AOP-Wiki

AOP ID and Title:

AOP 322: Alkylation of DNA leading to decreased sperm count
Short Title: Alkylation of DNA leading to decreased sperm count

Graphical Representation

Authors

Status

Author status OECD status OECD project SAAOP status
Under development: Not open for comment. Do not cite

Abstract

Decreased sperm count is a key endpoint in the assessment of male reproductive health as it is directly associated with impaired fertility. Exposure to DNA alkylating agents, including chemotherapeutic drugs and environmental toxicants, is associated with reduced sperm counts in experimental models and humans. However, the progression from DNA lesions to reduced sperm output has not been systematically organized in an AOP framework. This AOP addresses that gap by describing how DNA alkylation can lead to inadequate DNA repair, increased DNA strand breaks, apoptosis, impaired spermatogenesis, and ultimately decreased sperm count. Although genotoxicity data are not routinely used as predictors of male fertility effects, this AOP provides a basis for evaluating when such data may be informative for reproductive toxicity assessment and for developing future predictive toxicology approaches.

This AOP initiates with DNA alkylation (molecular initiating event, MIE). Alkylation-induced DNA lesions can then overwhelm DNA repair capacity (key event, KE1: inadequate repair) and an accumulation of DNA strand breaks (KE2). Persistent or unrepaired DNA damage activates DNA damage response pathways, ultimately leading to apoptosis (KE3). When apoptosis occurs in male germ cells and supporting testicular cells, excessive depletion of the developing germ cell population and disruption of structural support and endocrine signaling in the testis lead to decreased sperm counts (adverse outcome, AO) in sexually mature males.

This pathway is supported by strong biological plausibility and moderate to strong empirical evidence across multiple model systems, including human data, though quantitative understanding remains limited.

AOP Development Strategy

Context

The development of this AOP was motivated by the need to organize the well-established relationship between DNA alkylation and impaired male reproductive function into a formal mechanistic framework. DNA alkylation is a well-characterized form of genotoxic damage (Soll et al., 2017). In male spermatogonia and meiotic cells, alkylation of DNA in actively proliferating germ cells can trigger DNA damage responses, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis, ultimately impairing spermatogenesis and leading to adverse reproductive outcomes (Kaina, 2003; Rübe et al., 2011; Li et al., 2025). Exposure to alkylating agents, particularly in the context of cancer chemotherapy, has long been associated with reduced sperm counts, oligozoospermia, azoospermia, and impaired fertility in males, with severity and recovery largely dependent on cumulative dose (reviewed by Howell and Shalet, 2005; Okada and Fujisawa, 2018). However, genotoxicity data are not routinely used as predictors of male fertility effects in reproductive toxicity assessment. This creates a need for a structured framework to evaluate when DNA damage in the male germline may be informative for reproductive hazard.

Human studies have reported associations between biomarkers of DNA alkylation and reduced sperm concentrations (Altakroni et al., 2021). Evidence from childhood cancer survivors also demonstrates that exposure during early life can impair germ cell populations and lead to reduced sperm production later in adulthood (Beaud et al., 2019; reviewed by Delessard et al., 2019). Experimental studies further demonstrate that alkylating agents produce dose-dependent and persistent reductions in sperm counts across species, including rodents, non-human primates, and humans (Meistrich, 1982a; Bucci and Meistrich, 1987; Hermann et al., 2009). Although DNA alkylation may occur during fetal, juvenile, or adult life stages, and can impair germ cell populations at any of these stages, the downstream events in this AOP involve spermatogenesis and sperm production; thus, the adverse outcome is manifested in sexually mature males.

This AOP branches from an existing AOP developed by Yauk et al., “Alkylation of DNA in Male Premeiotic Germ Cells Leading to Heritable Mutations” (AOP15), and contributes to the development of a broader AOP network for genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity.

An additional objective of this work is to facilitate the use of new approach methods (NAMs) in regulatory decision-making. By mechanistically linking early biological responses and adverse outcomes of regulatory concern, this AOP supports the development of novel models and screening tools to identify chemicals that may impair male fertility and provides a context for the use of data from NAMs. Additionally, by systematically organizing the existing knowledge on this topic we have identified key data gaps to guide future research in the field.

Summary of the AOP

Events

Molecular Initiating Events (MIE), Key Events (KE), Adverse Outcomes (AO)

Sequence Type Event ID Title Short name
1 MIE 97 Alkylation, DNA Alkylation, DNA
2 KE 155 Inadequate DNA repair Inadequate DNA repair
3 KE 1635 Increase, DNA strand breaks Increase, DNA strand breaks
KE 1262 Apoptosis Apoptosis
AO 1757 Decrease, Sperm count Decrease, Sperm count

Key Event Relationships

Upstream Event Relationship Type Downstream Event Evidence Quantitative Understanding
Alkylation, DNA adjacent Inadequate DNA repair High Moderate
Inadequate DNA repair adjacent Increase, DNA strand breaks High Moderate
Increase, DNA strand breaks adjacent Apoptosis High Moderate
Apoptosis adjacent Decrease, Sperm count High Low
Alkylation, DNA non-adjacent Decrease, Sperm count High Low

Overall Assessment of the AOP

Domain of Applicability

Life Stage Applicability
Life Stage Evidence
Juvenile High
Prepubertal High
Adult, reproductively mature High
Fetal Moderate
Taxonomic Applicability
Term Scientific Term Evidence Links
human Homo sapiens High NCBI
Macaca mulatta Macaca mulatta Moderate NCBI
rat Rattus norvegicus High NCBI
mouse Mus musculus High NCBI
Sex Applicability
Sex Evidence
Male High

DNA alkylation can occur in all cell types. DNA repair processes and apoptotic pathways are conserved across species. While decreased sperm counts are measurable only after sexual maturity, the upstream KEs and KERs are biologically plausible and operative across fetal, juvenile, and adult life stages. Therefore, the overall biological domain of applicability of the AOP is considered relevant to male individuals exposed during fetal, juvenile, or adult stages, with manifestation of the AO occurring after reproductive maturation. In the male reproductive system, this AOP is most relevant when alkylation damage occurs in proliferating or meiotic germ cells that contribute directly to sperm production.

Essentiality of the Key Events

Overall, the essentiality of KEs in this AOP is supported primarily by indirect evidence from studies involving genetic manipulation, pharmacological intervention, and endpoint recovery, demonstrating that perturbation of upstream KEs is associated with corresponding changes in downstream KEs. A summary of the evidence supporting the essentiality of individual KEs and corresponding uncertainties or inconsistencies are provided in Table 1: summary of supporting evidence for essentiality of key events.    

Impairment of DNA repair and DNA damage response (DDR) pathways consistently results in increased DNA strand breaks (KE2) and downstream apoptosis (KE3) in the presence of alkylating agents, indicating that upstream KEs are required for progression of the pathway. Although simultaneous measurements of alkyl DNA adducts, repair capacity, and sperm production within the same study are limited, exposure studies involving alkylating agents consistently show that greater DNA damage is associated with more severe and persistent impairment of sperm production across species, including rodents, non-human primates, and humans (Meistrich, 1982a, 1982b; Bucci and Meistrich, 1987; Hermann et al., 2009, Meistrich et al., 1992; Howell and Shalet, 2005; Okada and Fujisawa, 2018; Beaud et al., 2019). Together, these findings support the functional importance of DNA alkylation and DDR-related processes in progression of this AOP.

Essentiality of DNA strand breaks (KE2) is supported by studies showing that disruption of DDR signaling pathways (e.g., ATM inhibition) can prevent apoptosis even when DNA damage is present (Rodrigues et al., 2013). These findings highlight that damage sensing and downstream DDR signaling are required for the pathway to progress toward apoptotic cell death.

Evidence supporting the essentiality of apoptosis (KE3) is provided by intervention studies showing that attenuation of apoptotic signaling is associated with recovery of sperm counts (AO). Concordant reversibility across upstream and downstream endpoints following chemical or biological intervention supports the contribution of apoptosis to the AO (Oyovwi et al., 2023; Yaman et al., 2018; Udefa et al., 2020; Ehghaghi et al., 2022). However, many protective interventions also modulate oxidative stress and inflammatory pathways simultaneously, making it difficult to isolate apoptosis as the sole driver of sperm recovery.

Uncertainties include limitations in study design (e.g., reliance on single collection timepoints that do not capture temporal progression or delayed changes in sperm output), assay specificity (e.g., distinguishing primary DNA strand breaks from apoptotic DNA fragmentation), and incomplete characterization of quantitative relationships. Nonetheless, the overall weight of evidence supports a moderate level of essentiality.

Table 1. Summary of Supporting Evidence for Essentiality of Key Events

Event

Direct Essentiality Evidence

Indirect Essentiality Evidence

Uncertainties or Inconsistency

DNA alkylation (MIE)

Limited direct evidence

Exposure to alkylating agents leads to dose-dependent loss of germ cells and subsequent reductions in sperm counts (AO) across species; recovery may occur following removal of the stressor

In rodents, treatment with alkylating agents at increasing doses results in dose-dependent decreases in testicular or epididymal sperm counts (Meistrich, 1982a, 1982b; Bucci and Meistrich, 1987). In rhesus macaques, similar progressive, dose-dependent declines have been observed following busulfan exposure, with higher doses leading to more persistent reductions in sperm production (Hermann et al., 2009). In cancer patients, the use of DNA alkylating drugs is strongly associated with lower sperm counts; such link is not observed in patients receiving non-alkylating drugs (Beaud et al., 2019).

Repeated exposure to an alkylating agent caused a marked reduction in sperm counts in mice, with gradual recovery following cessation of exposure, demonstrating reversibility of the AO after removal of the stressor (Yin et al., 2014).

Formation of alkyl DNA adducts in germ cells has been demonstrated in vivo; however, there are limited integrated measurements of the MIE, downstream KEs, the AO in the same studies. Consequently, progression through the pathway is often inferred from the known mechanisms of alkylating agents.

Inadequate repair (KE1)

Depletion of O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase (AGT/MGMT) leads to corresponding alterations in DNA strand break (KE2) formation

 

Key studies: Roos et al. (2004) linked DNA alkylation (MIE), impaired repair (KE1), DNA strand breaks (KE2), and apoptosis (KE3) in proliferating human lymphocytes. Inactivation of MGMT increases persistence of alkylation-induced lesions, resulting in replication-dependent strand break formation and subsequent apoptosis.

 

Carlsson et al. (2025) showed that pharmacological inhibition of MGMT enhanced N-nitrosodimethylamine-induced formation of DNA adducts (MIE), DNA strand breaks (KE2), and micronucleus formation in HepG2-CYP2E1 human liver cells.

Modulation of DNA repair (KE1) or DDR pathways leads to concurrent increases in DNA strand breaks (KE2) and apoptosis (KE3)
 

Knockdown or knockout of CDKN2AIP, a regulator of DNA repair, leads to increased double strand breaks (DSBs) and apoptosis in mouse Sertoli cells and male germ cells (Cao et al., 2022).

 

Greater impairment of DDR pathways (Nbn/Atm double deletion) results in more DSBs and apoptotic cells than Nbn single deletion in mouse neuronal tissues (Rodrigues et al., 2013). Similarly, single or double deletion of Apc/p53 (Méniel et al., 2015), bidirectional genetic modulation of CIRKIL/Ku70 (Xiao et al., 2023), inhibition of the PI3K/mTOR pathway (Liu et al., 2014), or homologous recombination (Stringer et al., 2020), result in more DSBs and apoptosis than wildtype or single deletion models.

 

DNA repair capacity is not measured directly in many studies. Accumulation of DSBs following impairment of DDR pathways is interpreted as evidence of insufficient repair.

DNA strand breaks (KE2)

Blocking signaling downstream of DNA strand breaks (KE2) prevents apoptosis (KE3)

ATM inactivation prevents apoptosis in eye retina, despite the presence of DSBs (Rodrigues et al., 2013).

Modulation of the magnitude of DNA strand breaks (KE2) is associated with a corresponding change in apoptosis (KE3)

The intervention studies listed in indirect evidence for KE1 also demonstrate a graded response-response relationship between DSBs and apoptosis.

TUNEL staining may detect both primary strand breaks and apoptotic DNA fragmentation, when KE2 and KE3 are measured at overlapping timepoints. More specific DSB markers (e.g., γH2AX) were used in several studies.


The absence of detectable DNA strand breaks may reflect limitations in the sampling time and assay specificity/sensitivity (e.g., the alkaline comet assay may miss DSBs, or the 24-hour sampling window may miss transient, repaired lesions).

Apoptosis (KE3)

Limited direct evidence

Attenuation of apoptosis (KE3) leads to recovery of sperm counts (AO)

Key study (Oyovwi et al., 2023): Pharmacological attenuation of apoptosis using quercetin fully reversed testicular damage and restored sperm counts following levetiracetam exposure in rats. Multiple KEs were measured in this study, including sperm DNA fragmentation index (KE2; inferred from aniline blue staining), apoptotic markers (KE3: caspase-3, p53, cytochrome c, Bcl-2), and the AO (testicular sperm counts and histological evidence of germ cell loss). The concordant reversal of these endpoints following the intervention provides strong support for the progression across KEs.

Additional intervention studies using antioxidants or protective agents (e.g., L-carnitine, plant extracts, quercetin, selenium nanoparticles, and probiotics) demonstrate that reducing apoptotic signaling is associated with improved sperm counts following exposure to chemotherapeutic agents, toxicants, or radiation (Yaman et al., 2018; Udefa et al., 2020; Ehghaghi et al., 2022).

Protective agents often suppress inflammation and oxidative stress simultaneously. It is unclear if sperm recovery is due to reduced apoptosis or these co-activated pathways, or both.

Apoptotic markers are often measured in whole testis homogenates and the AO is likely caused by apoptosis of mixed testicular cell populations.

Inappropriate sampling time and high variability in sperm count data may lead to "false negatives" (Gur et al., 2023).

Weight of Evidence Summary

Biological plausibility of KERs

Defining question

High (Strong)

Moderate

Low (Weak)

Is there a mechanistic relationship between KEup and KEdown consistent with established biological knowledge?

Extensive understanding of the KER based on extensive previous documentation and broad acceptance.

KER is plausible based on analogy to accepted biological relationships, but scientific understanding is incomplete.

Empirical support for association between KEs, but the structural or functional relationship between them is not understood.

MIE  KE1: Alkylation, DNA leads to inadequate DNA repair

STRONG

Extensive evidence indicates that sufficiently high level of DNA alkylation can overwhelm cellular DNA repair machinery, leading to the persistence of DNA adducts and other unrepaired lesions. AGT, also known as MGMT in mammals, is an established suicide enzyme that can become saturated at high doses or after repeated exposure to alkylating agents, leading to inadequate DNA repair and accumulation of DNA alkyl adducts. This relationship is broadly conserved across species and cell types.

