Subtelomeric regions in mammalian cells are deficient in DNA double-strand break repair

We have previously demonstrated that double-strand breaks (DSBs) in regions near telomeres are much more likely to result in large deletions, gross chromosome rearrangements, and chromosome instability than DSBs at interstitial sites within chromosomes. In the present study, we investigated whether this response of subtelomeric regions to DSBs is a result of a deficiency in DSB repair by comparing the frequency of homologous recombination repair (HRR) and nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) at interstitial and telomeric sites following the introduction of DSBs by I-SceI endonuclease. We also monitored the frequency of small deletions, which have been shown to be the most common mutation at I-SceI-induced DSBs at interstitial sites. We observed no difference in the frequency of small deletions or HRR at interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs. However, the frequency of NHEJ was significantly lower at DSBs near telomeres compared to interstitial sites. The frequency of NHEJ was also lower at DSBs occurring at interstitial sites containing telomeric repeat sequences. We propose that regions near telomeres are deficient in classical NHEJ as a result of the presence of cis-acting telomere-binding proteins that cause DSBs to be processed as though they were telomeres, resulting in excessive resection, telomere loss, and eventual chromosome rearrangements by alternative NHEJ.     

Increased sensitivity of subtelomeric regions to DNA double-strand breaks in a human cancer cell line

We previously reported that a single DNA double-strand break (DSB) near a telomere in mouse embryonic stem cells can result in chromosome instability. We have observed this same type of instability as a result of spontaneous telomere loss in human tumor cell lines, suggesting that a deficiency in the repair of DSBs near telomeres has a role in chromosome instability in human cancer. We have now investigated the frequency of the chromosome instability resulting from DSBs near telomeres in the EJ-30 human bladder carcinoma cell line to determine whether subtelomeric regions are sensitive to DSBs, as previously reported in yeast. These studies involved determining the frequency of large deletions, chromosome rearrangements, and chromosome instability resulting from I-SceI endonuclease-induced DSBs at interstitial and telomeric sites. As an internal control, we also analyzed the frequency of small deletions, which have been shown to be the most common type of mutation resulting from I-SceI-induced DSBs at interstitial sites. The results demonstrate that although the frequency of small deletions is similar at interstitial and telomeric DSBs, the frequency of large deletions and chromosome rearrangements is much greater at telomeric DSBs. DSB-induced chromosome rearrangements at telomeric sites also resulted in prolonged periods of chromosome instability. Telomeric regions in mammalian cells are therefore highly sensitive to DSBs, suggesting that spontaneous or ionizing radiation-induced DSBs at these locations may be responsible for many of the chromosome rearrangements that are associated with human cancer.     

Processing by MRE11 is involved in the sensitivity of subtelomeric regions to DNA double-strand breaks

The caps on the ends of chromosomes, called telomeres, keep the ends of chromosomes from appearing as DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and prevent chromosome fusion. However, subtelomeric regions are sensitive to DSBs, which in normal cells is responsible for ionizing radiation-induced cell senescence and protection against oncogene-induced replication stress, but promotes chromosome instability in cancer cells that lack cell cycle checkpoints. We have previously reported that I-SceI endonuclease-induced DSBs near telomeres in a human cancer cell line are much more likely to generate large deletions and gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs) than interstitial DSBs, but found no difference in the frequency of I-SceI-induced small deletions at interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs. We now show that inhibition of MRE11 3′–5′ exonuclease activity with Mirin reduces the frequency of large deletions and GCRs at both interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs, but has little effect on the frequency of small deletions. We conclude that large deletions and GCRs are due to excessive processing of DSBs, while most small deletions occur during classical nonhomologous end joining (C-NHEJ). The sensitivity of subtelomeric regions to DSBs is therefore because they are prone to undergo excessive processing, and not because of a deficiency in C-NHEJ in subtelomeric regions.     

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.     

