the fFL profiles of calmodulin and ILBP disappear when translation is done in the presence of EGTA or absence of ligand, respectively, and when hydrophobic residues in the core are mutated to Ala in 3 other proteins (Farias-Rico et al., 2018), (v) the fFL profile for I27 is quantitively reproduced by a physical model of the force-measurement assay based on molecular dynamics simulations (Nilsson et al., 2017); preliminary data show that this also holds for the I27 profile obtained with uL24 Δloop ribosomes. We now cite these papers en bloc in support of our interpretation of the fFL profiles. If deemed necessary, we'll be happy to expand the discussion of this point, but the manuscript is already on the long side for a Short Report.
We feel that the force-measurement assay has been quite extensively validated already, on par with other assays for cotranslational folding such as Rodnina's FRET assay (Holtkamp et al., 2015) or Christodolou's NMR assay (Cabrita et al., 2016); obviously, each assay has its own strengths and weaknesses. In contrast the reviewer 3, we think that the force-measurement assay is of high resolution: standard errors are small, and peaks in the fFL profiles can be mapped at single-residue resolution. We do think, however, that more information may be extracted from the fFL profiles than we do at present (especially from the Lend values); this will require further work, but does not affect the conclusion about deeper folding in wider exit tunnels made in the present study.
[Editors' note: the author responses to the re-review follow.]
[…] Before publication, we encourage you to include in the paper more context for the importance and significance of the work, such as provided in your recent PNAS paper (Farias-Rico et al., 2018). We also suggest that you include some additional explanation for the validation of the method, as you suggest in your response to reviewers. You may do this as you think best suits your purposes, and we will approve your revised manuscript for publication without further delay.
We have done two things in the final revision:
1) We have spelt out the different ways that our folding assay has been validated against other methods at the end of the section "The Folding Assay".
2) We have added a final sentence at the very end of the main text to put the work in an evolutionary perspective.
Renuka Kudva
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
No competing interests declared
"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0426-3716
Pengfei Tian
Laboratory of Chemical Physics, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
Fátima Pardo-Avila
Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft
Marta Carroni
Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University, Solna, Sweden
Investigation, Methodology
Robert B Best
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
Harris D Bernstein
Genetics and Biochemistry Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
Gunnar von Heijne
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing
gunnar@dbb.su.se
Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (2012.0282)
Vetenskapsrådet (621-2014-3713)
Cancerfonden (15 0888)
National Institutes of Health (Intramural)
Robert B. Best
National Institutes of Health (R35GM122543)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Senior and Reviewing Editor
John Kuriyan, University of California, Berkeley, United States
Received: March 1, 2018
Accepted: November 26, 2018
Accepted Manuscript published: November 26, 2018 (version 1)
Version of Record published: December 18, 2018 (version 2)
This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Article PDF
Figures PDF
Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
protein folding
cotranslational
arrest peptide
Research organism
Guanidine hydrochloride reactivates an ancient septin hetero-oligomer assembly pathway in budding yeast
Courtney R Johnson et al.
Research Article Jan 28, 2020
Distinct inactive conformations of the dopamine D2 and D3 receptors correspond to different extents of inverse agonism
J Robert Lane et al.
Inhibition of synucleinopathic seeding by rationally designed inhibitors
Smriti Sangwan et al.
Research Article Updated Jan 23, 2020


Memorial's Sam DeVault gets the best of Bosse's Kiyron Powell as 6-foot-10 centers square off.
EVANSVILLE – When Memorial High School boys' basketball coach Rick Wilgus talked about his team not being in sync, his assistants joked in the background.
"That's a boy band," one said, laughing. "Along with the Backstreet Boys."
Memorial had good reason to be giddy. The Tigers had just snapped a seven-game losing streak to Bosse. Michael Lindauer scored 23 points and Sam DeVault added 19 in the Tigers' 57-45 victory Tuesday night at the Robert M. Kent Athletic Center.
