4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Investigation of the electrostatic and hydration properties of DNA minor groove-binding by a heterocyclic diamidine by osmotic pressure

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 231, 期 -, 页码 95-104

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpc.2017.02.008

关键词

Osmotic pressure; Drug/DNA interactions; Co-solute; Heterocyclic dications; Molecular hydration; Wyman linkages

资金

  1. NSF [MCB 15451600]
  2. NIH [R21 HL129063]
  3. University Assistantship Program at Georgia State University
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [1545160] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous investigations of sequence-specific DNA binding by model minor groove-binding compounds showed that the ligand/DNA complex was destabilized in the presence of compatible co-solutes. Inhibition was interpreted in terms of osmotic stress theory as the uptake of significant numbers of excess water molecules from bulk solvent upon complex formation. Here, we interrogated the AT-specific DNA complex formed with the symmetric heterocyclic diamidine DB1976 as a model for minor groove DNA recognition using both ionic (NaCl) and non-ionic cosolutes (ethylene glycol, glycine betaine, maltose, nicotinamide, urea). While the non-ionic cosolutes all destabilized the ligand/DNA complex, their quantitative effects were heterogeneous in a cosolute- and salt-dependent manner. Perturbation with NaCl in the absence of non-ionic cosolute showed that preferential hydration water was released upon formation of the DB1976/DNA complex. As salt probes counter-ion release from charged groups such as the DNA backbone, we propose that the preferential hydration uptake in DB1976/DNA binding observed in the presence of osmolytes reflects the exchange of preferentially bound cosolute with hydration water in the environs of the bound DNA, rather than a net uptake of hydration waters by the complex. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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