Induction of genome instability by DNA damage in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

The accumulation of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) is a characteristic of many types of cancer cells, although it is unclear what defects cause these rearrangements and how the different types of GCRs observed are formed. In the present study, we have used a Saccharomyces cerevisiae system for measuring GCRs to analyze the ability of a variety of DNA damaging agents to induce GCRs. The two most potent inducers of GCRs observed were methyl methane sulfonate (MMS) and HO-endonuclease-induced double strand breaks (DSBs). Bleomycin, camptothecan and gamma-irradiation induced intermediate levels of GCRs and cisplatin induced very low levels of GCRs whereas N-methyl-NPRIME;-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) and ethyl methane sulfonate (EMS) primarily induced base substitution mutations. MMS treatment primarily induced rearrangements in which the end of a chromosome was deleted and a new telomere was added (telomere additions) and also induced translocations. Consistent with this GCR spectrum, the formation of MMS-induced GCRs was primarily dependent on telomere maintenance functions and were completely eliminated in mutants that were defective for both telomere maintenance functions and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). In contrast, HO-endonuclease DSBs induced mostly translocations and interstitial deletions whereas few telomere additions were observed. Genetic analysis indicated that HO DSB-induced GCRs were suppressed by a number of pathways including the DNA damage checkpoints, DSB repair pathways and NHEJ.     

Human RAP1 inhibits non‐homologous end joining at telomeres

Telomeres, the nucleoprotein structures at the ends of linear chromosomes, promote genome stability by distinguishing chromosome termini from DNA double‐strand breaks (DSBs). Cells possess two principal pathways for DSB repair: homologous recombination and non‐homologous end joining (NHEJ). Several studies have implicated TRF2 in the protection of telomeres from NHEJ, but the underlying mechanism remains poorly understood. Here, we show that TRF2 inhibits NHEJ, in part, by recruiting human RAP1 to telomeres. Heterologous targeting of hRAP1 to telomeric DNA was sufficient to bypass the need for TRF2 in protecting telomeric DNA from NHEJ in vitro. On expanding these studies in cells, we find that recruitment of hRAP1 to telomeres prevents chromosome fusions caused by the loss of TRF2/hRAP1 from chromosome ends despite activation of a DNA damage response. These results provide the first evidence that hRAP1 inhibits NHEJ at mammalian telomeres and identify hRAP1 as a mediator of genome stability.     

Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice

DNA double-strand breaks （DSBs） are critical lesions that can result in cell death or a wide variety of genetic alterations including largeor small-scale deletions, loss of heterozygosity, translocations, and chromosome loss. DSBs are repaired by non-homologous end-joining （NHEJ） and homologous recombination （HR）, and defects in these pathways cause genome instability and promote tumorigenesis. DSBs arise from endogenous sources including reactive oxygen species generated during cellular metabolism, collapsed replication forks, and nucleases, and from exogenous sources including ionizing radiation and chemicals that directly or indirectly damage DNA and are commonly used in cancer therapy. The DSB repair pathways appear to compete for DSBs, but the balance between them differs widely among species, between different cell types of a single species, and during different cell cycle phases of a single cell type. Here we review the regulatory factors that regulate DSB repair by NHEJ and HR in yeast and higher eukaryotes. These factors include regulated expression and phosphorylation of repair proteins, chromatin modulation of repair factor accessibility, and the availability of homologous repair templates. While most DSB repair proteins appear to function exclusively in NHEJ or HR, a number of proteins influence both pathways, including the MRE11/RAD50/NBS1（XRS2） complex, BRCA1, histone H2AX, PARP-1, RAD18, DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit （DNA-PKcs）, and ATM. DNA-PKcs plays a role in mammalian NHEJ, but it also influences HR through a complex regulatory network that may involve crosstalk with ATM, and the regulation of at least 12 proteins involved in HR that are phosphorylated by DNA-PKcs and/or ATM.     

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.     

Telomere dysfunction and chromosome instability

The ends of chromosomes are composed of a short repeat sequence and associated proteins that together form a cap, called a telomere, that keeps the ends from appearing as double-strand breaks (DSBs) and prevents chromosome fusion. The loss of telomeric repeat sequences or deficiencies in telomeric proteins can result in chromosome fusion and lead to chromosome instability. The similarity between chromosome rearrangements resulting from telomere loss and those found in cancer cells implicates telomere loss as an important mechanism for the chromosome instability contributing to human cancer. Telomere loss in cancer cells can occur through gradual shortening due to insufficient telomerase, the protein that maintains telomeres. However, cancer cells often have a high rate of spontaneous telomere loss despite the expression of telomerase, which has been proposed to result from a combination of oncogene-mediated replication stress and a deficiency in DSB repair in telomeric regions. Chromosome fusion in mammalian cells primarily involves nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), which is the major form of DSB repair. Chromosome fusion initiates chromosome instability involving breakage-fusion-bridge (B/F/B) cycles, in which dicentric chromosomes form bridges and break as the cell attempts to divide, repeating the process in subsequent cell cycles. Fusion between sister chromatids results in large inverted repeats on the end of the chromosome, which amplify further following additional B/F/B cycles. B/F/B cycles continue until the chromosome acquires a new telomere, most often by translocation of the end of another chromosome. The instability is not confined to a chromosome that loses its telomere, because the instability is transferred to the chromosome donating a translocation. Moreover, the amplified regions are unstable and form extrachromosomal DNA that can reintegrate at new locations. Knowledge concerning the factors promoting telomere loss and its consequences is therefore important for understanding chromosome instability in human cancer.     

Efficient repair of DNA double-strand breaks in malignant cells with structural instability

Aberrant repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is thought to be important in the generation of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs). To examine how DNA DSBs might lead to GCRs, we investigated the repair of a single DNA DSB in a structurally unstable cell line. An I-SceI recognition site was introduced into OVCAR-8 cells between a constitutive promoter (EF1α) and the Herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (TK) gene, which confers sensitivity to gancyclovir (GCV). Expression of I-SceI in these cells caused a single DSB. Clones with aberrant repair could acquire resistance to GCV by separation of the EF1α promoter from the TK gene, or deletion of either the EF1α promoter or the TK gene. All mutations that we identified were interstitial deletions. Treatment of cells with etoposide or bleomycin, agents known to produce DNA DSBs following expression of I-SceI also did not generate GCRs. Because we identified solely interstitial deletions using the aforementioned negative selection system, we developed a positive selection system to produce GCR. A construct containing an I-SceI restriction site immediately followed by a hygromycin phosphotransferase cDNA, with no promoter, was stably integrated into OVCAR-8 cells. DNA DSBs were produced by an I-SceI expression vector. None of the hygromycin resistant clones recovered had linked the hygromycin phosphotransferase cDNA to an endogenous promoter, but had instead captured a portion of the I-SceI expression vector. These results indicate that even in a structurally unstable malignant cell line, the majority of DNA DSBs are repaired by religation of the two broken chromosome ends, without the introduction of a GCR.     

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.     

Factors determining DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice in G2 phase

DNA non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR) function to repair DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in G2 phase with HR preferentially repairing heterochromatin-associated DSBs (HC-DSBs). Here, we examine the regulation of repair pathway usage at two-ended DSBs in G2. We identify the speed of DSB repair as a major component influencing repair pathway usage showing that DNA damage and chromatin complexity are factors influencing DSB repair rate and pathway choice. Loss of NHEJ proteins also slows DSB repair allowing increased resection. However, expression of an autophosphorylation-defective DNA-PKcs mutant, which binds DSBs but precludes the completion of NHEJ, dramatically reduces DSB end resection at all DSBs. In contrast, loss of HR does not impair repair by NHEJ although CtIP-dependent end resection precludes NHEJ usage. We propose that NHEJ initially attempts to repair DSBs and, if rapid rejoining does not ensue, then resection occurs promoting repair by HR. Finally, we identify novel roles for ATM in regulating DSB end resection; an indirect role in promoting KAP-1-dependent chromatin relaxation and a direct role in phosphorylating and activating CtIP.     

The influence of heterochromatin on DNA double strand break repair: Getting the strong, silent type to relax

DNA non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR) represent the major DNA double strand break (DSB) pathways in mammalian cells, whilst ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) lies at the core of the DSB signalling response. ATM signalling plays a major role in modifying chromatin structure in the vicinity of the DSB and increasing evidence suggests that this function influences the DSB rejoining process. DSBs have long been known to be repaired with two (or more) component kinetics. The majority (～85%) of DSBs are repaired with fast kinetics in a predominantly ATM-independent manner. In contrast, ～15% of radiation-induced DSBs are repaired with markedly slower kinetics via a process that requires ATM and those mediator proteins, such as MDC1 or 53BP1, that accumulate at ionising radiation induced foci (IRIF). DSBs repaired with slow kinetics predominantly localise to the periphery of genomic heterochromatin (HC). Indeed, there is mounting evidence that chromatin complexity and not damage complexity confers slow DSB repair kinetics. ATM's role in HC-DSB repair involves the direct phosphorylation of KAP-1, a key HC formation factor. KAP-1 phosphorylation (pKAP-1) arises in both a pan-nuclear and a focal manner after radiation and ATM-dependent pKAP-1 is essential for DSB repair within HC regions. Mediator proteins such as 53BP1, which are also essential for HC-DSB repair, are expendable for pan-nuclear pKAP-1 whilst being essential for pKAP-1 formation at IRIF. Data suggests that the essential function of the mediator proteins is to promote the retention of activated ATM at DSBs, concentrating the phosphorylation of KAP-1 at HC DSBs. DSBs arising in G2 phase are also repaired with fast and slow kinetics but, in contrast to G0/G1 where they all DSBs are repaired by NHEJ, the slow component of DSB repair in G2 phase represents an HR process involving the Artemis endonuclease. Results suggest that whilst NHEJ repairs the majority of DSBs in G2 phase, Artemis-dependent HR uniquely repairs HC DSBs. Collectively, these recent studies highlight not only how chromatin complexity influences the factors required for DSB repair but also the pathway choice.     

Single molecule PCR reveals similar patterns of non-homologous DSB repair in tobacco and Arabidopsis

DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) occur constantly in eukaryotes. These potentially lethal DNA lesions are repaired efficiently by two major DSB repair pathways: homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). We investigated NHEJ in Arabidopsis thaliana and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) by introducing DNA double-strand breaks through inducible expression of I-SceI, followed by amplification of individual repair junction sequences by single-molecule PCR. Using this process over 300 NHEJ repair junctions were analysed in each species. In contrast to previously published variation in DSB repair between Arabidopsis and tobacco, the two species displayed similar DSB repair profiles in our experiments. The majority of repair events resulted in no loss of sequence and small (1-20 bp) deletions occurred at a minority (25-45%) of repair junctions. Approximately ~1.5% of the observed repair events contained larger deletions (>20 bp) and a similar percentage contained insertions. Strikingly, insertion events in tobacco were associated with large genomic deletions at the site of the DSB that resulted in increased micro-homology at the sequence junctions suggesting the involvement of a non-classical NHEJ repair pathway. The generation of DSBs through inducible expression of I-SceI, in combination with single molecule PCR, provides an effective and efficient method for analysis of individual repair junctions and will prove a useful tool in the analysis of NHEJ.     

PIF1 disruption or NBS1 hypomorphism does not affect chromosome healing or fusion resulting from double-strand breaks near telomeres in murine embryonic stem cells

