Telomere dysfunction puts the brakes on oncogene-induced cancers

EMBO J 31 13, 2839–2851 (2012); published online May082012Senescence represents a major tumour suppressor checkpoint activated by telomere dysfunction or cellular stress factors such as oncogene activation. In this issue of The EMBO Journal, Suram et al (2012) reveal a surprising interconnection between oncogene activation and telomere dysfunction induced senescence. The study supports an alternative model of tumour suppression, indicating that oncogene-induced accumulation of telomeric DNA damage contributes to the induction of senescence in telomerase-negative tumours.Telomere shortening limits the proliferative capacity of primary human cells after 50–70 cell divisions by induction of replicative senescence activated by critically short, dysfunctional telomeres. Different mechanisms were thought to initiate senescence in response to oncogene activation, which occurs abruptly within a few cell doublings (Serrano et al, 1997). Oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) involves an activation of DNA damage signals at stalled replication forks induced by DNA replication stress (Bartkova et al, 2006; Di Micco et al, 2006). Replication fork stalling in response to oncogene activation preferentially affects common fragile sites of the DNA (Tsantoulis et al, 2008). The ends of eukaryotic chromosomes—the telomeres–represent common fragile sites that are sensitive to replication fork stalling (Sfeir et al, 2009). These data made it tempting to speculate whether replication fork stalling at telomeres was causatively involved in OIS. Studies on replicative senescence in human fibroblast also supported this possibility showing that mitogenic signals amplify DNA damage responses in senescent cells (Satyanarayana et al, 2004).Multiple studies revealed experimental evidences that senescence suppresses tumour progression in mouse models and early human tumours (for review see Collado and Serrano, 2010). The relative contribution of OIS and telomere dysfunction induced senescence (TDIS) to tumour suppression and possible interconnections between the two pathways at the level of checkpoint induction were not investigated in previous studies. In this issue of The EMBO Journal, Suram et al (2012) describe the presence of TDIS in human precursor lesions but not in the corresponding malignant tumours. Mechanistically, the study shows that oncogenic signals cause replication fork stalling, resulting in telomeric DNA damage accumulation and activation of DNA damage checkpoints reminiscent to TDIS. Telomerase expression does not rescue replication fork stalling but prevents the accumulation of DNA damage at telomeres allowing a bypass of OIS.The study has several important implications for molecular pathways and therapeutic approaches in cancer that need to be further explored (Figure 1):Open in a separate windowFigure 1Traditional and new models of senescence in tumour suppression. (A) Traditional model of replicative senescence: Telomerase-negative tumour cell clones experience telomere shortening as a consequence of cell division. After a lack period depending on the initial telomere length, tumour cells accumulate telomere dysfunction and activation of senescence impairs tumour growth. Telomerase activation represents a late event allowing tumour progression. (B) New model of oncogene induced, telomere-dependent senescence: Oncogene activation leads to abrupt accumulation of DNA damage at telomeres resulting in senescence and tumour suppression. Telomerase-positive stem cells could be resistant to OIS and may be selected as the cell type of origin of tumour development.(i) Telomere length independent roles of telomeres in tumour suppressionThe classical model of telomere-dependent tumour suppression indicates that proliferation-dependent telomere shortening leads to telomere dysfunction, activation of DNA damage checkpoints, and induction of senescence suppressing the growth of telomerase-negative tumour clones. Studies on mouse models supported this concept showing that telomere shortening impairs the progression of initiated tumours in a telomere length-dependent manner (Feldser and Greider, 2007). The new data from Suram et al (2012) indicate that oncogene-induced replication fork stalling activates a telomere-dependent senescence checkpoint, which is independent of telomere length. The study shows that replication forks stall in response to oncogene activation throughout the genome. However, stalled replication forks are resolved in non-telomeric regions, whereas fork stalling inside telomeres leads to un-repairable DNA damage in telomerase-negative cells. These findings are in line with recent publication showing accumulation of un-repairable DNA damage in telomeric DNA in response to aging and stress-induced DNA damage (Fumagalli et al, 2012).(ii) Telomere length independent roles of telomerase in tumour progressionFollowing the classical model telomeres in tumour suppression (Figure 1A), telomerase re-activation is required for tumour progression by limiting telomere dysfunction and the induction of DNA damage checkpoints in response to telomere shortening. The new data from Suram et al (2012) indicate that telomerase has an additional telomere length independent role in tumour progression. The study shows that catalytically active telomerase prevents the activation of DNA damage signals originating from stalled replication forks inside telomeres in response to oncogene activation (Figure 1B). The exact mechanisms of telomerase-dependent healing of stalled replication forks at telomeres remain to be elucidated. It is also unclear whether telomerase activity can prevent any type of DNA damage at telomeres as an over-expression of TERT could not suppress irradiation-induced cellular senescence or the persistence of telomeric DDR following irradiation, H₂O₂, or chemotherapy induced DNA damage (Hewitt et al, 2012).The data could provide a plausible explanation for the increased tumorigenesis in telomerase transgenic mice—a finding which is difficult to explain by telomere length dependent effects of telomerase given the long telomere reserves in mouse tissues (Gonzalez-Suarez et al, 2001). According to the findings of Suram et al (2012), anti-telomerase therapies could have immediate anti-cancer effects in tumours depending on telomerase-mediated healing of stalled replication forks at telomeres. Specific markers for this dependency could be of clinical value. In addition, the data support the concept that somatic stem cells could represent the cell type of origin of cancers. In contrast to differentiated somatic cells, tissues stem cells are often telomerase-positive, indicating that stem cells might be less sensitive to OIS.     

