![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 49, 47393-47398, December 6, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Laboratory of Structural Biology, NIEHS, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Received for publication, October 1, 2002
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
DNA polymerase fidelity or specificity expresses
the ability of a polymerase to select a correct nucleoside triphosphate
(dNTP) from a pool of structurally similar molecules. Fidelity is
quantified from the ratio of specificity constants (catalytic
efficiencies) for alternate substrates (i.e. correct and
incorrect dNTPs). An analysis of the efficiency of dNTP (correct and
incorrect) insertion for a low fidelity mutant of DNA polymerase The equilibrium between genome stability and instability is
tightly regulated since mutations are central to aging, disease, and
evolution. Thus, cellular strategies that modulate this equilibrium are
of general and immense interest. The structure of DNA was proposed
nearly 50 years ago and provided the first clue to how "genetic material" could be replicated faithfully (1). It is now
recognized that DNA polymerases play pivotal roles in both genome
replication and maintenance (i.e. DNA repair). Polymerases copy the parental (template) strand to generate a new or repaired complementary daughter strand, and accurate DNA synthesis during replication and repair is essential in maintaining genomic integrity. Although DNA polymerases play a central role in these essential processes, the fundamental mechanism(s) by which they select the correct deoxynucleoside 5'-triphosphate
(dNTP)1 from a pool of
structurally similar molecules to accomplish efficient and faithful
polymerization is poorly understood. The intrinsic base substitution
error frequency for DNA replication and repair polymerases is generally
between 10 DNA polymerase (pol) fidelity, specificity, or discrimination represent
relative kinetic terms used to describe the propensity of a polymerase
to produce a base substitution error. Polymerase specificity may be
quantified in vitro by measuring the insertion kinetics of a
single nucleotide (correct or incorrect) opposite a defined templating
base. The absolute rate or probability that a pol inserts a correct or
incorrect nucleotide follows Michaelis-Menten kinetics. A steady-state
kinetic approach defines substrate specificity as catalytic efficiency,
kcat/Km,dNTP, for
formation of a specific base pair. Substrate specificity determined by
a pre-steady-state kinetic approach is
kpol/Kd where Kd is the equilibrium dissociation constant for the
incoming dNTP and kpol is the kinetic step that
limits insertion of the first nucleotide. This step may be either
chemistry (i.e. nucleotidyl transfer) and/or conformational
transitions of the ternary polymerase/substrate complex. Although these
two kinetic approaches may measure different steps along the catalytic
pathway, they measure the same specificity constant (i.e.
kcat/Km = kpol/Kd) (4). DNA polymerase
specificity is typically quantified by comparing the ratio of catalytic
efficiencies for correct and incorrect nucleotide insertion and
typically expressed as relative misinsertion efficiency, fins = (kcat/Km)incorrect/(kcat/Km)correct, or fidelity (1/fins) (5, 6).
Since fidelity represents a ratio of catalytic efficiencies for correct
and incorrect nucleotide insertion, differences in fidelity can be due
to changes in one or both specificity constants. We had noted
previously that a mutant of pol Protein Purification--
Wild-type human pol DNA Preparation--
A 34-mer oligonucleotide DNA substrate
containing a single nucleotide gap was prepared by annealing 3 gel-purified oligonucleotides (Oligos Etc., Wilsonville, OR) to create
a single-nucleotide gap at position 16. The sequence of the gapped DNA
substrate was: primer, 5'-CTGCAGCTGATGCGC-3'; downstream
oligonucleotide, 5'-GTACGGATCCCCGGGTAC-3'; and template,
3'-GACGTCGACTACGCGGCATGCCTAGGGGCCCATG-5'. The resultant single-nucleotide gapped DNA has a templating G in the gap. The oligonucleotides were quantified, resuspended in a buffer, and annealed
as described previously (4). The primer was 5'-labeled with
[ Kinetic Assays--
Enzyme activities were determined using a
standard reaction mixture containing 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4 (22 °C), 100 mM KCl, and 5 mM
MgCl2. Steady-state or pre-steady-state kinetic parameters for single-nucleotide gap filling were determined as before (4). Quenched reaction samples were mixed with an equal volume of formamide dye, and the products were separated on 12% denaturing polyacrylamide gels. The dried gels were analyzed using a PhosphorImager
(Amersham Biosciences) to quantify product formation.
