Ultrastable pRNA hexameric ring gearing hexameric phi29 DNA-packaging motor by revolving without rotating and coiling
Nanobiotechnology Center, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, and Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, USA. Current Opinion in Biotechnology
(Impact Factor: 7.12).
05/2013; 24(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2013.03.019
Biomotors have previously been classified into two categories: linear and rotational motors. It has long been popularly believed that viral DNA packaging motors are rotation motors. We have recently found that the DNA-packaging motor of bacteriophage phi29 uses a third mechanism: revolution without rotation. phi29 motor consists of three-coaxial rings of hexameric RNA, a hexameric ATPase, and a dodecameric channel. The motor uses six ATP to revolve one helical turn of dsDNA around the hexameric ring of ATPase gp16. Each dodecameric segment tilts at a 30°-angle and runs anti-parallel to the dsDNA helix to facilitate translation in one direction. The negatively charged phosphate backbone interacts with four positively charged lysine rings, resulting in four steps of transition. This review will discuss how the novel pRNA meets motor requirements for translocation concerning structure, stoichiometry, and thermostability; how pRNA studies have led to the generation of the concept of RNA nanotechnology; and how pRNA is fabricated into nanoparticles to deliver siRNA, miRNA, and ribozymes to cancer and virus-infected cells.
Available from: Sarah Jane Butcher
- "Essential questions regarding the mechanism of genome packaging in tailed dsDNA viruses have been addressed by Schwartz et al. [30,31] and Sun et al. [12,26]. Moreover, studies on phi12 P4 have provided insights into how this might work in dsRNA viruses [10,32,33]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Adenosine triphosphatases (ATPases) of double-stranded (ds) DNA archaeal viruses are structurally related to the AAA+ hexameric helicases and translocases. These ATPases have been implicated in viral life cycle functions such as DNA entry into the host, and viral genome packaging into preformed procapsids. We summarize bioinformatical analyses of a wide range of archaeal ATPases, and review the biochemical and structural properties of those archaeal ATPases that have measurable ATPase activity. We discuss their potential roles in genome delivery into the host, virus assembly and genome packaging in comparison to hexameric helicases and packaging motors from bacteriophages.
Cell and Bioscience 07/2014; 4(1):37. DOI:10.1186/2045-3701-4-37 · 3.63 Impact Factor
Available from: PubMed Central
- "The phi29 dsDNA packaging motor is made of a hexameric ATPase gp16, a hexameric pRNA ring  and a dodecameric gp10 connector . The components form the three-coaxial rings through which dsDNA is translocated into the procapsid  (Figure 3) by a novel mechanism of revolution rather than rotation. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: DNA damage attacks on bacterial cells have been known to activate the SOS response, a transcriptional response affecting chromosome replication, DNA recombination and repair, cell division and prophage induction. All these functions require double-stranded (ds) DNA translocation by ASCE hexameric motors. This review seeks to delineate the structural and functional characteristics of the SOS response and the SOS-regulated DNA translocases FtsK and RuvB with the phi29 bacteriophage packaging motor gp16 ATPase as a prototype to study bacterial motors. While gp16 ATPase, cellular FtsK and RuvB are similarly comprised of hexameric rings encircling dsDNA and functioning as ATP-driven DNA translocases, they utilize different mechanisms to accomplish separate functions, suggesting a convergent evolution of these motors. The gp16 ATPase and FtsK use a novel revolution mechanism, generating a power stroke between subunits through an entropy-DNA affinity switch and pushing dsDNA inward without rotation of DNA and the motor, whereas RuvB seems to employ a rotation mechanism that remains to be further characterized. While FtsK and RuvB perform essential tasks during the SOS response, their roles may be far more significant as SOS response is involved in antibiotic-inducible bacterial vesiculation and biofilm formation as well as the perspective of the bacteria-cancer evolutionary interaction.
Cell and Bioscience 06/2014; 4(1):31. DOI:10.1186/2045-3701-4-31 · 3.63 Impact Factor
Available from: Yulong Shen
- "Amongst the proteins that could be to be exploited for drug delivery, nanobiomotors are important examples. Two types of nanobiomotors are well known: linear and rotary motors . Linear motor proteins, such as kinesin, dynein, and certain myosins, step unidirectionally along linear tracks as for microtubules and actin filaments. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nanobiomotors perform various important functions in the cell, and they also emerge as potential vehicle for drug delivery. These proteins employ conserved ATPase domains to convert chemical energy to mechanical work and motion. Several archaeal nucleic acid nanobiomotors, such as DNA helicases that unwind double-stranded DNA molecules during DNA damage repair, have been characterized in details. XPB, XPD and Hjm are SF2 family helicases, each of which employs two ATPase domains for ATP binding and hydrolysis to drive DNA unwinding. They also carry additional specific domains for substrate binding and regulation. Another helicase, HerA, forms a hexameric ring that may act as a DNA-pumping enzyme at the end processing of double-stranded DNA breaks. Common for all these nanobiomotors is that they contain ATPase domain that adopts RecA fold structure. This structure is characteristic for RecA/RadA family proteins and has been studied in great details. Here we review the structural analyses of these archaeal nucleic acid biomotors and the molecular mechanisms of how ATP binding and hydrolysis promote the conformation change that drives mechanical motion. The application potential of archaeal nanobiomotors in drug delivery has been discussed.
Cell and Bioscience 06/2014; 4(1):32. DOI:10.1186/2045-3701-4-32 · 3.63 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.