4.5 Article

Unzipping of A-Form DNA-RNA, A-Form DNA-PNA, and B-Form DNA-DNA in the α-Hemolysin Nanopore

Journal

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 110, Issue 2, Pages 306-314

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.11.020

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R41 DA038989, R01 GM093099]
  2. National Science Foundation [CHE 1308364]
  3. NCI Cancer Center [P30 CA042014]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Chemistry [1308364] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Unzipping of double-stranded nucleic acids by an electric field applied across a wild-type alpha-hemolysin (alpha HL) nanopore provides structural information about different duplex forms. In this work, comparative studies on A-form DNA-RNA duplexes and B-form DNA-DNA duplexes with a single-stranded tail identified significant differences in the blockage current and the unzipping duration between the two helical forms. We observed that the B-form duplex blocks the channel 1.9 +/- 0.2 pA more and unzips similar to 15-fold more slowly than an A-form duplex at 120 mV. We developed a model to describe the dependence of duplex unzipping on structure. We demonstrate that the wider A-form duplex (d = 2.4 nm) is unable to enter the vestibule opening of alpha HL on the cis side, leading to unzipping outside of the nanopore with higher residual current and faster unzipping times. In contrast, the smaller B-form duplexes (d = 2.0 nm) enter the vestibule of alpha HL, resulting in decreased current blockages and slower unzipping. We investigated the effects of varying the length of the single-stranded overhang, and studied A-form DNA-PNA duplexes to provide additional support for the proposed model. This study identifies key differences between A-and B-form duplex unzipping that will be important in the design of future probe-based methods for detecting DNA or RNA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available