Inefficient Mutant of Pol Low Fidelity DNA Polymerases Are Inefficient--
To determine
whether the loss of catalytic efficiency for the correct nucleotide
generally leads to a loss in discrimination, as observed with the R283A
mutant of pol
More recently, a new family of DNA polymerases (i.e.
Y-family, which includes pols
The trend in this analysis suggests that if the catalytic efficiency
for correct insertion was reduced further, insertion of the incorrect
nucleotide may be preferred over that of the correct
((kcat/Km)incorrect > (kcat/Km)correct so that fins > 1). There are three examples
where this has been observed (Fig. 3, C and D):
pol
As observed for the misinsertion of dTTP opposite a templating guanine
(Fig. 2A), the relative misinsertion efficiency for all 12 mispairs is controlled primarily by the efficiency for correct
nucleotide insertion. In all cases, a loss in the ability to insert the
correct nucleotide results in a loss of discrimination (higher
fins). More importantly, the slope of the lines
in the log-log plots in Fig. 3 is equal to or greater than
The catalytic efficiencies for correct insertion range from 56 µM
Until recently, the "kinetic space" occupied by replicative and
repair DNA polymerases indicated that these enzymes insert the correct
nucleotide with an efficiency of about 1-10
µM
In general, fins is strongly correlated with the
catalytic efficiency for correct nucleotide insertion. However, the
correlation is not perfect, and there are examples where this is
clearly not the case. For example, dTTP insertion opposite guanine by
human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) reverse transcriptase is more efficient (higher fins;
kcat/Km = 0.03 µM Inefficient Mutant of Pol Concluding Remarks--
Our analysis reveals that the kinetic
difference between low and high fidelity DNA polymerases originate
primarily in the ability of the pol to insert the correct nucleotide
rather than its ability to insert the incorrect nucleotide.
Accordingly, the molecular basis for the divergent fidelities requires
a kinetic and structural understanding of correct nucleotide insertion. Since naturally occurring DNA polymerases exhibiting divergent fidelities generally insert incorrect nucleotides with similar efficiencies, high fidelity polymerases discriminate against incorrect nucleotides by actively selecting correct nucleotides. A comparison of
published crystallographic substrate complexes of DNA polymerases with
a Watson-Crick base pair in the confines of their active site suggests
that the coordination of the P
Cells have solved the problem of how to replicate structural
abnormalities in genomic DNA by evolving enzymes that have the ability
to insert nucleotides opposite DNA lesions at the expense of fidelity.
Thus, although low fidelity DNA polymerases would theoretically produce
an inordinate number of errors per nucleotide synthesized, these
polymerases are "kinetically controlled" by virtue of their
catalytic efficiency for correct nucleotide insertion. However, the
mutagenic threat of a low fidelity pol will be increased if its DNA
synthesis capacity increases. This could be achieved through
gene induction (increase in pol concentration), polymerase targeting
(increase in local pol concentration), or an increase in catalytic
efficiency through interaction with accessory proteins. All of these
strategies appear to be utilized by the low fidelity Y-family DNA
polymerases (for a recent review, see Ref. 26).
We have conducted a comparative study of the insertion efficiency as it
relates to fidelity. Equally important subsequent steps concern
the fate of a mispair. A mispair can be proofread by either an
intrinsic or extrinsic 3'-5' exonuclease, or it could be extended by
the same, or a different, DNA polymerase. Since extension of a mispair
is a challenging kinetic event due to the aberrant DNA structure at the
interface of the nascent base pair in the pol active site, it is not
unexpected that DNA polymerases have also evolved to fulfill this
specialized function.
(R283A) and exonuclease-deficient DNA polymerases from five families
derived from a variety of biological sources reveals that a strong
correlation exists between the ability to synthesize DNA and the
probability that the polymerase will make a mistake (i.e.
base substitution error). Unexpectedly, this analysis indicates that
the difference between low and high fidelity DNA polymerases is related
to the efficiency of correct, but not incorrect, nucleotide insertion.