KE1  KE2: Inadequate DNA repair leads to Increase, DNA strand breaks

STRONG

DNA adducts and repair intermediates can accumulate when alkylation damage exceeds repair capacity in cells, including the depletion of AGT/MGMT. It is well established that persistence of unrepaired alkyl DNA lesions can interfere with DNA replication and promote replication fork stalling, leading to DNA strand breaks, which then activate DDR pathways. Extensive mechanistic evidence supports a causal relationship between inadequate DNA repair of alkylation-induced damage and increased DNA strand breaks.

KE2  KE3: Increase, DNA strand breaks leads to Apoptosis

STRONG

There is extensive mechanistic understanding of the DNA damage response pathways that link DNA strand breaks and apoptosis through both p53-dependent and independent mechanisms.

KE3  AO: Apoptosis leads to Decrease, Sperm Count

STRONG

Loss of testicular cells (e.g., developing germ cells and supportive somatic cells) through apoptosis disrupts normal testicular function to support spermatogenesis, resulting in a subsequent decrease in mature sperm output. These mechanisms are well established across mammalian systems.

MIE  AO: Alkylation, DNA leads to Decrease, Sperm Count

STRONG

The mechanistic linkage is conserved across species and supported by extensive knowledge of germ cell biology and toxicology. While alkylation damage can occur across all stages of spermatogenesis, effects on sperm counts are primarily driven by damage to proliferating and meiotic germ cells, whereas damage to post-meiotic cells predominantly affects sperm quality rather than quantity.

Essentiality of KEs

Defining question

High (Strong)

Moderate

Low (Weak)

Are downstream KEs and/or the AO prevented if an upstream KE is blocked?

Direct evidence from specifically designed experimental studies illustrating essentiality for at least one of the important KEs.

Indirect evidence that sufficient modification of an expected modulating factor attenuates or augments a KE.

No or contradictory experimental evidence of the essentiality of any of the KEs.

AOP-level

MODERATE

Evidence supporting the essentiality of KEs is available from genetic and mechanistic studies. Modulation of DNA damage response and apoptotic pathways induce corresponding changes in downstream outcomes, including apoptosis and sperm counts. A limited number of studies provide more direct evidence of essentiality for specific KERs, while identifying a few essential signaling mediators involved in the transduction of DNA damage into apoptosis. However, such direct evidence is not consistently available across all KEs in the pathway, and much of the support remains indirect or context-specific.

Empirical support for KERs

Defining question

High (Strong)

Moderate

Low (Weak)

Does empirical evidence support that a change in KEup leads to an appropriate change in KEdown?
Does KEup occur at lower doses and earlier time points than KE down and is the incidence of KEup> than that for KEdown?
Inconsistencies?

Multiple studies showing dependent change in both events following exposure to a wide range of specific stressors.
No or few critical data gaps or conflicting data.

Demonstrated dependent change in both events following exposure to a small number of stressors.
Some inconsistencies with expected pattern that can be explained by various factors.

Limited or no studies reporting dependent change in both events following exposure to a specific stressor; and/or significant inconsistencies in empirical support across taxa and species that don’t align with hypothesized AOP.

MIE  KE1: Alkylation, DNA leads to inadequate DNA repair

STRONG

Inadequate DNA repair is measured indirectly through persistence of DNA adducts or increases in mutations that result from unrepaired DNA damage. Extensive evidence from somatic and germ cells supports this KER (in particular for temporal concordance), although quantitative dose-response concordance is less well characterized. There are no apparent inconsistencies. Numerous studies demonstrate that alkyl DNA adducts persist when repair capacity is exceeded or repair pathways are impaired. In particular, saturation or depletion of AGT/MGMT results in increased persistence of O6-alkylguanine adducts, providing strong support for this KER.

KE1  KE2: Inadequate DNA repair leads to Increase, DNA strand breaks

MODERATE

Limited in vivo data are available. However, multiple in vitro and genetic studies demonstrate that impairment of DNA repair or DDR pathways result in increased accumulation and persistence of DNA strand breaks in both somatic cells and germ cells following exposure to genotoxic stressors. In the context of DNA alkylation, saturation or depletion of AGT/MGMT leads to persistence of O6-alkylguanine lesions, which are subsequently converted into DNA strand breaks, consistent with temporal concordance. Studies involving AGT depletion and repair-deficient systems provide empirical support for the essential role of inadequate repair of alkylation DNA damage in the accumulation of DNA strand breaks.

KE2  KE3: Increase, DNA strand breaks leads to Apoptosis

STRONG

Temporal concordance is consistently observed, with DNA strand breaks occurring earlier or concurrently with apoptotic responses across in vitro somatic and germ cells, and rodent models. Dose concordance is supported, although dose-response data are limited in some studies. Evidence for incidence concordance is supported by a small number of studies, while others are limited by lack of appropriate measurements.

KE3  AO: Apoptosis leads to Reduce, Sperm Count

STRONG

Concordant changes between increased apoptosis and decreased sperm counts are have been consistently observed across multiple in vivo rodent studies. Temporal alignment is biologically supported, although it is often inferred rather than directly measured. Evidence for dose concordance is limited as many studies used a single exposure dose, preventing assessment of dose-dependent changes. Incidence concordance is generally not assessed, as both apoptosis and sperm count are typically reported as continuous outcomes (e.g., group means) rather than as the proportion of individual animals meeting predefined criteria for increased apoptosis or reduced sperm counts. Nevertheless, the consistency of the empirical evidence, together with multiple intervention studies demonstrating recovery of sperm counts following attenuation of apoptotic signaling, provides strong support for this KER.

MIE  AO: Alkylation, DNA leads to Decrease, Sperm Count

STRONG

Empirical evidence from both experimental animal models and human studies supports a consistent relationship between DNA alkylation and reduced sperm counts. Although direct measurement of both KEs in the same study is limited, extrapolation across studies involving exposure to well-characterized alkylating agents provides strong empirical support for temporal and dose concordance. Reduction in sperm counts occur after delays consistent with spermatogenic progression, and higher exposures lead to greater and more sustained decreases in sperm counts across multiple studies and stressors.

Quantitative Consideration

The overall quantitative understanding of the KERs in this AOP is low. While individual KERs are supported by qualitative evidence of dose-response and temporal concordance, quantitative relationships between KEs are not well defined.

Some studies demonstrate graded changes between adjacent KEs following genetic or pharmacological modulation (e.g., KER2 and KER3), supporting response-response relationships. More details are provided in the individual KERs.

A threshold-based response is expected in this AOP, as DNA damage must exceed the repair capacity to propagate to downstream effects. In addition, a sufficient level of germ cell apoptosis is likely required before a measurable decline in sperm count occurs. However, several modulating factors have been identified, and the quantitative relationships are not generalizable across cell types, tissues, or developmental stages.

References

Altakroni, B., Nevin, C., Carroll, M., Murgatroyd, C., Horne, G., Brison, D. R. & Povey, A. C. (2021). The marker of alkyl DNA base damage, N7-methylguanine, is associated with semen quality in men. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 3121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81674-x

Beaud, H., Albert, O., Robaire, B., Rousseau, M. C., Chan, P. T. K. & Delbes, G. (2019). Sperm DNA integrity in adult survivors of paediatric leukemia and lymphoma: A pilot study on the impact of age and type of treatment. PLoS ONE, 14(12), e0226262. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226262

Bucci, L. R. & Meistrich, M. L. (1987). Effects of busulfan on murine spermatogenesis: cytotoxicity, sterility, sperm abnormalities, and dominant lethal mutations. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 176(2), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0027-5107(87)90057-1

Carlsson, M. J., Herzog, N., Felske, C., Ackermann, G., Regier, A., Wittmann, S., Cereijo, R. F., Sturla, S. J., Küpper, J.-H. & Fahrer, J. (2025). The DNA Repair Protein MGMT Protects against the Genotoxicity of N‑Nitrosodimethylamine, but Not N‑Nitrosodiethanolamine and N‑Nitrosomethylaniline, in Human HepG2 Liver Cells with CYP2E1 Expression. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 38(6), 1134–1146. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5c00133

Cao, Y., Sun, Q., Chen, Z., Lu, J., Geng, T., Ma, L. & Zhang, Y. (2022). CDKN2AIP is critical for spermiogenesis and germ cell development. Cell & Bioscience, 12(1), 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13578-022-00861-z

Delessard, M., Saulnier, J., Rives, A., Dumont, L., Rondanino, C. & Rives, N. (2020). Exposure to Chemotherapy During Childhood or Adulthood and Consequences on Spermatogenesis and Male Fertility. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(4), 1454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21041454

Ehghaghi, A., Zokaei, E., Modarressi, M. H., Tavoosidana, G., Ghafouri-Fard, S., Khanali, F., Motevaseli, E. & Noroozi, Z. (2022). Antioxidant and anti-apoptotic effects of selenium nanoparticles and Lactobacillus casei on mice testis after X-ray. Andrologia, 54(11), e14591. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.14591

Gur, C., Akarsu, S. A., Akaras, N., Tuncer, S. C. & Kandemir, F. M. (2023). Carvacrol reduces abnormal and dead sperm counts by attenuating sodium arsenite-induced oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, and autophagy in the testicular tissues of rats. Environmental Toxicology, 38(6), 1265–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.23762

Hermann, B. P., Sukhwani, M., Lin, C., Sheng, Y., Tomko, J., Rodriguez, M., Shuttleworth, J. J., McFarland, D., Hobbs, R. M., Pandolfi, P. P., Schatten, G. P. & Orwig, K. E. (2009). Characterization, Cryopreservation, and Ablation of Spermatogonial Stem Cells in Adult Rhesus Macaques. Stem Cells, 25(9), 2330–2338. https://doi.org/10.1634/stemcells.2007-0143

Howell, S. J. & Shalet, S. M. (2005). Spermatogenesis After Cancer Treatment: Damage and Recovery. JNCI Monographs, 2005(34), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi003

Kaina, B. (2003). DNA damage-triggered apoptosis: critical role of DNA repair, double-strand breaks, cell proliferation and signaling. Biochemical Pharmacology, 66(8), 1547–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-2952(03)00510-0

Li, N., Wang, H., zou, S., Yu, X. & Li, J. (2025). Perspective in the Mechanisms for Repairing Sperm DNA Damage. Reproductive Sciences, 32(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01714-5

Liu, W.-L., Gao, M., Tzen, K.-Y., Tsai, C.-L., Hsu, F.-M., Cheng, A.-L. & Cheng, J. C.-H. (2014). Targeting Phosphatidylinositide3-Kinase/Akt pathway by BKM120 for radiosensitization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget, 5(11), 3662–3672. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.1978

Meistrich, M. L. (1982a). Quantitative Correlation Between Testicular Stem Cell Survival, Sperm Production, and Fertility in the Mouse After Treatment With Different Cytotoxic Agents. Journal of Andrology, 3(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.1982.tb00646.x

Meistrich, M. L., Finch, M., Cunha, M. F. da, Hacker, U. & Au, W. W. (1982b). Damaging effects of fourteen chemotherapeutic drugs on mouse testis cells. Cancer Research, 42(1), 122–131.

Meistrich, M. L., Wilson, G., Brown, B. W., Cunha, M. F. da & Lipshultz, L. I. (1992). Impact of cyclophosphamide on long-term reduction in sperm count in men treated with combination chemotherapy for Ewing and soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer, 70(11), 2703–2712. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19921201)70:11<2703::aid-cncr2820701123>3.0.co;2-x

Méniel, V., Megges, M., Young, M. A., Cole, A., Sansom, O. J., Clarke, A. R. (2015). Apc and p53 interaction in DNA damage and genomic instability in hepatocytes. Oncogene, 34(31), 4118–4129. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2014.342

Murphy, C. J. & Richburg, J. H. (2015). Implications of Sertoli cell induced germ cell apoptosis to testicular pathology. Spermatogenesis, 4(2), e979110. https://doi.org/10.4161/21565562.2014.979110

Okada, K. & Fujisawa, M. (2018). Recovery of Spermatogenesis Following Cancer Treatment with Cytotoxic Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy. The World Journal of Men’s Health, 36(2), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.180043

Oyovwi, M. O., Oghenetega, O. B., Victor, E., Faith, F. Y. & Uchechukwu, J. G. (2023). Quercetin protects against levetiracetam induced gonadotoxicity in rats. Toxicology, 491, 153518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2023.153518

Roos, W., Baumgartner, M. & Kaina, B. (2004). Apoptosis triggered by DNA damage O6-methylguanine in human lymphocytes requires DNA replication and is mediated by p53 and Fas/CD95/Apo-1. Oncogene, 23(2), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207080

Rodrigues, P. M. G., Grigaravicius, P., Remus, M., Cavalheiro, G. R., Gomes, A. L., Rocha-Martins, M., Martins, M. R., Frappart, L., Reuss, D., McKinnon, P. J., Deimling, A. von, Martins, R. A. P. & Frappart, P.-O. (2013). Nbn and Atm Cooperate in a Tissue and Developmental Stage-Specific Manner to Prevent Double Strand Breaks and Apoptosis in Developing Brain and Eye. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e69209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069209

Rübe, C. E., Zhang, S., Miebach, N., Fricke, A. & Rübe, C. (2011). Protecting the heritable genome: DNA damage response mechanisms in spermatogonial stem cells. DNA Repair, 10(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.10.007

Soll, J. M., Sobol, R. W. & Mosammaparast, N. (2017). Regulation of DNA Alkylation Damage Repair: Lessons and Therapeutic Opportunities. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 42(3), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2016.10.001

Udefa, A. L., Amama, E. A., Archibong, E. A., Nwangwa, J. N., Adama, S., Inyang, V. U., Inyaka, G. U., Aju, G. J., Okpa, S. & Inah, I. O. (2020). Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic effects of hydro-ethanolic extract of Cyperus esculentus L. (tigernut) on lead acetate-induced testicular dysfunction in Wistar rats. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 129, 110491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110491

Xiao, H., Zhang, M., Wu, H., Wu, J., Hu, X., Pei, X., Li, D., Zhao, L., Hua, Q., Meng, B., Zhang, X., Peng, L., Cheng, X., Li, Z., Yang, W., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., Lu, Y. & Pan, Z. (2022). CIRKIL Exacerbates Cardiac Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury by Interacting With Ku70. Circulation Research, 130(5), e3–e17. https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.121.318992

Yaman, O., & Topcu-Tarladacalisir, Y. (2018). L-carnitine counteracts prepubertal exposure to cisplatin induced impaired sperm in adult rats by preventing germ cell apoptosis. Biotechnic & Histochemistry, 1-11. doi:10.1080/10520295.2017.1401661

Yauk, C. L., Lambert, I. B., Meek, M. E. B., Douglas, G. R. & Marchetti, F. (2015). Development of the adverse outcome pathway “alkylation of DNA in male premeiotic germ cells leading to heritable mutations” using the OECD’s users’ handbook supplement. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 56(9), 724–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.21954

 

Appendix 1

List of MIEs in this AOP

Event: 97: Alkylation, DNA

Short Name: Alkylation, DNA

Event Component

Process Object Action
DNA alkylation deoxyribonucleic acid increased

AOPs Including This Key Event

Stressors

Name
Diethyl nitrosamine
Diethyl sulfate
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Dimethyl sulfate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl nitrosourea
Ethyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine
Isopropyl methanesulfonate
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl-l-N'-nitro-N-nitroguanidine

Biological Context

Level of Biological Organization
Molecular

Cell term

Cell term
eukaryotic cell

Domain of Applicability

Taxonomic Applicability
Term Scientific Term Evidence Links
mouse Mus musculus High NCBI
Syrian golden hamster Mesocricetus auratus High NCBI
rat Rattus norvegicus High NCBI
Homo sapiens Homo sapiens High NCBI
Sex Applicability
Sex Evidence
Mixed High

Alkylated DNA has been measured in somatic cells in a variety of species, from prokaryotic organisms, to rodents in vivo, to human cells in culture. Theoretically, DNA alkylation can occur in any cell type in any organism.

