| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
ARTICLES |
Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1014
Submitted August 5, 2003; Accepted December 10, 2003
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: undergraduate • laboratory course • yeast • mismatch repair • colorectal cancer • molecular biology
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Future research biologists are predicted to need skills from many disciplines, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, and computer science (National Research Council Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, 2003). The training of these multi-faceted future research scientists requires an integrated curriculum with courses that are accessible and interesting to a variety of students. The Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources (1996) and the authors of a report for Project Kaleidescope (Rothman and Narum, 1999) encourage endeavors to educate a variety of science students. The subject for the project outlined in this paper was selected to capture the interest of a broad spectrum of enrolled students. The topic is centered on a highly conserved, fundamental biological process with a direct impact on a significant human disease.
Background for the Research Project
In the United States in the year 2003, the American Cancer Society
estimates that colorectal cancer (CRC) will be diagnosed in 147,500
individuals and will result in 57,100 deaths. Approximately 2–7% of
these CRC cases are a consequence of the most commonly inherited form of the
disease, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) (reviewed recently
in Boland, 2000;
Muller and Fishel, 2002;
Peltomaki, 2001). As far back
as 1913, HNPCC was recognized as having a genetic basis
(Warthin, 1913). Eighty years
later, an exciting convergence of basic science and medical research proved
that HNPCC results from defects in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes
(Aaltonen et al.,
1993; Fishel et al.,
1993; Ionov et al.,
1993; Leach et al.,
1993; Parsons et al.,
1993; Peltomaki et
al., 1993; Strand et
al., 1993; Thibodeau
et al., 1993).
DNA MMR is a highly conserved process (reviewed recently in Harfe and Jinks-Robertson, 2000; Marti et al., 2002). Early work in prokaryotes revealed that certain genes when inactivated led to a pronounced increase in the rate of spontaneous mutations (Cox et al., 1972; Nevers and Spatz, 1975; Siegel and Bryson, 1967). Identification of several of these genes including mutH, mutL, mutS, and uvdR/mutU established the importance of prokaryotic methyl-directed DNA mismatch repair in maintaining genomic integrity (Bauer et al., 1981; Glickman, 1979; Glickman and Radman, 1980; Jones and Wagner, 1981; Lu et al., 1983; Pukkila et al., 1983; Rydberg, 1978; Shanabruch et al., 1983).
In nature, DNA mismatches form primarily as a consequence of replication errors and chemical modification (reviewed recently by Aquilina and Bignami, 2001; Kunkel and Bebenek, 2000). Without an intact mismatch repair system, DNA begins to accumulate mutations, some of which will be deleterious to the cell or organism. In addition to the increased rate of single base-pair mutations, researchers observed that repetitive DNA elements (for example mono, di and tri-nucleotide repeats) are highly unstable in mismatch repair defective strains (Levinson and Gutman, 1987; Strand et al., 1993). Interestingly, these findings contributed to the establishment of the link between HNPCC and mismatch repair, given that a hallmark of HNPCC tumors is highly unstable repetitive DNA elements (Aaltonen et al., 1993; Ionov et al., 1993; Parsons et al., 1993; Thibodeau et al., 1993).
Closely related eukaryotic homologs of MutS (MutS
Homolog or MSH genes) (Reenan and
Kolodner, 1992) and MutL (MutL
Homolog or MLH and some Post-Meiotic
Segregation or PMS genes)
(Horii et al., 1994;
Lindblom et al.,
1993; Nicolaides et
al., 1994; Papadopoulos
et al., 1994) are found in diverse organisms ranging from
yeast to humans. While MutS functions as a homodimer to bind mispaired DNA in
prokaryotes, the similar function is accomplished in eukaryotes by two
distinct heterodimers known as MutS 
, composed of Msh2 and Msh6, and
MutSß, composed of Msh2 and Msh3
(Figure 1). MutS binds
primarily to single-base pair mismatches and small insertion/deletion loops.
MutS ß binds to larger insertion/deletion loops. A heterodimer composed
of Mlh1 and Pms1 (PMS2 in humans) functions as the primary MutL equivalent in
DNA mismatch repair in eukaryotes. The MutH endonuclease confers stand
specificity for repair in prokayotes, where the newly synthesized unmethylated
strand is cleaved for repair. A strand specificity factor in eukaryotes is
postulated to be Pol30/PCNA, although the precise mechanism of stand
discrimination is not clear. Downstream events including strand displacement,
excision and new synthesis are currently being investigated and include
helicases (Mechanic et al.,
2000; Yamaguchi et
al., 1998), exonucleases
(Burdett et al.,
2001; Genschel et
al., 2002), polymerases, and ligases
(Tomkinson and Mackey,
1998).
|
The focus of this research project is MSH2. Since the discovery of the role hMSH2 in HNPCC many alterations in the gene have been found in afflicted families.1 Included among these changes is a collection of nearly 30 missense mutations. With missense mutations one must always consider that a single amino acid change does not necessarily result in a dysfunctional protein. Certain changes are functionally silent. In some cases, there are not sufficient family members to do a careful pedigree analysis to ensure that the mapped mutation is indeed pathogenic. It is part of the objective of the course to determine whether the mapped missense mutations found at hMSH2 loci result in a dysfunctional protein (pathogenic polymorphisms) or if the missense changes are likely to be benign polymorphisms in the human population. If missense mutations are to be used in genetic counseling, it is imperative to determine which changes result in a defective protein. We also use the mutations that have been found in clinical isolates to define important structure-function relationships in the Msh2 protein.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
-35S]dATP (Amersham Biosciences,
Piscataway, NJ), MSH2 specific primers (Princeton Syn/Seq facility)
and template DNA.
|
|
|
|
Qualitative Mismatch Repair Assays
Three colonies from each of the transformations are transferred using
sterile wooden sticks to a defined position approximately 20 mm in diameter on
a fresh –HIS –TRP –LEU –THR –URA plate. After 2
d of growth at 30°C, yeast strains are replica-plated onto drug-containing
media to assess the mismatch repair phenotype (described in detail below) and
to –HIS –TRP medium as a control to ensure that the cells were
properly delivered to all of the plates.
The drug selection for dinucleotide instability is synthetic medium lacking histidine, tryptophan, leucine, threonine and supplemented with 5-fluororotic acid monohydrate, 5-FOA (Toronto Research Chemicals Inc., North York, ON, Canada). The medium is designated –HIS –TRP –LEU –THR + 5-FOA to reflect the nutritional deficiencies and the presence of the drug 5-FOA. A second type of medium to score primarily for single base pair mismatch repair defects is supplemented with 60 µg/ml canavanine, CAN (Sigma-Alderich, Milwaukee, WI). The medium is also lacking histidine, tryptophan, arginine and is designated –HIS –TRP –ARG + CAN. Images of the plates are taken with a FOTO/Analyst Fotodyne Camera and FOTO/Analyst PC Image software (Fotodyne, Hartland, WI) and saved to a network drive so that the students are able to access their images from remote computers.
