J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 45, 32265-32273, November 5, 1999
Identification of the RNA Binding Domain of T4 RegA Protein by
Structure-based Mutagenesis*
Johnthan
Gordon
§,
Tapas K.
Sengupta
,
Christine A.
Phillips
¶,
Shawn M.
O'Malley
,
Kenneth R.
Williams
**
, and
Eleanor K.
Spicer
§§
From the
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South
Carolina 29425 and the ** Howard Hughes Medical Institute and
Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut 06510
 |
ABSTRACT |
The T4 translational repressor RegA protein folds
into two structural domains, as revealed by the crystal structure
(Kang, C.-H., Chan, R., Berger, I., Lockshin, C., Green, L., Gold, L., and Rich, A. (1995) Science 268, 1170-1173). Domain I of
the RegA protein contains a four-stranded
-sheet and two
-helices. Domain II contains a four-stranded
-sheet and an
unusual 3/10 helix. Since
-sheet residues play a role in a number of
protein-RNA interactions, one or both of the
-sheet regions in RegA
protein may be involved in RNA binding. To test this possibility,
mutagenesis of residues on both
-sheets was performed, and the
effects on the RNA binding affinities of RegA protein were measured.
Additional sites for mutagenesis were selected from molecular modeling
of RegA protein. The RNA binding affinities of three purified mutant RegA proteins were evaluated by fluorescence quenching equilibrium binding assays. The activities of the remainder of the mutant proteins
were evaluated by quantitative RNA gel mobility shift assays using
lysed cell supernatants. The results of this mutagenesis study ruled
out the participation of
-sheet residues. Instead, the RNA binding
site was found to be a surface pocket formed by residues on two loops
and an
-helix. Thus, RegA protein appears to use a unique structural
motif in binding RNA, which may be related to its unusual RNA
recognition properties.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The bacteriophage T4 RegA protein is a unique translational
repressor in that it is able to regulate the expression of 15-30 T4
genes, including its own. Previous studies have demonstrated that RegA
protein binds to the translation initiation region of target mRNAs
(1, 2) and inhibits the formation of ribosome-mRNA initiation
complexes (1, 3). Although the RegA recognition element
(RE)1 has been studied in
detail in two genes, gene 44 (2, 4) and the rIIB gene (1, 5), and has
been mapped by RNase protection assays in three other mRNAs (3), it
is not completely clear what common RNA features allow RegA to
recognize its diverse targets.
The solution of the crystal structure of RegA protein by Kang and
co-workers (6) has allowed for inspection of potential RNA binding
domains and for comparison of RegA to the structures of other known
RNA-binding proteins. Although RegA protein exists as a dimer in
crystals (6) and in solution at moderate concentrations (7), it binds
to a 16-mer RNA corresponding to the gene 44 RE as a monomer
(7). Within the RegA monomer, shown in Fig. 1, there are two structural
domains. Domain I consists of a four-stranded
-sheet (
6,
1,
5, and
4) and two
-helices (helix A and helix C). Domain II
consists of a second four-stranded
-sheet (
2,
3,
9, and
8) adjacent to an unusual 3/10 helix (helix D). Although photocross-linking (8), partial proteolysis (9), and truncation studies
(9) have been performed on RegA protein, a definitive localization of
the RNA binding site on RegA has not been achieved.
In considering where RNA might bind on RegA protein, Kang et
al. (6) noted that
-sheets often are important contributors to
RNA recognition. For example, a
-pleated sheet in glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase plays a role in binding the anti-codon region of
tRNAGln (10), and residues in the MS2 coat protein that
participate in sequence-specific RNA binding lie on
-strands within
an extended 10-stranded
-sheet in the protein dimer (11). A
-sheet also plays a critical role in the binding of U1 RNA to the
small nuclear ribonucleoprotein U1A protein (12). U1A binds to
stem-loop II of U1 RNA through interactions between loop nucleotides
and residues on the central two
-strands of a four-stranded
-sheet. The central
-strands contain the two highly conserved RNP
consensus sequences (RNP-1 and RNP-2) found in over 100 RNA-binding
proteins (13, 14) (see Fig. 1). As noted by Kang and co-workers (6),
two strands of the four-stranded
-sheet in domain I of RegA protein exhibit sequence similarities to RNP-1 and RNP-2 (including aromatic residues on
5), suggesting that this region may participate in RNA
binding. Further, U1A protein has basic residues in two loops at the
base of the
-sheet, referred to as "jaws," which interact with
the backbone of the U1 RNA hairpin. RegA protein also has two pairs of
basic residues (Lys7 and Lys8;
Lys41 and Lys42) in loops at the base of the
-sheet (see Fig. 1), which could be envisioned to function in
binding RNA.
Although domain II of RegA protein does not exhibit structural
similarity with any known RNA binding protein, there is experimental evidence suggesting that domain II residues contribute significantly to
RNA binding. For example, the site of photocross-linking of RegA
protein to nucleic acid was found to be Phe106 (8), which
lies within domain II. Also, removal of 13 or 17 residues from the C
terminus of RegA (located in domain II) resulted in 100-1000-fold
reductions in RNA binding affinity (9). Finally, partial proteolysis of
RegA protein, which leads to cleavage at three sites in the C-terminal
domain, is reduced by RNA binding (9).
In addition to the above experimental observations and the observed
similarities of RegA protein with other RNA-binding proteins, the fact
that RegA protein is small (14.6 kDa) and binds to a relatively large
binding site size on RNA (
12 nucleotides) (4) suggests that residues
involved in RNA binding may span both domains of the protein. In fact,
Kang et al. (6) have suggested that the two
-sheet
regions, which are 25 Å apart, may both participate in RNA binding. To
test this possibility, site-specific mutagenesis of surface residues in
both domains I and II of RegA protein was performed. Basic and aromatic
residues were particularly targeted, since they have been found to play
important roles in a number of protein-RNA complexes (11, 15). Ten
residues that lie within the central
-strands and
-loop regions
of domain I were mutated, and the resulting proteins were assayed for
RNA binding in vitro. In addition, residues within
-sheet
A of domain II were mutated to test for their contribution to RNA
binding. During the course of these studies, molecular models of RegA
protein were generated to examine surface regions for potential RNA
binding pockets and to determine whether residues to be mutated are
located at the surface or in the core of the folded protein. These
models revealed the presence of a pocket and a deep cleft at opposite
sides of the interface between domains I and II. Subsequent mutagenesis was performed to test the potential role of these two regions in RNA
binding. Taken together, the results of these mutagenesis and modeling
studies have ruled out the participation of a number of proposed
functional residues, revealing instead an unexpected site for RNA
binding on RegA protein.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Reagents and Strains--
Oligodeoxyribonucleotides were
synthesized on an Expedite (model 8909) nucleic acid synthesizer by the
Medical University of South Carolina Oligosynthesis Facility.
