| Literature DB >> 22722331 |
Christine A Armstrong1, George D Jones, Rhona Anderson, Pooja Iyer, Deepan Narayanan, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Rajinder Singh, Christopher J Talbot, Cristina Tufarelli.
Abstract
The ability of ionizing radiation to initiate genomic instability has been harnessed in the clinic where the localized delivery of controlled doses of radiation is used to induce cell death in tumor cells. Though very effective as a therapy, tumor relapse can occur in vivo and its appearance has been attributed to the radio-resistance of cells with stem cell-like features. The molecular mechanisms underlying these phenomena are unclear but there is evidence suggesting an inverse correlation between radiation-induced genomic instability and global hypomethylation. To further investigate the relationship between DNA hypomethylation, radiosensitivity and genomic stability in stem-like cells we have studied mouse embryonic stem cells containing differing levels of DNA methylation due to the presence or absence of DNA methyltransferases. Unexpectedly, we found that global levels of methylation do not determine radiosensitivity. In particular, radiation-induced delayed genomic instability was observed at the Hprt gene locus only in wild-type cells. Furthermore, absence of Dnmt1 resulted in a 10-fold increase in de novo Hprt mutation rate, which was unaltered by radiation. Our data indicate that functional DNMTs are required for radiation-induced genomic instability, and that individual DNMTs play distinct roles in genome stability. We propose that DNMTS may contribute to the acquirement of radio-resistance in stem-like cells.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22722331 PMCID: PMC3427285 DOI: 10.4161/epi.21094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Epigenetics ISSN: 1559-2294 Impact factor: 4.528

Figure 1. Relationship between DNA methylation and irradiation. Genomic DNA cytosine methylation measured by HPLC-UV of un-irradiated mESC samples and mouse control tissues before (A) and after irradiation (B). Columns represent the average percentage of cytosine bases that were methylated. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Results were combined from multiple independent experiments. The number of replicate measurements for each sample is displayed above the error bar. (C) Dose-response curve of the ESC lines constructed using the long-term clonogenic assay after irradiation with 0–7Gy X-rays. Each data point represents the mean, and error bars represent the SEM, of at least 3 independent experiments. (D) Linear quadratic parameters α and β were calculated by fitting the data displayed in Figure 1C with a linear quadratic equation using SPSS and are shown in columns 3 and 5. Column 2 indicates the Plating Efficiency for each clone and column 4 and 6 the standard errors (SE) for α and β respectively. The survival fraction at 2Gy (SF2) inferred from the data are shown in the last column.

Figure 2. Analysis of single strand, double strand and alkali labile site DNA damage (A) or damage resulting from oxidative stress (B) in wild-type, Dnmt1−/−. Dnmt3a3b–/– mESC lines, 23–25PDs post 3Gy X-irradiation or sham treatment as measured by percentage of tail DNA. Results are expressed as an average of 3 independent experiments, each comprising 200 separate cell measurements. Error bars represent the SEM of the averages of the 3 independent experiments.

