Oxidative Damage and Promoter Function

  • David Mitchell
  • Rita Ghosh
Part of the Molecular Biology Intelligence Unit book series (MBIU)


Evidence is accumulating that base damage, particularly that produced by oxidation reactions, can modulate DNA protein interactions and affect promoter function. Such lesions have the capacity to interfere with normal gene regulation through direct interactions with promoter elements, or indirectly by establishing new transcription factor (TF) binding sites. The direct “cis” effects are the most studied and offer the best evidence for oxidative damage interference in promoter function in vitro and in vivo. These studies reveal diverse responses of TF to oxidative damage in promoters that can have either no effect, induce a full or partial inhibition or, in some cases, actually enhance binding depending on the particular TF-promoter system under investigation and the location of the damage within the promoter element. Other, more hypothetical pathways are presented including the de novo production of new consensus binding motifs by oxidative damage/mutations and changes in promoter structure or sequence such that they acquire higher affinity for inappropriate transcription factors. The possibility of molecular hijacking is also discussed.


Transcription Factor Binding Site Base Excision Repair Promoter Element Promoter Function Trans Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Donahue BA, Yin S, Taylor JS et al. Transcript cleavage by RNA polymerase II arrested by a cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer in the DNA template. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91:8502–8506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rubin H. Is somatic mutation the major mechanism of malignant transformation? J Natl Cancer Inst 1980; 64:995–1000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kennedy AR. Is there a critical target gene for the first step in carcinogenesis? Environ Health Perspect 1991; 93:199–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holliday R. Mutations and epimutations in mammalian cells. Mutat Res 1991; 250:351–363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kamiya K, Yasukawa-Barnes J, Mitchen JM et al. Evidence that carcinogenesis involves an imbalance between epigenetic high-frequency initiation and suppression of promotion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92:1332–1336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Selvanayagam CS, Davis CM, Cornforth MN et al. Latent expression of p53 mutations and radiation-induced mammary cancer. Cancer Res 1995; 55:3310–3317.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mondal S, Heidelberger C. In vitro malignant transformation by methylcholanthrene of the progeny of single cells derived from C3H mouse prostate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1970; 65:219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrett JC, Ts’o PO. Relationship between somatic mutation and neoplastic transformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1978; 75:3297–3301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kennedy AR, Fox M, Murphy G et al. Relationship between X-ray exposure and malignant transformation in C3H 10T1/2 cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1980; 77:7262–7266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacLeod MC. A possible role in chemical carcinogenesis for epigenetic, heritable changes in gene expression. Mol Carcinog 1996; 15:241–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halder G, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ. Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science 1995; 267:1788–1792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gehring WJ. The biology of imaginal discs. New York: Spring-Verlag, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson DG, Ohtani K, Nevins JR. Autoregulatory control of E2F1 expression in response to positive and negative regulators of cell cycle progression. Genes Dev 1994; 8:1514–1525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeGregori J, Kowalik T, Nevins JR. Cellular targets for activation by the E2F1 transcription factor include DNA synthesis-and G1/S-regulatory genes. Mol Cell Biol 1995; 15:4215–4224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Treiber DK, Zhai X, Jantzen HM et al. Cisplatin-DNA adducts are molecular decoys for the ribosomal RNA transcription factor hUBF (human upstream binding factor). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91:5672–5676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oikawa S, Kawanishi S. Site-specific DNA damage at GGG sequence by oxidative stress may accelerate telomere shortening. FEBS Lett 1999; 453:365–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans MD, Cooke MS. Factors contributing to the outcome of oxidative damage to nucleic acids. Bioessays 2004; 26:533–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tornaletti S, Pfeifer GP. Slow repair of pyrimidine dimers at p53 mutation hotspots in skin cancer. Science 1994; 263:1436–1438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pfeifer GP, Drouin R, Riggs AD et al. Binding of transcription factors creates hot spots for UV photoproducts in vivo. Mol Cell Biol 1992; 12:1798–1804.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tornaletti S, Pfeifer GP. UV light as a footprinting agent: Modulation of UV-induced DNA damage by transcription factors bound at the promoters of three human genes. J Mol Biol 1995; 249:714–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghosh R, Paniker L, Mitchell DL. Bound transcription factor suppresses photoproduct formation in the NF-kappa B promoter. Photochem Photobiol 2001; 73:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramon O, Sauvaigo S, Gasparutto D et al. Effects of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine on the binding of the transcription factor Sp1 to its cognate target DNA sequence (GC box). Free Radic Res 1999; 31:217–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghosh R, Mitchell DL. Effect of oxidative DNA damage in promoter elements on transcription factor binding. Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27:3213–3218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marietta C, Gulam H, Brooks PJ. A single 8,5′-cyclo-2′-deoxyadenosine lesion in a TATA box prevents binding of the TATA binding protein and strongly reduces transcription in vivo. DNA Repair (Amst) 2002; 1:967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogstad DK, Liu P, Burdzy A et al. Endogenous DNA lesions can inhibit the binding of the AP-1 (c-Jun) transcription factor. Biochemistry 2002; 41:8093–8102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parsian AJ, Funk MC, Tao TY et al. The effect of DNA damage on the formation of protein/ DNA complexes. Mutat Res 2002; 501:105–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hailer-Morrison MK, Kotler JM, Martin BD et al. Oxidized guanine lesions as modulators of gene transcription. Altered p50 binding affinity and repair shielding by 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine lesions in the NF-kappaB promoter element. Biochemistry 2003; 42:9761–9770.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gazzoli I, Kolodner RD. Regulation of the human MSH6 gene by the Sp1 transcription factor and alteration of promoter activity and expression by polymorphisms. Mol Cell Biol 2003; 23:7992–8007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sakai T, Ohtani N, McGee TL et al. Oncogenic germ-line mutations in Sp1 and ATF sites in the human retinoblastoma gene. Nature 1991; 353:83–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ramon O, Wong HK, Joyeux M et al. 2′-deoxyguanosine oxidation is associated with decrease in the DNA-binding activity of the transcription factor Sp1 in liver and kidney from diabetic and insulin-resistant rats. Free Radic Biol Med 2001; 30:107–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lu T, Pan Y, Kao SY et al. Gene regulation and DNA damage in the ageing human brain. Nature 2004; 429:883–891.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    MacLeod MC, Powell KL, Tran N. Binding of the transcription factor, Sp1, to nontarget sites in DNA modified by benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide. Carcinogenesis 1995; 16:975–983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pil PM, Lippard SJ. Specific binding of chromosomal protein HMG1 to DNA damaged by the anticancer drug cisplatin. Science 1992; 256:234–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhai X, Beckmann H, Jantzen HM et al. Cisplatin-DNA adducts inhibit ribosomal RNA synthesis by hijacking the transcription factor human upstream binding factor. Biochemistry 1998; 37:16307–16315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vichi P, Coin F, Renaud JP et al. Cisplatin-and UV-damaged DNA lure the basal transcription factor TFIID/TBP. EMBO J 1997; 16:7444–7456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hegde V, Wang M, Deutsch WA. Characterization of human ribosomal protein S3 binding to 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine and abasic sites by surface plasmon resonance. DNA Repair (Amst) 2004; 3:121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson DG, Coleman A, Powell KL et al. High-affinity binding of the cell cycle-regulated transcription factors E2F1 and E2F4 to benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide-DNA adducts. Mol Carcinog 20:216–223.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Mitchell
    • 1
  • Rita Ghosh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of CarcinogenesisThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterSmithvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyThe University of Texas Health Science CenterSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations