JCB logo
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF, 5202K)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verschoor, A.
Right arrow Articles by Frank, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Verschoor, A.
Right arrow Articles by Frank, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol 133, 495-505, Copyright © 1996 by The Rockefeller University Press

ARTICLES

Native 3D structure of eukaryotic 80s ribosome: morphological homology with E. coli 70S ribosome

A Verschoor, S Srivastava, R Grassucci and J Frank
Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health 12201-0509, USA. adri@orkney.ph.albany.edu

A three-dimensional reconstruction of the eukaryotic 80S monosome from a frozen-hydrated electron microscopic preparation reveals the native structure of this macromolecular complex. The new structure, at 38A resolution, shows a marked resemblance to the structure determined for the E. coli 70S ribosome (Frank, J., A. Verschoor, Y. Li, J. Zhu, R.K. Lata, M. Radermacher, P. Penczek, R. Grassucci, R.K. Agrawal, and Srivastava. 1996b. In press; Frank, J., J. Zhu, P. Penczek, Y. Li, S. Srivastava ., A. Verschoor, M. Radermacher, R. Grassucci, R.K. Lata, and R. Agrawal. 1995. Nature (Lond.).376:441-444.) limited to a comparable resolution, but with a number of eukaryotic elaborations superimposed. Although considerably greater size and intricacy of the features is seen in the morphology of the large subunit (60S vs 50S), the most striking differences are in the small subunit morphology (40S vs 30S): the extended beak and crest features of the head, the back lobes, and the feet. However, the structure underlying these extra features appears to be remarkably similar in form to the 30S portion of the 70S structure. The intersubunit space also appears to be strongly conserved, as might be expected from the degree of functional conservation of the ribosome among kingdoms (Eukarya, Eubacteria, and Archaea). The internal organization of the 80S structure appears as an armature or core of high-density material for each subunit, with the two cores linked by a single bridge between the platform region of the 40S subunit and the region below the presumed peptidyltransferase center of the 60S subunit. This may be equated with a close contact of the 18S and 28S rRNAs in the translational domain centered on the upper subunit:subunit interface.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:



  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents