A bacterial strain for detecting agents that produce free radical-mediated DNA strand breaks

Comparison of responses to double-strand breaks between Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis reveals different requirements for SOS induction

DNA double-strand breaks are particularly deleterious lesions that can lead to genomic instability and cell death. We investigated the SOS response to double-strand breaks in both Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. In E. coli, double-strand breaks induced by ionizing radiation resulted in SOS induction in virtually every cell. E. coli strains incapable of SOS induction were sensitive to ionizing radiation. In striking contrast, we found that in B. subtilis both ionizing radiation and a site-specific double-strand break causes induction of prophage PBSX and SOS gene expression in only a small subpopulation of cells. These results show that double-strand breaks provoke global SOS induction in E. coli but not in B. subtilis. Remarkably, RecA-GFP focus formation was nearly identical following ionizing radiation challenge in both E. coli and B. subtilis, demonstrating that formation of RecA-GFP foci occurs in response to double-strand breaks but does not require or result in SOS induction in B. subtilis. Furthermore, we found that B. subtilis cells incapable of inducing SOS had near wild-type levels of survival in response to ionizing radiation. Moreover, B. subtilis RecN contributes to maintaining low levels of SOS induction during double-strand break repair. Thus, we found that the contribution of SOS induction to double-strand break repair differs substantially between E. coli and B. subtilis.

Replication is required for the RecA localization response to DNA damage in Bacillus subtilis

In both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, proteins involved in DNA repair often organize into multicomponent complexes that can be visualized as foci in living cells. We used a RecA-GFP fusion to examine the subcellular cues that direct RecA-GFP to assemble as foci in response to DNA damage. We used two different methods to inhibit initiation of DNA replication and determined that DNA replication is required for the cell to establish RecA-GFP foci after exposure to DNA-damaging agents. Furthermore, use of endonuclease cleavage to generate a site-specific double-strand break demonstrated that the replication machinery (replisome) and DNA synthesis are required for assembly of RecA-GFP foci during repair of a double-strand break. We monitored the cellular levels of RecA and found that focus formation does not require further induction of protein levels, suggesting that foci result from a redistribution of existing protein to sites of damage encountered by the replisome. Taken together, our results support the model that existing RecA protein is recruited to ssDNA generated by the replisome at sites of DNA damage. These results provide insight into the mechanisms that the cell uses to recruit repair proteins to damaged DNA in living cells.

The SOS chromotest: a review

The SOS chromotest is reviewed through over 100 publications corresponding to the testing of 751 chemicals. 404 (54%) of these chemicals present a genotoxic activity detectable in the SOS chromotest. Their SOS inducing potencies span more than 8 orders of magnitude. For 452 compounds, the results obtained in the SOS chromotest could be compared to those obtained in the Ames test. It was found that 373 (82%) of these compounds give similar responses in both tests (236 positive and 137 negative responses). Thus the discrepancies between both tests concern 79 compounds (18%). A case by case analysis shows that many of these compounds are at the same time very weak SOS inducers and very weak mutagens. Thus we think that, most of the time, the discrepancies between the two tests may be accounted for by differences in the interpretation of the results rather than by the experimental results themselves. However, there are some compounds which are clearly SOS inducers but devoid of mutagenic activity in the Ames test (such as quinoline-1-oxide) and to a larger extent, clearly mutagenic compounds which do not induce the SOS response in the SOS chromotest (such as benzidine, cyclophosphamide, acridines, ethidium bromide). We also analyzed the correlation between SOS induction, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis according to the classification of Lewis. For 65 confirmed carcinogens (class 1), the sensitivity, i.e., the capacity to identify carcinogens, was 62% with the SOS chromotest and 77% with the Ames test. For 44 suspected carcinogens (class 2), the sensitivity was 66% with the SOS chromotest and 68% with the Ames test. Thus, we confirmed previous observations made on 83 compounds that there is a close correlation between the results given by both bacterial tests. The capacity of the Ames test to identify carcinogens is higher than that of the SOS chromotest. However, because the number of false positive compounds was lower in the SOS chromotest, the specificity, i.e., the capacity to discriminate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens of the SOS chromotest, appeared higher than that of the Ames test. Thus, the results of the SOS chromotest and of the Ames test can complement each other. The SOS chromotest is one of the most rapid and simple short-term test for genotoxins and is easily adaptable to various conditions, so that it could be used as an early--perhaps the earliest--test in a battery.