Key Event Description

The event involves DNA alkylation to form a variety of different DNA adducts (i.e., alkylated nucleotides). Alkylation occurs at various sites in DNA and can include alkylation of adenine- Nl, - N3, - N7, guanine- N3, - O6, - N7, thymine-O2, - N3, - O4, cytosine- O2, -N3, and the phosphate (diester) group (reviewed in detail in Beranek 1990). In addition, alkylation can involve modification with different sizes of alkylation groups (e.g., methyl, ethyl, propyl). It should be noted that many of these adducts are not stable or are readily repaired (discussed in more detail below). A small proportion of adducts are stable and remain bound to DNA for long periods of time.

How it is Measured or Detected

There is no OECD guideline for measurement of alkylated DNA, although technologies for their detection are established. Reviews of modern methods to measure DNA adducts include Himmelstein et al,. 2009 and Philips et al., 2000.

High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods can be used to measure whether an agent is capable of alkylating DNA in somatic cells. Alkyl adducts in somatic cells can be measured using immunological methods (described in Nehls et al. 1984), as well as HPLC (methods in de Groot et al. 1994) or a combination of 32P post-labeling, HPLC and immunologic detection (Kang et al. 1992). We note that mass spectrometry provides structural specificity and confirmation of the structure of DNA adducts.

DNA alkylation can also be measured using a modified comet assay. This method involves the digestion of alkylated DNA bases with 3–methyladenine DNA glycosylase (Collins et al., 2001; Hasplova et al., 2012) followed by the standard comet assay to detect where alkyl adducts occur. The advantage of this method is that the alkaline version of the comet assay, as a core method, has an in vivo OECD guideline.

Finally, structure-activity relationships (SARs) have been developed to predict the possibility that a chemical will alkylate DNA (e.g., Vogel and Ashby, 1994; Benigni, 2005; Dai et al., 1989; Lewis and Griffith, 1987).


Measurement of alkylation in male germ cells:

In rodent testes, studies have detected adducts in situ by immuhistocytological staining. For example, fixed testes are incubated with O6-EtGua -specific mouse monoclonal antibody and subsequently with a labeled anti-mouse IgG F antibody. Nuclear DNA is counterstained with DAPI 4,6-diamidino- 2-phenylindole. Fluorescence signals from immunostained O6-EtGua residues in DNA are visualized by fluorescence microscopy and quantitated using an image analysis system. Methods are described in (Seiler et al. 1997). An immunoslot blot assay for detection of O6-EtGua has been described previously in (Mientjes et al. 1996).

Alternatively, rodents have also been exposed to radio-labeled alkylating agents. Examples from the literature include [2-3H] ENU, [1-3H]di-ethyl sulfate, or [1-3H]ethyl-methane sulfonate. Following treatment with the labeled chemical, testis and other tissues of interest are removed. Germ cells are released from tubuli by pushing out the contents with forceps. Using this procedure all germ-cell stages are liberated from the tubuli, with the possible exception of part of the population of stem-cell spermatogonia that remain attached to the walls of the tubuli. DNA is then extracted from germ cells, empty testis tubuli and other tissues of interest. DNA adduct formation is determined after neutral and acid hydrolysis of DNA followed by separation of the various ethylation products using HPLC (described in van Zeeland et al. 1990).

References


Benigni, R. (2005), "Structure-activity relationship studies of chemical mutagens and carcinogens: mechanistic investigations and prediction and approaches", Chem. Rev., 105: 1767-1800.

Beranek, D.T. (1990), "Distribution of methyl and ethyl adducts following alkylation with monofunctional alkylating agents", Mutation Res., 231: 11-30.

Collins, A.R., M. Dusinská and A. Horská (2001), "A Detection of alkylation damage in human lymphocyte DNA with the comet assay". Acta Biochim Pol., 48: 611-4.

Dai, Q.H. and R.G. Zhong (1989), "Quantitative pattern recognition for structure-carcinogenic activity relationship of N-nitroso compounds based upon Di-region theory", Sci China B., 32:776-790.

de Groot, A.J., J.G. Jansen, C.F. van Valkenburg and A.A. van Zeeland (1994), "Molecular dosimetry of 7-alkyl- and O6-alkylguanine in DNA by electrochemical detection", Mutat Res., 307: 61-6.

Hašplová, K., A. Hudecová, Z. Magdolénová, M. Bjøras, E. Gálová, E. Miadoková and M. Dušinská (2012), "DNA alkylation lesions and their repair in human cells: modification of the comet assay with 3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase (AlkD)", Toxicol Lett., 208: 76-81.

Himmelstein, M.W., P.J. Boogaard, J. Cadet, P.B. Farmer, J.J. Kim, E.A. Martin, R. Persaud and D.E. Shuker (2009), "Creating context for the use of DNA adduct data in cancer risk assessment: II. Overview of methods of identification and quantitation of DNA damage", Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 39: 679-94.

Kamino, K., F. Seiler, M. Emura, J. Thomale, M.F. Rajewsky and U. Mohr (1995), "Formation of O6-ethylguanine in spermatogonial DNA of adult Syrian golden hamster by intraperitoneal injection of diethylnitrosamine", Exp. Toxicol. Pathol., 47: 443-445.

Kang, H.I., C. Konishi, G. Eberle, M.F. Rajewsky, T. Kuroki and N.H. Huh (1992), "Highly sensitive, specific detection of O6-methylguanine, O4-methylthymine, and O4-ethylthymine by the combination of high-performance liquid chromatography prefractionation, 32P postlabeling, and immunoprecipitation", Cancer Res., 52: 5307-5312.

Lewis, D.F. and V.S. Griffiths (1987), "Molecular electrostatic potential energies and methylation of DNA bases: a molecular orbital-generated quantitative structure-activity relationship", Xenobiotica, 17: 769-776.

Mientjes, E.J., K. Hochleitner, A. Luiten-Schuite, J.H. van Delft, J. Thomale, F. Berends, M.F. Rajewsky, P.H. Lohman and R.A. Baan (1996), "Formation and persistence of O6-ethylguanine in genomic and transgene DNA in liver and brain of lambda(lacZ) transgenic mice treated with N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea", Carcinogenesis, 17: 2449-2454.

Nehls, P., M.F. Rajewsky, E. Spiess, D. Werner (1984), "Highly sensitive sites for guanine-O6 ethylation in rat brain DNA exposed to N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea in vivo", EMBO J., 3:327-332.

Phillips, D.H., P.B. Farmer, F.A. Beland, R.G. Nath, M.C. Poirier, M.V. Reddy and K.W. Turteltaub (2000), "Methods of DNA adduct determination and their application to testing compounds for genotoxicity", Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 35: 222-233.

Scherer, E., A.A. Jenner and L. den Engelse (1987), "Immunocytochemical studies on the formation and repair of O6-alkylguanine in rat tissues", IARC Sci. Publ., 84: 55-58.

Sega, G.A., C.R. Rohrer, H.R. Harvey and A.E. Jetton (1986), "Chemical dosimetry of ethyl nitrosourea in the mouse testis", Mutat. Res., 159: 65-74.

Seiler, F., K. Kamino, M. Emura, U. Mohr and J. Thomale (1997), "Formation and persistence of the miscoding DNA alkylation product O6-ethylguanine in male germ cells of the hamster", Mutat. Res., 385: 205-211.

van Zeeland, A.A., A. de Groot and A. Neuhäuser-Klaus (1990), "DNA adduct formation in mouse testis by ethylating agents: a comparison with germ-cell mutagenesis", Mutat. Res. 231: 55-62.

Vogel, E.W., Ashby, J. (1994), "Structure-activity relationships: experimental approaches." In: Methods to asses DNA Damage and repair: Interspecies comparisons. Edited by R.T. Tardiff, P.H.M. Lohman and G.N. Wogan, SCOPE, Wiley and Sons LTD.

List of Key Events in the AOP

Event: 155: Inadequate DNA repair

Short Name: Inadequate DNA repair

Event Component

Process Object Action
DNA repair deoxyribonucleic acid abnormal

AOPs Including This Key Event

Stressors

Name
Ionizing Radiation

Biological Context

Level of Biological Organization
Cellular

Domain of Applicability

Taxonomic Applicability
Term Scientific Term Evidence Links
mouse Mus musculus High NCBI
rat Rattus norvegicus Moderate NCBI
Syrian golden hamster Mesocricetus auratus Moderate NCBI
Homo sapiens Homo sapiens High NCBI
cow Bos taurus Low NCBI
Life Stage Applicability
Life Stage Evidence
All life stages High
Sex Applicability
Sex Evidence
Unspecific High

The retention of adducts has been directly measured in many different types of eukaryotic somatic cells (in vitro and in vivo). In male germ cells, work has been done on hamsters, rats and mice. The accumulation of mutation and changes in mutation spectrum has been measured in mice and human cells in culture. Theoretically, saturation of DNA repair occurs in every species (prokaryotic and eukaryotic). The principles of this work were established in prokaryotic models. Nagel et al. (2014) have produced an assay that directly measures DNA repair in human cells in culture.

NHEJ is primarily used by vertebrate multicellular eukaryotes, but it also been observed in plants. Furthermore, it has recently been discovered that some bacteria (Matthews et al., 2014) and yeast (Emerson et al., 2016) also use NHEJ. In terms of invertebrates, most lack the core DNA-PKcs and Artemis proteins; they accomplish end joining by using the RA50:MRE11:NBS1 complex (Chen et al., 2001).  HR occurs naturally in eukaryotes, bacteria, and some viruses (Bhatti et al., 2016).

Taxonomic applicability: Inadequate DNA repair is applicable to all species, as they all contain DNA (White & Vijg, 2016).  

Life stage applicability: This key event is not life stage specific as any life stage can have poor repair, though as individuals age their repair process become less effective (Gorbunova & Seluanov, 2016). 

Sex applicability: There is no evidence of sex-specificity for this key event, with initial rate of DNA repair not significantly different between sexes (Trzeciak et al., 2008). 

Evidence for perturbation by a stressor: Multiple studies demonstrate that inadequate DNA repair can occur as a result of stressors such as ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, as well as chemical agents (Kuhne et al., 2005; Rydberg et al., 2005; Dahle et al., 2008; Seager et al., 2012; Wilhelm, 2014; O’Brien et al., 2015).  

Key Event Description

DNA lesions may result from the formation of DNA adducts (i.e., covalent modification of DNA by chemicals), or by the action of agents such as radiation that may produce strand breaks or modified nucleotides within the DNA molecule. These DNA lesions are repaired through several mechanistically distinct pathways that can be categorized as follows:

  1. Damage reversal acts to reverse the damage without breaking any bonds within the sugar phosphate backbone of the DNA. The most prominent enzymes associated with damage reversal are photolyases (Sancar, 2003) that can repair UV dimers in some organisms, and O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase (AGT) (Pegg 2011) and oxidative demethylases (Sundheim et al., 2008), which can repair some types of alkylated bases.
  2. Excision repair involves the removal of a damaged nucleotide(s) through cleavage of the sugar phosphate backbone followed by re-synthesis of DNA within the resultant gap. Excision repair of DNA lesions can be mechanistically divided into: 

    a) Base excision repair (BER) (Dianov and Hübscher, 2013), in which the damaged base is removed by a damage-specific glycosylase prior to incision of the phosphodiester backbone at the resulting abasic site. This leads to an intermediate that contains a DNA strand break, whereby DNA ligase is then recruited to seal the ends of the DNA.

    b) Nucleotide excision repair (NER) (Schärer, 2013), in which the DNA strand containing the damaged nucleotide is incised at sites several nucleotides 5’ and 3’ to the site of damage, and a polynucleotide containing the damaged nucleotide is removed prior to DNA resynthesis within the resultant gap and sealing of the ends by DNA ligase.  

    c) Mismatch repair (MMR) (Li et al., 2016)  which does not act on DNA lesions but does recognize mispaired bases resulting from replication errors. In MMR the strand containing the misincorporated base is removed prior to DNA resynthesis.

    The major pathway that removes oxidative DNA damage is base excision repair (BER), which can be either monofunctional or bifunctional; in mammals, a specific DNA glycosylase (OGG1: 8-Oxoguanine glycosylase) is responsible for excision of 8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG) and other oxidative lesions (Hu et al., 2005; Scott et al., 2014; Whitaker et al., 2017). We note that long-patch BER is used for the repair of clustered oxidative lesions, which uses several enzymes from DNA replication pathways (Klungland and Lindahl, 1997). These pathways are described in detail in various reviews e.g., (Whitaker et al., 2017). 

  3. Single strand break repair (SSBR) involves different proteins and enzymes depending on the origin of the SSB (e.g., produced as an intermediate in excision repair or due to direct chemical insult) but the same general steps of repair are taken for all SSBs: detection, DNA end processing, synthesis, and ligation (Caldecott, 2014). Poly-ADP-ribose polymerase1 (PARP1) detects and binds unscheduled SSBs (i.e., not deliberately induced during excision repair) and synthesizes PAR as a signal to the downstream factors in repair. PARP1 is not required to initiate SSBR of BER intermediates. The XRCC1 protein complex is then recruited to the site of damage where a common DNA intermediate as BER was generated, and acts as a scaffold for proteins and enzymes required for repair. Depending on the nature of the damaged termini of the DNA strand, different enzymes are required for end processing to generate the substrates that DNA polymerase β (Polβ; short patch repair) or Pol δ/ε (long patch repair) can bind to synthesize over the gap, although end processing is generally done by polynucleotide kinase. Synthesis in long-patch repair displaces a single stranded flap which is excised by flap endonuclease 1 (FEN1). In short-patch repair, the XRCC1/Lig3α complex joins the two ends after synthesis. In long-patch repair, the PCNA/Lig1 complex ligates the ends. (Caldecott, 2014). 
  4. Double strand break repair (DSBR) is necessary to preserve genomic integrity when breaks occur in both strands of a DNA molecule. There are two major pathways for DSBR: homologous recombination (HR), which operates primarily during the S phase of dividing cell types, and nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), which can function in both dividing and non-dividing cell types. No repair occurs in the M phase (Teruaki Iyama and David M. Wilson III, 2013). DNA repair in mitosis is controversial (Mladenov et al., 2023).

Complex lesions can be created by a single mutagen and can be more difficult to repair, as the mechanism behind how different repair pathways cooperate to address this is still unclear (Aleksandrov et al., 2018). In higher eukaryotes such as mammals, NHEJ is usually the preferred pathway for DNA DSBR. Its use, however, is dependent on the cell type, the gene locus, and the nuclease platform (Miyaoka et al., 2016). The use of NHEJ is also dependent on the cell cycle; NHEJ is generally not the pathway of choice when the cell is in the late S or G2 phase of the cell cycle, or in mitotic cells when the sister chromatid is directly adjacent to the double-strand break (DSB) (Lieber et al., 2003). In these cases, the HR pathway is commonly used for repair of DSBs. Despite this, NHEJ is still used more commonly than HR in human cells. Classical NHEJ (C-NHEJ) is the most common NHEJ repair mechanism, but alternative NHEJ (alt-NHEJ) can also occur, especially in the absence of C-NHEJ and HR.

The process of C-NHEJ in humans requires at least seven core proteins: Ku70, Ku86, DNA-dependent protein kinase complex (DNA-PKcs ), Artemis, X-ray cross-complementing protein 4 (XRCC4), XRCC4-like factor (XLF), and DNA ligase IV (Boboila et al., 2012). When DSBs occur, the Ku proteins, which have a high affinity for DNA ends, will bind to the break site and form a heterodimer. This protects the DNA from exonucleolytic attack and acts to recruit DNA-PKcs, the catalytic subunit, thus forming a trimeric complex on the ends of the DNA strands. Alternative NHEJ, or alt NHEJ, uses small similar sequences in two broken DNA ends to join them together. Unlike the usual repair method (cNHEJ), aNHEJ doesn't need specific proteins like LIG4 and KU. Instead, it relies on the MRN complex to process the breaks. However, alt NHEJ tends to cause mutations by adding or removing bits of DNA during the repair (Chaudhuri and Nussenzweig, 2017). The kinase activity of DNA-PKcs is then triggered, causing DNA-PKcs to auto-phosphorylate and thereby lose its kinase activity; the now phosphorylated DNA-PKcs dissociates from the DNA-bound Ku proteins. The free DNA-PKcs phosphorylates Artemis, an enzyme that possesses 5’-3’ exonuclease and endonuclease activity in the presence of DNA-PKcs and ATP. Artemis is responsible for ‘cleaning up’ the ends of the DNA. For 5’ overhangs, Artemis nicks the overhang, generally leaving a blunt duplex end. For 3’ overhangs, Artemis will often leave a four- or five-nucleotide single stranded overhang (Pardo et al., 2009; Fattah et al., 2010; Lieber et al., 2010). Next, the XLF and XRCC4 proteins form a complex which makes a channel to bind DNA and aligns the ends for efficient ligation via DNA ligase IV (Hammel et al., 2011).

The process of alt-NHEJ is less well understood than C-NHEJ and is a lower fidelity mechanism.  Alt-NHEJ is known to involve slightly different core proteins than C-NHEJ and required microhomology repeats, but the steps of the pathway are essentially the same between the two processes (reviewed in Chiruvella et al., 2013). It is established, however, that alt-NHEJ is more error-prone in nature than C-NHEJ, which contributes to incorrect DNA repair. Alt-NHEJ is thus considered primarily to be a backup repair mechanism (reviewed in Chiruvella et al., 2013). 

In contrast to NHEJ, HR takes advantage of similar or identical DNA sequences to repair DSBs and is not error-prone (Sung and Klein, 2006). The initiating step of HR is the creation of a 3’ single strand DNA (ss-DNA) overhang. Combinases such as RecA and Rad51 then bind to the ss-DNA overhang, and other accessory factors, including Rad54, help recognize and invade the homologous region on another DNA strand. From there, DNA polymerases are able to elongate the 3’ invading single strand and resynthesize the broken DNA strand using the corresponding sequence on the homologous strand.

 

Fidelity of DNA Repair


Most DNA repair pathways are extremely efficient. However, in principal, all DNA repair pathways can be overwhelmed when the DNA lesion burden exceeds the capacity of a given DNA repair pathway to recognize and remove the lesion. Exceeded repair capacity may lead to toxicity or mutagenesis following DNA damage. Apart from extremely high DNA lesion burden, inadequate repair may arise through several different specific mechanisms. For example, during repair of DNA containing O6-alkylguanine adducts, AGT irreversibly binds a single O6-alkylguanine lesion and as a result is inactivated (this is termed suicide inactivation, as its own action causes it to become inactivated). Thus, the capacity of AGT to carry out alkylation repair can become rapidly saturated when the DNA repair rate exceeds the de novo synthesis of AGT (Pegg, 2011).

A second mechanism relates to cell specific differences in the cellular levels or activity of some DNA repair proteins. For example, XPA is an essential component of the NER complex. The level of XPA that is active in NER is low in the testes, which may reduce the efficiency of NER in testes as compared to other tissues (Köberle et al., 1999). Likewise, both NER and BER have been reported to be deficient in cells lacking functional p53 (Adimoolam and Ford, 2003; Hanawalt et al., 2003; Seo and Jung, 2004). A third mechanism relates to the importance of the DNA sequence context of a lesion in its recognition by DNA repair enzymes. For example, 8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG) is repaired primarily by BER; the lesion is initially acted upon by a bifunctional glycosylase, OGG1, which carries out the initial damage recognition and excision steps of 8-oxoG repair. However, the rate of excision of 8-oxoG is modulated strongly by both chromatin components (Menoni et al., 2012) and DNA sequence context (Allgayer et al., 2013) leading to significant differences in the repair of lesions situated in different chromosomal locations.

DNA repair is also remarkably error-free. However, misrepair can arise during repair under some circumstances. DSBR is notably error prone, particularly when breaks are processed through NHEJ, during which partial loss of genome information is common at the site of the double strand break (Iyama and Wilson, 2013). This is because NHEJ rejoins broken DNA ends without the use of extensive homology; instead, it uses the microhomology present between the two ends of the DNA strand break to ligate the strand back into one. When the overhangs are not compatible, however, indels (insertion or deletion events), duplications, translocations, and inversions in the DNA can occur. These changes in the DNA may lead to significant issues within the cell, including alterations in the gene determinants for cellular fatality (Moore et al., 1996).

Activation of mutagenic DNA repair pathways to withstand cellular or replication stress either from endogenous or exogenous sources can promote cellular viability, albeit at a cost of increased genome instability and mutagenesis (Fitzgerald et al., 2017). These salvage DNA repair pathways including, Break-induced Replication (BIR) and Microhomology-mediated Break-induced Replication (MMBIR). BIR repairs one-ended DSBs and has been extensively studied in yeast as well as in mammalian systems. BIR and MMBIR are linked with heightened levels of mutagenesis, chromosomal rearrangements and ensuing genome instability (Deem et al., 2011; Sakofsky et al., 2015; Saini et al., 2017; Kramara et al., 2018). In mammalian genomes BIR-like synthesis has been proposed to be involved in late stage Mitotic DNA Synthesis (MiDAS) that predominantly occurs at so-called Common Fragile Sites (CFSs) and maintains telomere length under s conditions of replication stress that serve to promote cell viability (Minocherhomji et al., 2015; Bhowmick et al., 2016; Dilley et al., 2016).       

Misrepair may also occur through other repair pathways. Excision repair pathways require the resynthesis of DNA and rare DNA polymerase errors during gap resynthesis will result in mutations (Brown et al., 2011). Errors may also arise during gap resynthesis when the strand that is being used as a template for DNA synthesis contains DNA lesions (Kozmin and Jinks-Robertson, 2013). In addition, it has been shown that sequences that contain tandemly repeated sequences, such as CAG triplet repeats, are subject to expansion during gap resynthesis that occurs during BER of 8-oxoG damage (Liu et al., 2009).

How it is Measured or Detected

There is no test guideline for this event. The event is usually inferred from measuring the retention of DNA adducts or the creation of mutations as a measure of lack of repair or incorrect repair. These ‘indirect’ measures of its occurrence are crucial to determining the mechanisms of genotoxic chemicals and for regulatory applications (i.e., determining the best approach for deriving a point of departure). More recently, a fluorescence-based multiplex flow-cytometric host cell reactivation assay (FM-HCR) has been developed to directly measure the ability of human cells to repair plasmid reporters (Nagel et al., 2014).

Indirect Measurement

In somatic and spermatogenic cells, measurement of DNA repair is usually inferred by measuring DNA adduct formation/removal. Insufficient repair is inferred from the retention of adducts and from increasing adduct formation with dose. Insufficient DNA repair is also measured by the formation of increased numbers of mutations and alterations in mutation spectrum. The methods will be specific to the type of DNA adduct that is under study.

Some EXAMPLES are given below for alkylated DNA.

DOSE-RESPONSE CURVE FOR ALKYL ADDUCTS/MUTATIONS: It is important to consider that some adducts are not mutagenic at all because they are very effectively repaired. Others are effectively repaired, but if these repair processes become overwhelmed mutations begin to occur. The relationship (shape of dose-response curve) between exposure to mutagenic agents and mutations provide an indication of whether the removal of adducts occurs, and whether it is more efficient at low doses. Sub-linear dose-response curves (hockey stick or j-shape curves) for mutation induction indicates that adducts are not converted to mutations at low doses. This suggests the effective repair of adducts at low doses, followed by saturation of repair at higher doses (Clewell et al., 2019). Thus, measurement of a clear point of inflection in the dose-response curve for mutations suggests that repair does occur, at least to some extent, at low dosees but that reduced repair efficiency arises above the inflection point. A lack of increase in mutation frequencies (i.e., flat line for dose-response) for a compound showing a dose-dependent increase in adducts would imply that the adducts formed are either not mutagenic or are effectively repaired.

RETENTION OF ALKYL ADDUCTS: Alkylated DNA can be found in cells long after exposure has occurred. This indicates that repair has not effectively removed the adducts. For example, DNA adducts have been measured in hamster and rat spermatogonia several days following exposure to alkylating agents, indicating lack of repair (Seiler et al., 1997; Scherer et al., 1987).

MUTATION SPECTRUM: Shifts in mutation spectrum (i.e., the specific changes in the DNA sequence) following a chemical exposure (relative to non-exposed mutation spectrum) indicates that repair was not operating effectively to remove specific types of lesions. The shift in mutation spectrum is indicative of the types of DNA lesions (target nucleotides and DNA sequence context) that were not repaired. For example, if a greater proportion of mutations occur at guanine nucleotides in exposed cells, it can be assumed that the chemical causes DNA adducts on guanine that are not effectively repaired.


Direct Measurement

Nagel et al. (2014) we developed a fluorescence-based multiplex flow-cytometric host cell reactivation assay (FM-HCR) to measures the ability of human cells to repair plasmid reporters. These reporters contain different types and amounts of DNA damage and can be used to measure repair through by NER, MMR, BER, NHEJ, HR and MGMT.

Please refer to the table below for additional details and methodologies for detecting DNA damage and repair.

Assay Name References Description DNA Damage/Repair Being Measured OECD Approved Assay
Dose-Response Curve for Alkyl Adducts/ Mutations

Lutz 1991

 

Clewell 2016

Creation of a curve plotting the stressor dose and the abundance of adducts/mutations; Characteristics of the resulting curve can provide information on the efficiency of DNA repair

Alkylation,

oxidative damage, or DSBs

N/A
Retention of Alkyl Adducts

Seiler 1997

 

Scherer 1987

Examination of DNA for alkylation after exposure to an alkylating agent; Presence of alkylation suggests a lack of repair Alkylation N/A
Mutation Spectrum Wyrick 2015 Shifts in the mutation spectrum after exposure to a chemical/mutagen relative to an unexposed subject can provide an indication of DNA repair efficiency, and can inform as to the type of DNA lesions present

Alkylation,

oxidative damage, or DSBs

N/A
DSB Repair Assay (Reporter constructs) Mao et al., 2011 Transfection of a GFP reporter construct (and DsRed control) where the GFP signal is only detected if the DSB is repaired; GFP signal  is quantified using fluorescence microscopy or flow cytometry DSBs N/A
Primary Rat Hepatocyte DNA Repair Assay

Jeffrey and Williams, 2000

 

Butterworth et al., 1987

Rat primary hepatocytes are cultured with a 3H-thymidine solution in order to measure DNA synthesis in response to a stressor in non-replicating cells; Autoradiography is used to measure the amount of 3H incorporated in the DNA post-repair Unscheduled DNA synthesis in response to DNA damage N/A
Repair synthesis measurement by 3H-thymine incorporation Iyama and Wilson, 2013 Measure DNA synthesis in non-dividing cells as indication of gap filling during excision repair Excision repair N/A
Comet Assay with Time-Course

Olive et al., 1990

 

Trucco et al., 1998

-

Dunkenberger et al., 2022 

Comet assay is performed with a time-course under alkaline conditions to detect SSBs and DSBs. Quantity of DNA in the tail should decrease as DNA repair progresses DSBs  Yes (No. 489)
Flow Cytometry    Corneo et al., 2007    The alt-NHEJ flow cytometer method involves utilizing an extrachromosomal substrate. Green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression is indicative of successful alt-NHEJ activity, contingent on the removal of 10 nucleotides from each end of the DNA and subsequent rejoining within a 9-nucleotide microhomology region. This approach provides a quantitative and visual means to measure the efficiency of alternative non-homologous end joining in cellular processes.    Alt NHEJ No
Pulsed Field Gel Electro-phoresis (PFGE) with Time-Course Biedermann et al., 1991 PFGE assay with a time-course; Quantity of small DNA fragments should decrease as DNA repair  progresses DSBs N/A

Fluorescence -Based Multiplex Flow-Cytometric Host Reactivation Assay

(FM-HCR)

Nagel et al., 2014 Measures the ability of human cells to repair plasma reporters, which contain different types and amounts of DNA damage; Used to measure repair processes including HR, NHEJ, BER, NER, MMR, and MGMT HR, NHEJ, BER, NER, MMR, or MGMT N/A
Alkaline Unwinding Assay with Time Course  Nacci et al. 1991  DNA is stored in alkaline solutions with DNA-specific dye and allowed to unwind following removal from tissue, increased strand damage associated with increased unwinding. Samples analyzed at different time points to compare remaining damage following repair opportunities  DSBs  Yes (No. 489) 
Sucrose Density Gradient Centrifugation with Time Course  Larsen et al. 1982  Strand breaks alter the molecular weight of the DNA piece. DNA in alkaline solution centrifuged into sugar density gradient, repeated set time apart. The less DNA breaks identified in the assay repeats, the more repair occurred  SSBs  N/A
y-H2AX Foci Staining with Time Course 

Mariotti et al. 2013 

Penninckx et al. 2021 

Histone H2AX is phosphorylated in the presence of DNA strand breaks, the rate of its disappearance over time is used as a measure of DNA repair  DSBs  N/A
Alkaline Elution Assay with Time Course  Larsen et al. 1982  DNA with strand breaks elute faster than DNA without, plotted against time intervals to determine the rate at which strand breaks repair  SSBs  N/A
53BP1 foci Detection with Time Course  Penninckx et al. 2021  53BP1 is recruited to the site of DNA damage, the rate at which its level decreases over time is used to measure DNA repair  DSBs N/A 

 

References

Adimoolam, S. & J.M. Ford (2003), "p53 and regulation of DNA damage recognition during nucleotide excision repair" DNA Repair (Amst), 2(9): 947-54.

Aleksandrov, Radoslav et al. (2018), “Protein Dynamics in Complex DNA Lesions.” Molecular cell,69(6): 1046-1061.e5. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2018.02.016 

Allgayer, J. et al. (2013), "Modulation of base excision repair of 8-oxoguanine by the nucleotide sequence", Nucleic Acids Res, 41(18): 8559-8571. Doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt620.

Beranek, D.T. (1990), "Distribution of methyl and ethyl adducts following alkylation with monofunctional alkylating agents", Mutation Research, 231(1): 11-30. Doi: 10.1016/0027-5107(90)90173-2.

Bhatti, A. et al., (2016), “Homologous Recombination Biology.”, Encyclopedia Britannica.

Bhowmick, R., S. et al. (2016), "RAD52 Facilitates Mitotic DNA Synthesis Following Replication Stress", Mol Cell, 64:1117-1126. Doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.10.037.

Biedermann, A. K. et al. (1991), “SCID mutation in mice confers hypersensitivity to ionizing radiation and a deficiency in DNA double-strand break repair”, Cell Biology, 88(4): 1394-7. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.4.1394.

Boboila, C., F. W. Alt & B. Schwer. (2012), “Classical and alternative end-joining pathways for repair of lymphocyte-specific and general DNA double-strand breaks.” Adv Immunol, 116, 1-49. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394300-2.00001-6

Bronstein, S.M. et al. (1991), "Toxicity, mutagenicity, and mutational spectra of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea in human cell lines with different DNA repair phenotypes", Cancer Research, 51(19): 5188-5197.

Bronstein, S.M. et al. (1992), "Efficient repair of O6-ethylguanine, but not O4-ethylthymine or O2-ethylthymine, is dependent upon O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase and nucleotide excision repair activities in human cells", Cancer Research, 52(7): 2008-2011. 

Brown, J.A. et al. (2011), "Efficiency and fidelity of human DNA polymerases λ and β during gap-filling DNA synthesis", DNA Repair (Amst)., 10(1):24-33.

Butterworth, E. B. et al., (1987), A protocol and guide for the in vitro rat hepatocyte DNA-repair assay. Mutation Research. 189, 113-21. Doi: 10.1016/0165-1218(87)90017-6.

Caldecott, K. W. (2014), "DNA single-strand break repair", Exp Cell Res, 329(1): 2-8.

Chaudhuri, R.A. and Nussenzweig, A. (2017), “The multifaceted roles of PARP1 in DNA repair and chromatin remodelling”. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18, 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.53   

Chen, L. et al., (2001), Promotion of DNA ligase IV-catalyzed DNA end-joining by the Rad50/Mre11/Xrs2 and Hdf1/Hdf2 complexes. Mol Cell. 8(5), 1105-15.

Chiruvella, K. K., Z. Liang & T. E. Wilson, (2013), Repair of Double-Strand Breaks by End Joining. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 5(5):127-57. Doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012757.

Clewell, R. A. et al. (2019). “Dose-dependence of chemical carcinogenicity: Biological mechanisms for thresholds and implications for risk assessment”. Chem Biol Interact. 2019 Mar 1;301:112-127. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2019.01.025. 

Corneo, B. et al., 2007, "Rag mutations reveal robust alternative end joining”. Nature 449, 483–486 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06168   

Dahle, J., et al. (2008), “Overexpression of human OGG1 in mammalian cells decreases ultraviolet A induced mutagenesis”, Cancer Letters, Vol.267, Elsevier, Amsterdam, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2008.03.002. 

Deem, A. et al. (2011), "Break-Induced Replication Is Highly Inaccurate.", PLoS Biol.  9:e1000594. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000594.

Dianov, G.L. & U. Hübscher (2013), "Mammalian base excision repair: the forgotten archangel", Nucleic Acids Res., 41(6):3483-90. Doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt076.

Dilley, R.L. et al.  Greenberg (2016), "Break-induced telomere synthesis underlies alternative telomere maintenance", Nature, 539:54-58. Doi: 10.1038/nature20099.

Douglas, G.R. et al.  (1995), "Temporal and molecular characteristics of mutations induced by ethylnitrosourea in germ cells isolated from seminiferous tubules and in spermatozoa of lacZ transgenic mice", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92(16):7485-7489. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.16.7485.

Dunkenberger, Logan et al. (2022), “Comet Assay for the Detection of Single and Double-Strand DNA Breaks.” Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2422: 263-269. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1948-3_18 

Fattah, F. et al., (2010), Ku regulates the non-homologous end joining pathway choice of DNA double-strand break repair in human somatic cells. PLoS Genet, 6(2), doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000855

Fitzgerald, D.M., P.J. Hastings, and S.M. Rosenberg (2017), "Stress-Induced Mutagenesis: Implications in Cancer and Drug Resistance", Ann Rev Cancer Biol, 1:119-140. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-050216-121919.

Gorbunova, V. and A. Seluanov. (2016), “DNA double strand break repair, aging and the chromatin connection”, Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, Vol.788/1-2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2016.02.004. 

Hammel, M. et al., (2011), XRCC4 protein interactions with XRCC4-like factor (XLF) create an extended grooved scaffold for DNA ligation and double strand break repair. J Biol Chem, 286(37), 32638-32650. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.272641.

Hanawalt, P.C., J.M. Ford and D.R. Lloyd (2003), "Functional characterization of global genomic DNA repair and its implications for cancer", Mutation Research, 544(2-3): 107–114.

Harbach, P. R. et al., (1989), “The in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay in rat primary hepatocytes”, Mutation Research, 216(2):101-10. Doi:10.1016/0165-1161(89)90010-1.

Iyama, T. and D.M. Wilson III (2013), "DNA repair mechanisms in dividing and non-dividing cells", DNA Repair, 12(8): 620– 636.

Jeffrey, M. A.& M. G. Williams, (2000), “Lack of DNA-damaging Activity of Five Non-nutritive Sweeteners in the Rat Hepatocyte/DNA Repair Assay”,  Food and Chemical Toxicology, 38: 335-338. Doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00163-5.

Köberle, B. et al. (1999), "Defective repair of cisplatin-induced DNA damage caused by reduced XPA protein in testicular germ cell tumours", Curr. Biol., 9(5):273-6. Doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(99)80118-3.

Kozmin, S.G. & S. Jinks-Robertson S. (2013), “The mechanism of nucleotide excision repair-mediated UV-induced mutagenesis in nonproliferating cells”, Genetics, 193(3): 803-17. Doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.147421.

Kramara, J., B. Osia, and A. Malkova (2018), "Break-Induced Replication: The Where, The Why, and The How", Trends Genet, 34:518-531. Doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2018.04.002.

Kuhne, M., G. Urban and M. Lo (2005), "DNA Double-Strand Break Misrejoining after Exposure of Primary Human Fibroblasts to CK Characteristic X Rays, 29 kVp X Rays and 60Co γ Rays", Radiation. Research, Vol.164/5, Radiation Research Society, Indianapolis, https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3461.1. 

Larsen, K.H. et al. (1982), “DNA repair assays as tests for environmental mutagens: A report of the U.S. EPA gene-tox program”, Mutation Research, Vol.98/3, Elsevier, Amsterdam, https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1110(82)90037-9. 

Li Z, A. H. Pearlman, and P. Hsieh (2016), "DNA mismatch repair and the DNA damage response", DNA Repair (Amst), 38:94-101.

Lieber, M. R., (2010), “The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway.” Annu Rev Biochem. 79:181-211. doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.052308.093131.

Lieber, M. R. et al., (2003), “Mechanism and regulation of human non-homologous DNA end-joining”, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 4(9):712-720. doi:10.1038/nrm1202.

Liu, Y. et al. (2009), "Coordination between polymerase beta and FEN1 can modulate CAG repeat expansion", J. Biol. Chem., 284(41): 28352-28366. Doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.050286.

Mao, Z. et al., (2011), “SIRT6 promotes DNA repair under stress by activating PARP1”, Science. 332(6036): 1443-1446. doi:10.1126/science.1202723.

Mariotti, L.G. et al. (2013), “Use of the γ-H2AX Assay to Investigate DNA Repair Dynamics Following Multiple Radiation Exposures”, PLoS ONE, Vol.8/11, PLoS, San Francisco, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079541. 

Matthews, L. A., & L. A. Simmons, (2014), “Bacterial nonhomologous end joining requires teamwork”, J Bacteriol. 196(19): 3363-3365. doi:10.1128/JB.02042-14.

Menoni, H. et al. (2012), "Base excision repair of 8-oxoG in dinucleosomes", Nucleic Acids Res. ,40(2): 692-700. Doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr761.

Minocherhomji, S. et al. (2015), "Replication stress activates DNA repair synthesis in mitosis", Nature, 528:286-290. Doi: 10.1038/nature16139.

Miyaoka, Y. et al., (2016), “Systematic quantification of HDR and NHEJ reveals effects of locus, nuclease, and cell type on genome-editing”, Sci Rep, 6, 23549. doi:10.1038/srep23549/.

Mladenov. et al.  (2023), . “New Facets of DNA Double Strand Break Repair: Radiation Dose as Key Determinant of HR versus c-NHEJ Engagement”. International journal of molecular sciences, 24(19), 14956. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241914956 

Moore, J. K., & J. E. Haber, (1996), “Cell cycle and genetic requirements of two pathways of nonhomologous end-joining repair of double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae”, Molecular and Cellular Biology, 16(5), 2164–73.  Doi: 10.1128/MCB.16.5.2164.

Nacci, D. et al. (1992), “Application of the DNA alkaline unwinding assay to detect DNA strand breaks in marine bivalves”, Marine Environmental Research, Vol.33/2, Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-1136(92)90134-8. 

Nagel, Z.D. et al. (2014), "Multiplexed DNA repair assays for multiple lesions and multiple doses via transcription inhibition and transcriptional mutagenesis", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111(18):E1823-32. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1401182111.

O’Brien, J.M. et al. (2015), "Sublinear response in lacZ mutant frequency of Muta™ Mouse spermatogonial stem cells after low dose subchronic exposure to N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea", Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 56(4): 347-55. Doi: 10.1002/em.21932.

Olive, L. P., J. P. Bnath & E. R. Durand, (1990), “Heterogeneity in Radiation-Induced DNA Damage and Repairing Tumor and Normal Cells Measured Using the "Comet" Assay”, Radiation Research. 122: 86-94. Doi: 10.1667/rrav04.1.

Pardo, B., B. Gomez-Gonzalez & A. Aguilera, (2009), “DNA repair in mammalian cells: DNA double-strand break repair: how to fix a broken relationship”, Cell Mol Life Sci, 66(6), 1039-1056. doi:10.1007/s00018-009-8740-3.

Pegg, A.E. (2011), "Multifaceted roles of alkyltransferase and related proteins in DNA repair, DNA damage, resistance to chemotherapy, and research tools", Chem. Res. Toxicol., 4(5): 618-39. Doi: 10.1021/tx200031q.

Penninckx, S. et al. (2021), “Quantification of radiation-induced DNA double strand break repair foci to evaluate and predict biological responses to ionizing radiation”, NAR Cancer, Vol.3/4, Oxford University Press, Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/narcan/zcab046. 

Rydberg, B. et al. (2005), "Dose-Dependent Misrejoining of Radiation-Induced DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Human Fibroblasts: Experimental and Theoretical Study for High- and Low-LET Radiation", Radiation Research, Vol.163/5, Radiation Research Society, Indianapolis, https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3346.  

Sancar, A. (2003), "Structure and function of DNA photolyase and cryptochrome blue-light photoreceptors", Chem Rev., 103(6): 2203-37. Doi: 10.1021/cr0204348.

Saini, N. et al. (2017), "Migrating bubble during break-induced replication drives conservative DNA synthesis", Nature, 502:389-392. Doi: 10.1038/nature12584.

Sakofsky, C.J. et al. (2015), "Translesion Polymerases Drive Microhomology-Mediated Break-Induced Replication Leading to Complex Chromosomal Rearrangements", Mol Cell, 60:860-872. Doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.041.

Schärer, O.D. (2013), "Nucleotide excision repair in eukaryotes", Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 5(10): a012609. Doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012609.

Scherer, E., A.A. Jenner and L. den Engelse (1987), "Immunocytochemical studies on the formation and repair of O6-alkylguanine in rat tissues", IARC Sci Publ., 84: 55-8.

