Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 337

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mispair specificity of methyl-directed DNA mismatch correction in vitro.

Open access
Su, S S, Lahue, R S, Au, K G, Modrich, P·1988·Journal of Biological Chemistry

Abstract

To evaluate the substrate specificity of methyl-directed mismatch repair in Escherichia coli extracts, we have constructed a set of DNA heteroduplexes, each of which contains one of the eight possible single base pair mismatches and a single hemimethylated d(GATC) site. Although all eight mismatches were located at the same position within heteroduplex molecules and were embedded within the same sequence environment, they were not corrected with equal efficiencies in vitro. G-T was corrected most efficiently, with A-C, C-T, A-A, T-T, and G-G being repaired at rates 40-80% of that of the G-T mispair. Correction of each of these six mispairs occurred in a methyl-directed manner in a reaction requiring mutH, mutL, and mutS gene products. C-C and A-G mismatches showed different behavior. C-C was an extremely poor substrate for correction while repair of A-G was anomalous. Although A-G was corrected to A-T by the mutHLS-dependent, methyl-directed pathway, repair of A-G to C-G occurred largely by a pathway that is independent of the methylation state of the heteroduplex and which does not require mutH, mutL, or mutS gene products. Similar results were obtained with a second A-G mismatch in a different sequence environment suggesting that a novel pathway may exist for processing A-G mispairs to C-G base pairs. As judged by DNase I footprint analysis, MutS protein is capable of recognizing each of the eight possible base-base mismatches. Use of this method to estimate the apparent affinity of MutS protein for each of the mispairs revealed a rough correlation between MutS affinity and efficiency of correction by the methyl-directed pathway. However, the A-C mismatch was an exception in this respect indicating that interactions other than mismatch recognition may contribute to the efficiency of repair.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0021-9258(18)68718-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 337

Metadata

Authors
Su, S. S., Lahue, R. S., Au, K. G., & Modrich, P.
Venue
Journal of Biological Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1988-05
Volume
263
Issue
14
Pages
6829-6835
ISSN
0021-9258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1593576309
Cited by
337
References
1
FWCI
5.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.