Oligoribonucleotides were synthesized by the W. M. Keck Foundation
Biotechnology Resource Laboratory (Yale University) and were
deprotected as described previously (16) and then purified by perfusion
chromatography using PorosTM HQ and R1 columns (PerSeptive
Biosciences), essentially as described (16). Poly(U) and
poly(U)-agarose were purchased from Amersham Pharmacia Biotech.
Escherichia coli AR120 (
cI+, N+)
was obtained from A. Shatzman (Smith, Klein and French); construction of pAS1regA was described previously (2).
RegA Mutagenesis--
Site-directed mutagenesis of residues
Lys7, Lys8, Lys16,
Lys41, Lys42, Tyr45, and
Tyr46 was carried out by annealing mutagenic
oligonucleotides (33-42 nucleotides in length) to a double-stranded
plasmid carrying the wild type (WT) regA gene
(pAS1regA) (2) as described previously (7). The remainder
of the mutations were introduced by the Quik-ChangeTM
Site-Directed Mutagenesis protocol (Stratagene). Pfu DNA
polymerase was used in a 16-cycle thermal cycling reaction to extend
and incorporate the appropriate mutagenic primers, which resulted in
nicked circular strands. The methylated, nonmutated parental DNA was
then digested with DpnI, and the DNA was transformed into E. coli AR120 cells. Plasmids were purified from overnight
LB/amp cultures (25 ml) using the Qiagen miniprep system. Mutations
were then confirmed by DNA sequence analysis, using an ABI 377 automated DNA sequencer, by the Medical University of South Carolina
Biotechnology Resource Laboratory.
To facilitate purification of selected mutant RegA proteins, the RegA
expression vector was modified to code for a fusion protein containing
four His residues at the COOH terminus of RegA protein. An
oligonucleotide containing four CAT codons was inserted into the
pAS1regA vector between the terminal codon (AAT) and the
stop codon (TAA) of regA, using the
Quik-ChangeTM protocol. Insertion of the 12-nucleotide
sequence was confirmed by DNA sequencing. Mutations K14A, T18A, R21A,
and W81A were then introduced into the regA-His4 vector.
RegA Protein Purification--
Wild type (WT), K7L, K41L, and
K42L RegA proteins were purified from AR120 cells containing WT or
mutant pAS1regA plasmids following induction of
transcription from the phage
PL promoter by nalidixic
acid treatment, as described previously (7, 17). Protein concentrations
for fluorescence analysis were determined by duplicate amino acid
analyses, performed by the W. M. Keck Foundation Biotechnology
Laboratory (Yale University). The expected error in the resulting
concentrations is less than ±10%.
RegA proteins carrying a C-terminal His4 fusion were
purified by perfusion chromatography using a PorosTM MC
column charged with Ni2+ on a Biocad SPRINTTM
chromatography system (PerSeptive Biosciences). Induced cell extracts
were centrifuged at 100,000 × g for 1 h, and the
supernatant was dialyzed into 20 mM phosphate (pH 7.5), 200 mM NaCl, 10 mM imidazole (buffer A) overnight.
The supernatant was applied to a 1.7-ml MC column equilibrated in
buffer A. The column was washed with 5 column volumes of buffer A and
then eluted with a gradient of 10-200 mM imidazole in
buffer A. Column fractions were analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis and then pooled and concentrated by centrifugation
through Centriprep 10TM (Amicon, Inc.) filtration units.
Fluorescence Quenching Assays--
Fluorescence quenching assays
were performed at 25 °C using an SLM model 8000C spectrofluorometer
(4). Reverse titrations (addition of poly- or oligoribonucleotide
lattice to protein ligand) were performed in 2-ml stirred cuvettes at
protein concentrations of 0.1-1.0 µM in buffer C (10 mM HEPES, pH 7.2, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EDTA, and 1 mM
-mercaptoethanol) (4) plus
150 mM NaCl (for gene 44 RE RNA) or 20 mM NaCl
(for poly(U)). Data were acquired at an excitation wavelength of 282 nm
and an emission wavelength of 347 nm. The effects of photobleaching
during titrations were corrected for by monitoring RegA protein
fluorescence in a control cuvette. The average photobleaching control
was 7.3%. Correction for absorption of incident light by
oligonucleotides was made by performing a parallel titration of
N-acetyl-L-tryptophanamide (Sigma) with nucleic acid.
The effect of salt on RNA affinity was determined by "salt-back"
titration (18), in which NaCl was added stepwise to RegA protein-poly(U) complexes following reverse titrations. The apparent association constant (Kapp) for poly(U) was
calculated from the equivalence point of the titration (i.e.
at the addition of an equimolar amount of RNA), assuming a binding site
size of n = 9 nucleotides (4). A single binding site
was assumed for RegA protein binding to gene 44 RE (16-mer) RNA (4,
7).
Preparation of Induced Cell Supernatants--
Cell supernatants
were prepared by the method of Johnson and Hecht (19), with slight
modifications. Briefly, transformed E. coli
AR120/pAS1regA cells were grown at 37 °C to an
A590 nm of 0.8-0.9, and then WT or mutant
RegA expression was induced for ~15 h by the addition of
nalidixic acid (80 µg/ml). After centrifugation of a 100-ml culture,
cell pellets were frozen in an ethanol/dry ice bath for 2 min, followed
by thawing in an ice water bath for 8 min, repeated for a total of four
cycles. The pellet was resuspended in 800 µl of 20 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 100 mM NaCl, and 1 mM EDTA
and incubated in an ice water bath for 30 min. The suspension was
centrifuged in a microcentrifuge for 3 min; the supernatant was
recovered, and the pellet was resuspended in 1 ml of 1× TE (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.4). Cell supernatants were stored in 80-µl aliquots at
20 °C. Evaluation of the
protein content of both the supernatant and the pellet resuspension was carried out by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Some mutant RegA
proteins were not completely soluble when produced at 37 °C, and in
those cases, induction was repeated at 25 °C. In each case,
solubility was increased sufficiently to allow gel shift assays to be
performed. RegA protein concentrations in cell lysates were determined
by quantitation of protein fluorescence in gels stained with SYPRO
Orange (Molecular Probes, Inc., Eugene, OR) compared with a standard
curve of known concentrations of purified RegA protein, using a
Molecular Dynamics Storm Imager. Protein concentrations had an error
range of 1-16% (average = 7%).
RNA Gel Mobility Shift Assays--
Purified gene 44 RE RNA
(5'-GAAUGAGGAAAUUAUG-3') was 5'-32P-end-labeled by
treatment with T4 polynucleotide kinase and [
-32P]ATP
(20). Increasing volumes of induced cell supernatants were incubated
with a constant amount of 32P-labeled gene 44 RE RNA (10 nM) to generate titration curves. Binding was carried out
in 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, and 1 mM EDTA at 4 °C for 15 min. Binding reactions were
performed in a 20-µl final volume with final concentrations of
2.5-40 nM RegA protein. A freshly thawed aliquot of
supernatant was used for each experiment and then discarded. Reaction
products were analyzed by electrophoresis on a native 8%
polyacrylamide gel in 0.5 × TBE (89 mM Tris, 89 mM boric acid, 4 mM EDTA, pH 8.3) at 4 °C.
To eliminate hydrolysis of RNA during electrophoresis, gel solutions
and running buffer were prepared in diethylpyrocarbonate-treated H2O, and the electrophoresis apparatus was washed
frequently with detergent. Gels were dried and analyzed by
autoradiography, and 32P-RNA was quantitated by
PhosphorImager analysis on a Molecular Dynamics Imager model 425.
Kapp values for mutant proteins were determined
from gel shift assays in a manner similar to that of Rebar and Pabo
(21). Kapp. was calculated at four points on the
titration curve (Equation 1). The mean of the four values was
calculated, and Kapp values from 2-4
experiments were averaged. WT RegA in cell supernatants was assayed in
parallel with 2-4 mutant proteins in each set of experiments. S.D.
values (calculated using the nonbiased or "n
1"
method using EXCEL) ranged from Kapp (Av)/3.3 to
Kapp(Av)/11. Association constants were
determined from phosphor image data as follows,
|
(Eq. 1)
|
where [protein-RNA complex] = [fraction 32P-RNA
bound] × [total RNA]; [RNAf] = [fraction
32P-RNA free] × [total RNA]; [proteinf] = [total protein]
[bound protein], assuming one protein per bound
RNA (7).
Circular Dichroism--
Circular dichroism spectra were
collected on an Jasco spectropolarimeter model J-710 from 250 to 190 nm
at 0.5-nm intervals. Spectra were recorded in 25 mM Tris,
25 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EDTA at 25 °C, using a 0.2-mm path length quartz
cuvette. The data were averaged from 10 repeat scans and were corrected
for background noise by subtraction of signal from buffer alone.
Protein concentrations were determined by duplicate measurements of
A280, which had a error range of ±2% The molar
extinction coefficients used were as follows: WT, K14A and T18A:
M = 22,250; W81A
M = 16,650.
 |
RESULTS |
Mutagenesis of Basic Loop Residues of RegA Protein--
From
inspection of the structure of RegA protein, Kang et al. (6) noted that
in domain I of RegA, basic residues in the loops at the base of the
central two
-strands, i.e. Lys7,
Lys8, Lys41, and Lys42 (see Fig.
1) are located in positions similar to
basic residues of U1A protein (residues Lys22,
Lys23, Lys50, and Arg52) that
function in RNA binding (12). To test if these residues form
electrostatic interactions with RNA, as they do in U1A, individual lysine to leucine substitutions were introduced at each of these residues to remove the basic charge and leave a similarly sized side
chain. Mutant proteins K7L, K41L, and K42L were purified (see
"Materials and Methods"), and their equilibrium RNA binding affinities were measured by fluorescence quenching assays (4), as shown
in Fig. 2. Like many other nucleic
acid-binding proteins, the intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence of RegA
protein is quenched upon binding to nucleic acids (4). This quenching
is due to a change in the environment of one or more of the three
tryptophan residues in RegA, presumably reflecting either a direct
interaction of the tryptophan(s) with RNA or a conformational change in
RegA upon RNA binding. Because the fraction of the maximal quenching obtained is directly proportional to the fraction of RegA protein bound
to RNA (4), fluorescence quenching assays offer an accurate method of
determining equilibrium binding constants.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Ribbon diagrams of T4 RegA protein and the
human U1 snRNP A protein. -Sheets are shown in cyan,
-helices are shown in yellow, and "basic jaws" areas
are shown in magenta. The images were created using SYBYL
(Tripos, Inc.) from crystal coordinates for RegA protein (Protein Data
Bank number 1REG) and U1A protein (Protein Data Bank number 1URN).
