In the last half century, various methods such as the Ames test and the micronucleus test have been employed as simple, sensitive, and reliable approaches for evaluation of the mutagenicity of chemicals and drugs (OECD, 2016; OECD, 2020). More recently, the technological advancement in science has allowed us, in addition to evaluation of mutagenicity, to address the distinct spectra of mutations produced by a broad range of intrinsic and environmental mutagens or anticancer drugs (David, 2020). The mutational signatures extracted from these mutation spectra have provided valuable information about the role of endogenous and exogenous risk factors in the development of many human disorders and have been crucial in finding potential targets for treatment (Nik-Zainal et al., 2012; Meier and Gartner, 2014; Koh et al., 2021).

Until the present day, a vast amount of diverse studies focused on the mechanisms of mutagenesis and DNA repair from the chemical, biochemical, and biological aspects have heavily relied on experimental strategies using cloned genes (Razzaque et al., 1983; Drinkwater and Klinedinst, 1986; Gossen et al., 1989; White et al., 2019). One such widely used system is the SV40-based shuttle vector mutagenesis assay, which utilizes vector plasmids containing the supF gene of Escherichia coli and an indicator bacteria strain (Parris and Seidman, 1992; Parris et al., 1994; Sarkar et al., 1984; Yoon et al., 2019; Suzuki et al., 2022). The supF gene codes for an amber suppressor transfer RNA (tRNA) that translates the amber stop codon (UAG) to tyrosine (Camakaris and Pittard, 1973). Depending upon the position and type of mutations in the supF gene, the supF tRNA cannot translate selectable marker genes with an amber mutation in its indicator E. coli strains, such as KS40/pOF105 (Normanly et al., 1986; Obata et al., 1998). Because of its properties, the supF gene is particularly useful for acquiring mutation spectra and identifying mutation signatures, and provides reliable data on mutations generated by specific DNA lesions on the leading or the lagging template DNA strand via translesion synthesis (TLS) (Drinkwater and Klinedinst, 1986). However, one needs to be aware of the limitation of the phenotypic mutation spectrum of the supF gene; in our experiments for example, from the entire base sequence of the supF gene only about 30% can be detected for dual-antibiotic selection of indicator E. coli, that is, whether these sites can be identified or not is largely dependent on the experimental conditions, including the scale of the experiment, reporter genes for the selection, the mutagens used, the frequency of mutations, and the efficiency of the detection (Obata et al., 1998; Kraemer and Seidman, 1989; Fukushima et al., 2020). Recently, we reported the development of a new indicator E. coli strain – RF01, that is able to identify mutation spectra more efficiently than other strains used for the supF assay, even though it still does not allow the elucidation of trinucleotide mutational signatures because of the limited resolution of the mutation spectrum analysis (Fukushima et al., 2020).These limitations can be overcome by advanced techniques, namely next-generation sequencing (NGS), which over the last decade is enabling us to obtain various kinds of information from nucleic acid sequence data, including mutations and three-dimensional organization of the genomic DNA at a single cell level (Shendure et al., 2017; Dutta et al., 2022; Arrastia et al., 2022). On the other hand, the NGS technology also has its limitations, especially for identification and quantification of low-frequency mutations, as it can be difficult to distinguish true mutations from the baseline errors of NGS. In recent years, in order to detect low-frequency mutations, numerous library construction methods and sequencing methods have been developed, such as maximum depth sequencing or duplex sequencing (Schmitt et al., 2012; Jee et al., 2016; Sloan et al., 2018). For every scientific objective, trade-offs between accuracy, cost, and speed of the multiple available approaches must be carefully considered. Importantly, there is a scarcity of methods whose technical simplicity and material availability enables any researchers, not only those specialized in NGS, to accumulate, reproduce, and compare data across research fields. Certainly, the availability of an easy, low-cost assay for accurate analysis of mutational signatures would benefit many laboratories who are deterred by the complexity of the existing methods.

In this study, we attempt to develop a simple mutagenesis assay using a random 12-nucleotide (12-nt) DNA-barcoded supF shuttle vector library with non-SOS-induced E. coli which can amplify the DNA with ‘a high-fidelity replication mechanism’ as a template for the NGS sample preparation (Napolitano et al., 1997). This promotes cost-benefit, high-throughput, and high accuracy with almost no sequencing errors. In the first part, we present data from the multiplexed NGS assay utilizing the barcoded supF shuttle vector library and the BGI-platform that uses the rolling circle replication method, and we compare the results for different conditions of sample preparation. In the later part of this study, we present analysis of UV radiation-induced mutations in direct E. coli experiments or after transfection into mammalian cells, as an example of the performance of our newly developed assay. UV radiation is a known environmental carcinogen and causes a characteristic mutational pattern via the formation of pyrimidine-pyrimidine dimers (Varghese and Wang, 1967; Mao et al., 2016; Lindberg et al., 2019). The C to T transition at CCN and TCN trinucleotide sites (the mutated base is underlined) is a mutational signature highly specific to UV-mediated mutagenesis (mutational COSMIC signatures SBS7a-d) (Alexandrov et al., 2020). The cytosine in UV-induced pyrimidine-pyrimidine dimers undergoes deamination to uracil, followed by insertion of an A nucleotide opposite the lesion by error-prone TLS polymerases (Pfeifer et al., 2005; Ikehata and Ono, 2011; Roberts and Gordenin, 2014). The substantial amount of sequence data on UV-induced mutations in mammalian cells obtained in this study allowed us to uncover some insightful information about UV-induced mutagenesis, underscoring the importance of a systematic process for sufficient data collection and analysis. We believe that our new approach using the barcoded supF shuttle vector library and NGS technology presents a benefit to future research on mutagenesis, DNA repair, and cancer.

Ever since the 1980s, the supF forward mutagenesis assay which utilizes a supF gene encoding shuttle vector and an indicator E. coli has been widely employed in studies on mutagenicity in E. coli or mammalian cells (Yoon et al., 2019; Camakaris and Pittard, 1973; Kraemer and Seidman, 1989; Seidman et al., 1985; Yoon et al., 2021b). This conventional supF assay is very useful for analysis of both mutation frequencies and mutation spectra. The mutation spectra of single or tandem base substitutions for inactive supF genes identified by using the blue-white colony color assays were comprehensively summarized in an earlier review article, and it was noted that the mutations were detected at 86 sites within a 158 bp region covering the supF gene (54%) and at 74 sites within the 85 bp mature tRNA region (87%), thus demonstrating the great sensitivity of the supF assay system for analysis of mutation spectra (Kraemer and Seidman, 1989). However, obtaining reliable datasets by the conventional supF assay requires skill and experience, especially for studies where the mutations of interest are induced with low frequency. The method has been advanced by the construction of indicator bacterial strains with different supF reporter genes which allow selection based on survival of bacteria containing mutant supF genes. However, the fact that the supF phenotypic selection process relies on the structure and function of transfer RNAs that may be differently affected by different mutations means that the improvement of the efficiency of the selection process may cause loss of coverage of the mutation spectra, as it is under our experimental conditions, where the coverage is about 30% (Kraemer and Seidman, 1989; Fukushima et al., 2020). Since in recent years NGS has become a routine research tool due to its lowering cost, numerous sophisticated applications of NGS technologies are being developed for research in genomics, epigenomics, and transcriptomics (McCombie et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2016). In this study, we attempted to combine the supF shuttle vector forward mutagenesis assay with sequencing analysis by a short-read NGS platform and consequently developed a novel supF NGS assay with potential application in mutagenesis and DNA repair studies. The combination of the DNA-barcoded supF shuttle vector library and its amplification via in vivo replication in the indicator non-SOS E. coli provides us with proper templates for the PCR-facilitated preparation of multiplexed NGS samples. Thus, during the PCR process the amplification and index tagging of the samples are achieved simultaneously. Designed in such a way, the assay allows us to obtain almost all mutation sequences from a small amount of data from NGS reads, especially in samples from colonies grown on selection plates, where the mutation sequences, although prone to bias, are highly concentrated. This results in the possibility to simultaneously analyze hundreds of samples from different experiments in a single NGS run. Here, the cost of mutation spectrum analysis from selection plates was less than $1.00 per sample, even though both the NGS library preparation and the NGS run were outsourced. Further cost reductions can be expected by obtaining more sequencing data in a single run, and also from the continuous improvement of NGS technologies. From this point of view, we believe that we can secure a sufficient number of experiments to improve the accuracy of the analysis and to confirm the reproducibility of the experiments. Furthermore, the data from colonies grown on titer plates provides us, at least in principle, and with the exception of large deletions and insertions, with non-biased mutation spectra for the whole analyzed region. Also, mutation frequencies calculated from titer plate data were 15–20 times higher than those obtained by the conventional supF assay, demonstrating that our novel assay allows us to analyze more thoroughly the mutation spectrum by using a smaller amount of data and to detect mutations with lower frequencies. The analysis of data from both selection and titer plates is consistent with the desired reliability and low cost of the mutagenesis assay. Last but not least, by using the supF shuttle vector plasmid, mutation spectrum data can be obtained with different experimental designs, such as pre-treatment with metabolic enzymes or using cells with different genetic backgrounds, siRNA transfection, CRISPR-Cas systems, etc. We are currently conducting experiments with an supF library containing site-specific single DNA damages such as 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-oxoG, 8-hydroxyguanine) among others (Suzuki et al., 2018; Suzuki et al., 2021; Suzuki et al., 2022), which will allow us to analyze in detail the repair mechanisms of sequence-specific DNA damage and provide further insights into mutagenesis and DNA repair processes.