Quantitative Assays for Mismatch Repair
The same strains employed in the qualitative test above are used to
inoculate liquid synthetic medium lacking histidine and tryptophan (–HIS
–TRP). Cultures are grown overnight at 30°C with aeration. The
approximate cell concentration is determined
(Burke et al., 2000)
and students either concentrate the culture or perform serial dilutions so
that the appropriate number of cells is delivered to each plate.
Based on the qualitative assay, students are able to determine whether the
msh2 allele has a mismatch repair phenotype that is similar to wild
type (MMR+) or similar to msh2 null (MMR–). Based on this
information, the cells with the msh2 missense allele are either
processed like wild type or like msh2 null cells. The cultures must
be treated differently because if the mutation rate is higher (as is the case
for the msh2 null allele strain), fewer cells are plated on the
drug-containing plates to allow for an accurate colony count. To select for
Canr mutant 
6 x 107 cells of the MMR + cells
are plated on –HIS –TRP –ARG + CAN, by concentrating the
cultures in a centrifuge for 5 min at 3000 rpm to allow for efficient plating
volumes. Approximately 106 cells for each of the MMR–cells
are plated on –HIS –TRP –ARG + CAN. To select for
FOAr mutant1.4 x 106 MMR + and
104 of the MMR–cells are plated onto –TRP
–HIS –LEU –THR + FOA plates. To obtain a viable cell count
for each culture 100 cells for each of the samples are plated onto
–HIS –TRP plates. The plates are placed at 30°C for 2–5
d.
Steady-State Expression Levels of the Msh2p Variants by Immunoblotting
Proteins extracts (Burke et
al., 2000) are resolved using SDS polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) (Ausubel et
al., 1994). The resolving gel is a 7% acrylamide gel (37.5:1
acrylamide to bis-acrylamide ratio). Samples and markers are resolved in
duplicate halves on the gel. One half is subjected to for Coomassie Brilliant
Blue R (Sigma–Alderich) staining and the duplicate is processed for
immunoblotting (Ausubel et al.,
1994). Immunodetection of Msh2p expressing the hemagglutinin
epitope (HA) is conducted according to the ECL method (Amersham Biosciences).
The primary antibody used is mouse 12CA5 monoclonal antibody specific for the
HA epitope (Princeton Monoclonal Facility). The blot is incubated at room
temperature in the presence of the primary antibody for 1 hour. After the
specified washes, the secondary antibody, -mouse-horse radish
peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated secondary antibody (Amersham Biosciences) is
applied for 45 min. Both antibodies are used at a 1:2500. After the final
washes, the ECL detection reagents are applied and the blot is processed as
recommended by the manufacturer.
Localization of the Msh2p Variants Using Indirect Immunofluorescence
The procedure for indirect immunofluorescence of HA epitope tagged Msh2
(Msh2::HA) is based on previous protocols
(Pringle et al.,
1989). Cultures of exponentially growing yeast strains (the same
strains used in the functional assays) are fixed in 4% formaldehyde for
30 min at 30°C, washed and digested for 1 hour with Zymolyase 100T
(Seikagaku Corporation, Japan) as recommended. The primary antibody for
detection of Msh2::HA is 12CA5 diluted 1:400. In addition, control wells, are
prepared with a mixture of 12CA5 and with rat monoclonal -tubulin
(YL1/2, Serotec, Raleigh, NC) each diluted 1:400. The primary antibody
incubation is for 30 min at room temperature. Wells are washed and the
secondary antibody mixture is applied for 45 min at room temperature in a
moist chamber. The secondary antibody mixture is a combination of goat
-mouse IgG Alexa Fluor 488 diluted 1:200 and donkey -rat IgG
Alexa Fluor 594 diluted 1:400 (both from Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR). Cells
are washed extensively, stained with freshly diluted
4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole, DAPI (1 µg/ml in PBS) for 5 min at room
temperature, washed twice and prepared for microscopy as recommended
(Pringle et al.,
1989). Cells are examined with a Nikon Eclipse E600 (Nikon,
Melville, NY) containing a DIC H Plan Fluor 100X oil immersion objective lens
(NA = 1.3). Fluorescence was visualized using Nikon filter sets: UV-2A (for
DAPI stained nuclei and mitochondria), B-2A (for Msh2 localization), and G-2A
(for tubulin localization). Images are recorded using a Nikon DXM1200 digital
camera and ACT-1 software, version 2 (Nikon) and stored as electronic files
onto network drives.
Recombinant DNA Cloning
The entire sample containing digested pMSH2-allele construct and 1 µg of
digested pGBD-MSH2 are resolved by agarose gel electrophoresis. The
appropriate bands are excised and extracted using the Bio101 Gene Clean Spin
Extraction Kit (Qbiogene, Carlsbad, CA). The yield of extracted insert and
vector DNA is determined by comparing a portion of the sample to a
concentration curve of digested pGBD-MSH2. The pmol/µl of 5' termini for
each fragment are determined and ligation reactions are prepared such that
3- to 5-fold molar excess of 5' termini of insert DNA compared to vector
is present in the sample. A control tube is prepared with pGBD-MSH2 vector
fragment alone with no insert fragment. In addition, ligase controls include a
singly cut vector with and without T4 DNA ligase. Ligation reaction reactions
are conducted according to the specifications of the enzyme manufacturer (New
England Biolabs). Products of the ligation reaction and the control samples
are used to transform bacterial cells by electroporation
(Ausubel et al.,
1994). A control tube in which no DNA has been added is also
prepared to control for sterility. A final uncut vector control is prepared to
compare with the singly cut vector with and without ligase. Screening for
recombinant molecules employs basic molecular techniques described above,
including the alkaline lysis extraction procedure, PCR, restriction
endonuclease digestions, and analytical agarose gel electrophoresis. The
control DNA for these diagnostic tests is pGBD-MSH2. In addition, a second
diagnostic restriction endonuclease digestion is conducted to verify that the
digestion sites used in the procedure are still encoded in the recombinant
plasmids.
Yeast 2-hybrid Assays
pGBD-C2, pGBD-MSH2, and the recombinant plasmid containing the fusion
between GBD and the msh2 allele (pGBD-MSH2-allele) are introduced
into PJ69-4A, a MATa yeast 2-hybrid reporter strain
(James et al., 1996)
using the lithium acetate transformation method
(Burke et al., 2000).
