Features of the adeno-associated virus origin involved in substrate recognition by the viral Rep protein

We previously demonstrated that the adeno-associated virus (AAV) Rep68 and Rep78 proteins are able to nick the AAV origin of DNA replication at the terminal resolution site (trs) in an ATP-dependent manner. Using four types of modified or mutant substrates, we now have investigated the substrate requirements of Rep68 in the trs endonuclease reaction. In the first kind of substrate, portions of the hairpinned AAV terminal repeat were deleted. Only deletions that retained virtually all of the small internal palindromes of the AAV terminal repeat were active in the endonuclease reaction. This result confirmed previous genetic and biochemical evidence that the secondary structure of the terminal repeat was an important feature for substrate recognition. In the second type of substrate, the trs was moved eight bases further away from the end of the genome. The mutant was nicked at a 50-fold-lower frequency relative to a wild-type origin, and the nick occurred at the correct trs sequence despite its new position. This finding indicated that the endonuclease reaction required a specific sequence at the trs in addition to the correct secondary structure. It also suggested that the minimum trs recognition sequence extended three bases from the cut site in the 3' direction. The third type of substrate harbored mismatched base pairs at the trs. The mismatch substrates contained a wild-type sequence on the strand normally cut but an incorrect sequence on the complementary strand. All of the mismatch mutants were capable of being nicked in the presence of ATP. However, there was substantial variation in the level of activity, suggesting that the sequence on the opposite strand may also be recognized during nicking. Analysis of the mismatch mutants also suggested that a single-stranded trs was a viable substrate for the enzyme. This interpretation was confirmed by analysis of the fourth type of substrate tested, which contained a single-stranded trs. This substrate was also cleaved efficiently by the enzyme provided that the correct strand was present in the substrate. In addition, the single-stranded substrate no longer required ATP as a cofactor for nicking. Finally, all of the substrates with mutant trss bound the Rep protein as efficiently as the wild-type did. This finding indicated that the sequence at the cut site was not involved in recognition of the terminal repeat for specific binding by the enzyme. We concluded that substrate recognition by the AAV Rep protein involves at least two and possibly as many as four features of the AAV terminal repeat.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)