Lambda Red Mediated Gap Repair Utilizes a Novel Replicative Intermediate in Escherichia coli

The lambda phage Red recombination system can mediate efficient homologous recombination in Escherichia coli, which is the basis of the DNA engineering technique termed recombineering. Red mediated insertion of DNA requires DNA replication, involves a single-stranded DNA intermediate and is more efficient on the lagging strand of the replication fork. Lagging strand recombination has also been postulated to explain the Red mediated repair of gapped plasmids by an Okazaki fragment gap filling model. Here, we demonstrate that gap repair involves a different strand independent mechanism. Gap repair assays examining the strand asymmetry of recombination did not show a lagging strand bias. Directly testing an ssDNA plasmid showed lagging strand recombination is possible but dsDNA plasmids did not employ this mechanism. Insertional recombination combined with gap repair also did not demonstrate preferential lagging strand bias, supporting a different gap repair mechanism. The predominant recombination route involved concerted insertion and subcloning though other routes also operated at lower frequencies. Simultaneous insertion of DNA resulted in modification of both strands and was unaffected by mutations to DNA polymerase I, responsible for Okazaki fragment maturation. The lower efficiency of an alternate Red mediated ends-in recombination pathway and the apparent lack of a Holliday junction intermediate suggested that gap repair does not involve a different Red recombination pathway. Our results may be explained by a novel replicative intermediate in gap repair that does not involve a replication fork. We exploited these observations by developing a new recombineering application based on concerted insertion and gap repair, termed SPI (subcloning plus insertion). SPI selected against empty vector background and selected for correct gap repair recombinants. We used SPI to simultaneously insert up to four different gene cassettes in a single recombineering reaction. Consequently, our findings have important implications for the understanding of E. coli replication and Red recombination.     

Unwinding of synthetic replication and recombination substrates by Srs2

The budding yeast Srs2 protein possesses 3′ to 5′ DNA helicase activity and channels untimely recombination to post-replication repair by removing Rad51 from ssDNA. However, it also promotes recombination via a synthesis-dependent strand-annealing pathway (SDSA). Furthermore, at the replication fork, Srs2 is required for fork progression and prevents the instability of trinucleotide repeats. To better understand the multiple roles of the Srs2 helicase during these processes, we analysed the ability of Srs2 to bind and unwind various DNA substrates that mimic structures present during DNA replication and recombination. While leading or lagging strands were efficiently unwound, the presence of ssDNA binding protein RPA presented an obstacle for Srs2 translocation. We also tested the preferred directionality of unwinding of various substrates and studied the effect of Rad51 and Mre11 proteins on Srs2 helicase activity. These biochemical results help us understand the possible role of Srs2 in the processing of stalled or blocked replication forks as a part of post-replication repair as well as homologous recombination (HR).     

Response of the Bacteriophage T4 Replisome to Noncoding Lesions and Regression of a Stalled Replication Fork

DNA is constantly damaged by endogenous and exogenous agents. The resulting DNA lesions have the potential to halt the progression of the replisome, possibly leading to replication fork collapse. Here, we examine the effect of a noncoding DNA lesion in either leading strand template or lagging strand template on the bacteriophage T4 replisome. A damaged base in the lagging strand template does not affect the progression of the replication fork. Instead, the stalled lagging strand polymerase recycles from the lesion and initiates the synthesis of a new Okazaki fragment upstream of the damaged base. In contrast, when the replisome encounters a blocking lesion in the leading strand template, the replication fork only travels approximately 1 kb beyond the point of the DNA lesion before complete replication fork collapse. The primosome and the lagging strand polymerase remain active during this period, and an Okazaki fragment is synthesized beyond the point of the leading strand lesion. There is no evidence for a new priming event on the leading strand template. Instead, the DNA structure that is produced by the stalled replication fork is a substrate for the DNA repair helicase UvsW. UvsW catalyzes the regression of a stalled replication fork into a “chicken-foot” structure that has been postulated to be an intermediate in an error-free lesion bypass pathway.     

Differential regulation of homologous recombination at DNA breaks and replication forks by the Mrc1 branch of the S‐phase checkpoint

The Rad52 pathway has a central function in the recombinational repair of chromosome breaks and in the recovery from replication stress. Tolerance to replication stress also depends on the Mec1 kinase, which activates the DNA replication checkpoint in an Mrc1‐dependent manner in response to fork arrest. Although the Mec1 and Rad52 pathways are initiated by the same single‐strand DNA (ssDNA) intermediate, their interplay at stalled forks remains largely unexplored. Here, we show that the replication checkpoint suppresses the formation of Rad52 foci in an Mrc1‐dependent manner and prevents homologous recombination (HR) at chromosome breaks induced by the HO endonuclease. This repression operates at least in part by impeding resection of DNA ends, which is essential to generate 3′ ssDNA tails, the primary substrate of HR. Interestingly, we also observed that the Mec1 pathway does not prevent recombination at stalled forks, presumably because they already contain ssDNA. Taken together, these data indicate that the DNA replication checkpoint suppresses genomic instability in S phase by blocking recombination at chromosome breaks and permitting helpful recombination at stalled forks.     

