Next Article 
Journal of Bacteriology, November 2001, p. 6151-6158, Vol. 183, No. 21
0021-9193/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.21.6151-6158.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Molecular Cloning and Functional Analysis of the
MutY Homolog of Deinococcus radiodurans
Xianghong
Li and
A-Lien
Lu*
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore,
Maryland 21201
Received 10 May 2001/Accepted 30 July 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
The mutY homolog gene
(mutYDr) from Deinococcus
radiodurans encodes a 39.4-kDa protein consisting of 363 amino
acids that displays 35% identity to the Escherichia
coli MutY (MutYEc) protein. Expressed
MutYDr is able to complement E. coli mutY
mutants but not mutM mutants to reduce the mutation
frequency. The glycosylase and binding activities of
MutYDr with an A/G-containing substrate are more sensitive
to high salt and EDTA concentrations than the activities with an
A/7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine (GO)-containing substrate are. Like the
MutYEc protein, purified recombinant MutYDr expressed in E. coli has adenine glycosylase activity
with A/G, A/C, and A/GO mismatches and weak guanine glycosylase
activity with a G/GO mismatch. However, MutYDr
exhibits limited apurinic/apyrimidinic lyase activity and can form
only weak covalent protein-DNA complexes in the presence of sodium
borohydride. This may be due to an arginine residue that is present in
MutYDr at the position corresponding to the position of
MutYEc Lys142, which forms the Schiff base with DNA. The
kinetic parameters of MutYDr are similar to those of
MutYEc. Although MutYDr has similar substrate
specificity and a binding preference for an A/GO mismatch over an A/G
mismatch, as MutYEc does, the binding affinities for both
mismatches are slightly lower for MutYDr than for
MutYEc. Thus, MutYDr can protect the cell from
GO mutational effects caused by ionizing radiation and oxidative stress.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The bacterium Deinococcus
radiodurans is extremely resistant to many lethal and mutagenic
agents and conditions that damage DNA, including ionizing radiation, UV
radiation, and hydrogen peroxide treatment (35). D. radiodurans is one of the most radiation-resistant organisms;
exponentially growing cells are 200 times more resistant to ionizing
radiation and 20 times more resistant to UV irradiation than
Escherichia coli (2, 3). It has been suggested
that this elevated resistance of D. radiodurans is due to
unusually efficient DNA repair and recombination mechanisms (3,
36), but the molecular mechanisms responsible for radiation
resistance remain unknown. Recently, many putative genes involved in
DNA repair and recombination have been identified in the genome of D. radiodurans (27, 50). Information regarding
the functions of these repair enzymes is emerging.
To protect their genomes from the oxidative DNA damage caused by
ionizing radiation, cells have evolved efficient and accurate repair
systems to remove DNA lesions (12).
7,8-Dihydro-8-oxoguanine (GO) is the most stable product known
to be caused by oxidative damage to DNA. If not repaired, GO lesions in
DNA can produce A/GO mismatches during DNA replication
(43) and can result in transversions from G · C to
T · A (9, 37, 38, 53). In E. coli, three enzymes, MutY,
MutM (Fpg), and MutT, are known to be involved in defending against the
mutagenic effects of GO lesions (32, 45). MutT hydrolyzes
oxidized dGTP and depletes it from the nucleotide pool
(28). The function of the MutM (Fpg) protein is to remove
the mutagenic GO and other oxidized purines (46).
MutY protein is responsible for correcting A/GO mismatches, as well as A/G and A/C mismatches (1, 23, 48). Thus,
MutY provides a measure of defense by removing adenines
misincorporated opposite GO or G following DNA replication (25,
31, 32). Homologs of putative MutY, MutM, and MutT are
present in D. radiodurans (27, 50).
The E. coli MutY
(MutYEc) protein is a 39-kDa
iron-sulfur protein (33, 48, 49), and its N-terminal
domain exhibits structural similarity with those of endonuclease III
(endo III) and AlkA (6, 16, 33, 39, 48, 49). This includes
the helix-hairpin-helix (HhH) and Gly/Pro...Asp loop motifs.
The conserved Asp acts as a general base to activate a
nucleophile, such as Lys or water. DNA glycosylases in the endo III
superfamily can be divided into two groups (11, 13).
Bifunctional DNA glycosylases, including endo III and human 8-oxoG
glycosylase (hOGG1), use the conserved lysine (Lys120 in endo
III and Lys249 in hOGG1) to form a Schiff base intermediate and also
possess strong apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) lyase activity, which cleaves
DNA 3' to an AP site by a
-elimination mechanism (14, 39, 40,
47). Monofunctional glycosylases, such as AlkA, lack both the
conserved lysine and AP lyase activity (17, 44, 56). The
possession of AP lyase activity by MutY is controversial.
MutY AP lyase activity has been detected by some researchers
(15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 48) but not by other groups
(1, 7, 31, 34, 44). Although MutY lacks the
conserved lysine, there is evidence that MutY may be a
bifunctional glycosylase. MutY can cleave DNA containing an unmodified AP site (30, 54). The enzyme also forms a
covalent complex with its DNA substrates in the presence of
sodium borohydride (15, 26, 30, 51, 57), a diagnostic tool
for bifunctional glycosylase/AP lyase (13, 40, 44).
Lys142 of MutYEc has been shown to form
the Schiff base intermediate with DNA (52, 54, 57);
however, K142A mutant MutY has glycosylase activity (52, 54) and can promote
/
elimination with
AP-containing DNA (54). This raises the question of
whether Schiff base formation is significant for the MutY function.
MutYEc has an additional C-terminal
domain that has no counterpart in other members of the HhH family of
proteins. Although the N-terminal domain of
MutYEc exhibits catalytic activity
(15, 29, 30, 41), the C-terminal domain has been shown to
play an important role in recognition of GO lesions (15, 20,
41). The truncated MutY has >18-fold-lower binding
affinities with GO-containing mismatches than the intact MutY
has (20). Deletion of the C-terminal domain of
MutY reduces its catalytic preference for A/GO-containing DNA
over A/G-containing DNA (10, 20, 41) and confers a mutator
phenotype in vivo (10, 20). Moreover, MutY uses
its C-terminal domain to attenuate the catalytic activity of MutM (Fpg)
protein (20). These findings strongly support the notion
that the C-terminal domain of MutY plays an important role in
GO recognition and mutation avoidance.
Because D. radiodurans is extremely resistant to oxidative
stress, we tried to characterize and compare its MutY homolog
(MutYDr) with
MutYEc. Like
MutYEc,
MutYDr does not have the conserved
lysine downstream of the HhH motif. In contrast to
MutYEc, an Arg is at the position that
corresponds to Lys142 of MutYEc. Our
results indicate that MutYDr is a
monofunctional adenine glycosylase. The substrate
specificities and kinetic parameters of
MutYDr are similar to those of
MutYEc.
MutYDr that is expressed is able to complement E. coli mutY mutants but not mutM
mutants to reduce the mutation frequency. Although
MutYDr can protect D. radiodurans from GO mutational effects, we identified no specific
properties of MutYDr that were
drastically different from MutYEc
properties that could contribute to the high levels of resistance to
ionizing radiation and oxidative stress of this organism.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Bacteria and DNA.
The genomic DNA of D. radiodurans R1 was obtained from M. J. Bessman. E. coli PR8 (Su
lacZ X74 galK
Smr) and PR70 (like PR8 but
micA68::modified Tn10) were obtained from M. S. Fox. E. coli CC104 [ara
(gpt-lac)5 F'(lacI378 lacZ461 proA+B+)] and
CC104/mutYmutM (like CC104 but
mutY::mini-Tn10 mutM) were obtained
from J. H. Miller. E. coli MV1161 [thr-1 ara-14
leuB6
(gpt-proA)62 lacY1 tsx-33 supE33 galK2
hisG4 rfbD1 mgl-51 rpsL31 kdgK51 xyl-5 mtl-1 argE3 thi-1 rfa-550]
and MV3867 (like MV1161 but
mutM472::Tn10) were obtained from M. Volkert. E. coli Tuner(DE3) [F
ompT
hsdSB(rB
mB
) gal dcm lacY1
(DE3)] and DH5
[supE44
lacU169 (
80
lacZ
M15) hsdR17 recA1 endA1 gyrA96 thi-1
relA1] were obtained from Novagen and Life Technologies, Inc.,
respectively. Cells harboring
DE3 lysogen were constructed by using
the procedures described by Invitrogen.
The annealed 19-mer oligonucleotide DNA substrates used in this study
were as follows: 5' CCGAGGAATTXGCCTTCTG 3' and 3'
GCTCCTTAAYCGGAAGACG 5' (X = A, C, G, T, 2-aminopurine, or U;
Y = C, G, or GO). Duplex DNA containing base mismatches
were labeled at the 3' or 5' ends as described by Lu (21).
After the sticky ends were filled in with the Klenow fragment of DNA
polymerase I, the 19-mer was converted into a 20-mer. DNA substrates
containing U/G or U/GO (300 fmol) were fully converted to AP/G- or
AP/GO-containing DNA substrates by treatment with 1.5 U of
E. coli uracil DNA glycosylase (Life Technologies, Inc.) at
37°C for 1 h in a buffer containing 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.6), 80 mM NaCl, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 1 mM EDTA, and 2.9% glycerol.
Cloning of MutYDr.
According to the
previously published genomic sequence of D. radiodurans R1
(accession no. NC001263) (50), the putative mutY homolog sequence (DR2285) contains 1,089 base pairs and
codes for a 363-residue protein. To clone the
MutYDr gene, we synthesized the
following set of PCR primers: forward strand,
5'-GCGCGCTCATGACGTTGCCCGTGTCTGCC-3'; and reverse strand,
5'-GGCGCGCCTTACGCCTCGCCCAGCGGGGAACTG-3'. Genomic DNA
prepared from D. radiodurans R1 was used as a template for PCRs. The PCR mixtures (100 µl) contained 20 ng of chromosomal DNA,
100 pmol of each primer, 1.5 mM MgCl2, and 5 U of
Pfu DNA polymerase (Stratagene). The reactions were
performed as follows: 95°C for 2.0 min, 60°C for 1.0 min, 72°C
for 2.0 min for 30 cycles, and a final extension step at 72°C for 10 min. The 1.1-kb PCR product was purified with a QIAquick PCR
purification kit (QIAGEN), digested with BspHI and
AscI, ligated into NcoI- and
AscI-digested pETBlue-2 vector (Novagen), and transformed
into DH5
cells. Sequence analysis of a selected clone
(pETBlue-2DR2285) (GenBank accession no. AF377342) revealed that its
DNA sequence is exactly the same as the sequence predicted for
MutYDr (accession no. NC001263).
Measurement of mutation frequency.
Plasmid pETBlue-2DR2285
was transferred to E. coli PR70/DE3 (mutY),
CC104/DE3/mutYmutM, and MV3867/DE3 (mutM) cells
to check their mutation frequencies. Independent overnight cultures
were grown to an A590 of 0.7 in
Luria-Bertani (LB) medium containing 50 mg of ampicillin per ml
when necessary. After 2.5 h of induction by 0.1 mM
isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside, 0.1 ml
of cells from each culture was plated onto LB agar containing 0.1 mg of rifampin per ml. The cell titer of each culture was determined by
plating a 106 dilution onto LB agar. The ratio of
Rifr cells to total cells was the mutation frequency.
Overexpression and purification of
MutYDr.
Plasmid pETBlue-2DR2285 was
transferred into Tuner(DE3) cells to express the 39.4-kDa
MutYDr protein. Six liters of a
MutYDr-overproducing strain was grown
to an A590 of 0.7 in LB broth
containing 50 mg of carbenicillin per ml at 37°C. The cells were
induced by adding isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside to a
concentration of 0.8 mM, cultured overnight at 20°C, and harvested by centrifugation.
All column chromatography steps were conducted with a Waters 650E fast
protein liquid chromatography system at 4°C, and preparations
were
centrifuged at 15,000 ×
g for 30 min. Cells (22 g of
cell
paste) were resuspended in 120 ml of buffer T (50 mM Tris-HCl
[pH
7.2], 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM dithiothreitol, 0.1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride) and disrupted with a bead beater (Biospec Products,
Bartlesville, Okla.) using 0.1-mm-diameter glass beads. After
the cell
debris was removed by centrifugation, the supernatant
was saved as
fraction I, which was then treated with 5% streptomycin
sulfate. After
45 min of stirring, the solution was centrifuged,
and the supernatant
was collected and designated fraction II (172
ml). Ammonium sulfate (50 g) was added to fraction II to a final
concentration of 50%, the
preparation was stirred for 45 min,
and the protein was precipitated
overnight. After centrifugation,
the protein pellets were resuspended
in 10 ml of buffer T and
dialyzed against two changes consisting of 1 liter of the same
buffer for 1.5 h each. The dialyzed protein
sample was diluted
to 34.5 ml with buffer T. After centrifugation, the
supernatant
was designated fraction III (34.5 ml). Fraction III was
loaded
onto a 30-ml phosphocellulose column which had been equilibrated
with buffer A (20 mM potassium phosphate [pH 7.2], 0.1 mM EDTA,
0.5 mM dithiothreitol, 0.1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) containing
25 mM KCl. After a washing with 75 ml of equilibration buffer,
proteins
were eluted with a linear gradient of KCl (0.025 to 0.5
M) in buffer A. The fractions that eluted between 24.5 and 31.5
mM KCl were pooled and
designated fraction IV (65 ml). Fraction
IV was loaded onto a 16-ml
hydroxylapatite column equilibrated
with buffer B (0.01 M
potassium phosphate [pH 7.2], 10 mM KCl,
0.1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM
dithiothreitol, 0.1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride). The flowthrough
and early elution fractions were pooled
and dialyzed against buffer A
without KCl for 2 h; the resulting
preparation was designated
fraction V (73 ml). Fraction V was
loaded onto an 8-ml MonoQ column
(Amersham Pharmacia Biotech)
equilibrated with buffer A containing 25 mM KCl. After the column
was washed with 20 ml of equilibration buffer,
it was developed
with an 80-ml linear gradient of KCl (0.025 to 0.5 M)
in buffer
A. Fractions containing the MutY glycosylase
activity, which eluted
between 0.23 and 0.3 M KCl, were pooled and
diluted with 2 volumes
of buffer A, which yielded fraction VI (22.5 ml). Fraction VI
was then applied to a 1-ml MonoS column (Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech)
that had been equilibrated with buffer A containing
25 mM KCl.
After the column was washed with 20 ml of equilibration
buffer
A, it was eluted with an 80-ml linear gradient of KCl (0.025 to
0.5 M) in buffer. Fractions containing the MutY
glycosylase activity,
which eluted between 0.15 and 0.3 M KCl, were
pooled (7 ml) and
concentrated with Centricon-30 (Millipore) to a
volume of 0.5
ml; this yielded fraction VIIc, which was divided into
small aliquots
that were stored at

80°C. Cleavage of
A/GO-containing 20-mer
DNA was assayed during purification of the
recombinant MutY
Dr enzyme. The protein
concentration was determined by the Bradford
method (
5).
MutYDr binding assay.
Binding of
MutYDr to various oligonucleotides was
assayed by a gel retardation procedure similar to a procedure described previously (21). 32P-labeled 20-bp
oligonucleotides (1.8 fmol) were incubated with MutYDr in 20 µl of binding buffer
containing 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.6), 0.5 mM dithiothreitol, 20 mM NaCl,
0.1 mM EDTA, 2.9% glycerol, 50 µg of bovine serum albumin per ml,
and 5 ng of poly(dI-dC) at 37°C for 30 min.
MutYDr protein was diluted with a
buffer containing 20 mM potassium phosphate (pH 7.4), 1.5 mM
dithiothreitol, 0.1 mM EDTA, 50 mM KCl, 200 µg of bovine serum
albumin per ml, and 50% glycerol. Protein-DNA complexes were analyzed
on 8% polyacrylamide gels in 50 mM Tris borate (pH 8.3)-1 mM EDTA.
The apparent dissociation constants
(Kd values) of
MutYDr and DNA were determined by using nine MutYDr concentrations, and
experiments were repeated at least three times. Bands corresponding to
enzyme-bound and free DNA were quantified by using PhosphoImager
images, and Kd values were obtained from
analyses by using a computer-fitted curve generated by the Enzfitter
program (19).
MutYDr glycosylase assay.
Glycosylase
assays were carried out like the binding assay except that no
poly(dI-dC) was added to 10-µl reaction mixtures. Unless specified
otherwise, after incubation at 37°C for 30 min, reaction mixtures
were dried with a Speed Vac (Savant), resuspended in 3 µl of
formamide dye (90% formamide, 10 mM EDTA, 0.1% xylene cyanol, 0.1%
bromophenol blue), heated at 90°C for 2 min, and loaded onto 14%
polyacrylamide-7 M urea sequencing gels that were electrophoresed at 2,000 V. To test for AP lyase activity, the glycosylase reactions were performed in 10-µl reaction mixtures. In
reaction condition I, the sample was supplemented with 5 µl of
formamide dye and directly loaded onto a gel that was electrophoresed at 1,000 V without drying and heating. The sample in reaction condition
II was supplemented with 5 µl of formamide dye and heated at 90°C
for 2 min before it was loaded onto a gel without drying. The sample in
reaction condition III was treated with 1 M piperidine at 90°C for 30 min after the reaction, dried, resuspended in 3 µl of formamide dye,
and heated at 90°C for 2 min.
For time course studies, after enzyme reactions at different times,
samples were immediately frozen at

70°C and then heated
at 90°C
for 30 min with 1 M piperidine, dried, resuspended in
3 µl of
formamide dye, and heated at 90°C for 2 min. Data were
obtained from
PhosphorImager quantitative analyses of gel images
in three
experiments. The percentages of DNA cleaved were plotted
as a function
of time. Kinetic analyses were performed by using
DNA substrate
concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 1,024 mM with
0.5 nM
MutY
Dr. Bands corresponding to cleavage
products and intact
DNA were quantified by using PhosphoImager images,
and
Km and
Vmax values were obtained from
analyses by using a computer-fitted
curve generated by the Enzfitter
program (
19).
Formation of enzyme-DNA covalent complex.
Reactions were
carried out as described above for the
MutYDr glycosylase assay, except that
the reactions were performed in the presence of
NaBH4. An NaBH4 stock
solution was freshly prepared immediately prior to use. After
incubation at 37°C for 30 min, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) dye
(final concentrations, 30 mM Tris-HCl [pH 6.9], 5% [vol/vol]
glycerol, 1% [wt/vol] SDS, 1% [vol/vol]
-mercaptoethanol, and
0.1 mg of bromophenol blue per ml) was added to the samples, which were
heated at 90°C for 2 min and separated on a 12% polyacrylamide gel
in the presence of SDS as described by Laemmli (18), and
the gel was dried and exposed to a PhosphoImager screen.
 |
RESULTS |
Analysis of the MutYDr protein sequence.
Because D. radiodurans is extremely resistant to
oxidative stress, we tried to clone the mutY gene homolog(s)
from the sequenced genome (50). A Blast search identified
four open reading frames that exhibit high levels of
homology with MutYEc: DR2285, DR0289, DR2438, and DR0928. Only DR2285 contains the extra C-terminal domain
like MutYEc. Because the C-terminal
domain of MutYEc has no counterpart in
other proteins belonging to the HhH family, the presence of this domain
in DR2285 suggests that DR2285 is a putative MutY homolog.
DR2285 (designated MutYDr) contains 363 amino acid residues and exhibits 35% identity to
MutYEc, as determined by an ALIGN
program (Fig. 1). Specifically, two
regions with the highest levels of similarity were found; residues 127 to 132 of MutYDr are located at the
conserved HhH motif, and residues 189 to 219 of
MutYDr contain the iron-sulfur domain
with four conserved Cys residues (16).

View larger version (61K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Comparison of amino acid sequences of
MutYDr and MutYEc. Identical and
conserved residues are indicated by black and gray boxes, respectively.
The sequences used were the sequences of E. coli
MutY (EcMutY) (accession no. P17802) and D.
radiodurans MutY (DrMutY) (accession no. NC
001263). The conserved Asp residue is indicated by a dot. The
position of Ser120 of MutYEc and Tyr134 of
MutYDr at the conserved Lys downstream of the HhH
motif of the HhH family is indicated by an asterisk. A triangle
indicates the position of Lys142 of MutYEc and
Arg156 of MutYDr.
|
|
Reduction of the mutation frequency of an E. coli
mutY mutant by MutYDr.
To
demonstrate that the putative MutYDr
protein is a functional homolog of
MutYEc in vivo, we measured the
mutation frequencies of
MutYDr-expressing E. coli
strains. The mutYDr gene under control of
the T7 promoter in the pETBlue-2 vector was expressed in three E. coli strains, PR70/DE3 (mutY), MV3867/DE3
(mutM), and CC104/DE3/mutYmutM (mutY
mutM double mutant). As shown in Table
1, the mutY mutant (PR70/DE3)
exhibited a 46-fold-higher mutation frequency than the wild-type PR8
strain. PR70/DE3 cells expressing
MutYDr had a mutation frequency as low
as that of the wild-type cells, while the vector pETBlue-2 alone had a
22-fold-higher mutation frequency than the wild type (Table 1). Table 1
shows that the mutY mutM double mutant
(CC104/DE3/mutYmutM) exhibited a mutation frequency that was more than 900-fold higher than that of wild-type strain CC104/DE3. CC104/DE3/mutYmutM cells expressing
MutYDr could have a mutation rate close
to that of the wild type (Table 1). No obvious effect was observed when
MutYDr was expressed in the
mutM mutant strain, MV3867/DE3. Thus,
MutYDr indeed is a
MutYEc functional homolog.
Effects of salt and EDTA on the binding and glycosylase activities
of MutYDr.
To further demonstrate that
MutYDr encodes a functional
MutY protein, we purified the recombinant
MutYDr expressed in E. coli Tuner(DE3) and assayed its activities. The
MutYDr protein was purified by ammonium
sulfate precipitation and phosphocellulose, hydroxylapatite, MonoQ, and MonoS chromatographic steps. We
recovered about 19 mg of MutYDr protein
from 22 g of cell paste. As judged on an SDS-12% polyacrylamide
gel, the protein was purified to >99% homogeneity (Fig.
2, lane 9). The mobility of
MutYDr (the single band in Fig. 2, lane
8) in the denatured gel matched the predicted size (39.4 kDa). The
MutYDr band in fraction VIIc
cross-reacted weakly with polyclonal antibodies against
MutYEc and the MutY homolog
(MYH) of Schizosaccharomyces pombe (data not shown).

View larger version (95K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
SDS-polyacrylamide gel analysis of
MutYDr. The proteins were separated on a 12%
polyacrylamide gel in the presence of SDS and stained with Coomassie
blue. Protein markers (Gibco BRL prestained protein marker) were run in
lane 1. Lanes 2 to 9 contained fractions I (11 µg; crude cell
extract), II (11 µg; fraction after streptomycin sulfate treatment),
III (7.3 µg; fraction after ammonium sulfate treatment), IV (3 µg;
fraction after phosphocellulose column elution), V (1.8 µg; fraction
after hydroxylapatite column elution), VI (1.5 µg; fraction after
MonoQ column elution), VIIc (1.5 µg; fraction after MonoS column
elution), and VIIc (7.5 µg; fraction after MonoS column elution),
respectively. Excess protein was loaded in lane 9 to show the degree of
homogeneity.
|
|
Because
S. pombe MYH glycosylase activity with an A/G
mismatch is sensitive to EDTA and NaCl (
24), we
tried to find the
optimal reaction conditions for
MutY
Dr. When the NaCl concentration
was
80 mM, the MutY
Dr glycosylase
activities with A/G and A/GO
mismatches were 40 and 60%, respectively,
of the activities in
the absence of salt (data not shown). At an NaCl
concentration
of 80 mM, while the
MutY
Dr binding to an A/G mismatch was
23%
of the binding in the absence of salt, the binding to an A/GO
mismatch was comparable to the binding in the absence of salt
(data not
shown). The effect of EDTA on the glycosylase and binding
activities of
MutY
Dr is shown in Fig.
3. The
MutY
Dr glycosylase
activities with A/G
and A/GO mismatches were not inhibited by
10 mM EDTA (Fig.
3A, lanes 3 and 10), but the glycosylase activity
with an A/G mismatch was
eliminated by 50 mM EDTA (Fig.
3A, lane
7). Like the glycosylase
activity, MutY
Dr binding to an A/G
mismatch
was more sensitive to high concentrations of EDTA than binding
to an A/GO mismatch was (Fig.
3B). Thus, a reaction buffer containing
20 mM NaCl and 0.1 mM EDTA was used in the
MutY
Dr assay.

View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Effects of EDTA on MutYDr binding
and glycosylase activities with A/G- and A/GO-containing DNA. (A)
Glycosylase activity. Oligonucleotide 20-mer DNA containing an A/G
(lanes 1 to 7) or A/GO (lanes 8 to 14) mismatch was reacted with
MutYDr for 30 min at 37°C in the presence of
different EDTA concentrations. MutYDr reactions
were carried out in buffers in the presence of 1 mM (lanes 1 and 8), 5 mM (lanes 2 and 9), 10 mM (lanes 3 and 10), 20 mM (lanes 4 and 11), 30 mM (lanes 5 and 12), 40 mM (lanes 6 and 13), and 50 mM (lanes 7 and 14)
EDTA. The reaction products were analyzed on a 14% polyacrylamide DNA
sequencing gel. The arrows indicate the positions of intact
oligonucleotide (arrow I) and nicking product (arrow N). (B) DNA
binding activity. The EDTA concentrations used were similar to those
used in the experiment whose results are shown in panel A. Protein-DNA
complexes were analyzed on 8% polyacrylamide gels in 50 mM Tris borate
(pH 8.3)-1 mM EDTA. The arrows indicate the positions of protein-bound
DNA (arrow B), protein-free double-stranded DNA (arrow F), and
single-stranded DNA (arrow S).
|
|
MutYDr exhibits adenine DNA glycosylase
activity and weak guanine DNA glycosylase activity but limited AP lyase
activity.
The glycosylase activities of
MutYDr and MutYEc with
several mismatches were compared. As shown in Fig.
4, MutYDr could
cleave a 20-mer oligonucleotide containing an A/G, A/GO, or A/C
mismatch. An A/C mismatch was a better substrate for
MutYDr than for MutYEc (Fig. 4,
compare lanes 5 and 13). MutYDr also
exhibited weak guanine DNA glycosylase activity with G/GO
mismatch-containing DNA, and this activity was weaker than that of
MutYEc (Fig. 4, compare lanes 8 and 16). In
addition, 2-aminopurine/G was also a weak substrate of
MutYDr (Fig. 4, lane 6).
MutYDr exhibited no catalytic activity with C/G,
C/GO, and T/GO mismatches (Fig. 4, lanes 3, 4, and 7). This substrate
specificity is very similar to that of MutYEc
(Fig. 4, compare lanes 1 to 8 with lanes 9 to 16).

View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Glycosylase activities of MutYDr
(DrMutY) and MutYEc (EcMutY)
with different mismatches. Oligonucleotide substrates (3'-end-labeled
20-mers; 1.8 fmol) containing the mismatches indicated above the lanes
were incubated with 3.6 nM MutYDr (lanes 1 to 8)
or 3.6 nM MutYEc (lanes 9 to 16) for 30 min at
37°C. Abbreviations: O, GO; 2, 2-aminopurine. The arrows indicate the
positions of intact DNA substrate (arrow I) and the cleaved DNA
fragment (arrow N). The minor band above the cleaved product was
derived from an impurity of DNA substrates that appeared above the
intact DNA.
|
|
In order to determine whether MutY
Dr
exhibits AP lyase activity, the reaction products of
MutY
Dr with 5'-end-labeled
A/GO-containing
DNA were treated under different conditions and
separated on a
sequencing gel electrophoresed at a lower voltage than
that used
for the gel shown in Fig.
4. Three reactions were carried
out
for the MutY
Dr cleavage assays. In
reaction condition I the sample
was directly loaded onto the gel
without drying and heating, in
reaction condition II the sample was not
dried but was heated
at 90°C for 2 min before loading onto the gel,
and in reaction
condition III the sample was treated with 1 M
piperidine for 30
min at 90°C after the reaction in addition to being
dried and
heated at 90°C for 2 min. In the reaction
condition I experiment,
MutY
Dr did not
produce a cleavage product, but a smeared band
that migrated more
slowly than the intact DNA was observed (Fig.
