Advertisement

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Review

Review articles summarize the best available evidence on a topic relevant to the NTD community.

See all article types »

Translesion synthesis and microhomology-mediated end-joining repair in trypanosomatids

Abstract

Trypanosomatid parasites and the diseases they cause affect more than 30 million people annually worldwide. To develop treatments for these diseases, it is critical to understand how trypanosomatid biology protects the parasite, so that these mechanisms may be exploited as drug targets. An important aspect of trypanosomatid survival is protection from oxidative damage inflicted by the host. Reactive oxygen species produced by the host can damage nuclear DNA and kinetoplast, the mitochondrion DNA. DNA damage must be repaired or bypassed for the trypanosomatid to continue to replicate its genome. Trypanosomatids also possess specialized redox pathways that neutralize reactive oxygen species (ROS) from host-derived attacks and endogenous mitochondrion metabolism. This Review Article focuses on how trypanosomatids employ microhomology-mediated end-joining to repair DNA double-strand breaks and translesion DNA synthesis to bypass oxidatively damaged bases in nuclear and kinetoplast DNA. While the deleterious effects of ROS must be managed to protect the parasite’s genome, the redox status generated by oxidative assault is crucial for intracellular signaling, DNA synthesis, and kinetoplast homeostasis. This Review will also comment on the effectiveness of current treatments for trypanosomatid-caused diseases and the role of oxidative damage in trypanosomatid diversity.

Citation: Drogalis Beckham L, Snyder A, Doublié S, Martorelli Di Genova B (2025) Translesion synthesis and microhomology-mediated end-joining repair in trypanosomatids. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 19(10): e0013626. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013626

Editor: Abhay R. Satoskar, Ohio State University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Published: October 31, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Drogalis Beckham et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: LDB is supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) training grant T32AI055402. SD acknowledges support from National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant P01CA247773-01. BMG acknowledges support from National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) grant P20 GM125498. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Trypanosomatids are flagellated protozoan parasites of the class kinetoplastida. Known collectively as the Tritrypos [1], these parasites are the causative agents of neglected tropical diseases such as Chagas disease (Trypanosoma cruzi), human African trypanosomiasis (Trypanosoma brucei), and Leishmaniasis (Leishmania spp) [2,3]. Trypanosomatid-caused diseases affect over 30 million people worldwide annually and are a public health concern in Africa, Asia, and South America [4]. As protists, the trypanosomatids lack the advantage of coordinated multicellularity, thus their survival hinges on the ability of the individual parasite to maintain the integrity of its genome for future replication [5]. Oxidative damage is caused by the host immune response to infection. In this Review Article, we will discuss DNA repair pathways employed by trypanosomatids, which in some cases enhance proliferation and survival when the parasite is faced with oxidative attack (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Trypanosomatid DNA double-strand break repair and translesion synthesis machinery in the kinetoplast (left) and nucleus (right).

The kinetoplast relies on PolI-like DNA polymerases to repair double-strand breaks while the nucleus uses the full complement of homologous recombination and microhomology-mediated end-joining proteins. Oxidized bases are bypassed or repaired by different polymerases in the kinetoplast and the nucleus depending on the species of trypanosomatid.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013626.g001

Repair of nucleobase damage

Oxidative stress is the direct consequence of living in an oxygen-rich environment. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are the result of aerobic metabolism and are also generated by exposure to a number of external agents, including ionizing radiation or various drugs. For a recent review of ROS chemistry and its biological implications, please refer to [6]. ROS are a major source of damage to all macromolecules, including DNA. Nucleobase damage caused by oxidative stress or environmental factors may be repaired directly or bypassed during replication by specialized DNA polymerases that can incorporate nucleotides across DNA lesions in a process called translesion synthesis (TLS). Several repair mechanisms exist in Trypanosomatids to remove damaged bases. Nucleotide excision (NER) is a repair mechanism that removes bulky DNA damage induced by ultraviolet light, for example [7,8]. The mismatch repair pathway repairs mismatched base pairs that arise during replication [9,10]. The base excision repair (BER) pathway is responsible for repairing small, non-bulky lesions generated by oxidation, alkylation and deamination [11–13]. The remainder of this section will focus on repair of oxidized bases by BER enzymes. For a recent survey of Trypanosomatid MMR and NER proteins, please refer to [14].

During BER the damaged base is first recognized and excised by a DNA glycosylase, generating an abasic site or apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) site. The DNA backbone is then cleaved by an AP lyase to create a single-strand nick. Next, apurinic endonuclease 1 (APE1) or polynucleotide kinase (PNK) processes the nick, leaving a free 3’ hydroxyl for Pol β to fill the gap. A DNA ligase then seals the newly added nucleotide [15–17].

7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG) is a commonly described oxidized lesion derived from guanine [18,19]. It is repaired by OGG1 glycosylase in humans, AGOG in archaea, and Fpg and OGG2 in bacteria [20]. A putative 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase gene was found in the T. cruzi genome, TcOGG1 [21]. TcOgg1 was later found to be active in nuclear and mitochondrial BER [22]. T. cruzi also possesses a homolog of human MUTYH, a glycosylase specialized in detecting and excising dA in 8-oxoG:dA mispairs [23,24]. As for oxidized pyrimidine bases such as thymine glycol lesions, T. cruzi Nth1 does not appear to remove them, unlike its human counterpart, NTHL1 [25,26]. T. cruzi Nth1 acts instead as an AP endonuclease [27]. How the trypanosomatid repair Tg lesions and other common oxidized lesions such as Fapy-dG/dA [17,28] remains unknown.

As mentioned above, T. cruzi NTH1 does not repair Tg lesions, suggesting that another glycosylase or a TLS polymerase may be employed to resolve Tg lesions in trypanosomatids [25–27]. The Y-family [29] translesion synthesis (TLS) polymerases Rev1, Pol η (POLH gene) and Pol κ (POLK gene) are present in trypanosomatids, but Pol ι is apparently not represented. The only X-family polymerase is the base excision repair polymerase Pol β, as homologs of human Pol λ, μ, and TdT were not detected [15,30] (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Repair and translesion DNA Polymerases in Leishmania major, Trypanosoma cruzi, and Trypanosoma brucei.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013626.t001

In mammals, Pol β has been shown to localize to both the nucleus and mitochondria [31]. Leishmania spp. are unique in that they possess nuclear Pol β, which can perform base excision repair. No nuclear Pol β exists in T. cruzi and T. brucei [21,32], suggesting that other mechanisms are required to replicate nuclear DNA in the presence of oxidative lesions. In T. cruzi and T. brucei, Pol β is present exclusively in the kinetoplast [12,30,33–36]. An increase in endogenous Pol β expression in replicating T. cruzi epimastigotes in response to treatment with H2O2 has been reported, suggestive of BER activation in the kinetoplast [37]. Along with Pol β, T. cruzi and T. brucei possess Pol β-PAK, a Pol β-like enzyme in the kinetoplast that can participate in BER but is also able to perform TLS across from 8-oxoG [38]. No Pol β-PAK has been found in Leishmania, which is in keeping with the absence of mitochondrial Pol β in that species. The absence of all other X-family polymerases in trypanosomatids is of note due to their role in DNA repair. Without these repair enzymes, parasites may rely heavily on TLS polymerases to bypass damage. Furthermore, several X-family polymerases are involved in the processing of NHEJ substrates, which highlights their dispensability in an organism deficient in NHEJ [39].