The current study posits that when performing the assay, we have to be aware of the following points: (1) The required barcode complexity defined by the number of barcode sequences in the supF shuttle vector library depends on the experimental purpose and the mutation detection frequencies. A barcode complexity of 1.0×10⁴ for each library is used as the standard in this paper. Even though more complexity may be able to provide better results, especially at lower mutation frequencies, one must keep in mind that the number of colonies to be harvested for the NGS sample preparation, as well as the platform or setting for data analysis, need to be adjusted depending on the number of barcodes. (2) The number of NGS reads required for each multiplexed sample and for each N₁₂-BC sequence need to be calculated before the preparation of the samples. Therefore, the number of N₁₂-BC sequences and the number of harvested colonies must be optimized first. In addition, the allele frequency given by VarDict, referred to as VF in this study, for each classified N₁₂-BC sequence is the most important determinant of the quality of the variant sequence data and the basis for analyzing overlapping N₁₂-BC sequences. The cost, time, and data quality must be all well considered and balanced when an experiment is designed. (3) NGS data contain sequencing errors, the rate of which is known to be between 10^–3 and 10^–4, with the majority of the errors being A:T  to G:C and G:C to A:T transitions that had occurred during the PCR in the process of NGS library preparation (Brodin et al., 2013; Costello et al., 2013). In the assay presented here no sonication step is required, thus avoiding DNA oxidation. As already mentioned, the clonal amplification of the supF shuttle vector via in vivo replication in the non-SOS E. coli provides a proper PCR template for preparation of NGS samples. In addition, the sequence alignment to the reference sequence for all identical N₁₂-BC sequences and the analysis of data obtained from duplicate PCR reactions can almost completely eliminate the sequencing errors resulting from the process of sample preparation. On the other hand, in the case of the amplicon sequencing employed here, the base-calling errors occurred depending on the ‘per base sequence quality’ of the specific sequence. In this study, in addition to the supF gene with its total length of 335 bp being sequenced, 200 bp paired-end sequencing was performed with about 30 bp overlapping sequences, and the resulting sequence was merged together. The ‘per base sequence quality’ in the region between read positions 160 and 200 bp is relatively low compared to other positions. Data shown in this study, as well as other experiments conducted in our laboratory, reveals that two positions in particular – 55 and 69 in the supF gene manifest a very high frequency of variant calls – 20–50% of samples, but with low VF (less than 0.3). These two positions are located at 165–167 (depending on the N₀, N₁, N₂ primers) and 181–183 bp from the end of the forward reads, and at 179–181 and 167–169 bp from the end of the reverse reads. The addition of different numbers of random nucleotides – 0-, 1-, or 2-nt at the end of both primers used for sample preparation can contribute to better ‘per base sequence quality’ in clonal amplicon sequencing. However, positions 55 and 69 are located immediately next to CC:GG sequences (position 55 is located in TTACC:GGTAA and position 69 is located in GTTCC:GGAAC), and the result of variant calling was almost exclusively SNS from 55A:T or 69T:A to C:G. Thus, these variant calls appear to be position-specific and sequence-dependent, and for this assay can be regarded as position-specific base-calling errors. Since they had a VF of less than 0.3 and a threshold VF of 0.4 was applied in this study, these base-calling errors do not need to be given consideration. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that fine-tuning must be done for each individual experiment. (4) Large alterations in the supF gene, such as a large deletion or insertion, cannot be analyzed by this assay because of impossibility for PCR amplification or read alignments. This may render our observations on mutation frequency misleading. The frequency of such large alterations is better assessed by colony PCR, especially if the number of colonies grown on the titer plates was different from expected. (5) For the supF assay, spontaneous cluster mutations at TC:GA sites were often observed, and it was well illustrated in an earlier study that a nick in the shuttle vector was a trigger for these asymmetric cluster mutations (Seidman et al., 1987). Therefore, we need to be aware of the quality of each library and how it affects the outcome of each analysis, especially for detection of very low levels of mutations. Depending on the purpose of the experiments, in the preparation of covalently closed circular vector libraries, it is essential to eliminate the background level of mutations. In fact, the in vitro construction of the library of double-stranded shuttle vectors from single-stranded circular DNA requires the process of treatment with T5 exonuclease, which drastically decreases background mutations.

In this study, to test the performance of our newly developed supF NGS assay, we conducted experiments using N₁₂-BC libraries irradiated with UV-C at different doses. Although these pilot experiments were designed in a relatively simple way, they clearly exemplify the mutation spectrum associated with UV radiation exposure, and further experiments may provide profound insights into UV mutagenesis. Here, by using this novel assay we were able to confirm in both E. coli and human cells that the SNSs induced by UV were mainly C:G to T:A transitions, which is a known UV signature, and that the UV-induced DNA lesions were basically dipyrimidines – CPDs at T-T sites, and (6-4)PPs at T-T and T-C sites (Varghese and Wang, 1967; Mao et al., 2016; Lindberg et al., 2019; Kamiya et al., 1993; Kamiya et al., 1998). The SNSs are listed in Figure 10B (presented within pentanucleotide sequences of the supF gene) starting from the most frequent. In samples obtained from titer plates, the nucleotide sequence in eight of the top ten mutational hotspots was TTC/GAA, and the sequence of the top four mutational sites was TTCGA/TCGAA. These top four sites represent two palindromic TTCGAA/TTCGAA hexanucleotide sequences located at positions 115–120 and 123–128 in the supF gene. All top 10 mutations were C to T transitions and occurred at TC sites, and are likely the result of TLS opposite the 3'C of CPDs and (6-4)PPs via specialized DNA polymerases, such as Polη, -ι, -ζ, -κ, -θ, -λ, and Rev1 (Achar and Foiani, 2019; Yoon et al., 2021a). Notably, the site selection bias observed for the top 10 mutation hotspots seems to differ between the titer and the selection plates. In selection plates, three of the top ten hotspot mutations were C to T transitions at the 3'C of CC. These hotspot SNSs, particularly positions 130 and 121, appear to be next to or between hotspot SNSs in the titer plates. However, such SNS mutations, that were only observed in selection plates, were identified in both titer and selection plates as other types of mutations, specifically as hotspot DNS mutations, CC to TT, as shown in Figure 10C (located at 130 and 131 TTCGAATCCTT, at 121 TTCGAAGGTTCGAA, at 5 TTTGATA/TATCAAA, or at 84 and 85 AAGGGAG/CTCCCTT). In addition, as shown in Figure 9B and C, the multiple mutations, either C or G mutations at the same base in identical N₁₂-BC sequences, were identified in a dose-dependent manner more frequently from selection plates where TLS polymerases opposite UV lesions on the same DNA strand can cause clustered mutations. These multiple mutations include at least one phenotypic mutation in the supF gene but include also non-phenotypic mutations, which contributes to the specifics of the mutation spectrum in the selection plates. The two-base substitutions within trinucleotides, referred to as Del-in by VarDict, were mainly detected at higher UV doses as GAG:CTC to AAA:TTT at positions 73–75. It is unclear whether these mutations arose through unexpected UV-induced lesions at GCTCG sites, or the deamination of either the 5'C or the 3'C has occurred at these specific sites by different mechanisms. Alternatively, it can be hypothesized that the UV-induced DNA lesions arose on a single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) followed by a blockage of replication, or during DNA repair processes. It is known that ssDNA can be a substrate for a subclass of activation-induced deaminase/apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing catalytic polypeptide-like subfamily cytosine deaminases (APOBECs), which cause cluster mutations at TC:GA sites in the same strand of DNA by converting cytosine to uracil (Pecori et al., 2022). It is realistic to assume that the mutations at TC:GA sites had occurred via several different mechanisms. In fact, spontaneous mutations in non-UV-irradiated samples transfected into U2OS cells can also be detected at the order of 10^–4 per gene. In both UV-irradiated and non-irradiated samples, SNS mutations had basically occurred from C:G at TC:GA sites. Also, the major proportion of multiple mutations were C:G to T:A transitions. However, in non-UV-irradiated samples, the major proportion of single mutations were C:G to G:C transversions, which differed from the irradiated condition, where the major proportion was G:C to A:T transition (Figure 9C). It is possible that the oxidatively damaged base 8-oxoG was endogenously generated in the U2OS cells. As we have previously reported, 8-oxoG becomes a trigger for the DNA repair process and generates ssDNA as a substrate for APOBECs (Suzuki et al., 2022). Here, the TTC/GAA site has emerged from data from titer plates as a mutational hotspot. According to previous reports, the TTC motif, and more specifically the cytosine in the motif, is a site of preference for APOBEC3A, APOBEC3C, APOBEC3F, and APOBEC3G, even though further investigation is needed (Lindberg et al., 2019; Love et al., 2012; Adolph et al., 2018).