5A, lane 1). The smeared
band may have been a MutY
Dr-DNA
complex.
In the reaction condition II experiment with 90°C
heating, a weak
cleavage product with a 3'-

,

-unsaturated
aldehyde was observed
(Fig.
5A, lane 2, arrow B). Further
treatment of the products
with piperidine at 90°C (a treatment that
promotes

- and

-elimination)
for 30 min resulted in a significant
increase in the extent of
cleavage (Fig.
5A, lane 3). The major product
was a small fragment
with a 3' phosphate group (Fig.
5A, arrow P). This
suggests that
the majority of products of
MutY
Dr are in the intact AP/GO
form.
The condition used in the experiment, the results of which are
shown in Fig.
4, resulted in a level of cleavage similar to that
obtained in the reaction condition III experiment (data not
shown).
When AP/G- and AP/GO-containing DNA substrates were
reacted with
MutY
Dr, no cleavage of
unmodified AP-containing DNA was observed
with increasing amounts of
MutY
Dr (data not shown). In contrast,
MutY
Ec has detectable cleavage activity
with AP-containing DNA
(
54). Thus,
MutY
Dr lacks efficient AP lyase
activity.

View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
MutYDr exhibits limited AP lyase
activity. (A) Glycosylase reactions performed under different reaction
conditions. Lane 1, sample supplemented with 5 µl of formamide dye
and directly loaded onto a gel that was electrophoresed at 1,000 V
without drying and heating; lane 2, sample supplemented with 5 µl of
formamide dye and heated at 90°C for 2 min before it was loaded onto
a gel without drying; lane 3, sample treated with 1 M piperidine at
90°C for 30 min after the reaction, dried, resuspended in 3 µl of
formamide dye, and heated at 90°C for 2 min; lane 4, DNA alone. The
samples were from concurrent experiments, but the products were
separated on nonadjacent lanes in one sequencing gel. The arrows
indicate the positions of intact oligonucleotide (arrow I), products
with a 3'- , -unsaturated aldehyde formed via -elimination
(arrow B), and products with a 3' phosphate formed via
/ -elimination by piperidine (arrow P). (B) Formation of
covalent complexes of MutYDr and A/GO-containing
DNA in the presence of various concentrations of NaBH4.
Lane 1, reaction mixture containing 72 fmol of E. coli
MutY in MutYEc buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl
[pH 7.6], 1 mM dithiothreitol, 1 mM EDTA, 2.9% glycerol) in the
presence of 100 mM NaBH4; lanes 2 to 11, reaction mixtures
containing 14.4 fmol of MutYDr with different
concentrations of NaBH4 (100, 80, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 15, 10, and 5 mM, respectively). The products after heating at 90°C for 2 min were fractionated in an SDS-12% polyacrylamide gel. The positions
of free oligonucleotide (arrow F) and a covalent complex (arrow C) are
indicated by arrows.
|
|
If MutY
Dr has AP lyase activity and
uses a mechanism similar to that of
MutY
Ec (
15,
26,
30,
51,
57), an imino intermediate
should be reduced by sodium
borohydride (NaBH
4) to form a stable
covalent
protein-DNA complex. Thus, DNA containing an A/GO mismatch
was
incubated with MutY
Dr in the presence
of different concentrations
of NaBH
4. As shown in
Fig.
5B, MutY
Dr could be weakly
trapped
in covalently linked protein-DNA complexes in the presence of
NaBH
4. The efficiency was much lower than that
observed with MutY
Ec.
The optimal
trapping concentration of NaBH
4 was about 20 to
60
mM. At 100 mM NaBH
4,
MutY
Ec could be trapped efficiently,
but
the ability to trap MutY
Dr was
minimal (Fig.
5B, compare lanes
1 and 2). The effect of
NaBH
4 is consistent with the inhibition
of
MutY
Dr cleavage activity by 80 mM NaCl
(data not shown). Because
an arginine residue is present in
MutY
Dr at the position corresponding
to
MutY
Ec Lys142, the weak covalent
complexes of MutY
Dr with DNA
substrates
suggest that MutY
Dr may use a different
lysine residue
to react with the nearby AP site. Because Schiff base
formation
is an important criterion for bifunctional DNA glycosylase
activity
with AP lyase activity, our results suggest that the
MutY
Dr protein
has limited AP lyase
activity.
Kinetic parameters of MutYDr.
The
efficiencies of cleavage by MutYDr and
MutYEc of a 20-mer oligonucleotide
containing A/G or A/GO were compared (Table 2). As measured at a protein
concentration of 0.5 nM, the Km and
Vmax values for
MutYDr with an A/G mismatch were
slightly higher than the MutYEc values.
The turnover number (Kcat) for MutYDr with an A/G 20-mer was two times
higher than that of MutYEc. However,
MutYDr and
MutYEc have similar reactivities with
both A/G- and A/GO-containing DNA, as measured by specificity constants (Kcat/Km).
Time course of MutYDr activity with A/G- and
A/GO-containing DNA.
The steady-state kinetics of the
MutYDr reaction (Table 2), as measured
at 37°C for 30 min, cannot reflect the true reactivity because the
enzyme may have a low turnover rate. Thus, we used single-turnover
glycosylase kinetics to compare the reactivities of
MutYDr with A/G- and A/GO-containing
DNA substrates. Time course studies to determine the extents of
glycosylase activity with both A/G- and A/GO-containing substrates were
performed. As shown in Fig. 6, the rate
of cleavage of MutYDr with
A/G-containing DNA was lower than the rate of cleavage with
A/GO-containing DNA for the first 2 min. The times required to reach
50% of the maximum levels with A/G- and A/GO-containing DNA were 1.28 and 0.14 min, respectively. The difference in the reaction rates was
more than ninefold. Figure 6 also shows that at a steady state (>3
min), the MutYDr glycosylase activity
with a A/GO mismatch was weaker than that with A/G-containing DNA. This
result is similar to previous findings for
MutYEc (20).

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
Time course studies of MutYDr
glycosylase activities with A/G- and A/GO-containing DNA.
A/G-containing ( ) and A/GO-containing ( ) 20-mer oligonucleotides
(1.8 fmol) were incubated at 37°C with 72 fmol of
MutYDr for various times. After reaction, the products
were treated with piperidine, dried, resuspended in formamide
dye, heated at 90°C for 2 min, and analyzed on a 14% polyacrylamide
denaturing sequencing gel. Data were obtained from PhosphorImager
quantitative analyses of gel images from three experiments. The
percentages of DNA cleaved were plotted as a function of time.
|
|
Binding affinities of MutYDr and
MutYEc with different mismatches.
Because
MutYDr and
MutYEc have similar glycosylase
activities with different substrates (Fig. 4), we determined the
apparent dissociation constants (Kd) of
MutYDr with A/G-, AP/G-, and
GO-containing mismatches. As shown in Table
3, MutYDr
exhibited >100-fold-greater affinity with A/GO-containing DNA than
with A/G-containing DNA. MutYDr also
exhibited affinity with the reaction products AP/G and AP/GO. The
affinity of MutYDr with the AP/G
product was 5.5-fold higher than that with the A/G substrate, while the
affinity with the AP/GO product was slightly lower than that with the
A/GO substrate. The MutYDr binding to a
C/GO mismatch was 250-fold lower than that to a A/GO mismatch but only
2-fold lower than that to an A/G mismatch.
