Previous Article
Journal of Bacteriology, September 2001, p. 5209-5212, Vol. 183, No. 17
0021-9193/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.17.5209-5212.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Dehalogenation of Dichloromethane by
Dichloromethane Dehalogenase/Glutathione
S-Transferase Leads to Formation of DNA
Adducts
Martin F.
Kayser and
Stéphane
Vuilleumier*
Institut für Mikrobiologie, ETH
Zürich, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Received 28 March 2001/Accepted 12 June 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
Formation of DNA adducts following conversion of dichloromethane by
bacterial dichloromethane dehalogenase/glutathione
S-transferase was demonstrated. Adducts included
dichloromethane carbon and glutathione sulfur atoms. A reaction with
DNA occurred preferentially at guanine bases. Increased DNA degradation
in a polA mutant of Methylobacterium
dichloromethanicum DM4 grown with dichloromethane confirmed the
genotoxicity associated with dichloromethane degradation, suggesting an
important role of DNA repair in the metabolism of halogenated,
DNA-alkylating compounds by bacteria.
 |
TEXT |
Glutathione
S-transferases (GSTs) are ubiquitous and versatile enzymes
promoting the degradation or the inactivation of electrophilic compounds by their conjugation to glutathione (GSH) (1,
18). Compared to eukaryotic representatives of this enzyme
family, bacterial GSTs are more diverse in sequence and often appear to catalyze specific reactions in the catabolism of compounds used as
carbon sources for growth by the host bacteria (17, 18). For example, dichloromethane dehalogenase/GST (20) allows
growth of methylotrophic bacteria with dichloromethane (DCM), a solvent and widespread environmental contaminant (13), as the sole
carbon and energy source (19). Similar enzymes have been
characterized in mammals in the past decade (12). DCM
dehalogenases represent a special type of GSTs in that the GSH cofactor
is not incorporated into the reaction product, but is regenerated after
the reaction CH2Cl2 + GSH + H2O
CH2O + 2 HCl + GSH.
The genotoxicity of DCM conversion by GSTs has been well documented in
both bacterial (7, 15) and mammalian (5, 8) systems (reviewed in references 12 and 19), but its
molecular basis has not yet been fully elucidated. Mechanistic
considerations and indirect experimental evidence (e.g., see reference
10) have suggested that
S-chloromethylglutathione, the presumed short-lived intermediate in the reaction catalyzed by DCM dehalogenase/GST, may be
involved in this process by reacting with DNA. Transient formation of a
compound with an 19F-NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance)
signal compatible with S-fluoromethylglutathione was
observed when DCM dehalogenase from Methylophilus sp. strain DM11 was incubated with GSH and chlorofluoromethane (3).
The lesser reactive fluorinated homolog of
S-chloromethylglutathione was hydrolyzed with a half-life of
5.8 min at room temperature in D2O (4).
Chemically synthesized S-chloromethylglutathione was shown
to react with deoxyguanosine in vitro (4), and the product
of this reaction was identified as
S-[1-N2-deoxyguanosinylmethyl]glutathione
(4, 15). Direct evidence for enzymatic GST-catalyzed
conversion of DCM resulting in DNA modification, however, has not yet
been obtained. The present report documents the formation of
GST-dependent DNA adduct formation as a result of the degradation of
DCM by bacterial DCM dehalogenases.
DNA adduct formation by GST-mediated conversion of DCM.
Purified DCM dehalogenase from Methylophilus sp. strain DM11
overexpressed in Escherichia coli (21) was
incubated with 50 mM [14C]DCM (Sigma) (Fig.
1A) and 1 mM GSH in the presence of calf
thymus DNA (Sigma). Radioactivity incorporation into DNA recovered
after alcohol precipitation demonstrated the formation of DNA adducts. Recovery of radiolabel in the DNA fraction increased with the amount of
DCM dehalogenase added (data not shown), and both DCM dehalogenase and
GSH were required for this process to occur. The same experiment, but
performed with [35S]GSH (Moravek Biochemicals, Brea,
Calif.) and unlabeled DCM, also led to incorporation of radioactive
label into DNA (Fig. 1B). No significant 35S labeling of
DNA was observed in the absence of DCM. Thus, the carbon atom of DCM
and at least the sulfur atom of GSH were incorporated into DNA
following DCM dehalogenase-mediated turnover of DCM, a finding
compatible with S-chloromethylglutathione being the causative agent of DNA adduct formation. Furthermore, incubation of
formaldehyde in excess of that produced by DCM dehalogenation in the
presence of radiolabeled GSH (Fig. 1B) did not result in DNA labeling.
