Irina V. Alekseeva

Ms. Irina V. Alekseeva


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

8Years (2019-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
OKOlga A. Kladova
Olga A. Kladova
IAIrina V. Alekseeva
Irina V. Alekseeva
MSMurat Saparbaev
Murat Saparbaev
OFOlga S. Fedorova
Olga S. Fedorova
Nikita A. KuznetsovNikita A. Kuznetsov
Nikita A. Kuznetsov
Human apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1 (APE1) is known to be a critical player of the base excision repair (BER) pathway. In general, BER involves consecutive actions of DNA glycosylases, AP endonucleases, DNA polymerases, and DNA ligases. It is known that these proteins interact with APE1 either at upstream or downstream steps of BER. Therefore, we may propose that even a minor disturbance of protein–protein interactions on the DNA template reduces coordination and repair efficiency. Here, the ability of various human DNA repair enzymes (such as DNA glycosylases OGG1, UNG2, and AAG; DNA polymerase Polβ; or accessory proteins XRCC1 and PCNA) to influence the activity of wild-type (WT) APE1 and its seven natural polymorphic variants (R221C, N222H, R237A, G241R, M270T, R274Q, and P311S) was tested. Förster resonance energy transfer–based kinetic analysis of abasic site cleavage in a model DNA substrate was conducted to detect the effects of interacting proteins on the activity of WT APE1 and its single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variants. The results revealed that WT APE1 activity was stimulated by almost all tested DNA repair proteins. For the SNP variants, the matters were more complicated. Analysis of two SNP variants, R237A and G241R, suggested that a positive charge in this area of the APE1 surface impairs the protein–protein interactions. In contrast, variant R221C (where the affected residue is located near the DNA-binding site) showed permanently lower activation relative to WT APE1, whereas neighboring SNP N222H did not cause a noticeable difference as compared to WT APE1. Buried substitution P311S had an inconsistent effect, whereas each substitution at the DNA-binding site, M270T and R274Q, resulted in the lowest stimulation by BER proteins. Protein–protein molecular docking was performed between repair proteins to identify amino acid residues involved in their interactions. The data uncovered differences in the effects of BER proteins on APE1, indicating an important role of protein–protein interactions in the coordination of the repair pathway.

28 September 2023 in Fermentation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
IAIrina V. Alekseeva
Irina V. Alekseeva
Nikita A. KuznetsovNikita A. Kuznetsov
Nikita A. Kuznetsov
Restriction endonucleases are a component of restriction–modification systems, where the main biological function is to protect bacterial cells from incoming foreign DNA molecules. There are four main types of restriction enzymes (types I, II, III, and IV), which differ in protein composition, cofactor requirements, and mode of action. The most studied are representatives of type II, which specifically recognize DNA sequences of 4–8 bp and catalyze DNA cleavage within these sequences or not far from them. The exceptional precision of type II enzymes has made them indispensable for DNA manipulations. Although hundreds of DNA restriction enzymes are currently known, there is still a need for enzymes that recognize new DNA targets. For this reason, the discovery of new natural restriction endonucleases and rational design of their properties (to obtain enzymes with high specificity for a unique nucleotide sequence at a restriction site and without nonspecific activity) will expand the list of enzymes for use in biotechnology and genetic engineering. This review briefly touches upon the main types of restriction endonucleases, their classification, nomenclature, and typical properties, and it concisely describes approaches to the construction of enzymes with altered properties.

28 August 2019 in Molecules
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DIDanila A. Iakovlev
Danila A. Iakovlev
IAIrina V. Alekseeva
Irina V. Alekseeva
YVYury N. Vorobjev
Yury N. Vorobjev
Nikita A. KuznetsovNikita A. Kuznetsov
Nikita A. Kuznetsov
OFOlga S. Fedorova
Olga S. Fedorova
Human SMUG1 (hSMUG1) hydrolyzes the N-glycosidic bond of uracil and some uracil lesions formed in the course of epigenetic regulation. Despite the functional importance of hSMUG1 in the DNA repair pathway, the damage recognition mechanism has been elusive to date. In the present study, our objective was to build a model structure of the enzyme–DNA complex of wild-type hSMUG1 and several hSMUG1 mutants containing substitution F98W, H239A, or R243A. Enzymatic activity of these mutant enzymes was examined by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis analysis of the reaction product formation and pre-steady-state analysis of DNA conformational changes during enzyme–DNA complex formation. It was shown that substitutions F98W and H239A disrupt specific contacts generated by the respective wild-type residues, namely stacking with a flipped out Ura base in the damaged base-binding pocket or electrostatic interactions with DNA in cases of Phe98 and His239, respectively. A loss of the Arg side chain in the case of R243A reduced the rate of DNA bending and increased the enzyme turnover rate, indicating facilitation of the product release step.