4.5 Article

Adenine-DNA Adducts Derived from the Highly Tumorigenic Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene Are Resistant to Nucleotide Excision Repair while Guanine Adducts Are Not

期刊

CHEMICAL RESEARCH IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 783-793

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/tx400080k

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health [RO1-CA099194, RO1-CA28038]
  2. NCI Chemical Carcinogen Storage Facility at Pennsylvania State University [NO2-CB-81013-74]
  3. NIH [RO1-CA75449]
  4. National Center for Research Resources, NIH [C06RR-16572]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structural origins of differences in susceptibilities of various DNA lesions to nucleotide excision repair (NER) are poorly understood. Here we compared, in the same sequence context, the relative NER dual incision efficiencies elicited by two stereochemically distinct pairs of guanine (N-2-dG) and adenine (N-6-dA) DNA lesions, derived from enantiomeric genotoxic diol epoxides of the highly tumorigenic fiord region polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon dibenzo[a,l]pyrene (DB[a,l]P). Remarkably, in cell-free HeLa cell extracts, the guanine adduct with R absolute chemistry at the N-2-dG linkage site is similar to 35 times more susceptible to NER dual incisions than the stereochemically identical N-6-dA adduct. For the guanine and adenine adducts with S stereochemistry, a similar but somewhat smaller effect (factor of similar to 15) is observed. The striking resistance of the bulky N-6-dA in contrast to the modest to good susceptibilities of the N-2-dG adducts to NER is interpreted in terms of the balance between lesion-induced DNA distorting and DNA stabilizing van der Waals interactions in their structures, that are partly reflected in the overall thermal stabilities of the modified duplexes. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the high genotoxic activity of DB[a,l]P is related to the formation of NER-resistant and persistent DB[a,l]P-derived adenine adducts in cellular DNA.

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

4.5
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