Enhancement of DNA repair using topical T4 endonuclease V does not inhibit melanoma formation in Cdk4R24C/R24C/Tyr-NrasQ61K mice following neonatal UVR

To further investigate the use of DNA repair-enhancing agents for skin cancer prevention, we treated Cdk4R24C/R24C/NrasQ61K mice topically with the T4 endonuclease V DNA repair enzyme (known as Dimericine) immediately prior to neonatal ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure, which has a powerful effect in exacerbating melanoma development in the mouse model. Dimericine has been shown to reduce the incidence of basal-cell and squamous cell carcinoma. Unexpectedly, we saw no difference in penetrance or age of onset of melanoma after neonatal UVR between Dimericine-treated and control animals, although the drug reduced DNA damage and cellular proliferation in the skin. Interestingly, epidermal melanocytes removed cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) more efficiently than surrounding keratinocytes. Our study indicates that neonatal UVR-initiated melanomas may be driven by mechanisms other than solely that of a large CPD load and/or their inefficient repair. This is further suggestive of different mechanisms by which UVR may enhance the transformation of keratinocytes and melanocytes.

Biochemical characterization of Aprataxin, the protein deficient in Ataxia with Oculomotor Apraxia type 1

Neurodegenerative disorders are heterogenous in nature and include a range of ataxias with oculomotor apraxia, which are characterised by a wide variety of neurological and ophthalmological features. This family includes recessive and dominant disorders. A subfamily of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias are characterised by defects in the cellular response to DNA damage. These include the well characterised disorders Ataxia-Telangiectasia (A-T) and Ataxia-Telangiectasia Like Disorder (A-TLD) as well as the recently identified diseases Spinocerebellar ataxia with axonal neuropathy Type 1 (SCAN1), Ataxia with Oculomotor Apraxia Type 2 (AOA2), as well as the subject of this thesis, Ataxia with Oculomotor Apraxia Type 1 (AOA1). AOA1 is caused by mutations in the APTX gene, which is located at chromosomal locus 9p13. This gene codes for the 342 amino acid protein Aprataxin. Mutations in APTX cause destabilization of Aprataxin, thus AOA1 is a result of Aprataxin deficiency. Aprataxin has three functional domains, an N-terminal Forkhead Associated (FHA) phosphoprotein interaction domain, a central Histidine Triad (HIT) nucleotide hydrolase domain and a C-terminal C2H2 zinc finger. Aprataxins FHA domain has homology to FHA domain of the DNA repair protein 5’ polynucleotide kinase 3’ phosphatase (PNKP). PNKP interacts with a range of DNA repair proteins via its FHA domain and plays a critical role in processing damaged DNA termini. The presence of this domain with a nucleotide hydrolase domain and a DNA binding motif implicated that Aprataxin may be involved in DNA repair and that AOA1 may be caused by a DNA repair deficit. This was substantiated by the interaction of Aprataxin with proteins involved in the repair of both single and double strand DNA breaks (XRay Cross-Complementing 1, XRCC4 and Poly-ADP Ribose Polymerase-1) and the hypersensitivity of AOA1 patient cell lines to single and double strand break inducing agents. At the commencement of this study little was known about the in vitro and in vivo properties of Aprataxin. Initially this study focused on generation of recombinant Aprataxin proteins to facilitate examination of the in vitro properties of Aprataxin. Using recombinant Aprataxin proteins I found that Aprataxin binds to double stranded DNA. Consistent with a role for Aprataxin as a DNA repair enzyme, this binding is not sequence specific. I also report that the HIT domain of Aprataxin hydrolyses adenosine derivatives and interestingly found that this activity is competitively inhibited by DNA. This provided initial evidence that DNA binds to the HIT domain of Aprataxin. The interaction of DNA with the nucleotide hydrolase domain of Aprataxin provided initial