| Literature DB >> 29351274 |
Sarah S Henrikus1, Elizabeth A Wood2, John P McDonald3, Michael M Cox2, Roger Woodgate3, Myron F Goodman4, Antoine M van Oijen1, Andrew Robinson1.
Abstract
In Escherichia coli, damage to the chromosomal DNA induces the SOS response, setting in motion a series of different DNA repair and damage tolerance pathways. DNA polymerase IV (pol IV) is one of three specialised DNA polymerases called into action during the SOS response to help cells tolerate certain types of DNA damage. The canonical view in the field is that pol IV primarily acts at replisomes that have stalled on the damaged DNA template. However, the results of several studies indicate that pol IV also acts on other substrates, including single-stranded DNA gaps left behind replisomes that re-initiate replication downstream of a lesion, stalled transcription complexes and recombination intermediates. In this study, we use single-molecule time-lapse microscopy to directly visualize fluorescently labelled pol IV in live cells. We treat cells with the DNA-damaging antibiotic ciprofloxacin, Methylmethane sulfonate (MMS) or ultraviolet light and measure changes in pol IV concentrations and cellular locations through time. We observe that only 5-10% of foci induced by DNA damage form close to replisomes, suggesting that pol IV predominantly carries out non-replisomal functions. The minority of foci that do form close to replisomes exhibit a broad distribution of colocalisation distances, consistent with a significant proportion of pol IV molecules carrying out postreplicative TLS in gaps behind the replisome. Interestingly, the proportion of pol IV foci that form close to replisomes drops dramatically in the period 90-180 min after treatment, despite pol IV concentrations remaining relatively constant. In an SOS-constitutive mutant that expresses high levels of pol IV, few foci are observed in the absence of damage, indicating that within cells access of pol IV to DNA is dependent on the presence of damage, as opposed to concentration-driven competition for binding sites.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29351274 PMCID: PMC5792023 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Genet ISSN: 1553-7390 Impact factor: 5.917
Fig 7Timeline of translesion DNA synthesis based on single-molecule imaging studies.
Pol IV is expressed relatively early after DNA damage is incurred and is allowed access to replisomes until cells abruptly transition into the late stage. At this transition, pol IV is ejected from replisomes and a second TLS polymerase, pol V Mut becomes activated. Pol IV continues to act on non-replisome substrates. The timescale indicated for these transitions is likely to be specific to our growth conditions (EZ glucose medium; APTES-treated flow cell; 37°C). We anticipate that under different conditions the same transitions would be observed, but at different time-points.
Strains used in this study.
| Strain | Relevant Genotype | Parent strain | Source/technique |
|---|---|---|---|
| MG1655 | - | [ | |
| EAW18 | Δ | MG1655 | Lambda RED recombination |
| EAW26 | MG1655 | [ | |
| EAW633 | MG1655 | Lambda RED recombination | |
| MG1655 | Lambda RED recombination | ||
| EAW641 | EAW633 | Lambda RED recombination | |
| EAW643 | EAW633 | Lambda RED recombination | |
| EAW643 | Transformation of EAW643 with pPFB1188 [ | ||
| MG1655 | [ | ||
| JJC5945 | [ | ||
| Δ | EAW192 | Transduction of EAW192 with P1 grown on SF2006 [ | |
| Δ | SSH001 | Transformation of SSH001 with pPFB1188 [ | |
| RW1588 | EAW643 | Transduction of EAW643 with P1 grown on EAW26 | |
| RW1594 | RW1588 | Transduction of RW1588 with P1 grown on DE406 | |
| EAW282 | JJC5945 | [ | |
| CC108 | - | [ | |
| FC1243 | Δ | CC108 | [ |
| YG2247 | CC108 | [ |
Fig 6Comparison of DinB-YPet behaviour in untreated, lexA(Def) cells and ciprofloxacin-treated lexA+ cells.
(A) Representative images of ciprofloxacin-treated lexA+ cells (left) and untreated lexA(Def) cells (right). (B) Representative intensity vs time trajectories for DinB-YPet signals in the vicinity of replisomes. Additional, randomly selected trajectories appear in (ciprofloxacin-treated lexA+ cells) and (untreated lexA(Def) cells). 5×5 pixel regions of interest were placed at replisome foci, then used to monitor fluctuations in DinB-YPet signals (see panel A). In ciprofloxacin-treated lexA+ cells, DinB-YPet signals are elevated in the vicinity of replisomes for multiple frames, indicating long-lived binding events. In untreated lexA(Def) cells no events are visible in which the DinB-YPet is elevated in the vicinity of replisomes for more than a single 34 ms frame, indicating no long-lived binding events.