Chromosomal DNA is exposed to continuous damage and repair. Cells contain a number of proteins and specific DNA repair systems that help maintain its correct structure. The SOS response was the first DNA repair system described in Escherichia coli induced upon treatment of bacteria with DNA damaging agents arrest DNA replication and cell division. Induction of the SOS response involves more than forty independent SOS genes, most of which encode proteins engaged in protection, repair, replication, mutagenesis and metabolism of DNA. Under normal growth conditions the SOS genes are expressed at a basal level, which increases distinctly upon induction of the SOS response. The SOS-response has been found in many bacterial species (e.g., Salmonella typhimurium, Caulobacter crescentus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis), but not in eukaryotic cells. However, species from all kingdoms contain some SOS-like proteins taking part in DNA repair that exhibit amino acid homology and enzymatic activities related to those found in E. coli. but are not organized in an SOS system. This paper presents a brief up-to-date review describing the discovery of the SOS system, the physiology of SOS induction, methods for its determination, and the role of some SOS-induced genes.

No abstract

The SOS system and SOS mutagenesis are frequently studied, or exploited to obtain an increase in mutagenicity of bacteria. Here a short survey is made of the phenomenon of SOS response with special attention to latest and less discussed data, especially the induction of the SOS system in response to cell starvation or mutation of certain genes and the role of inducible DNA polymerases.

The E. coli dnaQ gene encodes the epsilon subunit of DNA polymerase III (pol III) responsible for the proofreading activity of this polymerase. The mutD5 mutant of dnaQ chronically expresses the SOS response and exhibits a mutator phenotype. In this study we have constructed a set of E. coli AB1157 mutD5 derivatives deleted in genes encoding SOS-induced DNA polymerases, pol II, pol IV, and pol V, and estimated the frequency and specificity of spontaneous argE3-->Arg(+) reversion in exponentially growing and stationary-phase cells of these strains. We found that pol II exerts a profound effect on the specificity of spontaneous mutation in exponentially growing cells. Analysis of growth-dependent Arg(+) revertants in mutD5 polB(+) strains revealed that Arg(+) revertants were due to tRNA suppressor formation, whereas those in mutD5 DeltapolB strains arose by back mutation at the argE3 ochre site. In stationary-phase bacteria, Arg(+)revertants arose mainly by back mutation, regardless of whether they were proficient or deficient in pol II. Our results also indicate that in a mutD5 background, the absence of pol II led to increased frequency of Arg(+) growth-dependent revertants, whereas the lack of pol V caused its dramatic decrease, especially in mutD5 DeltaumuDC and mutD5 DeltaumuDC DeltapolB strains. In contrast, the rate of stationary-phase Arg(+)revertants increased in the absence of pol IV in the mutD5 DeltadinB strain. We postulate that the proofreading activity of pol II excises DNA lesions in exponentially growing cells, whereas pol V and pol IV are more active in stationary-phase cultures.

A method for estimating mutagenic specificity in Escherichia coli (argE3, hisG4, thr-1, supE44), based upon the isolation of Arg+ or His+ revertants and identification of tRNA suppressors, is described. The method gives an insight not only into mutagenic pathways but also into the functioning of tRNA. With N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine, 98% of mutations are GC----AT transitions. With N4-hydroxycytidine, 100% are AT----GC transitions. With hydroxylamine, apart from GC----AT transitions, approximately 30% of Arg+ revertants are formed by GC (or AT)----TA transversions. When the chemistry of the mutagenic attack is known, the method allows us to discriminate whether mutations occur on the transcribed or non-transcribed strands of DNA. It has been found that reversion of argE3 to Arg+ is a better monitor of mutagenic pathways than reversion of hisG4 to His+.