In contrast to the loss of fidelity observed with the catalytically
inefficient R283A mutant, the fidelity of another inefficient mutant of
DNA polymerase
(G274P) is not altered. Thus, although all natural
low fidelity DNA polymerases are inefficient, not every inefficient DNA
polymerase has low fidelity. Low fidelity polymerases appear to be an
evolutionary solution to how to replicate damaged DNA or DNA repair
intermediates without burdening the genome with excessive
polymerase-initiated errors.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
3 and 10
6 (2). These
frequencies represent one error per thousand or million nucleotides
synthesized, respectively. These levels of discrimination are far
greater than predicted by free energy differences between matched and
mismatched DNA termini (predicted error frequency of ~0.4; one error
per 3 nucleotides synthesized), indicating that DNA polymerases can
enhance fidelity by a large factor (3). However, even this remarkable
specificity is inadequate to faithfully replicate a genome of more than
109 nucleotides. Thus, replicative DNA polymerases often
have an intrinsic proofreading exonuclease to remove misinserted
nucleotides, and cells possess a postreplication DNA mismatch repair
pathway that can correct misinserted nucleotides that escape proofreading.
had low fidelity and catalytic
efficiency for correct insertion (7). By examining the catalytic
efficiencies for correct and incorrect nucleotide insertion for
wild-type and mutant forms of pol
and comparing them with those
reported for other polymerases exhibiting divergent fidelities, we find
that the fidelity of natural DNA polymerases is determined primarily by
the efficiency for correct nucleotide insertion.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
and mutant
derivatives (R283A and G274P) were expressed and purified as described
previously (7). Enzyme concentrations were determined by Coomassie dye
binding using purified pol
as the standard. The concentration of
purified pol
was determined by total amino acid analysis.
-32P]ATP using T4 polynucleotide kinase (New England
BioLabs), and radioactive ATP was removed with a MicroSpin G-25 column.
![]()
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Exhibiting Low
Fidelity--
Rational or random mutagenesis of the pol active
site generally results in mutant enzymes that have moderately reduced
or improved specificity. However, alanine substitution for an arginine residue of pol
(R283A, Fig. 1),
suggested to stabilize the templating base, results in a dramatic loss
of catalytic efficiency for correct insertion and fidelity, implying
that catalytic efficiency for correct nucleotide insertion and
discrimination were coupled (7). Since those measurements were
performed on dissimilar DNA substrates, we reexamined the catalytic
efficiency for correct insertion and fidelity on the same
single-nucleotide gapped DNA substrate, a substrate preferred by pol
in base excision repair (8). A steady-state kinetic analysis of the
R283A mutant of human pol
indicates that there is a 33,000-fold
loss in catalytic efficiency for insertion of dCTP opposite a
templating guanine within a single-nucleotide gapped DNA substrate
relative to the wild-type enzyme. In contrast, the mutant enzyme
inserts dTTP opposite guanine 15-fold less efficiently than wild-type
enzyme. Since fidelity or relative misinsertion efficiency are relative
ratios of catalytic efficiencies, the mutant enzyme has a 2,400-fold
lower ability to discriminate against dTTP insertion relative to dCTP
(Fig. 2A). This loss in
discrimination is entirely due to the loss of the ability to insert the
correct nucleotide, dCTP, since dTTP insertion efficiency is reduced in the mutant enzyme.

View larger version (34K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
DNA polymerase
active site interactions essential for efficient nucleotide
insertion. A view of the pol
active site observed in the
ternary 1-nucleotide gapped DNA-ddCTP complex (27) is shown. The
perspective is from the DNA major groove and indicates that the
nascent base pair (pink, templating base and incoming
nucleotide) is sandwiched between an
-helix of pol
(blue) and duplex DNA (i.e. primer-terminus and
its complementary base, n-1). Arg-283 makes van der Waals
contact with the minor groove edge of the templating base
(n) and forms a hydrogen bond with the sugar of the
3'-nucleotide (n-1). A cis-peptide bond occurs between
Gly-274 and Ser-275, resulting in a sharp bend between two
-helices.
Gly-274 interacts with the sugar of the incoming nucleotide. The van
der Waals surface of Gly-274 and the Arg-283 side chain is illustrated.
Additionally, the position of the active site divalent ions is
indicated (purple). This figure was made with Molscript (28)
and rendered with Raster3D (29).

View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Relative misinsertion efficiency for
formation of the dG-dTTP mispair as a function of catalytic efficiency
for nucleotide insertion. The reported catalytic efficiencies for
dCTP or dTTP insertion opposite guanine were analyzed for
exonuclease-deficient pols that span five pol families (Table I):
,
A-family;
, B-family;
, RT-family;
, X-family;
, Y-family.
The DNA polymerases included are T7 pol (T7), Klenow
fragment (Kf), pol
(
), RB69 pol (RB69),
pol X (X), rat and human pol
(r
and
h
, respectively) on non-gapped or gapped (g)
DNA, R283A mutant of pol
(
R283A), pol
(
), pol
(
), and pol
(
). For some of these polymerases, several
reported catalytic efficiencies are given. These represent alternate
determinations from independent laboratories. The dotted
line (fins = 0.6) represents the calculated
free energy difference determined for matched and mismatched terminal
base pairs (
G ~0.3 kcal/mol at 37 °C) (3). As
shown in A, the efficiencies for correct nucleotide
insertion
(kcat/Km,dCTP)
span 5 orders of magnitude for the DNA polymerases surveyed with a
corresponding decrease in the relative misinsertion efficiencies
(fins). As shown in B, in contrast,
the efficiencies for dTTP insertion occurred over a much narrower range
for most polymerases and do not correlate with fidelity in a systematic
way.
, we analyzed the reported insertion kinetics for 12 exonuclease-deficient DNA polymerases from a variety of
biological sources that span five pol families (Table
I). Replicative and repair DNA
polymerases have generally been reported to insert the correct
nucleotide with a catalytic efficiency of about 1-10
µM
1 s
1 with
corresponding relative misinsertion efficiencies of
10
3-10
6 for a G-T (template base-incoming
nucleotide) base pair (Fig. 2A). Since DNA polymerases can
typically misinsert three common nucleotides opposite a templating
guanine, albeit with low efficiency, the data points for these mispairs
are spread vertically (Fig. 3).
DNA polymerases and kinetic studies included in the global analysis of
polymerase specificity

View larger version (38K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Relative misinsertion efficiency for
formation of 12 possible mispairs as a function of catalytic efficiency
for formation of a Watson-Crick base pair. The reported catalytic
efficiencies for correct nucleotide insertion for each Watson-Crick
base pair were analyzed for exonuclease-deficient pols and compared
with their relative misinsertion efficiencies (Table I). The
dotted line (fins = 0.6) represents
the calculated free energy difference determined for matched and
mismatched terminal base pairs ( 
G ~0.3 kcal/mol at
37 °C) (3). Relative misinsertion efficiencies that fall below, or
above, this line indicate that the pol active site imposes
constraints that alter the free energy difference between correct and
incorrect base pairing. This can result in an increase, or decrease, in
the ability of the pol to discriminate between correct and incorrect
base pairs. A, relative misinsertion efficiencies for the
misinsertion of dATP (
), dCTP (
), or dGTP (×) opposite
adenosine. B, relative misinsertion efficiencies for the
misinsertion of dATP (
), dCTP (
), or dTTP (×) opposite cytosine.
C, relative misinsertion efficiencies for the misinsertion
of dATP (
), dGTP (
), or dTTP (×) opposite guanine. D,
Relative misinsertion efficiencies for the misinsertion of dCTP (
),
dGTP (
), or dTTP (×) opposite thymine.
,
, and
) has been described
(9). These polymerases lack an intrinsic proofreading exonuclease, exhibit low processivity, replicate DNA with low fidelity, and are
believed to assist replication complexes stalled at DNA lesions (for a
recent review, see Ref. 10). A survey of the catalytic efficiencies for
nucleotide insertion by members of this family indicates that they
generally insert dCTP opposite a templating guanine with low efficiency
(<0.2 µM
1 s
1). DNA
polymerase
inserts dCTP with an efficiency of about
10
1 to 10
2 µM
1
s
1 (11, 12), whereas the efficiency for pol
for this
base pair is about 10
3 µM
1
s
1 (13-15). Thus, the efficiencies for insertion of dCTP
opposite guanine can vary 5 orders of magnitude depending on the
identity of the pol (Fig. 2A). As observed for the R283A
mutant of pol
, discrimination is coupled to the catalytic
efficiency for correct insertion, but not for incorrect insertion
(e.g. dTTP insertion opposite guanine; Fig. 2B).
