Kozak consensus question

[Richard J. Dudley]

Wolfgang--

>From Sambrook 2nd ed, p. 16.16, is there isn't a purine at -3 (A/G ? ?
ATG), which there won't be, G+4 is essential.  Given that, it appears
you'll be all right.  The reference specifically mentioned is Kozak 1989
J Cell Biol 108:229

rich

Wolfgang Schechinger wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have a squence like this: GCC GCC ACC ATG G; it contains a Kozak
> consus element in order to ensure efficient translation.
>
> I'd like to introduce a NdeI restriction site (catatg).
>
> What might be the better solution:
> a) mutating the sequnce to GCC GCC cat ATG G (mutations are lower
> case)
>
> b) inserting two bases; the sequence then would be GCC GCC ACC at ATG
> G
>
> will either of the two ways destroy the effect of the Kozak element?
>
> Thaks for all input!
>
> Wolfgang
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Schechinger, Pathobiochemistry Dept.
> University of Tuebingen, Germany
> email: wolfgang.schechinger at med.uni-tuebingen.de
> wwWait: http://www.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/~wgschech/start.htm
> -----
> *unsolicited mail is *NOT* appreciated, usual disclaimers apply
> -----
> Pressing ALT+F4 simultaneously enables you to read private messages
> ---