![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 33, 30878-30884, August 17, 2001
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,
,
, and
¶
From the
Institute of Biosciences and Technology,
Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
77030, and § Sealy Center for Molecular Science, University
of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555
Received for publication, May 23, 2001, and in revised form, June 15, 2001
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Several human genetic diseases have been
associated with the genetic instability, specifically expansion, of
trinucleotide repeat sequences such as
(CTG)n·(CAG)n. Molecular models of
repeat instability imply replication slippage and the formation of
loops and imperfect hairpins in single strands. Subsequently, these loops or hairpins may be recognized and processed by DNA repair systems. To evaluate the potential role of nucleotide excision repair
in repeat instability, we measured the rates of repeat deletion in wild
type and excision repair-deficient Escherichia coli strains
(using a genetic assay for deletions). The rate of triplet repeat
deletion decreased in an E. coli strain deficient in the
damage recognition protein UvrA. Moreover, loops containing 23 CTG
repeats were less efficiently excised from heteroduplex plasmids after
their transformation into the uvrA Repetitive DNA sequences in the human genome are clearly involved
in disease-associated mutations or genetic rearrangements (1-4).
Several human genetic diseases, including Huntington's disease,
fragile X syndrome, myotonic distrophy, and Friedreich's ataxia, have
been associated with the genetic instability (length expansion) of
trinucleotide repeat sequences such as
(CTG)n·(CAG)n, (CGG)n·(CCG)n, and
(GAA)n·(TTC)n (see Refs. 5 and 6 for review).
Some types of cancer, such as prostate cancer and nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, are also associated with the instability of repeat
sequences (7-9). Certain molecular models of repeat instability have
implied a role for alternative DNA structures in aberrant DNA
replication, repair, and recombination (10). Repeat instability may
also involve replication slippage, which would be associated with the
formation of loops and imperfect hairpins in single strands (11-13).
The data available to date indicate that both short (1-3 repeats) and
long (likely in multiples of 40 repeats) repeat tracts may loop out
(14-18). The extent of hairpin-stabilizing internal hydrogen bonding
in looped-out strands depends on their length and sequence (13, 19,
20). For example, (CTG)n and (CGG)n form more
stable hairpins than their corresponding complements, (CAG)n and (CCG)n. Subsequent loop/hairpin
recognition and processing by some postreplicative mechanism are likely
involved (21). The identities of the systems responsible for loop
repair remain unclear.
Whereas the methyl-directed mismatch repair (22-24) is clearly
involved in very short repeat instability, one may not expect significant effects on the large loop processing. This is because the
methyl-directed mismatch repair system is only able to recognize mismatches/heteroduplexes as large as 3 nucleotides (25, 26). Indeed,
mutations in various methyl-directed mismatch repair functions in
bacteria, yeast, and humans did not change their ability to remove
large nonrepeating loops (27-29). The SbcCD nuclease, which has been
previously shown to be responsible for cleaving hairpins in
vitro (30) and generating double-stranded breaks at inverted repeats in vivo (31), may play a role in the large loop
processing. Furthermore, the nucleotide excision repair
(NER)1 system (32), which
repairs bulky DNA adducts at damaged nucleobases, is likely involved in
loop repair because the recognition specificity of NER proteins extends
beyond the damaged bases. In particular, strand breaks and flaps and
unpaired strands in heteroduplex DNA may serve as binding substrates
for UvrA, which is a primary recognition protein in the NER system of
Escherichia coli (33-36). We were interested in evaluating
the contributions of DNA repair systems that may process relatively
large loops arising from the DNA strand slippage. Using a genetic assay
for deletions, we found that the rates of triplet repeat deletions
decreased in the UvrA-deficient E. coli strain. Heteroduplex
plasmids containing trinucleotide repeat loops in one strand were less
efficiently repaired in the UvrA-deficient E. coli strain
after transformation. Purified UvrA binds to heteroduplex substrates
containing repeat loop-outs with an affinity about 2 orders of
magnitude higher than that to linear DNA. Altogether, this
indicates that UvrA is involved in triplet repeat instability related
to the formation of large single-stranded loops.
Bacterial Strains--
The following E. coli
strains were used: AB1157 (thr-1, ara-C14, leuB6,
Plasmids--
Plasmid pUC8NcoI is identical to pUC8, except that
it contains a NcoI site as a result of a 1-base pair A-T
substitution for the G-C base pair at position 225 of pUC8 sequence
introduced by the polymerase chain reaction point mutation technique
(37). To assemble (CTG)n·(CAG)n repeats from
oligonucleotides and clone them in pBR325, short oligonucleotides
(CTG)3 and (AGC)3 were annealed and ligated to
create a series of polymers
[(CTG)3·(AGC)3]m to which the
EcoRI adaptor oligonucleotides were
ligated.2 After
EcoRI digestion and gel purification,
(CTG)n·(CAG)n-containing inserts were ligated
into the EcoRI site of pBR325. In all cases, cloning the
repeat tract into pBR325 resulted in CAG strand comprising the leading
template strand (plasmids pVH(CAG)23, pVH(CAG)25, pVH(CAG)43, and
pVH(CAG)79). Plasmid digestion with the Csp45, which cuts on
either side of the CAT gene, and religation of the fragments allowed an
insertion of repeat in the opposite repeat orientation, with CTG strand
comprising the leading template strand (plasmids pVH(CTG)25,
pVH(CTG)43, and pVH(CTG)79). Plasmids p(CAG)6E, p(CAG)7E, and p(CAG)8E
were obtained by cloning synthetically made fragments containing 6, 7, and 8 repeats in the EcoRI site so that the CAG strand
comprised the lagging template strand. Plasmids pEO(CAG)23H and
pEO(CTG)23H contain (CTG)23·(CAG)23
trinucleotide repeats in the HindIII site of pUC8, with
(CAG)23 and (CTG)23, respectively, as the
lagging strand templates for DNA replication. To construct pEO(CAG)23H
and pEO(CTG)23H, the (CTG)23·(CAG)23 insert
from pVH(CAG)23 was recloned in pUC8. For this, pUC8 was digested with
HindIII, followed by filling in the overhangs using the
Klenow fragment of DNA polymerase I and dephosphorylation. This vector
was used for ligation in two orientations of the
(CTG)23·(CAG)23 insert-containing
EcoRI-EcoRI fragment of pVH(CAG)23 made
blunt-ended with mung bean nuclease. Plasmids were isolated from
E. coli HB101 by an alkaline lysis and then purified by
CsCl/ethidium bromide gradient procedures (37).
