The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mutational analysis of an archaebacterial promoter: essential role of a TATA box for transcription efficiency and start-site selection in vitro.
Open accessAbstract
By using a recently developed in vitro transcription assay, the 16S/23S rRNA-encoding DNA promoter from the archaebacterium Sulfolobus sp. B12 was dissected by deletion and linker substitution mutagenesis. The analysis of 5' and 3' deletion mutants defined a core promoter region between positions -38 and -2 containing all information for efficient and specific transcription. Further characterization of this region by linker substitution mutagenesis indicated two sequence elements important for promoter function--one located between positions -38 and -25 (distal promoter element) and the other one located between positions -11 and -2 (proximal promoter element). The distal promoter element encompassed the TATA-like "box A" element located approximately 26 nucleotides upstream of the majority of transcription start sites in archaebacteria (Archaeobacteria). All mutations within this box A motif virtually abolished promoter function. Complete inactivation of the proximal promoter element was dependent on extensive mutagenesis; this element is not conserved between archaebacterial promoters except for a high A + T content in stable RNA gene promoters from Sulfolobus. Mutants containing insertions or deletions between the distal and proximal promoter elements were only slightly affected in their transcription efficiency but displayed a shift in their major initiation site, retaining an essentially fixed distance between the distal promoter element and the transcription start site. Thus, efficient transcription and start-site selection were dependent on a conserved TATA-like sequence centered approximately 26 nucleotides upstream of the initiation site, a situation unlike that of eubacterial promoters but resembling the core structure of most eukaryotic RNA polymerase II (and some RNA polymerase III) promoters. This finding suggests a common evolutionary origin of these promoters consistent with the known similarities between archaebacterial and eukaryotic RNA polymerases.
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
Woese, C. R. (1987) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mr.51.2.221-271.1987 · Cited by 5,042
Cited by
The Endosymbiont Hypothesis Revisited
Gray, M. W. (1992) · International Review of Cytology · doi:10.1016/s0074-7696(08)62068-9 · Cited by 586
A single-base resolution map of an archaeal transcriptome
Wurtzel, O., Sapra, R., Chen, F., Zhu, Y., Simmons, B. A., & Sorek, R. (2010) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.100396.109 · Cited by 355
Transcription in archaea: similarity to that in eucarya.
Langer, D., Hain, J., Thuriaux, P., & Zillig, W. (1995) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.92.13.5768 · Cited by 296
Self-citationSchleper, C., Kubo, K., & Zillig, W. (1992) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.89.16.7645 · Cited by 269
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Reiter, W. D., Hüdepohl, U., & Zillig, W.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 1990-12
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 9509-9513
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1970419053
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.54
- 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: Mutational analysis of an archaebacterial promoter: essential role of a TATA box for transcription efficiency and start-site selection in vitro. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.87.24.9509
- The paper
- Reiter, W. D., Hüdepohl, U., & Zillig, W. (1990). Mutational analysis of an archaebacterial promoter: essential role of a TATA box for transcription efficiency and start-site selection in vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.24.9509
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.