4.4 Article

The ionic environment determines ribozyme cleavage rate by modulation of nucleobase pK(a)

期刊

RNA
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 1942-1949

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1261/rna.1102308

关键词

ribozyme mechanism; metal ions; general acid-base catalysis; pk(a); kinetic ambiguity

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [MOP-12837]
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several small ribozymes employ general acid-base catalysis as a mechanism to enhance site-specific RNA cleavage, even though the functional groups on the ribonucleoside building blocks of RNA have pK(a) values far removed from physiological pH. The rate of the cleavage reaction is strongly affected by the identity of the metal cation present in the reaction solution; however, the mechanism(s) by which different cations contribute to rate enhancement has not been determined. Using the Neurospora VS ribozyme, we provide evidence that different cations confer particular shifts in the apparent pK(a) values of the catalytic nucleobases, which in turn determines the fraction of RNA in the protonation state competent for general acid-base catalysis at a given pH, which determines the observed rate of the cleavage reaction. Despite large differences in observed rates of cleavage in different cations, mathematical models of general acid-base catalysis indicate that k(1), the intrinsic rate of the bond-breaking step, is essentially constant irrespective of the identity of the cation(s) in the reaction solution. Thus, in contrast to models that invoke unique roles for metal ions in ribozyme chemical mechanisms, we find that most, and possibly all, of the ion-specific rate enhancement in the VS ribozyme can be explained solely by the effect of the ions on nucleobase pk(a). The inference that k(1) is essentially constant suggests a resolution of the problem of kinetic ambiguity in favor of a model in which the lower pK(a) is that of the general acid and the higher pk(a) is that of the general base.

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

4.4
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