Discrepancies between metabolic activity and DNA content as tool to assess cell proliferation in cancer research

Cell proliferation is a critical and frequently studied feature of molecular biology in cancer research. Therefore, various assays are available using different strategies to measure cell proliferation. Metabolic assays such as AlamarBlue, WST-1, and MTT, which were originally developed to determine cell toxicity, are being used to assess cell numbers. Additionally, proliferative activity can be determined by quantification of DNA content using fluorophores, such as CyQuant and PicoGreen. Referring to data published in high ranking cancer journals, 945 publications applied these assays over the past 14 years to examine the proliferative behaviour of diverse cell types. Within this study, mainly metabolic assays were used to quantify changes in cell growth yet these assays may not accurately reflect cellular proliferation rates due to a miscorrelation of metabolic activity and cell number. Testing this hypothesis, we compared metabolic activity of different cell types, human cancer cells and primary cells, over a time period of 4 days using AlamarBlue and fluorometric assays CyQuant and PicoGreen to determine their DNA content. Our results show certain discrepancies in terms of over-estimation of cell proliferation with respect to the metabolic assay in comparison to DNA binding fluorophores.

Investigation of highly regulated promoters for the production of recombinant proteins in plants

Plants have been identified as promising expression systems for the commercial production of recombinant proteins. Plant-based protein production or “biofarming” offers a number of advantages over traditional expression systems in terms of scale of production, the capacity for post-translation processing, providing a product free of contaminants and cost effectiveness. A number of pharmaceutically important and commercially valuable proteins, such as antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and industrial enzymes are currently being produced in plant expression systems. However, several challenges still remain to improve recombinant protein yield with no ill effect on the host plant. The ability for transgenic plants to produce foreign proteins at commercially viable levels can be directly related to the level and cell specificity of the selected promoter driving the transgene. The accumulation of recombinant proteins may be controlled by a tissue-specific, developmentally-regulated or chemically-inducible promoter such that expression of recombinant proteins can be spatially- or temporally- controlled. The strict control of gene expression is particularly useful for proteins that are considered toxic and whose expression is likely to have a detrimental effect on plant growth. To date, the most commonly used promoter in plant biotechnology is the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter which is used to drive strong, constitutive transgene expression in most organs of transgenic plants. Of particular interest to researchers in the Centre for Tropical Crops and Biocommodities at QUT are tissue-specific promoters for the accumulation of foreign proteins in the roots, seeds and fruit of various plant species, including tobacco, banana and sugarcane. Therefore this Masters project aimed to isolate and characterise root- and seed-specific promoters for the control of genes encoding recombinant proteins in plant-based expression systems. Additionally, the effects of matching cognate terminators with their respective gene promoters were assessed. The Arabidopsis root promoters ARSK1 and EIR1 were selected from the literature based on their reported limited root expression profiles. Both promoters were analysed using the PlantCARE database to identify putative motifs or cis-acting elements that may be associated with this activity. A number of motifs were identified in the ARSK1 promoter region including, WUN (wound-inducible), MBS (MYB binding site), Skn-1, and a RY core element (seed-specific) and in the EIR1 promoter region including, Skn-1 (seed-specific), Box-W1 (fungal elicitor), Aux-RR core (auxin response) and ABRE (ABA response). However, no previously reported root-specific cis-acting elements were observed in either promoter region. To confirm root specificity, both promoters, and truncated versions, were fused to the GUS reporter gene and the expression cassette introduced into Arabidopsis via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Despite the reported tissue-specific nature of these promoters, both upstream regulatory regions directed constitutive GUS expression in all transgenic plants. Further, similar levels of GUS expression from the ARSK1 promoter were directed by the control CaMV 35S promoter. The truncated version of the EIR1 promoter (1.2 Kb) showed some differences in the level of GUS expression compared to the 2.2 Kb promoter. Therefore, this suggests an enhancer element is contained in the 2.2 Kb upstream region that increases transgene expression. The Arabidopsis seed-specific genes ATS1 and ATS3 were selected from the literature based on their seed-specific expression profiles and gene expression confirmed in this study as seed-specific by RT-PCR analysis. The selected promoter regions were analysed using the PlantCARE database in order to identify any putative cis elements. The seed-specific motifs GCN4 and Skn-1 were identified in both promoter regions that are associated with elevated expression levels in the endosperm. Additionaly, the seed-specific RY element and the ABRE were located in the ATS1 promoter. Both promoters were fused to the GUS reporter gene and used to transform Arabidopsis plants. GUS expression from the putative promoters was consitutive in all transgenic Arabidopsis tissue tested. Importantly, the positive control FAE1 seed-specific promoter also directed constitutive GUS expression throughout transgenic Arabidopsis plants. The constitutive nature seen in all of the promoters used in this study was not anticipated. While variations in promoter activity can be caused by a number of influencing factors, the variation in promoter activity observed here would imply a major contributing factor common to all plant expression cassettes tested. All promoter constructs generated in this study were based on the binary vector pCAMBIA2300. This vector contains the plant selection gene (NPTII) under the transcriptional control of the duplicated CaMV 35S promoter. This CaMV 35S promoter contains two enhancer domains that confer strong, constitutive expression of the selection gene and is located immediately upstream of the promoter-GUS fusion. During the course of this project, Yoo et al. (2005) reported that transgene expression is significantly affected when the expression cassette is located on the same T-DNA as the 35S enhancer. It was concluded, the trans-acting effects of the enhancer activate and control transgene expression causing irregular expression patterns. This phenomenon seems the most plausible reason for the constitutive expression profiles observed with the root- and seed-specific promoters assessed in this study. The expression from some promoters can be influenced by their cognate terminator sequences. Therefore, the Arabidopsis ARSK1, EIR1, ATS1 and ATS3 terminator sequences were isolated and incorporated into expression cassettes containing the GUS reporter gene under the control of their cognate promoters. Again, unrestricted GUS activity was displayed throughout transgenic plants transformed with these reporter gene fusions. As previously discussed constitutive GUS expression was most likely due to the trans-acting effect of the upstream CaMV 35S promoter in the selection cassette located on the same T-DNA. The results obtained in this study make it impossible to assess the influence matching terminators with their cognate promoters have on transgene expression profiles. The obvious future direction of research continuing from this study would be to transform pBIN-based promoter-GUS fusions (ie. constructs containing no CaMV 35S promoter driving the plant selection gene) into Arabidopsis in order to determine the true tissue specificity of these promoters and evaluate the effects of their cognate 3’ terminator sequences. Further, promoter truncations based around the cis-elements identified here may assist in determining whether these motifs are in fact involved in the overall activity of the promoter.

Human papillomavirus DNA detected in peripheral blood samples from healthy Australian male blood donors

Recent studies have shown that human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA can be found in circulating blood, including peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), sera, plasma, and arterial cord blood. In light of these findings, DNA extracted from PBMCs from healthy blood donors were examined in order to determine how common HPV DNA is in blood of healthy individuals. Blood samples were collected from 180 healthy male blood donors (18-76 years old) through the Australian Red Cross Blood Services. Genomic DNA was extracted and specimens were tested for HPV DNA by PCR using a broad range primer pair. Positive samples were HPV-type determined by cloning and sequencing. HPV DNA was found in 8.3% (15/180) of the blood donors. A wide variety of different HPV types were isolated from the PBMCs; belonging to the cutaneous beta and gamma papillomavirus genera and mucosal alpha papillomaviruses. High-risk HPV types that are linked to cancer development were detected in 1.7% (3/180) of the PBMCs. Blood was also collected from a healthy HPV-positive 44-year-old male on four different occasions in order to determine which blood cell fractions harbor HPV. PBMCs treated with trypsin were negative for HPV, while non-trypsinized PBMCs were HPV-positive. This suggests that the HPV in blood is attached to the outside of blood cells via a protein-containing moiety. HPV was also isolated in the B cells, dendritic cells, NK cells, and neutrophils. To conclude, HPV present in PBMCs could represent a reservoir of virus and a potential new route of transmission.

Receptor-DNA interactions: EMSA and footprinting

Defining the precise promoter DNA sequence motifs where nuclear receptors and other transcription factors bind is an essential prerequisite for understanding how these proteins modulate the expression of their specific target genes. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with a detailed guide with respect to the materials and the key methods required to perform this type of DNA-binding analysis. Irrespective of whether starting with purified DNA-binding proteins or somewhat crude cellular extracts, the tried-and-true procedures described here will enable one to accurately access the capacity of specific proteins to bind to DNA as well as to determine the exact sequences and DNA contact nucleotides involved. For illustrative purposes, we primarily have used the interaction of the androgen receptor with the rat probasin proximal promoter as our model system.

Differentiation of Rice Tungro Bacilliform Virus Strains by Restriction Analysis and DNA Hybridization

Rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) is one of the two viruses that cause tungro disease. Four RTBV strains maintained in the greenhouse for 4 years, G1, G2, Ic, and L, were differentiated by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of the native viral DNA. Although strains G1 and Ic had identical restriction patterns when cleaved with Pst1, BamHI, EcoRI, and EcoRV, they can be differentiated from strains G2 and L by EcoRI and EcoRV digestion. These same endonucleases also differentiate strain G2 from strain L. When total DNA extracts from infected plants were used instead of viral DNA, and digested with EcoRV, identical restriction patterns for each strain (G2 and L) were obtained from roots, leaves, and leaf sheaths of infected plants. The restriction patterns were consistent from plant to plant, in different varieties, and at different times after inoculation. This technique can be used to differentiate RTBV strains and determine the variability of a large number of field samples.

Recent advances in cancer therapy targeting proteins involved in DNA double-strand break repair

Damage to genetic material represents a persistent and ubiquitous threat to genomic stability. Once DNA damage is detected, a multifaceted signaling network is activated that halts the cell cycle, initiates repair, and in some instances induces apoptotic cell death. In this article, we will review DNA damage surveillance networks, which maintain the stability of our genome, and discuss the efforts underway to identify chemotherapeutic compounds targeting the core components of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) response pathway. The majority of tumor cells have defects in maintaining genomic stability owing to the loss of an appropriate response to DNA damage. New anticancer agents are exploiting this vulnerability of cancer cells to enhance therapeutic indexes, with limited normal tissue toxicity. Recently inhibitors of the checkpoint kinases Chk1 and Chk2 have been shown to sensitize tumor cells to DNA damaging agents. In addition, the treatment of BRCA1- or BRCA2-deficient tumor cells with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors also leads to specific tumor killing. Due to the numerous roles of p53 in genomic stability and its defects in many human cancers, therapeutic agents that restore p53 activity in tumors are the subject of multiple clinical trials. In this article we highlight the proteins mentioned above and catalog several additional players in the DNA damage response pathway, including ATM, DNA-PK, and the MRN complex, which might be amenable to pharmacological interventions and lead to new approaches to sensitize cancer cells to radio- and chemotherapy. The challenge is how to identify those patients most receptive to these treatments.

Spatiotemporal investigations of DNA damage repair using microbeams

Cellular response to radiation damage is made by a complex network of pathways and feedback loops whose spatiotemporal organisation is still unclear despite its decisive role in determining the fate of the damaged cell. Revealing the dynamic sequence of the repair proteins is therefore critical in understanding how the DNA repair mechanisms work. There are also still open questions regarding the possible movement of damaged chromatin domains and its role as trigger for lesion recognition and signalling in the DNA repair context. The single-cell approach and the high spatial resolution offered by microbeams provide the perfect tool to study and quantify the dynamic processes associated with the induction and repair of DNA damage. We have followed the development of radiation-induced foci for three DNA damage markers (i.e. γ-H2AX, 53BP1 and hSSB1) using normal fibroblasts (AG01522), human breast adenocarcinoma cells (MCF7) and human fibrosarcoma cells (HT1080) stably transfected with yellow fluorescent protein fusion proteins following irradiation with the QUB X-ray microbeam (carbon X-rays <2 µm spot). The size and intensity of the foci has been analysed as a function of dose and time post-irradiation to investigate the dynamics of the above-mentioned DNA repair processes and monitor the remodelling of chromatin structure that the cell undergoes to deal with DNA damage.

Multiple human single-stranded DNA binding proteins function in genome maintenance : structural, biochemical and functional analysis

DNA exists predominantly in a duplex form that is preserved via specific base pairing. This base pairing affords a considerable degree of protection against chemical or physical damage and preserves coding potential. However, there are many situations, e.g. during DNA damage and programmed cellular processes such as DNA replication and transcription, in which the DNA duplex is separated into two singlestranded DNA (ssDNA) strands. This ssDNA is vulnerable to attack by nucleases, binding by inappropriate proteins and chemical attack. It is very important to control the generation of ssDNA and protect it when it forms, and for this reason all cellular organisms and many viruses encode a ssDNA binding protein (SSB). All known SSBs use an oligosaccharide/oligonucleotide binding (OB)-fold domain for DNA binding. SSBs have multiple roles in binding and sequestering ssDNA, detecting DNA damage, stimulating strand-exchange proteins and helicases, and mediation of protein–protein interactions. Recently two additional human SSBs have been identified that are more closely related to bacterial and archaeal SSBs. Prior to this it was believed that replication protein A, RPA, was the only human equivalent of bacterial SSB. RPA is thought to be required for most aspects of DNA metabolism including DNA replication, recombination and repair. This review will discuss in further detail the biological pathways in which human SSBs function.

Physical and functional interaction of the archaeal single-stranded DNA-binding protein SSB with RNA polymerase

Archaeal transcription utilizes a complex multisubunit RNA polymerase and the basal transcription factors TBP and TF(II)B, closely resembling its eukaryal counterpart. We have uncovered a tight physical and functional interaction between RNA polymerase and the single-stranded DNA-binding protein SSB in Sulfolobus solfataricus. SSB stimulates transcription from promoters in vitro under TBP-limiting conditions and supports transcription in the absence of TBP. SSB also rescues transcription from repression by reconstituted chromatin. We demonstrate the potential for promoter melting by SSB, suggesting a plausible basis for the stimulation of transcription. This stimulation requires both the single-stranded DNA-binding domain and the acidic C-terminal tail of the SSB. The tail forms a stable interaction with RNA polymerase. These data reveal an unexpected role for single-stranded DNA-binding proteins in transcription in archaea.

hSSB1 interacts directly with the MRN complex stimulating its recruitment to DNA double-strand breaks and its endo-nuclease activity

hSSB1 is a recently discovered single-stranded DNA binding protein that is essential for efficient repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) by the homologous recombination pathway. hSSB1 is required for the efficient recruitment of the MRN complex to sites of DSBs and for the efficient initiation of ATM dependent signalling. Here we explore the interplay between hSSB1 and MRN. We demonstrate that hSSB1 binds directly to NBS1, a component of the MRN complex, in a DNA damage independent manner. Consistent with the direct interaction, we observe that hSSB1 greatly stimulates the endo-nuclease activity of the MRN complex, a process that requires the C-terminal tail of hSSB1. Interestingly, analysis of two point mutations in NBS1, associated with Nijmegen breakage syndrome, revealed weaker binding to hSSB1, suggesting a possible disease mechanism.