胁迫诱导抗性基因转移导致细菌耐药的分子机制研究进展

抗性基因转移是细菌形成耐药性的重要原因.近年来的研究表明胁迫因子可通过多种机制诱导抗性基因转移.DNA损伤可导致细菌产生SOS应激反应,进而诱导接合DNA介导的抗性基因转移.在一些缺乏SOS系统的细菌中,抗生素胁迫可诱导细菌建立自然转化感受态.此外,作者最近的研究表明普通胁迫应答因子RpoS调控一种由双链质粒DNA介导的固体基质表面的抗性基因转移方式.本文在总结SOS依赖和非依赖型胁迫因子诱导细菌接合和转化介导的DNA转移以及RpoS调控固体基质表面双链质粒DNA转移的基础上,提出今后需重点研究胁迫因子如何激活关键调控蛋白以及这些调控蛋白如何影响DNA转移相关基因表达等关键问题.解决上述问题将为寻找合适的分子靶标用于防控抗性基因转移导致的细菌耐药奠定基础.     

DNA聚合酶IV：抗细菌的潜在药靶

病原微生物及其耐药性是全球公共卫生的重要问题。众多人兽共患病原菌可通过食品产业链传播给人,同时耐药性使得感染更难治疗,增加了疾病传播和死亡的风险。从分子水平上研究病原体的变异规律、毒力及其致病机制有助于寻找新的药物靶点、研制新的药物。DNA聚合酶IV(polymerase IV,Pol IV)是γ家族聚合酶中的重要成员,广泛分布在原核生物、真核生物和古细菌3个生命域。Pol IV具有跨损伤DNA合成的能力,不仅在SOS反应(SOS response)和RpoS调控下响应DNA损伤,还参与细菌抗生素抗性及适应性的获得,在细菌中发挥着至关重要的作用。本文综述了近年来细菌Pol IV相关研究,回顾了其遗传特征、结构特征、表达调控及对细菌适应性的影响,并且讨论了Pol IV作为潜在药物靶点的可行性。     

DNA损伤修复反应的双刃剑效应在肿瘤与衰老发生发展中的作用

人类生存环境中的有害物质、机体正常代谢产生的氧化自由基、端粒缩短或端粒酶活性改变、原癌基因激活或抑癌基因失活等均可造成DNA损伤。通过启动DNA损伤修复反应,激活p53/p21或p16/Rb信号转导途径可以引发细胞周期阻滞,为修复破损的DNA赢得时间,避免不完整的DNA信息继续传递下去。过度的细胞周期阻滞将引起不可逆的细胞增殖停滞并最终引起细胞衰老,而当损伤的DNA没有完全修复就无限制的进入细胞周期时,将会诱发肿瘤的形成。肿瘤和衰老的发生机制是相互对立、相互交织的,而DNA损伤修复反应是联系二者的纽带。     

环境胁迫诱导的细胞适应性突变

细胞具有普遍的突变和进化能力, 如病原菌的抗药性、工业菌株的适应性和人体细胞的癌变等, 但是细胞的适应性突变是如何产生的呢？通过非致死性突变分析模型的建立与应用, 产生了新的适应性进化观点, 即环境胁迫诱导细胞适应性突变。这种环境诱导的细胞突变过程涉及多方面的生理调控, 包括细胞内毒性物质(如氧活性物质)积累并造成DNA损伤、DNA错配修复的活性受到抑制、胞内RpoS反应和SOS反应被激活等。这些反应使胞内高保真的DNA复制状态转变为低保真的DNA修复状态, 提高胞内突变率和重组活性。此外, 基因转录影响基因组的不稳定, 容易产生DNA损伤, 并造成局部的高突变率, 即形成了转录偶联的DNA修复与突变为基础的适应性突变观点。文章围绕环境胁迫诱导细胞突变率增加和转录偶联的DNA修复与突变这两种适应性突变分子机制, 阐述其相关的研究进展, 以期更好地理解环境条件诱导细胞发生适应性突变的过程。     

DNA双链断裂损伤反应及它的医学意义

DNA损伤应激反应是维持基因组稳定性的基石.细胞在长期进化中形成了由损伤监视、周期调控、损伤修复、凋亡诱导等在内的自稳平衡机制.一方面,借助感应、识别并启动精细而复杂的修复机制修复损伤;另一方面,通过DNA损伤应激活化的细胞周期检查点机制,延迟或阻断细胞周期进程,为损伤修复提供时间,使细胞能安全进入新一轮细胞周期;损伤无法修复时则诱导细胞凋亡.DNA双链断裂(double strand breaks,DSBs)是真核基因组后果最严重的损伤类型之一,其修复不利,同肿瘤等人类疾病的发生发展密切相关.新进展揭示:DSBs损伤反应信号分子ATM-Chk2-p53、H2AX等的组成性活化,是肿瘤形成早期所激活的细胞内可诱导的抗癌屏障,其信号网络的精确、精细调控在基因组稳定性维持中发挥重要作用.此外,HIV病毒整合进入宿主细胞基因组的过程也依赖于宿主细胞中ATM介导的DSBs损伤反应信号转导;ATM特异性的小分子抑制剂在抗HIV感染中显示重要的功能意义.文中重点讨论调控DSBs损伤应激反应信号网络的主要研究进展,及其在肿瘤发生、发展及抗HIV感染中的新医学意义.     

