4.6 Article

Coordination of steps in single-nucleotide base excision repair mediated by apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1 and DNA polymerase β

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 282, 期 18, 页码 13532-13541

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M611295200

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 ES050158-11] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The individual steps in single-nucleotide base excision repair (SN-BER) are coordinated to enable efficient repair without accumulation of cytotoxic DNA intermediates. The DNA transactions and various proteins involved in SN-BER of abasic sites are well known in mammalian systems. Yet, despite a wealth of information on SN-BER, the mechanism of step-by-step coordination is poorly understood. In this study we conducted experiments toward understanding step-by-step coordination during BER by comparing DNA binding specificities of two major human SN-BER enzymes, apurinic/aprymidinic endonuclease 1 (APE) and DNA polymerase beta (Pol beta). It is known that these enzymes do not form a stable complex in solution. For each enzyme, we found that DNA binding specificity appeared sufficient to explain the sequential processing of BER intermediates. In addition, however, we identified at higher enzyme concentrations a ternary complex of APE center dot Pol beta center dot DNA that formed specifically at BER intermediates containing a 5'-deoxyribose phosphate group. Formation of this ternary complex was associated with slightly stronger Pol beta gap-filling and much stronger 5'-deoxyribose phosphate lyase activities than was observed with the Pol beta center dot DNA binary complex. These results indicate that step-by step coordination in SN-BER can rely on DNA binding specificity inherent in APE and Pol beta, although coordination also may be facilitated by APE center dot Pol beta center dot DNA ternary complex formation with appropriate enzyme expression levels or enzyme recruitment to sites of repair.

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

4.6
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