4.8 Article

Activities of gyrase and topoisomerase IV on positively supercoiled DNA

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 16, 页码 9611-9624

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx649

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Veterans Administration Merit Review Award [I01 Bx002198]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [GM033944, AI81775]
  3. Intramural Research Program of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health [HL001056]
  4. National Science Foundation [DGE-0909667]
  5. NIH [GM033944]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although bacterial gyrase and topoisomerase IV have critical interactions with positively supercoiled DNA, little is known about the actions of these enzymes on overwound substrates. Therefore, the abilities of Bacillus anthracis and Escherichia coli gyrase and topoisomerase IV to relax and cleave positively supercoiled DNA were analyzed. Gyrase removed positive supercoils similar to 10-fold more rapidly and more processively than it introduced negative supercoils into relaxed DNA. In time-resolved singlemolecule measurements, gyrase relaxed overwound DNA with burst rates of similar to 100 supercoils per second (average burst size was 6.2 supercoils). Efficient positive supercoil removal required the GyrAbox, which is necessary for DNA wrapping. Topoisomerase IV also was able to distinguish DNA geometry during strand passage and relaxed positively supercoiled substrates similar to 3-fold faster than negatively supercoiledmolecules. Gyrase maintained lower levels of cleavage complexes with positively supercoiled (compared with negatively supercoiled) DNA, whereas topoisomerase IV generated similar levels with both substrates. Results indicate that gyrase is better suited than topoisomerase IV to safely remove positive supercoils that accumulate ahead of replication forks. They also suggest that the wrapping mechanism of gyrase may have evolved to promote rapid removal of positive supercoils, rather than induction of negative supercoils.

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