4.6 Article

Pre-Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Stimulates DNA Double Strand Break End Resection, Promoting the Use of Homologous Recombination Repair

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122582

关键词

-

资金

  1. Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Suzuken Memorial Foundation
  4. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  5. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  6. Program for Strategic Young Researcher Overseas Visits Program for Accelerating Brain Circulation
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24390288, 26670549, 26701005] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The choice of DNA double strand break (DSB) repair pathway is determined at the stage of DSB end resection. Resection was proposed to control the balance between the two major DSB repair pathways, homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). Here, we examined the regulation of DSB repair pathway choice at two-ended DSBs following ionizing radiation (IR) in G2 phase of the cell cycle. We found that cells pre-exposed to low-dose IR preferred to undergo HR following challenge IR in G2, whereas NHEJ repair kinetics in G1 were not affected by pre-IR treatment. Consistent with the increase in HR usage, the challenge IR induced Replication protein A (RPA) foci formation and RPA phosphorylation, a marker of resection, were enhanced by pre-IR. However, neither major DNA damage signals nor the status of core NHEJ proteins, which influence the choice of repair pathway, was significantly altered in pre-IR treated cells. Moreover, the increase in usage of HR due to pre-IR exposure was prevented by treatment with ATM inhibitor during the incubation period between pre-IR and challenge IR. Taken together, the results of our study suggest that the ATM-dependent damage response after pre-IR changes the cellular environment, possibly by regulating gene expression or post-transcriptional modifications in a manner that promotes resection.

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