Cells are plated onto medium lacking tryptophan (–TRP) to select for the
transformants. Before the course, the GAD fusion constructs
(Figure 9A) were introduced
into PJ69-4, a MAT yeast 2-hybrid reporter strain
(James et al., 1996)
and distributed. The students set up crosses to form diploid yeast strains on
YEPD agar plates. The plates were incubated for 24 h at 30°C and
replicaprinted to selective plates lacking leucine and tryptophan (–LEU
–TRP) or lacking leucine, tryptophan, and histidine (–LEU
–TRP –HIS). The plates are incubated for 2–5 d at 30°C
and are photographed as described above for the qualitative mismatch repair
assays.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Mutagenesis Strategy
Using site-directed mutagenesis the students create human missense
mutations designated as pathogenic in the cognate yeast MSH2 gene. To
introduce the changes the students employ a mutagenesis technique known as the
dut ung method (Kunkel,
1985). The technique uses single-stranded uracil-containing
template DNA, a mutagenic oligonucleotide to prime DNA synthesis,
deoxynucleotides and T7 DNA polymerase to synthesize the mutagenized DNA
strand, and T4 DNA ligase to create a covalently closed double stranded DNA
plasmid. After the in vitro synthesis, the synthesized plasmids are
introduced into a bacterial strain that will preferentially repair the
parental uracil-containing strand, resulting in a high yield of transformants
containing the mutagenized plasmid. Most of the components for the mutagenesis
are commercially available. The unique reagents include the template DNA and
the mutagenic oligonucleotides. The MSH2 containing template DNA
(pMSH2) was constructed prior to the course and is described in detail in
Figure 2 and the mutagenic
oligonucleotides are designed as detailed in the following section.
Designing Mutagenic Oligonucleotides
The students begin the project by designing mutagenic oligonucleotides. The
procedure relies on Accelrys SeqWeb Version 2, a Web-based sequence analysis
program, to aid in the design. Each pair is assigned a missense allele found
in the human databases. The databases consulted include the International
Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC),
and the Human Gene Mutation Database (in association with Celera). The cognate
amino acid is found in yeast gene by comparing the human and yeast sequences.
A yeast codon preference table
(ftp://genome-ftp.stanford.edu/pub/codon/ysc.g63.cod)
is consulted when planning the mutagenesis to ensure that the mutated protein
will not have decreased expression as a consequence of rare codon usage at the
altered amino acid site. In addition, the students engineer a mutation that
will either create or destroy a restriction endonuclease site within the
coding region of the gene. Oligonucleotides are designed to be 23 nucleotides
in length with 10 nucleotides flanking the codon to be altered. Finally, the
proper strand must be specified so that the mutagenic oligonucleotide will
anneal to the single-stranded template DNA using the information given in
Figure 2. Before ending the
computer session, the students determine the restriction endonuclease
digestion pattern that would be predicted for the unmutagenized and
mutagenized plasmids.
Site-Directed Mutagenesis
Over several laboratory sessions, the mutagenic oligonucleotide is
phosphorylated and used to prime synthesis of the complementary strand of the
uracil-containing DNA template in an in vitro mutagenesis reaction.
Each student pair prepares three samples. One contains all of the listed
components, a second lacks the mutagenic oligonucleotide (no primer control),
and a third lacks the T4 DNA ligase (the no ligase control).
One tenth of the reaction products and controls are resolved by agarose gel electrophoresis in the presence of ethidium bromide to determine whether the expected double-stranded covalently closed products are generated before introducing the molecules into bacteria.The students are provided with double-stranded and single-stranded pMSH2 controls for comparison purposes (see Figure 3A for an example of a student's results).
|
Confirming the Mutation by Restriction Endonuclease Digestion of Plasmid DNA and PCR Amplified Fragments
Six transformants are chosen to recover the plasmid DNA for restriction
endonuclease screening to confirm the presence of the mutation. Digestions are
performed on the whole plasmid and on polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
amplified fragments of the mutagenized regions. Many of the relevant
restriction endonucleases cleave the pMSH2 plasmid into multiple fragments
(some as many as 73 fragments), making the diagnosis difficult. Thus, analysis
of the amplified region of interest proves to be a highly effective way for
the students to identify the mutagenized plasmids.
Students select two primers from a listing of available primers to amplify the mutagenized region. The goal is to amplify a fragment that upon restriction endonuclease digestion will give a banding pattern distinct from that of unmutagenized DNA. The students are directed to choose primers keeping in mind considerations such as the annealing positions and the orientation of the 3'-OH end of the primers with respect to the altered codon.
The purified plasmid DNA and the unmutagenized plasmid DNA control (pMSH2) as well as the PCR products are digested with diagnostic restriction endonucleases. Students are required to find the correct buffer and temperature conditions for each diagnostic digestion and prepare an agarose gel of a suitable percentage, depending on the desired resolving power. Students identify the mutagenized plasmids by analyzing the digestion patterns and comparing them to the predicted patterns and to the unmutagenized DNA control lanes (see Figure 3B and 3C for examples of student gels). Typically, greater than 50% of the samples analyzed encode the desired mutation.
Dideoxy Nucleotide Sequence Analysis of the Mutagenized Region
As a final confirmation that the mutagenesis was precisely as engineered,
the students perform dideoxy nucleotide sequencing reactions of the relevant
region using highly purified plasmid DNA. Students must select an appropriate
primer from the listing of MSH2 primers stocks to prime the synthesis
reaction. The students take into consideration the orientation of the mutation
with respect to the position of the primer's 3'-OH end. The primer is chosen
so that it will anneal 100 nucleotides away from the altered codon to
allow for optimal resolution of the sequence in the mutagenized region (see
Figure 3D for a student
result).
Qualitative and Quantitative DNA Mismatch Repair Assays
After confirmation of the mutagenesis at the nucleotide level, the
mutagenized plasmid (containing the msh2 allele of interest), the
pMSH2 unmutagenized plasmid (containing wild-type MSH2), and the
pRS413 vector control (no MSH2) are used to transform the
msh2
yeast reporter strain AGY75
(Table 2,
Figure 4, and
Figure 5A). As a control for
sterile technique, the students prepare a transformation sample with no
plasmid DNA.
|
Using the created yeast strains, qualitative and quantitative mismatch
repair assays are performed. Two types of drug-containing medium are used to
assay DNA mismatch repair. The drugs select for yeast cells that have
incorporated mutations into their DNA at an elevated rate. In these assays, an
increased number of survivors on the drug-containing medium reflects a
pronounced defect in DNA mismatch repair. The selection for dinucleotide
instability (typically seen as a consequence of MutSß loss of function)
is synthetic medium supplemented with 5-fluororotic acid monohydrate, 5-FOA,
whichprovides a potent selection for yeast cells that are ura3
defective (Boeke et al.,
1987). In the assay, the loss of Ura3p is a consequence of a
frameshift in the reporter construct
(Figure 4) dinucleotide repeat
region that is fused in frame with URA3
(Henderson and Petes, 1992).
Dinucleotide tracts expand or contract at an elevated rate as a consequence of
replication errors (reviewed in Kunkel and
Bebenek, 2000). If not repaired by the MMR machinery, the reading
frame for the URA3 gene will be disrupted and the cell will no longer
produce a functional Ura3p gene product. Mismatch repair defective cells
display an elevated rate of resistance to 5-FOA (FOAr) using this
reporter, which is indicative of dinucleotide instability
(Henderson and Petes, 1992).
The second type of medium to score primarily for single base pair mismatch
repair defects (typically seen as a consequence of MutS loss of
function) is supplemented with canavanine, a toxic analog of arginine
(Rosenthal, 1977). Both
canavanine and arginine are taken into the cells via the arginine permease
(Grenson et al.,
1966) encoded at the CAN1 locus
(Broach et al., 1979). If the
CAN1 gene is defective, then the yeast become resistant to
canavanine, Canr (Whelan et
al., 1979). Mismatch repair defective strains show an
elevated rate of canavanine resistance
(Marsischky et al.,
1996).
Students examine the results of growth on the drug plates and non-selective plates and compare the msh2-allele strain to the wild-type strain and the msh2 null strain. The wild type strain typically shows very little growth on the drug containing plates compared to the msh2 null strain, which characteristically shows pronounced growth. By comparison with the controls, the students make a qualitative judgment as to whether the msh2 allele results in defects in DNA mismatch repair (see Figure 5B for an example of student results).
Using the same strains and drug selection media, the students perform quantitative assays to determine the rate of mutation in the yeast strains described above. In order to calculate the rate, the students determine the number of Canr or FOAr mutants in the culture and the total number of viable cells. From this information the students determine the rate as an expression of the number of mutations (derived from the mutant count) per cell division (derived from the number of viable cells plated). The median number of colonies per plate from each drug-containing medium (either FOA or CAN) is used to calculate the mean number of mutations that must have occurred (Lea and Coulson, 1949). For each strain, the number of colonies on the nonselective plates is averaged and the appropriate dilution factor is applied to give the number of viable cells. For microbial growth, it is an accepted approximation that the number of cells in a population is equivalent to the number of cell divisions. Having gathered the required data and after making the appropriate conversions, the rate of mutation is expressed in terms of the number of mutations per cell division.
Each pair determines the rates for the MSH2 wild-type, the msh2 missense allele and msh2 null control strain. Class data are pooled to gather more accurate mutation rates for each strain and to illustrate the importance of multiple trials to obtain meaningful data. Four pairs typically analyze each allele so that a total of 12 trials for each msh2 allele strains and 75–90 trials for each of the control strains are performed yearly. Students are asked to compare the calculated mutation rates with those derived from the combined data.
By the end of the first half of the semester, the students have engineered a mutation and established whether the change effects DNA mismatch repair. In a typical year, at least one of the human-derived allele has a wild-type phenotype in yeast. The students are encouraged to carefully scrutinize the original publications that designated the wild type-like alleles as pathogenic and to include their findings in the first laboratory report.
Determination of the Steady-State Levels of Msh2 and Msh2 Variant Proteins
To begin to understand why certain missense mutations in MSH2
result in mismatch repair defects, the steady-state expression levels of the
Msh2 and Msh2-variant proteins are determined. This assay determines whether
the amino acid change results in dramatically altered stability of the Msh2
protein. The same three strains used in the mismatch repair assays are used in
this analysis. The immunodetection of wild type Msh2p and the variant Msh2p
are performed using antibodies that bind the hemagglutinin epitope (HA)
encoded in the MSH2 gene (see
Figure 2). The no epitope
control sample is protein extracts from the msh2 null strain
harboring the pRS413 vector. Student results from an immunoblot and Coomassie
staining can be seen in Figure
6. Each year, many students observe a decrease in overall
expression of the variant Msh2 proteins. Portions of the lectures and informal
discussions are devoted to understanding the possible models for decreased
expression. Students are encouraged to devise a strategy for distinguishing
between the possibilities.
|
Two important negative controls for the experiment include a sample of wild-type, antigen expressing cells with no primary antibody added and a sample with msh2 null cells that do not express the antigen (no epitope control), but are treated similarly to the experimental cells. These controls emphasize the importance of including a no epitope control if possible, since the background level of fluorescence observed in the no epitope control is typically much higher than the no primary antibody control. The positive control for the experiment consists of cells expressing the wild-type Msh2 protein. In addition, a double labeling of Msh2 and tubulin (see Materials and Methods) is performed as an internal control to prove that the cells were adequately prepared for immunofluorescence. All cells should show tubulin staining since tubulin is essential for viability. In addition, all cells are treated with the DNA specific dye, DAPI, to indicate nuclear position.
Students observe the overall cellular morphology with differential interference contrast (DIC) optics and visualize the Msh2 or tubulin localization and the cellular DNA using a microscope equipped with epi-fluorescence capabilities. After examining and photographing the control and experimental samples, the students are able to determine whether the variant Msh2p co-localizes with the nuclear DNA. Students are introduced to the practical and theoretical aspects of fluorescence microscopy while obtaining a tangible result. Results from a student immunofluorescence experiment may be seen in Figure 7. This laboratory session has a high rate of success in that the controls work well. One caveat is that the variant proteins that display decreased overall expression are sometimes difficult to detect. For these exceptions, the staff provides prepared slides where the allele has been over expressed, so that the localization may be observed. Many alleles are properly expressed and the variant protein is localized to the nucleus. The final experiment detailed below often proves helpful in understanding the defect for certain alleles.
|
|
The SeqWeb program described above is employed to devise an efficient strategy for constructing the recombinant DNA molecule. A construct prepared before the class, pGBD-MSH2, serves as the "vector backbone" (Figure 9A) and a fragment of DNA containing the msh2 missense mutation represents the "insert." Students select two unique restriction enzymes that cut within the MSH2 coding region on the pGBD-MSH2 construct. Upon double digestion pGBD-MSH2 should be cleaved at sites within the MSH2 coding sequence that flank the mutation and generate non-ompatible, cohesive-ends. Using noncompatible cohesive ends improves the efficiency of obtaining the desired construct and also ensures that the reading frame is in tact upon ligation. Each enzyme cleavage site must be unique in pGBD-MSH2 to preserve the vector backbone, but does not need to be in the pMSH2-derivative construct carrying the mutation. The students generate a restriction map with unique cut sites in pGBD-MSH2. When selecting the enzymes, consideration is given to buffer compatibilities of the selected enzymes and how well the fragments can be resolved by agarose gel electrophoresis. Provided the recombinant DNA cloning strategy is reasonable, the students proceed with their own design.