Telomerase serves to maintain telomeric repeat sequences at the ends of chromosomes. However, telomerase can also add telomeric repeat sequences at DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), a process called chromosome healing. Here, we employed a method of inducing DSBs near telomeres to query the role of two proteins, PIF1 and NBS1, in chromosome healing in mammalian cells. PIF1 was investigated because the PIF1 homolog in Saccharomyces cerevisiae inhibits chromosome healing, as shown by a 1000-fold increase in chromosome in PIF1-deficient cells. NBS1 was investigated because the functional homolog of NBS1 in S. cerevisiae, Xrs2, is part of the Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 complex that is required for chromosome healing due to its role in the processing of DSBs and recruitment of telomerase. We found that disruption of mPif1 had no detectable effect on the frequency of chromosome healing at DSBs near telomeres in murine embryonic stem cells. Moreover, the Nbs1(ΔB) hypomorph, which is defective in the processing of DSBs, also had no detectable effect on the frequency of chromosome healing, DNA degradation, or gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs) that result from telomeric DSBs. Although we cannot rule out small changes in chromosome healing using this system, it is clear from our results that knockout of PIF1 or the Nbs1(ΔB) hypomorph does not result in large differences in chromosome healing in murine cells. These results represent the first genetic assessment of the role of these proteins in chromosome healing in mammals, and suggest that murine cells have evolved mechanisms to ensure the functional redundancy of Pif1 or Nbs1 in the regulation of chromosome healing.     

Effect of Telomere Proximity on Telomere Position Effect,Chromosome Healing,and Sensitivity to DNA Double-Strand Breaks in a Human Tumor Cell Line

