What role for DNA damage and repair in the bystander response?

The radiation-induced bystander effect challenges the accepted paradigm of direct DNA damage in response to energy deposition driving the biological consequences of radiation exposure. With the bystander response, cells which have not been directly exposed to radiation respond to their neighbours being targeted. In our own studies we have used novel targeted microbeam approaches to specifically irradiate parts of individual cells within a population to quantify the bystander response and obtain mechanistic information. Using this approach it has become clear that energy deposited by radiation in nuclear DNA is not required to trigger the effect, with cytoplasmic irradiation required. Irradiated cells also trigger a bystander response regardless of whether they themselves live or die, suggesting that the phenotype of the targeted cell is not a determining factor. Despite this however, a range of evidence has shown that repair status is important for dealing with the consequences of a bystander signal. Importantly, repair processes involved in the processing of dsb appear to be involved suggesting that the bystander response involves the delayed or indirect production of dsb-type lesions in bystander cells. Whether these are infact true dsb or complexes of oxidised bases in combination with strand breaks and the mechanisms for their formation, remains to be elucidated.     

Do protein motifs read the histone code?

The existence of different patterns of chemical modifications (acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitination and ADP-ribosylation) of the histone tails led, some years ago, to the histone code hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, these modifications would provide binding sites for proteins that can change the chromatin state to either active or repressed. Interestingly, some protein domains present in histone-modifying enzymes are known to interact with these covalent marks in the histone tails. This was first shown for the bromodomain, which was found to interact selectively with acetylated lysines at the histone tails. More recently, it has been described that the chromodomain can be targeted to methylation marks in histone N-terminal domains. Finally, the interaction between the SANT domain and histones is also well documented. Overall, experimental evidence suggests that these domains could be involved in the recruitment of histone-modifying enzymes to discrete chromosomal locations, and/or in the regulation their enzymatic activity. Within this context, we review the distribution of bromodomains, chromodomains and SANT domains among chromatin-modifying enzymes and discuss how they can contribute to the translation of the histone code.     

The key to development: interpreting the histone code?

Developmental stages in multicellular organisms proceed according to a temporally and spatially precise pattern of gene expression. It has become evident that changes within the chromatin structure brought about by covalent modifications of histones are of crucial importance in determining many biological processes, including development. Numerous studies have provided evidence that the enzymes responsible for the modifications of histones function in a coordinated pattern to control gene expression in the short term and, through the transferral of these modifications by inheritance to their progeny, in the long term.     

DNA repair in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. What have we learnt from the genome sequence?

The genome sequence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis was analysed by searching for homologues of genes known to be involved in the reversal or repair of DNA damage in Escherichia coli and related organisms. Genes necessary to perform nucleotide excision repair (NER), base excision repair (BER), recombination, and SOS repair and mutagenesis were identified. In particular, all of the genes known to be directly involved in the repair of oxidative and alkylative damage are present in M. tuberculosis . In contrast, we failed to identify homologues of genes involved in mismatch repair. This finding has potentially significant implications with respect to genome stability, strain variability at repeat loci and the emergence of chromosomally encoded drug resistance mutations.     

How does a cell repair damaged DNA?

DNA in living cells is constantly subjected to different chemical and physical factors of the environment and to cell metabolites. Some changes altering DNA structure occur spontaneously. This raises the potential danger of harmful mutations that could be transmitted to offspring. To avoid the danger of mutations and changing genetic information, a cell is capable to switch on multiple mechanisms of DNA repair that remove damage and restore native structure. In many cases, removal of the same damage may involve several alternative pathways; this is very important for DNA repair under the most unfavorable conditions. This review summarizes data about all known mechanisms of eukaryotic DNA repair including excision repair (base excision repair and nucleotide excision repair), mismatch repair, repair of double-strand breaks, and cross-link repair. Special attention is given to the regulation of excision repair by different proteins—proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), p53, and proteasome. The review also highlights problem of bypassing irremovable lesions in DNA.Translated from Biokhimiya, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005, pp. 341–359.Original Russian Text Copyright © 2005 by Sharova.     

Inducibility of error-prone DNA repair in yeast?

Whereas some experimental evidence suggests that mutagenesis in yeast after treatment with DNA-damaging agents involves inducible functions, a general-acting error-prone repair activity analogous to the SOS system of Escherichia coli has not yet been demonstrated. The current literature on the problem of inducibility of mutagenic repair in yeast is reviewed with emphasis on the differences in the experimental procedures applied.     

Manipulating the genetic code for membrane protein production: What have we learnt so far?

With synthetic gene services, molecular cloning is as easy as ordering a pizza. However choosing the right RNA code for efficient protein production is less straightforward, more akin to deciding on the pizza toppings. The possibility to choose synonymous codons in the gene sequence has ignited a discussion that dates back 50years: Does synonymous codon use matter? Recent studies indicate that replacement of particular codons for synonymous codons can improve expression in homologous or heterologous hosts, however it is not always successful. Furthermore it is increasingly apparent that membrane protein biogenesis can be codon-sensitive. Single synonymous codon substitutions can influence mRNA stability, mRNA structure, translational initiation, translational elongation and even protein folding. Synonymous codon substitutions therefore need to be carefully evaluated when membrane proteins are engineered for higher production levels and further studies are needed to fully understand how to select the codons that are optimal for higher production. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Protein Folding in Membranes.     

Has the code for protein translocation been broken?

Polypeptides chains are segregated by the translocon channel into secreted or membrane-inserted proteins. Recent reports claim that an in vivo system has been used to break the "amino acid code" used by translocons to make the determination of protein type (i.e. secreted or membrane-inserted). However, the experimental setup used in these studies could have confused the derivation of this code, in particular for polar amino acids. These residues are likely to undergo stabilizing interactions with other protein components in the experiment, shielding them from direct contact with the inhospitable membrane. Hence, it is our view that the "code" for protein translocation has not yet been deciphered and that further experiments are required for teasing apart the various energetic factors contributing to protein translocation.     

What are DNA sequence motifs?

Sequence motifs are becoming increasingly important in the analysis of gene regulation. How do we define sequence motifs, and why should we use sequence logos instead of consensus sequences to represent them? Do they have any relation with binding affinity? How do we search for new instances of a motif in this sea of DNA?