MRX protects fork integrity at protein–DNA barriers,and its absence causes checkpoint activation dependent on chromatin context

To address how eukaryotic replication forks respond to fork stalling caused by strong non-covalent protein–DNA barriers, we engineered the controllable Fob-block system in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This system allows us to strongly induce and control replication fork barriers (RFB) at their natural location within the rDNA. We discover a pivotal role for the MRX (Mre11, Rad50, Xrs2) complex for fork integrity at RFBs, which differs from its acknowledged function in double-strand break processing. Consequently, in the absence of the MRX complex, single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) accumulates at the rDNA. Based on this, we propose a model where the MRX complex specifically protects stalled forks at protein–DNA barriers, and its absence leads to processing resulting in ssDNA. To our surprise, this ssDNA does not trigger a checkpoint response. Intriguingly, however, placing RFBs ectopically on chromosome VI provokes a strong Rad53 checkpoint activation in the absence of Mre11. We demonstrate that proper checkpoint signalling within the rDNA is restored on deletion of SIR2. This suggests the surprising and novel concept that chromatin is an important player in checkpoint signalling.     

Mutational analysis of the T4 gp59 helicase loader reveals its sites for interaction with helicase, single-stranded binding protein, and DNA

Efficient DNA replication involves coordinated interactions among DNA polymerase, multiple factors, and the DNA. From bacteriophage T4 to eukaryotes, these factors include a helicase to unwind the DNA ahead of the replication fork, a single-stranded binding protein (SSB) to bind to the ssDNA on the lagging strand, and a helicase loader that associates with the fork, helicase, and SSB. The previously reported structure of the helicase loader in the T4 system, gene product (gp)59, has revealed an N-terminal domain, which shares structural homology with the high mobility group (HMG) proteins from eukaryotic organisms. Modeling of this structure with fork DNA has suggested that the HMG-like domain could bind to the duplex DNA ahead of the fork, whereas the C-terminal portion of gp59 would provide the docking sites for helicase (T4 gp41), SSB (T4 gp32), and the ssDNA fork arms. To test this model, we have used random and targeted mutagenesis to generate mutations throughout gp59. We have assayed the ability of the mutant proteins to bind to fork, primed fork, and ssDNAs, to interact with SSB, to stimulate helicase activity, and to function in leading and lagging strand DNA synthesis. Our results provide strong biochemical support for the role of the N-terminal gp59 HMG motif in fork binding and the interaction of the C-terminal portion of gp59 with helicase and SSB. Our results also suggest that processive replication may involve the switching of gp59 between its interactions with helicase and SSB.     

Interplay of replication checkpoints and repair proteins at stalled replication forks

DNA replication is an essential process that occurs in all growing cells and needs to be tightly regulated in order to preserve genetic integrity. Eukaryotic cells have developed multiple mechanisms to ensure the fidelity of replication and to coordinate the progression of replication forks. Replication is often impeded by DNA damage or replication blocks, and the resulting stalled replication forks are sensed and protected by specialized surveillance mechanisms called checkpoints. The replication checkpoint plays an essential role in preventing the breakdown of stalled replication forks and the accumulation of DNA structures that enhance recombination and chromosomal rearrangements that ultimately lead to genomic instability and cancer development. In addition, the replication checkpoint is thought to assist and coordinate replication fork restart processes by controlling DNA repair pathways, regulating chromatin structure, promoting the recruitment of proteins to sites of damage, and controlling cell cycle progression. In this review we focus mainly on the results obtained in budding yeast to discuss on the multiple roles of checkpoints in maintaining fork integrity and on the enzymatic activities that cooperate with the checkpoint pathway to promote fork resumption and repair of DNA lesions thereby contributing to genome integrity.     