Near the top of the Southern Indiana Athletic Conference the past few years, Bosse finds itself 3-2 overall and 1-1 in the league. After finishing as the Class 3A state runner-up in 2016 and '18 during the Mekhi Lairy era, the Bulldogs are a team in a transition.
Or as Bosse coach Shane Burkhart put it, "It's a learning curve. We have to learn how to play offense. We're a pretty good defensive team."
While the speedy Bulldogs should be great in transition, they were continually beaten down the floor by Lindauer. Burkhart was sharp in his criticism, saying some of his players would pout if they didn't get enough touches and it affected the rest of their game.
"We should be a great team offensively and defensively in transition," he said. "But we weren't."
On the other hand, Burkhart credited Memorial for taking over the game. It may sound nuts because it's so early, but the Tigers already have the upper hand in the SIAC, even though they're just 1-0 in the league.
"Yes, sir. I do hope it's true but of course we have to go out there and take it and prove we can be No. 1," DeVault said. "We have to take it. They can still come back and get us. We can't let that happen to us."
All the huge early-season win means for Memorial is its one-up in the conference race with a long road ahead. But it's a significant start.
Years ago, when two 6-foot-10 high school centers battled each other, it would've been considered huge news. Now, nobody batted an eye. Nevertheless, it was fun to watch DeVault and Bosse junior Kiyron Powell match skills.
Powell, who blocked DeVault's shots on two successive trips downcourt, finished with five points, all in the first quarter. He ended with four blocks and eight rebounds.
Obviously, they are completely different types of players. More polished offensively, DeVault can step out and hit the 3 as well as play inside. Powell, who has received offers from New Orleans, Miami (Ohio), Evansville, Xavier and Georgetown, is a shot-blocking machine defensively. But he still has plenty of work to do offensively. Powell has to make his moves more crisply and improve his touch.
Both teams were out of sync offensively as Memorial crawled to a 14-13 lead at the half. It was so bad that the Tigers were 2-for-12 from the field in the second period while the Bulldogs were 1-for-11.
But Lindauer, who had just flipped his commitment from Southern Illinois to Cincinnati football the day before, celebrated by shaking loose for 13 points in the third quarter.
He said the Tigers hit the boards hard, enabling Lindauer to race downcourt on the break as they seized control.
Wilgus said it was more a case of Lindauer's sheer competitiveness that enabled him to thrive, despite not being in prime basketball shape.
"What happened is he's a competitor," Wilgus said.
Memorial, just outside of the AP Class 3A top 10 at No. 11 after losing to Class A powerhouse Barr-Reeve, improved to 3-1 overall.
Wilgus enjoyed watching the 6-10 kids square off.
"They are two talented players," he said. "They're tall and have good skills. Sam brings a lot to our team and No. 52 (Powell) brings a lot to their team."
Senior point guard Danny Dixon did a good job running the show and led Memorial with nine rebounds, despite his 5-11 stature.
While Powell's shot-blocking skills are mind-boggling and the Bulldogs boast tons of athleticism, they need junior sharpshooter Kolton Sanford to score on a consistent basis for them to succeed.
Donovan McNeal led 3A No. 7 Bosse with 11 points. Sanford, who was 4-for-15 from the field, added 10 – all in the second half.
Reitz sophomore sensation Khristian Lander has received yet another scholarship offer from a major Division I suitor. Chris Lowery, a Harrison High grad and former Southern Illinois University standout player and coach, is a Kansas State assistant. He was back in town Tuesday to make Lander an offer in person and also watch Powell play against Memorial.
A 78-62 victory over Mater Dei last Friday has helped propel Lander and the Panthers to a 3-1 overall record, 2-0 in the SIAC. The long and tall Wildcats (5-1, 0-1) could prove devastating in postseason in 2A.


text:
Nate Ruess, What This World Is Coming To (feat. Beck): We need your help!
What This World Is Coming To (feat. Beck)
Nate Ruess » What This World Is Coming To (feat. Beck)
IndiePopIndie popPower popMale vocalists
Nate Ruess (born February 26, 1982 in Iowa City, Iowa, United States) is an American singer-songwriter and musician.
