Literature DB >> 1501255

Evolutionary consequences of nonrandom damage and repair of chromatin domains.

T Boulikas1.   

Abstract

Some evolutionary consequences of different rates and trends in DNA damage and repair are explained. Different types of DNA damaging agents cause nonrandom lesions along the DNA. The type of DNA sequence motifs to be preferentially attacked depends upon the chemical or physical nature of the assaulting agent and the DNA base composition. Higher-order chromatin structure, the nonrandom nucleosome positioning along the DNA, the absence of nucleosomes from the promoter regions of active genes, curved DNA, the presence of sequence-specific binding proteins, and the torsional strain on the DNA induced by an increased transcriptional activity all are expected to affect rates of damage of individual genes. Furthermore, potential Z-DNA, H-DNA, slippage, and cruciform structures in the regulatory region of some genes or in other genomic loci induced by torsional strain on the DNA are more prone to modification by genotoxic agents. A specific actively transcribed gene may be preferentially damaged over nontranscribed genes only in specific cell types that maintain this gene in active chromatin fractions because of (1) its decondensed chromatin structure, (2) torsional strain in its DNA, (3) absence of nucleosomes from its regulatory region, and (4) altered nucleosome structure in its coding sequence due to the presence of modified histones and HMG proteins. The situation in this regard of germ cell lineages is, of course, the only one to intervene in evolution. Most lesions in DNA such as those caused by UV or DNA alkylating agents tend to diminish the GC content of genomes. Thus, DNA sequences not bound by selective constraints, such as pseudogenes, will show an increase in their AT content during evolution as evidenced by experimental observations. On the other hand, transcriptionally active parts may be repaired at rates higher than inactive parts of the genome, and proliferating cells may display higher repair activities than quiescent cells. This might arise from a tight coupling of the repair process with both transcription and replication, all these processes taking place on the nuclear matrix. Repair activities differ greatly among species, and there is a good correlation between life span and repair among mammals. It is predicted that genes that are transcriptionally active in germ-cell lineages have a lower mutation rate than bulk DNA, a circumstance that is expected to be reflected in evolution. Exception to this rule might be genes containing potential Z-DNA, H-DNA, or cruciform structures in their coding or regulatory regions that appear to be refractory to repair.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1501255     DOI: 10.1007/bf00183227

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Evol        ISSN: 0022-2844            Impact factor:   2.395


  303 in total

1.  Mapping of mitochondrial DNA of individual sheep and goats: rapid evolution in the D loop region.

Authors:  W B Upholt; I B Dawid
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1977-07       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  Characterization of the binding specificity of two anticruciform DNA monoclonal antibodies.

Authors:  L Frappier; G B Price; R G Martin; M Zannis-Hadjopoulos
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  1989-01-05       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 3.  Curved DNA.

Authors:  E N Trifonov
Journal:  CRC Crit Rev Biochem       Date:  1985

4.  Repair of the ultraviolet-irradiated male genome in fertilized mouse eggs.

Authors:  B Brandriff; R A Pedersen
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-03-27       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 5.  Aging and changes in genetic information.

Authors:  R W Hart; S P Modak
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 6.  Evolution of higher-organism DNA.

Authors:  D E Kohne
Journal:  Q Rev Biophys       Date:  1970-08       Impact factor: 5.318

7.  Structure of in-vivo transcribing chromatin as studied in simian virus 40 minichromosomes.

Authors:  W De Bernardin; T Koller; J M Sogo
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1986-10-05       Impact factor: 5.469

8.  Discrimination between adaptive and neutral amino acid substitutions in vertebrate hemoglobins.

Authors:  K Horimoto; H Suzuki; J Otsuka
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 9.  Evolution of chromosome bands: molecular ecology of noncoding DNA.

Authors:  G P Holmquist
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 2.395

10.  Nucleosome reconstitution on plasmid-inserted poly(dA) . poly(dT).

Authors:  A Prunell
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 11.598

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Variation in the mutation rate across mammalian genomes.

Authors:  Alan Hodgkinson; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 2.  The role of constrained self-organization in genome structural evolution.

Authors:  R von Sternberg
Journal:  Acta Biotheor       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 1.774

3.  Strong conservation of non-coding sequences during vertebrates evolution: potential involvement in post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression.

Authors:  L Duret; F Dorkeld; C Gautier
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1993-05-25       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Chromatin self-organization by mutation bias.

Authors:  G P Holmquist
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 2.395

5.  Non-B DNA: a major contributor to small- and large-scale variation in nucleotide substitution frequencies across the genome.

Authors:  Wilfried M Guiblet; Marzia A Cremona; Robert S Harris; Di Chen; Kristin A Eckert; Francesca Chiaromonte; Yi-Fei Huang; Kateryna D Makova
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  A genome-wide view of mutation rate co-variation using multivariate analyses.

Authors:  Guruprasad Ananda; Francesca Chiaromonte; Kateryna D Makova
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 13.583

Review 7.  Cruciform structures are a common DNA feature important for regulating biological processes.

Authors:  Václav Brázda; Rob C Laister; Eva B Jagelská; Cheryl Arrowsmith
Journal:  BMC Mol Biol       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 2.946

8.  Evidence that localized variation in primate sequence divergence arises from an influence of nucleosome placement on DNA repair.

Authors:  Hua Ying; Julian Epps; Rohan Williams; Gavin Huttley
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 16.240

9.  An independent genome duplication inferred from Hox paralogs in the American paddlefish--a representative basal ray-finned fish and important comparative reference.

Authors:  Karen D Crow; Christopher D Smith; Jan-Fang Cheng; Günter P Wagner; Chris T Amemiya
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.416

10.  H2A.Z nucleosome positioning has no impact on genetic variation in Drosophila genome.

Authors:  Yitao Tang; Shan Dong; Xinkai Cao; Qing Zhou; Guitao Ding; Cizhong Jiang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.