PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7479944

Restriction-modification systems as genomic parasites in competition for specific sequences.

K Kusano·T Naito·N Handa·I Kobayashi
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Restriction-modification (RM) systems are believed to have evolved to protect cells from foreign DNA. However, this hypothesis may not be sufficient to explain the diversity and specificity in sequence recognition, as well as other properties, of these systems. We report that the EcoRI restriction endonuclease-modification methylase (rm) gene pair stabilizes plasmids that carry it and that this stabilization is blocked by an RM of the same sequence specificity (EcoRI or its isoschizomer, Rsr I) but not by an RM of a different specificity (PaeR7I) on another plasmid. The PaeR7I rm likewise stabilizes plasmids, unless an rm gene pair with identical sequence specificity is present. Our analysis supports the following model for stabilization and incompatibility: the descendants of cells that have lost an rm gene pair expose the recognition sites in their chromosomes to lethal attack by any remaining restriction enzymes unless modification by another RM system of the same specificity protects these sites. Competition for specific sequences among these selfish genes may have generated the great diversity and specificity in sequence recognition among RM systems. Such altruistic suicide strategies, similar to those found in virus-infected cells, may have allowed selfish RM systems to spread by effectively competing with other selfish genes.

Explore related subjects

Binding, CompetitiveBiological EvolutionCell DeathDNA Restriction-Modification EnzymesDNA, BacterialDNA-Binding ProteinsDeoxyribonuclease EcoRIEscherichia coliPlasmidsSite-Specific DNA-Methyltransferase (Adenine-Specific)Substrate SpecificityJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Kusano, T Naito, N Handa, I Kobayashi. 1995-11-21. Restriction-modification systems as genomic parasites in competition for specific sequences.. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.24.11095

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Co-immobilization of different enzyme activities to non-woven polyester surfaces.

Co-immobilization was applied to combine complementary enzyme reactions. Therefore, trypsin was co-immobilized together with both, lipase and alpha-amylase, onto the surface of non-woven polyester material. The progress of the immobilization reaction was directly monitored by investigating covalent fixation of the enzymes to the polyester flees using (1)H-MAS-NMR. Co-immobilization of the different types of enzymes to the polyester support showed retained enzymatic activity. However, a competition of binding to the support was observed. Increasing amounts of one type of enzyme reduced the degree of immobilization for the other type. In order to investigate the distribution of trypsin and alpha-amylase on the polyester support, the flees was treated with a mixture of rhodamine isothiocyanate labeled with anti-trypsin antibodies and fluorescein isothiocyanate labeled with anti-alpha-amylase antibodies. Using fluorescence microscopy, the co-immobilization was analyzed by selective excitation of both chromophores at 480 and 530 nm, respectively. In addition, fluorescence spectroscopy was applied by direct labeling of trypsin and lipase prior to co-immobilization to the polyester support. A special prism of plexiglass was constructed, which fit into a 10 x 10 mm fluorescence cuvette in that way that a diagonal plane was formed within the cuvette. The non-woven support was fixed in the cuvette and fluorescence spectra were obtained to characterize the amount of different enzymes linked to the support. Using FRET it was demonstrated that a uniform distribution of the various enzyme species was achieved, where the different enzyme activities are bound on the support in close neighborhood to one another.

Binding, Competitive↗
PubMed2007

Scintillation proximity assay as a high-throughput method to identify slowly dissociating nonpeptide ligand binding to the GnRH receptor.

Many nonpeptide antagonists of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor, as well as other drug targets, possess a broad range of dissociation kinetic rate constants. Current methods to accurately define kinetic rate parameters such as K(on) and K(off) are time and labor intensive, prompting the development of a screening assay to identify slowly dissociating compounds for follow-up rate constant determination. The authors measured inhibition binding constants (K(i)) for GnRH receptor antagonists after 30 min and 10 h of incubation and observed several compounds with markedly decreased K(i) values over time (Ki(30 min)/Ki(10 h) > 6). They used scintillation proximity assay technology to perform these binding experiments because this homogeneous assay does not have a fixed termination end point as does filtration binding, permitting successive readings to be taken from the same assay plate over an extended period of time. They also used a quantitative method of kinetic rate analysis to confirm that a large disparity between a compound's K(i) value at 30 min and 10 h could identify compounds that dissociate slowly. Thus, the K(i) ratio can be used to screen for and select compounds to test using more quantitative, albeit lower throughput methods to accurately define kinetic rate constants.

Binding, Competitive↗
PubMed2007

The anomalous behaviour of exogenous 25-hydroxyvitamin D in competitive binding assays.

The Vitamin D International External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) was established in 1989 to monitor the performance of assays for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (I,25(OH)(2)D). This is achieved through the quarterly distribution of five samples of human serum. Results are used to calculate an All-Laboratory Trimmed Mean and a Method Mean for each of the methods used by participants. In July 2005, participants were asked to assay serum to which 50.9 nmol of either 25-OHD(3) or 25-OHD(2) had been added as ethanolic solutions. The final concentration of ethanol in the serum was 0.7%. The distribution also included a sample of the original serum (OS) containing 0.7% pure ethanol. The percentage recoveries of exogenous 25-OHD(3) (R1) and 25-OHD(2) (R2) were calculated for each method. Results (OS nM, R1 and R2) were as follows: DiaSorin RIA (n=53); 39.2, 82.1%, 83.3%, DiaSorin Liason (n=16); 36.8, 81.4%, 88.6%, IDS RIA (n=21); 36.4, 54.2%, 29.1%, IDS OCTEIA (n=16); 47.3, 78.8%, 56.4%, Nichols Advantage (n=21); 58.9, 46.4%, 43.2%, HPLC (n=9); 42.6, 112.2%, 97.1%, LC-MS (n=4); 34.0, 111.5%, 118.1%. The IDS RIA and Nichols assays gave unexpectedly low recoveries. This does not appear to be a calibration problem or the effect of ethanol.

Binding, Competitive↗