The binding of antibiotics to DNA

Issued as Report of research, Project no. G-41-63

DNA conformation and protein DNA interaction

Issued as Preliminary report, Project no. G-41-B05 (continues G-41-B04; continued by G-41-B06

Transmission of conformational stability through adjacent regions of DNA

Issued as Final report, Project no. G-41-64

Interaction of RNA polymerase with DNA

Issued as Summary progress report, Project no. G-41-B02 (continuation of G-41-B01; continued by G-41-B03

Small instrumentation grant

Issued as Final progress report, Project G-32-62

Influence of ribose 2′-O-methylation on GpC conformation by classical potential energy calculations

Potential energy calculations were employed to examine the effect of ribose 2′-O-methylation on the conformation of GpC. Minimum energy conformations and allowed conformational regions were calculated for 2′MeGpC and Gp2′MeC. The two lowest energy conformations of 2′MeGpC and Gp2′MeC are similar to those of GpC itself. The helical RNA conformation (sugar pucker-C(3′)-endo, ω′ and ω,g−g−, bases-anti) is the global minimum, and a helix-reversing conformation with ω′, ω in the vicinity of 20°, 80° is next in energy. However, subtle differences between the three molecules are noted. When the substitution is on the 5′ ribose (Gp2′MeC), the energy of the helical conformation is less than that of GpC, due to favorable interactions of the added methyl group. When the substitution is at the 3′ ribose (2′MeGpC) these stabilizing interactions are outweighed by steric restrictions, and the helical conformation is of higher energy than for GpC. Furthermore, the statistical weight of the 2′MeGpC g− g− helical region is substantially less than the corresponding weight for Gp2′MeC. In addition, 2′MeGpC′s methoxy group is conformationally restricted to a narrow range centered at 76°. This group has a broadly allowed region between 50 and 175° in Gp2′MeC. These differences occur because the appended methyl group in 2′MeGpC is located in the interior of the helix cylinder, as it would be in polynucleotide, while it hangs unimpeded in Gp2′MeC. These findings suggest that 2′-O-methylation has both stabilizing and destabilizing influences on the helical conformation of RNA. For 2′MeGpC the destabilizing steric hindrance imposed by the nature of the guanine base dominates

Classical potential energy calculations for ApA, CpC, GpG, and UpU. The influence of the bases on RNA subunit conformations

Classical potential energy calculations have been made for the ribodinucleoside monophosphates ApA, CpC, GpG, and UpU. Van der Waal's, electrostatic, and torsional contributions to the energy were calculated, and the energy was minimized with the seven backbone conformational angles as simultaneously variable parameters. At the global minimum, ApA and CpC have conformations like double helical RNA: the angles ω′ and ω are g−g−, the sugar pucker is C3′-endo, and the bases are anti. GpG and UpU, on the other hand, have the ω′,ω angle pair g−t at the global minimum, and for GpG the bases are syn. Energy contour maps for ω′ and ω show two broad, low energy regions for ApA, CpC, and UpU: one is g−g−, and the second encompasses g−t and g+g+ within a single low energy contour. The two regions are connected by a path at 10–13 kcal./mole. For GpG, with bases syn, however, only a small low-energy region at g−t is found. The helical ‘A’ RNA conformation is 8.5 kcal/mole higher for this molecule. Thus, the base composition is shown to influence the conformations adopted by dinucleoside phosphates. Comparison of calculations with experimental data, where available, show good agreement

Conformations of ligand-DNA complexes and DNA oligomers

Issued as Project no. G-41-A0

Isolation of proteins involved in cell growth regulation

Issued as Technical report, Project no. G-32-61

Conformations of ligand-DNA complexes and DNA oligomers

Issued as Summary progress report, and Report of Research grant expenditures, Project no. G-41-A0