Figure 3. Classifications of structural cytogenetic aberrations as defined by Savage. The results are displayed as the number of each class of aberration observed per 100 metaphases. Graph (A) displays the results 10–14 PDs post treatment; Graph (B) displays the results 23–25 PDs post treatment. (C) Mitotic spreads of Giemsa-stained chromosomes from the Dnmt1−/− ESC line 23–25 PDs after 0Gy treatment, showing a chromosome with very long satellite arms. Immediately after exposure to 3Gy X-rays or sham treatment, cells were seeded into the clonogenic assay. Surviving colonies were counted 12–14 d after seeding. (D) Dicentric, tri-centric and tetra-centric chromosome-type aberrations observed in Giemsa-stained metaphase spreads of Dnmt1−/− and Dnmt3a3b–/– mESCs 23–25PDs post 0Gy (sham) or 3Gy treatment.
Absolute numbers of each cytogenetic aberration type observed at 10-14 PD and 23-25 PD post treatment with 0Gy or 3Gy X-rays
| | | | | | Number of Chromosome-type Aberrations (Frequency) | Number of Chromatid-type Aberrations (Frequency) | Other | | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | Simple Interchange | Simple Intrachange | Simple Interchange | Simple Intrachange | |||||||||||
| Population doubling | Cell line/condition | No. of Metaphases Scored | No. of aberrant metaphases (frequency) | No. of aberrations (frequency) | RT | Dic | CR/ ins del | Discontinuity | RT | Dic | CR/ ins del | Discontinuity | No. of Complex Satellite Associations/ Exchanges (Frequency) | Ratio of Chromatid: Chromosome Type Aberrations | |||||
| 10-14PDs | Wild Type Sham | 119 | 15 (0.126) | 18 (0.151) | 1 (0.008) | 4 (0.034) | 0 | 5 (0.042) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 (0.067) | 0 | 0.8 | |||||
| Wild Type 3Gy | 238 | 21 (0.088) | 23 (0.097) | 0 | 3 (0.013) | 0 | 8 (0.034) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 (0.050) | 0 | 1.1 | ||||||
| Dnmt1-/- Sham | 118 | 16 (0.136) | 22 (0.186) | 0 | 2 (0.017) | 0 | 13 (0.110) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 (0.051) | 1 (0.008) | 0.4* | ||||||
| Dnmt1-/- 3Gy | 248 | 30 (0.121) | 36 (0.145) | 1 (0.004) | 8 (0.032) | 0 | 10 (0.040) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 (0.069) | 0 | 0.9 | ||||||
| Dnmt3a3b-/- Sham | 120 | 13 (0.108) | 15 (0.125) | 0 | 4 (0.033) | 0 | 2 (0.017) | 0 | 1 (0.008) | 2 (0.017) | 6 (0.050) | 0 | 1.5 | ||||||
| Dnmt3a3b-/- 3Gy | 232 | 38 (0.164) | 46 (0.198) | 0 | 11 (0.047) | 0 | 6 (0.026) | 1 (0.004) | 1 (0.004) | 0 | 25 (0.108) | 2 (0.009) | 1.6 | ||||||
| 23-25PDs | Wild Type Sham | 119 | 18 (0.151) | 20 (0.168) | 0 | 3 (0.025) | 0 | 8 (0.067) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 (0.076) | 0 | 0.8 | |||||
| Wild Type 3Gy | 139 | 18 (0.129) | 20 (0.144) | 1 (0.007) | 3 (0.022) | 0 | 6 (0.043) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 (0.072) | 0 | 1 | ||||||
| Dnmt1-/- Sham | 119 | 18 (0.151) | 24 (0.020) | 5 (0.042) | 3 (0.025) | 1 (0.008) | 7 (0.059) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 (0.092) | 1 (0.008) | 0.9 | ||||||
| Dnmt1-/- 3Gy | 120 | 13 (0.108) | 17 (0.142) | 8 (0.067) | 4 (0.033) | 0 | 3 (0.025) | 0 | 1 (0.008) | 0 | 8 (0.067) | 0 | 1.1 | ||||||
| Dnmt3a3b-/- Sham | 119 | 16 (0.134) | 22 (0.185) | 0 | 7 (0.059) | 0 | 5 (0.042) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.008) | 8 (0.067) | 1 (0.008) | 0.8 | ||||||
| Dnmt3a3b-/- 3Gy | 120 | 12 (0.100) | 15 (0.125) | 0 | 4 (0.033) | 0 | 3 (0.025) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 (0.058) | 1 (0.008) | 1 | ||||||
100-120 metaphases were scored for each cell line in each treatment condition.*The ratio of chromatid:chromosome type aberrations is significantly different between the sham and 3Gy treatment groups at 10-14PDs for Dnmt1-/- cells (Χ2 p=0.024 after Bonferroni correction). RT=reciprocal translocations; Dic=dicentric; CR=Centric Ring; insdel=insertion or deletion

Figure 4. (A) Hprt gene mutation rates 23–25 population doublings after 3Gy X-irradiation or 0Gy (sham) treatment. Columns represent the mutation rate, calculated from 19–25 individual clonal expansions using Luria-Delbrück fluctuation analysis and corrected for plating efficiency. Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. Dnmt3a3b–/– mESCs were p#20–26 at the time of selection for mutants. (B) Spectrum of functional Hprt gene mutations observed in mESC lines 23–25 population doublings after 3Gy X-irradiation or 0Gy (sham) treatment. (C) Tables detailing the mutations identified by exonic PCR that were used to construct the pie charts in (B). PCRs were performed using primer pairs designed to amplify each exon (1–9) of the Hprt gene and exon 2 of the unlinked K-ras gene as a control. When a mutation was observed in multiple colonies arising in the same clonal population it was counted only once. ‘Other mutations’ include mutations that could not be detected using the PCR-based method, such as point mutations, frame shift mutations and epigenetic alterations.
Details of the selections carried out to determine the mutation rate at the Hprt gene for each cell line and treatment condition.
| Cell line and condition | Number of independent selections | Number of cells screened per selection | Average plating efficiency | Number of mutations per selection† | Mutation rate‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild Type sham | 25 | 4x106 | 55% | 0(22), 1(2), 3(1) | 5.7x10-8 |
| Dnmt1-/-sham | 19 | 4x106 | 52% | 0(6), 1(7), 2(2), 3(1), 4(1), 12(1), 97(1) | 4.4x10-7 |
| Dnmt3a3b | 25 | 4x106 | 51% | 0(22), 1(2), 2(1) | 6.0x10-8 |
| Dnmt3a-/- sham | 19 | 4x106 | 38% | 0(16), 1(2), 2(1) | 1.1x10-7 |
| Dnmt3b-/- sham | 22 | 4x106 | 51% | 0(16), 1(1), 1(4), 16(1) | 8.7x10-8 |
| Wild Type 3Gy | 20 | 4x106 | 49% | 0(11), 1(5), 2(1), 3(1), 9(1), 13(1) | 2.8x10-7 |
| Dnmt1-/- 3Gy | 19 | 4x106 | 49% | 0(7), 1(5), 2(2), 3(2), 6(2), 29(1) | 4.5x10-7 |
| Dnmt3a3b | 20 | 4x106 | 45% | 0(16), 1(3), 6(1) | 1.2x10-7 |
| Dnmt3a-/- 3Gy | 20 | 4x106 | 41% | 0 (17), 1(2), 2(1) | 9.5x10-8 |
| Dnmt3b-/- 3Gy | 21 | 4x106 | 48% | 0(18), 2(1), 7(1), 8(1) | 8.5x10-8 |
The number in brackets indicates the number of selections in which the adjacent number of drug-resistant colonies was observed. ‡Calculated using Luria Delbrück fluctuation analysis and corrected for plating efficiency.