Carcinogen-induced mutation spectrum in wild-type, uvrA and umuC strains of Escherichia coli: Strain specificity and mutation-prone sequences

Abstract Forward mutations induced by the ultimate carcinogen N -acetoxy- N -2-acetylaminofluorene ( N -Aco-AAF) in the tetracycline resistance gene carried on plasmid pBR322 are shown to be dependent upon the induction of the host SOS functions in wild-type and umuC Escherichia coli cells. The mutation frequency in the umuC strain is equal to about 40% of the mutation frequency observed in the umu + background. In the excision-repair-deficient uvrA mutant strain the mutagenic response is the same as in SOS-induced wild-type cells whether or not the uvrA bacteria are SOS-induced. Equal mutation frequencies are obtained in both the wild-type and the uvrA strains for equal modification levels although the survival of AAF-modified plasmid DNA is greatly reduced in the uvrA strain as compared to the wild-type strain. Sequence analysis of the mutations reveals that more than 90% of the N -Aco-AAF-induced mutations are frameshift mutations. Two types of mutational hotspots are observed occurring either at repetitive sequences or at non-repetitive sequences. Both types of mutants appear at similar locations and frequencies in both the wild-type and the uvrA strains. On the other hand, only the non-repetitive sequence mutants are obtained in the umuC background. These non-repetitive sequence mutants preferentially occur within the sequence 5′ G-G-C-G-C-C 3′ (the NarI restriction enzyme recognition sequence). The analysis of the -AAF binding spectrum to the same DNA fragment shows that there is no direct correlation between the modification spectrum and the mutation spectrum. We suggest that certain sequences are “mutation-prone” in the sense that only these sequences can be efficiently mutated as the result of an active processing mediated by specific proteins. When a sequence is said to be mutation-prone it probably corresponds to a particular structure that is induced within this sequence as a result of the binding to the DNA of the mutagen. This sequence-specific conformational change is the substrate for the protein(s) that fixes the mutation. The mutagenic processing pathway(s) is part of the cellular response to DNA-damaging agents (the so-called SOS response). Two pathways for frameshift mutagenesis are suggested by the data: (1) an umuC -dependent pathway, which is involved in the mutagenic processing of lesions within repetitive sequences; (2) an umuC -independent pathway responsible for the fixation of mutations within specific non-repetitive sequences.