Molecular sensor scouts DNA damage and supervises repair

Molecular sensor scouts DNA damage and supervises repair
When telomeres (green) undergo damage (bottom row), UV-DDB (red) rushes to the scene (yellow). Credit: Jang et al. (2019) Nature Structural and Molecular Biology

In the time it takes you to read this sentence, every cell in your body suffers some form of DNA damage. Without vigilant repair, cancer would run rampant, and now scientists at the University of Pittsburgh have gotten a glimpse of how one protein in particular keeps DNA damage in check.

According to a study published today in Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, a protein called UV-DDB—which stands for ultraviolet-damaged DNA-binding—is useful beyond safeguarding against the sun. This new evidence points to UV-DDB being a scout for general DNA damage and an overseer of the molecular repair crew that fixes it.

"If you're going to fix a pothole, you have to find it first. That's what UV-DDB does. It identifies DNA damage so that another crew can come in and patch and seal it," said study senior author Bennett Van Houten, Ph.D., professor of pharmacology and chemical biology at the Pitt School of Medicine and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center.

Surveying 3 billion , packed into a nucleus just a few microns wide, is a tall order, Van Houten said. Not only is it a lot of material to search through, but it's wound up so tightly that many molecules can't access it.

Keeping with the pothole analogy, one possible search strategy is to walk along the road, waiting to step in a hole. Another option is to fly around in a helicopter, but since molecules can't "see," this approach would require frequently landing to look for rough patches. To get around these shortcomings, UV-DDB combines both search strategies.

Damage detector UV-DDB (red) and repair molecule OGG1 (green) come together (yellow) at the site along the DNA strand that needs fixing. Then OGG1 detaches once the job is done. The video is slowed to 1/18 speed. Credit: Jang et al. (2019) Nature Structural and Molecular Biology

"UV-DDB is like a helicopter that can land and then roll for a couple blocks," Van Houten said. "It also has the ability to find damage buried in chromosomes and help DNA repair molecules go places they otherwise couldn't, the way a helicopter can navigate really hilly areas."

When UV-DDB finds damage, it acts like a foreman to help the DNA repair crew get in, fix the faulty bases and detach quickly.

For the first time, Van Houten's team witnessed this molecular tango along a "tightrope" of DNA slung between two silica beads, using real-time, single-molecule imaging.

"The amazing thing is finding those single molecules in 3-D space," said study coauthor Simon Watkins, Ph.D., director of Pitt's Center for Biological Imaging. "[Van Houten]'s team has developed an assay that allows them to track the repair enzymes in 3-D on the DNA ropes as they repair damage."

What you're seeing here is two individual molecules working together to fix a "tightrope" of damaged DNA, stretched between two silica beads. Damage detector UV-DDB (red) and repair molecule APE1 (green) zip to the spot that needs fixing. The video is slowed down to 1/20 normal speed to show how the two molecules cooperate (yellow indicates overlap). Credit: Jang et al. (2019) Nature Structural and Molecular Biology

To show that UV-DDB performs the same functions in living cells, Van Houten recruited the help of Marcel Bruchez, Ph.D., of Carnegie Mellon University, and Patricia Opresko, Ph.D., of Pitt. Together they inflicted to the chromosomes' protective endcaps—called telomeres. As in the DNA tightrope experiment, UV-DDB rushed to the scene, and when it wasn't available, cells were more sensitive to oxidative stress.

These results help to explain why children born without functional UV-DDB—a known as —are virtually guaranteed to develop skin cancer from sun exposure, Van Houten said. On the other end of the spectrum, cancer patients with higher levels of UV-DDB respond better to therapy.

"It's clear this protein is involved in a very fundamental problem," Van Houten said. "We could not have evolved out of the slime if we didn't have good DNA ."


Explore further

Study finds direct oxidative stress damage shortens telomeres

More information: Damage sensor role of UV-DDB during base excision repair, Nature Structural and Molecular Biology (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41594-019-0261-7
Citation: Molecular sensor scouts DNA damage and supervises repair (2019, July 22) retrieved 17 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-molecular-sensor-scouts-dna.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
384 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 22, 2019
"We could not have evolved out of the slime if we didn't have good DNA repair."

Well, hmm, uh-oh... could we just consider for a moment... maybe we didn't evolve out of slime?

Of course, we could just be technical and say that abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution, or that "slime" doesn't accurately characterize either the pre-biotic matrix or the hypothetical Ur-population.

Or we could just consider that nobody has yet figured out how life could form from non-living matter without (or so far, even WITH) intelligent input, so... just maybe there was more to it?

Jul 24, 2019
could we just consider for a moment... maybe we didn't evolve out of slime?

Of course, we could just be technical and say that abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution, or that "slime" doesn't accurately characterize either the pre-biotic matrix or the hypothetical Ur-population.

Or we could just consider that nobody has yet figured out how life could form from non-living matter


No, that is not what observations have found, the creationist trope is too old to work: since 2016 life emergence *is* covered by evolution despite attempts to 'define' it differently and we *did* figure out how geological systems evolved to half alive cells and eventually less environmentally dependent cells in universal common ancestor lineage [ https://www.natur...l2016116 ]. (Of course the 'definition' is an old trope too, all scientists said and continue to say is that evolution is an observed fact and theory independent on earlier evolution - including emergence.)

Jul 24, 2019
No, that is not what observations have found,...: since 2016 life emergence *is* covered by evolution despite attempts to 'define' it differently and we *did* figure out how geological systems evolved to half alive cells and eventually less environmentally dependent cells in universal common ancestor lineage [ https://www.natur...l2016116 ]. (... all scientists said and continue to say is that evolution is an observed fact and theory independent on earlier evolution - including emergence.)


I've been told by many evolutionists that abiogenesis isn't included. The study you link to merely takes the assumption that abiogenesis happened and "supports" a particular suggestion over others, it did not observe the evolution of life from chemicals, nor did it demonstrate that such is possible or "figure out" how it happened.

Galileo, Newton, Faraday, etc., believed in Divine creation, and many scientists still do, barring the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more