4.7 Article

GEN1 from a Thermophilic Fungus Is Functionally Closely Similar to Non-Eukaryotic Junction-Resolving Enzymes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 426, 期 24, 页码 3946-3959

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2014.10.008

关键词

DNA recombination and repair; Holliday junction resolution; Chaetomium thermophilum; FEN1; thermophilic proteins

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [C28/A4959]
  2. Wellcome Trust [0770121Z/05/Z]
  3. BBSRC [BB/E001777/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. EPSRC [EP/J017094/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E001777/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Cancer Research UK [11722] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J017094/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Processing of Holliday junctions is essential in recombination. We have identified the gene for the junction-resolving enzyme GEN1 from the thermophilic fungus Chaetomium thermophilum and expressed the N-terminal 487-amino-acid section. The protein is a nuclease that is highly selective for four-way DNA junctions, cleaving 1 nt 3' to the point of strand exchange on two strands symmetrically disposed about a diagonal axis. CtGEN1 binds to DNA junctions as a discrete homodimer with nanomolar affinity. Analysis of the kinetics of cruciform cleavage shows that cleavage of the second strand occurs an order of magnitude faster than the first cleavage so as to generate a productive resolution event. All these properties are closely similar to those described for bacterial, phage and mitochondrial junction-resolving enzymes. CtGEN1 is also similar in properties to the human enzyme but lacks the problems with aggregation that currently prevent detailed analysis of the latter protein. CtGEN1 is thus an excellent enzyme with which to engage in biophysical and structural analysis of eukaryotic GEN1. (C) 2014 MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.7
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