Abstract

Fission yeasts Schizosaccharomyces pombe possess two types of excision repair systems for UV-induced DNA damage, nucleotide excision repair (NER) and UV-damaged DNA endonuclease (UVDE)-dependent excision repair (UVER). Despite its high efficiency in damage removal, UVER defects have less effect on UV survival than NER defects. To understand the differential roles of two pathways, we examined strand-specific damage removal at the myo2 and rpb2 loci. Although NER removes cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers from the transcribed strand more rapidly than from the nontranscribed strand, UVER repairs cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers equally on both strands and at a much higher rate than NER. The low rate of damage removal from the nontranscribed strand in the absence of UVER indicates inefficient global genome repair (GGR) in this organism and a possible function of UVER as an alternative to GGR. Disruption of rhp26, the S. pombe homolog of CSB/RAD26, eliminated the strand bias of NER almost completely and resulted in a significant increase of UV sensitivity of cells in a uvdeDelta background. We suggest that the combination of transcription-coupled repair of NER and rapid UVER contributes to UV survival in growing S. pombe cells, which is accomplished by transcription-coupled repair and GGR in other organisms.

Highlights

  • Research on mammalian cells and budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has allowed us to draw a general picture of nucleotide excision repair (NER)1 for UV- or chemical-induced damage on DNA in eukaryotes

  • By using an immunological damage assay, we found that UVDE-dependent excision repair (UVER) removes cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) and (6-4) PPs, which are the major DNA damage induced by UV, from bulk DNA more rapidly than does NER, in terms of UV survival, the contribution of NER is greater (Ref. 13 and Fig. 5a of this paper)

  • NER-deficient rad13⌬ cells were able to repair CPDs on both strands with a comparable rate to wild type cells. This implies that UVER is the major component of CPD removal in wild type S. pombe cells, which is consistent with our previous result (13), and that there is no clear transcription dependence in UVER (Fig. 1, rad13⌬)

Read more

Summary

TABLE I Strains used in this work

Genotype hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rad13⌬::ura hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rad13⌬::ura uvde⌬::LEU2 hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu uvde⌬::LEU2 hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rhp26⌬::ura hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rhp26⌬::ura uvde⌬::LEU2 hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rad3⌬::ura hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rad3⌬::ura uvde⌬::LEU2 hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rad3⌬::ura rad13⌬::ura hϩ ade6-M216 ura4-D18 leu rad3⌬::ura rad13⌬::ura uvde⌬::LEU2. S. pombe and demonstrates remarkably inefficient GGR. We have identified the Rad26/CSB homolog of S. pombe and showed its involvement in TCR of this organism. We have examined several possibilities that would explain the differential contribution of the two excision repair systems to UV survival. Our result suggests that the existence or the absence of transcription dependence at least partially accounts for the differential effect of NER and UVER. We show that UVER acts as an alternative to GGR, especially in growing phase

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call