Growth‐dependent heterogeneity in the DNA damage response in Escherichia coli

In natural environments, bacteria are frequently exposed to sub‐lethal levels of DNA damage, which leads to the induction of a stress response (the SOS response in Escherichia coli). Natural environments also vary in nutrient availability, resulting in distinct physiological changes in bacteria, which may have direct implications on their capacity to repair their chromosomes. Here, we evaluated the impact of varying the nutrient availability on the expression of the SOS response induced by chronic sub‐lethal DNA damage in E. coli. We found heterogeneous expression of the SOS regulon at the single‐cell level in all growth conditions. Surprisingly, we observed a larger fraction of high SOS‐induced cells in slow growth as compared with fast growth, despite a higher rate of SOS induction in fast growth. The result can be explained by the dynamic balance between the rate of SOS induction and the division rates of cells exposed to DNA damage. Taken together, our data illustrate how cell division and physiology come together to produce growth‐dependent heterogeneity in the DNA damage response.     

Inducible SOS response system of DNA repair and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli

Chromosomal DNA is exposed to continuous damage and repair. Cells contain a number of proteins and specific DNA repair systems that help maintain its correct structure. The SOS response was the first DNA repair system described in Escherichia coli induced upon treatment of bacteria with DNA damaging agents arrest DNA replication and cell division. Induction of the SOS response involves more than forty independent SOS genes, most of which encode proteins engaged in protection, repair, replication, mutagenesis and metabolism of DNA. Under normal growth conditions the SOS genes are expressed at a basal level, which increases distinctly upon induction of the SOS response. The SOS-response has been found in many bacterial species (e.g., Salmonella typhimurium, Caulobacter crescentus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis), but not in eukaryotic cells. However, species from all kingdoms contain some SOS-like proteins taking part in DNA repair that exhibit amino acid homology and enzymatic activities related to those found in E. coli. but are not organized in an SOS system. This paper presents a brief up-to-date review describing the discovery of the SOS system, the physiology of SOS induction, methods for its determination, and the role of some SOS-induced genes.     

Repair on the Go: E. coli Maintains a High Proliferation Rate while Repairing a Chronic DNA Double-Strand Break

DNA damage checkpoints exist to promote cell survival and the faithful inheritance of genetic information. It is thought that one function of such checkpoints is to ensure that cell division does not occur before DNA damage is repaired. However, in unicellular organisms, rapid cell multiplication confers a powerful selective advantage, leading to a dilemma. Is the activation of a DNA damage checkpoint compatible with rapid cell multiplication? By uncoupling the initiation of DNA replication from cell division, the Escherichia coli cell cycle offers a solution to this dilemma. Here, we show that a DNA double-strand break, which occurs once per replication cycle, induces the SOS response. This SOS induction is needed for cell survival due to a requirement for an elevated level of expression of the RecA protein. Cell division is delayed, leading to an increase in average cell length but with no detectable consequence on mutagenesis and little effect on growth rate and viability. The increase in cell length caused by chronic DNA double-strand break repair comprises three components: two types of increase in the unit cell size, one independent of SfiA and SlmA, the other dependent of the presence of SfiA and the absence of SlmA, and a filamentation component that is dependent on the presence of either SfiA or SlmA. These results imply that chronic checkpoint induction in E. coli is compatible with rapid cell multiplication. Therefore, under conditions of chronic low-level DNA damage, the SOS checkpoint operates seamlessly in a cell cycle where the initiation of DNA replication is uncoupled from cell division.     

DNA Damage Responses in Prokaryotes: Regulating Gene Expression,Modulating Growth Patterns,and Manipulating Replication Forks

Recent advances in the area of bacterial DNA damage responses are reviewed here. The SOS pathway is still the major paradigm of bacterial DNA damage response, and recent studies have clarified the mechanisms of SOS induction and key physiological roles of SOS including a very major role in genetic exchange and variation. When considering diverse bacteria, it is clear that SOS is not a uniform pathway with one purpose, but rather a platform that has evolved for differing functions in different bacteria. Relating in part to the SOS response, the field has uncovered multiple apparent cell-cycle checkpoints that assist cell survival after DNA damage and remarkable pathways that induce programmed cell death in bacteria. Bacterial DNA damage responses are also much broader than SOS, and several important examples of LexA-independent regulation will be reviewed. Finally, some recent advances that relate to the replication and repair of damaged DNA will be summarized.Since the publication of DNA Repair and Mutagenesis in 2006 (Friedberg et al. 2006), our understanding of bacterial DNA damage responses has progressed significantly. Some studies have refined known pathways and filled in important details, whereas other studies have uncovered surprising new pathways such as bacterial programmed cell death and a form of replicative repair that reconstitutes severely shattered genomes. This review will focus on these recent advances, with only limited discussion and citation to work that precedes the 2006 tome.     

