4.8 Article

Identification and analysis of recombineering functions from Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria and their phages

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0709089105

关键词

bacteriophage lambda; beta; oligonucleotide recombination; RecT; ssDNA annealing proteins

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the identification and functional analysis of nine genes from Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and their phages that are similar to lambda (lambda) bet or Escherichia coli recT. Beta and RecT are single-strand DNA annealing proteins, referred to here as recombinases. Each of the nine other genes when expressed in E. coli carries out oligonucleotide-mediated recombination. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing single-strand recombinase activity from diverse bacteria. Similar to bet and recT, most of these other recombinases were found to be associated with putative exonuclease genes. Beta and RecT in conjunction with their cognate exonucleases carry out recombination of linear double-strand DNA. Among four of these foreign recombinase/exonuclease pairs tested for recombination with double-strand DNA, three had activity, albeit barely detectable. Thus, although these recombinases can function in E. coli to catalyze oligonucleotide recombination, the double-strand DNA recombination activities with their exonuclease partners were inefficient. This study also demonstrated that Gam, by inhibiting host RecBCD nuclease activity, helps to improve the efficiency of x Red-mediated recombination with linear double-strand DNA, but Gam is not absolutely essential. Thus, in other bacterial species where Gam analogs have not been identified, double-strand DNA recombination may still work in the absence of a Gam-like function. We anticipate that at least some of the recombineering systems studied here will potentiate oligonucleotide and double-strand DNA-mediated recombineering in their native or related bacteria.

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