XRCC2 and XRCC3 Regulate the Balance between Short- and Long-Tract Gene Conversions between Sister Chromatids

Sister chromatid recombination (SCR) is a potentially error-free pathway for the repair of DNA lesions associated with replication and is thought to be important for suppressing genomic instability. The mechanisms regulating the initiation and termination of SCR in mammalian cells are poorly understood. Previous work has implicated all the Rad51 paralogs in the initiation of gene conversion and the Rad51C/XRCC3 complex in its termination. Here, we show that hamster cells deficient in the Rad51 paralog XRCC2, a component of the Rad51B/Rad51C/Rad51D/XRCC2 complex, reveal a bias in favor of long-tract gene conversion (LTGC) during SCR. This defect is corrected by expression of wild-type XRCC2 and also by XRCC2 mutants defective in ATP binding and hydrolysis. In contrast, XRCC3-mediated homologous recombination and suppression of LTGC are dependent on ATP binding and hydrolysis. These results reveal an unexpectedly general role for Rad51 paralogs in the control of the termination of gene conversion between sister chromatids.DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are potentially dangerous lesions, since their misrepair may cause chromosomal translocations, gene amplifications, loss of heterozygosity (LOH), and other types of genomic instability characteristic of human cancers (7, 9, 21, 40, 76, 79). DSBs are repaired predominantly by nonhomologous end joining or homologous recombination (HR), two evolutionarily conserved DSB repair mechanisms (8, 12, 16, 33, 48, 60, 71). DSBs generated during the S or G₂ phase of the cell cycle may be repaired preferentially by HR, using the intact sister chromatid as a template for repair (12, 26, 29, 32, 71). Sister chromatid recombination (SCR) is a potentially error-free pathway for the repair of DSBs, which has led to the proposal that SCR protects against genomic instability, cancer, and aging. Indeed, a number of human cancer predisposition genes are implicated in SCR control (10, 24, 45, 57, 75).HR entails an initial processing of the DSB to generate a free 3′ single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhang (25, 48, 56). This is coupled to the loading of Rad51, the eukaryotic homolog of Escherichia coli RecA, which polymerizes to form an ssDNA-Rad51 “presynaptic” nucleoprotein filament. Formation of the presynaptic filament is tightly regulated and requires the concerted action of a large number of gene products (55, 66, 68). Rad51-coated ssDNA engages in a homology search by invading homologous duplex DNA. If sufficient homology exists between the invading and invaded strands, a triple-stranded synapse (D-loop) forms, and the 3′ end of the invading (nascent) strand is extended, using the donor as a template for gene conversion. This recombination intermediate is thought to be channeled into one of the following two major subpathways: classical gap repair or synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) (48). Gap repair entails the formation of a double Holliday junction, which may resolve into either crossover or noncrossover products. Although this is a major pathway in meiotic recombination, crossing-over is highly suppressed in somatic eukaryotic cells (26, 44, 48). Indeed, the donor DNA molecule is seldom rearranged during somatic HR, suggesting that SDSA is the major pathway for the repair of somatic DSBs (26, 44, 49, 69). SDSA terminates when the nascent strand is displaced from the D-loop and pairs with the second end of the DSB to form a noncrossover product. The mechanisms underlying displacement of the nascent strand are not well understood. However, failure to displace the nascent strand might be expected to result in the production of longer gene conversion tracts during HR (36, 44, 48, 63).Gene conversion triggered in response to a Saccharomyces cerevisiae or mammalian chromosomal DSB generally results in the copying of a short (50- to 300-bp) stretch of information from the donor (short-tract gene conversion [STGC]) (14, 47, 48, 67, 69). A minority of gene conversions in mammalian cells entail more-extensive copying, generating gene conversion tracts that are up to several kilobases in length (long-tract gene conversion [LTGC]) (26, 44, 51, 54, 64). In yeast, very long gene conversions can result from break-induced replication (BIR), a highly processive form of gene conversion in which a bona fide replication fork is thought to be established at the recombination synapse (11, 36, 37, 39, 61, 63). In contrast, SDSA does not require lagging-strand polymerases and appears to be much less processive than a conventional replication fork (37, 42, 78). BIR in yeast has been proposed to play a role in LOH in aging yeast, telomere maintenance, and palindromic gene amplification (5, 41, 52). It is unclear to what extent a BIR-like mechanism operates in mammalian cells, although BIR has been invoked to explain telomere elongation in tumors lacking telomerase (13). It is currently unknown whether LTGC and STGC in somatic mammalian cells are products of mechanistically distinct pathways or whether they represent alternative outcomes of a common SDSA pathway.Vertebrate cells contain five Rad51 paralogs—polypeptides with limited sequence homology to Rad51—Rad51B, Rad51C, Rad51D, XRCC2, and XRCC3 (74). The Rad51 paralogs form the following two major complexes: Rad51B/Rad51C/Rad51D/XRCC2 (BCDX2) and Rad51C/XRCC3 (CX3) (38, 73). Genetic deletion of any one of the rad51 paralogs in the mouse germ line produces early embryonic lethality, and mouse or chicken cells lacking any of the rad51 paralogs reveal hypersensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, reduced frequencies of HR and of sister chromatid exchanges, increased chromatid-type errors, and defective sister chromatid cohesion (18, 72, 73, 82). Collectively, these data implicate the Rad51 paralogs in SCR regulation. The purified Rad51B/Rad51C complex has been shown to assist Rad51-mediated strand exchange (62). XRCC3 null or Rad51C null hamster cells reveal a bias toward production of longer gene conversion tracts, suggesting a role for the CX3 complex in late stages of SDSA (6, 44). Rad51C copurifies with branch migration and Holliday junction resolution activities in mammalian cell extracts (35), and XRCC3, but not XRCC2, facilitates telomere shortening by reciprocal crossing-over in telomeric T loops (77). These data, taken together with the meiotic defects observed in Rad51C hypomorphic mice, suggest a specialized role for CX3, but not for BCDX2, in resolving Holliday junction structures (31, 58).To further address the roles of Rad51 paralogs in late stages of recombination, we have studied the balance between long-tract (>1-kb) and short-tract (<1-kb) SCR in XRCC2 mutant hamster cells. We found that DSB-induced gene conversion in both XRCC2 and XRCC3 mutant cells is biased in favor of LTGC. These defects were suppressed by expression of wild-type (wt) XRCC2 or XRCC3, respectively, although the dependence upon ATP binding and hydrolysis differed between the two Rad51 paralogs. These results indicate that Rad51 paralogs play a more general role in determining the balance between STGC and LTGC than was previously appreciated and suggest roles for both the BCDX2 and CX3 complexes in influencing the termination of gene conversion in mammals.     

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad6 Postreplication Repair and Siz1/Srs2 Homologous Recombination-Inhibiting Pathways Process DNA Damage That Arises in asf1 Mutants

The Asf1 and Rad6 pathways have been implicated in a number of common processes such as suppression of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs), DNA repair, modification of chromatin, and proper checkpoint functions. We examined the relationship between Asf1 and different gene products implicated in postreplication repair (PRR) pathways in the suppression of GCRs, checkpoint function, sensitivity to hydroxyurea (HU) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), and ubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). We found that defects in Rad6 PRR pathway and Siz1/Srs2 homologous recombination suppression (HRS) pathway genes suppressed the increased GCR rates seen in asf1 mutants, which was independent of translesion bypass polymerases but showed an increased dependency on Dun1. Combining an asf1 deletion with different PRR mutations resulted in a synergistic increase in sensitivity to chronic HU and MMS treatment; however, these double mutants were not checkpoint defective, since they were capable of recovering from acute treatment with HU. Interestingly, we found that Asf1 and Rad6 cooperate in ubiquitination of PCNA, indicating that Rad6 and Asf1 function in parallel pathways that ubiquitinate PCNA. Our results show that ASF1 probably contributes to the maintenance of genome stability through multiple mechanisms, some of which involve the PRR and HRS pathways.DNA replication must be highly coordinated with chromatin assembly and cell division for correct propagation of genetic information and cell survival. Errors arising during DNA replication are corrected through the functions of numerous pathways including checkpoints and a diversity of DNA repair mechanisms (32, 33, 35). However, in the absence of these critical cellular responses, replication errors can lead to the accumulation of mutations and gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) as well as chromosome loss, a condition generally termed genomic instability (33). Genome instability is a hallmark of many cancers as well as other human diseases (24). There are many mechanisms by which GCRs can arise, and over the last few years numerous genes and pathways have been implicated in playing a role in the suppression of GCRs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and in some cases in the etiology of cancer (27, 28, 33, 39-47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60), including S. cerevisiae ASF1, which encodes the main subunit of the replication coupling assembly factor (37, 62).Asf1 is involved in the deposition of histones H3 and H4 onto newly synthesized DNA during DNA replication and repair (62), and correspondingly, asf1 mutants are sensitive to chronic treatment with DNA-damaging agents (2, 30, 62). However, asf1 mutants do not appear to be repair defective and can recover from acute treatment with at least some DNA-damaging agents (2, 8, 30, 31, 54), properties similar to those described for rad9 mutants (68). In the absence of Asf1, both the DNA damage and replication checkpoints become activated during normal cell growth, and in the absence of