Review Topical Sections

Unique insight into protein-DNA interactions from single molecule atomic force microscopy

  • Protein-DNA interactions are pivotal for many essential biological processes. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) imaging of protein-DNA systems involved in DNA target site search, identification, and processing by proteins has contributed invaluable information to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms. The single molecule 3D resolution of AFM enables us to uncover stoichiometries and conformational properties of protein-DNA complexes. Its molecular resolution places AFM at the interface between the atomic resolution achievable by crystallography and the comparably poor (typically > hundred nanometers) spatial resolution of optical microscopy. Furthermore, the transient character of protein interactions with nonspecific DNA sites, for example during their target site search renders these complexes difficult to resolve by standard ensemble methods. Here, we review current applications and capabilities of as well as novel advances in AFM imaging in protein-DNA interaction studies.

    Citation: Disha Mohan Bangalore, Ingrid Tessmer. Unique insight into protein-DNA interactions from single molecule atomic force microscopy[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(3): 194-216. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.3.194

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yu. A. Desheva, A. S. Mamontov, P. G. Nazarov . Contribution of antibody-dependent enhancement to the pathogenesis of coronavirus infections. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2020, 4(3): 50-59. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2020005
    [2] Laiba Noor, Syeda Momna Ishtiaq, Farhat Batool, Muhammad Imran Arshad . Age-dependent trends in adverse reactions of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A narrative review. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2024, 8(3): 146-166. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2024008
    [3] Issam Tout, Marie Marotel, Isabelle Chemin, Uzma Hasan . HBV and the importance of TLR9 on B cell responses. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2017, 1(3): 124-137. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2017.3.124
    [4] Darrell O. Ricke . Etiology model for many vaccination adverse reactions, including SARS-CoV-2 spike vaccines. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(4): 200-215. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022015
    [5] Anastasiia D. Kurenkova, Peter S. Timashev . Mast cells: A dark horse in osteoarthritis treatment. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(4): 228-247. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022017
    [6] Tadaaki Miyazaki . Protective effects of lactic acid bacteria on influenza A virus infection. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2017, 1(3): 138-142. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2017.3.138
    [7] Katarzyna Nazimek . The complex functions of microRNA-150 in allergy, autoimmunity and immune tolerance. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2021, 5(4): 195-221. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2021016
    [8] Djo Hasan . Purinergic P2X7R expressed on regulatory T cells potentially links molecular mimicry to autoimmune responses. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2024, 8(2): 80-123. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2024006
    [9] Mansur Aliyu, Fatema Zohora, Ali Akbar Saboor-Yaraghi . Spleen in innate and adaptive immunity regulation. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2021, 5(1): 1-17. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2021001
    [10] Daniel Danladi Gaiya, Jonathan Danladi Gaiya, Richard Auta, Aliyu Muhammad, Bege Jonathan, Stella Kuyet Udu, Ekpa Emmanuel, Amina Shehu Bature . The journey so far with SARS-CoV-2 variants: Pathogenesis, immunity and treatments. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2023, 7(4): 222-250. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2023016
  • Protein-DNA interactions are pivotal for many essential biological processes. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) imaging of protein-DNA systems involved in DNA target site search, identification, and processing by proteins has contributed invaluable information to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms. The single molecule 3D resolution of AFM enables us to uncover stoichiometries and conformational properties of protein-DNA complexes. Its molecular resolution places AFM at the interface between the atomic resolution achievable by crystallography and the comparably poor (typically > hundred nanometers) spatial resolution of optical microscopy. Furthermore, the transient character of protein interactions with nonspecific DNA sites, for example during their target site search renders these complexes difficult to resolve by standard ensemble methods. Here, we review current applications and capabilities of as well as novel advances in AFM imaging in protein-DNA interaction studies.


    1. Introduction

    The Ligand Epitope Antigen Presentation System (LEAPS) is unique as a platform for developing T cell vaccines that convert a peptide containing single and multiple T cell epitopes into an immunogen and simultaneously directs the nature of the subsequent immune response [1,2] to either a Th1 or Th2/Treg directed response. LEAPS vaccines act as both antigen and adjuvant. We reviewed [3,4,5,6] and compared the LEAPS approach to other vaccine technologies and conjugates (including Ii-Key, PaDRe, SLP, TRL, as well as DNA vaccines) that promote T cell activation but LEAPS is unique in its ability to define the nature of the subsequent response without concurrent administration of a cytokine, its gene, or other response determining adjuvant. This review will focus on J-LEAPS vaccines because these vaccines elicit their response by promoting the maturation of precursors into dendritic cells that produce Interleukin (IL) IL12p70 and promote Th1 responses (DC1 cells) (see later). This review of J-LEAPS vaccines describes newer applications of the technology.

    LEAPS vaccines have been developed and tested in animal models and elicit protection against lethal challenge with herpes simplex type 1 (HSV-1) [7,8] and influenza A [9] viruses, elicit relevant immune responses to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) [10,11] and tuberculosis [1,2] prevent the establishment of tumors and the spread of HER-2/neu tumor cells [12] and stop the progression of autoimmune diseases such as experimental autoimmune myocarditis [13] and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [14,15,16]. Several of these vaccines are awaiting the opportunity to be tested in humans.

    The antigenic peptides incorporated into LEAPS vaccines can be as small as 8 amino acids or as large as 32 amino acids but must contain at least one T cell epitope [9]. Peptides as small as 8 amino acids are usually poor or not immunogens but are effective in LEAPS vaccines. The peptides to be incorporated into a LEAPS vaccine are identified in the literature or through in silico predictions to contain T cell epitopes important for eliciting T cell associated protective or therapeutic responses and have chemical properties conducive to synthesis, stability and delivery. Attachment to either of two immune cell binding ligands (ICBL) (approximately 13 amino acids) through a triglycine linker [1,2,12] (Figure 1 and Table 1) creates the LEAPS vaccine and covalent attachment is required for activity. The J-ICBL is a peptide from the beta-2 microglobulin component of the MHC Ⅰ molecule (DLLKNGERIEKVE, aa 38–50) [17] and the G-ICBL is a peptide from the beta chain of the MHC Ⅱ molecule (NGQEEKAGVVSTGLI, aa 135–149) [18,19,20]. The DerG (DGQEEKAGVVSTGLI) ICBL is functional and preferred to the G-ICBL because it is more stable. These ICBLs were chosen because they interact with receptors on leukocytes and mutations within these peptide sequences or antibodies that bind to these sequences prevent the onset of immune responses. The ICBL itself is a poor immunogen and does not elicit an antibody response without conjugation to a large carrier such as keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH). The LEAPS vaccines are administered in an oil-in-water adjuvant emulsion for depot release. Most LEAPS vaccines have been tested with the Montanide ISA 51 adjuvant [7,14,21,22] but they have also been tested with MPL (Lipid A) and Novasomes [3]. Alum and similar adjuvants are not effective [10].

