The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity
Open accessAbstract
The reprogramming of DNA-binding specificity is an important challenge for computational protein design that tests current understanding of protein–DNA recognition, and has considerable practical relevance for biotechnology and medicine. Here we describe the computational redesign of the cleavage specificity of the intron-encoded homing endonuclease I-MsoI using a physically realistic atomic-level forcefield. Using an in silico screen, we identified single base-pair substitutions predicted to disrupt binding by the wild-type enzyme, and then optimized the identities and conformations of clusters of amino acids around each of these unfavourable substitutions using Monte Carlo sampling. A redesigned enzyme that was predicted to display altered target site specificity, while maintaining wild-type binding affinity, was experimentally characterized. The redesigned enzyme binds and cleaves the redesigned recognition site ∼10,000 times more effectively than does the wild-type enzyme, with a level of target discrimination comparable to the original endonuclease. Determination of the structure of the redesigned nuclease-recognition site complex by X-ray crystallography confirms the accuracy of the computationally predicted interface. These results suggest that computational protein design methods can have an important role in the creation of novel highly specific endonucleases for gene therapy and other applications.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Luscombe, N. M. (2001) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/29.13.2860 · Cited by 981
Chimeric nucleases stimulate gene targeting in human cells
Porteus, M. H., & Baltimore, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1078395 · Cited by 741
Cited by
Gene Editing of CCR5 in Autologous CD4 T Cells of Persons Infected with HIV
Tebas, P., Stein, D., Tang, W. W., Frank, I., Wang, S. Q., Lee, G., Spratt, S. K., Surosky, R. T., Giedlin, M. A., Nichol, G., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1300662 · Cited by 1,357
Genome Engineering With Zinc-Finger Nucleases
Carroll, D. (2011) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.111.131433 · Cited by 1,076
An improved zinc-finger nuclease architecture for highly specific genome editing
Miller, J. C., Holmes, M. C., Wang, J., Guschin, D. Y., Lee, Y.-L., Rupniewski, I., Beausejour, C. M., Waite, A. J., Wang, N. S., Kim, K. A., et al. (2007) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1319 · Cited by 1,051
Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: recent methods and frameworks
Leman, J. K., Weitzner, B. D., Lewis, S. M., Adolf-Bryfogle, J., Alam, N., Alford, R. F., Aprahamian, M., Baker, D., Barlow, K. A., Barth, P., et al. (2020) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2 · Cited by 888
Self-citationComputational design of antibody-affinity improvement beyond in vivo maturation
Lippow, S. M., Wittrup, K. D., & Tidor, B. (2007) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1336 · Cited by 342
Metadata
- Authors
- Ashworth, J., Havranek, J. J., Duarte, C. M., Sussman, D., Monnat, R. J., Stoddard, B. L., & Baker, D.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 441
- Issue
- 7093
- Pages
- 656-659
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2103622571
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nature04818
- The paper
- Ashworth, J., Havranek, J. J., Duarte, C. M., Sussman, D., Monnat, R. J., Stoddard, B. L., & Baker, D. (2006). Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04818
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.