Fluence-Response Dynamics of the UV-Induced SOS Response in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Escherichia coli</Emphasis>

Bacteria in nature often suffer sudden stresses, such as ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, nutrient deprivation, and chemotoxins that would cause DNA damage and DNA replication failure, which in turn trigger SOS response. According to the strength and duration of the stress, the SOS system not only repairs DNA damage but also induces mutagenesis, so as to adapt to the changing environment. The key proteins in charge of mutagenesis are UmuD and UmuD’. In this paper, we quantitatively measure the growth rate and cellular levels of proteins UmuD and UmuD’ in Escherichia coli after various fluences of UV irradiation. To compare with the experimental observations, an ordinary differential equation model is built to describe the SOS response. Considering the fact that the DNA lesions affect cellular protein production and replication origination, the simulation results fit well with the experimental data. Our results show how the fluence of UV irradiation determines the dynamics of the inducing signal and the mutation frequency of the cell. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Escherichia coli DinB inhibits replication fork progression without significantly inducing the SOS response

The SOS response is readily triggered by replication fork stalling caused by DNA damage or a dysfunctional replicative apparatus in Escherichia coli cells. E. coli dinB encodes DinB DNA polymerase and its expression is upregulated during the SOS response. DinB catalyzes translesion DNA synthesis in place of a replicative DNA polymerase III that is stalled at a DNA lesion. We showed previously that DNA replication was suppressed without exogenous DNA damage in cells overproducing DinB. In this report, we confirm that this was due to a dose-dependent inhibition of ongoing replication forks by DinB. Interestingly, the DinB-overproducing cells did not significantly induce the SOS response even though DNA replication was perturbed. RecA protein is activated by forming a nucleoprotein filament with single-stranded DNA, which leads to the onset of the SOS response. In the DinB-overproducing cells, RecA was not activated to induce the SOS response. However, the SOS response was observed after heat-inducible activation in strain recA441 (encoding a temperature-sensitive RecA) and after replication blockage in strain dnaE486 (encoding a temperature-sensitive catalytic subunit of the replicative DNA polymerase III) at a non-permissive temperature when DinB was overproduced in these cells. Furthermore, since catalytically inactive DinB could avoid the SOS response to a DinB-promoted fork block, it is unlikely that overproduced DinB takes control of primer extension and thus limits single-stranded DNA. These observations suggest that DinB possesses a feature that suppresses DNA replication but does not abolish the cell's capacity to induce the SOS response. We conclude that DinB impedes replication fork progression in a way that does not activate RecA, in contrast to obstructive DNA lesions and dysfunctional replication machinery.     

Isolation of SOS constitutive mutants of Escherichia coli

The bacterial SOS regulon is strongly induced in response to DNA damage from exogenous agents such as UV radiation and nalidixic acid. However, certain mutants with defects in DNA replication, recombination, or repair exhibit a partially constitutive SOS response. These mutants presumably suffer frequent replication fork failure, or perhaps they have difficulty rescuing forks that failed due to endogenous sources of DNA damage. In an effort to understand more clearly the endogenous sources of DNA damage and the nature of replication fork failure and rescue, we undertook a systematic screen for Escherichia coli mutants that constitutively express the SOS regulon. We identified mutant strains with transposon insertions in 42 genes that caused increased expression from a dinD1::lacZ reporter construct. Most of these also displayed significant increases in basal levels of RecA protein, confirming an effect on the SOS system. As expected, this collection includes genes, such as lexA, dam, rep, xerCD, recG, and polA, which have previously been shown to cause an SOS constitutive phenotype when inactivated. The collection also includes 28 genes or open reading frames that were not previously identified as SOS constitutive, including dcd, ftsE, ftsX, purF, tdcE, and tynA. Further study of these SOS constitutive mutants should be useful in understanding the multiple causes of endogenous DNA damage. This study also provides a quantitative comparison of the extent of SOS expression caused by inactivation of many different genes in a common genetic background.     

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.     

Inhibition of Escherichia coli K12 by short-chain organic acids: lack of evidence for induction of the SOS response

Sublethal concentrations of formic acid (10 mmol/l) and propionic acid (5 mmol/l) at pH 5.0 preferentially inhibit DNA synthesis and stop cell multiplication in the absence of a corresponding cessation in the increase of culture turbidity. The possibility that the acids induce the SOS response by starving cells of thymine or by causing physical damage to the DNA molecule has now been investigated. Accumulation of thymine into the cytoplasm of whole cells was not inhibited by either acid. Mutants defective in excision repair ( uvrA6 ), recombination repair ( recA56 ) and polymerase activity ( polA1 ) were not more sensitive to the acids than their isogenic parent. No significant increase in cell length was observed from measurements of transmission electron microscope images of acid-treated cells. It is concluded, therefore, that sublethal concentrations of formic and propionic acid inhibit DNA synthesis without physically damaging DNA molecule, or starving the cell of essential thymine or otherwise inducing an SOS response.     

细菌DNA损伤修复的诱导、调控及结局的研究进展

DNA损伤修复(SOS反应)是细菌适应环境、抵抗外界压力和修复自身损伤的重要机制.为了解SOS反应的过程,全面揭示细菌生存机制,本研究对DNA损伤修复的过程、调节及适应性变化进行文献综述.结果 表明,内源和外源的诸多压力都可以激活SOS反应,抗生素是激活该反应的主要因素.RecA在感知外界压力和系统启动过程中发挥重要作...     

Effect of the SOS response on the mean fitness of unicellular populations: a quasispecies approach

The goal of this paper is to develop a mathematical model that analyzes the selective advantage of the SOS response in unicellular organisms. To this end, this paper develops a quasispecies model that incorporates the SOS response. We consider a unicellular, asexually replicating population of organisms, whose genomes consist of a single, double-stranded DNA molecule, i.e. one chromosome. We assume that repair of post-replication mismatched base-pairs occurs with probability , and that the SOS response is triggered when the total number of mismatched base-pairs is at least . We further assume that the per-mismatch SOS elimination rate is characterized by a first-order rate constant . For a single fitness peak landscape where the master genome can sustain up to mismatches and remain viable, this model is analytically solvable in the limit of infinite sequence length. The results, which are confirmed by stochastic simulations, indicate that the SOS response does indeed confer a fitness advantage to a population, provided that it is only activated when DNA damage is so extensive that a cell will die if it does not attempt to repair its DNA.     

Simulating the temporal modulation of inducible DNA damage response in Escherichia coli

Living organisms make great efforts to maintain their genetic information integrity. However, DNA is vulnerable to many chemical or physical agents. To rescue the cell timely and effectively, the DNA damage response system must be well controlled. Recently, single cell experiments showing that after DNA damage, expression of the key DNA damage response regulatory protein oscillates with time. This phenomenon is observed both in eukaryotic and bacterial cells. We establish a model to simulate the DNA damage response (SOS response) in bacterial cell Escherichia coli. The simulation results are compared to the experimental data. Our simulation results suggest that the modulation observed in the experiment is due to the fluctuation of inducing signal, which is coupled with DNA replication. The inducing signal increases when replication is blocked by DNA damage and decreases when replication resumes.     

Localization of UvrA and Effect of DNA Damage on the Chromosome of Bacillus subtilis

We found that the nucleotide excision repair protein UvrA, which is involved in DNA damage recognition, localizes to the entire chromosome both before and after damage in living Bacillus subtilis cells. We suggest that the UvrA(2)B damage recognition complex is constantly scanning the genome, searching for lesions in the DNA. We also found that DNA damage induces a dramatic reconfiguration of the chromosome such that it no longer fills the entire cell as it does during normal growth. This reconfiguration is reversible after low doses of damage and is dependent on the damage-induced SOS response. We suggest that this reconfiguration of the chromosome after damage may be either a reflection of ongoing DNA repair or an active mechanism to protect the cell's genome. Similar observations have been made in Escherichia coli, indicating that the alteration of chromosome structure after DNA damage may be a widespread phenomenon.     

Precise temporal modulation in the response of the SOS DNA repair network in individual bacteria

The SOS genetic network is responsible for the repair/bypass of DNA damage in bacterial cells. While the initial stages of the response have been well characterized, less is known about the dynamics of the response after induction and its shutoff. To address this, we followed the response of the SOS network in living individual Escherichia coli cells. The promoter activity (PA) of SOS genes was monitored using fluorescent protein-promoter fusions, with high temporal resolution, after ultraviolet irradiation activation. We find a temporal pattern of discrete activity peaks masked in studies of cell populations. The number of peaks increases, while their amplitude reaches saturation, as the damage level is increased. Peak timing is highly precise from cell to cell and is independent of the stage in the cell cycle at the time of damage. Evidence is presented for the involvement of the umuDC operon in maintaining the pattern of PA and its temporal precision, providing further evidence for the role UmuD cleavage plays in effecting a timed pause during the SOS response, as previously proposed. The modulations in PA we observe share many features in common with the oscillatory behavior recently observed in a mammalian DNA damage response. Our results, which reveal a hitherto unknown modulation of the SOS response, underscore the importance of carrying out dynamic measurements at the level of individual living cells in order to unravel how a natural genetic network operates at the systems level.