Genome-Wide Requirements for Resistance to Functionally Distinct DNA-Damaging Agents

The mechanistic and therapeutic differences in the cellular response to DNA-damaging compounds are not completely understood, despite intense study. To expand our knowledge of DNA damage, we assayed the effects of 12 closely related DNA-damaging agents on the complete pool of ~4,700 barcoded homozygous deletion strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In our protocol, deletion strains are pooled together and grown competitively in the presence of compound. Relative strain sensitivity is determined by hybridization of PCR-amplified barcodes to an oligonucleotide array carrying the barcode complements. These screens identified genes in well-characterized DNA-damage-response pathways as well as genes whose role in the DNA-damage response had not been previously established. High-throughput individual growth analysis was used to independently confirm microarray results. Each compound produced a unique genome-wide profile. Analysis of these data allowed us to determine the relative importance of DNA-repair modules for resistance to each of the 12 profiled compounds. Clustering the data for 12 distinct compounds uncovered both known and novel functional interactions that comprise the DNA-damage response and allowed us to define the genetic determinants required for repair of interstrand cross-links. Further genetic analysis allowed determination of epistasis for one of these functional groups.

[1]  R. D. Gietz,et al.  Yeast transformation by the LiAc/SS Carrier DNA/PEG method. , 2006, Methods in molecular biology.

[2]  E. Friedberg,et al.  DNA Repair and Mutagenesis , 2006 .

[3]  Dong Wang,et al.  Cellular processing of platinum anticancer drugs , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[4]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Mechanisms of Haploinsufficiency Revealed by Genome-Wide Profiling in Yeast , 2005, Genetics.

[5]  P. Sung,et al.  Saccharomyces cerevisiae MPH1 Gene, Required for Homologous Recombination-mediated Mutation Avoidance, Encodes a 3′ to 5′ DNA Helicase* , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[6]  R. Rothstein,et al.  A Genetic Screen for top3 Suppressors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Identifies SHU1, SHU2, PSY3 and CSM2 , 2005, Genetics.

[7]  P. Johnston,et al.  Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance , 2005, The Journal of pathology.

[8]  Kara Dolinski,et al.  Fungal BLAST and Model Organism BLASTP Best Hits: new comparison resources at the Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  Jiri Bartek,et al.  Cell-cycle checkpoints and cancer , 2004, Nature.

[10]  Finn Drabløs,et al.  Alkylation damage in DNA and RNA--repair mechanisms and medical significance. , 2004, DNA repair.

[11]  B. Michel,et al.  Multiple pathways process stalled replication forks. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Cancer genes and the pathways they control , 2004, Nature Medicine.

[13]  L. Lazzeroni,et al.  Genome-Wide Identification of Genes Conferring Resistance to the Anticancer Agents Cisplatin, Oxaliplatin, and Mitomycin C , 2004, Cancer Research.

[14]  Christian J. Rudolph,et al.  Yeast MPH1 gene functions in an error-free DNA damage bypass pathway that requires genes from Homologous recombination, but not from postreplicative repair. , 2004, Genetics.

[15]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Chemogenomic profiling: identifying the functional interactions of small molecules in yeast. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  T. Kuo,et al.  One-step transformation of yeast in stationary phase , 2004, Current Genetics.

[17]  Grant W. Brown,et al.  Integration of chemical-genetic and genetic interaction data links bioactive compounds to cellular target pathways , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[18]  B. Efron.  Large-Scale Simultaneous Hypothesis Testing , 2004 .

[19]  Albert Sickmann,et al.  The proteome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae mitochondria , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  E. O’Shea,et al.  Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast , 2003, Nature.

[21]  Jerzy Majka,et al.  Yeast Rad17/Mec3/Ddc1: A sliding clamp for the DNA damage checkpoint , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  B. Alberts.  DNA replication and recombination , 2003, Nature.

[23]  Mort Rosenberg,et al.  Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 10th Edition. , 2003 .

[24]  W. Saunders,et al.  Large-scale functional genomic analysis of sporulation and meiosis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2003, Genetics.

[25]  Charles Boone,et al.  Yeast genomics and proteomics in drug discovery and target validation. , 2003, Progress in cell cycle research.

[26]  M. Tyers,et al.  Osprey: a network visualization system , 2003, Genome Biology.

[27]  M. Tyers,et al.  The GRID: The General Repository for Interaction Datasets , 2003, Genome Biology.

[28]  Charles Boone,et al.  A genome-wide screen for methyl methanesulfonate-sensitive mutants reveals genes required for S phase progression in the presence of DNA damage , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  A. Bolzán,et al.  Genotoxicity of streptozotocin. , 2002, Mutation research.

[30]  L. Symington.  Role of RAD52 Epistasis Group Genes in Homologous Recombination and Double-Strand Break Repair , 2002, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[31]  Trey Ideker,et al.  Damage recovery pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae revealed by genomic phenotyping and interactome mapping. , 2002, Molecular cancer research : MCR.

[32]  Floyd E Romesberg,et al.  Previously uncharacterized genes in the UV- and MMS-induced DNA damage response in yeast , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome , 2002, Nature.

[34]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Systematic screen for human disease genes in yeast , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[35]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Transcriptional response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to DNA-damaging agents does not identify the genes that protect against these agents , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Laurence H. Hurley,et al.  DNA and its associated processes as targets for cancer therapy , 2002, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[37]  R. Moses,et al.  S. cerevisiae has three pathways for DNA interstrand crosslink repair. , 2001, Mutation research.

[38]  W. Xiao,et al.  Deletion of the MAG1 DNA glycosylase gene suppresses alkylation-induced killing and mutagenesis in yeast cells lacking AP endonucleases. , 2001, Mutation research.

[39]  M. Curcio,et al.  Multiple regulators of Ty1 transposition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae have conserved roles in genome maintenance. , 2001, Genetics.

[40]  J. Haber,et al.  The Fuss about Mus81 , 2001, Cell.

[41]  M. Resnick,et al.  Genes required for ionizing radiation resistance in yeast , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[42]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  A genome-wide screen in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for genes affecting UV radiation sensitivity , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  S. Brill,et al.  Functional overlap between Sgs1-Top3 and the Mms4-Mus81 endonuclease. , 2001, Genes & development.

[44]  E. Friedberg.  How nucleotide excision repair protects against cancer , 2001, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[45]  R. Kanaar,et al.  Repair of DNA interstrand cross-links. , 2001, Mutation research.

[46]  W. Xiao,et al.  DNA postreplication repair and mutagenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2001, Mutation research.

[47]  J. Haber,et al.  Break-induced replication: A review and an example in budding yeast , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[48]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  R. Ozawa,et al.  A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  A. Riggs,et al.  Mapping psoralen cross-links at the nucleotide level in mammalian cells: suppression of cross-linking at transcription factor- or nucleosome-binding sites. , 2001, Biochemistry.

[51]  T Szkudelski,et al.  The mechanism of alloxan and streptozotocin action in B cells of the rat pancreas. , 2001, Physiological research.

[52]  S. Elledge,et al.  The DNA damage response: putting checkpoints in perspective , 2000, Nature.

[53]  B. A. Kunz,et al.  DNA damage-induced mutation: tolerance via translesion synthesis. , 2000, Mutation research.

[54]  M. Resnick,et al.  Tying up loose ends: nonhomologous end-joining in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2000, Mutation research.

[55]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[56]  L. Hartwell,et al.  Differential toxicities of anticancer agents among DNA repair and checkpoint mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2000, Cancer research.

[57]  S. Sen,et al.  Aneuploidy and cancer , 2000, Current opinion in oncology.

[58]  J. Mccusker,et al.  Three new dominant drug resistance cassettes for gene disruption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 1999, Yeast.

[59]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. , 1999, Science.

[60]  Fumio Hanaoka,et al.  Systematic identification, classification, and characterization of the open reading frames which encode novel helicase‐related proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by gene disruption and Northern analysis , 1999, Yeast.

[61]  G. Lucchini,et al.  Mec1p is essential for phosphorylation of the yeast DNA damage checkpoint protein Ddc1p, which physically interacts with Mec3p , 1998, The EMBO journal.

[62]  R Rothstein,et al.  Cloning-free PCR-based allele replacement methods. , 1997, Genome research.

[63]  D. Phillips,et al.  DNA adducts from chemotherapeutic agents. , 1996, Mutation research.

[64]  K. E. Newhouse,et al.  Review and Notes: Pharmacology: Conn's Current Therapy: Latest Approved Methods of Treatment for the Practicing Physician , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[65]  M. Tomasz,et al.  Mitomycin C: small, fast and deadly (but very selective). , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[66]  A. Willems,et al.  Studies on the transformation of intact yeast cells by the LiAc/SS‐DNA/PEG procedure , 1995, Yeast.

[67]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[68]  L. Loeb.  Microsatellite Instability: Marker of a Mutator Phenotype in Cancer , 1994 .

[69]  Janina Maier,et al.  Guide to yeast genetics and molecular biology. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[70]  L. Hartwell,et al.  Characterization of RAD9 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and evidence that its function acts posttranslationally in cell cycle arrest after DNA damage , 1990, Molecular and cellular biology.

[71]  M. Wang,et al.  Induction of covalent DNA modifications and micronucleated erythrocytes by 4-nitroquinoline 1-oxide in adult and fetal mice. , 1990, Cancer research.

[72]  D. Beranek.  Distribution of methyl and ethyl adducts following alkylation with monofunctional alkylating agents. , 1990, Mutation research.

[73]  L. Samson,et al.  Cloning a eukaryotic DNA glycosylase repair gene by the suppression of a DNA repair defect in Escherichia coli. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[74]  L. Liu,et al.  Arrest of replication forks by drug-stabilized topoisomerase I-DNA cleavable complexes as a mechanism of cell killing by camptothecin. , 1989, Cancer research.

[75]  R. Wickner,et al.  Molecular cloning of chromosome I DNA from Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Isolation of the MAK16 gene and analysis of an adjacent gene essential for growth at low temperatures , 1987, Yeast.

[76]  J. Hearst,et al.  EFFICIENT FORMATION OF A CROSSLINKABLE HMT MONOADDUCT AT THE Kpn I RECOGNITION SITE , 1984, Photochemistry and photobiology.

[77]  S. Galiègue‐Zouitina,et al.  In vitro DNA reaction with an ultimate carcinogen model of 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide: the 4-acetoxyaminoquinoline-1-oxide. Enzymatic degradation of the modified DNA. , 1983, Carcinogenesis.

[78]  M. Kircher,et al.  A yeast mutant specifically sensitive to bifunctional alkylation. , 1981, Mutation research.

[79]  E. Moustacchi,et al.  Interactions between mutations for sensitivity to psoralen photoaddition (pso) and to radiation (rad) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 1981, Journal of bacteriology.

[80]  Gerald R. Fink,et al.  Methods in Yeast Genetics: Laboratory Manual , 1981 .

[81]  R. Fleer,et al.  Genetic activity of chemicals in yeast: DNA alterations and mutations induced by alkylating anti-cancer agents. , 1978, Mutation research.

[82]  L. Prakash,et al.  Isolation and characterization of MMS-sensitive mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 1977, Genetics.

[83]  C. Lawrence,et al.  UV mutagenesis in radiation-sensitive strains of yeast. , 1976, Genetics.

[84]  J. Parry,et al.  The isolation, genetics and survival characteristics of ultraviolet light-sensitive mutants in yeast. , 1968, Mutation research.