2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2014.12.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mutagenesis during plant responses to UVB radiation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To characterize repair defects of pprad51 , pprtel1 and ppsol we compared their capabilities to remove lesions as DSBs induced by radiomimetic bleomycin, small alkylation adducts induced by methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) and bulky DNA helix distortion by inducing pyrimidine photodimers and 6′‐4′‐photoproducts by UVC irradiation. These lesions represent blocks for DNA replication and are repaired or bypassed by various error‐free as well as error‐prone pathways (Holá et al ., ; Manova and Gruszka, ; Nikitaki et al ., ) The sensitivity of protonemata was tested by 1 h of acute treatment with genotoxin in a liquid medium, followed by explants subculture on Petri plates with the drug‐free medium to determine the ability of the tissue to recover. Explant growth after 3 weeks was monitored as a plant fresh weight rather than plant surface area (Kamisugi et al ., ) as their diameters versus explant mass substantially differed in studied lines (Figure ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To characterize repair defects of pprad51 , pprtel1 and ppsol we compared their capabilities to remove lesions as DSBs induced by radiomimetic bleomycin, small alkylation adducts induced by methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) and bulky DNA helix distortion by inducing pyrimidine photodimers and 6′‐4′‐photoproducts by UVC irradiation. These lesions represent blocks for DNA replication and are repaired or bypassed by various error‐free as well as error‐prone pathways (Holá et al ., ; Manova and Gruszka, ; Nikitaki et al ., ) The sensitivity of protonemata was tested by 1 h of acute treatment with genotoxin in a liquid medium, followed by explants subculture on Petri plates with the drug‐free medium to determine the ability of the tissue to recover. Explant growth after 3 weeks was monitored as a plant fresh weight rather than plant surface area (Kamisugi et al ., ) as their diameters versus explant mass substantially differed in studied lines (Figure ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, depending on the wavelength, amount of photons, and time of exposure, UV radiation can cause much greater damage, such as mutations, lesions or even plant death (Holá et al, 2015). The strong radiation introduces an amount of energy in the leaf greater than its capacity of use in photosynthesis, overloading the processes, being able to destroy the photosynthetic pigments and the structures of thylakoids (Rai and Agrawal, 2017).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it remains to be elucidated whether such reduced CPD amounts are really due to the activation of dark DNA repair pathway or rather represent dimer dilution by DNA replication mediated by translesion DNA polymerases. Indeed, it has recently been demonstrated that the bypass of non‐repaired CPD, dependent solely on the ongoing DNA synthesis, has been very efficient but more error‐prone and thus responsible for a high mutation rate in plants (Holá et al ). Moreover, it was shown that the endoreduplication may also represent an alternative strategy for plants adapting to increased levels of UV‐B radiation (Gegas et al ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The negative impact of UV radiation on plants is mainly due to the induction of DNA lesions leading to cell cycle arrest and/or programmed cell death, formation of mutations and elevated genomic instability (Ries et al , Jiang et al , Holá et al ). The main UV‐induced DNA lesions are cis‐syn cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and 6‐4 photoproducts, with 75–90% prevalence of the former, although their relative proportion may depend on the DNA composition and the local chromatin structure (Britt , Pfeifer , Dany et al ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%