Structural Basis for Topoisomerase I Inhibition by Nucleoside Analogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nucleoside analogs such as 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosyl cytidine (AraC) and 2',2'-difluoro deoxycytidine (dFdC) are important components of the anticancer chemotherapeutic arsenal and are among the most effective anticancer drugs currently available. Although both AraCTP and dFdCTP impede DNA replication through pausing of DNA polymerases, both nucleoside analogs are ultimately incorporated into replicated DNA and interfere in DNA-mediated processes. Our laboratories are investigating the structural basis for the poisoning of topoisomerase I (top1) due to antipyrimidine incorporation into duplex DNA. We recently reported that both AraC and dFdC induce formation of top1 cleavage complexes, and poisoning of top1 contributes to the anticancer activities of both these drugs. Recent NMR and thermodynamic studies from our laboratories provide insight into the mechanism by which AraC and dFdC poison top1. NMR studies from our laboratories have revealed that the arabinosyl sugar of AraC adopted a C2'-endo conformation. Although this is a B-type sugar pucker characteristic of duplex DNA, the conformation is rigid, and this lack of flexibility probably contributes to inhibition of the religation step of the top1 reaction. In contrast to AraC, NMR studies revealed dFdC adopted a C3' endo sugar pucker characteristic of RNA, rather than DNA duplexes. dFdC substitution enhanced formation of top1 cleavage complexes, but did not inhibit religation. The enhancement of top1 cleavage complexes most likely results from a combination of conformational and electrostatic effects. The structural effects of dFdC and AraC are being further investigated in duplex DNA with well-defined top1 cleavage sites to analyze more specifically how these structural perturbations lead to enzyme poisoning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".