Abstract
Recently, it has been demonstrated that nitrogen mustard-induced N-alkylpurines are excised rapidly from actively transcribing genes, while they persist longer in noncoding regions and in the genome overall. It was suggested that transcriptional activity is implicated as a regulatory element in the efficient removal of lesions. By treating cells or not with the transcription inhibitor α-amanitin, we have explored whether ongoing activity of RNA polymerase II was coordinately related to proficient repair of nitrogen mustard-induced alkylation products in the actively transcribed dihydrofolate reductase gene in the Chinese hamster ovary B11 cells. Nuclear run-off transcription analysis verified that α-amanitin completely and selectively inhibited transcription by RNA polymerase II. At the drug exposure examined, nitrogen mustard induced DNA damage capable of a complete transcription termination in the RNA polymerase II-transcribed dihydrofolate reductase gene and reduced 28S rDNA transcription by a factor of 7.9. The transcription activity did partially recover following reincubation in drug-free medium; this recovery was about 34 and 76% of ribosomal 28S gene transcripts and dihydrofolate reductase gene transcripts, respectively, after 6 h of repair incubation. α-Amanitin significantly inhibited the removal of nitrogen mustard-induced N-alkylpurines in the 5′-half of the essential, constitutively active dihydrofolate reductase gene, while no effect of α-amanitin was observed on the lesion removal from a noncoding region 3′-flanking to the gene and from the genome overall. In the actively transcribed gene region, about 77% of N-alkylpurines were removed 21 h following drug exposure of cells not treated with α-amanitin and about 47% in 21 h in α-amanitin treated cells. The global semiconservative replication seemed unaffected by the α-amanitin treatment. From these results we suggest that gene-specific repair of nitrogen mustard-induced N-alkylpurines is dependent on ongoing activity of the transcribing RNA polymerase II. The findings are discussed in terms of the current ideas about the mechanism of preferential DNA repair.
Footnotes
-
↵1 Supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Grant 92-030).
-
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
- Received July 28, 1993.
- Accepted November 1, 1993.
- ©1994 American Association for Cancer Research.