Abstract
The isoschizomer pair MspI and HpaII were used to investigate whether the putative specificity of restriction endonucleases would be maintained when they were introduced into mammalian cells. Although both enzymes recognize the sequence CCGG, HpaII will cut only if the internal cytosine is unmethylated, whereas MspI will cut regardless of the methylation status. Cleavage results in a cohesive-end DNA double-strand break, which can lead to the formation of chromosome aberrations. Since mammalian DNA is heavily methylated, one would expect MspI to be much more effective than HpaII at inducing chromosome aberrations in Chinese hamster ovary cells. In fact, during G1, MspI induced a >90-fold higher number of aberrations than did HpaII. Cell cycle studies indicated that during early S there was a 30-fold increase in HpaII-induced aberrations. This increase may be due to increased accessibility of replicating hypomethylated DNA. Cells that were treated with the demethylating agent 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (AzdC) displayed only a moderate increase in HpaII-induced aberrations during G1. This observation, together with the results of restriction enzyme analysis of genomic DNA, indicated that demethylation was incomplete. The effects of AzdC on the induction of aberrations by MspI suggested that AzdC increases chromatin accessibility. Our results were consistent with the expected specificity of MspI and HpaII. Thus, it appears that restriction endonucleases can play a useful role in determining the biological consequences of DNA double-strand breaks.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature cited
Morgan, W.F., Fero, M.L., Land, M.C., and Winegar, R.A. (1988).Mol. Cell. Biol. 84204–4211.
Winegar, R.A., Phillips, J.W., Youngblom, J.H., and Morgan, W.F. (1989).Mutat. Res. 22549–53.
Morgan, W.F., Chung, H.W., Phillips, J.W., and Winegar, R.A. (1989).Mutat. Res. 226203–209.
Morgan, W.F., and Winegar, R.A. (1990). InChromosomal Aberrations: Basic and Applied Aspects, (Eds.) G. Obe and A.T. Natarajan (Springer Verlag, Berlin) (in press).
Cooper, D.N. (1983).Hum. Genet. 64315–333.
Ho, L., Bohr, V.A., and Hanawalt, P.C. (1989).Mol. Cell. Biol. 91594–1603.
Murnane, J.P. (1986).Mol. Cell. Biol. 6549–558.
Morgan, W.F., Ager, D., Chung, H.W., Ortiz, T., Phillips, J.W., and Winegar, R.A. (1989). InMetabolism, Testing Methods and Chromosomes, (ed.) Mendelsohn, M.L. (Alan R. Liss, New York) (in press).
Miller, O.J., Schnedl, W., Allen, J., and Erlanger, B.F. (1974).Nature 251636–637.
Christman, J.K., Schneiderman, N., and Acs, G. (1985).J. Biol. Chem. 2604059–4068.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winegar, R.A., Phillips, J.W., Lutze, L.H. et al. Chromosome aberration induction in Chinese hamster ovary cells by restriction enzymes with different methylation sensitivity. Somat Cell Mol Genet 16, 251–256 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01233361
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01233361