The DNA damage checkpoint allows recombination between divergent DNA sequences in budding yeast
Highlights
► Repair of divergent DNA sequences induced a DNA damage response cell cycle delay. ► Cell cycle arrest allows repair between divergent DNA sequences. ► Cellular mechanisms suppress recombination between divergent DNA sequences.
Introduction
The DNA damage response (DDR) plays a central role in ensuring that critical biological processes, such as immunoglobulin diversification, gamete development, and telomere homeostasis, occur with limited errors [1], [2], [3]. These processes rely on programmed genomic insults that are repaired in a highly regulated manner, and the DDR is essential for coordinating their repair with cell growth and division. Humans and mice with defects in the DDR exhibit increased genomic instability and can display increased incidence of cancer, neurodegeneration, immunodeficiency, or infertility (i.e. Ataxia telangiectasia, Nijmegen breakage syndrome, Down's syndrome, Alzheimer's disease [4]).
Genome stability is maintained by groups of proteins that recognize and repair DNA damage in the form of replication or recombination errors and chemically or radioactively induced lesions [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are cytotoxic type of DNA damage that can result from strand breakage associated with physical stress, ionizing radiation, endonuclease cleavage, stalled intermediates in DNA lesion processing, and replication fork collapse [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. DSBs are often repaired by one of several forms of chromosomal recombination, and their timely and accurate repair is essential for avoiding the genomic rearrangements that can lead to disease.
In budding yeast the DDR is critical for promoting efficient repair of DSBs. Upon formation of a DSB, a single DNA strand is resected from each broken end in the 5′–3′ direction, exposing 3′ single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). The ssDNA is immediately bound by RPA, followed by binding of complexes containing the Mec1/Tel1 PIKK protein kinases and Rad9 [17], [18]. Rad9 is phosphorylated by Mec1/Tel1 and forms an oligomer which serves as a scaffold for Rad53, allowing for Rad53 autophosphorylation [19]. Rad53 is the central DDR transducer which signals to many downstream effectors to promote localization of DNA repair factors to sites of damage and delays cell cycle progression to ensure that the damage is repaired before cell division [19], [20], [21]. If a DSB fails to be repaired, the cell will either remain terminally arrested at the G2/M stage of the cell cycle or will undergo break adaptation and die after several divisions [22], [23], [24].
Though the DDR has been widely studied, our understanding of all of its downstream steps is far from complete. One area that is not well understood is the role of the DDR in the choice of DSB repair pathway and the recognition of the correct repair template for homologous recombination. DSB repair may occur by the non-conservative non-homologous end joining pathway (NHEJ), or by one form of conservative homologous recombination (HR) including classical double-strand break repair (DSBR), synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA), single-strand annealing (SSA), or break-induced replication (BIR), all of which initiate with strand invasion or annealing of homologous DNA sequences which are then used as templates for DNA synthesis to fill in sequence gaps [25]. The current understanding is that the DSBR and SDSA pathways are preferred during the late S or G2 stage of the cell cycle or meiotic pachytene when chromosomes are in close proximity to a sister chromatid or homologous chromosome. In contrast, NHEJ is functional at all cell cycle stages, and therefore is primarily responsible for repairing breaks during the G0 or G1 stages in mammals (though it plays a smaller role in DSB repair in yeast) when sister chromatids are unavailable [26], [27]. Finally, SSA and BIR are specialized for repair of DSBs within repetitive DNA elements and when only one DSB end has a homologous template, respectively [28].
Little is known about how the DDR affects the choice of homologous repair template during HR. Despite the fact that approximately 50% of the human genome is composed of repetitive DNA elements [29], homologous template choice for DSB repair is still chosen with remarkable fidelity [30]. Still, a number of genome rearrangements between repetitive elements have been described that have been associated with cancers and neurological diseases, including familial breast and ovarian cancer as well as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease [31], [32], [33], [34], highlighting the need to further understand the mechanisms that control HR. Some of the factors required for homologous template choice have been identified [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]; however, the role of the DDR in this choice has not been explored. Here, we tested a role of the DDR in homologous partner choice using SSA between direct DNA repeats as a model. Previous work using this model [35] has shown that SSA between 205 bp repetitive elements spaced 2.6 kb apart is repaired efficiently by annealing of complementary DNA on resected ssDNA ends, cleavage of the 3′ tails derived from the intervening non-homologous sequences, and filling of gaps by DNA synthesis and ligation to create a double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) deletion product (Fig. 1). However, SSA repair at the same locus is inefficient when the repetitive elements share less-than-perfect sequence identity, except when factors critical for disrupting the heteroduplex intermediate (Msh6 or Sgs1) are absent [35]. The process for disruption of divergent SSA intermediates, termed heteroduplex rejection, occurs by a conservative unwinding mechanism such that rejected intermediates still have the potential to repair correctly if the appropriate homologous template is available [36].
To determine whether the RAD9-dependent DDR is involved in the formation or rejection of heteroduplex SSA intermediates, we compared the effectiveness of heteroduplex rejection in a wild-type versus rad9Δ strain background. Unexpectedly, we found that heteroduplex rejection was less efficient in the presence of the DDR than in its absence; DDR allowed recombination between divergent sequences. Further analysis showed that a G2 delay occurred in wild-type strains that allowed divergent recombination, and inducing a synthetic G2 delay in rad9Δ mutants by adding nocodazole was able to restore the wild-type level of rejection. These results are the first to show a role for the DDR in allowing inappropriate error-prone DSB repair over error-free repair. This work also provides insights into how repetitive DNA can threaten the integrity of the genome and suggests a new explanation for why some disease-causing rearrangements could escape mechanisms that normally suppress them.