The DNA damage machinery and homologous recombination pathway act consecutively to protect human telomeres

Telomeres protect chromosome ends from being detected as lesions and from triggering DNA damage checkpoints. Paradoxically, telomere function depends on checkpoint proteins such as ATM and ATR, but a molecular model explaining this seemingly contradictory relationship has been missing so far. Here we show that the DNA damage machinery acts on telomeres in at least two independent steps. First, the ATR-dependent machinery is recruited to telomeres before telomere replication is completed, likely in response to single-stranded DNA resulting from replication fork stalling. Second, after replication, telomeres attract ATM and the homologous recombination (HR) machinery. In vivo and in vitro results suggest that the HR machinery is required for formation of a telomere-specific structure at chromosome ends after replication. Our results suggest that telomere ends need to be recognized as DNA damage to complete end replication and to acquire a structure that is essential for function.     

Temporal separation of replication and recombination requires the intra-S checkpoint

In response to DNA damage and replication pausing, eukaryotes activate checkpoint pathways that prevent genomic instability by coordinating cell cycle progression with DNA repair. The intra-S-phase checkpoint has been proposed to protect stalled replication forks from pathological rearrangements that could result from unscheduled recombination. On the other hand, recombination may be needed to cope with either stalled forks or double-strand breaks resulting from hydroxyurea treatment. We have exploited fission yeast to elucidate the relationship between replication fork stalling, loading of replication and recombination proteins onto DNA, and the intra-S checkpoint. Here, we show that a functional recombination machinery is not essential for recovery from replication fork arrest and instead can lead to nonfunctional fork structures. We find that Rad22-containing foci are rare in S-phase cells, but peak in G2 phase cells after a perturbed S phase. Importantly, we find that the intra-S checkpoint is necessary to avoid aberrant strand-exchange events during a hydroxyurea block.     

Gaps and forks in DNA replication: Rediscovering old models

Most current models for replication past damaged lesions envisage that translesion synthesis occurs at the replication fork. However older models suggested that gaps were left opposite lesions to allow the replication fork to proceed, and these gaps were subsequently sealed behind the replication fork. Two recent articles lend support to the idea that bypass of the damage occurs behind the fork. In the first paper, electron micrographs of DNA replicated in UV-irradiated yeast cells show regions of single-stranded DNA both at the replication forks and behind the fork, the latter being consistent with the presence of gaps in the daughter-strands opposite lesions. The second paper describes an in vitro DNA replication system reconstituted from purified bacterial proteins. Repriming of synthesis downstream from a blocked fork occurred not only on the lagging strand as expected, but also on the leading strand, demonstrating that contrary to widely accepted beliefs, leading strand synthesis does not need to be continuous.     

Rad51 replication fork recruitment is required for DNA damage tolerance

Homologous recombination (HR) is essential for genome integrity. Recombination proteins participate in tolerating DNA lesions that interfere with DNA replication, but can also generate toxic recombination intermediates and genetic instability when they are not properly regulated. Here, we have studied the role of the recombination proteins Rad51 and Rad52 at replication forks and replicative DNA lesions. We show that Rad52 loads Rad51 onto unperturbed replication forks, where they facilitate replication of alkylated DNA by non‐repair functions. The recruitment of Rad52 and Rad51 to chromatin during DNA replication is a prerequisite for the repair of the non‐DSB DNA lesions, presumably single‐stranded DNA gaps, which are generated during the replication of alkylated DNA. We also show that the repair of these lesions requires CDK1 and is not coupled to the fork but rather restricted to G2/M by the replicative checkpoint. We propose a new scenario for HR where Rad52 and Rad51 are recruited to the fork to promote DNA damage tolerance by distinct and cell cycle‐regulated replicative and repair functions.     

Checkpoint responses to replication fork barriers

The fidelity of DNA replication is of paramount importance to the maintenance of genome integrity. When an active replication fork is perturbed, multiple cellular pathways are recruited to stabilize the replication apparatus and to help to bypass or correct the causative problem. However, if the problem is not corrected, the fork may collapse, exposing free DNA ends to potentially inappropriate processing. In prokaryotes, replication fork collapse promotes the activity of recombination proteins to restore a replication fork. Recent work has demonstrated that recombination is also intimately linked to replication in eukaryotic cells, and that recombination proteins are recruited to collapsed, but not stalled, replication forks. In this review we discuss the different types of potential replication fork barriers (RFB) and how these distinct RFBs can result in different DNA structures at the stalled replication fork. The DNA structure checkpoints which act within S phase respond to different RFBs in different ways and we thus discuss the processes that are controlled by the DNA replication checkpoints, paying particular attention to the function of the intra-S phase checkpoint that stabilises the stalled fork.     

