4.8 Article

Aptamers selected for higher-affinity binding are not more specific for the target ligand

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 128, Issue 24, Pages 7929-7937

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja060952q

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM053936, GM53936] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous study of eleven different in vitro-selected RNA aptamers that bind guanosine triphosphate (GTP) with K(d)s ranging from 8 mu M to 9 nM showed that more information is required to specify the structures of the higher-affinity aptamers. We are interested in understanding how the more complex aptamers achieve higher affinities for the ligand. In vitro selection produces structural solutions to a functional problem that are are as simple as possible in terms of the information content needed to define them. It has long been assumed that the simplest way to improve the affinity of an aptamer is to increase the shape and functional group complementarity of the RNA binding pocket for the ligand. This argument underlies the hypothesis that selection for higher-affinity aptamers automatically leads to structures that bind more specifically to the target molecule. Here, we examined the binding specificities of the eleven GTP aptamers by carrying out competition binding studies with sixteen different chemical analogues of GTP. The aptamers have distinct patterns of specificity, implying that each RNA is a structurally unique solution to the problem of GTP binding. However, these experiments failed to provide evidence that higher-affinity aptamers bind more specifically to GTP. We suggest that the simplest way to improve aptamer K(d)s may be to increase the stability of the RNA tertiary structure with additional intramolecular RNA-RNA interactions; increasingly specific ligand binding may emerge only in response to direct selection for specificity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available