4.7 Article

Why high-error-rate random mutagenesis libraries are enriched in functional and improved proteins

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 350, 期 4, 页码 806-816

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.05.023

关键词

mutagenesis; PCR; optimal mutation rate; Poisson distribution; neutrality

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [5 T32 MH19138] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fraction of proteins that retain wild-type function after mutation has long been observed to decline exponentially as the average number of mutations per gene increases. Recently, several groups have used errorprone polymerase chain reactions (PCR) to generate libraries with 15 to 30 mutations per gene, on average, and have reported that orders of magnitude more proteins retain function than would be expected from the low-mutation-rate trend. Proteins with improved or novel function were isolated disproportionately from these high-error-rate libraries, leading to claims that high mutation rates unlock regions of sequence space that are enriched in positively coupled mutations. Here, we show experimentally that error-prone PCR produces a broader non-Poisson distribution of mutations consistent with a detailed model of PCR. As error rates increase, this distribution leads directly to the observed excesses in functional clones. We then show that while very low mutation rates result in many functional sequences, only a small number are unique. By contrast, very high mutation rates produce mostly unique sequences, but few retain function. Thus an optimal mutation rate exists that balances uniqueness and retention of function. Overall, high-error-rate mutagenesis libraries are enriched in improved sequences because they contain more unique, functional clones. Our findings demonstrate how optimal error-prone PCR mutation rates may be calculated, and indicate that optimal rates depend on both the protein and the mutagenesis protocol. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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