The students digest the DNA, resolve the fragments with agarose gel electrophoresis and purify the desired bands from agarose slices. The students determine the yield of insert and vector DNA and ligation reactions and controls are prepared. Controls include the pGBD-MSH2 vector fragment alone with no insert fragment, and a singly cut vector with and without T4 DNA ligase to measure for the efficiency of the ligation. The ligated molecules are introduced into bacterial cells using electroporation. An uncut plasmid DNA control is included to measure the efficiency of the electroporation and to serve as a comparison for how efficiently the ligase worked to generate covalently closed plasmids. If the ligation is 100% efficient, then the cut plasmid with ligase should give the same number of transformants as the uncut control; whereas the cut control with no ligase should result in considerably fewer transformants. Standard molecular procedures screen for the recombinant molecules. For an example of student results see Figure 8.
|
yeast 2-hybrid
reporter strain. Thus, a panel of haploid yeast strains is available, each
carrying a construct that will express a relevant hybrid protein. The
MATa strains harbor the GBD fusions or GBD-alone control,
while the MAT strains contain the GAD-partner fusions. The students set up crosses to form diploid yeast strains. Ultimately, each diploid expresses both of the hybrid proteins necessary to examine the MMR subunit interactions (Figure 9A). Control diploid strains are formed to illustrate no interaction (cells expressing GBD alone in combination with each of the GAD-Partner fusions) and to illustrate a positive interaction (GBD-Msh2 in combination with each of the GAD-Partner fusions). In the yeast reporter strain, the HIS3 gene is fused downstream of the GAL1 promoter, thus the 2-hybrid interaction may be assayed using medium lacking histidine (–HIS). Two other reporter genes, ADE2 and lacZ are encoded in the 2-hybrid reporter strain, but the expression of these genes is not sufficient to accurately assess the interactions of the MMR components. Growth on –HIS indicates that the hybrid proteins are interacting. Thus, the determination of whether the mutated amino acids interfere with the ability of Msh2p to bind its functional partners can be assayed using a simple growth assay. Results from a typical 2-hybrid experiment can be seen in Figure 9B. Many of the missense mutations appear to prevent mismatch repair complex formation. Students are encouraged to examine the crystal structure of the closely related MutS protein (Lamers et al., 2000; Obmolova et al., 2000) to identify the amino acid of interest and to develop a hypothesis for why subunit formation might be effected.
Instruction in Writing in the Scientific Style
Students enrolled in the course are required to execute all of the
experiments detailed above and to write two 25-page papers in the format of a
scientific publication. This method of student evaluation was chosen since
most assessments of scientific achievement are dependent upon written
documents.
Although the students are writing up an ongoing project, each laboratory report has a different emphasis. The first report has an important implication for human health, thus the background material should include the relevant medical literature. The first report contains the following sections: Designing a mutagenic oligonucleotide; Creating a msh2 missense mutation by site-directed mutagenesis; Confirmation of the missense mutation by restriction enzyme analysis and dideoxy sequencing; and Mutation frequency assays of msh2 missense alleles. In the first report, the students have the satisfaction of discussing a concrete result with a medically significant conclusion. The second report investigates how the variant Msh2 proteins are defective and thus the background should emphasize the molecular mechanism of DNA mismatch repair. The second report specifically includes: Immunoblot analysis of altered Msh2 proteins; Cloning msh2 alleles into the yeast 2-hybrid system; Interactions with members of the mismatch repair machinery; and Msh2p localization studies. The second report has many results and allows for integration of several pieces of data to form a coherent model for a particular MSH2 allele.
As with most research articles, laboratory reports include the following sections: Title Page, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results (including data presentation), Discussion, and References. High standards are imposed in terms of scholarship, accuracy, scientific writing style, figure quality, citation professionalism, proposals for future work, and critical analysis. A page limit is imposed to encourage the students to write succinctly and to reflect reality since most scientific documents, including manuscripts and grant proposals, have page constraints.
Guidance for writing the reports is provided through several avenues. Seven pages of the manual are devoted to providing advice and suggestions for writing the laboratory reports. In addition to typical office hours, review sessions are held and a discussion board is posted on the course web site to answer specific technical questions asked electronically.
When evaluating the written work we strive to provide sufficient feedback on the document and to maintain grading equity. A rubric has been devised to aid teaching assistants in evaluating the reports (supplement supplied). The rubric has been useful for supplying students with concrete feedback as to their level of achievement in a variety of areas and for providing a more quantitative form of evaluation to aid in establishing equity across the grading groups. The rubric designed for this course allows for distinguishing among very accomplished Princeton molecular biology students. Educators might need to shift the emphasis depending on the typical student. Overall, the rubric has been well received by the students and the teaching assistants.
The quantitative assessment also allows for an analysis of specific areas of improvement in student writing. For the two years during which the rubric listed in the supplement was used, students showed an overall improvement of 5.4 ± 0.4 percent between the first and second report. The areas of improvement are in almost all assessment areas (see Figure 10); however, the students showed reproducible improvement in sections that are unique to scientific documents. The data is consistent with the observation that the students enter the class with basic writing and analytical skills and therefore do not show pronounced improvement in these areas. In addition, the data suggests that the feedback given after the first report aids the students specifically in the areas of writing in the scientific style.
|
Course Assessment
Princeton University's Office of the Registrar provides an assessment
service for all courses. The assessment includes numerical scores in response
to specific categories and written evaluations. All evaluations are anonymous
and conducted under the supervision of a student volunteer rather than the
course director. Based on the numerical and written evaluations, the course
described in this paper has been well received by the students (see Tables
4 and
5). The breakdown of the
numerical score for 2003 is shown in Table
4. Similar marks were given for the 5 years the course has been
taught using the format described in this paper (not shown). The scores from a
year prior to when the project was implemented (1997) and the University
average are included for comparison purposes
(Table 4). There was a
significant improvement in the approval rating in all areas surveyed in the
year that the course described in the paper was first introduced. Of
particular interest is the score regarding the student's assessment of the
overall quality of the laboratories the year that the project was implemented
(Table 5 compare 1997 scores to
those following).
|
|
Many of the written evaluations indicated the student interest in the project. Below are several examples of student comments regarding the project.
