From: HIV-1 Tat amino acid residues that influence Tat-TAR binding affinity: a scoping review
Tat amino acid region | Addition/remove | Binding affinity (Kd) | Percentage increase/decrease in binding affinity | Technique | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
47–58 | Addition of N-terminal residues FITKALGIS (38–58) | 6 × 10−9 M | No difference | EMSA | [69] |
Addition of C-terminal “SGQ” (48–62) | 3 × 10−9 M | 50% increase | EMSA | [69] | |
Addition of N-terminal “FTKKALGIS” and C-terminal “EDSQTHQVSLPKQ” (38–72)- N terminal rhodamine (rho) | 1.0 × 10–9 | 52% increase | Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) | [76] | |
Addition of N-terminal “FTKKALGIS” and C-terminal “EDSQTHQVSLPKQC” (38–72)- C terminal rho | 3.1 × 10–10 | 85% increase | FRET | [76] | |
Addition of C-terminal “PQGSQT” (47–64) | 8.7 × 10–7 M | 66% increase | Gel shift assay, CD Spectroscopy and SPR | [77] | |
Addition of C-terminal “PQGSQTHR” (47–66) | 9.3 × 10–7 | 64% increase | Gel shift assay, CD Spectroscopy and SPR | [77] | |
Addition of C-terminal “QTHQVSLSKQ” (48–72) | 5 × 10−9 M | Increased | Gel retardation assays | [78] | |
Addition of C-terminal “QTHQVSLSKQPTSQPRGDPTGPKE” (48–86) | 5 × 10−9 M | Increased | Gel retardation assays | [78] | |
1–86 | Removal of N-terminal residues 1–29 | No binding | No binding | EMSA and SPR | [81] |
Removal of N-terminal residues 1–36 and C-terminal residues 73–86 (Peptide 37–72) | 8.4 × 10–8 | 1153.73% decrease | EMSA and dual-label filter binding assay | [36] | |
Removal of N-terminal residues 1–42 and C-terminal residues 73–86 (Peptide 43–72) | 7.6 × 10–8 | 1034% decrease | EMSA and dual-label filter binding assay | [36] | |
Removal of N-terminal residues 1–47 and C-terminal residues 73–86 (Peptide 48–72) | 3.0 × 10–7 | 4377% decrease | EMSA and dual-label filter binding assay | [36] | |
Removal of N-terminal residues 1–31 and C-terminal residues 73–86 (Peptide 32–72) | 2.1 × 10–7 | 3034% decrease | EMSA and dual-label filter binding assay | [36] | |
Removal of N-terminal residues 1–48 (Peptide 49–86) | 5.3 × 10–8 | 691% decrease | EMSA and dual-label filter binding assay | [36] |