title: Evolutionary loss of 8-oxo-G repair components among eukaryotes.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  We have examined the phylogenetic pattern among eukaryotes of homologues of the E. coli 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine (8-oxo-G) repair enzymes MutY, MutM, and MutT.
  
  
  RESULTS
  These DNA repair enzymes are present in all large phylogenetic groups, with MutM homologues being the most universally conserved. All chordates and echinoderms were found to possess all three 8-oxo-G repair components. Likewise, the red and green algae examined have all three repair enzymes, while all land-living plants have MutY and MutM homologues, but lack MutT. However, for some phyla, e.g. protostomes, a more patchy distribution was found. Nematodes provide a striking example, where Caenorhabditis is the only identified example of an organism group having none of the three repair enzymes, while the genome of another nematode, Trichinella spiralis, instead encodes all three. The most complex distribution exists in fungi, where many different patterns of retention or loss of the three repair components are found. In addition, we found sequence insertions near or within the catalytic sites of MutY, MutM, and MutT to be present in some subgroups of Ascomycetes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The 8-oxo-G repair enzymes are ancient in origin, and loss of individual 8-oxo-G repair components at several distinct points in evolution appears to be the most likely explanation for the phylogenetic pattern among eukaryotes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Lundberg Laboratory, University of Gothenburg, P,O, Box 462, S-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden. Magnus.Almrosenblad@cmb.gu.se.
authors.forename: Kristina
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Jansson
authors.forename: Anders
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Blomberg
authors.forename: Per
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Sunnerhagen
authors.forename: Magnus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Alm Rosenblad
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Jun 1;88(11):4690-4
references.pmid: 2052552
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2006 Nov 22;6:99
references.pmid: 17121679
references.citation: Mutat Res. 2003 Oct 29;531(1-2):231-51
references.pmid: 14637258
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1996 Jul;178(13):3885-92
references.pmid: 8682794
references.citation: Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2008 Jul-Aug;43(4):239-76
references.pmid: 18756381
references.citation: Chem Rev. 2006 Feb;106(2):720-52
references.pmid: 16464022
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Oct;20(10):1603-11
references.pmid: 12832627
references.citation: Biochemistry. 1999 May 18;38(20):6374-9
references.pmid: 10350454
references.citation: Mutat Res. 1995 May;336(3):257-67
references.pmid: 7739614
references.citation: Antioxid Redox Signal. 2001 Aug;3(4):597-609
references.pmid: 11554447
references.citation: Nature. 1992 Jan 16;355(6357):273-5
references.pmid: 1309939
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1996 Oct 11;271(41):25059-62
references.pmid: 8810257
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Aug 1;89(15):7022-5
references.pmid: 1495996
references.citation: Biochemistry. 1992 Nov 17;31(45):10964-8
references.pmid: 1445834
references.citation: J Radiat Res. 2005 Jun;46(2):205-14
references.pmid: 15988139
references.citation: Nat Struct Biol. 1998 Dec;5(12):1058-64
references.pmid: 9846876
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2002 Mar 29;277(13):11135-42
references.pmid: 11801590
references.citation: Cell Mol Life Sci. 2003 Oct;60(10):2064-83
references.pmid: 14618256