4.8 Article

Natural and engineered nicking endonucleases-from cleavage mechanism to engineering of strand-specificity

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 1-18

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq742

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01GM49857, NIH RL1 CA833133]
  2. New England Biolabs, Inc.
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [RL1CA133833] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM049857] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Restriction endonucleases (REases) are highly specific DNA scissors that have facilitated the development of modern molecular biology. Intensive studies of double strand (ds) cleavage activity of Type IIP REases, which recognize 4-8 bp palindromic sequences, have revealed a variety of mechanisms of molecular recognition and catalysis. Less well-studied are REases which cleave only one of the strands of dsDNA, creating a nick instead of a ds break. Naturally occurring nicking endonucleases (NEases) range from frequent cutters such as Nt.CviPII (boolean AND CCD; boolean AND denotes the cleavage site) to rare-cutting homing endonucleases (HEases) such as I-HmuI. In addition to these bona fida NEases, individual subunits of some heterodimeric Type IIS REases have recently been shown to be natural NEases. The discovery and characterization of more REases that recognize asymmetric sequences, particularly Types IIS and IIA REases, has revealed recognition and cleavage mechanisms drastically different from the canonical Type IIP mechanisms, and has allowed researchers to engineer highly strand-specific NEases. Monomeric LAGLIDADG HEases use two separate catalytic sites for cleavage. Exploitation of this characteristic has also resulted in useful nicking HEases. This review aims at providing an overview of the cleavage mechanisms of Types IIS and IIA REases and LAGLIDADG HEases, the engineering of their nicking variants, and the applications of NEases and nicking HEases.

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

4.8
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