Intragenomic Hierarchies of DNA Damage Recognition

  • Hanspeter Naegeli
Part of the Molecular Biology Intelligence Unit book series (MBIU)


Nuclear DNA in mammalian cells is a highly nonuniform substrate with respect to its susceptibility to genotoxic reactions. For example, cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer formation is modulated at the nucleosomal level with a 10.3 base average periodicity.1,2 The frequency of pyrimidine(6-4)pyrimidone photoproducts is greater in nuclease-sensitive DNA than in nuclease-resistant fractions of chromatin.3 Binding of transcription factors may either enhance or suppress photoproduct formation within active genes.4 Similarly, the distribution of DNA adducts formed by chemical reagents is dependent on the protein environment and the nucleotide sequence context.5–7


Pyrimidine Dimer Cyclobutane Pyrimidine Dimer Cockayne Syndrome Preferential Repair Cyclobutane Dimer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gale JM, Nissen KA, Smerdon MJ. UV-induced formation of pyrimidine dimers in nucleosome core DNA is strongly modulated with a period of 10.3 bases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1987; 84:6644–6648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schieferstein U, Thoma F. Modulation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer formation in a positioned nucleosome containing poly(dAdT) tracts. Biochemistry 1996; 35:7705–7714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitchell DL, Nguyen TD, Cleaver JE. Nonrandom induction of pyrimidinepyrimidone (6-4) photoproducts in ultraviolet-irradiated human chromatin. J Biol Chem 1990; 265:5353–5356.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pfeifer GP, Drouin R, Riggs AD et al. Binding of transcription factors creates hot spots for UV photoproducts in vivo. Mol Cell Biol 1992; 12:1798–1804.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cimino GD, Gamper HB, Isaacs ST et al. Psoralens as photoactive probes of nucleic acid structure and function: organic chemistry, photochemistry, and biochemistry. Annu Rev Biochem 1985; 54:1151–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pierce JR, Nazimiec M, Tang MS. Comparison of sequence preference of tomamycin-and anthramycin-DNA bonding by exonuclease III and lambda exonu-clease digestion and UvrABC nuclease incision analysis. Biochemistry 1993; 32:7069–7078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith BL, MacLeod MC. Covalent binding of the carcinogen benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide to Xenopus laevis 5 S DNA reconstituted into nucleosomes. J Biol Chem 1993; 268:20620–20629.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bohr VA, Wassermann K. DNA repair at the level of the gene. Trends Biochem Sci 1988; 13:429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vreeswijk MPG, van Hoffen A, Westland BE et al. Analysis of repair of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and pyrimidine 6-4 pyrimidone photoproducts in transcrip-tionally active and inactive genes in Chinese hamster cells. J Biol Chem 1994; 269:31858–31863.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao S, Drouin R, Holmquist GP. DNA repair rates mapped along the human PGK1 gene at nucleotide resolution. Science 1994; 263:1438–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donahue BA, Fuchs RPP, Reines D et al. Effects of aminofluorene and acetylaminofluorene DNA adducts on transcriptional elongation by RNA polymerase II. J Biol Chem 1996; 271:10588–10594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGregor WG, Mah MC-M, Chen R-H et al. Lack of correlation between degree of interference with transcription and rate of strand specific repair in the HPRT gene of diploid human fibroblasts. J Biol Chem 1995; 270:27222–27227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donahue BA, Yin S, Taylor J-S et al. Transcript cleavage by RNA polymerase II arrested by a cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer in the DNA template. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91:8502–8506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi D-J, Marino-Alessandri DJ, Geacintov NE et al. Site-specific benzo[a]-pyrene diol epoxide-DNA adducts inhibit transcription elongation by bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase. Biochemistry 1994; 33:780–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen Y-H, Bogenhagen DF. Effects of DNA lesions on transcription elongation by T7 RNA polymerase. J Biol Chem 1993; 268:5849–5855.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou W, Doetsch PW. Effects of abasic sites and DNA single-strand breaks on prokaryotic RNA polymerases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993; 90:6601–6605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen YH, Matsumoto Y, Shibutani S et al. Acetylaminofluorene and aminofluorene adducts inhibit in vitro transcription of a Xenopus 5S RNA gene only when located on the coding strand. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88:9583–9587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selby CP, Witkin E, Sancar A. Escherichia coli mfd mutant deficient in “mutation frequency decline” lacks strand-specific repair: in vitro complementation with purified coupling factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1991; 88:11574–11578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shi Y-b, Gamper H, Hearst JE. Interaction of T7 RNA polymerase with DNA in an elongation complex arrested at a specific psoralen adduct site. J Biol Chem 1988; 263:527–534.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Selby CP, Sancar A. Transcription preferentially inhibits nucleotide excision repair of the template DNA strand in vitro. J Biol Chem 1990; 265:21330–21336.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mellon I, Hanawalt PC. Induction of the Escherichia coli lactose operon selectively increases repair of its transcribed DNA strand. Nature 1989; 342:95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bohr VA, Smith CA, Okumoto DS et al. DNA repair in an active gene: removal of pyrimidine dimers from the DHFR gene of CHO cells is much more efficient than in the genome overall. Cell 1985; 40:359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mellon I, Bohr VA, Smith CA et al. Preferential DNA repair of an active gene in human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986; 83:8878–8882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Madhani HD, Bohr VA, Hanawalt PC. Differential DNA repair in transcriptionally active and inactive proto-oncogenes: c-abl and c-mos. Cell 1986; 45:417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruven HJT, Berg RJW, Seelen CM et al. Ultraviolet-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers are selectively removed from transcriptionally active genes in the epidermis of the hairless mouse. Cancer Res 1993; 53:1642–1645.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mellon I, Spivak G, Hanawalt PC. Selective removal of transcription-blocking DNA damage from the transcribed strand of the mammalian DHFR gene. Cell 1987; 51:241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smerdon MJ, Thoma F. Site-specific DNA repair at the nucleosome level in a yeast minichromosome. Cell 1990; 61:675–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venema J, Bartosova, Natarajan AT et al. Transcription affects the rate but not the extent of repair of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers in the human adenosine deaminase gene. J Biol Chem 1992; 267:8852–8856.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hanawalt PC. Transcription-coupled repair and human diseases. Science 1994; 266:1957–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Christians FC, Hanawalt PC. Lack of transcription-coupled repair in mammalian ribosomal RNA genes. Biochemistry 1993; 32:10512–10518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fritz LK, Smerdon MJ. Repair of UV damage in actively transcribed ribosomal genes. Biochemistry 1995; 34:13117–13124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vos J-M, Wauthier EL. Differential introduction of DNA damage and repair in mammalian genes transcribed by RNA polymerase I and II. Mol Cell Biol 1991; 11:2245–2252.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Armstrong JD, Kunz BA. Site and strand specificity of UVB mutagenesis in SUP4-0 gene of yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:9005–9009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leadon SA, Cooper PK. Preferential repair of ionizing radiation-induced damage in the transcribed strand of an active human gene is defective in Cockayne syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993; 90:10499–10503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zelle B, Reynolds RJ, Kottenhagen MJ et al. The influence of the wavelength radiation on survival, mutation induction and DNA repair in irradiated Chinese hamster cells. Mutat Res 1980; 72:491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Zeeland AA, Smith CA, Hanawalt PC. Sensitive determination of pyrimidine dimers in DNA of UV-irradiated mammalian cells: introduction of T4 endonuclease V into frozen and thawed cells. Mutat Res 1981; 82:173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith, C.A. DNA repair in specific sequences in mammalian cells. J Cell Sci 1987; Suppl 6:225–241.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bohr VA, Okumoto DS, Hanawalt. Survival of UV-irradiated mammalian cells correlates with efficient DNA repair in an essential gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986; 83:3830–3833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Downes CS, Ryan AJ, Johnson RT. Fine tuning of DNA repair in transcribed genes: mechanisms, prevalence and consequences. BioEssays 1993; 15:209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Leadon SA, Lawrence DA. Preferential repair of DNA damage on the transcribed strand of the human metallothionein genes requires RNA polymerase IL Mutat Res 1991; 255:67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leadon SA, Lawrence DA. Strand-selective repair of DNA damage in the yeast GAL7 gene requires RNA polymerase II. J Biol Chem 1992; 267:23175–23182.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Christians FC, Hanawalt PC. Inhibition of transcription and strand-selective DNA repair by α-amanitin in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Mutat Res 1992; 274:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tang MS, Bohr VA, Zhang X et al. Quantification of aminofluorene adduct formation and repair in defined sequences in mammalian cells using the UVRABC nuclease. J Biol Chem 1989; 264:14455–14462.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nose K, Nikaido O. Transcriptionally active and inactive genes are similarly modified by chemical carcinogens and X-ray in normal human fibroblasts. Biochim Biophys Acta 1984; 781:273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bartlett JD, Scicchitano DA, Robison SH. Two expressed human genes sustain slightly more DNA damage after alkylation agent treatment than an inactive gene. Mutat Res 1991; 255:247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Selby CP, Witkin EM, Sancar A. Escherichia coli mfd mutant deficient in “Mutation Frequency Decline” lacks strand-specific repair: in vitro complementation with purified coupling factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88:11574–11578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Selby CP, Sancar A. Molecular mechanism of transcription-repair coupling. Science 1993; 260:53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Selby CP, Sancar A. Mechanisms of transcription-repair coupling and mutation frequency decline. Microbiol Rev 1994; 58:317–329.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Selby CP, Sancar A. Gene-and strandspecific repair in vitro: partial purification of a transcription-repair coupling factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88:8232–8236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Witkin EM. Radiation-induced mutations and their repair. Science 1966; 152:1345–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Witkin EM. Mutation frequency decline revisited. BioEssays 1994; 16:437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Selby CP, Sancar A. Structure and function of transcription-repair coupling factor. I. Structural domains and binding properties. J Biol Chem 1995; 270:4882–4889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Selby CP, Sancar A. Structure and function of transcription-repair coupling factor. II. Catalytic properties. J Biol Chem 1995; 270:4890–4895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mayne LV, Lehmann AR. Failure of RNA synthesis to recover after UV irradiation: an early defect in cells from individuals with Cockayne’s syndrome and xeroderma pigmentosum. Cancer Res 1982; 42:1473–1478.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Venema J, Mullenders LHF, Natarajan AT et al. The genetic defect in Cockayne syndrome is associated with a defect in repair of UV-induced DNA damage in transcriptionally active DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4707–4711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    van Hoffen A, Natarajan AT, Mayne LV et al. Deficient repair of the transcribed strand of active genes in Cockayne’s syndrome cells. Nucleic Acids Res 1993; 21:5890–5895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kantor GJ, Bastin SA. Repair of some active genes in Cockayne syndrome cells is at the genome overall rate. Mutat Res 1995; 336:223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Leavitt J, Gunning P, Porreca S-Y et al. Molecular cloning and characterization of mutant and wild-type human β-actin genes. Mol Cell Biol 1984; 4:1961–1969.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Troelstra C, van Gool A, de Wit J et al. ERCC6, a member of a subfamily of putative helicases, is involved in Cockayne’s syndrome and preferential repair of active genes. Cell 1992; 71:939–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Van Oosterwijk MF, Versteeg A, Filon R et al. The sensitivity of Cockayne’s syndrome cells to DNA-damaging agents is not due to defective transcription-coupled repair of active genes. Mol Cell Biol 1996; 16:4436–4444.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wade MH, Chu EHY. Effects of DNA damaging agents on cultured fibroblasts derived from patients with Cockayne syndrome. Mutat Res 1979; 59:49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Henning KA, Li L, Iyer N et al. The Cockayne syndrome group A gene encodes a WD repeat protein that interacts with CSB protein and a subunit of RNA polymerase II TFIIH. Cell 1995; 82:555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Friedberg EC. Relationships between DNA repair and transcription. Annu Rev Biochem 1996; 65:15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Friedberg EC. Cockayne syndrome-a primary defect in DNA repair, transcription, both or neither? BioEssays 1996; 18:731–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bregman DB, Halaban R, van Gool AJ et al. UV-induced ubiquination of RNA polymerase II: a novel modification deficient in Cockayne syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:11586–11590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Buratowski S. DNA repair and transcription: the helicase connection. Science 1993; 260:37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Goodrich JA, Tjian R. Transcription factor IIE and IIH and ATP hydrolysis direct promoter clearance by RNA polymerase II. Cell 1994; 77:145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zawel L, Kumar KP, Reinberg D. Recycling of the general transcription factors during RNA polymerase II transcription. Genes Dev 1995; 9:1479–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Svejstrup JQ, Wang Z, Feaver WJ et al. Different forms of TFIIH for transcription and DNA repair: holo-TFIIH and a nucleotide excision repairosome. Cell 1995; 80:21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Laemmli UK. Levels of organization of the DNA in eukaryotic chromosomes. Pharmacol Rev 1979; 30:469–476.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Simpson RT, Thoma F, Brubaker JM. Chromatin reconstituted from tandemly repeated cloned DNA fragments and core histones: a model system for study of higher order structure. Cell 1985; 42:799–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Felsenfeld G, McGhee JD. Structure of the 30 nm chromatin fiber. Cell 1986; 44:375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tornaletti S, Pfeifer GP. UV damage and repair mechanisms in mammalian cells. BioEssays 1996; 18:221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Venema J, Bartosova Z, Natarajan AT et al. Transcription affects the rate but not the extent of repair of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers in the human adenosine deaminase gene. J Biol Chem 1992; 267:8852–8856.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wang Z, Wu XH, Friedberg EC. Nucleotide excision repair of DNA by human cell extracts is suppressed in reconstituted nucleosomes. J Biol Chem 1991; 266:22472–22478.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mullenders LHF, Van Kesteren-Van Leeuwen AC, Van Zeeland AA et al. Nuclear matrix associated DNA is preferentially repaired in normal human fibroblasts, exposed to a low dose of ultraviolet light but not in Cockayne’s syndrome fibroblasts. Nucleic Acids Res 1988; 16:10607–10622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Koehler DR, Hanawalt PC. Recruitment of damaged DNA to the nuclear matrix in hamster cells following ultraviolet irradiation. Nucleic Acids Res 1996; 24:2877–2884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cook PR. RNA polymerase: structural determinant of the chromatin loop and the chromosome. BioEssays 1994; 16:425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Christians FC, Hanawalt PC. Repair in ribosomal RNA genes is deficient in xeroderma pigmentosum group C and Cockayne’s syndrome cells. Mutat Res 1994; 323:179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Izban MG, Luse AT. The RNA polymerase II ternary complex cleaves the nascent transcript in a 3′ → 5′ direction in the presence of elongation factor S-II. Genes Dev 1992; 6:1342–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Carothers AM, Zhen W, Mucha J et al. DNA strand-specific repair of (±)-3α,4β-dihydroxy-1α,2α-epoxy-l,2,3,4-tetra-hydrobenzo[c]phenanthrene adducts in the hamster dihydrofolate reductase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992; 89:11925–11929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mellon I, Fajpal DK, Koi M. Transcription-coupled repair deficiency and mutations in human mismatch repair genes. Science 1996; 272:557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© R.G. Landes Company 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanspeter Naegeli
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Pharmacology and ToxicologyUniversity of Zürich-TierspitalZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations