Literature DB >> 14643438

Comparison of checkpoint responses triggered by DNA polymerase inhibition versus DNA damaging agents.

Jen-Sing Liu1, Shu-Ru Kuo, Thomas Melendy.   

Abstract

To better understand the different cellular responses to replication fork pausing versus blockage, early DNA damage response markers were compared after treatment of cultured mammalian cells with agents that either inhibit DNA polymerase activity (hydroxyurea (HU) or aphidicolin) or selectively induce S-phase DNA damage responses (the DNA alkylating agents, methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) and adozelesin). These agents were compared for their relative abilities to induce phosphorylation of Chk1, H2AX, and replication protein A (RPA), and intra-nuclear focalization of gamma-H2AX and RPA. Treatment by aphidicolin and HU resulted in phosphorylation of Chk1, while HU, but not aphidicolin, induced focalization of gamma-H2AX and RPA. Surprisingly, pre-treatment with aphidicolin to stop replication fork progression, did not abrogate HU-induced gamma-H2AX and RPA focalization. This suggests that HU may act on the replication fork machinery directly, such that fork progression is not required to trigger these responses. The DNA-damaging fork-blocking agents, adozelesin and MMS, both induced phosphorylation and focalization of H2AX and RPA. Unlike adozelesin and HU, the pattern of MMS-induced RPA focalization did not match the BUdR incorporation pattern and was not blocked by aphidicolin, suggesting that MMS-induced damage is not replication fork-dependent. In support of this, MMS was the only reagent used that did not induce phosphorylation of Chk1. These results indicate that induction of DNA damage checkpoint responses due to adozelesin is both replication fork and fork progression dependent, induction by HU is replication fork dependent but progression independent, while induction by MMS is independent of both replication forks and fork progression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14643438     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2003.08.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  18 in total

Review 1.  Replication origin plasticity, Taylor-made: inhibition vs recruitment of origins under conditions of replication stress.

Authors:  David M Gilbert
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 4.316

Review 2.  Cytometry of ATM activation and histone H2AX phosphorylation to estimate extent of DNA damage induced by exogenous agents.

Authors:  Toshiki Tanaka; Xuan Huang; H Dorota Halicka; Hong Zhao; Frank Traganos; Anthony P Albino; Wei Dai; Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz
Journal:  Cytometry A       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.355

3.  Genotoxic stress-induced cyclin D1 phosphorylation and proteolysis are required for genomic stability.

Authors:  Laura L Pontano; Priya Aggarwal; Olena Barbash; Eric J Brown; Craig H Bassing; J Alan Diehl
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2008-09-22       Impact factor: 4.272

4.  Id3 upregulates BrdU incorporation associated with a DNA damage response, not replication, in human pancreatic β-cells.

Authors:  Seung-Hee Lee; Ergeng Hao; Fred Levine; Pamela Itkin-Ansari
Journal:  Islets       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 2.694

5.  A mutation in Dbf4 motif M impairs interactions with DNA replication factors and confers increased resistance to genotoxic agents.

Authors:  Angela E Varrin; Ajai A Prasad; Rolf-Peter Scholz; Matthew D Ramer; Bernard P Duncker
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.272

6.  PI 3 kinase related kinases-independent proteolysis of BRCA1 regulates Rad51 recruitment during genotoxic stress in human cells.

Authors:  Ian Hammond-Martel; Helen Pak; Helen Yu; Raphael Rouget; Andrew A Horwitz; Jeffrey D Parvin; Elliot A Drobetsky; El Bachir Affar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Acetylation of Werner syndrome protein (WRN): relationships with DNA damage, DNA replication and DNA metabolic activities.

Authors:  Enerlyn Lozada; Jingjie Yi; Jianyuan Luo; David K Orren
Journal:  Biogerontology       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 4.277

8.  DNA-PK is involved in repairing a transient surge of DNA breaks induced by deceleration of DNA replication.

Authors:  Tsutomu Shimura; Melvenia M Martin; Michael J Torres; Cory Gu; Janice M Pluth; Maria A DeBernardi; Maria A DiBernardi; Jeffrey S McDonald; Mirit I Aladjem
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 5.469

9.  3-Methyladenine DNA glycosylase is important for cellular resistance to psoralen interstrand cross-links.

Authors:  Ayelet Maor-Shoshani; Lisiane B Meira; Xuemei Yang; Leona D Samson
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2008-06-20

10.  NBS1 mediates ATR-dependent RPA hyperphosphorylation following replication-fork stall and collapse.

Authors:  Karoline C Manthey; Stephen Opiyo; Jason G Glanzer; Diana Dimitrova; James Elliott; Gregory G Oakley
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 5.285

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.