The first and fourth upstream open reading frames in GCN4 mRNA have similar initiation efficiencies but respond differently in translational control to change in length and sequence.

The third and fourth AUG codons in GCN4 mRNA efficiently repress translation of the GCN4-coding sequences under normal growth conditions. The first AUG codon is approximately 30-fold less inhibitory and is required under amino acid starvation conditions to override the repressing effects of AUG codons 3 and 4. lacZ fusions constructed to functional, elongated versions of the first and fourth upstream open reading frames (URFs) were used to show that AUG codons 1 and 4 function similarly as efficient translational start sites in vivo, raising the possibility that steps following initiation distinguish the regulatory properties of URFs 1 and 4. In accord with this idea, we observed different consequences of changing the length and termination site of URF1 versus changing those of URFs 3 and 4. The latter were lengthened considerably, with little or no effect on regulation. In fact, the function of URFs 3 and 4 was partially reconstituted with a completely heterologous URF. By contrast, certain mutations that lengthen URF1 impaired its positive regulatory function nearly as much as removing its AUG codon did. The same mutations also made URF1 a much more inhibitory element when it was present alone in the mRNA leader. These results strongly suggest that URFs 1 and 4 both function in regulation as translated coding sequences. To account for the phenotypes of the URF1 mutations, we suggest the most ribosomes normally translate URF1 and that the mutations reduce the number of ribosomes that are able to complete URF1 translation and resume scanning downstream. This effect would impair URF1 positive regulatory function if ribosomes must first translate URF1 in order to overcome the strong translational block at the 3'-proximal URFs. Because URF1-lacZ fusions were translated at the same rate under repressing and derepressing conditions, it appears that modulating initiation at URF1 is not the means that is used to restrict the regulatory consequences of URF1 translation to starvation conditions.