Lesion processing: high-fidelity versus lesion-bypass DNA polymerases.

Department of Biology, New York University, 100 Washington Square East, 1009 Silver Center, New York, NY 10003, USA. <>
Trends in Biochemical Sciences (Impact Factor: 13.52). 06/2008; 33(5):209-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2008.02.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT When a high-fidelity DNA polymerase encounters certain DNA-damage sites, its progress can be stalled and one or more lesion-bypass polymerases are recruited to transit the lesion. Here, we consider two representative types of lesions: (i) 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG), a small, highly prevalent lesion caused by oxidative damage; and (ii) bulky lesions derived from the environmental pre-carcinogen benzo[a]pyrene, in the high-fidelity DNA polymerase Bacillus fragment (BF) from Bacillus stearothermophilus and in the lesion-bypass DNA polymerase IV (Dpo4) from Sulfolobus solfataricus. The tight fit of the BF polymerase around the nascent base pair contrasts with the more spacious, solvent-exposed active site of Dpo4, and these differences in architecture result in distinctions in their respective functions: one-step versus stepwise polymerase translocation, mutagenic versus accurate bypass of 8-oxoG, and polymerase stalling versus mutagenic bypass at bulky benzo[a]pyrene-derived lesions.

Download full-text


Available from: Olga Rechkoblit, Jun 25, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A key element during the flow of genetic information in living systems is fidelity. The accuracy of DNA replication influences the genome size as well as the rate of genome evolution. The large amount of energy invested in gene expression implies that fidelity plays a major role in fitness. On the other hand, an increase in fidelity generally coincides with a decrease in velocity. Hence, an important determinant of the evolution of life has been the establishment of a delicate balance between fidelity and variability. This paper reviews the current knowledge on quality control in archaeal information processing. While the majority of these processes are homologous in Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryotes, examples are provided of nonorthologous factors and processes operating in the archaeal domain. In some instances, evidence for the existence of certain fidelity mechanisms has been provided, but the factors involved still remain to be identified.
    Archaea 09/2010; 2010. DOI:10.1155/2010/960298 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interstrand DNA crosslinks (ICLs) are formed by natural products of metabolism and by chemotherapeutic reagents. Work in E. coli identified a two cycle repair scheme involving incisions on one strand on either side of the ICL (unhooking) producing a gapped intermediate with the incised oligonucleotide attached to the intact strand. The gap is filled by recombinational repair or lesion bypass synthesis. The remaining monoadduct is then removed by nucleotide excision repair (NER). Despite considerable effort, our understanding of each step in mammalian cells is still quite limited. In part this reflects the variety of crosslinking compounds, each with distinct structural features, used by different investigators. Also, multiple repair pathways are involved, variably operative during the cell cycle. G(1) phase repair requires functions from NER, although the mechanism of recognition has not been determined. Repair can be initiated by encounters with the transcriptional apparatus, or a replication fork. In the case of the latter, the reconstruction of a replication fork, stalled or broken by collision with an ICL, adds to the complexity of the repair process. The enzymology of unhooking, the identity of the lesion bypass polymerases required to fill the first repair gap, and the functions involved in the second repair cycle are all subjects of active inquiry. Here we will review current understanding of each step in ICL repair in mammalian cells.
    Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 02/2010; 45(1):23-49. DOI:10.3109/10409230903501819 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source