What might be more, a particular mutation was detected by VarDict in non-UV-irradiated samples as a Del-in mutation – a change from TTGAT:ATCAA to ATCAA:TTGAT at positions 3–7 within the potential hairpin loop of a quasi-palindromic sequence (Figure 14E), which may be the consequence of template switching events. The mutation was detected with a frequency at the order of 10^–6 per gene (Figure 12E), and was hardly detected in UV-irradiated samples, where it remains hidden by the UV-introduced mutations. Also, the same mutation was frequently detected as single SNS mutations from T:A to A:T at position 3, from G:C to C:G at position 5, and from T:A to A:T at position 7, or as combinations with other SNS mutations either or both from G:C to A:T at position –3 or/and from T:A to C:G at position 12 (Figure 12—figure supplement 1), which may be dependent on the regions used for template switching. Although the mono- and poly-ubiquitination of PCNA, facilitated by ubiquitin ligases Rad6-Rad18, HLTF, or SHPRH, is involved in the mechanism of switching between TLS and template switching in mammalian cells, the details are still ambiguous (Chiu et al., 2006; Lin et al., 2011; Masuda et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2021). In addition, our recent studies on action-at-a-distance mutations, according to which a site-specific targeted single 8-oxoG or other types of DNA damage cause cluster mutations at untargeted positions, demonstrated a drastic strand bias for mutations at cytosines, specifically at 5’-TC-3’ sites (Suzuki et al., 2018; Suzuki et al., 2021; Suzuki et al., 2022). Data on mutational strand asymmetries from cancer genome sequencing studies have emerged, indicating that APOBEC-associated mutagenesis during replication strongly favors the lagging-strand template (Seplyarskiy et al., 2016; Haradhvala et al., 2016). And most recently, it has been proposed by a study using UPD-seq technique that APOBEC3A targets cytosines in small hairpin loops, within replication forks, in tRNA genes and at transcription start sites (Sakhtemani et al., 2022). In this study, strand biases in base substations from either C or G were clearly observed, consistent with what could be expected from the mechanisms by which UV photolesions are processed, such as cytosine deamination and the involvement of TLS. Interestingly, the strand bias switched between single base substitutions and cluster mutations depending on the doses of UV and the number of mutations per N₁₂-BC. The precise reason and mechanisms behind this remain to be elucidated, but the observation brings new insights into the mechanisms of mutagenesis. In addition, the positions of SNSs in the multiple mutations were closer to each other compared to the theoretically expected positions (Figure 13—figure supplements 2 and 3), which may reflect switching events involving TLS polymerases. It should be noted that the presented data for the distance between two SNSs in the multiple mutations was analyzed from the data from selection plates in order to secure a sufficient number of mutations, and therefore, there may be a bias due to hotspots associated with the selection process. However, the results from the limited number of mutations from the titer plates are similar to these from the selection plates. It can be proposed that this assay may also be applied for analysis of TLS polymerases in mammalian cells.

Figure 14

Download asset Open asset

Mutational signatures identified in cancer cells are emerging as valuable markers for cancer diagnosis and therapeutics. Innumerable physical, chemical, and biological mutagens, including anticancer drugs, induce characteristic mutations in genomic DNA via specific mutagenic processes. The mutation spectra obtained here by using the presented advanced method were in good agreement with accumulated data from previous papers where the conventional method had been used, with the advantage that our method provided less-biased mutation spectra data. As described above, the datasets presented here highlighted novel mutational signatures and also cluster mutations with a strand bias, which could be associated with the processes of replication, transcription, or repair of DNA damage, including a single-strand break (a nick). In this study, eight series of supF shuttle vector plasmids were constructed, as presented in Figure 1—figure supplement 1; however, the analysis was carried out using N₁₂-BC libraries prepared from either pNGS2-K1 (Figures 1—4) or pNGS2-K3 (Figures 5—10). The pNGS2-K1/-A1/-K4/-A4 and pNGS2-K2/-A2/-K3/-A3 vector series contain an M13 intergenic region with opposite orientations relative to the supF gene, which allows us to incorporate specific types of DNA damage at specific sites in the opposite strand of the vector library. Also, the pNGS2-K1/-A1/-K3/-A3 and pNGS2-K2/-A2/-K4/-A4 vector series contain the SV40 replication origin, which enables bidirectional replication and transcription, at opposite sides of the supF gene. Although this is still preliminary data, it is notable that the spontaneously induced mutations for the different vectors in U2OS cells were not significantly different. Therefore, the here presented mutagenesis assay with NGS, by using these series of libraries, can be applied in many different types of experiments to address both quantitative and qualitative features of mutagenesis. It is possible to design series of libraries containing DNA lesions or sequences suitable for the investigation of specific molecular mechanisms, such as TLS, template switching, and asymmetric cluster mutations. We are currently trying to develop a different test system for broader mutation spectrum analysis using the BC library with random oligonucleotide sequences; however, the assay using the supF gene presented in this paper has a significant advantage in both efficiency as a mutagenesis assay and cost-effectiveness. We believe that the method presented here will be used in further experiments by us and by other laboratories to advance the research on environmental mutagenesis, carcinogenesis, DNA repair, and will hopefully contribute to mutagenesis research by promoting accumulation of data for machine learning.