Cell Cycle-Dependent Role of MRN at Dysfunctional Telomeres: ATM Signaling-Dependent Induction of Nonhomologous End Joining (NHEJ) in G1 and Resection-Mediated Inhibition of NHEJ in G2

Here, we address the role of the MRN (Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1) complex in the response to telomeres rendered dysfunctional by deletion of the shelterin component TRF2. Using conditional NBS1/TRF2 double-knockout MEFs, we show that MRN is required for ATM signaling in response to telomere dysfunction. This establishes that MRN is the only sensor for the ATM kinase and suggests that TRF2 might block ATM signaling by interfering with MRN binding to the telomere terminus, possibly by sequestering the telomere end in the t-loop structure. We also examined the role of the MRN/ATM pathway in nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) of damaged telomeres. NBS1 deficiency abrogated the telomere fusions that occur in G₁, consistent with the requirement for ATM and its target 53BP1 in this setting. Interestingly, NBS1 and ATM, but not H2AX, repressed NHEJ at dysfunctional telomeres in G₂, specifically at telomeres generated by leading-strand DNA synthesis. Leading-strand telomere ends were not prone to fuse in the absence of either TRF2 or MRN/ATM, indicating redundancy in their protection. We propose that MRN represses NHEJ by promoting the generation of a 3′ overhang after completion of leading-strand DNA synthesis. TRF2 may ensure overhang formation by recruiting MRN (and other nucleases) to newly generated telomere ends. The activation of the MRN/ATM pathway by the dysfunctional telomeres is proposed to induce resection that protects the leading-strand ends from NHEJ when TRF2 is absent. Thus, the role of MRN at dysfunctional telomeres is multifaceted, involving both repression of NHEJ in G₂ through end resection and induction of NHEJ in G₁ through ATM-dependent signaling.Mammalian telomeres solve the end protection problem through their association with shelterin. The shelterin factor TRF2 (telomere repeat-binding factor 2) protects chromosome ends from inappropriate DNA repair events that threaten the integrity of the genome (reviewed in reference 32). When TRF2 is removed by Cre-mediated deletion from conditional knockout mouse embryo fibroblasts (TRF2^F/− MEFs), telomeres activate the ATM kinase pathway and are processed by the canonical nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway to generate chromosome end-to-end fusions (10, 11).The repair of telomeres in TRF2-deficient cells is readily monitored in metaphase spreads. Over the course of four or five cell divisions, the majority of chromosome ends become fused, resulting in metaphase spreads displaying the typical pattern of long trains of joined chromosomes (10). The reproducible pace and the efficiency of telomere NHEJ have allowed the study of factors involved in its execution and regulation. In addition to depending on the NHEJ factors Ku70 and DNA ligase IV (10, 11), telomere fusions are facilitated by the ATM kinase (26). This aspect of telomere NHEJ is mediated through the ATM kinase target 53BP1. 53BP1 accumulates at telomeres in TRF2-depleted cells and stimulates chromatin mobility, thereby promoting the juxtaposition of distantly positioned chromosome ends prior to their fusion (18). Telomere NHEJ is also accelerated by the ATM phosphorylation target MDC1, which is required for the prolonged association of 53BP1 at sites of DNA damage (19).Although loss of TRF2 leads to telomere deprotection at all stages of the cell cycle, NHEJ of uncapped telomeres takes place primarily before their replication in G₁ (25). Postreplicative (G₂) telomere fusions can occur at a low frequency upon TRF2 deletion, but only when cyclin-dependent kinase activity is inhibited with roscovitine (25). The target of Cdk1 in this setting is not known.Here, we dissect the role of the MRN (Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1) complex and H2AX at telomeres rendered dysfunctional through deletion of TRF2. The highly conserved MRN complex has been proposed to function as the double-stranded break (DSB) sensor in the ATM pathway (reviewed in references 34 and 35). In support of this model, Mre11 interacts directly with DNA ends via two carboxy-terminal DNA binding domains (13, 14); the recruitment of MRN to sites of damage is independent of ATM signaling, as it occurs in the presence of the phosphoinositide-3-kinase-related protein kinase inhibitor caffeine (29, 44); in vitro analysis has demonstrated that MRN is required for activation of ATM by linear DNAs (27); a mutant form of Rad50 (Rad50S) can induce ATM signaling in the absence of DNA damage (31); and phosphorylation of ATM targets in response to ionizing radiation is completely abrogated upon deletion of NBS1 from MEFs (17). These data and the striking similarities between syndromes caused by mutations in ATM, Nbs1, and Mre11 (ataxia telangiectasia, Nijmegen breakage syndrome, and ataxia telangiectasia-like disease, respectively) are consistent with a sensor function for MRN.MRN has also been implicated in several aspects of DNA repair. Potentially relevant to DNA repair events, Mre11 dimers can bridge and align the two DNA ends in vitro (49) and Rad50 may promote long-range tethering of sister chromatids (24, 50). In addition, a binding partner of the MRN complex, CtIP, has been implicated in end resection of DNA ends during homology-directed repair (39, 45). The role of MRN in NHEJ has been much less clear. MRX, the yeast orthologue of MRN, functions during NHEJ in Saccharomyces cerevisiae but not in Schizosaccharomyces pombe (28, 30). In mammalian cells, MRN is not recruited to I-SceI-induced DSBs in G₁, whereas Ku70 is, and MRN does not appear to be required for NHEJ-mediated repair of these DSBs (38, 54). On the other hand, MRN promotes class switch recombination (37) and has been implicated in accurate NHEJ repair during V(D)J recombination (22).The involvement of MRN in ATM signaling and DNA repair pathways has been intriguing from the perspective of telomere biology. While several of the attributes of MRN might be considered a threat to telomere integrity, MRN is known to associate with mammalian telomeres, most likely through an interaction with the TRF2 complex (48, 51, 57). MRN has been implicated in the generation of the telomeric overhang (12), the telomerase pathway (36, 52), the ALT pathway (55), and the protection of telomeres from stochastic deletion events (1). It has also been speculated that MRN may contribute to formation of the t-loop structure (16). t-loops, the lariats formed through the strand invasion of the telomere terminus into the duplex telomeric DNA (21), are thought to contribute to telomere protection by effectively shielding the chromosome end from DNA damage response factors that interact with DNA ends, including nucleases, and the Ku heterodimer (15).H2AX has been studied extensively in the context of chromosome-internal DSBs. When a DSB is formed, ATM acts near the lesion to phosphorylate a conserved carboxy-terminal serine of H2AX, a histone variant present throughout the genome (7). Phosphorylated H2AX (referred to as γ-H2AX) promotes the spreading of DNA damage factors over several megabases along the damaged chromatin and mediates the amplification of the DNA damage signal (43). The signal amplification is accomplished through a sequence of phospho-specific interactions among γ-H2AX, MDC1, NBS1, RNF8, and RNF168, which results in the additional binding of ATM and additional phosphorylation of H2AX in adjacent chromatin (reviewed in reference 33). The formation of these large domains of altered chromatin, referred to as irradiation-induced foci at DSBs and telomere dysfunction-induced foci (TIFs) at dysfunctional telomeres (44), promotes the binding of several factors implicated in DNA repair, including the BRCA1 A complex and 53BP1 (33).In agreement with a role for H2AX in DNA repair, H2AX-deficient cells exhibit elevated levels of irradiation-induced chromosome abnormalities (5, 9). In addition, H2AX-null B cells are prone to chromosome breaks and translocations in the immunoglobulin locus, indicative of impaired class switch recombination, a process that involves the repair of DSBs through the NHEJ pathway (9, 20). Since H2AX is dispensable for the activation of irradiation-induced checkpoints (8), these data argue that H2AX contributes directly to DNA repair. However, a different set of studies has concluded that H2AX is not required for NHEJ during V(D)J recombination (5, 9) but that it plays a role in homology-directed repair (53). In this study, we have further queried the contribution of H2AX to NHEJ in the context of dysfunctional telomeres.Our aim was to dissect the contribution of MRN and H2AX to DNA damage signaling and NHEJ-mediated repair in response to telomere dysfunction elicited by deletion of TRF2. Importantly, since ATM is the only kinase activated in this setting, deletion of TRF2 can illuminate the specific contribution of these factors in the absence of the confounding effects of ATR signaling (26). This approach revealed a dual role for MRN at telomeres, involving both its function as a sensor in the ATM pathway and its ability to protect telomeres from NHEJ under certain circumstances.     

Kinase-Independent Functions of TEL1 in Telomere Maintenance

TEL1 is important in Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomere maintenance, and its kinase activity is required. Tel1p associates with telomeres in vivo, is enriched at short telomeres, and enhances the binding of telomerase components to short telomeres. However, it is unclear how the kinase activity and telomere association contribute to Tel1p''s overall function in telomere length maintenance. To investigate this question, we generated a set of single point mutants and a double point mutant (tel1^KD) of Tel1p that were kinase deficient and two Xrs2p mutants that failed to bind Tel1p. Using these separation-of-function alleles in a de novo telomere elongation assay, we found, surprisingly, that the tel1^KD allele and xrs2 C-terminal mutants were both partially functional. Combining the tel1^KD and xrs2 C-terminal mutants had an additive effect and resembled the TEL1 null (tel1Δ) phenotype. These data indicate that Tel1p has two separate functions in telomere maintenance and that the Xrs2p-dependent recruitment of Tel1p to telomeres plays an important role even in the absence of its kinase activity.The telomere is a highly ordered complex of proteins and DNA found at the ends of linear chromosomes that functions to protect the ends and prevents them from being recognized as double-strand DNA breaks (51). Telomeres shorten gradually due to incomplete replication (1, 20), and this shortening is counteracted by telomerase, which elongates telomeres (18, 19).Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomeres are composed of 300 ± 50 bp of the sequence TG_1-3/C_1-3A. The yeast telomerase complex consists of Est2p (catalytic subunit), the RNA component TLC1, and two accessory proteins, Est1p and Est3p (50). Cells deficient for any of these telomerase components undergo progressive telomere shortening and a simultaneous decrease in growth rate, described as senescence (24, 27). Typically, a small fraction of cells, termed survivors, escape senescence and maintain telomere length by utilizing RAD52-dependent recombination (24, 26).In addition to the telomerase complex, a number of yeast proteins are important in maintaining telomere length and integrity. These include Tel1p and Mec1p, the yeast homologues of mammalian ATM and ATR, respectively (39). While deletion of TEL1 results in short but stable telomeres, MEC1 deletion has little effect on average telomere length. However, cells lacking TEL1 that have a mutant mec1-21 allele undergo senescence, similar to telomerase null cells (36), suggesting that MEC1 plays a minor but essential role in telomere length maintenance in tel1Δ cells. It has been shown that the protein kinase activities of Tel1p and Mec1p are essential in telomere maintenance, since tel1^KD cells have short telomeres and tel1Δ mec1^KD cells undergo senescence (29).In current models, Tel1p acts to maintain telomere length by regulating the access of telomerase to short telomeres. TEL1 is required for the association of Est1p and Est2p with telomeres in the late S/G₂ phase of the cell cycle (16), the time when telomeres are elongated (9, 31). Additionally, in both yeast and mammalian cells, telomerase preferentially elongates the shortest telomeres (22, 30, 47). Therefore, TEL1 seems to be required mainly for the association of telomerase to short telomeres in yeast. Indeed, Tel1p preferentially binds to short telomeres (4, 21, 38) and is essential for the increased association of Est1p and Est2p to short telomeres during late S/G₂ (38). However, the kinase activity of Tel1p is not required for the telomere association (21). In addition to its role in telomerase recruitment, TEL1 may also regulate telomere length by enhancing the processivity of telomerase at short telomeres (7).The Mre11p, Rad50p, and Xrs2p (MRX) complex also plays important roles in telomere maintenance. Cells lacking any one of these components (mrxΔ) have short and stable telomeres. Since combining mrxΔ with tel1Δ has no synergistic effect on telomere shortening and mrxΔ mec1Δ cells undergo senescence, it was proposed that the MRX complex and Tel1p function in the same telomere maintenance pathway (37). In agreement with this model, the C-terminal region of Xrs2p is essential in recruiting Tel1p both to double-strand breaks (32) and to short telomeres (38). Interestingly, the mammalian functional homologue of Xrs2p, NBS1, interacts with ATM via its extreme C terminus (13), suggesting that the recruitment of Tel1p to telomeres and the recruitment of ATM to DNA damage sites are conserved.It remains a question what exact roles the kinase activity of Tel1p and its telomere binding play in telomere maintenance. Tel1p''s telomere maintenance function seems to be dependent on its kinase activity, since tel1^KD cells have short telomeres (29). It has been proposed that Tel1p may regulate the recruitment of Est1p, and thus the rest of the telomerase complex (12, 23, 54), to telomeres by phosphorylating Cdc13p (3, 48). Other experiments suggest the association of Tel1p to the telomere plays a major role. The preferential binding of Tel1p to short telomeres is lost in xrs2-664 cells (38), which lack the C-terminal 190 amino acids of Xrs2p and have short telomeres, similar to xrs2Δ (41). It has been suggested that the association of Tel1p to telomeres is required for its substrate phosphorylation and, therefore, telomere length maintenance (3, 39).To further analyze the functions of Tel1p in telomere maintenance, we generated a novel kinase-dead allele of TEL1 and new alleles of XRS2 that do not interact with Tel1p. Through these separation-of-function mutants, we show that both sets of alleles are partially active in a de novo telomere elongation assay. However, combining both the tel1^KD and either of the Tel1p interaction-deficient xrs2 alleles resulted in a phenotype resembling the tel1Δ phenotype, suggesting that Tel1p has kinase-dependent and kinase-independent, but telomere binding-dependent, functions in telomere maintenance.     