I was excited by the application of such knowledge. Core lab is an excellent example: the class is dynamic, involving students in a larger investigation of colon cancer while teaching us key techniques that we used for our theses and beyond.—Daniel Stover Class of 2003 http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/undergrad_stud_perspct.php
You add to the body of scientific knowledge while learning techniques from sequencing to cloning to replica-plating. The overall idea is really cool: you are part of a long-term, large-scale study of colon cancer in a yeast model. So, while you are helping understand a major human killer, you are learning manytechniques that you will use down the line for your thesis.... The lab reports are very helpful, because it's like a mini-thesis you have all the same sections, learn how to make figures and diagram results. All in all, this class is really fun.
—Anonymous
Semester Taken: Spring 2002. Taken from the Princeton University Student Course Guide, a student-run course guide at Princeton University.
[Y]ou learn applicable lab techniques, safety measures, experiment design approaches, and formal write up approaches.... This is a great way of determining whether you want to pursue a career in lab sciences and it is also a great way to apply what you have learned in many of your other classes toward producing a final project write up that you can be proud of.
—Anonymous
Semester Taken: Spring 2002. Taken from the Princeton University Student Course Guide, a student-run course guide at Princeton University.
A survey of Molecular Biology seniors conducted in the spring of 2002, provides an indication of the broader utility of the course. In response to a senior thesis survey question "Which classes helped you the most in preparing you for your independent work?" 85% of the 26 respondents cited MOL350, the course described in this paper. In that survey, specific comments were solicited about the course described in this paper, since it is part of the Princeton molecular biology core curriculum. In response to the following question: "Now that it has been one or more years since you have taken the core requirements, what are your views on these courses?" Student testimony about MOL350 (also known as core lab) in response to the above question was as follows: 4 had no comment, 1 was neutral ("alright"), 1 was negative ("too formulaic"), and 25 were positive. 41% of the positive comments specifically mentioned the value of the course with respect to conducting research laboratory work and writing a molecular biology thesis.
In addition, the course confers a technical benefit beyond completing a degree at Princeton University. A recent example is from Jeffrey Kim, Class of 2003, who started working after graduation as a research technician at Rockefeller University.
I started work there (Rockefeller University) immediately after school ended and things have been going really well.... The preparation in Core Lab junior year was invaluable as a resource now because I didn't need any additional training to do all of the major lab techniques and I was able to get started on my independent work as soon as I got there. The people in lab were impressed with the experience that I got from your class....
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Project Format: Advantages of Using Model Organisms
We use the facile model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae, to
study eukaryotic DNA mismatch repair. Because mismatch repair is a highly
conserved process, we are able to ask medically relevant questions using a
safe and noncontroversial model organism. Other practical considerations
include the vast research resources available that have been generated by the
yeast scientific community over the years. Furthermore, yeast research is
inexpensive when compared to many model organisms or tissue culture systems.
Yeast cells are easily manipulated, rapidly growing, efficiently stored for
long periods of time, genetically tractable, readily transformed, and
non-hazardous. Finally, most molecular biology laboratories employ either
bacteria or yeast to manipulate cloned DNA, therefore becoming proficient in
microbial work is a useful skill. Employing bacteria for the molecular
manipulations and yeast for the mismatch repair functional assays, we are able
to cover many topic areas and use a variety of techniques in the time
allocated for the course.
Project Format: Techniques
The format of the project ensures exposure to commonly used research
laboratory methods, including site-directed mutagenesis, the polymerase chain
reaction, restriction enzyme analysis, agarose gel electrophoresis, DNA
sequencing, immunoblotting, microbial manipulations, fluorescence microscopy,
recombinant DNA technology, and in vivo reporter assays. The
procedures for the project are provided in a loose-leaf manual. Protocols are
derived from a variety of sources and the heterogeneity of styles has been
preserved with the objective of introducing the students to an assortment of
protocol formats. Original procedures have been modified slightly to eliminate
the most confusing ambiguities.
Project Format: Time Frame
Each student works in the laboratory twice a week (Mon and Wed or Tue and
Thu) for 3 h each session for a total of 12 wk (see the supplied
Timeline). Thus, over the semester the students spend 72 h in
the laboratory. In addition, they are often required to come in during
"off-hours" to perform minor tasks to keep the project
progressing.
To ensure execution of all of procedures, it is necessary to have the intermediates as well as the final constructs and strains available when a particular aspect of the experiment fails. The "back-ups" allow the students to experience the entire project and ensure that a substantial amount of data is available to describe and analyze in their laboratory reports.
If an educator is considering implementing this course, but class time is limited, an option is to implement only the first half of the course. Biophysics majors currently exercise this option at Princeton. Many of the most basic molecular techniques are covered in the first half of the course. If resources are limited, the dideoxy nucleotide sequencing laboratory could be eliminated. In addition, many teaching laboratories are not equipped with fluorescent microscopes and thus this module could be eliminated. Prior to purchasing the microscope, gene dosage experiments were conducted rather than the immunofluorescence.
Supervision and Encouragement of Independence
The course employs a technician, a lecturer, a postdoctoral instructor, and
four graduate student teaching assistants to prepare reagents and to teach and
supervise 50–75 undergraduate students, most of whom are juniors in the
Department of Molecular Biology. Each laboratory session has 30 students,
or 15 pairs, divided into two laboratory rooms. Each room has one teaching
assistant and either the lecturer or the postdoctoral instructor present.
Thus, the ratio of instructional staff to students is 2:15.
The teaching staff provides instruction and support, but whenever possible encourages self-sufficiency. For example, students prepare reagents and maintain stock solutions. In addition, they routinely calculate the appropriate dilutions from a stock to the final solution. Students are required to plan as well as execute their experiments. For example, they design a mutagenesis, calculate diagnostic restriction digestion patterns, choose appropriate primers for PCR and sequencing reactions, and devise a recombinant DNA cloning strategy.
Student Motivation and Learning
An ongoing challenge to educators is to understand what motivates their
students to learn and retain the material being presented. Many recent reports
on how students learn have supported the approach outlined in this paper (for
example see The National Research
Council's, Bio2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future
Research Biologists, 2003).
The course has been designed to expose student to relevant and useful techniques and to let the students experience the excitement of original research in an interesting and applicable field. The students are able to apply what they have learned to their senior thesis independent research projects conducted in the various molecular biology research laboratories at Princeton. In addition, many of the Princeton molecular biology students go on to use the technical skills in their future careers, some 40% of which will earn a Ph.D.
