4.8 Article

RNA-binding specificity landscapes of designer pentatricopeptide repeat proteins elucidate principles of PPR-RNA interactions

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 2613-2623

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx1288

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [MCB-1243641]
  2. National Institutes of Health [T32-GM007759]
  3. University of Oregon
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1243641] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM007759] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) proteins are helical-repeat proteins that offer a promising scaffold for the engineering of proteins to bind specified RNAs. PPR tracts bind RNA in a modular 1-repeat, 1-nucleotide fashion. An amino acid code specifying the bound nucleotide has been elucidated. However, this code does not fully explain the sequence specificity of native PPR proteins. Furthermore, it does not address nuances such as the contribution toward binding affinity of various repeat-nucleotide pairs or the impact of mismatches between a repeat and aligning nucleotide. We used an in vitro bind-n-seq approach to describe the population of sequences bound by four artificial PPR proteins built from consensus scaffolds. The specificity of these proteins can be accounted for by canonical code-based nucleotide recognition. The results show, however, that interactions near the 3'-end of binding sites make less contribution to binding affinity than do those near the 5'-end, that proteins with 11 and 14 repeats exhibit similar affinity for their intended targets but 14-repeats aremore permissive formismatches, and that purine-binding repeats are less tolerant of transversion mismatches than are pyrimidine-binding motifs. These findings have implications for mechanisms that establish PPR-RNA interactions and for optimizing PPR design to minimize off-target interactions.

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