T. brucei contains an A-family PolI-related translesion polymerase, PolIE, which localizes to the nucleus and functions in telomere maintenance [40]. A lack of nuclear Pol β in T. cruzi and T. brucei may drive reliance on translesion synthesis to overcome oxidative damage. Other error-prone polymerases like T. brucei PrimPol-like 2(PPL2) function late in DNA replication to do a final repair that allows completion of genome duplication [41].

Pol η is a Y-family translesion polymerase that can bypass 8-oxoG and has been extensively characterized in T. cruzi [30,42]. The POLH gene is duplicated in the Leishmania genus [30]. POLK gene amplication is seen in Trypanosoma and Leishmania spp. Pol κ has been shown to localize to the kinetoplast in T. cruzi epimastigotes where overexpression enhances parasite survival [43]. The maintenance of duplicated polymerase genes in trypanosomatids may be the result of pressure to repair DNA after oxidative assault by the host.

The trypanosomatid use of TLS to replicate damaged DNA may also enhance drug resistance. The trypanocidal drug Benznidazole induces DNA damage by oxidizing the nucleotide pool which is then incorporated into DNA. In T. cruzi, overexpression of repair polymerases including Pol β, κ, and η resulted in increased parasite resistance to Benznidazole treatment [44]. These findings indicate that lesion repair and bypass are mechanisms of drug resistance that can be targeted. In T. brucei, parasites depleted of TLS polymerase TbPolIE exhibited increased endogenous DNA damage and chromosomal segregation defects, demonstrating the critical role of TLS in parasite genomic maintenance [40]. Other potential drug targets include RNA polymerase TLS, the preferred mechanism for tolerating UV-induced lesions in T. brucei [7]. The importance of TLS in different contexts in trypanosomatids makes TLS polymerases compelling targets for drug development.

Double strand break repair

Assaults on genomic integrity by reactive oxygen species result in damaged DNA nucleobases and DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) [45]. There are several ways that ROS can lead to DSB formation. ROS-induced oxidized bases are generally repaired by the BER pathway. Excision of the damaged base by a DNA glycosylase is followed by the creation of a SSB. Two single-strand breaks (SSBs) in close proximity can generate a double-strand break (DSB). An oxidized base that is not repaired can block a replication fork, which can lead to replication fork collapse, and eventually produce a DSB if left unrepaired. DSBs are also produced in response to high levels of ROS when cells are exposed to ionizing radiation (IR). IR damages both DNA bases and sugar moieties, generating oxidized bases and ssDNA breaks. If two single-strand DNA breaks happen to be on opposite DNA strands within a few bases, a DSB can be generated [46].

DNA DSBs are particularly deleterious and must be repaired via one of several distinct pathways: non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), homologous recombination (HR), and microhomology mediated end-joining (MMEJ) [45] (Fig 2). In organisms that use NHEJ as a repair pathway, NHEJ is used predominantly to repair DNA DSBs during most of the cell cycle [46]. This repair process involves five core components: Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer (Ku), the DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs), DNA ligase IV (Lig4), and the XRCC4 and XLF proteins. NHEJ is initiated by the binding of Ku70/80 heterodimers to DNA ends at a double-strand break. Ku then recruits DNA-PKcs. Ku70/Ku80 forms a stable complex with DNA-PKcs (DNA-PK), which promotes synapsis of the DNA ends. The final step of NHEJ is mediated by the LIG4 complex (DNA-Ligase 4, Xrcc4, and XLF). Trypanosoma cruzi, T. brucei, and Leishmania spp. do not possess the full complement of the proteins required to perform NHEJ: they possess Ku70/Ku80, but not Lig4. In these organisms DSBs are predominantly repaired via HR and MMEJ. The Ku70/80 complex might still participate in DSB repair as a “first responder” because of its ability to rapidly bind and protect DSBs. Nenarokova and colleagues hypothesize that the loss of NHEJ components may be responsible for characteristic features of parasite genomes [47].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Double-strand break (DSB) repair pathways.

T. cruzi, T. brucei, and Leishmania spp. lack the full complement of proteins necessary to carry out NHEJ, and thus rely on HR and MMEJ for DSB repair. NHEJ, non-homologous end joining; HR, homologous recombination; MMEJ, microhomology-mediated end joining. Figure adapted from [53].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013626.g002

DSBs that form during the S or G2 phase of the cell cycle are likely to be repaired predominantly by HR [48,49]. The HR repair process involves recombination between sister chromatids. It begins with the resection of the DSB 5’ DNA ends. This reaction is initiated by a trimeric complex, MRN, composed MRE11, RAD50, and Xrs2/NBS1. The resection event creates 3′-OH single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) tails that are covered by the single-stranded DNA binding protein RPA. RPA presents an obstacle to the loading of the RAD51 recombinase and has to be displaced by recombination mediator proteins like BRCA2 in order for HR to proceed. BRCA1 facilitates the recruitment of BRCA2 to DSBs through the bridging protein PALB2. The RAD51 filament promotes the search for a homologous template and enters the sister chromatid to form a D‐loop. The free 3′ end of the invading strand is then bound by a DNA polymerase, usually DNA polymerase δ (Pol δ), although translesion DNA polymerases have also been implicated in this process. Several of the core eukaryotic HR proteins are conserved among Trypanosomatids. Many parasites utilize HR to adapt to adverse environmental conditions and evade their host immune system via genetic recombination. For example, T. brucei uses HR to switch the expression of different Variant Surface Glycoproteins (VSG) genes and change its surface coat proteins [50].

Additionally, homologous recombination (HR) serves as a pivotal mechanism in Leishmania, facilitating genome maintenance, adaptability, and potentially antigenic variation. Central to this process is the RAD51 recombinase. Experimental disruption of RAD51-related genes in Leishmania major results in impaired DNA synthesis, defective replication, and heightened genomic instability, underscoring HR’s essential function in parasite survival [51]. Recent findings also highlight R-loops as significant contributors to genomic stability, revealing that their chromosome-size-dependent distribution profoundly influences DNA replication timing in Leishmania [52]. Loss of RNase H1, an enzyme crucial for resolving these RNA-DNA hybrids, further underscores their importance by disrupting replication timing and significantly enhancing chromosome instability and copy number variations [52]. These mechanisms, collectively involving HR, R-loop regulation, and recombination-based gene amplification, empower Leishmania to adapt to environmental stresses, including drug pressure, potentially facilitating immune evasion through antigenic variation, as evidenced by variations in surface antigens such as hydrophilic acylated surface proteins (HASPs) [53]. Collectively, these insights underline the multifaceted nature of HR and R-loop dynamics in governing genomic integrity and adaptability in Leishmania.

Microhomology-mediated end-joining

The third DSB repair mechanism, microhomology-mediated end-joining (MMEJ), also happens after resection. It involves aligning microhomologies internal to broken DNA ends, trimming the DNA 3’-ends, and filling the remaining DNA gap by DNA polymerase θ. MMEJ is a mutagenic process that can result in insertions, deletions, and chromosomal rearrangements [54–57].

