The control of translation is increasingly recognized as a major factor in determining protein levels in the cell. The ribosome — the cellular machine that mediates protein synthesis — is typically seen as a key, but invariant, player in this process. This is because translational control is thought to be mediated by other auxiliary factors while ribosome recruitment is seen as the end-point of regulation. However, recent developments have made it clear that heterogeneous ribosome types can exist in different tissues, and more importantly, that these ribosomes can preferentially translate different subsets of mRNAs. In so doing, heterogeneous ribosomes could be key regulatory players in differentiation and development. Here, we examine current evidence for the existence of different ribosome types and how they might arise. In particular, we will take a close look at the mechanisms through which these ribosomes might mediate selective mRNA translation. We also summarize recently developed techniques/approaches that will aid in our understanding of the functions of such specialized ribosomes.

Synapses, points of contact between axons and dendrites, are conduits for the flow of information in the circuitry of the central nervous system. The strength of synaptic transmission reflects the interconnectedness of the axons and dendrites at synapses; synaptic strength in turn is modified by the frequency with which the synapses are stimulated. This modulation of synaptic strength, or synaptic plasticity, probably forms the cellular basis for learning and memory. RNA metabolism, particularly translational control at or near the synapse, is one process that controls long-lasting synaptic plasticity and, by extension, memory formation and consolidation. In the present paper, I review some salient features of translational control of synaptic plasticity.

In response to environmental stresses, a family of protein kinases phosphorylate eIF2 (eukaryotic initiation factor 2) to alleviate cellular injury or alternatively induce apoptosis. Phosphorylation of eIF2 reduces global translation, allowing cells to conserve resources and to initiate a reconfiguration of gene expression to effectively manage stress conditions. Accompanying this general protein synthesis control, eIF2 phosphorylation induces translation of specific mRNAs, such as that encoding the bZIP (basic leucine zipper) transcriptional regulator ATF4 (activating transcription factor 4). ATF4 also enhances the expression of additional transcription factors, ATF3 and CHOP (CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein homologous protein)/GADD153 (growth arrest and DNA-damage-inducible protein), that assist in the regulation of genes involved in metabolism, the redox status of the cells and apoptosis. Reduced translation by eIF2 phosphorylation can also lead to activation of stress-related transcription factors, such as NF-κB (nuclear factor κB), by lowering the steady-state levels of short-lived regulatory proteins such as IκB (inhibitor of NF-κB). While many of the genes induced by eIF2 phosphorylation are shared between different environmental stresses, eIF2 kinases function in conjunction with other stress-response pathways, such as those regulated by mitogen-activated protein kinases, to elicit gene expression programmes that are tailored for the specific stress condition. Loss of eIF2 kinase pathways can have important health consequences. Mice devoid of the eIF2 kinase GCN2 [general control non-derepressible-2 or EIF2AK4 (eIF2α kinase 4)] show sensitivity to nutritional deficiencies and aberrant eating behaviours, and deletion of PEK [pancreatic eIF2α kinase or PERK (RNA-dependent protein kinase-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase) or EIF2AK3] leads to neonatal insulin-dependent diabetes, epiphyseal dysplasia and hepatic and renal complications.

We have developed conditional gene expression systems based on engineered small-molecule-binding riboswitches. Tetracycline-dependent regulation can be imposed on an mRNA in yeast by inserting an aptamer in its 5′-untranslated region. Biochemical and genetic analyses determined that binding of the ligand tetracycline leads to a pseudoknot-like linkage within the aptamer structure, thereby inhibiting the initial steps of translation. A second translational control element was designed by combining a theophylline aptamer with a communication module for which a 1 nt slipping mechanism had been proposed. This structural element was inserted close to the bacterial ribosomal binding site at a position just interfering with translation in the non-ligand-bound form. Addition of the ligand then shifts the inhibitory element to a distance that permits efficient translation.

Sugars as signalling molecules exert control on the transcription of many plant genes. Sugar signals also alter mRNA and protein stability. Increased sucrose concentrations specifically repress translation of the S-class basic region leucine zipper (bZIP) type transcription factor AtbZIP11 / ATB2 . This sucrose-induced repression of translation (SIRT) depends on translation of a highly conserved upstream open reading frame (uORF) in the 5′ UTR of the gene. This conserved uORF is exclusively encoded in 5′ UTRs of several plant S-class bZIP transcription factors. Arabidopsis homologues of ATB2 / AtbZIP11 , which harbour the conserved uORF, also show SIRT. Therefore, SIRT emerges as a general sucrose translational control mechanism of a group of transcription factors. SIRT might be part of a sucrose-specific signalling pathway, controlling expression of plant bZIP transcription factor genes.

DNA ligase 1 ( AtLIG1 ) is the only essential DNA ligase activity in Arabidopsis and is implicated in the important processes of DNA replication, repair and recombination and in transgene insertion during Agrobacterium -mediated plant transformations. The mitochondrial and nuclear forms of DNA ligase 1 in Arabidopsis are translated from a single mRNA species through the control of translation initiation from either the first (M1) or second (M2) in-frame AUG codons respectively. Translation from a third in-frame AUG codon (M3) occurs on transcripts in which M1 and M2 are mutagenized to stop codons. Wild-type AtLIG1–GFP constructs (where GFP stands for green fluorescent protein) can be targeted in planta to both the nucleus and mitochondria. AtLIG1–GFP translation from M1 specifically targets the fusion protein only to mitochondria in planta , whereas translation from M2 or M3 targets the fusion protein only to the nucleus. Interestingly, the AtLIG1–GFP fusion protein in which translation is initiated from M1 contains both an N-terminal mtPS (mitochondrial targeting presequence) and a nuclear localization signal; nonetheless, this protein is only targeted to the mitochondria. This result raises intriguing questions on the translational control mechanisms that regulate how the protein products of a single transcript are targeted to more than one cellular compartment.