4.6 Article

A Simulated Shift Work Schedule Does Not Increase DNA Double-Strand Break Repair by NHEJ in the Drosophila Rr3 System

Journal

GENES
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes13010150

Keywords

circadian rhythm; DNA repair; mutation; NHEJ; Drosophila

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Long-term shift work is believed to increase the risk of certain cancers, but the association with circadian rhythm disruption and DNA repair pathways is not well understood. An experiment on fruit flies suggests that circadian disruption does not significantly alter the usage of mutagenic DNA repair pathways.
Long-term shift work is widely believed to increase the risk of certain cancers, but conflicting findings between studies render this association unclear. Evidence of interplay between the circadian clock, cell cycle regulation, and DNA damage detection machinery suggests the possibility that circadian rhythm disruption consequent to shift work could alter the DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathway usage to favor mutagenic non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair. To test this hypothesis, we compared relative usage of NHEJ and single-strand annealing (SSA) repair of a complementary ended chromosomal double-stranded break using the Repair Reporter 3 (Rr3) system in Drosophila between flies reared on 12:12 and 8:8 (simulated shift work) light:dark schedules. Actimetric analysis showed that the 8:8 light:dark schedule effectively disrupted the rhythms in locomotor output. Inaccurate NHEJ repair was not a frequent outcome in this system overall, and no significant difference was seen in the usage of NHEJ or SSA repair between the control and simulated shift work schedules. We conclude that this circadian disruption regimen does not alter the usage of mutagenic NHEJ DSB repair in the Drosophila male pre-meiotic germline, in the context of the Rr3 system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available