MutYDr exhibited high affinity to a
weakly catalytic G/GO substrate and a noncatalytic T/GO substrate
(Fig. 4). The Kd values for
MutYDr are similar to those for
MutYEc, but the binding affinities of
MutYDr with all of the substrates
tested were slightly lower than those of
MutYEc.
 |
DISCUSSION |
In this study, we demonstrated that the DR2285 open reading frame
of D. radiodurans encodes a MutY homolog.
Expressed MutYDr is able to complement
the mutator phenotypes of an E. coli mutY mutant and an
E. coli mutY mutM double mutant (Table 1). This conservation
of the repair function is not surprising as
MutYDr has high sequence homology with
MutYEc (Fig. 1). This is the first demonstration that an enzyme involved in repairing oxidized bases of
D. radiodurans can complement E. coli mutants. We
also demonstrated biochemically that
MutYDr has
MutYEc-like activities. Thus, the biological significance of MutYDr is
similar to that of MutYEc in terms of removal of adenines
misincorporated opposite GO lesions and reduction of C · G
A · T transversions in the D. radiodurans R1 genome.
Biochemical activities of MutYDr
resemble activities of MutYEc. Like the
MutYEc protein, purified recombinant
MutYDr expressed in E. coli
exhibits adenine glycosylase activity with A/G, A/C, and A/GO
mismatches and weak guanine glycosylase activity with G/GO
mismatches. The substrate specificity and kinetic parameters of
MutYDr are similar to those of
MutYEc. An A/C mismatch substrate is a
better substrate and a G/GO mismatch substrate is a worse substrate for
MutYDr than for
MutYEc. Although the
Km and
Vmax values for
MutYDr with A/G mismatches are slightly
higher than the corresponding MutYEc
values, the specificity constants
(Kcat/Km) with the same mismatches are similar for the two enzymes. The binding
affinities of MutYDr with all of the
substrates tested are slightly lower than those of
MutYEc. It is interesting that the
affinities of MutYDr and
MutYEc with the AP/G product were 5.5- and 2-fold fold higher, respectively, than those with the A/G
substrate. The tighter binding to AP/G may recruit other enzymes to complete the repair process.
MutYDr has much less AP lyase activity
than MutYEc. First, very limited DNA
strand cleavage was observed if the product was not heated at 90°C.
Piperidine treatment significantly increased strand cleavage by
-
and
-elimination (Fig. 5). Second, when AP/GO-containing DNA was
used as the substrate, as the concentration of
MutYDr was increased, the amount of the
-elimination product did not increase compared with the control
(enzyme dilution only). Third, MutYDr
could form only a weak covalent protein-DNA complex in the presence of
sodium borohydride, while the catalytic activity of
MutYDr was similar to that of
MutYEc. This may have been due to
an arginine residue that is present in
MutYDr at the position corresponding to
MutYEc Lys142, which forms the Schiff
base with DNA. Thus, MutYDr most likely
belongs to the group of monofunctional DNA glycosylases.
In E. coli, MutY, MutM, and MutT are involved in
defending against the mutagenic effects of GO lesions (32,
45), and similar mechanisms to protect cells from the
deleterious effects of GO are present in human cells. Homologs of
putative MutY, MutM, and MutT proteins are present in
D. radiodurans (27, 50). An activity similar to MutMEc activity has been detected in
D. radiodurans R1 (4, 42). In contrast to
MutMEc (8),
MutMDr is able to excise GO from A/GO mismatches
at a detectable rate (42), and the excision rates for
2,6-diamino-4-hydroxyl-5-formamidopyrimidine (FapyGua) and
4,6-diamino-5-formamidopyrimidine (FapyAde) are significantly greater
than that for GO when these lesions are paired with C
(42). Remarkably, there are 21 potential MutT homologs called Nudix hydrolases in the D. radiodurans
R1 genome (27, 50). The D. radiodurans R1 Nudix
hydrolases contain the conserved Nudix box
(GX5EX7REUXEEXGU, where
U is usually I, V, or L) and can hydrolyze nucleoside diphosphate
derivatives (55). However, it is unlikely that many of
these Nudix hydrolases are functional homologs of
MutTEc because several of them cannot complement an E. coli mutT strain (55). Bauche and Laval
(4) reported that MutY-like activity could not
be detected in crude extracts of D. radiodurans
R1. Our study showed that D. radiodurans R1 does
have MutYDr activity that removes
adenines from A/G- and A/GO-containing DNA and can complement an
E. coli mutY mutation. Thus,
MutYDr can protect D. radiodurans from GO mutational effects. However, no specific
properties of MutYDr were found to be
drastically different from MutYEc
properties and to contribute to the high resistance to ionizing
radiation and oxidative stress of the organism. On the other hand,
MutYDr may have undiscovered activities
that are different from MutYEc
activities. So far, the reason(s) for the high tolerance to oxidative
stress remains unknown. Comparison of repair and recombination enzymes
of D. radiodurans and another highly radiation-resistant
bacterium, Rubrobacter radiotolerans, may shed some
slight on this.
In view of the fact that MutMDr can excise GO
from A/GO mismatches and cleave at AP sites (42), it is
important that MutYDr binds tightly to
A/GO and AP/GO. MutYDr should be the
preferred enzyme to act on A/GO mismatches in which adenines are
misincorporated opposite template GO. After the removal of adenines
from A/GO mismatches by MutYDr, the
remaining AP/GO is a substrate for MutMDr (4). If MutYDr were to
release this product before repair synthesis, MutMDr would incise both the AP site and the GO
lesion, resulting in a double-stranded break. Strong binding to AP/GO
by MutYDr minimizes this potential
lethal action. The tight binding of
MutYDr to the catalytically inactive
substrate T/GO and weak substrate G/GO may also have biological
significance. It has been shown that
MutYEc can attenuate the
MutMec glycosylase activity (20). Similar to the E. coli MutY-MutM interaction, the
binding of MutYDr to T/GO and G/GO may
inhibit MutMDr activity with these
substrates. It remains to be determined whether
MutMDr can act on T/GO and G/GO
mismatches. The modulation of MutM activity is especially important if T/GO and G/GO mismatches arise from misincorporation of T and G opposite oxidized guanines on the template strand and if
T/GO mismatches are derived from deamination of 5-methylcytosine opposite GO. The removal of GO from T/GO and G/GO mismatches, when
GO is on the parental strand, can lead to G · C
A · T transitions and G · C
C · G transversions, respectively. Hence, it is reasonable that
MutMDr activity with these unfavorable
substrates is inhibited.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Maurice J. Bessman at Johns Hopkins University for
kindly providing the genomic DNA of D. radiodurans R1.
This work was supported by Public Health Service grant GM 35132 from
NIGMS, National Institutes of Health.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, 108 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. Phone: (410)
706-4356. Fax: (410) 706-1787. E-mail:
aluchang{at}umaryland.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Au, K. G.,
S. Clark,
J. H. Miller, and P. Modrich.
1989.
Escherichia coli mutY gene encodes an adenine glycosylase active on G/A mispairs.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
86:8877-8881[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Battista, J. R.
1997.
Against all odds: the survival strategies of Deinococcus radiodurans.
Annu. Rev. Microbiol.
51:203-224[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Battista, J. R.,
A. M. Earl, and M. J. Park.
1999.
Why is Deinococcus radiodurans so resistant to ionizing radiation?
Trends Microbiol.
7:362-365[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Bauche, C., and J. Laval.
1999.
Repair of oxidized bases in the extremely radiation-resistant bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans.
J. Bacteriol.
181:262-269[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Bradford, M. M.
1976.
A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding.
Anal. Biochem.
72:248-254[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Bruner, S. D.,
D. P. Norman, and G. L. Verdine.
2000.
Structural basis for recognition and repair of the endogenous mutagen 8-oxoguanine in DNA.
Nature
403:859-866[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Bulychev, N. V.,
C. V. Varaprasad,
G. Dorman,
J. H. Miller,
M. Eisenberg, and A. P. Grollman.
1996.
Substrate specificity of Escherichia coli MutY protein.
Biochemistry
35:13147-13156[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Castaing, B.,
A. Geiger,
H. Seliger,
P. Nehls,
J. Laval,
C. Zelwer, and S. Boiteux.
1993.
Cleavage and binding of a DNA fragment containing a single 8-oxoguanine by wild type and mutant FPG proteins.
Nucleic Acids Res.
21:2899-2905[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Cheng, K. C.,
D. S. Cahill,
H. Kasai,
S. Nishimura, and L. A. Loeb.
1991.
8-Hydroxyguanine, an abundant form of oxidative DNA damage, causes G-T and A-C substitutions.
J. Biol. Chem.
267:166-172[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Chmiel, N. H.,
M. P. Golinelli,
A. W. Francis, and S. S. David.
2001.
Efficient recognition of substrates and substrate analogs by the adenine glycosylase MutY requires the C-terminal domain.
Nucleic Acids Res.
29:553-564[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
David, S. S., and S. D. Williams.
1998.
Chemistry of glycosylase and endonuclease involved in base-excision repair.
Chem. Rev.
98:1221-1261[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Demple, B., and L. Harrison.
1994.
Repair of oxidative damage to DNA: enzymology and biology.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
63:915-948[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Dodson, M. L.,
M. L. Michaels, and R. S. Lloyd.
1994.
Unified catalytic mechanism for DNA glycosylases.
J. Biol. Chem.
269:32709-32712[Free Full Text].
|
| 14.
|
Dodson, M. L.,
R. D. I. Shrock, and R. S. Lloyd.
1993.
Evidence for an imino intermediate in the T4 endonuclease V reaction.
Biochemistry
32:8284-8290[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Gogos, A.,
J. Cillo,
N. D. Clarke, and A-L. Lu.
1996.
Specific recognition of A/G and A/8-oxoG mismatches by Escherichia coli MutY: removal of the C-terminal domain preferentially affects A/8-oxoG recognition.
Biochemistry
35:16665-16671[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 16.
|
Guan, Y.,
R. C. Manuel,
A. S. Arvai,
S. S. Parikh,
C. D. Mol,
J. H. Miller,
S. Lloyd, and J. A. Tainer.
1998.
MutY catalytic core, mutant and bound adenine structures define specificity for DNA repair enzyme superfamily.
Nat. Struct. Biol.
5:1058-1064[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Labahn, J.,
A. Scharer,
A. Long,
K. Ezaz-Nikpay,
G. L. Verdine, and T. E. Ellenberger.
1996.
Structural basis for the excision repair of alkylation-damaged DNA.
Cell
86:321-329[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Laemmli, U. K.
1970.
Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4.
Nature
227:680-685[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Leatherbarrow, R. J.
1987.
Enzfitter: a non-linear regression analysis program for IBM PC.
Elsevier Science Publisher BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
|
| 20.
|
Li, X.,
P. M. Wright, and A-L. Lu.
2000.
The C-terminal domain of MutY glycosylase determines the 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-guanine specificity and is crucial for mutation avoidance.
J. Biol. Chem.
275:8448-8455[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Lu, A-L.
2000.
Repair of A/G and A/8-oxoG mismatches by MutY adenine DNA glycosylase, p. 3-16.
In
P. Vaughan (ed.), DNA repair protocols, prokaryotic systems. Humana Press, Totowa, N.J.
|
| 22.
|
Lu, A-L., and D.-Y. Chang.
1988.
A novel nucleotide excision repair for the conversion of an A/G mismatch to C/G base pair in E. coli.
Cell
54:805-812[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Lu, A-L., and D.-Y. Chang.
1988.
Repair of single base pair transversion mismatches of Escherichia coli in vitro: correction of certain A/G mismatch is independent of dam methylation and host mutHLS gene functions.
Genetics
118:593-600[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Lu, A-L., and W. P. Fawcett.
1998.
Characterization of the recombinant MutY homolog, an adenine DNA glycosylase, from Schizosaccharomyces pombe.
J. Biol. Chem.
273:25098-25105[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
Lu, A-L.,
J.-J. Tsai-Wu, and J. Cillo.
1995.
DNA determinants and substrate specificities of Escherichia coli MutY.
J. Biol. Chem.
270:23582-23588[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Lu, A-L.,
D. S. Yuen, and J. Cillo.
1996.
Catalytic mechanism and DNA substrate recognition of Escherichia coli MutY protein.
J. Biol. Chem.
271:24138-24143[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
Makarova, K. S.,
L. Aravind,
Y. I. Wolf,
R. L. Tatusov,
K. W. Minton,
E. V. Koonin, and M. J. Daly.
2001.
Genome of the extremely radiation-resistant bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans viewed from the perspective of comparative genomics.
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
65:44-79[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Maki, H., and M. Sekiguchi.
1992.
MutT protein specifically hydrolyses a potent mutagenic substrate for DNA synthesis.
Nature
355:273-275[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 29.
|
Manuel, R. C.,
E. W. Czerwinski, and R. S. Lloyd.
1996.
Identification of the structural and functional domains of MutY, an Escherichia coli DNA mismatch repair enzyme.
J. Biol. Chem.
271:16218-16226[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Manuel, R. C., and R. S. Lloyd.
1997.
Cloning, overexpression, and biochemical characterization of the catalytic domain of MutY.
Biochemistry
36:11140-11152[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Michaels, M. L.,
C. Cruz,
A. P. Grollman, and J. H. Miller.
1992.
Evidence that MutM and MutY combine to prevent mutations by an oxidatively damaged form of guanine in DNA.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
89:7022-7025[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 32.
|
Michaels, M. L., and J. H. Miller.
1992.
The GO system protects organisms from the mutagenic effect of the spontaneous lesion 8-hydroxyguanine (7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-guanine).
J. Bacteriol.
174:6321-6325[Free Full Text].
|
| 33.
|
Michaels, M. L.,
L. Pham,
Y. Nghiem,
C. Cruz, and J. H. Miller.
1990.
MutY, an adenine glycosylase active on G-A mispairs, has homology to endonuclease III.
Nucleic Acids Res.
18:3841-3845[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 34.
|
Michaels, M. L.,
J. Tchou,
A. P. Grollman, and J. H. Miller.
1992.
