4.8 Article

RecA-independent recombination is efficient but limited by exonucleases

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0608293104

关键词

DNA rearrangements; DNA repair; genetic recombination; genetic exchange; replication fork repair

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM043889, R01 GM051753, R01 GM43889, R01 GM51753] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic recombination in bacteria is facilitated by the RecA strand transfer protein and strongly depends on the homology between interacting sequences. RecA-independent recombination is detectable but occurs at extremely low frequencies and is less responsive to the extent of homology. In this article, we show that RecA-independent recombination in Escherichia coli is depressed by the redundant action of single-strand exonucleases. In the absence of multiple single-strand exonucleases, the efficiency of RecA-independent recombination events, involving either gene conversion or crossing-over, is markedly increased to levels rivaling RecA-dependent events. This finding suggests that RecA-independent recombination is not intrinsically inefficient but is limited by single-strand DNA substrate availability. Crossing-over is inhibited by exonucleases ExoI, ExoVII, ExoX, and RecJ, whereas only ExoI and RecJ abort gene-conversion events. In ExoI(-) RecJ(-) strains, gene conversion can be accomplished by transformation of short single-strand DNA oligonucleotides and is more efficient when the oligonucleotide is complementary to the lagging-strand replication template. We propose that E. coli encodes an unknown mechanism for RecA-independent recombination (independent of prophage recombination systems) that is targeted to replication forks. The potential of RecA-independent recombination to mediate exchange at short homologies suggests that it may contribute significantly to genomic change in bacteria, especially in species with reduced cellular exonuclease activity or those that encode DNA protection factors.

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