checkpoint execution, there is a further increase in checkpoint activation in asf1 mutants (30, 46, 54). It has been suggested that asf1 mutants are defective for checkpoint shutoff and that this might account for the increased steady-state levels of checkpoint activation seen in asf1 mutants (8); however, another study has shown that asf1 mutants are not defective for checkpoint shutoff and that in fact Asf1 and the chromatin assembly factor I (CAF-I) complex act redundantly or cooperate in checkpoint shutoff (31). Furthermore, Asf1 might be involved in proper activation of the Rad53 checkpoint protein, as Asf1 physically interacts with Rad53 and this interaction is abrogated in response to exogenous DNA damage (15, 26); however, the physiological relevance of this interaction is unclear. Asf1 is also required for K56 acetylation of histone H3 by Rtt109, and both rtt109 mutants and histone H3 variants that cannot be acetylated (38) share many of the properties of asf1 mutants, suggesting that at least some of the requirement for Asf1 in response to DNA damage is mediated through Rtt109 (11, 14, 22, 61). Subsequent studies of checkpoint activation in asf1 mutants have led to the hypothesis that replication coupling assembly factor defects result in destabilization of replication forks which are then recognized by the replication checkpoint and stabilized, suggesting that the destabilized replication forks account for both the increased GCRs and increased checkpoint activation seen in asf1 mutants (30). This hypothesis is supported by other recent studies implicating Asf1 in the processing of stalled replication forks (16, 57). This role appears to be independent of CAF-I, which can cooperate with Asf1 in chromatin assembly (63). Asf1 has also been shown to function in disassembly of chromatin, suggesting other possibilities for the mechanism of action of Asf1 at the replication fork (1, 2, 34). Thus, while Asf1 is thought to be involved in progression of the replication fork, both the mechanism of action and the factors that cooperate with Asf1 in this process remain obscure.Stalled replication forks, particularly those that stall at sites of DNA damage, can be processed by homologous recombination (HR) (6) or by a mechanism known as postreplication repair (PRR) (reviewed in reference 67). There are two PRR pathways, an error-prone pathway involving translesion synthesis (TLS) by lower-fidelity polymerases and an error-free pathway thought to involve template switching (TS) (67). In S. cerevisiae, the PRR pathways are under the control of the RAD6 epistasis group (64). The error-prone pathway depends on monoubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) on K164 by Rad6 (an E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme) by Rad18 (E3 ubiquitin ligase) (23). This results in replacement of the replicative DNA polymerase with nonessential TLS DNA polymerases, such as REV3/REV7-encoded DNA polymerase ζ (polζ) and RAD30-encoded DNA polη, which can bypass different types of replication-blocking damage (67). The error-free pathway is controlled by Rad5 (E3) and a complex consisting of Ubc13 and Mms2 (E2 and E2 variant, respectively), which add a K63-linked polyubiquitin chain to monoubiquitinated PCNA, leading to TS to the undamaged nascent sister chromatid (4, 25, 65). Furthermore, in addition to modification with ubiquitin, K164 of PCNA can also be sumoylated by Siz1, resulting in subsequent recruitment of the Srs2 helicase and inhibition of deleterious Rad51-dependent recombination events (50, 52, 55), although it is currently unclear if these are competing PCNA modifications or if both can exist on different subunits in the same PCNA trimer. A separate branch of the Rad6 pathway involving the E3 ligase Bre1 monoubiquitinates the histone H2B (29, 69) as well as Swd2 (66), which stimulates Set1-dependent methylation of K4 and Dot1-dependent methylation of K79 of histone H3 (48, 49, 66). Subsequently, K79-methylated H3 recruits Rad9 and activates the Rad53 checkpoint (19, 70). Activation of Rad53 is also bolstered by Rad6-Rad18-dependent ubiquitination of Rad17, which is part of the 9-1-1 complex that functions upstream in the checkpoint pathway (17). Finally, Rad6 complexes with the E3 Ubr1, which mediates protein degradation by the N-end rule pathway (13).Due to the role of the PRR pathways at stalled replication forks and a recent study implicating the Rad6 pathway in the suppression of GCRs (39), we examined the relationship between these ubiquitination and sumoylation pathways and the Asf1 pathway in order to gain additional insights into the function of Asf1 during DNA replication and repair. Our findings suggest that Asf1 has multiple functions that prevent replication damage or act in the cellular responses to replication damage and that these functions are modified by and interact with the PRR pathways. The TLS PRR pathway does not appear to be involved, and both a Dun1-dependent replication checkpoint and HR are important for preventing the deleterious effects of PRR and Asf1 pathway defects. We hypothesize that this newly observed cooperation between Asf1 and the PRR pathways may be required for resolving stalled replication forks, leading to suppression of GCRs and successful DNA replication.     

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.     

Use of Quantitative Mass Spectrometric Analysis to Elucidate the Mechanisms of Phospho-priming and Auto-activation of the Checkpoint Kinase Rad53 in Vivo

The cell cycle checkpoint kinases play central roles in the genome maintenance of eukaryotes. Activation of the yeast checkpoint kinase Rad53 involves Rad9 or Mrc1 adaptor-mediated phospho-priming by Mec1 kinase, followed by auto-activating phosphorylation within its activation loop. However, the mechanisms by which these adaptors regulate priming phosphorylation of specific sites and how this then leads to Rad53 activation remain poorly understood. Here we used quantitative mass spectrometry to delineate the stepwise phosphorylation events in the activation of endogenous Rad53 in response to S phase alkylation DNA damage, and we show that the two Rad9 and Mrc1 adaptors, the four N-terminal Mec1-target TQ sites of Rad53 (Rad53-SCD1), and Rad53-FHA2 coordinate intimately for optimal priming phosphorylation to support substantial Rad53 auto-activation. Rad9 or Mrc1 alone can mediate surprisingly similar Mec1 target site phosphorylation patterns of Rad53, including previously undetected tri- and tetraphosphorylation of Rad53-SCD1. Reducing the number of TQ motifs turns the SCD1 into a proportionally poorer Mec1 target, which then requires the presence of both Mrc1 and Rad9 for sufficient priming and auto-activation. The phosphothreonine-interacting Rad53-FHA domains, particularly FHA2, regulate phospho-priming by interacting with the checkpoint mediators but do not seem to play a major role in the phospho-SCD1-dependent auto-activation step. Finally, mutation of all four SCD1 TQ motifs greatly reduces Rad53 activation but does not eliminate it, and residual Rad53 activity in this mutant is dependent on Rad9 but not Mrc1. Altogether, our results provide a paradigm for how phosphorylation site clusters and checkpoint mediators can be involved in the regulation of signaling relay in protein kinase cascades in vivo and elucidate an SCD1-independent Rad53 auto-activation mechanism through the Rad9 pathway. The work also demonstrates the power of mass spectrometry for in-depth analyses of molecular mechanisms in cellular signaling in vivo.Eukaryotic cells are most vulnerable to exogenous DNA-damaging agents during the S phase of the cell cycle, when unprogrammed DNA lesions interfere with the tightly choreographed DNA replication process. DNA damage during this phase leads to the activation of two overlapping checkpoint pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the DNA replication checkpoint and the intra-S-phase DNA damage checkpoint (1, 2). Phospho-priming for auto-activation of the central checkpoint kinase Rad53 by the upstream kinase Mec1/Tel1 depends on Mrc1 as an adaptor in the DNA replication checkpoint pathway and Rad9 as an adaptor in the DNA damage checkpoint pathway (3–10). Rad53, a well-accepted model system for studying the function and regulation of Chk2-like kinases, contains two forkhead-associated (FHA)¹ domains (FHA1 and -2) and two SQ/TQ cluster domains (SCD1 and -2) enriched in Mec1/Tel1-target phosphorylation sites (11–13).Mrc1 normally is a replisome component that functionally couples DNA Pol ε with Cdc45 and MCM helicase during replication fork progression (14, 15). As the replication forks are stalled by replication stress, the recruited checkpoint sensor kinase Mec1 phosphorylates the SCD of Mrc1, which abolishes its N-terminal interaction with Pol ε and enables Mrc1 to recruit Rad53 and promote Rad53 phosphorylation by Mec1 as an initial step in the activation of Rad53 in the Mrc1 branch (6, 14, 16). Alanine substitution of all Mec1 target sites of Mrc1 (designated the mrc1-AQ allele) has been shown to selectively disable its checkpoint function for Rad53 activation without affecting its DNA replication functions (4). In response to DNA damage, Rad9 is able to associate with damaged chromatin via its BRCT and Tudor domains, which tether it to Ser129-phosphorylated histone H2A (γH2A) and Lys79-methylated histone H3, respectively (17, 18). Alternatively, the recruitment of Rad9 onto damaged DNA could also be facilitated by its phosphorylation by CDK1, which enables the specific interaction of Rad9 with Dpb11, allowing the formation of the ternary complex of Dpb11, Mec1, and Rad9 (19, 20). Similar to Mrc1, Mec1 activates the adaptor function of Rad9 by phosphorylation of its SCD, which then binds to the Rad53-FHA domains to promote Rad53 phosphorylation by Mec1 (3, 5, 10).Beyond serving as scaffolds to recruit Rad53, Mrc1 and Rad9 have been shown to promote Rad53 phosphorylation by Mec1 in a dose-dependent manner in vitro (3, 16), underlining their adaptor role to enhance the enzyme–substrate (Mec1–Rad53) interaction. However, how they can specifically regulate the priming phosphorylation at specific sites and how this then leads to Rad53 activation remains poorly understood. Finally, hyperphosphorylated Rad9 has also been shown to catalyze the auto-phosphorylation of recombinant Rad53 (21), but it remains to be examined whether and how this occurs in vivo.The activation of SCD-FHA containing kinases such as human Chk2 and fission yeast Cds1 has been suggested to involve a two-step phosphorylation process: first, SCD phosphorylation by an ATM/ATR-like kinase leads to intermolecular binding to the FHA domain of another Chk2/Cds1 monomer, which then results in dimerization/oligomerization-dependent auto-phosphorylation within the kinase activation loop (22–26). In addition to the characteristic N-terminal SCD-FHA module of Chk2-like kinases, Rad53 contains another SCD2-FHA2 module C-terminal to its kinase domain. Similar to its orthologues, Rad53 activation has been proposed to depend on SCD1 phosphorylation (but not SCD2 phosphorylation) and partially redundant functions of the two FHA domains (9, 27–29). However, although Rad53-FHA1 can interact with SCD1 in a phospho-threonine (pT)-dependent manner in vitro (9, 28), it appears to be required for Rad53 activation only in G2/M-arrested cells (27, 29). In contrast, the FHA2 domain, which seems to be more important overall for Rad53 activation, does not appreciably bind phospho-SCD1 peptides in vitro (27, 28). Thus, the mechanisms by which Mrc1, Rad9, SCD1 phosphorylation, and FHA domains interact during checkpoint-dependent Rad53 priming and auto-activation remain to be elucidated.Quantitative mass spectrometric analysis has revolutionized the functional analysis of cellular signaling pathways, including site-specific phosphorylation events of key signaling molecules (30–33), but an important caveat is that MS studies often involve protein tags or nonphysiological expression levels that can interfere with normal protein functions. For example, the integration of a triple HA tag into the endogenous RAD53 gene locus has been shown to reduce Rad53 protein levels, resulting in significantly altered checkpoint activity (34). In this study we used quantitative MS analyses to dissect the stepwise phosphorylation events of endogenous, untagged Rad53 in response to MMS-induced alkylation DNA damage and replication stress during the S phase. Together with functional analyses, our results delineate how the two Mec1 adaptors Rad9 and Mrc1 can coordinate with the four SCD1 priming sites (T5, T8, T12, and T15) to regulate the phospho-priming of Rad53 by Mec1. In addition, an SCD1-priming independent Rad53 auto-activation mechanism and the specific roles of the FHA domains during Rad53 hyperphosphorylation are also elucidated in this work.     

Mre11 Nuclease Activity and Ctp1 Regulate Chk1 Activation by Rad3ATR and Tel1ATM Checkpoint Kinases at Double-Strand Breaks

Rad3, the Schizosaccharomyces pombe ortholog of human ATR and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mec1, activates the checkpoint kinase Chk1 in response to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). Rad3^ATR/Mec1 associates with replication protein A (RPA), which binds single-stranded DNA overhangs formed by DSB resection. In humans and both yeasts, DSBs are initially detected and processed by the Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1^Xrs2 (MRN) nucleolytic protein complex in association with the Tel1^ATM checkpoint kinase and the Ctp1^CtIP/Sae2 DNA-end processing factor; however, in budding yeast, neither Mre11 nuclease activity or Sae2 are required for Mec1 signaling at irreparable DSBs. Here, we investigate the relationship between DNA end processing and the DSB checkpoint response in fission yeast, and we report that Mre11 nuclease activity and Ctp1 are critical for efficient Rad3-to-Chk1 signaling. Moreover, deleting Ctp1 reveals a Tel1-to-Chk1 signaling pathway that bypasses Rad3. This pathway requires Mre11 nuclease activity, the Rad9-Hus1-Rad1 (9-1-1) checkpoint clamp complex, and Crb2 checkpoint mediator. Ctp1 negatively regulates this pathway by controlling MRN residency at DSBs. A Tel1-to-Chk1 checkpoint pathway acting at unresected DSBs provides a mechanism for coupling Chk1 activation to the initial detection of DSBs and suggests that ATM may activate Chk1 by both direct and indirect mechanisms in mammalian cells.DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), formed by clastogens or from endogenous damage, trigger multiple cellular responses that are critical for maintaining genome integrity. Of particular importance is the cell cycle checkpoint that restrains the onset of mitosis while DSB repair is under way. Chk1 is the critical effector of this checkpoint in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe and mammalian cells, whereas the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae uses both Chk1 and Rad53 (orthologous to human Chk2 and fission yeast Cds1) to delay anaphase entry and mitotic exit. These kinases are regulated by ATM (ataxia-telangiectasia mutated) and ATR (ATM and Rad3-related) checkpoint kinases (5). Curiously, the regulatory connections between ATM/ATR and Chk1/Chk2 orthologs are not strictly conserved between species (Fig. ​(Fig.1A).1A). In mammals, ATM activates Chk2 while ATR activates Chk1. In S. cerevisiae and S. pombe, ATR orthologs (Mec1 and Rad3, respectively) activate Chk2 orthologs and Chk1, while Tel1 (ATM ortholog) is primarily involved in telomere maintenance (14, 38, 40).Open in a separate windowFIG. 1.Deletion of Ctp1 restores the DNA damage checkpoint in rad3Δ cells. (A) Regulatory connections between ATM/ATR and Chk1/Chk2 orthologs in mammals, S. cerevisiae, and S. pombe. ATM phosphorylates Chk2 and ATR phosphorylates Chk1. CtIP mediates an ATM-to-ATR switch through DNA end resection in mammals (44, 53). ATM promotes Chk1 activation by stimulating CtIP-dependent resection through an unknown mechanism. In S. cerevisiae, Mec1 phosphorylates both Rad53 and Chk1. Deleting Sae2 uncovers a Tel1-to-Rad53 signaling pathway and enhances Rad53 activation (47). In S. pombe, Cds1 and Chk1 activation is dependent on Rad3. (B) Chk1 phosphorylation peaks in wild-type (wt) (top panel) and ctp1Δ cells (bottom panel) 30 min after exposure to 90 Gy of IR in log-phase cultures. Chk1 phosphorylation in ctp1Δ cells prior to IR exposure likely arises from an inability to repair spontaneous DNA damage (23). Immunoblots were probed for the HA epitope-tagged Chk1 or Cdc2 as a loading control. (C) Chk1 phosphorylation is reduced at least 2-fold in ctp1Δ cells relative to the wild type. Quantification of blots from panel B expressed as a ratio of phospho-Chk1 (upper band) versus nonphospho-Chk1 (lower band) was performed. The phospho-Chk1 signal in untreated ctp1Δ cells was subtracted from the IR-treated samples to more accurately measure the IR-induced phosphorylation. (D) The ctp1Δ mutation restores Chk1 phosphorylation in rad3Δ cells. Cells were harvested immediately after mock or 90-Gy IR treatment and blotted for HA epitope tag. Ponceau staining shows equal loading. (E) Quantitation of Chk1 phosphorylation. Error bars represent the standard errors from three independent experiments. (F) The checkpoint arrest is restored in ctp1Δ rad3Δ cells. Cells synchronized in G₂ by elutriation were mock treated or exposed to 100 Gy of IR. Cell cycle progression was tracked by microscopic observation.The functions of ATM and ATR orthologs are intimately tied to the detection and nucleolytic processing of DSBs. ATM^Tel1 localizes at DSBs by interacting with Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1^Xrs2 (MRN) protein complex, which directly binds DNA ends (12, 20, 24, 50, 52). The MRN complex is essential for ATM^Tel1 function in all species. The Mre11 subunit of MRN complex has DNase activities that are critical for radioresistance in S. pombe and mice but not in budding yeast (3, 19, 22, 50). In fission yeast, MRN complex also recruits Ctp1 DNA end-processing factor to DSBs (25, 49). Ctp1 is structurally and functionally related to CtIP in mammals and Sae2 in budding yeast, the latter of which has nuclease activity in vitro (21, 23, 43). Ctp1 and CtIP are essential for survival of ionizing radiation and other clastogens (23, 43, 54), whereas sae2Δ mutants are not radiosensitive except at very high doses of ionizing radiation (IR), although both Ctp1 and Sae2 are required for repair of meiotic DSBs formed by a Spo11/Rec12-dependent mechanism (17, 23, 36). Genetic and biochemical studies indicate that Sae2/Ctp1/CtIP collaborate with MRN complex to initiate the 5′-to-3′ resection of DSBs (7, 23, 28, 43, 53, 55), which leads to the generation of 3′ single-strand overhangs (SSOs) that are critical for DSB repair by homologous recombination (HR). Replication protein A (RPA) binding to SSOs is essential for HR repair of DSBs, but it is also important for recruiting ATR^Rad3/Mec1, which interacts with RPA through its regulatory subunit ATRIP (Rad26 in fission yeast, Ddc2 in budding yeast) (5, 56). Subsequent phosphorylation of Chk1 by ATR also requires the Rad9-Hus1-Rad1 (9-1-1) checkpoint clamp, which is loaded at the single-strand/double-strand DNA junctions (26, 48, 57), the ATR activating protein TopBP1 (Cut5 in fission yeast), and a checkpoint mediator protein such as Crb2 in fission yeast (34, 41, 48).In this mechanism of DNA damage checkpoint signaling, DNA end resection is critical for ATR (Rad3/Mec1) activation, and therefore resection defective mutants should be unable to mount a fully active checkpoint response (44). However, Rad53 activation is not diminished in budding yeast sae2Δ mutants that suffer an irreparable DSB by expressing HO endonuclease. In fact, there is a defect in turning off the checkpoint signal (6). A similar effect is observed in S. cerevisiae strains expressing the mre11-H125N nuclease-defective form of Mre11. Moreover, overexpression of SAE2 strongly inhibits Rad53 activation (6). The reasons for these phenotypes are unknown, since neither Sae2 nor Mre11 nuclease activity are required for DSB resection or radioresistance. However, deleting Sae2 delays resection while at the same time enhancing a cryptic Tel1-to-Rad53 checkpoint pathway (6, 47). These effects correlate with delayed disassembly of Mre11 foci at DSBs in sae2Δ cells, suggesting that Sae2 may negatively regulate checkpoint signaling by modulating Mre11 association at damaged DNA (1, 6, 24). Enhancement of a Tel1-to-Rad53 checkpoint pathway by eliminating Sae2 suggests that the signaling pathways between ATM/ATR and Chk1/Chk2 checkpoint kinases are not hard wired but are adaptable to changes in DNA end processing (47). However, as yet there is no evidence that ATM^Tel1 can activate Chk1 in any organism.Since SAE2 deletion or overexpression has unexpected effects on Rad53 activation in budding yeast, we decided to explore the relationship between Ctp1 and Chk1 activation in fission yeast. Here, we show that Chk1 activation is substantially diminished in ctp1Δ cells exposed to ionizing radiation. These data are consistent with studies showing that CtIP is required for efficient Chk1 activation in mammalian cells treated with camptothecin (CPT), a topoisomerase I poison that causes replication fork collapse (43, 53). We also investigate the role of Mre11 nuclease activity and find that while ablating Mre11 nuclease activity enhances Rad53 activation in budding yeast, the equivalent Mre11 mutation in fission yeast severely impairs Chk1 activation by ionizing radiation. Furthermore, we find that deleting Ctp1 reveals a previously unknown Tel1-to-Chk1 signaling pathway in S. pombe, a finding analogous to the enhancement of a Tel1-to-Rad53 checkpoint pathway by eliminating Sae2 in S. cerevisiae (47). This Tel1-to-Chk1 pathway also requires Mre11 nuclease activity. These data establish that Tel1^ATM can activate Chk1 independently of Rad3^ATR, which has implications for studies linking ATM to Chk1 activation in mammalian cells (16, 31). Characterization of this pathway allows us to propose a more detailed model of how Chk1 is activated in response to DSBs.     

Cultivation of Fastidious Bacteria by Viability Staining and Micromanipulation in a Soil Substrate Membrane System

Soil substrate membrane systems allow for microcultivation of fastidious soil bacteria as mixed microbial communities. We isolated established microcolonies from these membranes by using fluorescence viability staining and micromanipulation. This approach facilitated the recovery of diverse, novel isolates, including the recalcitrant bacterium Leifsonia xyli, a plant pathogen that has never been isolated outside the host.The majority of bacterial species have never been recovered in the laboratory (1, 14, 19, 24). In the last decade, novel cultivation approaches have successfully been used to recover “unculturables” from a diverse range of divisions (23, 25, 29). Most strategies have targeted marine environments (4, 23, 25, 32), but soil offers the potential for the investigation of vast numbers of undescribed species (20, 29). Rapid advances have been made toward culturing soil bacteria by reformulating and diluting traditional media, extending incubation times, and using alternative gelling agents (8, 21, 29).The soil substrate membrane system (SSMS) is a diffusion chamber approach that uses extracts from the soil of interest as the growth substrate, thereby mimicking the environment under investigation (12). The SSMS enriches for slow-growing oligophiles, a proportion of which are subsequently capable of growing on complex media (23, 25, 27, 30, 32). However, the SSMS results in mixed microbial communities, with the consequent difficulty in isolation of individual microcolonies for further characterization (10).Micromanipulation has been widely used for the isolation of specific cell morphotypes for downstream applications in molecular diagnostics or proteomics (5, 15). This simple technology offers the opportunity to select established microcolonies of a specific morphotype from the SSMS when combined with fluorescence visualization (3, 11). Here, we have combined the SSMS, fluorescence viability staining, and advanced micromanipulation for targeted isolation of viable, microcolony-forming soil bacteria.     

Fbh1 Limits Rad51-Dependent Recombination at Blocked Replication Forks

Controlling the loading of Rad51 onto DNA is important for governing when and how homologous recombination is used. Here we use a combination of genetic assays and indirect immunofluorescence to show that the F-box DNA helicase (Fbh1) functions in direct opposition to the Rad52 orthologue Rad22 to curb Rad51 loading onto DNA in fission yeast. Surprisingly, this activity is unnecessary for limiting spontaneous direct-repeat recombination. Instead it appears to play an important role in preventing recombination when replication forks are blocked and/or broken. When overexpressed, Fbh1 specifically reduces replication fork block-induced recombination, as well as the number of Rad51 nuclear foci that are induced by replicative stress. These abilities are dependent on its DNA helicase/translocase activity, suggesting that Fbh1 exerts its control on recombination by acting as a Rad51 disruptase. In accord with this, overexpression of Fbh1 also suppresses the high levels of recombinant formation and Rad51 accumulation at a site-specific replication fork barrier in a strain lacking the Rad51 disruptase Srs2. Similarly overexpression of Srs2 suppresses replication fork block-induced gene conversion events in an fbh1Δ mutant, although an inability to suppress deletion events suggests that Fbh1 has a distinct functionality, which is not readily substituted by Srs2.Homologous recombination (HR) is often described as a double-edged sword: it can maintain genome stability by promoting DNA repair, while its injudicious action can disturb genome stability by causing gross chromosome rearrangement (GCR) or loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Both GCR and LOH are potential precursors of diseases such as cancer, and consequently there is need to control when and how HR is used.A key step in most HR is the loading of the Rad51 recombinase onto single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), which forms a nucleoprotein filament (nucleofilament) that catalyzes the pairing of homologous DNAs and subsequent strand invasion (32). This is a critical point at which recombination can be regulated through the removal of the Rad51 filament (60). Early removal can prevent strand invasion altogether, freeing the DNA for alternative processing. Later removal may limit unnecessary filament growth, free the 3′-OH of the invading strand to prime DNA synthesis, and ultimately enable ejection of the invading strand, which is important for the repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs) by synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA). SDSA avoids the formation of Holliday junctions that can be resolved into reciprocal exchange products (crossovers), which may result in GCR or LOH if the recombination is ectopic or allelic, respectively.One enzyme that appears to be able to control Rad51 in the aforementioned manner is the yeast superfamily 1 DNA helicase Srs2 (42). In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Srs2 is recruited to stalled replication forks by the SUMOylation of PCNA, and there it appears to block Rad51-dependent HR in favor of Rad6- and Rad18-dependent postreplication repair (1, 2, 35, 50, 53, 58). In vitro Srs2 can strip Rad51 from ssDNA via its DNA translocase activity (31, 62) and therefore probably controls HR at stalled replication forks by acting as a Rad51 disruptase. In accord with this, chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis has shown that Rad51 is enriched at or near replication forks in an srs2 mutant (50). Srs2 also plays an important role in crossover avoidance during DSB repair, where it is thought to promote SDSA by both disrupting Rad51 nucleofilaments and dissociating displacement (D) loops (20, 27).Srs2 is conserved in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe (19, 43, 63) and has a close relative in bacteria called UvrD, which can similarly control HR by disrupting RecA nucleofilaments (61). However, an obvious homologue in mammals has not been detected. Recently, two mammalian members of the RecQ DNA helicase family, BLM and RECQL5, were shown to disrupt Rad51 nucleofilaments in vitro (11, 25), although in the case of BLM, this activity appears to be relatively weak (5, 55). Nevertheless these data have led to speculation that both BLM and RECQL5 might perform a function similar to that of Srs2 in vivo (6). Certainly mutational inactivation of either helicase results in elevated levels of HR and genome instability, with an associated increased rate of cancer (23, 25). However, BLM and RECQL5 are not the only potential Rad51 disruptases in mammals; a relative of Srs2 and UvrD called FBH1 was recently implicated in this role by genetic studies of its orthologue in S. pombe and by its ability to partially compensate for the loss of Srs2 in S. cerevisiae, which, unlike S. pombe, lacks an FBH1 orthologue (15). FBH1 is so named because of an F box near its N terminus—a feature that makes it unique among DNA helicases (28). The F box is important for its interaction with SKP1 and therefore the formation of an E3 ubiquitin ligase SCF (SKP1-Cul1-F-box protein) complex (29). The targets of this complex are currently unknown. In S. pombe, mutations within Fbh1''s F-box block interaction with Skp1 and prevent Fbh1 from localizing to the nucleus and forming damage-induced foci therein (57). Fbh1''s role in constraining Rad51 activity in S. pombe is evidenced by the increase in spontaneous Rad51 foci and accumulation of UV irradiation-induced Rad51-dependent recombination intermediates in an fbh1Δ mutant (47). Moreover, loss of both Fbh1 and Srs2 in S. pombe results in a synergistic reduction in cell viability, and like Srs2, Fbh1 is essential for viability in the absence of the S. pombe RecQ family DNA helicase Rqh1, which processes recombination intermediates (47, 48). In both cases the synthetic interaction is suppressed by deleting rad51, suggesting that Fbh1 works in parallel with Srs2 and Rqh1 to prevent the formation of toxic recombination intermediates. In yeast, Rad51-mediated recombination is dependent on Rad52 (Rad22 in S. pombe), which is believed to promote the nucleation of Rad51 onto DNA that is coated with the ssDNA binding protein replication protein A (RPA) (18, 32). Intriguingly, the genotoxin sensitivity and recombination deficiency of a rad22 mutant are suppressed in a Rad51-dependent manner by deleting fbh1 (48). This suggests that Fbh1 and Rad22 act in opposing ways to modulate the assembly of the Rad51 nucleofilament. Although current data indicate a role for Fbh1 in controlling HR, the only evidence so far that Fbh1 limits recombinant formation is in chicken DT40 cells, for which a modest increase in sister chromatid exchange has been noted when FBH1 is deleted (30).Here we present in vivo evidence suggesting that Fbh1 does indeed act as a Rad51 disruptase, which is dependent on its DNA helicase/translocase activity. We confirm predictions that this activity works in opposition to Rad22 for the loading of Rad51 onto DNA and show that Fbh1''s modulation of Rad51 activity, while not essential for limiting spontaneous direct-repeat recombination, is critical for preventing recombination at blocked replication forks. Finally, we highlight similarities and differences between Fbh1 and Srs2, based on their mutant phenotypes and relative abilities to suppress recombination when overexpressed. Overall our data affirm that Fbh1 is one of the principal modulators of Rad51 activity in fission yeast and therefore may play a similar role in vertebrates.