4.6 Article

A Water-Soluble Tetraazaperopyrene Dye as Strong G-Quadruplex DNA Binder

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 22, 期 18, 页码 6314-6322

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201504934

关键词

DNA; docking studies; dyes/pigments; G-quadruplexes

资金

  1. University of Heidelberg
  2. doctoral college Verknupfung molekularer pi-Systeme zu Funktionsmaterialien - Landesgraduiertenforderung of Baden-Wurttemberg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interactions of the water-soluble tetraazaperopyrene dye 1 with ct-DNA, duplex-[(dAdT)(12)center dot(dAdT)(12)], duplex-[(dGdC)(12)center dot(dGdC)(12)] as well as with two G-quadruplex-forming sequences, namely the human telomeric 22AG and the promotor sequence c-myc, were investigated by means of UV/visible and fluorescence spectroscopy, isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) and molecular docking studies. Dye 1 exhibits a high affinity for G-quadruplex structures over duplex DNA structures. Furthermore, the ligand shows promising G-quadruplex discrimination, with an affinity towards c-myc of 2 x 10(7) m(-1) (i.e., K-d = 50 nm), which is higher than for 22AG (4 x 10(6) m(-1)). The ITC data reveal that compound 1 interacts with c-myc in a stoichiometric ratio of 1:1 but also indicate the presence of two identical lower affinity secondary binding sites per quadruplex. In 22AG, there are two high affinity binding sites per quadruplex, that is, one on each side, with a further four weaker binding sites. For both quadruplex structures, the high affinity interactions between compound 1 and the quadruplex-forming nucleic acid structures are weakly endothermic. Molecular docking studies suggest an end-stacking binding mode for compound 1 interacting with quadruplex structures, and a higher affinity for the parallel conformation of c-myc than for the mixed-hybrid conformation of 22AG. In addition, docking studies also suggest that the reduced affinity for duplex DNA structures is due to the non-viability of an intercalative binding mode.

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

4.6
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