The loss in the ability to insert the correct nucleotide results in the
loss of discrimination (i.e. higher
fins).
has been reported to insert dTTP (13, 15) and dGTP (13-15)
opposite a templating thymine with a higher efficiency than it inserts
dATP. Additionally, pol X from the African swine fever virus inserts
dGTP opposite a templating guanine with a greater efficiency than dCTP
(16).
1 for
every mispair. These slopes range from
0.2 (dCTP insertion opposite adenine) to
1 (Fig.
4A). The slopes for most
mispairs range from
0.6 to
1. This corresponds to little or no loss
of catalytic efficiency for insertion of the incorrect nucleotide for a
corresponding 10-fold loss of catalytic efficiency for correct
insertion. However, the slope of the log-log plot for dCTP insertion
opposite adenine is
0.2, corresponding to an 8-fold loss of catalytic
efficiency for incorrect insertion with a 10-fold loss for correct
insertion. Thus, the slope of these log-log plots may be a measure of
the Watson-Crick geometry of each mispair, suggesting that in the confines of the pol active site, dCTP-dA has a geometry more similar to
that of a Watson-Crick base pair than the reciprocal mispair (dATP-dC).
When all of the mispairs are considered together, the overall slope is
0.78 ± 0.09, indicating that the catalytic efficiency for
incorrect insertion is ~1.7-fold lower than for a pol that exhibits a
10-fold higher catalytic efficiency for correct insertion.

View larger version (36K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Parameters deduced from linear fits of log
plots of catalytic efficiency for insertion of a correct nucleotide
versus relative misinsertion efficiency for 12 possible mispairs. In A, the slopes are for the linear
fits in Fig. 3. Note that if the catalytic efficiency for correct and
incorrect insertion were altered in parallel, then the corresponding
slope would be zero, and changes in catalytic efficiency would not
result in a change in fins (i.e.
fidelity). However, if the catalytic efficiency for correct insertion
decreases 10-fold and efficiency for incorrect insertion is not
altered, then fins also decreases 10-fold
(i.e. the resulting slope of the log-log plot would be
1).
Additionally, if the catalytic efficiencies for correct and incorrect
were observed to move in opposite directions, then a 10-fold decrease
in efficiency for correct insertion would result in a slope of the
log-log plot of less than
1 (i.e. more negative). In
B, the intercepts (fins at
log(kcat/Km)correct = 0) are from the linear fits in Fig. 3 and are plotted in ascending
order.
1 s
1, determined for pol
(17), to 5 × 10
6
µM
1 s
1, reported for pol
(15), for dATP insertion (Fig. 3). This represents a 10 million-fold
range in catalytic efficiencies for correct insertion. Thus, although
pol
exhibits the lowest fidelity (greatest
fins) for the dT-dGTP mispair, it also inserts
dATP opposite thymine with the lowest efficiency of any polymerase surveyed here. Whereas pol
exhibits a 30,000-fold lower
fins than pol
(i.e. higher
fidelity), its catalytic efficiency for insertion of dGTP opposite
thymine is 300-fold greater than pol
.
1 s
1. If
fins is examined for the different mispairs at a
catalytic efficiency of 1 µM
1
s
1 (i.e. 100), then it is
generally observed that pyrimidine-purine mispairs (transition
intermediates) are easier to make than pyrimidine-pyrimidine or
purine-purine mispairs (transversion intermediates) (Fig.
4B), an observation that has been noted previously (6).
Although this generalization is pertinent for DNA polymerases with
moderate catalytic efficiencies for correct insertion (i.e.
~1 µM
1 s
1), it would not
pertain to the lower fidelity polymerases since the relationship
between fins and catalytic efficiency is
moderately dependent on the specific mispair.
1 s
1) than would be
predicted by taking into account the efficiency that other DNA
polymerases produce this mispair
(kcat/Km ~10
4
µM
1 s
1; Fig. 2). This
represents the most efficient misinsertion reported (18) in the studies
included in this survey. More interestingly, the efficient insertion of
dTTP opposite guanine is consistent with the G
A hypermutation
observed among retroviruses (19, 20) and represents an error that would
be encouraged by the naturally low dCTP/dTTP pool imbalance (21).
