To the extent possible under law, AOP-Wiki has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to KER:1931

Relationship: 1931

Title

The title of the KER should clearly define the two KEs being considered and the sequential relationship between them (i.e., which is upstream and which is downstream). Consequently all KER titles take the form “upstream KE leads to downstream KE”.  More help

Increase, DNA strand breaks leads to Increase, Mutations

Upstream event
Upstream event in the Key Event Relationship. On the KER page, clicking on the Event name under Upstream Relationship will bring the user to that individual KE page. More help
Downstream event
Downstream event in the Key Event Relationship. On the KER page, clicking on the Event name under Upstream Relationship will bring the user to that individual KE page. More help

Key Event Relationship Overview

The utility of AOPs for regulatory application is defined, to a large extent, by the confidence and precision with which they facilitate extrapolation of data measured at low levels of biological organisation to predicted outcomes at higher levels of organisation and the extent to which they can link biological effect measurements to their specific causes. Within the AOP framework, the predictive relationships that facilitate extrapolation are represented by the KERs. Consequently, the overall WoE for an AOP is a reflection in part, of the level of confidence in the underlying series of KERs it encompasses. Therefore, describing the KERs in an AOP involves assembling and organising the types of information and evidence that defines the scientific basis for inferring the probable change in, or state of, a downstream KE from the known or measured state of an upstream KE. More help

AOPs Referencing Relationship

This table is automatically generated upon addition of a KER to an AOP. All of the AOPs that are linked to this KER will automatically be listed in this subsection. Clicking on the name of the AOP in the table will bring you to the individual page for that AOP. More help
AOP Name Adjacency Weight of Evidence Quantitative Understanding Point of Contact Author Status OECD Status
Oxidative DNA damage leading to chromosomal aberrations and mutations non-adjacent High Low Carole Yauk (send email) Open for comment. Do not cite EAGMST Under Review
Direct deposition of ionizing energy leading to lung cancer non-adjacent High Low Vinita Chauhan (send email) Under development: Not open for comment. Do not cite EAGMST Under Review

Taxonomic Applicability

Select one or more structured terms that help to define the biological applicability domain of the KER. In general, this will be dictated by the more restrictive of the two KEs being linked together by the KER. Authors can indicate the relevant taxa for this KER in this subsection. The process is similar to what is described for KEs (see pages 30-31 and 37-38 of User Handbook) More help
Term Scientific Term Evidence Link
human Homo sapiens High NCBI
mouse Mus musculus High NCBI
rat Rattus norvegicus High NCBI

Sex Applicability

Authors can indicate the relevant sex for this KER in this subsection. The process is similar to what is described for KEs (see pages 31-32 of the User Handbook). More help
Sex Evidence
Unspecific High

Life Stage Applicability

Authors can indicate the relevant life stage for this KER in this subsection. The process is similar to what is described for KEs (see pages 31-32 of User Handbook). More help
Term Evidence
All life stages High

Key Event Relationship Description

Provide a brief, descriptive summation of the KER. While the title itself is fairly descriptive, this section can provide details that aren’t inherent in the description of the KEs themselves (see page 39 of the User Handbook). This description section can be viewed as providing the increased specificity in the nature of upstream perturbation (KEupstream) that leads to a particular downstream perturbation (KEdownstream), while allowing the KE descriptions to remain generalised so they can be linked to different AOPs. The description is also intended to provide a concise overview for readers who may want a brief summation, without needing to read through the detailed support for the relationship (covered below). Careful attention should be taken to avoid reference to other KEs that are not part of this KER, other KERs or other AOPs. This will ensure that the KER is modular and can be used by other AOPs. More help

DNA single strand breaks (SSB) are generally repaired rapidly and efficiently. However, if left unrepaired, SSBs can interfere with replication and cause the replication fork to collapse resulting in double strand breaks (DSB). Multiple SSBs in close proximity to each other can also give rise to DSBs. DSBs can be repaired virtually error-free by homologous recombination (HR), which uses DNA sequence in the homologous chromosome or sister chromatid as a template for new strand synthesis (Polo and Jackson, 2011). Alternatively, the broken ends may be joined to other sites in the genome regardless of homology via non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), irreversibly altering the DNA sequence (deletion, addition, rearrangement). Because HR is a more time-consuming and labour-intensive process, larger proportions of DSBs are repaired via NHEJ than via HR (Mao et al., 2008a; Mao et al., 2008b).

Alterations in DNA sequence can also occur from structural damage to the chromosomes; observations of micronucleus indicate chromosomal aberrations and that a permanent loss of DNA segments has occurred.

Evidence Supporting this KER

Assembly and description of the scientific evidence supporting KERs in an AOP is an important step in the AOP development process that sets the stage for overall assessment of the AOP (see pages 49-56 of the User Handbook). To do this, biological plausibility, empirical support, and the current quantitative understanding of the KER are evaluated with regard to the predictive relationships/associations between defined pairs of KEs as a basis for considering WoE (page 55 of User Handbook). In addition, uncertainties and inconsistencies are considered. More help

The mechanisms by which strand breaks lead to mutations are very well studied and understood. Thus, we provide a small selection of empirical evidence below supporting this KER; i.e., we did not undertake and exhaustive literature search.

