Base Damage within Single-Strand DNA Underlies Hypermutability Induced by a Ubiquitous Environmental Agent

English version České info

Chromosomal DNA must be in single-strand form for important transactions such as replication, transcription, and recombination to occur. The single-strand DNA (ssDNA) is more prone to damage than double-strand DNA (dsDNA), due to greater exposure of chemically reactive moieties in the nitrogenous bases. Thus, there can be agents that damage regions of ssDNA in vivo while being inert toward dsDNA. To assess the potential hazard posed by such agents, we devised an ssDNA–specific mutagenesis reporter system in budding yeast. The reporter strains bear the cdc13-1 temperature-sensitive mutation, such that shifting to 37°C results in telomere uncapping and ensuing 5′ to 3′ enzymatic resection. This exposes the reporter region, containing three closely-spaced reporter genes, as a long 3′ ssDNA overhang. We validated the ability of the system to detect mutagenic damage within ssDNA by expressing a modified human single-strand specific cytosine deaminase, APOBEC3G. APOBEC3G induced a high density of substitutions at cytosines in the ssDNA overhang strand, resulting in frequent, simultaneous inactivation of two reporter genes. We then examined the mutagenicity of sulfites, a class of reactive sulfur oxides to which humans are exposed frequently via respiration and food intake. Sulfites, at a concentration similar to that found in some foods, induced a high density of mutations, almost always as substitutions at cytosines in the ssDNA overhang strand, resulting in simultaneous inactivation of at least two reporter genes. Furthermore, sulfites formed a long-lived adducted 2′-deoxyuracil intermediate in DNA that was resistant to excision by uracil–DNA N-glycosylase. This intermediate was bypassed by error-prone translesion DNA synthesis, frequently involving Pol ζ, during repair synthesis. Our results suggest that sulfite-induced lesions in DNA can be particularly deleterious, since cells might not possess the means to repair or bypass such lesions accurately.

Vyšlo v časopise: Base Damage within Single-Strand DNA Underlies Hypermutability Induced by a Ubiquitous Environmental Agent. PLoS Genet 8(12): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003149
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003149

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. LindahlT (1993) Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature 362 : 709–715.

2. FuD, CalvoJA, SamsonLD (2012) Balancing repair and tolerance of DNA damage caused by alkylating agents. Nat Rev Cancer 12 : 104–120.

3. BillenD (1990) Spontaneous DNA Damage and Its Significance for the “Negligible Dose” Controversy in Radiation Protection. Radiat Res 124 : 242–245.

4. KimN, Jinks-RobertsonS (2012) Transcription as a source of genome instability. Nat Rev Genet 13 : 204–214.

5. RobertsSA, SterlingJ, ThompsonC, HarrisS, MavD, et al. (2012) Clustered Mutations in Yeast and in Human Cancers Can Arise from Damaged Long Single-Strand DNA Regions. Mol Cell 46 : 424–435.

6. YangY, SterlingJ, StoriciF, ResnickMA, GordeninDA (2008) Hypermutability of Damaged Single-Strand DNA Formed at Double-Strand Breaks and Uncapped Telomeres in Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 4: e1000264 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000264.

7. BurchLH, YangY, SterlingJF, RobertsSA, ChaoFG, et al. (2011) Damage-induced localized hypermutability. Cell Cycle 10 : 1073–1085.

8. Nik-ZainalS, AlexandrovLB, WedgeDC, Van LooP, GreenmanCD, et al. (2012) Mutational Processes Molding the Genomes of 21 Breast Cancers. Cell 149 : 979–993.

9. IARC (1992) Occupational Exposures to Mists and Vapours from Strong Inorganic Acids; and Other Industrial Chemicals. Lyon, France: IARC.

10. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (2009) Safety evaluation of certain food additives. pp. 221–259.

11. NugentCI, HughesTR, LueNF, LundbladV (1996) Cdc13p: A Single-Strand Telomeric DNA-Binding Protein with a Dual Role in Yeast Telomere Maintenance. Science 274 : 249–252.

12. BoothC, GriffithE, BradyG, LydallD (2001) Quantitative amplification of single-stranded DNA (QAOS) demonstrates that cdc13-1 mutants generate ssDNA in a telomere to centromere direction. Nucleic Acids Research 29 : 4414–4422.

