4.8 Article

Yeast DNA polymerase ζ maintains consistent activity and mutagenicity across a wide range of physiological dNTP concentrations

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 1200-1218

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw1149

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [ES015869, GM032431, GM118129]
  2. Swedish Cancer Society
  3. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  4. Swedish Research Council
  5. University of Nebraska Medical Center Graduate Studies Assistantship/Fellowship
  6. NIH [ES015869]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In yeast, dNTP pools expand drastically during DNA damage response. We show that similar dNTP elevation occurs in strains, in which intrinsic replisome defects promote the participation of error-prone DNA polymerase zeta (Pol zeta) in replication of undamaged DNA. To understand the significance of dNTP pools increase for Pol zeta function, we studied the activity and fidelity of four-subunit Pol zeta (Pol zeta(4)) and Pol zeta(4)-Rev1 (Pol zeta(5)) complexes in vitro at 'normal S-phase' and 'damage-response' dNTP concentrations. The presence of Rev1 inhibited the activity of Pol zeta and greatly increased the rate of all three 'X-dCTP' mispairs, which Pol zeta(4) alone made extremely inefficiently. Both Pol zeta(4) and Pol zeta(5) were most promiscuous at G nucleotides and frequently generated multiple closely spaced sequence changes. Surprisingly, the shift from 'S-phase' to 'damage-response' dNTP levels only minimally affected the activity, fidelity and error specificity of Pol zeta complexes. Moreover, Pol zeta dependent mutagenesis triggered by replisome defects or UV irradiation in vivo was not decreased when dNTP synthesis was suppressed by hydroxyurea, indicating that Pol zeta function does not require high dNTP levels. The results support a model wherein dNTP elevation is needed to facilitate nonmutagenic tolerance pathways, while Pol zeta synthesis represents a unique mechanism of rescuing stalled replication when dNTP supply is low.

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

4.8
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