In 2001, at the age of 19, he launched the band The Format with his longtime best friend, Sam Means. The Format was his first musical endeavor to gain widespread attention. The Format lasted until 2008.
In 2008, Ruess started a new band with Jack Antonoff of Steel Train and Andrew Dost of Anathallo. The band was called fun.. With fun. Read Full BioNate Ruess (born February 26, 1982 in Iowa City, Iowa, United States) is an American singer-songwriter and musician.
In 2008, Ruess started a new band with Jack Antonoff of Steel Train and Andrew Dost of Anathallo. The band was called fun.. With fun., Ruess won two Grammy Awards in 2013, including Best New Artist and Song of The Year for their hit We Are Young. fun. only released two albums before parting ways in 2014. On June 16, 2015, Ruess released his debut solo album Grand Romantic.
Ruess has also garnered success as a guest vocalist on songs by artists such as P!nk, Eminem, Emile Haynie, and Beach Boy Brian Wilson.
01What This World Is Coming To (feat. Beck)4:02
What This World Is Coming To
by Nate Ruess
Someone sucked the life out of the room
When that someone said goodbye much too soon
I'd hate for you to love me cause you saw me out
with someone who you read about in the news
But I guess that's what this world is coming to
I watched as your wrists began to bruise
Threading ribbons weaving patterns
Beautiful and blue
All your late nights came to life
And then died upon just one dislike
Never mind all the people that you moved
So let's get high here in the moonlight
Even the stars go right over our head
I think I'm gonna shine in the afterlife
Leaving the fight for peace of mind instead
So let's get high in the moonlight
I know I'm gonna shine here in the afterlife
You know that I can't stop thinkin' bout you
You're the source of everything I do
You brought faith to songs I sing
So I went and bought a diamond ring
I wanna spend each night here with you
Yeah you took everything I was
And you turned it into something I've become
Good god what's a boy to do?
But I guess that's what this world
Oh, I guess that's what this world
Oh, I guess that's what this world is, is coming to
Oh, I guess that's what my life is, is coming to
Lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Universal Music Publishing Group
Written by: JEFF BHASKER, NATE RUESS, BECK HANSEN, EMILE HAYNIE
Nate Ruess: What This World Is Coming To ft. Beck (LYRIC VIDEO)
Nate Ruess Live in Manila 2016 - What This World Is Coming To HD
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To (Live in Seoul, 01/17/2016)
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To (Live in Seoul, KR @ AX Hall on JAN 17, 2016)
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To Live (seoul, 17 Jan 2016 / 160117) 꽃가루 빤짝이 이벤트
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To (Sub español)
160117 네이트루스 (Nate Ruess) What This World Is Coming To , in Korea
Nate Ruess - what this world is coming to(꽃가루 이벤트 Live in seoul Jan 16,2016)
150728 Nate Ruess in Korea 네이트 루스 내한공연 - What This World is Coming To
[3] Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To (Spotify Session)
Nate Ruess – "What This World Is Coming To" Ft. Beck (Advanced Piano Cover)
Nate Ruess & The Band Romantic - What This World Is Coming To, live in Paris
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To Clip
Nate Ruess-What This World Is Coming To(+반짝이 이벤트), live in korea (@현대카드 5 Nights) , 20160117 네이트루스
What This World Is Coming To - Nate Ruess f. Beck (tribute cover by Molotov Cocktail Piano)
Nate ruess - What this world is coming to live in korea 160117
Nate Ruess What This World Is Coming To Live
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To (Webster Hall NYC)
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To 꽃가루 이벤트 @ 160117 @ Korea, Seoul
Nate Ruess: Great Big Storm (LYRIC VIDEO)
What This World Is Coming To - Nate Ruess, Toronto 06/22/15
Nate Ruess: Great Big Storm [OFFICIAL VIDEO]
Nate Ruess, What This World is Coming Too, Fiddlers Green Amp, 7 11 15
Nate Ruess: Take It Back [OFFICIAL VIDEO]
Nate Ruess - What This World Is Coming To (Feat. Beck)
Nate ruess what this world is coming to 2
What This World is Coming to - Nate Ruess in Buffalo
Moment - Nate Ruess [Subtitulado Español]
(2016) Nate Ruess Universal Studios Florida "What This World Is Coming To" 2/20/2016 Concert
Nate Ruess: Brightside (LYRIC VIDEO)
Nate Ruess: Nothing Without Love [OFFICIAL VIDEO]
Nate Ruess LIVE @Austin City Limits Music Festival #1

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Should be restored to something more similar to previous site's policy:broaden who can edit, but have changes reviewed. Other possible policies?
(Randall) The way we do revisions to meeting minutes: directly editing minutes and using RSS feeds vs sending e-mails.


It is a key middle school as well as the first IB international school in Zhejiang Province, composed of many departments from kindergarten to university, which has the world leading IB curriculum. The average score in the global IB test is 29, while the class of 2016 has an IB score of 33, exceeding the global average score. There are more than 70 foreign teachers for 160 classes with over 5,000 students, including 350 foreign students. The school covers an area of 330,000 square meters, equipped with art museum, science and technology museum, gymnasium, warm water swimming pool, library, two 400-meter circular plastic runways and football fields.
Ningbo, located in the southeast of China and north to Hangzhou, is the second largest city in Zhejiang Province, the third largest port city in the world and the oriental port of 'Maritime Silk Road'. Ningbo is home to many Chinese literatus, featured by a pretty long history, rich tourism resources, plenty of scenic spots, local operas and representative crafts which were on the list of world intangible cultural heritage items. Not only abound with a variety of seafood, Ningbo is also noted for the ten local well-known snacks. In 2017, Ningbo was awarded as the top 3 of the 'Happiest Cities' in China.


Adult rats that had been exposed before birth and during nursing to a mixture of chemicals found in a wide range of consumer products have a smaller medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and perform worse on an attention-switching task than rats not exposed to the chemicals early in life. These findings, published in JNeurosci, demonstrate a long-term influence of endocrine-disrupting compounds on brain development.
Although previous studies have identified associations between phthalate exposure and developmental disturbances, little is known about the neurobiology underlying these relationships.
Janice Juraska and colleagues fed pregnant rats a daily cookie laced with human level doses of a chemical mixture based on data obtained from pregnant women. The researchers found both male and female adult offspring of these rats had fewer neurons and synapses in their mPFC and a specific deficit in cognitive flexibility.


The Rivertree worship team will be holding auditions for instrumentalists on Sunday, Jan 28 at 2 PM. If you play guitar (acoustic and/or electric), bass, keys or drums, and have heart for leading worship with a team of musicians, we'd love to talk with you.
For more information email Steven Barnett at steven@myrivertree.org.


Talk to Who? is a game-simulation that helps reinforce what we try to teach kids every day: don't answer the door to strangers, create a password with your family to use during emergencies, calling the police, etc.
Would your kid know what to do?
Check the game trailer here!
Controls: click on top a object to move towards it, move the mouse right-left to look around the room. Interacting with object is also click based.
Team: Kelle Lima, Brian Alexander, Bharat Gudihal, Chelsey Thompson, Damon Heagren, and Qinglin Mao.
Install instructions: Download > Double-click on the .exe to run the game.


text:
DR. REBECCA A. HOUSEL
#PopCultureProfessor:
Repair the World
The smell of cigarettes haunts me. Though I don't want it to. I didn't want any of the things that happened. But I have no choice. Except to survive. And I have.
It started this time last year. The fall. And I'm not talking about the season.
Did you know that insecure people project their insecurities on to others??? It seems impossible to the insecure that anyone could be better. Stronger. But it is possible. I exist, don't I???
Not even arrows can kill my spirit. Not the death of my child. Not loneliness. Not homelessness. Not joblessness. Not debt. Not anger. Not grief. Nothing and no one can change who I am. That's why so many try. Because it seems impossible in a world full of frightened, empty people, that I--a woman no less--will stand up when everyone else is busy looking for a chair.