NGS raw data has been uploaded to NCBI under the accession number PRJDB13753 (DRA014420 for Figures 2 and 3, DRA014421 for Figures 4-7, DRA014422 for Figures 8-11, DRA014422 for the samples without transformation into E. coli).

1. 1. Kawai H

   (2022) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJDB13753. Advanced SupF mutagenesis assay.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJDB13753

1. 1. Achar YJ
   2. Foiani M

   (2019) An error-prone polymerase in the fight against cancer

   Cell 176:1241–1243.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Adolph MB
   2. Love RP
   3. Chelico L

   (2018) Biochemical basis of APOBEC3 deoxycytidine deaminase activity on diverse DNA substrates

   ACS Infectious Diseases 4:224–238.

   https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00221

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alexandrov LB
   2. Kim J
   3. Haradhvala NJ
   4. Huang MN
   5. Tian Ng AW
   6. Wu Y
   7. Boot A
   8. Covington KR
   9. Gordenin DA
   10. Bergstrom EN
   11. Islam SMA
   12. Lopez-Bigas N
   13. Klimczak LJ
   14. McPherson JR
   15. Morganella S
   16. Sabarinathan R
   17. Wheeler DA
   18. Mustonen V
   19. PCAWG Mutational Signatures Working Group
   20. Getz G
   21. Rozen SG
   22. Stratton MR
   23. PCAWG Consortium

   (2020) The repertoire of mutational signatures in human cancer

   Nature 578:94–101.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1943-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Arrastia MV
   2. Jachowicz JW
   3. Ollikainen N
   4. Curtis MS
   5. Lai C
   6. Quinodoz SA
   7. Selck DA
   8. Ismagilov RF
   9. Guttman M

   (2022) Single-Cell measurement of higher-order 3D genome organization with scsprite

   Nature Biotechnology 40:64–73.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00998-1

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Brodin J
   2. Mild M
   3. Hedskog C
   4. Sherwood E
   5. Leitner T
   6. Andersson B
   7. Albert J

   (2013) Pcr-Induced transitions are the major source of error in cleaned ultra-deep pyrosequencing data

   PLOS ONE 8:e70388.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070388

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Camakaris H
   2. Pittard J

   (1973) Regulation of tyrosine and phenylalanine biosynthesis in Escherichia coli K-12: properties of the tyrr gene product

   Journal of Bacteriology 115:1135–1144.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.115.3.1135-1144.1973

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chiu RK
   2. Brun J
   3. Ramaekers C
   4. Theys J
   5. Weng L
   6. Lambin P
   7. Gray DA
   8. Wouters BG

   (2006) Lysine 63-polyubiquitination guards against translesion synthesis-induced mutations

   PLOS Genetics 2:e116.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020116

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Costello M
   2. Pugh TJ
   3. Fennell TJ
   4. Stewart C
   5. Lichtenstein L
   6. Meldrim JC
   7. Fostel JL
   8. Friedrich DC
   9. Perrin D
   10. Dionne D
   11. Kim S
   12. Gabriel SB
   13. Lander ES
   14. Fisher S
   15. Getz G

   (2013) Discovery and characterization of artifactual mutations in deep coverage targeted capture sequencing data due to oxidative DNA damage during sample preparation

   Nucleic Acids Research 41:e67.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1443

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. David R

   (2020) The promise of toxicogenomics for genetic toxicology: past, present and future

   Mutagenesis 35:153–159.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/geaa007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Drinkwater NR
    2. Klinedinst DK

    (1986) Chemically induced mutagenesis in a shuttle vector with a low-background mutant frequency

    PNAS 83:3402–3406.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.10.3402

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dutta AK
    2. Alberge JB
    3. Sklavenitis-Pistofidis R
    4. Lightbody ED
    5. Getz G
    6. Ghobrial IM

    (2022) Single-Cell profiling of tumour evolution in multiple myeloma-opportunities for precision medicine

    Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 19:223–236.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-021-00593-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Foox J
    2. Tighe SW
    3. Nicolet CM
    4. Zook JM
    5. Byrska-Bishop M
    6. Clarke WE
    7. Khayat MM
    8. Mahmoud M
    9. Laaguiby PK
    10. Herbert ZT
    11. Warner D
    12. Grills GS
    13. Jen J
    14. Levy S
    15. Xiang J
    16. Alonso A
    17. Zhao X
    18. Zhang W
    19. Teng F
    20. Zhao Y
    21. Lu H
    22. Schroth GP
    23. Narzisi G
    24. Farmerie W
    25. Sedlazeck FJ
    26. Baldwin DA
    27. Mason CE

    (2021) Performance assessment of DNA sequencing platforms in the ABRF next-generation sequencing study

    Nature Biotechnology 39:1129–1140.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01049-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Fukushima R
    2. Suzuki T
    3. Kamiya H

    (2020) New indicator Escherichia coli strain for rapid and accurate detection of supf mutations

