2019
DOI: 10.1039/c8cc09048c
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A single AT–GC exchange can modulate charge transfer-induced p53–DNA dissociation

Abstract: Using molecular dynamics simulations and electronic structure theory, we shed light on the charge dynamics that causes the differential interaction of tumor suppressor protein p53 with the p21 and Gadd45 genes in response to oxidative stress. We show that the sequence dependence of this selectivity results from competing charge transfer to the protein and through the DNA, with implications on the use of genome editing tools to influence the p53 regulatory function.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The electron-localization factors false{ μ normalm , μ normaln false} normalm normalD , normaln normalA for the analysis in Table were obtained by DFT calculations like those in ref but after optimizing the geometries of flavin and CPD in a continuum environment described by an enhanced COSMO solvation model , conceived to facilitate the geometry optimization and dynamics of molecular systems . In both the geometry optimization and the DFT single-point calculation, we used a relative dielectric constant of 25, which lies in the middle of the optimal range of 20–30 determined in ref . The geometry optimization and the following DFT calculation of the false{ μ normalm , μ normaln false} normalm normalD , normaln normalA set were carried out using the NWChem software. , Further details on the computational setup, as well as the coordinates of the optimized flavin and CPD moieties and the false{ μ normalm , μ normaln false} normalm normalD , normaln normalA values, are reported in Supporting Information Tables S3–S5.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The electron-localization factors false{ μ normalm , μ normaln false} normalm normalD , normaln normalA for the analysis in Table were obtained by DFT calculations like those in ref but after optimizing the geometries of flavin and CPD in a continuum environment described by an enhanced COSMO solvation model , conceived to facilitate the geometry optimization and dynamics of molecular systems . In both the geometry optimization and the DFT single-point calculation, we used a relative dielectric constant of 25, which lies in the middle of the optimal range of 20–30 determined in ref . The geometry optimization and the following DFT calculation of the false{ μ normalm , μ normaln false} normalm normalD , normaln normalA set were carried out using the NWChem software. , Further details on the computational setup, as well as the coordinates of the optimized flavin and CPD moieties and the false{ μ normalm , μ normaln false} normalm normalD , normaln normalA values, are reported in Supporting Information Tables S3–S5.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The redistribution of initially produced base radical cations along DNA strands was explained by preferential trapping of the positive hole at guanine sites that act as efficient sinks. The charge transport (CT) chemistry that operates through both localized and delocalized hopping mechanisms (117)(118)(119)(120)(121) has been shown to be modulated by the presence of modified bases (122)(123)(124) or bound proteins (125)(126)(127). In the latter case, tyrosine and tryptophan when participating as amino acids in binding contacts were found to be oxidized by charge migration from DNA (125,128).…”
Section: One-electron Oxidation Dna-protein Cross-linking Chemistrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The abundance and ubiquity of metalloproteins have attracted much scientific endeavors to understand the relationships between protein structures and functions [4,5], and translate that understanding into real-life applications [6,7]. While traditional molecular modeling approaches, such as classical molecular dynamics [8,9] and quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) methods [10], have often been used to study these objectives, the usage of machine learning models has grown in popularity over the last decade [11], as metalloproteins can now be studied in a computationally inexpensive manner at a systems level. By designing and optimizing models to learn patterns and distinctions from training and validation data sets, these machine learning models can eventually predict the properties and behaviors of any new inputs (i.e., test sets).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%