4.1 Article

Efficient repair of DNA double-strand breaks in malignant cells with structural instability

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2009.10.016

关键词

DNA double-strand break (DSB); Chromosomal rearrangement; I-SceI; Ovarian cancer

资金

  1. NIH, NCI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aberrant repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is thought to be important in the generation of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs). To examine how DNA DSBs might lead to GCRs, we investigated the repair of a single DNA DSB in a structurally unstable cell line. An I-SceI recognition site was introduced into OVCAR-8 cells between a constitutive promoter (EF1 alpha) and the Herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (TK) gene, which confers sensitivity to gancyclovir (GCV). Expression of I-SceI in these cells caused a single DSB. Clones with aberrant repair could acquire resistance to GCV by separation of the EF1 alpha promoter from the TK gene, or deletion of either the EF1 alpha promoter or the TK gene. All mutations that we identified were interstitial deletions. Treatment of cells with etoposide or bleomycin, agents known to produce DNA DSBs following expression of I-SceI also did not generate GCRs. Because we identified solely interstitial deletions using the aforementioned negative selection system, we developed a positive selection system to produce GCR. A construct containing an I-SceI restriction site immediately followed by a hygromycin phosphotransferase cDNA, with no promoter, was stably integrated into OVCAR-8 cells. DNA DSBs were produced by an I-SceI expression vector. None of the hygromycin resistant clones recovered had linked the hygromycin phosphotransferase cDNA to an endogenous promoter, but had instead captured a portion of the I-SceI expression vector. These results indicate that even in a structurally unstable malignant cell line, the majority of DNA DSBs are repaired by religation of the two broken chromosome ends, without the introduction of a GCR. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据