Minichromosome maintenance proteins interact with checkpoint and recombination proteins to promote s-phase genome stability

The minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex plays essential, conserved roles throughout DNA synthesis: first, as a component of the prereplication complex at origins and, then, as a helicase associated with replication forks. Here we use fission yeast (Schizosaccharomyces pombe) as a model to demonstrate a role for the MCM complex in protecting replication fork structure and promoting recovery from replication arrest. Loss of MCM function generates lethal double-strand breaks at sites of DNA synthesis during replication elongation, suggesting replication fork collapse. MCM function also maintains the stability of forks stalled by hydroxyurea that activate the replication checkpoint. In cells where the checkpoint is activated, Mcm4 binds the Cds1 kinase and undergoes Cds1-dependent phosphorylation. MCM proteins also interact with proteins involved in homologous recombination, which promotes recovery from arrest by ensuring normal mitosis. We suggest that the MCM complex links replication fork stabilization with checkpoint arrest and recovery through direct interactions with checkpoint and recombination proteins and that this role in S-phase genome stability is conserved from yeast to human cells.     

Spatial separation between replisome‐ and template‐induced replication stress signaling

Polymerase‐blocking DNA lesions are thought to elicit a checkpoint response via accumulation of single‐stranded DNA at stalled replication forks. However, as an alternative to persistent fork stalling, re‐priming downstream of lesions can give rise to daughter‐strand gaps behind replication forks. We show here that the processing of such structures by an exonuclease, Exo1, is required for timely checkpoint activation, which in turn prevents further gap erosion in S phase. This Rad9‐dependent mechanism of damage signaling is distinct from the Mrc1‐dependent, fork‐associated response to replication stress induced by conditions such as nucleotide depletion or replisome‐inherent problems, but reminiscent of replication‐independent checkpoint activation by single‐stranded DNA. Our results indicate that while replisome stalling triggers a checkpoint response directly at the stalled replication fork, the response to replication stress elicited by polymerase‐blocking lesions mainly emanates from Exo1‐processed, postreplicative daughter‐strand gaps, thus offering a mechanistic explanation for the dichotomy between replisome‐ versus template‐induced checkpoint signaling.     

Top2 and Sgs1-Top3 Act Redundantly to Ensure rDNA Replication Termination

Faithful DNA replication with correct termination is essential for genome stability and transmission of genetic information. Here we have investigated the potential roles of Topoisomerase II (Top2) and the RecQ helicase Sgs1 during late stages of replication. We find that cells lacking Top2 and Sgs1 (or Top3) display two different characteristics during late S/G2 phase, checkpoint activation and accumulation of asymmetric X-structures, which are both independent of homologous recombination. Our data demonstrate that checkpoint activation is caused by a DNA structure formed at the strongest rDNA replication fork barrier (RFB) during replication termination, and consistently, checkpoint activation is dependent on the RFB binding protein, Fob1. In contrast, asymmetric X-structures are formed independent of Fob1 at less strong rDNA replication fork barriers. However, both checkpoint activation and formation of asymmetric X-structures are sensitive to conditions, which facilitate fork merging and progression of replication forks through replication fork barriers. Our data are consistent with a redundant role of Top2 and Sgs1 together with Top3 (Sgs1-Top3) in replication fork merging at rDNA barriers. At RFB either Top2 or Sgs1-Top3 is essential to prevent formation of a checkpoint activating DNA structure during termination, but at less strong rDNA barriers absence of the enzymes merely delays replication fork merging, causing an accumulation of asymmetric termination structures, which are solved over time.     

ruvA Mutants that resolve Holliday junctions but do not reverse replication forks

RuvAB and RuvABC complexes catalyze branch migration and resolution of Holliday junctions (HJs) respectively. In addition to their action in the last steps of homologous recombination, they process HJs made by replication fork reversal, a reaction which occurs at inactivated replication forks by the annealing of blocked leading and lagging strand ends. RuvAB was recently proposed to bind replication forks and directly catalyze their conversion into HJs. We report here the isolation and characterization of two separation-of-function ruvA mutants that resolve HJs, based on their capacity to promote conjugational recombination and recombinational repair of UV and mitomycin C lesions, but have lost the capacity to reverse forks. In vivo and in vitro evidence indicate that the ruvA mutations affect DNA binding and the stimulation of RuvB helicase activity. This work shows that RuvA's actions at forks and at HJs can be genetically separated, and that RuvA mutants compromised for fork reversal remain fully capable of homologous recombination.     

