Back

Translational buffering tunes gene expression in mouse and human

Rao, S.; Le, A. Y.; Persyn, L.; Cenik, C.

2025-05-21 bioinformatics
10.1101/2025.05.16.654561 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTranslational buffering refers to the regulation of ribosome occupancy to offset the effects of transcriptional variation. While previous studies have primarily investigated translational buffering in yeast under genetic variation or environmental stress, it remains unclear how widespread this is across mammalian genes in various cellular contexts. ResultsWe performed a uniform analysis of 1,515 matched ribosome profiling and RNA-seq datasets from humans and mice. This resource enabled us to assess translational buffering through comparative analysis of variation in ribosome occupancy and RNA expression, and by examining the relationship between mRNA abundance and translation efficiency. We found that translational buffering is partly conserved between humans and mice; homologous genes showed moderate cross-species correlation in mRNA-translation efficiency relationships and strong enrichment of shared buffered genes, particularly those encoding ribosomal, RNA-binding, and proteasomal proteins. Although identified buffered genes associate with specific sequence features, these alone are insufficient to predict translational buffering, highlighting the importance of cellular context. Genes exhibiting translational buffering show lower variation in protein abundance in cancer cell lines and tissues. We also observed that translationally buffered genes are more likely to be haploinsufficient and triplosensitive, suggesting a demand for stringent dosage limits. ConclusionsWe hypothesize two models of translational buffering, namely the "differential accessibility model" and the "translation initiation rate model", suggesting that different transcripts align with one or the other. Our study explores the translational buffering potential of genes across diverse conditions, elucidates their distinctive features, and provides insights into the mechanisms driving this effect.

Published in Genome Biology (predicted rank #3) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.