A repair system for 8-oxo-7:8-dihydrodeoxyguanine (8-hydroxyguanine).
Biochemistry
31:10964-10968[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 35.
|
Minton, K. W.
1994.
DNA repair in the extremely radioresistant bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans.
Mol. Microbiol.
13:9-15[Medline].
|
| 36.
|
Minton, K. W.
1996.
Repair of ionizing-radiation damage in the radiation resistant bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans.
Mutat. Res.
363:1-7[Medline].
|
| 37.
|
Moriya, M.
1993.
Single-stranded shuttle phagemid for mutagenesis studies in mammalian cells: 8-oxoguanine in DNA induces targeted G-C to T-A transversions in simian kidney cells.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
90:1122-1126[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 38.
|
Moriya, M.,
C. Ou,
V. Bodepudi,
F. Johnson,
M. Takeshita, and A. P. Grollman.
1991.
Site-specific mutagenesis using a gapped duplex vector: a study of translesion synthesis past 8-oxodeoxyguanosine in Escherichia coli.
Mutat. Res.
254:281-288[Medline].
|
| 39.
|
Nash, H. M.,
S. D. Bruner,
O. D. Scharer,
T. Kawate,
T. A. Addona,
E. Spooner,
W. S. Lane, and G. L. Verdine.
1996.
Cloning of a yeast 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase reveals the existence of a base-excision DNA-repair protein superfamily.
Curr. Biol.
6:968-980[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 40.
|
Nash, H. M.,
R. Lu,
W. S. Lane, and G. L. Verdine.
1997.
The critical active-site amine of human 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase, hOgg1: direct identification, ablation and chemical reconstitution.
Chem. Biol.
4:693-702[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 41.
|
Noll, D. M.,
A. Gogos,
J. A. Granek, and N. D. Clarke.
1999.
The C-terminal domain of the adenine-DNA glycosylase MutY confers specificity for 8-oxoguanine.adenine mispairs and may have evolved from MutT, an 8-oxo-dGTPase.
Biochemistry
38:6374-6579[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 42.
|
Senturker, S.,
C. Bauche,
J. Laval, and M. Dizdaroglu.
1999.
Substrate specificity of Deinococcus radiodurans Fpg protein.
Biochemistry
38:9435-9439[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 43.
|
Shibutani, S.,
M. Takeshita, and A. P. Grollman.
1991.
Insertion of specific bases during DNA synthesis past the oxidation-damaged base 8-oxodG.
Nature
349:431-434[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 44.
|
Sun, B.,
K. A. Latham,
M. L. Dodson, and R. S. Lloyd.
1995.
Studies on the catalytic mechanism of five DNA glycosylases: probing for enzyme-DNA imino intermediates.
J. Biol. Chem.
270:19501-19508[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 45.
|
Tchou, J., and A. P. Grollman.
1993.
Repair of DNA containing the oxidatively-damaged base 8-hydroxyguanine.
Mutat. Res.
299:277-287[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 46.
|
Tchou, J.,
H. Kasai,
S. Shibutani,
M.-H. Chung,
A. P. Grollman, and S. Nishimura.
1991.
8-Oxoguanine (8-hydroxyguanine) DNA glycosylase and its substrate specificity.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
88:4690-4694[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 47.
|
Thayer, M. M.,
H. Ahern,
D. Xing,
R. P. Cunningham, and J. A. Tainer.
1995.
Novel DNA binding motifs in the DNA repair enzyme endonuclease III crystal structure.
EMBO J.
14:4108-4120[Medline].
|
| 48.
|
Tsai-Wu, J.-J.,
H.-F. Liu, and A-L. Lu.
1992.
Escherichia coli MutY protein has both N-glycosylase and apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease activities on A-C and A-G mispairs.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
89:8779-8783[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 49.
|
Tsai-Wu, J.-J.,
J. P. Radicella, and A-L. Lu.
1991.
Nucleotide sequence of the Escherichia coli micA gene required for A/G-specific mismatch repair: identity of MicA and MutY.
J. Bacteriol.
173:1902-1910[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 50.
|
White, O.,
J. A. Eisen,
J. F. Heidelberg,
E. K. Hickey,
J. D. Peterson,
R. J. Dodson,
D. H. Haft,
M. L. Gwinn,
W. C. Nelson,
D. L. Richardson,
K. S. Moffat,
H. Qin,
L. Jiang,
W. Pamphile,
M. Crosby,
M. Shen,
J. J. Vamathevan,
P. Lam,
L. McDonald,
T. Utterback,
C. Zalewski,
K. S. Makarova,
L. Aravind,
M. J. Daly,
C. M. Fraser, et al.
1999.
Genome sequence of the radioresistant bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans R1.
Science
286:1571-1577[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 51.
|
Williams, S. D., and S. S. David.
1998.
Evidence that MutY is a monofunctional glycosylase capable of forming a covalent Schiff base intermediate with substrate DNA.
Nucleic Acids Res.
26:5123-5133[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 52.
|
Williams, S. D., and S. S. David.
1999.
Formation of a Schiff base intermediate is not required for the adenine glycosylase activity of Escherichia coli MutY.
Biochemistry
38:15417-15424[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 53.
|
Wood, M. L.,
M. Dizdaroglu,
E. Gajewski, and J. M. Essigmann.
1990.
Mechanistic studies of ionizing radiation and oxidative mutagenesis: genetic effects of single 8-hydroxyguanine (7-hydro-8-oxoguanine) residue inserted at a unique site in a viral genome.
Biochemistry
29:7024-7032[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 54.
|
Wright, P. M.,
J. Yu,
J. Cillo, and A-L. Lu.
1999.
The active site of the Escherichia coli MutY DNA adenine glycosylase.
J. Biol. Chem.
274:29011-29018[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 55.
|
Xu, W.,
J. Shen,
C. A. Dunn,
S. Desai, and M. J. Bessman.
2001.
The Nudix hydrolases of Deinococcus radiodurans.
Mol. Microbiol.
39:286-290[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 56.
|
Yamagata, Y.,
M. Kato,
K. Odawara,
Y. Tokuno,
Y. Nakashima,
N. Matsushima,
K. Yasumura,
K. Tomita,
K. Ihara,
Y. Fujii,
Y. Nakabeppu,
M. Sekiguchi, and S. Fujji.
1996.
Three-dimensional structure of a DNA repair enzyme, 3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase II, from Escherichia coli.
Cell
86:311-319[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 57.
|
Zharkov, D. O., and A. P. Grollman.
1998.
MutY DNA glycosylase: base release and intermediate complex formation.
Biochemistry
37:12384-12394[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Journal of Bacteriology, November 2001, p. 6151-6158, Vol. 183, No. 21
0021-9193/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.21.6151-6158.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Davidsen, T., Bjoras, M., Seeberg, E. C., Tonjum, T.
(2005). Antimutator Role of DNA Glycosylase MutY in Pathogenic Neisseria Species. J. Bacteriol.
187: 2801-2809
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Birdsell, J. A.
(2002). Integrating Genomics, Bioinformatics, and Classical Genetics to Study the Effects of Recombination on Genome Evolution. Mol Biol Evol
19: 1181-1197
[Abstract]
[Full Text]