OB Fold-containing Protein 1 (OBFC1), a Human Homolog of Yeast Stn1, Associates with TPP1 and Is Implicated in Telomere Length Regulation

The telosome/shelterin, a six-protein complex formed by TRF1, TRF2, RAP1, TIN2, POT1, and TPP1, functions as the core of the telomere interactome, acting as the molecular platform for the assembly of higher order complexes and coordinating cross-talks between various protein subcomplexes. Within the telosome, there are two oligonucleotide- or oligosaccharide-binding (OB) fold-containing proteins, TPP1 and POT1. They can form heterodimers that bind to the telomeric single-stranded DNA, an activity that is central for telomere end capping and telomerase recruitment. Through proteomic analyses, we found that in addition to POT1, TPP1 can associate with another OB fold-containing protein, OBFC1/AAF44. The yeast homolog of OBFC1 is Stn1, which plays a critical role in telomere regulation. We show here that OBFC1/AAF44 can localize to telomeres in human cells and bind to telomeric single-stranded DNA in vitro. Furthermore, overexpression of an OBFC1 mutant resulted in elongated telomeres in human cells, implicating OBFC1/AAF4 in telomere length regulation. Taken together, our studies suggest that OBFC1/AAF44 represents a new player in the telomere interactome for telomere maintenance.Telomeres are specialized linear chromosome end structures, which are regulated and protected by networks of protein complexes (1–4). Telomere length, structure, and integrity are critical for the cells and the organism as a whole. Telomere dysregulation can lead to DNA damage response, cell cycle checkpoint, genome instability, and predisposition to cancer (5–9). Mammalian telomeres are composed of double-stranded (TTAGGG)_n repeats followed by 3′-single-stranded overhangs (10). In addition to the telomerase that directly mediates the addition of telomere repeats to the end of chromosomes (11, 12), a multitude of telomere-specific proteins have been identified that form the telosome/shelterin complex and participate in telomere maintenance (9, 13). The telosome in turn acts as the platform onto which higher order telomere regulatory complexes may be assembled into the telomere interactome (14). The telomere interactome has been proposed to integrate the complex and labyrinthine network of protein signaling pathways involved in DNA damage response, cell cycle checkpoint, and chromosomal end maintenance and protection for telomere homeostasis and genome stability.Of the six telomeric proteins (TRF1, TRF2, RAP1, TIN2, POT1, and TPP1) that make up the telosome, TRF1 and TRF2 have been shown to bind telomeric double-stranded DNA (15, 16), whereas the OB³ fold-containing protein POT1 exhibits high affinities for telomeric ssDNA in vitro (17, 18). Although the OB fold of TPP1 does not show appreciable ssDNA binding activity, heterodimerization of TPP1 and POT1 enhances the POT1 ssDNA binding (17, 18). More importantly, POT1 depends on TPP1 for telomere recruitment, and the POT1-TPP1 heterodimer functions in telomere end protection and telomerase recruitment. Notably, the OB fold of TPP1 is critical for the recruitment of the telomerase (18). Disruption of POT1-TPP1 interaction by dominant negative inhibition, RNA interference, or gene targeting could lead to dysregulation of telomere length as well DNA damage responses at the telomeres (18–21).In budding yeast, the homolog of mammalian POT1, Cdc13, has been shown to interact with two other OB fold-containing proteins, Stn1 and Ten1, to form a Cdc13-Stn1-Ten1 (CST) complex (22, 23). The CST complex participates in both telomere length control and telomere end capping (22, 23). The presence of multiple OB fold-containing proteins from yeast to human suggests a common theme for telomere ssDNA protection (4). Indeed, it has been proposed that the CST complex is structurally analogous to the replication factor A complex and may in fact function as a telomere-specific replication factor A complex (23). Notably, homologs of the CST complex have been found in other species such as Arabidopsis (24), further supporting the notion that multiple OB fold proteins may be involved in evolutionarily conserved mechanisms for telomere end protection and length regulation. It remains to be determined whether the CST complex exists in mammals.Although the circuitry of interactions among telosome components has been well documented and studied, how core telosome subunits such as TPP1 help to coordinate the cross-talks between telomere-specific signaling pathways and other cellular networks remains unclear. To this end, we carried out large scale immunoprecipitations and mass spectrometry analysis of the TPP1 protein complexes in mammalian cells. Through these studies, we identified OB fold-containing protein 1 (OBFC1) as a new TPP1-associated protein. OBFC1 is also known as α-accessory factor AAF44 (36). Sequence alignment analysis indicates that OBFC1 is a homolog of the yeast Stn1 protein (25). Further biochemical and cellular studies demonstrate the association of OBFC1 with TPP1 in live cells. Moreover, we showed that OBFC1 bound to telomeric ssDNA and localized to telomeres in mammalian cells. Dominant expression of an OBFC1 mutant led to telomere length dysregulation, indicating that OBFC1 is a novel telomere-associated OB fold protein functioning in telomere length regulation.     

