Mechanisms of direct radiation damage in DNA, based on a study of the yields of base damage, deoxyribose damage, and trapped radicals in d(GCACGCGTGC)(2).
Dose-response curves were measured for the formation of direct-type DNA products in X-irradiated d(GCACGCGTGC)(2)prepared as dry films and as crystalline powders. Damage to deoxyribose (dRib) was assessed by HPLC measurements of strand break products containing 3' or 5' terminal phosphate and free base release. Base damage was measured using GC/ MS after acid hydrolysis and trimethylsilylation. The yield of trappable radicals was measured at 4 K by EPR of films X-irradiated at 4 K. With exception of those used for EPR, all samples were X-irradiated at room temperature. There was no measurable difference between working under oxygen or under nitrogen. The chemical yields (in units of nmol/J) for trapped radicals, free base release, 8-oxoGua, 8-oxoAde, diHUra and diHThy were G(total)(fr) = 618 +/- 60, G(fbr) = 93 +/- 8, G(8-oxoGua) = 111 +/- 62, G(8-oxoAde) = 4 +/- 3, G(diHUra) = 127 +/- 160, and G(diHThy) = 39 +/- 60, respectively. The yields were determined and the dose-response curves explained by a mechanistic model consisting of three reaction pathways: (1) trappable-radical single-track, (2) trappable-radical multiple-track, and (3) molecular. If the base content is projected from the decamer's GC:AT ratio of 4:1 to a ratio of 1:1, the percentage of the total measured damage (349 nmol/J) would partition as follows: 20 +/- 16% 8-oxoGua, 3 +/- 3% 8-oxoAde, 28 +/- 46% diHThy, 23 +/- 32% diHUra, and 27 +/- 17% dRib damage. With a cautionary note regarding large standard deviations, the projected yield of total damage is higher in CG-rich DNA because C combined with G is more prone to damage than A combined with T, the ratio of base damage to deoxyribose damage is approximately 3:1, the yield of diHUra is comparable to the yield of diHThy, and the yield of 8-oxoAde is not negligible. While the quantity and quality of the data fall short of proving the hypothesized model, the model provides an explanation for the dose-response curves of the more prevalent end products and provides a means of measuring their chemical yields, i.e., their rate of formation at zero dose. Therefore, we believe that this comprehensive analytical approach, combined with the mechanistic model, will prove important in predicting risk due to exposure to low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation.
Swarts
Steven G
SG
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
Gilbert
David C
DC
Sharma
Kiran K
KK
Razskazovskiy
Yuriy
Y
Purkayastha
Shubhadeep
S
Naumenko
Katerina A
KA
Bernhard
William A
WA
D020029:Base Pairing / Q000528:radiation effects*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D004249:DNA Damage / Q000528:radiation effects*; D003855:Deoxyribose / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000528:radiation effects*; D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D005609:Free Radicals / Q000528:radiation effects; D008956:Models, Chemical; D008957:Models, Genetic; D009841:Oligonucleotides / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000528:radiation effects*; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D014965:X-Rays
D005609:Free Radicals; D009841:Oligonucleotides; D003855:Deoxyribose
Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(17):5553-64
16204456
Radiat Res. 1993 Aug;135(2):146-54
8396268
J Am Chem Soc. 2002 Jul 31;124(30):8859-66
12137539
Free Radic Res Commun. 1992;16(6):349-79
1325399
Radiat Res. 2005 May;163(5):591-602
15850421
Radiat Res. 2002 Mar;157(3):227-34
11839083
Radiat Res. 1999 Aug;152(2):196-201
10409330
Radiat Res. 1996 Mar;145(3):304-14
8927698
Radiat Res. 1995 Dec;144(3):251-7
7494867
Biol Chem. 1997 Nov;378(11):1293-7
9426189
Radiat Res. 1995 Aug;143(2):144-50
7631006
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(5):1501-11
16537838
Radiat Res. 2003 Sep;160(3):334-9
12926992
Radiat Res. 2005 Jan;163(1):85-9
15606311
Radiat Res. 1999 Dec;152(6):583-9
10581528
Radiat Res. 1994 Apr;138(1):9-17
8146305
J Phys Chem B. 2005 Sep 8;109(35):16967-73
16853159
Radiat Res. 1998 Jul;150(1):101-14
9650607
Radiat Res. 2006 Jul;166(1 Pt 1):1-8
16808596
Radiat Res. 2007 May;167(5):501-7
17474798
Radiat Res. 1996 Oct;146(4):361-8
8927707
Radiat Res. 2000 Apr;153(4):436-41
10761004
Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2007;46(4):561-4
17154191
Radiat Res. 1992 Apr;130(1):7-14
1313984
J Am Chem Soc. 2001 Mar 28;123(12):2917-8
11456993
Radiat Res. 1994 Jan;137(1):2-10
8265784
J Phys Chem B. 2006 Dec 28;110(51):26286-91
17181287
Chem Rev. 1998 May 7;98(3):1089-1108
11848926
J Phys Chem B. 2004 Nov 25;108(47):18377-82
17361311
Radiat Res. 2000 Aug;154(2):163-70
10931688
Radiat Res. 1992 Mar;129(3):333-44
1542721
Biophys J. 1996 Sep;71(3):1222-7
8873996
Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2005 Sep 26;44(38):6210-3
16136620
Radiat Res. 2003 May;159(5):663-9
12710878
Radiat Res. 2006 Apr;165(4):479-84
16579661