3.8 Article

The SOS-dependent upregulation of uvrD is not required for efficient nucleotide excision repair of ultraviolet light induced DNA photoproducts in Escherichia coli

期刊

MUTATION RESEARCH-DNA REPAIR
卷 485, 期 4, 页码 319-329

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8777(01)00068-4

关键词

excision repair; UvrD; helicase II; transcription-coupled repair; SOS response; UV damage

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA44349] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM07276] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have shown previously that induction of the SOS response is required for efficient nucleotide excision repair (NER) of the major ultraviolet light (UV) induced DNA lesion, the cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD), but not for repair of 6-4 photoproducts (6-4PP) or for transcription-coupled repair of CPDs [1]. We have proposed that the upregulation of cellular NER capacity occurs in the early stages of the SOS response and enhances the rate of repair of the abundant yet poorly recognized genomic CPDs. The expression of three NER genes, uvrA, uvrB, and uvrD, is upregulated as part of the SOS response. UvrD differs from the others in that it is not involved in lesion recognition but rather in promoting the post-incision steps of NER, including turnover of the UvrBC incision complex. Since uvrC is not induced during the SOS response, its turnover would seem to be of great importance in promoting efficient NER. Here we show that the constitutive level of UvrD is adequate for carrying out efficient NER of both CPDs and 6-4PPs. Thus, the upregulation of uvrA and uvrB genes during the SOS response is sufficient for inducible NER of CPDs. We also show that cells with a limited NER capacity, in this case due to deletion of the uvrD gene, repair 6-4PPs but cannot perform transcription-coupled repair of CPDs, indicating that the 6-4PP is a better substrate for NER than is a CPD targeted for transcription-coupled repair. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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