, 2007). Notably, the phenotypic effects of the absence of DnaE2 appear more clearly in P. putida mutant lacking DNA Pol I, indicating that DnaE2 may complement in part some functions of Pol I. It is known that Pol I participates in the gap-filling

reaction in the NER pathway. Unpublished results in our laboratory show that the Pol I mutant of P. putida is less sensitive to UV irradiation than P. putida lacking the NER system, which indicates that some other DNA polymerase could perform DNA repair synthesis in NER when Pol I is missing. Additional deletion of the dnaE2 gene in the Pol I-deficient P. putida reduces the UV tolerance of bacteria and increases the mutation frequency, Osimertinib chemical structure whereas the viability of UV-irradiated DnaE2-deficient bacteria is not reduced when Pol I is present. These results imply that DnaE2 may partially complement the absence of Pol I in a DNA damage repair pathway such as NER. Additionally, because the mutation frequency

is lower in UV-irradiated DnaE2-proficient cells than in those lacking Etoposide purchase DnaE2, TLS carried out by this DNA polymerase might be accurate. In contrast to the results obtained with P. putida DnaE2, Sanders et al. (2006) have demonstrated that UV-induced mutagenesis in P. aeruginosa is dependent on Pol I and DnaE2, i.e., the mutation frequency was decreased when measured in UV-irradiated P. aeruginosa transposon library mutants either carrying insertions in Pol I or DnaE2 genes. These genetic data suggest that P. aeruginosa DnaE2, different from its P. putida homologue, is mutagenic. Thus, DnaE2s from P. putida and P. aeruginosa would provide a good model to study the molecular mechanisms influencing the fidelity of DnaE2 homologues. According to its sequence similarity, P. putida ImuB and its homologues form a branch in the UmuC superfamily of proteins that is distinct from E. coli-like DinB proteins (Pol IV) (Galhardo et al., 2005). However, the absence of conserved residues forming a

catalytic center of Y-family polymerases in ImuB raises a question of whether ImuB has a DNA polymerase activity at all (Koorits et al., 2007). So far, the exact role of ImuB in Pseudomonas species has remained unclear. Deletion of the dnaE2 gene from ImuB-deficient P. putida did not increase the mutation frequency (Koorits et al., 2007), thereby this website suggesting that ImuB might be needed for DnaE2 activity. Genetic data obtained in other organisms such as C. crescentus indicate that ImuB possibly cooperates with DnaE2 in DNA damage-inducible mutagenesis, as no phenotypic effect of DnaE2 was demonstrated in this organism in the absence of ImuB (Galhardo et al., 2005). The question is whether ImuB could assist only DnaE2. The possibility that ImuB may cooperate not only with DnaE2, but could also influence the activity of other DNA polymerases is supported by the finding that deletion of only the imuB or the dnaE2 gene from P.