# Guidelines for minimal reporting requirements, design and interpretation of experiments involving the use of eukaryotic dual gene expression reporters (MINDR)

Gary Loughran, Dmitry E Andreev, Ilya M Terenin, Olivier Namy, Martin Mikl, Martina M Yordanova, C Joel Mcmanus, Andrew E Firth, John F Atkins, Christopher S Fraser, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Gary Loughran, Dmitry E Andreev, Ilya M Terenin, Olivier Namy, Martin Mikl, et al. Guidelines for minimal reporting requirements, design and interpretation of experiments involving the use of eukaryotic dual gene expression reporters (MINDR). 2025. hal-04395528v2

HAL Id: hal-04395528

https://hal.science/hal-04395528v2

Preprint submitted on 31 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Guidelines for minimal reporting requirements, design and interpretation of
experiments involving the use of eukaryotic dual gene expression reporters
(MINDR)

Gary Loughran¹^*, Dmitry E. Andreev²,³, Ilya M. Terenin², Olivier Namy⁴, Martin Mikl⁵, Martina M. Yordanova¹, C. Joel McManus⁶, Andrew E. Firth⁷, John F. Atkins¹, Christopher S Fraser⁸, Zoya Ignatova⁹, Shintaro Iwasaki¹⁰,¹¹, Joanna Kufel¹², Ola Larsson¹³, Sebastian A. Leidel¹⁴, Alexander S. Mankin¹⁵,¹⁶, Marco Mariotti¹⁷, Marvin E. Tanenbaum¹⁸,¹⁹, Ivan Topisirovic²⁰,²¹,²²,²³, Nora Vázquez-Laslop¹⁵, Gabriela Viero²⁴, Neva Caliskan²⁵,²⁶, Yiwen Chen²⁷, Patricia L. Clark²⁸, Jonathan D. Dinman²⁹, Philip J. Farabaugh³⁰, Wendy V. Gilbert³¹, Pavel Ivanov³²,³³, Jeffrey S. Kieft³⁴,³⁵,³⁶, Oliver Mühlemann¹⁴, Matthew S. Sachs³⁷, Ivan N. Shatsky², Nahum Sonenberg²², Anna-Lena Steckelberg³⁸, Anne E. Willis³⁹, Michael T. Woodside⁴⁰, Leos Shivaya Valasek⁴¹*, Sergey E. Dmitriev²*, Pavel V. Baranov¹*.

¹School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University College Cork, Ireland

²Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, 119234, Russia.

³Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, RAS, Moscow, Russia.

⁴Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, CNRS, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette, France.

⁵Department of Human Biology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

⁶Department of Biological Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

⁷Division of Virology, Department of Pathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

⁸Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, USA

⁹Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

¹⁰Department of Computational Biology and Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan.

¹¹RNA Systems Biochemistry Laboratory, RIKEN Cluster for Pioneering Research, Wako, Japan.

¹²Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Pawinskiego 5a, Warsaw, 02-106, Poland.

¹³Department of Oncology-Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Karolinska Institute, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

¹⁴Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

¹⁵Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612, United States.

¹⁶Center for Biomolecular Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612, United States.

¹⁷Departament de Genètica, Microbiologia i Estadística, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Avinguda Diagonal 643, Barcelona, 08028, Catalonia, Spain.
¹⁸Oncode Institute, Hubrecht Institute-KNAW and University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

¹⁹Department of Bionanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.

²⁰Lady Davis Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

²¹Gerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.

²²Department of Biochemistry, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.

²³Division of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.

²⁴Institute of Biophysics, CNR Unit at Trento, Povo, Italy.

²⁵Helmholtz Institute for RNA-based Infection Research (HIRI), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Würzburg, Germany.

²⁶Helmholtz Institute Faculty of Medicine, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

²⁷Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Division of Quantitative Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

²⁸Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.

²⁹Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.

³⁰Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

³¹Yale School of Medicine, Department of Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, New Haven, CT, United States.

³²Division of Rheumatology, Inflammation and Immunity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

³³Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

³⁴Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.

³⁵RNA BioScience Initiative, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.

³⁶New York Structural Biology Center, New York, NY 10027, USA.

³⁷Department of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA.

³⁸Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.

³⁹MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QR, UK.

⁴⁰Department of Physics, Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology, and Centre for Prions and Protein Folding Diseases, University of Alberta, Canada.

⁴¹Laboratory of Regulation of Gene Expression, Institute of Microbiology of the Czech
Academy of Sciences, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague, the Czech Republic
^Present address: EIRNABio Ltd., Bioinnovation Hub, Food Science & Technology Building, College Road Cork, Ireland

* - corresponding authors: g.loughran@ucc.ie; valasekl@biomed.cas.cz; sergey.dmitriev@belozersky.msu.ru; p.baranov@ucc.ie
Abstract

Dual reporters encoding two distinct proteins within the same mRNA have played a crucial role in identifying and characterizing unconventional mechanisms of eukaryotic translation. These mechanisms include initiation via internal ribosomal entry sites (IRESs), ribosomal frameshifting, stop codon readthrough, and reinitiation. This design enables the expression of one reporter to be influenced by the specific mechanism under investigation, while the other reporter serves as an internal control. However, challenges arise when intervening test sequences are placed between these two reporters. Such sequences can inadvertently impact the expression or function of either reporter, independently of translation-related changes, potentially biasing the results. These effects may occur due to cryptic regulatory elements inducing or affecting transcription initiation, splicing, polyadenylation, and antisense transcription, as well as unpredictable effects of the translated test sequences on the stability and activity of the reporters. Unfortunately, these unintended effects may lead to misinterpretation of the data and the publication of incorrect conclusions in the scientific literature. To address this issue and assist the scientific community in accurately interpreting dual reporter experiments, we have developed comprehensive guidelines. These guidelines cover experimental design, interpretation, and the minimal requirements for reporting results. They are designed to aid researchers conducting these experiments, as well as reviewers, editors, and other investigators who seek to evaluate published data.
## Main

Gene fusions expressing reporters have been used to characterise mRNA translation mechanisms since the 1990s ¹⁻⁵. The popularity of this approach increased with the invention of the dual luciferase reporter in 1998 ⁶. Since then, dual reporters have been used to study ribosomal frameshifting, stop codon readthrough, reinitiation, and internal initiation ⁶⁻¹². Dual reporter systems have proven instrumental, in combination with site-directed or random mutagenesis, in characterizing mRNA features involved in specific translation mechanisms ¹¹,¹³⁻²³ and for the identification of underlying cellular factors impacting these mechanisms ²⁴⁻³². Dual reporters have also found application in the identification and study of drugs targeting specific mechanisms of translation ²⁵,³³⁻³⁹ as well as the mechanisms of disease associated polymorphisms ⁴⁰. Increasingly, dual reporters are being used to discover novel translational mechanisms and processes⁴¹,⁴².

The principle is based on encoding two distinguishable reporters within the same mRNA transcript. This design ensures that the expression of both reporters is coupled because they are transcribed together. One reporter reflects the activity of the mechanism under evaluation. The second reporter serves as an internal control to normalise for any variations in mRNA levels or experimental conditions. (Figure 1). As reporter proteins are synthesized from the same mRNA, it is assumed that differences in the expression of the reporter used to characterize the mechanism under study is independent of confounding variables, such as transfection efficiency or variations in RNA levels and/or stability. The assay can be performed in a single tube or a well with the ratio of upstream to downstream reporter activity as a readout. However, differences in reporter expression can occur for several reasons other than differential translation, potentially leading to misinterpretation of reporter readout (Figure 1). Furthermore, since the readout of dual reporter assays is usually the ratio of downstream to upstream reporter changes in the upstream internal control reporter without changes to the downstream reporter could lead to misinterpretations unless absolute reporter values are carefully considered.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Principles of a dual reporter strategy and the most common artefacts (shaded background) arising from unexamined assumptions. It is expected that a single RNA species is transcribed from the DNA sequence shown at the top of the illustration. Even if a single RNA species is transcribed, it is assumed that the fusion of the insert sequences to either reporter does not alter reporter protein activity or stability. However, several shorter possible RNA species are shown that could lead to artefactual reporter expression.</figcaption></figure>
There are various possible sources of dual reporter artefacts. First, DNA-encoded dual reporters may contain cryptic promoters, cryptic splice sites, or cryptic polyadenylation signals that could generate unexpected mRNA transcripts encoding only one of the two reporters<sup>11,43-54</sup>. Plasmid DNA can also produce unexpected antisense transcripts that may affect reporter expression<sup>55</sup>. Second, the protein extensions encoded by the test sequence may alter the stability or activity of one or both reporters, if it is synthesized as a part of the same polypeptide chain<sup>12,56</sup>. Finally, in certain applications, the downstream reporter is placed under a known (control) or a putative (test) IRES. However, IRES activity may be influenced by surrounding sequences<sup>20,21,57,58</sup> and it has been shown that the presence of an IRES may influence mRNA stability<sup>59</sup> and translation<sup>60,61</sup> of the upstream reporters in a sequence-dependent manner.

Although various artefacts generated by experiments involving dual reporters have been discussed extensively<sup>11,12,46-50,52,57,62-70</sup>, the misinterpretation of these assays continues to result in inaccurate conclusions<sup>53,54,56</sup>.

Therefore, we developed guidelines for the design, interpretation, and reporting of experiments involving single mRNA-encoded dual reporters. In the first section of this Perspective, we discuss the Principles and Recommendations (PR), related to the design and interpretation of dual reporter experiments. We provide guidance on the selection of appropriate vectors to reduce the risks of false positive findings and the design of critical controls and additional experiments that may help to identify and avoid erroneous conclusions for a wide range of mechanisms. In the second section, we will discuss Minimal Information on Dual expression Reporters (MINDR), which outlines proposed reporting requirements that establish the essential data that should accompany any publication describing dual reporter experiments. MINDR is designed to facilitate reproducibility and provide editors, reviewers, and readers with the information necessary for evaluating the reliability of the dual reporter strategies that have been implemented and the assessment of the likelihood of false positive findings.

# PR: Principles and Recommendations

In this section we consider reporter design, possible controls, and data interpretation. These are intended to equip researchers with the means to investigate and avoid potential artefacts. We first describe general aspects regarding most dual reporter applications followed by considerations relevant to specific types of assays or phenomena arising from experiments which are also summarised in Table 1.

