4.5 Article

Portal motor velocity and internal force resisting viral DNA packaging in bacteriophage phi 29

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 159-167

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.107.104612

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL &CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R37DE003606, R01DE003606] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM071552] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE-03606, R01 DE003606] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM-071552, T32 GM008326, R01 GM071552] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the assembly of many viruses, a powerful molecular motor compacts the genome into a preassembled capsid. Here, we present measurements of viral DNA packaging in bacteriophage phi 29 using an improved optical tweezers method that allows DNA translocation to be measured from initiation to completion. This method allowed us to study the previously uncharacterized early stages of packaging and facilitated more accurate measurement of the length of DNA packaged. We measured the motor velocity versus load at near-zero filling and developed a ramped DNA stretching technique that allowed us to measure the velocity versus capsid filling at near-zero load. These measurements reveal that the motor can generate significantly higher velocities and forces than detected previously. Toward the end of packaging, the internal force resisting DNA confinement rises steeply, consistent with the trend predicted by many theoretical models. However, the force rises to a higher magnitude, particularly during the early stages of packaging, than predicted by models that assume coaxial inverse spooling of the DNA. This finding suggests that the DNA is not arranged in that conformation during the early stages of packaging and indicates that internal force is available to drive complete genome ejection in vitro. The maximum force exceeds 100 pN, which is about one-half that predicted to rupture the capsid shell.

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