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.     

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.     

Evidence for an Additional Base-Pairing Element between the Telomeric Repeat and the Telomerase RNA Template in Kluyveromyces lactis and Other Yeasts

In all telomerases, the template region of the RNA subunit contains a region of telomere homology that is longer than the unit telomeric repeat. This allows a newly synthesized telomeric repeat to translocate back to the 3′ end of the template prior to a second round of telomeric repeat synthesis. In the yeast Kluyveromyces lactis, the telomerase RNA (Ter1) template has 30 nucleotides of perfect homology to the 25-bp telomeric repeat. Here we provide strong evidence that three additional nucleotides at positions −2 through −4 present on the 3′ side of the template form base-pairing interactions with telomeric DNA. Mutation of these bases can lead to opposite effects on telomere length depending on the sequence permutation of the template in a manner consistent with whether the mutation increases or decreases the base-pairing potential with the telomere. Additionally, mutations in the −2 and −3 positions that restore base-pairing potential can suppress corresponding sequence changes in the telomeric repeat. Finally, multiple other yeast species were found to also have telomerase RNAs that encode relatively long 7- to 10-nucleotide domains predicted to base pair, often with imperfect pairing, with telomeric DNA. We further demonstrate that K. lactis telomeric fragments produce banded patterns with a 25-bp periodicity. This indicates that K. lactis telomeres have preferred termination points within the 25-bp telomeric repeat.Telomeres are DNA and protein complexes present at the ends of eukaryotic chromosomes that function to protect chromosome ends from terminal sequence losses and fusions (3, 36). Telomeric DNA is typically composed of tandem 5- to 26-bp repeats that are sufficient for telomere function and that serve as binding sites for telomeric proteins (32). The ribonucleoprotein enzyme telomerase adds telomeric repeats to chromosome ends and prevents the gradual shortening that would otherwise occur. Telomerase synthesizes new telomeric repeats onto chromosome ends by using part of its RNA subunit as a template (13, 14, 31). Cells without telomerase encounter growth and viability problems once telomeres begin to become too short to properly function. In most human cells, telomerase activity is greatly reduced or absent and the ensuing telomere shortening functions to inhibit the formation of cancer by limiting the number of divisions that cells can undergo (4, 7, 16, 30).Recognition of a telomeric end by telomerase in vivo is complex and requires a number of different interactions between components of telomerase and components of the telomere (32). Specialized proteins that bind the 3′ single-stranded overhangs of telomeres, including the yeast Cdc13 protein, can interact directly with telomerase (9, 28). A critical aspect of telomerase''s interaction with the telomeres comes through base pairing between the telomeric overhang and the template region of the telomerase RNA. In all known telomerases, the template region of the RNA subunit contains a region of telomere homology that is longer than the unit telomeric repeat. This presence of short sequence identities at the 3′ and 5′ borders of the template allow a newly synthesized telomeric repeat to translocate back to the 3′ end of the template prior to a second round of telomeric repeat synthesis (38).Kluyveromyces lactis is an ascomycetous yeast species that is a valuable model organism for studying telomeres and telomerase. Unlike the better-studied yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe, K. lactis has telomeres composed of repeats of uniform size (25 bp) and sequence (24). This indicates that the translocation step during a round of DNA synthesis by the telomerase enzyme normally occurs between precise positions at the two ends of the telomerase RNA template region. Point mutations at any of multiple positions within either of the two 5-nucleotide (nt)-long direct repeats that border the telomerase RNA template result in telomeric repeats of abnormal size (35). These appear to result from disruption of the normal base-pairing interactions between template and telomeric DNA during the translocation step.Here we present genetic data that argue strongly that three additional nucleotides 3′ of the template and outside the region of continuous homology with the telomeric repeat are involved in the base pairing between telomeric DNA and the telomerase RNA template in K. lactis. Sequence data suggest that similar extended base-pairing regions are widespread in other yeast species.     

Regulation of IRSp53-Dependent Filopodial Dynamics by Antagonism between 14-3-3 Binding and SH3-Mediated Localization

Filopodia are dynamic structures found at the leading edges of most migrating cells. IRSp53 plays a role in filopodium dynamics by coupling actin elongation with membrane protrusion. IRSp53 is a Cdc42 effector protein that contains an N-terminal inverse-BAR (Bin-amphipysin-Rvs) domain (IRSp53/MIM homology domain [IMD]) and an internal SH3 domain that associates with actin regulatory proteins, including Eps8. We demonstrate that the SH3 domain functions to localize IRSp53 to lamellipodia and that IRSp53 mutated in its SH3 domain fails to induce filopodia. Through SH3 domain-swapping experiments, we show that the related IRTKS SH3 domain is not functional in lamellipodial localization. IRSp53 binds to 14-3-3 after phosphorylation in a region that lies between the CRIB and SH3 domains. This association inhibits binding of the IRSp53 SH3 domain to proteins such as WAVE2 and Eps8 and also prevents Cdc42-GTP interaction. The antagonism is achieved by phosphorylation of two related 14-3-3 binding sites at T340 and T360. In the absence of phosphorylation at these sites, filopodium lifetimes in cells expressing exogenous IRSp53 are extended. Our work does not conform to current views that the inverse-BAR domain or Cdc42 controls IRSp53 localization but provides an alternative model of how IRSp53 is recruited (and released) to carry out its functions at lamellipodia and filopodia.The ability of a cell to rapidly respond to extracellular cues and direct cytoskeletal rearrangements is dependent on an array of signaling complexes that control actin assembly (58). The protrusive structures at the leading edges of motile cells are broadly defined as lamellipodia or filopodia (14). Lamellae are sheet-like protrusions composed of dendritic actin arrays that drive membrane expansion, with the “lamellipodium” representing a narrow region at the edge of the cell (in culture) characterized by rapid actin polymerization. This F-actin assembly is suggested to require Arp2/3 activity that nucleates new actin filaments from the sides of existing ones (58, 71) and capping proteins that limit the length of these new filaments and stabilize them (7). Arp2/3 activity in turn is regulated by the WASP/WAVE family of proteins, such as N-WASP and WAVE2 (68), whose regulation is a subject of intense interest (12, 29, 36, 41, 56, 76).Filopodia contain parallel bundles of actin filaments containing fascin (22). These are dynamic structures that emanate from the periphery of the cell and are retracted, with occasional attachment (to the dish in culture). Thus, they have been thought to have a sensory or exploratory role during cell migration (28). This is the case for neuronal growth cones, where filopodia sense attractant or repulsive cues and dictate direction in axonal path finding (9, 17, 25, 35). Filopodia have been shown to be important in the context of dendritic-spine development (64, 77), epithelial-sheet closure (26, 60, 79), and cell invasion/metastasis (80, 83).Lamellipodia have been well characterized since the pioneering work of Abercrombie et al. in the early 1970s (2, 3, 4). Filopodia require symmetry breaking at the leading edge (initiation), followed by elongation driven by a filopodial-tip protein complex (14, 28). A few proteins have been identified in this complex; Mena/Vasp serve to prevent capping at the barbed ends of bundled actin filaments (7, 53), and Dia2 promotes F-actin elongation (57, 85). Termination of filopodial elongation is not understood but nonetheless is likely to be tightly regulated. In the absence of F-actin elongation, retraction of the filopodium takes place by a rearward flow of F-actin and filament depolymerization (22).IRSp53 is in a position to play a pivotal role in generating filopodia; this brain-enriched protein was discovered as a substrate of the insulin receptor (87). Subsequently, IRSp53 was identified as an effector for Rac1 (50) and Cdc42 (27, 38), where it participates in filopodium and lamellipodium production (38, 51, 54, 86), neurite extension (27), dendritic-spine morphogenesis (1, 15, 66, 67), cell motility and