![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 42, 32422-32429, October 20, 2000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
§,
,
,
,
,
, and
§
From the
Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19111, the § Department of Medical Genetics,
Catholic University Medical School, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy,
and ¶ Bruker Daltonics, Manning Park,
Billerica, Massachusetts 01821
Received for publication, May 25, 2000
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The human protein MED1 (also known as MBD4) was
previously isolated in a two-hybrid screening using the mismatch repair
protein MLH1 as a bait, and shown to have homology to bacterial base
excision repair DNA N-glycosylases/lyases. To define the
mechanisms of action of MED1, we implemented a sensitive glycosylase
assay amenable to kinetic analysis. We show that MED1 functions as a
mismatch-specific DNA N-glycosylase active on thymine,
uracil, and 5-fluorouracil when these bases are opposite to guanine.
MED1 lacks uracil glycosylase activity on single-strand DNA and abasic
site lyase activity. The glycosylase activity of MED1 prefers
substrates containing a G:T mismatch within methylated or unmethylated
CpG sites; since G:T mismatches can originate via deamination of
5-methylcytosine to thymine, MED1 may act as a caretaker of genomic
fidelity at CpG sites. A kinetic analysis revealed that MED1 displays a
fast first cleavage reaction followed by slower subsequent reactions, resulting in biphasic time course; this is due to the tight binding of
MED1 to the abasic site reaction product rather than a consequence of
enzyme inactivation. Comparison of kinetic profiles revealed that the
MED1 5-methylcytosine binding domain and methylation of the mismatched
CpG site are not required for efficient catalysis.
The integrity of genetic information is constantly challenged by a
variety of endogenous and exogenous DNA damaging agents (1-3).
Cellular DNA transactions occur in aqueous solution containing reactive
oxygen species, and, as such, DNA is prone to both hydrolytic and
oxidative damage. Hydrolysis of the N-glycosyl bond yields apurinic and, less frequently, apyrimidinic sites that are
highly mutagenic. Hydrolytic deamination of cytosine and
5-methylcytosine (M)1
generates G:U and G:T mismatches, respectively. Oxidative lesions include 8-oxoguanine, thymine glycol, and formamidopyrimidine derivatives of adenine and guanine (1, 2). In addition to endogenous
damaging processes, DNA is exposed to the attack of exogenous reactive
species, including alkylating agents and the carcinogens vinyl chloride
and ethyl carbamate. Alkylating agents primarily alkylate the
N3 position of purines and the N7 and
O6 positions of guanine (1, 2), whereas metabolites of
vinyl chloride and ethyl carbamate generate cyclic (etheno) DNA
adducts, such as 3,N4-ethenocytosine,
1,N6-ethenoadenine,
1,N2-ethenoguanine and
N2,3-ethenoguanine (4, 5).
Efficient correction of these DNA lesions relies on the action of
several enzymes belonging to the base excision repair system (2, 6-9).
Unlike nucleotide excision repair or long-patch mismatch repair (MMR),
base excision repair enzymes usually act in a lesion-specific fashion
on a single damaged or mismatched nucleotide. Given the mutagenic
potential of DNA lesions, continuing elucidation of the biochemical
activities, damage spectrum and specificity of base excision repair
enzymes has direct implications on cancer and aging (2).
In an effort to isolate new human proteins involved in DNA repair, we
recently conducted a yeast two-hybrid screening with the MMR protein
MLH1 as a bait and identified a novel human DNA repair protein, named
MED1 (methyl-CpG-binding endonuclease 1) (10). The 580-amino acid MED1
protein, also known as MBD4 (11), has a tripartite structure with an
N-terminal 5-methylcytosine binding domain (MBD), a central region with
five putative nuclear localization signals, and a C-terminal catalytic
domain with homology to bacterial DNA damage-specific
glycosylases/lyases, such as Escherichia coli endonuclease
III and MutY, Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum Mig.Mth, and Micrococcus luteus UV repair
endonuclease (10). We previously showed that MED1 co-immunoprecipitates
with MLH1 in human cells, binds to oligonucleotides containing
5-methylcytosine on one or both strands (hemimethylated or fully
methylated DNA), and has endonuclease activity on a supercoiled plasmid
DNA substrate. Based on the domain structure and biochemical properties
of MED1, we proposed that cytosine methylation may play a role in MED1 repair mechanism (10).
As to the function of MED1 in DNA repair, we had previously suggested
three possibilities. (i) MED1 may function in long-patch MMR; this
would explain the interaction with MLH1 and, possibly, the binding to
hemi- and fully methylated DNA, in analogy to the E. coli
MutSLH system. (ii) MED1 may work in a short-patch MMR pathway, similar
to the E. coli Vsr endonuclease; this would also explain the
interaction with MLH1. (iii) MED1 may act as a glycosylase/lyase in a
pathway of base excision repair (10). In the present paper, we show
that MED1 acts as a mismatch-specific glycosylase active on thymine,
uracil, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) paired with guanine. Due to its high
affinity for the abasic (apurinic/apyrimidinic) (AP) site reaction
product, MED1 displays biphasic kinetics with a rapid initial burst of
product formation followed by much slower reactions.
We and others have previously shown that the MED1
(MBD4) gene is mutated in human colorectal, endometrial, and
pancreatic carcinomas exhibiting a defect in the MMR genes
MLH1 and MSH2 (12, 13). The mutations target
polyadenine microsatellites in the central region and cause
frameshifts; this predicts the synthesis of truncated proteins lacking
the C-terminal catalytic domain (12, 13). Thus, the present findings
suggest that a fraction of human carcinomas are defective not only in
long-patch MMR but also in MED1 thymine, uracil, and 5-FU glycosylase
activity. The defect in MED1 activity may facilitate accumulation of
DNA damage, thereby contributing to tumor development, and, in
addition, may have implications in cancer treatments based on
chemotherapy with 5-FU.
Expression and Purification of Recombinant
Proteins--
Expression constructs of wild type MED1 protein and
deletion mutants were prepared in the vector pET28(b) (Novagen), which provides a 6-histidine tag, and were propagated in E. coli
strain XL-1 Blue, as described previously (10). BL21(DE3)(pLysS) cells transformed with the expression vectors were grown to
A600 = 0.4 and induced with 1 mM
isopropyl-1-thio- Synthesis of Oligonucleotides, Preparation of Substrates, and
Sequencing Reactions--
Oligonucleotides (37- and 64-mers) were
synthesized on an automated DNA synthesizer (Applied Biosystems) and
purified by denaturing 8.3 M urea, 15-20% PAGE.
