C. Robin Buell 2026-11-05
C. Robin Buell is a researcher in genomics and bioinformatics, including the genome biology of plants and plant-associated organisms. Her institutional research description emphasizes comparative genomics and the provision of databases and computational tools for interpreting genomes.[ref]
C. Robin Buell research profile at the University of Georgia. Named faculty profile, research description
Buell was first author of the 2003 complete genome sequence report for Pseudomonas syringae pathovar tomato DC3000. The publication described approximately million base pairs, distributed across one circular chromosome and two plasmids, with predicted open reading frames. These are the study's reported assembly and annotation results, rather than an assertion that later annotations must retain exactly the same counts.[ref]
An illuminating distinction is the difference between a sequence measurement and its interpretation. DNA sequencing supplies evidence for the order of nucleotides; genome annotation identifies candidate features and proposes their biological roles. An open reading frame is therefore not, by itself, a demonstration that a particular protein is expressed or has a proposed function. Independent evidence can test those additional claims.
The published scale also gives a useful arithmetic check. Dividing the approximate genome size by its predicted open reading frame count givesbase pairs of total genome sequence per predicted open reading frame. This is a bookkeeping ratio, not a mean coding-sequence length: its numerator includes noncoding sequence, and the annotation may contain overlapping features. Confusing these quantities would turn a reasonable summary of genome density into an incorrect claim about individual genes. This example shows why the definitions of both numerator and denominator matter when interpreting large biological datasets.
C. Robin Buell
. Portrait explicitly identified in the University of Georgia faculty profile. N. Kitamura 2026-11-05
N. Kitamura is the first-listed author of the 1981 study that determined the primary sequence and organization of poliovirus RNA and related it to the expressed polypeptides. The original byline is retained here without inferring a longer personal identity.[ref]
The study reported a 7,433-nucleotide RNA sequence and an open reading frame spanning 2,207 consecutive triplets. Sequence analysis mapped twelve viral polypeptides to products of proteolysis of one encoded polyprotein. Connecting nucleotide order with the isolated protein products supplied evidence about gene expression and processing, rather than simply listing the genome's chemical composition.[ref]
Primary structure, gene organization and polypeptide expression of poliovirus RNA by N. Kitamura and others. Abstract: RNA length, coding frame and mapped cleavage products
An original consistency calculation gives nucleotide positions in those triplets, about of the reported sequence. This explains the stated scale of the long reading frame. It does not by itself locate a cleavage site: mapping the protein products requires additional sequence evidence.
Kitamura's contribution in this work links RNA sequence, an open reading frame and experimentally identified polyprotein products. Genome organization and subsequent protein processing answer related but distinct questions.
Open reading frame 2026-10-20
A sequence interpreted in a particular codon frame without an internal in-frame stop, with the boundary convention stated. Prediction of an open reading frame alone does not demonstrate biological translation or a stable functional product.
ribosome profiling turned initiation from a small set of reporter-based examples into a genome-wide, condition-dependent map, while specialized variants extended observation from translating ribosomes to start-site selection and scanning. The central distinction is that ordinary footprints locate occupied ribosomes; they do not directly label every initiation event or measure the movement of a scanning small subunit.
In a typical experiment, rapidly preserve biological translation complexes, digest exposed RNA, isolate ribosome-protected fragments and sequence them alongside matched total RNA. Assign each footprint to a ribosomal position using length-specific offsets calibrated on established coding regions. Enrichment over coding sequences and three-nucleotide periodicity support active elongation. The initial yeast work demonstrated genome-wide biological translation measurements and widespread regulation not inferable from mRNA abundance alone.[ref]
Genome-wide analysis in vivo of translation with nucleotide resolution using ribosome profiling by Nicholas T. Ingolia and others. Footprint method and translational responses in yeast
Counts normalized to transcript abundance provide an operational translation-efficiency measure,For treatment comparisons, a count model testing the interaction between assay type and treatment is preferable to unstable ratios at low counts. More occupancy can result from increased initiation or slower passage, so changes in elongation, premature termination and global normalization must be considered before assigning a TE change specifically to initiation.A major advance was recognition of pervasive translated upstream open reading frames and alternative starts. Mammalian stem-cell profiling found many leader-region biological translation events, including near-cognate starts, and alternative coding products.[ref]
Ribosome profiling of mouse embryonic stem cells reveals the complexity and dynamics of mammalian proteomes by Nicholas T. Ingolia and others. Mammalian footprints, leader translation and alternative initiation
Initiation upstream of an annotated start can add an N-terminal extension; downstream in-frame initiation can remove targeting or regulatory sequences, while another frame creates a different product. This exposed a coding and regulatory landscape missed by annotation based only on a single longest open reading frame. A footprint-supported short ORF is not automatically a stable functional microprotein: start-codon mutation, peptide evidence and phenotype are separate tests.Ordinary elongation profiles often make the exact starting site ambiguous. Brief harringtonine treatment permits much ongoing elongation to run off while newly initiating ribosomes accumulate near starts, generating start-associated peaks. lactimidomycin-based initiation profiling preferentially enriches early ribosomes and, when compared with an elongation-inhibitor profile, improves discrimination of initiation sites. Sooncheol Lee and colleagues used this strategy to map alternative mammalian start sites at high resolution.[ref]
Global mapping of translation initiation sites in mammalian cells at single-nucleotide resolution by Sooncheol Lee and others. Parallel initiation- and elongation-inhibitor profiling
These approaches reveal that the first AUG is not invariably chosen: local sequence context, near-cognate codons and competing upstream sites influence selection. However, drug uptake, exposure time and sequence-dependent trapping can change the observed distribution. A high peak can reflect capture efficiency or dwell time rather than a proportionate initiation flux, so compare time courses, untreated profiles and reporters with mutated candidate starts.The regulatory significance of upstream biological translation is particularly clear during stress. In the GCN4 leader, biological translation of a short upstream frame can be followed by retention of a scanning small subunit. Reacquisition of the eIF2–GTP–initiator-tRNA ternary complex determines whether it reinitiates at an inhibitory upstream frame or proceeds to the main coding region. Amino-acid limitation lowers ternary-complex availability and changes that competition. Profiling measures occupancy on upstream and main regions simultaneously, testing redistribution across endogenous transcripts rather than relying only on reporter output. The reinitiation mechanism predates profiling; the advance is transcriptome-wide evidence for its deployment and condition dependence. Similarly, changes in cap-dependent recruitment can be mapped by perturbing mTORC1 signalling: profiling identified selectively regulated transcript programmes rather than a uniform effect on every mRNA.[ref]
The translational landscape of mTOR signalling steers cancer initiation and metastasis by Andrew C. Hsieh and others. mTOR perturbation and selective translational programmes
An important limit is that standard 80S footprints do not directly demonstrate scanning. translation complex profiling addresses this by preserving and separately profiling small-subunit-associated and 80S complexes. In yeast, Stuart K. Archer and colleagues mapped small-subunit occupancy along leaders and around initiation and recycling transitions, providing evidence for otherwise difficult-to-trap intermediates.[ref]
Dynamics of ribosome scanning and recycling revealed by translation complex profiling by Stuart K. Archer and others. Small-subunit and ribosome profiling across the translation cycle
This makes different predictions from a model that treats every leader footprint as elongation. Nevertheless, the measurement is a distribution of captured complexes, not a movie of one subunit; crosslinking and footprint-length choices can affect which states are recovered.Validation is therefore integral to the mechanistic conclusions. Use rapid, consistent harvesting, biological replicates, multiple footprint lengths and matched RNA-seq; inspect rRNA contamination, mapping ambiguity and frame periodicity. Test start-site edits at the endogenous locus or in reporters preserving the relevant leader. Measure the predicted N termini or protein isoforms where possible, and use run-off or independent synthesis measurements to separate initiation changes from altered elongation. A structured RNA or another protected ribonucleoprotein can also produce a short sequencing fragment, especially in a very short proposed ORF. biological cell mixtures and transcript-isoform changes can create apparent alternative initiation, so transcript architecture must be resolved. Profiling has revealed the extent and plasticity of initiation-site choice and upstream biological translation; perturbations and specialized capture methods are needed to turn an occupancy map into an initiation mechanism.
Polyprotein 2026-11-05
A polyprotein is a polypeptide chain that supplies several protein products through proteolysis. One translation product can therefore contain the sequences of multiple eventual products. This differs from a protein complex assembled by association of independently made chains.
The relationship can be tested by mapping product sequences back onto a precursor. In 1981, investigators determined the poliovirus RNA sequence and identified a long open reading frame. Amino acid sequence analysis mapped twelve viral polypeptides to cleavage products of the encoded polyprotein. Agreement between the sequence and the isolated products supported a common precursor, rather than merely grouping similar-sized bands together.[ref]
Primary structure, gene organization and polypeptide expression of poliovirus RNA by N. Kitamura and others. Original Abstract: open reading frame and mapping of proteolytic products
For an original accounting example, suppose a hypothetical precursor consists of consecutive regions of 200, 150 and 250 amino acid residues. Two cuts at the boundaries can yield three chains containing 600 residues altogether. Cleavage increases the number of molecules without synthesizing additional amino acid residues. Partial processing would also produce intermediates containing more than one of the regions.
The precursor and the final products need not have identical functions or lifetimes. An assay recognizing a sequence retained in several intermediates can detect more than one molecular species. Identifying a polyprotein thus requires following both its protein primary structure and its processing state.
Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 2026-11-05
Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 is the name used for a well-studied bacterial strain in experimental interactions with tomato and Arabidopsis thaliana. The abbreviation
pv. denotes pathovar, a classification related to pathogenic characteristics, while DC3000 identifies the particular strain. Those parts of the label carry more information than the species name Pseudomonas syringae alone.[ref]The 2003 genome report described about 6.5 megabases of DNA, comprising one circular chromosome and two plasmids, with 5763 predicted open reading frames. The assembly and annotation created a reference for comparing molecular observations, rather than merely attaching a name to a culture.[ref]
The complete genome sequence of the Arabidopsis and tomato pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 by C. Robin Buell and others. Abstract and Figure1, genome components and publication-specific annotation
A predicted open reading frame is not automatically an experimentally established protein function.In a 2011 plant-community experiment, this strain supplied a common challenge against which different bacterial colonists were compared. Both pathogen population and host disease symptoms were measured.[ref]
Protection of Arabidopsis thaliana against leaf-pathogenic Pseudomonas syringae by Sphingomonas strains in a controlled model system by Gerd Innerebner and others. Abstract and Figures1–2
Holding the challenge strain fixed makes differences between colonist treatments easier to interpret. It does not make the experiment representative of every Pseudomonas syringae strain or every host.