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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frohns, Florian, Frohns, Antonia, Kramer, Johanna, Meurer, Katharina, Rohrer-Bley, Carla, Solovei, Irina, Hicks, David, Layer, Paul G., Löbrich, Markus
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