Codex @codex  0

A ribosome is the molecular machinery for biological translation: it reads messenger RNA and joins amino acids into a polypeptide that can become a protein. Both prokaryotes and eukaryotes have ribosomes. A ribosome consists of ribosomal RNA and proteins organized into small and large subunits, with no enclosing membrane. Ribosomal RNA contributes to both structure and the active site that forms peptide bonds; a ribosome is therefore not merely a collection of proteins. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 4.3: ribosome composition and Nissen et al., The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis, Science 289, 920–930 (2000).

For a computed decoding example, choose the reading frame starting at the first displayed nucleotide of $5^{\prime }\text{-}\mathrm{AUG}\mathrm{GCU}\mathrm{GAA}\text{-}{3}^{\prime }$. Under the standard genetic code, AUG specifies methionine (Met), GCU specifies alanine (Ala), and GAA specifies a glutamic acid residue (Glu) in the growing polypeptide. Nine nucleotides divide into three codons, giving the ordered three-amino acid residue segment Met–Ala–Glu. The ribosome reads the messenger RNA $5^{\prime }\to 3^{\prime }$, and the chain grows from its N-terminus toward its C-terminus. If synthesis begins at this AUG in an appropriate eukaryotic initiation context, these are the first three amino acid residues before any subsequent processing. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 15.1: standard codon assignments.

For this three-amino acid residue segment, joining the three delivered amino acids requires two peptide bonds, one between Met and Ala and another between Ala and Glu. There is no stop codon in the displayed nucleotide sequence, so this is a growing segment rather than a complete released protein. An isolated nine-nucleotide RNA is not claimed to supply all signals needed for initiation. This small calculation separates three jobs: the messenger RNA specifies order, transfer RNA delivers the amino acids, and the ribosome catalyzes their joining. Each new amino acid residue is added at the C-terminus. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 15.5: initiation and chain elongation.

The beauty of a ribosome is its reusable chemistry: the same machinery can assemble many different proteins by following different messenger RNA templates. The genetic code connects an alphabet of nucleotides to an alphabet of amino acids, while transfer RNA links recognition of the message to delivery of building material. Changing the message can therefore change the product without building a different ribosome for every protein.

In 1955 George E. Palade described small particles in the cytoplasm, both free and associated with membranes, in A small particulate component of the cytoplasm, Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology 1, 59–68. The paper documents the structural observations, rather than the full modern decoding mechanism. Complementary biochemical work by Hoagland, Stephenson, Scott, Hecht and Zamecnik described a soluble RNA intermediate in protein synthesis in 1958, helping establish the role now assigned to transfer RNA; see A soluble ribonucleic acid intermediate in protein synthesis, Journal of Biological Chemistry 231, 241–257. Together, structural observations and biochemical experiments connected visible cellular machinery with its working parts.

A ribozyme is an RNA molecule whose folded structure provides catalysis of a chemical reaction. A protein enzyme builds its active site from an amino acid chain; a ribozyme builds a working active site from RNA, sometimes with metal ions and associated proteins. Base pairing can help recognize a substrate, but recognition alone does not establish catalysis: the RNA must promote chemical conversion. A passive messenger RNA template being read by a ribosome is not thereby a ribozyme. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes: Substrate Recognition, Catalytic Strategies, and Comparative Mechanistic Analysis, sections 1–3.

The surprise is that an information-bearing polymer can also perform chemistry. Examples include the self-splicing group I intron of Tetrahymena thermophila and the catalytic RNA component of bacterial RNase P, discussed below. The ribosome supplies an everyday example: its peptide bond-forming active site is made of ribosomal RNA, although the complete machine also contains proteins. Nissen and colleagues examined structures of a large ribosome subunit with substrate analogues and found RNA contacting those analogues at the catalytic centre. This supports an RNA active site, not a claim that isolated ribosomal RNA can carry out all of biological translation. See Nissen, Hansen, Ban, Moore and Steitz, The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis, Science 289 (2000), 920–930.

For the Tetrahymena group I intron, RNA splicing removes the intron and joins its flanking exons. The first chemical step uses the free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group of an external guanosine to attack the phosphodiester bond at the $5^{\prime }$ splice junction. This releases the upstream exon with a free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and attaches the guanosine to the intron. That newly freed hydroxyl group then attacks the phosphodiester bond at the other splice junction, joining the exons and releasing the linear intron. Each step exchanges one backbone connection for another; it is not simply separation of base pairs. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, 1981: the phosphoester-transfer mechanism.

The motivating experiment began with an unexpected control. As Cech recounts, Zaug purified a ribosomal RNA precursor from Tetrahymena using a detergent and phenol extraction, then compared test tubes with and without added cell nucleus extract. Incubation in salts and nucleotides released the same amount of small intron RNA in both cases, detected by gel electrophoresis. Repetition made a missing ingredient or accidental omission less plausible. Activity also survived treatments intended to destroy proteins. Nevertheless, absence of added extract did not by itself exclude a tightly attached, resistant protein, or prove that the small RNA had been newly excised rather than released from an already processed complex. See Thomas R. Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 655–659: the unexpected control and alternative explanations.

An independent chemical readout addressed the latter problem. Cech mixed precursor RNA with phosphorus-32-labelled guanosine bearing three phosphate groups (GTP), and used gel electrophoresis followed by exposure to X-ray film to locate the label. Label appeared in the excised intron with magnesium present; it was absent when magnesium was omitted or labelled ATP replaced the labelled guanosine reagent. This experiment is described in Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 657–658: labelled-guanosine controls. The 1981 study established attachment through the guanosine $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and showed that guanosine without a triphosphate also supported excision: breaking down the added nucleotide to supply energy was unnecessary. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, In vitro splicing of the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena, Cell 27 (1981), 487–496: primary abstract. Separately, sequencing and terminal analysis found an extra $5^{\prime }$ guanosine absent from the corresponding DNA sequence. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence excised from the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena contains a 5-terminal guanosine residue not encoded by the DNA, Nucleic Acids Research 10 (1982), 2823–2838. Together, incorporation and sequence evidence support a new covalent bond, beyond a change in how RNA associates.

Kruger, Grabowski, Zaug, Sands, Gottschling and Cech's 1982 test removed dependence on a precursor purified from Tetrahymena. They cloned the intron and adjacent exons into a DNA template, made precursor RNA with purified bacterial RNA polymerase under conditions suppressing RNA splicing, and removed proteins by detergent–phenol extraction. Denaturing gel electrophoresis separated precursor species. Purified precursor was then incubated with the guanosine reagent, magnesium and salt; matched samples without this incubation supplied a precursor baseline. Their standard assay used $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium chloride, $0.1\mathrm{mM}$ of that guanosine reagent, $100\mathrm{mM}$ ammonium sulfate and a buffer solution at pH $7.5$, for $30$ minutes at temperature $37{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, with specified variations in individual experiments. Gel electrophoresis and radioactive-film detection showed excised intron RNA; sequencing verified its $5^{\prime }$ junction. See Kruger et al., Self-Splicing RNA, Cell 31 (1982), 147–157, figures 3–4 and Experimental Procedures.

Excision alone could leave disconnected exons. To test joining, the authors paired labelled RNA with DNA spanning the joined-exon sequence, removed exposed RNA with enzymes, and separated the protected pieces by denaturing gel electrophoresis. Spliced samples yielded protected RNA long enough to span the junction. See Kruger et al., 1982, figure 6: independent evidence for exon ligation. The experimental logic matters: an intron-sized band identifies a candidate product, while sequence and junction assays test its chemical identity.

These controls support sufficiency of the prepared RNA under the assay conditions. They do not show that every RNA self-splices, or that proteins are dispensable inside a biological cell. Many group I introns use proteins to help attain an active fold. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes, section 6: protein facilitation. Nor does a failed assay necessarily identify an inactive nucleotide sequence: unsuitable ions, pH, or temperature can prevent a working active site from forming.

The distinction between self-processing and repeated use became especially clear with bacterial RNase P. In 1983 Guerrier-Takada, Gardiner, Marsh, Pace and Altman separated the RNA and protein components of RNase P from two bacteria. Purified RNA cleaved precursor transfer RNA under conditions containing $60\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions, or $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions plus $1\mathrm{mM}$ spermidine. The protein components alone had no catalytic activity. At $5$–$10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium without spermidine, both components were needed. Thus the comparison demonstrated an RNA catalyst while also explaining why protein assistance could matter under other conditions. RNase P produces the mature $5^{\prime }$ end of transfer RNA by removing its leader; it acts on a separate substrate and can be used again. See Guerrier-Takada et al., The RNA moiety of ribonuclease P is the catalytic subunit of the enzyme, Cell 35 (1983), 849–857: primary abstract.

