4.3 Article

Cooperative responses of DNA-damage-activated protein kinases ATR and ATM and DNA translesion polymerases to replication-blocking DNA damage in a stem-cell niche

期刊

DNA REPAIR
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 1272-1281

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2011.10.001

关键词

Stem cells; DNA translesion synthesis; Checkpoints; Programmed cell death; DNA repair; DNA lesions; Tissue growth homeostasis

资金

  1. national Science Foundation [MCB 03455061]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conserved DNA-damage responses (DDRs) efficiently cope with replication blocks and double-strand breaks (DSBs) in cultured eukaryotic cells; DDRs in tissues remain poorly understood. DDR-inactivating mutations lethal in animals are tolerated in Arabidopsis, whose root meristem provides a powerful stem-cell-niche model. We imaged UVB-induced death of specific meristem cells in single and double Arabidopsis mutants to elucidate cooperation among DNA translesion synthesis (TLS) polymerases Pol eta, Pol zeta) and DNA-damage-activated protein kinases (ATR, ATM). Death was 100-fold higher in stem and progenitor (StPr) cells than in transiently amplifying cells. Quantitative analyses of dose-response plots showed that Pol eta and Pol zeta act redundantly to tolerate replication blocks and that Pol zeta-mediated TLS requires ATR. Deficient TLS resulted in ATM-signaled death, which first appeared 10-14 h post-UVB. Although ssDNA downstream of blocks was likely cleaved into DSBs throughout S phase, death pathways appeared to initiate late in S. In atm mutants death appeared much later, likely signaled by a slow ATR-dependent pathway. To bypass replication blocks, tissues may use TLS rather than error-free pathways that could generate genomic aberrations. Dynamic balances among ATR and ATM death-avoidance and death-signaling functions determine how many DSB-burdened StPr cells are killed. Their replacement by less-burdened quiescent-center cells then restores growth homeostasis. (C) 2011 Elsevier 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

4.3
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