4.8 Article

Nucleotide incorporation by human DNA polymerase gamma opposite benzo[a]pyrene and benzo[c]phenanthrene diol epoxide adducts of deoxyguanosine and deoxyadenosine

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 397-405

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkh213

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [Z01DK031104] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [ZIAES065078, Z01ES065078] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondria are major cellular targets of benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), a known carcinogen that also inhibits mitochondrial proliferation. Here, we report for the first time the effect of site-specific N-2-deoxyguanosine (dG) and N-6-deoxyadenosine (dA) adducts derived from BaP 7,8-diol 9,10-epoxide (BaP DE) and dA adducts from benzo[c]phenanthrene 3,4-diol 1,2-epoxide (BcPh DE) on DNA replication by exonuclease-deficient human mitochondrial DNA polymerase (pol gamma) with and without the p55 processivity subunit. The catalytic subunit alone primarily misincorporated dAMP and dGMP opposite the BaP DE-dG adducts, and incorporated the correct dTMP as well as the incorrect dAMP opposite the DE-dA adducts derived from both BaP and BcPh. In the presence of p55 the polymerase incorporated all four nucleotides and catalyzed limited translesion synthesis past BaP DE-dG adducts but not past BaP or BcPh DE-dA adducts. Thus, all these adducts cause erroneous purine incorporation and significant blockage of further primer elongation. Purine misincorporation by pol gamma opposite the BaP DE-dG adducts resembles that observed with the Y family pol eta. Blockage of translesion synthesis by these DE adducts is consistent with known BaP inhibition of mitochondrial (mt)DNA synthesis and suggests that continued exposure to BaP reduces mtDNA copy number, increasing the opportunity for repopulation with pre-existing mutant mtDNA and a resultant risk of mitochondrial genetic diseases.

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