    Figure 1. JgD LEAPS vaccine.
    Table 1. Peptides incorporated into J-LEAPS vaccines.
    Peptide Source Sequence
    INFECTIOUS DISEASE VACCINES
    Herpes simplex virus type 1
    H1 ICP27 322–332 LYRTFAGNPRA
    gB Glycoprotein B 498–505 SSIEFARL
    gD Glycoprotein D 8–23 SLKMADPNRFRGKDLP
    Mycobacterium tuberculosis
    M 38 kDa protein 350–369 DQVHFQPLPPAVVKLSDAL
    HIV-1
    H HGP-30 p17 protein 85–115 YSVHQRIDVKDTKEALEKIEEEQNKSKKKA
    mHGP30 HGP-30 p17 protein 82–112 ATLYSVHQRIDVKDTKEALEKIEEEQN
    Influenza
    M2e M2 envelope protein 2–24 SLLTEVETPIRNEWGCRCNDSSD
    NP Nucleoprotein 144–158 NDATYQRTRALVRTG
    HA1 Hemagglutinin 38–53 LKSTQNAIDEITNKVN
    HA2 Hemagglutinin 1–13 GLFGAIAGFIEGG
    THERAPIES
    Breast Cancer
    HER Rat HER-2/neu 66–74 TYVPANASL
    Rheumatoid Arthritis
    CEL-2000 Human Collagen type 2 254–273 TGGKPGIAGFKGEQGPKGEP
    Myocarditis
    My-1 Murine Cardiac Myosin 334–352 DSAFDVLSFTAEEKAGVYK
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The G-and DerG-ICBLs are not the topic of this review and will be mentioned only briefly. The G and DerG-ICBL are structurally related peptides that interact with the CD4 molecule present on a major subclass of T cells but also on other cells, e.g. certain classes of monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, and mast cells. The G-and DerG-ICBLs promote immunomodulatory regulatory CD4+ CD25+ FoxP3+ T cell (Treg) and Th2 type responses via CD4+ T cells and not DCs [14,15]. Konig and colleagues demonstrated that the G-peptide binds to CD4 and at high concentrations it inhibits T cell responses while at more physiological concentrations, the peptide enhances T cell responses through promoting changes in calcium flux and cyclic AMP levels [20]. Antibody production by G (or DerG)-LEAPS vaccines requires an antigenic boost with protein antigen and in the mouse this results in a secondary Th2 antibody response indicated by the presence of IgG1 and IgG3 but lack of IgM [1,2]. A DerG-LEAPS vaccine is therapeutic in a proteoglycan-induced mouse model for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [14,15].


    2. J-LEAPS Vaccines

    The initial J-LEAPS vaccines incorporated a peptide from the 38 kDa protein of M. tuberculosis (peptide 350–369) [1,2]; a peptide from the p17 HGP-30 protein of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV) [10,11] (peptide 85–115) or a region of the p41 envelope portion (peptide 603–620) of HIV [1]. Subsequent studies demonstrated that successful J-LEAPS vaccines contain a CD8 T cell epitope [9]. Providing a protein boost to mice following immunization with either of these vaccines produced a secondary immune response dominated by the IgG2a subtype. This indicated that the J-LEAPS vaccines elicit a primary Th1 focused response. Th1 responses are usually pro-inflammatory and activate macrophages for more effective antimicrobial activity towards intracellular microbes, activate T cells to produce more interferon gamma (IFNγ) to reinforce the response, and activate cytolytic CD8 T cells. In contrast, attachment of the same antigenic peptides to the G-ICBL or DerG-ICBL instead of the J-ICBL induced Th2 related antibody responses upon protein boost and Treg responses [1,2,14]. Hints towards the mechanism of action of the J-ICBL were obtained in studies performed with the JgD anti-HSV vaccine which incorporates peptide 8–23 from the herpes simplex virus Type 1 (HSV-1) glycoprotein D (gD) [4] and with the JH vaccine that incorporates peptide 85–115 from the HIV p17 protein [10,11]. Temporal antibody ablation studies showed that CD8 bearing cells are important to initiate the response to JgD and CD4-bearing cells, CD8 bearing cells and IFNγ were important for delivering protection from lethal challenge with HSV-1 [8]. In mice, CD8 is expressed on T cells but also on a dendritic cell type 1 (DC1) subset [22] which is especially adept at cross presentation of antigen and important for activating CD8 T cells. Treatment of immune-naive uninfected mice with JgD or JH caused the production and presence in serum of IL12p70 by the 4th day post immunization [22]. IL17 and IL12p70 were detectable in serum on the 10th day, followed by waning of IL17 and an increase in IFNγ on the 20th day after immunization. Interestingly, serum levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) did not increase in response to JgD treatment. IL12p70 is produced by DC1 cells, a subset of DCs that promote Th1 responses [23]. As described below, treatment of precursor cells from mouse bone marrow or human monocytes with JgD or JH promoted their maturation to become DC1s.


    3. Prophylactic J-LEAPS Peptide Vaccines

    The proof of concept for J-LEAPS vaccines was obtained by demonstration of protection from lethal challenge with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) after immunization with antigen specific J-LEAPS vaccines. G-LEAPS vaccines either had no effect or exacerbated the infection as would be predicted following induction of a Th2 type of response. The initial study utilized a vaccine that incorporated an 11 amino acid CD8 T cell epitope from the intracellular viral protein ICP27 (JH1) [7]. Antibody production to this epitope or protein would not be protective. Vaccination of Balb/C mice elicited protection from lethal challenge with minimal morbidity and mortality and generated delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses to the viral antigens but did not generate an antibody response either upon immunization or challenge by infectious virus. These studies indicated success of the JH1 vaccine and that a T cell response was elicited which was sufficient for protection. Similar protections were elicited towards the 8 amino acid major CD8 T cell epitope (SSIEFARL) from glycoprotein B (gB) of HSV-1 recognized by C57/BL6 mice [4]. Again, no antibody was produced prior to challenge by infectious virus. Heteroconjugates of the H1 or gB or gD peptides with the G-ICBL did not confer protective immunity [4,8].

    The most in depth vaccine studies were performed with JgD [4,8,22]. As with the other anti-HSV vaccines, this vaccine elicited protection against morbidity and mortality. Antibody was only detected when there was minor breakthrough disease signs indicative of virus production which provided the requisite protein boost. Elicitation of protection was observed in multiple strains of mice including four different inbred and three different outbred strains [8].