Materials--
All restriction enzymes, mung bean nuclease, and
Klenow fragment of E. coli DNA polymerase I were from New
England Biolabs (Beverly, MA). DNA polymerases KlenTaq1 and
Pfu were from Ab Peptides (St. Louis, MO) and Stratagene (La
Jolla, CA), respectively. T4 DNA ligase and calf intestinal phosphatase
were from Roche Molecular Biochemicals. Molecular size markers were
from New England Biolabs (100-bp ladder) and Life Technologies, Inc.
(123-bp ladder).
Determination of Mutation Rates--
Plasmid pBR325 contains
genes conferring antibiotic resistance to ampicillin (amp) and
chloramphenicol. Triplet repeats were cloned in the unique
EcoRI site in the CAT gene (38). Determinations of rates of
triplet repeat deletion were based on reversion to a
chloramphenicol-resistant (Cmr) phenotype. The CAT gene is
inactivated by a (CTG)n·(CAG)n insert of 25 repeats or more, making cells chloramphenicol-sensitive (Cms). Deletion of the repeat tract to n Analysis of the Stability of (CTG)23 and
(CAG)23 Hairpin-containing Heteroduplex DNA after
Transformation--
To form heteroduplexes, plasmids were digested
with AflIII and NdeI producing 2063-bp and 602-bp
AflIII-NdeI fragments for pUC8NcoI and similar
fragments for pEO(CAG)23H or pEO(CTG)23H. About 5 µg of pUC8NcoI and
either pEO(CAG)23H or pEO(CTG)23H cut with
AflIII-NdeI were mixed in 40 µl of
hybridization buffer and hybridized as described previously (40).
Heteroduplex isomers formed by the short fragments of pUC8NcoI and
pEO(CAG)23H were isolated from 5% polyacrylamide gel and purified
using an UltraClean 15 plasmid purification kit from MoBio (Solana
Beach, CA). Heteroduplex species were identified by sequencing using a
15:1 mixture of KlenTaq1 and Pfu polymerases
(LA-16) as described previously (40). Each heteroduplex isomer was
ligated with the AflIII-NdeI long fragments of
pUC8 to produce two types of the triplet repeat hairpin-containing constructs: those with the (CTG)23 hairpin in the leading
strand, and those with the (CAG)23 hairpin in the lagging
strand. The constructs were transformed into the appropriate E. coli strains that were grown on LB+amp plates at 30 °C.
Randomly selected clones were placed in 5 ml of LB broth containing
ampicillin and grown overnight at 30 °C. Plasmids from each culture
were isolated by the Magic mini-prep procedure (Promega) and analyzed
for the presence of the NcoI site and the
(CTG)23·(CAG)23 insert. For this, plasmids were digested separately with NcoI and PvuII and
analyzed on a 1% agarose gel.
Binding of UvrA Protein to the (CAG)n Loop-containing
Heteroduplex DNA--
For experiments on UvrA binding to
heteroduplexes, each of the plasmids p(CAG)6E, p(CAG)7E, p(CAG)8E, and
pEO(CAG)23E was digested with PvuII producing short (301-bp)
triplet repeat-containing PvuII-PvuII fragments
and longer (2364-bp) fragments of vector DNA. After dephosphorylation,
restriction fragments were 5'-end-labeled with
[ Differential Deletion of Large Repeat Fragments in the Wild Type
and UvrAB Mutants--
Table I shows the
effects of mutations in the uvrA, uvrB, and
sbcC genes on the deletion rates of
(CAG)n·(CTG)n in E. coli. Cloning
the triplet repeat tracts in the CAT gene results in the insertion of a
polyglutamine-coding sequence that inactivates the CAT gene, rendering
cells Cms when an insert is 25 repeats or
longer.2 Partial deletions of the triplet repeats to <25
repeats result in a Cmr phenotype. Therefore, the high
mutation rates for plasmids containing 25 repeats correspond to
deletions that may be as short as 1-2 repeats, whereas deletions of at
least 19 and 55 repeats are required for Cmr reversion for
plasmids containing 43 or 79 repeats. For the two possible insert
orientations, the mutation rates were 10-50-fold higher when the CAG
repeat comprised the leading strand template, and the CTG comprised the
lagging strand template. The differences were statistically significant
(p < 0.025). This may be explained by a better
propensity of the lagging strand CTG repeats to form hairpins that may
be bypassed by DNA polymerase, leading to deletion (41). In either
repeat orientation, the mutation rates are slightly lower in the
uvrA and uvrB cells compared with the wild type
strain for repeat lengths of 43 and 79, where deletions of at least 19 and 55 repeats must occur. For (CTG)79 in the leading
strand, the differences between the wild type and uvrA and
uvrB cells were statistically significant (p < 0.025), whereas for the CAG repeats in the leading strand, the
difference for (CAG)43 was statistically significant
(p < 0.05). Thus, these genetic experiments show that
inactivation of either UvrA or UvrB makes large deletions of triplet
repeats in bacteria less likely. Mutation in the sbcC gene
that inactivates the SbcCD nuclease previously shown to be responsible
for cleaving hairpins in vitro (21, 30) reduces the deletion
rates compared with the wild type strain.
Processing of Repeat Hairpin-containing Plasmids in
Bacteria--
To get further insight into the role that UvrA and
UvrB may play in triplet repeat instability, we performed experiments
on triplet repeat loop processing in wild type and mutant E. coli strains. To identify which strand of the heteroduplex plasmid was used as the template for replication during repair, heteroduplexes were made from a modified pUC8 plasmid (pUC8NcoI), in which a NcoI site was introduced into the original pUC8 by a
single-base mutation, and pUC8-based plasmids carrying triplet repeat
inserts but no NcoI site. As a result, one strand of the
heteroduplex constructs contained a NcoI site as a marker,
whereas the other strand contained a triplet repeat hairpin.
Hybridization of AflIII- and NdeI-digested
plasmids pUC8NcoI and pEO(CAG)23H produced heteroduplex DNA fragments
that were separated on 5% polyacrylamide gel (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig.
2A, the slower-migrating
heteroduplex isomer contained the top strand of pUC8NcoI and the bottom
(CTG) strand of pEO(CAG)23H, whereas the faster-migrating heteroduplex
isomer contained the top (CAG) strand of pEO(CAG)23H and the bottom
strand of pUC8NcoI. Thus, each heteroduplex isomer contained a 1-bp
mismatch 40 nt from a 75-nt loop-out (presumably, an imperfect
hairpin). The (CTG)- and (CAG)-containing heteroduplex fragments were
isolated from the gel and ligated with the 2063-bp
AflIII-NdeI fragment of pUC8 so that the
(CTG)23 loop-out was in the leading strand template for DNA
replication, and the (CAG)23 loop-out was in the
lagging strand (Fig. 2B). Similarly, heteroduplex plasmids with the (CAG)23 loop-out in the leading strand template
and the (CAG)23 loop-out in the lagging strand were made
using heteroduplex isomers prepared from pUC8NcoI and pEO(CTG)23H.
Because we used plasmids isolated from the E. coli strain
HB101, in which dam methylation mechanism is active, both
heteroduplex strands are methylated. Therefore, the repair of the
mismatch at the NcoI site should proceed randomly with
either one or another strand being used as the template for repair
(42). Consistent with this assumption, in the progeny plasmids from 20 clones after wild type E. coli transformation with
heteroduplex plasmids containing one strand with the sequence of
NcoI site and the complementary strand of pUC8 (therefore
without the NcoI sequence), 9 plasmids had a pUC8
sequence, 8 had a modified sequence with the NcoI site, and
3 contained a mixture of both.
Plasmids recovered from cells after heteroduplex transformation were
analyzed by separate digestions with PvuII and
NcoI (Fig. 3). The size of the
PvuII-PvuII fragment indicated whether the repeat
insert in individual clones had been lost (Fig. 3A, lanes 1 and 2) or retained (lane 4). The latter would
occur if the repeat-containing strand were chosen as a template during
repair replication. If a heteroduplex plasmid escaped repair,
subsequent replication would result in a mixture of the NcoI
site- and repeat -containing plasmids in the same cell (lanes
3 in Fig. 3, A and B). For individual clones, the NcoI digestion distinguished the plasmids
containing no inserts as either pUC8NcoI (Fig. 3B, lane 1)
or pUC8 (lane 2). For a pure plasmid population,
susceptibility to NcoI likely means that the NcoI
site-containing strand was chosen as a template during repair
replication.
Table II shows the effects of mutations
in uvrA, uvrB, and sbcC on loop-out
processing by E. coli cells when either (CAG)23 or (CTG)23 loop-outs are in the lagging strand for DNA
replication. Upon transformation of the wild-type strain AB1157 with
heteroduplex plasmids, no clones with pure insert-containing plasmids
were found for either loop-out. Most of the clones contained pUC8NcoI, and minor fractions of clones contained pUC8. This is consistent with
loop recognition as a target for excision and with the
NcoI-containing strand being chosen as a template for
replication during heteroduplex repair. The repair patch seems to be
long enough to include both the heteroduplex loop-out and a single-base
pair mismatch separated by 40 bp. About one-fourth of the clones formed
after cell transformation with the (CAG)23 loop-out
heteroduplex contained a mixture of plasmids. The plasmid mixture
contained both pUC8NcoI and (CAG)23-containing plasmids,
consistent with replication of unrepaired heteroduplex construct, so
that both strands were replicated, and the two plasmids coexisted in
the same transformant colony. No significant differences were detected
for processing of heteroduplex constructs in wild type strain
AB1157 and strains AB1885 (mutant for UvrB protein, which is required
to form the UvrBC-DNA incision complex during NER (43)) and PF2070
(mutant for the SbcCD protein complex, an exonuclease known to prevent
replication of long palindromes (21, 30)). Upon heteroduplex
transformation into strain AB1886, which is mutant for the damage
recognition protein UvrA, 1 of 40 clones contained a pure
insert-containing plasmid in the case of the (CAG)23
loop-out.
