Telomere biology: integrating chromosomal end protection with DNA damage response

Telomeres play the key protective role at chromosomes. Many studies indicate that loss of telomere function causes activation of DNA damage response. Here, we review evidence supporting interdependence between telomere maintenance and DNA damage response and present a model in which these two pathways are combined into a single mechanism for protecting chromosomal integrity. Proteins directly involved in telomere maintenance and DNA damage response include Ku, DNA-PKcs, RAD51D, PARP-2, WRN and RAD50/MRE11/NBS1 complex. Since most of these proteins participate in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), this was perceived by many authors as a paradox, given that telomeres function to conceal natural DNA ends from mechanisms that detect and repair DSBs. However, we argue here that the key function of one particular DSB protein, Ku, is to prevent or control access of telomerase, the enzyme that synthesises telomeric sequences, to both internal DSBs and natural chromosomal ends. This view is supported by observations that Ku has a high affinity for DNA ends; it acts as a negative regulator of telomerase and that telomerase itself can target internal DSBs. Ku then directs other DSB repair/telomere maintenance proteins to either repair DSBs at internal chromosomal sites or prevent uncontrolled elongation of telomeres by telomerase. This model eliminates the above paradox and provides a testable scenario in which the role of DSB repair proteins is to protect chromosomal integrity by balancing repair activities and telomere maintenance. In our model, a close association between telomeres and different DNA damage response factors is not an unexpected event, but rather a logical result of chromosomal integrity maintenance activities. Review related to the 15th International Chromosome Conference (ICC XV), held in September 2004, Brunel University, London, UK     

Mechanisms and regulation of DNA end resection

DNA double‐strand breaks (DSBs) are highly hazardous for genome integrity, because failure to repair these lesions can lead to genomic instability. DSBs can arise accidentally at unpredictable locations into the genome, but they are also normal intermediates in meiotic recombination. Moreover, the natural ends of linear chromosomes resemble DSBs. Although intrachromosomal DNA breaks are potent stimulators of the DNA damage response, the natural ends of linear chromosomes are packaged into protective structures called telomeres that suppress DNA repair/recombination activities. Although DSBs and telomeres are functionally different, they both undergo 5′–3′ nucleolytic degradation of DNA ends, a process known as resection. The resulting 3′‐single‐stranded DNA overhangs enable repair of DSBs by homologous recombination (HR), whereas they allow the action of telomerase at telomeres. The molecular activities required for DSB and telomere end resection are similar, indicating that the initial steps of HR and telomerase‐mediated elongation are related. Resection of both DSBs and telomeres must be tightly regulated in time and space to ensure genome stability and cell survival.     

Telomeres: hallmarks of radiosensitivity

Telomeres are the very ends of the chromosomes. They can be seen as natural double-strand breaks (DSB), specialized structures which prevent DSB repair and activation of DNA damage checkpoints. In somatic cells, attrition of telomeres occurs after each cell division until replicative senescence. In the absence of telomerase, telomeres shorten due to incomplete replication of the lagging strand at the very end of chromosome termini. Moreover, oxidative stress and accumulating reactive oxygen species (ROS) lead to an increased telomere shortening due to a less efficient repair of SSB in telomeres. The specialized structures at telomeres include proteins involved in both telomere maintenance and DNA repair. However when a telomere is damaged and has to be repaired, those proteins might fail to perform an accurate repair of the damage. This is the starting point of this article in which we first summarize the well-established relationships between DNA repair processes and maintenance of functional telomeres. We then examine how damaged telomeres would be processed, and show that irradiation alters telomere maintenance leading to possibly dramatic consequences. Our point is to suggest that those consequences are not restricted to the short term effects such as increased radiation-induced cell death. On the contrary, we postulate that the major impact of the loss of telomere integrity might occur in the long term, during multistep carcinogenesis. Its major role would be to act as an amplificator event unmasking in one single step recessive radiation-induced mutations among thousands of genes and providing cellular proliferative advantage. Moreover, the chromosomal instability generated by damaged telomeres will favour each step of the transformation from normal to fully transformed cells.     

DNA ends: maintenance of chromosome termini versus repair of double strand breaks

This review focuses on the factors that define the differences between the two types of DNA ends encountered by eukaryotic cells: telomeres and double strand breaks (DSBs). Although these two types of DNA termini are functionally distinct, recent studies have shown that a number of proteins is shared at telomeres and sites of DSB repair. The significance of these common components is discussed, as well as the types of DNA repair events that can compensate for a defective telomere.     

Multiple pathways suppress telomere addition to DNA breaks in the Drosophila germline

Telomeres protect chromosome ends from being repaired as double-strand breaks (DSBs). Just as DSB repair is suppressed at telomeres, de novo telomere addition is suppressed at the site of DSBs. To identify factors responsible for this suppression, we developed an assay to monitor de novo telomere formation in Drosophila, an organism in which telomeres can be established on chromosome ends with essentially any sequence. Germline expression of the I-SceI endonuclease resulted in precise telomere formation at its cut site with high efficiency. Using this assay, we quantified the frequency of telomere formation in different genetic backgrounds with known or possible defects in DNA damage repair. We showed that disruption of DSB repair factors (Rad51 or DNA ligase IV) or DSB sensing factors (ATRIP or MDC1) resulted in more efficient telomere formation. Interestingly, partial disruption of factors that normally regulate telomere protection (ATM or NBS) also led to higher frequencies of telomere formation, suggesting that these proteins have opposing roles in telomere maintenance vs. establishment. In the ku70 mutant background, telomere establishment was preceded by excessive degradation of DSB ends, which were stabilized upon telomere formation. Most strikingly, the removal of ATRIP caused a dramatic increase in telomeric retrotransposon attachment to broken ends. Our study identifies several pathways that suppress telomere addition at DSBs, paving the way for future mechanistic studies.     

Telomeres and DNA damage checkpoints

In all eukaryotic organisms, interruptions in duplex DNA molecules elicit a DNA damage response, which includes activation of DNA repair machineries and surveillance mechanisms, known as DNA damage checkpoints. Telomeres and double-strand breaks (DSBs) share the common feature of being physical ends of chromosomes. However, unlike DSBs, telomeres do not activate the DNA damage checkpoints and are usually protected from end-to-end fusions and other processing events that normally promote repair of DNA breaks. This indicates that they are shielded from being recognized and processed as DSBs. On the other hand, chromosome ends resemble damaged DNA, as several factors required for DNA repair and checkpoint networks play important roles in telomere length maintenance. Due to the critical role of both DNA damage checkpoints and telomere homeostasis in maintaining genetic stability and in counteracting cancer development, the knowledge of their interconnections is essential for our understanding of these key cellular controls.     

细胞DNA损伤检控系统在维持端粒稳定中的功能

真核生物的DNA损伤检控系统是维持细胞基因组稳定的一个重要机制,该系统能检测细胞在生命活动过程中出现的DNA损伤并引发细胞周期阻滞,对DNA损伤进行修复,以维持细胞遗传的稳定性。端粒是位于真核细胞染色体末端由重复DNA序列和蛋白质组成的复合物,具有保护染色体、介导染色体复制、引导减数分裂时的同源染色体配对和调节细胞衰老等作用。虽然端粒与DNA双链断裂都具有作为线性染色体末端的共同特点,但正常端粒并不像DNA双链断裂那样激活DNA损伤检控系统。另一方面,端粒又与DNA损伤相似,因为多种DNA损伤检控蛋白在端粒长度稳定中起重要作用。因此DNA损伤检控系统既参与了维持正常端粒的完整性,又可对端粒损伤作出应答。现就DNA损伤检控系统在维持端粒稳定中的作用及其对功能缺陷端粒的应答作一简要综述。     

Manipulating mouse telomeres: models of tumorigenesis and aging

Telomeres are capping structures at the ends of chromosomes, composed of a repetitive DNA sequence and associated proteins. Both a minimal length of telomeric repeats and telomere-associated binding proteins are necessary for proper telomere function. Functional telomeres are essential for maintaining the integrity and stability of eukaryotic genomes. The capping structure enables cells to distinguish chromosome ends from double strand breaks (DSBs) in the genome. Uncapped chromosome ends are at great risk for degradation, recombination, or chromosome fusion by cellular DNA repair systems. Dysfunctional telomeres have been proposed to contribute to tumorigenesis and some aging phenotypes. The analysis of mice deficient in telomerase activity and other telomere-associated proteins has allowed the roles of dysfunctional telomeres in tumorigenesis and aging to be directly tested. Here we will focus on the analysis of different mouse models disrupted for proteins that are important for telomere functions and discuss known and proposed consequences of telomere dysfunction in tumorigenesis and aging.     

Dysfunctional mammalian telomeres join with DNA double-strand breaks

In addition to joining broken DNA strands, several non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) proteins have a second seemingly antithetical role in constructing functional telomeres, the nucleoprotein structures at the termini of linear eukaryotic chromosomes that prevent joining between natural chromosome ends. Although NHEJ deficiency impairs double-strand break (DSB) repair, it also promotes inappropriate chromosomal end fusions that are observed microscopically as dicentric chromosomes with telomeric DNA sequence at points of joining. Here, we test the proposition that unprotected telomeres can fuse not only to other dysfunctional telomeres, but also to ends created by DSBs. Severe combined immunodeficiency (scid) is caused by a mutation in the catalytic subunit of DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), an enzyme required for both efficient DSB repair and telomeric end-capping. Cells derived from wild-type, Trp53-/-, scid, and Trp53-/-/scid mice were exposed to gamma radiation to induce DSBs, and chromosomal aberrations were analyzed using a novel cytogenetic technique that can detect joining of a telomere to a DSB end. Telomere-DSB fusions were observed in both cell lines having the scid mutation, but not in wild-type nor Trp53-/- cells. Over a range of 25-340 cGy, half of the visible exchange-type chromosomal aberrations in Trp53-/-/scid cells involved telomere-DSB fusions. Our results demonstrate that unprotected telomeres are not only sensed as, but also acted upon, by the DNA repair machinery as if they were DSB ends. By opening a new pathway for misrepair, telomere-DSB fusion decreases the overall fidelity of DSB repair. The high frequency of these events in scid cells indicates telomere dysfunction makes a strong, and previously unsuspected, contribution to the characteristic radiation sensitivity associated with DNA-PK deficiency.     

MEC1-dependent redistribution of the Sir3 silencing protein from telomeres to DNA double-strand breaks.

The yeast Sir2/3/4p complex is found in abundance at telomeres, where it participates in the formation of silent heterochromatin and telomere maintenance. Here, we show that Sir3p is released from telomeres in response to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), binds to DSBs, and mediates their repair, independent of cell mating type. Sir3p relocalization is S phase specific and, importantly, requires the DNA damage checkpoint genes MEC1 and RAD9. MEC1 is a homolog of ATM, mutations in which cause ataxia telangiectasia (A-T), a disease characterized by various neurologic and immunologic abnormalities, a predisposition for cancer, and a cellular defect in repair of DSBs. This novel mode by which preformed DNA repair machinery is mobilized by DNA damage sensors may have implications for human diseases resulting from defective DSB repair.     

Taming the tiger by the tail: modulation of DNA damage responses by telomeres

Telomeres are by definition stable and inert chromosome ends, whereas internal chromosome breaks are potent stimulators of the DNA damage response (DDR). Telomeres do not, as might be expected, exclude DDR proteins from chromosome ends but instead engage with many DDR proteins. However, the most powerful DDRs, those that might induce chromosome fusion or cell‐cycle arrest, are inhibited at telomeres. In budding yeast, many DDR proteins that accumulate most rapidly at double strand breaks (DSBs), have important functions in physiological telomere maintenance, whereas DDR proteins that arrive later tend to have less important functions. Considerable diversity in telomere structure has evolved in different organisms and, perhaps reflecting this diversity, different DDR proteins seem to have distinct roles in telomere physiology in different organisms. Drawing principally on studies in simple model organisms such as budding yeast, in which many fundamental aspects of the DDR and telomere biology have been established; current views on how telomeres harness aspects of DDR pathways to maintain telomere stability and permit cell‐cycle division are discussed.     

RIF1: A novel regulatory factor for DNA replication and DNA damage response signaling

DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) are highly toxic to the cells and accumulation of DSBs results in several detrimental effects in various cellular processes which can lead to neurological, immunological and developmental disorders. Failure of the repair of DSBs spurs mutagenesis and is a driver of tumorigenesis, thus underscoring the importance of the accurate repair of DSBs. Two major canonical DSB repair pathways are the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR) pathways. 53BP1 and BRCA1 are the key mediator proteins which coordinate with other components of the DNA repair machinery in the NHEJ and HR pathways respectively, and their exclusive recruitment to DNA breaks/ends potentially decides the choice of repair by either NHEJ or HR. Recently, Rap1 interacting factor 1 has been identified as an important component of the DNA repair pathway which acts downstream of the ATM/53BP1 to inhibit the 5′–3′ end resection of broken DNA ends, in-turn facilitating NHEJ repair and inhibiting homology directed repair. Rif1 is conserved from yeast to humans but its function has evolved from telomere length regulation in yeast to the maintenance of genome integrity in mammalian cells. Recently its role in the maintenance of genomic integrity has been expanded to include the regulation of chromatin structure, replication timing and intra-S phase checkpoint. We present a summary of these important findings highlighting the various aspects of Rif1 functions and discuss the key implications for genomic integrity.     

The MRN complex in double-strand break repair and telomere maintenance

Genomes are subject to constant threat by damaging agents that generate DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). The ends of linear chromosomes need to be protected from DNA damage recognition and end-joining, and this is achieved through protein-DNA complexes known as telomeres. The Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 (MRN) complex plays important roles in detection and signaling of DSBs, as well as the repair pathways of homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). In addition, MRN associates with telomeres and contributes to their maintenance. Here, we provide an overview of MRN functions at DSBs, and examine its roles in telomere maintenance and dysfunction.     

Mapping of meiotic single-stranded DNA reveals double-stranded-break hotspots near centromeres and telomeres

BACKGROUND: Every chromosome requires at least one crossover to be faithfully segregated during meiosis. At least two levels of regulation govern crossover distribution: where the initiating DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) occur and whether those DSBs are repaired as crossovers. RESULTS: We mapped meiotic DSBs in budding yeast by identifying sites of DSB-associated single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) accumulation. These analyses revealed substantial DSB activity in pericentrometric regions, in which crossover formation is largely absent. Our data suggest that centromeric suppression of recombination occurs at the level of break repair rather than DSB formation. Additionally, we found an enrichment of DSBs within a approximately 100 kb region near the ends of all chromosomes. Introduction of new telomeres was sufficient for inducing large ectopic regions of increased DSB formation, thereby revealing a remarkable long-range effect of telomeres on DSB formation. The concentration of DSBs close to chromosome ends increases the relative DSB density on small chromosomes, providing an interference-independent mechanism that ensures that all chromosomes receive at least one crossover per homolog pair. CONCLUSIONS: Together, our results indicate that selective DSB repair accounts for crossover suppression near centromeres and suggest a simple telomere-guided mechanism that ensures sufficient DSB activity on all chromosomes.     

The Role of ATM in the Deficiency in Nonhomologous End-Joining near Telomeres in a Human Cancer Cell Line

Telomeres distinguish chromosome ends from double-strand breaks (DSBs) and prevent chromosome fusion. However, telomeres can also interfere with DNA repair, as shown by a deficiency in nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and an increase in large deletions at telomeric DSBs. The sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs is important in the cellular response to ionizing radiation and oncogene-induced replication stress, either by preventing cell division in normal cells, or by promoting chromosome instability in cancer cells. We have previously proposed that the telomeric protein TRF2 causes the sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs, either through its inhibition of ATM, or by promoting the processing of DSBs as though they are telomeres, which is independent of ATM. Our current study addresses the mechanism responsible for the deficiency in repair of DSBs near telomeres by combining assays for large deletions, NHEJ, small deletions, and gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs) to compare the types of events resulting from DSBs at interstitial and telomeric DSBs. Our results confirm the sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs by demonstrating that the frequency of GCRs is greatly increased at DSBs near telomeres and that the role of ATM in DSB repair is very different at interstitial and telomeric DSBs. Unlike at interstitial DSBs, a deficiency in ATM decreases NHEJ and small deletions at telomeric DSBs, while it increases large deletions. These results strongly suggest that ATM is functional near telomeres and is involved in end protection at telomeric DSBs, but is not required for the extensive resection at telomeric DSBs. The results support our model in which the deficiency in DSB repair near telomeres is a result of ATM-independent processing of DSBs as though they are telomeres, leading to extensive resection, telomere loss, and GCRs involving alternative NHEJ.     

Rapid repair of DNA double strand breaks in Arabidopsis thaliana is dependent on proteins involved in chromosome structure maintenance

DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) are one of the most cytotoxic forms of DNA damage and must be repaired by recombination, predominantly via non-homologous joining of DNA ends (NHEJ) in higher eukaryotes. However, analysis of DSB repair kinetics of plant NHEJ mutants atlig4-4 and atku80 with the neutral comet assay shows that alternative DSB repair pathways are active. Surprisingly, these kinetic measurements show that DSB repair was faster in the NHEJ mutant lines than in wild-type Arabidopsis.Here we provide the first characterization of this KU-independent, rapid DSB repair pathway operating in Arabidopsis. The alternate pathway that rapidly removes the majority of DSBs present in nuclear DNA depends upon structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) complex proteins, namely MIM/AtRAD18 and AtRAD21.1. An absolute requirement for SMC proteins and kleisin for rapid repair of DSBs in Arabidopsis opens new insight into the mechanism of DSB removal in plants.     