    Genes and Environment 42:28.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s41021-020-00167-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Gossen JA
    2. de Leeuw WJ
    3. Tan CH
    4. Zwarthoff EC
    5. Berends F
    6. Lohman PH
    7. Knook DL
    8. Vijg J

    (1989) Efficient rescue of integrated shuttle vectors from transgenic mice: a model for studying mutations in vivo

    PNAS 86:7971–7975.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.20.7971

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Haradhvala NJ
    2. Polak P
    3. Stojanov P
    4. Covington KR
    5. Shinbrot E
    6. Hess JM
    7. Rheinbay E
    8. Kim J
    9. Maruvka YE
    10. Braunstein LZ
    11. Kamburov A
    12. Hanawalt PC
    13. Wheeler DA
    14. Koren A
    15. Lawrence MS
    16. Getz G

    (2016) Mutational strand asymmetries in cancer genomes reveal mechanisms of DNA damage and repair

    Cell 164:538–549.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Ikehata H
    2. Ono T

    (2011) The mechanisms of UV mutagenesis

    Journal of Radiation Research 52:115–125.

    https://doi.org/10.1269/jrr.10175

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Jee J
    2. Rasouly A
    3. Shamovsky I
    4. Akivis Y
    5. Steinman SR
    6. Mishra B
    7. Nudler E

    (2016) Rates and mechanisms of bacterial mutagenesis from maximum-depth sequencing

    Nature 534:693–696.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18313

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Kamiya H
    2. Murata N
    3. Murata T
    4. Iwai S
    5. Matsukage A
    6. Masutani C
    7. Hanaoka F
    8. Ohtsuka E

    (1993) Cyclobutane thymine dimers in a Ras proto-oncogene hot spot activate the gene by point mutation

    Nucleic Acids Research 21:2355–2361.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/21.10.2355

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Kamiya H
    2. Iwai S
    3. Kasai H

    (1998) The (6-4) photoproduct of thymine-thymine induces targeted substitution mutations in mammalian cells

    Nucleic Acids Research 26:2611–2617.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/26.11.2611

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Koh G
    2. Degasperi A
    3. Zou X
    4. Momen S
    5. Nik-Zainal S

    (2021) Mutational signatures: emerging concepts, caveats and clinical applications

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 21:619–637.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-021-00377-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Kraemer KH
    2. Seidman MM

    (1989) Use of supf, an Escherichia coli tyrosine suppressor trna gene, as a mutagenic target in shuttle-vector plasmids

    Mutation Research 220:61–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1110(89)90011-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Kwon S
    2. Lee B
    3. Yoon S

    (2014) Casper: context-aware scheme for paired-end reads from high-throughput amplicon sequencing

    BMC Bioinformatics 15 Suppl 9:S10.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-15-S9-S10

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Lai Z
    2. Markovets A
    3. Ahdesmaki M
    4. Chapman B
    5. Hofmann O
    6. McEwen R
    7. Johnson J
    8. Dougherty B
    9. Barrett JC
    10. Dry JR

    (2016) VarDict: a novel and versatile variant caller for next-generation sequencing in cancer research

    Nucleic Acids Research 44:e108.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw227

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Li H
    2. Handsaker B
    3. Wysoker A
    4. Fennell T
    5. Ruan J
    6. Homer N
    7. Marth G
    8. Abecasis G
    9. Durbin R
    10. 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup

    (2009) The sequence alignment/map format and samtools

    Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Li H

    (2011) A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data

    Bioinformatics 27:2987–2993.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Li H

    (2018) Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences

    Bioinformatics 34:3094–3100.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Lin JR
    2. Zeman MK
    3. Chen JY
    4. Yee MC
    5. Cimprich KA

    (2011) SHPRH and HLTF act in a damage-specific manner to coordinate different forms of postreplication repair and prevent mutagenesis

    Molecular Cell 42:237–249.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.02.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Lindberg M
    2. Boström M
    3. Elliott K
    4. Larsson E

    (2019) Intragenomic variability and extended sequence patterns in the mutational signature of ultraviolet light

    PNAS 116:20411–20417.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909021116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Love RP
    2. Xu H
    3. Chelico L

    (2012) Biochemical analysis of hypermutation by the deoxycytidine deaminase APOBEC3A

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 287:30812–30822.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.393181

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Ma X
    2. Shao Y
    3. Tian L
    4. Flasch DA
    5. Mulder HL
    6. Edmonson MN
    7. Liu Y
    8. Chen X
    9. Newman S
    10. Nakitandwe J
    11. Li Y
    12. Li B
    13. Shen S
    14. Wang Z
    15. Shurtleff S
    16. Robison LL
    17. Levy S
    18. Easton J
    19. Zhang J

    (2019) Analysis of error profiles in deep next-generation sequencing data

    Genome Biology 20:50.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1659-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Mao P
    2. Smerdon MJ
    3. Roberts SA
    4. Wyrick JJ

    (2016) Chromosomal landscape of UV damage formation and repair at single-nucleotide resolution

    PNAS 113:9057–9062.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606667113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Masuda Y
    2. Suzuki M
    3. Kawai H
    4. Hishiki A
    5. Hashimoto H
    6. Masutani C
    7. Hishida T
    8. Suzuki F
    9. Kamiya K

    (2012) En bloc transfer of polyubiquitin chains to PCNA in vitro is mediated by two different human E2-E3 pairs

    Nucleic Acids Research 40:10394–10407.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks763

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. McCombie WR
    2. McPherson JD
    3. Mardis ER

    (2019) Next-Generation sequencing technologies

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 9:a036798.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a036798

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Meier B
    2. Gartner A

    (2014) Having a direct look: analysis of DNA damage and repair mechanisms by next generation sequencing

    Experimental Cell Research 329:35–41.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2014.08.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Napolitano RL
    2. Lambert IB
    3. Fuchs RP

    (1997) Sos factors involved in translesion synthesis

    PNAS 94:5733–5738.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5733

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Nik-Zainal S
    2. Alexandrov LB
    3. Wedge DC
    4. Van Loo P
    5. Greenman CD
    6. Raine K
    7. Jones D
    8. Hinton J
    9. Marshall J
    10. Stebbings LA
    11. Menzies A
    12. Martin S
    13. Leung K
    14. Chen L
    15. Leroy C
    16. Ramakrishna M
    17. Rance R
    18. Lau KW
    19. Mudie LJ
    20. Varela I
    21. McBride DJ
    22. Bignell GR
    23. Cooke SL
    24. Shlien A
    25. Gamble J
    26. Whitmore I
    27. Maddison M
    28. Tarpey PS
    29. Davies HR
    30. Papaemmanuil E
    31. Stephens PJ
    32. McLaren S
    33. Butler AP
    34. Teague JW
    35. Jönsson G
    36. Garber JE
    37. Silver D
    38. Miron P
    39. Fatima A
    40. Boyault S
    41. Langerød A
    42. Tutt A
    43. Martens JWM
    44. Aparicio S
    45. Borg Å
    46. Salomon AV
    47. Thomas G
    48. Børresen-Dale AL
    49. Richardson AL
    50. Neuberger MS
    51. Futreal PA
    52. Campbell PJ
    53. Stratton MR
    54. Breast Cancer Working Group of the International Cancer Genome Consortium

    (2012) Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers

    Cell 149:979–993.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Normanly J
    2. Ogden RC
    3. Horvath SJ
    4. Abelson J

    (1986) Changing the identity of a transfer RNA

    Nature 321:213–219.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/321213a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Obata F
    2. Nunoshiba T
    3. Hashimoto-Gotoh T
    4. Yamamoto K

    (1998) An improved system for selection of forward mutations in an Escherichia coli supf gene carried by plasmids

    Journal of Radiation Research 39:263–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1269/jrr.39.263

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. Website

    1. OECD

    (2016) Test no. 487: in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4

    Accessed June 4, 2022.

    https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-487-in-vitro-mammalian-cell-micronucleus-test_9789264264861-en
40. Website

    1. OECD

    (2020) Test No. 471: bacterial reverse mutation test

    Accessed June 4, 2022.

    https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-471-bacterial-reverse-mutation-test_9789264071247-en
41. 1. Parris CN
    2. Seidman MM

    (1992) A signature element distinguishes sibling and independent mutations in a shuttle vector plasmid

    Gene 117:1–5.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(92)90482-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Parris CN
    2. Levy DD
    3. Jessee J
    4. Seidman MM

    (1994) Proximal and distal effects of sequence context on ultraviolet mutational hotspots in a shuttle vector replicated in xeroderma cells

    Journal of Molecular Biology 236:491–502.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1994.1160

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Pecori R
    2. Di Giorgio S
    3. Paulo Lorenzo J
    4. Nina Papavasiliou F

    (2022) Functions and consequences of AID/APOBEC-mediated DNA and RNA deamination

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 23:505–518.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00459-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Pfeifer GP
    2. You YH
    3. Besaratinia A

    (2005) Mutations induced by ultraviolet light

    Mutation Research 571:19–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.06.057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Pugh TJ
    2. Morozova O
    3. Attiyeh EF
    4. Asgharzadeh S
    5. Wei JS
    6. Auclair D
    7. Carter SL
    8. Cibulskis K
    9. Hanna M
    10. Kiezun A
    11. Kim J
    12. Lawrence MS
    13. Lichenstein L
    14. McKenna A
    15. Pedamallu CS
    16. Ramos AH
    17. Shefler E
    18. Sivachenko A
    19. Sougnez C
    20. Stewart C
    21. Ally A
    22. Birol I
    23. Chiu R
    24. Corbett RD
    25. Hirst M
    26. Jackman SD
    27. Kamoh B
    28. Khodabakshi AH
    29. Krzywinski M
    30. Lo A
    31. Moore RA
    32. Mungall KL
    33. Qian J
    34. Tam A
    35. Thiessen N
    36. Zhao Y
    37. Cole KA
    38. Diamond M
    39. Diskin SJ
    40. Mosse YP
    41. Wood AC
    42. Ji L
    43. Sposto R
    44. Badgett T
    45. London WB
    46. Moyer Y
    47. Gastier-Foster JM
    48. Smith MA
    49. Guidry Auvil JM
    50. Gerhard DS
    51. Hogarty MD
    52. Jones SJM
    53. Lander ES
    54. Gabriel SB
    55. Getz G
    56. Seeger RC
    57. Khan J
    58. Marra MA
    59. Meyerson M
    60. Maris JM

    (2013) The genetic landscape of high-risk neuroblastoma

    Nature Genetics 45:279–284.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2529

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Razzaque A
    2. Mizusawa H
    3. Seidman MM

    (1983) Rearrangement and mutagenesis of a shuttle vector plasmid after passage in mammalian cells

    PNAS 80:3010–3014.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.10.3010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Roberts SA
    2. Gordenin DA

    (2014) Hypermutation in human cancer genomes: footprints and mechanisms

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 14:786–800.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3816

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Sakhtemani R
    2. Perera MLW
    3. Hübschmann D
    4. Siebert R
    5. Lawrence MS
    6. Bhagwat AS

    (2022) Human activation-induced deaminase lacks strong replicative strand bias or preference for cytosines in hairpin loops

    Nucleic Acids Research 50:5145–5157.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac296

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Sarkar S
    2. Dasgupta UB
    3. Summers WC

    (1984) Error-Prone mutagenesis detected in mammalian cells by a shuttle vector containing the supF gene of Escherichia coli

