Literature DB >> 17705640

Mechanisms of direct radiation damage in DNA, based on a study of the yields of base damage, deoxyribose damage, and trapped radicals in d(GCACGCGTGC)(2).

Steven G Swarts1, David C Gilbert, Kiran K Sharma, Yuriy Razskazovskiy, Shubhadeep Purkayastha, Katerina A Naumenko, William A Bernhard.   

Abstract

Dose-response curves were measured for the formation of direct-type DNA products in X-irradiated d(GCACGCGTGC)(2)prepared as dry films and as crystalline powders. Damage to deoxyribose (dRib) was assessed by HPLC measurements of strand break products containing 3' or 5' terminal phosphate and free base release. Base damage was measured using GC/ MS after acid hydrolysis and trimethylsilylation. The yield of trappable radicals was measured at 4 K by EPR of films X-irradiated at 4 K. With exception of those used for EPR, all samples were X-irradiated at room temperature. There was no measurable difference between working under oxygen or under nitrogen. The chemical yields (in units of nmol/J) for trapped radicals, free base release, 8-oxoGua, 8-oxoAde, diHUra and diHThy were G(total)(fr) = 618 +/- 60, G(fbr) = 93 +/- 8, G(8-oxoGua) = 111 +/- 62, G(8-oxoAde) = 4 +/- 3, G(diHUra) = 127 +/- 160, and G(diHThy) = 39 +/- 60, respectively. The yields were determined and the dose-response curves explained by a mechanistic model consisting of three reaction pathways: (1) trappable-radical single-track, (2) trappable-radical multiple-track, and (3) molecular. If the base content is projected from the decamer's GC:AT ratio of 4:1 to a ratio of 1:1, the percentage of the total measured damage (349 nmol/J) would partition as follows: 20 +/- 16% 8-oxoGua, 3 +/- 3% 8-oxoAde, 28 +/- 46% diHThy, 23 +/- 32% diHUra, and 27 +/- 17% dRib damage. With a cautionary note regarding large standard deviations, the projected yield of total damage is higher in CG-rich DNA because C combined with G is more prone to damage than A combined with T, the ratio of base damage to deoxyribose damage is approximately 3:1, the yield of diHUra is comparable to the yield of diHThy, and the yield of 8-oxoAde is not negligible. While the quantity and quality of the data fall short of proving the hypothesized model, the model provides an explanation for the dose-response curves of the more prevalent end products and provides a means of measuring their chemical yields, i.e., their rate of formation at zero dose. Therefore, we believe that this comprehensive analytical approach, combined with the mechanistic model, will prove important in predicting risk due to exposure to low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17705640      PMCID: PMC2791345          DOI: 10.1667/RR1058.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  35 in total

1.  The influence of packing on free radical yields in solid-state DNA: film compared to lyophilized frozen solution.

Authors:  M T Milano; W A Bernhard
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Cross sections for low-energy (10-50 eV) electron damage to DNA.

Authors:  B Boudaïffa; P Cloutier; D Hunting; M A Huels; L Sanche
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.841

3.  Electron-transfer-induced acidity/basicity and reactivity changes of purine and pyrimidine bases. Consequences of redox processes for DNA base pairs.

Authors:  S Steenken
Journal:  Free Radic Res Commun       Date:  1992

Review 4.  Electron transfer in DNA? Competition by ultra-fast proton transfer?

Authors:  S Steenken
Journal:  Biol Chem       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.915

5.  Radiation-induced DNA damage as a function of hydration. II. Base damage from electron-loss centers.

Authors:  S G Swarts; D Becker; M Sevilla; K T Wheeler
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  The influence of hydration on the absolute yields of primary ionic free radicals in gamma-irradiated DNA at 77 K. I. Total radical yields.

Authors:  W Wang; D Becker; M D Sevilla
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  Sugar radicals in DNA: isolation of neutral radicals in gamma-irradiated DNA by hole and electron scavenging.

Authors:  Lata I Shukla; Robert Pazdro; David Becker; Michael D Sevilla
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  Effect of hydration on the induction of strand breaks and base lesions in plasmid DNA films by gamma-radiation.

Authors:  Akinari Yokoya; Siobhan M T Cunniffe; Peter O'Neill
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2002-07-31       Impact factor: 15.419

9.  Electron paramagnetic resonance investigation of X-irradiated poly(U), poly(A) and poly(A):poly(U): influence of hydration, packing and conformation on radical yield at 4 K.

Authors:  N E Mroczka; W A Bernhard
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.841

10.  UVA-visible photo-excitation of guanine radical cations produces sugar radicals in DNA and model structures.

Authors:  Amitava Adhikary; Aramice Y S Malkhasian; Sean Collins; Jessica Koppen; David Becker; Michael D Sevilla
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2005-10-04       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Proton-coupled electron transfer in DNA on formation of radiation-produced ion radicals.

Authors:  Anil Kumar; Michael D Sevilla
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 60.622

2.  Mechanisms of strand break formation in DNA due to the direct effect of ionizing radiation: the dependency of free base release on the length of alternating CG oligodeoxynucleotides.

Authors:  Kiran K Sharma; Yuriy Razskazovskiy; Shubhadeep Purkayastha; William A Bernhard
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 2.991

3.  Which DNA damage is likely to be relevant in hormetic responses?

Authors:  William A Bernhard; Shubhadeep Purkayastha; Jamie R Milligan
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 2.658

4.  What fraction of DNA double-strand breaks produced by the direct effect is accounted for by radical pairs?

Authors:  Anita R Peoples; Kermit R Mercer; William A Bernhard
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 2.991

5.  Escherichia coli radD (yejH) gene: a novel function involved in radiation resistance and double-strand break repair.

Authors:  Stefanie H Chen; Rose T Byrne; Elizabeth A Wood; Michael M Cox
Journal:  Mol Microbiol       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 3.501

6.  Multiplicity of DNA single-strand breaks produced in pUC18 exposed to the direct effects of ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Kiran Kumar K Sharma; Jamie R Milligan; William A Bernhard
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  Excess electron trapping in duplex DNA: long range transfer via stacked adenines.

Authors:  Paul J Black; William A Bernhard
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 2.991

8.  Radioresistance of GGG sequences to prompt strand break formation from direct-type radiation damage.

Authors:  Paul J Black; Adam S Miller; Jeffrey J Hayes
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 9.  One-electron oxidation reactions of purine and pyrimidine bases in cellular DNA.

Authors:  Jean Cadet; J Richard Wagner; Vladimir Shafirovich; Nicholas E Geacintov
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 2.694

10.  Kinetic modeling of the X-ray-induced damage to a metalloprotein.

Authors:  Katherine M Davis; Irina Kosheleva; Robert W Henning; Gerald T Seidler; Yulia Pushkar
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 2.991

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.