RTP and Tus: Difference between revisions
From Proteopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
In 2008, Bastia ''et al.'' proposed that Tus is actually a polar antitranslocase, and that an AT-GC transversion at position 6 did not affect DnaB-translocation ''in vitro''. They suggested that the base-flipping of C6 functions as a fail-safe mechanism, and that the replication fork is halted primarily by Tus-DnaB and Tus-''Ter'' interactions.<ref>Bastia D, Zzaman S, Krings G, Saxena M, Peng XH, Greenberg MM (2008) Replication termination mechanism as revealed by Tus-mediated polar arrest of a sliding helicase. ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' 105: 12831 - 12836.</ref> | In 2008, Bastia ''et al.'' proposed that Tus is actually a polar antitranslocase, and that an AT-GC transversion at position 6 did not affect DnaB-translocation ''in vitro''. They suggested that the base-flipping of C6 functions as a fail-safe mechanism, and that the replication fork is halted primarily by Tus-DnaB and Tus-''Ter'' interactions.<ref>Bastia D, Zzaman S, Krings G, Saxena M, Peng XH, Greenberg MM (2008) Replication termination mechanism as revealed by Tus-mediated polar arrest of a sliding helicase. ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' 105: 12831 - 12836.</ref> | ||
== Comparison of Tus and RTP | == Comparison of RTP and Tus == | ||
[[Image:Comparison of RTP and Tus.jpg|400px|left|thumb| A summary of the different features of fork arrest proteins RTP and Tus ]] | |||