Sometimes, I wish my wings were physical instead of long, gray shadows that drag on the floor behind me as I walk. For, if they were, I could show you how I soar. High above. I touch the wispy clouds with the tops of my wings and a little piece of celestial cotton catches, follows, then disappears.
Can you do that? Touch heaven???
You want to. But envy lives where faith should be. Which is why you were so arrogant. Arrogance just covers up insecurity. You have no faith. Though physically strong, you're weak otherwise. There's no nice way to say that--sorry. You're just afraid. You should be. I know the truth. The only one who does. Besides you, that is.
The truth doesn't win many fans. That's left to lies. Pretty ones. Lies like, "I love you."
#WithOrWithoutYou
Rebecca Housel, Ph.D., known as "The Pop Culture Professor" (TM), is an international best-selling author and editor in nine languages and 100 countries. Rebecca, listed in the Directory of American Poets & Writers for her work in nonfiction, was nominated by Prevention magazine essayist and best-selling author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot, to the National Association of Science Writers for her work on cancer. Rebecca has published with best-selling author of The Accidental Buddhist, Dinty Moore's literary nonfiction journal, Brevity, and with commercial publications like Redbook magazine and online journals like In Media Res. Her recent interviews appear in publications such as the LA Times, Esquire, USA TODAY, The Huffington Post, Inside Higher Ed, Woman's World magazine, and Marie Claire as well as on FOX news, and NBC. Former President of the New York College English Association, Housel was a professor in both Atlanta and New York, teaching popular culture, film, creative writing, literature, and medical humanities. Dr. Housel currently works on the Editorial Advisory Boards for the Journal of Popular Culture and the Journal of American Culture; she has also worked as a reviewer for Syracuse University Press and Thomson Wadsworth. A writer of all genres, Housel has written and published both fiction and nonfiction in over ten books and 398 articles, essays, book chapters, book reviews, and encyclopedia entries.
21st Century Etiquette Series
#AwakeLife
Comic Book Legends
Comic Con Tour
#MentalHealth
Pop Culture Cooking
#PopCultureProfessor 101
Publication News
Supernatural Pop Culture
#TwinFlames
Vampire Reviews
Google Rebecca Housel


text:
As Candidates Push to Get Out the Vote, Inaccessibility Remains a Barrier
By Megan Brooks
As we gear up for the 2020 election, voters across the country are preparing to exercise their right to vote. Despite protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), polling locations across the country remain inaccessible for people with disabilities. One in five people eligible to vote has a disability, "[o]ne-third of voters who have a disability report difficulty voting," and "[o]nly 40 percent of polling places fully accommodate people with disabilities."
The Department of Justice Disability Rights Section provides information on several federal laws protect the voting rights of people with disabilities; notably, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). "Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments ("public entities") to ensure that people with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to vote. The ADA's provisions apply to all aspects of voting, including voter registration, site selection, and the casting of ballots, whether on Election Day or during an early voting process." Additionally, "[t]o ensure that voters with disabilities can fully participate in the election process, officials must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services at each stage of the process, from registering to vote to casting a ballot."
HAVA "requires jurisdictions responsible for conducting federal elections to provide at least one accessible voting system for persons with disabilities at each polling place in federal elections." During federal elections, HAVA requires the voting system, including voting machines, is accessible at each polling location to voters who are blind or visually impaired. The accessibility must provide the same access and participation as provided to other voters.
As part of its voting protections, HAVA charges protection and advocacy agencies (P&A) for people with disabilities to ensure full participation in the voting process. Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services (DRDC) is the P&A for the District of Columbia. In 2018, DRDC conducted surveys of polling locations in DC and found that "45% of the surveyed precincts (55 precincts) in the June 2018 primary election were operationally inaccessible, structurally inaccessible, or both." Elements that make a location structurally inaccessible are "stairs, non-ADA compliant ramps, broken elevators, and/or narrow doorways," that could not be fixed by poll staff. Elements that cause operational inaccessibility are those that staff "could have remedied" and includes "obstructions in the path to the accessible entrance that were not removed, incorrect or missing signage, broken doorbells, and/or no available assistive equipment." When such a large number of precincts face these issues, it is clear that voting is often not accessible to all citizens.
