Sen1 and Rrm3 ensure permissive topological conditions for replication termination

1. Download : Download high-res image (234KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Chromosomal Instability Triggered by Rrm2b Loss Leads to IL-6 Secretion and Plasmacytic Neoplasms

1. Download : Download full-size image

     

The RNA-binding protein Rrm4 is essential for efficient secretion of endochitinase Cts1

Long-distance transport of mRNAs is crucial in determining spatio-temporal gene expression in eukaryotes. The RNA-binding protein Rrm4 constitutes a key component of microtubule-dependent mRNA transport in filaments of Ustilago maydis. Although a number of potential target mRNAs could be identified, cellular processes that depend on Rrm4-mediated transport remain largely unknown. Here, we used differential proteomics to show that ribosomal, mitochondrial, and cell wall-remodeling proteins, including the bacterial-type endochitinase Cts1, are differentially regulated in rrm4Δ filaments. In vivo UV crosslinking and immunoprecipitation and fluorescence in situ hybridization revealed that cts1 mRNA represents a direct target of Rrm4. Filaments of cts1Δ mutants aggregate in liquid culture suggesting an altered cell surface. In wild type cells Cts1 localizes predominantly at the growth cone, whereas it accumulates at both poles in rrm4Δ filaments. The endochitinase is secreted and associates most likely with the cell wall of filaments. Secretion is drastically impaired in filaments lacking Rrm4 or conventional kinesin Kin1 as well as in filaments with disrupted microtubules. Thus, Rrm4-mediated mRNA transport appears to be essential for efficient export of active Cts1, uncovering a novel molecular link between mRNA transport and the mechanism of secretion.     

The amino terminus of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA helicase Rrm3p modulates protein function altering replication and checkpoint activity

The Pif1 family of DNA helicases is conserved from yeast to humans. Although the helicase domains of family members are well conserved, the amino termini of these proteins are not. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome encodes two Pif1 family members, Rrm3p and Pif1p, that have very different functions. To determine if the amino terminus of Rrm3p contributes to its role in promoting fork progression at >1000 discrete chromosomal sites, we constructed a deletion series that lacked portions of the 249-amino-acid amino terminus. The phenotypes of cells expressing alleles that lacked all or most of the amino terminus were indistinguishable from those of rrm3Delta cells. Rrm3p deletion derivatives that lacked smaller portions of the amino terminus were also defective, but the extent of replication pausing at tRNA genes, telomeres, and ribosomal DNA (rDNA) was not as great as in rrm3Delta cells. Deleting only 62 amino acids from the middle of the amino terminus affected only rDNA replication, suggesting that the amino terminus can confer locus-specific effects. Cells expressing a fusion protein consisting of the Rrm3p amino terminus and the Pif1p helicase domain displayed defects similar to rrm3Delta cells. These data demonstrate that the amino terminus of Rrm3p is essential for Rrm3p function. However, the helicase domain of Rrm3p also contributes to its functional specificity.     

Yap is essential for uterine decidualization through Rrm2/GSH/ROS pathway in response to Bmp2

Yap is required for ovarian follicle and early embryo development, but little information is available regarding its physiological significance in decidualization. Here we determine the effects of YAP on decidualization, mitochondrial function, cell apoptosis and DNA damage, and explore its interplay with Bmp2, Rrm2, GSH and ROS. The results exhibited that Yap was abundant in decidual cells and its inactivation impaired the proliferation and differentiation of stromal cells along with the deferral of G1/S phase transition, indicating Yap importance in decidualization. Bmp2 via Alk2 receptor promoted nuclear translocation of Yap where it might interact with Tead and then bind to the promoter of Rrm2 whose activation rescued the faultiness of differentiation program and attenuated oxidative DNA damage caused by Yap impediment. Meanwhile, Yap had an important part in the crosstalk between Bmp2 and Rrm2. Furthermore, inactivation of Yap resulted in an obvious accumulation of intracellular ROS followed by the abnormal GR activity and GSH content dependent on Rrm2. Replenishment of GSH counteracted the regulation of Yap inactivation on stromal differentiation and DNA damage with distinct reduction for intracellular ROS. Additionally, blockage of Yap caused the enhancement of stromal cell apoptosis and brought about mitochondrial dysfunction as indicated by the aberration for ATP level, mtDNA copy number and mitochondrial membrane potential concomitant with the opening of mitochondrial permeability transition pore, but these abnormalities were neutralized by GSH. Administration of mitochondrial antioxidant Mito-TEMPO rescued the fault of stromal differentiation conferred by Yap inactivation. Collectively, Yap was essential for uterine decidualization through Rrm2/GSH/ROS pathway in response to Bmp2.     

Requirement of Rrm3 helicase for repair of spontaneous DNA lesions in cells lacking Srs2 or Sgs1 helicase

The Rrm3 DNA helicase of Saccharomyces cerevisiae interacts with proliferating cell nuclear antigen and is required for replication fork progression through ribosomal DNA repeats and subtelomeric and telomeric DNA. Here, we show that rrm3 srs2 and rrm3 sgs1 mutants, in which two different DNA helicases have been inactivated, exhibit a severe growth defect and undergo frequent cell death. Cells lacking Rrm3 and Srs2 arrest in the G(2)/M phase of the cell cycle with 2N DNA content and frequently contain only a single nucleus. The phenotypes of rrm3 srs2 and rrm3 sgs1 mutants were suppressed by disrupting early steps of homologous recombination. These observations identify Rrm3 as a new member of a network of pathways, involving Sgs1 and Srs2 helicases and Mus81 endonuclease, suggested to act during repair of stalled replication forks.     

