Structure of Poly(dA)·Poly(dT) is not Identical to the AT Rich Regions of the Single Crystal Structure of CGCGAATTBrCGCG. The Consequence of this to Netropsin Binding to Poly(dA)·Poly(dT)

Abstract

The basic assumption of Dickerson and Kopka (J. Biomole. Str. Dyns. 2, 423, 1985) that the conformation of poly(dA)·poly(dT) in solution is identical to the AT rich region of the single crystal structure of the Dickerson dodecamer is not supported by any experimental data. In poly(dA)·poly(dT), NOE and Raman studies indicate that the dA and dT units are conformationally equivalent and display the (anti-S-type sugar)-conformation; incorporation of this nucleotide geometry into a double helix leads to a conventional regular B-helix in which the width of the minor groove is 8A. The derived structure is consistent with all available experimental data on poly(dA)·poly(dT) obtained under solution conditions. In the crystal structure of the dodecamer, the dA and dT units have distinctly different conformations—dA residues adopt (anti, S-type sugar pucker), while dT residues belong to (low anti, N-type sugar pucker). These different conformations of the dA and dT units along with the large propeller twist can be accommodated in a double helix in which the minor groove is shrunk from 8A to less than 4A. In the conventional right handed B-form of poly(dA)·poly(dT) with the 8A wide minor groove, netropsin has to bind asymmetrically along the dA strand to account for the NOE and chemical shift data and to generate a stereochemically sound structure (Sarma et al, J. Biomole. Str. Dyns. 2, 1085, 1985).     

Nuclear Overhauser Data and Stereochemical Considerations Suggest that Netropsin Binds Symmetrically Within the Minor Groove of Poly(dA)·Poly(dT), Forming Hydrogen Bonds with Both Strands of the Double Helix

Abstract

Sarma et al. (J. Biomol. Str. and Dynam. 2, 1085 (1985) have proposed, on the basis of nuclear magnetic resonance experiments on the complex of netropsin with poly(dA)·poly(dT), that the drug molecule lies asymmetrically along the dA side of the minor groove and makes hydrogen bonds only with the dA strand. If the crystal structure analyses of B-DNA (Fratini et al., J. Biol. Chem. 257, 14686 (1982)) and of its complex with netropsin (Kopka et al., J. Mol. Biol. 183, 553 (1985)) are any guide, this off-center, wide-groove model is stereochemically unlikely. More to the point, the off-center model is unnecessary to explain the observed nmr data. All of the nuclear Overhauser and other observations are fully explained by the structure seen in the x-ray crystal analysis, in which netropsin sits squarely centered within the minor groove, making bifurcated hydrogen bonds with both strands.     

Oligonucleotide–Minor Groove Binder Conjugates and Their Complexes with Complementary DNA: Effect of Conjugate Structural Factors on the Thermal Stability of Duplexes

Synthetic polycarboxamide minor groove binders (MGB) consisting of N‐methylpyrrole (Py), N‐methylimidazole (Im), N‐methyl‐3‐hydroxypyrrole (Hp) and β‐alanine (β) show strong and sequence‐specific interaction with the DNA minor groove in side‐by‐side antiparallel or parallel orientation. Two MGB moieties covalently linked to the same terminal phosphate of one DNA strand stabilize DNA duplexes formed by this strand with a complementary one in a sequence‐specific manner, similarly to the corresponding mono‐conjugated hairpin structures. The series of conjugates with the general formula Oligo‐(L‐MGB‐R)_m was synthesized, where m = 1 or 2, L = linker, R = terminal charged or neutral group, MGB = –(Py)_n–, –(Im)_n– or –[(Py/Im)_n–(CH₂)₃CONH–(Py/Im)_n–] and 1 < n < 5. Using thermal denaturation, we studied effects of structural factors such as m and n, linker L length, nature and orientation of the MGB monomers, the group R and the backbone (DNA or RNA), etc. on the stability of the duplexes. Structural factors are more important for linear and hairpin monophosphoroamidates than for parallel bis‐phosphoroamidates. No more than two oligocarboxamide strands can be inserted into the duplex minor groove. Attachment of the second sequence‐specific parallel ligand [–L(Py)₄R] to monophosphoroamidate conjugate CGTTTATT–L(Py)₄R leads to the increase of the duplex Tm, whereas attachment of [–L(Im)₄R] leads to its decrease. The mode of interaction between oligonucleotide duplex and attached ligands could be different (stacking with the terminal A:T pair of the duplex or its insertion into the minor groove) depending on the length and structure of the MGB.