4.5 Article

A complementary pair of rapid molecular screening assays for RecA activities

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 367, 期 2, 页码 247-258

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2007.04.021

关键词

RecA; antibiotic resistance; DNA repair; recombination; high-throughput screen

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM58114, R01 GM058114-05, R01 GM058114-04S1, R01 GM058114-03, R01 GM058114, R01 GM058114-04, R01 GM058114-08, R01 GM058114-07, R01 GM058114-06, R56 GM058114, R01 GM058114-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bacterial RecA protein has been implicated in the evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogens, which is an escalating problem worldwide. The discovery of small molecules that can selectively modulate RecA's activities can be exploited to tease apart its roles in the de novo development and transmission of antibiotic resistance genes. Toward the goal of discovering small-molecule ligands that can prevent either the assembly of an active RecA-DNA filament or its subsequent ATP-dependent motor activities, we report the design and initial validation of a pair of rapid and robust screening assays suitable for the identification of inhibitors of ReCA activities. One assay is based on established methods for monitoring ATPase enzyme activity and the second is a novel assay for RecA-DNA filament assembly using fluorescence polarization. Taken together, the assay results reveal complementary sets of agents that can either suppress selectively only the ATP-driven motor activities of the RecA-DNA filament or prevent assembly of active ReCA-DNA filaments altogether. The screening assays can be readily configured for use in future automated high-throughput screening projects to discover potent inhibitors that may be developed into novel adjuvants for antibiotic chemotherapy that moderate the development and transmission of antibiotic resistance genes and increase the antibiotic therapeutic index. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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