Van Dyke M W, Dervan P B
Nucleic Acids Res. 1983 Aug 25;11(16):5555-67. doi: 10.1093/nar/11.16.5555.
DNase I and MPE.Fe (II) footprinting both employ partial cleavage of ligand-protected DNA restriction fragments and Maxam-Gilbert sequencing gel methods of analysis. One method utilizes the enzyme, DNase I, as the DNA cleaving agent while the other employs the synthetic molecule, methidium-propyl-EDTA (MPE). For actinomycin D, chromomycin A3 and distamycin A, DNase I footprinting reports larger binding site sizes than MPE.Fe (II). DNase I footprinting appears more sensitive for weakly bound sites. MPE.Fe (II) footprinting appears more accurate in determining the actual size and location of the binding sites for small molecules on DNA, especially in cases where several small molecules are closely spaced on the DNA. MPE.Fe (II) and DNase I report the same sequence and binding site size for lac repressor protein on operator DNA.
DNA酶I足迹法和MPE.Fe(II)足迹法均采用配体保护的DNA限制片段的部分切割以及Maxam-Gilbert测序凝胶分析方法。一种方法利用DNA酶I作为DNA切割剂,而另一种方法则使用合成分子甲氧基丙基乙二胺四乙酸(MPE)。对于放线菌素D、色霉素A3和Distamycin A,DNA酶I足迹法报告的结合位点大小比MPE.Fe(II)大。DNA酶I足迹法对弱结合位点似乎更敏感。MPE.Fe(II)足迹法在确定小分子在DNA上的结合位点的实际大小和位置方面似乎更准确,特别是在DNA上几个小分子紧密间隔的情况下。MPE.Fe(II)和DNA酶I报告的操纵基因DNA上阻遏蛋白的序列和结合位点大小相同。