4.8 Article

Lanthanide ions as required cofactors for DNA catalysts

期刊

CHEMICAL SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 5, 页码 1707-1714

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2sc01067d

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM065966, T32 GM070421]
  2. Defense Threat Reduction Agency [HDTRA1-09-1-0011]
  3. National Science Foundation [0842534]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Chemistry [0842534] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report that micromolar concentrations of lanthanide ions can be required cofactors for DNA-hydrolyzing deoxyribozymes. Previous work identified deoxyribozymes that simultaneously require both Zn2+ and Mn2+ to achieve DNA-catalyzed DNA hydrolysis (10 12 rate enhancement); a mutant of one such DNA catalyst requires only Zn2+. Here we show that in vitro selection in the presence of 10 mu M lanthanide ion (Ce3+, Eu3+, or Yb3+) along with 1 mM Zn2+ leads to numerous DNA-hydrolyzing deoxyribozymes that strictly require the lanthanide ion as well as Zn2+ for catalytic activity. These DNA catalysts have a range of lanthanide dependences, including some deoxyribozymes that strongly favor one particular lanthanide ion (e.g., Ce3+ >> Eu3+ >> Yb3+) and others that function well with more than one lanthanide ion. Intriguingly, two of the Yb3+-dependent deoxyribozymes function well with Yb3+ alone (Kd,app similar to 10 mM, in the absence of Zn2+) and have little or no activity with Eu3+ or Ce3+. In contrast to these selection outcomes when lanthanide ions were present, new selections with Zn2+ or Mn2+ alone, or Zn2+ with Mg2+/Ca2+, led primarily to deoxyribozymes that cleave DNA by deglycosylation and beta-elimination rather than by hydrolysis, including several instances of depyrimidination. We conclude that lanthanide ions warrant closer attention as cofactors when identifying new nucleic acid catalysts, especially for applications in which high concentrations of polyvalent metal ion cofactors are undesirable.

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