Advertisement

Repair characteristics and time-dependent effects in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells after X-ray irradiation

  • Xiaopeng Guo
  • Miaomiao Zhang
  • Ruiyuan Liu
  • Yue Gao
  • Yang Yang
  • Wenjian Li
  • Dong LuEmail author
Original Paper
  • 118 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we examined the dynamics of phenotypic and transcriptional profiles in Saccharomyces cerevisiae following semi-lethal X-ray irradiation. Post-irradiation, reproductive death was revealed as the predominant form of death in S. cerevisiae and almost all the irradiated cells were physically present and intact. In addition, cell cycle arrest reached its peak and cell division was at its valley at 2 h. Cell cycle arrest, cell division potential, DNA damage, and mitochondrial transmembrane potential (MTP) showed significant recovery at 4 h (P > 0.05 vs. control). The improvements of DNA damage and MTP decrease were evaluated as at least 77% and 84% for the original irradiated cells at 4 h, respectively. In the transcriptional profile, the amount of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and the fold change in the repair-related DEGs were highest at 1 h post-irradiation and then decreased. The DEGs at 1 h (but not 2 h or 3 h) were significantly enriched in gene ontology (GO) categories of detoxification (up) and antioxidant activity (up). Although the transcriptional profile supported the repair time frame observed in the phenotypic profile, the complete repair may take a longer duration as the transcriptional levels of several important repair-related DEGs did not show a decrease and the DNA repair-related pathways (up) were the major enriched pathway in Kyoto Encyclopaedia of Genes and Genomes pathway analysis throughout the whole course of the study. These results provide an important reference for the selection of key time points in further studies.

Keywords

Radiation damage Double-strand breaks Cellular recovery dynamics Phenotypic and transcriptional profiles Saccharomyces cerevisiae 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Gansu University Traditional Chinese Medicine for providing high-quality X-ray irradiation.

Author contributions

DL coordinated and supervised the project. XG designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript. XG and MZ analysed the data. XG, MZ, RL, and YG performed experiments. MZ, DL, and WL corrected the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Chinese Academy of Sciences Key Deployment Project (No. KFZD-SW-109), Joint project of Chinese Academy of Sciences and Industrial Technology Research Institute (CAS-ITRI 201801) and the National Natural Science Fund of China (No. 11575259).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11274_2018_2566_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (337 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 349 KB)

References

  1. Arivalagan S, Thomas NS, Kuppusamy T, Namashivayam N (2015) Radioprotective effect of carvacrol against X-radiation-induced cellular damage in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol 34:263–275.  https://doi.org/10.1615/JEnvironPatholToxicolOnco1.2015013548 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barendsen GW (1990) Mechanisms of cell reproductive death and shapes of radiation dose-survival curves of mammalian cells. Int J Radiat Biol 57:885–896.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09553009014551001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedford JS, Mitchell JB, Griggs HG, Bender MA (1978) Radiation-induced cellular reproductive death and chromosome aberrations. Radiat Res 76:573–586.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3574806 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Begum N, Prasad NR, Kanimozhi G, Hasan AQ (2012) Apigenin ameliorates gamma radiation-induced cytogenetic alterations in cultured human blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res-Genet Toxicol Environ 747:71–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boiteux S, Jinksrobertson S (2013) DNA repair mechanisms and the bypass of DNA damage in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 193:1025–1064.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.145219 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ, Randerspehrson G, Miller RC (1993) Mechnistic considerations on the dose-rate LET dependence of oncogenic transformation by ionizing-radiations. Radiat Res 133:365–369.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3578223 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Broberg CA, Zhang L, Gonzalez H, Laskowski-Arce MA, Orth K (2010) A Vibrio effector protein is an inositol phosphatase and disrupts host cell membrane integrity. Science 329:1660–1662.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192850 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang WP, Little JB (1992) Delayed reproductive death as a dominant phenotype in cell clones surviving X-irradiation. Carcinogenesis 13:923–928.  https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/13.6.923 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Deger Y, Dede S, Belge A, Mert N, Kahraman T, Alkan M (2003) Effects of X-ray radiation on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems in rabbits treated with antioxidant compounds. Biol Trace Elem Res 94:149–156.  https://doi.org/10.1385/BTER:94:2:149 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dextraze ME, Gantchev T, Girouard S, Hunting D (2010) DNA interstrand cross-links induced by ionizing radiation: an unsung lesion. Mutat Res-Rev Mutat 704:101–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2009.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs JA, Lowndes NF, Jackson SP (2000) A role for Saccharomyces cerevisiae histone H2A in DNA repair. Nature 408:1001–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35050000 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Džinić T, Hartwig S, Lehr S, Dencher NA (2016) Oxygen and differentiation status modulate the effect of X-ray irradiation on physiology and mitochondrial proteome of human neuroblastoma cells. Arch Physiol Biochem 122:257–265.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13813455.2016.1218518 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghodke I, Muniyappa K (2013) Processing of DNA double-stranded breaks and intermediates of recombination and repair by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mre11 and its stimulation by Rad50, Xrs2, and Sae2 proteins. J Biol Chem 288:11273–11286.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.439315 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Gradzka I, Iwaneńko T (2005) A non-radioactive, PFGE-based assay for low levels of DNA double-strand breaks in mammalian cells. DNA Repair 4:1129–1139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2005.06.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo X, Zhang M, Gao Y, Li W, Lu D (2018) Determining survival fractions of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in response to ionizing radiation in liquid culture. J Radiat Res.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rry070 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamada N, Matsumoto H, Hara T, Kobayashi Y (2007) Intercellular and intracellular signaling pathways mediating ionizing radiation-induced bystander effects. J Radiat Res 48:87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1269/jrr.06084 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kam WW, Banati RB (2013) Effects of ionizing radiation on mitochondria. Free Radic Bio Med 65:607–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2013.07.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klotz B, Mañas P, Mackey BM (2010) The relationship between membrane damage, release of protein and loss of viability in Escherichia coli exposed to high hydrostatic pressure. Int J Food Microbiol 137:214–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.11.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Krishan A (1975) Rapid flow cytofluorometric analysis of mammalian cell cycle by propidium iodide staining. J Cell Biol 66:188–193.  https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.66.1.188 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Li P et al (2008) Assessment of DNA damage of lewis lung carcinoma cells irradiated by carbon ions and X-rays using alkaline comet assay. Nucl Instrum Methods B 266:262–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2007.11.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li L, Chen Z, Ding X, Shan Z, Liu L, Guo J (2015) Deep sequencing analysis of the Kineococcus radiotolerans transcriptome in response to ionizing radiation. Microbiol Res 170:248–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2014.10.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nakamura A et al (2006) Techniques for gamma-H2AX detection. Method Enzymol 409:236–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(05)09014-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olive PL, Banáth JP, Durand RE (1990) Heterogeneity in radiation-induced DNA damage and repair in tumor and normal cells measured using the “comet” assay. Radiat Res 122:86–94.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3577587 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Peak JG, Peak MJ (1991) Comparison of initial yields of DNA-to-protein crosslinks and single-strand breaks induced in cultured human cells by far- and near-ultraviolet light, blue light and X-rays. Mutat Res-Fundam Mol Mechan Mutagen 246:187–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0027-5107(91)90121-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pilzecker B, Buoninfante OA, Van den Berk P, Lancini C, Song JY, Citterio E, Jacobs H (2017) DNA damage tolerance in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:33.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706508114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Porro D, Smeraldi C, Martegani E, Ranzi BM, Alberghina L (1994) Flow-cytometric determination of the respiratory activity in growing Saccharomyces cerevisiae populations. Biotechnol Prog 10:193–197.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bp00026a009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radman M (2016) Protein damage, radiation sensitivity and aging. DNA Repair 44:186–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.05.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rashielkeles S et al (2014) Parallel profiling of the transcriptome, cistrome, and epigenome in the cellular response to ionizing radiation. Sci Signal 7:rs3.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.2005032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Santivasi WL, Xia F (2014) Ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage, response, and repair. Antioxid Redox Signal 21:251–259.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2013.5668 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Speit G, Hartmann A (2006) The comet assay: a sensitive genotoxicity test for the detection of DNA damage and repair. Methods Mol Biol 314:275–286.  https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-973-7:275 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sutterlin HA, Shi H, May KL, Miguel A, Khare S, Huang KC, Silhavy TJ (2016) Disruption of lipid homeostasis in the Gram-negative cell envelope activates a novel cell death pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E1565–E1574.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601375113 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Waterhouse NJ, Goldstein JC, Ahsen AOV, Schuler AM (2001) Cytochrome c maintains mitochondrial transmembrane potential and ATP generation after outer mitochondrial membrane permeabilization during the apoptotic process. J Cell Biol 153:319–328.  https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.153.2.319 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Xu X, Blackwell S, Lin A, Li F, Qin Z, Xiao W (2015) Error-free DNA-damage tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mutat Res-Rev Mutat 764:43–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2015.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zaider M, Bardash M, Fung A (1994) Molecular damage induced directly and indirectly by ionizing radiation in DNA. Int J Radiat Biol 66:459–465.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09553009414551461 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Zamzami N et al (1995) Sequential reduction of mitochondrial transmembrane potential and generation of reactive oxygen species in early programmed cell death. J Exp Med 182:367–377.  https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.182.2.367 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang M, Cao G, Guo X, Gao Y, Li w, Lu D (2018) A comet assay for DNA damage and repair after exposure to carbon-ion beams or X-rays in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Dose-Response.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325818792467 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou X, Li N, Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhang H (2011) Effects of x-irradiation on mitochondrial dna damage and its supercoiling formation change. Mitochondrion 11:886–892.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mito.2011.07.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zongaro S, Verri A, Giulotto E, Mondello C (2008) Telomere length and radiosensitivity in human fibroblast clones immortalized by ectopic telomerase expression. Oncol Rep 19:1605–1609.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-008-0913-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaopeng Guo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Miaomiao Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ruiyuan Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yue Gao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yang Yang
    • 1
  • Wenjian Li
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dong Lu
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Modern PhysicsChinese Academy of SciencesLanzhouChina
  2. 2.College of Life ScienceUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and ApplicationLanzhouChina

Personalised recommendations