Table III shows the effects of mutations
in uvrA, uvrB, and sbcC on loop-out
processing by E. coli cells when either (CAG)23 or (CTG)23 loop-outs are in the leading strand for DNA
replication. Similar to the wild type strain AB1157, no clones with
pure insert-containing plasmids were found for strains AB1885 and
PF2070 with mutations in the uvrB and sbcC genes,
respectively. In all three strains, recovered plasmids predominantly
contained the NcoI site. However, in the case of
(CTG)23 loop-outs, a significant fraction of clones contained a mixture of plasmids. The percentage of cells containing the
mixture was somewhat higher for the SbcC-deficient strain compared with
the wild type and UvrB-deficient strains. Compared with other strains,
in the UvrA-deficient strain, the (CTG)23 inserts were
retained at a higher rate. Three of 40 clones contained pure
repeat-containing plasmids, and 17 clones contained a mixture of
plasmids. The number of clones containing plasmids with undeleted repeats increased at the expense of clones containing pure pUC8NcoI plasmids. Thus, it appeared that protein UvrA, which recognizes damaged
nucleotides and loads UvrB at the damage site, was also able to
recognize loop-outs of trinucleotide repeats, and in the absence of
such recognition, fewer loop-outs were processed by repair systems,
resulting in an increased amount of the insert-containing plasmids.
UvrA Binding to Heteroduplex Substrates--
In the E. coli NER, the functional form of UvrA is a UvrA2 dimer
that interacts with UvrB to form a UvrA2B complex and load UvrB to the damage site. In addition, UvrA2 itself
recognizes DNA damage (44). To determine whether UvrA2
interacts directly with triplet repeat loop-outs and may thereby
influence the deletion of triplet repeats, the binding of purified
protein to the heteroduplex loops was tested. One strand of
heteroduplex substrates contained 6 CTG repeats, whereas the
complementary strands contained either 7, 8, or 23 CAG repeats (Fig.
4A). Thus, the loop sizes were
1, 2, and 17 triplet repeats or 3, 6, and 51 nucleotides.
Double-stranded DNA fragments carrying inserts were used as control
substrates. The nonspecific UvrA2 binding to control
substrates was characterized by dissociation constants in the low
micromolar range, consistent with the previously published data (45,
46). In all three cases of heteroduplex substrates, strong protein
binding was detected (Fig. 4, B-D). The dissociation
constants were about 2 orders of magnitude lower than those for control
double-stranded DNA substrates, which indicated specific
UvrA2 binding to the heteroduplex DNA (Fig. 4E).
However, no UvrB·DNA complex has been detected in the gel mobility
shift assay upon incubation of the heteroduplex substrates with the
protein complex UvrA2B. Two options are possible: (i) the
UvrB·DNA complex has not been detected due to the technical difficulties as reported for some N-2-acetylaminofluorene
adducts (47), and (ii) although UvrA2 recognizes both CTG
loops and damaged nucleotides, it does not load UvrB onto the loops and influences the repeat loop excision in a different way than the excision of damaged nucleotides. The latter option is consistent with
the data on processing of heteroduplex loop-outs in E. coli cells, where uvrB mutation had no effect.
Nucleotide excision repair is a major cellular repair pathway for
a variety of DNA damages in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes (32). To
investigate the potential contribution of this system to triplet repeat
instability, we analyzed repeat stability in E. coli strains
containing mutations in different genes involved in the nucleotide
excision repair. A significant role of the UvrA protein has emerged as
a consensus from genetic and biochemical experiments. When UvrA was
inactive, the deletion rate of
(CAG)79·(CTG)79 from plasmids propagated in
bacteria was significantly lower than that in the wild type cells. UvrA
may promote a removal of the replication misalignment loops, thus
promoting shortening of the repeat length in progeny plasmids.
Consistent with this idea, in the absence of active UvrA, fewer
preformed repeat loop-outs were excised after transformation of
heteroduplex molecules in E. coli. A direct involvement of
UvrA-DNA loop interaction in repeat instability was supported by the
demonstration of an interaction between the heteroduplex substrates
containing single-stranded loops/hairpins and UvrA.
Several issues related to the UvrA role in repeat instability are worth
discussing. According to our data, UvrA inactivation decreases repeat
instability. This effect is less pronounced at short repeat lengths
(n = 25), where our genetic assay detects deletions of
1 repeat and longer. When longer deletions must occur to be detected
(for (CTG)43, a 19-repeat deletion is necessary to restore
chloramphenicol resistance), reductions in the deletion rates in the
UvrA-deficient strain compared with the wild type E. coli
become more pronounced and, for (CAG)43, statistically significant. At longer lengths (n = 79), where a
55-repeat deletion is necessary to detect the deletion event, the
differences in repeat instability in the wild type and UvrA-deficient
strains were more pronounced and, for the CTG leading strand,
significant. In biochemical experiments that involved multiple cycles
of growth through exponential and stationary phases, no significant
influence of mutations in the NER system on stability of repeats when
n = 50 was found (48). Higher instability of long
(CTG)n·(CAG)n repeats (n = 175) was observed in the UvrA-deficient strain compared with the wild
type (48). However, the latter result is difficult to compare with our
data for considerably shorter repeats.