Seiler, F., K. Kamino, M. Emura, U. Mohr and J. Thomale (1997), "Formation and persistence of the miscoding DNA alkylation product O6-ethylguanine in male germ cells of the hamster", Mutat Res., 385(3): 205-211. Doi: 10.1016/s0921-8777(97)00043-8.

Shelby, M.D. and K.R. Tindall (1997), "Mammalian germ cell mutagenicity of ENU, IPMS and MMS, chemicals selected for a transgenic mouse collaborative study", Mutation Research, 388(2-3): 99-109. Doi: 10.1016/s1383-5718(96)00106-4.

Seo, Y.R. and H.J. Jung (2004), "The potential roles of p53 tumor suppressor in nucleotide excision repair (NER) and base excision repair (BER)", Exp. Mol. Med., 36(6): 505-509. Doi: 10.1038/emm.2004.64.

Sundheim, O. et al. (2008), "AlkB demethylases flip out in different ways", DNA Repair (Amst)., 7(11): 1916-1923. Doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2008.07.015.

Sung, P., & H. Klein, (2006), “Mechanism of homologous recombination: mediators and helicases take on regulatory functions”,  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 7(10), 739-750. Doi:10. 1038/nrm2008.

Trucco, C., et al., (1998), “DNA repair defect i poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-deficient cell lines”, Nucleic Acids Research. 26(11): 2644–2649. Doi: 10.1093/nar/26.11.2644.

Trzeciak, A.R. et al. (2008), “Age, sex, and race influence single-strand break repair capacity in a human population”, Free Radical Biology & Medicine, Vol. 45, Elsevier, Amsterdam, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.08.031. 

White, R.R. and J. Vijg. (2016), “Do DNA Double-Strand Breaks Drive Aging?”, Molecular Cell, Vol.63, Elsevier, Amsterdam, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.08.004. 

Wyrick, J.J. & S. A. Roberts, (2015), “Genomic approaches to DNA repair and mutagenesis”, DNA Repair (Amst). 36:146-155. doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.018.

van Zeeland, A.A., A. de Groot and A. Neuhäuser-Klaus (1990), "DNA adduct formation in mouse testis by ethylating agents: a comparison with germ-cell mutagenesis", Mutat. Res., 231(1): 55-62.

Event: 1635: Increase, DNA strand breaks

Short Name: Increase, DNA strand breaks

Event Component

Process Object Action
DNA Strand Break Deoxyribonucleic acid increased

AOPs Including This Key Event

Stressors

Name
Ionizing Radiation
Topoisomerase inhibitors
Radiomimetic compounds

Biological Context

Level of Biological Organization
Molecular

Domain of Applicability

Taxonomic Applicability
Term Scientific Term Evidence Links
human and other cells in culture human and other cells in culture NCBI
Life Stage Applicability
Life Stage Evidence
All life stages High
Sex Applicability
Sex Evidence
Unspecific High

Taxonomic applicability: DNA strand breaks are relevant to all species, including vertebrates such as humans, that contain DNA (Cannan & Pederson, 2016).  

Life stage applicability: This key event is not life stage specific as all life stages display strand breaks. However, there is an increase in baseline levels of DNA strand breaks seen in older individuals though it is unknown whether this change due to increased break induction or a greater retention of breaks due to poor repair (White & Vijg, 2016). 

Sex applicability: This key event is not sex specific as both sexes display evidence of strand breaks. In some cell types, such as peripheral blood mononuclear cells, males show higher levels of single strand breaks than females (Garm et al., 2012). 

Evidence for perturbation by a stressor: There are studies demonstrating that increased DNA strand breaks can result from exposure to multiple stressor types including ionizing & non-ionizing radiation, chemical agents, and oxidizing agents (EPRI, 2014; Hamada, 2014; Cencer et al., 2018; Cannan & Pederson, 2016; Yang et al., 1998).  

Key Event Description

DNA strand breaks are a type of damage resulting from the hydrolysis of phosphodiester groups in the backbone of DNA molecules (Gates, 2009) and can occur on a single strand (single strand breaks; SSBs) or both strands (double strand breaks; DSBs). SSBs arise when the sugar phosphate backbones connecting adjacent nucleotides in DNA are simultaneously hydrolyzed such that the hydrogen bonds between complementary bases are not able to hold the two strands together. DSBs are generated when both strands are simultaneously broken at sites that are sufficiently close to one another that base-pairing and chromatin structure are insufficient to keep the two DNA ends juxtaposed. As a consequence, the two DNA ends generated by a DSB can physically dissociate from one another, becoming difficult to repair and increasing the chance of inappropriate recombination with other sites in the genome (Jackson, 2002). SSB can turn into DSB if the replication fork stalls at the lesion leading to fork collapse. Strand breaks are intermediates in various biological events, including DNA repair (e.g., excision repair), as well as other normal cellular processes where DSBs act as genetic shufflers to generate genetic diversity for V(D)J recombination in lymphoid cells, and chromatin remodeling in both somatic cells and germ cells, and meiotic recombination in gametes. 

Strand breaks are intermediates in various biological events, including DNA repair (e.g., excision repair), V(D)J recombination in developing lymphoid cells and chromatin remodeling in both somatic cells and germ cells. The spectrum of damage can be complex, particularily if the stressor is from large amounts of deposited energy which can result in complex lesions and clustered damage defined as two or more oxidized bases, abasic sites or strand breaks on opposing DNA strands within a few helical turns. These lesions are more difficult to repair and have been studied in many types of models (Barbieri et al., 2019 and Asaithamby et al., 2011). DSBs and complex lesions are of particular concern, as they are considered the most lethal and deleterious type of DNA lesion. If misrepaired or left unrepaired, DSBs may drive the cell towards genomic instability, apoptosis or tumorigenesis (Beir, 1999). 

How it is Measured or Detected

Please refer to the table below for details regarding these and other methodologies for detecting DNA DSBs. 

Method of Measurement  

References  

Description  

OECD Approved Method? 

Comet Assay (Single Cell Gel Eletrophoresis - Alkaline)  

Collins, 2004; Olive and Banath, 2006; Platel et al., 2011; Nikolova et al., 2017  

To detect SSBs or DSBs, single cells are encapsulated in agarose on a slide, lysed, and subjected to gel electrophoresis at an alkaline pH (pH >13); DNA fragments are forced to move, forming a "comet"-like appearance  

Yes 

γ-H2AX Foci Quantification - Flow Cytometry  

Rothkamm and Horn, 2009; Bryce et al., 2016  

Measurement of γ-H2AX immunostaining in cells by flow cytometry, normalized to total levels of H2AX  

No 

γ-H2AX Foci Quantification - Western Blot  

Burma et al., 2001; Revet et al., 2011  

Measurement of γ-H2AX immunostaining in cells by Western blotting, normalized to total levels of H2AX  

No 

γ-H2AX Foci Quantification - Microscopy  

Redon et al., 2010; Mah et al., 2010; Garcia-Canton et al., 2013  

Quantification of γ-H2AX immunostaining by counting γ-H2AX foci visualized with a microscope  

No 

γ-H2AX Foci Quantification - ELISA  

Ji et al., 2017  

Measurement of γ-H2AX in cells by ELISA, normalized to total levels of H2AX  

No 

Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE)  

Ager et al., 1990; Gardiner et al., 1985; Herschleb et al., 2007; Kawashima et al., 2017  

To detect DSBs, cells are embedded and lysed in agarose, and the released DNA undergoes gel electrophoresis in which the direction of the voltage is periodically alternated; Large DNA fragments are thus able to be separated by size  

No 

The TUNEL (Terminal Deoxynucleotidyl Transferase dUTP Nick End Labeling) Assay  

Loo, 2011  

To detect strand breaks, dUTPs added to the 3’OH end of a strand break by the DNA polymerase terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) are tagged with a fluorescent dye or a reporter enzyme to allow visualization  

No 

In Vitro DNA Cleavage Assays using Topoisomerase  

Nitiss, 2012  

Cleavage of DNA can be achieved using purified topoisomerase; DNA strand breaks can then be separated and quantified using gel electrophoresis  

No 

PCR assay 

Figueroa‑González & Pérez‑Plasencia, 2017 

Assay of strand breaks through the observation of DNA amplification prevention. Breaks block Taq polymerase, reducing the number of DNA templates, preventing amplification 

No 

Sucrose density gradient centrifuge 

Raschke et al. 2009 

Division of DNA pieces by density, increased fractionation leads to lower density pieces, with the use of a sucrose cushion 

No 

Alkaline Elution Assay 

Kohn, 1991 

Cells lysed with detergent-solution, filtered through membrane to remove all but intact DNA 

No 

Unwinding Assay 

Nacci et al. 1992 

DNA is stored in alkaline solutions with DNA-specific dye and allowed to unwind following removal from tissue, increased strand damage associated with increased unwinding 

Yes 

STRIDE assay 

Zilio and Ulrich, 2021 

STRIDE (SensiTive Recognition of Individual DNA Ends) combines in situ nick translation with the proximity ligation assay (PLA) to detect single-strand breaks (sSTRIDE) or double-strand breaks (dSTRIDE). In this process, lesions labeled through nick translation with biotinylated nucleotides are identified by a PLA signal, which arises from the interaction of two anti-biotin antibodies from different species. 

 

No 

sBLISS 

Bouwmann et al. 2020 

sBLISS (in-suspension breaks labeling in situ and sequencing)  labels double-strand breaks (DSBs) in cells immobilized on glass coverslips, using double-stranded oligonucleotide adaptors that facilitate selective linear amplification through T7-mediated in vitro transcription (IVT), followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) library preparation 

 

No 

References

Ager, D. D., et al. (1990). Measurement of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Radiation research, 122/(2), 181–187. 

Anderson, D. & Laubenthal J. (2013), “Analysis of DNA Damage via Single-Cell Electrophoresis. In: Makovets S, editor. DNA Electrophoresis. Totowa.”, NJ: Humana Press. p 209-218. 

Asaithamby, A., B. Hu and D.J. Chen. (2011) “Unrepaired clustered DNA lesions induce chromosome breakage in human cells.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(20): 8293-8298 . 

Barbieri, S., G. Babini, J. Morini et a l (2019). . Predicting DNA damage foci and their experimental readout with 2D microscopy: a unified approach applied to photon and neutron exposures. Scientific Reports 9(1): 14019 

Bouwman, B. et al. (2020), “Genome-wide detection of DNA double-strand breaks by in-suspension BLISS”, Nature protocols,.15/12, Springer Nature, London, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0397-2  

Bryce, S. et al. (2016), “Genotoxic mode of action predictions from a multiplexed flow cytometric assay and a machine learning approach.”, Environ Mol Mutagen. 57:171-189. Doi: 10.1002/em.21996. 

Burma, S. et al. (2001), “ATM phosphorylates histone H2AX in response to DNA double-strand breaks.”, J Biol Chem, 276(45): 42462-42467. doi:10.1074/jbc.C100466200 

Cannan, W.J. and D.S. Pederson (2016), "Mechanisms and Consequences of Double-Strand DNA Break Formation in Chromatin.", Journal of Cellular Physiology, Vol.231(/1), Wiley, New York, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.25048.  

Cencer, C. et al. (2018), “PARP-1/PAR Activity in Cultured Human Lens Epithelial Cells Exposed to Two Levels of UVB Light”, Photochemistry and Photobiology, Vol.(94/1), Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, https://doi.org/10.1111/php.12814.  

Charlton, E. D. et al. (1989), “Calculation of Initial Yields of Single and Double Stranded Breaks in Cell Nuclei from Electrons, Protons, and Alpha Particles.”, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 56(1): 1-19. doi: 10.1080/09553008914551141. 

Collins, R. A. (2004), “The Comet Assay for DNA Damage and Repair. Molecular Biotechnology.”, Mol Biotechnol. 26(3): 249-61. doi:10.1385/MB:26:3:249 

EPRI (2014), Epidemiology and mechanistic effects of radiation on the lens of the eye: Review and scientific appraisal of the literature, EPRI, California. 

Figueroa‑González, G. and C. Pérez‑Plasencia. (2017), “Strategies for the evaluation of DNA damage and repair mechanisms in cancer”, Oncology Letters, Vol.133(/6), Spandidos Publications, Athens, https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6002. 

Garcia-Canton, C. et al. (2013), “Assessment of the in vitro p-H2AX assay by High Content Screening asa novel genotoxicity test.”, Mutat Res. 757:158-166. Doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.08.002 

Gardiner, K. et al. (1986), “Fractionation of Large Mammalian DNA Restriction Fragments Using Vertical Pulsed-Field Gradient Gel Electrophoresis.”, Somatic Cell and Molecular Genetics. 12(2): 185-95.Doi: 10.1007/bf01560665. 

Garm, C. et al. (2012), “Age and gender effects on DNA strand break repair in peripheral blood mononuclear cells”, Aging Cell, Vol.12/1, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12019. 

Hamada, N. (2014), “What are the intracellular targets and intratissue target cells for radiation effects?”, Radiation research, Vol. 181/1, The Radiation Research Society, Indianapolis, https://doi.org/10.1667/RR13505.1. 

Herschleb, J. et al. (2007), “Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.”, Nat Protoc. 2(3): 677-684. doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.94 

Iliakis, G. et al. (2015), “Alternative End-Joining Repair Pathways Are the Ultimate Backup for Abrogated Classical Non-Homologous End-Joining and Homologous Recombination Repair: Implications for the Formation of Chromosome Translocations.”, Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 2(3): 677-84. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2007.94 

Jackson, S. (2002). “Sensing and repairing DNA double-strand breaks.”, Carcinogenesis. 23:687-696. Doi:10.1093/carcin/23.5.687. 

Ji, J. et al. (2017), “Phosphorylated fraction of H2AX as a measurement for DNA damage in cancer cells and potential applications of a novel assay.”, PLoS One. 12(2): e0171582. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171582 

Kawashima, Y.(2017), “Detection of DNA double-strand breaks by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.”, Genes Cells 22:84-93. Doi: 10.1111/gtc.12457. 

Khoury, L. et al. (2013), “Validation of high-throughput genotoxicity assay screening using cH2AX in-cell Western assay on HepG2 cells.”, Environ Mol Mutagen, 54:737-746. Doi: 10.1002/em.21817. 

Khoury, L. et al. (2016), “Evaluation of four human cell lines with distinct biotransformation properties for genotoxic screening.”, Mutagenesis, 31:83-96. Doi: 10.1093/mutage/gev058

Kohn, K.W. (1991), “Principles and practice of DNA filter elution”, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Vol.49(/1), Elsevier, Amsterdam, https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-7258(91)90022-E. 