Sequential Loading of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku and Cdc13p to Telomeres

Ku is a heterodimeric protein involved in nonhomologous end-joining of the DNA double-stranded break repair pathway. It binds to the double-stranded DNA ends and then activates a series of repair enzymes that join the broken DNA. In addition to its function in DNA repair, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku (Yku) is also a component of telomere protein-DNA complexes that affect telomere function. The yeast telomeres are composed of duplex C_1–3(A/T)G_1–3 telomeric DNA repeats plus single-stranded TG_1–3 telomeric DNA tails. Here we show that Yku is capable of binding to a tailed-duplex DNA formed by telomeric DNA that mimics the structure of telomeres. Addition of Cdc13p, a single-stranded telomeric DNA-binding protein, to the Yku-DNA complex enables the formation of a ternary complex with Cdc13p binding to the single-stranded tail of the DNA substrate. Because pre-loading of Cdc13p to the single-stranded telomeric tail inhibits the binding of Yku, the results suggested that loading of Yku and Cdc13p to telomeres is sequential. Through generating a double-stranded break near telomeric DNA sequences, we found that Ku protein appears to bind to the de novo synthesized telomeres earlier than that of Cdc13p in vivo. Thus, our results indicated that Yku interacts directly with telomeres and that sequential loading of Yku followed by Cdc13p to telomeres is required for both proteins to form a ternary complex on telomeres. Our results also offer a mechanism that the binding of Cdc13p to telomeres might prevent Yku from initiating DNA double-stranded break repair pathway on telomeres.DNA damages in the form of double-stranded breaks (DSBs)⁴ compromise the integrity of genomes. Failure in repairing or mis-repairing double-stranded breaks can lead to chromosome instability and eventually cell death or cancer (1). Double-stranded breaks are repaired by two main pathways, the homologous recombination and nonhomologous DNA end-joining. In nonhomologous DNA end-joining, Ku is the first protein to bind to the DNA ends to initiate the repair pathway (2). Upon binding, Ku then recruits a series of repair enzymes to join the broken ends (2). Ku is a heterodimeric protein composed of 70- and ∼80-kDa subunits. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Ku includes Yku70 and Yku80 subunits. Because the biochemical configuration of the broken ends could be very diverse on DSBs, Ku binds to double-stranded ends in a sequence- and energy-independent manner. It is capable of binding to DNA ends with blunt 3′-overhangs or 5′-overhangs as well as double-stranded DNA with nicks, gaps, or internal loops (3–7). However, Ku does not have high affinity to single-stranded DNA. The crystal structure of human Ku heterodimer indicates that it forms a ring structure that encircles duplex DNA (7). This unique structure feature enables Ku to recognize DNA ends and achieves its high affinity binding.In additional to the role in double-stranded break repair, Ku was shown to be a component of telomeric protein-DNA complex in yeast and mammals (8–10). Telomeres are terminal structures of chromosomes composed of short tandem repeated sequences (11, 12). Mutation of YKU70 or YKU80 causes defects in telomere structure (13–15), telomere silencing (16–19), and replication timing of telomeres (20). The function of yeast Ku (Yku) on telomeres could mediate through protein-protein interaction with Sir4p or protein-RNA interaction with Tlc1 RNA (21, 22). For example, through the interaction with Sir4p, Yku selectively affects telomeres silencing but not the silent mating type loci (17). Yku could also bind to telomerase Tlc1 RNA for telomere length maintenance (22). Judged by the DNA binding activity of Yku, it is reasonable to suggest that it may bind directly to telomeric DNA. Indeed, it was shown that human Ku is capable of binding directly to telomeric DNA in vitro (15). Moreover, because the deletion of SIR4 in budding yeast (23) or Taz1 in fission yeast (24) does not abolish the association of Ku with chromosomal ends, this suggests that Ku might bind directly to telomeric DNA in cells. However, because yeast telomeres have a short 12–14-mer single-stranded tail (25), it is uncertain whether Yku could pass the single-stranded region to reach its binding site. The direct binding of Yku to telomeric DNA has not been experimentally determined.In contrast to double-stranded breaks, the ends of linear chromosomes are not recognized by repair enzymes as DNA damage. In S. cerevisiae, Cdc13p is the single-stranded TG_1–3 DNA-binding protein that enables cells to differentiate whether the ends of a linear DNA are telomeres or broken ends (26–29). Thus, although the mechanism of how cells prevent the activation of DSB repair pathway in telomere is unclear, it is likely that binding of Cdc13p to telomeres might inhibit the initiation of DNA damage response by the Ku protein. Here, using a tailed-duplex DNA synthesized by telomeric DNA sequences to mimic telomere structure, we showed that Yku binds directly to this tailed-duplex DNA substrate and forms a ternary complex with Cdc13p. Our results also showed that Yku loaded to a de novo synthesized telomere earlier than Cdc13p in vivo. These results support the direct binding of Yku to telomeric DNA and that the spatial orientation of Cdc13p might block the activation of DSB repair pathway on telomeres.     

