Literature DB >> 21071726

N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase plays a pivotal role in the threshold response of ethyl methanesulfonate-induced chromosome damage.

Zoulikha M Zaïr1, Gareth J Jenkins, Shareen H Doak, Raj Singh, Karen Brown, George E Johnson.   

Abstract

Genotoxic tolerance to low-level exposure of monofunctional alkylating agents is compound specific, with the mechanism pertaining to alkyl-induced genotoxic threshold response as yet unknown. N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase (MPG), an initiator glycosylase of the base excision repair (BER) pathway, typically repairs alkyl-induced DNA adducts, many of which are associated with genomic instability and tumorigenic risk. Here we demonstrate the involvement of MPG in modulating the genotoxic threshold response induced by the Sn2 alkylating agent ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and not the Sn1 alkylating agent N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU) in human lymphoblastoid cells and suggest the lack of N7-ethylguanine adduct repair as a key factor attributable to an observed increase in EMS-induced chromosome damage. Moreover, an increase in MPG messenger RNA expression levels in response to EMS and not ENU doses administered below the low-observed effect level substantiates the proposed specific involvement of MPG in relation to EMS-induced genotoxicity. We further report an unexpected dose-dependent decrease in the mutation frequency of the MPG-deficient cell line M09B when challenged with ENU, a response deemed consequential to a pronounced dose-dependent increase in the number of apoptotic cells relative to wild type. Collectively, these findings implicate the differential involvement of MPG-directed BER as a primary mechanism of action for the chromosome damage threshold response and cytotoxicity induced by alkane sulfonates and N-nitrosourea compounds, respectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21071726     DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Sci        ISSN: 1096-0929            Impact factor:   4.849


  8 in total

1.  Pro-oxidant induced DNA damage in human lymphoblastoid cells: homeostatic mechanisms of genotoxic tolerance.

Authors:  Anna L Seager; Ume-Kulsoom Shah; Jane M Mikhail; Bryant C Nelson; Bryce J Marquis; Shareen H Doak; George E Johnson; Sioned M Griffiths; Paul L Carmichael; Sharon J Scott; Andrew D Scott; Gareth J S Jenkins
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 2.  Contributions of DNA repair and damage response pathways to the non-linear genotoxic responses of alkylating agents.

Authors:  Joanna Klapacz; Lynn H Pottenger; Bevin P Engelward; Christopher D Heinen; George E Johnson; Rebecca A Clewell; Paul L Carmichael; Yeyejide Adeleye; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 5.657

3.  Benchmark dose analyses of multiple genetic toxicity endpoints permit robust, cross-tissue comparisons of MutaMouse responses to orally delivered benzo[a]pyrene.

Authors:  Alexandra S Long; John W Wills; Dorothy Krolak; Matthew Guo; Stephen D Dertinger; Volker M Arlt; Paul A White
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 5.153

4.  Biological Basis for Threshold Responses to Methylating Agents.

Authors:  Adam D Thomas
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 3.739

5.  Influence of DNA repair on nonlinear dose-responses for mutation.

Authors:  Adam D Thomas; Gareth J S Jenkins; Bernd Kaina; Owen G Bodger; Karl-Heinz Tomaszowski; Paul D Lewis; Shareen H Doak; George E Johnson
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 6.  Transcriptional regulation of human DNA repair genes following genotoxic stress: trigger mechanisms, inducible responses and genotoxic adaptation.

Authors:  Markus Christmann; Bernd Kaina
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment.

Authors:  G E Johnson; L G Soeteman-Hernández; B B Gollapudi; O G Bodger; K L Dearfield; R H Heflich; J G Hixon; D P Lovell; J T MacGregor; L H Pottenger; C M Thompson; L Abraham; V Thybaud; J Y Tanir; E Zeiger; J van Benthem; P A White
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 3.216

8.  Multiple-endpoint in vitro carcinogenicity test in human cell line TK6 distinguishes carcinogens from non-carcinogens and highlights mechanisms of action.

Authors:  Katherine E Chapman; Eleanor C Wilde; Fiona M Chapman; Jatin R Verma; Ume-Kulsoom Shah; Leanne M Stannard; Anna L Seager; James A Tonkin; M Rowan Brown; Ann T Doherty; George E Johnson; Shareen H Doak; Gareth J S Jenkins
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 6.168

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.