Biological Plausibility
Define, in free text, the biological rationale for a connection between KEupstream and KEdownstream. What are the structural or functional relationships between the KEs? For example, there is a functional relationship between an enzyme’s activity and the product of a reaction it catalyses. Supporting references should be included. However, it is recognised that there may be cases where the biological relationship between two KEs is very well established, to the extent that it is widely accepted and consistently supported by so much literature that it is unnecessary and impractical to cite the relevant primary literature. Citation of review articles or other secondary sources, like text books, may be reasonable in such cases. The primary intent is to provide scientifically credible support for the structural and/or functional relationship between the pair of KEs if one is known. The description of biological plausibility can also incorporate additional mechanistic details that help inform the relationship between KEs, this is useful when it is not practical/pragmatic to represent these details as separate KEs due to the difficulty or relative infrequency with which it is likely to be measured (see page 40 of the User Handbook for further information).   More help

The error-prone nature of DSB repair in eukaryotes has been described in numerous reviews. In mammalian and yeast cells, both HR and NHEJ can lead to alteration in DNA sequence; insertions, deletions, and translocations can arise from NHEJ and base substitutions can occur during the repair synthesis of HR (Hicks and Haber, 2010; Bunting and Nussenzweig, 2013; Byrne et al., 2014; Rodgers and McVey, 2016; Dwivedi and Haber, 2018).

                                                                                                                            

Uncertainties and Inconsistencies
In addition to outlining the evidence supporting a particular linkage, it is also important to identify inconsistencies or uncertainties in the relationship. Additionally, while there are expected patterns of concordance that support a causal linkage between the KEs in the pair, it is also helpful to identify experimental details that may explain apparent deviations from the expected patterns of concordance. Identification of uncertainties and inconsistencies contribute to evaluation of the overall WoE supporting the AOPs that contain a given KER and to the identification of research gaps that warrant investigation (seep pages 41-42 of the User Handbook).Given that AOPs are intended to support regulatory applications, AOP developers should focus on those inconsistencies or gaps that would have a direct bearing or impact on the confidence in the KER and its use as a basis for inference or extrapolation in a regulatory setting. Uncertainties that may be of academic interest but would have little impact on regulatory application don’t need to be described. In general, this section details evidence that may raise questions regarding the overall validity and predictive utility of the KER (including consideration of both biological plausibility and empirical support). It also contributes along with several other elements to the overall evaluation of the WoE for the KER (see Section 4 of the User Handbook).  More help

In Kuhne et al. (2005) and Rydberg et al. (2005) studies provided above, mutation was not directly measured. The PFGE and hybridization assay detects a 3.2-Mbp restriction fragment from chromosome 21. Deviation of DNA restriction fragments from the 3.2-Mbp mark during electrophoresis suggests occurrence of breakage and failed reconstruction in this segment of chromosome 21; induction of mutations can be inferred from the change in the size of the restriction fragments. The remaining 22 chromosomes are not considered. This method may not be sensitive enough to detect small base changes.

Cell cycle can influence the repair pathway of DSBs and, thus, the risk of incorrect rejoining of broken ends. In G1 phase, NHEJ may be favoured, while in S, G2, or M phase, both HR and NHEJ have been observed to be active in repair (Mao et al., 2008b)

Response-response Relationship
This subsection should be used to define sources of data that define the response-response relationships between the KEs. In particular, information regarding the general form of the relationship (e.g., linear, exponential, sigmoidal, threshold, etc.) should be captured if possible. If there are specific mathematical functions or computational models relevant to the KER in question that have been defined, those should also be cited and/or described where possible, along with information concerning the approximate range of certainty with which the state of the KEdownstream can be predicted based on the measured state of the KEupstream (i.e., can it be predicted within a factor of two, or within three orders of magnitude?). For example, a regression equation may reasonably describe the response-response relationship between the two KERs, but that relationship may have only been validated/tested in a single species under steady state exposure conditions. Those types of details would be useful to capture.  More help
Time-scale
This sub-section should be used to provide information regarding the approximate time-scale of the changes in KEdownstream relative to changes in KEupstream (i.e., do effects on KEdownstream lag those on KEupstream by seconds, minutes, hours, or days?). This can be useful information both in terms of modelling the KER, as well as for analyzing the critical or dominant paths through an AOP network (e.g., identification of an AO that could kill an organism in a matter of hours will generally be of higher priority than other potential AOs that take weeks or months to develop). Identification of time-scale can also aid the assessment of temporal concordance. For example, for a KER that operates on a time-scale of days, measurement of both KEs after just hours of exposure in a short-term experiment could lead to incorrect conclusions regarding dose-response or temporal concordance if the time-scale of the upstream to downstream transition was not considered. More help
Known modulating factors
This sub-section presents information regarding modulating factors/variables known to alter the shape of the response-response function that describes the quantitative relationship between the two KEs (for example, an iodine deficient diet causes a significant increase in the slope of the relationship; a particular genotype doubles the sensitivity of KEdownstream to changes in KEupstream). Information on these known modulating factors should be listed in this subsection, along with relevant information regarding the manner in which the modulating factor can be expected to alter the relationship (if known). Note, this section should focus on those modulating factors for which solid evidence supported by relevant data and literature is available. It should NOT list all possible/plausible modulating factors. In this regard, it is useful to bear in mind that many risk assessments conducted through conventional apical guideline testing-based approaches generally consider few if any modulating factors. More help
Known Feedforward/Feedback loops influencing this KER
This subsection should define whether there are known positive or negative feedback mechanisms involved and what is understood about their time-course and homeostatic limits? In some cases where feedback processes are measurable and causally linked to the outcome, they should be represented as KEs. However, in most cases these features are expected to predominantly influence the shape of the response-response, time-course, behaviours between selected KEs. For example, if a feedback loop acts as compensatory mechanism that aims to restore homeostasis following initial perturbation of a KE, the feedback loop will directly shape the response-response relationship between the KERs. Given interest in formally identifying these positive or negative feedback, it is recommended that a graphical annotation (page 44) indicating a positive or negative feedback loop is involved in a particular upstream to downstream KE transition (KER) be added to the graphical representation, and that details be provided in this subsection of the KER description (see pages 44-45 of the User Handbook).  More help

Domain of Applicability

As for the KEs, there is also a free-text section of the KER description that the developer can use to explain his/her rationale for the structured terms selected with regard to taxonomic, life stage, or sex applicability, or provide a more generalizable or nuanced description of the applicability domain than may be feasible using standardized terms. More help

DNA strand breaks and subsequent mutations can occur in any eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell. Any DNA strand break has potential to cause alterations in DNA sequence (e.g., deletions and insertions), whether it is due to insufficient or faulty repair.

References

List of the literature that was cited for this KER description using the appropriate format. Ideally, the list of references should conform, to the extent possible, with the OECD Style Guide (OECD, 2015). More help

Bunting, S. & A. Nussenzweig (2013), "End-joining, Translocations and Cancer", Nat Rev Cancer, 13:443-454.

Byrne, M. et al. (2014), "Mechanisms of oncogenic chromosomal translocations", Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1310:89-97.

Dikomey, E. & I. Brammer (2000), "Relationship between cellular radiosensitivity and non-repaired double-strand breaks studied for different growth states, dose rates and plating conditions in a normal human Žfibroblast line.", Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 76:773-781.

Dwivedi, G. & J.E. Haber (2018), "Assaying Mutations Associated With Gene Conversion Repair of a Double-Strand Break", Methods Enzymiol., 601:145-160.

Hicks, W. & J.E. Haber (2010), "Increased Mutagenesis and Unique Mutation Signature Associated with Mitotic Gene Conversion", Nat. Rev. Cancer, 329:82-84.

Kuhne, M., K. Rothkamm & M. Lobrich (2000), "No dose-dependence of DNA double-strand break misrejoining following a -particle irradiation.", Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 76(7):891-900

Kuhne, M., G. Urban & M. Lo, (2005), "DNA Double-Strand Break Misrejoining after Exposure of Primary Human Fibroblasts to C K Characteristic X Rays, 29 kVp X Rays and Co g-Rays.", Radiation Research. 164(5):669-676. doi:10.1667/RR3461.1.

Lobrich, M. et al. (2000), "Joining of Correct and Incorrect DNA Double-Strand Break Ends in Normal Human and Ataxia Telangiectasia Fibroblasts.", 68(July 1999):59–68. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2264(200001)27:1<59::AID-GCC8>3.0.CO;2-9.

Mao, Z. et al. (2008a), "Comparison of nonhomologous end joining and homologous recombination in human cells.", DNA Repair, 7:1765-1771.

Mao, Z. et al. (2008b), "DNA repair by nonhomologous end joining and homologous recombination during cell cycle in human cells.", Cell Cycle, 7:2902-2906.

McMahon, S.J. et al. (2016), "Mechanistic Modelling of DNA Repair and Cellular Survival Following Radiation-Induced DNA Damage.", Nat. Publ. Gr.(April):1–14. doi:10.1038/srep33290.

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.

Polo, S. & S. Jackson (2011), "Dynamics of DNA damage response proteins at DNA breaks: a focus on protein modifications.", Genes Dev., 25:409-433.

Ptacek, O. et al. (2001), "Induction and repair of DNA damage as measured by the Comet assay and the yield of somatic mutations in gamma-irradiated tobacco seedlings.", Mutat. Res., 491:17-23.

Rodgers, K. & M. McVey (2016), "Error-prone repair of DNA double-strand breaks.", J. Cell. Physiol., 231:15-24.

Rothkamm, K. & M. Lobrich (2003), "Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.", PNAS, 100(9):5057-62. doi:10.1073/pnas.0830918100.

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.", Radiat. Res. 163(5):526–534. doi:10.1667/RR3346.

Spassova, M. et al. (2013), "Dose-Response Analysis of Bromate-Induced DNA Damage andMutagenicity Is Consistent With Low-Dose Linear,Nonthreshold Processes", Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 54:19-35.