4.8 Article

Ribonucleotides incorporated by the yeast mitochondrial DNA polymerase are not repaired

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713085114

关键词

DNA replication; dNTP; mitochondrial DNA; ribonucleotide incorporation; ribonucleotide excision repair

资金

  1. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research Grant [ICA14-0060]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2014-2262, 2014-6466]
  3. Swedish Society for Medical Research
  4. Wallenberg Foundation
  5. Swedish Cancer Society
  6. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) [ICA14-0060] Funding Source: Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Incorporation of ribonucleotides into DNA during genome replication is a significant source of genomic instability. The frequency of ribonucleotides in DNA is determined by deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate/ribonucleoside triphosphate (dNTP/rNTP) ratios, by the ability of DNA polymerases to discriminate against ribonucleotides, and by the capacity of repair mechanisms to remove incorporated ribonucleotides. To simultaneously compare how the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes incorporate and remove ribonucleotides, we challenged these processes by changing the balance of cellular dNTPs. Using a collection of yeast strains with altered dNTP pools, we discovered an inverse relationship between the concentration of individual dNTPs and the amount of the corresponding ribonucleotides incorporated in mitochondrial DNA, while in nuclear DNA the ribonucleotide pattern was only altered in the absence of ribonucleotide excision repair. Our analysis uncovers major differences in ribonucleotide repair between the two genomes and provides concrete evidence that yeast mitochondria lack mechanisms for removal of ribonucleotides incorporated by the mtDNA polymerase. Furthermore, as cytosolic dNTP pool imbalances were transmitted equally well into the nucleus and the mitochondria, our results support a view of the cytosolic and mitochondrial dNTP pools in frequent exchange.

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