Models of instability imply that DNA repeats allow strand misalignment
during replication, leading to the formation of partially unpaired
loops/hairpins. In bacteria, repeat instability generally manifests
itself as contraction of the repeat length. This may be due to either a
hairpin/loop removal by an appropriate repair system or, if unrepaired,
polymerase bypass in the next round of replication. A major assumption
of our transformation experiments was that after transformation
heteroduplex plasmids undergo repair (27, 49-53), and then repaired
and unrepaired plasmids undergo replication. Our preliminary
experiments showed that methyl-directed mismatch repair has no
significant role in removal of the large heteroduplex loop-outs. Both
(CTG)23 and (CAG)23 loop-outs were efficiently
removed in E. coli deficient in the mismatch repair (MutS)
(data not shown). Inactivation of the SbcCD protein complex, which is
known to cleave hairpins in vitro (30) and generate double-strand breaks at inverted repeats in vivo (31),
reduced triplet repeat deletions in genetic experiments but did not
result in a dramatic increase in retention of the repeats in a progeny of heteroduplex plasmids. Although a repair system that plays a major
role in excising the repeat loops has not yet been identified, the
evidence presented in this study supports the involvement of UvrA in
the process.
The results of the band shift assay show that purified
UvrA2 binds specifically to heteroduplex substrates
containing loop-outs of 3, 6, and 51 nt. Because the binding affinities
are very similar for all three substrates, they likely have a common
recognition determinant. The damage recognition by UvrA2
consists in probing for an enhanced capacity of DNA regions around the
damage to undergo unwinding and bending deformations (32). The
formation of very different types of DNA lesions, such as a thymine
dimer or benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide adducts at N2 of
guanines or N6 of adenines, results in a common structural feature,
bent or kinked DNA at the damaged sites (54, 55), which is one of the
elements searched for by UvrA2. Consistent with this, it is
reasonable to suggest that UvrA2 may bind to a kink of
double helix at the three-way junction. However, the subsequent tight
binding of UvrB to DNA necessary for the formation of the UvrBC-DNA
incision complex has not been detected. Therefore, it is possible that
UvrA2 triggers a sequence of events different from the
usual NER.
Several potential models may explain the involvement of UvrA in the
instability of triplet repeat heteroduplex loops. First, UvrA may act
as a recognition protein of this error of replication (or
recombination). UvrA2 may recruit other repair proteins
that may accomplish loop excision. Another possible explanation is that
UvrA2 blocks replication of the loop-containing strand,
making it highly inefficient, whereas the other strand is quite
normally replicated. This is similar to a suggested replication
interference of Uvr2 bound to the
N-2-aminofluorene adduct (56). The replication blockage may
result in overrepresentation of progeny plasmids without repeats. In
some clones, heteroduplex plasmids did not seem to undergo loop repair
and then went into replication, producing mixtures of both
repeat-containing and vector plasmids. The ratio of vectors to
repeat-containing plasmids is severalfold, so it is possible that a
partial block to replication by a UvrA2-(CAG) loop complex
results in this vector bias. Finally, a block to polymerization may
induce a gap that would stall the replication fork and initiate fork
restart, thereby inducing recombination events (57-60) that lead to
increased rates of deletions.
strain. As
a result, an increased proportion of plasmids containing the
full-length repeat were recovered after the replication of heteroduplex
plasmids containing unrepaired loops. In biochemical experiments, UvrA
bound to heteroduplex substrates containing repeat loops of 1, 2, or 17 CAG repeats with a Kd of about 10-20
nM, which is an affinity about 2 orders of magnitude higher
than that of UvrA bound to the control substrates containing (CTG)n·(CAG)n in the linear form. These
results suggest that UvrA is involved in triplet repeat instability in
cells. Specifically, UvrA may bind to loops formed during replication
slippage or in slipped strand DNA and initiate DNA repair events that
result in repeat deletion. These results imply a more
comprehensive role for UvrA, in addition to the recognition of DNA
damage, in maintaining the integrity of the genome.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
(gpt-proA)62, lacY1, tsx-33, qsr'
,
glnV44(AS), galK2(Oc), 
,
Rac-0, hisG4(Oc), rfbD1, mgl-51,
rpoS396(Am), rpsL31(strR), kdgK51, xylA5, mtl-1,
argE3(Oc), thi-1), AB1886 as AB1157 with uvrA6, and AB1885 as AB1157 with uvrB5. Strains
AB1157, AB1886, and AB1885 were obtained from the E. coli
Genetic Stock Center at Yale University. To study the influence of
mutations in the SbcCD nuclease on the trinucleotide repeat sequences,
we used strain PF2070 (a gift from P. Foster, Indiana University) as
AB1157 with sbcC.
24 makes cells chloramphenicol-resistant. Because of the triplet repeat
instability in E. coli, the transformants were grown on
LB+amp plates for a minimal amount of time to detect colony
formation. Colonies were then stored as frozen glycerol stocks for
future experiments. For determination of mutation rates, frozen cells
were distributed onto LB+amp plates and allowed to grow to small
colonies. A culture was then grown from a single colony in LB to
mid-log phase, after which cell dilutions were plated onto LB+amp
plates to determine the viable cell count and onto LB+amp+Cm plates to
determine Cmr revertants. A minimum of six independent
reversion assays from different colonies were performed for each
plasmid, and mutation rates were determined according to Drake (39).
p values were calculated using a Mann-Whitney test. The
nature of reversion events was analyzed by polymerase chain reaction
and sequence analysis on DNA isolated by the Magic mini prep procedure
(Promega).
-32P]ATP. Upon hybridization of the short
PvuII-PvuII fragment of plasmid p(CAG)6E with
each of the similar fragments of plasmids p(CAG)7E, p(CAG)8E, and
pEO(CAG)23E, the excess repeats formed loop-outs of 3, 6, and 51 nt,
respectively. These heteroduplex fragments were separated on a 5%
native polyacrylamide gel from the correctly annealed linear species,
and, in the case of 51 nt loop-outs, heteroduplex isomers were
separated from each other. The 301-bp heteroduplex fragments isolated
from the gel were then digested with HindIII to produce
mixtures of 205-bp end-labeled heteroduplex fragments with the CAG
loop-outs, unlabeled heteroduplex fragments with the CTG loop-outs, and
96-bp labeled linear fragments. After phenol-chloroform extraction and
ethanol precipitation, mixtures containing one specific labeled
heteroduplex and a labeled linear fragment were used for protein
binding experiments. Binding of the UvrA protein to the DNA substrates
was determined by gel mobility shift assays. Typically, the substrate
(2 nM) was incubated with UvrA with varying concentrations
as indicated at 37 °C for 15 min in 20 µl of UvrABC buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl2, and 5 mM dithiothreitol)
in the presence of 1 mM ATP. After incubation, 2 µl of
80% (v/v) glycerol was added, and the mixture was loaded immediately
onto a 3.5% native polyacrylamide gel in TBE (90 mM
Tris borate (pH 8.3), 2.5 mM EDTA) running buffer and
electrophoresed at room temperature. After quantification of the
radioactivity of the corresponding bands in the gel, the dissociation
constants were estimated from the protein concentration at the point
where half of the DNA was bound.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Effects of mutations in the NER and sbcCD systems on deletion of large
repeat fragments
24 was based on reversion to a Cmr
phenotype. The transformants were grown on LB+amp plates to determine
the viable cell count and on LB+amp+Cm plates to determine Cmr
revertants. A minimum of six independent reversion assays from
different colonies were performed for each plasmid, and mutation rates
were determined according to Drake (39). Median values and confidence
intervals are shown. The higher mutation rates for the CAG repeats in
the leading strand template (top three lines) were statistically
different from those for the CTG repeats in the leading strand (bottom
three lines).

View larger version (77K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Formation of the (CTG)23 and
(CAG)23 heteroduplex isomers. The short
AflIII-NdeI fragment of pOE(CAG)23H (lane
1) was hybridized with the short AflIII-NdeI
fragment of pUC8NcoI (lane 2), and the products were
separated in a 5% native polyacrylamide gel (lane 3). Bands
of the hairpin-containing heteroduplexes are indicated by
arrows. Lane M, molecular size markers, 100-bp
ladder.

View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Preparation of (CTG)23 and
(CAG)23 hairpin-containing plasmids. A,
structural features of the heteroduplex DNA isomers important for
construct design and analysis. The correct sequence of the
NcoI site is in both cases on the opposite strand to the
hairpin-containing strand. B, schematics of the
hairpin-containing plasmids for cell transformation. Cloned
heteroduplex isomers are shown in gray. An open
circle indicates the nucleotide substitutions to form
the NcoI site.

View larger version (54K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Analysis of the progeny plasmids after
transformation of the heteroduplex-containing plasmids in E. coli. Progeny plasmids were digested with either
PvuII or NcoI, and the products were separated on
a 1% agarose gel. A, PvuII digestion. Lane
1, pUC8NcoI; lane 2, pUC8; lane 3, a mixture
of plasmids with and without the insert; lane 4, insert-containing plasmid pEO(CAG)23H. B, NcoI
digestion. Lanes 1-4, same as those described in
A.
Effects of mutations in the NER and sbcCD systems on trinucleotide
repeat loop processing in lagging strand for replication
Effects of mutations in the NER and sbcCD systems on trinucleotide
repeat loop processing in leading strand for replication

View larger version (71K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
UvrA binding to heteroduplex substrates.
A, schematics of heteroduplexes containing loops of 1, 2, and 17 triplet repeats or 3, 6, and 51 nt. The 319-bp
PvuII-PvuII heteroduplex fragments were
radiolabeled at both ends and then cut with HindIII,
producing a 93-bp short linear fragment and longer 226-bp heteroduplex
isomers. For heteroduplexes with 3- and 6-nt loops that were impossible
to separate in a gel, UvrA binding to the mixtures of isomers was
studied. However, only the band shift of the heteroduplex isomer with
the (CAG)n loop can be detected. The short linear fragment
is not retarded upon protein addition and serves as an internal
control. B, UvrA binding to the 3-nucleotide loop
heteroduplex. C, UvrA binding to the 6-nucleotide loop
heteroduplex. D, UvrA binding to the 51-nucleotide loop
heteroduplex. In this case, individual isomers were isolated before
UvrA binding, and the band shift assay for the isomer with the
(CAG)17 loop is shown. SLF, 93-bp short linear
fragment; HD, 226-bp heteroduplex fragment (note a minor
proportion of a 319-bp-long heteroduplex, hd, due to
incomplete HindIII digestion); UAD, complex of
UvrA with DNA heteroduplex. E, quantification of DNA bound
to UvrA at increasing protein concentration allows estimation of the
dissociation constants. UvrA binding curves to heteroduplex substrates
with: 3-nt loop (
), Kd = 15.9 nM;
6-nt loop (
