Mechanisms of glycosylase induced genomic instability

Genetic and chemotherapeutic influences on germline hypermutation

Mutations in the germline generates all evolutionary genetic variation and is a cause of genetic disease. Parental age is the primary determinant of the number of new germline mutations in an individual's genome1,2. Here we analysed the genome-wide sequences of 21,879 families with rare genetic diseases and identified 12 individuals with a hypermutated genome with between two and seven times more de novo single-nucleotide variants than expected. In most families (9 out of 12), the excess mutations came from the father. Two families had genetic drivers of germline hypermutation, with fathers carrying damaging genetic variation in DNA-repair genes. For five of the families, paternal exposure to chemotherapeutic agents before conception was probably a key driver of hypermutation. Our results suggest that the germline is well protected from mutagenic effects, hypermutation is rare, the number of excess mutations is relatively modest and most individuals with a hypermutated genome will not have a genetic disease.

Biological Basis for Threshold Responses to Methylating Agents

The cellular outcomes of chemical exposure are as much about the cellular response to the chemical as it is an effect of the chemical. We are growing in our understanding of the genotoxic interaction between chemistry and biology. For example, recent data has revealed the biological basis for mutation induction curves for a methylating chemical, which has been shown to be dependent on the repair capacity of the cells. However, this is just one end point in the toxicity pathway from chemical exposure to cell death. Much remains to be known in order for us to predict how cells will respond to a certain dose. Methylating agents, a subset of alkylating agents, are of particular interest, because of the variety of adverse genetic end points that can result, not only at increasing doses, but also over time. For instance, methylating agents are mutagenic, their potency, for this end point, is determined by the cellular repair capacity of an enzyme called methylguanine DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) and its ability to repair the induceed methyl adducts. However, methyl adducts can become clastogenic. Erroneous biological processing will convert mutagenic adducts to clastogenic events in the form of double strand breaks (DSBs). How the cell responds to DSBs is via a cascade of protein kinases, which is called the DNA damage response (DDR), which will determine if the damage is repaired effectively, via homologous recombination, or with errors, via nonhomologous end joining, or whether the cell dies via apoptosis or enters senescence. The fate of cells may be determined by the extent of damage and the resulting strength of DDR signaling. Therefore, thresholds of damage may exist that determine cell fate. Such thresholds would be dependent on each of the repair and response mechanisms that these methyl adducts stimulate. The molecular mechanism of how methyl adducts kill cells is still to be fully resolved. If we are able to quantify each of these thresholds of damage for a given cell, then we can ascertain, of the many adducts that are induced, what proportion of them are mutagenic, what proportion are clastogenic, and how many of these clastogenic events are toxic. This review examines the possibility of dose and damage thresholds for methylating agents, from the perspective of the underlying evolutionary mechanisms that may be accountable.

Recognition of 1,N2-ethenoguanine by alkyladenine DNA glycosylase is restricted by a conserved active-site residue

The adenine, cytosine, and guanine bases of DNA are susceptible to alkylation by the aldehyde products of lipid peroxidation and by the metabolic byproducts of vinyl chloride pollutants. The resulting adducts spontaneously cyclize to form harmful etheno lesions. Cells employ a variety of DNA repair pathways to protect themselves from these pro-mutagenic modifications. Human alkyladenine DNA glycosylase (AAG) is thought to initiate base excision repair of both 1,N6-ethenoadenine (ϵA) and 1,N2-ethenoguanine (ϵG). However, it is not clear how AAG might accommodate ϵG in an active site that is complementary to ϵA. This prompted a thorough investigation of AAG-catalyzed excision of ϵG from several relevant contexts. Using single-turnover and multiple-turnover kinetic analyses, we found that ϵG in its natural ϵG·C context is very poorly recognized relative to ϵA·T. Bulged and mispaired ϵG contexts, which can form during DNA replication, were similarly poor substrates for AAG. Furthermore, AAG could not recognize an ϵG site in competition with excess undamaged DNA sites. Guided by previous structural studies, we hypothesized that Asn-169, a conserved residue in the AAG active-site pocket, contributes to discrimination against ϵG. Consistent with this model, the N169S variant of AAG was 7-fold more active for excision of ϵG compared with the wildtype (WT) enzyme. Taken together, these findings suggest that ϵG is not a primary substrate of AAG, and that current models for etheno lesion repair in humans should be revised. We propose that other repair and tolerance mechanisms operate in the case of ϵG lesions.