13. GarvikB, CarsonM, HartwellL (1995) Single-stranded DNA arising at telomeres in cdc13 mutants may constitute a specific signal for the RAD9 checkpoint. Mol Cell Biol 15 : 6128–6138.

14. ProchnowC, BransteitterR, ChenX (2009) APOBEC deaminases-mutases with defensive roles for immunity. Sci China C Life Sci 52 : 893–902.

15. WissingS, GallowayNLK, GreeneWC (2010) HIV-1 Vif versus the APOBEC3 cytidine deaminases: An intracellular duel between pathogen and host restriction factors. Mol Aspects Med 31 : 383–397.

16. ChenK-M, MartemyanovaN, LuY, ShindoK, MatsuoH, et al. (2007) Extensive mutagenesis experiments corroborate a structural model for the DNA deaminase domain of APOBEC3G. FEBS Letters 581 : 4761–4766.

17. HarjesE, GrossPJ, ChenK-M, LuY, ShindoK, et al. (2009) An Extended Structure of the APOBEC3G Catalytic Domain Suggests a Unique Holoenzyme Model. J Mol Biol 389 : 819–832.

18. BellíG, GaríE, PiedrafitaL, AldeaM, HerreroE (1998) An activator/repressor dual system allows tight tetracycline-regulated gene expression in budding yeast. Nucleic Acids Res 26 : 942–947.

19. BurgersPM, KleinMB (1986) Selection by genetic transformation of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae mutant defective for the nuclear uracil-DNA-glycosylase. J Bacteriol 166 : 905–913.

20. CrosbyB, PrakashL, DavisH, HinkleDC (1981) Purification and characterization of a uracil-DNA glycosylase from the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res 9 : 5797–5810.

21. WatersLS, MinesingerBK, WiltroutME, D'SouzaS, WoodruffRV, et al. (2009) Eukaryotic Translesion Polymerases and Their Roles and Regulation in DNA Damage Tolerance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 73 : 134–154.

22. HarrisRS, BishopKN, SheehyAM, CraigHM, Petersen-MahrtSK, et al. (2003) DNA Deamination Mediates Innate Immunity to Retroviral Infection. Cell 113 : 803–809.

23. SchumacherAJ, NissleyDV, HarrisRS (2005) APOBEC3G hypermutates genomic DNA and inhibits Ty1 retrotransposition in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102 : 9854–9859.

24. FazioT, WarnerC (1990) A review of sulphites in food: analytical methodology and reported findings. Food Addit Contam 7 : 453–454.

25. FrommerM, McDonaldLE, MillarDS, CollisCM, WattF, et al. (1992) A genomic sequencing protocol that yields a positive display of 5-methylcytosine residues in individual DNA strands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89 : 1827–1831.

26. HayatsuH (1976) Bisulfite modification of nucleic acids and their constituents. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 16 : 75–124.

27. HayatsuH, WatayaY, KaiK, IidaS (1970) Reaction of sodium bisulfite with uracil, cytosine, and their derivatives. Biochemistry 9 : 2858–2865.

28. PoltoratskyVP, WilsonSH, KunkelTA, PavlovYI (2004) Recombinogenic Phenotype of Human Activation-Induced Cytosine Deaminase. J Immunol 172 : 4308–4313.

29. AtkinsonJ, McGlynnP (2009) Replication fork reversal and the maintenance of genome stability. Nucleic Acids Res 37 : 3475–3492.

30. OtterleiM, WarbrickE, NagelhusTA, HaugT, SlupphaugG, et al. (1999) Post-replicative base excision repair in replication foci. EMBO J 18 : 3834–3844.

31. MukaiF, HawrylukI, ShapiroR (1970) The mutagenic specificity of sodium bisulfite. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 39 : 983–988.

32. HayatsuH, MiuraA (1970) The mutagenic action of sodium bisulfite. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 39 : 156–160.

33. De Giovanni-DonnellyR (1985) The mutagenicity of sodium bisulfite on base-substitution strains of Salmonella typhimurium. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 5 : 195–203.

34. PaganoDA, ZeigerE (1987) Conditions affecting the mutagenicity of sodium bisulfite in Salmonella typhimurium. Mutat Res 179 : 159–166.

35. DorangeJ, DupuyP (1972) Demonstration of the mutagenic action of sodium sulfite on yeast. C R Acad Sci Hebd Seances Acad Sci D 274 : 2798–2800.

