Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1996 Jun 11;93(12):5765–5769. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.12.5765

Segregation of DNA polynucleotide strands into sister chromatids and the use of endoreduplicated cells to track sister chromatid exchanges induced by crosslinks, alkylations, or x-ray damage.

S Wolff 1, V Afzal 1
PMCID: PMC39135  PMID: 8650167

Abstract

The method of Matsumoto and Ohta [Matsumoto, K. & Ohta, T. (1992) Chromosoma 102, 60-65; Matsumoto, K. & Ohta, T. (1995) Mutat. Res. 326, 93-98] to induce large numbers of endoreduplicated Chinese hamster ovary cells has now been coupled with the fluorescence-plus-Giemsa method of Perry and Wolff [Perry, P. & Wolff, S. (1974) Nature (London) 251, 156-158] to produce harlequin endoreduplicated chromosomes that after the third round of DNA replication are composed of a chromosome with a light chromatid and a dark chromatid in close apposition to its sister chromosome containing two light chromatids. Unless the pattern is disrupted by sister chromatid exchange (SCE), the dark chromatid is always in the center, so that the order of the chromatids is light-dark light-light. The advent of this method, which permits the observation of SCEs in endoreduplicated cells, makes it possible to determine with great ease in which cell cycle an SCE occurred. This now allows us to approach several vexing questions about the induction of SCEs (genetic damage and its repair) after exposure to various types of mutagenic carcinogens. The present experiments have allowed us to observe how many cell cycles various types of lesions that are induced in DNA by a crosslinking agent, an alkylating agent, or ionizing radiation, and that are responsible for the induction of SCEs, persist before being repaired and thus lose their ability to inflict genetic damage. Other experiments with various types of mutagenic carcinogens and various types of cell lines that have defects in different DNA repair processes, such as mismatch repair, excision repair, crosslink repair, and DNA-strand-break repair, can now be carried out to determine the role of these types of repair in removing specific types of lesions.

Full text

PDF
5765

Images in this article

5766Fig. 2
on p.5766

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Escalza P., Daza P., Piñero J., Cortés F. Different effectiveness of 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide, mitomycin C and ethyl methanesulfonate to induce lesions in DNA leading to sister chromatid exchange throughout successive cell cycles in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Mutagenesis. 1992 Mar;7(2):137–140. doi: 10.1093/mutage/7.2.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Herreros B., Giannelli F. Spatial distribution of old and new chromatid sub-units and frequency of chromatid exchanges in induced human lymphocyte endoreduplications. Nature. 1967 Oct 21;216(5112):286–288. doi: 10.1038/216286a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Linnainmaa K., Wolff S. Sister chromatid exchange induced by short-lived monoadducts produced by the bifunctional agents mitomycin C and 8-methoxypsoralen. Environ Mutagen. 1982;4(3):239–247. doi: 10.1002/em.2860040306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Matsumoto K., Ohta T. Phases of the cell cycle sensitive to endoreduplication induction in CHO-K1 cells. Mutat Res. 1995 Jan;326(1):93–98. doi: 10.1016/0027-5107(94)00154-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Matsumoto K., Ohta T. Sensitive period for the induction of endoreduplication by rotenone in cultured Chinese hamster cells. Chromosoma. 1992 Dec;102(1):60–65. doi: 10.1007/BF00352291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Miller R. C., Aronson M. M., Nichols W. W. Effects of treatment on differential staining of BrdU labeled metaphase chromosomes: three-way differentiation of M3 chromosomes. Chromosoma. 1976 Mar 31;55(1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/BF00288322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Perry P., Evans H. J. Cytological detection of mutagen-carcinogen exposure by sister chromatid exchange. Nature. 1975 Nov 13;258(5531):121–125. doi: 10.1038/258121a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Perry P., Wolff S. New Giemsa method for the differential staining of sister chromatids. Nature. 1974 Sep 13;251(5471):156–158. doi: 10.1038/251156a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. SCHWARZACHER H. G., SCHNEDL W. ENDOREDUPLICATION IN HUMAN FIBROBLAST CULTURES. Cytogenetics. 1965;4:1–18. doi: 10.1159/000129839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sasaki M. S. Sister chromatid exchange and chromatid interchange as possible manifestation of different DNA repair processes. Nature. 1977 Oct 13;269(5629):623–625. doi: 10.1038/269623a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schvartzman J. B., Goyanes V. A new method for the identification of SCE's per cell cycle in BrdUrd-substituted chromosomes. Cell Biol Int Rep. 1980 Apr;4(4):415–423. doi: 10.1016/0309-1651(80)90223-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Shafer D. A. Replication bypass model of sister chromatid exchanges and implications for Bloom's syndrome and Fanconi's anemia. Hum Genet. 1977 Nov 10;39(2):177–190. doi: 10.1007/BF00287010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Speit G., Mehnert K., Vogel W. Induction of endoreduplication by hydrazine in Chinese hamster V 79 cells and reduced incidence of sister chromatid exchanges in endoreduplicated mitoses. Chromosoma. 1984;89(1):79–84. doi: 10.1007/BF00302355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Speit G., Vogel W., Mehnert K. Do the frequencies of sister chromatid exchanges in endoreduplicated mitoses provide a measure for lesion persistence and repair? Chromosoma. 1985;91(5):369–371. doi: 10.1007/BF00291010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stetka D. G., Jr Further analysis of the replication bypass model for sister chromatid exchange. Hum Genet. 1979 May 23;49(1):63–69. doi: 10.1007/BF00277687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. TERASIMA T., TOLMACH L. J. Changes in x-ray sensitivity of HeLa cells during the division cycle. Nature. 1961 Jun 24;190:1210–1211. doi: 10.1038/1901210a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Taylor J H. Sister Chromatid Exchanges in Tritium-Labeled Chromosomes. Genetics. 1958 May;43(3):515–529. doi: 10.1093/genetics/43.3.515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. WALEN K. H. SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE REPLICATION OF CHROMOSOMAL DNA. Genetics. 1965 Jun;51:915–929. doi: 10.1093/genetics/51.6.915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wolff S., Bodycote J., Painter R. B. Sister chromatid exchanges induced in Chinese hamster cells by UV irradiation of different stages of the cell cycle: the necessity for cells to pass through S. Mutat Res. 1974 Oct;25(1):73–81. doi: 10.1016/0027-5107(74)90220-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Wolff S., Perry P. Differential Giemsa staining of sister chromatids and the study of chromatid exchanges without autoradiography. Chromosoma. 1974;48(4):341–353. doi: 10.1007/BF00290991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES