Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 18, 2026

Förster Resonance Energy Transfer Mapping: A New Methodology to Elucidate Global Structural Features
Published on: March 16, 2022
Positive charge loading at protein termini is due to membrane protein topology, not a translational ramp
Catherine A Charneski1, Laurence D Hurst
1Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.
Abstract:
In the great majority of genomes, the use of positive charge increases, on average, approaching protein N-termini. Such charged residues slow ribosomes by interacting with the negatively charged exit tunnel. This has been proposed to be selectively advantageous as it provides an elongation speed ramp at translational starts. Positive charges, however, are known to orientate proteins in membranes by the positive-inside rule whereby excess charge lies on the cytoplasmic side of the membrane. Which of these two models better explains the N-terminal loading of positively charged amino acids? We find strong evidence that the tendency for average positive charge use to increase at termini is exclusively due to membrane protein topology: 1) increasing N-terminal positive charge is not found in cytosolic proteins, but in transmembrane ones with cytosolic N-termini, with signal sequences contributing additional charge; 2) positive charge density at N-termini corresponds to the length of cytoplasmically exposed transmembrane tails, its usage increasing just up until the membrane; 3) membrane-related patterns are repeated at C-termini, where no ramp is expected; and 4) N-terminal positive charge patterns are no different from those seen internally in proteins in membrane-associated domains. The overall apparent increase in positive charge across all N-termini results from membrane proteins using positive charge adjacent to the cytosolic leaflet, combined with a skewed distribution of where N-termini cross the plasma membrane; 5) while Escherichia coli was predicted to have a 5' ribosomal occupancy ramp of at least 31 codons, in contrast to what is seen in yeast, we find in ribosomal footprinting data no evidence for such a ramp. In sum, we find no need to invoke a translational ramp to explain the rising positive charge densities at N-termini. The membrane orientation model makes a full account of the trend.
Related Concept Videos
Post-translational Translocation of Proteins to the RER
Targeting proteins to the ER
Hsp40 and Hsp70 chaperone molecules bind the translated proteins in the cytosol to prevent their folding. The chaperone binding helps to keep the signal...
Cotranslational Protein Translocation
Sec61 channel partners for cotranslational translocation
During cotranslational translocation, the Sec61 channel partners with the signal recognition particle (SRP), the signal recognition particle receptor (SR), and the ribosomes to transport the nascent polypeptide chain...
Insertion of Single-pass Transmembrane Proteins in the RER
Integral transmembrane proteins possess transmembrane and extra membrane domains. The transmembrane domains are primarily made of 20-25 hydrophobic amino acids arranged in a helical secondary confirmation. These...
Directing Proteins to the Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum
Insertion of Multi-pass Transmembrane Proteins in the RER
The multipass transmembrane proteins are the type IV integral membrane proteins with multiple topogenic sequences determining their spatial arrangement in the ER membrane. Nearly all multipass proteins lack a cleavable signal sequence and use...
Protein Translocation Machinery on the ER Membrane
Sec61 protein conducting channel
In eukaryotes, the translocon complex comprises a core heterotrimeric translocator channel called the Sec61 complex. This channel includes three transmembrane proteins, Sec61α, Sec61β, and Sec61γ, and is the largest subunit of the...

