Skip to main content
. 2005 Mar 22;387(Pt 1):221–229. doi: 10.1042/BJ20041056

Table 6. Mispair extension fidelity of wild-type (WT) and mutant RTs, as obtained using template-primer D2-47/PG5-25.

Enzyme Base pair at the 3′ end* kcat (min−1) Km (μM) kcat/Km (μM−1·min−1) Mispair extension ratio (fext)
WT RT A:C 1.30±0.14 41.3±5.6 3.2×10−2 2.8×10−3
A:A 0.15±0.04 266±107 5.7×10−4 5.1×10−5
A:G 0.19±0.04 513±130 3.7×10−4 3.3×10−5
A114S A:C 1.64±0.53 280±134 5.9×10−3 2.6×10−3 (0.9)
A:A 0.098±0.034 319±121 3.1×10−4 1.3×10−4 (2.6)
A:G 0.112±0.056 415±142 2.7×10−4 1.2×10−4 (3.5)
A114G A:C 0.78±0.03 858±348 9.1×10−4 2.6×10−3 (0.9)
A:A 0.032±0.007 824±228 3.9×10−5 1.1×10−4 (2.2)
A:G 0.022±0.006 230±53 9.6×10−5 2.8×10−4 (8.3)

* The first base corresponds to the template and the second base to the primer.

fext=[kcat (mismatched)/Km (mismatched)]/[kcat (matched)/Km (matched)], where kinetic parameters for the incorporation of dTTP on matched template-primers are given in Table 1. Numbers in parentheses represent the relative increase in the mispair extension ratio shown by the mutant RT relative to the wild-type enzyme. Our analysis assumes that RTs bind with roughly equal affinity to the matched and mismatched template-primer ends [22,35].