Loo, DT. (2011), “In Situ Detection of Apoptosis by the TUNEL Assay: An Overview of Techniques. In: Didenko V, editor. DNA Damage Detection In Situ, Ex Vivo, and In Vivo. Totowa.”, NJ: Humana Press. p 3-13.doi: 10.1007/978-1-60327-409-8_1

Mah, L. J. et al. (2010), “Quantification of gammaH2AX foci in response to ionising radiation.”, J Vis Exp(38). doi:10.3791/1957. 

Nacci, D. et al. (1992), “Application of the DNA alkaline unwinding assay to detect DNA strand breaks in marine bivalves”, Marine Environmental Research, Vol.33(/2), Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-1136(92)90134-8. 

Nikolova, T., F. et al. (2017), “Genotoxicity testing: Comparison of the γH2AX focus assay with the alkaline and neutral comet assays.”, Mutat Res 822:10-18. Doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2017.07.004

Nitiss, J. L. et al. (2012), “Topoisomerase assays. ”, Curr Protoc Pharmacol. Chapter 3: Unit 3 3. 

OECD. (2014). Test No. 489: “In vivo mammalian alkaline comet assay.” OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4 . 

Olive, P. L., & Banáth, J. P. (2006), “The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells.”, Nature Protocols. 1(1): 23-29. doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.5. 

Platel A. et al. (2011), “Study of oxidative DNA damage in TK6 human lymphoblastoid cells by use of the thymidine kinase gene-mutation assay and the in vitro modified comet assay: Determination of No-Observed-Genotoxic-Effect-Levels.”, Mutat Res 726:151-159. Doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.09.003. 

Raschke, S., J. Guan and G. Iliakis. (2009), “Application of alkaline sucrose gradient centrifugation in the analysis of DNA replication after DNA damage”, Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol.521, Humana Press, Totowa, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-815-7_18. 

Redon, C. et al. (2010), “The use of gamma-H2AX as a biodosimeter for total-body radiation exposure in non-human primates.”, PLoS One. 5(11): e15544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015544 

Revet, I. et al. (2011), “Functional relevance of the histone γH2Ax in the response to DNA damaging agents.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.108:8663-8667. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1105866108 

Rogakou, E.P. et al. (1998), “DNA Double-stranded Breaks Induce Histone H2AX Phosphorylation on Serine 139.” , J Biol Chem, 273:5858-5868. Doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.10.5858 

Rothkamm, K. & Horn, S. (2009), “γ-H2AX as protein biomarker for radiation exposure.”, Ann Ist Super Sanità, 45(3): 265-71. 

White, R.R. and J. Vijg. (2016), “Do DNA Double-Strand Breaks Drive Aging?”, Molecular Cell, Vol.63, Elsevier, Amsterdam, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.08.004. 

Yang, Y. et al. (1998), “The effect of catalase amplification on immortal lens epithelial cell lines”, Experimental Eye Research, Vol.67(/6), Academic Press Inc, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1006/exer.1998.0560.  

Zilio, N. and H. D. Ulrich (2021), “Exploring the SSBreakome: genome-wide mapping of DNA single-strand breaks by next-generation sequencing”, The FEBS journal, 288(13), Wiley, Hoboken, https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15568 

 

Event: 1262: Apoptosis

Short Name: Apoptosis

Event Component

Process Object Action
apoptotic process increased

AOPs Including This Key Event

AOP ID and Name Event Type
Aop:205 - AOP from chemical insult to cell death AdverseOutcome
Aop:207 - NADPH oxidase and P38 MAPK activation leading to reproductive failure in Caenorhabditis elegans KeyEvent
Aop:212 - Histone deacetylase inhibition leading to testicular atrophy KeyEvent
Aop:285 - Inhibition of N-linked glycosylation leads to liver injury KeyEvent
Aop:419 - Aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation leading to impaired lung function through P53 toxicity pathway KeyEvent
Aop:439 - Activation of the AhR leading to metastatic breast cancer KeyEvent
Aop:452 - Adverse outcome pathway of PM-induced respiratory toxicity KeyEvent
Aop:393 - AOP for thyroid disorder caused by triphenyl phosphate via TRβ activation KeyEvent
Aop:476 - Adverse Outcome Pathways diagram related to PBDEs associated male reproductive toxicity KeyEvent
Aop:460 - Antagonism of Smoothened receptor leading to orofacial clefting KeyEvent
Aop:491 - Decrease, GLI1/2 target gene expression leads to orofacial clefting KeyEvent
Aop:500 - Activation of MEK-ERK1/2 leads to deficits in learning and cognition via ROS and apoptosis KeyEvent
Aop:502 - Decrease, cholesterol synthesis leads to orofacial clefting KeyEvent
Aop:441 - Ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage leads to microcephaly via apoptosis and premature cell differentiation KeyEvent
Aop:535 - Binding and activation of GPER leading to learning and memory impairments KeyEvent
Aop:540 - Oxidative Stress in the Fish Ovary Leads to Reproductive Impairment via Reduced Vitellogenin Production KeyEvent
Aop:563 - Aryl hydrocarbon Receptor (AHR) activation causes Premature Ovarian Insufficiency via Bax mediated apoptosis KeyEvent
Aop:595 - Emerging OPFRS reproductive outcome pathway KeyEvent
Aop:616 - organic UV filter and its Photoproducts reproductive toxicity pathways KeyEvent
Aop:638 - Co-exposure to microplastics and cadmium leading to progression from NAFLD to liver tumorigenesis KeyEvent
Aop:322 - Alkylation of DNA leading to decreased sperm count KeyEvent

Biological Context

Level of Biological Organization
Cellular

Cell term

Cell term
cell

Organ term

Organ term
organ

Domain of Applicability

Taxonomic Applicability
Term Scientific Term Evidence Links
Homo sapiens Homo sapiens High NCBI
Mus musculus Mus musculus High NCBI
Rattus norvegicus Rattus norvegicus High NCBI
Caenorhabditis elegans Caenorhabditis elegans High NCBI
Life Stage Applicability
Life Stage Evidence
Not Otherwise Specified High
Sex Applicability
Sex Evidence
Unspecific High

・Apoptosis is induced in human prostate cancer cell lines (Homo sapiens) [Parajuli et al., 2014].

・Apoptosis occurs in B6C3F1 mouse (Mus musculus) [Elmore, 2007].

・Apoptosis occurs in Sprague-Dawley rat (Rattus norvegicus) [Elmore, 2007].

・Apoptosis occurs in the nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) [Elmore, 2007].

  • Apoptosis occurs in breast cancer cells, human and mouse (Parton)
  • Apoptosis applicable to fishes, hence be used to study as models (dos Santos, N. M., et al. (2008).
  • Apoptosis in humans and baboon ovaries (Kugu, K., et al. (1998)
  • Apoptosis in amphibians during metamorphosis (Ishizuya-Oka, A., et al. (2010).
  • Apoptosis in Drosophila melanogaster (Steller, H. (2008)
  • Apoptosis is a highly conserved and essential process across a broad taxonomic range, from unicellular eukaryotes to complex multicellular animals, it is also evident in metazoans (Suraweera, C. D., et al. (2022).
  • Sex Applicability:
    Both sexes. Apoptosis occurs in male and female systems (e.g., oocyte and sperm cell turnover).

  • Life Stage Applicability:
    All stages. Especially critical during embryonic development and in maintaining adult tissue homeostasis.

 

Key Event Description

Apoptosis, the process of programmed cell death, is characterized by distinct morphology with DNA fragmentation and energy dependency [Elmore, 2007]. Apoptosis, also called “physiological cell death”, is involved in cell turnover, physiological involution, and atrophy of various tissues and organs [Kerr et al., 1972]. The formation of apoptotic bodies involves marked condensation of both nucleus and cytoplasm, nuclear fragmentation, and separation of protuberances [Kerr et al., 1972]. Apoptosis is characterized by DNA ladder and chromatin condensation. Several stimuli such as hypoxia, nucleotides deprivation, chemotherapeutical drugs, DNA damage, and mitotic spindle damage induce p53 activation, leading to p21 activation and cell cycle arrest [Pucci et al., 2000]. The SAHA or TSA treatment on neonatal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDFs) for 24 or 72 hrs inhibited proliferation of the NHDF cells [Glaser et al., 2003]. Considering that the acetylation of histone H4 was increased by the treatment of SAHA for 4 hrs, histone deacetylase inhibition may be involved in the inhibition of the cell proliferation [Glaser et al., 2003]. The impaired proliferation was observed in HDAC1-/- ES cells, which was rescued with the reintroduction of HDAC1 [Zupkovitz et al., 2010]. An AOP focuses existes on p21 pathway leading to apoptosis, however, alternative pathways such as NF-kappaB signaling pathways may be involved in the apoptosis of spermatocytes [Wang et al., 2017].

Apoptosis is defined as a programmed cell death.  A decrease in apoptosis or a resistance to cell death is noted is described as a hallmark of cancer by Hanahan et al. It is widely admitted as an essential step in tumor proliferation (Adams, Lowe).  Apoptosis occurs after activation of a number of intrinsic and extrinsic signals which activate the protease caspase system which in turn activates the destruction of the cell. 

 

In mammals, the foetal ovary produces hundreds of thousands of oocytes. But most of them die before birth due to apoptosis (Kaur, S., & Kurokawa, M., 2023). The apoptotic process has a specific pattern at different stages: in foetal ovaries, the majority of apoptotic activity was found in germ cells, whereas in adult quiescent cortical follicles, apoptosis occurred from both granulosa and oocyte cells. The oocyte has been shown to be the one that triggers the apoptotic process and causes follicular atresia (Jin, X., et al. (2011). In humans, the primordial follicles' ovarian endowment is formed throughout foetal development. Apoptotic cell death, which is carried out with the assistance of multiple players and routes conserved from worms to humans, depletes this endowment by at least two-thirds prior to birth. As of right now, apoptosis has been linked to atresia, oocyte loss/selection, folliculogenesis, and oogenesis (Hussein MR, 2005)

The Bcl-2 is a protein family suppressing apoptosis by binding and inhibiting two proapoptotic proteins (Bax and Bak) and transferring them to the mitochondrial outer membrane. In the absence of inhibition by Bcl2, Bax and Bak destroy the mitochondrial membrane and releases proapoptotic signaling proteins, such as cytochrome c which activated the caspase system. An increased expression of these antiapoptotic proteins (Bcl-2, Bcl-xL) occurs in cancer (Hanahan, Adams, Lowe). Several others pathways such as the loss of TP53 tumor suppressor function, or the increase of survival signals (Igf1/2), or decrease of proapoptotic factors (Bax, Bim, Puma) can also increase tumor growth (Hanahan, Juntilla).

In breast cancer a decrease in apoptosis and a resistance to cell death has been described thoroughly, especially using a dysregulation of the Bcl2 system or TP53 (Parton, Williams, Shahbandi).

How it is Measured or Detected

Apoptosis is characterized by many morphological and biochemical changes such as homogenous condensation of chromatin to one side or the periphery of the nuclei, membrane blebbing and formation of apoptotic bodies with fragmented nuclei, DNA fragmentation, enzymatic activation of pro-caspases, or phosphatidylserine translocation that can be measured using electron and cytochemical optical microscopy, proteomic and genomic methods, and spectroscopic techniques [Archana et al., 2013; Martinez et al., 2010; Taatjes et al., 2008; Yasuhara et al., 2003].

DNA fragmentation can be quantified with comet assay using electrophoresis, where the tail length, head size, tail intensity, and head intensity of the comet are measured [Yasuhara et al., 2003].

・The apoptosis is detected with the expression alteration of procaspases 7 and 3 by Western blotting using antibodies [Parajuli et al., 2014].

・The apoptosis is measured with down-regulation of anti-apoptotic gene baculoviral inhibitor of apoptosis protein repeat containing 2 (BIRC2, or cIAP1) [Parajuli et al., 2014].

・Apoptotic nucleosomes are detected using Cell Death Detection ELISA kit, which was calculated as absorbance subtraction at 405 nm and 490 nm [Parajuli et al., 2014].

・Cleavage of PARP is detected with Western blotting [Parajuli et al., 2014].

・Caspase-3 and caspase-9 activity is measured with the enzyme-catalyzed release of p-nitroanilide (pNA) and quantified at 405 nm [Wu et al., 2016].

・Apoptosis is measured with Annexin V-FITC probes, and the relative percentage of Annexin V-FITC-positive/PI-negative cells is analyzed by flow cytometry [Wu et al., 2016].

・Apoptosis is detected with the Terminal dUTP Nick End-Labeling (TUNEL) method to assay the endonuclease cleavage products by enzymatically end-labeling the DNA strand breaks [Kressel and Groscurth, 1994].

・For the detection of apoptosis, the testes are fixed in neutral buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin. Germ cell death is visualized in testis sections by Terminal dUTP Nick End-Labeling (TUNEL) staining method [Wade et al., 2008]. The incidence of TUNEL-positive cells is expressed as the number of positive cells per tubule examined for one entire testis section per animal [Wade et al., 2008]

References

Archana, M. et al. (2013), "Various methods available for detection of apoptotic cells", Indian J Cancer 50:274-283

Elmore, S. (2007), "Apoptosis: a review of programmed cell death", Toxicol Pathol 35:495-516

Glaser, K.B. et al. (2003), "Gene expression profiling of multiple histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors: defining a common gene set produced by HDAC inhibition in T24 and MDA carcinoma cell lines", Mol Cancer Ther 2:151-163

Kerr, J.F.R. et al. (1972), "Apoptosis: a basic biological phenomenon with wide-ranging implications in tissue kinetics", Br J Cancer 26:239-257

Kressel, M. and Groscurth, P. (1994), "Distinction of apoptotic and necrotic cell death by in situ labelling of fragmented DNA", Cell Tissue Res 278:549-556

Martinez, M.M. et al. (2010), "Detection of apoptosis: A review of conventioinal and novel techniques", Anal Methods 2:996-1004

Parajuli, K.R. et al. (2014), "Methoxyacetic acid suppresses prostate cancer cell growth by inducing growth arrest and apoptosis", Am J Clin Exp Urol 2:300-313

Pucci, B. et al. (2000), "Cell cycle and apoptosis", Neoplasia 2:291-299

Taatjes, D.J. et al. (2008), "Morphological and cytochemical determination of cell death by apoptosis", Histochem Cell Biol 129:33-43

Wade, M.G. et al. (2008), "Methoxyacetic acid-induced spermatocyte death is associated with histone hyperacetylation in rats", Biol Reprod 78:822-831

Wang, C. et al. (2017), "CD147 regulates extrinsic apoptosis in spermatocytes by modulating NFkB signaling pathways", Oncotarget 8:3132-3143

Wu, R. et al. (2016), "microRNA-497 induces apoptosis and suppressed proliferation via the Bcl-2/Bax-caspase9-caspase 3 pathway and cyclin D2 protein in HUVECs", PLoS One 11:e0167052

Yasuhara, S. et al. (2003), "Comparison of comet assay, electron microscopy, and flow cytometry for detection of apoptosis", J Histochem Cytochem 51:873-885

Zupkovitz, G. et al. (2010), "The cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21 is a crucial target for histone deacetylase 1 as a regulator of cellular proliferation", Mol Cell Biol 30:1171-1181

 

Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011 Mar 4;144(5):646-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013. PMID: 21376230

Adams JM, Cory S. The Bcl-2 apoptotic switch in cancer development and therapy. Oncogene. 2007 Feb 26;26(9):1324-37. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210220. PMID: 17322918; PMCID: PMC2930981.