Left, RegA monomer contains a four-stranded anti-parallel
-sheet ( 6, 1, 5, and 4) and two -helices ( A and
C). Basic residues Lys7 and Lys8 lie in the
loop region between 1 and A. Basic residues Lys41 and
Lys42 lie in -loop 4 and 5. Right, U1A
protein contains a four-stranded anti-parallel -sheet ( 4, 1,
3, and 2) and two -helices ( 1 and 2). Basic residues
Lys20 and Lys22 lie in the loop region between
1 and 1. Basic residues Lys50 and Lys52
lie on the loop region between 2 and 3.
|
|

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Reverse titration of RegA protein with
synthetic RNAs. RNA binding was measured as quenching of RegA
protein's intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence (%Q) upon
serial additions of RNA. A, specific binding of wild type
RegA (0.2 µM) and K7L (0.2 µM), K41L (0.2 µM), and K42L (0.1 µM) mutant proteins to
gene 44 RE RNA in buffer C plus 150 mM NaCl. B,
nonspecific binding of wild type RegA (0.08 µM) and K7L
(0.2 µM), K41L (0.04 µM), and K42L (0.11 µM) mutants to poly(U) in buffer C plus 10 mM
NaCl. Concentration of added poly(U) is plotted as
[phosphate]/[protein], and a binding site size of 9 nucleotides/protein was used to calculate Kapp
from the binding curves. Titrations were performed at 25 °C.
C, salt-back titrations of RegA proteins bound to poly(U).
Titrations were made by the addition of NaCl to samples saturated with
poly(U). The percentage of initial fluorescence (% fluorescence) was estimated from comparison with a
photobleach control of each protein, which was corrected for dilution
effects.
|
|
The affinities of mutant proteins for a specific RNA (T4 gene 44 RE RNA
(4)) and a nonspecific RNA (poly(U)) were assessed to evaluate the
effect of these mutations on the RNA binding properties of RegA protein
(Table I). As shown in Fig. 2A
and Table I, all three purified mutant proteins bound gene 44 RE RNA
with affinities similar to that of wild type (WT) RegA protein. In
addition, K41L and K42L RegA proteins bound poly(U) with WT affinity
(Table I); however, K7L bound poly(U) with approximately 10-fold lower
affinity. Previous studies (4) have indicated that RegA protein binds polynucleotides with weak cooperativity (i.e. with a
cooperativity parameter (
) of ~10-12). Thus, the lower affinity
of K7L for poly(U) could result from a decrease in RNA binding affinity
or from alterations in protein-protein interactions leading to reduced cooperativity in RNA binding.
To assess the effects of the mutations on electrostatic interactions
between RegA and RNA, salt-back titrations (18) were performed, in
which NaCl was added incrementally to RegA protein-poly(U) complexes.
As shown in Fig. 2C, RNA complexes formed with mutated proteins K41L and K42L exhibited salt sensitivities similar to that of
WT RegA protein, while K7L-poly(U) complexes were considerably more
sensitive to ionic strength. These data suggest the observed reduction
in Kapp for nonspecific poly(U) (Table
II) may be due to decreased protein
affinity for RNA, rather than decreased cooperativity, since RegA
protein-protein interactions have been found to be unaffected by salt
concentrations (150 mM NaCl) that disrupted the K7L RNA
complexes (7).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
Affinity of domain I mutant RegA proteins for gene 44 RE RNA
Residue locations are from accession number 1REG (C. Kang and A. Rich)
of the Protein Databank at Rutgers University; however, the numbering
of -strands and -helices corresponds to assignments given in Kang
et al. (6). Italic type indicates 6-fold reduction in
Kapp; boldface type indicates loss of RNA binding.
|
|
Evaluation of RNA Binding Affinities by Gel Shift Assays--
To
eliminate the requirement for purification of individual mutant
proteins, the activities of the remainder of the mutated RegA proteins
were assessed by RNA gel mobility shift assays (21, 22) rather than
fluorescence quenching assays. As shown in Fig. 3, the addition of lysed cell
supernatants containing WT RegA protein (induced
AR120/pAS1regA cells) to 32P-labeled gene 44 RE
RNA produced a shift in the electrophoretic mobility of the RNA, while
cell supernatants that did not contain RegA protein (induced
AR120/pAS1 cells) did not alter RNA mobility. To determine
the affinity of a mutant protein for gene 44 RE RNA, increasing volumes
of cell supernatants were incubated with a constant amount of RNA. In
these assays, final RegA protein concentrations (see "Materials and
Methods") ranged from 2.5 to 40 nM and [RNA] was 10 nM. The fraction of 32P-labeled RNA bound by
RegA protein in each reaction was determined by PhosphorImager analysis
(see "Materials and Methods"), to generate a titration binding
curve. Cell supernatants containing K7L, K41L, and K42L proteins each
produced shifts in RNA mobility, with Kapp values of 4.8 × 107 M
1,
4.9 × 107 M
1, and 2.6 × 107 M
1, respectively, compared
with the affinity of WT RegA protein of 4.7 × 107
M
1 (Table II). The WT RegA protein affinity
measured by gel shift assays (4.7 × 107
M
1 in 50 mM NaCl) agrees well
with the value determined by fluorescence equilibrium binding assays
(4.0 × 107 M
1, in 50 mM NaCl (Ref. 4, Fig. 8)). This supports the validity of
the quantitative gel shift method to measure RNA binding affinities for
mutant RegA proteins. Gel shift assays demonstrated that K8L RegA
protein bound RNA with a Kapp value of 2.1 × 107 M
1, indicating this
mutation, like the K42L mutation, has a small effect on RNA binding
(2-fold reduction).

View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
RNA binding by WT and mutant RegA proteins,
determined by gel mobility shift assays. 32P-Labeled
gene 44 RE RNA (10 nM) was incubated with increasing
volumes of E. coli cell supernatants (20-µl total volume
in buffer A) for 15 min on ice and then loaded onto a native 8%
polyacrylamide gel in 0.5 × TBE. The gel was electrophoresed at 5 V/cm for 4 h in a cold room. Lane 1, no supernatant;
lanes 2 and 3, 1 and 2 µl,
respectively, of supernatant from induced AR120/pAS1 cells,
which do not contain RegA; lanes 4-7, 1, 2, 4, and 8 µl,
respectively, of supernatants from induced AR120/pAS1regA
cells containing WT RegA (final [RegA] was 5-40 nM);
lanes 8-11, supernatants containing 5, 10, 20, and 40 nM RegA K7L, respectively; lanes 12 and
13, supernatants containing 20 and 40 nM RegA
K41L, respectively; lanes 14 and 15, supernatant
containing 20 and 40 nM RegA K42L, respectively. RegA
protein concentrations in supernatants were determined by quantitation
of Sypro Orange-stained SDS gels (see "Materials and
Methods").