Oligonucleotide bands were visualized by UV shadowing and excised. DNA
was electroeluted from gel slices using an Amicon 57005 electroeluter,
as described previously (14). Oligonucleotides containing 5-FU were
purchased from Genset (Paris, France) and gel-purified as above. The AP
site-containing oligonucleotide was prepared by incubating an
oligonucleotide containing uracil with E. coli uracil DNA
glycosylase (Udg) (PerkinElmer Life Sciences). The AP
site reaction product was purified by ion exchange chromatography at pH 12.
Double-strand oligonucleotide substrates were prepared by annealing
complementary, gel-purified single-strand oligonucleotides, as
summarized in Table I. Duplex substrates
were labeled at the 3' end of the bottom strand by a fill-in reaction
with exonuclease-deficient DNA polymerase I Klenow fragment (Prime-It,
Stratagene) and [
Maxam-Gilbert sequencing reactions of the substrate oligonucleotides
were conducted as described previously (15), with the exception that
the DNA was labeled at the 3' end.
Glycosylase Assays--
Substrate DNA, typically 5 nM, was preincubated at 37 °C in Buffer E (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mg/ml bovine serum albumin). Reaction was
started by the addition of an equimolar amount, typically 5 nM, of purified MED1. At different time points (ranging
from 15 s to 10 h), 15-µl aliquots of the reaction were
taken, quenched with 3.8 µl of 500 mM NaOH, and immediately transferred to 90 °C for 30 min. An equal volume (18.8 µl) of denaturing loading dye (95% formamide, 0.04% bromphenol blue, 0.04% xylene cyanol, 20 mM EDTA) was added, and 7.5 µl of the heat-denatured samples were separated by 8.3 M
urea, 15% PAGE. Gels were exposed to a PhosphorImager (Fuji) screen
for 1 h, which yielded exposure within the dynamic range of the
instrument. The substrate and product bands were quantified to evaluate
the percentage of substrate converted into product. Reaction time
courses were then analyzed using the kinetic simulation program KINSIM
(16-18). KINSIM uses numerical integration to predict the time
dependence of a reaction from a given mechanism and initial
concentrations without relying upon the assumptions of steady state
kinetic analysis.
When the incubation with alkali was omitted, the AP site was stabilized
by reduction with sodium borohydride, as described previously (19).
Briefly, the glycosylase reaction was incubated at room temperature for
10 min with 70 µl of a freshly prepared solution of 0.1 M
BisTris-HCl, pH 6.5, and 7 µl of a freshly prepared solution of 5M
NaBH4, leaving the tube open. After the addition of 100 µl of 1 M NH4Cl and 2 µl of 0.2 mg/ml yeast
tRNA (Sigma), the sample was extracted with an equal volume of
phenol/chloroform and ethanol-precipitated. Protection of the AP site
was necessary to prevent its degradation upon heat denaturation prior
to electrophoresis in the experiments for ruling out AP lyase activity,
and for processing for mass spectrometry. In the latter case, yeast
tRNA was omitted.
Matrix-assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass
Spectrometry--
All solutions for matrix-assisted laser desorption
ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry were prepared
in HPLC grade water (Aldrich), freshly treated with ammonium-charged Dowex beads (AG 50W-X8, 200-400-mesh). The matrix was composed of 0.2 M 3-hydroxypicolinic acid, 0.02 M
N-3-indolacetoaminoleucine, and 30% acetonitrile (v/v) (all
chemicals were from Aldrich). The glycosylase reaction was conducted at
37 °C for 1 h with 250 pmol of MED1 and unlabeled 37-mer duplex
DNA containing a G:T mismatch. The resulting AP site was stabilized by
reduction with NaBH4. In a parallel reaction, MED1 was
omitted. Oligonucleotides were then purified by phenol/chloroform
extraction, ethanol-precipitated, dried in a Speed Vac (Savant), and
resuspended in bead-treated water.
The MALDI target (Scout 384, Bruker Daltonics) was prepared by cleaning
with methanol, and then flushed with 1.0 M diammonium citrate, Dowex bead-treated HPLC grade water, and ammonia. The MALDI
target was first loaded with 0.5 µl of the matrix solution. The
matrix was allowed to crystallize, and 0.5 µl of the analyte solution
was added directly over the dried matrix. The resulting semi-crystalline matrix was analyzed in a Bruker Biflex III MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer in negative, linear mode at 17 kV total extraction voltage, with a delayed extraction at 20 ns. The sum of the signals obtained in 1,000-2,000 laser shots of approximately 60-70
mJ/shot constituted one spectrum and was analyzed. The unreacted
oligonucleotides served as internal standards for mass calibration.
MED1 Is a G:T Mismatch-specific Thymine Glycosylase--
The
catalytic domain of MED1 bears distant homology to several bacterial
DNA repair glycosylases/lyases (10), including MutY (20) and
endonuclease III from E. coli (21), Mig.Mth from
M. thermoautotrophicum (22), and UV endonuclease from
M. luteus (23). Whereas endonuclease III and the closely
related UV endonuclease have both N-glycosylase and AP lyase
activity, and are active on thymine residues damaged by ring
saturation, fragmentation, or contraction (23-25), MutY and
Mig.Mth are mismatch-specific N-glycosylases. MutY is an adenine glycosylase active on A:C
and A:G mismatches as well as on adenine paired with 8-oxoguanine (20,
26-28). Mig.Mth from the thermophilic archaeon M. thermoautotrophicum is a thymine glycosylase active on G:T
mismatches; the enzyme is equally active on G:U and to a less degree on
G:G, A:G, T:C, and U:C mismatches (22).
Based on the homologies with these enzymes, MED1 was assayed for
glycosylase activity on mismatched bases. Purified recombinant MED1
protein was incubated with 32P-labeled oligonucleotide
substrates carrying all the eight possible mismatches of the normal DNA
bases. The products of the reaction were treated with strong alkali to
cleave at AP sites and then were separated by electrophoresis on
denaturing polyacrylamide gels. As shown in Fig.
1A, a cleavage product was
detected only on the 32P-labeled, thymine-containing strand
of a G:T substrate. A sequencing ladder indicated that the migration of
the cleavage product corresponds to the site of the mismatched thymine
(Fig. 1B). In addition, no cleavage product was detected on
C:T or T:T mismatches (Fig. 1A), or when MED1 was incubated
with matched unmethylated, hemimethylated, or fully methylated
oligonucleotide substrates, or with substrates containing 1-5
extrahelical bases (Fig. 1A and data not shown). These
results suggest that MED1 has thymine glycosylase activity specific for
G:T mismatches. We next conducted a MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry
analysis of the MED1 glycosylase reaction with a G:T substrate. As
shown in Fig. 1C, in addition to the peaks corresponding to
the parental mismatched top (G) and bottom (T) single-strand oligonucleotides, a third peak is detected upon MED1 incubation, with a
mass/charge ratio consistent with that of the reaction product,
i.e. the bottom oligonucleotide lacking thymine. This experiment provides conclusive evidence on the thymine glycosylase activity of MED1.
MED1 Lacks a Detectable Lyase Activity--
In addition to their
glycosylase activity, endonuclease III and UV endonuclease perform a
MED1 Thymine Glycosylase Activity in the Context of a Methylated or
Unmethylated CpG Site--
In its G:T mismatch-specific glycosylase
activity, MED1 is similar to the above mentioned Mig.Mth (22) and the
human mismatch-specific thymine glycosylase TDG (29, 30) in that all
three enzymes may counteract mutagenesis caused by spontaneous
deamination of 5-methylcytosine to thymine, which would give rise to a
G:T mismatch (22, 29, 30). Since in mammalian cells genome-wide
cytosine methylation occurs exclusively at CpG sites, we investigated
whether a cytosine or 5-methylcytosine preceding the mismatched guanine is preferred for MED1 thymine glycosylase activity. MED1 was incubated with oligonucleotide substrates in which the mismatched G is
immediately 3' to A, C, G, T, or M. As shown in Fig.
3, thymine glycosylase activity was high
with CpG/TpG and MpG/TpG substrates and low with ApG/TpT, GpG/TpC, and
TpG/TpA substrates. Thus, the fact that CpG/TpG and MpG/TpG are the
optimal substrates for MED1 thymine glycosylase activity confirms that
MED1 may preferentially counteract mutagenic consequences of
deamination of 5-methylcytosine to thymine at CpG sites.
MED1 Is Also Active on Uracil and 5-Fluorouracil Paired with
Guanine--
Both Mig.Mth and TDG have a mismatch-specific
uracil glycosylase activity (22, 31). Based on the similarities with
these enzymes, we tested the uracil glycosylase activity of MED1 on oligonucleotide substrates in which uracil was paired with A, C, G, or
T. As expected, MED1 uracil glycosylase activity is specific for G:U
mismatches (Fig. 4A). MED1 did
not exhibit uracil glycosylase activity on single-stranded DNA (Fig.
4B). MED1 efficiently removed the uracil analog 5-FU
opposite a guanine (Fig. 4C).
Biphasic Kinetics of MED1 Glycosylase Activity--
A kinetic
analysis was performed on MED1 glycosylase reaction in order to
elucidate the mechanism of this important DNA repair enzyme. Kinetic
studies were preceded by experiments in which we assayed the
glycosylase activity of MED1 under various reaction conditions. The
results indicated that MED1 is active over a wide range of
temperature and pH, whereas it has a more restricted optimum of
ionic strength (48). All the kinetic studies were then conducted at the
following optimal conditions: temperature = 37 °C, pH = 7.5, and [NaCl] = 0 mM, in Buffer E (see "Experimental Procedures").
For the kinetic experiments, the 32P-labeled G:T
oligonucleotide substrate was incubated with MED1 and aliquots of the
reaction were removed at time points ranging from 15 s to 10 h. Reactions were stopped by incubation with NaOH at high temperature,
which also cleaves at the AP site. Reactions were run in denaturing gels to separate the substrate (38-mer) from the product (16-mer), and
the intensities of the substrate and product bands were quantified with
a PhosphorImager. The reaction curve is biphasic with an initial burst
followed by a slower phase (Fig. 5,
A and B). Near-maximum product generation takes
place after approximately 2 h; for the subsequent 8 h, there
is almost no additional formation of product and the reaction proceeds
at a very slow rate (Fig. 5, A and B). This and
subsequent experiments were conducted at equimolar or near-equimolar
concentrations of substrate and enzyme (as determined by protein assay
with the Bradford method, under "Experimental Procedures"). Under
these conditions, 30-50% of the substrate was typically converted
into product in 10 h. When the assay was performed with different
enzyme concentrations, all lower than substrate concentration, an
estimate of the active enzyme concentration could be derived (32).
Since the turnover rate is slow, the amplitude of the burst directly
reflects active site concentration (32). We concluded that the activity
of the various preparations of MED1 ranges from 30% to 50% (data not
shown). (An additional source of interassay variability,
i.e. the efficiency of annealing of the mismatched
oligonucleotides, was deemed negligible because only annealed molecules
act as templates for the DNA polymerase to incorporate the 3'-label.)
Thus, since the concentration of reaction product is limited by the
concentration of active MED1 enzyme, there is a stoichiometric or
near-stoichiometric relationship between enzyme and substrate/product.
This indicates that each molecule of active MED1 enzyme efficiently
removes only approximately one mismatched thymine. To further explore
this near-stoichiometric relationship and rule out the
artifactual possibility that a fraction of substrate could not be
converted into product, we added additional aliquots of enzyme after
the reaction reached its slow phase. This resulted in additional
conversion of substrate into product (Fig. 5C), showing that
the remaining substrate was competent to partake in the reaction.
Kinetic Analysis of MED1 Glycosylase Reaction--
The
single-turnover of MED1 can be explained by two alternative mechanisms:
(i) MED1 is inactivated during the reaction, or (ii) MED1 does not
efficiently release its product. In order to discriminate between the
two possibilities, we conducted an analysis of the kinetic data.