紫外线诱导DNA损伤及修复研究的起因与发展

人类在DNA修复研究方面的重大突破主要来自紫外线诱导DNA损伤及修复研究,而该研究对于人类了解基因突变的机制、衰老和癌变的原因,以及应用于环境致癌因子的检测等方面具有重要意义。对以光修复为主的DNA直接修复和具有核苷酸切除修复、碱基切除修复、SOS修复3种基本形式的DNA切除修复的起因与发展历程进行综述。     

大肠杆菌（Escherichia coli）LexA蛋白的结构与功能

LexA蛋白首先在大肠杆菌（Escherichia coli）中作为SOS反应的重要调节因子之一被发现. LexA蛋白含有202个氨基酸,由N端DNA结合结构域和C端催化核心结构域构成. 细胞中LexA蛋白大都以二聚体形式存在,并且有可切割和不可切割两种构象. 在正常生理条件下,LexA特异性结合16 bp的保守序列5′-CTGTN8ACAG-3′,即SOS盒,抑制约50个基因的表达. 当发生DNA损伤时,活化的RecA蛋白通过稳定LexA蛋白可切割构象,促进LexA蛋白Ala84-Gly85间肽键的切割,产生的C端LexA85 202和N端LexA1 84被蛋白酶ClpXP和Lon快速降解. LexA蛋白切割后,SOS基因以一定的顺序开始表达,并且完成DNA损伤修复. 本文回顾和总结了LexA蛋白分子结构,自我切割分子机制和影响因素,以及在SOS反应中的作用等方面的研究进展. 同时,也讨论了LexA蛋白在原核细胞中的进化保守性.     

一种基于GFP分子荧光显示的检测大尺度染色质松弛技术的建立

在真核生物中,基因组DNA是被高度包装成染色质的形式而存在的,这就对基因在复制、转录、修复、重组时的功能分子有效地接近DNA形成了天然屏障,执行上述生化反应需要松散染色质的结构,染色质松散是染色质动态变化即染色质重塑(chromatin remodeling)的一种形式.越来越多的证据表明,染色质重塑在DNA损伤反应中起着非常重要的作用,染色质重塑过程可以把损伤应答和修复蛋白募集到损伤位点,从而完成修复.为了进一步探讨染色质重塑和DNA损伤修复的偶联机制,采用了基于Lac抑制子和Lac操纵子的大规模染色质重塑报告系统,并借助GFP分子荧光显示方法,建立了可以直观地观察染色质松散的技术.在利用该技术证实了DNA损伤应答蛋白TIP60能够强烈诱导染色质松散的基础上,发现P53诱导基因3蛋白(PIG3)在细胞辐射DNA损伤反应中也能够一定程度地诱导染色质松弛.这些结果证明此技术是可靠的,也为阐述DNA损伤修复与染色质重塑关联机制提供了新的信息.     

DNA损伤修复过程表观遗传学改变

多种化学、物理及生物因素可诱发细胞DNA损伤,损伤后DNA损伤位点被相关损伤感受器识别,激活相应的修复通路进行DNA修复。越来越多的证据表明DNA甲基化状态、蛋白翻译后修饰、染色质重塑、miRNA等修饰方式参与了DNA的损伤修复。文章通过不同损伤修复通路中这些修饰的特点,阐述表观遗传学改变在DNA损伤修复发展过程中的作用机制。     

组蛋白翻译后修饰与DNA损伤响应蛋白招募的调控

组蛋白翻译后修饰是细胞DNA损伤早期应答反应的重要内涵,一方面是松弛、开放染色质结构的必要分子调节事件,以便DNA损伤响应蛋白能接近DNA损伤位点;另一方面直接参与DNA损伤修复蛋白招募过程的调控。综述了在DNA损伤信号激发下,发生的组蛋白主要修饰类型,异组蛋白H2AX、H2A.Z在DNA损伤部位与组蛋白置换,及其对DNA损伤响应蛋白招募的调节作用和机制。     