    4. J-LEAPS Dendritic Cell Vaccines

    The J-ICBL promotes interactions between the LEAPS vaccine and dendritic cell precursors and promotes their maturation into DC1s [22,24]. Treatment of mouse bone marrow cells with JgD or JH generated cells with the mature DC1 phenotype within 48 hours [22]. The conversion occurred whether the bone marrow cells were not pretreated or pretreated with GM-CSF alone or GM-CSF and IL4 according to standard protocols for generating DCs. Similarly, treatment of purified human monocytes obtained from peripheral blood with JgD or JH after pretreatment with GM-CSF plus IL4 or not, also generated DC1s with a similar phenotype to the mouse DC1s [24]. These cells are referred to as JgD-muDCs and JH-muDCs from the mouse and JgD-huDC and JH-huDC from humans. JH-DCs and JgD-DCs from human and mouse produced IL12p70 and DC1 related chemokines but unlike DC1s produced by other means, did not produce TNFα. The JgD-muDCs and JH-muDCs were able to induce the Th1 cytokines, IL2 and IFNγ, from na ve mouse spleen cells [22] and the JgD-huDCs and JH-huDCs were able to elicit these cytokines from human peripheral blood T cells [6,24]. In the converse of this experiment, a cytokine response (IL2 or IFNγ) was not elicited by T cells treated with JgD or JH for 48 hours followed by washing away free peptide prior to mixing with monocytes. Demonstration that JgD and JH elicit similar reactions in human and mouse dendritic cell precursors provides basis for developing J-LEAPS vaccines for humans.

    The strongest proof that the JgD peptide promotes maturation of precursors to DC1s was obtained by the antigen specific protection from lethal HSV-1 challenge elicited after adoptive transfer of carefully washed, ex vivo generated JgD-muDCs into otherwise immuno-naive mice [22]. Mice receiving JgD-muDCs were protected whereas mice receiving JH-muDCs were not. Bone marrow cells treated with the J-LEAPS peptide for 48h were administered on two occasions 14 days apart and then one week later the mice received a lethal challenge with HSV-1. All the mice receiving JgD-muDCs survived with only very minor disease signs observed in 2 out of 7 mice. The antigen specificity of the response was demonstrated by the deaths of all mice receiving JH-muDCs, cells generated with the HIV vaccine.

    In similar studies by Boonnak et al. [9], J-LEAPS muDCs, matured by J-LEAPS vaccines containing appropriate CTL protective influenza A epitopes, prevented morbidity and mortality when administered as a treatment after lethal challenge with influenza A. Bone marrow cells pre-incubated in GM-CSF were treated with J-LEAPS peptides that incorporated 15 to 30 amino acid—long peptides derived from influenza virus NP, M2e, or HA proteins. The treatment caused maturation of the cells to become DC1s. The NP and M2e peptides contained CD8 T cell epitopes while the HA peptide contained CD4 T and B cell epitopes. The mice that were treated with J-NP-muDCs, or J-M2e-muDCs or a mixture of DCs matured with all four of the influenza peptides (J-NP, J-M2e, J-HA1, J-HA2) as late as 48 h after lethal viral challenge maintained normal weight and viability whereas those receiving LEAPS-muDCs prepared with only the J-HA1, J-HA2 or the unrelated JH vaccine (vaccine for HIV) died within 9 days. Influenza virus replication and TNFα, IL6 and IL1α inflammatory cytokine levels in the lungs were reduced while IL12p70 and IFNγ levels were increased by the successful treatments indicating rapid modulation of the T cell cytokine response to infection. These studies confirmed the ability of J-LEAPS vaccines to promote the maturation of DC1s. Adoptive transfer of the J-LEAPS-DCs after virus challenge provided therapy for the on-going disease, limiting production and spread of the virus and providing antigen specific immunomodulation of the cytokine storm that exacerbates the disease. Unlike conventional immunization, as with the J-LEAPS peptides, the preformed and antigen presenting J-LEAPS-DCs were able to elicit the therapeutic response very quickly and rapidly enough to induce protections after influenza challenge to protect the animals from disease.


    5. Antitumor LEAPS Vaccines

    Therapeutic immune responses to tumors depend upon a strong CD8 cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) response as part of a Th1 and Tc1 response [25] similar to those elicited by J-LEAPS vaccines. The CTLs driven by IL12 and Th1 and Tc1 responses are more sensitive to antigen than T cells induced by other responses [26,27,28,29] and IL12 promotes other responses that support anti-tumor activities [28,29]. As for the antiviral vaccines, anti-tumor vaccines can be designed by attaching a CTL epitope from a tumor antigen to the J-ICBL. Appropriate tumor antigens and epitopes from these antigens for inclusion in J-LEAPS vaccines can be obtained from studies described in the literature or from in silico analysis of tumor proteins.

    As a proof of concept oncology study, a J-LEAPS vaccine for HER-2/neu breast cancer (J-HER) was designed and tested in a mouse model [12]. The HER-2/neu cell surface receptor is overexpressed in many breast cancer tumors and the tumor cells require the function of the protein [30,31]. CTL epitopes have been identified within HER-2/neu for mouse and human immune systems [32,33]. J-HER incorporates a prominent CTL eliciting minimal epitope (aa 66–74: TYVPANASL) for BALB/c mice [32,33]. The vaccine was administered as an emulsion with Montanide ISA-51 in an oil in water emulsion. The vaccine was tested in mice challenged with TUBO cells, a tumor cell line [34] originally obtained from a spontaneous mammary gland tumor that arose in genetically altered BALB/c mice that overexpress HER-2/neu.

    When administered as a prophylactic vaccination before tumor challenge, J-HER protected against tumor development for at least 48 days. When administered after the tumor challenge, vaccination with J-HER made a large difference in the health and survival of the tumor bearing mice by controlling tumor spread even though the primary tumors continued to grow. The ability of the vaccine to elicit this type of therapeutic response suggests that a J-HER vaccine would be useful as a neoadjuvant therapy administered prior to surgery to initiate responses against tumor recurrence or metastasis. A HER-2/neu protein based dendritic cell vaccine has shown efficacy in this capacity [29,35].

    The success of the J-HER pilot study indicates the potential of J-LEAPS tumor vaccines. J-LEAPS tumor vaccines can be prepared as minimal epitope peptides, tandem epitope peptides or mixtures of peptides. These vaccines can be readily synthesized to include different CD8 T cell tumor antigen epitopes. The J-LEAPS vaccines can be customized to contain several tumor antigen peptides to optimize tumor therapy or to personalize treatment for individuals with different HLA types. The J-LEAPS vaccines can be administered as peptides or as J-LEAPS DCs.

    As stated by Palucka and Banchareau [26], the goal of cancer immunotherapy is to elicit tumor-specific CD8+ T cell mediated immune responses that will be sufficiently robust and long-lasting to generate durable tumor regression and/or eradication. They and others [36] utilize ex-vivo generated and antigen primed DCs for tumor therapy. Key to the success of these therapies is the proper maturation of precursors to become DC1s capable of activating the appropriate anti-tumor response and the choice of the optimal tumor antigen to be presented to the CD8 T cells [36]. Dendreon developed the first FDA approved anti-tumor Antigen Presenting Cell (APC) vaccine (sipuleucel-T) for prostate cancer [37]. Autologous peripheral-blood mononuclear cells from patients were treated with a conjugate of prostatic acid phosphatase and GM-CSF to promote maturation of cells and presentation of the tumor antigen upon re-infusion into the patient. The cells were then reinfused into the patient on three occasions. The sipuleucel-T generated APC cell population contained a mixture of cells including DCs but was not optimized for DC1s. Czerniecki et al. [29,35] and others [36] have focused their efforts on the use of antigen loaded DC1s as immunotherapy. This ensures treatment with the optimal antigen presenting cell expressing appropriate tumor antigens to elicit CD8 T cell responses.

    DC1 cells capable of presenting relevant tumor antigenic epitopes can be designed using J-LEAPS peptides for use as autologous cell vaccines. Using the JgD-muLEAPS-DC and influenza-mu-LEAPS-DC as models, the tumor-peptide-LEAPS-DCs can be prepared within 48 hours of leukopheresis of the patient's monocytes (and probably less than 24 hours) and be ready to be infused as adoptive transfer therapy. Procedures could be developed for on-site maturation of the J-LEAPS-DCs allowing rapid generation of a customized autologous DC vaccine that delivers the appropriate antigen specific response.

    Both J-LEAPS peptide and J-LEAPS-DC anti-tumor vaccines can readily be developed to customize the treatment of the cancer patient. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. Studies with the anti-viral J-LEAPS peptide vaccines indicate that DC1s are elicited in the body after immunization to mediate therapy but elicitation of a sufficient T cell response for therapy takes time. The J-LEAPS-DCs act quickly and can be injected into the draining lymph node of the tumor to focus the response but require extensive and expensive cell fractionation and tissue culture procedures prior to its use in treating the patient with concerns for the viability, sterility, means of delivery and function of the cells. Both approaches await further trials.


    6. Therapeutic LEAPS Vaccines for Autoimmune Diseases

    Th17 responses are a major driving force for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriasis as evidenced by the efficacy of therapeutic ablation of Th17 responses with antibodies to TNFα, IL17 or IL23 [38]. Unfortunately, these potent therapies compromise host protections provided by the Th17 response for tuberculosis and other infections. J-LEAPS vaccines offer a therapeutic option. The ability of LEAPS vaccines to promote the maturation of precursors into DC1s which promote a Th1 response defined by production of IFNγ but not TNFα and the ability of J-influenza-DCs to modulate the pathogenic inflammatory responses induced by influenza infection, suggest their use for immunomodulation of autoimmune diseases driven by Th17 proinflammatory responses. IFNγ inhibits Th17 responses [39]. Unlike the antibody ablation therapies, the LEAPS vaccine therapy would be focused on the antigen specific T cells that are promoting the disease rather than the entire cytokine driven immune response.

    In a mouse model for experimental autoimmune myocarditis, treatment with a J-LEAPS vaccine incorporating an epitope from murine cardiac myosin (J-My1) prevented the development of the disease [13]. Similarly, the LEAPS vaccine, CEL-2000 (a conjugate composed of the J-ICBL and an immunodominant type Ⅱ collagen (CII) epitope) was therapeutic when administered after the onset of disease symptoms in the collagen induced arthritis (CIA) mouse model for rheumatoid arthritis, a Th17 driven disease [16]. Treatment with CEL-2000 caused a reduction in serum levels of pro-inflammatory IL17, IL6 and TNFα while increasing IL12, IFNγ and IL10 levels. IL10 is a regulatory cytokine produced by regulatory T cells, B cells and even some Th1 cells [40].

    Although useful for Th17 driven autoimmune responses, a J-LEAPS vaccine was not effective in a mouse model for rheumatoid arthritis driven by Th1 proinflammatory responses to proteoglycan [14]. Therapy was provided by a derG-LEAPS vaccine incorporating an epitope from proteoglycan. LEAPS vaccines provide a choice of appropriate immunomodulatory therapy once the cytokine nature of the inflammatory response driving autoimmune disease is known. A J-LEAPS vaccine is appropriate for Th17 proinflammatory autoimmune diseases whereas a derG-LEAPS vaccine would be appropriate for Th1 proinflammatory autoimmune diseases.


    7. Future Potential for J-LEAPS Vaccines

    J-LEAPS vaccines and J-LEAPS-DCs provide the opportunity to custom design vaccines that elicit appropriate protective and therapeutic responses to disease related peptides. As demonstrated for influenza, J-LEAPS-DCs provide the additional advantage of initiating rapid, effective, protective therapeutic responses. All challenge studies with J-LEAPS vaccines to date have been limited to mice. However, both JgD and JH demonstrated their ability to induce responses in human cells that parallel those in mice by converting human monocytes into functional dendritic cells capable of inducing allotypic responses [25]. These studies showed the potential for application of J-LEAPS technology to human diseases.

    A human J-LEAPS vaccine could consist of a single heteroconjugate peptide containing one or more epitopes or a mixture of J-LEAPS vaccine peptides. Customized or mixtures of vaccines can be developed to accommodate the heterogeneity in human histocompatibility molecules and disease related antigens. Many of the protective antigenic peptide sequences for intracellular microbial and viral infections and tumors are already known and J-LEAPS peptides can be readily synthesized under GMP conditions to produce vaccines for these diseases. For autoimmune diseases, J-LEAPS therapeutic vaccines can be utilized after the patient's disease is demonstrated to be driven by Th17 responses. In vitro assays to test these elements were developed for mouse spleen cells [14] but can be readily adapted to use for a human patient's peripheral blood cells to provide the potential for personalized medicine.

    Despite great potential, funding limitations have precluded the jump to clinical trials for J-LEAPS vaccines. Studies are about to be initiated on a DerG-LEAPS vaccine for RA (CEL-4000) [14] to prepare this vaccine for first in man testing.


    8. Conclusion

    The J-LEAPS vaccine platform provides the means to custom design peptide vaccines that promote the maturation of dendritic cells to deliver interferon gamma driven CD8 T cell responses. The resultant immune responses are sufficient to elicit protections against lethal herpes simplex virus and likely other viral and intracellular infections, cytolytic therapy for cancer and immunomodulatory therapy for Th17 driven autoimmune diseases. Ex-vivo derived DC1s can be prepared with the J-LEAPS vaccine peptides to provide a more rapid acting and focused response. In addition to prophylaxis, the J-LEAPS peptide and J-LEAPS-DC vaccines provide therapy by promoting appropriate anti-tumor responses and immunomodulation of pathogenic inflammatory responses. The J-LEAPS vaccines interact with human dendritic cell precursors and promote similar responses with human cells as with mouse cells suggesting the efficacy of J-LEAPS vaccines in humans. The J-LEAPS vaccines can be customized to include appropriate epitopes, exclude inhibitory or regulatory epitopes, and to accommodate different MHC backgrounds. In addition, mixtures of peptides can be used to prepare J-LEAPS vaccines which can be used to optimize or expand their spectrum and efficacy.


    Acknowledgements

    All the studies presented in this review have been published and funding sources acknowledged in those publications. We would like to thank our collaborators for their contributions to the development of the J-LEAPS technology.


    Conflict of Interest

    All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in this paper.


    [1] Binnig G, Quate CF, Gerber C (1986) Atomic Force Microscope. Phys Rev Lett 56: 930–933. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.930
    [2] Tessmer I, Kaur P, Lin JG, et al. (2013) Investigating bioconjugation by atomic force microscopy. J Nanobiotechnol 11: 1–17. doi: 10.1186/1477-3155-11-1
    [3] Werten PJL, Remigy HW, de Groot BL, et al. (2002) Progress in the analysis of membrane protein structure and function. FEBS Lett 529: 65–72. doi: 10.1016/S0014-5793(02)03290-8
    [4] Muller DJ, Sapra KT, Scheuring S, et al. (2006) Single-molecule studies of membrane proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16: 489–495. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2006.06.001
    [5] Gorle S, Pan YG, Sun ZQ, et al. (2017) Computational Model and Dynamics of Monomeric Full-Length APOBEC3G. ACS Cent Sci 3: 1180–1188. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00346
    [6] Sander B, Tria G, Shkumatov AV, et al. (2013) Structural characterization of gephyrin by AFM and SAXS reveals a mixture of compact and extended states. Acta Crystallogr 69: 2050–2060.
    [7] Ishino S, Yamagami T, Kitamura M, et al. (2014) Multiple interactions of the intrinsically disordered region between the helicase and nuclease domains of the archaeal Hef protein. J Biol Chem 289: 21627–21639. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.554998
    [8] Shinozaki Y, Sumitomo K, Tsuda M, et al. (2009) Direct Observation of ATP-Induced Conformational Changes in Single P2X(4) Receptors. PLos Biol 7: e1000103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000103
    [9] Lemaire PA, Tessmer I, Craig R, et al. (2006) Unactivated PKR exists in an open conformation capable of binding nucleotides. Biochemistry 45: 9074–9084. doi: 10.1021/bi060567d
    [10] Kinoshita E, van Rossum-Fikkert S, Sanchez H, et al. (2015) Human RAD50 makes a functional DNA-binding complex. Biochimie 113: 47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2015.03.017
    [11] Bonazza K, Rottensteiner H, Seyfried BK, et al. (2014) Visualization of a protein-protein interaction at a single-molecule level by atomic force microscopy. Anal Bioanal Chem 406: 1411–1421. doi: 10.1007/s00216-013-7563-0
    [12] Shlyakhtenko LS, Gall AA, Filonov A, et al. (2003) Silatrane-based surface chemistry for immobilization of DNA, protein-DNA complexes and other biological materials. Ultramicroscopy 97: 279–287. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3991(03)00053-6
    [13] Scheuring S, Muller DJ, Ringler P, et al. (1999) Imaging streptavidin 2D crystals on biotinylated lipid monolayers at high resolution with the atomic force microscope. J Microsc 193: 28–35. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2818.1999.00434.x
    [14] Whited AM, Park PS (2014) Atomic force microscopy: A multifaceted tool to study membrane proteins and their interactions with ligands. Biochim Biophys Acta 1838: 56–68. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2013.04.011
    [15] Dubrovin EV, Schachtele M, Klinov DV, et al. (2017) Time-Lapse Single-Biomolecule Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation on Modified Graphite in Solution. Langmuir 33: 10027–10034. doi: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b02220
    [16] Oliveira Brett AM, Chiorcea Paquim AM (2005) DNA imaged on a HOPG electrode surface by AFM with controlled potential. Bioelectrochemistry 66: 117–124. doi: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2004.05.009
    [17] Garcia R, Perez R (2002) Dynamic atomic force microscopy methods. Surf Sci Rep 47: 197–301. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5729(02)00077-8
    [18] Dufrene YF, Ando T, Garcia R, et al. (2017) Imaging modes of atomic force microscopy for application in molecular and cell biology. Nat Nanotechnol 12: 295–307. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2017.45
    [19] Hansma HG, Sinsheimer RL, Groppe J, et al. (1993) Recent Advances in Atomic-Force Microscopy of DNA. Scanning 15: 296–299. doi: 10.1002/sca.4950150509
    [20] Balamurugan S, Obubuafo A, Soper SA, et al. (2008) Surface immobilization methods for aptamer diagnostic applications. Anal Bioanal Chem 390: 1009–1021. doi: 10.1007/s00216-007-1587-2
    [21] Knecht S, Ricklin D, Eberle AN, et al. (2009) Oligohis-tags: Mechanisms of binding to Ni2+-NTA surfaces. J Mol Recognit 22: 270–279. doi: 10.1002/jmr.941
    [22] Ritzefeld M, Walhorn V, Anselmetti D, et al. (2013) Analysis of DNA interactions using single-molecule force spectroscopy. Amino Acids 44: 1457–1475. doi: 10.1007/s00726-013-1474-4
    [23] Rief M, Clausen-Schaumann H, Gaub HE (1999) Sequence-dependent mechanics of single DNA molecules. Nat Struct Biol 6: 346–349. doi: 10.1038/7582
    [24] Carrion-Vazquez M, Oberhauser AF, Fowler SB, et al. (1999) Mechanical and chemical unfolding of a single protein: A comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A 96: 3694–3699. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.7.3694
    [25] Woodside MT, Block SM (2014) Reconstructing Folding Energy Landscapes by Single-Molecule Force Spectroscopy. Annu Rev Biophys 43: 19–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022754
    [26] Hughes ML, Dougan L (2016) The physics of pulling polyproteins: A review of single molecule force spectroscopy using the AFM to study protein unfolding. Rep Prog Phys Phys Soc 79: 076601. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/79/7/076601
    [27] Fisher TE, Marszalek PE, Fernandez JM (2000) Stretching single molecules into novel conformations using the atomic force microscope. Nat Struct Biol 7: 719–724. doi: 10.1038/78936
    [28] Beckwitt EC, Kong M, Van Houten B (2018) Studying protein-DNA interactions using atomic force microscopy. Semin Cell Dev Biol 73: 220–230. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.06.028
    [29] Kasas S, Dietler G (2018) DNA-protein interactions explored by atomic force microscopy. Semin Cell Dev Biol 73: 231–239. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.07.015
    [30] Lyubchenko YL, Shlyakhtenko LS (2016) Imaging of DNA and Protein-DNA Complexes with Atomic Force Microscopy. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 26: 63–96. doi: 10.1615/CritRevEukaryotGeneExpr.v26.i1.70
    [31] Halford SE, Marko JF (2004) How do site-specific DNA-binding proteins find their targets? Nucleic Acids Res 32: 3040–3052. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh624
    [32] Schneider R, Grosschedl R (2007) Dynamics and interplay of nuclear architecture, genome organization, and gene expression. Genes Dev 21: 3027–3043. doi: 10.1101/gad.1604607
    [33] Lambert SA, Jolma A, Campitelli LF, et al. (2018) The Human Transcription Factors. Cell 172: 650–665. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.01.029
    [34] Sancar A, Lindsey-Boltz LA, Unsal-Kacmaz K, et al. (2004) Molecular mechanisms of mammalian DNA repair and the DNA damage checkpoints. Annu Rev Biochem 73: 39–85. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.73.011303.073723
    [35] Kapanidis AN, Strick T (2009) Biology, one molecule at a time. Trends Biochem Sci 34: 234–243. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2009.01.008
    [36] Larson MH, Landick R, Block SM (2011) Single-Molecule Studies of RNA Polymerase: One Singular Sensation, Every Little Step It Takes. Mol Cell 41: 249–262. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.01.008
    [37] Ghodke H, Wang H, Hsieh CL, et al. (2014) Single-molecule analysis reveals human UV-damaged DNA-binding protein (UV-DDB) dimerizes on DNA via multiple kinetic intermediates. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111: E1862–E1871. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323856111
    [38] Buechner CN, Maiti A, Drohat AC, et al. (2015) Lesion search and recognition by thymine DNA glycosylase revealed by single molecule imaging. Nucleic Acids Res 43: 2716–2729. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv139
    [39] Bewley CA, Gronenborn AM, Clore GM (1998) Minor groove-binding architectural proteins: Structure, function, and DNA recognition. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 27: 105–131. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.27.1.105
    [40] Perez-Rueda E, Hernandez-Guerrero R, Martinez-Nunez MA, et al. (2018) Abundance, diversity and domain architecture variability in prokaryotic DNA-binding transcription factors. PLos One 13: e0195332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195332
    [41] Richards FM, Kundrot CE (1988) Identification of Structural Motifs from Protein Coordinate Data-Secondary Structure and 1st-Level Supersecondary Structure. Proteins 3: 71–84. doi: 10.1002/prot.340030202
    [42] Shanahan HP, Garcia MA, Jones S, et al. (2004) Identifying DNA-binding proteins using structural motifs and the electrostatic potential. Nucleic Acids Res 32: 4732–4741. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh803
    [43] Bustin M, Reeves R (1996) High-mobility-group chromosomal proteins: Architectural components that facilitate chromatin function. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 54: 35–100. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6603(08)60360-8
    [44] Smith NC, Matthews JM (2016) Mechanisms of DNA-binding specificity and functional gene regulation by transcription factors. Curr Opin Struct Biol 38: 68–74. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.05.006
    [45] Saravanan M, Vasu K, Nagaraja V (2008) Evolution of sequence specificity in a restriction endonuclease by a point mutation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A 105: 10344–10347. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804974105
    [46] Ferredamare AR, Prendergast GC, Ziff EB, et al. (1993) Recognition by Max of Its Cognate DNA through a Dimeric B/Hlh/Z Domain. Nature 363: 38–45. doi: 10.1038/363038a0
    [47] Morgunova E, Yin Y, Jolma A, et al. (2015) Structural insights into the DNA-binding specificity of E2F family transcription factors. Nat Commun 6: 10050. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10050
    [48] Li J, Rodriguez JP, Niu F, et al. (2016) Structural basis for DNA recognition by STAT6. P Natl Acad Sci USA 113: 13015–13020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1611228113
    [49] Rudolph MJ, Gergen JP (2001) DNA-binding by Ig-fold proteins. Nat Struct Biol 8: 384–386. doi: 10.1038/87531
    [50] Doherty AJ, Serpell LC, Ponting CP (1996) The helix-hairpin-helix DNA-binding motif: A structural basis for non-sequence-specific recognition of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 24: 2488–2497. doi: 10.1093/nar/24.13.2488
    [51] Burgers PMJ, Kunkel TA (2017) Eukaryotic DNA Replication Fork. Annu Rev Biochem 86: 417–438. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-061516-044709
    [52] Raghunathan S, Kozlov AG, Lohman TM, et al. (2000) Structure of the DNA binding domain of E-coli SSB bound to ssDNA. Nat Struct Biol 7: 648–652. doi: 10.1038/77943
    [53] Theis K, Chen PJ, Skorvaga M, et al. (1999) Crystal structure of UvrB, a DNA helicase adapted for nucleotide excision repair. EMBO J 18: 6899–6907. doi: 10.1093/emboj/18.24.6899
    [54] Waters TR, Eryilmaz J, Geddes S, et al. (2006) Damage detection by the UvrABC pathway: Crystal structure of UvrB bound to fluorescein-adducted DNA. FEBS Lett 580: 6423–6427. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.10.051
    [55] Chai N, Li WX, Wang J, et al. (2015) Structural basis for the Smad5 MH1 domain to recognize different DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 43: 9051–9064. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv848
    [56] Maiti A, Morgan MT, Pozharski E, et al. (2008) Crystal structure of human thymine DNA glycosylase bound to DNA elucidates sequence-specific mismatch recognition. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 8890–8895. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711061105
    [57] Bruner SD, Norman DPG, Verdine GL (2000) Structural basis for recognition and repair of the endogenous mutagen 8-oxoguanine in DNA. Nature 403: 859–866. doi: 10.1038/35002510
    [58] Ando T, Kodera N, Takai E, et al. (2001) A high-speed atomic force microscope for studying biological macromolecules. P Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 12468–12472. doi: 10.1073/pnas.211400898
    [59] Ando T (2018) High-speed atomic force microscopy and its future prospects. Biophys Rev 10: 285–292. doi: 10.1007/s12551-017-0356-5
    [60] Sawicka M, Aramayo R, Ayala R, et al. (2017) Single-Particle Electron Microscopy Analysis of DNA Repair Complexes. Methods Enzymol 592: 159–186. doi: 10.1016/bs.mie.2017.03.010
    [61] Sun JC, Yuan ZN, Bai L, et al. (2017) Cryo-EM of dynamic protein complexes in eukaryotic DNA replication. Protein Sci 26: 40–51. doi: 10.1002/pro.3033
    [62] Tessmer I, Moore T, Lloyd RG, et al. (2005) AFM studies on the role of the protein RdgC in bacterial DNA recombination. J Mol Biol 350: 254–262. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.04.043
    [63] Lohr D, Bash R, Wang H, et al. (2007) Using atomic force microscopy to study chromatin structure and nucleosome remodeling. Methods 41: 333–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.08.016