Because the kinetic studies were conducted under conditions of similar
concentrations of substrate and enzyme, and within a 10-h incubation,
the assumptions required for steady state kinetic analysis are not
applicable. In particular, in our experiments, the concentration of
enzyme is not much smaller than the concentrations of
substrate/product, and there is only a slow (but measurable) enzyme
turnover within the reaction time course. Applying standard steady
state kinetic analyses, under the required experimental conditions of
enzyme concentration much less than substrate concentration, would thus
require impractically long reaction times (32). We therefore analyzed
the data using the kinetic simulation program KINSIM. KINSIM utilizes
numerical integration to predict the time course of a reaction as
governed by a kinetic mechanism and the reactant concentrations
(16-18). For MED1 and a particular substrate, the time courses at
different protein and DNA concentrations could all be fit using the
same rate constants, supporting the validity of the kinetic mechanism.
We then derived kinetic parameters (Table
II) for MED1 glycosylase reaction
according to Scheme I.
Preincubation with the Reaction Product (AP Site) Inhibits MED1
Glycosylase Activity--
The small value of
koff predicts that incubation of MED1 with DNA
containing an AP site prior to reaction with the G:T substrate would
reduce the concentration of free enzyme and, therefore, lead to a
decrease in thymine release from the substrate. This has been shown
previously for TDG (33). We then preincubated MED1 with a
double-stranded oligonucleotide containing an AP site opposite a G; as
controls, MED1 was preincubated with a double-stranded oligonucleotide
containing a G:C match or with reaction buffer lacking DNA. The
preincubation was followed by incubation with a radioactive G:T
substrate. As shown in Fig. 6, in
comparison to the buffer and G:C oligonucleotide controls, the rate of
thymine removal from the G:T substrate is reduced by preincubation with the AP site oligonucleotide. Thus, this confirms that the biphasic kinetics of MED1 glycosylase reaction is a consequence of high product
affinity with slow release rather than enzyme inactivation.
Comparison of MED1 Thymine and Uracil Glycosylase Reactions;
Substrate Binding Is Not Limiting for Glycosylase Activity--
We
next conducted a kinetic analysis of the MED1 uracil glycosylase
activity on a G:U substrate. Assuming that the
koff of the AP site is the same as determined
for the G:T substrate and that the rate of release of the free uracil
is similar to that of free thymine, the KINSIM simulation should fit
the kinetic data simply by changing the chemical step. Indeed, the
kcat is the major difference between the G:T and
G:U substrate (Table II): uracil is removed by MED1 from G:U mismatches
faster than thymine is removed from G:T mismatches. In order to test
the alternate possibility that the differences in glycosylase activity
result from different binding of MED1 to the two DNA substrates, we
conducted kinetic analysis at increasing equimolar concentrations of
MED1 and G:T or G:U substrates. The relative reaction rate did not change at 2.5, 5, and 10 nM concentrations (48), indicating that at these concentrations binding of the enzyme to the two substrates is essentially saturated (33). This also confirms the KINSIM
prediction that the different reaction rate on G:U and G:T substrates
is not due to differences in substrate binding but rather reflects
intrinsic differences in kcat (see Table II). If
the association and dissociation rates of the enzyme·substrate and
enzyme·product complexes are comparable, the values of
kon and koff in Table II
provide an estimate of the affinity of the complexes of approximately
10 The MED1 5-Methylcytosine Binding Domain and Methylation of the
Mismatched Substrate Are Not Required for Efficient Catalysis--
The
preferential activity of MED1 on substrates presenting a G:T mismatch
within the context of a CpG site (Fig. 3) raises the possibility that
recognition of methylated DNA by the MBD domain is important for MED1
glycosylase activity. To test this possibility, we compared the thymine
glycosylase activity of wild type MED1 and a recombinant deletion
mutant lacking the MBD and encompassing only the catalytic domain
(amino acids 455-580) (10). The two polypeptides processed an MpG/TpG
substrate with very similar kinetics (Fig.
7A). In a parallel experiment,
a deletion mutant (amino acids 1-454) (10) lacking the catalytic
domain was completely inactive (data not shown). Thus, the catalytic domain of MED1 is necessary and sufficient for glycosylase activity, whereas the MBD is dispensable in this assay.
Since the MBD is dispensable, then methylation of the mismatched CpG
site may also be nonessential. We then determined the kinetic profile
of the MED1 thymine glycosylase reaction on methylated and unmethylated
mismatched CpG substrates. MpG/TpG and CpG/TpG substrates were
processed by MED1 with very similar kinetics (Fig. 7B).
Thus, methylation of the mismatched substrate is not required for
efficient catalysis by MED1.
In the present study, we sought to define the biochemical and
enzymatic properties of the DNA repair protein MED1, also known as
MBD4, which we identified as an interactor of MLH1. We show here that
MED1 acts as a mismatch-specific thymine and uracil DNA
N-glycosylase. Conclusive demonstration of MED1 thymine
glycosylase activity is provided by the direct mass spectrometric
detection of the reaction product, i.e. the thymine-less
oligonucleotide generated by incubation of MED1 with a G:T-containing
oligonucleotide substrate. The uracil glycosylase activity of MED1 is
limited to G:U mismatches; MED1 does not have glycosylase activity on uracil paired with adenine, cytosine, or thymine in double-stranded DNA
substrates, or on uracil present in single-strand DNA. The enzyme lacks
AP lyase activity; MED1 fails to cleave the AP site generated by its
glycosylase activity or by an heterologous glycosylase, such as UDG.
These observations are in agreement with an initial description of the
mismatch-specific thymine and uracil glycosylase activity of this
enzyme, which was reported during the course of our investigation (35).
Importantly, our current findings further address central questions
concerning the function of MED1, namely its detailed mechanism of
action, substrate spectrum, and relative roles of the catalytic and
5-methylcytosine binding domains.
In its thymine and uracil glycosylase activity on G:T and G:U
mismatches and its preference for substrates containing these mismatches in the context of CpG sites, MED1 is similar to TDG (29-31). Both enzymes, despite the lack of sequence similarity, appear
to counteract the mutagenic potential of the deamination of
5-methylcytosine and cytosine by removing the mismatched thymine and
uracil. These deamination reactions occur spontaneously at a remarkable
rate of 2-300 events/genome/day and, if not repaired, lead in the next
round of DNA replication to C In order to gain insight in the molecular mechanisms of MED1 action, we
conducted a kinetic analysis of its glycosylase activity. We found that
the MED1 glycosylase reaction follows pre-steady state burst kinetics.