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 4:2227–2230.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.4.10.2227-2230.1984

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Schmitt MW
    2. Kennedy SR
    3. Salk JJ
    4. Fox EJ
    5. Hiatt JB
    6. Loeb LA

    (2012) Detection of ultra-rare mutations by next-generation sequencing

    PNAS 109:14508–14513.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208715109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Seidman MM
    2. Dixon K
    3. Razzaque A
    4. Zagursky RJ
    5. Berman ML

    (1985) A shuttle vector plasmid for studying carcinogen-induced point mutations in mammalian cells

    Gene 38:233–237.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(85)90222-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Seidman MM
    2. Bredberg A
    3. Seetharam S
    4. Kraemer KH

    (1987) Multiple point mutations in a shuttle vector propagated in human cells: evidence for an error-prone DNA polymerase activity

    PNAS 84:4944–4948.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.84.14.4944

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Seplyarskiy VB
    2. Soldatov RA
    3. Popadin KY
    4. Antonarakis SE
    5. Bazykin GA
    6. Nikolaev SI

    (2016) APOBEC-induced mutations in human cancers are strongly enriched on the lagging DNA strand during replication

    Genome Research 26:174–182.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.197046.115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Shen W
    2. Le S
    3. Li Y
    4. Hu F

    (2016) SeqKit: a cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation

    PLOS ONE 11:e0163962.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163962

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Shendure J
    2. Balasubramanian S
    3. Church GM
    4. Gilbert W
    5. Rogers J
    6. Schloss JA
    7. Waterston RH

    (2017) Dna sequencing at 40: past, present and future

    Nature 550:345–353.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24286

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Sloan DB
    2. Broz AK
    3. Sharbrough J
    4. Wu Z

    (2018) Detecting rare mutations and DNA damage with sequencing-based methods

    Trends in Biotechnology 36:729–740.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.02.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Smith T
    2. Heger A
    3. Sudbery I

    (2017) UMI-tools: modeling sequencing errors in unique molecular identifiers to improve quantification accuracy

    Genome Research 27:491–499.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.209601.116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Stary A
    2. Sarasin A

    (1992) Simian virus 40 (SV40) large T antigen-dependent amplification of an Epstein-Barr virus-SV40 hybrid shuttle vector integrated into the human HeLa cell genome

    The Journal of General Virology 73 (Pt 7):1679–1685.

    https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-73-7-1679

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Suzuki T
    2. Kuramoto Y
    3. Kamiya H

    (2018) Reduction of Werner syndrome protein enhances G: C → A: T transition by O6-methylguanine in human cells

    Chemical Research in Toxicology 31:319–324.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Suzuki T
    2. Katayama Y
    3. Komatsu Y
    4. Kamiya H

    (2021) Similar frequency and signature of untargeted substitutions induced by abasic site analog under reduced human APE1 conditions

    The Journal of Toxicological Sciences 46:283–288.

    https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.46.283

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Suzuki T
    2. Zaima Y
    3. Fujikawa Y
    4. Fukushima R
    5. Kamiya H

    (2022) Paradoxical role of the major DNA repair protein, OGG1, in action-at-a-distance mutation induction by 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine

    DNA Repair 111:103276.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2022.103276

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Varghese AJ
    2. Wang SY

    (1967) Ultraviolet irradiation of DNA in vitro and in vivo produces a 3D thymine-derived product

    Science 156:955–957.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.156.3777.955

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Wang K
    2. Ma X
    3. Zhang X
    4. Wu D
    5. Sun C
    6. Sun Y
    7. Lu X
    8. Wu CI
    9. Guo C
    10. Ruan J

    (2016) Using ultra-sensitive next generation sequencing to dissect DNA damage-induced mutagenesis

    Scientific Reports 6:25310.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25310

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. White PA
    2. Luijten M
    3. Mishima M
    4. Cox JA
    5. Hanna JN
    6. Maertens RM
    7. Zwart EP

    (2019) In vitro mammalian cell mutation assays based on transgenic reporters: A report of the international workshop on genotoxicity testing (IWGT)

    Mutation Research. Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis 847:403039.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2019.04.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Wong RP
    2. Petriukov K
    3. Ulrich HD

    (2021) Daughter-strand gaps in DNA replication-substrates of lesion processing and initiators of distress signalling

    DNA Repair 105:103163.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2021.103163

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Yoon JH
    2. McArthur MJ
    3. Park J
    4. Basu D
    5. Wakamiya M
    6. Prakash L
    7. Prakash S

    (2019) Error-prone replication through UV lesions by DNA polymerase θ protects against skin cancers

    Cell 176:1295–1309.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Yoon JH
    2. Basu D
    3. Sellamuthu K
    4. Johnson RE
    5. Prakash S
    6. Prakash L

    (2021a) A novel role of DNA polymerase λ in translesion synthesis in conjunction with DNA polymerase ζ

    Life Science Alliance 4:e202000900.

    https://doi.org/10.26508/lsa.202000900

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Yoon JH
    2. Johnson RE
    3. Prakash L
    4. Prakash S

    (2021b) Implications of inhibition of rev1 interaction with Y family DNA polymerases for cisplatin chemotherapy

    Genes & Development 35:1256–1270.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.348662.121

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Hidehiko Kawai

   1. Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
   2. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   kawaih@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2213-7166

2. Ren Iwata

   School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Shungo Ebi

   School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Ryusei Sugihara

   School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Shogo Masuda

   Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Resources, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Chiho Fujiwara

   School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Shingo Kimura

   Analysis Center of Life Science, Natural Science Center for Basic Research and Development, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Hiroyuki Kamiya

   1. Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
   2. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   hirokam@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6866-5322

• 942

  views

• 140

  downloads

• 4

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.