SOS response

Last updated
E. coli SOS System: DNA can be damaged by cross-linking agents, UV irradiation, alkylating agents, etc. Once damaged, RecA, a LexA protease, senses that damaged DNA and becomes activated by removing its repressor. Once the LexA dimer repressor is removed, the expression of LexA operon is autoregulatory. In addition to being a LexA protease, the RecA protein also catalyzes a few novel DNA reactions such as annealing of single-stranded DNA and transfer of strands. The SOS system has enhanced DNA-repair capacity, including excision and post-replication repair, enhanced mutagenesis and prophage induction. The system can also inhibit cell division and cell respiration. MMG 301 Final Draft.png
E. coli SOS System: DNA can be damaged by cross-linking agents, UV irradiation, alkylating agents, etc. Once damaged, RecA, a LexA protease, senses that damaged DNA and becomes activated by removing its repressor. Once the LexA dimer repressor is removed, the expression of LexA operon is autoregulatory. In addition to being a LexA protease, the RecA protein also catalyzes a few novel DNA reactions such as annealing of single-stranded DNA and transfer of strands. The SOS system has enhanced DNA-repair capacity, including excision and post-replication repair, enhanced mutagenesis and prophage induction. The system can also inhibit cell division and cell respiration.
The SOS response has been proposed as a model for bacterial evolution of certain types of antibiotic resistance. SOS response antibiotic resistance.png
The SOS response has been proposed as a model for bacterial evolution of certain types of antibiotic resistance.

The SOS response is a global response to DNA damage in which the cell cycle is arrested and DNA repair and mutagenesis are induced. The system involves the RecA protein (Rad51 in eukaryotes). The RecA protein, stimulated by single-stranded DNA, is involved in the inactivation of the repressor (LexA) of SOS response genes thereby inducing the response. It is an error-prone repair system that contributes significantly to DNA changes observed in a wide range of species.

Contents

Discovery

The SOS response was articulated by Evelyn Witkin. [3] [4] Later, by characterizing the phenotypes of mutagenised E. coli, she and post doctoral student Miroslav Radman detailed the SOS response to UV radiation in bacteria. [3] [5] The SOS response to DNA damage was a seminal discovery because it was the first coordinated stress response to be elucidated. [6]

Mechanism

During normal growth, the SOS genes are negatively regulated by LexA repressor protein dimers. Under normal conditions, LexA binds to a 20-bp consensus sequence (the SOS box) in the operator region for those genes. Some of these SOS genes are expressed at certain levels even in the repressed state, according to the affinity of LexA for their SOS box. Activation of the SOS genes occurs after DNA damage by the accumulation of single stranded (ssDNA) regions generated at replication forks, where DNA polymerase is blocked. RecA forms a filament around these ssDNA regions in an ATP-dependent fashion, and becomes activated. [7] The activated form of RecA interacts with the LexA repressor to facilitate the LexA repressor's self-cleavage from the operator. [7] [8]

Once the pool of LexA decreases, repression of the SOS genes goes down according to the level of LexA affinity for the SOS boxes. [7] Operators that bind LexA weakly are the first to be fully expressed. In this way LexA can sequentially activate different mechanisms of repair. Genes having a weak SOSbox (such as lexA, recA, uvrA, uvrB, and uvrD) are fully induced in response to even weak SOS-inducing treatments. Thus the first SOS repair mechanism to be induced is nucleotide excision repair (NER), whose aim is to fix DNA damage without commitment to a full-fledged SOS response. If, however, NER does not suffice to fix the damage, the LexA concentration is further reduced, so the expression of genes with stronger LexA boxes (such as sulA, umuD, umuC – these are expressed late) is induced. [7] SulA stops cell division [7] by binding to FtsZ, the initiating protein in this process. This causes filamentation, and the induction of UmuDC-dependent mutagenic repair. As a result of these properties, some genes may be partially induced in response to even endogenous levels of DNA damage, while other genes appear to be induced only when high or persistent DNA damage is present in the cell.