The many functions of cohesin—different rings to rule them all?

EMBO J 31 9, 2076–2089 March132012EMBO J 31 9, 2090–2102 March132012It is well known that somatic and germ cells use different cohesin complexes to mediate sister chromatid cohesion, but why different isoforms of cohesin also co-exist within somatic vertebrate cells has remained a mystery. Two papers in this issue of The EMBO Journal have begun to address this question by analysing mouse cells lacking SA1, an isoform of a specific cohesin subunit.When one cell divides into two, many things have to go right for the two daughter cells to receive identical copies of their mother cell''s genome. It has long been recognized that sister chromatid cohesion, the physical connection established during DNA replication between newly synthesized sister DNA molecules, is one of these essential prerequisites for proper chromosome segregation. It is this cohesion that enables the bi-orientation of chromosomes on the mitotic or meiotic spindle, and thus makes their symmetrical segregation possible. Cohesion is mediated by cohesin, a multi-subunit protein complex, which is thought to connect sister DNA molecules by embracing them as a ring (Figure 1; reviewed in Peters et al, 2008). It is well established that cohesin complexes differ between somatic and germ cells, where they are needed for the proper separation of sister chromatids and of homologous chromosomes, respectively. What has been largely ignored, however, is that even within somatic vertebrate cells there are different forms of cohesin, containing mutually exclusive variable subunits: either SA1 or the closely related SA2 protein (also known as STAG1 and STAG2, respectively), and either Pds5A or the related Pds5B subunit (Peters et al, 2008). Why is that? Two papers from the Losada lab (Remeseiro et al, 2012a, 2012b) have begun to address this question by generating mouse cells lacking the SA1 gene, revealing unexpected insights into the functions of SA1 subunit-containing cohesin complexes (cohesin-SA1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic drawing illustrating how the SA1 and SA2 proteins interact in a mutually exclusive manner with three core subunits of cohesin (Smc1, Smc3, Rad21) that form a ring-like structure. It has been proposed that these complexes mediate cohesion by trapping the two sister DNA molecules inside the cohesin ring (above), and that cohesin rings might affect chromatin structure by forming or stabilizing intra-chromatid loops (below). Cohesin is thought to influence gene regulation at least in part by mediating chromatin looping.Although cohesin is best known for its role in sister chromatid cohesion, it is clearly also needed for homologous recombination-mediated DNA repair and for gene regulation. Much of what we know about these functions comes from studies in yeast and fruit flies, organisms with only a single SA1/SA2-related mitotic subunit (Scc3 in budding yeast), and only a single Pds5 subunit. It is therefore plausible that, like many other genes during vertebrate evolution, SA1/SA2 and Pds5A/Pds5B have arisen by gene duplication to constitute paralogs, with functional differences between them assumed to be subtle. Consistently, absence of either Pds5A or Pds5B causes only mild, if any, defects in sister chromatid cohesion, and mice lacking either protein can develop to term, although they die shortly after birth owing to multiple organ defects (Zhang et al, 2007, 2009). First indications that the situation may be different for the Scc3-related subunits came from Canudas and Smith (2009), who reported that RNAi depletion of SA1 and SA2 from HeLa cells caused defects in telomere and centromere cohesion, respectively. The generation of mice lacking either one or both alleles of the SA1 gene has now allowed a more systematic and thorough analysis of SA1 function (Remeseiro et al, 2012a, 2012b).One of the most striking results obtained in these studies is that most mice lacking SA1 die around day 12 of embryonic development, clearly showing that the function of SA1 cannot be fulfilled by SA2, despite the fact that SA2 is substantially more abundant in somatic cells than SA1 (Holzmann et al, 2010). What could this SA1-specific function be? Losada and colleagues report observations, which imply that SA1 does not have just one, but possibly several important functions in different processes. First, the authors confirm the previous observation that SA1 is required for cohesion specifically at telomeres, while likely collaborating with SA2 in chromosome arms or centromeric regions. Furthermore, telomeres have an unusual morphology in mitotic chromosomes lacking SA1 (Remeseiro et al, 2012a), reminiscent of a fragile-site phenotype previously reported in telomeres with DNA replication defects (Sfeir et al, 2009), and SA1 is indeed required for efficient telomere duplication. Depletion of sororin, a protein that is required for cohesin''s ability to mediate sister chromatid cohesion, also causes a fragile-site phenotype at telomeres. These findings imply that SA1''s role in telomere cohesion is important for efficient telomere replication, perhaps, as the authors speculate, because telomere cohesion may help to stabilize or re-start stalled replication forks, or because cohesion-dependent homologous recombination might be involved in repair of DNA double strand breaks created by collapsed replication forks. Interestingly, cells lacking SA1 frequently show chromosome bridges in anaphase, often fail to divide, and either die or become bi-nucleated. The exact origin of chromosome bridges is difficult to determine, but previous studies have found such bridges often associated with fragile sites on chromosomes; treatment with low doses of DNA replication inhibitors was shown to increase the frequency of such bridges (Chan et al, 2009), and similar observations were indeed made by Remeseiro et al (2012a) in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. It is therefore plausible that the telomere cohesion defect observed in SA1-lacking cells leads to incomplete telomere replication, which in turn results in the formation of anaphase chromosome bridges and subsequent cytokinesis defects. Losada and colleagues further speculate that these chromosome segregation defects could underlie the increased frequency of spontaneous development of various tumours in mice containing just one instead of two SA1 alleles (Remeseiro et al, 2012a). This is an attractive interpretation since tetraploidy and aneuploidy are thought to contribute to the rate with which tumour cells can evolve; however, Losada and colleagues report SA1 deficiency to cause defects also in other cohesin functions, which may therefore as well contribute to tumour formation.To further understand why SA1 cannot be fulfilled by SA2, Losada and colleagues also analysed the distribution of these proteins in the non-repetitive parts of the mouse genome by chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled to deep sequencing (ChIP-seq). The results of these experiments, published in the second of the two papers (Remeseiro et al, 2012b), raise the interesting possibility that cohesin-SA1 associates more frequently with gene promoters than cohesin-SA2. However, the fact that different antibodies have to be used for any ChIP-based comparison of the distribution of two proteins makes it difficult to know to what degree observed differences might be due to different antibody efficiency. Obviously, such limitations do not exist if the distribution of one and the same protein is analysed under different conditions, and in such an experimental setting, Remeseiro et al indeed make some striking observations. When SA1 is absent, SA2 does not detectably change in abundance, but its distribution in the genome does, in that more than half of all SA2-binding sites in SA1-deficient cells differ from those bound in wild-type cells. Most SA2-binding sites in SA1-deficient cells are in intergenic regions, and CTCF, a zinc finger protein often co-localizing with cohesin and implicated in its gene regulation function (Peters et al, 2008), appears to be absent at many of these sites. It presently remains a mystery why cohesin-SA2 changes its distribution so dramatically in the absence of SA1, but the observation that gene promoters are more frequently occupied by cohesin in the presence of SA1 than in its absence raises the possibility that cohesin-SA1 may have a specific role in gene regulation. This possibility is particularly interesting in light of a recent study that found hardly any change in gene expression upon re-expression of SA2 in SA2-deficient human glioblastoma cells (Solomon et al, 2011), despite the fact that cohesin is thought to regulate numerous genes. With this in mind, Remeseiro et al analysed gene expression in mouse cells and indeed found 549 genes to be mis-regulated in the absence of SA1, in striking contrast to the above-mentioned comparison of human SA2-deficient or proficient cells that found only 19 genes to change in expression levels (Solomon et al, 2011). Obviously direct comparisons will be essential to analyse further the specific roles of SA1 and SA2 in gene regulation, but the current evidence raises the interesting possibility that SA1 may have a particularly important role in gene regulation, whereas cohesin-SA2 is dedicated to creating arm and centromeric cohesive structures for chromosome segregation.That is not to say that cohesin-SA1 cannot mediate sister chromatid cohesion. It almost certainly can, as it is essential for cohesion at telomeres (Canudas and Smith, 2009; Remeseiro et al, 2012a). Likewise, it would be wrong to assume that we now fully understand why SA1 and SA2 co-exist in somatic vertebrate cells, and what their precise functions is. There are many things we do not understand. For example, if SA2 has little or no role in gene regulation, as the Solomon et al (2011) study implies, why does SA2 nevertheless interact directly with CTCF (Xiao et al, 2011), its gene regulation collaborator? How do cohesin-SA1 and cohesin-SA2 complexes further differ in their genomic distributions and their functions depending on whether they contain either Pds5A or Pds5B, constituting really not just two but four distinct cohesin complexes? The work by Losada and colleagues represents an important step towards understanding these questions, but there is still a long and presumably exciting way to go to understand how different cohesin complexes control the mammalian genome.     

