!
Univerzita!Karlova!v!Praze! !
Přírodovědecká!fakulta! !
! Mechanismy!reparace!DNA!u!mechu!Physcomitrella. patens. !
! Mechanisms!of!DNA!repair!in!moss!Physcomitrella.patens. . !
!
!
Mgr.!Marcela!Holá! ! Disertační!práce! ! ! Vedoucí!práce:!RNDr.!Karel!J.!Angelis,!CSc.! ! ! ! ! Praha!2015! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Prohlašuji,,že,tato,práce,byla,vypracována,samostatně,s,využitím,řádně,citovaných, literárních! zdrojů,! pod! vedením! vedoucího! práce! a! nebyla! využita! pro! získání! obdobného!nebo!jiného!akademického!titulu. V Praze dne 12.8.15
………………………
!
!
Chtěla! bych! tímto! poděkovat! zejména! svému! školiteli! RNDr.! Karlu! J.! Angelisovi,! CSc.!za!odborné!vedení!a!cenné!rady.!Dále!bych!chtěla!poděkovat!kolegyním!Radce! Vágnerové!a!Petře!Rožnovské!i!všem!ostatním,!kteří!mi!v!průběhu!studia!pomáhali.! V!neposlední!řadě!patří!můj!dík!celé!mojí!rodině!za!trpělivost!a!podporu.!!
!
!
OBSAH& SEZNAM'ZKRATEK'..............................................................................................................................'5! ABSTRAKT'.............................................................................................................................................'6! ABSTRACT'..............................................................................................................................................'7! CÍLE'PRÁCE'............................................................................................................................................'8! 1.'MECHANISMY'REPARACE'DNA'...................................................................................................'9! 1.1!PŘÍMÁ!REVERZE!POŠKOZENÍ!......................................................................................................................!10! 1.2!EXCISNÍ!REPARACE!DNA!............................................................................................................................!11! Excisní.reparace.bází.(BER)........................................................................................................................11! Nukleotidová.excisní.reparace.(NER)......................................................................................................12! 1.3!OPRAVA!DVOUVLÁKNOVÝCH!ZLOMŮ!........................................................................................................!12! SMC.proteiny.a.MRN.komplex.a.jejich.význam.v.opravě.DNA......................................................13! Homologní.rekombinace.(HR)....................................................................................................................17! Nehomologní.rekombinace.(NHEJ)..........................................................................................................19! 1.4!TOLERANCE!POŠKOZENÍ!DNA!...................................................................................................................!20! 2.'MUTAGENEZE'–'MODELOVÉ'GENOTOXINY'.........................................................................'22! 2.1!BLEOMYCIN!(BLM)!.....................................................................................................................................!22! 2.2!UV!ZÁŘENÍ!.....................................................................................................................................................!22! 2.3!METHYL!METHANSULFONÁT!(MMS)!.......................................................................................................!24! 3.'METODY'DETEKCE'POŠKOZENÍ'A'STUDIUM'REPARACE'DNA'......................................'24! 4.'MODELOVÝ'ORGANISMUS'PHYSCOMITRELLA.PATENS'....................................................'26! 5.'MATERIÁL'A'METODY'................................................................................................................'30! 6.'PREZENTOVANÉ'PUBLIKACE'...................................................................................................'31! 7.'DISKUSE'..........................................................................................................................................'74! 8.'ZÁVĚR'..............................................................................................................................................'78! SEZNAM'POUŽITÉ'LITERATURY'..................................................................................................'79!
!
!
! !
Seznam&zkratek&
! 2jFA!!j!2!–!fluoroadenin! 6j4PP!–!6‘j4‘!pyrimidinjpyromidon!fotoprodukt! AMP!–!adenosin!monofosfát! AP!místo!–!místo!DNA!bez!báze!(apurinové/apyrimidinové!místo)! APT!–!adenosin!fosforibosyltransferáza! BER!–!excisní!reparace!bází!(Base!Excision!Repair)! BLM!j!Bleomycin! CPD!–!pyrimidinový!dimer!vytvářející!cyklobutanový!kruh! DSB!–!dvouvláknový!zlom!DNA! HR!–!homologní!rekombinace! IR!–!ionizující!záření! NER!–!nukleotidová!excizní!reparace! NHEJ!–!nehomologní!rekombinace,!přímé!spojování!konců!DSB! MMS!–!methyl!methansulfonát! PCD!–!programovaná!buněčná!smrt!(apoptóza)! PEG!–!polyetylenglykol! ROS!–!reaktivní!kyslíkové!radikály!(Reactive!Oxygen!Species)! SSB!–!jednovláknový!zlom!DNA! SMC!j!proteinové!komplexy!udržující!strukturu!chromozómů!(Structural! Maintenance!of!Chromosome)! TLS!–!syntéza!přes!poškození!(Translesion!Synthesis)! UV!–!ultrafialové!záření! wt!!j!divoký!typ!(wild!type)!
&
!
&
5!
!
Abstrakt& ! Genomy! organismů! jsou! během! životního! cyklu! vystaveny! působení! vnějších! i! vnitřních! chemických,! fyzikálních! i! biologických! faktorů! j! genotoxinů.! Genotoxiny! způsobují! změny! jak! struktury! DNA! tak! jejích! základních! stavebních! komponent! –! cukerných! zbytků,! fosfodiesterových! vazeb! i! purinových! a! pyrimidinových!bází.!Vzhledem!k!rozmanitosti!a!četnosti!možných!poškození!DNA! si! pro! udržení! stability! genomu! organismy! v! průběhu! evoluce! vyvinuly! řadu! reparačních! mechanismů,! které! jsou! často! propojené! s! dalšími! buněčnými! dráhami,! např.! přestavbou! j! „remodelací“! chromatinu,! replikací! DNA,! transkripcí,! kontrolou!buněčného!cyklu!či!apoptózou!j!programovanou!buněčnou!smrtí!(PCD).! Mechanismy! reparace! DNA! jsou! zatím! nejlépe! prostudovány! u! kvasinek! a! savčích!buněk,!u!rostlin!však!stále!zbývá!řadu!detailů!a!vztahů!objasnit.!I!přes!to,!že! základní! mechanizmy! reparačních! drah! jsou! evolučně! konzervovány,! jsou! mezi! drahami!živočišných!a!rostlinných!buněk!významné!rozdíly.!! Předkládaná! disertační! práce! se! zabývá! a! shrnuje! výsledky! zavedení! rostlinného!modelového!organismu!mechu!Physcomitrella.patens.(Physcomitrella)! a! využití! jeho! unikátních! vlastností! jako! je! vysoká! frekvence! homologní! rekombinace,! haploidní! vegetativní! stav! gametofytu! a! apikální! růst! filament! protonemy!při!studiu!reparace!DNA.!Studiem!působení!radiomimetika!Bleomycinu! indukujícího! dvouvláknové! zlomy! DNA! (DSB),! alkylačního! mutagenu! methyl! methansulfonátu!(MMS)!a!UV!záření!je!demonstrováno,!že!Physcomitrella!je!jedním! z!nejvýhodnějších!modelových!organismů.!! Kombinovaným!využitím!studia!reparace!DNA!a!indukované!mutageneze!v! kultuře! dělících! se! buněk! bylo! ukázáno,! že! fenotyp! citlivý! k! působení! genotoxinů! není! přinejmenším! u! Physcomitrelly! důsledkem! neschopnosti! eliminovat! indukovaná! poškození,! ale! naopak,! rychlé! a! účinné! reparace! vedoucí! k! obnově! struktury! DNA,! nicméně! za! cenu! změny! její! sekvence! v! jejímž! důsledku! vznikají! různé! typy! mutací.! Pak! zejména! ty,! které! vznikají! v! životně! důležitých! genech,! vedou! k! citlivému! fenotypu.! Zvláště! dobře! patrný! je! tento! koncept! u! mutant! pprad50!a!ppmre11!komplexu!MRN!u!kterých!je!mutací!vyřazena!dráha!bezchybné! homologní!rekombinace!(HR)!a!posílena!k!chybám!náchylná!dráha!nehomologního! spojování!konců!(NHEJ).!!
!
!
6!
!
Abstract& !
Over!the!course!of!an!organism’s!life,!its!genome!is!exposed!to!endogenous!
and! exogenous! chemical,! physical! and! biological! agents! –! genotoxins.! These! genotoxins! alter! DNA! structure! and! also! its! basic! structural! components! –! sugar! residues,!phosphodiester!bonds,!and!nitrogenous!bases.' Organisms!have!therefore!evolved!a!plethora!of!different!strategies!to!both! repair!DNA!lesions!and!maintain!genomic!stability.!These!DNA!repair!pathways!are! linked! with! several! other! cell! pathways,! including! chromatin! remodelling,! DNA! replication,! transcription,! cell! cycle! control,! apoptosis! –! programmed! cell! death! (PCD),!thereby!providing!a!coordinated!cellular!response!to!DNA!damage.! Biochemical! mechanisms! of! DNA! repair! are! relatively! well! understood! in! yeast!and!mammals,!however,!far!less!so!in!plants.!While!these!repair!mechanisms! are!evolutionary!conserved,!significant!differences!still!remain.!Therefore,!further! investigation!is!required.! This!thesis!summarises!the!introduction!of!a!novel!plant!model!–!the!moss,! Physcomitrella. patens! (Physcomitrella).! As! a! haploid! gametophyte! with! unique! characteristics! of! high! frequency! of! homologous! recombination! (HR),! and! apical! growth!of!filaments,!it!is!an!ideal!organism!to!study!DNA!repair!in!plants.!Previous! research!on!Physcomitrella!regarding!mechanisms!of!DNA!lesion!repair!induced!by! radiomimetic! Bleomycin,! alkylating! methyl! methanesulfonate! (MMS),! and! by! UV! irradiation!has!provided!strong!evidence!of!its!capability!to!be!one!of!the!best!plant! models.! The! combined! DNA! repair! and! induced! mutagenesis! study! using! a! Physcomitrella! culture! of! protonema! dividing! apical! cells! displays! how! the! genotoxinjsensitive!phenotype!is!not!a!consequence!of!a!repair!defect!to!eliminate! induced! damage.! Rather! this! hypersensitivity! is! the! result! of! rapid! and! effective! DNA! repair,! thus! allowing! for! the! restoration! of! DNA! structure! at! the! cost! of! potential! sequence! changes! prone! to! mutations.! Mutations,! particularly! those! occurring!in!essential!genes,!are!then!responsible!for!the!sensitive!phenotype.!! This!concept!is!well!illustrated!in!the!mutants,!pprad50!and!ppmre11,!of!the! MRN!complex!with!an!eliminated,!errorjfree!HR!pathway!and!an!enhanced,!errorj prone!nonjhomologous!end!joining!pathway!(NHEJ)!
!
!
7!
!
Cíle&práce& ! ! Studium! reparace! indukovaného! poškození! DNA! u! mechu! Physcomitrella. patens. ! •
Vypracování! účinné! metody! transformace! mechu! pro! tvorbu! transformant!a!cílených!mutant.!
•
Studium!indukce!poškození!a!reparace!DNA!po!působení!mutageny!s! rozdílným! mechanismem! účinku! u! wt! a! reparačních! mutant! deficientních!v!reparaci!DSB!u!Physcomitrelly.!
•
Studium! indukované! mutageneze! a! analýza! mutací! v! genu! pro! adenin! fosforibosyltransferázu! (PpAPT)! sloužícím! jako! pozitivní! selekční!marker!mechu!Physcomitrella.!
!
!
!
8!
!
&1.&Mechanismy&reparace&DNA& !
Poškození! DNA! představuje! pro! buňku! vážný! problém,! který! jí! buď!
znemožňuje!přímo!vykonávat!funkce!spojené!s!její!transkripcí,!popř.!translací!nebo! nepřímo! vznikem! mutací! a! tím! možným! ovlivnění! funkce! prakticky! všech! genů.! Závažná! poškození! DNA! vedou! u! savců,! v! případě! saturace! kapacity! reparačních! mechanismů,! k! apoptóze! a! eliminaci! buněk! s! poškozenou! DNA,! popřípadě! v!důsledku!fixace!mutací!vedoucích!ke!zvýšení!proliferace,!ke!vzniku!rakovinného! bujení!a!s!ním!spojeným!onemocněním.!! Zlomy!a!další!poškození!DNA!bránící!replikaci!a!transkripci,!mohou!vést!ke! vzniku! mutací! a! celkově! ovlivňují! buněčnou! fyziologii.! Vznik! poškození! DNA! přitom!není!nijak!výjimečnou!událostí,!podle!!Lindahla!a!Barnese!(2000)!dochází!v! jediné!savčí!buňce!denně!ke!vzniku!desítek!tisíc!defektů!DNA.! Jedním! z! hlavních! zdrojů! spontánního! poškození! DNA! jsou! reaktivní! kyslíkové!radikály!(ROS),!které!vznikají!během!aerobního!metabolismu,!deaminace! bází!především!ta,!která!vede!k!přeměně!cytosinu!na!uracil,!metylace!a!spontánní! hydrolýza!vedoucí!ke!vzniku!abazických,!tj.!apurinních!nebo!apyrimidinových!míst! (Lindahl!1993).! Kromě!toho!může!ke!vzniku!DNA!poškození!vést!působení!řady!exogenních! faktorů,! jednak! přirozeně! přítomných! v!životním! prostředí! jako! ionizační! (IR)! nebo! UV! záření,! sucho,! salinita,! těžké! kovy! a! dále! řada! chemických! látek! připravených!lidmi!a!vyskytujících!se!jako!průmyslové!chemikálie,!léčiva,!odpady!a! znečištění! životního! prostředí! jako! např.! MMS! nebo! benzo[a]pyren! vznikající! při! spalování!organických!látek!(např.!tabákových!listů)!(Friedberg!et!al.!2006).!! Široké!spektrum!možných!poškození!DNA!vedlo!k!evoluci!různých!strategií,! kterými!se!buňka!může!s!poškozením!vyrovnat!(obr.!1).!Tyto!tzv.!reparační!dráhy! zahrnují!širokou!škálu!mechanismů!od!přímého!zvratu!poškození,!např.!štěpení!UV! fotodimérů!fotolyázami,!přes!několik!typů!excisních!reparací:!nukleotidová!excisní! reparace,! excisní! reparace! bází,! oprava! chybného! párování! bází! po! komplexní! reparaci!DSB!buď!HR!nebo!NHEJ!mechanismem.! Kromě!vlastní!reparace!existují!mechanismy!umožňující!buňkám!dočasnou! toleranci! poškození.! Jeden! z! mechanismů! tolerance! spočívá! ve! schopnosti! buňky! replikovat! DNA! i! přes! poškozený! templát,! obsahující! modifikované! báze.! Bez! možnosti!dočasné!tolerance!DNA!poškození!by!musela!buňka!čelit!riziku!kolapsu!
!
9!
! replikační! vidličky! vedoucího! k! translokacím,! chromozomálním! aberacím! a! případně!buněčné!smrti!(Waters!et!al.!2009).! !
Obrázek! ! 1:! Poškození! a! reparace! DNA.! Podle! typu! poškození! vznikajícím! různě! působícími! genotoxiny! jsou! spouštěny! rozdílné! reparační! mechanismy.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! S!poškozením!a! reparací!DNA!jsou!propojeny!dráhy,!které!rozhodují!o!tom,! zda!a! jak! bude! poškození! reparováno.! V! případě! tak! závažného! poškození! genomu,! že! dojde! k! saturaci! nebo! selhání! reparace! dochází! k! aktivaci! kontrolního! bodu! buněčného! cyklu,! která! může! vést! k! zablokování! postupu! buněčným! cyklem,! což! poskytne!buňce!čas!na!opravu!DNA!nebo!její!zánik!j!PCD!(upraveno!podle!Rastogi! et!al.!2010).!
& 1.1&Přímá&reverze&poškození& !
Existuje!několik!mechanismů!umožňujících!opravovat!určité!typy!poškození!
DNA!přímo,!bez!nutnosti!vyštěpovat!a!nahrazovat!poškozenou!část!vlákna!DNA.!! Jedním! z! příkladů! přímé! reverze! poškození! je! fotoreaktivace! UVjdimerů.!!!!!! U!rostlin!je!fotoreaktivace!hlavní!reparační!drahou!fotodimérů!indukovaných!UVC! a! UVB,! kterou! provádí! fotolyázy! specificky! štěpící! buď! cyklobutanový! kruh! pyrimidinového! dimeru! (CPD)! anebo! 6‘j4‘! vazbu! pyrimidinjpyromidonového! !
10!
! diméru! (6j4PP)! (Stapleton! 1992).! Po! vazbě! na! dimér! jejich! aktivita! závisí! na! přítomnosti! a! ! absorbci! modrého! světla! (320j400nm),! jehož! energii! využívají! ke! štěpení!a!monomerizaci!dimerů!(Carell!et!al.!2001).!! Dalším!mechanismem!je!dráha!přímé!reverze!O6–metylguaninu!vznikajícího! působením! nitrosolátek! zpět! na! guanin! O6–metylguanin! DNA! metyltransferázou,! kerá!se!vyvinula!u!bakterií!(Ada)!a!savců!(O6MeT)!(Veleminsky!et!al.!1994).! !
1.2&Excisní&reparace&DNA& ! Všechny! dráhy! excisní! reparace! mají! společný! mechanismus! zahrnující! rozpoznání!poškození,!štěpení!fosfodiesterové!kostry!v!těsném,!nebo!vzdálenějším! okolí!poškození,!odstranění!úseku!s!poškozením!a!jeho!nahrazení!DNA!syntézou!de. novo!(reparační!syntéza)!a!ligací!nově!syntetizovaného!úseku!se!stávajícím!(Ataian! a!Krebs!2006).!! Excisní! reparaci! podle! délky! nahrazené! části! dělíme! na! tři! typy:! excisní! reparaci! bází! (BER),! nukleotidovou! excisní! reparace! (NER)! a! reparaci! chybného! párování!bází!(„missjmatch“!repair).! ! Excisní&reparace&bází&(BER)& ! ! Objemově! malé! adukty! DNA,! které! jsou! většinou! směřovány! do! mělkého! žlábku! dvoušroubovice! a! nevedou! ke! změně! struktury! DNA,! jsou! odstraňovány! excisní! reparací! bází! (Lindahl! a! Barnes! 2000).! K! poškození! bází,! které! je! rozpoznáváno! BER,! dochází! zejména! působením! kyslíkových! radikálů! a! alkylačních!činidel,!např.!MMS.! BER! je! iniciována! DNA! glykosylázami,! které! rozpoznávají! a! odstraňují! poškozenou! bázi,! čímž! vzniká! AP! místo,! které! je! následně! štěpeno! APj endonukleázou.! Vzniklý! jednovláknový! zlom! (SSB)! je! dále! opraven! de. novo. buď! syntézou!pouze!několika!nukleotidů!v!místě!zlomu,!tzv.!„shortjpatch“!repair!nebo! syntézou! dlouhého! úseku! DNA! tzv.! „longjpatch“! BER,! kdy! je! nahrazeno! 2j10! nukleotidů!(Memisoglu!a!Samson!2000).! V!savčích!buňkách!je!závěrečná!ligace!prováděna!v!závislosti!na!buněčném! cyklu! ! buď! ligázou! 3! (LIG3)! nebo! ligázou! 1! (LIG1)! (Moser! et! al.! 2007).! U! rostlin! byly! sice! identifikovány! tři! geny! pro! DNA! ligázy! –! LIG1,. LIG4! a! LIG6,! nicméně! ekvivalent!savčí!LIG3!se!u!rostlin!nevyskytuje!(Bonatto!et!al.!2005).!!Waterworth!et! !
11!
! al.! (2009)! ukázala,! že! u! Arabidopsis! je! LIG3! při! BER! zastoupena! LIG1.! Holá! et! al.! (2013)!navíc!zjistila,!že!u!mechu!Physcomitrella!se!na!ligaci!zlomů!vzniklých!během! BER!!pravděpodobně!podílí!i!LIG4.!O!specifitě!LIG6!zatím!nejsou!údaje.! ! Nukleotidová&excisní&reparace&(NER)& ! NER! je! univerzální! a! flexibilní! reparační! mechanismus,! který! dokáže! odstranit!široké!spektrum!strukturně!odlišných!poškození!narušujících!geometrii! dvoušroubovice!DNA!a!zabraňujících!její!funkci!templátu,!tj.!blokujících!replikaci!a! transkripci.!Mezi!taková!poškození!patří!i!fotodiméry!CPD!a!6j4PP.!Pokud!nejsou!v! buňce! přítomny! funkční! fotolyázy,! je! NER! hlavní! reparační! drahou! odstraňující! tato!poškození.!! Během! opravy! tímto! mechanismem! je! vlákno! s!DNA! lézí! štěpeno! po! obou! stranách!poškození!a!20j40!nt!dlouhý!oligonukleotid!(2j4!závity!dvoušroubovice)! nesoucí! poškození! je! z! dvoušroubovice! odstraněn.! Vzniklá! mezera! je! zaplněna! reparační! syntézou! DNA! a! nově! syntetizovaná! DNA! je! připojena! k! původnímu! vláknu!ligací!(Reardon!a!Sancar,!2005).!! U! člověka! vedou! defekty! v! genech! účastnící! se! NER! ke! vzniku! fotosenzitivních! syndromů! Xeroderma. pigmentosum! (XP)! nebo! Cockaynův! syndrom!(CS).!Dosud!bylo!identifikováno!osm!geneticky!komplementačních!skupin! pro! XP! (XPAjG,! XPV)! a! dvě! skupiny! pro! CS! (CSA,! CSB).! ! Bioinformatická! analýza! NER!proteinů!u!rostlin!naznačuje,!že!se!u!nich!nachází!většina!homologů!savčích!a! kvasinkových!proteinů!této!reparační!dráhy!(Schroeder!2011).! !
1.3&Oprava&dvouvláknových&zlomů& !
DSB! vznikají! přirozeně! během! fyziologických! buněčných! procesů! jako! je!
mitotická!a!meiotická!rekombinace,!V(D)J!rekombinace,!působením!topoizomeráz! nebo! jako! důsledek! kolapsu! replikačního! komplexu.! K! endogenním! činidlům! indukujícím! vznik! DSB! patří! zejména! IR! a! některé! chemické! látky,! jako! např.! Bleomycin,! které! IR! mimikují.! DSB! představují! jedno! z! nejzávažnějších! poškození! DNA,! protože! neopravený! zlom! DNA! může! mít! dalekosáhlé! důsledky! od! ztráty! genetické!informace!po!přestavby!chromozómů.!!
!
12!
! Proto! se! již! záhy! vyvinuly! mechanismy! sdílené! všemi! organismy,! které! dokáží! dvouvláknové! zlomy! DNA! rozpoznat,! v! závislosti! na! poškození! regulovat! buněčný! cyklus,! aktivovat! opravu! DNA,! popřípadě! iniciovat! řízený! rozpad! buněk,! apoptózu!u!rostlin!popisovanou!jako!programovanou!buněčnou!smrt!(PCD).!! U!eukaryot!se!vyvinuly!dva!principiálně!odlišné!mechanismy!reparace!DSB.! HR,! která! k! opravě! využívá! sekvence! homologní! alely,! podle! které! se! nahradí! poškozený! úsek! DNA! a! dokáže! tak! kompenzovat! případnou! ztrátu! genetické! informace.! Druhým! typem! opravy! je! přímé! spojování! konců! DSB! NHEJ,! kdy! není! využívána! žádná,! nebo! jen! minimální! homologie! několika! nukleotidů! (mikrohomologie)!v!okolí!zlomu.! ! SMC&proteiny&a&MRN&komplex&a&jejich&význam&v&opravě&DNA& ! Evolučně! konzervovaná! rodina! SMC! genů! kóduje! proteiny! tří! funkčních! komplexů:! kohesinu! (SMC1/3)! zajišťujícím! kohezi! sesterských! chromatid,! kondensinu! (SMC2/4)! účastnícím! se! kondenzace! chromozómů! během! mitózy! a! komplexu!SMC5/6,!který!má!dosud!ne!zcela!jasnou!roli!v!rekombinaci!a!reparaci! DNA!(Harvey!et!al.!2002,!Lehmann!2005).!! Všechny! SMCx/y! komplexy! jsou! heterodiméry,! ve! kerých! je! každý! SMC! protein! tvořen! dlouhou! aniparalelní! superšroubovicí,! tzv.! „coiledjcoil“! doménou,! která!má!na!jednom!konci!globulární!ATPasovou!doménu!a!na!druhém!tzv.!„hinge“,! oblast! ohybu,! která! je! důležitá! jednak! pro! dimerizaci! SMC! proteinů! a! jednak! pro! vazbu! komplexu! k! DNA.! Ke! globulárním! ATPasovým! doménám! se! připojují! kleisiny,! které! heterodimér! uzavírají! a! tím! umožňují! SMC! komplexům! vytvářet! prstencové!útvary!kolem!DNA!(Hirano!2006)!(obr.!2).!! ! !
!
13!
!
Obrázek!!2:!Struktura!SMC!a!MRN!komplexu!(Murray!a!Carr,!2008).! ! ! ! O!SMC5/6!komplexu!je!známo,!že!u!kvasinek!stabilizuje!replikační!vidličku,! a! je! důležitý! pro! reparaci! DSB! homologní! rekombinací! (Murray! &! Carr! 2008).! Předpokládá! se,! že! SMC1/3! a! SMC5/6! komplexy! váží! a! stabilizují! poškozené! molekuly! DNA! v! kontaktu! s! odpovídajícími! sesterskými! chromatidami,! a! tím! umožňují!a!podporují!homologní!rekombinaci!mezi!nimi!(Lehmann!2005).!! U! Arabidopsis! se! SMC5/6! komplex! podílí! na! rychlé! opravě! DSB! mechanismem! nezávislým! na! klíčových! proteinech! NHEJ! dráhy,! heterodimeru! KU70/80!a!LIG4.!Oproti!tomu!mutant!smc6b.(atmim,.Mengiste!et!al.!1999;!atsmc6b,! Watanabe!et!al.!2009)!vykazuje!na!rozdíl!od!atlig4!a!atku80!výrazný!defekt!opravy! DSB,! přičemž! především! zcela! postrádá! pro! rostliny! typickou! rychlou! 1.! fázi! reparace!DSB!(obr.!3).!! Částečná!porucha!reparace!DSB!se!také!projevuje!u!atrad21.1!(Kozak!et!al.! 2009).! RAD21/SCC1! patří! do! rodiny! kleisinů,! které! jsou! podjednotkou! komplexu! kohesinu!a!interagují!s!SMC1/3!proteiny.!Mutant!v!genu!RAD21!kvasinek!je!vysoce! citlivý! vůči! činidlům! poškozujícím! DNA! (Birkenbihl! a! Subramani,! 1992).! U! Arabidopsis! se! RAD21! vyskytuje! ve! třech! alelách,! které! vzájemně! kooperují! v! průběhu!reparace!DSB!(da!CostajNunes!et!al.!2014).!! !
!
!
14!
!
! ! Obrázek!3:!Kinetika!opravy!DSB!po!působení!50!μg/ml!bleomycinu!u!Arabidopsis.! Maximální! poškození! je! normalizováno! jako! 100%! v! čase! t! =! 0! pro! všechny! mutanty.! Divoký! typ! a! atku80! a! atlig4! (dokonce! rychleji)! opravují! většinu! indukovaných! DSB! již! během! prvních! 10! minut.! Oproti! tomu! atrad21.1! a! atmim! vykazují! zřetelně! pomalejší! reparaci! DSB! s! výrazným! defektem! u! atmim,! který! zcela! postrádá! pro! rostliny! typickou! rychlou! 1.! fázi! reparace! DSB.! (Kozák! et! al.! 2009)! ! ! Strukturně! podobný! SMC! komplexům! je! komplex! MRN! (obr.! 2),! který! vystupuje! ve! většině,! pokud! ne! ve! všech,! procesech! spojených! s! konci! dvouvláknové! DNA,! včetně! signalizace! poškození,! homologní! i! nehomologní! rekombinace,!udržování!telomer!a!meiotické!rekombinace!(Lamarche!et!al.!2010).!! Skládá!se!ze!tří!proteinů!z!nichž!dva!–!MRE11!a!RAD50!–!lze!nalézt!u!všech! fylogenetických! domén! (Lammens! et! al.! 2011).! Třetím,! v! evoluci! méně! konzervovaným! proteinem! komplexu! je! NBS1! (Nijmegen! Breakage! Syndrome).! Celý! komplex! je! heterohexamer,! ve! kterém! je! každý! z! proteinů! zastoupen! vždy! dvakrát!(M2R2N2)!(Williams!et!al.!2010).!! MRE11! nese! na! svém! Njkonci! Mn2+/Mg2+! dependentní! fosfodiesterázovou! doménu! a! na! svém! Cjkonci! dvě! DNA! vazebné! domény.! In. vitro! tvoří! stabilní! dimery,! které! mají! schopnost! vázat! se! ke! koncům! dvouvláknové! DNA! a! vykazují! !
15!
! endoj!i!exonukleázovou!aktivitu!u!jednovláknové!i!dvouvláknové!DNA,!postrádají! však! 5‘j3’! exonukleázovou! aktivitu! nezbytnou! pro! tvorbu! dlouhých! 3’! jednovláknových! konců! vyžadovaných! pro! homologní! rekombinaci! (Lamarche! et! al.!2010).!Nicméně!pro!vznik!dlouhých!jednovláknových!3’jkonců!je!MRN!komplex! esenciální! jako! řídící! faktor,! který! in. vivo! zajišťuje!jejich! vznik! v! součinnosti! s! dalšími!3‘j5’!exonukleázami!(Mimitou!a!Symington!2008).! Protein!RAD50!zastává!v!MRN!komplexu!podobnou!strukturní!roli!jako!SMC! proteiny!tím,!že!vytváří!cirkulární!jádro!MRN!komplexu!podobné!SMC!komplexům! (obr.!2).!!Walker!A!motiv!na!N‘jkonci!a!Walker!B!motiv!na!C‘jkonci!spolu!interagují! a!vytváří!ATPasovou!doménu!s!afinitou!k!dvouvláknovým!DNA!koncům!(Hopfner! et!al.!2001).!Oblast!mezi!těmito!motivy!vytváří!antiparalelní!superšroubovici,!která! je!zakončená!zinkovým!háčkem!(Znjhook)!(Hopfner!et!al.!2002).!K!MRE11!se!váže! RAD50!ATPasovou!doménou!a!společně!vytvářejí!globulární!„hlavu“,!která!asociuje! s!konci!dvouvláknové!DNA!(Hopfner!et!al.!2001).!Zinkovými!háčky!se!mohou!MR! komplexy! propojovat! a! díky! tomu! udržují! konce! DNA! ve! vzájemné! juxtapozici! a! nedovolí!jim,!aby!se!od!sebe!vzdálily.!! Třetím! proteinem! v! MRN! komplexu! je! NBS1.! Prostřednictvím! flexibilního! řetězce! se! připojuje! k! MRE11! a! tím! stimuluje! vazbu! k! DNA,! nukleázovou! aktivitu! MR! komplexu! a! je! také! zodpovědný! za! translokaci! MRN! do! jádra.! V! centrální! oblasti!nese!několik!SQ!motivů,!které!jsou!fosforylovány!ATM!kinázou.!Na!C‘jkonci! nese!doménu,!která!interaguje!s!ATM!kinázou!a!přitahuje!ji!k!DSB!(Williams!et!al.! 2009).! NBS1! je! také! důležitý! pro! indukci! apoptózy! u! savců! a! PCD! u! rostlin! ! jako! odpovědi!na!masivní!poškození!DNA.! U!savců!vede!nulová!mutace!některé!z!komponent!MRN!komplexu!k!letalitě! (Lamarche! et! al.! 2010),! zatímco! u! rostlin! tomu! tak! není.! Např.! u! Arabidopsis.jsou! mutanty! atrad50! a! atmre11! životaschopné,! i! když! vykazují! růstové! poruchy,! částečnou!sterilitu,!defekty!v!opravě!DSB,!meiose!a!udržování!telomer!(Gallego!et! al.!2001;!Puizina!et!al.!2004).!NBS1!deficientní!rostliny!nevykazují!růstové!poruchy! ani!poruchy!reprodukce!(Najdekrová!a!Široký,!2012).!! Podobně! jako! u! Arabidopsis! jsou! i! u! Physcomitrelly! mutanty! ppmre11,! pprad50!a!ppnbs1!životaschopné.!Nicméně!ppnbs1!oproti!ppmre11!a!pprad50,!které! jsou!extrémně!citlivé!k!poškození!DNA!IR!a!radiomimetiky!indukujícími!DSB!a!je!u! nich! výrazně! snížena! schopnost! cílené! integrace! transgenní! DNA,! vykazuje! z!!tohoto!hlediska!téměř!divoký!fenotyp.! !
16!
! Překvapivě! u! všech! mutant! MRN! komplexu! probíhá! reparace! DSB! stejně! rychle! a! efektivně! jako! u! divokého! typu,! ale! zřejmě! mechanismem! nezávislým! na! MRN!komplexu,!během!něhož!dochází!k!chybám!reparace!na!úrovni!sekvence!DNA! (errorjprone)!a!tím!vzniku!a!akumulaci!mutací!(Kamisugi!et!al.!2012).! ! Homologní&rekombinace&(HR)& ! Jednou! z! cest! opravy! dvouvláknových! zlomů! je! HR.! Jde! o! velmi! přesný! mechanismus! reparace,! při! němž! je! při! odstraňování! DSB! jako! templát! využita! nepoškozená!sesterská!chromatida!nebo!alela!na!homologním!chromozomu.!Proto! je! tento! způsob! reparace! omezen! pouze! na! dobu,! kdy! je! homologní! DNA! v! buňce! přítomná,!což!u!somatických!buněk!haploidních!organismů!znamená!pozdní!S!a!G2! fázi! buněčného! cyklu.! U! diploidních! organismů! i! přesto,! že! je! homologní! chromozom!přítomen!stále,!je!HR!během!G1!fáze!výrazně!redukována,!zřejmě!jako! prevence!ztráty!heterozygosity!(Mao!et!al.!2008;!Rothkamm!et!al.!2003).!! Ostatní! mechanismy! opravy! DSB! mohou! s! homologní! rekombinací! spolupracovat,! nebo! s! ní! o! opravdu! DSB! soutěžit! (Jasin! a! Rothstein! 2013).! O! mechanismu! opravy! DSB! tak! rozhoduje! řada! faktorů.! Jedním! z! nich! je! způsob! úpravy! konců! zlomu! tak,! aby! byly! kompatibilní! pro! následnou! ligaci.! Pro! iniciaci! HR!je!potřeba!generovat!3‘!jednovláknové!konce!DNA!resekcí!5‘!konců!(Symington! a!Gautier!2011).!Počátku!úpravy!DNA!konců!se!účastní!mimo!jiné!i!MRN!komplex,! který!interaguje!s!KU!proteiny,!které!naopak!konce!DNA!před!resekcí!chrání!a!jsou! jedněmi! z! klíčových! proteinů! NHEJ! dráhy.! Tím! se! může! MRN! komplex! podílet! na! výběru!způsobu!opravy!DSB!(Mimitou!a!Symington!2009;!Garcia!et!al.!2011).!! Dalším! klíčovým! krokem! pro! opravu! DSB! mechanismem! HR! je! navázání! DNA!–!dependentní!APTázy!RAD51.!RAD51!se!váže!k!jednovláknovému!konci!DNA,! kde! za! podpory! BRCA2! a! paralogů! RAD51,! nahrazuje! replikační! protein! A! (RPA).! Zprostředkovává! vstup/invazi! jednovláknové! DNA! do! templátové,! tedy! nepoškozené,!dvoušroubovice!a!vyhledání!homologní!sekvence!(Baumann!a!West! 1998;!Effrossyni!Boutou!2011;!McIlwraith!et!al.!2000).!! Zřejmě!proto,!že!se!jedná!o!jeden!z!nejdůležitějších!proteinů!v!mechanismu! HR,! je! mezi! eukaryoty! velmi! dobře! konzervován.! Ortology! RAD51! byly! identifikovány!i!u!několika!rostlin,!včetně!Arabidopsis!a!Physcomitrelly.!Zatímco!u! Arabidopsis! byl! nalezen! jeden! paralog! RAD51! (Doutriaux! et! al.! 1998),! Physcomitrella!kóduje!dva!proteiny!RAD51!–!PpRAD51.1!a!PpRAD51.2,!které!jsou! !
17!
! velmi!podobné!a!v!průběhu!HR!zřejmě!spolupracují!(Ayora!et!al.!2002).!!Na!rozdíl! od! savčích! mutant! jsou! mutanty! atrad51! i! pprad51! životaschopné! (Li! et! al.! 2004;!! Schaefer!et!al.!2010).! Po! nalezení! homologie! prodlouží! DNA! polymerázy! 3’jkonec! invazního! vlákna!syntézou!nové!DNA,!čímž!dochází!k!tvorbě!Hollidayova!kříže!(Szostak!et!al.! 1983;! Sung! a! Klein! 2006).! Po! reparační! syntéze! DNA! pokračuje! HR! připojením! druhého!!5’jkonce!zlomu!k!templátovému!vláknu.!Toto!připojení!zajišťuje!protein! RAD52,! který! je! schopný! k! templátové! dvoušroubovici! připojit! DNA! vlákno! i! s! navázaným!RPA!proteinem!(Sugiyama!et!al.!1998;!Sugiyama!et!al.!2006).!Výsledný! Hollidayův!kříž!je!pak!substrátem!pro!komplex!BLM!helikázy!a!topoizomerázy!IIIα! (Bizard! a! Hickson,! 2014),! nebo! pro! specifické! endonukleázy,! u! člověka! je! to! resolváza!A!a!komplex!Mus81jEmeI!(Boddy!et!al.!2001;!Constantinou!et!al.!2002).!! Homologní! rekombinace! je! někdy! chápána! v! užším! slova! smyslu! jako! klasická! oprava! dvouvláknových! zlomů.! Oprava! DSB! založená! na! vyhledávání! homologie! však! zahrnuje! několik! podobných! drah,! které! jsou! až! do! kroku! reparační!syntézy!DNA!shodné!(Paques!a!Haber!1999).! Specifickým! způsobem! opravy! DSB! homologní! rekombinací! lišícím! se! od! předchozích! tím,! že! k! vyhledání! homologie! nevyužívá! ani! vlákno! sesterské! chromatidy! ani! homologního! chromozomu! je! model! SSA! (z! angl.! SinglejStrand! Annealing).! Vyhledávání! homologie! probíhá! v! rámci! vlákna,! na! dvoušroubovici! u! které! došlo! ke! vzniku! zlomu.! Tento! mechanismus! je! sice! efektivní,! ale! vysoce! mutagenní,! protože! při! něm! dochází! ke! ztrátě! DNA,! která! leží! mezi! homologními! úseky!(Helleday!et!al.!2007).! SSA!společnš!s!dalším!modelem!opravy!j!SDSA!(z!angl.!SynthesisjDependent! Strand! Annealing)! jsou! považovány! za! mechanismy! opravy! DSB! v! somatických! rostlinných! buňkách.! Podle! SDSA! modelu! je! po! reparační! syntéze! DNA! invazní! vlákno!uvolněno!z!Djsmyčky!a!spojeno!s!druhým!koncem!dvouvláknového!zlomu,! takže!z!principu!nemůže!dojít!ke!crossingjoveru!(McMahill!et!al.!2007).!! BIR!(z!angl.!BreakjInduced!Replication)!přispívá!k!opravě!DSB!v!případě,!že! v! genomu! může! homologii! nalézt! pouze! jeden! konec! zlomu.! Může! hrát! důležitou! roli! při! kolapsu! replikační! vidličky! a! je! nezbytná! pro! udržování! konců! chromozómů!(Malkova!a!Ira!2013).!! Kromě! opravy! DSB! je! homologní! rekombinace! jedním! z! mechanismů,! kterým! může! být! do! genomu! buňky! začleňována! transgenní! DNA.! U! vyšších! !
18!
! eukaryot,! jak! rostlin! tak! obratlovců,! se! vkládaná! DNA! integruje! do! genomu! prostřednictvím!NHEJ!dráhy,!což!vede!k!inzerci!DNA!do!náhodných!míst.!Nicméně! integrace!homologní!rekombinací!u!savců!i!rostlin!také!probíhá!(Siebert!a!Puchta! 2002;! Liang! et! al.! 1998),! byť! s! mnohem! nižší! frekvencí! –! u! Arabidopsis! je! to! asi! jedna! integrace! homologní! rekombinací! na! 3000! integrací! NHEJ! dráhou! (Kempin! et!al.!1997).!!! Oproti!tomu!u!Physcomitrelly!je!většina!transgenní!DNA!inkorporována!do! genomu! homologní! rekombinací! (Kamisugi! et! al.! 2006).! Jakým! způsobem! bude! transgenní! DNA! integrována! závisí! pravděpodobně! na! expresi! proteinů,! které! se! účastní! opravy! DSB.! U! Physcomitrelly! vede! například! ztráta! funkce! MRE11! a! RAD50!k!silnému!potlačení!cílené!integrace!DNA,!zatímco!nehomologní!integrace! zůstává! prakticky! nezměněna! (Kamisugi! et! al.! 2012).! Podobný! vliv! má! ztráta! funkce! obou! proteinů! RAD51! (Schaefer! et! al.! 2010).! MSH2! –! centrální! protein! opravy! chybného! párování! bazí! –! působí! naopak! proti! rekombinaci! a! jeho! vyřazením!frekvence!HR!stoupá!(Trouiller!et!al.!2006).! ! Nehomologní&rekombinace&(NHEJ)& ! Dalším! způsobem! reparace! DSB! je! tzv.! nehomologní! rekombinace,! která! spočívá! v! přímém,! nehomologním! spojování! volných! konců! DNA! –! NHEJ! (Nonj Homologous! End! Joining).! Na! rozdíl! od! HR! je! účinnější,! rychlejší,! ale! z! principu! vede!ke!vzniku!mutací!(Mao!et!al.!2008).!Bylo!popsáno!několik!drah!nehomologní! rekombinace:! klasicky! míněné! přímé! nehomologní! spojování! konců! (CjNHEJ),! mikrohomologií!zprostředkované!spojování!konců!DNA!(MMEJ)!a!tzv.!alternativní! spojování! konců! DNA! (AltjNHEJ).! Tyto! dráhy! jsou! charakterizovány! především! jejich!závislostí!respektive!nezávislostí!na!KU!komplexu!(Mladenov!a!Iliakis,!2011).!! KU! nezávislá! je! AltjNHEJ! a! MMEJ! dráha.! MMEJ! podobně! jako! homologní! SSA,!vyhledává!homologie!na!protilehlém!vlákně!DNA,!na!rozdíl!od!SSA!ale!využívá! k! opravě! výrazně! kratší! homologie,! u! Arabidopsis! 1–16! nukleotidů! (Gorbunova! a! Levy!1997;!Windels!et!al.!2003).!Studium!na!kvasinkách!ukázalo,!že!touto!dráhou! jsou!přednostně!opravovány!zlomy!DNA!s!nekompatibilními!konci.!Jde!o!reparační! dráhu!často!vedoucí!k!rozsáhlým!delecím!a!tím!letálním!mutacím!(Frit!et!al.!2014;! Ma,!Kim!et!al.!2003).! O!opravě!AltjNHEJ!mechanismem!je!toho!zatím!známo!velmi!málo.!Zdá!se,! že!tato!dráha!nevyužívá!ke!spojování!konců!DNA!žádné!homologie!a!že!se!na!tomto! !
19!
! způsobu! opravy! podílí! DNAjligáza! 1! (LIG1).! AltjNHEJ! i! MMEJ! jsou! v! přítomnosti! funkčního! KU! komplexu! potlačeny! a! slouží! zřejmě! jako! „záložní“! opravné! dráhy! (Decottignies! 2013).! ! Pokud! se! ukáže,! že! v! této! reparační! dráze! jsou! volné! konce! DSB! stabilizovány! místo! KU! SMC! komplexy,! lze! předpokládat,! že! dříve! popsaná! KU/LIG4! nezávislá! dráha! rychlé! reparace! DSB! u! Arabidopsis! (Kozák! et! al.! 2009)! patří!do!této!skupiny.!! Hlavním! mechanismem! opravy! DSB! nehomologní! rekombinací! u! většiny! eukaryotních!organismů!je!NHEJ.!Klíčovými!proteiny!této!dráhy!jsou:!heterodimer! KU70/80,! katalytická! podjednotka! DNA! dependentní! proteinkinázy! (DNAjPKcs),! endonukleáza! Artemis,! protein! XRCC4,! DNA! ligáza! 4! (LIG4)! a! protein! XLF.!! Homology!těchto!proteinů!se!nacházejí!u!savců!(Williamset!al.!2014)!a!s!výjimkou! DNAjPKcs!i!u!rostlin!(Friesner!a!Britt,!2003;!Tamura!et!al.!2002;!West!et!al.!2000).!! Klíčovým! proteinem! NHEJ! dráhy! je! heterodimer! KU70/80,! který! rozpoznává! a! váže! konce! dvouvláknové! DNA! (Tamura! et! al.! 2002).! V! savčích! buňkách! se! ke! KU! komplexu! na! DSB! váže! DNAjPKcs! a! tento! DNAjPK! komplex! chrání! konce! DNA! před! nukleázami! a! fosforyluje! celou! řadu! dalších! proteinů.! Zároveň! k! DSB! přitahuje! endonukleázu! Artemis! se! kterou! DNAjPKcs! vytváří! komplex! schopný! štěpit! 5’! a! 3’! přesahující! konce! DNA! a! DNA! vlásenky! (Ma! et! al.! 2002)!a!komplex!XRCC4jLIG4,!který!dokončuje!reparaci!DSB!spojením!konců!DNA! (Hsu!et!al.!2002).! LIG4! u! Physcomitrelly! je! jak! se! zdá! nejen! proteinem! dráhy! CjNHEJ,! ale! je! významná!i!pro!reparaci!objemově!malých!poškození!mechanismem!BER.!Kinetika! reparace! jednovláknových! zlomů! a! poškození! DNA! indukovaných! ROS! u. pplig4! mutanta! ukazuje,! že! odstraňování! tohoto! typu! poškození! u! něj! probíhá! pomaleji! než!u!wt!(Holá!et!al.!2013).!! ! !
1.4&Tolerance&poškození&DNA& ! !
Mechanismy!tolerance!poškození!DNA!se!od!reparačních!mechanismů!liší!v!
principu!tím,!že!jejich!cílem!není!obnovení!původní!struktury!DNA,!ale!překonání! dočasně! přetrvávajícího! poškození! DNA! ve! formě! neinstrukčního! templátu! (APj místo)! a! různých! typů! aduktů.! Mechanismy! tolerance! poškození! DNA! jsou! optimalizovány!pro!podporu!přežití!buňky!umožněním!dokončení!replikace!DNA,! nikoliv! pro! zachování! přesné! genetické! informace.! Jeden! z! hlavních! mechanismů! !
20!
! tolerance! poškození! DNA! spočívá! ve! schopnosti! replikovat! DNA! i! přes! stávající! poškození,!jde!o!tzv.!syntézu!přes!poškození!(translesion!synthesis,!TLS).! !
Během! syntézy! přes! poškození! je! DNA! léze! překonána! inkorporací!
nukleotidu!proti!poškození.!V!tomuto!kroku!vystupují!specifické!polymerázy,!tzv.! TLS!polymerázy,!protože!replikační!DNA!polymerázy,!optimalizované!pro!přesnou! replikaci!DNA,!nejsou!obvykle!schopné!poškození!překonat!(Waters!et!al.!2009).!! !
TLS! polymerázy! postrádají! korekční! 3‘j5’exonukleázovou! aktivitu! a! oproti!
replikačním!polymerázám!jsou!mnohem!méně!procesivní!a!jejich!aktivní!centrum! je!větší!a!více!otevřené,!aby!mohly!obsáhnout!objemná!poškození!DNA!(Prakash!et! al.! 2005;! Curtis! a! Hays! 2007).! V! důsledku! toho,! že! TLS! polymerázy! přednostně! v! místě!neinstrukčního!nebo!poškozeného!templátu!inkorporují!adenin!je!TLS!silně! mutagenní! dráha! (Rabkin! et! al.! 1983).! To! je! zejména! dobře! patrné! v! případě! UV! mutageneze!(Holá!et!al.!2015).! !
!
!
21!
!
2.&Mutageneze&–&modelové&genotoxiny& ! Aby! bylo! možné! studovat! určitou! dráhu! reparace! je! potřeba! indukovat! vznik! poškození,! které! daná! dráha! reparuje.! K! tomuto! účelu! jsou! využívány! v! laboratorních!podmínkách!genotoxiny!se!známým!mechanismem!účinku.! V!disertační!práci!bylo!použito!radiomimetikum!Bleomycin!působící!v!místě! účinku!mnohačetná!poškození!DNA!včetně!DSB!prostřednictvím!generovných!ROS,! alkylační! činidlo! methyl! methansulfonát! (MMS)! k! indukci! objemově! malých! alkylačních! poškození! bází! odstraňovaných! BER! mechanismem! a! UV! záření! pro! indukci!objemných!DNA!lézí!odstraňovaných!NER.!!
2.1&Bleomycin&(BLM)& ! !
Bleomycin! je! glykopeptid! hojně! využívaný! jako! protinádorové! léčivo.! Je!
produkován! bakterií Streptomyces. verticillus.. V! laboratorních! podmínkách! simuluje! Bleomycin! efekt! působení! ionizačního! záření,! protože! se! dokáže! vázat! k! DNA! a! za! přítomnosti! redukčních! iontů! (Fe2+,! Cu2+)! a! kyslíku! indukovat! štěpení! DNA!(Stubbe!a!Kozarich!1987).!! Fe2+jBleomycin! komplex! interkaluje! DNA! a! poté! reaguje! s! O2! ! (Buettner! a! Moseley! 1993).! Vzniká! tzv.! aktivovaný! Bleomycin,! který! generuje! ROS! a! štěpí! vlákno! DNA.! Pokud! je! komplex! reaktivován! redukcí! oxidovaného! iontu,! může! indukovat!další!štěpení!a!způsobit!tak!vznik!DSB!(Hecht!1986;!Steighner!a!Povirk! 1990).! Poměr! jednovláknových! a! dvouvláknových! zlomů! indukovaných! Bleomycinem!je!přibližně!10:1(Povirk!et!al.!1977).!! Aktivovaná!forma!Bleomycinu!je!vysoce!oxidační!činidlo,!které!může!z!DNA! odčerpávat! vodíkové! radikály! (H•)! a! generovat! hydroxylové! radikály! (HO•),! díky! čemuž!způsobuje!oxidativní!poškození!DNA!(Oberley!&!Buettner!1979).!! !
2.2&UV&záření& ! Mutagenem! zevního! prostředí,! se! kterým! přicházejí! do! kontaktu! všechny! živé! organismy! možná! nejčastěji! je! UV! záření,! které! je! přirozenou! součástí! slunečního!světla.! Podle! vlnové! délky! rozlišujeme! tři! druhy! UV.! UVC! má! nejkratší! vlnovou! délku! (
22!
! slunečním!záření!kompletně!pohlcována!zemskou!atmosférou!obdobně!jako!složka! UVB! (280j315! nm),! která! je! také! z! velké! části! pohlcena,! nicméně! část! jí! proniká.! Největší! dávku! UV! záření,! které! dopadá! na! zemský! povrch,! tvoří! UVA! o! vlnové! délce!315j400!nm.!! Nežádoucí! účinky! slunečního! záření! jsou! připisovány! hlavně! UVB,! které! je! absorbováno! buněčnou! DNA.! UVA! nativní! DNA! absorbováno! není! a! proto! je! při! přímé!indukci!DNA!poškození!méně!účinné!než!UVC!a!UVB.!Může!však!být!příčinou! sekundárních! fotoreakcí! již! existujících! DNA! fotoproduktů! nebo! poškozovat! DNA! nepřímo!generováním!ROS!(Sinha!a!Häder!2002).!!
!
UVC! a! UVB! záření! indukuje! převážně! vznik! fotodimérů! CPD! a! 6j4PP! (obr.! 4).!CPD!tvoří!kolem!75%!a!6j4PP!asi!25%!všech!poškození!DNA!indukovaných!UV! zářením.!Oba!dva!typy!poškození!způsobují!distorzi!dvoušroubovice!DNA!a!blokují! transkripci!i!replikaci!DNA!(Sinha!a!Häder!2002).!! Nepřímé! působení! UV,! především! UVA! způsobuje! i! další! typy! poškození! DNA,! jako! je! vznik! dvouvláknových! zlomů! při! kolapsu! replikační! vidličky! zablokované! neopravenými! fotoprodukty! nebo! oxidativní! poškození! DNA! způsobené!ROS,!vznikajícími!převážně!působením!UVA!záření!a!vedoucí!jak!k!SSB! a!DSB,!tak!ke!vzniku!křížových!vazeb!DNAjprotein!(Heck!et!al.!2003;!Rastogi!et!al.! 2010;!Rapp!a!Greulich!2004).!
!"#$%&'
(#)*+,-./&! ."#$%&+01!2%$34'
!"#"$"%&'&()&*+,'"
! ! Obrázek! 4:! Cyklobutan! pyrimidinové! dimery! a! 6‘j4‘! fotoprodukty! vznikají! mezi! sousedními!pyrimidiny!působením!UVB!záření.!Způsobují!distorzi!dvoušroubovice! DNA! a! jsou! rozpoznávány! jako! objemné! léze! DNA! (bulky! lesions)! mechanismem! NER!(Horrell!2015).! !
23!
! !
2.3&Methyl&methansulfonát&(MMS)& ! !
MMS! je! elektrofilní! alkylační! činidlo,! které! způsobuje! modifikaci! DNA!
přidáváním! metylační! skupiny! mechanismem! SN2! na! řadu! nukleofilních! míst! v! DNA.! Přednostně! jsou! metylovány! pozice! N7! a! N3! v! adeninu,! protože! se! jedná! o! místa! s! nejvyšším! negativním! elektrostatickým! potenciálem! v! DNA! (Wyatt! a! Pittman!2006).!Jedná!se!převážně!o!objemově!malá!poškození!bází!směrovaná!do! mělkého!žlábku!dvoušroubovice!DNA,!která!nevedou!k!výrazné!změně!struktury!a! proto!je!tento!typ!poškození!odstraňován!mechanismem!BER!(Kondo!et!al.!2010).! !
3.&Metody&detekce&poškození&a&studium&reparace&DNA& ! !
Existuje!řada!metod,!kterými!lze!studovat!mechanismus!reparace!poškození!
DNA!na!různých!úrovních!od!kvantitativního!měření!opravy!jednotlivých!lézí!DNA! po!zjišťování!změn!na!molekulární!úrovni!DNA!(Kumari!et!al.!2008).!Řada!metod!je! založena! na! sledování! projevů! reakce! na! poškození,! např.! na! remodelaci! chromatinu! (Price! a! D’Andrea! 2013),! fosforylaci! H2AX! (Redon! et! al.! 2009),! translokaci! a! modifikaci! reparačních! proteinů! (Polo! a! Jackson! 2011),! změny! v! replikaci,!transkripci!či!translaci!atd.! !
V!současné!době!oblíbená!a!přednostně!využívaná!metoda!detekce!a!studia!
kinetiky! reparace! DSB! převážně! v! savčích! buňkách,! je! založena! na! kvantifikaci! γH2AX! ohnisek! (foci),! vznikajících! fosforylací,! která! je! důsledkem! rychlé! buněčné!
reakce!na!indukci!DSB!(Mah!et!al.!2010).! γH2AX!vznikají!fosforylací!C‘jkoncového! serinu!histonu!H2AX!a!to!až!do!vzdálenosti!2Mb!od!poškození!DNA!(Rogakou!et!al.! 1999).! Jedná! se! o! nepřímou! metodu! detekce! poškození! založenou! na! sledování! kinetiky!fosforylace!histonů!γH2AX!(Chowdhury!et!al.!2005).! !
Mezi! metody! monitorující! přímé! fyzické! poškození! DNA! patří! gelová!
elektroforéza!jednotlivých!buněk!nebo!jader,!tzv.!kometový!test!(comet!assay).!Jde! o! citlivou! a! rychlou! metodu! detekce! SSB! a! DSB! genomové! i! organelové! DNA! (Ostling!a!Johanson!1984;!Koppen!a!Verschaeve!1996;!Angelis!et!al.!1999).! Elektroforéza! jednotlivých! jader! ukotvených! v! agarózovém! gelu! na! mikroskopickém! sklíčku! vede! k! pohybu! fragmentované! DNA! a! rozvolněných! nukleoidů!v!elektrickém!poli!z!kruhových!jader!a!vzniku!objektů!ne!nepodobných! !
24!
! kometám.!Poškození!DNA!je!stanoveno!jako!poměr!signálu!hlavy!a!ohonu!komety,! pozorovaný! fluorescenční! mikroskopií! (Collins! 2004).! Inkubace! jader! před! elektroforézou!s!endonukleázami!rozpoznávajícími!specifická!poškození!umožňuje! detekovat! i! léze! DNA,! které! primárně! nevedou! ke! vzniku! zlomu! DNA,! např.! oxidační!poškození!bází!(Collins!et!al.!1996).!! Samotný!kometový!test!indikuje!přítomnost!zlomů!DNA!a!nevypovídá!nic!o! průběhu!a!důsledcích!reparace.!Ke!zjištění!vlivu!reparace!na!sekvenci!DNA!je!nutné! použít! jiný! přístup,! např.! analýzu! indukce! mutací! založenou! na! měření! frekvence! vzniku! mutant,! popřípadě! kombinovanou! se! zjištěním! vzniku! konkrétního! typu! mutace! sekvenováním.! U! Physcomitrelly! je! možné! sledovat! frekvenci! vzniku! 2j fluoroadenin! (2jFA)! rezistentních! mutant,! nesoucích! mutaci! v! genu! pro! adenin! fosforibosyltransferázu! (APT),! umožňujícím! pozitivní! selekci! a,! následnou! sekvenací!APT!lokusu,!určení!typu!mutace.!! Kometový! test! společně! s! mutační! analýzou! je! kombinací! kvalitativního! a! kvantitativního! pohledu! na! opravu! DNA! (Kamisugi! et! al.! 2012;! Holá! et! al.! 2013;! Holá!et!al.!2015).! !
!
!
25!
!
4.&Modelový&organismus&Physcomitrella.patens. !
!
Physcomitrella! patří! mezi! mechy! (Bryophyta),! které! společně! s!
lišejníky! (Marchantiophyta)! a! játrovkami! (Anthocerotophyta)! představují! jednu! z! nejstarších! rostlinných! skupin! (Kenrick! a! Crane! 1997).! Na! rozdíl! od! pozdějších! cévnatých! rostlin! mají! mechy! poměrně! jednoduchou! morfologii,! vytvářejí! jen! několik!druhů!pletiv!s!omezeným!počtem!buněčných!typů.!! U! Physcomitrelly! stejně! jako! u! ostatních! mechů! dochází! během! životního! cyklu! ke! střídání! generací! (obr.! 5).! Minoritní! sporofyt! vznikající! po! oplození! vaječné!buňky!pohyblivým!spermatozoidem!představuje!diploidní!stádium!vývoje.! Sporofyt!produkuje!haploidní!spóry,!ze!kterých!vyrůstá!gametofyt,!který,!na!rozdíl! od!semenných!rostlin!kde!je!tvořen!jen!několika!buňkami,!u!mechu!převládá!(Cove! et!al.!1997).! Gametofyt!je!haploidní!a!dimorfní!–!zpočátku!roste!ve!formě!filament,!která! vytvářejí! dvoudimenzionální! síť! nazývanou! protonema.! Vlákna! protonemy! se! prodlužují! díky! dělícím! se! apikálním! buňkám! na! obou! koncích! každého! vlákna.! Později! dochází! k! větvení! filament! a! diferenciaci! protonemy! a! vzniká! charakteristická! struktura! –! gametofóra,! na! které! se! posléze! vytvářejí! pohlavní! orgány:! samčí! antheridia! produkující! pohyblivé! spermatozoidy! a! samičí! archegonia,!ve!kterých!se!tvoří!vaječné!buňky!(Cove!2005).!! V!laboratorních!podmínkách!se!využívá!téměř!výlučně!gametofyt!ve!stádiu! protonemy,! který! má! řadu! vlastností,! jenž! z! něj! dělají! velmi! výhodný! rostlinný! model.! Mezi! výhody! patří! nenáročná! kultivace! na! jednoduchém! anorganickém! médiu! (Cove! 1992),! kdy! Physcomitrella! může! být! pěstována! jak! na! médiu! zpevněném! agarem,! tak! v! kapalných! kulturách,! které! jsou! vhodné! i! pro! velkoobjemové! bioreaktory! (Hohe! a! Reski! 2005).! Tato! možnost! je! zajímavá! pro! biotechnologické!využití!mechu!(Šmídková!et.!al!2012)! Kromě! spor! lze! dlouhodobě! uchovávat! také! gametofyt! Physcomitrelly.! Při! snížené! teplotě! a! za! omezeného! osvětlení! může! kultura! mechu! přežívat! ve! sterilním! prostředí! na! dostatečné! vrstvě! média! řadu! měsíců.! V! případě! většího! počtu! mutant! nebo! pro! dlouhodobější! skladování! je! možné! mech! uchovávat! pomocí!kryokonzervace!(Schulte!a!Reski!2004).!! Physcomitrellu!lze!jednoduše!vegetativně!propagovat.!U!jakéhokoli!pletiva!–! gametofor! nebo! protonemat,! lze! mechanickým! rozrušením! indukovat! v! narušených!oblastech!přeměnu!buněk!v!chloronemální!apikální!buňky,!které!dále! !
26!
! rostou!ve!formě!filament!(Prigge!a!Bezanilla!2010).!Ranné!stádium!protonemy!ve! fázi! růstu! filament! je! pro! experimentální! práci! nejvhodnější! a! proto! se! také! nejčastěji!využívá.!! Působením!enzymy!degradujícími!buněčnou!stěnu!protonemat!lze!izolovat! protoplasty,! které! v! osmoticky! vhodném! médiu! buněčnou! stěnu! opět! regenerují.! Na! rozdíl! od! cévnatých! rostlin! nevyžadují! pro! regeneraci! fytohormony,! ani! nevytvářejí! kalus,! ale! po! vytvoření! buněčné! stěny! začínají! růst! jako! filamenty! protonemy!(Schween!et!al.!2003).!! Protoplasty! Physcomitrelly! se! rutinně! využívají! pro! transformaci! pomocí! polyethylenglykolu!(PEG)!(Hohe!et!al.!2004).!Alternativou!protoplastů!jsou!krátké! fragmenty! jednodenních! protonemat.! Ty! jsou! připravována! důkladnou! homogenizací!mladého!(většinou!týdenního)!pletiva.!Jednodenní!protonemata!jsou! složena! z! fragmentů! filament! obsahujících! až! 50%! dělících! se! apikálních! buněk! (Holá!et!al.!2013;!Holá!et!al.!2015).!Taková!protonemata!lze!využít!!k!řadě!operací! podobně! jako! protoplasty.! Jedním! z! využití! je! transformace! mechu! biolistickou! metodou,! při! které! je! transgenní! DNA! vnášena! do! buňky! na! kovových! mikročásticích!(Šmídková!et!al.!2010).! Integrace! transgenní! DNA! do! genomu! rostlin! se! uskutečňuje! rekombinací! prostřednictvím!mechanismů!reparace!dvouvláknových!zlomů!DNA.!U!kvetoucích! rostlin! se! transformující! DNA! zavedená! do! buňky! začleňuje! do! genomu! převážně! náhodně! a! cílená! integrace! DNA! mechanismem! homologní! rekombinace! (HR)! probíhá! s! velmi! nízkou! frekvencí! (10j4–10j5)! (Britt! a! May! 2003).! Náhodná! integrace! vyžaduje! enzymy! nehomologní! rekombinační! dráhy! NHEJ,! během! které! jsou! konce! DNA! spojovány! přímo,! popřípadě! bez! vyhledávání! rozsáhlých! homologních!úseků.!! Unikátní! vlastností! Physcomitrelly. je! vzhledem! k! vysoké! účinnosti! HR,! že! vnášená! DNA,! pokud! nese! úseky! shodné! s! genomovou! DNA,! se! přednostně! integruje! v! místě! homologie.! Podobný! jev! je! známý! u! kvasinky! Saccharomyces. cerevisiae! a! naznačuje,! že! HR! je! při! opravě! dvouvláknových! zlomů! DNA! upřednostňována! i! přesto,! že! u! Physcomitrelly! je! přítomna! také! reparační! dráha! NHEJ!(Kamisugi!et!al.!2005;!Kamisugi!et!al.!2006).!! Další! unikátní! vlastností! Physcomitrelly! je! haploidní! genom! gametofytu,! který!umožňuje!snadnou!identifikaci!transformant,!protože!ztráta!funkce!nemůže!
!
27!
! být!kompenzována!funkční!alelou!homologního!chromozomu!a!proto!je!vyřazení!či! modifikace!genu!haploidní!Physcomitrelly!ihned!manifestována!změnou!fenotypu.! Pro! identifikaci! a! selekci! transformant! jsou! často! s! transformující! DNA! vnášeny! také! selekční! markery! rezistence! k! antibiotikům! (kanamycin,! hygromycin),!popřípadě!reportérové!geny!jako!βjglucuronidáza!(GUS),!nebo!různé! formy!fluoreskujících!proteinů!(GFP!a!jeho!deriváty,!RFP!atd.).!! Jako! pozitivní! selekční! marker,! kromě! vnesení! např.! externího! genu! pro! bakteriální! cytosin! deaminázu! ! (codA),! lze! využít! i! přirozeně! se! vyskytující! ! geny! metabolismu! nukleových! kyselin,! po! jejichž! inaktivaci! přestává! organismus! vytvářet! toxické! metabolity! a! získává! tak! rezistenci! vůči! selekčnímu! činidlu.! Jako! příklad! může! sloužit! u! Physcomitrelly! gen! pro! adenin! fosforibosyltransferázu! (APT),! která! se! účastní! syntézy! adenosin! monofosfátu! (AMP)! z! adeninu! a! fosforibosyl!pyrofosfátu.!Ztráta!funkce!APT!dovoluje!rostlině!přežívat!na!médium! obsahujícím! halogenované! analogy! adeninu! např.! 2jFA,! které! jsou! pro! rostliny! s! funkční!APT!toxické!(Gaillard!et!al.!1998;!Trouiller!et!al.!2007).!Proto!lze!gen!APT! využít!pro!vyhledávání!a!identifikaci!mutací!vznikajících!po!působení!genotoxinů!a! není!potřeba!sekvenovat!celý!genom!(Holá!et!al.!2013;!Holá!et!al.!2015).! Physcomitrella!představuje!modelový!organismus!vhodný!jak!pro!„přímou“! tak! reverzní! genetiku,! kdy! lze! díky! vysoké! frekvenci! HR! a! haploidnímu! stádiu! snadno! připravovat! a! izolovat! životaschopné! mutanty! v! požadovaných! genech.! Cílenou! mutagenezí! lze! také! připravit! mutanty! s! upravenou! posttranslační! modifikací! glykosylací! tak,! aby! odpovídala! modifikaci! savčí! či! lidské.! Pro! biotechnologické! využití! lze! z! těchto! mutant! připravit! transformací! expresní! kazetou!produkční!linie,!které!budou!v!kapalné!kultuře!v!bioreaktoru!produkovat! „humanizované“!formy!bioaktivních!proteinů!(Šmídková!2012;!Reski!et!al.!2015).! Dále! je. Physcomitrella! také! vhodným! modelem! pro! studium! buněčných! procesů! jako! např.! reparace! DNA.! Zejména! ve! formě! kultury! krátkých! fragmentů! filament! protonemy,! která! dobře! aproximuje! kulturu! dělících! se! savčích! nebo! kvasničných!buněk.!! Technicky! jde! o! jednodenní! kulturu! po! pasáži! do! ukončení! jednoho! buněčného! cyklu! (20j24! hodin).! Kultura,! podle! stupně! fragmentace! filament! obsahuje!až!50%!dělících!se!apikálních!buněk,!a!představuje!tak!dělící!se!pletivo,! které! se! u! vyšších! rostlin! nachází! pouze! ve! velmi! omezeném! množství! ve!