In other words, no DNA adduct formation was observed with the product
of the DCM dehalogenase reaction or its GSH conjugate, which in the
presence of GSH is the predominant form of formaldehyde in solution
(16). This is in agreement with previous evidence that
formaldehyde does not play a major role in DCM genotoxicity (see
reference 19 for review and discussion). For instance, the
spectrum of mutations induced by formaldehyde and by DCM are clearly
different (5, 8). Moreover, a polA mutant of
the DCM-degrading strain Methylobacterium dichloromethanicum
DM4 lacking DNA polymerase I, whose role in DNA repair is well known
(6), was unable to grow with DCM as the sole carbon source
but still grew with formaldehyde (11). The DNA adducts
detected here, however, could not be further characterized because of
the low yield in which they were produced relative to the extent of DCM conversion (~0.05%) (Fig. 1), despite the use of a large excess of
DNA (approximately 1 adduct was formed per 200,000 bp). Nevertheless, this observation further substantiates the idea that a reactive, short-lived compound such as S-chloromethylglutathione is
responsible for DNA adduct formation.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
DNA adduct formation following DCM conversion by DCM
dehalogenase/GST. Purified DCM dehalogenase (DcmA) (60 µg, 1 to
2 µmol/min/mg) was incubated with calf thymus DNA
(0.5 mg/ml), 1 mM GSH and 50 mM DCM in 0.2 ml of 0.1 M phosphate buffer
(pH 8.0) at 30°C for an hour. Experiments were performed at least
twice with either [14C]DCM (0.58 mCi/mmol) (A) or
[35S]GSH (20 Ci/mmol) (B). Reactions were stopped by
addition of 0.3 M sodium acetate, and the DNA was precipitated by
addition of 0.6 volumes of isopropanol and centrifugation (15,000 rpm,
1 h, 4°C). The DNA pellet was reprecipitated twice, washed with
70% ethanol, redissolved in 0.1 M phosphate (pH 8.0). The DNA was
quantified spectrophotometrically at 260 nm, and DNA-associated
radioactivity was measured by scintillation spectrometry (Beckman
LS5801) and expressed as the percentage of DCM conversion during the
experiment. Solid bars, all reaction components added (complete); grey
bars, no GSH (A) or DCM (B) added; open bars, no DCM dehalogenase added
(A) or no DCM added, but incubated with 50 mM formaldehyde
(HCHO) (B).
|
|
Base specificity of DNA adduct formation and stability of DNA
adducts.
In keeping with previous suggestions of a higher
reactivity of guanine and cytosine bases with GST-activated DCM
(4, 5, 15), incorporation of radiolabel into synthetic
20-mer homo-oligonucleotides (Microsynth, Balgach, Switzerland) as DNA
substrates followed the order G20 > C20 > A20 > T20 (Fig.
2). Also, single-stranded oligonucleotides were better substrates than double-stranded
complementary oligonucleotides (Fig. 2). The stability of the formed
DNA adducts was estimated by incubating aqueous solutions of
35S-labeled DNA preparations recovered after DCM conversion
by DCM dehalogenase/GST for various times before alcohol
precipitation. Interestingly, heterogeneity of the DNA adducts was
apparent from the multiphasic behavior of the decrease in
DNA-associated radioactivity (data not shown). The half-lives (in
hours) of the initial major phase of DNA adduct decay (G20,
1.7 ± 0.3; C20, 2.4 ± 0.4; A20, 2.0 ± 0.2; T20, 3.2 ± 0.5;
G20/C20, 3.3 ± 0.5; A/T, 5.7 ± 0.7; calf thymus DNA, 1.6 ± 0.2) were of the same order of magnitude as those determined earlier for model single-base adducts obtained by
chemical synthesis (4, 15). In contrast, the rate and magnitude of the minor second, slower phase of DNA adduct degradation was similar (half-life, 50 to 100 h) for all DNA preparations.