Prophage induction by DNA topoisomerase II poisons and reactive-oxygen species: role of DNA breaks

Various compounds were evaluated for their ability to induce prophage lambda in the Escherichia coli WP2s(lambda) microscreen assay. The inability of a DNA gyrase subunit B inhibitor (novobiocin) to induce prophage indicated that inhibition of the gyrase's ATPase was insufficient to elicit the SOS response. In contrast, poisons of DNA gyrase subunit A (nalidixic acid and oxolinic acid) were the most potent inducers of prophage among the agents examined here. This suggested that inhibition of the ligation function of subunit A, which also has a DNA nicking activity, likely resulted in DNA breaks that were available (as single-stranded DNA) to act as strong SOS-inducing signals, leading to prophage induction. Agents that both intercalated and produced reactive-oxygen species (the mammalian DNA topoisomerase II poisons, adriamycin, ellipticine, and m-AMSA) were the next most potent inducers of prophage. Agents that produced reactive-oxygen species only (hydrogen peroxide and paraquat) were less potent than adriamycin and ellipticine but more potent than m-AMSA. Agents that intercalated but did not generate reactive-oxygen species (actinomycin D) or that did neither (teniposide) were unable to induce prophage, suggesting that intercalation alone may be insufficient to induce prophage. These results illustrate the variety of mechanisms (and the relative effectiveness of these mechanisms) by which agents can induce prophage. Nonetheless, these agents may induce prophage by producing essentially the same type of DNA damage, i.e., DNA strand breaks. The potent genotoxicity of the DNA gyrase subunit A poisons illustrates the genotoxic consequences of perturbing an important DNA-protein complex such as that formed by DNA and DNA topoisomerase.

Induction of the SOS response by hydrogen peroxide in various Escherichia coli mutants with altered protection against oxidative DNA damage

The induction of the SOS response by H2O2 was measured in Escherichia coli by means of a sfiA::lacZ operon fusion. The effects of mutations in genes involved in DNA repair or DNA metabolism on the SOS response were investigated. We found that in an uvrA mutant, H2O2 induced the SOS response at lower concentrations than in the uvr+ parent strain, indicating that some lesions induced by H2O2 may be repaired by the uvrABC-dependent excision repair system. A nth mutation, yielding deficiency in thymine glycol DNA glycosylase, had no detectable effect on SOS induction, indicating that thymine glycol, a DNA lesion expected to be induced by H2O2, does not participate detectably in the induction of the SOS response by this chemical under our conditions. H2O2 still induced the SOS response in a dnaC(Ts) uvrA double mutant under conditions in which no DNA replication proceeds, suggesting that this chemical induces DNA strand breaks. Induction of the SOS response by H2O2 was also assayed in various mutants affected in genes suspected to be important for protection against oxidative stress. Mutations in the catalase genes, katE and katG, had only minor effects. However, in an oxyR deletion mutant, in which the adaptative response to H2O2 does not occur, SOS induction occurred at much lower H2O2 concentrations than in the oxyR+ parent strain. These results indicate that some enzymes regulated by the oxyR gene are, under our conditions, more important than catalase for protection against the H2O2-induced DNA damages which trigger the SOS response.

Detection of ionizing radiations with the SOS Chromotest, a bacterial short-term test for genotoxic agents

The effects of 3 types of ionizing radiation, gamma-rays, neutrons and accelerated alpha-particles, were examined using the SOS Chromotest, a bacterial colorimetric assay for genotoxic agents based on the measurement of the SOS response in Escherichia coli. The SOS Chromotest appeared to be a sensitive and simple assay to detect quantitatively these radiations as well as their biological effects. The range of adsorbed doses for which induction was observed was similar for the 3 types of radiation, the minimum inducing doses being in the order of 2.5-5 Gy. We discuss the possible use of these observations to study the molecular action of radiations and to compare their genotoxic effects with those of chemicals.