4.6 Article

Asymmetric Distyrylpyridinium Dyes as Red-Emitting Fluorescent Probes for Quadruplex DNA

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 1214-1226

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201203710

关键词

DNA recognition; dyes; pigments; electrophoresis; fluorescent probes; quadruplex DNA

资金

  1. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interactions of three cationic distyryl dyes, namely 2,4-bis(4-dimethylaminostyryl)-1-methylpyridinium (1?a), its derivative with a quaternary aminoalkyl chain (1?b), and the symmetric 2,6-bis(4-dimethylaminostyryl)-1-methylpyridinium (2?a), with several quadruplex and duplex nucleic acids were studied with the aim to establish the influence of the geometry of the dyes on their DNA-binding and DNA-probing properties. The results from spectrofluorimetric titrations and thermal denaturation experiments provide evidence that asymmetric (2,4-disubstituted) dyes 1?a and 1?b bind to quadruplex DNA structures with a near-micromolar affinity and a fair selectivity with respect to double-stranded (ds) DNA [Ka(G4)/Ka(ds)=2.58.4]. At the same time, the fluorescence of both dyes is selectively increased in the presence of quadruplex DNAs (more than 80100-fold in the case of human telomeric quadruplex), even in the presence of an excess of competing double-stranded DNA. This optical selectivity allows these dyes to be used as quadruplex-DNA-selective probes in solution and stains in polyacrylamide gels. In contrast, the symmetric analogue 2?a displays a strong binding preference for double-stranded DNA [Ka(ds)/Ka(G4)=40100), presumably due to binding in the minor groove. In addition, 2?a is not able to discriminate between quadruplex and duplex DNA, as its fluorescence is increased equally well (2050-fold) in the presence of both structures. This study emphasizes and rationalizes the strong impact of subtle structural variations on both DNA-recognition properties and fluorimetric response of organic dyes.

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