Literature DB >> 24461736

Mass spectrometry-based quantification of the cellular response to methyl methanesulfonate treatment in human cells.

Aaron Aslanian1, John R Yates2, Tony Hunter3.   

Abstract

Faithful transmission of genetic material is essential for cell viability and organism health. The occurrence of DNA damage, due to either spontaneous events or environmental agents, threatens the integrity of the genome. The consequences of these insults, if allowed to perpetuate and accumulate over time, are mutations that can lead to the development of diseases such as cancer. Alkylation is a relevant DNA lesion produced endogenously as well as by exogenous agents including certain chemotherapeutics. We sought to better understand the cellular response to this form of DNA damage using mass spectrometry-based proteomics. For this purpose, we performed sub-cellular fractionation to monitor the effect of methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) treatment on protein localization to chromatin. The levels of over 500 proteins were increased in the chromatin-enriched nuclear lysate including histone chaperones. Levels of ubiquitin and subunits of the proteasome were also increased within this fraction, suggesting that ubiquitin-mediated degradation by the proteasome has an important role in the chromatin response to MMS treatment. Finally, the levels of some proteins were decreased within the chromatin-enriched lysate including components of the nuclear pore complex. Our spatial proteomics data demonstrate that many proteins that influence chromatin organization are regulated in response to MMS treatment, presumably to open the DNA to allow access by other DNA damage response proteins. To gain further insight into the cellular response to MMS-induced DNA damage, we also performed phosphorylation enrichment on total cell lysates to identify proteins regulated via post-translational modification. Phosphoproteomic analysis demonstrated that many nuclear phosphorylation events were decreased in response to MMS treatment. This reflected changes in protein kinase and/or phosphatase activity in response to DNA damage rather than changes in total protein abundance. Using these two mass spectrometry-based approaches, we have identified a novel set of MMS-responsive proteins that will expand our understanding of DNA damage signaling.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chromatin; MMS; Mass spectrometry; Phosphorylation; Proteomics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24461736      PMCID: PMC4046014          DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2013.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)        ISSN: 1568-7856


  55 in total

Review 1.  Protein degradation in DNA damage response.

Authors:  Ilektra Kouranti; Anne Peyroche
Journal:  Semin Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 7.727

Review 2.  Shaping chromatin for repair.

Authors:  Anastas Gospodinov; Zdenko Herceg
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 2.433

3.  Stress-independent activation of XBP1s and/or ATF6 reveals three functionally diverse ER proteostasis environments.

Authors:  Matthew D Shoulders; Lisa M Ryno; Joseph C Genereux; James J Moresco; Patricia G Tu; Chunlei Wu; John R Yates; Andrew I Su; Jeffery W Kelly; R Luke Wiseman
Journal:  Cell Rep       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 9.423

Review 4.  Chromatin and the genome integrity network.

Authors:  Manolis Papamichos-Chronakis; Craig L Peterson
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  The chromatin-remodeling factor CHD4 coordinates signaling and repair after DNA damage.

Authors:  Dorthe Helena Larsen; Catherine Poinsignon; Thorkell Gudjonsson; Christoffel Dinant; Mark R Payne; Flurina J Hari; Jannie M Rendtlew Danielsen; Patrice Menard; Jette Christensen Sand; Manuel Stucki; Claudia Lukas; Jiri Bartek; Jens S Andersen; Jiri Lukas
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 10.539

6.  Refined preparation and use of anti-diglycine remnant (K-ε-GG) antibody enables routine quantification of 10,000s of ubiquitination sites in single proteomics experiments.

Authors:  Namrata D Udeshi; Tanya Svinkina; Philipp Mertins; Eric Kuhn; D R Mani; Jana W Qiao; Steven A Carr
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2012-12-24       Impact factor: 5.911

7.  Proteomic investigations reveal a role for RNA processing factor THRAP3 in the DNA damage response.

Authors:  Petra Beli; Natalia Lukashchuk; Sebastian A Wagner; Brian T Weinert; Jesper V Olsen; Linda Baskcomb; Matthias Mann; Stephen P Jackson; Chunaram Choudhary
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 8.  The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives.

Authors:  Alberto Ciccia; Stephen J Elledge
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 9.  Regulation of DNA damage responses by ubiquitin and SUMO.

Authors:  Stephen P Jackson; Daniel Durocher
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 10.  CHD4 in the DNA-damage response and cell cycle progression: not so NuRDy now.

Authors:  Aoife O'Shaughnessy; Brian Hendrich
Journal:  Biochem Soc Trans       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.407

View more
  1 in total

1.  Mass spectrometry-based quantification of the cellular response to ultraviolet radiation in HeLa cells.

Authors:  Hong Xu; Xuanyi Chen; Nanjiao Ying; Meixia Wang; Xiaoli Xu; Rongyi Shi; Yuejin Hua
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.