invasiveness (24). The N terminus of IRSp53 contains a conserved helical domain that is found in five different gene products and is referred to as the IRSp53/MIM homology domain (IMD) (51, 70). This domain has been postulated to bind to Rac1 (50, 70) in a nucleotide-independent manner (52), but no convincing effector-like region has been identified. A Cdc42-specific CRIB-like sequence that does not bind Rac1 (27, 38) allows coupling of this and perhaps related Rho GTPases. The structure of the IMD reveals a zeppelin-shaped dimer that could bind “bent” membranes; thus, its potential as an F-actin-bundling domain (51, 82) could be an in vitro artifact often attributed to proteins with basic patches (46). Although there are reports of F-actin binding at physiological ionic strength (ca. 100 mM KCl) (82, 19), this region when expressed in isolation does not decorate F-actin in vivo.Two reports showed the IMD to be an “inverse-BAR” domain. BAR (Bin-amphipysin-Rvs) domains are found in proteins involved in endocytic trafficking, such as amphipysin and endophilin, and stabilize positively bent membranes, such as those on endocytic vesicles (31, 47). The IMD domains of both IRSp53 (70) and MIM-B (46) associate with lipids and can induce tubulations of PI(3,4,5)P₃ or PI(4,5)P₂-rich membranes, respectively. These tubulations are equivalent to membrane protrusions and are also referred to as negatively bent membranes. Ectopic expression of the IMD from IRSp53 (51, 70, 82, 86) or two other family members, MIM-B (11, 46) and IRTKS (52), can give rise to cells with many peripheral extensions. MIM-B is said to stimulate lamellipodia (11), while IRTKS generates “short actin clusters” at the cell periphery (52).In IRSp53 is a CRIB-like motif that mediates binding to Cdc42 (27, 38), but the function of this interaction in unclear. Cdc42 could relieve IRSp53 autoinhibition as described for N-Wasp (38), but there is little evidence for this. It has been suggested that Cdc42 controls IRSp53 localization and actin remodeling (27, 38), but another study indicated that these events are Cdc42 independent (19). IRSp53 contains a central SH3 domain that may bind proline-rich proteins, such as Dia1 (23), Mena (38), WAVE2 (49, 50, 69), and Eps8 (19, 24). However, it seems unlikely that all of these represent bona fide partners, and side-by-side comparison is provided in this study. Mena is involved in filopodium production (37), Dia1 in stress fiber formation (81), and WAVE2 in lamellipodium extension (72). Thus, Mena is a better candidate as a partner for IRSp53-mediated filopodia than Dia1 or WAVE2.There is good evidence for IRSp53 as a cellular partner for Eps8 (19). Eps8 is an adaptor protein containing an N-terminal PTB domain that can associate with receptor tyrosine kinases (65), and perhaps β integrins (13), and a C-terminal SH3 domain that can associate with Abi1 (30). Binding of the general adaptor Abi1 appears to positively regulate the actin-capping domain at the C terminus of Eps8 (18). It has been suggested that IRSp53 and Eps8 as a complex regulate cell motility, and perhaps Rac1 activation, via SOS (24); more recently, their roles in filopodium formation have been addressed (19). The involvement of IRSp53, but not MIM-B or IRTKS, in filopodium formation might be related to its role as a Cdc42 effector. We show here that, surprisingly, the CRIB motif is not essential for this activity, but rather, the ability of IRSp53 to associate via its SH3 domain is required, and that this domain is controlled by 14-3-3 binding.We have focused on the regulation of Cdc42 effectors that bind 14-3-3, including IRSp53 and PAK4, which are found as 14-3-3 targets in various proteomic projects (32, 44). In this study, we characterize the binding of 14-3-3 to IRSp53 and uncover how this activity regulates IRSp53 function. The phosphorylation-dependent 14-3-3 binding is GSK3β dependent, and 14-3-3 blocks the accessibility of both the CRIB and SH3 domains of IRSp53, thus indicating its primary function in controlling IRSp53 partners. This regulation of the SH3 domain by 14-3-3 is critical in the proper localization and termination of IRSp53 function to promote filopodium dynamics.     

