4.8 Article

Specificity and mutagenesis bias of the mycobacterial alternative mismatch repair analyzed by mutation accumulation studies

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aay4453

关键词

-

资金

  1. Plan Nacional de I + D + i
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdireccion General de Redes y Centros de Investigacion Cooperativa, Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases [REIPI RD16/0016/0009]
  3. European Development Regional Fund A Way to Achieve Europe
  4. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS PI17/00159]
  5. Spanish Ministry of Science and Competitiveness (MINECO)-FEDER [SAF2015-72793-EXP]
  6. PFIS [FI18/00036]
  7. European Social Fund
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [581, 638553]
  9. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [SAF2016-77346-R]
  10. European Research Council (ERC) [638553] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The postreplicative mismatch repair (MMR) is an almost ubiquitous DNA repair essential for maintaining genome stability. It has been suggested that Mycobacteria have an alternative MMR in which NucS, an endonuclease with no structural homology to the canonical MMR proteins (MutS/MutL), is the key factor. Here, we analyze the spontaneous mutations accumulated in a neutral manner over thousands of generations by Mycobacterium smegmatis and its MMR-deficient derivative (Delta nucS). The base pair substitution rates per genome per generation are 0.004 and 0.165 for wild type and Delta nucS, respectively. By comparing the activity of different bacterial MMR pathways, we demonstrate that both MutS/L- and NucS-based systems display similar specificity and mutagenesis bias, revealing a functional evolutionary convergence. However, NucS is not able to repair indels in vivo. Our results provide an unparalleled view of how this mycobacterial system works in vivo to maintain genome stability and how it may affect Mycobacterium evolution.

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

4.8
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