Each molecule of active enzyme efficiently removes approximately one
mismatched thymine from G:T-containing substrates. Because of this
stoichiometric or near-stoichiometric relationship between enzyme and
substrate/product, the concentration of active MED1 enzyme limits the
accumulation of reaction product. This results in a biphasic time
course with an initial burst of activity followed by a slow phase. By
using a preincubation experiment, we discriminated between the two
possibilities that would result in biphasic kinetics, i.e.
inactivation of the enzyme after a single reaction cycle or tight
binding to the AP site reaction product. Indeed, incubation of MED1
with an AP site-containing oligonucleotide prior to incubation with the
32P-labeled G:T substrate inhibited MED1 thymine
glycosylase activity. Binding of MED1 to an AP site-containing
oligonucleotide in an electromobility shift assay has also been
reported (35). Here we show that this binding is very tight (estimated
koff of approximately 8 × 10 Thus, MED1 is the third DNA glycosylase that exhibits biphasic
kinetics, joining the adenine glycosylase MutY (32) and the thymine
glycosylase TDG (33). All three enzymes exhibit single-turnover, pre-steady state kinetics due to the slow release of the AP site reaction product. This emerging feature of base excision repair glycosylases is likely to underscore an important biological function; the tight binding of the glycosylase allows protection of the AP site
and prevents its nonspecific processing until subsequent repair
activities are recruited at the lesion site (32, 33). Indeed, it has
been shown that AP endonuclease could displace TDG from an AP site,
thus increasing the turnover of the glycosylase (44). It would be
interesting to determine whether MED1 is also displaced by the AP
endonuclease. An additional and not necessarily alternative biological
explanation of the slow koff of these
glycosylases is that binding to the AP site provides a convenient way
to signal a cell cycle checkpoint and thus minimize the possible
mutagenic consequences of cell cycle progression in the presence of DNA damage. This possibility is particularly intriguing for MED1, since its
mutations in human carcinomas would abrogate such a checkpoint. It
would be interesting to evaluate whether this putative checkpoint is
regulated via an association with other DNA repair and signaling
molecules, including MLH1, a known interactor of MED1 (10).
The availability of kinetic information and the possibility of
evaluating activity throughout the entire reaction timeline allowed us
to make meaningful comparisons of different MED1 mutants and
substrates. This provided the opportunity to explore the respective roles of MED1 catalytic and 5-methylcytosine binding domains. We found
that MED1 processes with essentially identical kinetics oligonucleotide
substrates containing a G:T mismatch in the context of a methylated or
unmethylated CpG site (Fig. 7B). Moreover, an
oligonucleotide substrate containing a G:T mismatch in the context of a
methylated CpG site is processed with essentially identical kinetics by
wild type MED1 or by a deletion mutant corresponding to the isolated
catalytic domain (amino acids 455-580) and thus lacking the MBD domain
(Fig. 7A). We concluded that the MBD domain and methylation
of the substrate at the mismatched CpG site are not required for
efficient catalysis. In an electromobility shift assay, the MBD domain
of MED1 was reported to bind to a 50-base pair oligonucleotide
containing three MpG/GpT substrate sequences within 27 base pairs (35).
Based on this finding, it was suggested that the MBD domain might
target mismatches for processing by the catalytic domain in a
coordinate action (35). However, our comparison of the kinetic profile
of MED1 mutants and methylated and unmethylated substrates does not
support a role of the MBD and substrate methylation in the catalytic
processing of oligonucleotide substrates. Thus, it appears that the
isolated catalytic domain of MED1 can effectively recognize and process
an unmethylated or methylated CpG/GpT substrate and that the MBD domain
is dispensable for this function. Interestingly TDG, which, like MED1,
has preferential activity toward G:T substrates in the context of a CpG
site regardless of its methylation status (34, 45-47), lacks an MBD
domain altogether.
What is then the function of the MBD domain? It is possible that the
MBD domain may facilitate the localization of MED1 to MpG-rich regions
of the genome in vivo (11), where deamination of
5-methylcytosine might be more frequent. This could reflect a specific
role of MED1 in the repair of G:T mismatches, distinct from that of
TDG, which lacks an MBD domain. Thus, MED1 and TDG, despite their
biochemical similarities, may only be partially redundant in
vivo and may display different roles in genomic fidelity and
mutation avoidance in human cells.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-D-galactopyranoside at 37 °C for
2 h. Cells collected by centrifugation were lysed in Buffer A (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8, 500 mM NaCl, 0.1% Nonidet
P-40, 10% glycerol, and "Complete" protease inhibitors (Roche
Molecular Biochemicals)). After clarification by centrifugation at
12,000 × g, the soluble protein fraction was diluted
to 150 mM NaCl.
-Mercaptoethanol (7 mM) was
added, and the sample was applied to a 5-ml Q Sepharose anion exchange
column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) connected in series to a 5-ml SP
Sepharose cation exchange column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). After
disconnecting the Q Sepharose column, the SP Sepharose column was
washed with 30 ml of Buffer B (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8, 10%
glycerol, and 7 mM
-mercaptoethanol) supplemented with
100 mM NaCl. Elution was performed with 10 ml of Buffer B
supplemented with 1.5 M NaCl. The SP Sepharose eluate, supplemented with 20 mM imidazole, was applied to a 1.5-ml
nickel-chelating Sepharose column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). The
nickel affinity column was washed with 10 ml of Buffer C (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8, 300 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol,
2 mM
-mercaptoethanol) supplemented with 20 mM imidazole. Recombinant MED1 proteins were eluted with 5 ml of Buffer C, supplemented with 150 mM imidazole.
Proteins were further purified by size exclusion chromatography using a Superdex 200 PC 3.2/30 gel filtration column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech), equilibrated with Buffer D (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, and 1 mM EDTA), pumped at a rate
of 40 µl/min using a SMART chromatography system (Amersham Pharmacia
Biotech). UV absorbance was monitored at 214, 256, and 280 nm, and
40-µl fractions were collected every 1 min. Throughout the
purification, fractions were followed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (PAGE) and assayed for glycosylase activity (see
below). The final MED1 preparation was estimated to be >95% pure by
SDS-PAGE. Upon the addition of 10% glycerol, purified MED1 fractions
were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at
70 °C. A slow decay
of glycosylase activity was observed upon prolonged storage at
70 °C. Protein concentration was determined with the Bradford
assay kit (Bio-Rad), using bovine
globulin as a standard.
-32P]dGTP (PerkinElmer Life
Sciences). Unincorporated label was removed with G25 spin columns
(Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).
Summary of the duplex oligonucleotides used in this study
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
G:T mismatch-specific thymine glycosylase
activity of MED1. A, the indicated 64-mer
double-stranded oligonucleotides (14) (Table I), bearing all possible
mismatches and 32P-labeled at the 3' end on the bottom
strand (marked by the asterisk), were treated with purified
recombinant MED1 protein at 37 °C for 60 min. The reactions were
then treated with 100 mM NaOH at 90 °C for 30 min, in
order to cleave the sugar-phosphate backbone at the AP site. A band
representing a cleavage product was detected for the G:T-containing
oligonucleotide substrate labeled on the thymine-containing strand
(lane 4). Arrows mark the expected
migration of the substrate and product bands. B, G+A- and
T-specific sequencing reactions of the 38-mer G:T duplex
oligonucleotide substrate (Table I), labeled at the 3' end of the
bottom strand, were run as a standard next to a MED1 glycosylase
reaction. The sequence of the bottom strand of the substrate is
reported on the left. The product band comigrates with the
mismatched T (indicated in bold). C,
upper panel, MALDI-TOF mass spectrum of annealed
starting G:T mismatched duplex oligonucleotide untreated with MED1
(37-mer, see Table I). The separate G and T oligonucleotide strands
were used as internal standards for mass calibration; their neutral
masses are 11,358.5 and 11,395.5 Da, respectively. Lower
panel, MALDI-TOF mass spectrum of annealed G:T mismatched
duplex oligonucleotide treated with MED1 and reduced with sodium
borohydride. The new oligonucleotide ion (marked
T) is
105.7 Da less than the T-containing oligonucleotide, consistent with
the expected delta mass of 106.1 Da from the hydrolysis of the
N-glycosidic bond of the thymine base and subsequent
reduction of the AP site.
-elimination reaction at the AP site with their associated AP lyase
activity (bifunctional glycosylases/lyases). In order to determine
whether MED1 has AP lyase activity, fractions from the last step of
purification of recombinant MED1 (gel filtration) were incubated with
the 32P-labeled G:T substrate. Following incubation with
MED1, an aliquot of the reaction was processed with NaOH before
electrophoresis, whereas the remaining directly underwent
electrophoresis. As shown in Fig.
2A, no cleavage was detected
when the incubation of the MED1 reaction products with alkali was
omitted. Similarly, MED1 did not further process an AP site generated
by incubation of a G:U oligonucleotide substrate with the uracil
glycosylase Udg (Fig. 2B). These data indicate that MED1 is
a monofunctional glycosylase that lacks a detectable lyase
activity.

View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
MED1 is a monofunctional glycosylase lacking
lyase activity. A, the indicated fractions from a
gel-filtration purification of recombinant MED1 were incubated with the
38-mer G:T-mismatch substrate. An aliquot of the reaction was processed
with NaOH before electrophoresis (upper panel),
whereas the remaining directly underwent electrophoresis
(lower panel). A product band was detected for
fractions 14-18 after incubation with alkali; no cleavage product was
detected for these fractions when this incubation was omitted.
B, reaction of Udg with a 37-mer G:U oligonucleotide
substrate generates an AP site that can be cleaved by treatment with
NaOH (lane 3), but not by incubation with MED1
for 30 min (lane 4).

View larger version (62K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Sequence context of MED1 G:T
mismatch-specific thymine glycosylase activity: preference for CpG
sites. MED1 was incubated at 37 °C for 60 min with the
indicated G:T-containing oligonucleotide substrates, in which the
mismatched G followed A, C, G, T, or M (Table I). Highest thymine
glycosylase activity was detected with CpG/TpG and MpG/TpG substrates,
which contained a G:T mismatch in the context of a methylated or
unmethylated CpG site. Only low amounts of products were generated with
ApG/TpT, GpG/TpC, and TpG/TpA substrates.

View larger version (33K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
MED1 has a G:U and G:5-FU mismatch-specific
uracil and 5-fluorouracil glycosylase activity. A, the
indicated double-stranded oligonucleotides containing uracil (U) paired
with A, C, G, and T, were 32P-labeled at the 3' end on the
bottom strand (marked by the asterisk) and treated with
purified recombinant MED1 protein at 37 °C for 60 min. The reactions
were then treated with 100 mM NaOH at 90 °C for 30 min,
in order to cleave the AP site. A cleavage product was detected for the
G:U-containing oligonucleotide substrate labeled on the
uracil-containing strand. Arrows mark the expected migration
of the substrate and product bands. B, A 37-mer
single-stranded uracil-containing (U) oligonucleotide was
32P-labeled at the 5' end and treated at 37 °C for 60 min with purified recombinant MED1 protein or Udg, as a positive
control. The reactions were then treated with 100 mM NaOH
at 90 °C for 30 min, in order to cleave the AP site. A cleavage
product was detected for the Udg-treated (lane 2)
but not for the MED1-treated reaction (lane 1).
Arrows mark the expected migration of the substrate and
product bands. C, recombinant MED1 protein was incubated at
37 °C for 15 min with the indicated oligonucleotide substrates
32P-labeled on the bottom strand and containing
5-fluorouracil (FU) paired with A, C, G, and T. MED1
displayed 5-FU glycosylase activity specific for G:5-FU mismatches. The
G:U oligonucleotide substrate constitutes a positive control.
Arrows mark the expected migration of the substrate and
product bands.

View larger version (25K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Biphasic kinetics of MED1 thymine glycosylase
activity. A, representative kinetic analysis of the
glycosylase activity of MED1 on G:T-containing duplex oligonucleotide.
MED1 was incubated at 37 °C for the indicated time with a
32P-labeled 38-mer MpG/TpG oligonucleotide substrate (Table
I). Upon treatment with NaOH, reactions were analyzed by PAGE.
Arrows mark the expected migration of the substrate and
product bands. B, PhosphorImager quantitation of the amount
of cleaved product in the above reactions, plotted as a function of
time. C, near-stoichiometric relationship between MED1
enzyme and substrate/product. Plot of the amount of cleaved product in
the reaction of MED1 with a 38-mer MpG/TpG oligonucleotide substrate (5 nM). Reaction was started by the addition of an equimolar
amount of MED1 (5 nM) at time 0. When additional 5 nM aliquots of enzyme are added during the slow phase of
the reaction, incremental conversion of substrate into product is
observed. Arrows mark the addition of enzyme at 20 and 40 min. In this experiment, the decreasing amplitude of the bursts is
likely due to the diminishing substrate concentration.
