These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Activation of protease-constitutive recA proteins of Escherichia coli by all of the common nucleoside triphosphates.
    Author: Wang WB, Sassanfar M, Tessman I, Roberts JW, Tessman ES.
    Journal: J Bacteriol; 1988 Oct; 170(10):4816-22. PubMed ID: 3049549.
    Abstract:
    To understand why the RecA proteins of the protease-constitutive recA1202 and recA1211 mutants show very high protease activities in vivo without the usual need for DNA damage (E. S. Tessman and P. Peterson, J. Bacteriol. 163:677-687, 1985), we examined the activation of the mutant proteins by nucleoside triphosphates (NTPs) in vitro. In vivo, the mutant protease activities are resistant to inhibition by cytidine plus guanosine (C + G) in the growth medium, in contrast to the activities of weaker mutants, such as recA441, which are sensitive to C + G inhibition. We found that RecA1202 and RecA1211 proteins, in contrast to RecA+, can use natural NTPs other than ATP and dATP as cofactors in the cleavage of LexA repressor. The effectiveness of NTPs in promoting LexA cleavage by RecA1202 and RecA1211 proteins decreased in roughly the following order: dATP greater than ATP greater than UTP greater than ATP-gamma S greater than dCTP greater than CTP greater than dGTP greater than GTP greater than TTP. These mutant proteins showed higher affinities for ATP and single-stranded DNA and higher repressor cleavage activities than RecA+ protein. With the various effectors (single-stranded DNA or NTPs), the RecA1202 protein always showed more activity than RecA1211 in the cleavage of LexA repressor in vitro, which is consistent with the greater activity of the recA1202 mutant in vivo. The results explain, in part, why some recA mutants have unusually high constitutive RecA protease activity and why that activity is more or less resistant to C + G inhibition.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]