R: Kozak consensus question

Monod bagnaresi at libero.it
Tue Feb 1 15:37:26 EST 2000

if you hold that the minimum Kozak's consensus is considered to be
where X is any base,  looks like your option a) doesn't keep the consensus,
while option b) should be fine..
I'm use in fact  to consider strictly necessary the A/G at -3 and the G at
also, the Kozak's consensus has more recently been refined for some
organisms (e.g, for plants, you can find it in Plant Mol Biol 35: 993-1001)
you may find some more uptaded consensus (perhaps..)

"Wolfgang Schechinger" <Wolfgang.Schechinger at med.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote in
message 200001311427.PAA13693 at intwww.zit.med.uni-tuebingen.de...
> 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
> ---

More information about the Methods mailing list