Comparison of MED1 glycosylase activity on G:T and G:U mismatches
The lower limit for the substrate binding rate (200 µM
1
s
1) is estimated from the value required to
fit the data at the lowest substrate concentrations. This value is near
the diffusion limit, showing that the enzyme is quite efficient in
substrate recognition. The kcat for the G:T
mismatch is comparable to that reported for TDG, 0.015 s
1 (33). Finally, analysis of the data
parameters revealed that indeed the rate of release of the AP site
product (koff) is very small (approximately
8 × 10
6 s
1)
(Table II).

View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Preincubation with an AP site duplex
oligonucleotide decreases MED1 glycosylase activity. MED1 (5 nM) was preincubated for 20 min with 5 nM AP
site duplex oligonucleotide (marked G:AP) or, as negative
controls, with 5 nM matched duplex oligonucleotide
(G:C) and with reaction buffer without DNA (no
competitor). Then, the 32P-labeled G:T substrate
was added and the reactions were monitored for 60 min. Preincubation
with AP site oligonucleotide resulted in a strong inhibition of MED1
glycosylase activity. PAGE analysis of the reaction (A) and
the plot of the amount of cleaved product (B) are shown. In
this experiment, due to the decay of MED1 activity upon storage, as
noticed under "Materials and Methods," approximately 20% of
substrate were converted into product after 60 min.
14 M. Enzyme·substrate
dissociation constants in the subnanomolar range have also been
reported for MutY and TDG (32-34), indicating that each of these DNA
repair enzymes will efficiently recognize a low density of mismatches
in DNA.

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
The MBD domain and methylation of the
mismatched substrate are not required for efficient catalysis by
MED1. A, comparison of the kinetic profile of thymine
glycosylase activity of wild type MED1 and a deletion mutant
encompassing only the catalytic domain (cat. dom., amino
acids 455-580). The substrate was a duplex oligonucleotide with a
MpG/TpG mismatch. B, comparison of the kinetic profile of
wild type MED1 thymine glycosylase activity on methylated and
unmethylated mismatched CpG substrates. The substrates were duplex
oligonucleotides with a MpG/TpG or CpG/TpG mismatch.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
T and G
A transitions on
complementary strands (1, 2, 36-38). These transitions at CpG sites
are a frequent source of interspecies genetic divergence on an
evolutionary scale (39), contribute to human genetic variation (40),
and, most importantly, comprise the most frequent mutations in human
cancer (36-38, 41). Thus, for their biochemical activity, MED1 and TDG
seem to act as "caretakers" of genomic fidelity at CpG sites and
raise the possibility that they may be relevant to the pathogenesis of
human cancer. In keeping with this possibility, we and others
demonstrated that the MED1 (MBD4) gene is
frequently mutated in human colorectal and extracolonic carcinomas
exhibiting microsatellite instability (12, 13). In colorectal cancer specimens, we also detected loss of heterozygosity at the
MED1 (MBD4) locus, suggesting that this gene may
act as a tumor suppressor (12). On the contrary, TDG
mutations in human carcinomas have been elusive (42, 43).
6 s
1) and is
responsible for the biphasic kinetics of MED1.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Len Cohen, Eileen Jaffe, Gary Kruh, and Giovanni Neri for critical reading of the manuscript and helpful suggestions; Glenn Miller and Bob Muhlhauser of the Fox Chase Fannie E. Rippel Biotechnology Facility for gel filtration purification of MED1 and preparation of the oligonucleotides; Kate Oleykowski for advice in the purification of the oligonucleotide substrates and in the sequencing reactions; and Patricia Roat for general assistance.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by United States Public Health Service Grants CA78412, CA71426, and CA06927 and by an appropriation from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (to the Fox Chase Cancer Center).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Fox Chase Cancer
Center, 7701 Burholme Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19111. E-mail: a_bellacosa@fccc.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, August 4, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M004535200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: M, 5-methylcytosine; MMR, mismatch repair; MBD, 5-methylcytosine binding domain; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; AP, abasic (apurinic/apyrimidinic); PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; Udg, uracil DNA glycosylase; MALDI, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization; MALDI-TOF, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight; TDG, thymine DNA glycosylase; HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography; BisTris, bis(2-hydroxyethyl)iminotris(hydroxymethyl)methane.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Lindahl, T., and Wood, R. D. (1999) Science 286, 1897-1905 |
| 2. | Hickson, I. D. (1997) in Base Excision Repair of DNA Damage (Hickson, I. D., ed) , pp. 1-5, Landes Bioscience (Springer-Verlag), Austin, TX |
| 3. | Loeb, K. R., and Loeb, L. A. (2000) Carcinogenesis 21, 379-385 |
| 4. | Bolt, H. M. (1988) Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 18, 299-309 |
| 5. | Saparbaev, M., and Laval, J. (1999) IARC Sci. Publ. 150, 249-261 |
| 6. | Wallace, S. S. (1994) Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 66, 579-589 |
| 7. | Krokan, H. E., Standal, R., and Slupphaug, G. (1997) Biochem. J. 325, 1-16 |
| 8. | Wyatt, M. D., Allan, J. M., Lau, A. Y., Ellenberger, T. E., and Samson, L. D. (1999) BioEssays 21, 668-676 |
| 9. | Mol, C. D., Parikh, S. S., Putnam, C. D., Lo, T. P., and Tainer, J. A. (1999) Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 28, 101-128 |
| 10. | Bellacosa, A., Cicchillitti, L., Schepis, F., Riccio, A., Yeung, A. T., Matsumoto, Y., Golemis, E. A., Genuardi, M., and Neri, G. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 3969-3974 |
| 11. | Hendrich, B., and Bird, A. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 6538-6547 |
| 12. | Riccio, A., Aaltonen, L. A., Godwin, A. K., Loukola, A., Percesepe, A., Salovaara, R., Masciullo, V., Genuardi, M., Paravatou-Petsotas, M., Bassi, D. E., Ruggeri, B. A., Klein-Szanto, A. J. P., Testa, J. R., Neri, G., and Bellacosa, A. (1999) Nat. Genet. 23, 266-268 |
| 13. | Bader, S., Walker, M., Hendrich, B., Bird, A., Bird, C., Hooper, M., and Wyllie, A. (1999) Oncogene 18, 8044-8047 |
| 14. | Oleykowski, C. A., Bronson Mullins, C. R., Godwin, A. K., and Yeung, A. T. (1998) Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 4597-4602 |
| 15. | Yeung, A. T., Dinehart, W. J., and Jones, B. K. (1988) Nucleic Acids Res. 16, 4539-4554 |
| 16. | Barshop, B. A., Wrenn, R. F., and Frieden, C. (1983) Anal. Biochem. 130, 134-145 |
| 17. | Anderson, K. S., Sikorski, J. A., and Johnson, K. A. (1988) Biochemistry 27, 7395-7406 |
| 18. | Zimmerle, C. T., and Frieden, C. (1989) Biochem. J. 258, 381-387 |
| 19. | Matsumoto, Y., Kim, K., and Bogenhagen, D. F. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 6187-6197 |
| 20. | Michaels, M. L., Pham, L., Nghiem, Y., Cruz, C., and Miller, J. H. (1990) Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 3841-3845 |
| 21. | Asahara, H., Wistort, P. M., Bank, J. F., Bakerian, R. H., and Cunningham, R. P. (1989) Biochemistry 28, 4444-4449 |
| 22. | Horst, J. P., and Fritz, H. J. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 5459-5469 |
| 23. | Piersen, C. E., Prince, M. A., Augustine, M. L., Dodson, M. L., and Lloyd, R. S. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 23475-23484 |
| 24. | Katcher, H. L., and Wallace, S. S. (1983) Biochemistry 22, 4071-4081 |
| 25. | Doetsch, P. W., and Cunningham, R. P. (1990) Mutat. Res. 236, 173-201 |
| 26. | Au, K. G., Clark, S., Miller, J. H., and Modrich, P. (1989) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 86, 8877-8881 |
| 27. | Tsai-Wu, J. J., Liu, H. F., and Lu, A. L. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 8779-8783 |
| 28. | Michaels, M. L., Tchou, J., Grollman, A. P., and Miller, J. H. (1992) Biochemistry 31, 10964-10968 |
| 29. | Neddermann, P., and Jiricny, J. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 21218-21224 |
| 30. | Neddermann, P., Gallinari, P., Lettieri, T., Schmid, D., Truong, O., Hsuan, J. J., Wiebauer, K., and Jiricny, J. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 12767-12774 |
| 31. | Neddermann, P., and Jiricny, J. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 1642-1646 |
| 32. | Porello, S. L., Leyes, A. E., and David, S. S. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 14756-14764 |
| 33. | Waters, T. R., and Swann, P. F. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 20007-20014 |
| 34. | Scharer, O. D., Kawate, T., Gallinari, P., Jiricny, J., and Verdine, G. L. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 4878-4883 |
| 35. | Hendrich, B., Hardeland, U., Ng, H. H., Jiricny, J., and Bird, A. (1999) Nature 401, 301-304 |
| 36. | Bird, A. P. (1996) Cancer Surv. 28, 87-101 |
| 37. | Laird, P. W., and Jaenisch, R. (1996) Annu. Rev. Genet. 30, 441-464 |
| 38. | Schmutte, C., and Jones, P. A. (1998) Biol. Chem. 379, 377-388 |
| 39. | Hacia, J. G., Fan, J. B., Ryder, O., Jin, L., Edgemon, K., Ghandour, G., Mayer, R. A., Sun, B., Hsie, L., Robbins, C. M., Brody, L. C., Wang, D., Lander, E. S., Lipshutz, R., Fodor, S. P., and Collins, F. S. (1999) Nat. Genet. 22, 164-167 |
| 40. | Halushka, M. K., Fan, J. B., Bentley, K., Hsie, L., Shen, N., Weder, A., Cooper, R., Lipshutz, R., and Chakravarti, A. (1999) Nat. Genet. 22, 239-247 |
| 41. | Kleihues, P., Schauble, B., zur Hausen, A., Esteve, J., and Ohgaki, H. (1997) Am. J. Pathol. 150, 1-13 |
| 42. | Sard, L., Tornielli, S., Gallinari, P., Minoletti, F., Jiricny, J., Lettieri, T., Pierotti, M. A., Sozzi, G., and Radice, P. (1997) Genomics 44, 222-226 |
| 43. | Schmutte, C., Baffa, R., Veronese, L. M., Murakumo, Y., and Fishel, R. (1997) Cancer Res. 57, 3010-3015 |
| 44. | Waters, T. R., Gallinari, P., Jiricny, J., and Swann, P. F. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 67-74 |
| 45. | Griffin, S., and Karran, P. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 13032-13039 |
| 46. | Griffin, S., Branch, P., Xu, Y. Z., and Karran, P. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 4787-4793 |
| 47. | Sibghat-Ullah, Gallinari, P., Xu, Y. Z., Goodman, M. F., Bloom, L. B., Jiricny, J., and Day, R. S., III (1996) Biochemistry 35, 12926-12932 |
| 48. | Petronzelli, F., Riccio, A., Markham, G. D., Seeholzer, S. H., Genuardi, M., Karbowski, M., Yeung, A. T., Matsumoto, Y., and Bellacosa, A. (2000) J. Cell. Physiol. 185, 473-480 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. Ishibashi, K. So, C. G. Cupples, and J. Ausio MBD4-Mediated Glycosylase Activity on a Chromatin Template Is Enhanced by Acetylation Mol. Cell. Biol., August 1, 2008; 28(15): 4734 - 4744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. L. Maher and L. B. Bloom Pre-steady-state Kinetic Characterization of the AP Endonuclease Activity of Human AP Endonuclease 1 J. Biol. Chem., October 19, 2007; 282(42): 30577 - 30585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. T. Morgan, M. T. Bennett, and A. C. Drohat Excision of 5-Halogenated Uracils by Human Thymine DNA Glycosylase: ROBUST ACTIVITY FOR DNA CONTEXTS OTHER THAN CpG J. Biol. Chem., September 21, 2007; 282(38): 27578 - 27586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. C. Shin, S. J. Lee, J. E. Choi, S. I. Cha, C. H. Kim, W. K. Lee, S. Kam, Y. M. Kang, T. H. Jung, and J. Y. Park Glu346Lys Polymorphism in the Methyl-CpG Binding Domain 4 Gene and the Risk of Primary Lung Cancer Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2006; 36(8): 483 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||