Telomeres and double-strand breaks - all's well that "ends" well. ..

Bailey, S. Telomeres and Double-Strand Breaks - All's Well that "Ends" Well. ... Radiat. Res. 169, 1-7 (2008). Sometimes one's life (including one's science) makes a lot more sense when viewed from the perspective of time, reflected back on over a number of years. That has indeed been the case for me. Strangely enough, the story begins with chromosomes and "ends" with telomeres, both at Colorado State University. And, just as with chromosomes, a lot happened in between. Telomeres were first identified based on their function-they protected the physical ends of chromosomes from interaction with broken DNA ends created by ionizing radiation. While I was at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the sequence of human telomeres was discovered, making probes available that allowed us to re-examine and provide direct support of these early observations; thus began my fascination with telomeres. Chromosome orientation in situ hybridization (CO-FISH) also came onto the scene while I was in Los Alamos. This strand-specific modification of standard FISH, especially when combined with telomeric sequence probes, has proven to be a powerful approach that provides information not available by any other means. Applications have included pericentric inversion detection, distinction between leading- and lagging-strand telomeres, and identification of telomere-double-strand break (DSB) fusions. We also provided the first direct evidence that DSB repair proteins (DNA-PK in particular) are required for mammalian telomeric end capping, and we have been characterizing telomere dysfunction in NHEJ and HR repair-deficient backgrounds ever since. Cells must correctly distinguish between DNA ends represented by telomeres and DNA ends produced by DSBs if all is to end well. Just as these studies have provided new insight into the complex, often surprising, interactions at DNA ends, they also provoke new questions. Whereas it is now well established that DSB repair proteins associate with telomeres, most recently we've been asking whether the reverse scenario holds: Do telomere proteins interact with DSBs? We find that DSBs induced by ionizing radiations are not sufficient to recruit the essential telomere protein TRF2 as an early damage response, so perhaps this interplay is a one-way street. The rest of the story waits to unfold.     

The telomere protein Taz1 is required to prevent and repair genomic DNA breaks

One fundamental function of telomeres is to prevent the ends of chromosomes from being sensed and treated as DNA damage. Here we present evidence for additional roles of telomeres in promoting proper chromosome segregation and DNA repair. We find that the fission yeast telomere protein Taz1p is required for cell cycle progression at 20 degrees C, a temperature at which taz1Delta cells exhibit a G(2)/M DNA damage checkpoint delay, chromosome missegregation, and DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). Spindle assembly checkpoint components and a checkpoint-independent function of Rad3p are required for taz1Delta cells to survive at 20 degrees C. Disruption of topoisomerase II activity suppresses the cold sensitivity of taz1Delta cells, suggesting a scenario in which telomeric entanglement is the primary defect. Furthermore, hypersensitivity to treatments that induce DSBs suggests that Taz1p is involved in DSB repair. Our observations imply roles for Taz1p-containing telomeres in preventing and repairing DNA breaks throughout the genome.     

Mdt1 facilitates efficient repair of blocked DNA double-strand breaks and recombinational maintenance of telomeres

DNA recombination plays critical roles in DNA repair and alternative telomere maintenance. Here we show that absence of the SQ/TQ cluster domain-containing protein Mdt1 (Ybl051c) renders Saccharomyces cerevisiae particularly hypersensitive to bleomycin, a drug that causes 3'-phospho-glycolate-blocked DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). mdt1Delta also hypersensitizes partially recombination-defective cells to camptothecin-induced 3'-phospho-tyrosyl protein-blocked DSBs. Remarkably, whereas mdt1Delta cells are unable to restore broken chromosomes after bleomycin treatment, they efficiently repair "clean" endonuclease-generated DSBs. Epistasis analyses indicate that MDT1 acts in the repair of bleomycin-induced DSBs by regulating the efficiency of the homologous recombination pathway as well as telomere-related functions of the KU complex. Moreover, mdt1Delta leads to severe synthetic growth defects with a deletion of the recombination facilitator and telomere-positioning factor gene CTF18 already in the absence of exogenous DNA damage. Importantly, mdt1Delta causes a dramatic shift from the usually prevalent type II to the less-efficient type I pathway of recombinational telomere maintenance in the absence of telomerase in liquid senescence assays. As telomeres resemble protein-blocked DSBs, the results indicate that Mdt1 acts in a novel blocked-end-specific recombination pathway that is required for the efficiency of both drug-induced DSB repair and telomerase-independent telomere maintenance.