    [64] Hizume K, Kominam H, Kobayash K, et al. (2017) Flexible DNA Path in the MCM Double Hexamer Loaded on DNA. Biochemistry 56: 2435–2445. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.6b00922
    [65] Noort JV, Heijden TVD, Dutta CF, et al. (2004) Initiation of translocation by Type I restriction-modification enzymes is associated with a short DNA extrusion. Nucleic Acids Res 32: 6540–6547. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh999
    [66] Maurer S, Fritz J, Muskhelishvili G, et al. (2006) RNA polymerase and an activator form discrete subcomplexes in a transcription initiation complex. EMBO J 25: 3784–3790. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601261
    [67] Verhoeven EEA, Wyman C, Moolenaar GF, et al. (2002) The presence of two UvrB subunits in the UvrAB complex ensures damage detection in both DNA strands. EMBO J 21: 4196–4205. doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdf396
    [68] Cellai S, Mangiarotti L, Vannini N, et al. (2007) Upstream promoter sequences and alpha CTD mediate stable DNA wrapping within the RNA polymerase-promoter open complex. EMBO Rep 8: 271–278. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400888
    [69] Umemura K, Okada T, Kuroda R (2005) Cooperativity and intermediate structures of single-stranded DNA binding-assisted RecA-single-stranded DNA complex formation studied by atomic force microscopy. Scanning 27: 35–43.
    [70] Hamon L, Pastre D, Dupaigne P, et al. (2007) High-resolution AFM imaging of single-stranded DNA-binding (SSB) protein-DNA complexes. Nucleic Acids Res 35: e58. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm147
    [71] Li BS, Goh MC (2010) Direct visualization of the formation and structure of RecA/dsDNA complexes. Micron 41: 227–231. doi: 10.1016/j.micron.2009.10.011
    [72] Li BS, Wei B, Goh MC (2012) Direct visualization of the formation of RecA/dsDNA complexes at the single-molecule level. Micron 43: 1073–1075. doi: 10.1016/j.micron.2012.04.016
    [73] Tessmer I, Melikishvili M, Fried MG (2012) Cooperative cluster formation, DNA bending and base-flipping by O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 8296–8308. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks574
    [74] Miyagi A, Ando T, Lyubchenko YL (2011) Dynamics of Nucleosomes Assessed with Time-Lapse High-Speed Atomic Force Microscopy. Biochemistry 50: 7901–7908. doi: 10.1021/bi200946z
    [75] Sanchez H, Suzuki Y, Yokokawa M, et al. (2011) Protein-DNA interactions in high speed AFM: Single molecule diffusion analysis of human RAD54. Integr Biol 3: 1127–1134. doi: 10.1039/c1ib00039j
    [76] Endo M, Sugiyama H (2014) Single-Molecule Imaging of Dynamic Motions of Biomolecules in DNA Origami Nanostructures Using High-Speed Atomic Force Microscopy. Acc Chem Res 47: 1645–1653. doi: 10.1021/ar400299m
    [77] Lee AJ, Endo M, Hobbs JK, et al. (2018) Direct Single-Molecule Observation of Mode and Geometry of RecA-Mediated Homology Search. Acs Nano 12: 272–278. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.7b06208
    [78] Suzuki Y, Shin M, Yoshida A, et al. (2012) Fast microscopical dissection of action scenes played by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase. FEBS Lett 586: 3187–3192. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2012.06.033
    [79] Buechner CN, Tessmer I (2013) DNA substrate preparation for atomic force microscopy studies of protein-DNA interactions. J Mol Recognit 26: 605–617. doi: 10.1002/jmr.2311
    [80] Yang Y, Sass LE, Du C, et al. (2005) Determination of protein-DNA binding constants and specificities from statistical analyses of single molecules: MutS-DNA interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 33: 4322–4334. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki708
    [81] Sukhanova MV, Abrakhi S, Joshi V, et al. (2016) Single molecule detection of PARP1 and PARP2 interaction with DNA strand breaks and their poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation using high-resolution AFM imaging. Nucleic Acids Res 44: e60. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1476
    [82] Buechner CN, Heil K, Michels G, et al. (2014) Strand-specific Recognition of DNA Damages by XPD Provides Insights into Nucleotide Excision Repair Substrate Versatility. J Biol Chem 289: 3613–3624. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.523001
    [83] Wirth N, Gross J, Roth HM, et al. (2016) Conservation and Divergence in Nucleotide Excision Repair Lesion Recognition. J Biol Chem 291: 18932–18946. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.739425
    [84] Doniselli N, Rodriguez-Aliaga P, Amidani D, et al. (2015) New insights into the regulatory mechanisms of ppGpp and DksA on Escherichia coli RNA polymerase-promoter complex. Nucleic Acids Res 43: 5249–5262. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv391
    [85] Nettikadan S, Tokumasu F, Takeyasu K (1996) Quantitative analysis of the transcription factor AP2 binding to DNA by atomic force microscopy. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 226: 645–649. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1996.1409
    [86] Timofeeva OA, Chasovskikh S, Lonskaya I, et al. (2012) Mechanisms of Unphosphorylated STAT3 Transcription Factor Binding to DNA. J Biol Chem 287: 14192–14200. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.323899
    [87] Zhang P, Xia JH, Zhu J, et al. (2018) High-throughput screening of prostate cancer risk loci by single nucleotide polymorphisms sequencing. Nat Commun 9: 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04451-x
    [88] Huang Q, Whitington T, Gao P, et al. (2014) A prostate cancer susceptibility allele at 6q22 increases RFX6 expression by modulating HOXB13 chromatin binding. Nat Genet 46: 126–135. doi: 10.1038/ng.2862
    [89] Gao P, Xia JH, Sipeky C, et al. (2018) Biology and Clinical Implications of the 19q13 Aggressive Prostate Cancer Susceptibility Locus. Cell 174: 576–589. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.003
    [90] Crampton N, Bonass WA, Kirkham J, et al. (2006) Collision events between RNA polymerases in convergent transcription studied by atomic force microscopy. Nucleic Acids Res 34: 5416–5425. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl668
    [91] Countryman P, Fan Y, Gorthi A, et al. (2018) Cohesin SA2 is a sequence-independent DNA-binding protein that recognizes DNA replication and repair intermediates. J Biol Chem 293: 1054–1069. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.806406
    [92] Schneider SW, Larmer J, Henderson RM, et al. (1998) Molecular weights of individual proteins correlate with molecular volumes measured by atomic force microscopy. Pflug Arch Eur J Phy 435: 362–367. doi: 10.1007/s004240050524
