Effects of modulation of RNase H production on the recovery of DNA synthesis following UV-irradiation in Escherichia coli

The requirements for the recovery of DNA synthesis in UV-irradiated Escherichia coli were analysed in strains having varied levels of RNase H and RecA protein. We have previously shown (Khidhir et al. 1985) that the recovery of DNA synthesis in E. coli following UV treatment is an inducible SOS function requiring protein synthesis. We proposed that this reflected the need for the synthesis of specific induced replisome reactivation factor(s) for recovery. In this study we now show that recovery of DNA synthesis can in fact take place in the absence of protein synthesis in a mutant lacking RNase H and having high (constitutive) levels of RecA protein. We also show that expression of rnh is inhibited during the SOS response in recA+ but not in a recA- strain. The results are discussed in relation to the mechanism of recovery of DNA synthesis following UV irradiation in E. coli.     

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.     

Temporal control of colicin E1 induction.

The expression of the gene encoding colicin E1, cea, was studied in Escherichia coli by using cea-lacZ gene fusions. Expression of the fusions showed the same characteristics as those of the wild-type cea gene: induction by treatments that damage DNA and regulation by the SOS response, sensitivity to catabolite repression, and a low basal level of expression, despite the presence of the fusion in a multicopy plasmid. Induction of expression by DNA-damaging treatments was found to differ from other genes involved in the SOS response (exemplified by recA), in that higher levels of DNA damage were required and expression occurred only after a pronounced delay. The delay in expression following an inducing treatment was more pronounced under conditions of catabolite repression, indicating that the cyclic AMP-cyclic AMP receptor protein complex may play a role in induction. These observations also suggest a biological rationale for the control of cea expression by the SOS response and the cyclic AMP-cyclic AMP receptor protein catabolite repression system.     

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...     

PCNA泛素化修饰对DNA损伤应答途径的调控

机体细胞在多种化学物质和内外环境不断攻击下会诱发DNA损伤。为了维持基因组的稳定性,细胞内拥有一系列完善而精确的细胞应答机制来保护基因组DNA的完整性。细胞首先通过DNA损伤检测点,然后通过一系列细胞信号转导通路,启动细胞周期阻滞,进而介导细胞修复或凋亡。大量研究表明泛素化作为一种重要的蛋白质翻译后修饰方式,参与调控了多种细胞生理过程。近期研究表明,DNA损伤导致复制应激可诱发PCNA的翻译后泛素化修饰,泛素化修饰的PCNA可能参与了多种DNA损伤应激过程,影响细胞选择不同的DNA损伤应答途径,导致细胞截然不同的转归。因此,更好地了解PCNA泛素化的作用及其影响DNA损伤应答通路可为我们更深入地了解人类细胞如何调控异常的DNA代谢过程和癌症的发生和发展机制提供依据。     

RpoS Plays a Central Role in the SOS Induction by Sub-Lethal Aminoglycoside Concentrations in Vibrio cholerae

Bacteria encounter sub-inhibitory concentrations of antibiotics in various niches, where these low doses play a key role for antibiotic resistance selection. However, the physiological effects of these sub-lethal concentrations and their observed connection to the cellular mechanisms generating genetic diversification are still poorly understood. It is known that, unlike for the model bacterium Escherichia coli, sub-minimal inhibitory concentrations (sub-MIC) of aminoglycosides (AGs) induce the SOS response in Vibrio cholerae. SOS is induced upon DNA damage, and since AGs do not directly target DNA, we addressed two issues in this study: how sub-MIC AGs induce SOS in V. cholerae and why they do not do so in E. coli. We found that when bacteria are grown with tobramycin at a concentration 100-fold below the MIC, intracellular reactive oxygen species strongly increase in V. cholerae but not in E. coli. Using flow cytometry and gfp fusions with the SOS regulated promoter of intIA, we followed AG-dependent SOS induction. Testing the different mutation repair pathways, we found that over-expression of the base excision repair (BER) pathway protein MutY relieved this SOS induction in V. cholerae, suggesting a role for oxidized guanine in AG-mediated indirect DNA damage. As a corollary, we established that a BER pathway deficient E. coli strain induces SOS in response to sub-MIC AGs. We finally demonstrate that the RpoS general stress regulator prevents oxidative stress-mediated DNA damage formation in E. coli. We further show that AG-mediated SOS induction is conserved among the distantly related Gram negative pathogens Klebsiella pneumoniae and Photorhabdus luminescens, suggesting that E. coli is more of an exception than a paradigm for the physiological response to antibiotics sub-MIC.     

PCNA泛素化修饰对DNA损伤应答途径的调控

机体细胞在多种化学物质和内外环境不断攻击下会诱发DNA损伤。为了维持基因组的稳定性,细胞内拥有一系列完善而精确的细胞应答机制来保护基因组DNA的完整性。细胞首先通过DNA损伤检测点,然后通过一系列细胞信号转导通路,启动细胞周期阻滞,进而介导细胞修复或凋亡。大量研究表明泛素化作为一种重要的蛋白质翻译后修饰方式,参与调控了多种细胞生理过程。近期研究表明,DNA损伤导致复制应激可诱发PCNA的翻译后泛素化修饰,泛素化修饰的PCNA可能参与了多种DNA损伤应激过程,影响细胞选择不同的DNA损伤应答途径,导致细胞截然不同的转归。因此,更好地了解PCNA泛素化的作用及其影响DNA损伤应答通路可为我们更深入地了解人类细胞如何调控异常的DNA代谢过程和癌症的发生和发展机制提供依据。     

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.     

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.     

Over 1000 genes are involved in the DNA damage response of Escherichia coli

Changes in gene expression after treatment of Escherichia coli cultures with mitomycin C were assessed using gene array technology. Unexpectedly, a large number of genes (nearly 30% of all genes) displayed significant changes in their expression level. Analysis and classification of expression profiles of the corresponding genes allowed us to assign this large number of genes into one or two dozen small clusters of genes with similar expression profiles. This assignment allowed us to describe systematically the changes in the level of gene expression in response to DNA damage. Among the damage-induced genes, more than 100 are novel. From those genes involved in DNA metabolism that have not previously been shown to be induced by DNA damage, the mutS gene involved in mismatch repair is especially noteworthy. In addition to the SOS response, we observed the induction of other stress response pathways, such as those of oxidative stress and osmotic protection. Among the genes that are downregulated in response to DNA damage are numerous protein biosynthesis genes. Analysis of the gene expression data highlighted the essential involvement of sigma(s)-regulated genes and the general stress response network in the response to DNA damage.