The Direct Binding of Mrc1, a Checkpoint Mediator,to Mcm6, a Replication Helicase,Is Essential for the Replication Checkpoint against Methyl Methanesulfonate-Induced Stress

Mrc1 plays a role in mediating the DNA replication checkpoint. We surveyed replication elongation proteins that interact directly with Mrc1 and identified a replicative helicase, Mcm6, as a specific Mrc1-binding protein. The central portion of Mrc1, containing a conserved coiled-coil region, was found to be essential for interaction with the 168-amino-acid C-terminal region of Mcm6, and introduction of two amino acid substitutions in this C-terminal region abolished the interaction with Mrc1 in vivo. An mcm6 mutant bearing these substitutions showed a severe defect in DNA replication checkpoint activation in response to stress caused by methyl methanesulfonate. Interestingly, the mutant did not show any defect in DNA replication checkpoint activation in response to hydroxyurea treatment. The phenotype of the mcm6 mutant was suppressed when the mutant protein was physically fused with Mrc1. These results strongly suggest for the first time that an Mcm helicase acts as a checkpoint sensor for methyl methanesulfonate-induced DNA damage through direct binding to the replication checkpoint mediator Mrc1.Progression of the DNA replication machinery along chromosomes is a complex process. Replication forks pause occasionally when they encounter genomic regions that are difficult to replicate, such as highly transcribed regions, tRNA genes, and regions with specialized chromatin structure, like centromeric and heterochromatic regions (17). Replication forks also stall when treated with chemicals like methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), which causes DNA damage, or hydroxyurea (HU), which limits the cellular concentration of the deoxynucleoside triphosphate pool (17). Because de novo assembly and programming of the replisome do not occur after the onset of S phase (18), DNA replication forks must be protected from replicative stresses. The DNA replication checkpoint constitutes a surveillance mechanism for S-phase progression that safeguards replication forks from various replicative stresses (22, 38, 40), and malfunction of this checkpoint leads to chromosome instability and cancer development in higher organisms (4, 9).The Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA replication checkpoint mediator Mrc1 is functionally conserved and is involved directly in DNA replication as a component of the replisome (1, 8, 16, 19, 29, 30). Mrc1, together with Tof1 and Csm3, is required for forming a replication pausing complex when the fork is exposed to replicative stress by HU (16). The pausing complex subsequently triggers events leading to DNA replication checkpoint activation and hence stable replicative arrest. A sensor kinase complex, Mec1-Ddc2 (ATR-ATRIP homolog of higher eukaryotes), is then recruited to the complex (14, 16). Mec1-Ddc2-mediated phosphorylation of Mrc1 activates the pausing complex, and phosphorylated Mrc1 likely recruits Rad53 (a putative homolog of CHK2 of higher eukaryotes), which is then activated via phosphorylation by Mec1-Ddc2 (1, 16, 20, 30). Activated Rad53 subsequently elicits a stress responses, i.e., stabilization of replication forks, induction of repair genes, and suppression of late-firing origins (24). It remains unclear, however, whether DNA replication checkpoint activation is induced in response to DNA damage by MMS, a reagent commonly used to study the DNA replication stress response. Several lines of evidence have suggested that MMS-induced damage is also sensed directly by the replication machinery (38, 40).Although biochemical and genetic interaction data have placed Mrc1 at the center of the replication checkpoint signal transduction cascade, its molecular function remains largely unknown. The proteins Mrc1, Tof1, and Csm3 associate with the Mcm complex (8, 27), a heterohexameric DNA helicase consisting of Mcm2 to Mcm7 proteins which unwinds the parental DNA duplex to allow replisome progression (3, 12, 18, 31, 32, 35). The Mcm complex associates with a specific set of regulatory proteins at forks to form replisome progression complexes (8). In addition to Mcm, Tof1, Csm3, and Mrc1, replisome progression complexes include factors such as Cdc45 and the GINS complex that are also required for fork progression (13, 26, 31, 32, 39). Claspin, a putative Xenopus laevis homolog of Mrc1, is also reported to associate with Cdc45, DNA polymerase ɛ (Polɛ), replication protein A, and two of the replication factor C complexes in aphidicolin-treated Xenopus egg extracts (19). Recently, Mrc1 was reported to interact directly with Polɛ (23).The aim of this study was to provide mechanistic insight into Mrc1 function in the DNA replication checkpoint. For this purpose, it was essential to identify, among all the essential proteins in the replication machinery, a specific protein that interacts with Mrc1 and to examine the role of this interaction in the DNA replication checkpoint. We found that Mrc1 interacts with Mcm6 directly and specifically. When the interaction between Mrc1 and Mcm6 was impaired, cells no longer activated the DNA replication checkpoint in response to MMS-induced replicative stress. Interestingly and unexpectedly, this interaction was not required for DNA replication checkpoint activation in response to HU-induced replicative stress. Our results provide the first mechanistic evidence that cells use separate mechanisms to transmit replicative stresses caused by MMS and HU for DNA replication checkpoint activation.     