RPA and POT1: Friends or foes at telomeres?

Telomere maintenance in cycling cells relies on both DNA replication and capping by the protein complex shelterin. Two single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)-binding proteins, replication protein A (RPA) and protection of telomere 1 (POT1) play critical roles in DNA replication and telomere capping, respectively. While RPA binds to ssDNA in a non-sequence-specific manner, POT1 specifically recognizes singlestranded TTAGGG telomeric repeats. Loss of POT1 leads to aberrant accumulation of RPA at telomeres and activation of the ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related kinase (ATR)-mediated checkpoint response, suggesting that POT1 antagonizes RPA binding to telomeric ssDNA. The requirement for both POT1 and RPA in telomere maintenance and the antagonism between the two proteins raises the important question of how they function in concert on telomeric ssDNA. Two interesting models were proposed by recent studies to explain the regulation of POT1 and RPA at telomeres. Here, we discuss how these models help unravel the coordination, and also the antagonism, between POT1 and RPA during the cell cycle.Key words: RPA, POT1, telomere, ATR, checkpointTelomeres, the natural ends of chromosomes, are composed of repetitive DNA sequences and “capped” by both specific proteins and non-coding RNAs.^1–3 One of the critical functions of telomeres is to prevent chromosomal ends from recognition by the DNA damage response machinery. Critically short or improperly capped telomeres lead to telomere dysfunction and are a major source of genomic instability.⁴ While telomeres need to be properly capped to remain stable, they also need to be duplicated during each cell division by the DNA replication machinery. The requirement of these two seemingly competing processes for telomere maintenance suggests that the cell must coordinate DNA replication and capping of telomeres to ensure faithful telomere duplication yet avoid an inappropriate DNA damage response.Telomeric DNA is unique in several ways. The bulk of each human telomere is comprised of double-stranded TTA GGG repeats. At the very end of each telomere, a stretch of single-stranded TTAGGG repeats exists as a 3′ overhang. The TTA GGG repeats in the telomeric single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) allow it to loop back and invade telomeric double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), forming a structure called the t-loop.⁵ At the base of the t-loop, the TTAGGG strand of the telomeric dsDNA is displaced by the invading single-stranded 3′ overhang to form a single-stranded D-loop. Thus, the unique DNA sequence and structures of telomeres confer the ability to bind proteins in both sequence- and structure-specific manners, providing the basis for additional regulations.In human cells, telomere capping is orchestrated by the protein complex shelterin, which contains TRF1, TRF2, RAP1, TIN2, TPP1 and POT1.³ Among these shelterin components, TRF1 and TRF2 interact with telomeric dsDNA in a sequence-specific manner, whereas POT1, in a complex with TPP1, binds to telomeric ssDNA in a sequence-specific manner.^6–8 While the human genome contains only one POT1 gene, the mouse genome contains two POT1-related genes, POT1a and POT1b.^9–11 TIN2 functions to stabilize TRF1 and TRF2 DNA binding and also tethers the POT1-TPP1 heterodimer to the rest of the shelterin complex on telomeric dsDNA.^12,13Unlike the properly capped telomeres, double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs) with ssDNA overhangs are known to activate the ATR checkpoint kinase.^14,15 In a complex with its functional partner ATRIP, ATR is recruited to ssDNA by RPA, a non-sequence-specific ssDNA-binding protein complex.¹⁶ In addition to the ATR-ATRIP kinase complex, several other checkpoint proteins involved in ATR activation are also recruited in the presence of RPA-ssDNA.¹⁵ The structural resemblance between DSBs and telomeres and the presence of ssDNA at telomeres raise the important question as to how ATR activation is repressed at telomeres.     

Gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants: profiles by mode of delivery and infant diet at 4 months

Background:

The gut microbiota is essential to human health throughout life, yet the acquisition and development of this microbial community during infancy remains poorly understood. Meanwhile, there is increasing concern over rising rates of cesarean delivery and insufficient exclusive breastfeeding of infants in developed countries. In this article, we characterize the gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants and describe the influence of cesarean delivery and formula feeding.

Methods:

We included a subset of 24 term infants from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) birth cohort. Mode of delivery was obtained from medical records, and mothers were asked to report on infant diet and medication use. Fecal samples were collected at 4 months of age, and we characterized the microbiota composition using high-throughput DNA sequencing.

Results:

We observed high variability in the profiles of fecal microbiota among the infants. The profiles were generally dominated by Actinobacteria (mainly the genus Bifidobacterium) and Firmicutes (with diverse representation from numerous genera). Compared with breastfed infants, formula-fed infants had increased richness of species, with overrepresentation of Clostridium difficile. Escherichia–Shigella and Bacteroides species were underrepresented in infants born by cesarean delivery. Infants born by elective cesarean delivery had particularly low bacterial richness and diversity.

Interpretation:

These findings advance our understanding of the gut microbiota in healthy infants. They also provide new evidence for the effects of delivery mode and infant diet as determinants of this essential microbial community in early life.The human body harbours trillions of microbes, known collectively as the “human microbiome.” By far the highest density of commensal bacteria is found in the digestive tract, where resident microbes outnumber host cells by at least 10 to 1. Gut bacteria play a fundamental role in human health by promoting intestinal homeostasis, stimulating development of the immune system, providing protection against pathogens, and contributing to the processing of nutrients and harvesting of energy.^1,2 The disruption of the gut microbiota has been linked to an increasing number of diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease, necrotizing enterocolitis, diabetes, obesity, cancer, allergies and asthma.¹ Despite this evidence and a growing appreciation for the integral role of the gut microbiota in lifelong health, relatively little is known about the acquisition and development of this complex microbial community during infancy.³Two of the best-studied determinants of the gut microbiota during infancy are mode of delivery and exposure to breast milk.^4,5 Cesarean delivery perturbs normal colonization of the infant gut by preventing exposure to maternal microbes, whereas breastfeeding promotes a “healthy” gut microbiota by providing selective metabolic substrates for beneficial bacteria.^3,5 Despite recommendations from the World Health Organization,⁶ the rate of cesarean delivery has continued to rise in developed countries and rates of breastfeeding decrease substantially within the first few months of life.^7,8 In Canada, more than 1 in 4 newborns are born by cesarean delivery, and less than 15% of infants are exclusively breastfed for the recommended duration of 6 months.^9,10 In some parts of the world, elective cesarean deliveries are performed by maternal request, often because of apprehension about pain during childbirth, and sometimes for patient–physician convenience.¹¹The potential long-term consequences of decisions regarding mode of delivery and infant diet are not to be underestimated. Infants born by cesarean delivery are at increased risk of asthma, obesity and type 1 diabetes,¹² whereas breastfeeding is variably protective against these and other disorders.¹³ These long-term health consequences may be partially attributable to disruption of the gut microbiota.^12,14Historically, the gut microbiota has been studied with the use of culture-based methodologies to examine individual organisms. However, up to 80% of intestinal microbes cannot be grown in culture.^3,15 New technology using culture-independent DNA sequencing enables comprehensive detection of intestinal microbes and permits simultaneous characterization of entire microbial communities. Multinational consortia have been established to characterize the “normal” adult microbiome using these exciting new methods;¹⁶ however, these methods have been underused in infant studies. Because early colonization may have long-lasting effects on health, infant studies are vital.^3,4 Among the few studies of infant gut microbiota using DNA sequencing, most were conducted in restricted populations, such as infants delivered vaginally,¹⁷ infants born by cesarean delivery who were formula-fed¹⁸ or preterm infants with necrotizing enterocolitis.¹⁹Thus, the gut microbiota is essential to human health, yet the acquisition and development of this microbial community during infancy remains poorly understood.³ In the current study, we address this gap in knowledge using new sequencing technology and detailed exposure assessments²⁰ of healthy Canadian infants selected from a national birth cohort to provide representative, comprehensive profiles of gut microbiota according to mode of delivery and infant diet.