4.7 Article

Structural and Functional Characterisation of a Conserved Archaeal RadA Paralog with Antirecombinase Activity

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 389, Issue 4, Pages 661-673

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.04.060

Keywords

archaea; recombinase; RadA; homologous recombination; strand exchange

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/B/14426] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G0500367] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0500367] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

DNA recombinases (RecA in bacteria, Rad51 in eukarya and RadA in archaea) catalyse strand exchange between homologous DNA molecules, the central reaction of homologous recombination, and are among the most conserved DNA repair proteins known. RecA is the sole protein responsible for this reaction in bacteria, whereas there are several Rad51 paralogs that cooperate to catalyse strand exchange in eukaryotes. All archaea have at least one (and as many as four) RadA paralog, but their function remains unclear. Herein, we show that the three RadA paralogs encoded by the Sulfolobus solfataricus genome are expressed under normal growth conditions and are not UV inducible. We demonstrate that one of these proteins, Sso2452, which is representative of the large archaeal RadC subfamily of archaeal RadA paralogs, functions as an ATPase that binds tightly to single-stranded DNA. However, Sso2452 is not an active recombinase in vitro and inhibits D-loop formation by RadA. We present the high-resolution crystal structure of Sso2452, which reveals key structural differences from the canonical RecA family recombinases that may explain its functional properties. Pie possible roles of the archaeal RadA paralogs in vivo are discussed. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available