DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Genotoxicity in Carcinogenesis David M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Genotoxicity in Carcinogenesis David M part 2. mechanisms of carcinogenesis chapter 12. The role of genotoxicity in carcinogenesis David M. DeMarini PART 2 CHAPTER 12 The process of mutagenesis be called DNA-damaging agents. of a molecule between a pair of Instead, it is the cell that produces bases. Again, DNA damage is itself The process of agent-induced mu- the mutation – either through faulty not a mutation and generally does tagenesis consists of three parts: the DNA repair of the mutagen-induced not alter the linear sequence of nu- induction of DNA damage, the sen- or spontaneous DNA damage, or cleotides. A mutation is defined as a sing of the DNA damage by the cell by replicating past the unrepaired change in the sequence or number (the DNA damage response), and DNA damage, thereby introducing a of nucleotides in the DNA. the processing of the DNA damage replication error (Shaughnessy and When DNA damage occurs, the by the cell, which may or may not DeMarini, 2009). cell detects it by means of the DNA result in a mutation. A key under- A description of the process of damage response system and de- lying concept is that mutagenesis is mutagenesis begins with the induc- termines how it will be processed; a cellular process, frequently invol- tion of DNA damage by an endoge- the DNA damage response includes ving DNA replication. Another key nous or exogenous event. Examples DNA repair and apoptosis path- concept is that there is a distinct dif- of DNA damage are DNA adducts ways, which are described in detail ference between DNA damage and (i.e. a molecule bound covalently to by Ciccia and Elledge (2010). The mutation. Thus, mutagens, despite DNA) and single- or double-strand DNA damage response can mediate what their name suggests, generally breaks (i.e. breakage of the phos- the repair of the damage, attempt to do not produce mutations; instead, phodiester backbone). Other types repair the damage but instead pro- mutagens produce DNA damage, of DNA damage are oxidized or frag- cess it into a mutation, or direct the and they might more appropriately mented bases and the intercalation cell to undergo apoptosis. Another Part 2 • Chapter 12. The role of genotoxicity in carcinogenesis 107 possibility is that the damage is not induces mutations in a mutation integrated viral genome (Todaro and repaired at all, and when the cell rep- assay permits it to be classified as Huebner, 1972), and alteration of im- licates, the DNA polymerase correct- mutagenic. munological factors by carcinogens, ly bypasses the damage, resulting in permitting the formation and growth a normal DNA sequence. A brief history of the nexus of tumours (Baldwin, 1973). As time between mutagens and The cell can process DNA dam- has shown, all of the above-men- carcinogens age into three general classes or tioned mechanisms can play a role in the carcinogenic process, espe- types of mutation: gene mutation As reviewed by Claxton et al. (2010), cially in the light of the accumulating (mutations that occur within a gene), there was little direct evidence for evidence for the important role of chromosomal mutation (mutations the role of mutagenesis in carcino- epigenetic mechanisms (Baylin and involving more than one gene, typ- genesis until the early 1970s, and Jones, 2011). ically called chromosomal aberra- before that time only a few carcino- How did the paradigm shift occur tions), and genomic mutation (mu- gens had been shown to be muta- that showed a connection between tations involving the whole genome gens (Burdette, 1955). Indeed, it is mutagenesis and carcinogenesis? – generally aneuploidy, which is surprising to recall that at the time it The first screening studies to test the gain or loss of a whole chromo- was somewhat bold to propose that some). The standard definition of a there was any direct connection be- the hypothesis that some carcino- gens might also be mutagens were gene refers to a segment of DNA that tween the two processes (Miller and performed by Demerec et al. (1951) codes for an mRNA that codes for a Miller, 1971; Knudson, 1973). Many in Escherichia coli and then by protein. The recent Encyclopedia of studies in the 1950s and 1960s Szybalski (1958), who tested more DNA Elements (ENCODE) project showed binding of carcinogens to nu- than 400 compounds in E. coli. indicates that at least 80% of the cleic acids (Wiest and Heidelberger, Although additional testing proceed- human genome is transcriptionally 1953; Brookes and Lawley, 1964). ed throughout the 1960s in a varie- active, but only a small proportion However, before 1972 there was no ty of systems in bacteria, fungi, and of the expressed regions code for direct proof that the electrophilicity mammalian cells, few carcinogens protein (Maurano et al., 2012). of some chemical carcinogens had other than the direct-acting alkylating In the context of the process of a necessary role in the potential mu- tagenic activity of such compounds, agents were found to be mutagens, mutagenesis described above, the or even that DNA, as opposed to leading to the conclusion that carcin- term “mutagen” refers to an agent protein, was the ultimate target of ogens were generally not mutagenic. that can induce DNA damage that carcinogens (Miller, 1970). However, this view began to shift the cell processes into a mutation. Although sound theoretical rea- when Malling (1966) combined a The more general term “genotox- sons had been proposed to support chemical hydroxylating mixture with in” refers to an agent that induces the notion that carcinogens might act the carcinogens diethylnitrosamine DNA damage that may or may not through a mutagenic mechanism, and dimethylnitrosamine, which be processed by the cell into a mu- a clear demonstration of this con- were not mutagenic in vitro, and tation. Some assays for genotoxici- nection did not yet exist (Miller and showed that the resulting metabo- ty, for example, measure only DNA Miller, 1971). Thus, binding to DNA of lites were mutagenic in the fungus 32 damage, such as P-postlabelling metabolites of carcinogens had been Neurospora crassa. Malling (1971) and the comet assay, whereas oth- identified, but there were no data to then prepared an enzymatic activa- er assays measure mutation, such show that these DNA adducts were tion system composed of the super- as the Salmonella typhimurium re- processed into mutations or that mu- natant from mouse liver homogenate verse mutation test, the Hprt gene tations themselves played a role in centrifuged at 30 000g (microsomes) mutation assay in Chinese hamster carcinogenesis. Consequently, mu- plus cofactors, and showed that di- ovary cells, and transgenic mouse tagenesis was viewed at that time as methylnitrosamine was mutagenic mutation assays. Thus, finding that an equally plausible mechanism for in S. typhimurium in a liquid suspen- an agent induces DNA damage carcinogenesis, along with epigenet- sion assay in the presence of this ac- would permit it to be called genotox- ic changes (Miller, 1970; Miller and tivation mixture. Additional evidence ic, and showing that the agent also Miller, 1971), altered expression of an that carcinogens could be mutagens 108 after mammalian metabolism was Indeed, a comprehensive analysis present at high frequencies in tu- provided by Legator and Malling showed that more than 90% of the mours, DNA sequencing methods (1971) with the host-mediated assay. IARC Group 1 chemical carcinogens were introduced in 1977 (Pettersson Ames et al. (1972) introduced the are genotoxic (Waters et al., 1999). et al., 2009), which provided the tech- use of the plate incorporation assay The current genetic toxicity test nical means to directly determine the in Salmonella and demonstrated that battery is based on this relationship presence and types of mutations in DNA-reactive metabolites of known between mutagenesis and carcino- any gene or chromosome. carcinogens were direct-acting mu- genesis. Consequently, mutagenic- DNA sequencing of mutations tagens. The connection between ity assays continue to be used as induced in selected genes by a lim- mutagenesis and carcinogenesis a potential screen for carcinogens, ited number of mutagenic carcino- was extended when Ames et al. and the results are used for regula- gens in microbes in the 1980s and in (1973) combined a rat liver homoge- tory purposes throughout the world mammalian cells and tumours in the nate centrifuged at 9000g (S9 frac- (Eastmond et al., 2009). For exam- 1990s began to show that any par- tion) plus cofactors prepared as de- ple, a positive result in the Salmonella ticular mutagen produced an array scribed by Garner et al. (1972) with mutagenicity assay indicates a 70% of mutations and that these varied Salmonella and a variety of rodent probability that the test chemical is among the genes and cells exam- carcinogens then considered to be a rodent carcinogen (Zeiger, 1998). ined. A variety of mutagens produce non-mutagenic in the plate incorpo- When a randomly selected set of similar mutation spectra, and the PART 2 ration assay and showed that these 100 organic compounds was tested predominant base substitution that CHAPTER 12 carcinogens were, in fact, muta- in the Salmonella mutagenicity as- an agent induces in one system genic. Additional refinements of the say, about 20% of them were posi- is generally the same one that the Salmonella tester strains and the tive (Zeiger and Margolin, 2000). agent produces predominantly in all conduct of multiple testing studies, Thus, out of an estimated 80 000 other systems across the phyloge- involving not only Salmonella but such compounds in commercial use, netic scale, from bacteria to humans also other test systems (Tennant 16 000 (20%) may be positive for (DeMarini, 1998, 2000). Thus, in et al., 1987), resulted in the current mutagenicity in the Salmonella mu- terms of the predominant base sub- recognition that many carcinogens, tagenicity assay, and 11 200 (70%) stitution produced by agents, there is by themselves or after metabolic of those may be potential rodent concordance across species in that activation, are mutagens, and that carcinogens.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 14: Functional Genomics Learning Objectives
    Chapter 14: Functional Genomics Learning objectives Upon reading this chapter, you should be able to: ■ define functional genomics; ■ describe the key features of eight model organisms; ■ explain techniques of forward and reverse genetics; ■ discuss the relation between the central dogma and functional genomics; and ■ describe proteomics-based approaches to functional genomics. Outline : Functional genomics Introduction Relation between genotype and phenotype Eight model organisms E. coli; yeast; Arabidopsis; C. elegans; Drosophila; zebrafish; mouse; human Functional genomics using reverse and forward genetics Reverse genetics: mouse knockouts; yeast; gene trapping; insertional mutatgenesis; gene silencing Forward genetics: chemical mutagenesis Functional genomics and the central dogma Approaches to function; Functional genomics and DNA; …and RNA; …and protein Proteomic approaches to functional genomics CASP; protein-protein interactions; protein networks Perspective Albert Blakeslee (1874–1954) studied the effect of altered chromosome numbers on the phenotype of the jimson-weed Datura stramonium, a flowering plant. Introduction: Functional genomics Functional genomics is the genome-wide study of the function of DNA (including both genes and non-genic regions), as well as RNA and proteins encoded by DNA. The term “functional genomics” may apply to • the genome, transcriptome, or proteome • the use of high-throughput screens • the perturbation of gene function • the complex relationship of genotype and phenotype Functional genomics approaches to high throughput analyses Relationship between genotype and phenotype The genotype of an individual consists of the DNA that comprises the organism. The phenotype is the outward manifestation in terms of properties such as size, shape, movement, and physiology. We can consider the phenotype of a cell (e.g., a precursor cell may develop into a brain cell or liver cell) or the phenotype of an organism (e.g., a person may have a disease phenotype such as sickle‐cell anemia).
    [Show full text]
  • Mutational Signatures: Emerging Concepts, Caveats and Clinical Applications
    REVIEWS Mutational signatures: emerging concepts, caveats and clinical applications Gene Koh 1,2, Andrea Degasperi 1,2, Xueqing Zou1,2, Sophie Momen1,2 and Serena Nik-Zainal 1,2 ✉ Abstract | Whole-genome sequencing has brought the cancer genomics community into new territory. Thanks to the sheer power provided by the thousands of mutations present in each patient’s cancer, we have been able to discern generic patterns of mutations, termed ‘mutational signatures’, that arise during tumorigenesis. These mutational signatures provide new insights into the causes of individual cancers, revealing both endogenous and exogenous factors that have influenced cancer development. This Review brings readers up to date in a field that is expanding in computational, experimental and clinical directions. We focus on recent conceptual advances, underscoring some of the caveats associated with using the mutational signature frameworks and highlighting the latest experimental insights. We conclude by bringing attention to areas that are likely to see advancements in clinical applications. The concept of mutational signatures was introduced or drug therapies, in an attempt to decipher causes7–9. in 2012 following the demonstration that analy­ However, the origins of many signatures remain cryp­ sis of all substitution mutations in a set of 21 whole­ tic. Furthermore, while earlier analyses reported single genome­sequenced (WGS) breast cancers could reveal signatures, for example of UV radiation (that is, SBS7)2, consistent patterns of mutagenesis across tumours1 more recent studies reported multiple versions of these (FIG. 1a). These patterns were the physiological imprints signatures (that is, SBS7a, SBS7b, SBS7c and SBS7d)3, of DNA damage and repair processes that had occurred leading the community to question whether some find­ during tumorigenesis and could distinguish BRCA1­null ings are reflective of biology or are simply mathemat­ and BRCA2­null tumours from sporadic breast cancers.
    [Show full text]
  • Krifka Publikation Glanzlicht 09
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Biomaterials 32 (2011) 1787e1795 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biomaterials journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biomaterials Activation of stress-regulated transcription factors by triethylene glycol dimethacrylate monomer Stephanie Krifka a, Christine Petzel a, Carola Bolay a, Karl-Anton Hiller a, Gianrico Spagnuolo b, Gottfried Schmalz a, Helmut Schweikl a,* a Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Regensburg, D-93042 Regensburg, Germany b Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy article info abstract Article history: Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) is a resin monomer available for short exposure scenarios of Received 22 October 2010 oral tissues due to incomplete polymerization processes of dental composite materials. The generation of Accepted 14 November 2010 reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the presence of resin monomers is discussed as a common mechanism Available online 10 December 2010 underlying cellular reactions as diverse as disturbed responses of the innate immune system, inhibition of dentin mineralization processes, genotoxicity and a delayed cell cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food
    WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE EHC240: Principles and Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food SUBCHAPTER 4.5. Genotoxicity Draft 12/12/2019 Deadline for comments 31/01/2020 The contents of this restricted document may not be divulged to persons other than those to whom it has been originally addressed. It may not be further distributed nor reproduced in any manner and should not be referenced in bibliographical matter or cited. Le contenu du présent document à distribution restreinte ne doit pas être divulgué à des personnes autres que celles à qui il était initialement destiné. Il ne saurait faire l’objet d’une redistribution ou d’une reproduction quelconque et ne doit pas figurer dans une bibliographie ou être cité. Hazard Identification and Characterization 4.5 Genotoxicity ................................................................................. 3 4.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................ 3 4.5.1.1 Risk Analysis Context and Problem Formulation .. 5 4.5.2 Tests for genetic toxicity ............................................... 14 4.5.2.2 Bacterial mutagenicity ............................................. 18 4.5.2.2 In vitro mammalian cell mutagenicity .................... 18 4.5.2.3 In vivo mammalian cell mutagenicity ..................... 20 4.5.2.4 In vitro chromosomal damage assays .................. 22 4.5.2.5 In vivo chromosomal damage assays ................... 23 4.5.2.6 In vitro DNA damage/repair assays ....................... 24 4.5.2.7 In vivo DNA damage/repair assays ....................... 25 4.5.3 Interpretation of test results ......................................... 26 4.5.3.1 Identification of relevant studies............................. 27 4.5.3.2 Presentation and categorization of results ........... 30 4.5.3.3 Weighting and integration of results .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Gene Therapy Glossary of Terms
    GENE THERAPY GLOSSARY OF TERMS A • Phase 3: A phase of research to describe clinical trials • Allele: one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that that gather more information about a drug’s safety and arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a effectiveness by studying different populations and chromosome. different dosages and by using the drug in combination • Adeno-Associated Virus: A single stranded DNA virus that has with other drugs. These studies typically involve more not been found to cause disease in humans. This type of virus participants.7 is the most frequently used in gene therapy.1 • Phase 4: A phase of research to describe clinical trials • Adenovirus: A member of a family of viruses that can cause occurring after FDA has approved a drug for marketing. infections in the respiratory tract, eye, and gastrointestinal They include post market requirement and commitment tract. studies that are required of or agreed to by the study • Adeno-Associated Virus Vector: Adeno viruses used as sponsor. These trials gather additional information about a vehicles for genes, whose core genetic material has been drug’s safety, efficacy, or optimal use.8 removed and replaced by the FVIII- or FIX-gene • Codon: a sequence of three nucleotides in DNA or RNA • Amino Acids: building block of a protein that gives instructions to add a specific amino acid to an • Antibody: a protein produced by immune cells called B-cells elongating protein in response to a foreign molecule; acts by binding to the • CRISPR: a family of DNA sequences that can be cleaved by molecule and often making it inactive or targeting it for specific enzymes, and therefore serve as a guide to cut out destruction and insert genes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limitations of DNA Interstrand Cross-Link Repair in Escherichia Coli
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 7-12-2018 The Limitations of DNA Interstrand Cross-link Repair in Escherichia coli Jessica Michelle Cole Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Biology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Cole, Jessica Michelle, "The Limitations of DNA Interstrand Cross-link Repair in Escherichia coli" (2018). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4489. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6373 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. The Limitations of DNA Interstrand Cross-link Repair in Escherichia coli by Jessica Michelle Cole A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology Thesis Committee: Justin Courcelle, Chair Jeffrey Singer Rahul Raghavan Portland State University 2018 i Abstract DNA interstrand cross-links are a form of genomic damage that cause a block to replication and transcription of DNA in cells and cause lethality if unrepaired. Chemical agents that induce cross-links are particularly effective at inactivating rapidly dividing cells and, because of this, have been used to treat hyperproliferative skin disorders such as psoriasis as well as a variety of cancers. However, evidence for the removal of cross- links from DNA as well as resistance to cross-link-based chemotherapy suggests the existence of a cellular repair mechanism.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Genetic Toxicology Workshop How Many Doses of an Ames
    FDA Genetic Toxicology Workshop How many doses of an Ames- Positive/Mutagenic (DNA Reactive) Drug can be safely administered to Healthy Subjects? November 4, 2019 Enrollment of Healthy Subjects into First-In-Human phase 1 clinical trials • Healthy subjects are commonly enrolled into First-In-Human (FIH) phase 1 clinical trials of new drug candidates. • Studies are typically short (few days up to 2 weeks) • Treatment may be continuous or intermittent (e.g., washout period of 5 half- lives between doses) • Receive no benefits and potentially exposed to significant health risks • Patients will be enrolled in longer phase 2 and 3 trials • Advantages of conducting trials with healthy subjects include: • investigation of pharmacokinetics (PK)/bioavailability in the absence of other potentially confounding drugs • data not confounded by disease • Identification of maximum tolerated dose • reduction in patient exposure to ineffective drugs or doses • rapid subject accrual into a study 2 Supporting Nonclinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Studies • The supporting nonclinical data package for a new IND includes • pharmacology studies (in vitro and in vivo) • safety pharmacology studies (hERG, ECG, cardiovascular, and respiratory) • secondary pharmacology studies • TK/ADME studies (in vitro and in vivo) • 14- to 28-day toxicology studies in a rodent and non-rodent • standard battery of genetic toxicity studies (Ames bacterial reverse mutation assay, in vitro mammalian cell assay, and an in vivo micronucleus assay) • Toxicology studies are used to • select clinical doses that are adequately supported by the data • assist with clinical monitoring • Genetic toxicity studies are used for hazard identification • Cancer drugs are often presumed to be genotoxic and genetic toxicity studies are generally not required for clinical trials in cancer patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Transposon Insertion Mutagenesis in Mice for Modeling Human Cancers: Critical Insights Gained and New Opportunities
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Transposon Insertion Mutagenesis in Mice for Modeling Human Cancers: Critical Insights Gained and New Opportunities Pauline J. Beckmann 1 and David A. Largaespada 1,2,3,4,* 1 Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; [email protected] 2 Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA 3 Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA 4 Center for Genome Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-612-626-4979; Fax: +1-612-624-3869 Received: 3 January 2020; Accepted: 3 February 2020; Published: 10 February 2020 Abstract: Transposon mutagenesis has been used to model many types of human cancer in mice, leading to the discovery of novel cancer genes and insights into the mechanism of tumorigenesis. For this review, we identified over twenty types of human cancer that have been modeled in the mouse using Sleeping Beauty and piggyBac transposon insertion mutagenesis. We examine several specific biological insights that have been gained and describe opportunities for continued research. Specifically, we review studies with a focus on understanding metastasis, therapy resistance, and tumor cell of origin. Additionally, we propose further uses of transposon-based models to identify rarely mutated driver genes across many cancers, understand additional mechanisms of drug resistance and metastasis, and define personalized therapies for cancer patients with obesity as a comorbidity. Keywords: animal modeling; cancer; transposon screen 1. Transposon Basics Until the mid of 1900’s, DNA was widely considered to be a highly stable, orderly macromolecule neatly organized into chromosomes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Repertoire of Mutational Signatures in Human Cancer
    Article The repertoire of mutational signatures in human cancer https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1943-3 Ludmil B. Alexandrov1,25, Jaegil Kim2,25, Nicholas J. Haradhvala2,3,25, Mi Ni Huang4,5,25, Alvin Wei Tian Ng4,5, Yang Wu4,5, Arnoud Boot4,5, Kyle R. Covington6,7, Dmitry A. Gordenin8, Received: 18 May 2018 Erik N. Bergstrom1, S. M. Ashiqul Islam1, Nuria Lopez-Bigas9,10,11, Leszek J. Klimczak12, Accepted: 18 November 2019 John R. McPherson4,5, Sandro Morganella13, Radhakrishnan Sabarinathan10,14,15, David A. Wheeler6,16, Ville Mustonen17,18,19, PCAWG Mutational Signatures Working Group20, Published online: 5 February 2020 Gad Getz2,3,21,22,26, Steven G. Rozen4,5,23,26*, Michael R. Stratton13,26* & PCAWG Consortium24 The number of DBSs is proportional to the number of SBSs, with few exceptions Open access Somatic mutations in cancer genomes are caused by multiple mutational processes, each of which generates a characteristic mutational signature1. Here, as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium2 of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we characterized mutational signatures using 84,729,690 somatic mutations from 4,645 whole-genome and 19,184 exome sequences that encompass most types of cancer. We identifed 49 single-base-substitution, 11 doublet-base-substitution, 4 clustered-base-substitution and 17 small insertion-and-deletion signatures. The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses3–15, enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated—but distinct—DNA damage, repair and/or replication mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Incision by Uvrabc Excinuclease Is a Step in the Path to Mutagenesis By
    Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 86, pp. 3982-3986, June 1989 Biochemistry Incision by UvrABC excinuclease is a step in the path to mutagenesis by psoralen crosslinks in Escherichia coli (plasmid mutagenesis/pSV2-gpt/homologous recombination/angelicin/deletions) FRANCES M. SLADEK*t, AGUSTIN MELIANt, AND PAUL HOWARD-FLANDERS§ Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 Communicated by Fred Sherman, February 21, 1989 (receivedfor review June 10, 1988) ABSTRACT 4,5',8-Trimethylpsoralen (psoralen) plus yield of SOS-dependent mutations (15, 16), which tend to be near UV light produces interstrand crosslinks and monoad- base-pair substitutions (17-19). ducts in DNA, both ofwhich are mutagenic. InEscherichia coil, The repair of crosslinks appears to occur by a sequential crosslinks are incised by UvrABC excinuclease, an event that excision-recombination mechanism (20, 21). In vitro studies can lead to homologous recombination and repair. To deter- show that crosslinked DNA is incised by the UvrABC exci- mine whether UvrABC incision of crosslinks is a step in the nuclease (22, 23) so that an 11-base oligonucleotide containing path to mutagenesis as well as repair, the effect of DNA the crosslink is left attached to an intact DNA strand (24). They homologous to a target gene on a plasmid was determined. also show that RecA-mediated strand exchange can proceed pSV2-gpt DNA was treated with psoralen and transformed into past the crosslinked oligonucleotide (25) and that a second a pair of hosts: one was gpt', the other was A(gpt-ac)5. The round of incision by UvrABC can release the psoralen moeity DNA was extracted and transformed into a tester strain from the DNA (25, 26).
    [Show full text]
  • S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use
    Guidance for Industry S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) June 2012 ICH Guidance for Industry S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use Additional copies are available from: Office of Communications Division of Drug Information, WO51, Room 2201 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 Phone: 301-796-3400; Fax: 301-847-8714 [email protected] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm and/or Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, HFM-40 Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448 http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm (Tel) 800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) June 2012 ICH Contains Nonbinding Recommendations TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (1)....................................................................................................... 1 A. Objectives of the Guidance (1.1)...................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Genotoxicity of Adriamycin and Menogarol, Two Anthracycline Antitumor Agents
    [CANCER RESEARCH 43, 5293-5297, November 1983] Comparative Genotoxicity of Adriamycin and Menogarol, Two Anthracycline Antitumor Agents B. K. Bhuyan,1 D. M. Zimmer, J. H. Mazurek, R. J. Trzos, P. R. Harbach, V. S. Shu, and M. A. Johnson Departments of Cancer Research [B. K. B.. D. M. Z.], Pathology and Toxicology Research [J. H. M., R. J. T., P. R. H.], and Biostatist/cs [V. S. S., M. A. J.], The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001 ABSTRACT murine tumors such as P388 and L1210 leukemias and B16 melanoma (13). However, the biochemical activity of Adriamycin Adriamycin and menogarol are anthracyclines which cause and menogarol were markedly different in the following respects, more than 100% increase in life span of mice bearing P388 (a) at cytotoxic doses, Adriamycin inhibited RNA synthesis much leukemia and B16 melanoma. Unlike Adriamycin, menogarol more than DNA synthesis in L1210 cells in culture (10). In does not bind strongly to ONA, and it minimally inhibits DNA and contrast, menogarol caused very little inhibition of RNA or DNA RNA synthesis at lethal doses. Adriamycin is a clinically active synthesis at cytotoxic doses (10); (b) Adriamycin interacted drug, and menogarol is undergoing preclinical toxicology at Na strongly with DNA, in contrast to the weak interaction seen with tional Cancer Institute. In view of the reported mutagenicity of menogarol (10); (c) cells in S phase were most sensitive to Adriamycin, we have compared the genotoxicity of the two Adriamycin as compared to maximum toxicity of menogarol to drugs. Our results show that, although Adriamycin and meno cells in Gì(5).These results collectively suggested that meno garol differ significantly in their bacterial mutagenicity (Ames garol acts through some mechanism other than the intercalative assay), they have similar genotoxic activity in several mammalian DNA binding proposed for Adriamycin.
    [Show full text]