), Kd = 19.4 nM; and 51-nt
loop (
), Kd = 13.0 nM.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant ES05508 (to R. R. S.) and a grant from the Texas A&M University System Health Science Center Council on Tobacco and Environmental Health Research (to V. N. P.).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: Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, 2121 W. Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030.Tel.: 713-677-7675; Fax: 713-677-7689; E-mail: vpotaman@ibt.tamu.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, June 18, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M104697200
2 V. I. Hashem, W. A. Rosche, and R. R. Sinden, submitted for publication.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: NER, nucleotide excision repair; amp, ampicillin; bp, base pair; nt, nucleotide(s); CAT, chloramphenicol acetyl transferase; LB, Luria-Bertani broth.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Cooper, D. N., and Krawczak, M. (1993) Human Gene Mutation , Bios Scientific Publishers, Oxford, United Kingdom |
| 2. | Sinden, R. R., and Wells, R. D. (1992) Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 3, 612-622 |
| 3. | Richards, R. I., and Sutherland, G. R. (1997) Trends Biochem. Sci. 22, 432-436 |
| 4. | Lupski, J. R. (1998) Trends Genet. 14, 417-422 |
| 5. | Wells, R. D., and Warren, S. T. (eds) (1998) Genetic Instabilities and Hereditary Neurological Diseases , Academic Press, San Diego, CA |
| 6. | Cummings, C. J., and Zoghbi, H. Y. (2000) Hum. Mol. Genet. 9, 909-916 |
| 7. | Giovannucci, E., Stampfer, M. J., Krithivas, K., Brown, M., Brufsky, A., Talcott, J., Hennekens, C. H., and Kantoff, P. W. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 3320-3323 |
| 8. | Lengauer, C., Kinzler, K. W., and Vogelstein, B. (1997) Nature 386, 623-627 |
| 9. | Kantoff, P., Giovannucci, E., and Brown, M. (1998) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1378, C1-C5 |
| 10. | Pearson, C. E., and Sinden, R. R. (1998) in Genetic Instabilities and Hereditary Neurological Diseases (Wells, R. D. , and Warren, S. T., eds) , pp. 585-621, Academic Press, San Diego, CA |
| 11. | Pearson, C. E., and Sinden, R. R. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 5041-5053 |
| 12. | Wells, R. D. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 2875-2878 |
| 13. | Pearson, C. E., and Sinden, R. R. (1998) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 8, 321-330 |
| 14. | Jaworski, A., Rosche, W. A., Gellibolian, R., Kang, S., Shimizu, M., Bowater, R. R., Sinden, R. R., and Wells, R. D. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 11019-11023 |
| 15. | Schumacher, S., Fuchs, R. P. P., and Bichara, M. (1998) J. Mol. Biol. 279, 1101-1110 |
| 16. | Wells, R. D., Parniewski, P., Pluciennik, A., Bacolla, A., Gellibolian, R., and Jaworski, A. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 19532-19541 |
| 17. | Schmidt, K. H., Abbott, C. M., and Leach, D. R. (2000) Mol. Microbiol. 35, 463-471 |
| 18. | Parniewski, P., Jaworski, A., Wells, R. D., and Bowater, R. P. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 299, 865-874 |
| 19. | Mitas, M. (1997) Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 2245-2253 |
| 20. | Darlow, J. M., and Leach, D. R. F. (1998) J. Mol. Biol. 275, 3-16 |
| 21. | Leach, D. R. (1994) Bioessays 16, 893-900 |
| 22. | Modrich, P., and Lahue, R. (1996) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 65, 101-133 |
| 23. | Modrich, P. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 24727-24730 |
| 24. | Kolodner, R. D., and Marsischky, G. T. (1999) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9, 89-96 |
| 25. | Parker, B. O., and Marinus, M. G. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 1730-1734 |
| 26. | Genschel, J., Littman, S. J., Drummond, J. T., and Modrich, P. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 19895-19901 |
| 27. | Dohet, C., Dzidic, S., Wagner, R., and Radman, M. (1987) Mol. Gen. Genet. 206, 181-184 |
| 28. | Corrette-Bennett, S. E., Parker, B. O., Mohlman, N. L., and Lahue, R. S. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 17605-17611 |
| 29. | Littman, S. J., Fang, W., and Modrich, P. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 7474-7481 |
| 30. | Connelly, J. C., Kirkham, L. A., and Leach, D. R. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 7969-7974 |
| 31. | Leach, D. R., Okely, E. A., and Pinder, D. J. (1997) Mol. Microbiol. 26, 597-606 |
| 32. | Sancar, A. (1996) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 65, 43-81 |
| 33. | Ahn, B., and Grossman, L. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 21462-21470 |
| 34. | Zou, Y., Walker, R., Bassett, H., Geacintov, N. E., and Van Houten, B. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 4820-4827 |
| 35. | Zou, Y., and Van Houten, B. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 4889-4901 |
| 36. | Moolenaar, G., Bazuine, M., van Knippenberg, I. C., Visse, R., and Goosen, N. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 34896-34903 |
| 37. | Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F., and Maniatis, T. (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual , 2nd Ed. , Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY |
| 38. | Alton, N. K., and Vapnek, D. (1979) Nature 282, 864-869 |
| 39. | Drake, J. W. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 7160-7164 |
| 40. | Oussatcheva, E. A., Shlyakhtenko, L. S., Glass, R., Sinden, R. R., Lyubchenko, Y. L., and Potaman, V. N. (1999) J. Mol. Biol. 292, 75-86 |