|
|
Mutagenesis of Residues on
-Sheet B of Domain I--
In the
U1A-RNA complex, three residues within the RNP-2 segment (
-strand 1)
(Tyr13, Asn15, and Asn16) form
bonds with RNA (12). In addition, three residues in the RNP-1 segment
(on
-strand 3) (Arg52, Gln54, and
Phe56) form critical interactions with RNA, which include
formation of base-specific hydrogen bonds (Arg52) and
stacking with RNA bases (Phe56). To see if residues on the
central
-strands of
-sheet B (in domain I) play a role in
RegA-RNA complex formation, mutations were introduced at
Ile4, Thr5, and Leu6, on
-strand
1 and at Leu44, Tyr45, and Tyr46 on
-strand 5. Ala substitutions were made at Ile4 and
Thr5 to eliminate potential hydrophobic and hydrogen bond
interactions, respectively; Leu6 was mutated to Arg, and
Leu44 was mutated to Lys to introduce basic charges at
those hydrophobic sites, and Tyr45 and Tyr46
were mutated to Ala to eliminate potential base-stacking interactions with RNA. Of these six mutations, only the Tyr46
substitution significantly affected RNA binding, producing a 3-fold
reduction. Thus, none of these mutations eliminated or severely
(>10-fold) reduced RNA binding. In contrast, mutations in RNP-1 and
RNP-2 residues in U1A protein reduced affinity 15-140-fold or
eliminated RNA binding (23). Taken together with the effects of the
basic loop mutations, these results suggest that
-sheet B and
adjacent loop residues of domain I do not contribute significantly to
RNA binding.
Mutagenesis of Domain II of RegA--
To determine if residues on
-sheet A play a role in RNA binding, mutations were introduced at
surface residues Asn26, Lys30,
Tyr33, Gln34, and Lys113. Mutations
were also introduced at nearby basic residues on the hairpin loop
(Lys28), loop 7 (Lys107), helix D
(Lys109), and loop 8 (Lys117). As shown in
Table III, none of the nine mutations
significantly reduced RNA affinity. Thus,
-sheet A and basic
residues flanking it do not appear to directly participate in RNA
binding. It is interesting to note that for the three mutations in this
region and the six mutations in domain I where Leu was substituted for Lys (Tables II and III), the altered proteins remained soluble and
retained WT RNA binding affinity, indicating that the introduction of a
hydrophobic residue on the surface of RegA does not lead to misfolding
of the protein. Overall, the lack of effect on RNA affinity of the 19 mutations described above suggests that when mutations are restricted
to surface residues, as deduced from crystal structure data, RegA
protein retains its native structure.
Modeling of RegA Protein--
To examine the surface topography of
RegA protein for potential RNA binding pockets or platforms, space
filling and ribbon models were generated from the RegA protein crystal
structure coordinates (Protein Data Bank (Rutgers University),
accession number 1REG), using the program SYBYL (Tripos, Inc.). These models revealed the presence of a pocket (loosely defined by residues Phe106, Lys14, Arg21, and
Trp81) that is formed at the interface of domains I and II
and a cleft, formed between the C-terminal 5 residues and residues on
-helix B. As shown in Fig. 4, the
cleft is narrow (10 Å) and deep, and there is an aromatic side chain
(Tyr118) at the top of the cleft. The pocket region is
shallow and contains two unusually exposed aromatic side chains (Fig.
4). The fact that this pocket contains Phe106, which was
previously found to be the site of photocross-linking to nucleic acid
(8), as well as two basic residues, makes this region a strong
candidate for the site of RNA binding.

View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Ribbon and space-filling models of RegA
protein. A, ribbon diagram showing the location of
aromatic amino acids in RegA. -Sheets are shown in cyan,
-helices are yellow, and loops are white.
B, space filling model showing the location of a surface
pocket and a deep cleft in RegA. Note the exposed positions of
Trp81 and Phe106.
|
|
Mutagenesis of the Aromatic Pocket--
To test the role of the
aromatic pocket region in RNA binding, individual substitutions were
made at Trp81, Lys14, and Arg21. As
shown in Fig. 5, the K14A mutation
greatly reduced the RNA binding affinity of RegA protein, while the
R21A mutation abolished RNA binding. Substitution of Trp81
with Ala also abolished RNA binding (see Table II). Previous studies
have shown that mutations at Phe106 do not significantly
affect RNA binding affinity (9), which suggested that although this
residue lies at the interface of RegA-nucleic acid complexes (8), it
does not form a bond to RNA.

View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Gel mobility shift assays of mutant RegA
proteins binding to gene 44 RE RNA. 32P-Labeled gene
44 RE RNA (10 nM) was incubated with increasing volumes of
E. coli cell supernatants for 15 min on ice, as described in
Fig. 3. Gel electrophoresis was performed as in Fig. 3. Lanes
1 and 2, no supernatant; lanes 3-6,
supernatants containing 5, 10, 20, and 40 nM WT RegA,
respectively; lanes 7-10, supernatants containing 5, 10, 20, and 40 nM RegA K14A, respectively; lanes
11-14, supernatants containing 5, 10, 20, and 40 nM
RegA R21A, respectively; lane 15. 2 µl of purified RegA
(final [RegA] was 50 nM). RegA protein concentrations
were determined as in Fig. 3. Note that this gel image presents a
darker "exposure" than the image in Fig. 3 to enable visualization
of the bound RNA band in K14A samples.
|
|
Residues Arg21 and Lys14 lie on
-helix A,
while Phe106 and Trp81 are on flanking loops
(Fig. 4). To explore the potential role of other residues on
-helix
A (containing residues 10-21), mutations E10A, D11A, F12A, K16L, E17A,
and T18A were constructed. Residues Val15 and
Leu19 are in the core of the protein and were not mutated.
As shown in Table II, the T18A substitution had an even greater effect than the K14A substitution, reducing affinity by approximately 30-fold.
