| Literature DB >> 29042516 |
Ajay Sharma1, Elena K Gaidamakova2,3, Olga Grichenko2,3, Vera Y Matrosova2,3, Veronika Hoeke1, Polina Klimenkova2,3, Isabel H Conze2,4, Robert P Volpe2,3, Rok Tkavc2,3, Cene Gostinčar5, Nina Gunde-Cimerman5, Jocelyne DiRuggiero6, Igor Shuryak7, Andrew Ozarowski8, Brian M Hoffman9,10, Michael J Daly11.
Abstract
Despite concerted functional genomic efforts to understand the complex phenotype of ionizing radiation (IR) resistance, a genome sequence cannot predict whether a cell is IR-resistant or not. Instead, we report that absorption-display electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy of nonirradiated cells is highly diagnostic of IR survival and repair efficiency of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) caused by exposure to gamma radiation across archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes, including fungi and human cells. IR-resistant cells, which are efficient at DSB repair, contain a high cellular content of manganous ions (Mn2+) in high-symmetry (H) antioxidant complexes with small metabolites (e.g., orthophosphate, peptides), which exhibit narrow EPR signals (small zero-field splitting). In contrast, Mn2+ ions in IR-sensitive cells, which are inefficient at DSB repair, exist largely as low-symmetry (L) complexes with substantially broadened spectra seen with enzymes and strongly chelating ligands. The fraction of cellular Mn2+ present as H-complexes (H-Mn2+), as measured by EPR of live, nonirradiated Mn-replete cells, is now the strongest known gauge of biological IR resistance between and within organisms representing all three domains of life: Antioxidant H-Mn2+ complexes, not antioxidant enzymes (e.g., Mn superoxide dismutase), govern IR survival. As the pool of intracellular metabolites needed to form H-Mn2+ complexes depends on the nutritional status of the cell, we conclude that IR resistance is predominantly a metabolic phenomenon. In a cross-kingdom analysis, the vast differences in taxonomic classification, genome size, and radioresistance between cell types studied here support that IR resistance is not controlled by the repertoire of DNA repair and antioxidant enzymes.Entities:
Keywords: DNA repair; DSB; Deinococcus; EPR; ionizing radiation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29042516 PMCID: PMC5676931 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713608114
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Values for prokaryotes and eukaryotes of the cell panel of the IR resistance indexes DSBD10 (DSB repair efficiency) and D10 (survival), DSB yield, genome size, and the Mn2+ speciation index f, as assessed by EPR
| Name | Short name | DSBD10 | D10, kGy | DSB yield | GS, Mbp | Source | |
| Bacteria | |||||||
| 118 | 12.0 | 0.003 | 3.3 | 0.94 | ( | ||
| 118 | 12.0 | 0.003 | 3.3 | 0.94 | ( | ||
| 118 | 12.0 | 0.003 | 3.3 | 0.94 | ( | ||
| 84 | 7.0 | 0.003 | 4.0 | 0.97 | ( | ||
| 59 | 6.0 | 0.003 | 3.3 | 0.97 | ( | ||
| 48 | 5.0 | 0.003 | 3.2 | 0.7 | (This study) | ||
| 18 | 2.0 | 0.003 | 3.0 | 0.81 | ( | ||
| 6 | 0.7 | 0.002 | 4.6 | 0.17 | ( | ||
| 5 | 0.3 | 0.003 | 6.1 | 0.13 | ( | ||
| Human cells | |||||||
| 72 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 3,000 | 0.95 | ( | ||
| Archaea | |||||||
| 39 | 5.0 | 0.003 | 2.6 | 0.95 | ( | ||
| 18 | 1.5 | 0.003 | 4.0 | 0.84 | ( | ||
| Yeasts | |||||||
| 32 | 3.5 | 0.0009 | 10 | 0.51 | ( | ||
| 20 | 2.6 | 0.00075 | 10 | 0.3 | ( | ||
| 20 | 2.4 | 0.0007 | 12 | 0.26 | ( | ||
| 16 | 0.8 | 0.001 | 20 | 0.35 | (This study) | ||
| 10 | 1.0 | 0.0008 | 12 | 0.21 | ( | ||
