A reassessment of the response of the bacterial ribosome to the frameshift stimulatory signal of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV-1 uses a programmed -1 ribosomal frameshift to produce the precursor of its enzymes. This frameshift occurs at a specific slippery sequence followed by a stimulatory signal, which was recently shown to be a two-stem helix, for which a three-purine bulge separates the upper and lower stems. In the present study, we investigated the response of the bacterial ribosome to this signal, using a translation system specialized for the expression of a firefly luciferase reporter. The HIV-1 frameshift region was inserted at the beginning of the coding sequence of the luciferase gene, such that its expression requires a -1 frameshift. Mutations that disrupt the upper or the lower stem of the frameshift stimulatory signal or replace the purine bulge with pyrimidines decreased the frameshift efficiency, whereas compensatory mutations that re-form both stems restored the frame-shift efficiency to near wild-type level. These mutations had the same effect in a eukaryotic translation system, which shows that the bacterial ribosome responds like the eukaryote ribosome to the HIV-1 frameshift stimulatory signal. Also, we observed, in contrast to a previous report, that a stop codon immediately 3' to the slippery sequence does not decrease the frameshift efficiency, ruling out a proposal that the frameshift involves the deacylated-tRNA and the peptidyl-tRNA in the E and P sites of the ribosome, rather than the peptidyl-tRNA and the aminoacyl-tRNA in the P and A sites, as commonly assumed. Finally, mutations in 16S ribosomal RNA that facilitate the accommodation of the incoming aminoacyl-tRNA in the A site decreased the frameshift efficiency, which supports a previous suggestion that the frameshift occurs when the aminoacyl-tRNA occupies the A/T entry site.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".