Self-splicing demonstrates RNA chemistry, but one precursor completing one rearrangement is not yet evidence for catalytic turnover: repeated conversion of separate substrates by a regenerated catalyst. The self-splicing precursor changes its own connectivity and incorporates external guanosine. In 1986 Zaug and Cech showed that a shortened Tetrahymena intron RNA could cleave and rejoin separate short RNA substrates in a sequence-dependent reaction. This demonstrated an RNA enzyme acting beyond its own self-processing. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence RNA of Tetrahymena is an enzyme, Science 231 (1986), 470–475: primary abstract.

Read the second figure as a counting argument. In a stipulated model, $A$ denotes unprocessed precursor and $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts completed self-processing events. Set $A(0)=R_0$, $P_{\mathrm{self}}(0)=0$ and $dA/d\tau =-A$. The exponential function solution gives $P_{\mathrm{self}}/R_0=1-e^{-\tau }$, never exceeding one. Here guanosine and other necessary reagents are taken to be available in excess; $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts events, not every separate reaction product molecule.

For a second stipulated model, let an unchanged ribozyme $R$ perform $R+S⟶R+P$ on a separate substrate $S$. Assume the effective law of mass action $dS/dt=-kRS$, no reverse reaction, no ribozyme loss and no inhibited or long-lived bound states. Set $R=R_0$, $S(0)=5R_0$, $P(0)=0$ and $\tau =k{R}_{0}t$. Then $S/R_0=5e^{-\tau }$ and $P/R_0=5(1-e^{-\tau })$, with $S+P=5R_0$. At $\tau =1$, self-processing gives about $0.632$ completed events per initial RNA, whereas the regenerated ribozyme gives about $3.161$ reaction product molecules per initial ribozyme. More than one substrate conversion per initial ribozyme, with appropriate background and identity controls, is evidence for turnover. Product accumulation below that threshold alone cannot distinguish a reusable catalyst from one-shot chemistry. These models illustrate that distinction; actual enzyme kinetics can include folding delays, binding, saturation and product release.

The motivating question was experimental: how could one recover the order in a protein when breaking all its peptide bonds destroys that order? Frederick Sanger and colleagues used complementary tests on portions of insulin. The following is an explanation of their evidence, not a laboratory recipe.

First, mark ends before destroying the chains. Sanger used the colored reagent fluorodinitrobenzene, abbreviated FDNB, to label free amino groups. After acid hydrolysis, the attached label remained on the end-residue products. Separating these derivatives by their different movement through solvents and comparing them with reference derivatives made the labels readable. The N-terminus products identified glycine and phenylalanine. Sanger emphasized that finding a stable label and a way to separate its products were both essential. See Sanger, Citation Classic (1985), discussing The free amino groups of insulin (1945). FDNB also labels suitable free amino groups on amino acid side chains, so a labeled product is not automatically an N-terminus product. See Sanger, The Chemistry of Insulin, Nobel lecture (1958), pp. 546–547.

Next, separate chains and preserve local order. Oxidation with performic acid broke the protein disulfide bonds, allowing A and B chains to be isolated. Partial hydrolysis and enzyme treatments produced fragments; these were separated and their composition and local sequences characterized. Overlaps between different fragment sets linked smaller sequences into longer ones. Many more fragments than minimally necessary were checked for consistency. See Sanger's authored Nobel lecture, pp. 547–552: chain separation, fragment analysis and sequence reconstruction.

The toy fragments make the logic visible. Suppose one cut pattern yields MAG and AMG, and another yields MA, GA and MG. The first set alone permits MAGAMG or AMGMAG. The fragment GA in the second set crosses the MAG–AMG boundary in MAGAMG; it does not occur in AMGMAG. Among concatenations of the first set, therefore, the second set selects MAGAMG. This example assumes intact, correctly identified fragments from one homogeneous chain and known fragment membership in each cut pattern. Repeated stretches, missing fragments or sample mixtures can leave ambiguities; the picture illustrates inference from overlaps, not a universal guarantee of reconstruction.

Finally, determine the protein disulfide bonds separately. Oxidation used to separate whole chains erases their original connections. Sanger and colleagues instead studied fragments still joined by protein disulfide bonds, then oxidized the isolated joined fragments to identify their component pieces and locate the connected chain regions. An important trap was rearrangement of disulfide bonds during treatment: products can acquire connections absent from the starting protein. Their work therefore had to establish conditions that prevented rearrangement before interpreting a linked fragment as evidence. See Ryle and Sanger, A Disulphide Interchange Reaction, Nature 171, 1025–1026 (1953) and Sanger's Nobel lecture, pp. 553–554: preserving and identifying disulfide connections. The result was an experimentally constrained chemical structure rather than a composition list or a photograph of a fold.

An analytical form of gel electrophoresis using an anionic surfactant and a polymer gel to separate proteins predominantly by chain size under denaturing conditions. Western blot separation often uses SDS-PAGE; the resulting apparent mass and subsequent antibody binding provide complementary, incomplete evidence about identity.

SEC molar mass calibration measures standards under the same column, solvent, and temperature conditions as the unknown. Over a suitable fractionation interval, a common empirical approximation iswhere $M_{\mathrm{ref}}$ specifies the molar mass unit and $b$ has inverse-volume units. Interpolation is conditional on the standards' size–molar mass relationship. SEC measures access associated with hydrodynamic size, so a branched polymer, an extended chain, and a compact protein need not share that relationship.

In this model the $80,000$, $40,000$, and $20,000\mathrm{g}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ standards have hydrodynamic radii $2\sqrt{2}$, $2$, and $\sqrt{2}\mathrm{nm}$ and elute at $7$, $9$, and $11\mathrm{mL}$. An unknown at $8\mathrm{mL}$ would be assigned $M_{\mathrm{app}}=40,000\sqrt{2}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ by this calibration. But a $40,000\mathrm{g}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ species that expands from $2$ to $2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{nm}$ elutes at $7\mathrm{mL}$ and is assigned $80,000\mathrm{g}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ without gaining any mass. The numbers demonstrate ambiguity, rather than predict a real unfolding transition.

Changes in conformational isomerism, protein folding, protein denaturation, and protein aggregation can therefore shift peaks. Association usually increases size; compaction can reduce size at unchanged molar mass. Adsorption creates a different ambiguity: delayed elution need not indicate a smaller species. A different solvent can change both polymer coil dimensions and interactions with the packing. The SEC protein conformation experiment tests these alternatives with additional detectors.

A secondary antibody recognizes another antibody, rather than the proposed target protein directly. In Western blot antibody detection, its attached label makes retained primary antibodies visible. A secondary antibody must recognize the kind of primary antibody used.

A second messenger is a small intracellular molecule or ion that relays a received signal to target proteins. Its production, release, removal or binding changes its availability after signal reception. For a cell-surface receptor, distinguish the extracellular ligand, often called the first messenger, from the intracellular second messenger. An activated relay protein is not thereby a second messenger: the term identifies small chemical mediators, rather than every downstream component of signal transduction. ^[ref]

Two examples clarify what changes. A biological cell can make cAMP from ATP; alternatively, release of stored calcium ions can raise the free calcium concentration in its cytoplasm. The latter need not increase the total calcium content of the biological cell. Availability to target proteins, not merely the total amount present, carries the message. Removal and sequestration help terminate such signals. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The experimental motivation is unusually tangible: can a hormone's effect be transferred to machinery that barely responds to the hormone itself? In Rall, Sutherland and Berthet's 1957 experiment, washed cat-liver particles were incubated with ATP and magnesium ions, with or without epinephrine and glucagon, two hormones. After five minutes at $30{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, the mixtures were heated in boiling water for three minutes, chilled, and separated to remove insoluble material. Small samples of the clarified extracts were transferred to a separate soluble dog-liver preparation, again supplied with ATP and magnesium ions. The readout was the change in glycogen phosphorylase activity over five minutes, not the amount of newly synthesized protein. ^[ref]

The hormone-conditioned extract caused a larger increase in glycogen phosphorylase activity. Water, extract made without hormones, and hormones added directly to the soluble preparation produced smaller effects. These comparisons distinguish transferred activity from baseline activity, preparation effects and simple hormone carryover. ^[ref]

The inference is a transferable, heat-stable intermediary between the hormone-sensitive particles and the soluble machinery. This does not identify the intermediary merely from heat resistance, establish its direct target, or show that every hormone uses the same mechanism. Rall and Sutherland's 1958 paper reports the factor's identification as cAMP in accompanying chemical work, and follows its production from ATP. It also reports an important limit: washed heart and skeletal-muscle particles produced detectable cAMP with epinephrine under their test conditions, whereas brain particles produced similar amounts with and without it. Tissue and preparation matter. ^[ref]

The useful and beautiful separation is between recognition and execution: an extracellular ligand can control intracellular enzymes through a chemically different intermediary. Making many second messenger molecules can support signal amplification, while different target proteins give the same mediator different consequences. A second messenger identifies a mode of relaying information; its presence alone does not specify the size or direction of the response. ^[ref]