View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Base specificity of DNA adduct formation. Synthetic
homo-oligonucleotides (20-mers; 0.1 mg) were incubated with DCM
dehalogenase and [35S]GSH and processed and analyzed
exactly as described in the legend to Fig. 1. Double-stranded DNA was
obtained by denaturation of pairs of complementary oligonucleotides at
100°C for 5 min followed by incubation at 50°C for 30 min, and the
resulting preparation was checked by acridine orange staining.
|
|
DNA damage associated with DCM conversion in vivo.
The data
presented above suggested that methylotrophic bacteria are confronted
with severe problems of genotoxicity while growing with DCM by virtue
of DCM dehalogenase. To explore the extent of DNA damage caused by
GST-mediated DCM turnover in Methylobacterium in vivo,
Methylobacterium dichloromethanicum DM4 and its
polA mutant (11), which was expected to be
impaired in the repair of DNA lesions occurring upon GST-mediated DNA
adduct formation, were grown with 40 mM methanol or with a mixture of
40 mM methanol and 10 mM DCM as carbon sources, after which total DNA
was isolated from the cultures (Fig. 3).
Both strains expressed DCM dehalogenase at similar levels during growth
in the presence of DCM as judged by the chloride released into the
medium (5 and 4.2 mM chloride for the wild-type and the polA
mutant strains, respectively) (data not shown). Repair of damaged DNA
typically involves the formation of DNA strand breaks at the site of
DNA lesions (9, 22). Therefore, equal amounts of isolated
total DNA were treated with terminal deoxyribonucleotide transferase
(Roche Diagnostics) and [
-32P]dATP (Moravek
Biochemicals). DNA was recovered by alcohol precipitation, and the
radioactivity in the DNA pellet was quantified (Fig. 3A). In addition,
gel-filtered samples of 3'-labeled total DNA were separated by agarose
gel electrophoresis and autoradiographed (Fig. 3B). Increased labeling,
indicating a more frequent occurrence of DNA strand breaks
(14), was apparent in DNA from the polA mutant
grown in the presence of DCM.

View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Labeling of DNA 3' ends with terminal deoxynucleoside
transferase. Cultures of M. dichloromethanicum DM4 wild type
and its polA mutant were grown in mineral minimal medium
(11) with 40 mM methanol (MeOH) with or without addition
of 10 mM DCM for 12 h, and total DNA was isolated by a standard
cetyltetramethylammonium bromide-based method (2). DNA
samples (5 µg) were treated with terminal deoxyribonucleotide
transferase (15 U) and 30 mCi of [ -32P]dATP (3,000 Ci/mmol) in 0.1 ml of 0.2 M cacodylate-25 mM Tris buffer (pH 6.6) at
37°C for 1 h. DNA was precipitated as described in the legend to
Fig. 1 and purified by gel filtration with disposable NAP-10 columns
(Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). (A) Terminal transferase-treated DNA
samples recovered by precipitation were resuspended in 40 µl of 0.1 M
Tris-HC1 buffer (pH 8.0), and the radioactivity associated with the DNA
was quantified by scintillation spectrometry (Beckman LS5801) and
expressed as the percentage of the total radiolabel used. (B)
Corresponding autoradiograph of [ 32P]dAMP-labeled
samples of total DNA (2.5 µg of DNA/lane) size separated by agarose
gel electrophoresis. M, marker (1:1 mixture of HindIII-
and EcoRI/HindIII-digested lambda DNA)
(Fermentas).
|
|
Thus, both in vitro and in vivo data reported here provide direct
evidence for DNA damage following DCM dehalogenase/GST-mediated
conversion of DCM. As an aside, these experiments also provided
new
evidence that the formaldehyde product of the enzymatic dehalogenation
reaction is most likely not involved in this process. To conclude,
it
appears increasingly clear that efficient mechanisms to cope
with the
genotoxicity of products arising from the metabolism
of DCM are an
asset for bacteria growing with this compound by
means of a
GST-dependent pathway. This raises the question as
to whether
methylotrophic bacteria growing with DCM as the sole
carbon source are
more resistant to the toxic effects of DCM than
other bacteria
(
19). Indeed, preliminary experiments suggest
that
Methylobacterium extorquens AM1, the genome of which is
currently
being sequenced, is unable to grow with DCM as the sole
carbon
source when provided with a plasmid-expressed DCM
dehalogenase/GST
(our unpublished data). A search for accessory genes
and proteins
that allow methylotrophic bacteria to grow with DCM may
reveal
new perspectives on the degradation of halogenated compounds by
bacteria.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We gratefully acknowledge Thomas Leisinger for discussions,
encouragement, and support.
This research was supported by the Swiss National Research Foundation
(grant 3100-50602.97 to S.V.).
 |
ADDENDUM IN PROOF |
A characterization of the adducts formed by the reaction of
chemically synthesized S-(1-acetoxymethyl)glutathione (a
mimick for the glutathione conjugate of dichloromethane) with
nucleosides and DNA was reported after this paper was submitted
(G. A. Marsch et al., Chem. Res. Toxicol. 14:600-608, 2001).
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Institut
für Mikrobiologie, ETH Zürich, Schmelzbergstr. 7, CH-8092
Zürich, Switzerland. Phone: 41-01-6323357. Fax:
41-01-6321148. E-mail:
vuilleumier{at}micro.biol.ethz.ch.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Armstrong, R. N.
1997.
Structure, catalytic mechanism, and evolution of the glutathione transferases.
Chem. Res. Toxicol.
10:2-18[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Ausubel, F. M.,
R. Brent,
R. E. Kingston,
D. D. Moore,
J. G. Seidman,
J. A. Smith, and K. Struhl.
2001.
Current protocols in molecular biology.
Wiley, New York, N.Y.
|
| 3.
|
Blocki, F. A.,
M. S. P. Logan,
C. Baoli, and L. P. Wackett.
1994.
Reaction of rat liver glutathione S-transferases and bacterial dichloromethane dehalogenase with dihalomethanes.
J. Biol. Chem.
269:8826-8830[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Dechert, S.
1995.
Untersuchungen zum Wirkmechanismus der Mutagenität and Tumorigenität von Dichlormethan and seinen Metaboliten. Ph.D. thesis.
Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
|
| 5.
|
DeMarini, D. M.,
M. L. Shelton,
S. H. Warren,
T. M. Ross,
J.-Y. Shim,
A. M. Richard, and R. A. Pegram.
1997.
Glutathione S-transferase-mediated induction of GC-AT transitions by halomethanes in Salmonella.
Environ. Mol. Mutagen.
30:440-447[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Friedberg, E. C.,
G. C. Walker, and W. Siede.
1995.
DNA repair and mutagenesis.
ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
|
| 7.
|
Gisi, D.,
T. Leisinger, and S. Vuilleumier.
1999.
Enzyme-mediated dichloromethane toxicity and mutagenicity of bacterial and mammalian dichloromethane-active glutathione S-transferases.
Arch. Toxicol.
73:71-79[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Graves, R. J.,
P. Trueman,
S. Jones, and T. Green.
1996.
DNA sequence analysis of methylene chloride-induced HPRT mutations in Chinese hamster ovary cells: comparison with the mutation spectrum obtained for 1,2-dibromoethane and formaldehyde.
Mutagenesis
11:229-233[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Grossman, L.,
C.-I. Lin, and C. Ahn.
1998.
Nucleotide excision repair in Escherichia coli, p. 11-27.
In
J. A. Nickoloff, and M. F. Hoekstra (ed.), DNA repair in prokaryotes and lower eukaryotes, vol. 1. Humana Press, Totowa, N.J.
|
| 10.
|
Hashmi, M.,
S. Dechert,
W. Dekant, and M. W. Anders.
1994.
Bioactivation of [13C]dichloromethane in mouse, rat, and human liver cytosol: 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic studies.
Chem. Res. Toxicol.
7:291-296[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Kayser, M. F.,
M. T. Stumpp, and S. Vuilleumier.
2000.
DNA polymerase I is essential for growth of Methylobacterium dichloromethanicum DM4 with dichloromethane.
J. Bacteriol.
182:5433-5439[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Landi, S.
2000.
Mammalian class theta GST and differential susceptibility to carcinogens: a review.
Mutat. Res.
463:247-283[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Mackay, D.,
W. Y. Shiu, and K. C. Ma.
1993.
Volatile organic chemicals, vol. 3. , p. 400-406.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla.
|
| 14.
|
Rohwer, F., and F. Azam.
2000.
Detection of DNA damage in prokaryotes by terminal deoxyribonucleotide transferase-mediated dUTP nick end labeling.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
66:1001-1006[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
Thier, R.,
J. B. Taylor,
S. E. Pemble,
W. G. Humphreys,
M. Persmark,
R. Ketterer, and F. P. Guengerich.
1993.
Expression of mammalian glutathione S-transferase 5-5 in Salmonella typhimurium TA1535 leads to base-pair mutations upon exposure to dihalomethanes.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:8576-8580[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Uotila, L., and M. Koivusalo.
1989.
Glutathione-dependent oxidoreductases: formaldehyde dehydrogenase, p. 517-551.
In
D. Dolphin, O. Avramovic, and R. Poulson (ed.), Glutathione chemical, biochemical, and medical aspects, vol. A. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
|
| 17.
|
Vuilleumier, S.
2001.
Bacterial dichloromethane dehalogenases and the detoxification of xenobiotics: dehalogenation through glutathione conjugation and beyond.
ACS Symp. Ser.
777:240-252.
|
| 18.
|
Vuilleumier, S.
1997.
Bacterial glutathione S-transferases: what are they good for?
J. Bacteriol.
179:1431-1441[Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
| Vuilleumier, S. Coping with a halogenated
one-carbon diet: aerobic dichloromethane-mineralising bacteria.
In S. Agathos and W. Reineke (ed.), Biotechnology for the
environment. Focus on biotechnology series, vol. 3, in press. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
|
| 20.
|
Vuilleumier, S.,
N. Ivos,
M. Dean, and T. Leisinger.
2001.
Sequence variation in dichloromethane dehalogenases/glutathione S-transferases.
Microbiology
147:611-616[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Vuilleumier, S., and T. Leisinger.
1996.
Protein engineering studies of dichloromethane dehalogenase/glutathione S-transferase from Methylophilus sp. strain DM11. Ser 12 but not Tyr6 is required for enzyme activity.
Eur. J. Biochem.
239:410-417[Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Wilson, D. M., III,
B. P. Engelward, and L. Samson.
1998.
Prokaryotic base excision repair, p. 29-64.
In
J. A. Nickoloff, and M. F. Hoekstra (ed.), DNA repair in prokaryotes and lower eukaryotes, vol. 1. Humana Press, Totowa, N.J.
|
Journal of Bacteriology, September 2001, p. 5209-5212, Vol. 183, No. 17
0021-9193/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.17.5209-5212.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Starr, T. B., Matanoski, G., Anders, M. W., Andersen, M. E.
(2006). Workshop Overview: Reassessment of the Cancer Risk of Dichloromethane in Humans. Toxicol Sci
91: 20-28
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Wackett, L. P.
(2004). Evolution of Enzymes for the Metabolism of New Chemical Inputs into the Environment. J. Biol. Chem.
279: 41259-41262
[Full Text]
-
Marx, C. J., Chistoserdova, L., Lidstrom, M. E.
(2003). Formaldehyde-Detoxifying Role of the Tetrahydromethanopterin-Linked Pathway in Methylobacterium extorquens AM1. J. Bacteriol.
185: 7160-7168
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kayser, M. F., Ucurum, Z., Vuilleumier, S.
(2002). Dichloromethane metabolism and C1 utilization genes in Methylobacterium strains. Microbiology
148: 1915-1922
[Abstract]
[Full Text]