72 research outputs found

    Intermolecular dark resonance energy transfer (DRET): Upgrading fluorogenic DNA sensing

    Get PDF
    The sensitivity of FRET-based sensing is usually limited by the spectral overlaps of the FRET donor and acceptor, which generate a poor signal-to-noise ratio. To overcome this limitation, a quenched donor presenting a large Stokes shift can be combined with a bright acceptor to perform Dark Resonance Energy Transfer (DRET). The consequent fluorogenic response from the acceptor considerably improves the signal-to-noise ratio. To date, DRET has mainly relied on a donor that is covalently bound to the acceptor. In this context, our aim was to develop the first intermolecular DRET pair for specific sensing of nucleic acid sequences. To this end, we designed DFK, a push-pull probe based on a fluorenyl π-platform that is strongly quenched in water. DFK was incorporated into a series of oligonucleotides and used as a DRET donor with Cy5-labeled complementary sequences. In line with our expectations, excitation of the dark donor in the double-labeled duplex switched on the far-red Cy5 emission and remained free of cross-excitation. The DRET mechanism was supported by time-resolved fluorescence measurements. This concept was then applied with binary probes, which confirmed the distance dependence of DRET as well as its potency in detecting sequences of interest with low background noise

    XRCC1 interacts with the p58 subunit of DNA Pol α-primase and may coordinate DNA repair and replication during S phase

    Get PDF
    Repair of single-stranded DNA breaks before DNA replication is critical in maintaining genomic stability; however, how cells deal with these lesions during S phase is not clear. Using combined approaches of proteomics and in vitro and in vivo protein–protein interaction, we identified the p58 subunit of DNA Pol α-primase as a new binding partner of XRCC1, a key protein of the single strand break repair (SSBR) complex. In vitro experiments reveal that the binding of poly(ADP-ribose) to p58 inhibits primase activity by competition with its DNA binding property. Overexpression of the XRCC1-BRCT1 domain in HeLa cells induces poly(ADP-ribose) synthesis, PARP-1 and XRCC1-BRCT1 poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation and a strong S phase delay in the presence of DNA damage. Addition of recombinant XRCC1-BRCT1 to Xenopus egg extracts slows down DNA synthesis and inhibits the binding of PCNA, but not MCM2 to alkylated chromatin, thus indicating interference with the assembly of functional replication forks. Altogether these results suggest a critical role for XRCC1 in connecting the SSBR machinery with the replication fork to halt DNA synthesis in response to DNA damage

    A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

    Get PDF
    Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded
    corecore