4.5 Article

A high-throughput fluorescence polarization anisotropy assay for the 70N domain of replication protein A

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 421, 期 2, 页码 742-749

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2011.11.025

关键词

Cancer; Checkpoint pathways; RPA70N; ATRIP; Fluorescence polarization anisotropy assay; High-throughput screening

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [5DP10D006933, 5RC2CA148375, R01GM065484, PO1CA092584, 5P0CA098131, 5T32ES7028-37]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-CNPq
  3. Federal University of Minas Gerais/Brazil
  4. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
  5. Cancer Research UK [11566] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Replication protein A (RPA) interacts with multiple checkpoint proteins and promotes signaling through the AIR kinase, a key regulator of checkpoint pathways in the mammalian response to DNA damage. In cancer cells, increased DNA repair activity contributes to resistance to chemotherapy. Therefore, small molecules that block binding of checkpoint proteins to RPA may inhibit the DNA damage response and, thus, sensitize cancer cells to DNA-damaging agents. Here we report on the development of a homogeneous, high-throughput fluorescence polarization assay for identifying compounds that block the critical protein-protein interaction site in the basic cleft of the 70N domain of RPA (RPA70N). A fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-labeled peptide derived from the ATR cofactor, ATRIP, was used as a probe in the binding assay. The ability of the assay to accurately detect relevant ligands was confirmed using peptides derived from ATRIP, RAD9, MRE11, and p53. The assay was validated for use in high-throughput screening using the Spectrum collection of 2000 compounds. The FPA assay was performed with Z' factor of >= 0.76 in a 384-well format and identified several compounds capable of inhibiting the RPA70N binding interface. (C) 2011 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