The Phe12, Lys16, and Glu17
mutations produced only moderate or no reductions in RNA affinity, while the Glu10 and Asp11 mutations slightly
increased RNA affinity. Mutagenesis of two residues on the flanking
loops, Leu83 and Lys107, did not affect RNA
binding affinity (Tables II and III).
Two mutations were introduced to test whether RNA interactions
might extend from the pocket into the cleft region. A truncation was
made deleting residues 119-122, which form one side of the cleft, and
a Y118A mutation was made. Neither modification significantly altered the RNA binding affinity of RegA protein (Table III). Also, the
K117L mutation described above, which lies in this region, did not
reduce RNA affinity. Thus, the cleft region does not appear to play a
role in RNA binding.
As noted above, the quenching of the intrinsic fluorescence of RegA
that occurs upon RNA binding is due a change in the environment of one
or more of the three tryptophan residues. The effect of the W81A
mutation on RNA affinity suggests that Trp81 contributes to
the observed fluorescence change. To determine if either of the other
two tryptophan residues are involved in RNA binding, Ala substitutions
were introduced at Trp76 and Trp112. As shown
in Tables II and III, mutagenesis of Trp76 did not
affect RNA affinity, while mutation of Trp112 eliminated
RNA binding. Jozwik and Miller (24) saw a similar effect in
vivo for a W112C mutation, suggesting that Trp112
plays a role in RNA binding. However, the crystal structure of RegA
shows that the side chain of Trp112 is predominately
buried, suggesting that the observed loss of RNA binding could be due
to structural alterations rather than functional alterations. Thus,
structural studies would need to be performed before a conclusion can
be made about the role of Trp112 in RNA binding.
Assessment of the Effect of Mutations on RegA Structure--
The
observed reduction in the RNA binding affinity of RegA proteins with
mutations in the aromatic pocket could be due to loss of a protein-RNA
interaction or due to protein misfolding. To determine if mutant
proteins are properly folded, three mutant proteins were purified, and
their conformations were assessed by CD spectroscopy. To facilitate
purification, mutations were introduced into an expression vector
coding for RegA protein with four His residues fused to the COOH
terminus. The His4 tag was added to the COOH terminus
because the NH2 terminus is in the core of the protein,
whereas the COOH terminus is on the surface of RegA protein.
WT-His4, K14A-His4, T18A-His4, and
W81A-His4 proteins were purified, and their ultraviolet CD
spectra were examined. A fourth mutant, R21A-His4, was
expressed but was not purified because only a fraction of the
recombinant protein was present in cell extract supernatants. As shown
in Fig. 6A, RegA proteins
K14A-His4, T18A-His4, and W81A exhibit spectra
with a single minimum at 208 nm and a shoulder at 220 nm, which is
characteristic of the WT RegA protein spectrum (Ref. 9 and Fig.
6). Comparison of the CD spectra of WT
and WT-His4 RegA proteins showed no detectable differences
(Fig. 6B), confirming that the His4 tag does not
alter the secondary structure of RegA protein. Gel shift assays
indicate that WT-His4 RegA protein binds gene 44 RE RNA
with an affinity similar to that of WT RegA (data not shown). This is
consistent with the report of Allen and Miller (25) that the addition
of six His to the COOH terminus of RegA protein does not dramatically alter the RNA binding properties of RegA protein. The fact that the
overall shape and intensities of the CD spectra for the three mutant
proteins are the same as that of WT RegA protein suggests that there is
little difference in the proteins' secondary structures. The
observation that the spectra crossover points (~198 nm), which are
independent of concentration effects, are also similar for the mutant
and WT proteins further supports the conclusion that the K14A, T18A,
and W81A mutations do not significantly affect the secondary structure
of RegA protein.

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Circular dichroism spectra of wild type and
mutant RegA proteins. Molar (residue) ellipticities are plotted
versus wavelength (nm). Protein concentrations ranged from
50-75 µM. Spectra were recorded at 25 °C in 25 mM Tris, 25 mM NaCl, 5 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM EDTA. A, comparison of
the spectra of WT, K14A, T18A, and W81A RegA proteins. Line
representations are shown. B, comparison of the
spectra of WT (black line) and
WT-His4 (dotted line) RegA
proteins.
|
|

View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Models of RegA protein, showing the location
of critical residues in the RNA binding site. A, ribbon
diagram of the aromatic pocket showing the location of side chains on
-helix A that participate in RNA binding. Note that the pocket is
formed by residues on loop 8 (Phe106), -helix A, and
loop 3 (Trp81). B, space-filling model of RegA
protein looking into the RNA binding pocket. Colored
residues lie in the RNA binding region.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
In this report, the functional activity of surface residues within
both domains I and II of RegA protein have been explored. Ten residues
in or near
-sheet B of domain I were assayed by site-specific
mutagenesis. Substitutions of residues in the central two
-strands
and the basic loop regions of domain I of RegA had little (2-3-fold)
or no effect on RNA binding. In contrast, mutagenesis of residues in
the central
-strands (containing the RNP-1 and RNP-2 residues) of
U1A protein (e.g. residues Arg52,
Gln54, and Phe56) reduced affinity 10-100-fold
or completely abolished RNA binding (23, 26). The minor effects of
mutations in potentially analogous residues in RegA (i.e.
residues Lys42, Leu44, and Tyr46)
suggest that
-sheet B does not function as an RNA binding platform. Similarly, mutation of basic loop residues of U1A protein
(e.g. Lys22 and Lys23) had large
effects on RNA binding affinity (26), while mutation of basic loop
residues in RegA protein had only minor effects. In addition, five
surface residues on
-sheet A of domain II do not appear to
contribute to RNA binding. This is an important finding, because
-sheet residues have been found to play critical roles in
protein-RNA complexes, even when different overall structural motifs
are involved (e.g. the MS2 coat protein versus
U1A protein).
