4.6 Article

Human mismatch repair - Reconstitution of a nick-directed bidirectional reaction

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 280, 期 48, 页码 39752-39761

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M509701200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM045190, GM45190] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bidirectional mismatch repair directed by a strand break located 3' or 5' to the mispair has been reconstituted using seven purified human activities: MutS alpha, MutL alpha, EXOI, replication protein A ( RPA), proliferating cell nuclear antigen ( PCNA), replication factor C ( RFC) and DNA polymerase delta. In addition to DNA polymerase delta, PCNA, RFC, and RPA, 5'-directed repair depends on MutS alpha and EXOI, whereas 3'-directed mismatch correction also requires MutL alpha. The repair reaction displays specificity for DNA polymerase delta, an effect that presumably reflects interactions with other repair activities. Because previous studies have suggested potential involvement of the editing function of a replicative polymerase in mismatch-provoked excision, we have evaluated possible participation of DNA polymerase delta in the excision step of repair. RFC and PCNA dramatically activate polymerase delta-mediated hydrolysis of a primer-template. Nevertheless, the contribution of the polymerase to mismatch-provoked excision is very limited, both in the purified system and in HeLa extracts, as judged by in vitro assay using nicked circular heteroplex DNAs. Thus, excision and repair in the purified system containing polymerase delta are reduced 10-fold upon omission of EXOI or by substitution of a catalytically dead form of the exonuclease. Furthermore, aphidicolin inhibits both 3'- and 5'-directed excision in HeLa nuclear extracts by only 20-30%. Although this modest inhibition could be because of nonspecific effects, it may indicate limited dependence of bidirectional excision on an aphidicolinsensitive DNA polymerase.

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