Ilyas Yildirim

Dr. Ilyas Yildirim

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
21 January 2020 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MCMatthew G. Costales
Matthew G. Costales
HAHaruo Aikawa
Haruo Aikawa
YLYue Li
Yue Li
JCJessica L. Childs-Disney
Jessica L. Childs-Disney
DADaniel Abegg
Daniel Abegg
MDMatthew D. Disney
Matthew D. Disney
As the area of small molecules interacting with RNA advances, general routes to provide bioactive compounds are needed as ligands can bind RNA avidly to sites that will not affect function. Small-molecule targeted RNA degradation will thus provide a general route to affect RNA biology. A non–oligonucleotide-containing compound was designed from sequence to target the precursor to oncogenic microRNA-21 (pre–miR-21) for enzymatic destruction with selectivity that can exceed that for protein-targeted medicines. The compound specifically binds the target and contains a heterocycle that recruits and activates a ribonuclease to pre–miR-21 to substoichiometrically effect its cleavage and subsequently impede metastasis of breast cancer to lung in a mouse model. Transcriptomic and proteomic analyses demonstrate that the compound is potent and selective, specifically modulating oncogenic pathways. Thus, small molecules can be designed from sequence to have all of the functional repertoire of oligonucleotides, including inducing enzymatic degradation, and to selectively and potently modulate RNA function in vivo.

16 April 2010 in Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
IYIlyas Yildirim
Ilyas Yildirim
HSHarry A. Stern
Harry A. Stern
SKScott D. Kennedy
Scott D. Kennedy
JTJason D. Tubbs
Jason D. Tubbs
DTDouglas Turner
Douglas Turner
A reparameterization of the torsional parameters for the glycosidic dihedral angle, χ, for the AMBER99 force field in RNA nucleosides is used to provide a modified force field, AMBER99χ. Molecular dynamics simulations of cytidine, uridine, adenosine, and guanosine in aqueous solution using the AMBER99 and AMBER99χ force fields are compared with NMR results. For each nucleoside and force field, 10 individual molecular dynamics simulations of 30 ns each were run. For cytidine with AMBER99χ force field, each molecular dynamics simulation time was extended to 120 ns for convergence purposes. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, including one-dimensional (1D) 1H, steady-state 1D 1H nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE), and transient 1D 1H NOE, was used to determine the sugar puckering and preferred base orientation with respect to the ribose of cytidine and uridine. The AMBER99 force field overestimates the population of syn conformations of the base orientation and of C2′-endo sugar puckering of the pyrimidines, while the AMBER99χ force field’s predictions are more consistent with NMR results. Moreover, the AMBER99 force field prefers high anti conformations with glycosidic dihedral angles around 310° for the base orientation of purines. The AMBER99χ force field prefers anti conformations around 185°, which is more consistent with the quantum mechanical calculations and known 3D structures of folded ribonucleic acids (RNAs). Evidently, the AMBER99χ force field predicts the structural characteristics of ribonucleosides better than the AMBER99 force field and should improve structural and thermodynamic predictions of RNA structures.

21 August 2015 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SPSteven J. Philips
Steven J. Philips
MCMonica Canalizo-Hernandez
Monica Canalizo-Hernandez
IYIlyas Yildirim
Ilyas Yildirim
GSGeorge C. Schatz
George C. Schatz
AMAlfonso Mondragón
Alfonso Mondragón
TOThomas V. O’Halloran
Thomas V. O’Halloran
Transcription factor shape-shifts DNA: Controlling when a gene is expressed or repressed is vital for cellular metabolism and development. In Escherichia coli , a copper-sensing transcription factor, CueR, can repress or activate expression when bound at exactly the same site in the gene promoter. Philips et al. used x-ray crystallography to show that CueR dramatically changes the topology of the DNA upon binding copper but does not affect protein-DNA contacts. The DNA shape change allows RNA polymerase to bind the promoter and transcribe the gene. Science , this issue p. 877

19 May 2015 in Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
DCDavid E. Condon
David E. Condon
SKScott D. Kennedy
Scott D. Kennedy
BMBrendan C. Mort
Brendan C. Mort
RKRyszard Kierzek
Ryszard Kierzek
IYIlyas Yildirim
Ilyas Yildirim
DTDouglas Turner
Douglas Turner
Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for RNA tetramers r(AAAA), r(CAAU), r(GACC), and r(UUUU) are benchmarked against 1H–1H NOESY distances and 3J scalar couplings to test effects of RNA torsion parametrizations. Four different starting structures were used for r(AAAA), r(CAAU), and r(GACC), while five starting structures were used for r(UUUU). On the basis of X-ray structures, criteria are reported for quantifying stacking. The force fields, AMBER ff99, parmbsc0, parm99χ_Yil, ff10, and parmTor, all predict experimentally unobserved stacks and intercalations, e.g., base 1 stacked between bases 3 and 4, and incorrect χ, ϵ, and sugar pucker populations. The intercalated structures are particularly stable, often lasting several microseconds. Parmbsc0, parm99χ_Yil, and ff10 give similar agreement with NMR, but the best agreement is only 46%. Experimentally unobserved intercalations typically are associated with reduced solvent accessible surface area along with amino and hydroxyl hydrogen bonds to phosphate nonbridging oxygens. Results from an extensive set of MD simulations suggest that recent force field parametrizations improve predictions, but further improvements are necessary to provide reasonable agreement with NMR. In particular, intramolecular stacking and hydrogen bonding interactions may not be well balanced with the TIP3P water model. NMR data and the scoring method presented here provide rigorous benchmarks for future changes in force fields and MD methods.

1 July 2011 in The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
IYIlyas Yildirim
Ilyas Yildirim
HSHarry A. Stern
Harry A. Stern
JTJason D. Tubbs
Jason D. Tubbs
SKScott D. Kennedy
Scott D. Kennedy
DTDouglas Turner
Douglas Turner
Accurately modeling unpaired regions of RNA is important for predicting structure, dynamics, and thermodynamics of folded RNA. Comparisons between NMR data and molecular dynamics simulations provide a test of force fields used for modeling. Here, NMR spectroscopy, including NOESY, 1H–31P HETCOR, DQF-COSY, and TOCSY, was used to determine conformational preferences for single-stranded GACC RNA. The spectra are consistent with a conformational ensemble containing major and minor A-form-like structures. In a series of 50 ns molecular dynamics (MD) simulations with the AMBER99 force field in explicit solvent, initial A-form-like structures rapidly evolve to disordered conformations. A set of 50 ns simulations with revised χ torsions (AMBER99χ force field) gives two primary conformations, consistent with the NMR spectra. A single 1.9 μs MD simulation with the AMBER99χ force field showed that the major and minor conformations are retained for almost 68% of the time in the first 700 ns, with multiple transformations from A-form to non-A-form conformations. For the rest of the simulation, random-coil structures and a stable non-A-form conformation inconsistent with NMR spectra were seen. Evidently, the AMBER99χ force field improves structural predictions for single-stranded GACC RNA compared to the AMBER99 force field, but further force field improvements are needed.

1 February 2019 in Cell Chemical Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ZWZi-Fu Wang
Zi-Fu Wang
AUAndrei Ursu
Andrei Ursu
JCJessica L. Childs-Disney
Jessica L. Childs-Disney
RGRea Guertler
Rea Guertler
WYWang-Yong Yang
Wang-Yong Yang
MDMatthew D. Disney
Matthew D. Disney