4.7 Article

Contribution of cation-π interactions to the stability of protein-DNA complexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 302, 期 2, 页码 395-410

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4040

关键词

ab initio calculations; quantum mechanics; protein-DNA recognition; analyses of X-ray structures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cation-pi interactions between an aromatic ring and a positive charge located above it have proven to be important in protein structures and biomolecule associations. Here, the role of these interactions at the interface of protein-DNA complexes is investigated, by means of nb initio quantum mechanics energy calculations and X-ray structure analyses. Ab initio energy calculations indicate that Na ions and DNA bases can form stable cation-pi complexes, whose binding strength strongly depends on the type of base, on the position of the Na ion, and whether the base is isolated or included in a double-stranded B-DNA. A survey of protein-DNA complex structures using appropriate geometrical criteria revealed cation-pi interactions in 71% of the complexes. More than half of the cation-pi pairs involve arginine residues, about one-third asparagine or glutamine residues that only carry a partial charge, and one-seventh lysine residues. The most frequently observed pair, which is also the most stable as monitored by ab initio energy calculations, is arginine-guanine. Arginine-adenine interactions are also favorable in general, although to a lesser extent, whereas those with thymine and cytosine are not. Our calculations show that the major contribution to cation-pi interactions with DNA bases is of electrostatic nature. These interactions often occur concomitantly with hydrogen bonds with adjacent bases; their strength is estimated to be from three to four times lower than that of hydrogen bonds. Finally, the role of cation-pi interactions in the stability and specificity of protein-DNA complexes is discussed. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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