4.5 Review

RNase H activity: Structure, specificity, and function in reverse transcription

期刊

VIRUS RESEARCH
卷 134, 期 1-2, 页码 86-103

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2007.12.007

关键词

RNase H; reverse transcriptase; human immunodeficiency virus; type 1 (HIV-1); Moloney murine leukemia virus (MoMLV); reverse transcription; polypurine tract (PPT)

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA51605, R01 CA051605, R37 CA051605, R01 CA051605-18] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review compares the well-studied RNase H activities of human immunodeficiency virus, type I (HIV-1) and Moloney murine leukemia virus (MoMLV) reverse transcriptases. The RNase H domains of HIV-1 and MoMLV are structurally very similar, with functions assigned to conserved subregions like the RNase H primer grip and the connection subdomain, as well as to distinct features like the C-helix and loop in MoMLV RNase H. Like cellular RNases H, catalysis by the retroviral enzymes appears to involve a two-metal ion mechanism. Unlike cellular RNases H, the retroviral RNases H display three different modes of cleavage: internal, DNA 3' end-directed, and RNA 5' end-directed. All three modes of cleavage appear to have roles in reverse transcription. Nucleotide sequence is an important determinant of cleavage specificity with both enzymes exhibiting a preference for specific nucleotides at discrete positions flanking an internal cleavage site as well as during tRNA primer removal and plus-strand primer generation. RNA 5' end-directed and DNA 3' end-directed cleavages show similar sequence preferences at the positions closest to a cleavage site. A model for how RNase H selects cleavage sites is presented that incorporates both sequence preferences and the concept of a defined window for allowable cleavage from a recessed end. Finally, the RNase H activity of HIV-1 is considered as a target for anti-virals as well as a participant in drug resistance. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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