| 10 | 1.4 | 0.0008 | 12 | 0.21 | (This study) | ||
| 10 | 1.1 | 0.0008 | 12 | 0.21 | (This study) | ||
| 7 | 0.8 | 0.0006 | 14 | 0.23 | ( | ||
| 8 | 0.8 | 0.00075 | 14 | 0.2 | ( |
Tabulated quantities: D10, dose at 10% survival (kGy); DSBD10 = [D10 (Gy)] × [DSB Yield (DSB/Mbp/Gy)] × [Genome Size (Mbp)], DSBs per haploid genome; DSB yield (DSB/Mbp/Gy). Gamma-radiation–induced cellular DSB damage is linear with dose, with DSB yields falling within narrow ranges: for circular genomes of prokaryotes (0.002 ± 0.001 DSB/Mbp/Gy), for linear genomes of animal cells (0.006 ± 0.002 DSB/Mbp/Gy), and for linear genomes of yeasts (0.0006 ± 0.0003 DSB/Mbp/Gy) (2, 5, 7, 27) (). Estimated uncertainties for f are <5% (). The source column lists citations for IR-induced DSB yields and genome sizes. f, fraction of H-Mn2+; GS, genome size (Mbp); USU, Uniformed Services University.
Fig. 1.Cellular IR survival and Mn speciation. (Upper) IR survival curves of indicated strains. Bacteria and yeasts were grown, irradiated to the indicated doses (kGy), and then quantified for survival by colony-forming unit assay (). Values are for three independent trials with SDs shown. Shoulders on cell survival curves correspond to dose-dependent changes in the efficiency/accuracy of enzymatic repair (5). (Lower) Thirty-five–gigahertz, 2-K, 100-kHz field-modulated rapid-passage absorption-display EPR spectra of selected bacteria/yeasts/human Jurkat T cells (JT), normalized to maximum height. “H” and “L” braces represent the field ranges over which H-Mn2+ and L-Mn2+ complexes contribute, the arrow indicates a monotonic decrease of the L-Mn2+ contribution (increasing f) with increasing D10 (Table 1, which contains strain abbreviations), JT as an apparent exception is discussed in main text, and Fe represents Fe(III) signals. Conditions were as follows: microwave frequency of 34.8–34.9 GHz, T = 2 K, scan time = 8 min, modulation amplitude = 2G. (Inset) Thirty-five–gigahertz EPR spectrum of S. cerevisiae strain EXF-6218, along with a simulation obtained by appropriately summing the contributions from simulations of exemplar spectra representing the H-Mn2+ and L-Mn2+ pools (f = 0.20); exemplar spectra were calculated as described in . Cells represented in both panels (Upper and Lower) were prepared the same way before analysis (). Dr, D. radiodurans; Ec, E. coli.
Fig. 2.Antioxidant capacity of LMW extracts (U, ultrafiltrates) of bacteria (e.g., PpU) and yeasts (e.g., 6761U). (Upper) ROS-scavenging capacity of U assessed by oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay (47, 48). Net AUC, net area under the fluorescence decay curve. The U’s were diluted to 0.01×, 0.02×, 0.03×, 0.04×, 0.05×, 0.1×, or 0.2× for the assay. (Lower) Capacity of U of the indicated strains to protect proteins during gamma irradiation. Indicated U’s were mixed with purified E. coli proteins, irradiated to the indicated doses (kGy), and assayed for protein damage (e.g., strand breaks, cross-links), manifest as smears. DrU, D. radiodurans ultrafiltrates; EcU, E. coli ultrafiltrates; PpU, P. putida ultrafiltrates.
Fig. 3.Correlation between IR resistance (DSBD10) and EPR speciation, f, plotted as the logarithm of the ratio f/f = f/(1 − f) against the logarithm of DSBD10. Symbols are as follows: bacteria (blue), yeasts (black), archaea (green), Jurkat T cells (JT; red). The straight line represents a fit to the Hill equation (Eq. ) as discussed in . The robustness of this correlation is discussed in and summarized in the main text. (Inset) Analogous plot of speciation versus D10.