Literature DB >> 3060896

Induction and rejoining of gamma-ray-induced DNA single- and double-strand breaks in Chinese hamster AA8 cells and in two radiosensitive clones.

S C vanAnkeren1, D Murray, R E Meyn.   

Abstract

The induction and rejoining of gamma-ray-induced DNA strand breaks were measured in a Chinese hamster ovary cell line, AA8, and in two radiosensitive clones (EM9 and NM2) derived from it. The kinetics of recovery from sublethal damage (SLD) and potentially lethal damage (PLD) has previously been characterized in each of these lines [vanAnkeren et al., Radiat. Res., 115, 223-237 (1988)]. No significant differences were observed among the cell lines in the yields of either DNA single-strand breaks (SSBs) or double-strand breaks (DSBs) as assayed by filter elution. Data for SSB rejoining in AA8 and NM2 cells irradiated with 7.5 Gy were fit by a biexponential process (t1/2 values of approximately 4 and 80 min). In comparison, SSB rejoining in EM9 cells was initially slower (t1/2 = 10 min) and a higher level of SSBs was unrejoined 6 h after irradiation. DSB rejoining in AA8 cells assayed at pH 9.6 was also biphasic (t1/2 values of 15 and 93 min), although when assayed at pH 7.0, most (approximately 80%) of the damage was rejoined at a constant rate (t1/2 = 45 min) during the first 2 h. EM9 cells exhibited a slower initial rate of DSB rejoining when assayed at pH 9.6 but showed no difference compared with AA8 cells in DSB rejoining when assayed at pH 7.0. These results indicate that radiosensitive EM9 cells, whose kinetics of recovery from SLD and PLD was the same as that of AA8 cells, have a defect in the fast phase of SSB rejoining but no measurable defect in DSB rejoining. Conversely, NM2 cells, which displayed a reduced shoulder width on their survival curve and decreased recovery from SLD, had no demonstrable defects in the rate or extent of rejoining of DSBs or SSBs. When compared with the SLD and PLD data reported previously, these results suggest that there is no direct correlation between either of these recovery processes and the rejoining of SSBs or DSBs as assayed here.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3060896

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  8 in total

1.  XRCC1 and base excision repair balance in response to nitric oxide.

Authors:  James T Mutamba; David Svilar; Somsak Prasongtanakij; Xiao-Hong Wang; Ying-Chih Lin; Peter C Dedon; Robert W Sobol; Bevin P Engelward
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2011-10-29

Review 2.  Coordination of DNA single strand break repair.

Authors:  Rachel Abbotts; David M Wilson
Journal:  Free Radic Biol Med       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 7.376

3.  Molecular cloning of the human XRCC1 gene, which corrects defective DNA strand break repair and sister chromatid exchange.

Authors:  L H Thompson; K W Brookman; N J Jones; S A Allen; A V Carrano
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 4.272

4.  A DNA-PKcs mutation in a radiosensitive T-B- SCID patient inhibits Artemis activation and nonhomologous end-joining.

Authors:  Mirjam van der Burg; Hanna Ijspeert; Nicole S Verkaik; Tuba Turul; Wouter W Wiegant; Keiko Morotomi-Yano; Pierre-Olivier Mari; Ilhan Tezcan; David J Chen; Malgorzata Z Zdzienicka; Jacques J M van Dongen; Dik C van Gent
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 14.808

5.  A modified alkaline comet assay for measuring DNA repair capacity in human populations.

Authors:  Andrzej R Trzeciak; Janice Barnes; Michele K Evans
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Age, sex, and race influence single-strand break repair capacity in a human population.

Authors:  Andrzej R Trzeciak; Janice Barnes; Ngozi Ejiogu; Kamala Foster; Larry J Brant; Alan B Zonderman; Michele K Evans
Journal:  Free Radic Biol Med       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 7.376

Review 7.  DNA double-strand-break complexity levels and their possible contributions to the probability for error-prone processing and repair pathway choice.

Authors:  Agnes Schipler; George Iliakis
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 16.971

8.  Inhibition of radiation-induced neoplastic transformation by beta-lapachone.

Authors:  D A Boothman; A B Pardee
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 12.779

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.