36. Yavuz-KocamanA, RencüzoğullariE, İlaHB, TopaktaşM (2008) The genotoxic effect of potassium metabisulfite using chromosome aberration, sister chromatid exchange, micronucleus tests in human lymphocytes and chromosome aberration test in bone marrow cells of rats. Environ Mol Mutagen 49 : 276–282.

37. JagielloGM, LinJS, DucayenMB (1975) SO2 and its metabolite: Effects on mammalian egg chromosomes. Environ Res 9 : 84–93.

38. PopescuNC, DiPaoloJA (1988) Chromosome Alterations in Syrian Hamster Cells Transformed in Vitro by Sodium Bisulfite, a Nonclastogenic Carcinogen. Cancer Res 48 : 7246–7251.

39. RencüzoğullariE, İlaHB, KayraldizA, TopaktaşM (2001) Chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured human lymphocytes treated with sodium metabisulfite, a food preservative. Mutat Res 490 : 107–112.

40. MengZ, SangN, ZhangB (2002) Effects of Derivatives of Sulfur Dioxide on Micronuclei Formation in Mouse Bone Marrow Cells In Vivo. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 69 : 257–264.

41. MengZ, QinG, ZhangB, BaiJ (2004) DNA damaging effects of sulfur dioxide derivatives in cells from various organs of mice. Mutagenesis 19 : 465–468.

42. MallonR, RossmanT (1981) Bisulfite (sulfur dioxide) is a comutagen in E. coli and in Chinese hamster cells. Mutat Res 88 : 125–133.

43. ReedGA, JonesBC (1996) Enhancement of benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide mutagenicity by sulfite in a mammalian test system. Carcinogenesis 17 : 1063–1068.

44. NairB, ElmoreA, PanelCIRE (2003) Final report on the safety assessment of sodium sulfite, potassium sulfite, ammonium sulfite, sodium bisulfite, ammonium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite and potassium metabisulfite. Int J Toxicol 22 Suppl 2 : 63–88.

45. TsaiAG, EngelhartAE, HatmalMM, HoustonSI, HudNV, et al. (2009) Conformational Variants of Duplex DNA Correlated with Cytosine-rich Chromosomal Fragile Sites. J Biol Chem 284 : 7157–7164.

46. DornbergerU, LeijonM, FritzscheH (1999) High Base Pair Opening Rates in Tracts of GC Base Pairs. J Biol Chem 274 : 6957–6962.

47. HayatsuH, NegishiK, WatayaY (2009) Progress in the bisulfite modification of nucleic acids. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser (Oxf) 53 : 217–218.

48. HayakawaH, KumuraK, SekiguchiM (1978) Role of Uracil-DNA Glycosylase in the Repair of Deaminated Cytosine Residues of DNA in Escherichia coli. J Biochem 84 : 1155–1164.

49. StrattonMR (2011) Exploring the Genomes of Cancer Cells: Progress and Promise. Science 331 : 1553–1558.

50. Nik-ZainalS, Van LooP, WedgeDC, AlexandrovLB, GreenmanCD, et al. (2012) The Life History of 21 Breast Cancers. Cell 149 : 994–1007.

51. MorrisonA, BellJB, KunkelTA, SuginoA (1991) Eukaryotic DNA polymerase amino acid sequence required for 3′—>5′ exonuclease activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88 : 9473–9477.

52. Storici F, Resnick MA, Judith LC, Paul M (2006) The Delitto Perfetto Approach to In Vivo Site-Directed Mutagenesis and Chromosome Rearrangements with Synthetic Oligonucleotides in Yeast. Methods in Enzymology: Academic Press. pp. 329–345.

53. BrachmannCB, DaviesA, CostGJ, CaputoE, LiJ, et al. (1998) Designer deletion strains derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288C: A useful set of strains and plasmids for PCR-mediated gene disruption and other applications. Yeast 14 : 115–132.

54. GoldsteinAL, McCuskerJH (1999) Three new dominant drug resistance cassettes for gene disruption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 15 : 1541–1553.

55. CarpenterMA, RajagurubandaraE, WijesingheP, BhagwatAS (2010) Determinants of sequence-specificity within human AID and APOBEC3G. DNA Repair 9 : 579–587.