## General sources of artefacts

### Unexpected mRNA species

*Assumptions and potential problems* – It is often assumed that all measured reporter activity is derived from translation of a single mRNA species generated in strict accordance with the researcher's design. However, unexpected mRNA species may be produced through either cryptic splicing, cryptic transcription, or internal polyadenylation (Figure 1). These aberrant monocistronic transcripts could be translated much more efficiently than their bicistronic counterparts and, even if they represent only a tiny fraction, could substantially distort the overall interpretation of the results<sup>11,44-46,49-54</sup>.

*Recommendations* - The most straightforward way to control for these possibilities is to introduce *in vitro* transcribed RNA encoding the reporter proteins instead of using DNA-based constructs. Any discrepancies between DNA-encoded and RNA-encoded reporter protein ratios may indicate the
existence of unexpected cryptic transcripts, although there may be other factors explaining these
differences as discussed below. There may also be situations when RNA transfections are impractical
as described in the RNA vs. DNA Reporters section below.

For DNA transfections using reporters that are expected to express fusion proteins, for example, by
readthrough or frameshifting, western blotting is an effective and sensitive approach to ensure that
downstream reporter protein expression is not derived from aberrant mRNA species producing
shorter variants of fusion proteins.

Where products of dual reporters are not expected to be fused, for example, in StopGo vectors and
reinitiation or IRES studies, it may be desirable to identify possible aberrant mRNA species directly.
Because even a minor mRNA species could produce a major signal if translated very efficiently,
highly sensitive techniques for detecting low abundance mRNA species are required. To this end,
emerging long read sequencing technologies (such as nanopore or PacBio), or RT-qPCR may be
sufficiently sensitive approaches to detect low abundance RNA species whereas northern blotting
may not be sensitive enough. RT-qPCR can be used to assess the levels of different RNA segments<sup>46</sup>
with specific primers as shown (Figure 2). Careful design and validation of RT-qPCR amplicons
with *in vitro* transcript standards and melting curves is necessary to determine whether the amounts
of each amplicon are equal <sup>71</sup>. As the same PCR amplicons can be derived from alternative
transcripts and because RT-qPCR optimization is not always straightforward, it is advisable that this
method is not the sole approach used to analyze the occurrence of transcript isoforms <sup>68</sup>. An *in vitro*
transcribed full-length control RNA can be used to assess the signal expected from a single RNA
species containing both reporters (Figure 2).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Assessment of dual reporter transcriptional integrity. Red arrows show the design of forward and reverse primers for the dual reporter construct and double red lines depict the resulting cDNA products. Using a synthetic RNA construct (bottom) it is possible to estimate the ratio between cDNA products for the transcript containing all three regions. Horizontal blue lines represent siRNAs for knockdown experiments expected to equivalently downregulate expression of both reporters if they are produced from the full-length RNA template as indicated with vertical yellow and green arrows.</figcaption></figure>
Furthermore, an elegant approach employing RNA interference can be used to regulate the authenticity of bicistronic RNA⁴⁶. An siRNA probe designed to knock down expression of the upstream reporter directs specific degradation of the bicistronic reporter mRNA, thereby decreasing the activity of both the upstream and downstream reporters to a similar extent, unless they are expressed from different mRNA species (Figure 2). Transcript isoforms may also be explored by methods like Cap Analysis of Gene Expression (5'-CAGE) ⁷² or with direct RNA sequencing using nanopore technologies, bearing in mind that low abundance alternative products can produce most of the reporter activity.

Potential existence of aberrant transcripts may also be explored with study-specific controls, the design of which is specific to the studied phenomena.

## Altered activity or stability of fused reporter proteins

**Assumptions and potential problems** – When testing relative activities from fused reporter proteins, for example for readthrough or frameshifting, it is often assumed that the reporter protein activities accurately reflect reporter mRNA translation. Frameshifting and stop codon readthrough efficiencies are generally estimated by determining the ratio of upstream to downstream reporter protein of a test construct with the reporter protein ratio from a positive control (100%), where both reporters are in the same, uninterrupted reading frame. However, the part of the protein fusion encoded by the test sequence may influence the folding, stability or activity of one or both reporter proteins. This can be especially problematic if fusions to the upstream reporter only influence the in-frame control reporter protein and not the test reporter, or vice versa (Figure 1)¹²,⁵⁶.

**Recommendations** – Place StopGo/2A sequences on both sides of the test sequence ¹² (Figure 3). StopGo is an atypical translation mechanism where the elongating ribosome fails to form a peptide bond and then efficiently continues translation – the outcome of this phenomenon is the production of two peptide chains (from the same ORF) separated by the StopGo motif ⁷³.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Figure 3.** Fused versus unfused dual reporters. Both systems have their merits and drawbacks. The advantage of fused reporters is the ability to estimate recoding efficiencies by western blotting or *in vitro* translation reactions while controlling for unintended D-Reporter translation by internal initiation or cryptic splicing. One potential downside of fused reporters is erroneous estimations of recoding efficiencies based solely on reporter protein activities because of possible changes in D-Reporter activity resulting from its fusion to the test and U-Reporter proteins. This can be mitigated with unfused reporter systems where the test peptide is released from the reporter proteins by flanking StopGo (SG) motifs. While western blotting or *in vitro* translations can still be used to estimate recoding efficiencies with unfused reporter systems, due to the similar sized D-Reporter protein produced, spurious D-Reporter protein expression by internal initiation or cryptic splicing may not be as obvious.
A peptide motif enabling StopGo was initially discovered during translation of the 2A region of foot-and-mouth disease virus ⁷⁴, and since then a number of 2A peptides with varying efficiencies have been described. While in theory StopGo use should produce reporter proteins with identical amino acid sequences irrespective of the inserted test sequence, this may not always be the case. StopGo is not 100% efficient (generally 80-90%⁷⁵), therefore a certain amount of fusion between either of the reporters and the test sequence-encoded fragment will still be produced. Nonetheless, for example, a comparison of absolute *Renilla* luciferase activities (when used as an upstream reporter) from a series of fused and unfused test constructs indicated much more variability with fused reporters compared to StopGo-containing plasmid ¹². Additionally, the potential for ribosome drop-off during StopGo that may influence the ratio between two reporters can be easily tested with an appropriate in-frame control construct. When using a new StopGo-containing plasmid, it is important to monitor the efficiency of StopGo by western blotting in the intended biological system. Although variability in StopGo activity has been reported ⁷⁶, it can be mitigated by using longer StopGo motifs (>30 aa), which are less sensitive to the effects of proximal sequences, including test inserts, while having higher activities and negligible ribosome drop-off ⁷⁵. It should be noted that, although StopGo is active in all eukaryotes tested so far, different 2A peptide variants have different activities in various organisms, and none have been found to function in bacteria⁷⁷. Furthermore, the kinetics of StopGo is still poorly understood and it is likely to cause some ribosome pausing, which may interfere with some of the studied phenomena.

*Alterations in reporter ratios due to artefactual changes in reporters' absolute readouts*

**Assumptions and potential problems** – It seems reasonable to assume that when transfecting the same reporter construct into two different cell lines or under different conditions, the ratiometric readout should be similar. However, this is not always the case. Not surprisingly, absolute reporter values may be quite different between cell lines/conditions, sometimes spanning orders of magnitude. There may be several reasons for this, including differences in the reporter delivery efficiencies between the cell lines. Reporter RNAs may trigger the innate immune response resulting in global suppression of translation, for example, through activation of PKR, cGAS, TLRs, NLRs, or RIG-I-like receptors ⁷⁸,⁷⁹. Reporter expression in particular cell lines can be compromised at either the transcriptional level (for example, weak promoter activity in DNA reporters) or translational level (for example, low global translation rates). When dual reporters are used to compare the efficiency of the studied mechanism across cell lines or under specific conditions (including stress versus control, overexpression or depletion of specific factors, treatment with small molecule inhibitors, and NMD activation) it is important to understand that differences in global translation may affect the ratio of the measured reporter activities without affecting their real relative activities. This is because any measured activity is a combination of genuine reporter protein activity with background levels due to biological noise and technical limitations. We can represent the ratio of measured activities as (X+n)/(Y+n), where X, Y are bona fide activities of the two reporter proteins and n is the constant background signal. It is clear then to see that if X and Y are changed proportionally (e.g. reduced twice by general translation inhibition) and X/Y ratio stays the same, the measured (X+n)/(Y+n) ratio will be altered.

Perhaps more problematically, there may be cell specific differential reporter activity due to the presence of a cell-specific repressor/activator that acts on one of the reporters. Another factor to consider is the reporter overexpression driven by a strong promoter that could further exacerbate cell-specific effects by, for example titrating essential translation components.

**Recommendations** – Here it is important to report absolute readouts of reporter and background activities to reveal potential misinterpretations of observed changes in relative activities of the reporters, for example in Khan et al. ⁵³.
**Assay-specific principles and recommendations**

***RNA vs DNA reporters***

The use of mRNA transfection is a powerful strategy to avoid the generation of unexpected RNA
species by cryptic transcription, polyadenylation, and/or splicing events. However, its advantages
are not limited to this. For several applications, RNA transfection may be preferred irrespective of
transcriptional artefacts. Analysis of the immediate stress response is particularly difficult when
using plasmid DNA reporters. Applying stress stimuli immediately after DNA transfection is
ineffective, as substantial time is required for sufficient mRNA accumulation. In contrast, for RNA
transfection, the stress stimuli can be applied immediately or shortly before or after the transfection
(1-2 hours), here, newly synthesized protein products are responsible for most of the reporter
activity. It is also difficult to synchronize the expression of DNA reporters in the entire cell
population without synchronizing their cell cycle, as the plasmid only enters the nucleus during
mitosis. Furthermore, transfection of non-dividing cells, for example, matured neurons or cardiac
myocytes, with plasmid DNA is highly inefficient.

