Advertisement

Altered somatic mutation level and DNA repair gene expression in Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to ultraviolet C, salt, and cadmium stresses

  • K. V. KiselevEmail author
  • Z. V. Ogneva
  • A. S. Dubrovina
  • A. R. Suprun
  • A. P. Tyunin
Original Article

Abstract

It is known that somatic mutations arising during animal growth and ageing contribute to the development of neurodegenerative and other animal diseases. For plants, several studies showed that small-scale somatic DNA mutations accumulated during Arabidopsis life cycle. However, there is a lack of data on the influence of environmental stresses on somatic DNA mutagenesis in plants. In this study, we analyzed the effects of ultraviolet C (UV-C) irradiation, high soil salinity, and cadmium (CdI3) stresses on the level of small-scale somatic DNA mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana. The number of DNA mutations was examined in the Actin2 3′UTR (Actin-U1), ITS1-5.8rRNA-ITS2 (ITS), and ribulose-1,5-biphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (rbcL) DNA regions. We found that somatic mutation levels considerably increased in CdI3-treated Arabidopsis plants, while the mutation levels declined in the UV-C- and NaCl-treated A. thaliana. Cadmium is a mutagen that is known to inhibit DNA repair processes. The detected stress-induced alterations in somatic DNA mutation levels were accompanied by markedly increased expression of base excision repair genes (AtARP, AtDME, AtDML2, AtDML3, AtMBD4, AtROS, AtUNG, and AtZDP), nucleotide excision repair genes (AtDDB1a, AtRad4, and AtRad23a), mismatch repair genes (AtMSH2, AtMSH3, and AtMSH7), and photoreactivation genes (AtUVR2, AtUVR3). Thus, the results demonstrated that UV-C, high soil salinity, and cadmium stresses influence both the level of DNA mutations and expression of DNA repair genes. Salt- and UV-induced activation of DNA repair genes could contribute to the stress-induced decrease in somatic mutation level.

Keywords

Somatic mutations Arabidopsis thaliana Cadmium UV-C Salt stress Indels Single-nucleotide substitutions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (16-04-00839a).

Supplementary material

11738_2017_2600_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4904 kb)

References

  1. Aleynova OA, Grigorchuk VP, Dubrovina AS, Rybin VG, Kiselev KV (2016) Stilbene accumulation in cell cultures of Vitis amurensis Rupr. overexpressing VaSTS1, VaSTS2, and VaSTS7 genes. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 125:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyko A, Zemp F, Filkowski J, Kovalchuk I (2006) Double-strand break repair in plants is developmentally regulated. Plant Physiol 141:488–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyko A, Golubov A, Bilichak A, Kovalchuk I (2010) Chlorine ions but not sodium ions alter genome stability of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiol 51:1066–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britt AB (1996) DNA damage and repair in plants. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 47:75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss LW (1983) Evolution, development, and the units of selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:1387–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caetano-Anolles G (1999) High genome-wide mutation rates in vegetatively propagated bermudagrass. Mol Ecol 8:1211–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubrovina AS, Kiselev KV (2016) Age-associated alterations in the somatic mutation and DNA methylation levels in plants. Plant Biol (Stuttg) 18:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubrovina AS, Aleynova OA, Kiselev KV (2016) Influence of overexpression of the true and false alternative transcripts of calcium-dependent protein kinase CPK9 and CPK3a genes on the growth, stress tolerance, and resveratrol content in Vitis amurensis cell cultures. Acta Physiol Plant 38:78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Golubov A, Yao Y, Maheshwari P, Bilichak A, Boyko A, Belzile F, Kovalchuk I (2010) Microsatellite instability in Arabidopsis increases with plant development. Plant Physiol 154:1415–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffiths AJF, Miller JH, Suzuki DT et al (2000) An introduction to genetic analysis, 7th edn. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu ZB, Cools T, De Veylder L (2016) Mechanisms used by plants to cope with DNA damage. Annu Rev Plant Biol 67:439–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jiang CF, Mithani A, Belfield EJ, Mott R, Hurst LD, Harberd NP (2014) Environmentally responsive genome-wide accumulation of de novo Arabidopsis thaliana mutations and epimutations. Genome Res 24:1821–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jin YH, Clark AB, Slebos RJC, Al-Refai H, Taylor JA, Kunkel TA, Resnick MA, Gordenin DA (2003) Cadmium is a mutagen that acts by inhibiting mismatch repair. Nat Genet 34:326–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kiselev KV, Turlenko AV, Tchernoded GK, Zhuravlev YN (2009) Nucleotide substitutions in rolC and nptII gene sequences during long-term cultivation of Panax ginseng cell cultures. Plant Cell Rep 28:1273–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiselev KV, Shumakova OA, Tchernoded GK (2011) Mutation of Panax ginseng genes during long-term cultivation of ginseng cell cultures. J Plant Physiol 168:1280–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiselev KV, Dubrovina AS, Shumakova OA (2013) DNA mutagenesis in 2- and 20-year-old Panax ginseng cell cultures. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 35:1525–1532Google Scholar
  17. Kiselev KV, Tyunin AP, Ogneva ZV, Dubrovina AS (2015a) Age-associated alterations in somatic mutation level in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Growth Regul 75:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiselev KV, Dubrovina AS, Tyunin AP (2015b) The methylation status of plant genomic DNA influences PCR efficiency. J Plant Physiol 175:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kiselev KV, Aleynova OA, Grigorchuk VP, Dubrovina AS (2017) Stilbene accumulation and expression of stilbene biosynthesis pathway genes in wild grapevine Vitis amurensis Rupr. Planta 245:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(−Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 25:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lombard DB, Chua KF, Mostoslavsky R, Franco S, Gostissa M, Alt FW (2005) DNA repair, genome stability, and aging. Cell 120:497–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moskalev AA, Shaposhnikov MV, Plyusnina EN, Zhavoronkov A, Budovsky A, Yanai H, Fraifeld VE (2013) The role of DNA damage and repair in aging through the prism of Koch-like criteria. Ageing Res Rev 12:661–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Müller J, Sigel RK, Lippert B (2000) Heavy metal mutagenicity: insights from bioinorganic model chemistry. J Inorg Biochem 79:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Noro Y, Takano-Shimizu T, Syono K, Kishima Y, Sano Y (2007) Genetic variations in rice in vitro cultures at the EPSPs–RPS20 region. Theor Appl Genet 114:705–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ossowski S, Schneeberger K, Lucas-Lledó JI, Warthmann N, Clark RM, Shaw RG, Weigel D, Lynch M (2010) The rate and molecular spectrum of spontaneous mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 327:92–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pla M, Jofré A, Martell M, Molinas M, Gómez J (2000) Large accumulation of mRNA and DNA point modifications in a plant senescent tissue. FEBS Lett 472:14–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith KC (1992) Spontaneous mutagenesis: experimental, genetic and other factors. Mutat Res 277:139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spampinato CP (2017) Protecting DNA from errors and damage: an overview of DNA repair mechanisms in plants compared to mammals. Cell Mol Life Sci 74:1693–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tyunin AP, Kiselev KV (2016) Alternations in VaSTS gene cytosine methylation and t-resveratrol production in response to UV-C irradiation in Vitis amurensis Rupr. cells. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 124:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuteja N, Singh MB, Misra MK, Bhalla PL, Tuteja R (2001) Molecular mechanisms of DNA damage and repair: progress in plants. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 36:337–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ulm R, Baumann A, Oravecz A, Máté Z, Adám E, Oakeley EJ, Schäfer E, Nagy F (2004) Genome-wide analysis of gene expression reveals function of the bZIP transcription factor HY5 in the UV-B response of Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:1397–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vijg J (2004) Impact of genome instability on transcription regulation of aging and senescence. Mech Ageing Dev 125:747–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vijg J, Suh Y (2013) Genome instability and aging. Annu Rev Physiol 75:645–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Willing EM, Piofczyk T, Albert A, Winkler JB, Schneeberger K, Pecinka A (2016) UVR2 ensures transgenerational genome stability under simulated natural UV-B in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat Commun 7:13522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yao Y, Kovalchuk I (2011) Abiotic stress leads to somatic and heritable changes in homologous recombination frequency, point mutation frequency and microsatellite stability in Arabidopsis plants. Mutat Res Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen 707:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. V. Kiselev
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Z. V. Ogneva
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. S. Dubrovina
    • 1
  • A. R. Suprun
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. P. Tyunin
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Biotechnology, Federal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial BiodiversityFar Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of SciencesVladivostokRussia
  2. 2.Department of Biochemistry, Biotechnology, and MicrobiologyFar Eastern Federal UniversityVladivostokRussia

Personalised recommendations