| 41. | Kang, S., Jaworski, A., Ohshima, K., and Wells, R. D. (1995) Nat. Genet. 10, 213-218 |
| 42. | Fishel, R. A., and Kolodner, R. (1984) Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 49, 603-609 |
| 43. | Verhoeven, E. E. A., van Kesteren, M., Moolenaar, G. F., Visse, R., and Goosen, N. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 5120-5123 |
| 44. | Zou, Y., Liu, T. M., Geacintov, N. E., and Van Houten, B. (1995) Biochemistry 34, 13582-13593 |
| 45. | Van Houten, B., Gamper, H., Sancar, A., and Hearst, J. E. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262, 13180-13187 |
| 46. | Mazur, S. J., and Grossman, L. (1991) Biochemistry 30, 4432-4443 |
| 47. | Delagoutte, E., Bertrand-Burggraf, E., Dunand, J., and Fuchs, R. P. P. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 266, 703-710 |
| 48. | Parniewski, P., Bacolla, A., Jaworski, A., and Wells, R. D. (1999) Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 616-623 |
| 49. | Ayares, D., Ganea, D., Chekuri, L., Campbell, C. R., and Kucherlapati, R. (1987) Mol. Cell. Biol. 7, 1656-1662 |
| 50. | Weiss, U., and Wilson, J. H. (1987) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 84, 1619-1623 |
| 51. | Campbell, C. R., Ayares, D., Watkins, K., Wolski, R., and Kucherlapati, R. (1989) Mutat. Res. 211, 181-188 |
| 52. | Fishel, R. A., and Kolodner, R. (1989) J. Bacteriol. 171, 3046-3052 |
| 53. | Carraway, M., and Marinus, M. G. (1993) J. Bacteriol. 175, 3972-3980 |
| 54. | Husain, I., Griffith, J., and Sancar, A. (1988) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 85, 2558-2562 |
| 55. | Tsao, H., Mao, B., Zhuang, P., Xu, R., Amin, S., and Geacintov, N. E. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 4993-5000 |
| 56. | Bichara, M., and Fuchs, R. P. (1987) J. Bacteriol. 169, 423-426 |
| 57. | Cox, M. M. (1998) Genes Cells 3, 65-78 |
| 58. | Haber, J. E. (1999) Trends Biochem. Sci. 24, 271-275 |
| 59. | Marians, K. J. (2000) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 10, 151-156 |
| 60. | Michel, B. (2000) Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 173-178 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Y. Lin and J. H. Wilson Transcription-Induced CAG Repeat Contraction in Human Cells Is Mediated in Part by Transcription-Coupled Nucleotide Excision Repair Mol. Cell. Biol., September 1, 2007; 27(17): 6209 - 6217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Zahra, J. K. Blackwood, J. Sales, and D. R. F. Leach Proofreading and Secondary Structure Processing Determine the Orientation Dependence of CAG{middle dot}CTG Trinucleotide Repeat Instability in Escherichia coli Genetics, May 1, 2007; 176(1): 27 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S.-H. Kim, M. J. Pytlos, W. A. Rosche, and R. R. Sinden (CAG){middle dot}(CTG) Repeats Associated with Neurodegenerative Diseases Are Stable in the Escherichia coli Chromosome J. Biol. Chem., September 22, 2006; 281(38): 27950 - 27955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Wojciechowska, M. Napierala, J. E. Larson, and R. D. Wells Non-B DNA Conformations Formed by Long Repeating Tracts of Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1, Myotonic Dystrophy Type 2, and Friedreich's Ataxia Genes, Not the Sequences per se, Promote Mutagenesis in Flanking Regions J. Biol. Chem., August 25, 2006; 281(34): 24531 - 24543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Napierala, A. Bacolla, and R. D. Wells Increased Negative Superhelical Density in Vivo Enhances the Genetic Instability of Triplet Repeat Sequences J. Biol. Chem., November 11, 2005; 280(45): 37366 - 37376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. D. Wells, R. Dere, M. L. Hebert, M. Napierala, and L. S. Son Advances in mechanisms of genetic instability related to hereditary neurological diseases Nucleic Acids Res., July 8, 2005; 33(12): 3785 - 3798. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Wojciechowska, A. Bacolla, J. E. Larson, and R. D. Wells The Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1 Triplet Repeat Sequence Induces Gross Deletions and Inversions J. Biol. Chem., January 14, 2005; 280(2): 941 - 952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. I. Hashem, M. J. Pytlos, E. A. Klysik, K. Tsuji, M. Khajav, T. Ashizawa, and R. R. Sinden Chemotherapeutic deletion of CTG repeats in lymphoblast cells from DM1 patients Nucleic Acids Res., December 1, 2004; 32(21): 6334 - 6346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Dere, M. Napierala, L. P. W. Ranum, and R. D. Wells Hairpin Structure-forming Propensity of the (CCTG{middle dot}CAGG) Tetranucleotide Repeats Contributes to the Genetic Instability Associated with Myotonic Dystrophy Type 2 J. Biol. Chem., October 1, 2004; 279(40): 41715 - 41726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Gorbunova, A. Seluanov, V. Dion, Z. Sandor, J. L. Meservy, and J. H. Wilson Selectable System for Monitoring the Instability of CTG/CAG Triplet Repeats in Mammalian Cells Mol. Cell. Biol., July 1, 2003; 23(13): 4485 - 4493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Meservy, R. G. Sargent, R. R. Iyer, F. Chan, G. J. McKenzie, R. D. Wells, and J. H. Wilson Long CTG Tracts from the Myotonic Dystrophy Gene Induce Deletions and Rearrangements during Recombination at the APRT Locus in CHO Cells Mol. Cell. Biol., May 1, 2003; 23(9): 3152 - 3162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Pelletier, M. M. Krasilnikova, G. M. Samadashwily, R. Lahue, and S. M. Mirkin Replication and Expansion of Trinucleotide Repeats in Yeast Mol. Cell. Biol., February 15, 2003; 23(4): 1349 - 1357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||