!
28!
! vrcholových,!listových!nebo!kořenových!meristémech!(Holá!et!al.!2013;!Holá!et!al.! 2015).!!! !
! Obrázek! 5:! Životní! cyklus! Physcomitrelly.! A)! haploidní! spóra! vyklíčí! v! B)! protonemu!tvořenou!buňkami!chloronemy,!které!pokračují!v!růstu!a!mění!se!v!C)! buňky! kaulonemy.! Z! protonemy! vyrůstají! D)! „lístky“! gametofor,! na! kterých! se! vytvářejí! E)! samičí! archegonia! (šipky)! a! samčí! antheridia! (hroty).! Pohyblivá! spermie!oplodní!vajíčko!a!vznikne!F)!diploidní!sporofyt.!(Prigge!a!Bezanilla,!2010).! ! '
!
29!
!
5.&Materiál&a&metody& ! !
V! průběhu! disertační! práce! byla! pro! studium! reparace! a! indukované!
mutageneze! výhradně! používána! jednodenní! kultura! protonemy! Physcomitrelly,! pěstovaná! in\vitro,! připravovaná! důkladnou! homogenizací! sedmidenního! pletiva.! Pro! izolace! DNA! byla! používána! sedmidenní! kultura! protonemy! pěstovaná! na! agarovém!médiu.! ! Seznam&metod& ! Izolace!DNA! Kometový!test! Klonování!DNA!–!příprava!transformačních!vektorů! Kultivace!Physcomitrelly. Mutageneze!jednodenní!kultury!mechu!působením!genotoxinů! PCR! Sekvenování! Transformace!biolistickou!metodou! Zpracování! sekvenačních! dat,! vytváření! kontigů! a! porovnávání! sekvencí! pomocí!programu!MacVector,!Inc.! !
!
!
30!
!
6.&Prezentované&publikace& ! Publikace!1! Genotoxin!induced!mutagenesis!in!the!model!plant!Physcomitrella.patens. HOLÁ,'M.,!J.!KOZÁK,!R.!VÁGNEROVÁ!a!K.!J.!ANGELIS! BioMed!Research!International.!2013,!2013:!1j7! IF2013:!2,706! Příspěvek! autora:! mutageneze,! sekvencování! APT! genu! u! 2jFA! rezistentních! klonů!jednotlivých!linií!mechu,!analýza!mutací! ! Publikace!2! Mutagenesis!during!plant!responses!to!UVB!irradiation! HOLÁ,'M.,!R.!VÁGNEROVÁ!a!K.J.!ANGELIS! Plant!Physiology!and!Biochemistry.!2015,!(93):!29j33! IF2014:!2,352! Příspěvek! autora:! sekvencování! APT! genu! u! 2jFA! rezistentních! klonů! jednotlivých!linií!mechu!a!analýza!mutací! ! Publikace!3!
Efficient!biolistic!transformation!of!the!moss!Physcomitrella.patens. ŠMÍDKOVÁ,!M.,!M.'HOLÁ!a!K.!J.!ANGELIS. Biol!Plantarum.!2010,!54(4):!777j780! IF2010:!1,582! Příspěvek! autora:! příprava! a! údržba! mechu,! adaptace! biolistické! metody,! transformace!biolistickou!metodou! ! Publikace!4! MRE11!and!RAD50,!but!not!NBS1,!are!essential!for!gene!targeting!in!the!moss! Physcomitrella.patens. KAMISUGI,! Y.,! D.! G.! SCHAEFER,! J.! KOZAK,! F.! CHARLOT,! N.! VRIELYNCK,! M.' HOLA,!K.!J.!ANGELIS,!A.!C.!CUMING!a!F.!NOGUE! Nucleic!Acids!Research.!2012,!40(8):!3496j3510! IF2012:!8,278! Příspěvek! autora:! izolace! apt! mutant! po! působení! bleomycinu,! identifikace! mutací!v!sekvenci!lokusu!genu!APT!u!wt!a!pprad50!2jFA!rezistentních!mutant.! !
31!
! ! Publikace!5! !
DNA!repair!in!plants!studied!by!comet!assay!
!
ANGELIS!KJ,!KOZÁK!J,!VÁGNEROVÁ!R!AND!HOLÁ'M'
!
Front.!Genet!2015,!Conference!Abstract:!ICAW!2015!‑!11th! International!Comet!Assay!Workshop.! doi:!10.3389/conf.fgene.2015.01.00067!
Příspěvek!autora:!příspěvek!k!tvorbě!manuskriptu! ! Publikované!práce!nesouvisející!s!tématem!disertační!práce:! ! Plant!production!of!vaccine!against!HPV:!A!new!perspectives! M!ŠMÍDKOVÁ,!M'HOLÁ,!J!BROUZDOVÁ!AND!K!J.!ANGELIS! Human!Papillomavirus!and!Related!Diseases!j!From!Bench!to!Bedside! –
A!Clinical!Perspective,!2012,!D.!Vanden!Broeck,!ed.,!InTech. !!ISBN!978j953j307j860j1!
! ! ! !
!
! !
32!
! I!declare!that!the!contribution!of!Marcela!Holá!to!the!presented!results!in!Kamisugi! et!al.!Nucleic.Acids.Research,!2012,!as!stated!in!“Presented!publications”!chapter,!is! true.!!
! Leeds,!23.6.2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Andrew!C!Cuming!
Potvrzuji,!že!příspěvek!Marcely!Holé!k!prezentovaným!výsledkům!v!Kamisugi!et!al.! Nucleic. Acids. Research,! 2012,! tak! jak! je! uvedeno! v!kapitole! “Prezentované! publikace”,!je!pravda.! !
Leeds,!23.6.2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Andrew!C!Cuming!
!
33!
!
!
34!
!
Genotoxin'induced'mutagenesis'in'the'model'plant'Physcomitrella.patens. ' ' HOLÁ,'M.,!J.!KOZÁK,!R.!VÁGNEROVÁ!a!K.!J.!ANGELIS! ! ! BioMed!Research!International.!2013,!2013:!1j7! IF2013:!2,706! ! ! Příspěvek! autora:! mutageneze,! sekvenování! APT! genu! u! 2jFA! rezistentních! klonů!jednotlivých!linií!mechu,!analýza!mutací!
!
35!
!
Hindawi Publishing Corporation BioMed Research International Volume 2013, Article ID 535049, 7 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/535049
Research Article Genotoxin Induced Mutagenesis in the Model Plant Physcomitrella patens Marcela Holá,1 Jaroslav Kozák,2 Radka Vágnerová,1 and Karel J. Angelis1 1 2
Institute of Experimental Botany ASCR, Na Karlovce 1, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry ASCR, Flemingovo n´am. 2, 1600 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic
Correspondence should be addressed to Karel J. Angelis;
[email protected] Received 4 October 2013; Accepted 14 November 2013 Academic Editor: Alma Balestrazzi Copyright © 2013 Marcela Hol´a et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The moss Physcomitrella patens is unique for the high frequency of homologous recombination, haploid state, and filamentous growth during early stages of the vegetative growth, which makes it an excellent model plant to study DNA damage responses. We used single cell gel electrophoresis (comet) assay to determine kinetics of response to Bleomycin induced DNA oxidative damage and single and double strand breaks in wild type and mutant lig4 Physcomitrella lines. Moreover, APT gene when inactivated by induced mutations was used as selectable marker to ascertain mutational background at nucleotide level by sequencing of the APT locus. We show that extensive repair of DSBs occurs also in the absence of the functional LIG4, whereas repair of SSBs is seriously compromised. From analysis of induced mutations we conclude that their accumulation rather than remaining lesions in DNA and blocking progression through cell cycle is incompatible with normal plant growth and development and leads to sensitive phenotype.
1. Introduction Plants developed several strategies to protect integrity of their genome against various environmental stresses. Common denominator of most of them is oxidative stress mediated by reactive oxygen species (ROS). The origin of ROS within the cell could be a consequence of physical or chemical genotoxic treatment, as well as byproduct of internal oxygen metabolism often triggered by external stimuli as drought and salinity. To be able to cope with oxidative stress we have to assess all faces of this challenge for plants; in particular, how it affects genetic material of the cells and how eventual changes are temporarily or permanently expressed in plant phenotype. This is why we need a flexible and robust model system, which experimentally enables the use of reverse genetics for genotoxic and biochemical studies. In this paper we describe a novel system to be considered for genotoxicity testing in plants. The moss Physcomitrella patens is an emerging model plant [1] with the following differences/advantages as compared to other plant test systems: efficient homologous recombination (enabling reverse genetics of virtually any
gene), dominant haploid phase (enabling assessment of mutation phenotype), small size plantlets colonies with a quick and during early vegetative stage also filamentous growth, easy cultivation in inorganic media and several options of long term storage. Here we describe and validate a system of small protonemata fragments with high fraction of apical cells primarily developed for the purpose of genotoxicity testing. However, these one-day-old protonemata could be used as a substitute of protoplasts for other purposes, for example, for moss transformation [2]. APT (adenine phosphoribosyltransferase) is an enzyme of the purine salvage pathway that converts adenine into AMP and its loss of function generates plants resistant to adenine analogues, for example, 2-FA (2-Fluoroadenine) [3]. Mutational inactivation can be used as selectable marker for mutator genotyping as well as analysis of mutations in APT locus on nucleotide level [4–6]. This paper is an extension of our previous study of Physcomitrella knockout mutants of a key MRN (MRE11, RAD50, and NBS1) complex [6] with a pleiotropic effect on DSB repair in whole. We explore and validate the above outlined moss model system for genotoxicity testing in
!
!
36!
!
2 plants. We describe a parallel use of SCGE (single cell gel electrophoresis, comet) assay for detection of DNA damage and its repair and of APT assay with sequencing analysis of mutants. On example of lig4, mutated in a key component of nonhomologous DSB-end joining pathway (C-NHEJ), we show consequences of mis repair. For strengthening the model concept we also present preliminary results of pprad51AB sensitivity to genotoxin treatment and on ppku70 mutation rate.
2. Material and Methods 2.1. Plant Material. Physcomitrella patens (Hedw.) B.S.G. “Gransden 2004” wild type and pplig4 were vegetatively propagated as previously described [7]. The lig4 and ku70 mutants of C-NHEJ were generated by D. G. Schaefer, Neuchatel University, Switzerland, and F. Nogue, INRA, Paris, France, and kindly provided by F. Nogue. Detailed characteristic of this mutant will be published elsewhere. Mutant in both alleles of Physcomitrella RAD51 gene (pprad51AB, clone 721) is described elsewhere [8] and was kindly provided by B. Reiss, MPIZ, Cologne, Germany. Individual plants were cultured as “spot inocula” on BCD agar medium supplemented with 1 mM CaCl2 and 5 mM ammonium tartrate (BCDAT medium) or as lawns of protonemal filaments by subculture of homogenized tissue on BCDAT agar medium overlaid with cellophane in growth chambers with 18/6 hours day/night cycle at 22/18∘ C. One-day-old protonemal tissue for repair and mutation experiments were prepared from one-week-old tissue scraped from plates, suspended in 8 mL of BCD medium, and sheared by a T25 homogenizer (IKA, Germany) at 10 000 rpm for two 1-minute cycles and let 24 hours to recover in cultivation chamber with gentle shaking at 100 rpm. This treatment yielded suspension of 3–5 cell protonemata filaments, which readily settle for recovery. Settled protonemata could be handled without excessive losses by tweezers on glass Petri plates. 2.2. Bleomycin Treatment and Sensitivity Assay. For treatments was used Bleomycin sulphate supplied as Bleomedac inj. (Medac, Hamburg, Germany). All solutions were prepared fresh prior treatment from weighted substance in BCDAT medium. Protonemal growth was tested by inoculating explants of wild type and 5 mutant lines onto 6 × 4 multiwell plates organized to allow in line comparison of the effect of increasing Bleomycin concentrations. The wells were filled with 2 mL of standard growth BCDAT agar medium without or with 0.01, 0.1, and 1 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin. The experiment was carried in 3 independent replicas and monitored up to 3 weeks for growth of “spot inocula.” Treatment of one-day-old protonemata was performed on glass 5 cm Petri plates with the aid of bent tweezers to handle tissue and pipettes to remove excess liquids. Opening of yellow tips is generally small enough to avoid suction of moss filaments when drawing majority of liquid from tissue
!
BioMed Research International prior blotting of collected tissue on filter paper to remove the rest. In dose-response and repair kinetic experiments, oneday-old protonemata were after the Bleomycin treatment thoroughly rinsed in water, blotted on filter paper, and either flash-frozen in liquid N2 (dose response and repair 𝑡 = 0) or left to recover on plates in liquid BCDAT medium for the indicated repair times, before being frozen in liquid N2 . For induction and regeneration of apt mutants one-dayold protonemata were after Bleomycin treatment thoroughly rinsed with H2 O, suspended in 2 mL of BCDAT medium, and spread on cellophane overlaid BCDAT agar plates, which were for selection supplemented with 2-FA (2-Fluoroadenine, Sigma-Aldrich, cat. Nr. 535087) and further incubated in growth chamber. 2.3. Detection of DNA Lesions. DNA single and double strand breaks were detected by a SCGE assay using either alkaline unwinding step A/N [9, 10] or fully neutral N/N protocol [11, 12] as previously described. In brief, approximately 100 mg of frozen tissue was cut with a razor blade in 300 𝜇L PBS + 10 mM EDTA on ice and released nuclei transferred into Eppendorf tubes on ice. 70 𝜇L of nuclear suspension was dispersed in 280 𝜇L of melted 0.7% LMT agarose (GibcoBRL, cat. Nr. 15510-027) at 40∘ C and four 80 𝜇L aliquots were immediately pipetted onto each of two coated microscope slides (in duplicate per slide), covered with a 22 × 22 mm cover slip and then chilled on ice for 1 min to solidify the agarose. After removal of cover slips, slides were immersed in lysing solution (2.5 M NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl, 0.1 M EDTA, and 1% N-lauroyl sarcosinate, pH 7.6) on ice for at least 1 hour to dissolve cellular membranes and remove attached proteins. The whole procedure from chopping tissue to placement into lysing solution takes approximately 3 minutes. After lysis, slides were either first incubated 10 minutes in 0.3 M NaOH, 5 mM EDTA, pH 13.5 solution to allow partially unwind DNA double helix to reveal SSBs (A/N protocol) or without unwinding step (N/N protocol) directly equilibrated twice for 5 minutes in TBE electrophoresis buffer to remove salts and detergents. Comet slides were then subjected to electrophoresis at 1 V cm−1 (app. 12 mA) for 3 minutes. After electrophoresis, slides were placed for 5 min in 70% EtOH, 5 min in 96% EtOH, and air-dried. Comets were viewed in epifluorescence with a Nikon Eclipse 800 microscope stained with SYBR Gold (Molecular Probes/Invitrogen, cat. Nr. S11494) according to manufacture recommendation and evaluated by the LUCIA Comet cytogenetic software (LIM Inc., Czech Republic). 2.4. SCGE Assay Data Analysis. The fraction of DNA in comet tails (% tail-DNA, % T DNA) was used as a measure of DNA damage. Data for the wild type and the mutant pplig4 line analysed in this study were obtained in at least three independent experiments. In each experiment, the % T DNA was measured at seven time points: 0, 5, 10, 20, 60, 180, and 360 min after the treatment and in control tissue without treatment. Measurements included four independent gel replicas of 25 evaluated comets totalled in at least 300
37!
!
&
BioMed Research International
3
% damage remaining (𝑡𝑥 ) =
mean % tail-DNA (𝑡𝑥 ) − mean % tail-DNA (control) mean % tail-DNA (𝑡0 ) − mean % tail-DNA (control)
∗ 100.
(1)
Time-course repair data were analysed for one- or two-phase decay kinetic by Prism v.5 program (GrafPad Software Inc., USA). 2.5. Isolation and Analysis of apt Mutants after Bleomycin Treatment. Mutation rates were measured as the number of apt mutants that appeared as green foci of regenerating clones resistant to 2-FA (Figure 3). Treated protonemata were first incubated approximately 3 weeks on plates with 2 or 3 mM 2-FA until first green foci start to emerge. Then whole cellophane overlay was transferred to a new plate with 8 mM 2-FA and emerging clones were allowed to form colonies. Stable clones were then counted. Some clones were further propagated on plates with 8 mM 2-FA and their APT locus was subsequently PCR amplified and sequenced to identify the mutation(s) responsible for the resistance. Approximately 100 mg of tissue was used to isolate genomic DNA with DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, cat. Nr. 69104) using “ball” mill Retsch MM301 to homogenize the tissue in 2 mL round bottom Eppendorf tubes. APT locus was amplified from isolated genomic DNA with KOD Hot Start DNA Polymerase (Millipore/Novagen, cat. Nr. 71086), purified with the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, cat. Nr. 28104) and used as a template for sequencing with BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, cat. Nr. 4337455). Locations of PCR primers used for APT amplification and sequencing are depicted on Supplementary Figure 2 and their sequences are listed in Supplementary Table 1 (see Supplementary Material available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/535049). To keep sequencing cost down only half volume of the BigDye Ready Reaction Mix was used in a standard sequencing reaction and combined with the same volume of Half-TermDye-Termination mixture (Sigma-Aldrich, cat. Nr. H1282). 2.6. Analysis of Sequencing Data. Sequences of each clone obtained on genetic analyser Prism 3130x1 (Applied Biosystems, USA) were stiched together with MacVector program Assembler 12.7.5 (MacVector, USA) into contigs and aligned to the latest annotated APT sequence Pp1s114 124V6.1 in the COSMOSS—the Physcomitrella patens resource database (https://www.cosmoss.org/).
3. Results and Discussion In all experiments a model Physcomitrella patens has been used as one day recovered fragments of 3–5 cell size derived from the lawn of growing protonema filaments by extensive
!
wt
ppmre11
pplig4
ppnbs1 pprad51AB pprad50
0 Bleomycin (𝜇g/mL)
comets analysed per experimental point. The percentage of damage remaining as plotted on Figure 2(b) after given repair time (𝑡𝑥 ) is defined as
0.01
0.1
1
Figure 1: Sensitivity of the Physcomitrella patens repair mutants mre11, lig4, nbs1, rad51AB, and rad50 to chronic exposure of Bleomycin. Physcomitrella explants were inoculated as “spot inocula” onto BCDAT-agar plates supplemented with 0, 0.01, 0.1, and 1 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin and photographed 10 days after inoculation.
shearing. Such one-day-old protonemata represent a unique system among plants to study plant tissue with up to 50% of apical dividing cells. Convenient mechanical handling enables quick processing of tissue after the treatment to address short repair times and with fine tip tweezers also for uniform spotting to test sensitivity. In this respect one-dayold protonemata are preferred system to so far widely used protoplasts, which could be collected only by centrifugation. Another reason for using protonemata is possibility their mechanical disintegration by razor blade chopping for rapid release of nuclei for SCGE assay. In this way direct use of protoplasts for comet assay is obstructed by nearly instant regeneration of the cell wall within 4 hours after the release from cellulase treatment (unpublished observation), because cell wall prevents DNA movement from nuclei during electrophoresis. 3.1. Sensitivity to Bleomycin Treatment. Moss wild type and pplig4, mre11, nbs1, rad51AB, and rad50 [6, 8] mutant lines were analysed for their sensitivity to radiomimetic Bleomycin in chronic “survival” assay when test plates with various concentrations of Bleomycin were inoculated with equal tissue “spots” of one-day-old protonemata and incubated up to 3 weeks (Figure 1). Only rad51AB and rad50 strains displayed one order of a magnitude higher sensitivity in comparison to other tested lines. The survival growth of ppmre11 is somehow in contradiction with pervious results of Kamisugi et al. [6], but one has to realize different assay conditions, for example, acute versus chronic exposure and protoplast cells versus protonemata. In protonema tissue under permanent genotoxic stress mre11 express phenotype similar to wild type, nbs1, and also lig4. One can speculate that 3 to 5 exonuclease and endonuclease activity associated with MRE11 is dispensable for tissue survival, but proteins RAD50 and RAD51 supporting DNA structure are not. Kozak et al. [12] previously showed crucial role of structural maintenance
38!
!
&
BioMed Research International 100
100
80
80 DNA damage remaining (%)
T DNA (%)
4
60
40
40
20
20
0
60
0
10
20
30
40
0
50
BLM (𝜇g/mL)
0
60
120
180 240 t (min)
300
360
wt pplig4 wt (A/N) pplig4 (A/N)
wt pplig4 wt (A/N) pplig4 (A/N) (a)
(b)
Figure 2: SSB and DSB repair kinetics determined by SCGE. One-day regenerated protonemal tissue from wild type and pplig4 lines was treated with Bleomycin for 1 h prior to nuclear extraction and the analysis. (a) Dose-response as the percentage of the free DNA moved by electrophoresis into comet tail (% T DNA) at the indicated Bleomycin concentrations. DSBs were determined by N/N protocol: green: wild type, blue: pplig4, whereas SSBs were determined by A/N protocol: red: wild type, dark purple: pplig4. (b) Repair kinetics is plotted as % of DSBs remaining over the 0, 5, 10, 20, 60, 180, and 360 min period of repair recovery. Maximum damage is normalised as 100% at 𝑡 = 0 for all lines. SSBs were induced by 1-hour treatment with 2 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin; bright blue: wild type, dark blue: pplig4, and determined by A/N protocol. DSBs were induced by 1-hour treatment with 30 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin, green: wild type, orange: pplig4, and determined by N/N protocol. (Error bars-standard error).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3: Plates with 2-FA resistant foci of wild type Physcomitrella (a and b) and pplig4 (c) after 3 weeks of selection. (a) Untreated Physcomitrella wild type, (b) 50 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin treated wild type protonemata for 2 hours, and (c) 5 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin treated pplig4 protonemata for 1 hour prior being spread on plates with BCDAT medium supplemented with 2 𝜇M 2-FA and cultivated for 3 weeks.
of chromosome complex SMC5/6 in the repair of Bleomycin induced DSBs. In this context RAD50s have similar structural role in MRN complex as SMCs in the structure of the SMC5/6 complex [13]. Both these complexes can function in tethering of broken ends in close proximity.
!
3.2. Induction of DNA Lesions and Their Repair. Bleomycin, an ionizing radiation mimicking agent, functions as a catalyst activated by interaction with DNA and attachment of Fe2+ to produce oxygen radicals leading to lesions as SSBs, DSBs, AP-sites, and damaged bases [14, 15], which all could be
39!
!
&
BioMed Research International readily detected by SCGE [16]. DNA breaks and other lesions converted to breaks lead to DNA fragmentation and nucleoid unwinding allowing relaxed DNA to move in electric field from nuclei out to form a “comet” like object in which increased quantity of fragmented DNA in comet tail (% T DNA) is proportional to breakage. DSBs are detected by an N/N assay when pH of lysing and electrophoretic solutions is kept under pH 10, whilst for the detection of SSBs DNA after the lysis is allowed to unwind DNA double-helix in alkali [17] to separate individual strands and expose their fragmentation (A/N protocol [9]). Bleomycin fragmentation of genomic DNA by induction of SSBs and DSBs is documented on Figure 2(a). Ten times higher efficiency to induce SSBs than DSBs is in agreement with generally accepted ratio of 1 : 10, DSBs versus SSBs, induced by ionizing radiation. Evidently this also applies for Bleomycin treatment of Physcomitrella. The background level of genomic DNA damage in wild type and pplig4 is similar, between 20 and 25% T DNA, indicating that the repair defect has no significant effect on natural levels of genomic DNA fragmentation. Nevertheless, in comparison with wild type, pplig4 is vulnerable to Bleomycin induction of DSBs and SSBs. In both wild type and pplig4 lines, the Bleomycin induced DSBs are repaired with a rapid, biphasic kinetics (Figure 2(b)). Half-lives of DSB survival 𝜏1/2 1.5 min for wild type and 2.5 min for pplig4 are similar to 𝜏1/2 2.9 min for pprad50, 𝜏1/2 4.1 min for ppmre11, and 𝜏1/2 1.9 min for ppnbs1 previously reported in [6]. Contrary to DSBs, SSBs are repaired far less efficiently. Slow SSB repair might be common feature of plants since Don`a et al. [18] recently observed similar phenomenon in Medicago truncata cell culture irradiated with different doses of 𝛾-ray. The SSB repair kinetic in wild type Physcomitrella is clearly biphasic and in this respect parallels repair of MMS induced SSBs in Arabidopsis [19]. In comparison to DSBs, substantially smaller fraction of SSBs is repaired with fast kinetics; the defect even more manifested in pplig4. It suggests an important role for LIG4 in the repair of DNA lesions like modified basis, AP sites that are usually detected as SSBs and are repaired via BER (base excision repair). It is noteworthy that LIG3, the ligase finishing BER pathway, is not represented in plants. We showed earlier that principal substitute for LIG3 in Arabidopsis is LIG1 [19]. The repair kinetic of MMS induced SSBs in atlig1 posed an exceptional route. After the treatment the number of breaks continues to increase during the first hour of repair and after 3 hours returns to the level at the end of treatment. Then repair continues similarly as in the wild type (see Figure 4 in [19]). Because atlig1 is an RNAi line with only 40% of remaining LIG1 activity, such repair course is a consequence of unbalanced BER due to attenuated ligation step. Evidently the knockout mutation in pplig4 does not have such severe effect on repair of SSBs; nevertheless, the defect clearly shows that LIG4 is also involved in the repair of SSBs in plants. 3.3. Induction and Analysis of apt Mutants. The mutator phenotype was assessed as the loss of function of the APT gene [4] due to presence or error prone repair of endogenous
!
5 DNA damage in the wild-type moss and lig4, mre11, and rad50 repair mutant lines. We found dramatic, over two orders of magnitude, variation of mutator phenotype in response to mutagenic treatment. While wild type Physcomitrella with low mutator phenotype needed 2 hours and 50 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin treatment to induce any apt clone, in pprad50 with high mutator phenotype 1 hour treatment with only 0.1 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin was enough for massive induction of apt clones. Other lines, pplig4 and ppmre11, assumed as having “moderate” mutator phenotype, were mutagenized either with 5 or, respectively, 1 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin for 1 hour. Mutagenesis and clone selection in Physcomitrella wild type and pplig4 is depicted on Figure 3. For comparison we normalised the yield of 2FA resistant clones to 1 𝜇g mL−1 Bleomycin treatment per 1 g dry tissue weight in each line as “relative number of ppapts.” The values of these normalised yields range from 9 in wild type to 875 for pprad50 (see Supplementary Figure 1 where are plotted summarized results of Bleomycin mutagenesis in Physcomitrella wild type and lig4, ku70, rad50, mre11, and nbs1 mutants). Randomly picked apt clones from selection plates were further propagated on 2-FA media to provide enough material for isolation of genomic DNA and sequencing analysis of APT locus. Results of sequencing analysis are pictured in Figure 4 and detailed annotations of identified mutations are summarized in Supplementary Table 2. In total were analysed 5 clones of Physcomitrella wild type, 4 clones of pplig4, 3 clones of ppmre11, and 6 clones of pprad50 and identified 48 mutations. Mutations were according to assumed mechanism of formation classified as reversions, single base insertion or deletion, and insertions or deletions larger than 2 bases either in coding (exons) or noncoding regions of APT locus. Most of the identified mutations are as expected localised within CDS, in particular within exon 4 that is annotated as coding for adenine salvage activity (see Figure 4). Nevertheless, in wt:1, lig4:1, lig4:2, and mre11:6 apt clones, mutations were identified only in the noncoding region and their contribution to mutated APT phenotype has to be established. Majority of mutations in CDS are point mutations (base substitution, single base insertions, and deletions) and it is difficult to dissect the route of their formation. Some of single base deletions could come from classical or altered NHEJ repair of DSBs [20], but more likely they represent along with other point mutations outcome of processing base oxidative damage. Interesting point is that only single base insertions were identified in APT CDS of pplig4. Insertion of extra base might imply defect in BER repair of oxidative damage in the absence of LIG4 and could be associated with defective repair of SSBs in pplig4. Long deletions are clearly associated with NHEJ repair of DSBs, because, besides one rather short (8 bp) deletion in wt:3 clone, all appear in clones derived from mre11 and rad50 background. This supports our working hypothesis that MRN-unsupervised repair generates more severe forms of genomic damage [6]. Only one 4 base insertion was identified in noncoding region of wt:2.
40!
!
&
6
BioMed Research International rad50:3 rad50:4 rad50:3 wt:1
wt:6
rad50:4
rad50:7 wt:5 ATG CAAT
rad50:4 rad50:4
lig4:1
rad50:4
wt:2 rad50:4 rad50:4
2
3
4
1000
5
1500
mre11:1
wt:2 6
2000
mre11:6
wt:2 wt:2
wt:2
rad50:4
1 500
rad50:4
rad50:4
lig4:3
mre11:4
wt:2
rad50:4
TATA
rad50:1
wt:2
lig4:3
7 2500
8 3000
3500
rad50:1
rad50:7
mre11:1 wt:1
wt:2
wt:3 rad50:3
wt:6 rad50:2 rad50:2 rad50:7 rad50:4 rad50:4
rad50:5
Figure 4: Map of identified mutations within APT locus. Bleomycin induced mutations are identified by color (blue: substitutions, green: insertions, and red: deletions) and tagged according to background as wt, lig4, mre11, and rad50 and the number of line in which mutation was detected. Deletions are shown as boxes of size proportional to their length. On the locus map are depicted 500 nucleotide size markers and eight turquoise hollow arrows representing exons of APT CDS. Detailed description of each mutation is provided in Supplementary Table 2.
4. Conclusions We validated the use of regenerating one-day-old protonemal tissue of Physcomitrella patens for complex analysis of genotoxic stress by parallel study of DNA damage, its repair, and mutagenic consequences in wild type and lig4 mutant plants. From experimental point of view we developed a novel model system where 3–5 cell protonemata filaments with up to 50% of apical cells can substitute and surplus protoplasts use. Bleomycin was used to model DNA oxidative genotoxic stress with all its consequences as SSBs and DSBs, which can be followed by SCGE. We confirmed in Physcomitrella as previously in Arabidopsis rapid DSB repair even in the absence of LIG4, the key ligase of major DSB repair pathway by NHEJ mechanism [12]. Moreover, we showed crucial role of LIG4 in the repair of SSBs by BER mechanism, where it can substitute along with LIG1 [19] in plants missing LIG3. We selected and analysed by sequencing 2-FA resistant clones with Bleomycin mutated APT locus and found out that mutation spectra of lig4 mutant reflects rather the defect of SSB than DSB repair. Nevertheless, as previously described [6], we interpret that mutations due to the error prone
!
repair in pplig4 rather than unrepaired lesions within DNA and interfering with progression through the cell cycle are responsible for pplig4 sensitive phenotype.
Abbreviations A/N: AP: APT: BER: CDS: DSB(s): 2-FA: HR: MMS: NHEJ: N/N: ROS: SCGE: SSB(s): 𝜏1/2 :
Comet assay with alkaline unwinding step Apurinic/apyrimidinic (site) Adenine phosphoribosyltransferase Base excision repair Coding DNA sequence DNA double-strand break(s) 2-Fluoroadenine Homologous recombination Methyl methanesulfonate Nonhomologous end joining Neutral comet assay Reactive oxygen species Comet assay DNA single-strand break(s) Half-life.
41!
!
&
BioMed Research International
Conflict of Interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Acknowledgments Czech Science Foundation (13-06595S) and Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport CR (LD13006) supported this work. The authors appreciate Dr. Andrew Cuming’s help with sequences and mutations analysis.
References [1] D. J. Cove, C. D. Knight, and T. Lamparter, “Mosses as model systems,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 99–105, 1997. ˇ ıdkov´a, M. Hol´a, and K. J. Angelis, “Efficient biolistic [2] M. Sm´ transformation of the moss Physcomitrella patens,” Biologia Plantarum, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 777–780, 2010. [3] C. Gaillard, B. A. Moffatt, M. Blacker, and M. Laloue, “Male sterility associated with APRT deficiency in Arabidopsis thaliana results from a mutation in the gene APT1,” Molecular & General Genetics, vol. 257, no. 3, pp. 348–353, 1998. [4] B. Trouiller, D. G. Schaefer, F. Charlot, and F. Nogu´e, “MSH2 is essential for the preservation of genome integrity and prevents homeologous recombination in the moss Physcomitrella patens,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 232–242, 2006. [5] B. Trouiller, F. Charlot, S. Choinard, D. G. Schaefer, and F. Nogu´e, “Comparison of gene targeting efficiencies in two mosses suggests that it is a conserved feature of Bryophyte transformation,” Biotechnology Letters, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1591– 1598, 2007. [6] Y. Kamisugi, D. G. Schaefer, J. Kozak et al., “MRE11 and RAD50, but not NBS1, are essential for gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 3496–3510, 2012.
7 [13] J. M. Murray and A. M. Carr, “Smc5/6: a link between DNA repair and unidirectional replication?” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 177–182, 2008. [14] R. J. Steighner and L. F. Povirk, “Bleomycin-induced DNA lesions at mutational hot spots: implications for the mechanism of double-strand cleavage,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 87, no. 21, pp. 8350–8354, 1990. [15] A. G. Georgakilas, “Processing of DNA damage clusters in human cells: current status of knowledge,” Molecular BioSystems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 30–35, 2007. [16] A. G. Georgakilas, S. M. Holt, J. M. Hair, and C. W. Loftin, “Measurement of oxidatively-induced clustered DNA lesions using a novel adaptation of single cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay),” in Current Protocols in Cell Biology, S. J. Bonifacino et al., Ed., chapter 6, p. 6.11, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. [17] G. Ahnstr¨om and K. Erixon, “Radiation induced strand breakage in DNA from mammalian cells. Strand separation in alkaline solution,” International Journal of Radiation Biology and Related Studies in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 285–289, 1973. [18] M. Don`a, L. Ventura, A. Balestrazz et al., “Dose-dependent reactive species accumulation and preferential double-strand breaks repair are featured in the 𝛾-ray response in Medicago truncatula cells,” Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 2013. [19] W. M. Waterworth, J. Kozak, C. M. Provost, C. M. Bray, K. J. Angelis, and C. E. West, “DNA ligase 1 deficient plants display severe growth defects and delayed repair of both DNA single and double strand breaks,” BMC Plant Biology, vol. 9, article 79, 2009. [20] C. Charbonnel, E. Allain, M. E. Gallego, and C. I. White, “Kinetic analysis of DNA double-strand break repair pathways in Arabidopsis,” DNA Repair, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 611–619, 2011.
[7] C. D. Knight, A. C. Cuming, and R. S. Quatrano, “Moss gene technology,” in Molecular Plant Biology Volume 2, P. M. Gilmartin and C. Bowler, Eds., vol. 2, pp. 285–299, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002. [8] U. Markmann-Mulisch, E. Wendeler, O. Zobell, G. Schween, H.H. Steinbiss, and B. Reiss, “Differential requirements for RAD51 in Physcomitrella patens and Arabidopsis thaliana development and DNA damage repair,” Plant Cell, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 3080– 3089, 2007. [9] K. J. Angelis, M. Dusinska, and A. R. Collins, “Single cell gel electrophoresis: detection of DNA damage at different levels of sensitivity,” Electrophoresis, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 2133–2138, 1999. [10] M. Menke, I.-P. Chen, K. J. Angelis, and I. Schubert, “DNA damage and repair in Arabidopsis thaliana as measured by the comet assay after treatment with different classes of genotoxins,” Mutation Research, vol. 493, no. 1-2, pp. 87–93, 2001. [11] P. L. Olive and J. P. Ban´ath, “The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells,” Nature Protocols, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2006. [12] J. Kozak, C. E. West, C. White, J. A. da Costa-Nunes, and K. J. Angelis, “Rapid repair of DNA double strand breaks in Arabidopsis thaliana is dependent on proteins involved in chromosome structure maintenance,” DNA Repair, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 413–419, 2009.
!
42!
! Mutagenesis'during'plant'responses'to'UVB'irradiation' ' ' HOLÁ,'M.,!R.!VÁGNEROVÁ!a!K.J.!ANGELIS! ! ! Plant!Physiology!and!Biochemistry.!2015,!(93):!29j33! IF2014:!2,352! ! ! Příspěvek! autora:! sekvenování! APT! genu! u! 2jFA! rezistentních! klonů! jednotlivých!linií!mechu!a!analýza!mutací!
!
43!
!
&
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 93 (2015) 29e33
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/plaphy
Mutagenesis during plant responses to UVB radiation !, R. Va !gnerova !, K.J. Angelis* M. Hola Institute of Experimental Botany AS CR, Na Karlovce 1, 160 00 Prague 6, Czech Republic
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 28 September 2014 Accepted 16 December 2014 Available online 17 December 2014
We tested an idea that induced mutagenesis due to unrepaired DNA lesions, here the UV photoproducts, underlies the impact of UVB irradiation on plant phenotype. For this purpose we used protonemal culture of the moss Physcomitrella patens with 50% of apical cells, which mimics actively growing tissue, the most vulnerable stage for the induction of mutations. We measured the UVB mutation rate of various moss lines with defects in DNA repair (pplig4, ppku70, pprad50, ppmre11), and in selected clones resistant to 2-Fluoroadenine, which were mutated in the adenosine phosphotrasferase gene (APT), we analysed induced mutations by sequencing. In parallel we followed DNA break repair and removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers with a half-life t ¼ 4 h 14 min determined by comet assay combined with UV dimer specific T4 endonuclease V. We show that UVB induces massive, sequence specific, error-prone bypass repair that is responsible for a high mutation rate owing to relatively slow, though error-free, removal of photoproducts by nucleotide excision repair (NER). © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Keywords: UV dimers DNA repair Error-prone bypass Comet assay APT mutagenesis
1. Introduction The majority of UVB photoproducts, pyrimidine dimers (CPD) and pyrimidine(6e4)pyrimidinone dimers (6e4 PP), are removed in plants by blue light (320e450 nm) induced direct dimer reversal with photolyases specific for CPDs as well as 6e4 PP (Britt, 1995). Light repair is efficient and error free, nevertheless half-life of CPDs removal is about 1 h (Pang and Hays, 1991) and for complete elimination of 6-4PPs are needed at least 2 h (Waterworth et al., 2002; Chen et al., 1994), during which other mechanisms can take place. In contrast to photoreactivation, dark repair pathways do not directly reverse DNA damage, but instead replace the damaged DNA with new, undamaged nucleotides. There are recognized to be two possible mechanisms relying either on excision of dimers or on their tolerance by trans-lesion synthesis, of which replicative polymerases are also capable (Rabkin et al., 1983). CPDs and 6e4 PP are recognized and removed due to their “bulky” distortion of the DNA double helix by nucleotide excision repair (NER), a repair mechanism able to cope with a broad spectrum of
DNA lesions that disturb the conformation of DNA, by error-free replacement of the DNA strand containing the lesion in a range of 2e4 helical turns (20e40 nucleotides) by a newly synthesized patch. Both photoreactivation and NER are error free, and so we asked which mechanism underlay the generally observed high mutagenic as well as severe carcinogenic risk caused by UV irradiation. The most relevant form of UV for the induction of biological effects is UVB, since UVC hardly penetrates the Earth's atmosphere. In the present research we used a recently-described approach employing regenerating one-day-old protonemal tissue of Physcomitrella patens (Hola et al., 2013) for complex analysis of UVB genotoxic stress in laboratory conditions by parallel study of DNA damage, its repair and its mutagenic consequences in wild type and pplig4, pprad50, ppmre11, ppku70 mutants, to ascertain the nature of observed high rates of UV mutagenesis. 2. Materials and methods Detailed description of Materials and Methods is in Appendix A. 2.1. Plant material
Abbreviations: A/N, comet assay protocol with alkaline unwinding step; APT, adenine phosphotrasnferase; BER, base excision repair; CPD, cyclobutyl pyrimidine dimer; 2FA, 2-Fluoroadenin; NER, nucleotide excision repair; N/N, neutral comet assay; 6e4 PP, pyrimidine(6e4)pyrimidinone dimer; SSB, DNA single strand break; t, half-life; T4EndoV, T4 Endonuclease V. * Corresponding author. E-mail address:
[email protected] (K.J. Angelis).
P. patens (Hedw.) B.S.G. “Gransden 2004”wild type and pplig4, pprad50, ppmre11 were described previously (Hola et al., 2013; Kamisugi et al., 2012) along with cultivation and treatment conditions. The ppku70 mutant in the canonical non-homologous DSB repair pathway (C-NHEJ) was generated and kindly provided by D.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2014.12.013 0981-9428/© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
!
44!
!
&
30
! et al. / Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 93 (2015) 29e33 M. Hola
G. Schaefer, Neuchatel University, Switzerland. 2.2. UV and Bleomycin treatment Laboratory broadband UVB irradiation was carried in a Hoefer UV crosslinker with the unwanted UVC fraction filtered out by a cellulose acetate sheet (Britt et al., 1993) overlaying samples and a crosslinker UV gauge (Figure A.2). Insertion of the sheet increased by about 20% the time needed for the crosslinker to achieve the set irradiation dose; e.g. from 40 to 50 s to deliver dose 3 kJ m!2. To block light repair, irradiation and recovery cultivation were performed in dark and collection and freezing of samples under red light in a darkroom. In mutation experiments, samples were kept in the dark for 24 h after irradiation to allow induction of mutations. Bleomedac inj. (Medac, Hamburg, Germany) was used for Bleomycin treatment as previously described (Hola et al., 2013). All studies were performed with protonemata 1 day following homogenisation, having approximately 50% of actively dividing cells (Fig. A.1). 2.3. Detection of DNA lesions DNA single strand breaks (SSBs) were detected by an A/N comet assay using neutral protocol with an alkaline unwinding step (Angelis et al., 1999; Menke et al., 2001; Olive and Banath, 2006). For specific detection of CPDs, T4 endonuclease V (T4EndoV) digestion step was included in the protocol after cell lysis. T4EndoV enzyme was prepared as a crude lysate from overexpressing bacteria (Collins, 2011; Valerie et al., 1985). Thirty minutes digestion of nuclear DNA of cells irradiated by 3 kJ m!2 with T4EndoV diluted 1:500 at room temperature generated app. 95% DNA fragmentation (Fig. A.3). Without T4EndoV treatment, the fraction of fragmented DNA in comet tails increased after irradiation only to 10% from 1 to 2 % of background value. Comets on slides were stained with SYBR Gold (Molecular Probes/Invitrogen), viewed in epifluorescence with a Nikon Eclipse 800 microscope and captured and evaluated by the LUCIA Comet cytogenetic software (LIM Inc., Czech Republic).
Appendix Figure A.4 and Table A.1. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Repair of UVB induced lesions Repair of CPDs and 6-4PPs by excision NER pathway proceeds in four steps: Recognition of distorted DNA double helix by a “bulky” lesion, incision of the DNA strand on both sides of a lesion, filling the gap by DNA repair synthesis and religation of a newly synthesized patch. DNA breaks formed during the incision step of dimer repair can be followed as SSBs by the A/N comet assay because they lead to fragmentation of nuclear DNA. Kinetics of formation and removal of SSBs during repair is plotted in Fig. 1 (open circles). Data are expressed as % of remaining damage, with damage after UV irradiation at t ¼ 0 set to 100%. An increased number of SSBs due to NER is observed during period of approximately 6 h, with a peak at 1 h, when the number of breaks nearly doubles and is then followed by a gradual decrease, indicating saturation of repair capacity after 1 h and steady-state progression of repair afterwards. After 6 h the level of SSBs is the same as immediately after UV irradiation. Removal of CPDs from nuclear DNA was followed after their conversion to SSBs by digestion of nuclei already embedded on comet slides with the CPD specific endonuclease T4EndoV prior to DNA unwinding and electrophoresis. T4EndoV has two associated enzyme activities: pyrimidine dimer glycosylase cleaving the glycosyl bond of the 50 -pyrimidine of CPD and AP-endonuclease cleaving the phosphodiester bond at a glycosylase-generated AP site. The kinetics of CPD removal in P. patens follows first order kinetics with an estimated half-life t ¼ 4 h 14 min (Fig. 1, closed circles). As reported in Arabidopsis, CPD dark repair is several times slower than light repair and this might be true also in P. patens (Britt et al., 1993).
2.4. Analysis of comet assay data The fraction of fragmented DNA in comet tails (% T DNA) was used as a measure of DNA damage, nevertheless for an easy comparison of SSBs and CPDs repair kinetics, comet data are rather expressed as % of remaining damage, where damage after UV irradiation at t ¼ 0 is set 100% for both lesions (Eq. (A.1)). Data in this study were obtained in at least three independent experiments. Measurements of blind-labelled comet slides included 25 evaluated comets of four independent gel replicas in each experiment that totalled at least 300 comets analysed per experimental point. Time-course data were analysed for one-phase decay kinetics by Prism v.5 program (GrafPad Software Inc., USA). 2.5. Isolation and analysis of APT mutants The dose 500 J m!2 was used to induce mutations in APT. After irradiation, samples were kept in darkness for 24 h to block light repair and generate mutations. Mutation rates were measured as the number of APT mutants that appeared as green foci of regenerating clones resistant to 2-Fluoroadenine (2FA). Treated protonemata were cultivated on plates with 8 mM 2FA and emerging foci were allowed to form colonies. Stable clones were then counted. Randomly selected clones were further propagated and their APT locus was PCR amplified and sequenced to identify the mutation(s) responsible for resistance. Details of mutant analysis are in
!
Fig. 1. The repair kinetics of SSBs and CPDs induced by 3 kJ m!2 UVB irradiation. Both SSBs and CPDs were determined in the same sample from which comet slides were prepared and processed either with or without the T4EndoV digestion step. Data are expressed as % of remaining damage, when damage after irradiation t ¼ 0 is set to 100%. The number of SSBs first increases as a consequence of NER incisions, reaching a maximum after 1 h and then as NER proceeds their number decreases (opened circles). The number of induced CPDs gradually decreases from t ¼ 0 following first order kinetics with a CPD half-life t ¼ 4 h 14 min (closed circles).
45!
!
&
31
! et al. / Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 93 (2015) 29e33 M. Hola
3.2. UVB mutagenesis Slow dark NER repair of UV dimers opens the possibility for their eventual, more rapid error-prone repair or any other error-prone tolerance mechanism that might underlie observed UV mutagenicity. For this reason we decided to detect mutagenesis endpoints as changes at the DNA sequence level. Mutations in genes of nucleotide metabolism like APT confer resistance to halogenated bases like 2FA, which, when utilized by cell metabolism are toxic. This feature is used as a positive selection marker for identification of mutants. PCR amplification of the mutated gene DNA and its sequence analysis provides a description of the acquired mutations and gives an insight into how they occurred. Firstly we examined the number of regenerating APT mutants in P. patens wild type and pprad50, ppmre11, pplig4 and ppku70 mutants, appearing spontaneously or induced by 500 J m!2 UVB, 1 mM MMS and 1 mg mL!1 Bleomycin and normalized the count to 1 g of dry tissue weight. Results are summarized in Fig. 2 (partial results of Bleomycin mutagenesis were previously published in (Hola et al., 2013; Kamisugi et al., 2012)). UV mutagenesis proved to be effective in the wt and repair mutants studied. Aside from an exceptional and enigmatic role of RAD50 in UV mutagenesis, we can speculate about the higher rate of UV mutagenesis in the pplig4 background. Hol! a et al. (Hola et al., 2013) described a repair defect of oxidative damage by base excision repair (BER) and showed that LIG4, perhaps along with LIG1 (Waterworth et al., 2009) could substitute in plants that lacked LIG3 in this pathway. If we assume that absence of LIG4 abolishes the active error free BER pathway, then any error-prone repair or bypass of UV induced dimers becomes more relevant and could contribute to higher rates of mutagenesis. This is an interesting point, because BER repair of CPDs in plants was never previously seriously considered (Britt, 1995) regardless of the fact that this mechanism is active in bacteria (bacteriophage T4EndoV used in this study for detection of CPDs is an example) and perhaps also in other organisms. 3.3. Sequence analysis of UVB induced mutations For detailed analysis of induced mutations we picked at random clones from mutation experiments and after their propagation isolated DNA and sequenced the APT locus. In all sequenced APT mutants we found mainly cytosine to thymine transitions (Table 1)
that are typically formed after UV irradiation generating nearly exclusively pyrimidine dimers, but that rarely occur after other type of treatment like Bleomycin. UVB and Bleomycin induced mutations are summarized in Table B.1. The production of mutations by agents that block DNA synthesis, such as CPDs, requires that there should be a mechanism to bypass the lesion so that the cell can remain viable even if the lesion is not removed. Trans-dimer bypass involves two steps: addition of a base opposite the damaged site and subsequent synthesis past the lesion. Error-prone bypass of CPD not compensated by removal of CPDs is responsible for a high mutation rate. The tendency to insert adenine opposite the first pyrimidine (and presumably also opposite the second) means that a large proportion of mutations will be “lost” because of insertion of the “correct” base, because thymine is the most frequent pyrimidine in dimers. Also, transitions should be more frequent than transversions because of the preference for purine insertions opposite pyrimidines (Rabkin et al., 1983). The high UV mutation rates indicate that in P. patens the error-prone bypass is very frequent and efficient on CPDs and on 6e4PPs that have not been removed by photolyases or by NER. This is also manifested by exclusive localization of UV induced transitions within exons 3, 4 and 5 in contrast to far more dispersed distribution of Bleomycin mutations (Fig. 3) that range from transitions/ transversions, small (S2 bp) deletions or insertions to large deletions up to 748 bp (Table B.1). In our study we used artificial laboratory conditions (total dark or red light illumination) to dissect dark repair during dimer repair or 24-h fixation of mutations. Nevertheless in the real world under the daylight, when source of UV is sunshine, there is still approximately a 2-h window between induction of dimers by UV irradiation, before their elimination by light repair (Waterworth et al., 2002; Chen et al., 1994). NER is even slower than photoreactivation and thus cannot significantly contribute to offset consequences of quick error-prone repair. Moreover bypass is independent on the repair mechanism tested here by studying moss repair mutants and is solely dependent on ongoing DNA synthesis during irradiation. This is why we were able to follow the consequences of UV irradiation in a 1 day-subcultured protonemal culture with 50% of cells active in mitosis. 4. Summary In actively dividing, apical plant cells, exposure to UVB induce
Fig. 2. Relative numbers of 2FA resistant mutants of Physcomitrella patens wild type and pprad50, ppmre11, pplig4 and ppku70, differentiated into spontaneously appearing mutants and mutants induced by 500 J m!2 UVB, 1 mM MMS and 1 mg mL!1 Bleomycin respectively. The number of detected APT mutants is normalised to 1 g of dry tissue weight.
!
46!
!
&
32
! et al. / Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 93 (2015) 29e33 M. Hola
Table 1 Mutations induced by UVB irradiation within the APT locus of wt, pprad50, ppmre11, pplig4 and ppku70. The observed spectra of induced mutations are principally baseesubstitution transitions. Mutant line
Noncoding parts APT mutant
WT pprad50
ppmre11 pplig4
ppku70
uvb3 uvb25 uvb2 uvb23 uvb29 uvb3 uvb5 uvb4 uvb5 uvb20 uvb1
Deletion
Exons Insertion
Substitution
Deletion
A(3199)
Insertion
Substitution TCCA / T(1369)
AGGT / T(2351) TTGA / A(1809) TCCA / TT(1894) ACCA / T(1650) GCTC / T(1813) TCCA / T(1893) TCCA / T(1369) CCGA / A(1576) GCCA / T(1834) A(643) TCCA / TT(1368)
Fig. 3. Map of UVB and Bleomycin induced mutations within the APT locus. UVB induced mutations are depicted above and Bleomycin mutations below the schematic drawing of the APT locus, with ATG translation start indicated and exons represented as arrows. Mutation types for UVB are generally base substitutions, predominantly transitions in coding regions (Table 1 and Table B.1), whereas Bleomycin induces broad spectra of mutations from base substitutions of both types (transitions and transversions), insertions to deletions, in particular long deletions in pprad50 and ppmre11 (Table B.1).
robust mutagenesis via error-prone CPDs and 6-4PPs bypass DNA synthesis. Mutagenic activity is limited to DNA replication within dividing cells. When a mutated cell is not eliminated and mutation is tolerated during further plant development, then due to the clonal character of plant tissue it can initiate a change of phenotype
(with or without external selection pressure). These changes do not need to be recognized as consequence of induced mutation, but rather considered as physiological effect of UVB. In this respect we proved the idea that induced mutagenesis due to unrepaired UV photoproducts could underlie the mechanism of UV impact on
& !
47!
!
&
33
! et al. / Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 93 (2015) 29e33 M. Hola
plant phenotype. Contributions MH and RV performed APT mutation experiments, sequencing and mutation analysis. KJA did comet assay experiments, data evaluation and wrote the manuscript. Acknowledgements Supported by Czech Science Foundation (13-06595S) and Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of CR (LD13006) grants. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2014.12.013. References Angelis, K.J., Dusinska, M., Collins, A.R., 1999. Single cell gel electrophoresis: detection of DNA damage at different levels of sensitivity. Electrophoresis 20, 2133e2138. Britt, A.B., 1995. Repair of DNA damage induced by ultraviolet radiation. Plant Physiol. 108, 891e896. Britt, A.B., Chen, J.J., Wykoff, D., Mitchell, D., 1993. A UV-sensitive mutant of
!
arabidopsis defective in the repair of pyrimidine-pyrimidinone(6-4) dimers. Science 261, 1571e1574. Chen, J.J., Mitchell, D.L., Britt, A.B., 1994. A light-dependent pathway for the elimination of UV-induced pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidinone photoproducts in arabidopsis. Plant Cell 6, 1311e1317. Collins, A.R., 2011. The use of bacterial repair endonucleases in the comet assay. Methods Mol. Biol. 691, 137e147. Hola, M., Kozak, J., Vagnerova, R., Angelis, K.J., 2013. Genotoxin induced mutagenesis in the model plant Physcomitrella patens. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 535049. Kamisugi, Y., Schaefer, D.G., Kozak, J., Charlot, F., Vrielynck, N., Hola, M., Angelis, K.J., Cuming, A.C., Nogue, F., 2012. MRE11 and RAD50, but not NBS1, are essential for gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 3496e3510. Menke, M., Chen, I., Angelis, K.J., Schubert, I., 2001. DNA damage and repair in Arabidopsis thaliana as measured by the comet assay after treatment with different classes of genotoxins. Mutat. Res. 493, 87e93. Olive, P.L., Banath, J.P., 2006. The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat. Protoc. 1, 23e29. Pang, Q., Hays, J.B., 1991. UV-b-inducible and temperature-sensitive photoreactivation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol. 95, 536e543. Rabkin, S.D., Moore, P.D., Strauss, B.S., 1983. In vitro bypass of UV-induced lesions by Escherichia coli DNA polymerase I: specificity of nucleotide incorporation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 80, 1541e1545. Valerie, K., Henderson, E.E., de Riel, J.K., 1985. Expression of a cloned denV gene of bacteriophage T4 in Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 82, 4763e4767. Waterworth, W.M., Jiang, Q., West, C.E., Nikaido, M., Bray, C.M., 2002. Characterization of Arabidopsis photolyase enzymes and analysis of their role in protection from ultraviolet-B radiation. J. Exp. Bot. 53, 1005e1015. Waterworth, W.M., Kozak, J., Provost, C.M., Bray, C.M., Angelis, K.J., West, C.E., 2009. DNA ligase 1 deficient plants display severe growth defects and delayed repair of both DNA single and double strand breaks. BMC Plant Biol. 9, 79.
48!
!
Efficient'biolistic'transformation'of'the'moss'Physcomitrella.patens. ! ! ŠMÍDKOVÁ,!M.,!M.'HOLÁ!a!K.!J.!ANGELIS. ! ! Biol!Plantarum.!2010,!54(4):!777j780! IF2010:!1,582! ! ! Příspěvek! autora:! příprava! a! údržba! mechu,! adaptace! biolistické! metody,! transformace!biolistickou!metodou! !
!
49!
!
!"#$#%"&'($&)*&+,-'./'0/12'33343567'8696'
! !+":;'<#--,)"<&*"#)' ' '
!""#$#%&'()#*+#,'#$('-.&,"*-/.'#*&(*"('0%(/*,,(!"#$%&'()*+,,-./-)+0$( ' '
-='>-?@A#BC7'-='D#$C'EFG'A=H='&)%:$"IJ' '
!"#$%$&$'()*(+,-'.%/'"$01(2)$0"34(5607'/3()*(86%'"6'#()*($9'(:;'69(<'-&=1%64(( >0(?0.1)@6'(A4(:BCADEEE(F.0G&'4(:;'69(<'-&=1%6( ' '
1),'-.$'( '
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`P7'NEFGRT'EFG'OENLPOPG'KFOPLNEOKRF7'NPLPFPNEOKRF='
'
' ' *MP' TRQQ' F93#6)/%$.'110( -0$'"#' KQ' EF' EOONEWOK[P' YUEFO' TRGPU' 0
' *MPNP' ENP' O\R' XKRUKQOKW' Q^QOPTQ' NRVOKFPU^' VQPG' SRN' EWWPUPNEOKRF' RS' @)&4WREOPG' TKWNRYENOKWUPQ' OR' YPFPONEOP' OKQQVP=' *MP' Q^QOPT' SKNQOU^' GP[PURYPG' VQPQ' EF' EWWPUPNEOPG' YUVL'0TEWNRWENNKPN1'WENN^KFL'@)&4WREOPG'TKWNRYENOKWUPQ=' )P\PN' Q^QOPTQ' EWWPUPNEOP' TKWNRYENOKWUPQ' GKNPWOU^' X^' E' XVNQO'RS'MPUKVT'SNRT'E'NEYKGU^'RYPFPG'[EU[P'0%NE^'0$(01K' 9aa/1=' %EU4#F' '$( 01K( 09aa31' UEOPN' QKTYUKSKPG' %NE^dQ' EYYNREWM'X^'QMR\KFL'OMEO'TKWNRYENOKWUPQ'EWWPUPNEOPG'X^'E' MPUKVT' XVNQO' GR' FRO' FPPG' E' [EWVVT' SRN' PSSKWKPFO' YPFPONEOKRF' RS' YUEFO' OKQQVP' EFG' GPQKLFPG' E' QKTYUP' MEFG' MPUG'KFQONVTPFO'SRN'%"(-10"$0'ONEFQSRNTEOKRF=' ' *MP' YROPFOKEU' RS' XKRUKQOKW' ONEFQSRNTEOKRF' MEQ' QOKTVUEOPG' QKLFKSKWEFO' OPWMFKWEU' KTYNR[PTPFO' EFG' WRTTPNWKEUK`EOKRF' RS' GPUK[PN^' GP[KWPQ' KF' NPWPFO' ^PENQ=' *MP' FL8CAEEEMJ'' TRGPU' NPYNPQPFOQ' OMP' TEWNRWENNKPNe' TKWNRWENNKPN' Q^QOPT7' \MPNPEQ' OMP' J'1%)#' LPFP' LVF' 0XROM' TEGP' X^' 2%)<077' DPNWVUPQ7' ,I&1' KQ' EF' EWWPUPNEOKRF' GP[KWP' SRN' GKNPWO' XRTXENGTPFO' RS' E' OENLPO=' *MP' J'1%)#' LVF' VQPQ' @)&4WREOPG' LRUG' YENOKWUPQ7' GPYRQKOPG' RF' OMP' KFFPN' \EUU' RS' E' YUEQOKW' OVXP' OMEO' ENP' SUVQMPG' RSS' EFG' EWWPUPNEOPG' X^' E' XVNQO' RS' YNPQQVNK`PG' MPUKVT=' DR\P[PN7' OMP'YNRWPGVNP'GP[PURYPG'X^'2%)<07'SRN'WREOKFL'RS'YUEQKW' OVXKFL'\KOM'TKWNRYENOKWUPQ'KQ'E'OKTP4WRFQVTKFL'EFG'PNNRN4 YNRFP' YNRWPGVNP' OMEO' NP_VKNPQ' E' GPGKWEOPG' f*VXKFL' (NPY' IOEOKRFg='' ' DPNP' \P' GPQWNKXP' E' TRGKSKPG7' UR\4WRQO' XKRUKQOKW'' '
'
<'6'%@'7'9'HVU^'866a7'066'-$'7'3'IPYOPTXPN'866a=' 5==.'@%0$%)"#2'GQ@)&'4'GRVXUP'QONEFGPG'@)&h'(:%'4'YRU^POM^UPFP'LU^WRUh'*4@)&'4'ONEFQSPN'@)&'RS'*K4YUEQTKG='' 56H")I1'7G'/'"$#2']P'EWZFR\UPGLP'SKFEFWKEU'QVYYRNO'SNRT'%NEFO'&LPFW^'RS'OMP'<`PWM'+PYVXUKW'0)R='.89e6/e6a3917'%NEFO'&LPFW^' RS' &I' <+' 0)R=' I.6c5c6/1' EFG' -KFKQON^' RS' :GVWEOKRF7' iRVOM' EFG' IYRNOQ' RS' OMP' <`PWM' +PYVXUKW' 0)RQ=' 9-6.6.' EFG' $<6j66/1=' IYPWKEU'OMEFZQ'LRPQ'OR'@NQ='&='
333!
!
!
50!
!
&
!"#$!%&'()*#!"#$%&# #
-../01-2034# 536# 78/0986:# 35# 2;8# &<=>?3/7# .-6201/8# @
[email protected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
7860987# 563B# 2;8# B3@@# 78;:7604# ?848# '1=:<># KG;:.-Z]Z^Z+SSSZ_#I84`-4L#=118@@034#a!]WWZ+,TWbZM"# U423#.`Q^^c8-R#981236#KL047/:#.6390787#D:#&6"#="#PAB04?E# PGQE# d40986@02:# 35# c887@E# d'M# 1342-0404?# ?843B01# 13704?# 68?034# 563B# -B043# -107# X# =!$><# -47## Se>A426-4@/-287#286B04-2034#68?034#=!$>?#KJ0?"#Z?M#E#2;868# C-@#1/3487#04#56-B8#C02;#Tf>c8-R#68?034#9'655#-B./05087# D:# GPV# 563B# .I6884U# WWRX# "# N;8# 9'655# Tg>847# GPV# .60B86# C-@# 78@0?487# 23# 1342-04# -4# 9+,U# @028# -47# 2;8# 56-?B842#C-@#B-78#D/A42#84787#-2#2;8#Tg>847#D:#1A2204?# C02;#9+,UE#-47#50//>04#C02;#2;8#'/843C#56-?B842#35#&<=# G3/U"# &0?8@2034# -2# 2;8# Sg>847# C02;# :+,VU# ?8486-287# -# 56-?B842# 2;-2# 13A/7# D8# 1/3487# 04# 56-B8# C02;# =!$><# D82C884#2;8#;-$5#-47#:+,@5#@028@#?8486-204?#2;8#./-@B07# .'=ZSS# KJ0?"# Z?M"# U4# 2;0@# 981236# 9'655# @;3A/7# 34/:# D8# 8F.68@@87# 05# -# 1366812# 2-6?8204?# 89842# 311A6@E# D81-A@8# 2;868# -68# 2C3# 042634@# A.@268-B# 35# 2;8# 9'655# 5A@034"# U5# 2;8@8# -68# 432# @./0187# 3A2E# 2;8:# C0//# 432# .86B02# 9'655# 8F.68@@034E#@0418#2;868#-68#b#04>56-B8#286B04-2034#13734@# KS# 04# 2;8# 506@2# -47# Z# 04# 2;8# @81347# 042634M"# )81236# C-@# /048-60h87# 536# D03/0@201# 26-4@536B-2034# D:# 70?8@2034# C02;# AB$U#-2#2;8#Sg>847#35#2;8#2-6?8204?#1-@@8228"# #
#
#
J0?"# Z"# N6-4@536B-2034# 981236@^#<# ># .'=ZR+# 536# 6-473B# 0428?6-2034E# `# ># .'=ZSS# 536# 2-6?8287#04@862034#0423# =!$># ?848"# J36# 782-0/#
[email protected]#@88#28F2"#
# # # N;8# C0/7>2:.8# B3@@# '()*+,-."/!%%$# 1$"!3*# I6-47@84# C-@# ?63C4# 34# G8260# ./-28@# C02;# B3705087# GG
S ## W",# P-K<(SMR#!#b#iR(E# W"RT# !?Q(b#!#+#iR(E# W"WjR# J8Q(b#!"+#iR(E# -47# W"RT# 'iRG(bE# .i# T",# D85368# -A231/-904?"# !870AB# C-@# 84601;87# C02;# W"T# ?# 7B>S# -BB340AB# 2-626-28E# <%"6:;# B-163># -47# B01638/8B842@# ?# 7B>S ^# TT# PAQ(b#!#T#iR(E# jZb# iS`(SE# TT# P3P/R#!## j#iR(E# RT# <-R!3(b#!#R# iR(E# TT# k4Q(b#!"+#iR(E## S,X# !4P/R#!#b# iR(E# -47# R,# 'U# -47# @3/0705087# C02;## ,# ?# 7B>S# -?-6# KCD+(!E$E# i--6/8BE# N;8# <82;86/-47@M# -47# 3986/-07#C02;#18//3.;-48#70@1@"# # =# 0!%.,*# ?A4# -47# B01631-66086@# C868# A@87"# N;8# ?A4# C-@# 3.86-287# -1136704?# 23# 2;8# B-4A5-12A686g@# 6813BB847-2034E#-/2;3A?;#-#48C#.632313/#536#.68.-6-2034# 35# 2;8# &<=>13-287# B01631-66086# @[email protected]@034# -47# ?A4# /3-704?# C-@# 7898/3.87"# [8# 28@287# 53A6# 2:.8@# 35#
B01631-66086@E#2;688#?3/7# .-6201/8@# KW"jE#Z"W#-47#Z"j# BME# -47# 6D3F*"!3# GHI"# N;8# B01631-66086@# KTW# B?M# C868# 68@[email protected]# 04# Z# 1BS# 35# ZWW# l# 82;-43/# 536# ZW# B04# 23# D68-L# .-6201/8# 1/AB.@"# GA605087# ./-@B07# &<=# C-@# A@87# 802;86#/048-60h87#36#1061A/-6"#N;8#26-4@536B04?#&<=#KR# ?# 04# R# BBSM# C-@# -7787# 23# 2;8# D3223B# 35# -# W"T# 1BS# H..847365#2AD8#-47#T#BBS#35#ZWW#l#82;-43/#C868#@/3C/:# .0.82287#763.C0@8#73C4#2;8#@078#35#2;8#2AD8"#UBB870-28/:# ZZ#BBS#35#2;8#.-6201/8Y82;-43/#@[email protected]@034#C868#-7787#23# &<=Y82;-43/# B0F2A68E# D6085/:# 93628F87# -47# 0BB870-28/:# A@87# 536# 78/0986:"# =# T# BBS# -/0\A32# 35# &<=Y# 82;-43/YB01631-66086# @[email protected]@034# C-@# -@# -# @04?/8# 763./82# 706812/:#/3-787#0423#.0818@#35#./-@201#2AD04?#K1-62607?8@M#04# 2;8# ;3/786# -47# 2;8# m1;-6?87n# ;3/786# C-@# 2;84# 04@86287# 0423# -# ?A4"# =4# -6B87# 0!%.,*# ?A4# C-@# 2;84# A@87# 536# @;33204?# B3@@# 20@@A8# 34# G8260# ./-28@# D:# TTW# LG-# ;8/0AB# DA6@2@"# (48>C88L>3/7# .632348B-/# 20@@A8# 34# 348# ./-28#
++,!
!
51!
!
(
01234567189(:;(6<<=:>4?6917@(AB(?C(:;(?:DD(E=41E(94DD31F( G6D( <::71E( 489:( 9G:( HI3?4?6917@( L( M?( 48( E46?191=( 68E( DI:9( G49I( <6=94M71D( ;=:?( L( M6=9=4EC1D(( 0N(I1743?(O3=D9D(9I=:3CI(16MI(M6=9=4EC1FP(*;91=(DI::948CK( 94DD31(G6D(=:3CI7@(E4D<1=D1E(:8(9I1(<7691(68E(677:G1E(9:( =1M:51=( :8( ?:E4;41E( QQ+RS( ?1E43?( ;:=( L( E( G49I:39( D171M94:8P( ! *;91=( L( E( :;( =1M:51=@K( 94DD31( G6D( DI16=1E( O@( 6( I:?:C184T1=("#$(0%&'K(%963;18K(U1=?68@F(69(AV(VVV(=<=1DD48C( Y[,Q( G1=1( 4E1894;41E( G49I( /0)+1( -\A]( ;73:=1DM18M1( D91=1:X?4M=:DM:<1( 1234<<1E( G49I( 6( /0)+1( [,Q(01>M49694:8(BAV^NVK(O6==41=(B]V^SV(8?F(;4791=(D19P( ( _+*( ;:=( 6867@D4D( G6D( 4D:7691E( ;=:?( AVV( ?C( :;(( .XEX:7E(<=:9:81?6(94DD31(3D48C(6(23+40,56)7(<7689(_+*( Z49( 081+90:0;<21=04K( _`=18K( U1=?68@FP( .PB( C( :;( C18:?4M( _+*( G1=1( E4C1D91E( G49I( -1>R"K( 171M9=:694:8P( R@O=4E4T694:8( <=:O1(G6D(68(2+,"^C9,"(;=6C?189(:;(<e*AN.(0,4CP(A'FK( 76O171E( G49I( E4C:>4C1848XEc&Q( 68E( 3D1E( ;:=( I@O=4E4T694:8( 69( M:8M189=694:8( NB( 8C( M?XLP( $6O17748CK( I@O=4E4T694:8(68E(E191M94:8(G1=1(M6==41E(:39(6MM:=E48C(9:( 9I1( ?683;6M93=1=fD( 48D9=3M94:8D( 3D48C( 6( _"U( _+*( 76O1748C(68E(E191M94:8(Z49(0.,+90K("8E4686<:74DK(c%*F(68E( MI1?473?484XDM18M1( DEF<5B1:( D3OD9=691( 0.,+90FP( 'I1?473?484DM18M1( D4C867D( G1=1( M6<93=1E( :8( D90>)E,+( 0-),.1@FP( ( &:(65:4E(E6?6C1(:;(<=:9:81?67(94DD31(G1(I651(91D91E( 9I1(<=1DD3=1(=68C1(SVV(X(WVV(ZQ6(;:=(E4=1M9(DI::948CP(&I1( =1C376=( C=:G9I( ?1E43?( D:74E4;41E( G49I( W( C( E?XL( 6C6=( DI:GD(D151=1(D4C8D(:;(94DD31(E6?6C1(GI18(<=1DD3=1(:51=( BBV(ZQ6(G6D(3D1EP(&:(65:4E(6(C=:3<1E(4?<6M9(<6991=8(G1( ;:38E( 49( 81M1DD6=@( 9:( 3D1( 6( E4;;3D4:8( DM=118( 0-),.1@FP( g49I( D3MI( 6( D19( 3<( 49( G6D( <:DD4O71( =1<1691E7@( 9:( DI::9( <7691D(;=:?(6(E4D968M1(:;(B(M?(68E(M:894831(M37945694:8(:8( 9I1( D6?1( <7691P( &G:( I1743?( O3=D9D( G1=1( 18:3CI( 9:( =1?:51( 677( ?4M=:M6==41=D( ;=:?( 6( D48C71( M6=9=4EC1P( _3=48C( 9I1( ;4=D9( DI:9( 6<<=:>4?6917@( WV( a( :;( 9I1( ?4M=:M6==41=D( G1=1(;73DI(:39(68E(=1?648E1=(G49I(9I1(D1M:8E(DI:9P( ! &I1( O4:74D94M( 9=68D;:=?694:8( G6D( E1<18E189( :8( ?4M=:M6==41=(D4T1P(&I1(O1D9(@417ED(:;(D96O71(9=68D;:=?689D( <1=(A( C(:;(_+*(G1=1(:O96481E(G49I(A( ?(D9189( 9I69( <=15189D( 1;;4M4189( =1M:51=@((
!"#$"%&"'(&)*+%,#)-*&"#+(#,(-#%%(
0W( 9=68D;:=?689DFP( "8( M:89=6D9( 9:( 'I:( 0B! 14J( 0A///F( G1( I651( 8:9( E191M91E( 68@( D4C84;4M689( E4;;1=18M1( 48( 9=68D;:=?694:8(1;;4M418M@(GI18(3D48C(E18693=1E(_+*P("8( ?:D9(9=68D;:=?689D(6;91=(9I1(;4=D9(=:38E(:;(USAW(D171M94:8( 68E( 48( 677( D96O71( 9=68D;:=?689D( 9I1( @177:G( D4C867( :;( 1><=1DD1E(Y[,Q(G6D(<:D494517@(E191M91E(48(;:M4(:;(N(??( 48(E46?191=(O@(;73:=1DM18M1(?4M=:DM:<@P( ( ':8D9=3M94:8(:;(9I1(96=C1948C(51M9:=(<e*ALL(E:1D(8:9( 677:G( D171M94:8( G49I:39( 48( ;=6?1( 4891=C=694:8( 489:( 9I1( /01#( 7:M3D( :;( 9I1( F9;G+,>)B:0441( C18:?1P( &I4D( 4D( E1?:8D9=691E( O@( B( X( AV( 94?1( 7:G1=( =1M:51=@( :;( <=4?6=@( 9=68D;:=?689D( 48( M:?<6=4D:8( 9:( 9=68D;:=?694:8( G49I( <e*AN.K( GI1=1( 6( D3OD9689467( 83?O1=( :;( 9=68D4189( 9=68D;:=?689D( 1><=1DD48C( 2F"%%( M:37E( O1( =1M:51=1E( 0&6O71(AFP(&I1(@417E(:;(9=68D;:=?689D(6;91=(9I1(9I4=E(=:38E( :;(USAW(D171M94:8(G6D(:87@(LV(a(7:G1=(9I68(9I1(83?O1=( :;( <=4?6=@( 9=68D;:=?689D( ;:=( O:9IK( M4=M376=( 68E( 74816=( ;:=?(:;(9I1(<e*ALL(51M9:=P( (
(
,4CP( NP( %:39I1=8( O7:9( :;( F9;G+,>)B:0441( 9=68DC184M( 7481DP( U18:?4M(_+*(0.PB( CF(:;(9G:(48E1<18E189(9=68D;:=?689D(G6D E4C1D91E(G49I(!6?R"(04170(N(68E(LFP(A+,)"X74816=4T1E(<76D?4E( <e*AN.(69(M:8M189=694:8(BV(8C(04170(AF(68E(AV (E47391E(48(<7689( 1>9=6M9( 04170( SF( G1=1( <:D49451( M:89=:7DP( BVN( O<( E4C:>4C1848X 76O171E(2+,"^C9,""(=1D9=4M94:8(;=6C?189(:;(<e*AN.(G6D(3D1E(6D( I@O=4E4T694:8(<=:O1P(
( ( &:( <=:51( 48D1=94:8( 489:( F9;G+,>)B:0441( C18:?1( D151=67(=68E:?(9=68D;:=?689D(G1=1(6867@D1E(O@(%:39I1=8( O7:9( I@O=4E4T694:8P( ,:=( 9I4D( <3=<:D1( 9I1( ?:DD( C18:?4M( _+*( G6D( M39( G49I( -1>R"K( GI4MI( E:1D( 8:9( I651( 6( =1M:C8494:8( D491( G49I48( 9=68D;:=?694:8( 51M9:=( <e*AN.P( %3=<=4D48C7@( 48( AV( 9=68D;:=?689D( 6867@T1E( 0,4CP( NF( G1( ;:38E(:87@(D48C71(M:<@(:;(9I1(51M9:=(48D1=91E(48(C18:?1P( ( !4:74D94M( 9=68D;:=?694:8( <=:54E1D( D151=67( 6E56896C1D( :51=( QYU( 9=68D;:=?694:8( ?6487@( O@( =1E3M48C( I68E748C( D91)B:0441( 4D( C=:G8( 38947( 9=68D;1=( 9:( D171M9451( ?1E43?K( 68E( 4D( M:?<7191E( G49I48( 68( I:3=P( #<94?4T1E(O4:74D94M(M:8E494:8DK(0J=JK(9I1(?4M=:M6==41=(D4T1(
../!
& !
52!
!
&
!"#$!%&'()*#!"#$%&# #
./0# 123456# 78299582:# 78;<402# .# 14=1# >4230# ;?# [email protected]# @8./9?;86./@9#728# =#;?#&BC"#D12#3464@4/=#?.E@;8#4/#@12## D.A32#F"#B56A28#;?#@8./9?;86./@9#0584/=#@1822#E>E329#;?#GHF,# 9232E@4;/"# D.8=2@20# @8./9?;86.@4;/# 4/@;# '!$(# 3;E59# I.9# E.88420# ;5@# I4@1# 7'CFJJ:# I1282.9# 8./0;6# @8./9?;86.@4;/# I4@1# 7'CFK+"## # # #
L48E53.8## F# K#
N/@2=8.@4;/#@;#M2.#K# ##JO# Q./0;6#4/@2=8.@4;/# JKK#
F+# OO#
# J#
M4/2.8# # F# K#
# J#
KJ# H-#
OP# KJP#
HF# KK#
HO# HP#
# I4028# 592# ;?# @149# .778;.E1# 49# @12# /220# ;?# .# 0234<28># 02<4E2"# R2# 1.<2# .0;7@20# @12# )*+,$-# 1./0S1230# .!%*+/# =2/2#=5/0#4/[email protected]#;?#@12#)*+,$-#123456667.!:#I14E1#49# 6;82# I4023># 5920# A># @12# 73./@# 9E42/E2# E;665/4@>"# D12## # #
.0<./@.=2# ;?# 594/=# @12# 1./0S1230# =5/# 49# @12# ?8220;6# ;?## 1./034/=#.9#I233#.9#.#3;I28#E;9@#728#91;@"#&482E@#3;.04/=# ;?#.#64E8;7.8@4E32#95972/94;/#4/#@12#123456#7.@1#49#;?@2/# 5920#4/#E59@;6SA543@#9>9@269#T!&8"#G8.>#!"#$%&#FUUH:#G.3S ;/# !"# $%&# FUU+V# ./0# .39;# I;8W9# I233# 4/# @12# .!%*+/# =5/:# 2<2/# @1;5=1# .EE;804/=# @;# @12# 6./5?.E@5828X9# 78;@;E;3# E.8@840=29#91;530#A2#7827.820#4/#.0<./E2"# # D12#@8./9?;86.@4;/#2??4E42/E>#0272/09#;/#@12#?;86#;?# @12# @8./9?;864/=# &BC"# Q./0;6# 4/@2=8.@4;/# 49# .778;Y46.@23>#@I4E2#.9#2??2E@4<2#I4@1#.#E48E53.8#@1./#I4@1# .# 34/2.8# <2E@;8"# D149# 95==29@9# @1.@# 8./0;6# 4/@2=8.@4;/# 782?282/@4.33># ;EE589# .9# .# 94/=32# E8;99;<28# 2<2/@"# N/# @.8=2@20# @8./9?;86.@4;/# @12# 94@5.@4;/# 49# ;77;94@2# ./0# 34/2.84Z20# 7'CFJJ# 49# /2.83># .9# @I4E2# .9# 2??2E@4<2# @1./# E48E53.8:#95==29@4/=#@1.@#34/2.8#?;86#;?#@8./9?;864/=#&BC# 78;6;@29#=2/2#8273.E262/@#A>#0;5A32#E8;99;<28"# #
!"#"$"%&"'( #
[2Z./433.:#!":#\./:#C":#]5.@8./;:#Q"^"_#QBC#4/@28?282/E2#4/#@12# 6;99#19:/;+<*"=!%%$#>$"!?/"#S#\3./@#\1>94;3"#)**_#H+-SH+H:# K--J"## L1;:# ^"`":# L15/=:# a"^":# L1;:# ^"'":# Q46:# a"R":# ^14/:# b"^"_# \.8@4E32# A;6A.8062/@# 6204.@20# @8./9?;86.@4;/# ./0# Gc\# 2Y782994;/#4/#@12#6;99#19:/;+<*"=!%%$#>$"!?/"#S#!;3"#L2339# +_#FHSFU:#FUUU"## L;<2:# &"b"_# D12# 6;99# 19:/;+<*"=!%%$# >$"!?/"# S# C//5"# Q2<"# G2/2@"#*+_#JJUSJO,:#K--O"## c8./W:# R":# &2EW28:# d"M":# Q29W4:# Q"_# !;32E53.8# @;;39# @;# 9@50># 19:/;+<*"=!%%$#>$"!?/&#S#\3./@#[4;3"(,_#KK-SKK+:#K--O"# G.3S(/:# C":# !2484:# d":# d36./:# L":# G8.>:# d":# G.A.:# )"_# ^46732# 1./0S1230# 02<4E29# ?;8# @12# 2??4E42/@# 4/?2E@4;/# ;?# 73./@9# I4@1# <48.3S2/E;04/=# E;/9@85E@9# A># 7.8@4E32# A;6A.8062/@"# S# b"# )48;3"#!2@1"#-._#F-JSFF-:#FUU+"# G8.>:# &"b":# `42A28@:# d":# M4/:# L"!":# L;67@;/:# !"d":# !EL;332>:# &"R":# `.8849;/:# Q"b":# G.A.:# )"\"_# ^46734?420# E;/9@85E@4;/## #
#
./0# 728?;86./E2# ;?# .# 02<4E2# ?;8# 7.8@4E32# A;6A.8062/@"# S# \3./@#L233#D49952#(8=./#L53@"#*,_#F+USF,H:#FUUH"# '/4=1@:#L"&":#L;<2:#&"b":#L564/=:#C"L":#]5.@8./;:#Q"^"_#!;99# =2/2# @2E1/;3;=>"# S# N/_# G436.8@4/:# \"!":# [;I328:# L"# T20"V_# !;32E53.8# \3./@# [4;3;=>"# );3"# KC# \[email protected]# C778;.E1"# \7"# K,OSJ-F"#(Y?;80#e/4<2894@>#\8299:#(Y?;80#K--K"# ^.I.123:# R":# (/02:# ^":# '/4=1@:# L"&":# L;<2:# &"b"_# D8./9?28# ;?# ?;824=/# &BC# 4/@;# 19:/;+<*"=!%%$# >$"!?/# 78;@;/26.3# @49952# A>#594/=#@12#=2/2#=5/"#S#\3./@#6;3"#[4;3"#Q27"#)/_#JFOSJFP:# FUUK"# ^E1.2?28:# &"G"_# C# /2I# 6;99# =2/2@4E9_# @.8=2@20# 65@.=2/2949! 4/# 19:/;+<*"=!%%$# >$"!?/"# S# C//5"# Q2<"# \3./@# [4;3"# 0*_# H++S O-F:#K--K"# ^E1.2?28:# &"G":# f8g0:# b"S\":# '/4=1@:# L"&":# L;<2:# &"b"_# ^@.A32# @8./9?;86.@4;/# ;?# @12# 6;99# 19:/;+<*"=!%%$# >$"!?/"# S# !;3"# =2/"#G2/2@"#11-_#HF,SHKH:#FUUF"# #
# #
+,-!
!
53!
! MRE11' and' RAD50,' but' not' NBS1,' are' essential' for' gene' targeting' in' the' moss'Physcomitrella.patens. ! ! KAMISUGI,! Y.,! D.! G.! SCHAEFER,! J.! KOZAK,! F.! CHARLOT,! N.! VRIELYNCK,! M.' HOLA,!K.!J.!ANGELIS,!A.!C.!CUMING!a!F.!NOGUE! ! ! Nucleic!Acids!Research.!2012,!40(8):!3496j3510! IF2012:!8,278! ! ! Příspěvek! autora:! izolace! apt! mutant! po! působení! bleomycinu,! identifikace! mutací!v!sekvenci!lokusu!genu!APT!u!wt!a!pprad50!2jFA!rezistentních!mutant.!
&
!
54!
!
& 3496–3510 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1272
Published online 30 December 2011
MRE11 and RAD50, but not NBS1, are essential for gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens Yasuko Kamisugi1, Didier G. Schaefer2,3, Jaroslav Kozak4, Florence Charlot2, Nathalie Vrielynck2, Marcela Hola´4, Karel J. Angelis4, Andrew C. Cuming1,* and Fabien Nogue´2,* 1
Centre for Plant Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Leeds University, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK, INRA AgroParisTech, IJPB, UMR 1318, INRA centre de Versailles, route de Saint Cyr, 78026 Versailles CEDEX, France, 3Laboratoire de Biologie Mole´culaire et Cellulaire, Institut de Biologie, Universite´ de Neuchaˆtel, rue Emile-Argand 11, CH-2007 Neuchaˆtel, Switzerland and 4Institute of Experimental Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Na Karlovce 1a, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic
2
ABSTRACT The moss Physcomitrella patens is unique among plant models for the high frequency with which targeted transgene insertion occurs via homologous recombination. Transgene integration is believed to utilize existing machinery for the detection and repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). We undertook targeted knockout of the Physcomitrella genes encoding components of the principal sensor of DNA DSBs, the MRN complex. Loss of function of PpMRE11 or PpRAD50 strongly and specifically inhibited gene targeting, whilst rates of untargeted transgene integration were relatively unaffected. In contrast, disruption of the PpNBS1 gene retained the wild-type capacity to integrate transforming DNA efficiently at homologous loci. Analysis of the kinetics of DNA-DSB repair in wild-type and mutant plants by single-nucleus agarose gel electrophoresis revealed that bleomycin-induced fragmentation of genomic DNA was repaired at approximately equal rates in each genotype, although both the Ppmre11 and Pprad50 mutants exhibited severely restricted growth and development and enhanced sensitivity to UV-B and bleomycin-induced DNA damage, compared with wild-type and Ppnbs1 plants. This implies that while extensive DNA repair can occur in the absence of a functional MRN complex; this is unsupervised in nature and results in the accumulation of deleterious
mutations incompatible with normal growth and development.
INTRODUCTION DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) represent one of the most cytotoxic forms of damage an organism can acquire (1). Such events occur with high frequency resulting from cellular metabolism (such as reactive radicals or stalled replication forks during S phase) and through the action of exogenous agents (such as ionizing radiation or chemical mutagens). Failure to repair such damage can lead to the irrecoverable loss of genetic material, with both immediate and long-term consequences: the onset of cancerous transformation in animal cells, or the failure to transmit genetic information in gametes (especially in plants, where there is no early developmental partitioning of germ-line and somatic cell lineages). Unsurprisingly, all living organisms have evolved efficient mechanisms that can be deployed to sense DNA DSBs, activate DNA repair, cell-cycle arrest and sometimes apoptosis. Such is the importance of these mechanisms, that the genes encoding many of the essential components of the DNA repair machinery are highly conserved in evolution (2). In particular, this is true of the mechanism by which the broken ends of DNA molecules are recognized and recruited into DNA repair complexes. In eukaryotes, the MRN/MRX complex undertakes this task (3,4). This conserved complex is composed of three proteins, Meiotic recombination 11 (MRE11), Radiation sensitive 50 (RAD50), and
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +33 01 30 83 30 09; Fax: +33 01 30 83 33 19; Email: [email protected] Correspondence may also be addressed to Andrew C. Cuming. Tel: +44 113 343 3094; Fax: +44 113 343 3144; Email: [email protected] The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion, the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors. ! The Author(s) 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
!
55!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
Received November 3, 2011; Revised December 7, 2011; Accepted December 8, 2011
!
& Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 3497
!
PpMRE11, but not PpNBS1. Inactivation of either PpRAD50 or PpMRE11 reduced GT !11-fold in both Pprad50 and Ppmre11 mutants, while illegitimate integration rates only slightly affected. Gene expression studies further show that Ppmre11 and Pprad50 strains display constitutively high expression of the DNA damage response, implying the activation of alternative pathways to minimize endogenous DNA damage in the mutant strains. The mutants exhibit a severe developmental phenotype, possibly associated with early senescence processes, and hypersensitivity to UV-B and bleomycininduced DNA damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant material Physcomitrella patens (Hedw.) B.S.G. ‘Gransden2004’ was vegetatively propagated as previously described (19). Individual plants were cultured as ‘spot inocula’ on BCD agar medium supplemented with 1 mM CaCl2 and 5 mM ammonium tartrate (BCDAT medium), or as lawns of protonemal filaments by subculture of homogenized tissue on BCDAT agar medium overlain with cellophane for the isolation of protoplasts. Transformation experiments were performed as previously described (20) using linear fragments of DNA generated either by digestion of transforming vectors with restriction enzymes (19) or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification (14). Growth conditions for the generation of deletion strains were as described previously (17). Gene identification and isolation Genomic DNA and total RNA were isolated from Physcomitrella as previously described (19). For verification of gene models, RNA was extracted from a polyribosome-enriched fraction: 7-day subcultured protonemal tissue (!5 g squeeze-dried chloronemal tissue) was homogenized in 30 ml extraction buffer [200 mM sucrose 40 mM Tris–HCl, pH 8.5, 60 mMKCl, 30 mM MgCl2, 1% (v/v) Triton X-100, 2 mM dithiothreitol] and the extract was clarified at 25 000g for 20 min (Sorvall SS34 rotor). The supernatant was layered over a cushion comprising 1 M sucrose, 40 mM Tris–HCl, pH 8.5, 20 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl2 and centrifuged for 3 h at 141 000g (Beckman SW28 rotor). The pellet was drained and resuspended in 0.5 ml RNA extraction buffer for aqueous phenol extraction (19). RNA used for RT-PCR was first digested with RQ DNase I (Promega) to remove residual DNA. Physcomitrella genomic sequences encoding the MRE11, RAD50 and NBS1 genes were identified by BLAST search (http:// genome.jgi-psf.org/Phypa1_1/Phypa1_1.home.html). The available gene models were used for the design of PCR primers to amplify cognate genomic sequences, which were cloned in the plasmid pBluescript KS+. PCR primers used are listed in Supplementary Table S1. In order to obtain a correct gene model for each sequence, full-length complementary DNA (cDNA) sequences were amplified from Physcomitrella polyribosome-derived RNA by RT-PCR. Total RNA (1 mg) was reverse
56!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
Nijmegen Breakage Syndrome 1 (NBS1) (X-ray sensitive 2, XRS2 in the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Together, the MRE11, RAD50 and NBS1 proteins form a multisubunit complex (M2R2N1) that binds the ends of broken DNA molecules, and can tether the broken ends through dimerization between adjacent MRN complexes mediated by an association between the RAD50 components (3,5). The formation of MRN–DNA complexes also initiates a cell-cycle checkpoint through interaction with the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-related protein kinases (PIKKs) ATM and ATR (for ‘Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated’ and ‘Ataxia Telangiectasia mutated-like and Rad 3 related’) and the DNA Protein Kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs) (6). These proteins phosphorylate multiple targets to initiate a cascade of downstream events leading to DNA DSB repair either by nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), a rapid but occasionally inaccurate mechanism, or through homologous recombination (HR), a conservative mechanism that uses an homologous sequence (e.g. a sister chromatid) as a template to restore the original sequence at the DSB site. In this latter pathway, an Mre11-specific nuclease activity is required (with other components) for the resection of DNA ends necessary for strand invasion (7). Transgene integration into flowering plant genomes occurs through the agency of endogenous mechanisms that have evolved for the repair of DNA DSBs. In flowering plants, the integration of exogenous DNA whether directly delivered via microprojectile bombardment or protoplast transfection, or delivered by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation occurs predominantly at random positions throughout the genome, whereas gene targeting frequencies remain extremely low (8). Random integration of transgenes requires enzymes from the NHEJ pathway, and the inefficiency of GT probably reflects the prevalence of the NHEJ pathway in repairing DNA DSBs in angiosperms (9–11). In contrast with flowering plants, transformation of the moss, Physcomitrella patens, with DNA containing homology with genomic sequences results in preferential incorporation of the transforming DNA at these homologous sequences (12). This facility for ‘gene targeting’ is similar to that seen in Saccharomyces (13) and suggests a preference for the use of the HR-dependent pathway as the primary means of undertaking DSB repair, although molecular analyses of gene targeting events provide clear evidence for modification of the transforming DNA by both NHEJ and HR reactions upon integration (14,15). Physcomitrella thus represents an excellent model in which to analyse DNA-DSB repair pathways in plants, particularly in regard to its outstanding gene targeting efficiency (12). Previous studies have shown that PpRAD51, the protein at the core of the HR reaction, was required to preserve genome integrity and essential to achieve gene targeting (16,17). The mismatch repair PpMSH2 gene was also shown to be essential to preserve genome integrity and to prevent homeologous gene targeting (18). We have characterized the role of the Physcomitrella MRN complex in DNA DSB-repair and gene targeting. We find that in moss the major loss of function phenotypes of the MRN complex depends on PpRAD50 or
!
& 3498 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8
Targeted gene knockout Gene disruption cassettes were constructed by ligating a selection cassette comprising a neomycin phosphotranferase gene driven by the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S promoter and terminated with the CaMV gene 6 termination sequence (35S-nptII-g6ter) derived from the vector pMBL6 (14) into convenient restriction sites within the cloned PpMRE11, PpRAD50 and PpNBS1 genes to replace endogenous coding sequences. For the PpMRE11 gene, the selection cassette was placed between residues 1763501 (in exon 4) and 1764332 (in exon 8) in JGI Phypa1_1/scaffold 18. For the PpRAD50 gene the selection cassette was placed between residues 1431738 (in intron 13) and 1433260 (in intron 16) in JGI Phypa1_1/scaffold 51. For the PpNBS1 gene, the selection cassette was placed between residues 276622 (in intron 4) and 277547 (in intron 7) in JGI Phypa1_1/scaffold 219. For targeted knockout of the moss genes, fragments of DNA containing these cassettes and flanked by !1 kb of 50 - and 30 -flanking genomic sequence were PCR amplified. These linear fragments were used to transform Physcomitrella protoplasts, and stable transformants were selected following regeneration in medium containing 50 mg ml"1 G418 for 2 weeks, followed by subculture onto medium lacking antibiotic for 2 weeks, and a final subculture on selective medium. Targeted replacement of the native genes by the disruption cassette was confirmed by PCR reactions using external, gene-specific primers in combination with ‘outward-pointing’ selection cassettespecific primers (Supplementary Table S1). Single-copy allele replacements were identified by PCR using the external primer pairs, and the absence of additional transgene insertion in the genome was confirmed by Southern blot analysis. Conditions for PCR analysis were as previously described (14) and Southern blot analysis of genomic DNA was carried out as previously described (21), using the 35S-nptII-g6ter cassette as a hybridization probe. For generation of deletion mutants mre11D and rad50D, the 50 -and 30 -targeting fragments were amplified from P. patens genomic DNA and cloned upstream (50 ) and downstream (30 ) of the loxP sites flanking the resistance cassette in plasmid pBNRF (17) to create the plasmids pMRE11delta and pRAD50delta, respectively. For the
!
PpMRE11 gene, a 1009-bp 50 -targeting fragment (coordinates 1763137-1764146 in JGI Phypa1_1/scaffold 18) and an 803-bp 30 -targeting fragment (coordinates 1765334– 1766184) were PCR-amplified. For PpRad50, an 831-bp 50 targeting fragment (coordinates 1426648–1427479 in JGI Phypa1_1/scaffold 51) and an 819-bp 30 -targeting fragment (coordinates 1435197–1436016) were PCR-amplified. Moss protoplasts were transformed with pMRE11delta digested with BstXI and AseI, or with pRAD50delta digested with XbaI and NsiI. Stable disruptants were selected by successive subculture on selective and nonselective medium and PCR analysis as described above. Clean deletions in the PpMRE11 (encompassing exons 7–10) and PpRAD50 genes (exons 4–20) were obtained by transient Cre recombinase expression (18). Deletions in the recombinant loci were confirmed by PCR amplification using gene-specific external primers MRE11#1 and MRE11#2, and RAD50#1 and RAD50#2, respectively. Primers APT#14 and APT#19 were used as positive controls (Supplementary Table S1). For gene targeting studies the vectors PpAPT-KO2 (17) and PpAPT-KO3 have been used. To obtain PpAPTKO3, an internal 1631-bp SalI/BglII fragment containing the 35S:HygR-LoxP marker was deleted in PpAPT-KO2 and replaced by an XhoI/BglII fragment from pBNRF (17) containing the 35S:NeoR-LoxP marker. Analysis of gene expression in mutants Transcript abundance in selected knockout lines was determined by RT-PCR of cDNA. Total RNA was isolated from protonemal tissue (19) and 1 mg was reverse-transcribed using a Promega reverse transcription system. The 20 -ml reaction mixture was diluted 25-fold and 5 ml aliquots were used for PCR. Detection of Mre11, Rad50 and Nbs1 mRNA in mutant lines was by RT-PCR using primers indicated in Supplementary Table 1. For quantitative determination of the relative abundances of transcripts encoding DNA repair genes in wild-type and mutant strains, quantitative real-time PCR was carried out using a Qiagen Rotor-Gene Q instrument and Qiagen SYBR-Green PCR kit. RNA was isolated from 7-day subcultured protonemal tissue from each of three independent lines (wild-type, Ppmre11KO, Pprad50KO and Ppnbs1KO, respectively), with two replicates for each sample. Transcript abundance was estimated by reference to both internal and external reference sequences. As an external reference, Physcomitrella RNA samples were ‘spiked’ with tenfold serial dilutions (10"1–10"4) of an in vitro transcript from a full-length wheat ‘Em’ cDNA (22) prior to reverse transcription. These were used to test a number of candidate internal reference sequences, corresponding to Physcomitrella gene models Phypa1_1:227826 (SAND family endocytosis protein), Phypa1_1:209451 (Clathrin adapter complex subunit), Phypa1_1:224488 (Acyltransferase) and Phypa1_1:163153 (Ribosomal protein S4) for stability of expression in response to bleomycin treatment. Phypa1_1:227826 was subsequently selected as the
57!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
transcribed using an oligo-dT12–15 primer and AMV reverse transcriptase as supplied in the Promega Reverse Transcription system in a 20 -ml reaction. Following cDNA synthesis, the reaction mixture was diluted by the addition of 80 ml water, and 1 ml aliquots were used for PCR amplification using primers predicted to anneal with 50 - and 30 -untranslated region (UTR) sequences (Supplementary Table S1). PCR products were cloned by blunt-end ligation into the EcoRV site of pBluescript KS+ for sequence analysis (ABI3130) in the DNA sequencing facility of the Leeds University Faculty of Biological Sciences. Predicted polypeptide sequences were aligned with the orthologous genes from Arabidopsis thaliana, Homo sapiens and Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CLUSTALW.
!
& Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 3499
internal reference standard for the determination of the abundances of PpRad51-1 (Phypa1_1:206066), PpRad51-2 ((Phypa1_1:207856), PpPARP-1 (Phypa1_1:150949), PpPARP-2 (Phypa1_1:188096) PpKu70 (Phypa1_1: 60909), PpKu80 (Phypa1_6:23553) and PpCtIP (Phypa1_6:453490) transcripts. Relative transcript abundance was calculated using the !!Ct method and normalized to the wild-type value. Bleomycin and UV-B sensitivity assays
Evaluation of spontaneous mutation frequency Mutations in the PpAPT gene confer resistance to 2-Fluoroadenine (2-FA), a toxic compound for cells.
!
Isolation of apt mutants after bleomycin treatments One-day-old protonemata prepared from 10 plates of 7-day-old tissue (around 25.106 dividing cells) of wild-type and the Pprad50KO mutants were exposed to sublethal acute doses of bleomycin: 50 mg/ml for 2 h for wild-type and 0.1 mg/ml for 1 h for the Pprad50KO mutant, before being transferred onto cellophane-overlaid BCDAT agar medium supplemented with 2–3 mM 2-FA. After 3 weeks, resistant foci were clearly visible. Cellophane discs bearing resistant colonies were transferred to plates without 2-FA. This process was repeated three times until stable Ppapt clones were established. The results of selection are summarized in Supplementary Table S2. Genomic DNA was isolated as previously described (19) and the mutant Ppapt genes were amplified by PCR and sequenced using the primers listed in Supplementary Table S1 and indicated in Supplementary Figure S4. Gene targeting assays Transformation efficiency and APT targeting frequency were measured as previously described (17). Moss protowere transformed with the plasts (4.8 " 105) nonhomologous pBHRF or pBNRF plasmids (17) digested respectively with HindIII or XmaJI to produce a linear fragment containing the 35S::hygR or 35S::neoR markers, or with PpAPT-KO2 or PpAPT-KO3 plasmids digested respectively with BsaAI/HindIII or PvuI/BsrGI to produce the targeting APT fragment containing the 35S::hygR cassette (from pBHRF) or the35S::neoR cassette (from pBNRF) flanked by genomic PpAPT sequences. Targeted integration of PpAPT-KO2 or PpAPT-KO3 at the APT genomic locus confers resistance to 2-FA. We selected primary transformants (unstable+stable) with 25 mgl#1 hygromycin B (Duchefa) for PpAPT-KO2 or with 50 mgl#1 G418 (Duchefa) for PpAPT-KO3. Integrative transformants were isolated following a second round of selection. Protonemal explants from these transformants were then transferred onto medium containing 5 mM of 2-FA to detect APT gene targeting events. Experiments were repeated three times. DNA-DSB repair assays Protonemal lawns of wild-type and mutant strains subcultured for 1 week were used to generate protonemal tissue for DNA repair assays by shearing tissue collected from single 9-cm plates with an IKA T2T Digital Ultra Turrax homogenizer at maximum speed (24 krpm) for
58!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
Physcomitrella explants were inoculated as ‘spot inocula’ onto BCDAT-agar plates supplemented with bleomycin (Bleocin inj., Euro Nippon Kayaku GmbH, Germany) at concentrations indicated in the text, to determine sensitivity to chronic exposure to the drug. Plant growth was assessed by measurement of the surface area of each plant at intervals following inoculation by digital photography of the plates. The image analysis software ‘ImageJ’ (23) was used to convert the digital images to binary format and determine the colony area based on counting the number of pixels corresponding to each colony. Colony area determinations based on different photographs were normalized for each colony using the estimated area of the plate. For acute toxicity testing, protoplast viability and protonemal growth were analysed. Viability was tested when protoplasts of wild-type and mre11, rad50 and nbs1 mutants in BCD liquid medium supplemented with mannitol were treated with bleomycin at concentrations indicated in the text for 1 h. Protoplasts were washed two times and then resuspended in liquid mannitol medium. After 20 h in the dark, the protoplasts were spread on BCD agar medium supplemented with mannitol (!105 protoplasts per Petri dish). After 6 days regeneration, the number of survivors was counted. We repeated these experiments three times. Protoplasts of wild-type, mre11 and rad50 mutants were spread (!50 000/plate) on protoplast agar medium (PpNH4+0.5% glucose+8.5% mannitol). Plates were immediately irradiated with UV-B light (308 nm) in a Stratagene Stratalinker. The intensity of the irradiation was controlled using the internal probe of the Stratalinker and one plate of each strain was treated simultaneously. The experiment was repeated three times. Plates were immediately transferred to darkness for 24 h after treatment then to standard growth conditions for protoplast regeneration. Survival was determined after 1 week by microscopic observation. Protonemal growth was tested by incubating 7-day-old protonemal tissue in BCDAT liquid medium containing bleomycin at concentrations indicated in the text for 1 h. The tissue was washed three times with medium lacking bleomycin and homogenized. Explants were inoculated onto BCDAT agar medium and recovery following treatment was determined by measuring the increase in plant surface area over a 3-week period.
The number of 2-FA resistant colonies that grow following protoplast regeneration reflects the frequency of spontaneous mutations. Protoplasts of wild-type, mre11, rad50, nbs1 and msh2 (18) mutants were regenerated for 6 days on BCD agar medium supplemented with mannitol (!105 protoplasts per Petri dish) and then transferred on to BCD agar medium supplemented with 5 mM 2-FA (Fluorochem). After 2 weeks, the number of resistant clones was counted. Experiments were repeated three times and statistically analysed using Fisher’s exact test.
!
& 3500 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8
Comet assay data analysis The fraction of DNA in comet tails (% tail-DNA) was used as a measure of DNA damage. Data for the wild-type strain and the three mutant lines (Pprad50, Ppmre11 and Ppnbs1) analysed in this study were obtained in at least three independent experiments. In each experiment, the % tail-DNA was measured at seven time points: 0, 5, 10, 20, 60, 180 and 360 min after treatment and in control tissue without treatment. Measurements included four independent gel replicas of 25 evaluated comets totalling at least 300 comets analysed per experimental point.
!
The percentage of damage remaining as plotted on figures after given repair time (tx) is defined as: % damage remaining ðtx Þ ! " mean %T DNA damage ðtx Þ ! mean %T DNA damage ðcontrolÞ " # 100 ¼ ! mean %T DNA damage ðt0 Þ ! mean %T DNA damage ðcontrolÞ
Repair kinetics following two-phase decay kinetics defined as: SpanFast=(Y0-Plateau)*PercentFast*0.01 SpanSlow=(Y0-Plateau)*(100-PercentFast)*0.01 Y=Plateau+SpanFast*exp(-KFast*X)+SpanSlow* exp(-KSlow*X) was analysed by linear regression of experimental data with the Prism v.5 program (GrafPad Software Inc., USA). Goodness of fit characterized by R-squared was better than 0.99.
RESULTS Identification of MRN complex genes Sequence homology searches of the draft Physcomitrella genome identified single putative homologues of the MRE11, RAD50, and NBS1 genes on sequence scaffolds 18, 51 and 219, respectively. Whilst EST sequences were available to provide partial support for predicted gene models for the PpMRE11 and PpNBS1 genes, no corroborative evidence was available for the PpRAD50 gene, and the automated gene prediction software had not generated a gene model. We therefore generated gene models for all three genes based on BLASTX similarity to flowering plant proteins (Arabidopsis, rice and maize) to identify putative full-length protein coding sequences, and used these models to design PCR primers for the amplification of full-length protein coding sequences by reverse transcription-PCR of moss polyribosome-derived RNA. The resulting cDNA sequences and genomic models have been deposited in GenBank (Accession Nos: JF820817 and JF820820 for PpMRE11; JF82018 and JF82021 for PpRAD50; JF82019 and JF82022 for PpNBS1) and the curated and structurally annotated gene models entered in the JGI Physcomitrella genome browser in which they were assigned the Protein ID numbers Phypa1_1:235701 (PpMRE11), Phypa1_1:235526 (PpRAD50) and Phypa1_1:235702 (PpNBS1). The deduced polypeptide sequences were compared with the corresponding human, yeast and flowering plant sequences (Supplementary Figure S1). Like both the Arabidopsis and human genes, the PpMRE11 gene comprises 22 protein-coding exons. There is extensive similarity among all the MRE11 polypeptides (Supplementary Figure S1a) especially within the N-terminal two-thirds of the protein. The Physcomitrella MRE11 protein contains the characteristic phosphoesterase motifs within the nuclease domain, the capping domain and amino acids
59!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
1 min in 5 ml of liquid BCD medium. This was spread on BCD-agar medium overlaid with cellophane and grown for 1, 7 or 14 days prior to harvesting for bleomycin treatment. Protonemata were gently transferred from cellophane to liquid BCD medium in 4-cm wells of a six-well microtitre plate to avoid drying. DSBs were induced by addition of bleomycin to 10, 20, 30 and 50 mg ml!1 for 1 h. Following treatment, the tissue was thoroughly rinsed in H2O in disposable 22 -mm mesh funnels (Partec GmbH, Germany), blotted on filter paper and either flash-frozen in liquid N2 (t = 0) or left to recover on BCD-agar plates overlaid with cellophane for the indicated repair times, before being frozen in liquid N2. All handling and transfer of protonemata was with tweezers. DNA-DSBs were detected by a neutral comet assay (24) as described previously (25,26). Approximately 100 mg of frozen tissue was cut with a razor blade in 300 ml phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)+10 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) on ice and the tissue debris removed by filtration through 50 -mm mesh funnels (Partec GmbH, Germany) into Eppendorf tubes on ice. Fifty microlitres of nuclear suspension was dispersed in 200 ml of melted 0.7% LMT agarose (15510-027, GibcoBRL, Gaithersburg, USA) at 40" C and four 80 -ml aliquots were immediately pipetted onto each of two agarose coated microscope slides (two duplicates per slide), covered with a 22 # 22-mm cover slip and then chilled on ice for 1 min to solidify the agarose. After removal of cover slips, slides were dipped in lysis solution (2.5 M NaCl, 10 mM Tris–HCl, 0.1 M EDTA, 1% N-lauroyl sarcosinate, pH 7.6) on ice for at least 1 h to dissolve cellular membranes and remove attached proteins. The whole procedure from chopping tissue to dipping into lysis solution takes $3 min. After lysis, slides were twice equilibrated for 5 min in Tris–borate– EDTA (TBE) electrophoresis buffer to remove salts and detergents. Comet slides were then subjected to electrophoresis at 1 V/cm ($12 mA) for 5 min. After electrophoresis, slides were dipped for 5 min in 70 % EtOH, 5 min in 96% EtOH and air-dried. DNA ‘comets’ were viewed in epifluorescence with a Nikon Eclipse 800 microscope after staining with SybrGold stain (Molecular-Probes Invitrogen, USA) and evaluated by the Comet module of the LUCIA cytogenetics software suite (LIM, Praha, Czech Republic).
!
& Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 3501
Generation of targeted knockouts of the MRN complex genes We used gene targeting to generate mutant alleles of the PpMRE11, PpRAD50 and PpNBS1 genes. For the PpMRE11 and PpRAD50 genes, two types of mutant were generated: disruption mutants, designated mre11KO and rad50KO, in which several exons were replaced by an antibiotic selection cassette and deletion mutants, designated mre11D and rad50D, in which a number of exons were replaced by a selection cassette that was subsequently removed by cre-lox recombination (Figure 1A). For the PpNBS1 gene, we generated a disruption mutant (nbs1KO) and a deletion mutant in which the complete coding sequence was deleted (nbs1D). Gene targeting events were identified by PCR and Southern blot analyses to identify lines in which precise modification of the target genes had occurred without additional insertion of the targeting constructs at adventitious loci. For the deletion mutants we confirmed by PCR that a portion of the coding regions was removed using primers that flanked the deletion (Supplementary Figure S2). RT-PCR analysis established that the full-length transcripts were no longer produced in the mutants (Figure 1B). For all further experiments, we used two independent disruption or two independent deletion strains which displayed similar phenotypes. Gene targeting is strongly decreased in mre11 and rad50 mutants The MRN complex is one of the earliest respondents to DNA-DSBs and plays a central role in controlling repair pathway choice between NHEJ and HR (5). The importance of the MRN complex for DSB repair by HR has been shown in mre11-deficient chicken DT40 cells in which gene targeting efficiency is strongly reduced (29). In contrast, a somatic hyper-recombination phenotype has been described in the Arabidopsis rad50 mutant (30). In
!
order to examine the involvement of the MRN complex in genetic transformation of Physcomitrella we determined transformation and gene targeting rates in wild-type, mre11D, rad50D and nbs1KO cells after transformation with either an homologous vector designed to inactivate the PpAPT gene (PpAPT-KO2 or PpAPT-KO3) or a vector sharing no homology with the moss genome (pBHRF or pBNRF) to determine the rate of untargeted transgene integration. Relative transformation frequency (RTF) was reduced to approximately one-third of the wild-type level in mre11 and rad50 mutants, but gene targeting (GT) was reduced by at least an order of magnitude in both Ppmre11D and Pprad50D strains compared to WT, while untargeted integration frequencies were approximately double that observed in WT (Table 1). These data demonstrate that an active MRN complex is required to achieve high GT efficiencies in Physcomitrella, but that a low level of GT is possible in its absence. They also indicate that the untargeted integration of DNA is still supported following the loss of MRN function but that this pathway is not significantly up-regulated as has been observed to occur in Pprad51 mutants (17). Noticeably, RTF, GT and untargeted integration rates were unaffected in the nbs1KO mutant. These observations suggest that both PpRAD50 and PpMRE11, but not PpNBS1, are directly involved in DNA DSB recognition and the targeted integration of transgenes following transformation. PpMRE11 and PpRAD50 but not PpNBS1 are essential for normal growth and development All the plants containing disruptions or deletions in the PpMRE11 and PpRAD50 genes exhibited a severe developmental phenotype (Figure 2). On minimal BCD medium, protonemal growth was strongly reduced and eventually ceased after a month (Figure 2A, C and G). At this stage, colonies comprised both chloronemal and caulonemal cells and carried only a few abortive gametophore initials, whereas WT colonies carried numerous fully differentiated leafy shoots (Figure 2A, C and G). In both mutants, the proportion of chloronemata was enhanced on ammonium tartrate-supplemented medium (BCDAT), which improved protonemal growth (Figure 2B, D and H) and enabled the isolation of numerous protoplasts. The rate of protoplast regeneration was approximately half that of WT (data not shown). Gametophore differentiation was also slightly improved on BCDAT medium, with numerous leafy shoot initials observed in 2-month-old colonies of both mutants (Figure 2E, F, I and J). However, further development into fully expanded leafy shoots was arrested in both strains, although at an earlier stage in rad50 mutants than in mre11 mutants (compare Figure 2F and J) and both mutants were thus unable to differentiate reproductive organs. In contrast, all of the Ppnbs1KO disruptant lines were indistinguishable from wild-type in both growth rate and developmental progression, producing normal gametophores and viable spores, demonstrating that the disruption of PpNBS1 was neither detrimental to development nor to meiosis. These data show that a functional MRN complex is essential for normal
60!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
(N123 and W225) shown to be essential for the MRE11– NBS1 interaction (4). The RAD50 sequences (Supplementary Figure S1b) are also well conserved at the amino-acid sequence level, and show good conservation of functionally important domains. The Physcomitrella protein contains the characteristic Walker A and Walker B adenosine triphosphatase (ATPase) motifs at either end of the sequence that associate to form a crucially important ATP-binding cassette (27) and that typify the RAD50 protein. These are separated by a long coiled-coil domain with a central CXXC zinc-hook (CPCC in both Physcomitrella and Arabidopsis) by which pairs of RAD50 proteins interact in the tethering of broken chromosome ends by the MRN/ MRX complex (28). The Physcomitrella NBS1 protein (Supplementary Figure S1c) has an N-terminal fork-head associated domain, a partial BRCT domain, and putative SQdipeptide phosphorylation sites and conserved MRE11interacting motifs in the C-terminal region, as identified in all previously identified NBS1 orthologs (4).
!
& 3502 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8
A
PpMRE11 (7.2kb)
ATG
mre11∆
stop
mre11KO
PpRAD50 (11.2kb)
rad50∆
ATG
rad50KO
stop
PpNBS1 (5.6kb) stop
nbs1KO
B
Figure 1. Targeted disruption of Physcomitrella MRN genes. (A) Structure of the PpMRE11, PpRAD50 and PpNBS1 genes. Exons are represented by shaded boxes, with 50 - and 30 -UTR sequences in darker grey. The region deleted by cre-lox excision of a selection cassette is shown as a line above each gene. For the replacement constructs (below each gene) the extent of targeting sequence homology is indicated by the line, and the P35SnptII-g6ter selection cassette is shown as a white box, replacing the genomic region indicated by the lines joining the gene structure diagram and the replacement cassette. Arrows indicate position of primers used for RT-PCR analysis. (B) RT-PCR analysis of MRN transcripts in wild-type and mutant plants. RNA was isolated from protonemal tissue of wild-type and mutant lines for cDNA synthesis and PCR amplification using gene-specific primers (PpMRE11#1+PpMRE11#2 for MRE11, PpRAD50#1+PpRAD50#2 for RAD50, PpNBS1#1+PpNBS1#2 for NBS1). The PpAPT transcript has been used as control (primers: PpAPT#14+PpAPT#19). Primers are listed in Supplementary Figure S4.
Table 1. Comparison of transformation and gene targeting efficiencies Genotypes
PpAPT-KO a
Wild type mre11D rad50D nbs1D
R
RTF
Antib
1 ± 0.1c 0.37 ± 0.1c 0.35 ± 0.1c 0.94 ± 0.1c
287 81 76 261
(95.7 ± 10.8c) (27 ± 4c) (25.3 ± 4.5c) (87 ± 5.6c)
pBHRF or pBNRF R
GT
RTF
(70.7 ± 11.2c) (2 ± 0.5c) (1,3 ± 0.6c) (59.3 ± 4.5c)
73.9 ± 3.3c 7.4 ± 1c 5.3 ± 2.1c 68.2 ± 1.4c
0.09 ± 0.04d 0.2 ± 0.01d 0.17 ± 0.01d 0.17 ± 0.03d
2FA 212 6 4 178
b
a
AntibR 14 34 31 24
(7 ± 2.8c) (17.7 ± 2.8c) (15.5 ± 2.5c) (12 ± 1.4c)
a Relative transformation frequencies (RTF in 0/00) express the frequency of antibiotic-resistant transgenic strains in the whole regenerated population. b GT efficiencies (in percentage) express the frequency of 2-FA resistant among the population of antibiotic-resistant transgenic strains. c Average and standard deviation was determined from three independent experiments, each of them performed in duplicates. d Average and standard deviation was determined from two independent experiments, each of them performed in duplicates.
completion of processes involved in development. Noticeably, PpNBS1 is not required to complete these processes. The similar phenotype displayed by both rad50 and mre11 mutants argues for the involvement of the whole MRN complex in these processes. Our data indicate that this complex is involved in the coordination between developmental programme and DNA damage repair and/or cell-cycle control, and future experiments
!
will assess the molecular mechanisms underlying these MRN functions. The mre11 and rad50 mutants display increased sensitivity to DNA damage but no significant mutator phenotype Wild-type and mre11 and rad50 mutant plants were also analysed for their sensitivity to DNA damaging agents.
61!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
ATG
!
& Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 3503 BCD
BCDAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
WT
rad50
Figure 2. Vegetative developmental phenotypes of mre11 and rad50 mutants. WT (A and B), Rad50 7-20 (C–F) and Mre11 1-195 (G–J) 30-day-old colonies grown on BCD (A, C and G) or BCDAT (B, D and H) medium, scale 1 cm. (E, F, I and J) aborted gametophores observed at the edge of 2-month-old colonies grown on BCDAT, scale bar 500 mm in E and I, 200 mm in F and J.
Sensitivity of mutants and WT strains to UV-B (308 nm) was investigated using a protoplast survival assay (17). Both strains displayed increased sensitivity to UV-B compared to the WT (Figure 3). We further investigated sensitivity of the mutants to the DSB inducing agent bleomycin. We first monitored the growth of WT and mutant explants submitted to chronic exposure to different concentrations of bleomycin over a 3-week period. In WT and nbs1KO strains, growth was impaired at low doses (1–40 ng/ml), whilst higher concentrations (200 ng/ml– 1 mg/ml) were lethal (Figure 4A and Supplementary Figure S3). In contrast, Ppmre11 and Pprad50 disruption and deletion mutants displayed hypersensitivity to bleomycin. At concentrations below 8 ng/ml, little or no growth took place, although the tissue remained green. At or above this concentration, all mre11 and rad50 mutant lines were killed (Figure 4A, Supplementary Figure S3A and B). We tested the acute toxicity of bleomycin in wild type and of the different mutants at the cellular level. Following incubation for 1 h with increasing concentrations of bleomycin, the ability of protoplasts to divide and regenerate into colonies was assessed by subculture on drug-free medium. Survival was calculated as the ratio of protoplasts surviving after 15 days regeneration following treatment to the number of protoplasts undergoing normal regeneration without treatment. The LD50 for the wild type and nbs1 mutant was about 500 ng/ml bleomycin, whereas the mre11 and
!
Figure 3. Hypersensitivity of the rad50 and mre11 mutants to UV-B treatment. Survival curves of wild type and rad50 and mre11 mutant protoplasts regenerating after exposure to UV-B treatment. Wild-type survival is represented with diamonds, rad50 mutant survival is represented with squares and mre11 mutant survival is represented with triangles. Error bars indicate SDs based on at least two independent experiments in all cases.
rad50 cells were more sensitive, with an LD50 of !50 ng/ ml (Figure 4B). The mre11 and rad50 cells were even more sensitive than the rad51-1-2 double mutant, already described as hypersensitive to bleomycin (16).
62!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
mre11
!
& 3504 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8
A
Control
8ng/ml Blm
mre11
W.T.
mre11
W.T.
the point mutations seen in the msh2 mutant that cell death results. DNA-DSB repair is not affected in mre11 and rad50 mutants
nbs1
rad50
nbs1
WT nbs1 mre11 rad50 rad51
100 80 60 40 20 0 0
50
100 250 (bleomycin) ng/ml
500
Figure 4. Hypersensitivity of the rad50 and mre11 mutants to bleomycin. (A) Wild-type and mutant plants were inoculated as six explants into quadrants of plates containing standard growth medium with or without bleomycin at 8 ngml"1. For the mutant strains, each inoculum represents an independent disruption line. The photograph illustrates the extent of growth 10 days following inoculation of the explants. (B) Survival curves of wild type and nbs1, mre11, rad50 and rad51 mutant protoplasts regenerating after exposure to bleomycin treatment. Error bars indicate SD based on at least two independent experiments in all cases.
Acute treatment of intact protonemal tissue also adversely affected the subsequent growth rate of the recovering protonemata, with the mre11 and rad50 mutants being more sensitive to bleomycin than the wild type (Supplementary Figure S3C). Mutator phenotypes in the absence of proteins essential for HR have been described in S. cerevisiae or A. nidulans (31,32). We therefore evaluated the mutator phenotype of the moss MRN mutants to assess their ability to repair endogenous DNA damage, using as reporter loss of function of the adenine phosphoribosyl transferase gene (PpAPT) as previously described (18). The frequencies of apt mutations were lower than 3 ! 10"7 in wild type, rad50 and nbs1 mutants, was 4 ! 10"7 for mre11 but was #100-fold higher (3.3 ! 10"5) in msh2 mutants (Supplementary Table S3), which is in good accordance with previous results obtained with this mutant (18). These results indicate that loss of proteins of the MRN complex does not lead to a significant mutator phenotype in P. patens. It is most likely that DNA-DSB repair defects in the mre11 and rad50 mutants cause genomic damage so much more severe than
!
63!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
% of regenerating protoplastso
B 120
rad50
Gene targeting in the mre11 and rad50 mutants was severely impaired, while untargeted integration frequencies were 2-fold higher than those observed in WT. Since the rad50 and mre11 mutants were clearly impaired in growth and hypersensitive to DNA damage, we reasoned that the mutants remained capable of ligating broken ends of DNA molecules, but in an ‘unsupervised’, and therefore inaccurate manner. We tested this by directly estimating the ability of wild-type and mutant strains to repair DNA damage following acute exposure to bleomycin using single nucleus gel electrophoresis (the ‘comet assay’). Treatment with bleomycin for 1 h resulted in a linear, dose-dependent fragmentation of genomic DNA in both wild-type and mutant lines, with the rad50 and mre11 lines exhibiting a greater susceptibility to DNA damage than the wild-type and Ppnbs1 lines, respectively (Figure 5A). The rate of repair of DSBs was determined by measuring the proportion of fragmented DNA at intervals during a recovery period. Both wild-type and mutant lines exhibited similarly high rates of DNA repair with a characteristic biphasic profile: an initial rapid phase (t1/2 1–4 min) accounting for #60% of the fragmented DNA, followed by a slower phase (t1/2 7–90 min) accounting for the remainder (Figure 5B, Table 2). The rate of DNA repair was closely correlated with the age of the protonemal tissue following subculture. Tissue that was homogenized and subcultured for only 1 day comprised largely short protonemal fragments, four to seven cells in length. This tissue exhibited the most rapid repair kinetics (Figure 5B, Table 2). Tissue that was subcultured for 1 week comprised longer filaments 15–20 cells in length, whilst after subculture for 2 weeks, the filaments were over 30 cells long. These tissues were progressively slower in their DNA repair kinetics (Figure 5C, Table 2) with an increasing proportion of the DNA-DSBs being repaired with slow-phase kinetics. We ascribe these age-related differences to the relative representation of apical cells within the protonemal population. Physcomitrella protonemata grow by serial division of the apical cells, so that in a 1d-subcultured homogenate, we estimate the proportion of mitotically active apical cells to comprise 30–50% of the total cell population. This proportion will be 10–15% in 7d-subcultured tissue, and #3% in 14d-sucbultured protonemata. Thus, the initial rapid phase of DNA repair can be accounted for by processes undertaken in the mitotically competent apical cells, whilst the slow-phase repair kinetics is likely due to processes carried out in mitotically inactive subapical cells. Although differences can be seen in the rates of DNA repair between mutant and wild-type strains, these are not dramatic. Clearly, the extensive fragmentation of DNA that occurs during the initial bleomycin treatment is being rapidly reversed, even in mutants in which
!
& Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 3505
80
80 % of DDNA in comet tail
B 100
% of DNA in comet tail
A 100
60
40
wt pprad50 ppmre11
20
pprad50 ppmre11 ppnbs1
40
20
ppnbs1
0 0
10
20
30
40
50
mg Bleo/ml
c
0
5
10 20 minutes
60
180 360
C 100 wt
1d
80 % of remaining DSBs
pprad50 7d 14d
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
minutes Figure 5. Kinetics of DNA repair in wild-type and mutant plants. (A) Bleomycin dose-response. Protonemal tissue from wild-type and mutant lines was treated with bleomycin for 1 h at the indicated concentrations, prior to nuclear extraction and the analysis of DNA damage by single-cell electrophoresis (the ‘comet assay’). The extent of DNA damage is indicated by the proportion of DNA detected in the fragmented fraction (the ‘comet tail’). The background level of genomic DNA damage in all lines is similar, at between 20 and 30%, indicating that the mutations have no significant effect on natural levels of DNA fragmentation. (B) Repair kinetics in 1-day regenerated protonemata. In both wild-type and mutant lines, the fragmentation of DNA induced by bleomycin is repaired with rapid kinetics (t1/2 between 1 and 4 min). (C) Repair kinetics in relation to protonemal age. As protonemata are regenerated for longer periods (resulting in a concomitant reduction in the proportion of mitotically active apical cells), so the proportion of the rapid phase DNA repair declines. This occurs in both the wild-type and the rad50KO mutant lines.
Table 2. Kinetics of DNA repair in wild-type and mutant strains Genotypes
Tissue age
t1/2fast (min)
% fast
t1/2 slow (min)
wild-type wild-type wild-type mre11KO nbs1KO rad50KO rad50KO rad50KO
1d 7d 14d 1d 1d 1d 7d 14d
1.2 4.0 3.8 4.1 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.7
61.4 67.6 67.7 96.5 84.1 71.4 52.6 46.8
7.6 32.9 103.4 84.1 17.0 5.6 18.2 100.0
!
components of the principal DNA surveillance and repair system for both HR and NHEJ-mediated repair (PpMRE11 and PpRAD50) have been eliminated. MRN mutants exhibit enhanced repair gene expression One possibility is that in the absence of a viable MRN complex, DNA-DSBs are repaired, but in an ‘unsupervised’ manner. In the absence of the tethering function to hold broken ends in close proximity, repair may be
64!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
0
wt 1day
60
!
& 3506 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8
Fold change relative to WT
40
MRN-unsupervised repair generates more severe forms of genomic damage. mre11
30
rad50
DISCUSSION
nbs1
GT Efficiency is reduced in the Physcomitrella rad50 and mre11 mutants
20
10
0 RAD51-1RAD51-2 PARP-1 PARP-2 Ku70
Ku80
CTiP
inaccurate, generating increased numbers of deletions and promoting end joining between inappropriate ends, resulting in increased disruption of essential genes and consequent loss of viability and cell death. Analysis of the expression of a selection of DNA repair genes, implicated in HR, NHEJ and alternative end-joining processes, showed a significantly enhanced accumulation of repair gene transcripts in MRN mutants relative to wild-type, and this was most marked in the Ppmre11KO and Pprad50KO mutants (Figure 6). This suggests that in the absence of a functional MRN complex, the cell initiates an emergency response by the rest of the DNA repair machinery. The levels of induction of the repair genes observed in the mutant lines are comparable to those seen in wild-type protonemal tissue in response to DNA-DSB induction by bleomycin (Whitaker,J., personal communication). We then directly tested the nature of DNA repair in an MRN mutant line, by screening a series of apt mutants generated by bleomycin treatment of both wild-type and the Pprad50KO mutant. Sublethal doses of bleomycin, determined by growth tests of bleomycin-treated protonemal tissue (Supplementary Figure S3C), were used to generate mutants selected on the basis of resistance to 2-FA. The mutability of the PpAPT gene in the Pprad50KO line was observed to be at least an order of magnitude greater than that in the wild type (Supplementary Table S2). The nature of the induced mutations was examined by PCR-amplification and sequencing of the APT gene from a number of lines. For wild-type, each mutant analysed contained only point mutations within the APT coding sequence and introns (Table 3). In contrast, three of the seven mutants analysed in the Pprad50KO background contained deletions, varying in length between 10 and 747 bp (Table 3). This supports our working hypothesis that
!
NBS1 is not required for growth and development or for HR in Physcomitrella Phenotypic analyses of mutants in the MRN complex in moss failed to identify a detectable difference between wild-type and Ppnbs1 knock-outs. In eukaryotes, the MRN-complex proteins act as the ‘gatekeepers’ of the DNA-DSB response, directing the repair of DSBs into either the NHEJ or HR pathways through the activation of the ATM or ATR kinases that (in mammalian cells) are recruited to sites of DNA damage through analogous mechanisms involving conserved interaction motifs (6). The NBS1 protein is involved in the recruitment of ATM to DNA-DSBs and ATRIP is involved in the recruitment of ATR to single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). The recruitment of ATM is mediated by its direct interaction with NBS1 which becomes phosphorylated at residues conserved between the Arabidopsis and Physcomitrella NBS1 sequences (6,33). In A. thaliana, nbs1/atm double mutants appear additive in their negative consequences for growth and fertility relative to the wild-type and single mutants (34). ATM is necessary for the imposition of a cell-cycle checkpoint, and for the induction of DNA-damage-responsive gene expression in Arabidopsis, in which the principal DNA repair pathway is through NHEJ (33,35). DNA repair in Physcomitrella is believed
65!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
Figure 6. Gene expression analysis of DNA repair genes in the MRN mutants. Quantitative determination of the relative abundances of transcripts encoding DNA repair genes (PpRad51-1, PpRad51-2, PpPARP-1, PpPARP-2, PpKu70, PpKu80 and PpCtIP) in 7-day-old wild-type, Ppmre11KO, PpRad50KO and Ppnbs1KO strains was done by quantitative real-time PCR. Relative transcript abundance was calculated using the !!Ct method and normalized to the wild-type value. Error bars indicate SD based on at least three independent experiments with two replicates for each sample in all cases.
In Physcomitrella the protein at the heart of the HR pathway, PpRAD51, is required simultaneously to enable targeted integration by HR, and to repress untargeted insertion by an as yet unidentified molecular mechanism (17). The unique GT efficiency of Physcomitrella suggests that DNA DSBs are predominantly repaired by HR in moss cells. Our analysis of mutants in the principal sensor of DNA DSBs, the MRN complex, further shows that although a fully active MRN complex clearly appears to be necessary for high-efficiency targeted transgene integration, a background level of HR with gene targeting reduced to !8.6% of wt is still maintained in the absence of either a functional PpMRE11 or PpRAD50 protein. This contrasts with the complete abolition of gene targeting seen in rad51 null mutants, a component specific to the HR pathway (17). Noticeably the overall frequency of untargeted transgene integration is not reduced in the mre11 and rad50 mutants relative to wild type (Table 1), implying that whatever mechanisms undertake random transgene integration, these are relatively unimpaired in the absence of PpMRE11 or PpRAD50. Together with the observation that a number of DNA repair genes show enhanced expression levels in mre11 and rad50 mutants, our results suggest that while some HR-mediated repair may still operate in mre11 and rad50 mutants, the HR pathway is unlikely to account for the majority of the DNA-DSBs that are rapidly religated in these mutants.
!
& Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 3507
Table 3. Mutations identified in the APT genomic sequence in wild-type and Pprad50-KO 2-FA resistant clones Clone#
Genotype
Mutations in CDS Point mutations
Mutations in introns
Deletionsa
Point mutations
–
1450–1455 1466–1521
+ T (1683)a ! T (2517)a + T (1683)a + T (1683)a ! G (1524)a + T (1683)a + T (2517)a + T (1683)a – ! A (1052)a T to C (2330)a G to C (2327)a + GT (2328)a ! A (1052)a T to G (1376)a C to A (1569)a + G (2328)a A to T (1591)a
–
rad50/apt
+ T (2095)a
2 3
rad50/apt rad50/apt
4
rad50/apt
5 7 11
rad50/apt rad50/apt RAD50/apt
! T (1706)a A to T (1461)a G to C (1534)a T to C (1291)a C to G (1752)a ! T (1730)a ! G (1524)a – A to G (1491)a A to C (1498)a
12
RAD50/apt
–
–
13
RAD50/apt
A to C (2475)a ! T (2499)a
–
– 1050–1797 –
– –
– – –
–
–
a
Position 1 corresponds to the first nucleotide in the genomic PpAPT sequence DQ117987.
to operate primarily via the HR pathway, which in mammalian cells, at least, depends principally on the activity of the ATR kinase. Thus, impairment of ATM-related signalling in the Ppnbs1KO mutant may have relatively little impact on growth and fertility, if NHEJ is subordinate to HR. This conclusion is also supported by the observation that HR-dependent gene targeting is unaffected in the Ppnbs1KO mutant. In contrast, NBS1 has been shown to be essential to HR in chicken DT40 cells, possibly by processing recombination intermediates (36) and in human cells recruitment of ATR to sites of DNA damage is dependent on ATM (37). This implies that in Physcomitrella NBS1 may not be involved in the production of single-stranded tails that are the substrates for HR and that induction of the HR pathway, potentially by the ATR signalling, is independent of ATM. In this respect Physcomitrella would more resemble budding yeast than mammals, as Tel1, the yeast equivalent of ATM, has only minor effects on end-processing and is not required for focus formation by Mec1, the yeast homolog of ATR (38,39). Alternatively, despite the conservation of the ATM interaction domain in the PpNBS1 protein, ATM activation might be independent of NBS1 in Physcomitrella. In this context, it would be of interest to study the exact roles of ATM and ATR in Physcomitrella. RAD50 and MRE11 are essential for growth and development in Physcomitrella Null mutants in any components of the MRN complex are lethal in vertebrates (5) and are severely compromised in both budding (40) and fission yeast (41). This is not the case in plants: in Arabidopsis, AtRad50 and AtMre11 mutants are impaired in growth, fertility and in their ability to recover from genotoxic stress (42,43), whereas Atnbs1 mutant plants grow normally and are fully fertile
!
but are sensitive to the DNA cross-linking agent, mitomycin C (34). Our analyses show that defects in the MRN complex can adversely affect moss development. While the Ppnbs1KO mutant completed its life cycle normally and displayed wild-type levels of susceptibility to DNA damage, the Ppmre11 and Pprad50 strains displayed a strong and similar developmental phenotype. This included defects in cell viability (reduced protoplast regeneration rates), in cell-cycle progression and cell growth (reduced colony growth) and in the completion of a complex developmental programme (abortive leafy shoot development). Precocious arrest of colony growth was also observed on minimal medium, which most likely reflects early senescence. This pleiotropic phenotype is much stronger than that observed in the HR-deficient Pprad51 mutants (16,17) and implies that genome integrity is more severely impaired by loss of function of the MRN complex than by the inactivation of the HR pathway. The phenotype of Ppmre11 and Pprad50 mutants also differs from that previously reported for Ppmsh2 mutants which do not display a strong juvenile phenotype but accumulate mutations and phenotypic alterations during development (18). Noticeably both Pprad51 and Ppmsh2 mutants also displayed a detectable mutator phenotype that is absent in Ppmre11 and Pprad50, probably because MRN mutants accumulate a more extensive and harmful type of DNA damage that accelerates senescence. Induced DSBs in Physcomitrella can be repaired via a mechanism independent of the MRN complex Direct analysis of DNA-DSB repair by single-cell electrophoresis showed little difference in the rate of repair of DNA-DSBs in the mre11 and rad50 mutants compared to
66!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
1
Deletionsa
!
& 3508 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8
!
The rapid interaction of the MRN complex with DNA-DSBs is essential for their stabilization, through the tethering of the adjacent free ends by the Rad50 coiled-coil/zinc hook domains (5). By retaining broken ends in close proximity, the MRN complex thereby supervises the DNA repair process, ensuring that the correct ends are rejoined, and recruiting additional factors required for either NHEJ or HR-based repair. In the absence of such tethering, unsupervised end-joining by backup pathways might occur between unrelated DNA sequences, with the concomitant accumulation of cytotoxic mutations accounting for the reduced rates of growth and enhanced sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents observed in the Ppmre11 and Pprad50 mutants. Combinations of mutations affecting C- or A-NHEJ (58) with mre11 or rad50 mutations should give us insight into the mechanism behind this DSB DNA repair. ACCESSION NUMBERS JF820817, JF82022.
JF820820,
JF82018,
JF82021,
JF82019,
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA Supplementary Data are available at NAR Online: Supplementary Tables 1–3, Supplementary Figures 1–4. FUNDING Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant number ANR GNP05008G to F.N.); the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Grant number BB/ I006710/1 to A.C.C. and Y.K.); the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant number 31003A_127572 to D.S.); and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (projects LC06004 and 1M0505; EU 6FP projects TAGIP LSH-2004_1.1.0-1 and COMICS LSHB-CT2006-037575 to K.J.A., J.K. and M.H.). Funding for open access charge: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant number ANR GNP05008G). Conflict of interest statement. None declared. REFERENCES 1. San Filippo,J., Sung,P. and Klein,H. (2008) Mechanism of eukaryotic homologous recombination. Annu. Rev. Biochem., 77, 229–257. 2. Aravind,L., Walker,D.R. and Koonin,E.V. (1999) Conserved domains in DNA repair proteins and evolution of repair systems. Nucleic Acids Res., 27, 1223–1242. 3. Mimitou,E.P. and Symington,L.S. (2009) DNA end resection: many nucleases make light work. DNA Repair, 8, 983–995. 4. Rupnik,A., Lowndes,N.F. and Grenon,M. (2010) MRN and the race to the break. Chromosoma, 119, 115–135. 5. Stracker,T.H., Theunissen,J.W., Morales,M. and Petrini,J.H. (2004) The Mre11 complex and the metabolism of chromosome breaks: the importance of communicating and holding things together. DNA Repair, 3, 845–854.
67!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
wild type. Whilst some HR-mediated transgene integration still occurs in mre11 and rad50 mutants, it is unlikely that single-strand annealing (SSA) or homologous strand exchange (HR), which require end-processing, account for this rapid religation. Therefore, the repair of DSBs in the mre11 and rad50 mutants probably occurs via a pathway related to NHEJ. However, the reduced growth and survival of these mutants indicate that such a pathway reduces the genetic stability characteristic of MRN-supervised DNA repair. Two different NHEJ pathways have been already described, the highly efficient canonical Ku- and DNA ligase IV-mediated NHEJ pathway (C-NHEJ) in which most ends are successfully rejoined without alteration of DNA sequence information (44) and an evolutionarily conserved alternative end-joining pathway (A-NHEJ) (45) thought to proceed via microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ), even if the relationship between A-NHEJ and MMEJ is still unclear (45). A-NHEJ represents a major source of DSB-induced genome rearrangements (translocations, deletions and inversions) (46–48) and appears to utilize binding of DNA ends by PARP-1 (polyADP ribose polymerase) and ligation by DNA Ligase III in a Ku-independent process (49,50) and involve the interaction between the MRN complex and DNA ligase IIIa/XRCC1 (51). The function of DNA ligase III is absent in plants, being substituted by DNA ligase I in base-excision repair (52). It may therefore be significant that the Ppmre11 and Pprad50 mutants show substantially elevated levels of expression of PARP and other DNA-repair associated genes, relative to the wild type, and this elevated gene expression may be responsible for the activity of an A-NHEJ repair pathway in the absence of an active MRN complex. Existence of A-NHEJ in plants has been inferred from observations that although the frequency of transgene insertion was reduced in mutants deficient in NHEJ components such as Atku80 and AtligIV, it was not abolished (53–55), from the observation of illegitimate fusions between chromosome arms in telomerase-deficient Arabidopsis, even in an Atku80/Atmre11 mutant background (56), from the recent demonstration of rapid ligation of bleomycininduced DNA-DSBs in the NHEJ-deficient Atku80 and Atlig4 mutants (57) and from kinetic measurements of assembly and processing of DSB-specific g-H2AX complexes in Arabidopsis mutants deficient in core components of the C-NHEJ and A-NHEJ pathways (58). In budding yeast both C-NHEJ and A-NHEJ are MRXdependent processes, with the exonuclease activity of Mre11 playing an important role (59–62), whilst in vertebrates varying roles for MRN complex components have been reported (63–66). Whatever the role of the MRN complex in C-NHEJ or A-NHEJ in plants, it is likely that an NHEJ-like pathway mediates the rapid DSB repair observed in Physcomitrella mre11 and rad50 mutants. However, because these mutants are clearly hypersensitive to DNA damage yet do not show a mutator phenotype, it would appear that whatever rejoining of DNA ends is occurring, it is ‘unsupervised’ and results in genomic perturbations so severe that cells suffering bleomycin-induced breakage soon die.
!
& Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8 3509
!
29. Yamaguchi-Iwai,Y., Sonoda,E., Sasaki,M.S., Morrison,C., Haraguchi,T., Hiraoka,Y., Yamashita,Y.M., Yagi,T., Takata,M., Price,C. et al. (1999) Mre11 is essential for the maintenance of chromosomal DNA in vertebrate cells. EMBO J., 18, 6619–6629. 30. Gherbi,H., Gallego,M.E., Jalut,N., Lucht,J.M., Hohn,B. and White,C.I. (2001) Homologous recombination in planta is stimulated in the absence of Rad50. EMBO Rep., 2, 287–291. 31. Prakash,L. (1976) The relation between repair of DNA and radiation and chemical mutagenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mutat. Res., 41, 241–248. 32. Seong,K.Y., Chae,S.K. and Kang,H.S. (1997) Cloning of an E. coli RecA and yeast RAD51 homolog, radA, an allele of the uvsC in Aspergillus nidulans and its mutator effects. Mol. Cells, 7, 284–289. 33. Garcia,V., Bruchet,H., Camescasse,D., Granier,F., Bouchez,D. and Tissier,A. (2003) AtATM is essential for meiosis and the somatic response to DNA damage in plants. Plant Cell, 15, 119–132. 34. Waterworth,W.M., Altun,C., Armstrong,S.J., Roberts,N., Dean,P.J., Young,K., Weil,C.F., Bray,C.M. and West,C.E. (2007) NBS1 is involved in DNA repair and plays a synergistic role with ATM in mediating meiotic homologous recombination in plants. Plant J., 52, 41–52. 35. Culligan,K.M., Robertson,C.E., Foreman,J., Doerner,P. and Britt,A.B. (2006) ATR and ATM play both distinct and additive roles in response to ionizing radiation. Plant J., 48, 947–961. 36. Tauchi,H., Kobayashi,J., Morishima,K., van Gent,D.C., Shiraishi,T., Verkaik,N.S., vanHeems,D., Ito,E., Nakamura,A., Sonoda,E. et al. (2002) Nbs1 is essential for DNA repair by homologous recombination in higher vertebrate cells. Nature, 420, 93–98. 37. Adams,K.E., Medhurst,A.L., Dart,D.A. and Lakin,N.D. (2006) Recruitment of ATR to sites of ionising radiation-induced DNA damage requires ATM and components of the MRN protein complex. Oncogene, 25, 3894–3904. 38. Dubrana,K., van Attikum,H., Hediger,F. and Gasser,S.M. (2007) The processing of double-strand breaks and binding of single-strand-binding proteins RPA and Rad51 modulate the formation of ATR-kinase foci in yeast. J. Cell. Sci., 120, 4209–4220. 39. Mantiero,D., Clerici,M., Lucchini,G. and Longhese,M.P. (2007) Dual role for Saccharomyces cerevisiae Tel1 in the checkpoint response to double-strand breaks. EMBO Rep., 8, 380–387. 40. Wasko,B.M., Holland,C.L., Resnick,M.A. and Lewis,L.K. (2009) Inhibition of DNA double-strand break repair by the Ku heterodimer in mrx mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA Repair, 8, 162–169. 41. Raji,H. and Hartsuiker,E. (2006) Double-strand break repair and homologous recombination in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Yeast, 23, 963–976. 42. Bundock,P. and Hooykaas,P. (2002) Severe developmental defects, hypersensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, and lengthened telomeres in Arabidopsis MRE11 mutants. Plant Cell, 14, 2451–2462. 43. Gallego,M.E., Jeanneau,M., Granier,F., Bouchez,D., Bechtold,N. and White,C.I. (2001) Disruption of the Arabidopsis RAD50 gene leads to plant sterility and MMS sensitivity. Plant J., 25, 31–41. 44. Boulton,S.J. and Jackson,S.P. (1996) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku70 potentiates illegitimate DNA double-strand break repair and serves as a barrier to error-prone DNA repair pathways. EMBO J., 15, 5093–5103. 45. McVey,M. and Lee,S.E. (2008) MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director’s cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet., 24, 529–538. 46. Gao,Y., Ferguson,D.O., Xie,W., Manis,J.P., Sekiguchi,J., Frank,K.M., Chaudhuri,J., Horner,J., DePinho,R.A. and Alt,F.W. (2000) Interplay of p53 and DNA-repair protein XRCC4 in tumorigenesis, genomic stability and development. Nature, 404, 897–900. 47. Guirouilh-Barbat,J., Rass,E., Plo,I., Bertrand,P. and Lopez,B.S. (2007) Defects in XRCC4 and KU80 differentially affect the joining of distal nonhomologous ends. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 20902–20907.
68!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
6. Falck,J., Coates,J. and Jackson,S.P. (2005) Conserved modes of recruitment of ATM, ATR and DNA-PKcs to sites of DNA damage. Nature, 434, 605–611. 7. Lamarche,B.J., Orazio,N.I. and Weitzman,M.D. (2010) The MRN complex in double-strand break repair and telomere maintenance. FEBS Lett., 584, 3682–3695. 8. Hanin,M. and Paszkowski,J. (2003) Plant genome modification by homologous recombination. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 6, 157–162. 9. Britt,A.B. and May,G.D. (2003) Re-engineering plant gene targeting. Trends Plant Sci., 8, 90–95. 10. Ray,A. and Langer,M. (2002) Homologous recombination: ends as the means. Trends Plant Sci., 7, 435–440. 11. Tzfira,T., Li,J., Lacroix,B. and Citovsky,V. (2004) Agrobacterium T-DNA integration: molecules and models. Trends Genet., 20, 375–383. 12. Schaefer,D.G. and Zryd,J.P. (1997) Efficient gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Plant J., 11, 1195–1206. 13. Schaefer,D.G. (2001) Gene targeting in Physcomitrella patens. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 4, 143–150. 14. Kamisugi,Y., Cuming,A.C. and Cove,D.J. (2005) Parameters determining the efficiency of gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Nucleic Acids Res., 33, e173. 15. Kamisugi,Y., Schlink,K., Rensing,S.A., Schween,G., von Stackelberg,M., Cuming,A.C., Reski,R. and Cove,D.J. (2006) The mechanism of gene targeting in Physcomitrella patens: homologous recombination, concatenation and multiple integration. Nucleic Acids Res., 34, 6205–6214. 16. Markmann-Mulisch,U., Wendeler,E., Zobell,O., Schween,G., Steinbiss,H.H. and Reiss,B. (2007) Differential requirements for RAD51 in Physcomitrella patens and Arabidopsis thaliana development and DNA damage repair. Plant Cell, 19, 3080–3089. 17. Schaefer,D.G., Delacote,F., Charlot,F., Vrielynck,N., GuyonDebast,A., Le Guin,S., Neuhaus,J.M., Doutriaux,M.P. and Nogue,F. (2010) RAD51 loss of function abolishes gene targeting and de-represses illegitimate integration in the moss Physcomitrella patens. DNA Repair, 9, 526–533. 18. Trouiller,B., Schaefer,D.G., Charlot,F. and Nogue,F. (2006) MSH2 is essential for the preservation of genome integrity and prevents homeologous recombination in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Nucleic Acids Res., 34, 232–242. 19. Knight,C.D., Cove,D.J., Cuming,A.C. and Quatrano,R.S. (2002) Molecular Plant Biology, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 285–299. 20. Schaefer,D., Zryd,J.P., Knight,C.D. and Cove,D.J. (1991) Stable transformation of the moss Physcomitrella patens. Mol. Gen. Genet., 226, 418–424. 21. Kamisugi,Y. and Cuming,A.C. (2005) The evolution of the abscisic acid-response in land plants: comparative analysis of group 1 LEA gene expression in moss and cereals. Plant Mol. Biol., 59, 723–737. 22. Futers,T.S., Onde,S., Turet,M. and Cuming,A.C. (1993) Sequence analysis of two tandemly linked Em genes from wheat. Plant Mol. Biol., 23, 1067–1072. 23. Abramoff,M.D., Magalhaes,P.J. and Ram,S.J. (2004) Image Processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int., 11, 36–42. 24. Olive,P.L. and Banath,J.P. (2006) The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat. Protoc., 1, 23–29. 25. Angelis,K.J., Dusinska,M. and Collins,A.R. (1999) Single cell gel electrophoresis: detection of DNA damage at different levels of sensitivity. Electrophoresis, 20, 2133–2138. 26. Menke,M., Chen,I., Angelis,K.J. and Schubert,I. (2001) DNA damage and repair in Arabidopsis thaliana as measured by the comet assay after treatment with different classes of genotoxins. Mutat. Res., 493, 87–93. 27. Moncalian,G., Lengsfeld,B., Bhaskara,V., Hopfner,K.P., Karcher,A., Alden,E., Tainer,J.A. and Paull,T.T. (2004) The rad50 signature motif: essential to ATP binding and biological function. J. Mol. Biol., 335, 937–951. 28. Hopfner,K.P., Craig,L., Moncalian,G., Zinkel,R.A., Usui,T., Owen,B.A., Karcher,A., Henderson,B., Bodmer,J.L., McMurray,C.T. et al. (2002) The Rad50 zinc-hook is a structure joining Mre11 complexes in DNA recombination and repair. Nature, 418, 562–566.
!
& 3510 Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 8
! !
chromosome structure maintenance. DNA Repair (Amst), 8, 413–419. 58. Charbonnel,C., Allain,E., Gallego,M.E. and White,C.I. (2011) Kinetic analysis of DNA double-strand break repair pathways in Arabidopsis. DNA Repair, 10, 611–619. 59. Chen,L., Trujillo,K., Ramos,W., Sung,P. and Tomkinson,A.E. (2001) Promotion of Dnl4-catalyzed DNA end-joining by the Rad50/Mre11/Xrs2 and Hdf1/Hdf2 complexes. Mol. Cell, 8, 1105–1115. 60. Ma,J.L., Kim,E.M., Haber,J.E. and Lee,S.E. (2003) Yeast Mre11 and Rad1 proteins define a Ku-independent mechanism to repair double-strand breaks lacking overlapping end sequences. Mol. Cell. Biol., 23, 8820–8828. 61. Moore,J.K. and Haber,J.E. (1996) Cell cycle and genetic requirements of two pathways of nonhomologous end-joining repair of double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol., 16, 2164–2173. 62. Zhang,X. and Paull,T.T. (2005) The Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 complex and non-homologous end-joining of incompatible ends in S. cerevisiae. DNA Repair, 4, 1281–1294. 63. Deriano,L., Stracker,T.H., Baker,A., Petrini,J.H. and Roth,D.B. (2009) Roles for NBS1 in alternative nonhomologous end-joining of V(D)J recombination intermediates. Mol. Cell, 34, 13–25. 64. Huang,J. and Dynan,W.S. (2002) Reconstitution of the mammalian DNA double-strand break end-joining reaction reveals a requirement for an Mre11/Rad50/NBS1-containing fraction. Nucleic Acids Res., 30, 667–674. 65. Rass,E., Grabarz,A., Plo,I., Gautier,J., Bertrand,P. and Lopez,B.S. (2009) Role of Mre11 in chromosomal nonhomologous end joining in mammalian cells. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 16, 819–824. 66. Taylor,E.M., Cecillon,S.M., Bonis,A., Chapman,J.R., Povirk,L.F. and Lindsay,H.D. (2010) The Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1 complex functions in resection-based DNA end joining in Xenopus laevis. Nucleic Acids Res., 38, 441–454.
! 69!
Downloaded from http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ustav Experimentalni Botaniky on April 24, 2012
48. Weinstock,D.M., Brunet,E. and Jasin,M. (2007) Formation of NHEJ-derived reciprocal chromosomal translocations does not require Ku70. Nat. Cell. Biol., 9, 978–981. 49. Audebert,M., Salles,B. and Calsou,P. (2004) Involvement of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 and XRCC1/DNA ligase III in an alternative route for DNA double-strand breaks rejoining. J. Biol. Chem., 279, 55117–55126. 50. Haber,J.E. (2008) Alternative endings. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 405–406. 51. Della-Maria,J., Zhou,Y., Tsai,M.S., Kuhnlein,J., Carney,J.P., Paull,T.T. and Tomkinson,A.E. (2011) Human Mre11/human Rad50/Nbs1 and DNA ligase IIIalpha/XRCC1 protein complexes act together in an alternative nonhomologous end joining pathway. J. Biol. Chem., 286, 33845–33853. 52. Waterworth,W.M., Kozak,J., Provost,C.M., Bray,C.M., Angelis,K.J. and West,C.E. (2009) DNA ligase 1 deficient plants display severe growth defects and delayed repair of both DNA single and double strand breaks. BMC Plant Biol., 9, 79. 53. Friesner,J. and Britt,A.B. (2003) Ku80- and DNA ligase IV-deficient plants are sensitive to ionizing radiation and defective in T-DNA integration. Plant J., 34, 427–440. 54. Li,J., Vaidya,M., White,C., Vainstein,A., Citovsky,V. and Tzfira,T. (2005) Involvement of KU80 in T-DNA integration in plant cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 19231–19236. 55. van Attikum,H., Bundock,P. and Hooykaas,P.J. (2001) Non-homologous end-joining proteins are required for Agrobacterium T-DNA integration. EMBO J., 20, 6550–6558. 56. Heacock,M., Spangler,E., Riha,K., Puizina,J. and Shippen,D.E. (2004) Molecular analysis of telomere fusions in Arabidopsis: multiple pathways for chromosome end-joining. EMBO J., 23, 2304–2313. 57. Kozak,J., West,C.E., White,C., da Costa-Nunes,J.A. and Angelis,K.J. (2009) Rapid repair of DNA double strand breaks in Arabidopsis thaliana is dependent on proteins involved in
! DNA'repair'in'plants'studied'by'comet'assay' !
!
! ANGELIS!KJ,!KOZÁK!J,!VÁGNEROVÁ!R!AND!HOLÁ'M' ! ! Front.!Genet!2015,!Conference!Abstract:!ICAW!2015!‑!11th! International!Comet!Assay!Workshop.! doi:!10.3389/conf.fgene.2015.01.00067!
&
Příspěvek!autora:!příspěvek!k!tvorbě!manuskriptu! !
!
70!
!
&
!
71!
!
&
!
72!
!
&
!
73!
!
7.&Diskuse& !
O!důležitosti!reparačních!mechanismů!svědčí!fakt,!že!u!řady!organismů!jsou!
mutace! v! genech! reparačních! drah! letální,! nebo! vedou! ke! vzniku! závažných! defektů! ve! vývoji,! fertilitě! a! ke! snížené! vitalitě.! U! živočichů! často! vede! inaktivace! genů! pro! reparační! proteiny! k! letalitě! již! během! embryogeneze,! což! stěžuje! charakterizaci!reparačního!mechanismu.!! Oproti! tomu! mutanti! v! reparačních! genech! u! rostlin! bývají! většinou! životaschopní!a!fertilní.!To!může!souviset!se!specifickými!vlastnostmi!rostlin,!která! je! nutí! udržovat! vysokou! míru! genomové! stability.! Mezi! tyto! vlastnosti! patří! mj.! absence!zárodečné!linie!a!vznik!gamet!diferenciací!somatických!buněk,!nebo!jejich! způsob!života!vázaný!na!jedno!místo,!během!něhož!jsou!vystaveny!různým!a!často! extrémním! stresům! životního! prostředí! jako! např.! zvýšená! radiace,! sucho,! opakovaná!dehydratace/hydratace,!zvýšená!koncentrace!soli!včetně!těžkých!kovů! ap.!Proto!rostliny!potřebují!účinné!a!robustní!reparační!mechanismy,!které!zajistí! stabilitu! a! integritu! ! DNA! i! v! případě! rozsáhlého! poškození! genomu.! Potřeba! zachování! ! stability! a! integrity! genomové! DNA! může! převážit! nad! nutností! zachování!přesnosti!genetické!informace.!Důsledkem!toho!je,!že!použité!reparační! dráhy! mohou! být! náchylné! k! tvorbě! chyb! (errorjprone)! a! vnášet! do! genomu! mutace.! Možnost! přípravy! životaschopných! mutant! reparačních! genů! usnadňuje! studium! jejich! účasti! a! způsobu! zapojení! do! reparace.! Cenným! nástrojem! pro! získání! konkrétního! mutanta! je! cílené! vyřazení! genu! –! tzv.! genový! knockout.! U! vyšších! eukaryot! včetně! rostlin! se! transformovaná! DNA! integruje! převážně! nehomologním!způsoben,!nezávisle!na!sekvenci.!Přestože!bylo!vynaloženo!značné! úsilí,! všechny! pokusy! o! vytvoření! efektivní! techniky! cíleného! vyřazování! genů! u! kvetoucích! rostlin! se! ukázaly! jako! málo! účinné! (Puchta,! 2002).! Oproti! tomu! u! Physcomitrelly!se!díky!vysoké!frekvenci!homologní!rekombinace!integruje!vnášená! DNA!převážně!homologním!způsobem!a!!účinnost!cíleného!vyřazování!genů!je!tedy! vysoká!(Kamisugi!et!al.!2006).!! Transformace! Physcomitrelly! je! rutinně! prováděna! PEG! zprostředkovanou! transformací!protoplastů!(Hohe!et!al.!2004).!Tento!způsob!transformace!je!vysoce! účinný,! nicméně! je! časově! a! navíc! i! technicky! náročný! a! vyžaduje! značnou! manipulaci!s!rostlinným!materiálem!což!zvyšuje!riziko!kontaminace.!Alternativou! je! transformace! biolistickou! metodou,! která! je! rychlejší,! snazší! a! riziko! !
74!
! kontaminace! transformovaného! materiálu! je! elimininováno! díky! minimální! manipulaci! s! rostlinným! pletivem! (Šmídková! et! al.! 2010).! Limitujícím! faktorem! širšího!používání!této!metody!je!pořízení!speciálního!vybavení!tzv.!genové!zbraně! (Gene!gun).! Biolisticky! je! transformována! sedmidenní! kultura! protonemy,! která! je! po! transformaci! homogenizována! na! krátké! fragmenty! filament! a! vysazena! na! médium! se! selekcí.! Úspěšně! transformované! buňky! se! dělí! a! rostou! jako! protonemální! filamenta! bez! podpory! růstu! rostlinnými! hormony! či! indukce! kalogeneze.!!! Díky! haploidnímu! stádiu! protonemy,! lze! snadno! identifikovat! mutanty! vznikající! cílenou! i! náhodnou! mutagenezí,! protože! změna! nebo! vyřazení! genu! se! projeví!ihned!ve!fenotypu.!! U!mutant!reparačních!genů!se!obvykle!zjišťuje!citlivost!vůči!genotoxinům.!U! linií!Physcomitrelly!mutantních!v!genech!pro!proteiny!reparace!DSB!bylo!srovnání! citlivosti! fenotypu! stanoveno! jejich! schopností! přežívat! na! médiu! se! vzrůstající! koncentrací!Bleomycinu!(Kamisugi!et!al.!2012;!Holá!et!al.!2013).!Hypersenzitivita! vůči! Bleomycinu! byla! pozorována! u! mutant! pprad50! a! ppmre11! komplexu! MRN! (Kamisugi! et! al.! 2012).! Jelikož! MRN! komplex! je! klíčovou! složkou! reparace! DSB,! předpokládalo! se,! že! citlivost! vůči! Bleomycinu! je! způsobena! sníženou! schopností! mutant!opravovat!DSB.!! Proto! byl! studován! vliv! mutace! na! kinetiku! reparace! přímým! stanovením! přítomných! DSB! metodou! kometového! testu.! Kometový! test! na! rozdíl! např.! od! často! používaného! nepřímého! stanovení! DSB! v! savčích! buňkách,! založeném! na! imunofluorescenční! detekci! γH2AX,! monitoruje! přímé! fyzické! poškození! DNA.! Rychlá! izolace! buněčných! jader! prakticky! z! jakéhokoli! rostlinného! materiálu! po! působení!genotoxinů!umožňuje!zachycení!a!studium!rychlé!reparace!(Kozak!et!al.! 2009).! Kometový! test! je! volbou! podmínek! testu! vhodný! nejen! pro! studium! reparace! DSB,! ale! po! úpravě! experimentálních! podmínek! i! pro! studium! kinetiky! opravy!SSB!a!specifických!lézí!jako!CPD!(Angelis!et!al.!2015;!Holá!et!al.!2013;!Holá! et!al.!2015).!! !
Studium! kinetiky! reparace! DSB! u! mutant! pprad50! a! ppmre11!
ukázalo,!že!přes!jejich!citlivost!k!Bleomycinu,!u!nich!reparace!DSB!probíhá!stejně! rychle!a!efektivně!jako!u!wt!(Kamisugi!et!al.!2012).!Na!základě!tohoto!zjištění!byla! zformulována!hypotéza,!že!citlivost!mutant!není!důsledkem!absence!reparace!DSB,! !
75!
! ale! naopak! přítomností! účinné! reparační! dráhy,! která! je! podle! výsledku! kometového!testu!schopná!rychle!a!účinně!DSB!odstranit,!nicméně!za!cenu!vzniku! závažných! mutací.! Důsledkem! vzniku! takových! mutací,! zejména! vznikajíjli! v!životně!důležitých!genech,!je!pozorovaný!!citlivý!fenotyp.! Pro!potvrzení!této!hypotézy!bylo!zjišťováno,!jaký!druh!mutací!vzniká!u!wt,! pprad50! a! ppmre11! po! působení! Bleomycinu! v! přirozeně! se! vyskytujícím! APT! genu.! Mutace! v! APT! vede! ke! vzniku! rezistence! k! 2–FA! (Gaillard! et! al.! 1998),! což! umožňuje!snadnou!selekci!apt!mutantů!a!charakterizaci!mutací!sekvenováním!APT! lokusu.! Zatímco! u! wt! 2–FA! rezistentních! mutant! byly! nalezeny! převážně! bodové! mutace!–!substituce!a!1!bázové!inzerce,!u!pprad50!a!ppmre11!2–FA!rezistentních! mutantů!byly!kromě!bodových!mutací!objeveny!i!rozsáhlé!delece!několika!desítek! až!stovek!bází!(Kamisugi!et!al.!2012;!Holá!et!al.!2013).!Kumulace!těchto!závažných! mutací!v!celém!genomu!je!příčinou!hypersenzitivního!fenotypu!pprad50!a!ppmre11! vůči!Bleomycinu.!! Studium! bylo! později! rozšířeno! na! linii! mechu! mutantní! v! genu! pro! LIG4,! klíčový! protein! reparace! dvouvláknových! zlomů! DNA! CjNHEJ! mechanismem.! U! pplig4!2–FA!rezistentních!mutantů!nebyly!nalezeny!žádné!rozsáhlé!delece,!většina! nalezených! mutací! byly! inzerce! 1! báze! (Holá! et! al.! 2013).! Kinetika! opravy! DSB! neukázala,! stejně! jako! u! pprad50! a! ppmre11,! výraznou! odchylku! od! wt.! Nicméně! Bleomycin! indukuje! vznik! nejen! DSB,! ale! i! SSB,! oxidativního! poškození! bází! a! vzniku! AP! míst.! Tato! poškození! jsou! v! kometovém! testu! detekována! jako! SSB.! Kinetika!reparace!SSB!ukázala,!že!oprava!probíhá!u!pplig4!výrazně!pomaleji!než!u! wt!(Holá!et!al.!2013).!Tento!typ!poškození!je!přednostně!opravován!drahou!excisní! reparace! bází.! V! savčích! buňkách! tato! dráha! zahrnuje! LIG3,! která! se! ale! u! rostlin! nevyskytuje! a! u! Arabidopsis! je! principiálně! zastoupena! LIG1! (Waterworth! et! al.! 2009).! Defekt! v! reparaci! jednovláknových! zlomů! u! pplig4! ukazuje,! že! na! opravě! mechanismem!BER!se!u!Physcomitrelly!významně!podílí!i!LIG4.!! BER! odstraňuje! přednostně! poškození,! která! nezpůsobují! výraznou! deformaci! dvoušroubovice.! Objemné! léze,! způsobující! distorzi! dvoušroubovice! jsou!odstraňovány!zejména!nukleotidovou!excisní!reparací.!Typickými!objemnými! lézemi! jsou! cyklobutan! pyrimidinové! dimery! a! 6‘j4’! pyrimidinjpyrimidon! fotoprodukty! vznikající! působením! UV! záření.! Pro! zjištění,! zda! by! se! některý! ze! studovaných! proteinů! mohl! nějakým! způsobem! podílet! na! odstraňování! tohoto! !
76!
! typu!poškození,!byl!u!jednotlivých!linií!Physcomitrella!indukován!vznik!poškození! působením! UV! záření! na! jednodenní! kulturu! mechu.! Jednodenní! protonema! obsahuje!až!50%!dělících!se!apikálních!buněk,!!a!představuje!tak!dělící!se!pletivo,! které! se! u! vyšších! rostlin! nachází! pouze! ve! velmi! omezeném! množství! ve! vrcholových!meristémech.!!! U! rostlin! jsou! fotoprodukty! odstraňovány! světlem! aktivovanými! fotolyázami! a! v! nepřítomnosti! aktivních! fotolyáz! mechanismem! NER.! Obě! tyto! dráhy!jsou!bezchybné!a!nevedou!ke!vzniku!mutací.!UV!záření!je!ale!obecně!velmi! mutagenní.!Podle!frekvence!vzniku!apt!mutantů!se!zdá,!že!mutagenita!UV!záření!je! dokonce! vyšší! než! mutagenita! BLM! indukujícího! vznik! DSB.! Ozáření! jednodenní! protonemy!indukuje!u!většiny!linií!mechu!vznik!mnohem!většího!počtu!apt.mutant! než!působení!Bleomycinu!(Holá!et!al.!2015).!! Kinetika!opravy!CPD!ukazuje,!že!pyrimidinové!dimery!jsou!v!nepřítomnosti! světla! odstraňovány! poměrně! pomalu.! Polovina! indukovaných! dimerů! je! odstraněna!po!více!než!4!hodinách!(Holá!et!al.!2015).!Ve!všech!UV!indukovaných! apt! mutantech! byly! nalezeny! převážně! tranzice! cytosinu! na! tymin.! Pomalá! reparace! umožňuje! uplatnění! dalších,! potencionálně! mutagenních,! mechanismů! opravy!či!tolerance!poškození.!CPD!blokují!replikační!komplex!a!mohou!způsobit! kolaps! replikační! vidličky! a! vznik! dvouvláknového! zlomu! (Kaufmann! a! Cleaver! 1981;! Petermann! et! al.! 2010).! Aby! se! této! situaci! vyhnuly,! využívají! buňky! mechanismus!syntézy!přes!poškození,!který!jim!dovoluje!poškození!DNA!překonat.! Jedná! se! ale! o! nepřesný! mechanismu,! který! vede! často! ke! vzniku! mutací,! čímž! je! dána!vysoká!mutagenita!UV!záření.! !
!
!
77!
!
8.&Závěr& ! Disertační! práce! se! zabývá! zavedením! nového! modelového! organismu! mechu! Physcomitrella. patens,! který! se! díky! kombinaci! unikátních! vlastností! Physcomitrelly. ukázal! jako! velmi! vhodný! model! pro! studium! reparace! DNA.! Bylo! možné!ukázat,!že:! •
Po! vyřazení! „errorjfree“! HR! je! výsledný,! k!indukci! DSB! hypersenzitivní! fenotyp! mutantů! ppmre11! a! pprad50,. důsledkem! rychlé! a! efektivní! opravy! DSB,! která! ale! vede! ke! vzniku! závažných! mutací!v!celém!genomu.!!
•
LIG4! j! klíčový! protein! NHEJ! reparační! dráhy,! je! u! Physcomitrelly. významný! také! pro! reparaci! objemově! malých! poškození! mechanismem!BER.!!
•
Vysoká! mutagenita! UVB! záření! je! dána! zejména! vznikem! mutací! „errorjprone“!syntézou!DNA!přes!neodstraněné!CPD!a!6j4PP!během! replikace!DNA!v!dělících!se!buňkách.!
Možnost! využití! a! kombinace! různých! metod! u! mechu! Physcomitrella. patens! potvrzuje,! že! Physcomitrella! je! skutečně! jedním! z!nejvhodnějších! rostlinných! modelů!pro!studium!reparace!DNA.! ! ! ! !
!
&
78!
!
Seznam&použité&literatury& ! Angelis,!K.J.!et!al.,!2015.!DNA!repair!in!plants!studied!by!comet!assay.!Front..Genet.. Conference.Abstract:.ICAW.2015.\.11th.International.Comet.Assay.Workshop,! pp.3–5.!Available!at:! http://www.frontiersin.org/myfrontiers/events/abstractdetails.aspx?abs_doi =10.3389/conf.fgene.2015.01.00067.! Angelis,!K.J.,!Dusinská,!M.!&!Collins,!A.R.,!1999.!Single!cell!gel!electrophoresis:! detection!of!DNA!damage!at!different!levels!of!sensitivity.!Electrophoresis,! 20(10),!pp.2133–8.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10451126![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Ataian,!Y.!&!Krebs,!J.E.,!2006.!Five!repair!pathways!in!one!context:!chromatin! modification!during!DNA!repairThis!paper!is!one!of!a!selection!of!papers! published!in!this!Special!Issue,!entitled!27th!International!West!Coast! Chromatin!and!Chromosome!Conference,!and!has!undergone!the!Jour.! Biochemistry.and.Cell.Biology,!84(4),!pp.490–494.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936822![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Ayora,!S.!et!al.,!2002.!Characterization!of!two!highly!similar!Rad51!homologs!of! Physcomitrella!patens.!Journal.of.molecular.biology,!316(1),!pp.35–49.! Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11829501![Accessed! June!24,!2015].! Baumann,!P.!&!West,!S.C.,!1998.!Role!of!the!human!RAD51!protein!in!homologous! recombination!and!doublejstrandedjbreak!repair.!Trends.in.biochemical. sciences,!23(7),!pp.247–51.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9697414![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Birkenbihl,!R.P.!&!Subramani,!S.,!1992.!Cloning!and!characterization!of!rad21!an! essential!gene!of!Schizosaccharomyces!pombe!involved!in!DNA!doublej strandjbreak!repair.!Nucleic.acids.research,!20(24),!pp.6605–11.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=334577&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Bizard,!A.H.!&!Hickson,!I.D.,!2014.!The!dissolution!of!double!Holliday!junctions.! Cold.Spring.Harbor.perspectives.in.biology,!6(7),!p.a016477.!Available!at:! http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/6/7/a016477![Accessed!April!19,! 2015].! Boddy,!M.N.!et!al.,!2001.!Mus81jEme1!are!essential!components!of!a!Holliday! junction!resolvase.!Cell,!107(4),!pp.537–48.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11719193![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Bonatto,!D.,!Brendel,!M.!&!Henriques,!J.A.P.,!2005.!A!new!group!of!plantjspecific! ATPjdependent!DNA!ligases!identified!by!protein!phylogeny,!hydrophobic! cluster!analysis!and!3jdimensional!modelling.!Functional.Plant.Biology,!32(2),! p.161.!Available!at:! !
79!
! http://www.publish.csiro.au/view/journals/dsp_journal_fulltext.cfm?nid=10 2&f=FP04143![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Britt,!A.B.!&!May,!G.D.,!2003.!Rejengineering!plant!gene!targeting.!Trends.in.plant. science,!8(2),!pp.90–5.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12597876![Accessed!May!26,!2015].! Buettner,!G.R.!&!Moseley,!P.L.,!1993.!EPR!spin!trapping!of!free!radicals!produced!by! bleomycin!and!ascorbate.!Free.radical.research.communications,!19!Suppl!1,! pp.S89–93.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7506694! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Carell,!T.!et!al.,!2001.!The!mechanism!of!action!of!DNA!photolyases.!Current.opinion. in.chemical.biology,!5(5),!pp.491–8.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11578921![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Collins,!A.R.!et!al.,!1996.!Oxidative!damage!to!DNA:!do!we!have!a!reliable! biomarker?!Environmental.health.perspectives,!104!Suppl!,!pp.465–9.!Available! at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469644&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!30,!2015].! Collins,!A.R.,!2004.!The!comet!assay!for!DNA!damage!and!repair:!principles,! applications,!and!limitations.!Molecular.biotechnology,!26(3),!pp.249–61.! Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004294![Accessed! April!21,!2015].! Constantinou,!A.!et!al.,!2002.!Holliday!junction!resolution!in!human!cells:!two! junction!endonucleases!with!distinct!substrate!specificities.!The.EMBO.journal,! 21(20),!pp.5577–85.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129086&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!13,!2015].! Da!CostajNunes,!J.A.!et!al.,!2014.!The!AtRAD21.1!and!AtRAD21.3!Arabidopsis! cohesins!play!a!synergistic!role!in!somatic!DNA!double!strand!break!damage! repair.!BMC.plant.biology,!14,!p.353.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4273318&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Cove,!D.,!2005.!The!moss!Physcomitrella!patens.!Annual.review.of.genetics,!39,! pp.339–58.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16285864! [Accessed!April!22,!2015].! Cove,!D.J.,!1992.!Regulation!of!Development!in!the!Moss,!Physcomitrella!patens.!In! Development.(Cambridge,.England).!Berlin,!Heidelberg:!Springer!Berlin! Heidelberg,!pp.!179–193.!Available!at:! http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978j3j642j77043j2![Accessed! June!24,!2015].! Cove,!D.J.,!Knight,!C.D.!&!Lamparter,!T.,!1997.!Mosses!as!model!systems.!Trends.in. Plant.Science,!2(3),!pp.99–105.!Available!at:! !
80!
! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136013859610056X! [Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Curtis,!M.J.!&!Hays,!J.B.,!2007.!Tolerance!of!dividing!cells!to!replication!stress!in! UVBjirradiated!Arabidopsis!roots:!requirements!for!DNA!translesion! polymerases!eta!and!zeta.!DNA.repair,!6(9),!pp.1341–58.!Available!at:! https://www.infona.pl//resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevierj07a65ee4j 13f3j31dajbc48j30a9284f819a![Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Decottignies,!A.,!2013.!Alternative!endjjoining!mechanisms:!a!historical! perspective.!Frontiers.in.genetics,!4,!p.48.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3613618&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!3,!2015].! Doutriaux,!M.P.!et!al.,!1998.!Isolation!and!characterisation!of!the!RAD51!and!DMC1! homologs!from!Arabidopsis!thaliana.!Molecular.&.general.genetics :.MGG,! 257(3),!pp.283–91.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9520262![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Effrossyni!Boutou,!V.P.H.jW.S.!and!C.E.V.,!2011.!DNA.Repair!I.!Kruman,!ed.,!InTech.! Available!at:!http://www.intechopen.com/books/dnajrepair/structurej functionjrelationshipjofjdnajrepairjproteinsjlessonsjfromjbrca1jandjrad51j studies![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Friedberg,!E.C.!et!al.,!2006.!DNA!repair:!From!molecular!mechanism!to!human! disease.!DNA.Repair,!5(8),!pp.986–996.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568786406001455! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Friesner,!J.!&!Britt,!A.B.,!2003.!Ku80j!and!DNA!ligase!IVjdeficient!plants!are! sensitive!to!ionizing!radiation!and!defective!in!TjDNA!integration.!The.Plant. journal :.for.cell.and.molecular.biology,!34(4),!pp.427–40.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12753583![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Frit,!P.!et!al.,!2014.!Alternative!endjjoining!pathway(s):!bricolage!at!DNA!breaks.! DNA.repair,!17,!pp.81–97.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24613763![Accessed!May!19,!2015].! Gaillard,!C.!et!al.,!1998.!Male!sterility!associated!with!APRT!deficiency!in! Arabidopsis!thaliana!results!from!a!mutation!in!the!gene!APT1.!Molecular.&. general.genetics :.MGG,!257(3),!pp.348–53.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9520269![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Gallego,!M.E.!et!al.,!2001.!Disruption!of!the!Arabidopsis!RAD50!gene!leads!to!plant! sterility!and!MMS!sensitivity.!The.Plant.journal :.for.cell.and.molecular.biology,! 25(1),!pp.31–41.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11169180![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Garcia,!V.!et!al.,!2011.!Bidirectional!resection!of!DNA!doublejstrand!breaks!by! Mre11!and!Exo1.!Nature,!479(7372),!pp.241–4.!Available!at:! http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10515![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! !
81!
! Gorbunova,!V.!&!Levy,!A.A.,!1997.!Nonjhomologous!DNA!end!joining!in!plant!cells!is! associated!with!deletions!and!filler!DNA!insertions.!Nucleic.acids.research,! 25(22),!pp.4650–7.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=147090&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!July!13,!2015].! Harvey,!S.H.,!Krien,!M.J.E.!&!O’Connell,!M.J.,!2002.!Structural!maintenance!of! chromosomes!(SMC)!proteins,!a!family!of!conserved!ATPases.!Genome.biology,! 3(2),!p.REVIEWS3003.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139016&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Heck,!D.E.!et!al.,!2003.!UVB!Light!Stimulates!Production!of!Reactive!Oxygen! Species:!UNEXPECTED!ROLE!FOR!CATALASE.!Journal.of.Biological.Chemistry,! 278(25),!pp.22432–22436.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12730222![Accessed!June!28,!2015].! Hecht,!S.M.,!1986.!The!chemistry!of!activated!bleomycin.!Accounts.of.Chemical. Research,!19(12),!pp.383–391.!Available!at:! http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar00132a002![Accessed!June!24,! 2015].! Helleday,!T.!et!al.,!2007.!DNA!doublejstrand!break!repair:!from!mechanistic! understanding!to!cancer!treatment.!DNA.repair,!6(7),!pp.923–35.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17363343![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Hirano,!T.,!2006.!At!the!heart!of!the!chromosome:!SMC!proteins!in!action.!Nature. reviews..Molecular.cell.biology,!7(5),!pp.311–22.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633335![Accessed!May!5,!2015].! Hohe,!A.!et!al.,!2004.!An!improved!and!highly!standardised!transformation! procedure!allows!efficient!production!of!single!and!multiple!targeted!genej knockouts!in!a!moss,!Physcomitrella!patens.!Current.genetics,!44(6),!pp.339– 47.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14586556![Accessed! June!24,!2015].! Hohe,!A.!&!Reski,!R.,!2005.!Control!of!growth!and!differentiation!of!bioreactor! cultures!of!Physcomitrella!by!environmental!parameters.!Plant.Cell,.Tissue.and. Organ.Culture,!81(3),!pp.307–311.!Available!at:! http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11240j004j6656jz![Accessed!June!24,! 2015].! Holá,!M.!et!al.,!2013.!Genotoxin!induced!mutagenesis!in!the!model!plant! Physcomitrella!patens.!BioMed.Research.International,!2013,!pp.1–7.!Available! at:!http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2013/535049/.! Holá,!M.,!Vágnerová,!R.!&!Angelis,!K.J.,!2015.!Mutagenesis!during!plant!responses!to! UVB!radiation.!Plant.physiology.and.biochemistry :.PPB./.Société.française.de. physiologie.végétale,!93,!pp.29–33.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542779![Accessed!June!24,!2015].!
!
82!
! Hopfner,!K.jP.!et!al.,!2001.!Structural!Biochemistry!and!Interaction!Architecture!of! the!DNA!DoublejStrand!Break!Repair!Mre11!Nuclease!and!Rad50jATPase.! Cell,!105(4),!pp.473–485.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286740100335X! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Hopfner,!K.jP.!et!al.,!2002.!The!Rad50!zincjhook!is!a!structure!joining!Mre11! complexes!in!DNA!recombination!and!repair.!Nature,!418(6897),!pp.562–6.! Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12152085![Accessed! June!24,!2015].! Horrell,Erin!M.!Wolf,!K.W.!and!J.A.D.,!2015.!Melanoma.\.Current.Clinical. Management.and.Future.Therapeutics!M.!Murph,!ed.,!Intech.!Available!at:! http://www.intechopen.com/books/melanomajcurrentjclinicalj managementjandjfuturejtherapeutics/melanomajepidemiologyjriskjfactorsj andjthejrolejofjadaptivejpigmentation![Accessed!June!25,!2015].! Hsu,!H.L.,!Yannone,!S.M.!&!Chen,!D.J.,!2002.!Defining!interactions!between!DNAjPK! and!ligase!IV/XRCC4.!DNA.repair,!1(3),!pp.225–35.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12509254![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Chowdhury,!D.!et!al.,!2005.!gammajH2AX!dephosphorylation!by!protein! phosphatase!2A!facilitates!DNA!doublejstrand!break!repair.!Molecular.cell,! 20(5),!pp.801–9.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16310392![Accessed!June!30,!2015].! Jasin,!M.!&!Rothstein,!R.,!2013.!Repair!of!strand!breaks!by!homologous! recombination.!Cold.Spring.Harbor.perspectives.in.biology,!5(11),!p.a012740.! Available!at:! http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/early/2013/10/04/cshperspect.a0 12740![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Kamisugi,!Y.!et!al.,!2012.!MRE11!and!RAD50,!but!not!NBS1,!are!essential!for!gene! targeting!in!the!moss!Physcomitrella!patens.!Nucleic.acids.research,!40(8),! pp.3496–510.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3333855&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Kamisugi,!Y.!et!al.,!2006.!The!mechanism!of!gene!targeting!in!Physcomitrella! patens:!homologous!recombination,!concatenation!and!multiple!integration.! Nucleic.acids.research,!34(21),!pp.6205–14.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1693892&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Kamisugi,!Y.,!Cuming,!A.C.!&!Cove,!D.J.,!2005.!Parameters!determining!the!efficiency! of!gene!targeting!in!the!moss!Physcomitrella!patens.!Nucleic.acids.research,! 33(19),!p.e173.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1283530&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].!
!
83!
! Kaufmann,!W.K.!&!Cleaver,!J.E.,!1981.!Mechanisms!of!inhibition!of!DNA!replication! by!ultraviolet!light!in!normal!human!and!xeroderma!pigmentosum!fibroblasts.! Journal.of.Molecular.Biology,!149(2),!pp.171–187.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022283681902977! [Accessed!August!5,!2015].! Kempin,!S.A.!et!al.,!1997.!Targeted!disruption!in!Arabidopsis.!Nature,!389(6653),! pp.802–3.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9349810! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Kenrick,!P.!&!Crane,!P.R.,!1997.!The!origin!and!early!evolution!of!plants!on!land.!,! 389(6646),!pp.33–39.!Available!at:!http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/37918! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Kondo,!N.!et!al.,!2010.!DNA!damage!induced!by!alkylating!agents!and!repair! pathways.!Journal.of.nucleic.acids,!2010,!p.543531.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2989456&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!May!16,!2015].! Koppen,!G.!&!Verschaeve,!L.,!1996.!The!alkaline!comet!test!on!plant!cells:!a!new! genotoxicity!test!for!DNA!strand!breaks!in!Vicia!faba!root!cells.!Mutation. research,!360(3),!pp.193–200.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8692219![Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Kozak,!J.!et!al.,!2009.!Rapid!repair!of!DNA!double!strand!breaks!in!Arabidopsis! thaliana!is!dependent!on!proteins!involved!in!chromosome!structure! maintenance.!DNA.repair,!8(3),!pp.413–9.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19070688![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Kumari,!S.!et!al.,!2008.!DNA!DAMAGE :!DETECTION!STRATEGIES.!EXCLI.Journal,!7,! pp.44–62.! Lamarche,!B.J.,!Orazio,!N.I.!&!Weitzman,!M.D.,!2010.!The!MRN!complex!in!doublej strand!break!repair!and!telomere!maintenance.!FEBS.letters,!584(17),! pp.3682–95.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2946096&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!April!20,!2015].! Lammens,!K.!et!al.,!2011.!The!Mre11:Rad50!structure!shows!an!ATPjdependent! molecular!clamp!in!DNA!doublejstrand!break!repair.!Cell,!145(1),!pp.54–66.! Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3071652&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!May!23,!2015].! Lehmann,!A.R.,!2005.!The!role!of!SMC!proteins!in!the!responses!to!DNA!damage.! DNA.repair,!4(3),!pp.309–14.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15661654![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Li,!W.!et!al.,!2004.!The!Arabidopsis!AtRAD51!gene!is!dispensable!for!vegetative! development!but!required!for!meiosis.!Proceedings.of.the.National.Academy.of. Sciences.of.the.United.States.of.America,!101(29),!pp.10596–601.!Available!at:! !
84!
! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=489980&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Liang,!F.!et!al.,!1998.!Homologyjdirected!repair!is!a!major!doublejstrand!break! repair!pathway!in!mammalian!cells.!Proceedings.of.the.National.Academy.of. Sciences.of.the.United.States.of.America,!95(9),!pp.5172–7.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20233&tool=pm centrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Lindahl,!T.,!1993.!Instability!and!decay!of!the!primary!structure!of!DNA.!Nature,! 362(6422),!pp.709–15.!Available!at:!http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/362709a0! [Accessed!January!17,!2015].! Lindahl,!T.!&!Barnes,!D.E.,!2000.!Repair!of!endogenous!DNA!damage.!Cold.Spring. Harbor.symposia.on.quantitative.biology,!65,!pp.127–33.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12760027![Accessed!March!28,! 2015].! Ma,!J.jL.!et!al.,!2003.!Yeast!Mre11!and!Rad1!proteins!define!a!Kujindependent! mechanism!to!repair!doublejstrand!breaks!lacking!overlapping!end! sequences.!Molecular.and.cellular.biology,!23(23),!pp.8820–8.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=262689&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!May!25,!2015].! Ma,!Y.!et!al.,!2002.!Hairpin!opening!and!overhang!processing!by!an!Artemis/DNAj dependent!protein!kinase!complex!in!nonhomologous!end!joining!and!V(D)J! recombination.!Cell,!108(6),!pp.781–94.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11955432![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Mah,!L.jJ.,!EljOsta,!A.!&!Karagiannis,!T.C.,!2010.!γH2AX:!a!sensitive!molecular! marker!of!DNA!damage!and!repair.!Leukemia,!24(4),!pp.679–686.!Available!at:! http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/leu.2010.6![Accessed!June!30,!2015].! Malkova,!A.!&!Ira,!G.,!2013.!Breakjinduced!replication:!functions!and!molecular! mechanism.!Current.opinion.in.genetics.&.development,!23(3),!pp.271–9.! Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3915057&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Mao,!Z.!et!al.,!2008.!Comparison!of!nonhomologous!end!joining!and!homologous! recombination!in!human!cells.!DNA.repair,!7(10),!pp.1765–71.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2695993&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! McIlwraith,!M.J.!et!al.,!2000.!Reconstitution!of!the!strand!invasion!step!of!doublej strand!break!repair!using!human!Rad51!Rad52!and!RPA!proteins.!Journal.of. molecular.biology,!304(2),!pp.151–64.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283600941809! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].!
!
85!
! McMahill,!M.S.,!Sham,!C.W.!&!Bishop,!D.K.,!2007.!Synthesisjdependent!strand! annealing!in!meiosis.!PLoS.biology,!5(11),!p.e299.!Available!at:! http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.005029 9![Accessed!May!13,!2015].! Memisoglu,!A.!&!Samson,!L.,!2000.!Base!excision!repair!in!yeast!and!mammals.! Mutation.research,!451(1j2),!pp.39–51.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10915864![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Mengiste,!T.!et!al.,!1999.!An!SMCjlike!protein!is!required!for!efficient!homologous! recombination!in!Arabidopsis.!The.EMBO.journal,!18(16),!pp.4505–12.! Available!at:!http://emboj.embopress.org/content/18/16/4505.abstract! [Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Mimitou,!E.P.!&!Symington,!L.S.,!2009.!DNA!end!resection:!many!nucleases!make! light!work.!DNA.repair,!8(9),!pp.983–95.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2760233&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!6,!2015].! Mimitou,!E.P.!&!Symington,!L.S.,!2008.!Sae2,!Exo1!and!Sgs1!collaborate!in!DNA! doublejstrand!break!processing.!Nature,!455(7214),!pp.770–4.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3818707&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!April!17,!2015].! Mladenov,!E.!&!Iliakis,!G.,!2011.!The!Pathways!of!DoublejStrand!Break!Repair.!In!F.! Storici,!ed.!DNA.Repair.\.On.the.Pathways.to.Fixing.DNA.Damage.and.Errors.! InTech,!p.!380.!Available!at:!http://www.intechopen.com/books/dnajrepairj onjthejpathwaysjtojfixingjdnajdamagejanderrors/!thejpathwaysjofjdoublej strandjbreakjrepair.! Moser,!J.!et!al.,!2007.!Sealing!of!chromosomal!DNA!nicks!during!nucleotide!excision! repair!requires!XRCC1!and!DNA!ligase!III!alpha!in!a!celljcyclejspecific!manner.! Molecular.cell,!27(2),!pp.311–23.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097276507004042! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Murray,!J.M.!&!Carr,!A.M.,!2008.!Smc5/6:!a!link!between!DNA!repair!and! unidirectional!replication?!Nature.reviews..Molecular.cell.biology,!9(2),! pp.177–82.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18059412! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Najdekrova,!L.!&!Siroky,!J.,!2012.!NBS1!plays!a!synergistic!role!with!telomerase!in! the!maintenance!of!telomeres!in!Arabidopsis!thaliana.!BMC.plant.biology,! 12(1),!p.167.!Available!at:!http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471j 2229/12/167![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Oberley,!L.W.!&!Buettner,!G.R.,!1979.!The!production!of!hydroxyl!radical!by! bleomycin!and!iron!(II).!FEBS.Letters,!97(1),!pp.47–49.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014579379800496! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].!
!
86!
! Ostling,!O.!&!Johanson,!K.J.,!1984.!Microelectrophoretic!study!of!radiationjinduced! DNA!damages!in!individual!mammalian!cells.!Biochemical.and.biophysical. research.communications,!123(1),!pp.291–8.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6477583![Accessed!June!9,!2015].! Paques,!F.!&!Haber,!J.E.,!1999.!Multiple!Pathways!of!Recombination!Induced!by! DoublejStrand!Breaks!in!Saccharomyces!cerevisiae.!Microbiol..Mol..Biol..Rev.,! 63(2),!pp.349–404.!Available!at:! http://mmbr.asm.org/content/63/2/349.abstract?ijkey=0f81effdf4a8960742 e58508959018245f0bc901&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha![Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Petermann,!E.!et!al.,!2010.!Hydroxyureajstalled!replication!forks!become! progressively!inactivated!and!require!two!different!RAD51jmediated! pathways!for!restart!and!repair.!Molecular.cell,!37(4),!pp.492–502.!Available! at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2958316&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!March!19,!2015].! Polo,!S.E.!&!Jackson,!S.P.,!2011.!Dynamics!of!DNA!damage!response!proteins!at!DNA! breaks:!a!focus!on!protein!modifications.!Genes.&.development,!25(5),!pp.409– 33.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3049283&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!February!12,!2015].! Povirk,!L.F.!et!al.,!1977.!DNA!doublejstrand!breaks!and!alkalijlabile!bonds! produced!by!bleomycin.!Nucleic.acids.research,!4(10),!pp.3573–80.!Available! at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=342673&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Prakash,!S.,!Johnson,!R.E.!&!Prakash,!L.,!2005.!Eukaryotic!translesion!synthesis!DNA! polymerases:!specificity!of!structure!and!function.!Annual.review.of. biochemistry,!74,!pp.317–53.!Available!at:! http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biochem.74.0828 03.133250![Accessed!May!22,!2015].! Price,!B.D.!&!D’Andrea,!A.D.,!2013.!Chromatin!remodeling!at!DNA!doublejstrand! breaks.!Cell,!152(6),!pp.1344–54.!Available!at:! http://www.cell.com/article/S0092867413002006/fulltext![Accessed!April! 24,!2015].! Prigge,!M.J.!&!Bezanilla,!M.,!2010.!Evolutionary!crossroads!in!developmental! biology:!Physcomitrella!patens.!Development.(Cambridge,.England),!137(21),! pp.3535–43.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20940223! [Accessed!April!26,!2015].! Puizina,!J.!et!al.,!2004.!Mre11!deficiency!in!Arabidopsis!is!associated!with! chromosomal!instability!in!somatic!cells!and!Spo11jdependent!genome! fragmentation!during!meiosis.!The.Plant.cell,!16(8),!pp.1968–78.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=519189&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!May!27,!2015].! !
87!
! Rabkin,!S.D.,!Moore,!P.D.!&!Strauss,!B.S.,!1983.!In!vitro!bypass!of!UVjinduced!lesions! by!Escherichia!coli!DNA!polymerase!I:!specificity!of!nucleotide!incorporation.! Proceedings.of.the.National.Academy.of.Sciences.of.the.United.States.of. America,!80(6),!pp.1541–5.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=393637&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Rapp,!A.!&!Greulich,!K.O.,!2004.!After!doublejstrand!break!induction!by!UVjA,! homologous!recombination!and!nonhomologous!end!joining!cooperate!at!the! same!DSB!if!both!systems!are!available.!Journal.of.cell.science,!117(Pt!21),! pp.4935–45.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15367581! [Accessed!July!1,!2015].! Rastogi,!R.P.!et!al.,!2010.!Molecular!mechanisms!of!ultraviolet!radiationjinduced! DNA!damage!and!repair.!Journal.of.nucleic.acids,!2010,!p.592980.! Reardon,!J.T.!&!Sancar,!A.,!2005.!Nucleotide!excision!repair.!Progress.in.nucleic.acid. research.and.molecular.biology,!79,!pp.183–235.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079660304790042! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Redon,!C.E.!et!al.,!2009.!γjH2AX!as!a!biomarker!of!DNA!damage!induced!by!ionizing! radiation!in!human!peripheral!blood!lymphocytes!and!artificial!skin.!Advances. in.space.research :.the.official.journal.of.the.Committee.on.Space.Research. (COSPAR),!43(8),!pp.1171–1178.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2735274&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Reski,!R.,!Parsons,!J.!&!Decker,!E.L.,!2015.!Mossjmade!pharmaceuticals:!from!bench! to!bedside.!Plant.biotechnology.journal.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26011014![Accessed!June!1,!2015].! Rogakou,!E.P.!et!al.,!1999.!Megabase!chromatin!domains!involved!in!DNA!doublej strand!breaks!in!vivo.!The.Journal.of.cell.biology,!146(5),!pp.905–16.!Available! at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2169482&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!30,!2015].! Rothkamm,!K.!et!al.,!2003.!Pathways!of!DNA!doublejstrand!break!repair!during!the! mammalian!cell!cycle.!Molecular.and.cellular.biology,!23(16),!pp.5706–15.! Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=166351&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!May!17,!2015].! Schaefer,!D.G.!et!al.,!2010.!RAD51!loss!of!function!abolishes!gene!targeting!and!dej represses!illegitimate!integration!in!the!moss!Physcomitrella!patens.!DNA. repair,!9(5),!pp.526–33.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568786410000364! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].!
!
88!
! Schroeder,!A.L.G.,!2011.!Selected.Topics.in.DNA.Repair!C.!Chen,!ed.,!InTech.! Available!at:!http://www.intechopen.com/books/selectedjtopicsjinjdnaj repair/uvjdamagedjdnajrepairjtolerancejinjplants![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Schulte,!J.!&!Reski,!R.,!2004.!High!throughput!cryopreservation!of!140,000! Physcomitrella!patens!mutants.!Plant.biology.(Stuttgart,.Germany),!6(2),! pp.119–27.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15045662! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Schween,!G.!et!al.,!2003.!Effects!of!nutrients,!cell!density!and!culture!techniques!on! protoplast!regeneration!and!early!protonema!development!in!a!moss,! Physcomitrella!patens.!Journal.of.plant.physiology,!160(2),!pp.209–12.! Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017616170470396X! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Siebert,!R.!&!Puchta,!H.,!2002.!Efficient!repair!of!genomic!doublejstrand!breaks!by! homologous!recombination!between!directly!repeated!sequences!in!the!plant! genome.!The.Plant.cell,!14(5),!pp.1121–31.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=150611&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Sinha,!R.P.!&!Häder,!D.P.,!2002.!UVjinduced!DNA!damage!and!repair:!a!review.! Photochemical.&.photobiological.sciences :.Official.journal.of.the.European. Photochemistry.Association.and.the.European.Society.for.Photobiology,!1(4),! pp.225–36.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12661961! [Accessed!May!2,!2015].! Stapleton,!A.E.,!1992.!Ultraviolet!Radiation!and!Plants:!Burning!Questions.!The. Plant.cell,!4(11),!pp.1353–1358.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=160223&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!August!11,!2015].! Steighner,!R.J.!&!Povirk,!L.F.,!1990.!Bleomycinjinduced!DNA!lesions!at!mutational! hot!spots:!implications!for!the!mechanism!of!doublejstrand!cleavage.! Proceedings.of.the.National.Academy.of.Sciences.of.the.United.States.of. America,!87(21),!pp.8350–4.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=54953&tool=pm centrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Stubbe,!J.!&!Kozarich,!J.W.,!1987.!Mechanisms!of!bleomycinjinduced!DNA! degradation.!Chemical.Reviews,!87(5),!pp.1107–1136.!Available!at:! http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr00081a011![Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Sugiyama,!T.,!New,!J.H.!&!Kowalczykowski,!S.C.,!1998.!DNA!annealing!by!RAD52! protein!is!stimulated!by!specific!interaction!with!the!complex!of!replication! protein!A!and!singlejstranded!DNA.!Proceedings.of.the.National.Academy.of. Sciences.of.the.United.States.of.America,!95(11),!pp.6049–54.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=27583&tool=pm centrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].!
!
89!
! Sung,!P.!&!Klein,!H.,!2006.!Mechanism!of!homologous!recombination:!mediators! and!helicases!take!on!regulatory!functions.!Nature.reviews..Molecular.cell. biology,!7(10),!pp.739–50.!Available!at:!http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm2008! [Accessed!May!18,!2015].! Symington,!L.S.!&!Gautier,!J.,!2011.!Doublejstrand!break!end!resection!and!repair! pathway!choice.!Annual.review.of.genetics,!45,!pp.247–71.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21910633![Accessed!August!27,! 2014].! Szostak,!J.W.!et!al.,!1983.!The!doublejstrandjbreak!repair!model!for!recombination.! Cell,!33(1),!pp.25–35.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6380756![Accessed!June!7,!2015].! Šmídková,!M.,!Holá,!M.!&!Angelis,!K.J.,!2010.!Efficient!biolistic!transformation!of!the! moss!Physcomitrella!patens.!Biologia.Plantarum,!54(4),!pp.777–780.!Available! at:!http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10535j010j0141j9![Accessed!June!24,! 2015].! Šmídková!Markéta,!Holá!Marcela,!B.J.!and!A.K.J.,!2012.!Human.Papillomavirus.and. Related.Diseases.\.From.Bench.to.Bedside.\.A.Clinical.Perspective!D.!Vanden! Broeck,!ed.,!InTech.!Available!at:!http://www.intechopen.com/books/humanj papillomavirusjandjrelatedjdiseasesjfromjbenchjtojbedsidejajclinicalj perspective/plantjproductionjofjvaccinejagainstjhpvjajnewjperspectives! [Accessed!July!1,!2015].! Tamura,!K.!et!al.,!2002.!Identification!of!Ku70!and!Ku80!homologues!in! Arabidopsis!thaliana:!evidence!for!a!role!in!the!repair!of!DNA!doublejstrand! breaks.!The.Plant.journal :.for.cell.and.molecular.biology,!29(6),!pp.771–81.! Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12148535![Accessed! June!24,!2015].! Trouiller,!B.!et!al.,!2007.!Comparison!of!gene!targeting!efficiencies!in!two!mosses! suggests!that!it!is!a!conserved!feature!of!Bryophyte!transformation.! Biotechnology.letters,!29(10),!pp.1591–8.!Available!at:! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565445![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Trouiller,!B.!et!al.,!2006.!MSH2!is!essential!for!the!preservation!of!genome!integrity! and!prevents!homeologous!recombination!in!the!moss!Physcomitrella!patens.! Nucleic.acids.research,!34(1),!pp.232–42.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1325206&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Veleminsky,!J.!et!al.,!1994.!An!E.!coli!ada!transgenic!clone!of!Nicotiana!tabacum!var.! Xanthi!has!increased!sensitivity!to!the!mutagenic!action!of!alkylating!agents,! maleic!hydrazide!and!γjrays.!Mutation.Research/Fundamental.and.Molecular. Mechanisms.of.Mutagenesis,!307(1),!pp.193–200.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0027510794902925! [Accessed!June!29,!2015].!
!
90!
! Watanabe,!K.!et!al.,!2009.!The!STRUCTURAL!MAINTENANCE!OF!CHROMOSOMES! 5/6!complex!promotes!sister!chromatid!alignment!and!homologous! recombination!after!DNA!damage!in!Arabidopsis!thaliana.!The.Plant.cell,! 21(9),!pp.2688–99.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2768936&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!29,!2015].! Waters,!L.S.!et!al.,!2009.!Eukaryotic!translesion!polymerases!and!their!roles!and! regulation!in!DNA!damage!tolerance.!Microbiology.and.molecular.biology. reviews :.MMBR,!73(1),!pp.134–54.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2650891&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!16,!2015].! Waterworth,!W.M.!et!al.,!2009.!DNA!ligase!1!deficient!plants!display!severe!growth! defects!and!delayed!repair!of!both!DNA!single!and!double!strand!breaks.!BMC. plant.biology,!9(1),!p.79.!Available!at:!http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471j 2229/9/79![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! West,!C.E.!et!al.,!2000.!Arabidopsis!DNA!ligase!IV!is!induced!by!gammajirradiation! and!interacts!with!an!Arabidopsis!homologue!of!the!double!strand!break! repair!protein!XRCC4.!The.Plant.journal :.for.cell.and.molecular.biology,!24(1),! pp.67–78.!Available!at:!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11029705! [Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Williams,!G.J.!et!al.,!2014.!Structural!insights!into!NHEJ:!Building!up!an!integrated! picture!of!the!dynamic!DSB!repair!super!complex,!one!component!and! interaction!at!a!time.!DNA.Repair,!17,!pp.110–120.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4102006&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!March!27,!2015].! Williams,!G.J.,!LeesjMiller,!S.P.!&!Tainer,!J.A.,!2010.!Mre11jRad50jNbs1! conformations!and!the!control!of!sensing,!signaling,!and!effector!responses!at! DNA!doublejstrand!breaks.!DNA.repair,!9(12),!pp.1299–306.!Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3008338&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].! Williams,!R.S.!et!al.,!2009.!Nbs1!flexibly!tethers!Ctp1!and!Mre11jRad50!to! coordinate!DNA!doublejstrand!break!processing!and!repair.!Cell,!139(1),! pp.87–99.!Available!at:! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867409009131! [Accessed!June!6,!2015].! Windels,!P.!et!al.,!2003.!TjDNA!integration!in!Arabidopsis!chromosomes.!Presence! and!origin!of!filler!DNA!sequences.!Plant.physiology,!133(4),!pp.2061–8.! Available!at:! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=300757&tool=p mcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!July!13,!2015].! Wyatt,!M.D.!&!Pittman,!D.L.,!2006.!Methylating!agents!and!DNA!repair!responses:! Methylated!bases!and!sources!of!strand!breaks.!Chemical.research.in. toxicology,!19(12),!pp.1580–94.!Available!at:! !
91!
! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2542901&tool= pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract![Accessed!June!24,!2015].!
!
92!
