Mammalian INO80 chromatin remodeler cooperates with FANCM to mediate DNA interstrand crosslink-induced checkpoint activation and repair

Chromatin regulators play crucial roles in the DNA damage response. While the chromatin changes needed for double-strand break repair and nucleotide excision repair have been intensely studied, the chromatin requirements of interstrand crosslink (ICL) repair have remained largely unexplored. Here, we studied the effect of silencing the INO80 chromatin remodeler subunits on the cellular response to ICLs. Cells depleted of Ino80 ATPase were more sensitive to mitomycin C (MMC) and defective in FANCD2 chromatin recruitment. Ino80-deficient cells displayed strongly reduced Chk1 phosphorylation after MMC treatment indicating impaired ATR-dependent DNA damage signaling, likely due to the significantly slower RPA foci formation which we observed in these cells. MMC treatment of cells silenced for FANCM - a protein required for ICL-induced checkpoint signaling, Ino80 or both genes simultaneously led to similar decreases in RPA phosphorylation suggesting that the two proteins were involved in the same checkpoint pathway. Co-immunoprecipitation data indicated that Ino80 and FANCM interact physically. Taken together our data demonstrate for the first time that the INO80 chromatin remodeler cooperates with FANCM to mediate ICL-induced checkpoint activation by promoting accumulation of RPA at the lesion sites. This constitutes a novel mechanism by which the INO80 chromatin remodeler participates in the repair of ICLs and genome integrity maintenance.     

Regulation of the yeast INO1 gene. The products of the INO2, INO4 and OPI1 regulatory genes are not required for repression in response to inositol

The ino2Delta, ino4Delta, opi1Delta, and sin3Delta mutations all affect expression of INO1, a structural gene for inositol-1-phosphate synthase. These same mutations affect other genes of phospholipid biosynthesis that, like INO1, contain the repeated element UAS(INO) (consensus 5' CATGTGAAAT 3'). In this study, we evaluated the effects of these four mutations, singly and in all possible combinations, on growth and expression of INO1. All strains carrying an ino2Delta or ino4Delta mutation, or both, failed to grow in medium lacking inositol. However, when grown in liquid culture in medium containing limiting amounts of inositol, the opi1Delta ino4Delta strain exhibited a level of INO1 expression comparable to, or higher than, the wild-type strain growing under the same conditions. Furthermore, INO1 expression in the opi1Delta ino4Delta strain was repressed in cells grown in medium fully supplemented with both inositol and choline. Similar results were obtained using the opi1Delta ino2Delta ino4Delta strain. Regulation of INO1 was also observed in the absence of the SIN3 gene product. Therefore, while Opi1p, Sin3p, and the Ino2p/Ino4p complex all affect the overall level of INO1 expression in an antagonistic manner, they do not appear to be responsible for transmitting the signal that leads to repression of INO1 in response to inositol. Various models for Opi1p function were tested and no evidence for binding of Opi1p to UAS(INO), or to Ino2p or Ino4p, was obtained.