These extensive mutagenesis studies of RegA protein have shown that
there are four residues (Lys14, Thr18,
Arg21, and Trp81) where substitutions
significantly impair or abolish RNA binding. Since three of the four
mutations do not affect the secondary structure of RegA protein, it is
likely that the observed affects on RNA binding affinity are due to
loss of RNA-protein interactions. The clustered location of these
residues near the site of photocross-linking to nucleic acid (8)
suggests that RNA binds to a surface pocket on RegA protein formed by
residues on loop, helix, and loop secondary structures. As shown in
Fig. 7, this arrangement positions aromatic residues on the loops and
basic and polar groups on the
-helix. The helix residues offer a
number of side chains that could form hydrogen bonds to RNA bases or
the ribose-phosphate backbone. As shown in Fig. 7, the three helix
residues that are critical for RNA binding are clustered on one face of
helix A, spanning approximately 90° of the helix. Within this helix
are two acidic side chains (Asp11 and Glu10)
(Fig. 7), where mutations that eliminate the negative charge slightly
increase RNA binding affinity. This may indicate that these residues
lie near the binding site of the ribose-phosphate backbone and that
some charge repulsion may occur in the WT protein. It is interesting to
note that two of the three helix residues that potentially participate
in RNA binding are charged and that hydrogen bonds involving a charged
residue contribute more to the free energy of complex formation than
hydrogen bonds between uncharged groups (27). In studies with
tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase, Fersht et al. (27) have shown that
a hydrogen bond to a charged group can contribute up to 3-4 kcal/mol
to complex stability, which provides a factor of about 103
in specificity. In the case of RegA protein, mutagenesis suggests that
Arg21 may make a high energy hydrogen bond to RNA, with
smaller energy contributions coming from hydrogen bonds between RNA and
Lys14 and Thr18. This is consistent with an
earlier estimate that the number of ionic interactions involved in
RegA-RNA binding is between two and three, based on the effect of
[NaCl] on RegA-RNA affinity (4). Additional stability (and
specificity) to the complex apparently comes from interactions between
RNA and Trp81, which may include base-stacking
interactions. Bonds formed between RNA and main chain atoms are also
likely to make contributions to complex stability, although these bonds
would not be detected by the mutagenesis approach used here. Small
contributions also may come from side chains of adjacent residues in
the two loop regions; however, the bulk of the energy of complex
formation apparently comes from bonds to Lys14,
Thr18, Trp81, and potentially
Arg21.
Prior to solution of the crystal structure of RegA protein, Jozwik and
Miller (24) used a genetic approach to identify functionally important
residues in RegA. From examination of the in vivo
translational repression properties of 15 regA mutants, they
identified five mutants that exhibited altered repression activity,
where some target genes were repressed, but not others. Interestingly,
two of the mutants with altered repression specificity had
substitutions in residues on the RNA binding helix, i.e.
mutants T18A and E17K. The reduced RNA affinity of the T18A mutation
observed in our in vitro studies is consistent with the
reported repression of high affinity target RNAs and the loss of
repression of the low affinity targets in vivo (24). The
roles of the other residues where mutation affected repression
specificity, i.e. Ala25, Asp72, and
Ser73, are not as clear, in that Ala25 is
located some distance from the binding pocket, and Asp72
and Ser73 are buried in the core of the protein.
Are there other examples of protein helix-RNA interactions?
-Helices
frequently play a role in protein binding to double-stranded DNA, where
both helix-turn-helix and zinc finger motifs use
-helices as
recognition elements in binding to the major groove of DNA (for
discussion, see Ref. 28). Although fewer examples of helices being
involved in protein-RNA interactions are known, one example is the
binding of human immunodeficiency virus REV protein to REV response
element RNA. A 19-amino acid peptide corresponding to the RNA binding
site of REV forms an
-helix in solution and has been found to bind
specifically to the REV response element hairpin IIB RNA (29). Genetic
studies have demonstrated the importance of specific residues on the
helix in RNA recognition and have led to development of a model of how
the REV helix might dock in the major groove of double-stranded RNA
(30). Presumably, the helix projects from the surface of REV, where it
can position side chains into the groove of the RNA. In RegA protein,
the helix lies within a recessed pocket, which potentially offers its
target single-stranded RNAs multiple opportunities for interaction with residues in the sides and trough of the pocket. The formation of an RNA
binding pocket by residues in helix and loop regions of the protein
appears to be unique to RegA protein and may be related to the
protein's unusual RNA recognition properties.
Two remaining questions are how RegA protein discriminates between
target and non-target RNAs and what features contribute to the observed
differences in affinities for target RNAs. A recurrent theme in
protein-RNA recognition is that RNA structure is often altered by
protein binding (for discussion, see Ref. 31). Examples in which RNA
distortion occurs upon protein binding include the binding of
tRNAGln to glutaminyl tRNA synthetase (10), the binding to
U1A protein to U1 RNA (32, 33), and binding of the REV peptide to the REV response element (34). In the case of RegA protein, RNA discrimination may well depend on deformability of the RNA as well as
nucleotide sequence recognition. In fact, since deformability can
depend on nucleotide sequence (10), the ability of an RNA to alter its
structure to fit into a pocket on RegA protein may be a form of
nucleotide discrimination. The previous finding that two dodecamer RNAs
with a single base difference have different affinities for RegA
protein but have the same structure in solution (35) is consistent with
RNA deformability being a critical element in RegA-RNA recognition. Now
that the unique binding site on RegA protein has been deciphered,
future experiments can be directed at determining how different RNAs
might be accommodated in the binding pocket.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Chul-Hee Kang (Washington State
University) and Alexander Rich (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
for many helpful discussions. We are also grateful to Erika Bullesbach
and George Fullbright (Medical University of South Carolina) for
performing the CD spectroscopy and to Shelley Elvington for excellent
technical assistance. We thank the Medical University of South Carolina Biotechnology Resource Laboratory for excellent DNA sequence analysis and synthesis of oligoribonucleotides and the W. M. Keck
Foundation Biotechnology Resource Laboratory (Yale University) for
amino acid analyses. J. G. thanks Starr Hazard of the Medical
University of South Carolina Biomedical Computing Resource Facility for
assistance in protein modeling.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by National Science Foundation
Grants MCB-9496143 and MCB-9513805, South Carolina EPSCOR 13110-ZB21, and Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Institutional Research
Funds (to E. K. S.). The MUSC Biotechnology Resource Laboratory is
supported by National Science Foundation Grant ID-9601805.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§
Supported by an MUSC graduate stipend.
¶
Supported by a MUSC postdoctoral fellowship. Present address:
P.P.D.I.-Parmaco, Inc., 1500 Perimeter Park Dr., Suite 300, Morrisville, NC 27560.

Supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and by
National Science Foundation Grant MCB-9514179 and National Institutes of Health Grant GM31539.
§§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Medical University of South Carolina, 173 Ashley
Ave., Charleston, SC 29425. Tel.: 843-792-1417; Fax: 843-792-4322;
E-mail: spicerek@musc.edu.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
RE, recognition
element;
WT, wild type.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Winter, R. B.,
Morrissey, L.,
Gauss, P.,
Gold, L.,
Hsu, T.,
and Karam, J.
(1987)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
84,
7822-7826[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 2.
|
Webster, K. W.,
Adari, H. Y.,
and Spicer, E. K.
(1989)
Nucleic Acids Res.
17,
10047-10068[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 3.
|
Unnithan, S.,
Green, L.,
Morrissey, L.,
Binkley, J.,
Singer, B.,
Karam, J.,
and Gold, L.
(1990)
Nucleic Acids Res.
18,
7083-7092[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Webster, K. R.,
and Spicer, E. K.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
19007-19014[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Karam, J.,
Gold, L.,
Singer, B. S.,
and Dawson, M.
(1981)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
78,
4669-4673[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Kang, C.-H.,
Chan, R.,
Berger, I.,
Lockshin, C.,
Green, L.,
Gold, L.,
and Rich, A.
(1995)
Science
268,
1170-1173[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Phillips, C. A.,
Gordon, J.,
and Spicer, E. K.
(1996)
Nucleic Acids Res.
24,
4319-4326[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Webster, K. R.,
Keill, S.,
Konigsberg, W.,
Williams, K. R.,
and Spicer, E. K.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
26097-26103[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 9.
|
O'Malley, S. M.,
Sattar, A. K. M.,
Williams, K. R.,
and Spicer, E. K.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
5107-5114[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Rould, M. A.,
Perona, J. J.,
Söll, D.,
and Steitz, T. A.
(1989)
Science
246,
1135-1142[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Valegard, K.,
Murray, J. B.,
Stockley, P. G.,
Stonehouse, N. J.,
and Liljas, L.
(1994)
Nature
371,
623-626[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Oubridge, C.,
Ito, N.,
Evans, P. R.,
Teo, C-H.,
and Nagai, K.
(1994)
Nature
372,
432-438[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Birney, E.,
Kumar, S.,
and Krainer, A. R.
(1993)
Nucleic Acids Res.
21,
5803-5816[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Burd, C. G.,
and Dreyfuss, G.
(1994)
Science
265,
615-621[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Shamoo, Y,
Krueger, U.,
Rice, L. M.,
Williams, K. R.,
and Steitz, T. A.
(1997)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
4,
215-222[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Webster, K. W.,
Shamoo, Y.,
Konigsberg, W. H.,
and Spicer, E. K.
(1991)
BioTechniques
11,
658-661[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 17.
|
Adari, H. Y.,
Rose, K.,
Williams, K. W.,
Konigsberg, W. H.,
Lin, T.-C.,
and Spicer, E. K.
(1985)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
82,
1901-1905[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
McSwiggen, J. A.,
Bear, D. G.,
and Von Hippel, P. H.
(1988)
J. Mol. Biol.
199,
609-622[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Johnson, B. H.,
and Hecht, M. H.
(1994)
Bio/Technology
12,
114-117
|
| 20.
|
Sambrook, J.,
Fritsch, E. F.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1989)
Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual
, 2nd Ed.
, p. 5.86, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 21.
|
Rebar, E. J.,
and Pabo, C. O.
(1994)
Science
263,
671-673[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Fried, M. G.,
and Crothers, D. M.
(1983)
Nucleic Acids Res.
11,
141-158[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Jessen, T. H.,
Oubridge, C.,
Teo, C. H.,
Pritchard, C.,
and Nagai, K.
(1991)
EMBO J.
10,
3447-3456[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Jozwik, C. E.,
and Miller, E. S.
(1992)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
89,
5053-5057[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Allen, S. V.,
and Miller, E. S.
(1999)
Anal. Biochem.
269,
32-37[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Nagai, K.,
Oubridge, C.,
Jessen, T. H.,
Li, J.,
and Evans, P. R.
(1990)
Nature
348,
515-520[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Fersht, A. R.,
Shi, J.-P.,
Knill-Jones, J.,
Lowe, D. M.,
Wilkinson, A. J.,
Blow, D. M.,
Brick, P.,
Carter, P.,
Waye, M. M. Y.,
and Winter, G.
(1985)
Nature
314,
235-238[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Brandon, C.,
and Tooze, J.
(1998)
Introduction to Protein Structure
, 2nd Ed.
, pp. 129-147, Garland Publishing, New York
|
| 29.
|
Tan, R.,
Chen, L.,
Buettner, J. A.,
Hudson, D.,
and Frankel, A. D.
(1993)
Cell
73,
1031-1040[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Jain, C.,
and Belasco, J. G.
(1996)
Cell
87,
115-125[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Draper, D. E.
(1995)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
64,
593-620[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Hall, K. B.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
10076-10088[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Allain, F. H.-T.,
Gubser, C. C.,
Howe, P. W. A.,
Nagai, K.,
Neuhaus, D.,
and Varani, G.
(1996)
Nature
380,
646-650[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Battiste, J. L.,
Mao, H.,
Rao, N. S.,
Tan, R.,
Muhandiram, D. R.,
Kay, L. E.,
Frankel, A. D.,
and Williamson, J. R.
(1996)
Science
273,
1547-1551[Abstract]
|
| 35.
|
Szewczak, A. A.,
Webster, K. R.,
Spicer, E. K.,
and Moore, P. B.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
17832-17837[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea