Cargando…
Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans
Genome editing (GE) represents a powerful approach to fight inherited blinding diseases in which the underlying mutations cause the degeneration of the light sensing photoreceptor cells of the retina. Successful GE requires the efficient repair of DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) generated during t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7226979/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32290532 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells9040947 |
_version_ | 1783534403905912832 |
---|---|
author | Frohns, Florian Frohns, Antonia Kramer, Johanna Meurer, Katharina Rohrer-Bley, Carla Solovei, Irina Hicks, David Layer, Paul G. Löbrich, Markus |
author_facet | Frohns, Florian Frohns, Antonia Kramer, Johanna Meurer, Katharina Rohrer-Bley, Carla Solovei, Irina Hicks, David Layer, Paul G. Löbrich, Markus |
author_sort | Frohns, Florian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Genome editing (GE) represents a powerful approach to fight inherited blinding diseases in which the underlying mutations cause the degeneration of the light sensing photoreceptor cells of the retina. Successful GE requires the efficient repair of DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) generated during the treatment. Rod photoreceptors of adult mice have a highly specialized chromatin organization, do not efficiently express a variety of DSB response genes and repair DSBs very inefficiently. The DSB repair efficiency in rods of other species including humans is unknown. Here, we used ionizing radiation to analyze the DSB response in rods of various nocturnal and diurnal species, including genetically modified mice, pigs, and humans. We show that the inefficient repair of DSBs in adult mouse rods does not result from their specialized chromatin organization. Instead, the DSB repair efficiency in rods correlates with the level of Kruppel-associated protein-1 (KAP1) expression and its ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM)-dependent phosphorylation. Strikingly, we detected robust KAP1 expression and phosphorylation only in human rods but not in rods of other diurnal species including pigs. Hence, our study provides important information about the uniqueness of the DSB response in human rods which needs to be considered when choosing model systems for the development of GE strategies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7226979 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72269792020-05-18 Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans Frohns, Florian Frohns, Antonia Kramer, Johanna Meurer, Katharina Rohrer-Bley, Carla Solovei, Irina Hicks, David Layer, Paul G. Löbrich, Markus Cells Article Genome editing (GE) represents a powerful approach to fight inherited blinding diseases in which the underlying mutations cause the degeneration of the light sensing photoreceptor cells of the retina. Successful GE requires the efficient repair of DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) generated during the treatment. Rod photoreceptors of adult mice have a highly specialized chromatin organization, do not efficiently express a variety of DSB response genes and repair DSBs very inefficiently. The DSB repair efficiency in rods of other species including humans is unknown. Here, we used ionizing radiation to analyze the DSB response in rods of various nocturnal and diurnal species, including genetically modified mice, pigs, and humans. We show that the inefficient repair of DSBs in adult mouse rods does not result from their specialized chromatin organization. Instead, the DSB repair efficiency in rods correlates with the level of Kruppel-associated protein-1 (KAP1) expression and its ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM)-dependent phosphorylation. Strikingly, we detected robust KAP1 expression and phosphorylation only in human rods but not in rods of other diurnal species including pigs. Hence, our study provides important information about the uniqueness of the DSB response in human rods which needs to be considered when choosing model systems for the development of GE strategies. MDPI 2020-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7226979/ /pubmed/32290532 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells9040947 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Frohns, Florian Frohns, Antonia Kramer, Johanna Meurer, Katharina Rohrer-Bley, Carla Solovei, Irina Hicks, David Layer, Paul G. Löbrich, Markus Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans |
title | Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans |
title_full | Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans |
title_fullStr | Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans |
title_short | Differences in the Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks between Rod Photoreceptors of Rodents, Pigs, and Humans |
title_sort | differences in the response to dna double-strand breaks between rod photoreceptors of rodents, pigs, and humans |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7226979/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32290532 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells9040947 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT frohnsflorian differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT frohnsantonia differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT kramerjohanna differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT meurerkatharina differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT rohrerbleycarla differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT soloveiirina differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT hicksdavid differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT layerpaulg differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans AT lobrichmarkus differencesintheresponsetodnadoublestrandbreaksbetweenrodphotoreceptorsofrodentspigsandhumans |