Restriction of DNA replication to the reductive phase of the metabolic cycle protects genome integrity

Science

Volumn 316, Issue 5833, 2007, Pages 1916-1919

  Chen, Zheng ^a   Odstrcil, Elizabeth A ^b   Tu, Benjamin P ^a   McKnight, Steven L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FUNGAL DNA;

CIRCADIAN RHYTHM; CYTOLOGY; DNA; GENOME; METABOLISM; MIMICRY; MUTATION; NUTRIENT LIMITATION; PHOTOAUTOTROPHY; REDUCTION; RESPIRATION; YEAST;

ARTICLE; CELL CYCLE; CIRCADIAN RHYTHM; DNA CONTENT; DNA REPLICATION; DNA SYNTHESIS INHIBITION; FUNGUS GROWTH; FUNGUS MUTATION; GENOME; METABOLIC REGULATION; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CELL CYCLE; CELL CYCLE PROTEINS; DNA REPLICATION; GENOME, FUNGAL; GLYCOLYSIS; HOMEOSTASIS; HYDROGEN PEROXIDE; METABOLIC NETWORKS AND PATHWAYS; METHIONINE; OXIDATION-REDUCTION; PROTEIN-SERINE-THREONINE KINASES; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE PROTEINS;

EID: 34347387832     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1140958     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. B. Hess, A. Boiteux, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 40, 237 (1971).
2. U. Schibler, F. Naef, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 17, 223 (2005).
3. M. U. Gillette, T. J. Sejnowski, Science 309, 1196 (2005).
4. B. P. Tu, S. L. McKnight, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7, 696 (2006).
5. T. Matsuo et al., Science 302, 255 (2003).
6. P. Richard, FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 27, 547 (2003).
7. R. R. Klevecz, J. Bolen, G. Forrest, D. B. Murray, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 1200 (2004).
8. D. Lloyd, D. B. Murray, Trends Biochem. Sci. 30, 373 (2005).
9. B. P. Tu, A. Kudlicki, M. Rowicka, S. L. McKnight, Science 310, 1152 (2005).
10. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
11. B. Futcher, Genome Biol. 7, 107 (2006).
12. C. Leroy et al., EMBO J. 20, 2896 (2001).
13. Y. Katou et al., Nature 424, 1078 (2003).
14. J. H. Chen, S. E. Ozanne, C. N. Hales, DNA Repair (Amsterdam) 4, 1140 (2005).
15. W. L. Whelan, E. Gocke, T. R. Manney, Genetics 91, 35 (1979).
16. P. V. Shcherbakova, T. A. Kunkel, Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 3177 (1999).
17. M. E. Huang, A.-G. Rio, A. Nicolas, R. D. Kolodner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 11529 (2003).
18. The sic1Δ mutant was previously shown to display increased rates of gross chromosomal rearrangement (GCR); however, the spontaneous point-mutation rate, analogous to the mutation rate queried in the current study, was not changed relative to WT (19, 20). We have also genotyped the CAN1 open reading frame for 72 can-resistant clones from sic1Δ fermentor runs. Of these clones, 71 yielded a PCR product of 1.8 kb predicted for the full-length open reading frame, which indicated that GCR does not contribute appreciably to our measurement of spontaneous point-mutation rate. Sequencing of 10 PCR products confirmed the presence of debilitating point mutations (10).
19. T. T. Nugroho, M. D. Mendenhall, Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 3320 (1994).
20. A. Lengronne, E. Schwob, Mol. Cell 9, 1067 (2002).
21. G. Huang et al., EMBO J. 25, 5349 (2006).
22. P. L. Lowrey, J. S. Takahashi, Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 5, 407 (2004).
23. A. M. Pregueiro, Q. Liu, C. L. Baker, J. C. Dunlap, J. J. Loros, Science 313, 644 (2006).
24. B. A. Desany et al., Genes Dev. 12, 2956 (1998).
25. J. M. Sidorova, L. L. Breeden, Mutat. Res. 532, 5 (2003).
26. J. Massagué, Nature 432, 298 (2004).
27. L. Canaple et al., Cancer Res. 63, 7545 (2003).
28. S. Gery et al., Mol. Cell 22, 375 (2006).
29. We thank L. Wu, J. Longgood, C. Cummins, and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center flow cytometry core facility for technical assistance, Z. Liu and A. Pieper for helpful discussions. This work was funded by a NIH Director's Pioneer Award, unrestricted funds from an anonymous donor (S.L.M), a NIH training grant (Z.C.), and a Helen Hay Whitney Foundation postdoctoral fellowship (B.P.T.).