Exhibiting High
Fidelity--
As a first approximation, the correlation between
correct nucleotide insertion efficiency and fidelity suggests that if
the catalytic efficiency of a mutant pol were greatly diminished, then
it may also exhibit a correspondingly low fidelity (e.g. R283A mutant of pol
). Traditionally, site-directed mutagenesis of
the pol active site (e.g. metal-coordinating carboxylates) of the A, B, X, and RT families results in a 100-1000-fold loss in
catalytic efficiency (22-25). Due to this considerable loss of
catalytic efficiency, fidelity was not assessed with these "inactive" mutant enzymes. During a steady-state kinetic-screen of
site-directed mutants of pol
, a G274P mutant exhibited a 104-fold decrease in catalytic efficiency relative to
wild-type enzyme. A rare cis-peptide bond is observed between
Gly-274 and Ser-275 that creates a sharp turn between two
-helices
that contribute significant interactions with the nascent base pair.
Gly-274 interacts with the sugar of the incoming nucleotide (Fig. 1).
Proline substitution for Gly-274 would be expected to sterically clash
with the incoming nucleotide and alter helix interactions with the
nascent base pair. The enormous loss of catalytic efficiency is
consistent with this proposal. To discount the possibility that the
mutant enzyme did not fold properly, resulting in a large fraction of inactive protein, we performed a single-turnover analysis (pol
DNA substrate) to directly address the rate of insertion into a
single-nucleotide gapped DNA substrate with a templating guanine. Under
these assay conditions, the rate of insertion was nearly identical to
that determined when substrate concentration is in excess
(i.e. steady-state assay), indicating that the poor
efficiency was intrinsic to the mutant enzyme (data not shown). To
address whether there was a corresponding decrease in fidelity, we
attempted to measure dTTP insertion efficiency opposite the templating
guanine. However, misinsertion efficiency was very weak, precluding an accurate determination but suggesting that the efficiency for formation
of this mispair was reduced significantly relative to wild-type enzyme.
By substituting Mn2+ for Mg2+ in the assay
mixture, the catalytic efficiency for correct insertion was increased.
Under this condition, the fidelity of wild-type enzyme was 16,600 ((kcat/Km)correct/(kcat/Km)incorrect), which is about 4-fold lower than in a reaction utilizing
Mg2+ (4). The catalytic efficiencies for correct (dCTP-dG)
and incorrect (dTTP-dG) insertion were diminished 4800- and 1300-fold, respectively, for the G274P mutant relative to wild-type enzyme. This
translates to a less than 4-fold loss in fidelity for the mutant
enzyme, which is far less than the 880-fold loss predicted from the
survey of native DNA polymerases. Most importantly, this observation
indicates that although low fidelity DNA polymerases insert the correct
nucleotide inefficiently, not all polymerases that are inefficient have
low fidelity.
of the incoming nucleotide has a
strong influence on catalytic efficiency, whereas specific
interactions with the bases of the nascent base pair do
not.2 These structural
observations are consistent with the similar binding affinities, but
divergent insertion rates, reported for the correct nucleotide with DNA
polymerases exhibiting different fidelities.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT |
|---|
We thank Youri I. Pavlov for critical reading of the manuscript.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* 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.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 919-541-3267;
Fax: 919-541-3592; E-mail: wilson5@niehs.nih.gov.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, October 4, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M210036200
2 W. A. Beard and S. H. Wilson, unpublished observation.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: dNTP, 2'-deoxynucleoside 5'-triphosphate; pol, polymerase.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Watson, J. D., and Crick, F. H. C. (1953) Nature 171, 737-738[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. | Kunkel, T. A., and Bebenek, K. (2000) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 69, 497-529[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. |
Petruska, J.,
Goodman, M. F.,
Boosalis, M. S.,
Sowers, L. C.,
Cheong, C.,
and Tonoco, J., Ignacio.
