No abstract

Mechanisms of DNA repair and mutagenesis are defined on the basis of relatively few proteins acting on DNA, yet the identities and functions of all proteins required are unknown. Here, we identify the network that underlies mutagenic repair of DNA breaks in stressed Escherichia coli and define functions for much of it. Using a comprehensive screen, we identified a network of ≥93 genes that function in mutation. Most operate upstream of activation of three required stress responses (RpoS, RpoE, and SOS, key network hubs), apparently sensing stress. The results reveal how a network integrates mutagenic repair into the biology of the cell, show specific pathways of environmental sensing, demonstrate the centrality of stress responses, and imply that these responses are attractive as potential drug targets for blocking the evolution of pathogens.

Basic ideas about the constancy and randomness of mutagenesis that drives evolution were challenged by the discovery of mutation pathways activated by stress responses. These pathways could promote evolution specifically when cells are maladapted to their environment (i.e., are stressed). However, the clearest example-a general stress-response-controlled switch to errorprone DNA break (double-strand break, DSB) repair-was suggested to be peculiar to an Escherichia coli F′ conjugative plasmid, not generally significant, and to occur by an alternative stress-independent mechanism. Moreover, mechanisms of spontaneous mutation in E. coli remain obscure. First, we demonstrate that this same mechanism occurs in chromosomes of starving F − E. coli. I-SceI endonuclease-induced chromosomal DSBs increase mutation 50-fold, dependent upon general/starvation-and DNA-damage-stress responses, DinB error-prone DNA polymerase, and DSB-repair proteins. Second, DSB repair is also mutagenic if the RpoS generalstress-response activator is expressed in unstressed cells, illustrating a stress-response-controlled switch to mutagenic repair. Third, DSB survival is not improved by RpoS or DinB, indicating that mutagenesis is not an inescapable byproduct of repair. Importantly, fourth, fully half of spontaneous frame-shift and base-substitution mutation during starvation also requires the same stress-response, DSB-repair, and DinB proteins. These data indicate that DSB-repairdependent stress-induced mutation, driven by spontaneous DNA breaks, is a pathway that cells usually use and a major source of spontaneous mutation. These data also rule out major alternative models for the mechanism. Mechanisms that couple mutagenesis to stress responses can allow cells to evolve rapidly and responsively to their environment.antibiotic resistance | cancer | genome evolution | rapid evolution | stressinduced mutagenesis H ow, when, and where mutations form underpins understanding pathogen-host interactions, antibiotic resistance, aging, cancer progression and therapy resistance, and evolution generally. Initial models of mutagenesis that drives evolution imagined random stochastic processes, roughly constant with time, and blind to selective environments (1). In contrast, bacterial, yeast, and human cells appear to possess mechanisms that induce mutation pathways specifically during stress, under the control of stress responses (2) (stress-induced mutagenesis or SIM). These pathways suggest mechanisms by which genetic diversity could be generated preferentially when cells are maladapted to their environment (i.e., are stressed), potentially accelerating evolution responsively to environments, a major departure from classic views (1). However, the significance of such mechanisms has been debated, as have the mechanisms themselves.First, mutagenesis associated with the DNA-damage response has been argued to be an unavoidable consequence of induced DNA repair (3, 4), not an evolutionary engine (5, 6). Second, the strongest support for the idea of increas...

Spontaneous DNA breaks instigate genomic changes that fuel cancer and evolution, yet direct quantification of double-strand breaks (DSBs) has been limited. Predominant sources of spontaneous DSBs remain elusive. We report synthetic technology for quantifying DSBs using fluorescent-protein fusions of double-strand DNA end-binding protein, Gam of bacteriophage Mu. In Escherichia coli GamGFP forms foci at chromosomal DSBs and pinpoints their subgenomic locations. Spontaneous DSBs occur mostly one per cell, and correspond with generations, supporting replicative models for spontaneous breakage, and providing the first true breakage rates. In mammalian cells GamGFP—labels laser-induced DSBs antagonized by end-binding protein Ku; co-localizes incompletely with DSB marker 53BP1 suggesting superior DSB-specificity; blocks resection; and demonstrates DNA breakage via APOBEC3A cytosine deaminase. We demonstrate directly that some spontaneous DSBs occur outside of S phase. The data illuminate spontaneous DNA breakage in E. coli and human cells and illustrate the versatility of fluorescent-Gam for interrogation of DSBs in living cells.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01222.001

Structural genes encoding Calvin cycle enzymes in Rhodobacter sphaeroides are duplicated and organized within two physically distinct transcriptional units, the form I and form II cbb operons. Nucleotide sequence determination of the region upstream of the form I operon revealed a divergently transcribed open reading frame, cbbR, that showed significant similarity to the LysR family of transcriptional regulatory proteins. Mutants containing an insertionally inactivated cbbR gene were impaired in photoheterotrophic growth and completely unable to grow photolithoautotrophically with CO2 as the sole carbon source. In the cbbR strain, expression of genes within the form I operon was completely abolished and that of the form II operon was reduced to about 30% of the wild-type level. The cloned cbbR gene complemented the mutant for wild-type growth characteristics, and normal levels of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RubisCO) were observed. However, rocket immunoelectrophoresis revealed that the wild-type level of RubisCO was due to overexpression of the form II enzyme, whereas expression of the form I RubisCO was 10% of that of the wild-type strain. The cbbR insertional inactivation did not appear to affect aerobic expression of either CO2 fixation operon, but preliminary evidence suggests that the constitutive expression of the form II operon observed in the cbbR strain may be subject to repression during aerobic growth.

Pathways of mutagenesis are induced in microbes under adverse conditions controlled by stress responses. Control of mutagenesis by stress responses may accelerate evolution specifically when cells are maladapted to their environments, i.e. are stressed. Stress-induced mutagenesis in the Escherichia coli Lac assay occurs either by ‘point’ mutation or gene amplification. Point mutagenesis is associated with DNA double-strand-break (DSB) repair and requires DinB error-prone DNA polymerase and the SOS DNA-damage- and RpoS general-stress responses. We report that the RpoE envelope-protein-stress response is also required. In a screen for mutagenesis-defective mutants, we isolated a transposon insertion in the rpoE P2 promoter. The insertion prevents rpoE induction during stress, but leaves constitutive expression intact, and allows cell viability. rpoE insertion and suppressed null mutants display reduced point mutagenesis and maintenance of amplified DNA. Furthermore, σE acts independently of stress responses previously implicated: SOS/DinB and RpoS, and of σ32, which was postulated to affect mutagenesis. I-SceI-induced DSBs alleviated much of the rpoE phenotype, implying that σE promoted DSB formation. Thus, a third stress response and stress input regulate DSB-repair-associated stress-induced mutagenesis. This provides the first report of mutagenesis promoted by σE, and implies that extracytoplasmic stressors may affect genome integrity and, potentially, the ability to evolve.

SummaryMutation hotspots and showers occur across phylogeny and profoundly influence genome evolution, yet the mechanisms that produce hotspots remain obscure. We report that DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) provoke mutation hotspots via stress-induced mutation in Escherichia coli. With tet reporters placed 2 kb to 2 Mb (half the genome) away from an I-SceI site, RpoS/DinB-dependent mutations occur maximally within the first 2 kb and decrease logarithmically to ∼60 kb. A weak mutation tail extends to 1 Mb. Hotspotting occurs independently of I-site/tet-reporter-pair position in the genome, upstream and downstream in the replication path. RecD, which allows RecBCD DSB-exonuclease activity, is required for strong local but not long-distance hotspotting, indicating that double-strand resection and gap-filling synthesis underlie local hotspotting, and newly illuminating DSB resection in vivo. Hotspotting near DSBs opens the possibility that specific genomic regions could be targeted for mutagenesis, and could also promote concerted evolution (coincident mutations) within genes/gene clusters, an important issue in the evolution of protein functions.

SummaryCbbR is a LysR-type transcriptional regulator (LTTR) that is required to activate transcription of the cbb operons, responsible for CO 2 fixation, in Rhodobacter sphaeroides . LTTR proteins often require a coinducer to regulate transcription. Previous studies suggested that ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) is a positive effector for CbbR function in this organism. In the current study, RuBP was found to increase the electrophoretic mobility of the CbbR/ cbb I promoter complex. To define and analyse the co-inducer recognition region of CbbR, constitutively active mutant CbbR proteins were isolated. Under growth conditions that normally maintain transcriptionally inactive cbb operons, the mutant CbbR proteins activated transcription. Fourteen of the constitutively active mutants resulted from a single amino acid substitution. One mutant was derived from amino acid substitutions at two separate residues that appeared to act synergistically. Different mutant proteins showed both sensitivity and insensitivity to RuBP and residues that conferred constitutive transcriptional activity could be highlighted on a three-dimensional model, with several residues unique to CbbR shown to be at locations critical to LTTR function. Many of the constitutive residues clustered in or near two specific loops in the LTTR tertiary structure, corresponding to a proposed site of co-inducer binding.