1983Nucleic Acids ResearchOpen access

Methidiumpropyl-EDTA-Fe(II) and DNase I footprinting report different small molecule binding site sizes on DNA

Michael W. Van Dyke, Peter B. Dervan

Open full text 175 citations

Abstract

DNase I and MPE.Fe (II) footprinting both employ partial cleavage of ligand-protected DNA restriction fragments and Maxam-Gilbert sequencing gel methods of analysis. One method utilizes the enzyme, DNase I, as the DNA cleaving agent while the other employs the synthetic molecule, methidium-propyl-EDTA (MPE). For actinomycin D, chromomycin A3 and distamycin A, DNase I footprinting reports larger binding site sizes than MPE.Fe (II). DNase I footprinting appears more sensitive for weakly bound sites. MPE.Fe (II) footprinting appears more accurate in determining the actual size and location of the binding sites for small molecules on DNA, especially in cases where several small molecules are closely spaced on the DNA. MPE.Fe (II) and DNase I report the same sequence and binding site size for lac repressor protein on operator DNA.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

DNase I and MPE.Fe (II) footprinting both employ partial cleavage of ligand-protected DNA restriction fragments and Maxam-Gilbert sequencing gel methods of analysis. One method utilizes the enzyme, DNase I, as the DNA cleaving agent while the other employs the synthetic molecule, methidium-propyl-EDTA (MPE). For actinomycin D, chromomycin A3 and distamycin A, DNase I footprinting reports larger binding site sizes than MPE.Fe (II). DNase I footprinting appears more sensitive for weakly bound sites. MPE.Fe (II) footprinting appears more accurate in determining the actual size and location of the binding sites for small molecules on DNA, especially in cases where several small molecules are closely spaced on the DNA. MPE.Fe (II) and DNase I report the same sequence and binding site size for lac repressor protein on operator DNA.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 175 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

DNase I and MPE.Fe (II) footprinting both employ partial cleavage of ligand-protected DNA restriction fragments and Maxam-Gilbert sequencing gel methods of analysis. One method utilizes the enzyme, DNase I, as the DNA cleaving agent while the other employs the synthetic molecule, methidium-propyl-EDTA (MPE). For actinomycin D, chromomycin A3 and distamycin A, DNase I footprinting reports larger binding site sizes than MPE.Fe (II). DNase I footprinting appears more sensitive for weakly bound sites. MPE.Fe (II) footprinting appears more accurate in determining the actual size and location of the binding sites for small molecules on DNA, especially in cases where several small molecules are closely spaced on the DNA. MPE.Fe (II) and DNase I report the same sequence and binding site size for lac repressor protein on operator DNA.

Key concepts: Footprinting, DNA footprinting, Deoxyribonuclease I, Biology, DNA, Binding site, Molecular biology, Hypersensitive site

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Methidiumpropyl-EDTA-Fe(II) and DNase I footprinting report different small molecule binding site sizes on DNA — Research Paper | ScholarLens