4.8 Article

Repair complexes of FEN1 endonuclease, DNA, and Rad9-Hus1-Rad1 are distinguished from their PCNA counterparts by functionally important stability

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1121116109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. Georgia State University
  3. NSF [MCB-1149521]
  4. National Cancer Institute [P01 CA092584, R01 CA081967]
  5. Cleon C. Arrington research initiation grant
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [1149521] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Processivity clamps such as proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and the checkpoint sliding clamp Rad9/Rad1/Hus1 (9-1-1) act as versatile scaffolds in the coordinated recruitment of proteins involved in DNA replication, cell-cycle control, and DNA repair. Association and handoff of DNA-editing enzymes, such as flap endonuclease 1 (FEN1), with sliding clamps are key processes in biology, which are incompletely understood from a mechanistic point of view. We have used an integrative computational and experimental approach to define the assemblies of FEN1 with double-flap DNA substrates and either proliferating cell nuclear antigen or the checkpoint sliding clamp 9-1-1. Fully atomistic models of these two ternary complexes were developed and refined through extensive molecular dynamics simulations to expose their conformational dynamics. Clustering analysis revealed the most dominant conformations accessible to the complexes. The cluster centroids were subsequently used in conjunction with single-particle electron microscopy data to obtain a 3D EM reconstruction of the human 9-1-1/FEN1/DNAassembly at 18-angstrom resolution. Comparing the structures of the complexes revealed key differences in the orientation and interactions of FEN1 and double-flap DNA with the two clamps that are consistent with their respective functions in providing inherent flexibility for lagging strand DNA replication or inherent stability for DNA repair.

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

4.8
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