Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Print PDF (2498K)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (65)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Commercial Re-use Guidelines
for Open Access NAR Content
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brooks, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brooks, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nucleic Acids Research, 1982, Vol. 10, No. 3 913-934
© 1982

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Modification profiles of bacterial genomes

Joan E. Brooks and Richard J. Roberts

P.O.Box 100, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724, USA

Received October 27, 1981. Revised December 16, 1981. Accepted December 21, 1981.

DNAs were prepared from twenty-six bacterial species and digested with a variety of restriction endonucleases to determine what modifications the DNAs carry. Several general conclusions could be made: 1) First, in no instance was the DNA of a restriction enzyme strain cleaved by its own restriction enzyme. 2) The specificity of the DNA modification was the same as that of its restriction counterpart; there were no cases of the DNAs being modified against a less specific class of restriction enzymes. 3) In most (but not all) cases, the resistance of a bacterium's DNA to its own restriction enzyme could be generalized to include resistance to all other restriction enzymes with the same specificity (isoschizomers). 4) DNA modified within the central tetramer of a recognition sequence is usually protected against cleavage by all related hexameric enzymes possessing that central tetramer. Only three families of DNA presented in this study disobey this rule. 5) Finally, a significant number of cases emerge where bacterial DNA carries a modification but no corresponding restriction endonuclease activity.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Bacteriol.Home page
J. Vitkute, K. Stankevicius, G. Tamulaitiene, Z. Maneliene, A. Timinskas, D. E. Berg, and A. Janulaitis
Specificities of Eleven Different DNA Methyltransferases of Helicobacter pylori Strain 26695
J. Bacteriol., January 15, 2001; 183(2): 443 - 450.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
E. Severina, M. Ramirez, and A. Tomasz
Prophage Carriage as a Molecular Epidemiological Marker in Streptococcus pneumoniae
J. Clin. Microbiol., October 1, 1999; 37(10): 3308 - 3315.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.