The topic for this course was chosen to capture the interest of a wide array of enrolled students, including physics, engineering, chemistry, and biology majors. The Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources (1996) and the authors of a report for Project Kaleidescope (Rothman and Narum, 1999) support this effort to appeal to a variety of science students. The diverse students enrolled in this course express a high degree of enthusiasm for the topic. Because DNA mismatch repair is a fundamental biological process with an understandable relevance to human health, the subject matter engages those interested in basic science, medicine, or both.
The students are also excited about participating in a novel research project and express in written evaluations that they find it preferable to performing a set of experiments where the answer is known. The inquiry-based approach to learning described in this paper is supported by the National Research Council's recent recommendations for undergraduate education for future research biologists (National Research Council Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, 2003). Other influential educational reports recommend making research-based learning for undergraduates the standard (The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998). In summary, in an effort to motivate the students to learn and retain the material, a great deal of energy is directed toward making this course exciting, real, and relevant for future scientists.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Current address: Department of Molecular Genetics, Oregon Health &
Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR
97201-3098. 
1 Compiled by the Human Gene Mutation Database, Copyright © University
of Wales College of Medicine 2003)
* Corresponding author. Email address: agammie{at}molbio.princeton.edu.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. A Report on the Review of Undergraduate Education. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.
Alani, E., Chi, N.W., and Kolodner, R. (1995). The
Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2 protein specifically binds to duplex
oligonucleotides containing mismatched DNA base pairs and insertions.Genes Dev.
9,234
-247.
Aquilina, G., and Bignami, M. (2001). Mismatch repair in correction of replication errors and processing of DNA damage. J. Cell Physiol. 187,145 -154.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ausubel, F.M., Brent, R., Kingston, R.E., Moore, D.D., Scidman, J.G., Smith, R.A., and Struhl, K. (1994). Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. New York: Wiley.
Bauer, J., Krammer, G., and Knippers, R. (1981). Asymmetric repair of bacteriophage T7 heteroduplex DNA. Mol. Gen. Genet. 181,541 -547.[CrossRef][Medline]
Boeke, J.D., Trueheart, J., Natsoulis, G., and Fink, G.R. (1987). 5-Fluoroorotic acid as a selective agent in yeast molecular genetics. Methods Enzymol. 154,164 -175.[Medline]
Boland, C.R. (2000). Molecular genetics of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 910, 50-59; discussion 59-61.[Medline]
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, pp.15 -17.
Broach, J.R., Strathern, J.N., and Hicks, J.B. (1979). Transformation in yeast: development of a hybrid cloning vector and isolation of the CAN1 gene. Gene 8,121 -133.[CrossRef][Medline]
Burdett, V., Baitinger, C., Viswanathan, M., Lovett, S.T., and
Modrich, P. (2001). In vivo requirement for RecJ, ExoVII, ExoI,
and ExoX in methyl-directed mismatch repair. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 98,6765
-6770.
Burke, D., Dawson, D., and Stearns, T. (2000).Methods in Yeast Genetics: A Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Course Manual . Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Cox, E.C., Degnen, G.E., and Scheppe, M.L. (1972).
Mutator gene studies in Escherichia coli: the mutS gene.Genetics
72,551
-567.
Fishel, R., Lescoe, M.K., Rao, M.R., Copeland, N.G., Jenkins, N.A., Garber, J., Kane, M., and Kolodner, R. (1993). The human mutator gene homolog MSH2 and its association with hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Cell 75,1027 -1038.[CrossRef][Medline]
Genschel, J., Bazemore, L.R., and Modrich, P. (2002).
Human exonuclease I is required for 5' and 3' mismatch repair. J. Biol.
Chem. 277,13302
-13311.
Glickman, B.W. (1979). Spontaneous mutagenesis in Escherichia coli strains lacking 6-methyladenine residues in their DNA: an altered mutational spectrum in dammutants. Mutat Res. 61,153 -162.[CrossRef][Medline]
Glickman, B.W., and Radman, M. (1980). Escherichia
coli mutator mutants deficient in methylation-instructed DNA mismatch
correction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
77,1063
-1067.
Gocke, E., and Manney, T.R. (1979). Expression of
radiation-induced mutations at the arginine permease (CAN1) locus in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics
91,53
-66.
Grenson, M., Mousset, M., Wiame, J.M., and Bechet, J. (1966). Multiplicity of the amino acid permeases in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. I. Evidence for a specific arginine-transporting system. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 127,325 -338.[Medline]
Harfe, B.D., and Jinks-Robertson, S. (2000). DNA mismatch repair and genetic instability. Annu. Rev. Genet. 34,359 -399.[CrossRef][Medline]
Henderson, S.T., and Petes, T.D. (1992). Instability
of simple sequence DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell
Biol. 12,2749
-2757.
Horii, A., Han, H.J., Sasaki, S., Shimada, M., and Nakamura, Y. (1994). Cloning, characterization and chromosomal assignment of the human genes homologous to yeast PMS1, a member of mismatch repair genes.Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 204,1257 -1264.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ionov, Y., Peinado, M.A., Malkhosyan, S., Shibata, D., and Perucho, M. (1993). Ubiquitous somatic mutations in simple repeated sequences reveal a new mechanism for colonic carcinogenesis.Nature 363,558 -561.[CrossRef][Medline]
James, P., Halladay, J., and Craig, E.A. (1996). Genomic libraries and a host strain designed for highly efficient two-hybrid selection in yeast. Genetics 144,1425 -1436.[Abstract]
Jones, M., and Wagner, R. (1981). N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine sensitivity of E. coli mutants deficient in DNA methylation and mismatch repair. Mol. Gen. Genet. 184,562 -563.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kunkel, T.A. (1985). Rapid and efficient site-specific
mutagenesis without phenotypic selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 82,488
-492.
Kunkel, T.A., and Bebenek, K. (2000). DNA replication fidelity. Annu Rev Biochem. 69,497 -529.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lamers, M.H., Perrakis, A., Enzlin, J.H., Winterwerp, H.H., de Wind, N., and Sixma, T.K. (2000). The crystal structure of DNA mismatch repair protein MutS binding to a G x T mismatch.Nature 407,711 -717.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lea, D.E., and Coulson, C.A. (1949). The distribution of the numbers of mutants in bacterial populations. J. Genet. 49,264 -285.
Leach, F.S., Nicolaides, N.C., Papadopoulos, N., Liu, B., Jen, J., Parsons, R., Peltomaki, P., Sistonen, P., Aaltonen, L.A., Nystrom-Lahti, M., and others (1993). Mutations of a mutS homolog in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Cell 75,1215 -1225.[CrossRef][Medline]
Levinson, G., and Gutman, G.A. (1987). High
frequencies of short frameshifts in poly-CA/TG tandem repeats borne by
bacteriophage M13 in Escherichia coli K–12. Nucleic
Acids Res. 15,5323
-5338.
Lindblom, A., Tannergard, P., Werelius, B., and Nordenskjold, M. (1993). Genetic mapping of a second locus predisposing to hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Nat. Genet. 5,279 -282.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lu, A.L., Clark, S., and Modrich, P. (1983).
Methyl-directed repair of DNA base-pair mismatches in vitro. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 80,4639
-4643.
Lynch, H.T., and Lynch, J. (2000). Lynch syndrome: genetics, natural history, genetic counseling, and prevention. J. Clin. Oncol. 18,19S -31S.
Marsischky, G.T., Filosi, N., Kane, M.F., and Kolodner, R.
(1996). Redundancy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MSH3 and
MSH6 in MSH2-dependent mismatch repair. Genes Dev.
10,407
-420.
Marti, T.M., Kunz, C., and Fleck, O. (2002). DNA mismatch repair and mutation avoidance pathways. J. Cell Physiol. 191,28 -41.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mechanic, L.E., Frankel, B.A., and Matson, S.W.
(2000). Escherichia coli MutL loads DNA helicase II onto
DNA. J. Biol. Chem. 275,38337
-38346.
Muller, A., and Fishel, R. (2002). Mismatch repair and the hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC). Cancer Invest. 20,102 -109.[CrossRef][Medline]
National Research Council Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century (2003). Bio 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nevers, P., and Spatz, H.C. (1975). Escherichia coli mutants uvr D and uvr E deficient in gene conversion of lambda-heteroduplexes. Mol. Gen. Genet. 139,233 -243.[Medline]
Nicolaides, N.C., Papadopoulos, N., Liu, B., Wei, Y.F., Carter, K.C., Ruben, S.M., Rosen, C.A., Haseltine, W.A., Fleischmann, R.D., Fraser, C.M., and others (1994). Mutations of two PMS homologues in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Nature 371,75 -80.[CrossRef][Medline]
Obmolova, G., Ban, C., Hsieh, P., and Yang, W. (2000). Crystal structures of mismatch repair protein MutS and its complex with a substrate DNA. Nature 407,703 -710.[CrossRef][Medline]
Oldenburg, K.R., Vo, K.T., Michaelis, S., and Paddon, C.
(1997). Recombination-mediated PCR-directed plasmid construction
in vivo in yeast. Nucleic Acids Res.
25,451
-452.
Papadopoulos, N., Nicolaides, N.C., Wei, Y.F., Ruben, S.M., Carter,
K.C., Rosen, C.A., Haseltine, W.A., Fleischmann, R.D., Fraser, C.M., Adams,
M.D., and others (1994). Mutation of a mutL homolog in hereditary
colon cancer. Science 263,1625
-1629.
Parsons, R., Li, G.M., Longley, M.J., Fang, W.H., Papadopoulos, N., Jen, J., de la Chapelle, A., Kinzler, K.W., Vogelstein, B, and Modrich, P. (1993). Hypermutability and mismatch repair deficiency in RER+tumor cells. Cell 75,1227 -1236.[CrossRef][Medline]
Peltomaki, P. (2001). Deficient DNA mismatch repair: a
common etiologic factor for colon cancer. Hum. Mol. Genet.
10,735
-740.
Peltomaki, P., Aaltonen, L.A., Sistonen, P., Pylkkanen, L.,
Mecklin, J.P., Jarvinen, H., Green, J.S., Jass, J.R., Weber, J.L., Leach,
F.S., and others (1993). Genetic mapping of a locus predisposing
to human colorectal cancer. Science
260,810
-812.
Pringle, J.R., Preston, R.A., Adams, A.E., Stearns, T., Drubin, D.G., Haarer, B.K., and Jones, E.W. (1989). Fluorescence microscopy methods for yeast. Methods Cell Biol. 31,357 -435.[Medline]
Pukkila, P.J., Peterson, J., Herman, G., Modrich, P., and Meselson,
M. (1983). Effects of high levels of DNA adenine methylation on
methyl-directed mismatch repair in Escherichia coli.Genetics
104,571
-582.
Reenan, R.A., and Kolodner, R.D. (1992). Isolation and characterization of two Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes encoding homologs of the bacterial HexA and MutS mismatch repair proteins.Genetics 132,963 -973.[Abstract]
Rosenthal, G.A. (1977). The biological effects and mode of action of L-canavanine, a structural analogue of L-arginine. Q. Rev. Biol. 52,155 -178.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rothman, F. G., and Narum, J. L. (1999). Then, Now and In the Next Decade: A Commentary on Strengthening Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education. Washington, DC: Project Kaleidoscope.
Rydberg, B. (1978). Bromouracil mutagenesis and mismatch repair in mutator strains of Escherichia coli. Mutat Res. 52,11 -24.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shanabruch, W.G., Rein, R.P., Behlau, I., and Walker, G.C.
(1983). Mutagenesis, by methylating and ethylating agents, in
mutH, mutL, mutS, and uvrD mutants of Salmonella typhimurium LT2.J. Bacteriol.
153,33
-44.
Siegel, E.C., and Bryson, V.(1967). Mutator gene of
Escherichia coli B. J. Bacteriol.
94,38
-47.
Sikorski, R.S., and Hieter, P.1989. A system of
shuttle vectors and yeast host strains designed for efficient manipulation of
DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics
122,19
-27.
Strand, M., Prolla, T.A., Liskay, R.M., and Petes, T.D. (1993). Destabilization of tracts of simple repetitive DNA in yeast by mutations affecting DNA mismatch repair. Nature 365,274 -276.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thibodeau, S.N., Bren, G., and Schaid, D. 1993.
Microsatellite instability in cancer of the proximal colon.Science
260,816
-819.
Tomkinson, A.E., and Mackey, Z.B. 1998. Structure and function of mammalian DNA ligases. Mutat. Res. 407, 1-9.[Medline]
Warthin, A.S. (1913). Heredity with reference to carcinoma. Arch. Intern. Med. 12,546 -555.
Whelan, W.L., Gocke, E., and Manney, T.R. (1979). The
CAN1 locus of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: fine-structure analysis and
forward mutation rates. Genetics
91,35
-51.
Yamaguchi, M., Dao, V., and Modrich, P. (1998). MutS
and MutL activate DNA helicase II in a mismatch-dependent manner.
J. Biol. Chem. 273,9197
-9201.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
/
) and ligases (Ligase).