evidence that Aprataxin may be a DNA-processing factor. Following these studies, Aprataxin was found to hydrolyse 5’adenylated DNA, which can be generated by unscheduled ligation at DNA breaks with non-standard termini. I found that cell extracts from AOA1 patients do not have DNA-adenylate hydrolase activity indicating that Aprataxin is the only DNA-adenylate hydrolase in mammalian cells. I further characterised this activity by examining the contribution of the zinc finger and FHA domains to DNA-adenylate hydrolysis by the HIT domain. I found that deletion of the zinc finger ablated the activity of the HIT domain against adenylated DNA, indicating that the zinc finger may be required for the formation of a stable enzyme-substrate complex. Deletion of the FHA domain stimulated DNA-adenylate hydrolysis, which indicated that the activity of the HIT domain may be regulated by the FHA domain. Given that the FHA domain is involved in protein-protein interactions I propose that the activity of Aprataxins HIT domain may be regulated by proteins which interact with its FHA domain. We examined this possibility by measuring the DNA-adenylate hydrolase activity of extracts from cells deficient for the Aprataxin-interacting DNA repair proteins XRCC1 and PARP-1. XRCC1 deficiency did not affect Aprataxin activity but I found that Aprataxin is destabilized in the absence of PARP-1, resulting in a deficiency of DNA-adenylate hydrolase activity in PARP-1 knockout cells. This implies a critical role for PARP-1 in the stabilization of Aprataxin. Conversely I found that PARP-1 is destabilized in the absence of Aprataxin. PARP-1 is a central player in a number of DNA repair mechanisms and this implies that not only do AOA1 cells lack Aprataxin, they may also have defects in PARP-1 dependant cellular functions. Based on this I identified a defect in a PARP-1 dependant DNA repair mechanism in AOA1 cells. Additionally, I identified elevated levels of oxidized DNA in AOA1 cells, which is indicative of a defect in Base Excision Repair (BER). I attribute this to the reduced level of the BER protein Apurinic Endonuclease 1 (APE1) I identified in Aprataxin deficient cells. This study has identified and characterised multiple DNA repair defects in AOA1 cells, indicating that Aprataxin deficiency has far-reaching cellular consequences. Consistent with the literature, I show that Aprataxin is a nuclear protein with nucleoplasmic and nucleolar distribution. Previous studies have shown that Aprataxin interacts with the nucleolar rRNA processing factor nucleolin and that AOA1 cells appear to have a mild defect in rRNA synthesis. Given the nucleolar localization of Aprataxin I examined the protein-protein interactions of Aprataxin and found that Aprataxin interacts with a number of rRNA transcription and processing factors. Based on this and the nucleolar localization of Aprataxin I proposed that Aprataxin may have an alternative role in the nucleolus. I therefore examined the transcriptional activity of Aprataxin deficient cells using nucleotide analogue incorporation. I found that AOA1 cells do not display a defect in basal levels of RNA synthesis, however they display defective transcriptional responses to DNA damage. In summary, this thesis demonstrates that Aprataxin is a DNA repair enzyme responsible for the repair of adenylated DNA termini and that it is required for stabilization of at least two other DNA repair proteins. Thus not only do AOA1 cells have no Aprataxin protein or activity, they have additional deficiencies in PolyADP Ribose Polymerase-1 and Apurinic Endonuclease 1 dependant DNA repair mechanisms. I additionally demonstrate DNA-damage inducible transcriptional defects in AOA1 cells, indicating that Aprataxin deficiency confers a broad range of cellular defects and highlighting the complexity of the cellular response to DNA damage and the multiple defects which result from Aprataxin deficiency. My detailed characterization of the cellular consequences of Aprataxin deficiency provides an important contribution to our understanding of interlinking DNA repair processes.

Substrate recognition and catalysis by the Holliday junction resolving enzyme Hje

Two archaeal Holliday junction resolving enzymes, Holliday junction cleavage (Hjc) and Holliday junction endonuclease (Hje), have been characterized. Both are members of a nuclease superfamily that includes the type II restriction enzymes, although their DNA cleaving activity is highly specific for four-way junction structure and not nucleic acid sequence. Despite 28% sequence identity, Hje and Hjc cleave junctions with distinct cutting patterns—they cut different strands of a four-way junction, at different distances from the junction centre. We report the high-resolution crystal structure of Hje from Sulfolobus solfataricus. The structure provides a basis to explain the differences in substrate specificity of Hje and Hjc, which result from changes in dimer organization, and suggests a viral origin for the Hje gene. Structural and biochemical data support the modelling of an Hje:DNA junction complex, highlighting a flexible loop that interacts intimately with the junction centre. A highly conserved serine residue on this loop is shown to be essential for the enzyme's activity, suggesting a novel variation of the nuclease active site. The loop may act as a conformational switch, ensuring that the active site is completed only on binding a four-way junction, thus explaining the exquisite specificity of these enzymes.

Dopamine receptor genes and migraine with and without aura : an association study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of the dopamine receptor genes, DRD1, DRD3, and DRD5 in the pathogenesis of migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a chronic debilitating disorder affecting approximately 12% of the white population. The disease shows strong familial aggregation and presumably has a genetic basis, but at present, the type and number of genes involved is unclear. The study of candidate genes can prove useful in the identification of genes involved in complex diseases such as migraine, especially if the contribution of the gene to phenotypic expression is minor. Genes coding for proteins involved in dopamine metabolism have been implicated in a number of neurologic conditions and may play a contributory role in migraine. Hence, genes that code for enzymes and receptors modulating dopaminergic activity are good candidates for investigation of the molecular genetic basis of migraine. METHODS: We tested 275 migraineurs and 275 age- and sex-matched individuals free of migraine. Genotypic results were determined by restriction endonuclease digestion of polymerase chain reaction products to detect DRD1 and DRD3 alleles and by Genescan analysis after polymerase chain reaction using fluorescently labelled oligonucleotide primers for the DRD5 marker. RESULTS: Results of chi-square statistical analyses indicated that the allele distribution for migraine cases compared to controls was not significantly different for any of the three tested gene markers (chi2 = 0.1, P =.74 for DRD1; chi2 = 1.8, P =.18 for DRD3; and chi2 = 20.3, P =.08 for DRD5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings offer no evidence for allelic association between the tested dopamine receptor gene polymorphisms and the more prevalent forms of migraine and, therefore, do not support a role for these genes in the pathogenesis of the disorder.

The molecular basis for selective inhibition of unconventional mRNA splicing by an IRE1-binding small molecule

IRE1 couples endoplasmic reticulum unfolded protein load to RNA cleavage events that culminate in the sequence-specific splicing of the Xbp1 mRNA and in the regulated degradation of diverse membrane-bound mRNAs. We report on the identification of a small molecule inhibitor that attains its selectivity by forming an unusually stable Schiff base with lysine 907 in the IRE1 endonuclease domain, explained by solvent inaccessibility of the imine bond in the enzyme-inhibitor complex. The inhibitor (abbreviated 4μ8C) blocks substrate access to the active site of IRE1 and selectively inactivates both Xbp1 splicing and IRE1-mediated mRNA degradation. Surprisingly, inhibition of IRE1 endonuclease activity does not sensitize cells to the consequences of acute endoplasmic reticulum stress, but rather interferes with the expansion of secretory capacity. Thus, the chemical reactivity and sterics of a unique residue in the endonuclease active site of IRE1 can be exploited by selective inhibitors to interfere with protein secretion in pathological settings.

RNA interference-inducing hairpin RNAs in plants act through the viral defence pathway

RNA interference (RNAi) is widely used to silence genes in plants and animals. It operates through the degradation of target mRNA by endonuclease complexes guided by approximately 21 nucleotide (nt) short interfering RNAs (siRNAs). A similar process regulates the expression of some developmental genes through approximately 21 nt microRNAs. Plants have four types of Dicer-like (DCL) enzyme, each producing small RNAs with different functions. Here, we show that DCL2, DCL3 and DCL4 in Arabidopsis process both replicating viral RNAs and RNAi-inducing hairpin RNAs (hpRNAs) into 22-, 24- and 21 nt siRNAs, respectively, and that loss of both DCL2 and DCL4 activities is required to negate RNAi and to release the plant's repression of viral replication. We also show that hpRNAs, similar to viral infection, can engender long-distance silencing signals and that hpRNA-induced silencing is suppressed by the expression of a virus-derived suppressor protein. These findings indicate that hpRNA-mediated RNAi in plants operates through the viral defence pathway.

Vectors and methods for hairpin RNA and artificial microRNA-mediated gene silencing in plants

In plant cells, DICER-LIKE4 processes perfectly double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) into short interfering (si) RNAs, and DICER-LIKE1 generates micro (mi) RNAs from primary miRNA transcripts (pri-miRNA) that form fold-back structures of imperfectly dsRNA. Both si and miRNAs direct the endogenous endonuclease, ARGONAUTE1 to cleave complementary target single-stranded RNAs and either small RNA (sRNA)-directed pathway can be harnessed to silence genes in plants. A routine way of inducing and directing RNA silencing by siRNAs is to express self-complementary single-stranded hairpin RNA (hpRNA), in which the duplexed region has the same sequence as part of the target gene's mRNA. Artificial miRNA (amiRNA)-mediated silencing uses an endogenous pri-miRNA, in which the original miRNA/miRNA* sequence has been replaced with a sequence complementary to the new target gene. In this chapter, we describe the plasmid vector systems routinely used by our research group for the generation of either hpRNA-derived siRNAs or amiRNAs.