Section snippets
Strains
Strains used in this study were identical to or derived from those used in Sugawara et al. [35] and Goldfarb and Alani [36]. These strains carry a duplication or triplication of the 5′-205 bp of the URA3 gene (A) that is identical to or 3% divergent (F) from the wild-type sequence. The wild-type and parent strains were EAY1141 (A-A), EAY1143 (F-A), EAY1137 (A-A-A), and EAY1139 (A-F-A). Mutant derivatives were created by standard gene replacement using auxotrophic or drug resistance markers to
Divergent SSA recombination is decreased in the absence of the RAD9-dependent DNA damage response
We examined whether the DDR acts to suppress recombination between divergent sequences using a SSA assay [35], [36]. In this assay, a reporter consisting of a duplication of the 5′-205 bp of URA3 followed by the recognition site for the HO endonuclease and 2.5 kb of λ DNA is positioned upstream of the URA3 coding region (Fig. 1A). The HO endonuclease is expressed under the control of a galactose-inducible promoter and upon expression, will cleave the dsDNA between the URA3 repeats and at no other
Discussion
DSBs are thought to be some of the most cytotoxic forms of DNA damage. The presence of even a single DSB within the genome induces a DNA damage response that can cause lethality if the DSB is difficult or impossible to repair [22]. However, improper repair can result in genome rearrangements and the potential for unequal nuclear division and chromosome loss [47]. How does the cell determine the ideal repair pathway for DSB repair? For the most part, this choice depends on the cell cycle stage
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Alani lab and Bob Weiss, Marcus Smolka, Ted Weinert, Marco Foiani, and Max Gottesman for fruitful discussions. The project described was supported by Award Number R01GM053085 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute Of General Medical Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.
C. M. G. was funded by an NIH training grant
References (78)
- et al.
The role of the DNA double-strand break response network in meiosis
DNA Repair (Amst.)
(2004) DNA damage produced by ionizing radiation in mammalian cells: identities, mechanisms of formation, and reparability
Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol.
(1988)- et al.
Environmental and chemical carcinogenesis
Semin. Cancer Biol.
(2004) - et al.
DNA double-strand breaks: their production, recognition, and repair in eukaryotes
Mutat. Res./Fundam. Mol. Mech. Mutagen.
(2009) - et al.
Induction by gamma irradiation of double-strand breaks of Escherichia coli chromosomes and their role in cell lethality
Biophys. J.
(1984) - et al.
The measurement of DNA strand breaks in rat colonic mucosa by fluorometric analysis of DNA unwinding
Toxicol. Lett.
(1991) - et al.
DNA-PK, ATM and ATR as sensors of DNA damage: variations on a theme?
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
(2001) - et al.
Collaboration and competition between DNA double-strand break repair pathways
FEBS Lett.
(2010) - et al.
Distinct BRCA1 rearrangements involving the BRCA1 pseudogene suggest the existence of a recombination hot spot
Am. J. Hum. Genet.
(2002) - et al.
Gross chromosomal rearrangements and elevated recombination at an inducible site-specific replication fork barrier
Cell
(2005)
Checkpoint responses to replication stalling: inducing tolerance and preventing mutagenesis
Mutat. Res.
The Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD9, RAD17 and RAD24 genes are required for suppression of mutagenic post-replicative repair during chronic DNA damage
DNA Repair (Amst.)
Epigenetic regulation of heterochromatic DNA stability
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
Double-strand breaks in heterochromatin move outside of a dynamic HP1a domain to complete recombinational repair
Cell
Spatiotemporal characterization of ionizing radiation induced DNA damage foci and their relation to chromatin organization
Mutat. Res.
ATM signaling facilitates repair of DNA double-strand breaks associated with heterochromatin
Mol. Cell
Differential regulation of the cellular response to DNA double-strand breaks in G1
Mol. Cell
Leukemia and lymphoma: a cost of doing business for adaptive immunity
Genes Dev.
Telomere-related genome instability in cancer
Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol.
The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease
Nature
Repair of endogenous DNA damage
Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol.
The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today
J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
Recombinational DNA double-strand breaks in mice precede synapsis
Nat. Genet.
AID is required to initiate Nbs1/gamma-H2AX focus formation and mutations at sites of class switching
Nature
Evidence for the involvement of double-strand breaks in heat-induced cell killing
Cancer Res.
Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase
Nature
Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA
Nature
A dynamic model for replication protein A (RPA) function in DNA processing pathways
Nucleic Acids Res.
Role of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad9 protein in sensing and responding to DNA damage
Biochem. Soc. Trans.
Control of the DNA damage checkpoint by chk1 and rad53 protein kinases through distinct mechanisms
Science
Regulation of RAD53 by the ATM-like kinases MEC1 and TEL1 in yeast cell cycle checkpoint pathways
Science
A persistent double-strand break destabilizes human DNA in yeast and can lead to G2 arrest and lethality
Cancer Res.
Lethality induced by a single site-specific double-strand break in a dispensable yeast plasmid
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
Arrest, adaptation, and recovery following a chromosome double-strand break in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol.
Recombination proteins in yeast
Annu. Rev. Genet.
Pathways of DNA double-strand break repair during the mammalian cell cycle
Mol. Cell. Biol.
Multiple pathways of recombination induced by double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
Evolutionary analyses of the human genome
Nature
Genetic steps of mammalian homologous repair with distinct mutagenic consequences
Mol. Cell. Biol.
Cited by (1)
- 1
Present address: Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, T2002B Veterinary Research Tower, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6401, United States.