(1988)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
85,
6252-6256 |
| 4. |
Beard, W. A.,
Shock, D. D.,
Yang, X.-P.,
DeLauder, S. F.,
and Wilson, S. H.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
8235-8242 |
| 5. | Fersht, A. R., Knill-Jones, J. W., and Tsui, W. C. (1982) J. Mol. Biol. 156, 37-51[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. | Goodman, M. F., Creighton, S., Bloom, L. B., and Petruska, J. (1993) Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 28, 83-126[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 7. |
Beard, W. A.,
Osheroff, W. P.,
Prasad, R.,
Sawaya, M. R.,
Jaju, M.,
Wood, T. G.,
Kraut, J.,
Kunkel, T. A.,
and Wilson, S. H.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
12141-12144 |
| 8. |
Vande Berg, B. J.,
Beard, W. A.,
and Wilson, S. H.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
3408-3416 |
| 9. | Ohmori, H., Friedberg, E. C., Fuchs, R. P. P., Goodman, M. F., Hanaoka, F., Hinkle, D., Kunkel, T. A., Lawrence, C. W., Livneh, Z., Nohmi, T., Prakash, L., Prakash, S., Todo, T., Walker, G. C., Wang, Z., and Woodgate, R. (2001) Mol. Cell 8, 7-8[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. | Friedberg, E. C., Fischhaber, P. L., and Kisker, C. (2001) Cell 107, 9-12[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. |
Johnson, R. E.,
Prakash, S.,
and Prakash, L.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
3838-3843 |
| 12. |
Zhang, Y.,
Yuan, F.,
Xin, H., Wu, X.,
Rajpal, D. K.,
Yang, D.,
and Wang, Z.
(2000)
Nucleic Acids Res.
28,
4147-4156 |
| 13. | Johnson, R. E., Washington, M. T., Haracska, L., Prakash, S., and Prakash, L. (2000) Nature 406, 1015-1019[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 14. |
Tissier, A.,
McDonald, J. P.,
Frank, E. G.,
and Woodgate, R.
(2000)
Genes Dev.
14,
1642-1650 |
| 15. |
Zhang, Y.,
Yuan, F., Wu, X.,
and Wang, Z.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
7099-7108 |
| 16. | Showalter, A. K., and Tsai, M.-D. (2001) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123, 1776-1777[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. |
Johnson, A. A.,
and Johnson, K. A.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
38090-38096 |
| 18. |
Zinnen, S.,
Hsieh, J. C.,
and Modrich, P.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
24195-24202 |
| 19. |
Pathak, V. K.,
and Temin, H. M.
(1990)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
87,
6019-6023 |
| 20. |
Vartanian, J.-P.,
Meyerhans, Å.,
Asjo, B.,
and Wain-Hobson, S.
(1991)
J. Virol.
65,
1779-1788 |
| 21. |
Vartanian, J.-P.,
Meyerhans, A.,
Sala, M.,
and Wain-Hobson, S.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
3092-3096 |
| 22. | Larder, B. A., Purifoy, D. J. M., Powell, K. L., and Darby, G. (1987) Nature 327, 716-717[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 23. | Date, T., Yamamoto, S., Tanihara, K., Nishimoto, Y., and Matsukage, A. (1991) Biochemistry 30, 5286-5292[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 24. |
Polesky, A. H.,
Dahlberg, M. E.,
Benkovic, S. J.,
Grindley, N. D.,
and Joyce, C. M.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
8417-8428 |
| 25. |
Copeland, W. C.,
and Wang, T. S. F.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
11028-11040 |
| 26. | Goodman, M. F. (2002) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 71, 17-50[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 27. | Sawaya, M. R., Prasad, P., Wilson, S. H., Kraut, J., and Pelletier, H. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 11205-11215[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 28. | Kraulis, P. (1991) J. Appl. Crystallogr. 24, 946-950[CrossRef] |
| 29. | Merritt, E. A., and Bacon, D. J. (1997) Methods Enzymol. 277, 505-524[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 30. | Carroll, S. S., Cowart, M., and Benkovic, S. J. (1991) Biochemistry 30, 804-813[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 31. |
Eckert, K. A.,
and Kunkel, T. A.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
13462-13471 |
| 32. | Donlin, M. J., and Johnson, K. A. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 14908-14917[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 33. |
Bebenek, A.,
Dressman, H. K.,
Carver, G. T., Ng, S.-s.,
Petrov, V.,
Yang, G.,
Konigsberg, W. H.,
Karam, J. D.,
and Drake, J. W.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
10387-10397 |
| 34. |
Kati, W. M.,
Johnson, K. A.,
Jerva, L. F.,
and Anderson, K. S.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
25988-25997 |
| 35. | Kerr, S. G., and Anderson, K. S. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 14056-14063[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 36. | Ahn, J., Werneburg, B. G., and Tsai, M. D. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 1100-1107[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 37. | Ahn, J., Kraynov, V. S., Zhong, X., Werneburg, B. G., and Tsai, M.-D. (1998) Biochem. J. 331, 79-87 |
| 38. |
Johnson, R. E.,
Washington, M. T.,
Prakash, S.,
and Prakash, L.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
7447-7450 |
| 39. | Matsuda, T., Bebenek, K., Masutani, C., Hanaoka, F., and Kunkel, T. A. (2000) Nature 404, 1011-1013[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. Lin, V. K. Batra, L. C. Pedersen, W. A. Beard, S. H. Wilson, and L. G. Pedersen Incorrect nucleotide insertion at the active site of a G:A mismatch catalyzed by DNA polymerase {beta} PNAS, April 15, 2008; 105(15): 5670 - 5674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. Yang and R. Woodgate What a difference a decade makes: Insights into translesion DNA synthesis PNAS, October 2, 2007; 104(40): 15591 - 15598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. W. Duym, K. A. Fiala, N. Bhatt, and Z. Suo Kinetic Effect of a Downstream Strand and Its 5'-Terminal Moieties on Single Nucleotide Gap-filling Synthesis Catalyzed by Human DNA Polymerase {lambda} J. Biol. Chem., November 24, 2006; 281(47): 35649 - 35655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. C. Foley, K. Arora, and T. Schlick Sequential Side-Chain Residue Motions Transform the Binary into the Ternary State of DNA Polymerase {lambda} Biophys. J., November 1, 2006; 91(9): 3182 - 3195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Lin, L. C. Pedersen, V. K. Batra, W. A. Beard, S. H. Wilson, and L. G. Pedersen Energy analysis of chemistry for correct insertion by DNA polymerase beta PNAS, September 5, 2006; 103(36): 13294 - 13299. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. A. Fiala, W. W. Duym, J. Zhang, and Z. Suo Up-regulation of the Fidelity of Human DNA Polymerase {lambda} by Its Non-enzymatic Proline-rich Domain J. Biol. Chem., July 14, 2006; 281(28): 19038 - 19044. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. A. Sampoli Benitez, K. Arora, and T. Schlick In Silico Studies of the African Swine Fever Virus DNA Polymerase X Support an Induced-Fit Mechanism Biophys. J., January 1, 2006; 90(1): 42 - 56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Chiapperino, M. Cai, J. M. Sayer, H. Yagi, H. Kroth, C. Masutani, F. Hanaoka, D. M. Jerina, and A. M. Cheh Error-prone Translesion Synthesis by Human DNA Polymerase {eta} on DNA-containing Deoxyadenosine Adducts of 7,8-Dihydroxy-9,10-epoxy-7,8,9,10-tetrahydrobenzo[a]pyrene J. Biol. Chem., December 2, 2005; 280(48): 39684 - 39692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. W. Kim, J. C. Delaney, J. M. Essigmann, and E. T. Kool Probing the active site tightness of DNA polymerase in subangstrom increments PNAS, November 1, 2005; 102(44): 15803 - 15808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. A. Beard, D. D. Shock, and S. H. Wilson Influence of DNA Structure on DNA Polymerase {beta} Active Site Function: EXTENSION OF MUTAGENIC DNA INTERMEDIATES J. Biol. Chem., July 23, 2004; 279(30): 31921 - 31929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. A. Kunkel DNA Replication Fidelity J. Biol. Chem., April 23, 2004; 279(17): 16895 - 16898. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Radhakrishnan and T. Schlick Orchestration of cooperative events in DNA synthesis and repair mechanism unraveled by transition path sampling of DNA polymerase {beta}'s closing PNAS, April 20, 2004; 101(16): 5970 - 5975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Matsuda, B. J. Vande Berg, K. Bebenek, W. P. Osheroff, S. H. Wilson, and T. A. Kunkel The Base Substitution Fidelity of DNA Polymerase {beta}-dependent Single Nucleotide Base Excision Repair J. Biol. Chem., July 3, 2003; 278(28): 25947 - 25951. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Limsirichaikul, M. Ogawa, A. Niimi, S. Iwai, T. Murate, S. Yoshida, and M. Suzuki The Gly-952 Residue of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA Polymerase {alpha} Is Important in Discriminating Correct Deoxyribonucleotides from Incorrect Ones J. Biol. Chem., May 23, 2003; 278(21): 19079 - 19086. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||