Nonetheless RNA transfection is not a panacea and should be used appropriately. First, activity
values are generally much lower from mRNA transfections compared to DNA transfections. For
this reason, RNA transfections should use reporters with a high signal-to-background ratio such as
luciferase reporters. Second, RNA is relatively unstable, so it is advantageous to analyze the activity
shortly after transfection, ideally within 1-4 hours post transfection. At later time-points, for
example, 8-10 hours post transfection, accumulated reporter products start to exceed newly
synthesized ones – even more so than in the case of DNA transfections. It is also important to use a
transfection protocol that minimally stresses the cells and to avoid stress stimuli like cell re-plating,
electroporation, or plate/dish cooling immediately before or during transfection <sup>80</sup>. Finally, since
transfected artificial mRNA has not passed through the nucleus it may lack specific and potentially
critical features including epitranscriptomic marks or associated mRNA-binding proteins of nuclear
origin. Furthermore, in many cell types, including primary cells, mRNA transfection may trigger
innate immune responses, so additional efforts are needed to reduce its activation, like the use of
transcripts with a cap1 (having a 2'O-methylated 5' terminal position) and modified nucleotides (for
example, m<sup>1</sup>Ψ (N1-Methylpseudouridine) in place of U)<sup>78,79</sup>. It is also important to note that
lipocationic transfection impedes the analysis of reporter mRNA stability, as only a tiny fraction of
transfected mRNA is released from endosomes into the cytosol <sup>81</sup>. Accordingly, total RNA
extraction from the transfected cells yields mRNA that is not predominantly derived from the
cytosolic fraction but from endosomal and endolysosomal compartments <sup>81,82</sup>. Finally, transfected
RNA may still be processed by cytoplasmic RNA cleaving enzymes, such as IRE1 <sup>83,84</sup> or RNase L
<sup>85</sup>, or during alternative polyadenylation that generates translated RNA fragments downstream of it
<sup>86</sup>. Therefore, one cannot exclude the possibility that even in the case of mRNA transfection,
aberrant RNA species may also be present. A more detailed comparison of DNA and RNA
transfections can be found in a dedicated review <sup>87</sup>.

***The use of dual reporters for massively parallel assays***

In recent years, dual reporter vectors have become popular in Massively Parallel Reporter Assays (MPRA) that simultaneously evaluate thousands of test sequences. This is a powerful approach that allows screening of a diverse pool of sequences for specific regulatory properties, for example, driving internal initiation⁴¹,⁴², ribosomal frameshifting³⁴ and other translation mechanisms. It can also be applied to screen a pool of all possible variants of a particular sequence to comprehensively characterize cis-acting regulatory elements.

While many of the general principles that should guide the use of dual reporters outlined above also
apply here, the high-throughput nature entails several specific considerations associated with
measuring reporter protein activity in a pooled manner. Certain guidelines such as reporting absolute
measured expression levels of the reporter genes is typically harder to achieve than in the case of
single reporter measurements. Moreover, dual reporter-MPRAs also allow for the inclusion of a
much larger number of controls that can be measured in the same experiment.

Particularly suitable for MPRA are dual fluorescent reporter constructs, as they allow fluorescence-
activated cell sorting based on relative reporter expression levels. This is then followed by DNA
sequencing-based identification and quantification of the underlying sequences.

An important consideration for MPRA is to ensure equal vector copy number and comparable expression levels among the cells. The use of systems for genome integration such as landing pads, instead of random integration with lentiviruses, allows the insertion of a single copy of the test vector at the same genetic locus for all cells <sup>88</sup>. However, this may not be strictly necessary. A recent detailed examination <sup>89</sup> revealed a high degree of correlation between the expression of two cistrons across a polyclonal cell population, regardless of the integration site or number of integrated copies of the bicistronic construct.

A significant challenge in screening large pools of diverse sequences is discerning artefacts amidst the positive hits. Reliance on validating only a subset of hits can lead to misinterpretation, as each individual sequence may possess unique properties, and even a single nucleotide change can alter cryptic promoter activity. Given that MPRA-based screens typically yield numerous hits, it is impractical to validate each one individually, making it difficult to estimate the rate of false positives <sup>41,42</sup>. Therefore, general conclusions should not be drawn from limited validated cases. Instead, conducting a meta-analysis of positive hit sequences may help identify shared features and specific types of artefacts. Rare artefacts are unlikely to significantly impact conclusions drawn from MPRAs aimed at characterizing general sequence properties influencing a specific mechanism because of averaging. However, claims related to specific individual sequences in MRPAs assays should be limited to those that have been appropriately validated to minimize false positive discovery.

Cell-free translation systems and other in vitro assays

Another potential source of false positives from dual reporter assays is inappropriate use of *in vitro*
translation systems. For example, the commercially available and widely used nuclease-treated
Rabbit Reticulocyte Lysate (ntRRL), which is prepared from specialized cells with a limited range
of RNA-binding proteins, has been repeatedly shown to fail in accurately reproducing conditions
found in normal cells<sup>62,69</sup>. Exogenously added mRNAs translated in ntRRL exhibit a relatively weak
reliance on the 5'-cap<sup>51,90</sup>, although optimizing the buffer conditions can substantially increase cap-
dependency and start site recognition <sup>91</sup>. Moreover, as some eIF4G molecules are sequestered by
the capped 5'-terminal mRNA fragments remaining in the ntRRL after limited hydrolysis of
endogenous reticulocyte transcripts, the addition of cap-dependent initiation inhibitors (such as
m<sup>7</sup>GTP, 4E-BP, or proteases that cleave eIF4G) may release this factor and artificially stimulate
translation of uncapped mRNAs. This system also does not recapitulate the cap/poly(A) synergy <sup>92</sup>.
Taken together, this is often misinterpreted as an indication of cap-independent translation of a
particular studied mRNA. In addition, ntRRL is prone to aberrant internal initiation at AUG codons
located within extended unstructured regions <sup>93</sup>, causing artificial expression of the second cistron
in bicistronic reporters even in the absence of *bona fide* IRESs. Finally, translation in RRL is highly
sensitive to even moderately stable RNA secondary structures in the 5' leader, which is not the case
in living cells <sup>90</sup>.

It is likely that similar artefacts are present in cell-free systems derived from budding yeast and
wheat germ, at least under some conditions <sup>67,94</sup>. In contrast, such effects are not typically observed
in cytosolic extracts of cultured mammalian cells <sup>51,90</sup>. However, in any *in vitro* system, results can
greatly depend on the specific preparation conditions and component concentrations. For example, varying polyamine concentrations in the yeast extract can modulate stop codon readthrough efficiency as much as 4-fold⁹⁵. Therefore, caution is necessary when comparing findings from a specific cell-free system with cultured cells or *in vivo* observations.

Less commonly, bicistronic constructs are used in *in vitro* systems reconstituted from purified components ⁹⁶,⁹⁷. Although such analysis is very informative, it also should be done with caution. Similar to RRL, in these systems, which are usually devoid of mRNA-binding proteins, the ribosomes are able to bind to internal AUG codons located within long unstructured regions ⁹⁸,⁹⁹. This risks confusion of an authentic mechanism with an artificial one that should be excluded by validation in complete *in vitro* or *in vivo* systems.

Another potential source of artefacts specific to *in vitro* assays is related to partial hydrolysis of an *in vitro* synthesized reporter mRNA that can produce truncated versions of bicistronic constructs. Thus, the integrity of the full-length reporter mRNA in both free and ribosome-bound fractions should be extensively analyzed after the assay is complete, for example, by using RT-qPCR with primers targeting either each cistron individually or both cistrons together.

## Phenomenon-specific principles and recommendations

### Specific considerations in the assessment of ribosomal frameshifting and stop codon readthrough

The assessment of ribosomal frameshifting and stop codon readthrough using dual reporters involves a calculation of the relative reporter activities (downstream to upstream ratio). The relative reporter activity of the test construct is then compared to that of a control construct. It is not advisable to calculate reporter activities relative to a negative control rather than a positive control, as this can result in the unintended consequence of an insignificant number having an outsized effect. An appropriate positive control has both reporters encoded within the same ORF (in-frame control). Often a single in-frame control is compared to several test sequences. We caution against this practice when the sequence of the test constructs is considerably different from the sequence of a single in-frame control, as some of the test sequences may contain cryptic splice sites or promoters. The ideal in-frame control should have no amino acid differences from the expected frameshift or readthrough product and minimal nucleotide differences.

For frameshifting, an in-frame control can be obtained with either insertion or deletion of a single nucleotide in the putative frameshifting site depending on the expected direction of frameshifting (-1 or +1). For stop codon readthrough, the stop codon should be replaced with a sense codon, ideally one encoding the same amino acid that is expected to be inserted in place of the stop codon. However, the identity may not be known in advance and there may be one of several possible amino acids inserted ¹⁰⁰,¹⁰¹. Reporter ratios in such positive control constructs is considered to correspond to 100% efficient frameshifting or stop codon readthrough. For studying frameshifting, it is advisable to introduce synonymous changes to disrupt the putative slippery sequence within the in-frame control to create a more accurate readout of 100% frameshifting. If the frameshifting site is not disrupted in an in-frame control and frameshifting occurs (say at 10% efficiency), only 90% of the ribosomes would synthesize the downstream reporter. Thus, ideally, each tested sequence should have its own positive in-frame control. Including a +1 or -1 frame termination codon (depending on the reading frame of the downstream reporter) 5' of a putative frameshifting site is also worth considering to ensure that only frameshifting within the test sequence is reported.

When using fused reporters, it is desirable to validate frameshifting through orthogonal methods, such as western blotting, when reporting novel instances. Most reporter proteins can be detected by commercially available antibodies that can detect frameshifting or stop codon readthrough
efficiencies as low as 1%. As mentioned above, when using fused reporters, western blotting can also control for cryptic splicing and cryptic promoter activity.

Another important way to validate ribosomal frameshifting and stop codon readthrough is the use of a negative control. Ribosomal frameshifting normally occurs at specific frameshifting sites accompanied with stimulatory elements such as specific mRNA structures. While single point mutations in stimulatory signals rarely abolish frameshifting completely, disruptions of the frameshifting site are expected to eliminate frameshifting as tRNA re-pairing in the new frame is precluded. A useful negative control for stop codon readthrough is the insertion of tandem in-frame UAA stop codons that in most organisms represent the most efficient terminators.

Although not always possible, it is desirable to avoid AUG codons within the test sequence that are in the same reading frame as the downstream reporter ORF, as they may serve as initiation codons on cryptic transcripts missing the upstream reporter, entirely or partly. However, a deliberate insertion of an AUG codon in-frame with the downstream reporter may be used as a control for the existence of cryptic transcripts. In the absence of such transcripts, introduction of an AUG codon in a good Kozak context should not substantially alter the activity of the downstream reporter unless there is reinitiation. Although reinitiation is extremely rare after translation of long ORFs, there are certain signals that could enable reinitiation even after translation of long ORFs ¹⁰²⁻¹⁰⁵. Another consideration is potential initiation at near-cognate starts which is generally inefficient but is known to be highly productive and even comparable to that of AUG in certain contexts, therefore it is advisable to examine the sequences for the presence of such near-cognate start codons in a good Kozak context. Additional evidence may be derived from orthogonal methodological approaches, such as ribosome profiling by accessing publically available data in dedicated browsers ¹⁰⁶,¹⁰⁷. While a detailed discussion of this technique is beyond the scope of this paper, we recommend that interested readers consult specialized reviews ¹⁰⁸,¹⁰⁹.

## Specific considerations in the assessment of reinitiation

Reinitiation is a process in which a ribosome initiates translation downstream of the stop codon at which it terminates (reviewed in ¹¹⁰,¹¹¹). Usually, this process is not very efficient in eukaryotes, unless the translated upstream ORF is short or mRNA-specific mechanisms are used ¹⁰²⁻¹⁰⁵,¹¹⁰,¹¹². However, reinitiation can be greatly facilitated under some physiological stress conditions or when ribosome recycling factors are artificially depleted ²⁹,¹¹³.

The rate of translation reinitiation after long ORFs can be assessed with the dual reporter assay; other methods are more suitable to examine reinitiation after short uORFs (see¹¹⁰,¹¹¹ and references therein). However, due to the inefficiency of this process under normal conditions, absolute values of reporter activity and appropriate background correction should be thoroughly considered. As in other cases, cryptic promoters in intercistronic spacers must be excluded and only appropriate cell-free systems should be used for *in vitro* studies to exclude false (or true) internal initiation. Moreover, stop codon readthrough or frameshifting can be erroneously attributed to reinitiation, so these possibilities should also be excluded. The most appropriate control is to extend the coding region of the upstream ORF into the downstream ORF by mutating the stop codon of the former in a way to avoid matching reading frames of both ORFs – such a construct should allow zero reinitiation unless the AUG of the first ORF is “leaky” for initiation, which would still generate some background activity from the downstream reporter. Additionally, readthrough can be specifically excluded by inserting an additional stop codon (or a tandem of stop codons) between the translated upstream ORF and the putative reinitiation site, which would reduce readthrough, but not reinitiation. Similarly, the possibility of ribosomal frameshifting can be reduced by the insertion or deletion of a nucleotide within the intercistronic region to disrupt the reading frame and eliminate the possibility of frameshifting without affecting reinitiation (unless the nucleotide indel disrupts a
cis-acting signal responsible for reinitiation). Alternatively, western blotting could be used to rule
out the possibility of either readthrough or frameshifting.

Specific considerations in the assessment of internal initiation

When testing for IRES-dependent translation, the mRNA sequence suspected to promote internal initiation is inserted between two reporters to enable the translation of the downstream reporter. Unlike scenarios involving frameshifting or stop codon readthrough, no fusion product is expected. Therefore, the potential for the translation of the first cistron to interfere with the proposed IRES must be minimized. This can be achieved by incorporating additional stop codons to prevent any readthrough and by positioning the IRES at a sufficient distance from the first cistron stop codon to ensure that terminating ribosomes do not compromise the structural integrity of the IRES. However, it is important to consider the possibility that integrating an RNA fragment into an unnatural context may affect any potential IRES activity.

Although distant elements affecting stop codon readthrough <sup>114,115</sup> and frameshifting <sup>116</sup> have been reported, it is often the case that only short motifs or structures are examined. Conversely, since internal initiation relies on more elaborate structures, testing longer sequences is essential. Accordingly, all the aforementioned concerns regarding cryptic promoters and splice sites are particularly relevant in the context of IRES testing. It is important to consider that nearly any arbitrarily selected long fragment of a mammalian 5' UTR could exhibit cryptic promoter activity, attributable to the abundance of transcription factor binding sites within these regions. Furthermore, a significant proportion of human genes contain alternative transcription start sites (TSS) <sup>117</sup>, and TSS switching can occur during acute stress <sup>118-120</sup>. Some plasmid vectors also contain cryptic promoters upstream of cloned test reporter genes, which can produce unexpected products via alternative splicing <sup>52</sup>. Additionally, long insertions increase the risk of false positives when using *in vitro* systems like ntRRL, which are not strongly cap-dependent.

To reveal cryptic splicing (but not cryptic promoter) mediated events, the independence of first and
second cistron expression can be verified by designing constructs containing a sufficiently long
uORF in the 5' UTR (preferentially overlapping with the main AUG of the first cistron and with the
uAUG codon in strong Kozak context) or by inserting a stable hairpin at the very 5' end of the
transcript to diminish the translation efficiency of the first cistron <sup>62</sup>. However, this approach
requires analysis of the transcript level, as the downstream reporter may be affected if such
modifications alter the stability of the whole mRNA.

In IRES research, the use of mRNA reporters is distinctly preferable to DNA reporters <sup>62</sup>. Using *in vitro* transcribed reporters eliminates artefacts arising from cryptic promoter activity, unintended splicing, or premature transcription termination. When employing DNA transfection to evaluate putative IRES activity, promoterless and siRNA-mediated controls (see above) are essential.

Most importantly, however, the bicistronic assay used to examine IRES activity has a notable
intrinsic limitation that was not initially apparent. Comparing the expression ratios of upstream and
downstream cistrons between bicistronic reporters containing different IRESs is often
uninformative. This is because any two long non-specific arbitrary sequences placed between
reporters are highly unlikely to yield equal readouts, while different bona fide IRESs can also exhibit
significantly different activities (Figure 4A). As a result, it becomes challenging to confidently
design negative or positive controls for such assays, making the conclusions subjective. The
comparison can be especially misleading if expressed as a ratio to the negative control rather than
the positive control.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**Figure 4.** Challenges of dual reporter assays in the study of IRES activity. **A.** Simulated results from typical bicistronic assays, inspired by several studies$^{11,46,50,51,122}$, and their potential interpretation. Unambiguous conclusions cannot be drawn solely from comparisons of the activities of different bicistronic mRNAs with each other, as control values (both negative and positive ones) may exhibit significant variability. IRESs with question marks indicate sequences under study that may (or may not) be considered IRESs with varying degrees of confidence depending on the researcher's preference. **B.** A mechanism of ribosome recruitment employed by a specific mRNA fragment (for example, a 5' UTR) can be elucidated through three related dual reporter assays using the mRNA constructs shown in the upper subpanel. Three distinct translation initiation mechanisms can be distinguished: canonical cap-dependent scanning, CITE-directed, or IRES-directed, as indicated below. To prepare m$^7$G-capped transcripts, it is advisable to employ CleanCap, ARCA, or post-transcriptional enzymatic capping instead of m$^7$GpppG, as these methods yield more natural, non-immunogenic, and efficiently translated mRNAs. Additionally, ApppG or ApppA can be used to produce transcripts that are stabilized by non-functional cap analogs at the 5' ends. The bottom panel represents typical simulated results as in (A). Bkg, the background level of the reporter activity in mock-transfected cells.
Many putative IRES sequences are derived from natural 5' UTRs, which, in the case of cellular and
many viral mRNAs, are naturally capped and therefore can be bound and scanned by the canonical
initiation machinery. Therefore, even if the sequence under investigation suggests internal initiation
in a bicistronic context, it is not straightforward to evaluate the contribution of internal initiation to
overall translation in its natural context. These complications can be addressed by comparing
expression from bicistronic and monocistronic reporters, allowing for an assessment of the relative
contributions of different initiation mechanisms (Figure 4B).

Finally, it is important to note that the term “IRES” specifically refers to internal ribosome entry
rather than cap-independence. While the latter arises as a consequence of the former, some mRNAs
that definitely lack an IRES and strictly require a free 5' end can nevertheless be efficiently
translated in an uncapped (or capped with the artificial non-functional A-cap analog) form. In such
cases, specific elements known as cap-independent translation enhancers (CITE) facilitate cap-
independent translation<sup>62</sup>. In contrast to IRESs, CITEs cannot direct translation of the second cistron
in a bicistronic mRNA (Figure 4B). Furthermore, the widespread presence of IRESs in the 5' UTRs
of cellular mRNAs is often presumed to be due to the low processivity of the translation initiation
complex. However, the processivity is likely to be high<sup>51,121,122</sup>. This has contributed to the
perception that any long 5' UTR must use a non-canonical translation initiation pathway, which does
not seem to be the case. Given the considerable proportion of purported “cellular IRESs” that have
been challenged to date<sup>11,44,46,48-52,54,62,65,67-70,111</sup>, one should bear in mind that the detected cap-
independent activity of a sequence under investigation may easily be attributed to CITEs or even
some of the experimental artefacts described above.
# MINDR: Minimal Information on Dual expression Reporters.

Based on the caveats described above, we propose the following three minimal reporting requirements that should mitigate many of these issues and should accompany any study with data obtained with dual reporters:

## 1. A list of positive and negative controls

As discussed above, the use of appropriate positive and negative controls is critical. However, it may be too impractical to design all the controls described in the previous sections. Nevertheless, the level of confidence in the reported results depends on the specific controls used in an experiment. Therefore, the authors should explicitly describe which positive and negative controls have been used for detecting potential artefacts, to help reviewers and readers assess the reliability of the study.

## 2. Full sequences of all vectors and inserts

Sequences responsible for potential artefacts, such as transcription enhancers or donor/acceptor splice sites, may be distant from the sequence encoding reporters <sup>52,55</sup>. Therefore, for the reproducibility and future interrogation of reported results, the exact sequence of all plasmids used should be provided.

## 3. Absolute readout values for each reporter and for the background

The use of dual reporters in general requires the analysis of their ratios rather than absolute values, which are subject to high variability due to technical reasons, such as transfection efficiencies.

Nonetheless, as discussed earlier, consistent differences in absolute values are often indicative of artefacts. Therefore, it is important that in addition to providing the ratios between the reporter activities, the absolute raw readouts should be made available for each replicate of each construct including background values from control experiments without reporter constructs.
<table><caption>Table 1. Recommended controls and orthogonal evidence</caption><thead><tr><td>Phenomenon</td><td>Negative control</td><td>Positive control</td><td>Orthogonal evidence</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Frameshifting</td><td>Mutate putative frameshift site; Introduce stop codon downstream of frameshift site in frame with downstream reporter.</td><td>Introduce an indel to place reporters in same reading frame and make synonymous changes to the slip site.</td><td>Immunoblotting if reporters are fused; ribosomal profiling: when frameshifting produces longer proteoform, ribosome footprint density is expected downstream of zero frame stop codon with triplet periodicity phase matching new frame. When frameshifting is efficient and is predicted to produce a shorter proteoform, drop of ribosome footprint density is expected downstream of stop codon in the new frame.</td></tr><tr><td>Stop codon readthrough</td><td>Introduce double stop codon (e.g. two UAA codons instead of a readthrough stop codon candidate.</td><td>Stop to sense codon substitution.</td><td>Immunoblotting if reporters are fused. Ribosome profiling: ribosome footprint density is expected downstream of the stop signal with triplet periodicity matching the zero frame.</td></tr><tr><td>Reinitiation</td><td>Overlap between upstream and downstream reporter ORFs; introduce a stop codon or indel in the intercistronic region closer to the 2nd cistron.</td><td>For reinitiation after short uORFs, delete AUG of an upstream uORF; for long uORFs, reporters could be fused in-frame and separated with StopGo</td><td>Immunoblotting to show that reporters are NOT synthesized as a single fusion protein. Use several different reporters as a 2nd cistron.</td></tr><tr><td>Internal initiation</td><td>In DNA construct, delete the promoter directing the bicistronic transcript. Compare with bicistronic constructs harboring long non-specific intergenic sequences.</td><td>Compare with known effective viral IRES for example, encephalomyo carditis virus (EMCV) and with the corresponding monocistronic constructs.</td><td>mRNA transfection instead of DNA reporters; compare bicistronic construct with the corresponding monocistronic ones (m7G-capped, A-capped); insert 5'-terminal stem-loop and/or long overlapping uORF; siRNA targeting upstream reporter; polysome analysis; map the transcription start sites of the downstream reporter using 5' RACE; using appropriate cell-free systems.</td></tr></tbody></table>
## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge many colleagues who informally supported and encouraged development of these guidelines. The following authors wish to acknowledge funding support.

PVB by the Wellcome Trust (210692/Z/18/) and Science Foundation Ireland (20/FFP-A/8929). LSV by the Lead Agency (DFG & CSF) grant 23-08669L and the Praemium Academiae grant provided by the Czech Academy of Sciences and CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004575 RNA for therapy by ERDF and MEYS. SED from the Russian Science Foundation (23-14-00218, the IRES and cell-free sections). CSF by the NIH (R01 GM092927). WVG by the NIH (R01GM132358). YC by the NIH (R01GM130838). JFA by the Irish Research Council (IRCLA/2019/74). DEA by the Russian Science Foundation (20-14-00121, RNA vs. DNA transfection section). MM by grants PID2020-115122GA-I00 from the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades of Spain. MSS by the NIH (R01GM148702).

## CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

G.L. and P.V.B. are co-founders and shareholders of EIRNABio Ltd. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Data Availability Statement

No original data have been generated or reanalysed during development of these guidelines.
References

1. Pelletier, J. & Sonenberg, N. Internal initiation of translation of eukaryotic mRNA directed by a sequence derived from poliovirus RNA. *Nature* **334**, 320–325 (1988).

One of the first reports firmly establishing internal translation initiation as a mechanism employed by viral RNAs.

2. Jang, S. K., Kräusslich, H. G., Nicklin, M. J., Duke, G. M., Palmenberg, A. C. & Wimmer, E. A segment of the 5' nontranslated region of encephalomyocarditis virus RNA directs internal entry of ribosomes during in vitro translation. *J Virol* **62**, 2636–2643 (1988).

3. Reil, H., Höxter, M., Moosmayer, D., Pauli, G. & Hauser, H. CD4 Expressing Human 293 Cells as a Tool for Studies in HIV-1 Replication: The Efficiency of Translational Frameshifting Is Not Altered by HIV-1 Infection. *Virology* **205**, 371–375 (1994).

4. Stahl, G., Bidou, L., Rousset, J.-P. & Cassan, M. Versatile vectors to study recoding: conservation of rules between yeast and mammalian cells. *Nucl Acids Res* **23**, 1557–1560 (1995).

5. Bidou, L., Stahl, G., Grima, B., Liu, H., Cassan, M. & Rousset, J. P. In vivo HIV-1 frameshifting efficiency is directly related to the stability of the stem-loop stimulatory signal. *RNA* **3**, 1153–1158 (1997).

6. **Grentzmann, G., Ingram, J. A., Kelly, P. J., Gesteland, R. F. & Atkins, J. F.** A dual-luciferase reporter system for studying recoding signals. *RNA* **4**, 479–486 (1998).

First fused dual luciferase system that helped characterise many translation mechanisms.

7. Chiba, S., Jamal, A. & Suzuki, N. First Evidence for Internal Ribosomal Entry Sites in Diverse Fungal Virus Genomes. *mBio* **9**, e02350-17 (2018).

8. Rakauskaite, R., Liao, P.-Y., Rhodin, M. H. J., Lee, K. & Dinman, J. D. A rapid, inexpensive yeast-based dual-fluorescence assay of programmed--1 ribosomal frameshifting for high-throughput screening. *Nucleic Acids Res* **39**, e97 (2011).
9. Cardno, T. S., Poole, E. S., Mathew, S. F., Graves, R. & Tate, W. P. A homogeneous cell-based bicistronic fluorescence assay for high-throughput identification of drugs that perturb viral gene recoding and read-through of nonsense stop codons. *RNA* **15**, 1614–1621 (2009).

10. Harger, J. W. & Dinman, J. D. An in vivo dual-luciferase assay system for studying translational recoding in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. *RNA* **9**, 1019–1024 (2003).

11. Bert, A. G., Grépin, R., Vadas, M. A. & Goodall, G. J. Assessing IRES activity in the HIF-1alpha and other cellular 5' UTRs. *RNA* **12**, 1074–1083 (2006).

**12. Loughran, G., Howard, M. T., Firth, A. E. & Atkins, J. F. Avoidance of reporter assay distortions from fused dual reporters. RNA 23, 1285–1289 (2017).**

Improved single mRNA dual luciferase reporter with protein product splitting StopGo motif to produce reporters with identical amino acid sequences irrespective of the tested inserts.

13. Jacobs, J. L., Belew, A. T., Rakauskaite, R. & Dinman, J. D. Identification of functional, endogenous programmed -1 ribosomal frameshift signals in the genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. *Nucleic Acids Res* **35**, 165–174 (2007).

14. Baranov, P. V., Henderson, C. M., Anderson, C. B., Gesteland, R. F., Atkins, J. F. & Howard, M. T. Programmed ribosomal frameshifting in decoding the SARS-CoV genome. *Virology* **332**, 498–510 (2005).

15. Charbonneau, J., Gendron, K., Ferbeyre, G. & Brakier-Gingras, L. The 5' UTR of HIV-1 full-length mRNA and the Tat viral protein modulate the programmed -1 ribosomal frameshift that generates HIV-1 enzymes. *RNA* **18**, 519–529 (2012).

16. Gendron, K., Charbonneau, J., Dulude, D., Heveker, N., Ferbeyre, G. & Brakier-Gingras, L. The presence of the TAR RNA structure alters the programmed -1 ribosomal frameshift efficiency of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) by modifying the rate of translation initiation. *Nucleic Acids Res* **36**, 30–40 (2008).
17. Howard, M. T., Shirts, B. H., Petros, L. M., Flanigan, K. M., Gesteland, R. F. & Atkins, J. F. Sequence specificity of aminoglycoside-induced stop codon readthrough: potential implications for treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. *Ann Neurol* **48**, 164–169 (2000).

18. Harrell, L., Melcher, U. & Atkins, J. F. Predominance of six different hexanucleotide recoding signals 3' of read-through stop codons. *Nucleic Acids Res* **30**, 2011–2017 (2002).

19. Yordanova, M. M., Loughran, G., Zhdanov, A. V., Mariotti, M., Kiniry, S. J., O'Connor, P. B. F., Andreev, D. E., Tzani, I., Saffert, P., Michel, A. M., Gladyshev, V. N., Papkovsky, D. B., Atkins, J. F. & Baranov, P. V. AMD1 mRNA employs ribosome stalling as a mechanism for molecular memory formation. *Nature* **553**, 356–360 (2018).

20. Hennecke, M., Kwissa, M., Metzger, K., Oumard, A., Kröger, A., Schirmbeck, R., Reimann, J. & Hauser, H. Composition and arrangement of genes define the strength of IRES-driven translation in bicistronic mRNAs. *Nucleic Acids Res* **29**, 3327–3334 (2001).

21. Bochkov, Y. A. & Palmenberg, A. C. Translational efficiency of EMCV IRES in bicistronic vectors is dependent upon IRES sequence and gene location. *Biotechniques* **41**, 283–284, 286, 288 passim (2006).

22. Vallejos, M., Ramdohr, P., Valiente-Echeverría, F., Tapia, K., Rodriguez, F. E., Lowy, F., Huidobro-Toro, J. P., Dangerfield, J. A. & López-Lastra, M. The 5'-untranslated region of the mouse mammary tumor virus mRNA exhibits cap-independent translation initiation. *Nucleic Acids Res* **38**, 618–632 (2010).

23. Baranov, P. V., Wills, N. M., Barriscale, K. A., Firth, A. E., Jud, M. C., Letsou, A., Manning, G. & Atkins, J. F. Programmed ribosomal frameshifting in the expression of the regulator of intestinal stem cell proliferation, adenomatous polyposis coli (APC). *RNA Biol* **8**, 637–647 (2011).

24. Beznosková, P., Wagner, S., Jansen, M. E., von der Haar, T. & Valášek, L. S. Translation initiation factor eIF3 promotes programmed stop codon readthrough. *Nucleic Acids Res* **43**, 5099–5111 (2015).
25. Müller, C., Schulte, F. W., Lange-Grünweller, K., Obermann, W., Madhugiri, R., Pleschka, S., Ziebuhr, J., Hartmann, R. K. & Grünweller, A. Broad-spectrum antiviral activity of the eIF4A inhibitor silvestrol against corona- and picornaviruses. *Antiviral Res* **150**, 123–129 (2018).

26. Zinshteyn, B., Sinha, N. K., Enam, S. U., Koleske, B. & Green, R. Translational repression of NMD targets by GIGYF2 and EIF4E2. *PLoS Genet* **17**, e1009813 (2021).

27. Kobayashi, Y., Zhuang, J., Peltz, S. & Dougherty, J. Identification of a cellular factor that modulates HIV-1 programmed ribosomal frameshifting. *J Biol Chem* **285**, 19776–19784 (2010).

28. Green, L., Houck-Loomis, B., Yueh, A. & Goff, S. P. Large ribosomal protein 4 increases efficiency of viral recoding sequences. *J Virol* **86**, 8949–8958 (2012).

29. Young, D. J., Makeeva, D. S., Zhang, F., Anisimova, A. S., Stolboushkina, E. A., Ghobakhlou, F., Shatsky, I. N., Dmitriev, S. E., Hinnebusch, A. G. & Guydosh, N. R. Tma64/eIF2D, Tma20/MCT-1, and Tma22/DENR Recycle Post-termination 40S Subunits In Vivo. *Mol Cell* **71**, 761-774.e5 (2018).

30. Schult, P., Roth, H., Adams, R. L., Mas, C., Imbert, L., Orlik, C., Ruggieri, A., Pyle, A. M. & Lohmann, V. microRNA-122 amplifies hepatitis C virus translation by shaping the structure of the internal ribosomal entry site. *Nat Commun* **9**, 2613 (2018).

31. LaFontaine, E., Miller, C. M., Permaul, N., Martin, E. T. & Fuchs, G. Ribosomal protein RACK1 enhances translation of poliovirus and other viral IRESs. *Virology* **545**, 53–62 (2020).

32. Zhang, H., Song, L., Cong, H. & Tien, P. Nuclear Protein Sam68 Interacts with the Enterovirus 71 Internal Ribosome Entry Site and Positively Regulates Viral Protein Translation. *J Virol* **89**, 10031–10043 (2015).

33. Bidou, L., Hatin, I., Perez, N., Allamand, V., Panthier, J.-J. & Rousset, J.-P. Premature stop codons involved in muscular dystrophies show a broad spectrum of readthrough efficiencies in response to gentamicin treatment. *Gene Ther* **11**, 619–627 (2004).
34. Mikl, M., Pilpel, Y. & Segal, E. High-throughput interrogation of programmed ribosomal frameshifting in human cells. *Nat Commun* 11, 3061 (2020).

This study describes a powerful Massively Parallel Reporter Assay (MPRA) based on fused dual reporters allowing screening of a diverse pool of sequences for specific regulatory properties driving ribosomal frameshifting.

35. Cencic, R., Robert, F. & Pelletier, J. Identifying small molecule inhibitors of eukaryotic translation initiation. *Methods Enzymol* **431**, 269–302 (2007).

36. Novac, O., Guenier, A.-S. & Pelletier, J. Inhibitors of protein synthesis identified by a high throughput multiplexed translation screen. *Nucleic Acids Res* **32**, 902–915 (2004).

37. Ahn, D.-G., Lee, W., Choi, J.-K., Kim, S.-J., Plant, E. P., Almazán, F., Taylor, D. R., Enjuanes, L. & Oh, J.-W. Interference of ribosomal frameshifting by antisense peptide nucleic acids suppresses SARS coronavirus replication. *Antiviral Res* **91**, 1–10 (2011).

38. Sun, Y., Abriola, L., Niederer, R. O., Pedersen, S. F., Alfajaro, M. M., Silva Monteiro, V., Wilen, C. B., Ho, Y.-C., Gilbert, W. V., Surovtseva, Y. V., Lindenbach, B. D. & Guo, J. U. Restriction of SARS-CoV-2 replication by targeting programmed -1 ribosomal frameshifting. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* **118**, e2023051118 (2021).

39. Feng, Y., Pinkerton, A. B., Hulea, L., Zhang, T., Davies, M. A., Grotegut, S., Cheli, Y., Yin, H., Lau, E., Kim, H., De, S. K., Barile, E., Pellecchia, M., Bosenberg, M., Li, J.-L., James, B., Hassig, C. A., Brown, K. M., Topisirovic, I. & Ronai, Z. A. SBI-0640756 Attenuates the Growth of Clinically Unresponsive Melanomas by Disrupting the eIF4F Translation Initiation Complex. *Cancer Res* **75**, 5211–5218 (2015).

40. Hekman, K. E., Yu, G.-Y., Brown, C. D., Zhu, H., Du, X., Gervin, K., Undlien, D. E., Peterson, A., Stevanin, G., Clark, H. B., Pulst, S. M., Bird, T. D., White, K. P. & Gomez, C. M. A conserved eEF2 coding variant in SCA26 leads to loss of translational fidelity and increased susceptibility to proteostatic insult. *Hum Mol Genet* **21**, 5472–5483 (2012).
41. Chen, C.-K., Cheng, R., Demeter, J., Chen, J., Weingarten-Gabbay, S., Jiang, L., Snyder, M. P., Weissman, J. S., Segal, E., Jackson, P. K. & Chang, H. Y. Structured elements drive extensive circular RNA translation. *Mol Cell* **81**, 4300-4318.e13 (2021).

42. Weingarten-Gabbay, S., Elias-Kirma, S., Nir, R., Gritsenko, A. A., Stern-Ginossar, N., Yakhini, Z., Weinberger, A. & Segal, E. Comparative genetics. Systematic discovery of cap-independent translation sequences in human and viral genomes. *Science* **351**, aad4939 (2016).

43. Lidsky, P. V., Dmitriev, S. E. & Andino, R. Robust Expression of Transgenes in Drosophila Melanogaster. http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2022.10.30.514414 (2022) doi:10.1101/2022.10.30.514414.

44. Mäkeläinen, K. J. & Mäkinen, K. Testing of internal translation initiation via dicistronic constructs in yeast is complicated by production of extraneous transcripts. *Gene* **391**, 275-284 (2007).

45. Han, B. & Zhang, J.-T. Regulation of gene expression by internal ribosome entry sites or cryptic promoters: the eIF4G story. *Mol Cell Biol* **22**, 7372-7384 (2002).

**46. Van Eden, M. E., Byrd, M. P., Sherrill, K. W. & Lloyd, R. E. Demonstrating internal ribosome entry sites in eukaryotic mRNAs using stringent RNA test procedures. RNA 10, 720-730 (2004).**

One of the first studies revealing artefacts produced by DNA bicistronic constructs, proposing the use of siRNA-based and RT-qPCR assays for their critical evaluation.

47. Holcik, M., Graber, T., Lewis, S. M., Lefebvre, C. A., Lacasse, E. & Baird, S. Spurious splicing within the XIAP 5' UTR occurs in the Rluc/Fluc but not the betagal/CAT bicistronic reporter system. *RNA* **11**, 1605-1609 (2005).

**48. Kozak, M. A second look at cellular mRNA sequences said to function as internal ribosome entry sites. Nucleic Acids Res 33, 6593-6602 (2005).**

A thorough review of all criteria that need to be met for a prospective cellular IRES element to qualify as a bona fide IRES.
49. Baranick, B. T., Lemp, N. A., Nagashima, J., Hiraoka, K., Kasahara, N. & Logg, C. R.
Splicing mediates the activity of four putative cellular internal ribosome entry sites. *Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A* **105**, 4733–4738 (2008).

50. Young, R. M., Wang, S.-J., Gordan, J. D., Ji, X., Liebhaber, S. A. & Simon, M. C.
Hypoxia-mediated selective mRNA translation by an internal ribosome entry site-independent
mechanism. *J Biol Chem* **283**, 16309–16319 (2008).

51. Andreev, D. E., Dmitriev, S. E., Terenin, I. M., Prassolov, V. S., Merrick, W. C. & Shatsky, I. N. Differential contribution of the m7G-cap to the 5' end-dependent translation initiation of mammalian mRNAs. *Nucleic Acids Res* **37**, 6135–6147 (2009).

52. Lemp, N. A., Hiraoka, K., Kasahara, N. & Logg, C. R. Cryptic transcripts from a ubiquitous plasmid origin of replication confound tests for cis-regulatory function. *Nucleic Acids Res* **40**, 7280–7290 (2012).

53. Khan, Y. A., Loughran, G., Steckelberg, A.-L., Brown, K., Kiniry, S. J., Stewart, H., Baranov, P. V., Kieft, J. S., Firth, A. E. & Atkins, J. F. Evaluating ribosomal frameshifting in CCR5 mRNA decoding. *Nature* **604**, E16–E23 (2022).

54. Akirtava, C., May, G. E. & McManus, C. J. False-positive IRESes from Hoxa9 and other genes resulting from errors in mammalian 5' UTR annotations. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* **119**, e2122170119 (2022).

55. Nejepinska, J., Malik, R., Moravec, M. & Svoboda, P. Deep sequencing reveals complex spurious transcription from transiently transfected plasmids. *PLoS One* **7**, e43283 (2012).

56. Loughran, G., Fedorova, A. D., Khan, Y. A., Atkins, J. F. & Baranov, P. V. Lack of evidence for ribosomal frameshifting in ATP7B mRNA decoding. *Mol Cell* **82**, 3745-3749.e2 (2022).

57. Terenin, I. M., Andreev, D. E., Dmitriev, S. E. & Shatsky, I. N. A novel mechanism of eukaryotic translation initiation that is neither m7G-cap-, nor IRES-dependent. *Nucleic Acids Res* **41**, 1807–1816 (2013).
58. Payne, A. J., Gerdes, B. C., Kaja, S. & Koulen, P. Insert sequence length determines transfection efficiency and gene expression levels in bicistronic mammalian expression vectors. *Int J Biochem Mol Biol* **4**, 201–208 (2013).

59. Shikama, Y., Hu, H., Ohno, M., Matsuoka, I., Shichishima, T. & Kimura, J. Transcripts expressed using a bicistronic vector pIREShyg2 are sensitized to nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. *BMC Mol Biol* **11**, 42 (2010).

60. Jünemann, C., Song, Y., Bassili, G., Goergen, D., Henke, J. & Niepmann, M. Picornavirus internal ribosome entry site elements can stimulate translation of upstream genes. *J Biol Chem* **282**, 132–141 (2007).

61. Yordanova, M. M., Loughran, G., Atkins, J. F. & Baranov, P. V. Stop codon readthrough contexts influence reporter expression differentially depending on the presence of an IRES. *Wellcome Open Res* **5**, 221 (2020).

62. Terenin, I. M., Smirnova, V. V., Andreev, D. E., Dmitriev, S. E. & Shatsky, I. N. A researcher's guide to the galaxy of IRESs. *Cell Mol Life Sci* **74**, 1431–1455 (2017).

A comprehensive review focused on the challenges in IRES studies, providing a methodological workflow for validating IRES activity in a nucleotide sequence of interest.

63. Kozak, M. New ways of initiating translation in eukaryotes? *Mol Cell Biol* **21**, 1899–1907 (2001).

64. Schneider, R., Agol, V. I., Andino, R., Bayard, F., Cavener, D. R., Chappell, S. A., Chen, J. J., Darlix, J. L., Dasgupta, A., Donzé, O., Duncan, R., Elroy-Stein, O., Farabaugh, P. J., Filipowicz, W., Gale, M., Gehrke, L., Goldman, E., Groner, Y., Harford, J. B., Hatzglou, M., He, B., Hellen, C. U., Hentze, M. W., Hershey, J., Hershey, P., Hohn, T., Holcik, M., Hunter, C. P., Igarashi, K., Jackson, R., Jagus, R., Jefferson, L. S., Joshi, B., Kaempfer, R., Katze, M., Kaufman, R. J., Kiledjian, M., Kimball, S. R., Kimchi, A., Kirkegaard, K., Koromilas, A. E., Krug, R. M., Kruys, V., Lamphear, B. J., Lemon, S., Lloyd, R. E., Maquat, L. E., Martinez-Salas, E., Mathews, M. B., Mauro, V. P., Miyamoto, S., Mohr, I., Morris, D. R., Moss, E. G.,
Nakashima, N., Palmenberg, A., Parkin, N. T., Pe’ery, T., Pelletier, J., Peltz, S., Pestova, T. V., Pilipenko, E. V., Prats, A. C., Racaniello, V., Read, G. S., Rhoads, R. E., Richter, J. D., Rivera-Pomar, R., Rouault, T., Sachs, A., Sarnow, P., Scheper, G. C., Schiff, L., Schoenberg, D. R., Semler, B. L., Siddiqui, A., Skern, T., Sonenberg, N., Sossin, W., Standart, N., Tahara, S. M., Thomas, A. A., Toulmé, J. J., Wilusz, J., Wimmer, E., Witherell, G. & Wormington, M. New ways of initiating translation in eukaryotes. *Mol Cell Biol* **21**, 8238–8246 (2001).

65. Kozak, M. Alternative ways to think about mRNA sequences and proteins that appear to promote internal initiation of translation. *Gene* **318**, 1–23 (2003).

66. Jacobs, J. L. & Dinman, J. D. Systematic analysis of bicistronic reporter assay data. *Nucleic Acids Res* **32**, e160 (2004).

67. Mardanova, E. S., Zamchuk, L. A. & Ravin, N. V. Contribution of internal initiation to translation of cellular mRNAs containing IRESs. *Biochem Soc Trans* **36**, 694–697 (2008).

68. Thompson, S. R. So you want to know if your message has an IRES? *Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA* **3**, 697–705 (2012).

69. Jackson, R. J. The current status of vertebrate cellular mRNA IRESs. *Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol* **5**, a011569 (2013).

70. Shatsky, I. N., Dmitriev, S. E., Andreev, D. E. & Terenin, I. M. Transcriptome-wide studies uncover the diversity of modes of mRNA recruitment to eukaryotic ribosomes. *Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol* **49**, 164–177 (2014).

71. Bustin, S. A. Absolute quantification of mRNA using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. *J Mol Endocrinol* **25**, 169–193 (2000).

72. Shiraki, T., Kondo, S., Katayama, S., Waki, K., Kasukawa, T., Kawaji, H., Kodzius, R., Watahiki, A., Nakamura, M., Arakawa, T., Fukuda, S., Sasaki, D., Podhajska, A., Harbers, M., Kawai, J., Carninci, P. & Hayashizaki, Y. Cap analysis gene expression for high-throughput analysis of transcriptional starting point and identification of promoter usage. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* **100**, 15776–15781 (2003).
First description of CAGE analysis for mapping transcription start sites transcriptome-wide.

73. Atkins, J. F., Wills, N. M., Loughran, G., Wu, C.-Y., Parsawar, K., Ryan, M. D., Wang, C.-H. & Nelson, C. C. A case for ‘StopGo’: reprogramming translation to augment codon meaning of GGN by promoting unconventional termination (Stop) after addition of glycine and then allowing continued translation (Go). *RNA* **13**, 803–810 (2007).

74. Ryan, M. D. & Drew, J. Foot-and-mouth disease virus 2A oligopeptide mediated cleavage of an artificial polyprotein. *EMBO J* **13**, 928–933 (1994).

75. Minskaia, E., Nicholson, J. & Ryan, M. D. Optimisation of the foot-and-mouth disease virus 2A co-expression system for biomedical applications. *BMC Biotechnol* **13**, 67 (2013).

76. Kim, J. H., Lee, S.-R., Li, L.-H., Park, H.-J., Park, J.-H., Lee, K. Y., Kim, M.-K., Shin, B. A. & Choi, S.-Y. High cleavage efficiency of a 2A peptide derived from porcine teschovirus-1 in human cell lines, zebrafish and mice. *PLoS One* **6**, e18556 (2011).

77. Donnelly, M. L. L., Hughes, L. E., Luke, G., Mendoza, H., Ten Dam, E., Gani, D. & Ryan, M. D. The ‘cleavage’ activities of foot-and-mouth disease virus 2A site-directed mutants and naturally occurring ‘2A-like’ sequences. *J Gen Virol* **82**, 1027–1041 (2001).

78. Sahin, U., Karikó, K. & Türeci, Ö. mRNA-based therapeutics--developing a new class of drugs. *Nat Rev Drug Discov* **13**, 759–780 (2014).

79. Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W. & Weissman, D. mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology. *Nat Rev Drug Discov* **17**, 261–279 (2018).

80. Akulich, K. A., Andreev, D. E., Terenin, I. M., Smirnova, V. V., Anisimova, A. S., Makeeva, D. S., Arkhipova, V. I., Stolboushkina, E. A., Garber, M. B., Prokofjeva, M. M., Spirin, P. V., Prassolov, V. S., Shatsky, I. N. & Dmitriev, S. E. Four translation initiation pathways employed by the leaderless mRNA in eukaryotes. *Sci Rep* **6**, 37905 (2016).

81. Barreau, C., Dutertre, S., Paillard, L. & Osborne, H. B. Liposome-mediated RNA transfection should be used with caution. *RNA* **12**, 1790–1793 (2006).
A study revealing artifacts produced by mRNA stability tests when applied to transcripts
delivered via liposome-mediated transfection.

82. Paramasivam, P., Franke, C., Stöter, M., Höijer, A., Bartesaghi, S., Sabirsh, A., Lindfors, L., Arteta, M. Y., Dahlén, A., Bak, A., Andersson, S., Kalaidzidis, Y., Bickle, M. & Zerial, M. Endosomal escape of delivered mRNA from endosomal recycling tubules visualized at the nanoscale. *J Cell Biol* **221**, e202110137 (2022).

83. Hollien, J., Lin, J. H., Li, H., Stevens, N., Walter, P. & Weissman, J. S. Regulated Ire1-dependent decay of messenger RNAs in mammalian cells. *J Cell Biol* **186**, 323–331 (2009).

84. Han, D., Lerner, A. G., Vande Walle, L., Upton, J.-P., Xu, W., Hagen, A., Backes, B. J., Oakes, S. A. & Papa, F. R. IRE1alpha kinase activation modes control alternate endoribonuclease outputs to determine divergent cell fates. *Cell* **138**, 562–575 (2009).

85. Karasik, A., Jones, G. D., DePass, A. V. & Guydosh, N. R. Activation of the antiviral factor RNase L triggers translation of non-coding mRNA sequences. *Nucleic Acids Res* **49**, 6007–6026 (2021).

86. Malka, Y., Alkan, F., Ju, S., Körner, P.-R., Pataskar, A., Shulman, E., Loayza-Puch, F., Champagne, J., Wenzel, C., Faller, W. J., Elkon, R., Lee, C. & Agami, R. Alternative cleavage and polyadenylation generates downstream uncapped RNA isoforms with translation potential. *Mol Cell* **82**, 3840-3855.e8 (2022).

87. Andreev, D. E., Terenin, I. M., Dmitriev, S. E. & Shatsky, I. N. Pros and cons of pDNA and mRNA transfection to study mRNA translation in mammalian cells. *Gene* **578**, 1–6 (2016).

An insight into what works the best for a particular experimental set-up: DNA or RNA
transfection?

88. Matreyek, K. A., Stephany, J. J., Chiasson, M. A., Hasle, N. & Fowler, D. M. An improved platform for functional assessment of large protein libraries in mammalian cells. *Nucleic Acids Res* **48**, e1 (2020).
89. She, R., Luo, J. & Weissman, J. S. Translational fidelity screens in mammalian cells reveal eIF3 and eIF4G2 as regulators of start codon selectivity. *Nucleic Acids Res* **51**, 6355–6369 (2023).

90. Dmitriev, S. E., Andreev, D. E., Adyanova, Z. V., Terenin, I. M. & Shatsky, I. N. Efficient cap-dependent in vitro and in vivo translation of mammalian mRNAs with long and highly structured 5'-untranslated regions. *Mol Biol (Mosk)* **43**, 108–113 (2009).

The study highlights that the traditional view of long and highly structured 5' UTRs inhibiting cap-dependent translation may be incorrect, and the use of ntRRL can lead to false conclusions about the cap-dependence and translation efficiency of reporter mRNAs compared to conditions in living cells.

91. Kozak, M. Evaluation of the fidelity of initiation of translation in reticulocyte lysates from commercial sources. *Nucleic Acids Res* **18**, 2828 (1990).

92. Soto Rifo, R., Ricci, E. P., Décimo, D., Moncorgé, O. & Ohlmann, T. Back to basics: the untreated rabbit reticulocyte lysate as a competitive system to recapitulate cap/poly(A) synergy and the selective advantage of IRES-driven translation. *Nucleic Acids Res* **35**, e121 (2007).

93. Dmitriev, S. E., Bykova, N. V., Andreev, D. E. & Terenin, I. M. Adequate system for studying translation initiation on the human retrotransposon L1 mRNA in vitro. *Mol Biol (Mosk)* **40**, 20–24 (2006).

94. Iizuka, N., Najita, L., Franzusoff, A. & Sarnow, P. Cap-dependent and cap-independent translation by internal initiation of mRNAs in cell extracts prepared from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. *Mol Cell Biol* **14**, 7322–7330 (1994).

95. Tuite, M. F. & McLaughlin, C. S. Polyamines enhance the efficiency of tRNA-mediated readthrough of amber and UGA termination codons in a yeast cell-free system. *Curr Genet* **7**, 421–426 (1983).
96. Skabkin, M. A., Skabkina, O. V., Hellen, C. U. T. & Pestova, T. V. Reinitiation and other unconventional posttermination events during eukaryotic translation. *Mol Cell* **51**, 249–264 (2013).

97. Zinoviev, A., Hellen, C. U. T. & Pestova, T. V. Multiple mechanisms of reinitiation on bicistronic calicivirus mRNAs. *Mol Cell* **57**, 1059–1073 (2015).

98. Terenin, I. M., Dmitriev, S. E., Andreev, D. E., Royall, E., Belsham, G. J., Roberts, L. O. & Shatsky, I. N. A cross-kingdom internal ribosome entry site reveals a simplified mode of internal ribosome entry. *Mol Cell Biol* **25**, 7879–7888 (2005).

99. Abaeva, I. S., Pestova, T. V. & Hellen, C. U. T. Attachment of ribosomal complexes and retrograde scanning during initiation on the Halastavi árva virus IRES. *Nucleic Acids Res* **44**, 2362–2377 (2016).

100. Beznosková, P., Pavlíková, Z., Zeman, J., Echeverría Aitken, C. & Valášek, L. S. Yeast applied readthrough inducing system (YARIS): an invivo assay for the comprehensive study of translational readthrough. *Nucleic Acids Res* **47**, 6339–6350 (2019).

101. Beznosková, P., Gunišová, S. & Valášek, L. S. Rules of UGA-N decoding by near-cognate tRNAs and analysis of readthrough on short uORFs in yeast. *RNA* **22**, 456–466 (2016).

102. Powell, M. L., Leigh, K. E., Pöyry, T. A. A., Jackson, R. J., Brown, T. D. K. & Brierley, I. Further characterisation of the translational termination-reinitiation signal of the influenza B virus segment 7 RNA. *PLoS One* **6**, e16822 (2011).

103. Luttermann, C. & Meyers, G. A bipartite sequence motif induces translation reinitiation in feline calicivirus RNA. *J Biol Chem* **282**, 7056–7065 (2007).

104. Pöyry, T. A. A., Kaminski, A., Connell, E. J., Fraser, C. S. & Jackson, R. J. The mechanism of an exceptional case of reinitiation after translation of a long ORF reveals why such events do not generally occur in mammalian mRNA translation. *Genes Dev* **21**, 3149–3162 (2007).
105. Gould, P. S., Dyer, N. P., Croft, W., Ott, S. & Easton, A. J. Cellular mRNAs access second ORFs using a novel amino acid sequence-dependent coupled translation termination-reinitiation mechanism. *RNA* **20**, 373-381 (2014).

106. Michel, A. M., Kiniry, S. J., O'Connor, P. B. F., Mullan, J. P. & Baranov, P. V. GWIPS-viz: 2018 update. *Nucleic Acids Res* **46**, D823–D830 (2018).

107. Kiniry, S. J., Judge, C. E., Michel, A. M. & Baranov, P. V. Trips-Viz: an environment for the analysis of public and user-generated ribosome profiling data. *Nucleic Acids Res* **49**, W662–W670 (2021).

108. Andreev, D. E., O'Connor, P. B. F., Loughran, G., Dmitriev, S. E., Baranov, P. V. & Shatsky, I. N. Insights into the mechanisms of eukaryotic translation gained with ribosome profiling. *Nucleic Acids Res* **45**, 513–526 (2017).

109. Ingolia, N. T., Hussmann, J. A. & Weissman, J. S. Ribosome Profiling: Global Views of Translation. *Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol* **11**, a032698 (2019).

**110. Gunišová, S., Hronová, V., Mohammad, M. P., Hinnebusch, A. G. & Valášek, L. S.**
**Please do not recycle! Translation reinitiation in microbes and higher eukaryotes. FEMS Microbiol Rev** **42**, 165–192 (2018).

**A comprehensive overview of all known translation reinitiation mechanisms in eukaryotes including the means of their study.**

111. Kozak, M. Constraints on reinitiation of translation in mammals. *Nucleic Acids Res* **29**, 5226–5232 (2001).

112. Sorokin, I. I., Vassilenko, K. S., Terenin, I. M., Kalinina, N. O., Agol, V. I. & Dmitriev, S. E. Non-Canonical Translation Initiation Mechanisms Employed by Eukaryotic Viral mRNAs. *Biochemistry (Mosc)* **86**, 1060–1094 (2021).

113. Makeeva, D. S., Riggs, C. L., Burakov, A. V., Ivanov, P. A., Kushchenko, A. S., Bykov, D. A., Popenko, V. I., Prassolov, V. S., Ivanov, P. V. & Dmitriev, S. E. Relocalization of Translation Termination and Ribosome Recycling Factors to Stress Granules Coincides with
Elevated Stop-Codon Readthrough and Reinitiation Rates upon Oxidative Stress. *Cells* **12**, 259 (2023).

114. Brown, C. M., Dinesh-Kumar, S. P. & Miller, W. A. Local and distant sequences are required for efficient readthrough of the barley yellow dwarf virus PAV coat protein gene stop codon. *J Virol* **70**, 5884–5892 (1996).

115. Xu, Y., Ju, H.-J., DeBlasio, S., Carino, E. J., Johnson, R., MacCoss, M. J., Heck, M., Miller, W. A. & Gray, S. M. A Stem-Loop Structure in Potato Leafroll Virus Open Reading Frame 5 (ORF5) Is Essential for Readthrough Translation of the Coat Protein ORF Stop Codon 700 Bases Upstream. *J Virol* **92**, e01544-17 (2018).

116. Barry, J. K. & Miller, W. A. A -1 ribosomal frameshift element that requires base pairing across four kilobases suggests a mechanism of regulating ribosome and replicase traffic on a viral RNA. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* **99**, 11133-11138 (2002).

117. Kimura, K., Wakamatsu, A., Suzuki, Y., Ota, T., Nishikawa, T., Yamashita, R., Yamamoto, J., Sekine, M., Tsuritani, K., Wakaguri, H., Ishii, S., Sugiyama, T., Saito, K., Isono, Y., Irie, R., Kushida, N., Yoneyama, T., Otsuka, R., Kanda, K., Yokoi, T., Kondo, H., Wagatsuma, M., Murakawa, K., Ishida, S., Ishibashi, T., Takahashi-Fujii, A., Tanase, T., Nagai, K., Kikuchi, H., Nakai, K., Isogai, T. & Sugano, S. Diversification of transcriptional modulation: large-scale identification and characterization of putative alternative promoters of human genes. *Genome Res* **16**, 55-65 (2006).

118. Makhnovskii, P. A., Gusev, O. A., Bokov, R. O., Gazizova, G. R., Vepkhvadze, T. F., Lysenko, E. A., Vinogradova, O. L., Kolpakov, F. A. & Popov, D. V. Alternative transcription start sites contribute to acute-stress-induced transcriptome response in human skeletal muscle. *Hum Genomics* **16**, 24 (2022).

119. Huang, F., Gonçalves, C., Bartish, M., Rémy-Sarrazin, J., Issa, M. E., Cordeiro, B., Guo, Q., Emond, A., Attias, M., Yang, W., Plourde, D., Su, J., Gimeno, M. G., Zhan, Y., Galán, A., Rzymski, T., Mazan, M., Masiejczyk, M., Faber, J., Khoury, E., Benoit, A., Gagnon, N.,
Dankort, D., Journe, F., Ghanem, G. E., Krawczyk, C. M., Saragovi, H. U., Piccirillo, C. A., Sonenberg, N., Topisirovic, I., Rudd, C. E., Miller, W. H. & Del Rincón, S. V. Inhibiting the MNK1/2-eIF4E axis impairs melanoma phenotype switching and potentiates antitumor immune responses. *J Clin Invest* **131**, e140752, 140752 (2021).

120. Watt, K., Dauber, B., Szkop, K. J., Lee, L., Jovanovic, P., Chen, S., Masvidal, L., Tandoc, K., Palia, R., Topisirovic, I., Larsson, O. & Postovit, L.-M. *Epigenetic Coordination of Transcriptional and Translational Programs in Hypoxia*.
http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2023.09.16.558067 (2023)
doi:10.1101/2023.09.16.558067.

121. Wang, X.-Q. & Rothnagel, J. A. 5'-untranslated regions with multiple upstream AUG codons can support low-level translation via leaky scanning and reinitiation. *Nucleic Acids Res* **32**, 1382–1391 (2004).

122. Dmitriev, S. E., Andreev, D. E., Terenin, I. M., Olovnikov, I. A., Prassolov, V. S., Merrick, W. C. & Shatsky, I. N. Efficient translation initiation directed by the 900-nucleotide-long and GC-rich 5' untranslated region of the human retrotransposon LINE-1 mRNA is strictly cap dependent rather than internal ribosome entry site mediated. *Mol Cell Biol* **27**, 4685–4697 (2007).