Antibiotic resistance

Research has shown that the SOS response system can lead to mutations which can lead to resistance to antibiotics. [9] The increased rate of mutation during the SOS response is caused by three low-fidelity DNA polymerases: Pol II, Pol IV and Pol V. [10] [9] Researchers are now targeting these proteins with the aim of creating drugs that prevent SOS repair. By doing so, the time needed for pathogenic bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance could be extended, thus improving the long term viability of some antibiotic drugs. [11]

As well as genetic resistance the SOS response can also promote phenotypic resistance. Here, the genome is preserved whilst other non-genetic factors are altered to enable the bacteria to survive. The SOS dependent tisB-istR toxin-antitoxin system has, for example, been linked to DNA damage-dependent persister cell induction. [12]

Genotoxicity testing

Overview of the use of the SOS response for genotoxicity testing. Genotoxic Damage.png
Overview of the use of the SOS response for genotoxicity testing.

In Escherichia coli, different classes of DNA-damaging agents can initiate the SOS response, as described above. Taking advantage of an operon fusion placing the lac operon (responsible for producing beta-galactosidase, a protein which degrades lactose) under the control of an SOS-related protein, a simple colorimetric assay for genotoxicity is possible. A lactose analog is added to the bacteria, which is then degraded by beta-galactosidase, thereby producing a colored compound which can be measured quantitatively through spectrophotometry. The degree of color development is an indirect measure of the beta-galactosidase produced, which itself is directly related to the amount of DNA damage.

The E. coli are further modified in order to have a number of mutations including a uvrA mutation which renders the strain deficient in excision repair, increasing the response to certain DNA-damaging agents, as well as an rfa mutation, which renders the bacteria lipopolysaccharide-deficient, allowing better diffusion of certain chemicals into the cell in order to induce the SOS response. [13] Commercial kits which measures the primary response of the E. coli cell to genetic damage are available and may be highly correlated with the Ames Test for certain materials. [14]

Additional images

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lambda phage</span> Bacteriophage that infects Escherichia coli

Enterobacteria phage λ is a bacterial virus, or bacteriophage, that infects the bacterial species Escherichia coli. It was discovered by Esther Lederberg in 1950. The wild type of this virus has a temperate life cycle that allows it to either reside within the genome of its host through lysogeny or enter into a lytic phase, during which it kills and lyses the cell to produce offspring. Lambda strains, mutated at specific sites, are unable to lysogenize cells; instead, they grow and enter the lytic cycle after superinfecting an already lysogenized cell.

Mutagenesis is a process by which the genetic information of an organism is changed by the production of a mutation. It may occur spontaneously in nature, or as a result of exposure to mutagens. It can also be achieved experimentally using laboratory procedures. A mutagen is a mutation-causing agent, be it chemical or physical, which results in an increased rate of mutations in an organism's genetic code. In nature mutagenesis can lead to cancer and various heritable diseases, and it is also a driving force of evolution. Mutagenesis as a science was developed based on work done by Hermann Muller, Charlotte Auerbach and J. M. Robson in the first half of the 20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DNA polymerase</span> Form of DNA replication

A DNA polymerase is a member of a family of enzymes that catalyze the synthesis of DNA molecules from nucleoside triphosphates, the molecular precursors of DNA. These enzymes are essential for DNA replication and usually work in groups to create two identical DNA duplexes from a single original DNA duplex. During this process, DNA polymerase "reads" the existing DNA strands to create two new strands that match the existing ones. These enzymes catalyze the chemical reaction

<i>lac</i> operon Set genes encoding proteins and enzymes for lactose metabolism

The lactose operon is an operon required for the transport and metabolism of lactose in E. coli and many other enteric bacteria. Although glucose is the preferred carbon source for most enteric bacteria, the lac operon allows for the effective digestion of lactose when glucose is not available through the activity of beta-galactosidase. Gene regulation of the lac operon was the first genetic regulatory mechanism to be understood clearly, so it has become a foremost example of prokaryotic gene regulation. It is often discussed in introductory molecular and cellular biology classes for this reason. This lactose metabolism system was used by François Jacob and Jacques Monod to determine how a biological cell knows which enzyme to synthesize. Their work on the lac operon won them the Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DNA repair</span> Cellular mechanism

DNA repair is a collection of processes by which a cell identifies and corrects damage to the DNA molecules that encodes its genome. In human cells, both normal metabolic activities and environmental factors such as radiation can cause DNA damage, resulting in tens of thousands of individual molecular lesions per cell per day. Many of these lesions cause structural damage to the DNA molecule and can alter or eliminate the cell's ability to transcribe the gene that the affected DNA encodes. Other lesions induce potentially harmful mutations in the cell's genome, which affect the survival of its daughter cells after it undergoes mitosis. As a consequence, the DNA repair process is constantly active as it responds to damage in the DNA structure. When normal repair processes fail, and when cellular apoptosis does not occur, irreparable DNA damage may occur. This can eventually lead to malignant tumors, or cancer as per the two-hit hypothesis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">RecA</span> DNA repair protein

RecA is a 38 kilodalton protein essential for the repair and maintenance of DNA. A RecA structural and functional homolog has been found in every species in which one has been seriously sought and serves as an archetype for this class of homologous DNA repair proteins. The homologous protein is called RAD51 in eukaryotes and RadA in archaea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Repressor lexA</span>

Repressor LexA or LexA is a transcriptional repressor that represses SOS response genes coding primarily for error-prone DNA polymerases, DNA repair enzymes and cell division inhibitors. LexA forms de facto a two-component regulatory system with RecA, which senses DNA damage at stalled replication forks, forming monofilaments and acquiring an active conformation capable of binding to LexA and causing LexA to cleave itself, in a process called autoproteolysis.

SOS box is the region in the promoter of various genes to which the LexA repressor binds to repress the transcription of SOS-induced proteins. This occurs in the absence of DNA damage. In the presence of DNA damage the binding of LexA is inactivated by the RecA activator. SOS boxes differ in DNA sequences and binding affinity towards LexA from organism to organism. Furthermore, SOS boxes may be present in a dual fashion, which indicates that more than one SOS box can be within the same promoter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filamentation</span> Type of bacteria growth

Filamentation is the anomalous growth of certain bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, in which cells continue to elongate but do not divide. The cells that result from elongation without division have multiple chromosomal copies.

UvrABC endonuclease is a multienzyme complex in bacteria involved in DNA repair by nucleotide excision repair, and it is, therefore, sometimes called an excinuclease. This UvrABC repair process, sometimes called the short-patch process, involves the removal of twelve nucleotides where a genetic mutation has occurred followed by a DNA polymerase, replacing these aberrant nucleotides with the correct nucleotides and completing the DNA repair. The subunits for this enzyme are encoded in the uvrA, uvrB, and uvrC genes. This enzyme complex is able to repair many different types of damage, including cyclobutyl dimer formation.

Adaptive mutation, also called directed mutation or directed mutagenesis is a controversial evolutionary theory. It posits that mutations, or genetic changes, are much less random and more purposeful than traditional evolution, implying that organisms can respond to environmental stresses by directing mutations to certain genes or areas of the genome. There have been a wide variety of experiments trying to support the idea of adaptive mutation, at least in microorganisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evelyn M. Witkin</span> American geneticist (1921–2023)

Evelyn M. Witkin was an American bacterial geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (1944–1955), SUNY Downstate Medical Center (1955–1971), and Rutgers University (1971–1991). Witkin was considered innovative and inspirational as a scientist, teacher and mentor.

Mutation Frequency Decline (mfd) is the gene which encodes the protein Mfd. Mfd functions in transcription-coupled repair to remove a stalled RNA polymerase that has encountered DNA damage and is unable to continue translocating.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SymE-SymR toxin-antitoxin system</span>

The SymE-SymR toxin-antitoxin system consists of a small symbiotic endonuclease toxin, SymE, and a non-coding RNA symbiotic RNA antitoxin, SymR, which inhibits SymE translation. SymE-SymR is a type I toxin-antitoxin system, and is under regulation by the antitoxin, SymR. The SymE-SymR complex is believed to play an important role in recycling damaged RNA and DNA. The relationship and corresponding structures of SymE and SymR provide insight into the mechanism of toxicity and overall role in prokaryotic systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SOS chromotest</span>

The SOS chromotest is a biological assay to assess the genotoxic potential of chemical compounds. The test is a colorimetric assay which measures the expression of genes induced by genotoxic agents in Escherichia coli, by means of a fusion with the structural gene for β-galactosidase. The test is performed over a few hours in columns of a 96-well microplate with increasing concentrations of test samples. This test was developed as a practical complement or alternative to the traditional Ames test assay for genotoxicity, which involves growing bacteria on agar plates and comparing natural mutation rates to mutation rates of bacteria exposed to potentially mutagenic compounds or samples. The SOS chromotest is comparable in accuracy and sensitivity to established methods such as the Ames test and is a useful tool to screen genotoxic compounds, which could prove carcinogenic in humans, in order to single out chemicals for further in-depth analysis.

For pharmacology and genetics, the Umu Chromotest, first developed and published by Oda et al., is a biological assay (bioassay) to assess the genotoxic potential of chemical compounds. It is based on the ability of DNA-damaging agents to induce the expression of the umu operon. In connection with the damage inducible (din) genes recA, lexA and umuD, the umuC gene is essentially involved in bacterial mutagenesis through the SOS response.

Bacterial morphological plasticity refers to changes in the shape and size that bacterial cells undergo when they encounter stressful environments. Although bacteria have evolved complex molecular strategies to maintain their shape, many are able to alter their shape as a survival strategy in response to protist predators, antibiotics, the immune response, and other threats.

DNA polymerase IV is a prokaryotic polymerase that is involved in mutagenesis and is encoded by the dinB gene. It exhibits no 3′→5′ exonuclease (proofreading) activity and hence is error prone. In E. coli, DNA polymerase IV is involved in non-targeted mutagenesis. Pol IV is a Family Y polymerase expressed by the dinB gene that is switched on via SOS induction caused by stalled polymerases at the replication fork. During SOS induction, Pol IV production is increased tenfold and one of the functions during this time is to interfere with Pol III holoenzyme processivity. This creates a checkpoint, stops replication, and allows time to repair DNA lesions via the appropriate repair pathway. Another function of Pol IV is to perform translesion synthesis at the stalled replication fork like, for example, bypassing N2-deoxyguanine adducts at a faster rate than transversing undamaged DNA. Cells lacking dinB gene have a higher rate of mutagenesis caused by DNA damaging agents.

DNA Polymerase V is a polymerase enzyme involved in DNA repair mechanisms in bacteria, such as Escherichia coli. It is composed of a UmuD' homodimer and a UmuC monomer, forming the UmuD'2C protein complex. It is part of the Y-family of DNA Polymerases, which are capable of performing DNA translesion synthesis (TLS). Translesion polymerases bypass DNA damage lesions during DNA replication - if a lesion is not repaired or bypassed the replication fork can stall and lead to cell death. However, Y polymerases have low sequence fidelity during replication. When the UmuC and UmuD' proteins were initially discovered in E. coli, they were thought to be agents that inhibit faithful DNA replication and caused DNA synthesis to have high mutation rates after exposure to UV-light. The polymerase function of Pol V was not discovered until the late 1990s when UmuC was successfully extracted, consequent experiments unequivocally proved UmuD'2C is a polymerase. This finding lead to the detection of many Pol V orthologs and the discovery of the Y-family of polymerases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Universal stress protein</span>

The universal stress protein (USP) domain is a superfamily of conserved genes which can be found in bacteria, archaea, fungi, protozoa and plants. Proteins containing the domain are induced by many environmental stressors such as nutrient starvation, drought, extreme temperatures, high salinity, and the presence of uncouplers, antibiotics and metals.

References

  1. Little JW, Mount DW (May 1982). "The SOS regulatory system of Escherichia coli". Cell. 29 (1): 11–22. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(82)90085-X. PMID   7049397. S2CID   12476812.
  2. Michel B (July 2005). "After 30 years of study, the bacterial SOS response still surprises us". PLOS Biology. 3 (7): e255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030255 . PMC   1174825 . PMID   16000023. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  3. 1 2 Fitzgerald, Devon M.; Hastings, P.J.; Rosenberg, Susan M. (6 March 2017). "Stress-Induced Mutagenesis: Implications in Cancer and Drug Resistance". Annual Review of Cancer Biology. 1 (1): 119–140. doi:10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-050216-121919. ISSN   2472-3428. PMC   5794033 . PMID   29399660 . Retrieved 6 March 2023.
  4. Witkin, E M (May 1967). "The radiation sensitivity of Escherichia coli B: a hypothesis relating filament formation and prophage induction". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 57 (5): 1275–1279. Bibcode:1967PNAS...57.1275W. doi: 10.1073/pnas.57.5.1275 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   224468 . PMID   5341236.
  5. Witkin, E. M. (1976). "Ultraviolet mutagenesis and inducible DNA repair in Escherichia coli". Bacteriological Reviews. 40 (4): 869–907. doi:10.1128/MMBR.40.4.869-907.1976. PMC   413988 . PMID   795416.
  6. Radman, M (1975). "Phenomenology of an inducible mutagenic DNA repair pathway in Escherichia coli: SOS repair hypothesis". Basic Life Sciences. 5A: 355–367. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2895-7_48. PMID   1103845.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Maslowska, K. H.; Makiela-Dzbenska, K.; Fijalkowska, I. J. (May 2019). "The SOS system: A complex and tightly regulated response to DNA damage". Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 60 (4): 368–384. Bibcode:2019EnvMM..60..368M. doi:10.1002/em.22267. PMC   6590174 . PMID   30447030.
  8. Nelson DL, Cox MM (April 2004) Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry 4th Edition. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. page 1098.
  9. 1 2 Cirz, RT; Chin, JK; Andes, DR; De Crécy-Lagard, V; Craig, WA; Romesberg, FE; et al. (June 2005). "Inhibition of mutation and combating the evolution of antibiotic resistance". PLOS Biology. 3 (6): e176. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030176 . PMC   1088971 . PMID   15869329. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  10. Jaszczur, M; Bertram, JG; Robinson, A; van Oijen, AM; Woodgate, R; Cox, MM; Goodman, MF (April 2016). "Mutations for Worse or Better: Low Fidelity DNA Synthesis by SOS DNA Polymerase V is a Tightly-Regulated Double-Edged Sword". Biochemistry. 55 (16): 2309–2318. doi:10.1021/acs.biochem.6b00117. PMC   4846499 . PMID   27043933.
  11. Lee, AM; Ross, CT; Zeng, BB; Singleton, SF; et al. (July 2005). "A molecular target for suppression of the evolution of antibiotic resistance: Inhibition of the Escherichia coli RecA Protein by N6-(1-Naphthyl)-ADP". Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 48 (17): 5408–5411. doi:10.1021/jm050113z. PMID   16107138.
  12. Dörr, T; Vulić, M; Lewis, K (February 2010). "Ciprofloxacin Causes Persister Formation by Inducing the TisB toxin in Escherichia coli". PLOS Biology. 8 (2): e1000317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000317 . PMC   2826370 . PMID   20186264.
  13. Quillardet P, Hofnung M (October 1993). "The SOS chromotest: A review". Mutation Research. 297 (3): 235–279. doi:10.1016/0165-1110(93)90019-J. PMID   7692273.
  14. Quillardet P, Hofnung M (June 1985). "The SOS chromotest, a colorimetric bacterial assay for genotoxins: validation study with 83 compounds". Mutation Research. 147 (3): 79–95. doi:10.1016/0165-1161(85)90021-4. PMID   3923333.