Comparison of checkpoint responses triggered by DNA polymerase inhibition versus DNA damaging agents

被引:39
作者
Liu, JS
Kuo, SR
Melendy, T
机构
[1] SUNY Buffalo, Sch Med & Biomed Sci, Dept Microbiol, Buffalo, NY 14214 USA
[2] SUNY Buffalo, Sch Med & Biomed Sci, Dept Immunol, Buffalo, NY 14214 USA
[3] SUNY Buffalo, Sch Med & Biomed Sci, Dept Biochem, Buffalo, NY 14214 USA
[4] SUNY Buffalo, Sch Med & Biomed Sci, Witebsky Ctr Microbial Pathogenesis & Immunol, Buffalo, NY 14214 USA
关键词
S-phase checkpoint; DNA damage; ATR; Chk1; kinase; replication protein A (RPA); gamma-H2AX; phosphorylation; nuclear foci;
D O I
10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2003.08.018
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
To better understand the different cellular responses to replication fork pausing versus blockage, early DNA damage response markers were compared after treatment of cultured mammalian cells with agents that either inhibit DNA polymerase activity (hydroxyurea (HU) or aphidicolin) or selectively induce S-phase DNA damage responses (the DNA alkylating agents, methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) and adozelesin). These agents were compared for their relative abilities to induce phosphorylation of Chk1, H2AX, and replication protein A (RPA), and intra-nuclear focalization of gamma-H2AX and RPA. Treatment by aphidicolin and HU resulted in phosphorylation of Chk1, while HU, but not aphidicolin, induced focalization of gamma-H2AX and RPA. Surprisingly, pre-treatment with aphidicolin to stop replication fork progression, did not abrogate HU-induced gamma-H2AX and RPA focalization. This suggests that HU may act on the replication fork machinery directly, such that fork progression is not required to trigger these responses. The DNA-damaging fork-blocking agents, adozelesin and MMS, both induced phosphorylation and focalization of H2AX and RPA. Unlike adozelesin and HU, the pattern of MMS-induced RPA focalization did not match the BUdR incorporation pattern and was not blocked by aphidicolin, suggesting that MMS-induced damage is not replication fork-dependent. In support of this, MMS was the only reagent used that did not induce phosphorylation of Chk1. These results indicate that induction of DNA damage checkpoint responses due to adozelesin is both replication fork and fork progression dependent, induction by HU is replication fork dependent but progression independent, while induction by MMS is independent of both replication forks and fork progression. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:215 / 226
页数:12
相关论文
共 66 条
[61]   Replication protein A: A heterotrimeric, single-stranded DNA-binding protein required for eukaryotic DNA metabolism [J].
Wold, MS .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOCHEMISTRY, 1997, 66 :61-92
[62]   Chk1-deficient tumour cells are viable but exhibit multiple checkpoint and survival defects [J].
Zachos, G ;
Rainey, MD ;
Gillespie, DAF .
EMBO JOURNAL, 2003, 22 (03) :713-723
[63]   ATR-mediated checkpoint pathways regulate phosphorylation and activation of human Chk1 [J].
Zhao, H ;
Piwnica-Worms, H .
MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOLOGY, 2001, 21 (13) :4129-4139
[64]   The Dun1 checkpoint kinase phosphorylates and regulates the ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor SmI1 [J].
Zhao, XL ;
Rothstein, R .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2002, 99 (06) :3746-3751
[65]   Regulation of ATR substrate selection by Rad17-dependent loading of Rad9 complexes onto chromatin [J].
Zou, L ;
Cortez, D ;
Elledge, SJ .
GENES & DEVELOPMENT, 2002, 16 (02) :198-208
[66]   Sensing DNA damage through ATRIP recognition of RPA-ssDNA complexes [J].
Zou, L ;
Elledge, SJ .
SCIENCE, 2003, 300 (5625) :1542-1548