Literature DB >> 15944281

DNA polymerase eta contributes to strand bias of mutations of A versus T in immunoglobulin genes.

Vladimir I Mayorov1, Igor B Rogozin, Linda R Adkison, Patricia J Gearhart.   

Abstract

DNA polymerase (pol) eta participates in hypermutation of A:T bases in Ig genes because humans deficient for the polymerase have fewer substitutions of these bases. To determine whether polymerase eta is also responsible for the well-known preference for mutations of A vs T on the nontranscribed strand, we sequenced variable regions from three patients with xeroderma pigmentosum variant (XP-V) disease, who lack polymerase eta. The frequency of mutations in the intronic region downstream of rearranged J(H)4 gene segments was similar between XP-V and control clones; however, there were fewer mutations of A:T bases and correspondingly more substitutions of C:G bases in the XP-V clones (p < 10(-7)). There was significantly less of a bias for mutations of A compared with T nucleotides in the XP-V clones compared with control clones, whereas the frequencies for mutations of C and G were identical in both groups. An analysis of mutations in the WA sequence motif suggests that polymerase eta generates more mutations of A than T on the nontranscribed strand. This in vivo data from polymerase eta-deficient B cells correlates well with the in vitro specificity of the enzyme. Because polymerase eta inserts more mutations opposite template T than template A, it would generate more substitutions of A on the newly synthesized strand.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15944281     DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.12.7781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Immunol        ISSN: 0022-1767            Impact factor:   5.422


  37 in total

Review 1.  Does DNA repair occur during somatic hypermutation?

Authors:  Huseyin Saribasak; Patricia J Gearhart
Journal:  Semin Immunol       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 11.130

2.  A unique error signature for human DNA polymerase nu.

Authors:  Mercedes E Arana; Kei-ichi Takata; Miguel Garcia-Diaz; Richard D Wood; Thomas A Kunkel
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2006-11-21

Review 3.  DNA polymerases and somatic hypermutation of immunoglobulin genes.

Authors:  Mineaki Seki; Patricia J Gearhart; Richard D Wood
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Known components of the immunoglobulin A:T mutational machinery are intact in Burkitt lymphoma cell lines with G:C bias.

Authors:  Zheng Xiao; Madhumita Ray; Chuancang Jiang; Alan B Clark; Igor B Rogozin; Marilyn Diaz
Journal:  Mol Immunol       Date:  2007-01-22       Impact factor: 4.407

5.  p21 is dispensable for AID-mediated class switch recombination and mutagenesis of immunoglobulin genes during somatic hypermutation.

Authors:  Maryam Shansab; Erik Selsing
Journal:  Mol Immunol       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 4.407

6.  What a difference a decade makes: insights into translesion DNA synthesis.

Authors:  Wei Yang; Roger Woodgate
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  Eukaryotic translesion polymerases and their roles and regulation in DNA damage tolerance.

Authors:  Lauren S Waters; Brenda K Minesinger; Mary Ellen Wiltrout; Sanjay D'Souza; Rachel V Woodruff; Graham C Walker
Journal:  Microbiol Mol Biol Rev       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 11.056

Review 8.  Hijacked DNA repair proteins and unchained DNA polymerases.

Authors:  Huseyin Saribasak; Deepa Rajagopal; Robert W Maul; Patricia J Gearhart
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 6.237

9.  SHMTool: a webserver for comparative analysis of somatic hypermutation datasets.

Authors:  Thomas Maccarthy; Sergio Roa; Matthew D Scharff; Aviv Bergman
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2008-11-08

10.  Immunoglobulin gene transcripts have distinct VHDJH recombination characteristics in human epithelial cancer cells.

Authors:  Jie Zheng; Jing Huang; Yuntao Mao; Shiqing Liu; Xin Sun; Xiaohui Zhu; Teng Ma; Li Zhang; Jiafu Ji; Youhui Zhang; C Cameron Yin; Xiaoyan Qiu
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2009-03-16       Impact factor: 5.157

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.