Lowe, S., Cepero, E. & Evan, G. Intrinsic tumour suppression. Nature 432, 307–315 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03098

Parton M, Dowsett M, Smith I. Studies of apoptosis in breast cancer. BMJ. 2001 Jun 23;322(7301):1528-32. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1528. PMID: 11420276; PMCID: PMC1120573.

Junttila MR, Evan GI. p53--a Jack of all trades but master of none. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009 Nov;9(11):821-9. doi: 10.1038/nrc2728. Epub 2009 Sep 24. PMID: 19776747.

Williams MM, Cook RS. Bcl-2 family proteins in breast development and cancer: could Mcl-1 targeting overcome therapeutic resistance? Oncotarget. 2015 Feb 28;6(6):3519-30. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.2792. PMID: 25784482; PMCID: PMC4414133.

Shahbandi A, Nguyen HD, Jackson JG. TP53 Mutations and Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Reading beyond the Headlines. Trends Cancer. 2020 Feb;6(2):98-110. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.01.007. Epub 2020 Feb 5. PMID: 32061310; PMCID: PMC7931175.

Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011 Mar 4;144(5):646-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013. PMID: 21376230

Adams JM, Cory S. The Bcl-2 apoptotic switch in cancer development and therapy. Oncogene. 2007 Feb 26;26(9):1324-37. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210220. PMID: 17322918; PMCID: PMC2930981.

Lowe, S., Cepero, E. & Evan, G. Intrinsic tumour suppression. Nature 432, 307–315 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03098

Parton M, Dowsett M, Smith I. Studies of apoptosis in breast cancer. BMJ. 2001 Jun 23;322(7301):1528-32. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1528. PMID: 11420276; PMCID: PMC1120573.

Junttila MR, Evan GI. p53--a Jack of all trades but master of none. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009 Nov;9(11):821-9. doi: 10.1038/nrc2728. Epub 2009 Sep 24. PMID: 19776747.

Williams MM, Cook RS. Bcl-2 family proteins in breast development and cancer: could Mcl-1 targeting overcome therapeutic resistance? Oncotarget. 2015 Feb 28;6(6):3519-30. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.2792. PMID: 25784482; PMCID: PMC4414133.

Shahbandi A, Nguyen HD, Jackson JG. TP53 Mutations and Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Reading beyond the Headlines. Trends Cancer. 2020 Feb;6(2):98-110. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.01.007. Epub 2020 Feb 5. PMID: 32061310; PMCID: PMC7931175.

 

Parton M, Dowsett M, Smith I. Studies of apoptosis in breast cancer. BMJ. 2001 Jun 23;322(7301):1528-32. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1528. PMID: 11420276; PMCID: PMC1120573.

 

  • Kaur S, Kurokawa M. Regulation of Oocyte Apoptosis: A View from Gene Knockout Mice. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(2).
  • Jin X, Xiao LJ, Zhang XS, Liu YX. Apotosis in ovary. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2011;3(2):680-97.
  • Hussein MR. Apoptosis in the ovary: molecular mechanisms. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(2):162-77.
  • dos Santos NM, do Vale A, Reis MI, Silva MT. Fish and apoptosis: molecules and pathways. Curr Pharm Des. 2008;14(2):148-69.
  • Kugu K, Ratts VS, Piquette GN, Tilly KI, Tao XJ, Martimbeau S, et al. Analysis of apoptosis and expression of bcl-2 gene family members in the human and baboon ovary. Cell Death Differ. 1998;5(1):67-76.
  • Ishizuya-Oka A, Hasebe T, Shi YB. Apoptosis in amphibian organs during metamorphosis. Apoptosis. 2010;15(3):350-64.
  • Steller H. Regulation of apoptosis in Drosophila. Cell Death & Differentiation. 2008;15(7):1132-8.
  • Suraweera CD, Banjara S, Hinds MG, Kvansakul M. Metazoans and Intrinsic Apoptosis: An Evolutionary Analysis of the Bcl-2 Family. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022;23(7):3691.

List of Adverse Outcomes in this AOP

Event: 1757: Decrease, Sperm count

Short Name: Decrease, Sperm count

AOPs Including This Key Event

Biological Context

Level of Biological Organization
Individual

Domain of Applicability

This KE is plausibly applicable to all male animals that produce sperm through spermatogenesis.

Key Event Description

Sperm is produced in the seminiferous tubules of the testis through spermatogenesis (Sharma & Agarwal, 2011). This process begins with Type A spermatogonia, which divide by mitosis to maintain the stem cell pool. A subset of these cells differentiate into Type B spermatogonia, which divide by mitosis and give rise to primary spermatocytes. Subsequently, primary spermatocytes undergo meiosis I to form secondary spermatocytes, which undergo meiosis II to produce haploid spermatids. Spermatids then differentiate into spermatozoa through spermiogenesis, a process marked by several morphological changes, including condensation and elongation of the nucleus, acrosome formation, and development of the flagellum (Nishimura & L’Hernault, 2017; Sharma & Agarwal, 2011). Spermatozoa are released into the seminiferous tubule lumen, exit the testis through the rete testis, and enter the epididymis, where sperm maturation occurs. Spermatozoa acquire motility and acrosomal function during transit through the three distinct regions of the epididymis: caput, corpus, and cauda (Sharma & Agarwal, 2011).

Sperm count refers to the number of spermatids present in the testis, or the number of spermatozoa present in semen or the cauda epididymis. Reduced sperm count describes a decrease in spermatids or spermatozoa with respect to a control or reference number. In humans, a total sperm number below 39 million per ejaculate and a sperm concentration below 16 million per ml represent the fifth percentile lower limits, based on a reference group of men whose partners conceived within 12 months (World Health Organization, 2021). Reduced sperm count can be temporary, prolonged, or permanent depending on the cause, including genetic or other intrinsic problems, or an exposure that occurred during development that impaired the stem cell pool.

The toxicological interpretation of reduced sperm count depends on the biological compartment assessed. A decrease in testicular spermatid number suggests impairment of one or more stages of spermatogenesis (Creasy & Chapin, 2013; M. L. Meistrich, 1989). However, a reduction in cauda epididymal sperm reserves may reflect impaired spermatogenesis or spermatid retention in the testis, disruption of epididymal processes such as sperm transit, maturation, and storage, or a combination of these effects (Blazak et al., 1985; Creasy & Chapin, 2013).

The timing and duration of exposure are important considerations when evaluating sperm count due to the length of spermatogenesis and the spermatogenic cycle. Exposure durations spanning multiple spermatogenic cycles may be necessary to produce detectable changes in sperm count, as toxicants that target earlier stages of spermatogenesis may only affect sperm count after the damaged cells have progressed through subsequent stages of development (Amann, 1986; Mangelsdorf et al., 2003). For epididymal sperm counts, sperm transit time through the epididymis should also be considered.

How it is Measured or Detected

OECD Test Guideline 416: Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity, and OECD Test Guideline 443: Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study, recommend estimating sperm count by quantifying cauda epididymis sperm reserves and spermatids in the testis (OECD, 2001, 2025).

Sperm counts can be estimated from the testis, epididymis, or semen. Testicular sperm counts are generally estimated by quantifying homogenization-resistant spermatids (Amann, 1986). During spermiogenesis, spermatid nuclei become highly condensed and resistant to mechanical or biochemical breakdown. Homogenization destroys most testicular cells and nuclei except for the late-stage spermatid nuclei, which can then be quantified (Amann, 1986). Testicular sperm counts can also be used to estimate daily sperm production (DSP) by dividing the number of homogenization-resistant spermatid nuclei by the number of days they spend in the testis (Amann, 1981).

Epididymal sperm counts are most often estimated using the cauda epididymis, where sperm is stored (Seed et al., 1996). Sperm can be isolated from the cauda epididymis using various methods, including diffusion, aspiration, or homogenization (Chapin et al., 1992; Seed et al., 1996; Slott et al., 1991). In the diffusion method, small incisions are made in the cauda epididymis to allow sperm to swim out into the surrounding medium. The aspiration method collects sperm directly from incised tissue using a capillary tube. Homogenization methods mechanically disrupt epididymal tissue to release sperm (Amann, 1986; Seed et al., 1996).

In species where semen can be collected, such as humans, dogs, and rabbits, sperm count can be evaluated from ejaculated semen samples (Seed et al., 1996).

The resulting sperm suspension is counted manually or by automated methods. Manual counting using a hemacytometer and phase-contrast microscopy is a widely used and accepted method for determining sperm count (Amann, 1986; Seed et al., 1996; Strader et al., 1996). Sperm counting with a hemacytometer, specifically the improved Neubauer hemacytometer, is considered the gold standard and is extensively described in the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen (World Health Organization, 2021). Hemacytometer counts are used for calibrating other automated techniques (Kuster, 2005; Prathalingam et al., 2006).

Automated methods include Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis (CASA), in which a video camera attached to a microscope captures images or videos that are analyzed by specialized software (Akal, 2023). The CASA system objectively estimates sperm concentration and related sperm parameters. CASA-derived sperm counts have demonstrated strong agreement with hemacytometer-based methods while improving analytical efficiency (Dearing et al., 2014; Lammers et al., 2014; Strader et al., 1996). However, CASA systems have been reported to overestimate sperm count at lower concentrations due to misclassification of debris as sperm (Dearing et al., 2014).

Flow cytometry-based approaches have also been developed for counting sperm and assessing sperm membrane integrity. Sperm from zebrafish testis were stained with SYBR-14, a membrane-permeable nucleic acid dye, and propidium iodide, a DNA dye that can only permeate damaged cell membranes. Fluorescence filters were used to detect stained cells, and forward scatter (FSC) and side scatter (SSC) were used to differentiate sperm from debris. Resulting sperm counts were comparable to those obtained from using a hemacytometer (Yang et al., 2016).

References

Akal, E. (2023). Evaluation of sperm counting accuracy on computer-assisted sperm analysis with GoldCyto® slides and glass slides. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1283128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1283128

Amann, R. P. (1981). A Critical Review of Methods for Evaluation of Spermatogenesis from Seminal Characteristics. Journal of Andrology, 2(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.1981.tb00595.x

Amann, R. P. (1986). Detection of alterations in testicular and epididymal function in laboratory animals. Environmental Health Perspectives, 70, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8670149

Blazak, W. F., Ernst, T. L., & Stewart, B. E. (1985). Potential indicators of reproductive toxicity: Testicular sperm production and epididymal sperm number, transit time, and motility in Fischer 344 rats. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 5(6, Part 1), 1097–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-0590(85)90145-9

Chapin, R. E., Filler, R. S., Gulati, D., Heindel, J. J., Katz, D. F., Mebus, C. A., Obasaju, F., Perreault, S. D., Russell, S. R., & Schrader, S. (1992). Methods for assessing rat sperm motility. Reproductive Toxicology, 6(3), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-6238(92)90183-t

Creasy, D. M., & Chapin, R. E. (2013). Male Reproductive System. In Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology (pp. 2493–2598). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415759-0.00059-5

Dearing, C. G., Kilburn, S., & Lindsay, K. S. (2014). Validation of the sperm class analyser CASA system for sperm counting in a busy diagnostic semen analysis laboratory. Human Fertility, 17(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2013.865843

Kuster, C. (2005). Sperm concentration determination between hemacytometric and CASA systems: Why they can be different. Theriogenology, Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference of the Society for Theriogenology, 64(3), 614–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.05.047

Lammers, J., Splingart, C., Barrière, P., Jean, M., & Fréour, T. (2014). Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 31(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0139-2

M. L. Meistrich. (1989). Evaluation of Reproductive Toxicity by Testicular Sperm Head Counts. 8(3), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.3109/10915818909014538

Mangelsdorf, I., Buschmann, J., & Orthen, B. (2003). Some aspects relating to the evaluation of the effects of chemicals on male fertility. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 37(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-2300(03)00026-6

OECD. (2001). Test No. 416: Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264070868-en

OECD. (2025). Test No. 443: Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264185371-en

Prathalingam, N. S., Holt, W. W., Revell, S. G., Jones, S., & Watson, P. F. (2006). The Precision and Accuracy of Six Different Methods to Determine Sperm Concentration. Journal of Andrology, 27(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.05112

Seed, J., Chapin, R. E., Clegg, E. D., Dostal, L. A., Foote, R. H., Hurtt, M. E., Klinefelter, G. R., Makris, S. L., Perreault, S. D., Schrader, S., Seyler, D., Sprando, R., Treinen, K. A., Veeramachaneni, D. N. R., & Wise, L. D. (1996). Methods for assessing sperm motility, morphology, and counts in the rat, rabbit, and dog: A consensus report. Reproductive Toxicology, 10(3), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-6238(96)00028-7

Sharma, R., & Agarwal, A. (2011). Spermatogenesis: An Overview. In A. Zini & A. Agarwal (Eds.), Sperm Chromatin: Biological and Clinical Applications in Male Infertility and Assisted Reproduction (pp. 19–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6857-9_2

Slott, V. L., Suarez, J. D., & Perreault, S. D. (1991). Rat sperm motility analysis: Methodologic considerations. Reproductive Toxicology, 5(5), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-6238(91)90009-5

Strader, L. F., Linder, R. E., & Perreault, S. D. (1996). Comparison of rat epididymal sperm counts by IVOS HTM-IDENT and hemacytometer. Reproductive Toxicology, 10(6), 529–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6238(96)00140-2

World Health Organization. (2021). WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen (6th ed). WHO Press.

Yang, H., Daly, J., & Tiersch, T. R. (2016). Determination of Sperm Concentration Using Flow Cytometry with Simultaneous Analysis of Sperm Plasma Membrane Integrity in Zebrafish Danio rerio. Cytometry. Part A : The Journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology, 89(4), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.22796

Appendix 2

List of Key Event Relationships in the AOP