Recruitment of Cdc20 to the Kinetochore Requires BubR1 but Not Mad2 in Drosophila melanogaster

To prevent aneuploidy, cells require a mitotic surveillance mechanism, the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC). The SAC prevents metaphase/anaphase transition by blocking the ubiquitylation and destruction of cyclin B and securin via the Cdc20-activated anaphase-promoting complex or cyclosome (APC/C)-mediated proteolysis pathway. This checkpoint involves the kinetochore proteins Mad2, BubR1, and Cdc20. Mad2 and BubR1 are inhibitors of the APC/C, but Cdc20 is an activator. Exactly how the SAC regulates Cdc20 via unattached kinetochores remains unclear; in vertebrates, most current models suggest that kinetochore-bound Mad2 is required for initial binding to Cdc20 to form a stable complex that includes BubR1. Here, we show that the Mad2 kinetochore dimerization recruitment mechanism is conserved and that the recruitment of Cdc20 to kinetochores in Drosophila requires BubR1 but not Mad2. BubR1 and Mad2 can bind to Cdc20 independently, and the interactions are enhanced after cells are arrested at mitosis by the depletion of Cdc27 using RNA interference (RNAi) in S2 cells or by MG132 treatment in syncytial embryos. These findings offer an explanation of why BubR1 is more important than Mad2 for SAC function in flies. These findings could lead to a better understanding of vertebrate SAC mechanisms.The spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) is a mitotic surveillance mechanism that negatively regulates the activation of the anaphase-promoting complex or cyclosome (APC/C)-mediated proteolysis pathway to prevent the destruction of two key substrates, cyclin B and securin, thereby inhibiting the metaphase-to-anaphase transition until bipolar attachment of all chromosomes has been achieved (35). A number of conserved kinetochore proteins have been identified as SAC components, such as Mad1, Mad2, Bub1, BubR1, Bub3, Mps1, Zw10, and Rod and Aurora B kinase (reviewed by Musacchio and Salmon [35]). In vertebrates, it is believed that a diffusible inhibitory “wait anaphase” signal is generated from unattached kinetochores or lack of spindle tension (27, 45, 47) and that its primary target is Cdc20/Fzy (Fzy is the Drosophila Cdc20 homolog that we refer to as Cdc20 here), which is an essential APC/C activator (35). Mad2, BubR1 (Mad3 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae), Bub3, and Cdc20 have been found in the mitotic checkpoint complex (MCC) or its subcomplexes Bub3-BubR1-Cdc20 and Mad2-Cdc20 (42, 50, 56). Kinetochore-dependent recruitment and activation of Mad2 have been illustrated in a “template” model (12) and later a modified “two-state” model (28, 32, 35, 36, 40, 57). This model suggests that a kinetochore-bound and conformationally rearranged Mad2 is required for Cdc20 binding and that it leads to the formation of the Mad2-Cdc20 complex (8, 9, 12, 16, 48, 49). This is further supported by a more recent report that unattached kinetochores from purified HeLa cell chromosomes can catalytically generate a diffusible Cdc20 inhibitor when presented with kinetochore-bound Mad2 and that these purified chromosomes can also promote BubR1 binding to APC/C-Cdc20 by acting directly on Mad2 but not BubR1 (27). In vitro assays also suggest that Mad2 is required for Cdc20 binding to BubR1 (7, 10, 19). Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching analysis has suggested that the ∼50% of green fluorescent protein (GFP)-Cdc20 that associates with slow-phase kinetics on PtK₂ cell kinetochores is Mad2 dependent (22). However, contradictory reports also exist to suggest that Mad2 might not be required for Cdc20 kinetochore localization in Xenopus and PtK₂ cells (22) and that BubR1 might play a crucial role for this in human cell lines (33). In contrast to the above-mentioned slow-phase GFP-Cdc20, the remaining ∼50% of GFP-Cdc20 that associates with fast kinetics on prometaphase or metaphase kinetochores is Mad2 independent, and its kinetics parallel those of GFP-BubR1 in PtK₂ cells. GFP-Cdc20 is still detectable on kinetochores through anaphase, where both Mad2 and BubR1 are greatly reduced (22, 25). Moreover, the direct requirement for the kinetochore in the formation of the SAC-inhibitory complexes has been challenged by a non-kinetochore-based formation hypothesis, with MCC found to be present in HeLa cells during S phase (50) and complex formation in yeast previously shown to be independent of intact kinetochores (17, 43). Therefore, despite the importance of Cdc20 in understanding SAC mechanisms, exactly how the SAC regulates Cdc20 via unattached kinetochores remains unclear in vertebrates.Drosophila melanogaster is a well-established model used to study the spindle assembly checkpoint (2, 3, 6, 39). More recently, phenotypes of two mad2-null Drosophila mutant alleles, mad2^Δ and mad2^P, have been characterized, showing that Mad2 protein is not essential for normal mitotic progression but remains essential for SAC when microtubule attachment, chromosome alignment, and congression are abnormal (5). This contrasts with its counterpart in mouse and human (14, 34, 54) and is also different from the lethality phenotypes reported for bubR1 and cdc20 mutations in Drosophila (3, 11). It has also been reported that Mad2 is less important for SAC than BubR1 and that it is regulated differently in Drosophila S2 culture cells (39). These observations led to the tentative conclusion that Drosophila Mad2 may possess different kinetochore molecular mechanisms and function differently from its homologs in mouse and human (14, 34, 54, 58). We therefore tested Mad2 kinetochore function and further investigated the mechanisms required for Cdc20 kinetochore recruitment and localization using Drosophila transgenic and mutant lines, as well as culture cells. We have characterized a new mad2-null mutant allele, mad2^EY, and demonstrated that Drosophila possesses a highly conserved Mad2 kinetochore dimerization mechanism required for SAC function. However, Mad2 is not required for Cdc20 kinetochore recruitment and localization. Instead, there is an essential role for BubR1 in this mechanism during normal mitosis and SAC activation.     

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.     

Investigation of Clade B New World Arenavirus Tropism by Using Chimeric GP1 Proteins

Clade B of the New World arenaviruses contains both pathogenic and nonpathogenic members, whose surface glycoproteins (GPs) are characterized by different abilities to use the human transferrin receptor type 1 (hTfR1) protein as a receptor. Using closely related pairs of pathogenic and nonpathogenic viruses, we investigated the determinants of the GP1 subunit that confer these different characteristics. We identified a central region (residues 85 to 221) in the Guanarito virus GP1 that was sufficient to interact with hTfR1, with residues 159 to 221 being essential. The recently solved structure of part of the Machupo virus GP1 suggests an explanation for these requirements.Arenaviruses are bisegmented, single-stranded RNA viruses that use an ambisense coding strategy to express four proteins: NP (nucleoprotein), Z (matrix protein), L (polymerase), and GP (glycoprotein). The viral GP is sufficient to direct entry into host cells, and retroviral vectors pseudotyped with GP recapitulate the entry pathway of these viruses (5, 13, 24, 31). GP is a class I fusion protein comprising two subunits, GP1 and GP2, cleaved from the precursor protein GPC (4, 14, 16, 18, 21). GP1 contains the receptor binding domain (19, 28), while GP2 contains structural elements characteristic of viral membrane fusion proteins (8, 18, 20, 38). The N-terminal stable signal peptide (SSP) remains associated with the mature glycoprotein after cleavage (2, 39) and plays a role in transport, maturation, and pH-dependent fusion (17, 35, 36, 37).The New World arenaviruses are divided into clades A, B, and C based on phylogenetic relatedness (7, 9, 11). Clade B contains the human pathogenic viruses Junin (JUNV), Machupo (MACV), Guanarito (GTOV), Sabia, and Chapare, which cause severe hemorrhagic fevers in South America (1, 10, 15, 26, 34). Clade B also contains the nonpathogenic viruses Amapari (AMAV), Cupixi, and Tacaribe (TCRV), although mild disease has been reported for a laboratory worker infected with TCRV (29).Studies with both viruses and GP-pseudotyped retroviral vectors have shown that the pathogenic clade B arenaviruses use the human transferrin receptor type 1 (hTfR1) to gain entry into human cells (19, 30). In contrast, GPs from nonpathogenic viruses, although capable of using TfR1 orthologs from other species (1), cannot use hTfR1 (1, 19) and instead enter human cells through as-yet-uncharacterized hTfR1-independent pathways (19). In addition, human T-cell lines serve as useful tools to distinguish these GPs, since JUNV, GTOV, and MACV pseudotyped vectors readily transduce CEM cells, while TCRV and AMAV GP vectors do not (27; also unpublished data). These properties of the GPs do not necessarily reflect a tropism of the pathogenic viruses for human T cells, since viral tropism is influenced by many factors and T cells are not a target for JUNV replication in vivo (3, 22, 25).