The SOS system

In the bacterium Escherichia coli DNA damaging treatments such as ultraviolet or ionizing radiation induce a set of functions called collectively the SOS response, reviewed here. The regulation of the SOS response involves a repressor, the LexA protein, and an inducer, the RecA protein. After DNA damage an effector molecule is produced--possibly single stranded DNA--which activates the RecA protein to a form capable of catalysing proteolytic cleavage of LexA. The repressors of certain temperate prophages are cleaved under the same conditions, resulting in lysogenic induction. SOS functions are involved in DNA repair and mutagenesis, in cell division inhibition, in recovery of normal physiological conditions after the DNA damage is repaired, and possibly in cell death when DNA damage is too extensive. The SOS response also includes several chromosomal genes of unknown function, a number of plasmid encoded genes (bacteriocins, mutagenesis), and lysogenic induction of certain prophages. DNA damaging treatments seem to induce DNA repair and mutagenic activities and proviral development in many species, including mammalian cells. In general, substances which are genotoxic to higher eukaryotes induce the SOS response in bacteria. This correlation is the basis of the numerous bacterial tests for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.     

SOS regulatory elements are essential for UPEC pathogenesis

Epithelial cells are highly regarded as the first line of defense against microorganisms, but the mechanisms used to control bacterial diseases are poorly understood. A component of the DNA damage repair regulon, SulA, is essential for UPEC virulence in a mouse model for human urinary tract infection, suggesting that DNA damage is a key mediator in the primary control of pathogens within the epithelium. In this study, we examine the role of DNA damage repair regulators in the intracellular lifestyle of UPEC within superficial bladder epithelial cells. LexA and RecA coordinate various operons for repair of DNA damage due to exogenous and endogenous agents and are known regulators of sulA. UPEC strains defective in regulation of the SOS response mediated by RecA and LexA display attenuated virulence in immunocompetent mice within the first 6 h post infection. RecA and LexA regulation of the SOS regulon is dispensable in immunocompromised mice. These data suggest that epithelial cells produce sufficient levels of DNA damaging agents, such that the bacterial DNA damage repair response is essential, as a means to control invading bacteria. Since many pathogens interact with the epithelium before exposure to professional phagocytes, it is likely that adaptation to oxidative radicals during intracellular growth provides additional protection from killing by innate immune phagocytes.     

Lex marks the spot: the virulent side of SOS and a closer look at the LexA regulon

The SOS response that responds to DNA damage induces many genes that are under LexA repression. A detailed examination of LexA regulons using genome-wide techniques has recently been undertaken in both Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. These extensive and elegant studies have now charted the extent of the LexA regulons, uncovered many new genes, and exposed a limited overlap in the LexA regulon between the two bacteria. As more bacterial genomes are analysed, more curiosities in LexA regulons arise. Several notable examples include the discovery of a LexA-like protein, HdiR, in Lactococcus lactis, organisms with two lexA genes, and small DNA damage-inducible cassettes under LexA control. In the cyanobacterium Synechocystis, genetic and microarray studies demonstrated that a LexA paralogue exerts control over an entirely different set of carbon-controlled genes and is crucial to cells facing carbon starvation. An examination of SOS induction evoked by common therapeutic drugs has shed new light on unsuspected consequences of drug exposure. Certain antibiotics, most notably fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin, can induce an SOS response and can modulate the spread of virulence factors and drug resistance. SOS induction by beta-lactams in E. coli triggers a novel form of antibiotic defence that involves cell wall stress and signal transduction by the DpiAB two-component system. In this review, we provide an overview of these new directions in SOS and LexA research with emphasis on a few themes: identification of genes under LexA control, the identification of new endogenous triggers, and antibiotic-induced SOS response and its consequences.     

Biological Cost of Pyocin Production during the SOS Response in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

LexA and two structurally related regulators, PrtR and PA0906, coordinate the Pseudomonas aeruginosa SOS response. RecA-mediated autocleavage of LexA induces the expression of a protective set of genes that increase DNA damage repair and tolerance. In contrast, RecA-mediated autocleavage of PrtR induces antimicrobial pyocin production and a program that lyses cells to release the newly synthesized pyocin. Recently, PrtR-regulated genes were shown to sensitize P. aeruginosa to quinolones, antibiotics that elicit a strong SOS response. Here, we investigated the mechanisms by which PrtR-regulated genes determine antimicrobial resistance and genotoxic stress survival. We found that induction of PrtR-regulated genes lowers resistance to clinically important antibiotics and impairs the survival of bacteria exposed to one of several genotoxic agents. Two distinct mechanisms mediated these effects. Cell lysis genes that are induced following PrtR autocleavage reduced resistance to bactericidal levels of ciprofloxacin, and production of extracellular R2 pyocin was lethal to cells that initially survived UV light treatment. Although typically resistant to R2 pyocin, P. aeruginosa becomes transiently sensitive to R2 pyocin following UV light treatment, likely because of the strong downregulation of lipopolysaccharide synthesis genes that are required for resistance to R2 pyocin. Our results demonstrate that pyocin production during the P. aeruginosa SOS response carries both expected and unexpected costs.