Volume 5, Issue 8, Pages (August 1997)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Advertisements

Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages (January 1998)
Munirathinam Sundaramoorthy, James Terner, Thomas L Poulos  Structure 
Crystal structure of vancomycin
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages (November 2003)
Structural Basis for Cooperativity in Recruitment of MAML Coactivators to Notch Transcription Complexes  Yunsun Nam, Piotr Sliz, Luyan Song, Jon C. Aster,
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages (November 2002)
Structure of the Guanidine III Riboswitch
Structural Basis of DNA Recognition by p53 Tetramers
C60 Binds to and Deforms Nucleotides
Beyond the “Recognition Code”
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (October 2005)
Volume 3, Issue 6, Pages (June 1995)
Structures of Mismatch Replication Errors Observed in a DNA Polymerase
Encapsulating Streptomycin within a Small 40-mer RNA
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages (July 2006)
Structure of the Replicating Complex of a Pol α Family DNA Polymerase
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Volume 85, Issue 7, Pages (June 1996)
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages (April 1999)
Crystal structure of vancomycin
Encapsulating Streptomycin within a Small 40-mer RNA
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages (December 2001)
Hydration and DNA Recognition by Homeodomains
Volume 2, Issue 6, Pages (June 1994)
Crystal Structure at 2.8 Å of an FcRn/Heterodimeric Fc Complex
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Structure of the E. coli DNA Glycosylase AlkA Bound to the Ends of Duplex DNA: A System for the Structure Determination of Lesion-Containing DNA  Brian.
Volume 94, Issue 4, Pages (August 1998)
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages (November 1999)
Munirathinam Sundaramoorthy, James Terner, Thomas L Poulos  Structure 
Recognition of a TG Mismatch
Crystal Structure of a Y-Family DNA Polymerase in Action
Hong Ye, Young Chul Park, Mara Kreishman, Elliott Kieff, Hao Wu 
Quentin Vicens, Eric Westhof  Structure 
Andrew H. Huber, W.James Nelson, William I. Weis  Cell 
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (May 2008)
Structural Elements of an Orphan Nuclear Receptor–DNA Complex
Structural Insights into Ligand Recognition by a Sensing Domain of the Cooperative Glycine Riboswitch  Lili Huang, Alexander Serganov, Dinshaw J. Patel 
Volume 89, Issue 4, Pages (October 2005)
Qian Steven Xu, Rebecca B. Kucera, Richard J. Roberts, Hwai-Chen Guo 
Elizabeth J. Little, Andrea C. Babic, Nancy C. Horton  Structure 
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages (January 2002)
Structure of the DNA-Bound T-Box Domain of Human TBX3, a Transcription Factor Responsible for Ulnar-Mammary Syndrome  Miquel Coll, Jonathan G Seidman,
Structure of the Catalytic Domain of Human DOT1L, a Non-SET Domain Nucleosomal Histone Methyltransferase  Jinrong Min, Qin Feng, Zhizhong Li, Yi Zhang,
Volume 95, Issue 7, Pages (December 1998)
Volume 66, Issue 5, Pages e3 (June 2017)
Volume 6, Issue 7, Pages (July 1998)
Crystal Structure of the p53 Core Domain Bound to a Full Consensus Site as a Self- Assembled Tetramer  Yongheng Chen, Raja Dey, Lin Chen  Structure  Volume.
Yi Mo, Benjamin Vaessen, Karen Johnston, Ronen Marmorstein 
Sundeep S. Deol, Peter J. Bond, Carmen Domene, Mark S.P. Sansom 
The basis for K-Ras4B binding specificity to protein farnesyl-transferase revealed by 2 Å resolution ternary complex structures  Stephen B Long, Patrick.
The structure of an RNA dodecamer shows how tandem U–U base pairs increase the range of stable RNA structures and the diversity of recognition sites 
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2002)
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2000)
Crystal Structure of SRP19 in Complex with the S Domain of SRP RNA and Its Implication for the Assembly of the Signal Recognition Particle  Chris Oubridge,
The structure of the C-terminal domain of methionine synthase: presenting S- adenosylmethionine for reductive methylation of B12  Melinda M Dixon, Sha.
Structural Basis for Specificity in the Poxvirus Topoisomerase
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages (April 2003)
Neali Armstrong, Eric Gouaux  Neuron 
Crystal Structures of the Thi-Box Riboswitch Bound to Thiamine Pyrophosphate Analogs Reveal Adaptive RNA-Small Molecule Recognition  Thomas E. Edwards,
Carl C. Correll, Betty Freeborn, Peter B. Moore, Thomas A. Steitz  Cell 
Structure of BamHI Bound to Nonspecific DNA
The 2.0 å structure of a cross-linked complex between snowdrop lectin and a branched mannopentaose: evidence for two unique binding modes  Christine Schubert.
Volume 87, Issue 7, Pages (December 1996)
Structure of a HoxB1–Pbx1 Heterodimer Bound to DNA
Peter König, Rafael Giraldo, Lynda Chapman, Daniela Rhodes  Cell 
Structural Basis for Cooperativity in Recruitment of MAML Coactivators to Notch Transcription Complexes  Yunsun Nam, Piotr Sliz, Luyan Song, Jon C. Aster,
Structural Basis for Activation of ARF GTPase
Andrey V Kajava, Gilbert Vassart, Shoshana J Wodak  Structure 
Presentation transcript:

Volume 5, Issue 8, Pages 1033-1046 (August 1997) Defining GC-specificity in the minor groove: side-by-side binding of the di-imidazole lexitropsin to C-A-T-G-G-C-C-A-T-G  Mary L Kopka, David S Goodsell, Gye Won Han, Thang Kien Chiu, JW Lown, Richard E Dickerson  Structure  Volume 5, Issue 8, Pages 1033-1046 (August 1997) DOI: 10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4

Figure 1 Molecular structure and nomenclature of netropsin, distamycin and two lexitropsin derivatives. Shorthand designations below names are explained in text. Rings and amide groups are numbered separately from left to right, the conventional –NH–(Py/Im)–CO–‘forward’ direction of the polypeptide backbone. Note that 2-imidazole netropsin differs from distamycin by substitution of imidazole (•) for pyrrole (○) at ring number 1, and by the absence of a leading amide group (=). All four have a cationic tail (+), but only netropsin also has a cationic head group at its left end. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 2 Superposition of TA on AT and CG on GC base pairs on their C1′ atoms. The upper edge of each base pair builds the major groove and the lower edge builds the minor groove. Black dots are sugar C1′ atoms, small open circles are nitrogens, large open circles are oxygens and ∗ = thymine methyl. (a) AT base pair (solid bonds) superimposed on TA (open bonds). (b) GC (solid) over CG (open). Arrowheads point to O and N hydrogen-bond acceptors and away from –NH2 hydrogen-bond donors, as observed by Seeman et al. in 1976 [57]. Note that hydrogen-bonding positions in the minor groove nearly coincide following base pair reversal, making it intrinsically difficult to detect base pair reversals via minor groove ligands. In contrast, hydrogen-bond donors and acceptors and the thymine methyl in the major groove occupy radically different positions following base pair reversal, permitting easy discrimination of base pair orientation by major groove probes. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 3 Stereo views of the complex of the di-imidazole lexitropsin, oIm–Im+ or = • = • = +, in a 2:1 complex with C-A-T-G-G-C-C-A-T-G. Minor groove filled with two drug molecules below; empty major groove above. (a) DNA is shown in yellow stick bonds, with red bonds for the two guanine nucleosides that are specifically recognized by the drug. Two drug molecules are stacked in opposite directions down the groove, with ○shown in red, C in dark blue and N in light blue. Note how the imidazole rings of one drug stack against amide groups of the other drug, not against that drug's imidazoles. (b) Skeletal drawing of the complex from the same orientation, showing base numbering. Green dashed lines are close non-bonded van der Waals contacts. Red dotted lines mark hydrogen bonds, with extra emphasis on the two bonds involving imidazole nitrogens. (These same bonds are seen more clearly in Figure 5.) Drug molecule DIM1 is to the right, packed against the C7A8T9G10 region of helix stand 1. DIM2 is to the left, packed against the G14G15C16C17 region of strand 2. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 4 Unrolled-helix representation of drug binding within the minor groove of B-DNA (left), along with a convenient typographic representation (right). ○represents a pyrrole ring and • an imidazole or in some cases it represents a pyridine ring in the first position. An –CO–NH–amide is represented as = and + is a positively charged tail. Diagonal lines in typographic representation (right) indicate the plane of base pairs, and the helix axis is normal to these. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 5 Closeup views of single strand recognition by individual lexitropsin molecules. Hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions as in Figure 3b. (a) Sequence-specific reading of G14G15C16C17 by DIM2. Orientation as in Figure 3. Backbone chain runs from G14 at lower left to A18 at upper right. (b) Nonspecific reading of C7A8T9G10 by DIM1. View of Figure 3b is inverted to place backbone and drug in comparable orientations to (a). Backbone chain runs from C7 at lower left to G10 at upper right. In both drug molecules, each amide NH is hydrogen bonded (thin red dashed lines) to a N or O on a base edge. Each imidazole N in (a) is hydrogen bonded to a guanine amine (thick red dashed lines) and also packed in close contact against the O4′ of a sugar ring. In (b), imidazole hydrogen bonds are replaced by van der Waals contacts (green dashed lines) and the stacking of drug rings against sugar rings is less orderly. Nitrogen atoms in the drug are colored in blue. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 6 Unrolled ladder schematics of netropsin and di-imidazole lexitropsin. (a) Netropsin in its 1:1 complex with C-G-C-G-A-A-T-T-C-G-C-G [1–3]. (b) Di-imidazole lexitropsin in its 2:1 complex with C-A-T-G-G-C-C-A-T-G (this work). Hydrogen bonds are indicated by dotted lines, and their lengths for di-imidazole lexitropsin are given in Table 2. Netropsin bond lengths in Å are a = 3.3, b = 3.5, c = 2.6, d = 2.6, e = 3.2 and f = 2.8. In both this structure and the 2:1 distamycin complexes with I-C-I-C-I-C-I-C [20,21], one further refinement of the model is necessary. Each drug molecule is pushed ‘downstream’ along its DNA strand by roughly one quarter of a base pair repeat, in a direction that shortens hydrogen bonds from drug amides to base pair N and O. It remains true, however, that a base pair has associated with it one ring from each drug molecule, as the central G14/Im,Im/C7 shown here. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 7 Structural basis for the ability of imidazole to discriminate between GC and CG base pairs. Imidazole rings from DIM2 (left) and DIM1 (right) are held at fixed distances from the GC base pair. DIM2 can sense the presence of guanine via an hydrogen bond (g) to the N2 amine of guanine 14, one of whose H atoms points directly at the imidazole by virtue of sp2 hybridization at the amine nitrogen. DIM1, on the other side of the minor groove, is farther from the N2 atom, and is badly oriented relative to the amine hydrogens. Critical N–N distances in Å from Table 2 are g = 3.21, i = 3.46, d = 2.80 and a = 2.94. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 8 Difference maps and drug positioning. (a) (F0–Fc) map of DIM1 on strand 1, contoured at 1.2σ. (b) (F0–Fc) map of DIM2 on strand 2, contoured at 1.2σ. These were the first difference maps on which the entire drug molecule –three-ring core and flexible tail –was clearly defined. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)

Figure 9 Difference maps and drug positioning. (a) Final (2Fo–Fc) map after refinement of DIM1 on strand 1, contoured at 0.9σ. (b) Final refined (2Fo–Fc) map of DIM2 on strand 2, contoured at 0.9σ. Structure 1997 5, 1033-1046DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00255-4)