RTP and Tus: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:47, 22 May 2011 view source Rada Germanos (talk \| contribs) 146 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 04:49, 22 May 2011 view source Rada Germanos (talk \| contribs) 146 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 119:		Line 119:


	'''~~When~~ we thought we had a nice, elegant theory~~, someone had to come screw it all up~~.'''		'''Just when we thought we had a nice, elegant theory...'''

	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 et al (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		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 et al (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

Navigation menu