4.6 Article

Recruitment Kinetics of DNA Repair Proteins Mdc1 and Rad52 but Not 53BP1 Depend on Damage Complexity

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041943

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG Cluster of Excellence: Munich-Centre for Advanced Photonics (MAP)
  2. German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) [3610S30015, 3610S0016]
  3. Maier Leibnitz Laboratory Munich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recruitment kinetics of double-strand break (DSB) signaling and repair proteins Mdc1, 53BP1 and Rad52 into radiation-induced foci was studied by live-cell fluorescence microscopy after ion microirradiation. To investigate the influence of damage density and complexity on recruitment kinetics, which cannot be done by UV laser irradiation used in former studies, we utilized 43 MeV carbon ions with high linear energy transfer per ion (LET = 370 keV/mu m) to create a large fraction of clustered DSBs, thus forming complex DNA damage, and 20 MeV protons with low LET (LET = 2.6 keV/mu m) to create mainly isolated DSBs. Kinetics for all three proteins was characterized by a time lag period T-0 after irradiation, during which no foci are formed. Subsequently, the proteins accumulate into foci with characteristic mean recruitment times tau(1). Mdc1 accumulates faster (T-0 = 17 +/- 2 s, tau(1) = 98 +/- 11 s) than 53BP1 (T-0 = 77 +/- 7 s, tau(1) = 310 +/- 60 s) after high LET irradiation. However, recruitment of Mdc1 slows down (T-0 = 73 +/- 16 s, tau(1) = 1050 +/- 270 s) after low LET irradiation. The recruitment kinetics of Rad52 is slower than that of Mdc1, but exhibits the same dependence on LET. In contrast, the mean recruitment time tau(1) of 53BP1 remains almost constant when varying LET. Comparison to literature data on Mdc1 recruitment after UV laser irradiation shows that this rather resembles recruitment after high than low LET ionizing radiation. So this work shows that damage quality has a large influence on repair processes and has to be considered when comparing different studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据