z-logo
Premium
Influence of DNA repair by ada and ogt alkytransferases on the mutational specificity of alkylating agents
Author(s) -
RoldánArjona Teresa,
LuqueRomero Francisco L.,
Ariza Rafael R.,
Jurado Juan,
Pueyo Carmen
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
molecular carcinogenesis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.254
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1098-2744
pISSN - 0899-1987
DOI - 10.1002/mc.2940090404
Subject(s) - biology , dna , genetics , computational biology , microbiology and biotechnology
We investigated the influence of the alkyltransferases (ATases) encoded by the ada and ogt genes of Escherichia coli on the mutational specificity of alkylating agents. A new mutational assay for selection of supF ‐ mutations in shuttle‐vector plasmids was used. Treating plasmid‐bearing bacteria with N ‐methyl‐ N ‐nitrosourea (MNU), N ‐ethyl‐ N ‐nitrosourea (ENU), and ethyl methanesulfonates (EMS) dramatically increased the muttation frequency (from 33‐fold to 789‐fold). The vast majority of mutations (89–100%) were G:C←A:T transitions. This type of mutation increased in ada ‐ (MNU) or ogt ‐ (ENU) bacteria, suggesting that repair of O 6 ‐methylguanine by ada ATase and repair of O 6 ‐ethylguanine by ogt ATase contribute mainly to the decrease in G:C←A:T transitions. The analysis of neighboring base sequences revealed an overabundance of G:C←A:T transitions at 5′‐GG sequences. The 5′‐PuG bias increased in ATase‐defective cells, suggesting that these sequences were not refractory to repair. G:C←A:T transitions occurred preferentially in the untranscribed strand after in vivo exposure. That this strand specificity was detected even in bacteria devoid of ATase activity ( ada ‐ ogt ‐ ) and not after in vitro mutagenesis suggests a bias for damage induction rather than for DNA repair. Highly significant differences were found between the in vivo and in vitro incidences of G:C←A:T substitutions at the two major hotspots, positions 123 (5′‐GGG‐3′; antisense strand) and 168 (5′‐GGA‐3′; sense strand). These results are explained by differences in the probability of formation of stem‐loop structures in vivo and in vitro. © 1994 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here