4.8 Article

Switch-like compaction of poly(ADP-ribose) upon cation binding

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2215068120

关键词

poly(ADP-ribose); single molecule FRET; persistence length; PAR-binding protein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) is a homopolymer that regulates cellular processes as a posttranslational modification and serves as a scaffold for protein binding in macromolecular complexes. This study demonstrates that PAR has greater stiffness and undergoes sharper compaction in response to cation binding compared to RNA and DNA. The degree of PAR compaction depends on the concentration and valency of cations, and the intrinsically disordered protein FUS can also induce PAR compaction. These findings suggest that a cationic environment may play a role in the recognition specificity of PAR.
Poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) is a homopolymer of adenosine diphosphate ribose that is added to proteins as a posttranslational modification to regulate numerous cellular processes. PAR also serves as a scaffold for protein binding in macromolecular complexes, including biomolecular condensates. It remains unclear how PAR achieves specific molecular recognition. Here, we use single-molecule fluorescence resonance energy transfer (smFRET) to evaluate PAR flexibility under different cation conditions. We demonstrate that, compared to RNA and DNA, PAR has a longer persistence length and undergoes a sharper transition from extended to compact states in physiologically relevant concentrations of various cations (Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+, and spermine4+). We show that the degree of PAR compaction depends on the concentration and valency of cations. Furthermore, the intrinsically disordered protein FUS also served as a macromolecular cation to compact PAR. Taken together, our study reveals the inherent stiffness of PAR molecules, which undergo switch-like compaction in response to cation binding. This study indicates that a cationic environment may drive recognition specificity of PAR.

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