Advertisement

Is Sister Chromatid Exchange Formation an Inducible Process?

  • A. Gentil
  • G. Renault
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 40)

Abstract

Sister chromatid exchange (SCE) formation is well correlated with the carcinogenic and mutagenic properties of DNA damaging agentsl. However, the mechanism of induction of SCE is still unknown and this correlation is not well understood. At the present time many hypotheses have been advanced to explain this correlation but none is fully satisfactory. In particular many efforts have been made to link SCE formation and DNA repair, since treatment of cells with DNA damaging agents such as X-rays, UV light, alkylating or DNA cross-linking agents, increases considerably SCE frequency2,3,4,5,6. However, it does not seem that SCE induction depends on excision repair mechanisms. Indeed it has been shown that cells with different excision repair capacities exhibit the same level of SCE after treatment with DNA damaging agents. After an UV-irradiation at 254 nm, Xeroderma nigmentosum cells from the different complementation groups which excise pyrimidine dimers at various rates, exhibit the same SCE frequency7. There is not an inverse correlation between excision repair measured by unschedule DNA synthesis (UDS) and SCE frequency. Moreover it is not clear what kind of lesion is responsible for SCE induction after an UV-irradiation. Indeed some cells are able to monomerize pyrimidine dimers by a process called photoreactivation, and it has been shown that photoreactivation in protorous and in chick embryo cells does not affect SCE production8. It is therefore possible that lesions responsible for SCE formation are some minor photoproducts which are not excised, and not pyrimidine dimers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. O. Bradley, I. C. Hsu and C. C. Harris, Relationship between sister chromatid exchanges and mutagenicity, toxicity and DNA damage, Nature 282: 318 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Perry and H. J. Evans, Cytological detection of mutagencarcinogen exposure by sister chromatid exchanges, Nature 258: 121 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Kato, Spontaneous and induced sister chromatid exchanges as revealed by the BUdR-labeling method,. Intern. Rev. of Cvtol. 49: 55 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Kato, Induction of sister chromatid exchanges by UV light and its inhibition by caffeine, Exp. Cell Res. 85: 239 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Kato, Induction of sister chromatid exchanges by chemical mutagens and its possible relevance to DNA repair, Exp. Cell Res. 82: 383 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Latt, Sister chromatid exchanges, indices of human chromosome damage and repair: detection by fluorescence and induction by mitomycine, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 71: 3162 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. A. De Weerd-Kastelein, W. Keijzer, G. Rainaldi and D. Bootsma, Induction of sister’ chromatid exchanges in Xeroderma pigmento-sum cells after exposure to ultraviolet light, Mutat. Res. 45: 253 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Wolff, Relation between DNA repair, chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges, in “DNA repair mechanisms”, P. C. Hanawalt, E. C. Friedberg and C. F. Fox, ed., Academic Press, New York (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. L. Chan, H. Nagasawa and J. B. Little, Induction and repair of lethal and oncogenic lesions and their relationship to cytogenic changes in UV-irradiated mouse 10 T 1/2 cells, in “Radiation Res.”, S. Okada, M. Imamura, T. Terashima and H. Yamaguchi ed., Tokyo (1979).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. S. K. Chaganti, S. Schonberg and J. German, A manvfold increase in sister chromatid exchanges in Bloom’s syndrome lymphocytes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 71: 4508 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Hand and J. German, A retarded rate of DNA chain growth in Bloom’s syndrome, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 72: 758 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. German, DNA repair defects and human disease, in “DNA repair mechanisms”, P. C. Hanawalt, E. C. Friedberg and C. F. Fox, ed., Academic Press, New York (1978).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Kinsella and M. Radman, Tumor promoter induces sister chromatid exchanges: relevance to mechanism of carcinogenesis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75: 6149 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Nagasawa and J. B. Little, Effects of tumor promoter, protease inhibitors and repair processes on X-ray-induced sister chromatid exchanges in mouse cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76: 1943 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. M. Baird, J. A. Sedgwick and R. K. Boutwell, Effects of phor-bol and four diesters of phorbol on the incorporation of tritiated precursors into DNA, RNA, and protein in mouse epidermis, Cancer Res. 31: 1434 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. A. Kihlmam, Sister chromatid exchanges in vicia faba. II. Effects of thiotepa caffeine and 8 ethoxycaffeine on the frequency of SCE’S, Chromosoma 51: 11 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Kato, Mechanisms for sister chromatid exchanges and their relation to the production of chromosomal aberrations, Chromosoma 59: 179 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Kato, Possible role of DNA synthesis in formation of sister chromatid exchanges, Nature 252: 739 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Radman, Phenomenology of an inducible DNA repair which is accompanied by mutagenesis, in “Molecular mechanisms for repair of DNA”, P. C. Hanawalt and R. B. Setlow, ed., Plenum Press, New York (1975).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Devoret, A. Goze, Y. Moule and A. Sarasin, Lysogenic induction and induced phage reactivation by aflatoxin B1 metabolites, Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S. 256: 283 (1977).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. M. Witkin, DNA repair and mutagenesis, Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S. 256: 203 (1977).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. B. Das Gupta and C. Summers, Ultraviolet reactivation of heroes simplex virus is mutagenic and inducible in mammalian cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75: 2378 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Sarasin and P. C. Hanawalt, Carcinogens enhance survival of UV-irradiated simian virus 40 in treated monkey kidney cells induction of a recovery pathway ? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75: 346 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Sarasin and A. Benoit, Induction of an error-prone mode of DNA repair in UV-irradiated monkey kidney cells, Mutat. Res. 70: 71 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. D. Lytle, J. Coppey and W. D. Taylor, Enhanced survival of ultraviolet-irradiated herpes simplex virus in carcinogen-pretreated cells, Nature 272: 60 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Perry and S. H. Wolf, New giemsa method for the differential staining of sister chromatids, Nature 251: 156 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. H. Ockey and T. D. Allen, Distribution of DNA or DNA synthesis in mammalian cells following inhibition with hydroxyurea and 5-fluorodeoxyurdine, Exp. Cell Res. 93: 275 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    N. A. Berger, K. K. Kurohara, S. J. Petzold and G. W. Sikorski, Aphidicolin inhibits eukaryotic DNA replication and repair implications for involvement of DNA polymerase a in both processes, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Cons. 89; 218 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Ooka, Thèse de Doctorat es Sciences, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon (1976).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Gentil
    • 1
  • G. Renault
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherches Scientifiques sur le CancerVillejuifFrance

Personalised recommendations