While HR is a mostly error-free DSB repair pathway, MMEJ is known to introduce genetic variability. A signature of double-strand break repair by MMEJ is that a few nucleotides are usually deleted or added at the repair site; this is the cost of using MMEJ to prevent extensive deletions and thus protecting the genome [56]. Pol θ, the enzyme at the heart of MMEJ, uses short DNA sequence homologies to initiate repair of double-strand breaks. Pol θ is found in all eukaryotes, except fungi [58]. In most eukaryotes Pol θ is composed of three domains, an N-terminal helicase-like domain and a C-terminal Family A DNA polymerase connected by a long central domain predicted to be mostly flexible [58]. The helicase-like domain grabs and aligns single-stranded DNA tails near the 3′ termini of the double strand break. The DNA polymerase domain then anneals the 3’-ends and proceeds with nucleotide addition. While the function of the central domain is still under active investigation, there is evidence that through its interactions with the globular domains, it plays in part in targeting the polymerase to specific locations and controlling the oligomeric state of the enzyme during repair [59]. Knowing the important roles that the central domain plays in other eukaryotes, it is intriguing that in Trypanosomatids the helicase and polymerase are not connected and are encoded by two separate genes [40,60]. Another notable difference is that the T. cruzi Polθ-helicase possesses both ATPase and helicase activity unlike its mammalian counterparts, which retain ATPase activity yet are not classical helicases because they do not unwind DNA under most conditions [40,60,61]. In mammals, Pol θ’s fusion of the helicase-like and polymerase domains could help facilitate a coordinated repair of double strand breaks. In contrast, the separation of the two domains in parasites may favor genome plasticity over fidelity. How the two separate protein gene products function together in Trypanosomatids during MMEJ remains to be elucidated [61,62].

MMEJ activity has been characterized in T. brucei [63] where it functions as an alternative to the preferred HR pathway [64,65]. Glover et al. determined that all intra-chromosomal joining observed after I-SceI treatment was due to MMEJ [65]. In T. cruzi, DSBs induced by CRISPR-Cas9 treatment were repaired exclusively via MMEJ when no HR template was available [66,67]. Similar breaks were found to be partially repaired via MMEJ in L. donovani [68]. In L. donovani cells with a disrupted RAD51 gene (required for HR), cells were reliant on MMEJ to repair CRISPR-Cas9 induced DSBs [69].

In T. brucei, antigenic variation is achieved through variant surface glycoprotein (VSG) expression, a mechanism that is critical for escaping the host immune system [70]. VSG genes are sub-telomeric, and the ability to change the singly expressed VSG hinges on the presence of DNA DSBs in the expression locus. Telomeric DSBs can trigger gene conversion through homologous recombination to switch between alternative VSG genes. In addition to repair by HR, MMEJ repairs ~25% of I-SceI induced DSBs in sub-telomeric VSG expression sites [64]. These regions often lack allelic homologous sequences with which to perform HR and are more reliant on functional MMEJ. This is in contrast to I-SceI induced breaks in the interior of the chromosome where only 10% of breaks were repaired by MMEJ [65].

DNA double-strand breaks that occur in mitochondrial DNA in other eukaryotic organisms can be repaired using MMEJ [71,72], and it might also be the case for trypanosomatids. Eukaryotic mitochondria lack NHEJ capability and repair using HR cannot account for the observed mutation rate in mitochondrial DNA. Therefore, trypanosomatids must also employ MMEJ to repair DSBs in kDNA. Four A-family polymerases that localize to the kinetoplast of T. brucei have been identified, termed PolIA-D [73–75]. Sequence analyses indicate that PolIB-D share a phage origin, whereas PolIA was derived from a Pol θ homolog [76]. While some work suggests that Pol θ may localize to mitochondria after H2O2 damage in human cell lines, more investigation is required to confirm this observation [77].

Outside of antigenic variation, repair of DNA DSBs is critical for maintaining genomic stability. The majority of DSBs in Leishmania are repaired via HR [68], but in the absence of MRN resection complex members MRE11 and RAD50, HR is diminished and chromosomal translocations were observed [53]. These translocations contained short micro-homologies at their junctions, indicating that the translocations were facilitated by MMEJ. Alternatively, in T. brucei, HR is dependent on the presence of RAD50 and the repair pathway preference switches to MMEJ in RAD50 null mutants [78]. The absence of RAD50 and MRE11 in T. brucei mutants did not result in a resection defect, suggesting that other nucleases may prepare DSBs for MMEJ. Using the trypanosomatid orthologue of single-strand binding protein RPA as a marker, Glover et al. showed that T. brucei can tolerate a high level of DNA damage during replication [79]. Taken together, these papers underscore how trypanosomatids balance HR and MMEJ carefully to maintain genomic integrity and promote adaptation to the host environment.

Management of oxidative stress

The group Kinetoplastida is defined by the presence of a kinetoplast—a region within the cell’s only mitochondrion where its DNA is concentrated [80]. kDNA maxicircles encode the respiratory machinery and ribosomal RNA, typical of a mitochondrial genome. Minicircles encode guide RNAs that direct maxicircle transcript processing, making kDNA minicircle maintenance critical for mitochondrial function [81]. Mitochondrial respiration can generate oxidative stress in the kinetoplast, resulting in DNA damage, such as oxidized bases and double-strand breaks. Beyond the kinetoplast, nuclear trypanosomatid DNA is subjected to a similar oxidative assault by the host immune system [82]. Trypanosomatids also experience oxidative stress in the insect vector from both the insect’s immune system and parasite oxidation of vector-derived amino acids for energy [83]. The oxidative environments experienced by trypanosomatids throughout their life cycle makes the parasites vulnerable to DNA damage like oxidized bases and double-strand breaks (Fig 1).

Studies examining T. brucei DNA damage response to various genotoxic agents revealed that kDNA oxidative damage induced by H2O2 appeared at later experimental time points, indicating that the damage was caused indirectly. Regardless of the timing, T. brucei parasites from the human bloodstream repair kDNA damage better than parasites of the procyclic form from the Tsetse fly gut [84]. Faster kDNA repair in bloodstream T. brucei parasites demonstrates the mitochondrial demand from infectivity and superior fitness against oxidative attack. To prevent DNA damage in the face of oxidative stress—both host-inflicted and endogenously generated-- trypanosomatids possess a finely tuned redox management system that mitigates oxidative damage [85]. Despite this system, oxidative DNA damage still occurs. Possessing a single mitochondrion and enduring an oxidative onslaught requires trypanosomatids to prioritize repair mechanisms that maintain a complete genome. Repair of DNA DSBs using MMEJ and the bypass of DNA damage by TLS polymerases are both mutagenic mechanisms by which the parasite may maintain genomic integrity.

Oxidative species as growth and differentiation signals

Moderate ROS can act as growth and differentiation cues that enhance proliferation and infectivity, whereas excessive ROS are deleterious [86–92]. Trypanosomatids experience an oxidative onslaught after infecting a host, but this attack does more than damage the parasite’s DNA. Reactive oxygen species and their intermediates have been demonstrated to function as signaling molecules [86] and are responsible for potentiating trypanosomatid infectivity in host cells [87–89]. In T. cruzi, exposure to pro-oxidant heme in the insect vector’s gut triggers an increase in ROS levels, promoting epimastigote proliferation. [90,91]. Treatment of T. cruzi with low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) has been observed to stimulate parasite proliferation, whereas higher concentrations are deleterious, leading to parasite death [92]. In Leishmania spp., ROS regulate differentiation from insect-stage promastigotes to replicative amastigotes, thereby enhancing virulence [93]. Oxidative stress-induced DNA damage serves as a driving force for intrastrain diversity in trypanosomatids. Exposure of T. cruzi epimastigotes to hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) resulted in a two-fold increase in mutation frequency [71], while Leishmania donovani promastigotes exhibited oxidative damage-associated mutations following sandfly infection [72].

