Construction and comparison of yeast whole-cell biosensors regulated by two RAD54 promoters capable of detecting genotoxic compounds

References

• Afanassiev V, Sefton M, Anantachaiyong T, et al. (2000). Application of yeast cells transformed with GFP expression constructs containing the RAD54 or RNR2 promoter as a test for the genotoxic potential of chemical substances. Mutat Res 464:297–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, et al. (1973). Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:2281–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa JS, Cabral TM, Ferreira DN, et al. (2010). Genotoxicity assessment in aquatic environment impacted by the presence of heavy metals. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73:320–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartsch H, Malaveille C, Camus AM. (1980). Validation and comparative studies on 180 chemicals with S. typhimurium strains and V79 Chinese hamster cells in the presence of various metabolizing systems. Mutat Res 76:1–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billinton N, Barker MG, Michel CE, et al. (1998). Development of a green fluorescent protein reporter for a yeast genotoxicity biosensor. Biosens Bioelectron 13:831–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boronat S, Pina B. (2006). Development of RNR3- and RAD54-GUS reporters for testing genotoxicity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Anal Bioanal Chem 386:1625–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock C, Gorman C. (2000). Fusions to chloramphenicol acetyltransferase as a reporter. Methods Enzymol 326:202–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey M. (1998). The enhanceosome and transcriptional synergy. Cell 92:5–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey M, Kolman J, Katz DA, et al. (1992). Transcriptional synergy by the Epstein-Barr virus transactivator ZEBRA. J Virol 66:4803–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole GM, Mortimer RK. (1989). Failure to induce a DNA repair gene, RAD54, in Saccharomyces cerevisiae does not affect DNA repair or recombination phenotypes. Mol Cell Biol 9:3314–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole GM, Schild D, Lovett ST. (1987). Regulation of RAD54- and RAD52-lacZ gene fusions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae in response to DNA damage. Mol Cell Biol 7:1078–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman G, Wilson R. (1991). Predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals in humans from rodent bioassay data. Environ Health Perspect 94:195–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith KL, Wolf RE Jr. (2002). Measuring beta-galactosidase activity in bacteria: cell growth, permeabilization, and enzyme assays in 96-well arrays. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 290:397–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriques JA, Andrade HH, Bankmann M, et al. (1989). Reassessing the genotoxic potential of 8-MOP + UVA-induced DNA damage in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Genet 16:75–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irving RM, Elfarra AA. (2013). Mutagenicity of the cysteine S-conjugate sulfoxides of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene in the Ames test. Toxicology 306:157–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkland D, Zeiger E, Madia F. (2014). Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? II. Construction and analysis of a consolidated database. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 775–776:69–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon Y, Chi P, Roh DH, et al. (2007). Synergistic action of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologous recombination factors Rad54 and Rad51 in chromatin remodeling. DNA Repair (Amst) 6:1496–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lah B, Vidic T, Glasencnik E, et al. (2008). Genotoxicity evaluation of water soil leachates by Ames test, comet assay, and preliminary Tradescantia micronucleus assay. Environ Monit Assess 139:107–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieb JD, Liu X, Botstein D, et al. (2001). Promoter-specific binding of Rap1 revealed by genome-wide maps of protein-DNA association. Nat Genet 28:327–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu Y, Tian Y, Wang R, et al. (2015). Dual fluorescent protein-based bioassay system for the detection of genotoxic chemical substances in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Toxicol Mech Methods 25:698–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maron DM, Ames BN. (1983). Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res 113:173–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazin AV, Mazina OM, Bugreev DV, et al. (2010). Rad54, the motor of homologous recombination. DNA Repair (Amst) 9:286–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcnabb DS, Reed R, Marciniak RA. (2005). Dual luciferase assay system for rapid assessment of gene expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Eukaryot Cell 4:1539–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mencia M, Moqtaderi Z, Geisberg JV, et al. (2002). Activator-specific recruitment of TFIID and regulation of ribosomal protein genes in yeast. Mol Cell 9:823–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ptashne M, Gann A. (1997). Transcriptional activation by recruitment. Nature 386:569–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross MK, Said B, Shank RC. (2000). DNA-damaging effects of genotoxins in mixture: modulation of covalent binding to DNA. Toxicol Sci 53:224–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samarajeewa DA, Sauls PA, Sharp KJ, et al. (2014). Efficient detection of unpaired DNA requires a member of the rad54-like family of homologous recombination proteins. Genetics 198:895–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmuckli-Maurer J, Heyer WD. (2000). Meiotic recombination in RAD54 mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Chromosoma 109:86–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siede W, Obermaier S, Eckardt F. (1985). Influence of different inhibitors on the activity of the RAD54 dependent step of DNA repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Radiat Environ Biophys 24:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan TL, Kanaar R, Wyman C. (2003). Rad54, a Jack of all trades in homologous recombination. DNA Repair (Amst) 2:787–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh L, Schmuckli-Maurer J, Billinton N, et al. (2002). DNA-damage induction of RAD54 can be regulated independently of the RAD9- and DDC1-dependent checkpoints that regulate RNR2. Curr Genet 41:232–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Q, Qiu R, Foland TB, Griesen D. (2003). Rap1p and other transcriptional regulators can function in defining distinct domains of gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res 31:1224–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang XP, Janke R, Kingsley J, et al. (2013). A conserved sequence extending motif III of the motor domain in the Snf2-family DNA translocase Rad54 is critical for ATPase activity. PLoS One 8:e82184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar