ArticleNature2009
Exploitation of binding energy for catalysis and design.
Article in Nature, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed.
- An information theory approach to quantifying the sequence-dependent response of nucleic acid motors with applications to nanopore DNA sequencing.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Computational design of sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2025Article
- Multiple adaptations underly co-option of a CRISPR surveillance complex for RNA-guided DNA transposition.Molecular cell · 2023Article
- Transition Path Sampling Based Calculations of Free Energies for Enzymatic Reactions: The Case of Human Methionine Adenosyl Transferase andThe journal of physical chemistry. B · 2022Article
- Potentials, prospects and applications of genome editing technologies in livestock production.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Review
- A De Novo Designed Esterase with p-Nitrophenyl Acetate Hydrolysis Activity.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Optimization of Protein Thermostability and Exploitation of Recognition Behavior to Engineer Altered Protein-DNA Recognition.Structure (London, England : 1993) · 2020Article
- Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: recent methods and frameworks.Nature methods · 2020Review
- Modifying a covarying protein-DNA interaction changes substrate preference of a site-specific endonuclease.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Engineering altered protein-DNA recognition specificity.Nucleic acids research · 2018Review
- Crystallographic analyses illustrate significant plasticity and efficient recoding of meganuclease target specificity.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
- Tuning DNA binding affinity and cleavage specificity of an engineered gene-targeting nuclease via surface display, flow cytometry and cellular analyses.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2017Article
- Characterization of homing endonuclease binding and cleavage specificities using yeast surface display SELEX (YSD-SELEX).Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
- Novel proteases from the genome of the carnivorous plant Drosera capensis: Structural prediction and comparative analysis.Proteins · 2016Article
- Efficient Modification of the CCR5 Locus in Primary Human T Cells With megaTAL Nuclease Establishes HIV-1 Resistance.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2016Article
- Internal guide RNA interactions interfere with Cas9-mediated cleavage.Nature communications · 2016Article
- Protein Ensembles: How Does Nature Harness Thermodynamic Fluctuations for Life? The Diverse Functional Roles of Conformational Ensembles in the Cell.Chemical reviews · 2016Review
- Indirect DNA Sequence Recognition and Its Impact on Nuclease Cleavage Activity.Structure (London, England : 1993) · 2016Article
- The Structural Basis of Asymmetry in DNA Binding and Cleavage as Exhibited by the I-SmaMI LAGLIDADG Meganuclease.Journal of molecular biology · 2016Article
- Massively parallel determination and modeling of endonuclease substrate specificity.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Enzymes use substrate-binding energy both to promote ground-state association and to stabilize the reaction transition state selectively. The monomeric homing endonuclease I-AniI cleaves with high sequence specificity in the centre of a 20-base-pair (bp) DNA target site, with the amino (N)-terminal domain of the enzyme making extensive binding interactions with the left (-) side of the target site and the similarly structured carboxy (C)-terminal domain interacting with the right (+) side. Here we show that, despite the approximate twofold symmetry of the enzyme-DNA complex, there is almost complete segregation of interactions responsible for substrate binding to the (-) side of the interface and interactions responsible for transition-state stabilization to the (+) side. Although single base-pair substitutions throughout the entire DNA target site reduce catalytic efficiency, mutations in the (-) DNA half-site almost exclusively increase the dissociation constant (K(D)) and the Michaelis constant under single-turnover conditions (K(M)*), and those in the (+) half-site primarily decrease the turnover number (k(cat)*). The reduction of activity produced by mutations on the (-) side, but not mutations on the (+) side, can be suppressed by tethering the substrate to the endonuclease displayed on the surface of yeast. This dramatic asymmetry in the use of enzyme-substrate binding energy for catalysis has direct relevance to the redesign of endonucleases to cleave genomic target sites for gene therapy and other applications. Computationally redesigned enzymes that achieve new specificities on the (-) side do so by modulating K(M)*, whereas redesigns with altered specificities on the (+) side modulate k(cat)*. Our results illustrate how classical enzymology and modern protein design can each inform the other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.