The Saccharomyces Pif1p DNA helicase and the highly related Rrm3p have opposite effects on replication fork progression in ribosomal DNA

Replication of Saccharomyces ribosomal DNA (rDNA) proceeds bidirectionally from origins in a subset of the approximately 150 tandem repeats, but the leftward-moving fork stops when it encounters the replication fork barrier (RFB). The Pif1p helicase and the highly related Rrm3p were rDNA associated in vivo. Both proteins affected rDNA replication but had opposing effects on fork progression. Pif1p helped maintain the RFB. Rrm3p appears to be the replicative helicase for rDNA as it acted catalytically to promote fork progression throughout the rDNA. Loss of Rrm3p increased rDNA breakage and accumulation of rDNA circles, whereas breakage and circles were less common in pif1 cells. These data support a model in which replication fork pausing causes breakage and recombination in the rDNA.     

The intra-S phase checkpoint protein Tof1 collaborates with the helicase Rrm3 and the F-box protein Dia2 to maintain genome stability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

The intra-S phase checkpoint protein complex Tof1/Csm3 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae antagonizes Rrm3 helicase to modulate replication fork arrest not only at the replication termini of rDNA but also at strong nonhistone protein binding sites throughout the genome. We investigated whether these checkpoint proteins acted either antagonistically or synergistically with Rrm3 in mediating other important functions such as maintenance of genome stability. High retromobility of a normally quiescent retrovirus-like transposable element Ty1 of S. cerevisiae is a form of genome instability, because the transposition events induce mutations. We measured the transposition of Ty1 in various genetic backgrounds and discovered that Tof1 suppressed excessive retromobility in collaboration with either Rrm3 or the F-box protein Dia2. Although both Rrm3 and Dia2 are believed to facilitate fork movement, fork stalling at DNA-protein complexes did not appear to be a major contributor to enhancement of retromobility. Absence of the aforementioned proteins either individually or in pair-wise combinations caused karyotype changes as revealed by the altered migrations of the individual chromosomes in pulsed field gels. The mobility changes were RNase H-resistant and therefore, unlikely to have been caused by extensive R loop formation. These mutations also resulted in alterations of telomere lengths. However, the latter changes could not fully account for the magnitude of the observed karyotypic alterations. We conclude that unlike other checkpoint proteins that are known to be required for elevated retromobility, Tof1 suppressed high frequency retrotransposition and maintained karyotype stability in collaboration with the aforementioned proteins.     

Loss of mitochondrial DNA under genotoxic stress conditions in the absence of the yeast DNA helicase Pif1p occurs independently of the DNA helicase Rrm3p

How the cellular amount of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is regulated under normal conditions and in the presence of genotoxic stress is less understood. We demonstrate that the inefficient mtDNA replication process of mutant yeast cells lacking the PIF1 DNA helicase is partly rescued in the absence of the DNA helicase RRM3. The rescue effect is likely due to the increase in the deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs) pool caused by the lack of RRM3. In contrast, the Pif1p-dependent mtDNA breakage in the presence and absence of genotoxic stress is not suppressed if RRM3 is lacking suggesting that this phenotype is likely independent of the dNTP pool. Pif1 protein (Pif1p) was found to stimulate the incorporation of dNTPs into newly synthesised mtDNA of gradient-purified mitochondria. We propose that Pif1p that acts likely as a DNA helicase in mitochondria affects mtDNA replication directly. Possible roles of Pif1p include the resolution of secondary DNA and/or DNA/RNA structures, the temporarily displacement of tightly bound mtDNA-binding proteins, or the stabilization of the mitochondrial replication complex during mtDNA replication. X. Cheng, Y. Qin contributed equally to this work.     

Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rrm3p DNA helicase promotes genome integrity by preventing replication fork stalling: viability of rrm3 cells requires the intra-S-phase checkpoint and fork restart activities

Rrm3p is a 5'-to-3' DNA helicase that helps replication forks traverse protein-DNA complexes. Its absence leads to increased fork stalling and breakage at over 1,000 specific sites located throughout the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. To understand the mechanisms that respond to and repair rrm3-dependent lesions, we carried out a candidate gene deletion analysis to identify genes whose mutation conferred slow growth or lethality on rrm3 cells. Based on synthetic phenotypes, the intra-S-phase checkpoint, the SRS2 inhibitor of recombination, the SGS1/TOP3 replication fork restart pathway, and the MRE11/RAD50/XRS2 (MRX) complex were critical for viability of rrm3 cells. DNA damage checkpoint and homologous recombination genes were important for normal growth of rrm3 cells. However, the MUS81/MMS4 replication fork restart pathway did not affect growth of rrm3 cells. These data suggest a model in which the stalled and broken forks generated in rrm3 cells activate a checkpoint response that provides time for fork repair and restart. Stalled forks are converted by a Rad51p-mediated process to intermediates that are resolved by Sgs1p/Top3p. The rrm3 system provides a unique opportunity to learn the fate of forks whose progress is impaired by natural impediments rather than by exogenous DNA damage.     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor