4.6 Article

Dissecting APOBEC3G Substrate Specificity by Nucleoside Analog Interference

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 284, 期 11, 页码 7047-7058

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M807258200

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health staff

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like (APOBEC) cytidine deaminase genes encode a set of enzymes including APOBEC1(A1), APOBEC2(A2), APOBEC4 (A4), and APOBEC3A-H (A3A-H). Although each possesses one or more zinc binding motifs conserved among enzymes catalyzing C -> U conversion, the functions and substrate specificities of these gene products vary considerably. For example, although two closely related enzymes, A3F and A3G, both restrict HIV-1 infection in strains deficient in virus infectivity factor (vif), A3F selectively deaminates cytosine within 5'-TTCA-3' motifs in single stranded DNA, whereas A3G targets 5'-CCCA-3' sequences. In the present study we have used nucleoside analog interference mapping to probe A3G-DNA interactions throughout the enzyme-substrate complex as well as to determine which DNA structural features determine substrate specificity. Our results indicate that multiple components of nucleosides within the consensus sequence are important for substrate recognition by A3G (with base moieties being most critical), whereas deamination interference by analog substitution outside this region is minimal. Furthermore, exocyclic groups in pyrimidines 1-2 nucleotides 5' of the target cytosine were shown to dictate substrate recognition by A3G, with chemical composition at ring positions 3 and 4 found to be more important than at ring position 5. Taken together, these results provide insights into how the enzyme selects A3G hotspot motifs for deamination as well as which approaches might be best suited for forming a stable, catalytically competent crosslinked A3G-DNA complex for future structural studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据