DC is not alone in these accessibility problems with voting. During the Iowa caucuses, Iowa's P&A reported that some people with disabilities were prevented from caucusing due to accessibility barriers, stating promises from Iowa's democratic party "were not met. That is not OK. … That is not how a well-run caucus should happen." As state parties talk about making access to voting easier, it is important to address accessibility issues that impact people's ability to participate in the voting process.
Polling places across the country have been closed or consolidated. The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) states these closures are "blamed on the ADA" and the location's lack of accessibility under the law. NDRN finds that "[j]urisdictions and election officials claim that because of the costs associated with making their polling places ADA compliant, they are better off relocating the polling places, or worse, closing them altogether." The ADA mandates that participation in government services, including voting, is not denied to people with disabilities. The reduction of polling places may cause its own accessibility barriers by causing folks to travel farther in their jurisdictions to vote in a location serving many more people. The potential for increased travel distance, crowds, and wait times presents its own accessibility concerns. The solution to inaccessible polling places is not their closure but rather, at least temporarily, remediation.
Improvements to voting must be made to ensure equal access to the polls. In January 2020 Senators Casey and Klobuchar introduced the Accessible Voting Act (AVA) to increase voting accessibility, especially for the aging population and for people with disabilities. NDRN expressed support for the bill. NDRN's Executive Director, Curt Decker, states "the AVA is a necessary piece of legislation that will further ensure voters with disabilities can fully and equally participate in our elections." AVA's Election Assistance Commission Office of Accessibility may be a useful tool to implement accessibility measures in ways other legislation has failed to follow through. While there has been progress in making voting more accessible in some states, we must make much more progress.
accessibility, Americans with Disabilities Act, disability rights, Help America Vote Act, public accommodations, voting rights
As Candidates Push to Get Out the Vote, Inaccessibility Remains a Barrier2020-03-032020-03-25https://equalrightscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/erc-logo-small-1.pngEqual Rights Centerhttps://equalrightscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/vote.jpg200px200px


Archive by Category "Pet Peeve"
Clients who work from home vs. chatty maids is part 2 in our Ask a House Cleaner debate. Clients who work from home is the customers perspective. Homeowners feel they get a bad rap for wanting to remain at home during a house cleaning for medical reasons.
Clients who work from home told Angela Brown, they prefer to keep to themselves. If they don't retreat, they get bombarded with questions and conversation starters from the maid.
A savvy cleaner is flexible with their cleaning routine.
Want to find a savvy cleaner? https://HouseCleaning360.com our sponsor can help you do just that. They can also help you find a pet sitter when you are away.
Chatty Cathy from the house cleaners point of view. This is the first of a two-part series on Chatty Cathy or Talking Tammy, Victim Vickie or Whining Wendy. What it boils down to is house cleaner training. Is there room for a Chatty Cathy? And what to do if your clients are lonely, talking, visiting, or want to be friends.
We Ask a House Cleaner about boundaries and expectations and human interaction from customers who work at home.
Tomorrow we cover the client's perspective and how they feel about cleaning vs. chatting.
Angela Brown, The House Cleaning Guru gives tips and a method to get your work done.
Today's sponsor is #HouseCleaning360 where you can grab a fan page for your cleaning business.
"Not that bad" It's a phrase customers use when describing their home. "Come clean my space. It's not that bad." And they want the house cleaner to give them a price quote over the phone.
Want some cleaning advice? Angela Brown, The House Cleaning Guru says if you say those words; "My house is not that bad" your price just went up.
Today on Ask a House Cleaner we learn that if you want a fair price, you have the let the housekeeper or maid service see your house.
They don't want to bait and switch, but they have to clean the basics at every house. They have a series of routine tasks and pretending your home isn't that dirty is a house cleaner pet peeve.