Multiple pathways cooperate to facilitate DNA replication fork progression through alkylated DNA

Eukaryotic genomes are especially vulnerable to DNA damage during the S phase of the cell cycle, when chromosomes must be duplicated. The stability of DNA replication forks is critical to achieve faithful chromosome replication and is severely compromised when forks encounter DNA lesions. To maintain genome integrity, replication forks need to be protected by the S-phase checkpoint and DNA insults must be repaired. Different pathways help to repair or tolerate the lesions in the DNA, but their contribution to the progression of replication forks through damaged DNA is not well known. Here we show in budding yeast that, when the DNA template is damaged with the alkylating agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), base excision repair, homologous recombination and DNA damage tolerance pathways, together with a functional S-phase checkpoint, are essential for the efficient progression of DNA replication forks and the maintenance of cell survival. In the absence of base excision repair, replication forks stall reversibly in cells exposed to MMS. This repair reaction is necessary to eliminate the lesions that impede fork progression and has to be coordinated with recombination and damage tolerance activities to avoid fork collapse and allow forks to resume and complete chromosome replication.     

Unwinding of forked DNA structures by UvrD

Many studies have demonstrated the need for processing of blocked replication forks to underpin genome duplication. UvrD helicase in Escherichia coli has been implicated in the processing of damaged replication forks, or the recombination intermediates formed from damaged forks. Here we show that UvrD can unwind forked DNA structures, in part due to the ability of UvrD to initiate unwinding from discontinuities within the phosphodiester backbone of DNA. UvrD does therefore have the capacity to target DNA intermediates of replication and recombination. Such an activity resulted in unwinding of what would be the parental duplex DNA ahead of either a stalled replication fork or a D-loop formed by recombination. However, UvrD had a substrate preference for fork structures having a nascent lagging strand at the branch point but no leading strand. Furthermore, at such structures the polarity of UvrD altered so that unwinding of the lagging strand predominated. This reaction is reminiscent of the PriC-Rep pathway of replication restart, suggesting that UvrD and Rep may have at least partially redundant functions.     

Dual functions of single-stranded DNA-binding protein in helicase loading at the bacteriophage T4 DNA replication fork

Semi-conservative DNA synthesis reactions catalyzed by the bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase holoenzyme are initiated by a strand displacement mechanism requiring gp32, the T4 single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)-binding protein, to sequester the displaced strand. After initiation, DNA helicase acquisition by the nascent replication fork leads to a dramatic increase in the rate and processivity of leading strand DNA synthesis. In vitro studies have established that either of two T4-encoded DNA helicases, gp41 or dda, is capable of stimulating strand displacement synthesis. The acquisition of either helicase by the nascent replication fork is modulated by other protein components of the fork including gp32 and, in the case of the gp41 helicase, its mediator/loading protein gp59. Here, we examine the relationships between gp32 and the gp41/gp59 and dda helicase systems, respectively, during T4 replication using altered forms of gp32 defective in either protein-protein or protein-ssDNA interactions. We show that optimal stimulation of DNA synthesis by gp41/gp59 helicase requires gp32-gp59 interactions and is strongly dependent on the stability of ssDNA binding by gp32. Fluorescence assays demonstrate that gp59 binds stoichiometrically to forked DNA molecules; however, gp59-forked DNA complexes are destabilized via protein-protein interactions with the C-terminal "A-domain" fragment of gp32. These and previously published results suggest a model in which a mobile gp59-gp32 cluster bound to lagging strand ssDNA is the target for gp41 helicase assembly. In contrast, stimulation of DNA synthesis by dda helicase requires direct gp32-dda protein-protein interactions and is relatively unaffected by mutations in gp32 that destabilize its ssDNA binding activity. The latter data support a model in which protein-protein interactions with gp32 maintain dda in a proper active state for translocation at the replication fork. The relationship between dda and gp32 proteins in T4 replication appears similar to the relationship observed between the UL9 helicase and ICP8 ssDNA-binding protein in herpesvirus replication.     

The checkpoint response to replication stress

Genome instability is a hallmark of cancer cells, and defective DNA replication, repair and recombination have been linked to its etiology. Increasing evidence suggests that proteins influencing S-phase processes such as replication fork movement and stability, repair events and replication completion, have significant roles in maintaining genome stability. DNA damage and replication stress activate a signal transduction cascade, often referred to as the checkpoint response. A central goal of the replication checkpoint is to maintain the integrity of the replication forks while facilitating replication completion and DNA repair and coordinating these events with cell cycle transitions. Progression through the cell cycle in spite of defective or incomplete DNA synthesis or unrepaired DNA lesions may result in broken chromosomes, genome aberrations, and an accumulation of mutations. In this review we discuss the multiple roles of the replication checkpoint during replication and in response to replication stress, as well as the enzymatic activities that cooperate with the checkpoint pathway to promote fork resumption and repair of DNA lesions thereby contributing to genome integrity.