Additionally, controlled oxidative stress has been shown to enhance the infectivity of T. cruzi by facilitating its survival and replication within host cells [87,92]. These findings suggest that moderate oxidative stress plays a key role in promoting genetic diversity, proliferation, and infectivity in trypanosomatids. However, excessive oxidative stress can be detrimental, underscoring the importance of a finely regulated balance between oxidative damage and parasite adaptation. Moderate oxidative stress not only enhances genetic diversity but may also serve as a replication checkpoint, delaying cell cycle progression in response to DNA damage [37]. This regulatory mechanism ensures that cells repair oxidized lesions before committing to further rounds of replication.

Detoxification centered on trypanothione

The glutathione-derived thiol trypanothione (T[SH]₂/T[S]₂) organizes redox homeostasis and couples stress management to deoxynucleotide production via RNR, linking redox to DNA synthesis [94–97]. In humans, an increase in reactive oxygen species can be accompanied by a decrease in DNA synthesis to manage an excess of oxidative stress [94]. In this sense, redox status determines replication status. To manage oxidative stress, trypanosomatids possess an unusual form of the antioxidant glutathione composed of two glutathione molecules joined via a polyamine linker called trypanothione (Fig 3). In T. brucei, trypanothione supplies the reducing equivalents necessary for ribonucleotide reductase to convert ribonucleoside diphosphates into deoxyribonucleoside diphosphates, a critical step in DNA synthesis [95]. Since RNR is the rate-limiting enzyme in deoxynucleotide production, the trypanothione system is indispensable for maintaining DNA replication under oxidative stress [96]. The oxidative inactivation of RNR would impair DNA synthesis, suggesting that trypanosomatids must continuously regenerate their reducing environment to sustain proliferation. Further investigations in T. brucei revealed that genetic replacement of trypanothione-generating trypanothione synthetase (TryS) resulted in trypanosomatids that cannot establish an infection in mice and die when treated with TryS inhibitors [97]. Furthermore, overexpression of TryS results in increased growth and survival of T. cruzi epimastigotes and trypomastigotes, most notably in the presence of H2O2 induced oxidative stress [83]. Leishmania infantum has also been shown to rely on TryS activity to survive and replicate [98].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Oxidative stress management in trypanosomatids and role of trypanothione.

TryS: trypanothione synthetase; TryX: tryparedoxin; rNTP: ribonucleoside triphosphate; dNTP: deoxynucleoside triphosphate; SOD: superoxide dismutase; APX: ascorbate peroxidase; RNR: ribonucleotide reductase.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013626.g003

Other detoxifying enzymes: SOD distribution and plant-like peroxidases

Beyond trypanothione metabolism, compartmentalized enzymes—superoxide dismutases (SODs) and peroxidases—buffer superoxide and peroxides across organelles [102–105]. The redox status of a trypanosomatid cell is also critical for kDNA replication. Maxicircles are replicated like other eukaryotic mitochondrial DNA, [99,100] but replicating the minicircles that edit them relies on redox balance. The universal minicircle sequence binding protein (UMSBP) must be reduced to activate its binding to kDNA minicircles and to initiate minicircle replication. Both the ability of UMSBP to bind DNA and oligomerize to become functional depend on the redox status of the cell; therefore, oxidative attacks by the host cell must be carefully balanced to protect the kinetoplast genome. Kinetoplast DNA (kDNA) is particularly susceptible to oxidative lesions due to its highly concatenated structure and constant exposure to reactive oxygen species [35]. The regulation of UMSBP activity through redox-dependent conformational changes ensures controlled initiation of minicircle replication, preventing excessive oxidative damage that could compromise mitochondrial function [101]. However, kDNA is also subjected to oxidative stress generated by the kinetoplast itself. Trypanosomatids possess several sites for potential electron leakage within their respiratory chain to form superoxide anions [102]. Several kinetoplast specific superoxide dismutases exist in trypanosomatids and inhibition of their activity in T. cruzi showed decreased parasitemia in mice [103], making superoxide dismutases an attractive target for treatment.

SOD isoforms are compartmentalized across the mitochondrion/kinetoplast, glycosomes, and cytosol in trypanosomatids, aligning with in vivo efficacy of iron-SOD inhibition [102].

For reactive oxygen species other than superoxide anions, trypanosomatids again rely on trypanothione oxidation. Tryparedoxin (TryX) is reduced by trypanothione and is in turn utilized by tryparedoxin peroxidase to decompose both endogenous- and macrophage-produced H2O2 and peroxynitrites as shown in T. cruzi [103], T. brucei [104], and Leishmania spp [105]. While trypanothione is synthesized in the cytosol, recent work has also revealed a trypanothione system in the kinetoplast that helps maintain mitochondrial redox homeostasis [106].

Most eukaryotes employ a catalase to decompose hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen and to detoxify reactive oxygen species; however, no catalase homolog exists in human infective trypanosomatids [1,21,32,107]. Exogenous expression of E. coli catalase in T. cruzi trypomastigotes dysregulated the parasite’s response to oxidative stress, indicating that trypanosomatids have evolved a unique and highly tuned system (Fig 3) for managing reactive oxygen species [108,109]. In addition, trypanosomatids encode a plant-like ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activity rather than classical glutathione peroxidase/catalase dominance, reinforcing reliance on thiol-peroxidase chemistry [105].

Functionally, the absence of catalase appears adaptive: catalase would short‑circuit H₂O₂‑based signaling needed for proliferation/differentiation and would intersect poorly with the thiol‑peroxidase‑centric detox network. Expression of heterologous catalase dysregulates oxidative‑stress signalling and compromises development in trypanosomatids [1,21,32,107–109].

Concluding remarks

DNA repair in eukaryotic cells necessitates specialized enzymes to maintain both nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. In trypanosomatids, this specialization is particularly pronounced because the kinetoplast serves as their sole mitochondrion. Due to their early divergence in evolutionary history, trypanosomatids have evolved extensive redundancy in DNA replication and repair mechanisms [104]. They possess a unique and comprehensive array of DNA replication and translesion synthesis (TLS) enzymes specifically adapted to ensure the integrity of kinetoplast DNA (kDNA) and nuclear DNA under persistent oxidative stress [105].

Parasite variability is also a capacity for environmental adaptation, not just a determinant of treatment outcome. HR‑ and MMEJ‑driven genome plasticity, R‑loop–regulated replication timing and copy‑number changes, and antigenic variation collectively enable transitions between mammalian hosts and insect vectors, tolerance of oxidative/nutritional stress, and immune evasion [52–54,69,78]. Therapeutic strategies that target conserved DNA repair–redox interfaces may therefore reduce both survival and evolvability across ecological niches.

While many front‑line agents (e.g., benznidazole, nifurtimox) exert trypanocidal activity by promoting oxidative or nitrosative stress, there are effective therapies and late‑stage candidates whose primary modes of action do not rely on direct free‑radical damage. Examples include inhibitors of polyamine/ornithine decarboxylase (e.g., eflornithine in HAT), disruption of sterol/ergosterol biosynthesis, membrane‑active amphotericin formulations and alkylphosphocholine drugs used in leishmaniasis (e.g., miltefosine), and emerging scaffolds that perturb proteostasis or organellar function; cytology‑based MoA profiling in trypanosomatids likewise reveals non‑oxidative mechanisms [4,111]. Recognizing these orthogonal routes clarifies that redox‑damage therapies are one pillar among several actionable vulnerabilities.

The protozoan parasites within the order Trypanosomatida display rapid evolutionary dynamics and considerable genetic divergence, both between species and among strains within the same species [106–108]. This genetic diversity poses significant challenges for treatment development, as slight variations in protein sequences across strains can affect drug efficacy. Effective therapeutic approaches must therefore account for this variability, targeting conserved mechanisms critical to parasite survival and replication.

Current trypanosomiasis treatments, including Benznidazole, Pentamidine, and Nifurtimox, primarily induce oxidative stress and DNA damage within parasites [109]. However, these drugs often fail to directly inhibit the parasite-specific DNA repair pathways, allowing parasites to mitigate damage, survive, and continue replication. Furthermore, many available treatments exhibit substantial off-target effects due to their broad-spectrum activity, resulting in undesirable side effects in hosts.

Identifying and exploiting the molecular differences in DNA repair mechanisms between trypanosomatids and their human hosts presents a promising strategy for developing highly selective therapies. Targeting parasite-specific DNA repair enzymes or pathways could enhance the efficacy of existing treatments and minimize host toxicity.

In conclusion, the complex interplay between oxidative stress and specialized DNA repair mechanisms underscores the importance of continued research into trypanosomatid biology. Elucidating the unique DNA maintenance strategies of these parasites will provide valuable insights into their evolution and adaptability, ultimately guiding the development of precise and effective therapeutic interventions that address the considerable genetic variability across trypanosomatid species and strains.

Key learning points
  • Reactive oxygen species can damage DNA bases and, if left unrepaired, this damage can result in DNA double-strand breaks and lesions that lead to mutagenesis.
  • Microhomology-mediated end-joining is an alternative DNA double-strand break repair pathway that facilitates antigenic variation and is critical for genome stability.
  • Translesion synthesis allows trypanosomatids to complete DNA replication while tolerating mutagenic DNA damage.
  • The redox status of the parasite cell is critical as it regulates processes like DNA replication and cell signaling through a glutathione-derived molecule exclusive to trypanosomatids, termed trypanothione.
  • Current treatments for trypanosomatid-caused diseases target DNA integrity, but not the parasite’s ability to repair damage caused by the drug.

References

  1. 1. Kissinger JC. A tale of three genomes: the kinetoplastids have arrived. Trends Parasitol. 2006;22(6):240–3. pmid:16635586
  2. 2. Pérez-Molina JA, Molina I. Chagas disease. Lancet. 2018;391(10115):82–94. pmid:28673423
  3. 3. Bern C, Kjos S, Yabsley MJ, Montgomery SP. Trypanosoma cruzi and Chagas’ disease in the United States. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011;24(4):655–81. pmid:21976603
  4. 4. Alcântara LM, Ferreira TCS, Gadelha FR, Miguel DC. Challenges in drug discovery targeting TriTryp diseases with an emphasis on leishmaniasis. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2018;8(3):430–9. pmid:30293058
  5. 5. Kaiser D. Building a multicellular organism. Annu Rev Genet. 2001;35:103–23. pmid:11700279
  6. 6. Juan CA, Perez de la Lastra JM, Plou FJ, Perez-Lebena E. The chemistry of reactive oxygen species (ROS) revisited: outlining their role in biological macromolecules (DNA, lipids and proteins) and induced pathologies. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(9).
  7. 7. Machado CR, Vieira-da-Rocha JP, Mendes IC, Rajao MA, Marcello L, Bitar M. Nucleotide excision repair in Trypanosoma brucei: specialization of transcription-coupled repair due to multigenic transcription. Mol Microbiol. 2014;92(4):756–76.
  8. 8. Wood RD. Nucleotide excision repair in mammalian cells. J Biol Chem. 1997;272(38):23465–8. pmid:9295277
  9. 9. Grazielle-Silva V, Zeb TF, Burchmore R, Machado CR, McCulloch R, Teixeira SMR. Trypanosoma brucei and Trypanosoma cruzi DNA mismatch repair proteins act differently in the response to DNA damage caused by oxidative stress. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:154. pmid:32373549
  10. 10. Modrich P. Mechanisms and biological effects of mismatch repair. Annu Rev Genet. 1991;25:229–53. pmid:1812808
  11. 11. Mullins EA, Rodriguez AA, Bradley NP, Eichman BF. Emerging roles of DNA glycosylases and the base excision repair pathway. Trends Biochem Sci. 2019;44(9):765–81. pmid:31078398
  12. 12. Genois M-M, Paquet ER, Laffitte M-CN, Maity R, Rodrigue A, Ouellette M, et al. DNA repair pathways in trypanosomatids: from DNA repair to drug resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2014;78(1):40–73. pmid:24600040
  13. 13. Prakash A, Doublié S. Base excision repair in the mitochondria. J Cell Biochem. 2015;116(8):1490–9. pmid:25754732
  14. 14. Rose E, Carvalho JL, Hecht M. Mechanisms of DNA repair in Trypanosoma cruzi: what do we know so far? DNA Repair (Amst). 2020;91–92:102873.
  15. 15. Yamtich J, Sweasy JB. DNA polymerase family X: function, structure, and cellular roles. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1804(5):1136–50. pmid:19631767
  16. 16. Robertson AB, Klungland A, Rognes T, Leiros I. DNA repair in mammalian cells: Base excision repair: the long and short of it. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66(6):981–93. pmid:19153658
  17. 17. Brooks SC, Adhikary S, Rubinson EH, Eichman BF. Recent advances in the structural mechanisms of DNA glycosylases. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1834(1):247–71. pmid:23076011
  18. 18. Cooke MS, Evans MD, Dizdaroglu M, Lunec J. Oxidative DNA damage: mechanisms, mutation, and disease. FASEB J. 2003;17(10):1195–214. pmid:12832285
  19. 19. Aguiar PHN, Furtado C, Repolês BM, Ribeiro GA, Mendes IC, Peloso EF, et al. Oxidative stress and DNA lesions: the role of 8-oxoguanine lesions in Trypanosoma cruzi cell viability. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(6):e2279. pmid:23785540
  20. 20. Faucher F, Doublié S, Jia Z. 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylases: one lesion, three subfamilies. Int J Mol Sci. 2012;13(6):6711–29. pmid:22837659
  21. 21. El-Sayed NM, Myler PJ, Bartholomeu DC, Nilsson D, Aggarwal G, Tran A-N, et al. The genome sequence of Trypanosoma cruzi, etiologic agent of Chagas disease. Science. 2005;309(5733):409–15. pmid:16020725
  22. 22. Furtado C, Kunrath-Lima M, Rajão MA, Mendes IC, de Moura MB, Campos PC, et al. Functional characterization of 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase of Trypanosoma cruzi. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42484. pmid:22876325
  23. 23. Kunrath-Lima M, Repolês BM, Alves CL, Furtado C, Rajão MA, Macedo AM, et al. Characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi MutY DNA glycosylase ortholog and its role in oxidative stress response. Infect Genet Evol. 2017;55:332–42. pmid:28970112
  24. 24. Banda DM, Nuñez NN, Burnside MA, Bradshaw KM, David SS. Repair of 8-oxoG:A mismatches by the MUTYH glycosylase: mechanism, metals and medicine. Free Radic Biol Med. 2017;107:202–15. pmid:28087410
  25. 25. Carroll BL, Zahn KE, Hanley JP, Wallace SS, Dragon JA, Doublié S. Caught in motion: human NTHL1 undergoes interdomain rearrangement necessary for catalysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(22):13165–78. pmid:34871433
  26. 26. Prasad A, Wallace SS, Pederson DS. Initiation of base excision repair of oxidative lesions in nucleosomes by the human, bifunctional DNA glycosylase NTH1. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(24):8442–53. pmid:17923696
  27. 27. Ormeño F, Barrientos C, Ramirez S, Ponce I, Valenzuela L, Sepúlveda S, et al. Expression and the peculiar enzymatic behavior of the Trypanosoma cruzi NTH1 DNA glycosylase. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157270. pmid:27284968
  28. 28. Liu M, Doublié S, Wallace SS. Neil3, the final frontier for the DNA glycosylases that recognize oxidative damage. Mutat Res. 2013;743–744:4–11. pmid:23274422
  29. 29. Washington MT, Carlson KD, Freudenthal BD, Pryor JM. Variations on a theme: eukaryotic Y-family DNA polymerases. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1804(5):1113–23. pmid:19616647
  30. 30. Poveda A, Méndez MÁ, Armijos-Jaramillo V. Analysis of DNA polymerases reveals specific genes expansion in Leishmania and Trypanosoma spp. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:570493. pmid:33117729
  31. 31. Prasad R, Çağlayan M, Dai D-P, Nadalutti CA, Zhao M-L, Gassman NR, et al. DNA polymerase β: A missing link of the base excision repair machinery in mammalian mitochondria. DNA Repair (Amst). 2017;60:77–88. pmid:29100041
  32. 32. Jackson AP, Sanders M, Berry A, McQuillan J, Aslett MA, Quail MA, et al. The genome sequence of Trypanosoma brucei gambiense, causative agent of chronic human african trypanosomiasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(4):e658. pmid:20404998
  33. 33. Uzcanga G, Lara E, Gutiérrez F, Beaty D, Beske T, Teran R, et al. Nuclear DNA replication and repair in parasites of the genus Leishmania: exploiting differences to develop innovative therapeutic approaches. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2017;43(2):156–77. pmid:27960617
  34. 34. Taladriz S, Hanke T, Ramiro MJ, García-Díaz M, García De Lacoba M, Blanco L. Nuclear DNA polymerase beta from Leishmania infantum. cloning, molecular analysis and developmental regulation. Nucleic Acids Research. 2001;29(18):3822–34.
  35. 35. Schamber-Reis BLF, Nardelli S, Régis-Silva CG, Campos PC, Cerqueira PG, Lima SA, et al. DNA polymerase beta from Trypanosoma cruzi is involved in kinetoplast DNA replication and repair of oxidative lesions. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2012;183(2):122–31. pmid:22369885
  36. 36. Saxowsky TT, Choudhary G, Klingbeil MM, Englund PT. Trypanosoma brucei has two distinct mitochondrial DNA polymerase beta enzymes. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(49):49095–101. pmid:12966090
  37. 37. Rojas DA, Urbina F, Moreira-Ramos S, Castillo C, Kemmerling U, Lapier M, et al. Endogenous overexpression of an active phosphorylated form of DNA polymerase β under oxidative stress in Trypanosoma cruzi. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(2):e0006220. pmid:29432450
  38. 38. Maldonado E, Morales-Pison S, Urbina F, Solari A. Molecular and functional characteristics of DNA polymerase beta-like enzymes from trypanosomatids. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:670564. pmid:34422676
  39. 39. Chang HHY, Pannunzio NR, Adachi N, Lieber MR. Non-homologous DNA end joining and alternative pathways to double-strand break repair. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017;18(8):495–506. pmid:28512351
  40. 40. Leal AZ, Schwebs M, Briggs E, Weisert N, Reis H, Lemgruber L, et al. Genome maintenance functions of a putative Trypanosoma brucei translesion DNA polymerase include telomere association and a role in antigenic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48(17):9660–80. pmid:32890403
  41. 41. Rudd SG, Glover L, Jozwiakowski SK, Horn D, Doherty AJ. PPL2 translesion polymerase is essential for the completion of chromosomal DNA replication in the African trypanosome. Mol Cell. 2013;52(4):554–65. pmid:24267450
  42. 42. de Moura MB, Schamber-Reis BLF, Passos Silva DG, Rajão MA, Macedo AM, Franco GR, et al. Cloning and characterization of DNA polymerase eta from Trypanosoma cruzi: roles for translesion bypass of oxidative damage. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2009;50(5):375–86. pmid:19229999
  43. 43. Rajão MA, Passos-Silva DG, DaRocha WD, Franco GR, Macedo AM, Pena SDJ, et al. DNA polymerase kappa from Trypanosoma cruzi localizes to the mitochondria, bypasses 8-oxoguanine lesions and performs DNA synthesis in a recombination intermediate. Mol Microbiol. 2009;71(1):185–97. pmid:19007414
  44. 44. Rajão MA, Furtado C, Alves CL, Passos-Silva DG, de Moura MB, Schamber-Reis BL, et al. Unveiling benznidazole’s mechanism of action through overexpression of DNA repair proteins in Trypanosoma cruzi. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2014;55(4):309–21. pmid:24347026
  45. 45. Cannan WJ, Pederson DS. Mechanisms and consequences of double-strand DNA break formation in chromatin. J Cell Physiol. 2016;231(1):3–14. pmid:26040249
  46. 46. Zhao B, Rothenberg E, Ramsden DA, Lieber MR. The molecular basis and disease relevance of non-homologous DNA end joining. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21(12):765–81. pmid:33077885
  47. 47. Nenarokova A, Záhonová K, Krasilnikova M, Gahura O, McCulloch R, Zíková A. Causes and effects of loss of classical nonhomologous end joining pathway in parasitic eukaryotes. mBio. 2019;10(4).
  48. 48. Wright WD, Shah SS, Heyer W-D. Homologous recombination and the repair of DNA double-strand breaks. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(27):10524–35. pmid:29599286
  49. 49. Kelso AA, Waldvogel SM, Luthman AJ, Sehorn MG. Homologous recombination in protozoan parasites and recombinase inhibitors. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1716. pmid:28936205
  50. 50. Sima N, McLaughlin EJ, Hutchinson S, Glover L. Escaping the immune system by DNA repair and recombination in African trypanosomes. Open Biol. 2019;9(11):190182. pmid:31718509
  51. 51. Damasceno JD, Reis-Cunha J, Crouch K, Beraldi D, Lapsley C, Tosi LRO, et al. Conditional knockout of RAD51-related genes in Leishmania major reveals a critical role for homologous recombination during genome replication. PLoS Genet. 2020;16(7):e1008828. pmid:32609721
  52. 52. Damasceno JD, Briggs EM, Krasilnikova M, Marques CA, Lapsley C, McCulloch R. R-loops acted on by RNase H1 influence DNA replication timing and genome stability in Leishmania. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):1470. pmid:39922816
  53. 53. Laffitte M-CN, Leprohon P, Hainse M, Légaré D, Masson J-Y, Ouellette M. Chromosomal translocations in the parasite Leishmania by a MRE11/RAD50-independent microhomology-mediated end joining mechanism. PLoS Genet. 2016;12(6):e1006117. pmid:27314941
  54. 54. Seol J-H, Shim EY, Lee SE. Microhomology-mediated end joining: good, bad and ugly. Mutat Res. 2018;809:81–7. pmid:28754468
  55. 55. Sfeir A, Symington LS. Microhomology-mediated end joining: a back-up survival mechanism or dedicated pathway? Trends Biochem Sci. 2015;40(11):701–14. pmid:26439531
  56. 56. Wood RD, Doublié S. Genome protection by DNA polymerase θ. Annu Rev Genet. 2022;56:207–28. pmid:36028228
  57. 57. Ramsden DA, Carvajal-Garcia J, Gupta GP. Mechanism, cellular functions and cancer roles of polymerase-theta-mediated DNA end joining. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2022;23(2):125–40. pmid:34522048
  58. 58. Yousefzadeh MJ, Wood RD. DNA polymerase POLQ and cellular defense against DNA damage. DNA Repair (Amst). 2013;12(1):1–9. pmid:23219161
  59. 59. Doublie S. Making 3’ ends meet. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2025.
  60. 60. de Lima LP, Calderano SG, da Silva MS, de Araujo CB, Vasconcelos EJR, Iwai LK, et al. Ortholog of the polymerase theta helicase domain modulates DNA replication in Trypanosoma cruzi. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):2888. pmid:30814563
  61. 61. Schaub JM, Soniat MM, Finkelstein IJ. Polymerase theta-helicase promotes end joining by stripping single-stranded DNA-binding proteins and bridging DNA ends. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50(7):3911–21. pmid:35357490
  62. 62. Newman JA, Cooper CDO, Aitkenhead H, Gileadi O. Structure of the helicase domain of DNA polymerase theta reveals a possible role in the microhomology-mediated end-joining pathway. Structure. 2015;23(12):2319–30. pmid:26636256
  63. 63. Burton P, McBride DJ, Wilkes JM, Barry JD, McCulloch R. Ku heterodimer-independent end joining in Trypanosoma brucei cell extracts relies upon sequence microhomology. Eukaryot Cell. 2007;6(10):1773–81. pmid:17693593
  64. 64. Glover L, Jun J, Horn D. Microhomology-mediated deletion and gene conversion in African trypanosomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(4):1372–80. pmid:20965968
  65. 65. Glover L, McCulloch R, Horn D. Sequence homology and microhomology dominate chromosomal double-strand break repair in African trypanosomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36(8):2608–18. pmid:18334531
  66. 66. Xue C, Greene EC. DNA repair pathway choices in CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing. Trends Genet. 2021;37(7):639–56. pmid:33896583
  67. 67. Peng D, Kurup SP, Yao PY, Minning TA, Tarleton RL. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated single-gene and gene family disruption in Trypanosoma cruzi. mBio. 2014;6(1):e02097-14. pmid:25550322
  68. 68. Zhang W-W, Matlashewski G. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing in Leishmania donovani. mBio. 2015;6(4):e00861. pmid:26199327
  69. 69. Zhang WW, Lypaczewski P, Matlashewski G. Optimized CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing for Leishmania and its use to target a multigene family, induce chromosomal translocation, and study DNA break repair mechanisms. mSphere. 2017;2(1).
  70. 70. Li B. DNA double-strand breaks and telomeres play important roles in trypanosoma brucei antigenic variation. Eukaryot Cell. 2015;14(3):196–205. pmid:25576484
  71. 71. Allkanjari K, Baldock RA. Beyond base excision repair: an evolving picture of mitochondrial DNA repair. Biosci Rep. 2021;41(10):BSR20211320. pmid:34608928
  72. 72. Tadi SK, Sebastian R, Dahal S, Babu RK, Choudhary B, Raghavan SC. Microhomology-mediated end joining is the principal mediator of double-strand break repair during mitochondrial DNA lesions. Mol Biol Cell. 2016;27(2):223–35. pmid:26609070
  73. 73. Concepción-Acevedo J, Luo J, Klingbeil MM. Dynamic localization of Trypanosoma brucei mitochondrial DNA polymerase ID. Eukaryot Cell. 2012;11(7):844–55. pmid:22286095
  74. 74. Concepción-Acevedo J, Miller JC, Boucher MJ, Klingbeil MM. Cell cycle localization dynamics of mitochondrial DNA polymerase IC in African trypanosomes. Mol Biol Cell. 2018;29(21):2540–52. pmid:30133333
  75. 75. Klingbeil MM, Motyka SA, Englund PT. Multiple mitochondrial DNA polymerases in Trypanosoma brucei. Mol Cell. 2002;10(1):175–86. pmid:12150917
  76. 76. Harada R, Inagaki Y. Phage origin of mitochondrion-localized family A DNA polymerases in kinetoplastids and diplonemids. Genome Biol Evol. 2021;13(2):evab003. pmid:33432342
  77. 77. Wisnovsky S, Sack T, Pagliarini DJ, Laposa RR, Kelley SO. DNA polymerase θ increases mutational rates in mitochondrial DNA. ACS Chem Biol. 2018;13(4):900–8. pmid:29509408
  78. 78. Mehnert A-K, Prorocic M, Dujeancourt-Henry A, Hutchinson S, McCulloch R, Glover L. The MRN complex promotes DNA repair by homologous recombination and restrains antigenic variation in African trypanosomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(3):1436–54. pmid:33450001
  79. 79. Glover L, Marques CA, Suska O, Horn D. Persistent DNA damage foci and dna replication with a broken chromosome in the African trypanosome. mBio. 2019;10(4).
  80. 80. Maslov DA, Opperdoes FR, Kostygov AY, Hashimi H, Lukeš J, Yurchenko V. Recent advances in trypanosomatid research: genome organization, expression, metabolism, taxonomy and evolution. Parasitology. 2019;146(1):1–27. pmid:29898792
  81. 81. Lukes J, Hashimi H, Zíková A. Unexplained complexity of the mitochondrial genome and transcriptome in kinetoplastid flagellates. Curr Genet. 2005;48(5):277–99. pmid:16215758
  82. 82. Machado-Silva A, Cerqueira PG, Grazielle-Silva V, Gadelha FR, Peloso E de F, Teixeira SMR, et al. How Trypanosoma cruzi deals with oxidative stress: antioxidant defence and DNA repair pathways. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2016;767:8–22. pmid:27036062
  83. 83. Mesías AC, Garg NJ, Zago MP. Redox balance keepers and possible cell functions managed by redox homeostasis in Trypanosoma cruzi. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019;9:435. pmid:31921709
  84. 84. Vieira-da-Rocha JP, Passos-Silva DG, Mendes IC, Rocha EA, Gomes DA, Machado CR, et al. The DNA damage response is developmentally regulated in the African trypanosome. DNA Repair (Amst). 2019;73:78–90. pmid:30470509
  85. 85. Ali V, Behera S, Nawaz A, Equbal A, Pandey K. Unique thiol metabolism in trypanosomatids: Redox homeostasis and drug resistance. Adv Parasitol. 2022;117:75–155. pmid:35878950
  86. 86. D’Autréaux B, Toledano MB. ROS as signalling molecules: mechanisms that generate specificity in ROS homeostasis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8(10):813–24. pmid:17848967
  87. 87. Paiva CN, Feijó DF, Dutra FF, Carneiro VC, Freitas GB, Alves LS, et al. Oxidative stress fuels Trypanosoma cruzi infection in mice. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(7):2531–42. pmid:22728935
  88. 88. Paiva CN, Bozza MT. Are reactive oxygen species always detrimental to pathogens? Antioxid Redox Signal. 2014;20(6):1000–37. pmid:23992156
  89. 89. Paiva CN, Medei E, Bozza MT. ROS and Trypanosoma cruzi: Fuel to infection, poison to the heart. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(4):e1006928. pmid:29672619
  90. 90. Nogueira NP, Saraiva FMS, Oliveira MP, Mendonça APM, Inacio JDF, Almeida-Amaral EE, et al. Heme modulates Trypanosoma cruzi bioenergetics inducing mitochondrial ROS production. Free Radic Biol Med. 2017;108:183–91. pmid:28363600
  91. 91. Nogueira NP de A, de Souza CF, Saraiva FM de S, Sultano PE, Dalmau SR, Bruno RE, et al. Heme-induced ROS in Trypanosoma cruzi activates CaMKII-like that triggers epimastigote proliferation. One helpful effect of ROS. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25935. pmid:22022475
  92. 92. Goes GR, Rocha PS, Diniz ARS, Aguiar PHN, Machado CR, Vieira LQ. Trypanosoma cruzi needs a signal provided by reactive oxygen species to infect macrophages. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(4):e0004555. pmid:27035573
  93. 93. Khan YA, Andrews NW, Mittra B. ROS regulate differentiation of visceralizing. Parasitol Open. 2018;4.
  94. 94. Somyajit K, Gupta R, Sedlackova H, Neelsen KJ, Ochs F, Rask M-B, et al. Redox-sensitive alteration of replisome architecture safeguards genome integrity. Science. 2017;358(6364):797–802. pmid:29123070
  95. 95. Larson S, Carter M, Hovel-Miner G. Effects of trypanocidal drugs on DNA synthesis: new insights into melarsoprol growth inhibition. Parasitology. 2021;148(10):1143–50. pmid:33593467
  96. 96. Dormeyer M, Reckenfelderbäumer N, Ludemann H, Krauth-Siegel RL. Trypanothione-dependent synthesis of deoxyribonucleotides by Trypanosoma brucei ribonucleotide reductase. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(14):10602–6. pmid:11150302
  97. 97. Wyllie S, Oza SL, Patterson S, Spinks D, Thompson S, Fairlamb AH. Dissecting the essentiality of the bifunctional trypanothione synthetase-amidase in Trypanosoma brucei using chemical and genetic methods. Mol Microbiol. 2009;74(3):529–40. pmid:19558432
  98. 98. Sousa AF, Gomes-Alves AG, Benítez D, Comini MA, Flohé L, Jaeger T, et al. Genetic and chemical analyses reveal that trypanothione synthetase but not glutathionylspermidine synthetase is essential for Leishmania infantum. Free Radic Biol Med. 2014;73:229–38. pmid:24853758
  99. 99. Simpson L. The mitochondrial genome of kinetoplastid protozoa: genomic organization, transcription, replication, and evolution. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1987;41:363–82. pmid:2825587
  100. 100. Callejas-Hernández F, Herreros-Cabello A, Del Moral-Salmoral J, Fresno M, Gironès N. The complete mitochondrial DNA of Trypanosoma cruzi: maxicircles and minicircles. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:672448.
  101. 101. Onn I, Milman-Shtepel N, Shlomai J. Redox potential regulates binding of universal minicircle sequence binding protein at the kinetoplast DNA replication origin. Eukaryot Cell. 2004;3(2):277–87. pmid:15075258
  102. 102. Docampo R, Vercesi AE. Mitochondrial Ca2+ and reactive oxygen species in trypanosomatids. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2022;36(13–15):969–83.
  103. 103. Olmo F, Urbanová K, Rosales MJ, Martín-Escolano R, Sánchez-Moreno M, Marín C. An in vitro iron superoxide dismutase inhibitor decreases the parasitemia levels of Trypanosoma cruzi in BALB/c mouse model during acute phase. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2015;5(3):110–6.
  104. 104. Stevens JR. Kinetoplastid phylogenetics, with special reference to the evolution of parasitic trypanosomes. Parasite. 2008;15(3):226–32. pmid:18814685
  105. 105. Thomas JA, Baker N, Hutchinson S, Dominicus C, Trenaman A, Glover L, et al. Insights into antitrypanosomal drug mode-of-action from cytology-based profiling. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(11):e0006980. pmid:30475806
  106. 106. Rose E, Moraes A, Shiroma T, Nitz N, Rosa A de C, Pratesi R, et al. Host DNA repair response to oxidative damage is modulated by Trypanosoma cruzi in a strain-dependent manner. Acta Trop. 2021;224:106127. pmid:34509459
  107. 107. Maldonado E, Rojas DA, Moreira-Ramos S, Urbina F, Miralles VJ, Solari A, et al. Expression, purification, and biochemical characterization of recombinant DNA polymerase beta of the Trypanosoma cruzi TcI lineage: requirement of additional factors and detection of phosphorylation of the native form. Parasitol Res. 2015;114(4):1313–26. pmid:25566774
  108. 108. Machado CR, Augusto-Pinto L, McCulloch R, Teixeira SMR. DNA metabolism and genetic diversity in Trypanosomes. Mutat Res. 2006;612(1):40–57. pmid:16040270
  109. 109. Ibáñez-Escribano A, Fonseca-Berzal C, Martínez-Montiel M, Álvarez-Márquez M, Gómez-Núñez M, Lacueva-Arnedo M, et al. Thio- and selenosemicarbazones as antiprotozoal agents against Trypanosoma cruzi and Trichomonas vaginalis. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2022;37(1):781–91. pmid:35193444
  110. 110. Lopes DDO, Schamber-Reis BL, Regis-da-Silva CG, Rajão MA, Darocha WD, Macedo AM, et al. Biochemical studies with DNA polymerase beta and DNA polymerase beta-PAK of Trypanosoma cruzi suggest the involvement of these proteins in mitochondrial DNA maintenance. DNA Repair (Amst). 2008;7(11):1882–92.
  111. 111. Fernández-Orgiler A, Martínez-Jiménez MI, Alonso A, Alcolea PJ, Requena JM, Thomas MC, et al. A putative Leishmania DNA polymerase theta protects the parasite against oxidative damage. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(10):4855–70. pmid:27131366