DNA susceptibility of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to Zeocin depends on the growth phase
The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of Zeocin-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells in a different growth phase, using constant-field gel electrophoresis (CFGE). Saccharomyces cerevisiae diploid strain D7ts1 with enhanced cellular permeability was used. The effects of growth phase and treatment time were evaluated based on Zeocin-induced DSBs, measured by CFGE. Survival assay was also applied. No protoplast isolation was necessary for the detection of DSBs in strain D7ts1. Differences in the response of cells depending on the growth phase were obtained. Cells in exponential growth phase had increased DSB levels only after Zeocin treatment with concentrations equal or higher than 200 μgml−1. Increasing treatment time did not result in higher DSB levels. Oppositely, treatment of cells at the beginning of stationary phase with Zeocin concentrations resulted in more than 1.5-fold increase in DSB levels in comparison with those in untreated cells. Increased DSB levels were measured for all the treatment times. A dose-dependent decrease in cell survival was observed after Zeocin treatment with concentrations in the range of lethality LD20–LD50. A strong negative correlation was calculated between the levels of DSBs and cell survival. New information is provided concerning DNA susceptibility depending on the growth phase. DNA susceptibility is higher in cells at the beginning of stationary phase than those in exponential phase. Data presented here illustrate that the optimized by us CFGE protocol is sensitive and could be used successfully for DSB measurement in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with enhanced cellular permeability.
KeywordsCFGE DNA susceptibility Growth phase Saccharomyces cerevisiae Zeocin
This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science, Project No. DH11/10.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 5-bromouracil (2018) https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/5-Bromouracil#section=Top. Accessed 19 Dec 2018
- Chankova SG, Bryant PE (2002) Acceleration of DNA-double strand rejoining during the adaptive response of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Radiats Biol Radioecol 42(6):600–603Google Scholar
- Chankova S, Todorova T, Parvanova P, Miteva D, Mitrovska Z, Angelova O, Imreova P, Mucaji P (2013) Kaempferol and jatropham: are they protective or detrimental for Chlamydomonas reinhardtii? C R Acad Bulg Sci 66:1121–1128Google Scholar
- Frassinetti S, Barberio C, Caltavuturo L, Fava F, Di Gioia D (2011) Genotoxicity of 4-nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylate mixtures by the use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae D7 mutation assay and use of this text to evaluate the efficiency of biodegradation treatments. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74(3):253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gateva S, Angelova O, Chankova S (2015) Double-strand breaks detection in human lymphocytes by constant field gel electrophoresis. ДОКЛАДИ НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА АКАДЕМИЯ НА НАУКИТЕ 68(4):469–474Google Scholar
- Kepes F, Schekman R (1988) The yeast SEC53 gene encodes phosphomannomutase. J Biol Chem 263(19):9155–9161Google Scholar
- Methyl methanesulfonate (2018) https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/methyl_methanesulfonate#section=Top. Accessed 19 Dec 2018
- Moore CW, Malcolm AW, Tomkinson KN, Little JB (1985) Ultrarapid recovery from lethal effects of bleomycin and γ-radiation in stationary-phase human diploid fibroblasts. Cancer Res 45(5):1978–1981Google Scholar
- Moore CW, McKoy J, Dardalhon M, Davermann D, Martinez M, Averbeck D (2000) DNA damage-inducible and RAD52-independent repair of DNA double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 154:1085–1099Google Scholar
- Rossi C, Poli P, Buschini A, Cassoni F, Cattani S, de Munari E (1995) Comparative investigations among meteorological conditions, air chemical–physical pollutants and airborne particulate mutagenicity: a long-term study (1990–1994) from a northern Italian town. Chemosphere 30:1829–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stoycheva T, Pesheva M, Dimitrov M, Venkov P (2012) The Ty1 retrotransposition short-term test for selective detection of carcinogenic genotoxins. In: Pesheva M (Ed) Carcinogen, Intechopen, pp 83–110Google Scholar
- Tippins RS, Parry JM (1982) A comparison of the radiosensitivity of stationary, exponential, and G1 phase wild type and repair deficient yeast cultures: supporting evidence for stationary phase yeast cells being in G0. Int J Radiat Biol 41:215–220Google Scholar
- Todorova T, Miteva D, Chankova S (2015b) DNA damaging effect of Zeocin and methyl methanesulfonate in Saccharomyces cerevisiae measured by CFGE. ДОКЛАДИ НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА АКАДЕМИЯ НА НАУКИТЕ 68(1):71–78 Google Scholar
- Werner-Washburne M, Braun E, Johnston GC, Singer RA (1993) Stationary phase in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Rev 57:383–401Google Scholar
- Wilson MR (2014) Analysis of genes required for quiescent cell formation in stationary phase cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Dissertation, University of New MexicoGoogle Scholar
- Zeocin (2018) https://www.thermofisher.com/bg/en/home/references/protocols/cloning/transformation-protocol/zeocin.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2018
- Zlotnik KH, Femande MP, Bowers B, Cabib E (1989) Mannoproteins form an external cell wall layer determines wall porosity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 195:1018–1026Google Scholar