BACKGROUND: The level of 8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG), a general marker of oxidative DNA damage, in DNA is the result of both an equilibrium between the rates of its formation and removal from DNA by DNA repair enzymes and the removal of 8-oxodGTP from the cellular nucleotide pool by hydrolysis to 8-oxodGMP, preventing its incorporation into DNA. To determine the contribution of each component to the level of 8-oxoG in DNA, we compared 8-oxoG-excising activity (encoded by hOGG1), 8-oxodGTPase activity (encoded by hMTH1), and 8-oxoG levels in DNA from tumors and surrounding normal lung tissues from non-small-cell lung cancer patients. METHODS: We measured the level of 8-oxoG in DNA of 47 patients by high-performance liquid chromatography/electrochemical detection (HPLC/ECD), hOGG1 activity in tissue extracts of 56 patients by the nicking assay using an oligodeoxynucleotide containing a single 8-oxoG, and hMTH1 activity in tissue extracts of 33 patients by HPLC/UV detection. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The 8-oxoG level was lower in tumor DNA than in DNA from normal lung tissue (geometric mean: 5.81 versus 10.18 8-oxoG/10(6) G, geometric mean of difference = 1.75; P<.001). The hOGG1 activity was also lower in tumor than in normal lung tissue (geometric mean: 8.76 versus 20.91 pmol/h/mg protein, geometric mean of difference = 2.39; P<.001), whereas the hMTH1 activity was higher in tumor than in normal lung tissue (geometric mean: 28.79 versus 8.94 nmol/h/mg protein, geometric mean of difference = 0.31; P<.001). The activity of hMTH1 was three orders of magnitude higher than that of hOGG1 (nanomoles versus picomoles per hour per milligram of protein, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Several different components contribute to the maintenance of 8-oxoG levels in human DNA, with the greatest contributor being the removal of 8-oxodGTP from the cellular nucleotide pool by hMTH1.
BACKGROUND: The level of 8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG), a general marker of oxidative DNA damage, in DNA is the result of both an equilibrium between the rates of its formation and removal from DNA by DNA repair enzymes and the removal of 8-oxodGTP from the cellular nucleotide pool by hydrolysis to 8-oxodGMP, preventing its incorporation into DNA. To determine the contribution of each component to the level of 8-oxoG in DNA, we compared 8-oxoG-excising activity (encoded by hOGG1), 8-oxodGTPase activity (encoded by hMTH1), and 8-oxoG levels in DNA from tumors and surrounding normal lung tissues from non-small-cell lung cancerpatients. METHODS: We measured the level of 8-oxoG in DNA of 47 patients by high-performance liquid chromatography/electrochemical detection (HPLC/ECD), hOGG1 activity in tissue extracts of 56 patients by the nicking assay using an oligodeoxynucleotide containing a single 8-oxoG, and hMTH1 activity in tissue extracts of 33 patients by HPLC/UV detection. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The 8-oxoG level was lower in tumor DNA than in DNA from normal lung tissue (geometric mean: 5.81 versus 10.18 8-oxoG/10(6) G, geometric mean of difference = 1.75; P<.001). The hOGG1 activity was also lower in tumor than in normal lung tissue (geometric mean: 8.76 versus 20.91 pmol/h/mg protein, geometric mean of difference = 2.39; P<.001), whereas the hMTH1 activity was higher in tumor than in normal lung tissue (geometric mean: 28.79 versus 8.94 nmol/h/mg protein, geometric mean of difference = 0.31; P<.001). The activity of hMTH1 was three orders of magnitude higher than that of hOGG1 (nanomoles versus picomoles per hour per milligram of protein, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Several different components contribute to the maintenance of 8-oxoG levels in human DNA, with the greatest contributor being the removal of 8-oxodGTP from the cellular nucleotide pool by hMTH1.
Authors: Govindi J Samaranayake; Clara I Troccoli; Ling Zhang; Mai Huynh; Christina J Jayaraj; Debin Ji; Lisa McPherson; Yoshiyuki Onishi; Dao M Nguyen; David J Robbins; Mahsa Karbaschi; Marcus S Cooke; Antonio Barrientos; Eric T Kool; Priyamvada Rai Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Barbara Tudek; Alicja Winczura; Justyna Janik; Agnieszka Siomek; Marek Foksinski; Ryszard Oliński Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Sarah K Edwards; Toshikazu Ono; Shenliang Wang; Wei Jiang; Raphael M Franzini; Jong Wha Jung; Ke Min Chan; Eric T Kool Journal: Chembiochem Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Prasad T Reddy; Pawel Jaruga; Bryant C Nelson; Mark S Lowenthal; Ann-Sofie Jemth; Olga Loseva; Erdem Coskun; Thomas Helleday; Miral Dizdaroglu Journal: Methods Enzymol Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 1.600
Authors: Priyamvada Rai; Tamer T Onder; Jennifer J Young; Jose L McFaline; Bo Pang; Peter C Dedon; Robert A Weinberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 11.205