The ends of chromosomes, called telomeres, are composed of a DNA repeat sequence and associated proteins, which prevent DNA degradation and chromosome fusion. We have previously used plasmid sequences integrated adjacent to a telomere to demonstrate that mammalian telomeres suppress gene expression, called telomere position effect (TPE). We have also shown that subtelomeric regions are highly sensitive to double-strand breaks, leading to chromosome instability, and that this instability can be prevented by the addition of a new telomere to the break, a process called chromosome healing. We have now targeted the same plasmid sequences to a site 100 kb from a telomere in a human carcinoma cell line to address the effect of telomere proximity on telomere position effect, chromosome healing, and sensitivity to double-strand breaks. The results demonstrate a substantial decrease in TPE 100 kb from the telomere, demonstrating that TPE is very limited in range. Chromosome healing was also diminished 100 kb from the telomere, consistent with our model that chromosome healing serves as a repair process for restoring lost telomeres. Conversely, the region 100 kb from the telomere was highly sensitive to double-strand breaks, demonstrating that the sensitive region is a relatively large target for ionizing radiation-induced chromosome instability.Telomeres are composed of a six-base pair repeat sequence and associated proteins that together form a cap to protect the ends of chromosomes and prevent chromosome fusion (6). Telomeres are actively maintained by the enzyme telomerase in human germ line cells but shorten with age in most somatic cells due to the low level of expression of telomerase (12). When a telomere shortens to the point that it is recognized as a double-strand break (DSB), it serves as a signal for replicative cell senescence (13). Human cells that lose the ability to senesce continue to show telomere shortening and eventually enter crisis, which involves increased chromosome fusion, aneuploidy, and cell death (11, 15). An important step that is required for continued division of cancer cells is therefore that they possess the ability to maintain telomeres, not only to avoid senescence but also to avoid chromosome fusion brought on by crisis (11, 25).In addition to their role in protecting the ends of chromosomes, telomeres can also inhibit the expression of nearby genes, called telomere position effect (TPE). TPE has been proposed to have a role in the cellular response to changes in telomere length (26); however, the function of TPE remains unknown. TPE has been extensively studied in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using transgenes integrated near telomeres on truncated chromosomes (1, 2, 22, 47). These studies demonstrated that TPE involves changes in chromatin conformation and is dependent upon both the distance from the telomere and telomere length (55). Subsequent studies of endogenous yeast genes, however, revealed that the influence of TPE on gene expression varies depending on the presence of insulator sequences (18, 45). TPE also occurs in mammalian cells and has been implicated in the loss of expression of genes relocated near telomeres in a variety of human syndromes (9, 16, 28, 58, 59). As in yeast, transgenes located near telomeres have been used to study TPE in the C33-A (32) and HeLa (4) human cervical carcinoma cell lines. We have also studied TPE using transgenes located adjacent to telomeres in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells, mouse embryo fibroblasts, and transgenic mice (43). However, none of the studies of TPE in mammalian cells has addressed the distance over which TPE extends from the telomere, and so the number of genes whose expression is likely to be affected is not known.The presence of a telomere can also influence the sensitivity of subtelomeric regions to DSBs. We previously demonstrated the sensitivity of subtelomeric regions to DSBs using selectable transgenes and a recognition site for the I-SceI endonuclease that are integrated immediately adjacent to a telomere. Unlike I-SceI-induced DSBs at most locations, which primarily result in small deletions (27, 34, 46, 50), I-SceI-induced DSBs near telomeres commonly result in large deletions, gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs), and chromosome instability in both mouse ES cells (37) and human tumor cells (65). Therefore, depending on the size of the sensitive region, the combined targets of the subtelomeric regions on all telomeres could contribute significantly to the genomic instability caused by ionizing radiation or other agents that produce DSBs (35). This sensitivity to DSBs may result from a deficiency in DSB repair since regions near telomeres in yeast are deficient in nonhomologous end joining, resulting in an increase in GCRs (48). One possible reason for a deficiency in DSB repair near telomeres is the role of the telomere in preventing chromosome fusion. Telomeric repeat sequences in yeast have been shown to suppress the activation of cell cycle checkpoints in response to DSBs (39). Similarly, the human TRF2 protein, which is required to prevent chromosome fusion, has been demonstrated to inhibit ATM (31), whose activation is instrumental in the repair of DSBs in heterochromatin (20).One mechanism for avoiding the consequences of DSBs near telomeres is through the addition of a new telomere to the site of a DSB, termed chromosome healing (44). Studies in yeast have shown that chromosome healing occurs through the de novo addition of telomeric repeat sequences by telomerase (14, 33, 38). Chromosome healing in S. cerevisiae is inhibited by the 5′-3′ helicase, Pif1 (52), with Pif1-deficient cells showing up to a 1,000-fold increase in chromosome healing (33, 38). The ability of Pif1 to inhibit chromosome healing has been proposed to serve as a mechanism to prevent chromosome healing from interfering with DSB repair (63). Mammalian cells that express telomerase are also capable of performing chromosome healing. We have shown that chromosome healing can also occur following spontaneous telomere loss (17, 49) or DSBs near telomeres in a human cancer cell line (65) or mouse ES cells (19, 54). We have also shown that chromosome healing can prevent the chromosome instability resulting from DSBs near telomeres (19). Because the de novo addition of telomeric repeat sequences has not been observed in mammalian cells at I-SceI-induced DSBs at interstitial sites (27, 34, 46, 50), we have proposed that chromosome healing is inhibited at most locations but serves as an important mechanism for dealing with DSBs near telomeres that would otherwise result in chromosome instability. However, an alternative possibility that has not been ruled out is that chromosome healing also occurs at interstitial sites but that the large terminal deletions that it causes at these sites results in cell death.In the present study, we address several key questions regarding the importance of telomere proximity on TPE, chromosome healing, and sensitivity to DSBs by investigating how telomere proximity affects these processes. The first of these questions involves establishing the distance over which TPE extends from the telomere to gain insights into the numbers of genes that would be affected by changes in TPE. Second, we will investigate whether chromosome healing can occur at a site that is distant from a telomere but in which terminal deletions are known not to be lethal. This will determine for the first time whether chromosome healing is limited to regions near telomeres. Finally, we will investigate the size of the region near a telomere that is sensitive to DSBs, which will address the potential importance of the subtelomeric region as a target for ionizing radiation-induced genomic instability (35). The distance over which a telomere can exert its effects was investigated by comparing TPE, chromosome healing, and the sensitivity to DSBs at a site 100 kb from a telomere with a site immediately adjacent to the same telomere. As a control for the efficiency of generating DSBs at these sites, we have also analyzed the frequency of small deletions, the most common type of I-SceI-induced DNA rearrangement at interstitial sites in mammalian cells (27, 60). Small deletions serve as an excellent internal control for comparing the frequency of other types of rearrangements since we have previously observed a similar frequency of small deletions at telomeric and interstitial sites (65). The results provide important information on the distance over which a telomere can influence TPE, chromosome healing, and the sensitivity to DSBs.     

The function of classical and alternative non‐homologous end‐joining pathways in the fusion of dysfunctional telomeres

Repair of DNA double‐stranded breaks (DSBs) is crucial for the maintenance of genome stability. DSBs are repaired by either error prone non‐homologous end‐joining (NHEJ) or error‐free homologous recombination. NHEJ precedes either by a classic, Lig4‐dependent process (C‐NHEJ) or an alternative, Lig4‐independent one (A‐NHEJ). Dysfunctional telomeres arising either through natural attrition due to telomerase deficiency or by removal of telomere‐binding proteins are recognized as DSBs. In this report, we studied which end‐joining pathways are required to join dysfunctional telomeres. In agreement with earlier studies, depletion of Trf2 resulted in end‐to‐end chromosome fusions mediated by the C‐NHEJ pathway. In contrast, removal of Tpp1–Pot1a/b initiated robust chromosome fusions that are mediated by A‐NHEJ. C‐NHEJ is also dispensable for the fusion of naturally shortened telomeres. Our results reveal that telomeres engage distinct DNA repair pathways depending on how they are rendered dysfunctional, and that A‐NHEJ is a major pathway to process dysfunctional telomeres.     

The mph1 helicase can promote telomere uncapping and premature senescence in budding yeast

Double strand breaks (DSBs) can be repaired via either Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) or Homology directed Repair (HR). Telomeres, which resemble DSBs, are refractory to repair events in order to prevent chromosome end fusions and genomic instability. In some rare instances telomeres engage in Break-Induced Replication (BIR), a type of HR, in order to maintain telomere length in the absence of the enzyme telomerase. Here we have investigated how the yeast helicase, Mph1, affects DNA repair at both DSBs and telomeres. We have found that overexpressed Mph1 strongly inhibits BIR at internal DSBs however allows it to proceed at telomeres. Furthermore, while overexpressed Mph1 potently inhibits NHEJ at telomeres it has no effect on NHEJ at DSBs within the chromosome. At telomeres Mph1 is able to promote telomere uncapping and the accumulation of ssDNA, which results in premature senescence in the absence of telomerase. We propose that Mph1 is able to direct repair towards HR (thereby inhibiting NHEJ) at telomeres by remodeling them into a nuclease-sensitive structure, which promotes the accumulation of a recombinogenic ssDNA intermediate. We thus put forward that Mph1 is a double-edge sword at the telomere, it prevents NHEJ, but promotes senescence in cells with dysfunctional telomeres by increasing the levels of ssDNA.     

A robust CRISPR–Cas9-based fluorescent reporter assay for the detection and quantification of DNA double-strand break repair

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are highly cytotoxic lesions that can lead to chromosome rearrangements, genomic instability and cell death. Consequently, cells have evolved multiple mechanisms to efficiently repair DSBs to preserve genomic integrity. We have developed a DSB repair assay system, designated CDDR (CRISPR–Cas9-based Dual-fluorescent DSB Repair), that enables the detection and quantification of DSB repair outcomes in mammalian cells with high precision. CDDR is based on the introduction and subsequent resolution of one or two DSB(s) in an intrachromosomal fluorescent reporter following the expression of Cas9 and sgRNAs targeting the reporter. CDDR can discriminate between high-fidelity (HF) and error-prone non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ), as well as between proximal and distal NHEJ repair. Furthermore, CDDR can detect homology-directed repair (HDR) with high sensitivity. Using CDDR, we found HF-NHEJ to be strictly dependent on DNA Ligase IV, XRCC4 and XLF, members of the canonical branch of NHEJ pathway (c-NHEJ). Loss of these genes also stimulated HDR, and promoted error-prone distal end-joining. Deletion of the DNA repair kinase ATM, on the other hand, stimulated HF-NHEJ and suppressed HDR. These findings demonstrate the utility of CDDR in characterizing the effect of repair factors and in elucidating the balance between competing DSB repair pathways.