15.01.2013 Views

The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging - Supernova: Pliki

The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging - Supernova: Pliki

The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging - Supernova: Pliki

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

184<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Mitochondrial</strong> <strong>Free</strong> <strong>Radical</strong> <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> <strong>Aging</strong><br />

is compelling evidence that some mitochondrial protein import is similar: in yeast, some<br />

ribosomes engaged in translation are found bound to mitochondria. 24,25 This is actually no<br />

great surprise, since the signal that targets most proteins to mitochondria is at their<br />

N-terminus, which is synthesised first. Thus, this signal becomes “visible” to the targeting<br />

machinery before the protein synthesis is complete. In other words, contranslational import<br />

may not be obligatory; it may just happen by chance some <strong>of</strong> the time.<br />

This interpretation is supported by a number <strong>of</strong> other points. Firstly, it seems that only<br />

a minority <strong>of</strong> import is cotranslational: no transcripts have been found exclusively (or even<br />

predominantly) associated with mitochondria-bound ribosomes rather than free ones. 25<br />

Secondly, the acceleration <strong>of</strong> import that is sometimes achieved by duplicating a protein’s<br />

leader sequence 18,11 (see Section 15.9) appears hard to explain on the basis <strong>of</strong> “more<br />

strenuous” import, since (based on our current understanding) the import machinery would<br />

not be expected to bind both sequences simultaneously; but it is easy to explain on the basis<br />

<strong>of</strong> more rapid targeting to mitochondria leading to more cotranslational (hence successful)<br />

import, since the targeting machinery will see a bigger signal more quickly on average.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se considerations might suggest that it would be difficult to exploit cotranslational<br />

import for the present purpose. Since no protein is known which is predominantly imported<br />

cotranslationally, we must presume that there is nothing about the signal sequence (other<br />

than its size) which promotes such import, and we know (see Section 15.9) that bigger is<br />

better but not good enough. If contranslational import is a matter <strong>of</strong> chance, therefore, we<br />

would need to increase that chance. Pessimism may be premature, however. One approach<br />

that might possibly achieve this would be to exploit the nuclear genome’s codon bias.* Codon<br />

bias is thought to be self-sustaining, by virtue <strong>of</strong> rare codons being represented by small<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> tRNA genes or by tRNAs with low efficiency. Thus, the idea is to give the<br />

transgenes deliberately terrible codon bias—to construct them with a large number <strong>of</strong> codons<br />

which are rare in human nuclear DNA, on the basis that they will typically be more slowly<br />

recognised and translated than normal, giving more time for import to begin (and, once<br />

begun, to keep up with translation). In bacteria, codon choice can alter translation rate by as<br />

much as sixfold, 26a so this approach has potential. Promotion <strong>of</strong> cotranslational import is a<br />

possible reason why overexpressing a protein involved in nucleocytoplasmic transport<br />

improves import <strong>of</strong> moderately hydrophic proteins. 26b<br />

<strong>The</strong> consideration <strong>of</strong> cotranslational import suggests another possible obstacle to<br />

mitochondrial gene therapy, however: it is quite conceivable that most mt-coded proteins<br />

are cotranslationally exported into the inner membrane. If they are, then the problem <strong>of</strong><br />

folding (discussed in Section 15.7) becomes altogether more likely: it may very well be much<br />

easier for a protein to go straight into the membrane as it comes <strong>of</strong>f a ribosome than as it<br />

comes through the Tim machinery, since the ribosome can face the membrane whereas the<br />

Tim machinery is facing the wrong way.<br />

* Codon bias is a numerical property <strong>of</strong> a collection <strong>of</strong> sequences <strong>of</strong> protein-coding genes—typically, <strong>of</strong> the<br />

set <strong>of</strong> all sequenced genes <strong>of</strong> a given species. Amino acids are encoded by triplets <strong>of</strong> nucleotides, so there are<br />

64 possible triplets (codons), but there are only 20 amino acids. Thus, most amino acids are encoded by<br />

more than one codon—sometimes as many as six. One can therefore compare two synonymous codons<br />

(ones that translate to the same amino acid) with regard to how <strong>of</strong>ten they each appear in the collection <strong>of</strong><br />

sequences. One will appear more <strong>of</strong>ten than the other: sometimes, it turns out, much more <strong>of</strong>ten. <strong>The</strong><br />

difference between these pairs <strong>of</strong> numbers is the set's codon bias.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!