    [93] Ratcliff GC, Erie DA (2001) A novel single-molecule study to determine protein-protein association constants. J Am Chem Soc 123: 5632–5635. doi: 10.1021/ja005750n
    [94] Wang H, Dellavecchia MJ, Skorvaga M, et al. (2006) UvrB domain 4, an autoinhibitory gate for regulation of DNA binding and ATPase activity. J Biol Chem 281: 15227–15237. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M601476200
    [95] Roth HM, Romer J, Grundler V, et al. (2012) XPB helicase regulates DNA incision by the Thermoplasma acidophilum endonuclease Bax1. DNA Repair 11: 286–293. doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2011.12.002
    [96] Fuentes-Perez ME, Dillingham MS, Moreno-Herrero F (2013) AFM volumetric methods for the characterization of proteins and nucleic acids. Methods 60: 113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.02.005
    [97] Amidani D, Tramonti A, Canosa AV, et al. (2016) Study of DNA binding and bending by Bacillus subtilis GabR, a PLP-dependent transcription factor. Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj 1861: 3474–3489.
    [98] Rivetti C, Guthold M, Bustamante C (1996) Scanning force microscopy of DNA deposited onto mica: Equilibration versus kinetic trapping studied by statistical polymer chain analysis. J Mol Biol 264: 919–932. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0687
    [99] Cassina V, Manghi M, Salerno D, et al. (2016) Effects of cytosine methylation on DNA morphology: An atomic force microscopy study. Biochim Biophys Acta 1860: 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2015.10.006
    [100] Scipioni A, Anselmi C, Zuccheri G, et al. (2002) Sequence-dependent DNA curvature and flexibility from scanning force microscopy images. Biophys J 83: 2408–2418. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75254-5
    [101] Moukhtar J, Faivre-Moskalenko C, Milani P, et al. (2010) Effect of genomic long-range correlations on DNA persistence length: from theory to single molecule experiments. J Phys Chem B 114: 5125–5143. doi: 10.1021/jp911031y
    [102] Jager MD, Noort JV, Gent DCV, et al. (2001) Human Rad50/Mre11 is a flexible complex that can tether DNA ends. Mol Cell 8: 1129–1135. doi: 10.1016/S1097-2765(01)00381-1
    [103] Tessmer I, Yang Y, Zhai J, et al. (2008) Mechanism of MutS searching for DNA mismatches and signaling repair. J Biol Chem 283: 36646–36654. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M805712200
    [104] Bosch D, Campillo M, Pardo L (2003) Binding of proteins to the minor groove of DNA: What are the structural and energetic determinants for kinking a basepair step? J Comput Chem 24: 682–691. doi: 10.1002/jcc.10200
    [105] Kong MW, Liu LL, Chen XJ, et al. (2016) Single-Molecule Imaging Reveals that Rad4 Employs a Dynamic DNA Damage Recognition Process. Mol Cell 64: 376–387. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.005
    [106] Wang H, Yang Y, Schofield MJ, et al. (2003) DNA bending and unbending by MutS govern mismatch recognition and specificity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A 100: 14822–14827. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2433654100
    [107] Chen L, Haushalter KA, Lieber CM, et al. (2002) Direct visualization of a DNA glycosylase searching for damage. Chem Biol 9: 345–350. doi: 10.1016/S1074-5521(02)00120-5
    [108] Lamers MH, Perrakis A, Enzlin JH, et al. (2000) The crystal structure of DNA mismatch repair protein MutS binding to a G center dot T mismatch. Nature 407: 711–717. doi: 10.1038/35037523
    [109] Koroleva ON, Dubrovin EV, Yaminsky IV, et al. (2016) Effect of DNA bending on transcriptional interference in the systems of closely spaced convergent promoters. Biochim Biophys Acta 1860: 2086–2096. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.06.026
    [110] Fronczek DN, Quammen C, Wang H, et al. (2011) High accuracy FIONA-AFM hybrid imaging. Ultramicroscopy 111: 350–355. doi: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2011.01.020
    [111] Sanchez H, Kertokalio A, van Rossum-Fikkert S, et al. (2013) Combined optical and topographic imaging reveals different arrangements of human RAD54 with presynaptic and postsynaptic RAD51-DNA filaments. P Natl Acad Sci USA 110: 11385–11390. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1306467110
    [112] Frederickx W, Rocha S, Fujita Y, et al. (2018) Orthogonal Probing of Single-Molecule Heterogeneity by Correlative Fluorescence and Force Microscopy. Acs Nano 12: 168–177. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.7b05405
    [113] Schmucker SW, Kumar N, Abelson JR, et al. (2012) Field-directed sputter sharpening for tailored probe materials and atomic-scale lithography. Nat Commun 3: 935. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1907
    [114] Pfreundschuh M, Alsteens D, Hilbert M, et al. (2014) Localizing Chemical Groups while Imaging Single Native Proteins by High-Resolution Atomic Force Microscopy. Nano Lett 14: 2957–2964. doi: 10.1021/nl5012905
    [115] Monig H, Hermoso DR, Arado OD, et al. (2016) Submolecular Imaging by Noncontact Atomic Force Microscopy with an Oxygen Atom Rigidly Connected to a Metallic Probe. Acs Nano 10: 1201–1209. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.5b06513
    [116] Senapati S, Lindsay S (2016) Recent Progress in Molecular Recognition Imaging Using Atomic Force Microscopy. Acc Chem Res 49: 503–510. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00533
    [117] Khan Z, Leung C, Tahir BA, et al. (2010) Digitally tunable, wide-band amplitude, phase, and frequency detection for atomic-resolution scanning force microscopy. Rev Sci Instrum 81: 197.
    [118] Calo A, Eleta-Lopez A, Stoliar P, et al. (2016) Multifrequency Force Microscopy of Helical Protein Assembly on a Virus. Sci Rep 6: 21899. doi: 10.1038/srep21899
    [119] Wu D, Kaur P, Li ZM, et al. (2016) Visualizing the Path of DNA through Proteins Using DREEM Imaging. Mol Cell 61: 315–323. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.012
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Daniel H. Zimmerman, Roy E. Carambula, Jason Ciemielewski, Ken S. Rosenthal, Lessons from next generation influenza vaccines for inflammatory disease therapies, 2019, 74, 15675769, 105729, 10.1016/j.intimp.2019.105729
    2. Adrienn Markovics, Ken S. Rosenthal, Katalin Mikecz, Roy E. Carambula, Jason C. Ciemielewski, Daniel H. Zimmerman, Restoring the Balance between Pro-Inflammatory and Anti-Inflammatory Cytokines in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: New Insights from Animal Models, 2021, 10, 2227-9059, 44, 10.3390/biomedicines10010044
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(6768) PDF downloads(2190) Cited by(7)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(8)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog