Requirement for the Phospho-H2AX Binding Module of Crb2 in Double-Strand Break Targeting and Checkpoint Activation

Activation of DNA damage checkpoints requires the rapid accumulation of numerous factors to sites of genomic lesions, and deciphering the mechanisms of this targeting is central to our understanding of DNA damage response. Histone modification has recently emerged as a critical element for the correct localization of damage response proteins, and one key player in this context is the fission yeast checkpoint mediator Crb2. Accumulation of Crb2 at ionizing irradiation-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) requires two distinct histone marks, dimethylated H4 lysine 20 (H4K20me2) and phosphorylated H2AX (pH2AX). A tandem tudor motif in Crb2 directly binds H4K20me2, and this interaction is required for DSB targeting and checkpoint activation. Similarly, pH2AX is required for Crb2 localization to DSBs and checkpoint control. Crb2 can directly bind pH2AX through a pair of C-terminal BRCT repeats, but the functional significance of this binding has been unclear. Here we demonstrate that loss of its pH2AX-binding activity severely impairs the ability of Crb2 to accumulate at ionizing irradiation-induced DSBs, compromises checkpoint signaling, and disrupts checkpoint-mediated cell cycle arrest. These impairments are similar to that reported for abolition of pH2AX or mutation of the H4K20me2-binding tudor motif of Crb2. Intriguingly, a combined ablation of its two histone modification binding modules yields a strikingly additive reduction in Crb2 activity. These observations argue that binding of the Crb2 BRCT repeats to pH2AX is critical for checkpoint activity and provide new insight into the mechanisms of chromatin-mediated genome stability.DNA damage response is an essential cellular guard that protects the genetic material from a constant barrage of genotoxic agents. To ensure their survival after genomic insult, cells orchestrate a signaling cascade that leads to checkpoint-mediated cell cycle arrest and the repair of damaged DNA (16, 35). A failure in this process can have catastrophic cellular consequences leading to the development of numerous disorders such as cancer (18, 30, 32). Because of its intimate connection with human health, deciphering the molecular mechanisms of DNA damage response is of high interest (16, 20).Recently, histone posttranslational modification has emerged as one element that is critical for ensuring a faithful response to genomic challenge (7, 31). An octamer of the four core histones, H3, H4, H2A, and H2B, forms the core protein component of chromatin, and cells possess a considerable number of enzymes that target histones for posttranslation modification (21). These marks can impinge upon many aspects of DNA biology by acting to directly alter chromatin structure or by serving as a binding scaffold for the recruitment of regulatory factors (24).In the context of DNA damage response, one factor that is intimately linked with histone modification is the fission yeast DNA damage checkpoint protein Crb2. After genomic insult, DNA damage checkpoints function to halt cell cycle progression, ensuring sufficient time for lesion repair (16, 35). In the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, regulating the transition from G₂ to mitosis (G₂/M) represents the major DNA damage checkpoint and Crb2 is essential for this activity (4, 34). Crb2 is a member of a family of checkpoint regulators that have been termed mediators because they are thought to transmit the checkpoint signal from damage-sensing ATM/ATR-related kinases to effector kinases, such as Chk1, that trigger cell cycle arrest (11, 25). Crb2 is closely related to budding yeast Rad9 and mammalian p53 binding protein 53BP1, which all share two distinct domains, a tandem tudor motif and a pair of C-terminal BRCT repeats (Fig. ​(Fig.1A)1A) (11, 25). Besides 53BP1, Crb2 also shares some functional similarities with other mammalian BRCT-containing checkpoint regulators, such as MDC1 and BRCA1 (11, 25). In response to ionizing irradiation (IR), the rapid accumulation of Crb2 and other checkpoint proteins can be readily visualized as nuclear foci that mark sites of double-strand breaks (DSBs) (9, 25). Understanding the mechanisms that govern this targeting has been an area of intense interest, and for Crb2 this accumulation requires two distinct histone marks: dimethylation of histone H4 lysine 20 (H4K20me2) and phosphorylated H2AX (pH2AX) (27, 36).Open in a separate windowFIG. 1.Crb2 pH2AX-binding mutations. (A) Top, schematic representation of Crb2 (not drawn to scale) with relevant mutations indicated. Bottom, protein sequence alignment of a portion of the BRCT phospho-binding motifs from Schizosaccharomyces pombe (sp) Crb2, human (h) 53BP1, human MDC1, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (sc) Rad9. Identical residues are shaded black; similar residues are shaded gray. *, Crb2 phospho-binding residues. (B) The Crb2 BRCT domains specifically interact with pH2AX. Peptide pulldowns were performed as described in the text with C-terminal fission yeast H2A.1 peptides either unmodified or phosphorylated at Ser129 (see − or + pH2AX) and increasing amounts of the indicated recombinant Crb2 BRCT domain fragments (∼0.1 and 0.3 μM). After binding and washing, SDS-PAGE and Coomassie staining were used to visualize peptide-bound protein. A fraction of the total protein used for binding was also visualized (Input).Mono-, di-, and trimethyl H4K20 are conserved chromatin marks that are readily detectable in fission yeast and mammalian cells (29, 36). In fission yeast, the Kmt5 methylase catalyzes all three H4K20 methyl modifications and its inactivation, or mutation of its H4K20 substrate, severely diminishes Crb2 accumulation at DSBs and compromises checkpoint activity (10, 36). Note that as outlined by the unified nomenclature for the naming of histone lysine methyltransferases (2), the fission yeast H4K20 methylase previously known as Set9 (36) is now termed Kmt5. The requirement for H4K20 methylation is mediated by the tandem tudor domains of Crb2 that preferentially bind H4 tail peptides dimethylated at lysine 20 (3, 14). Tudor motif mutations impair Crb2 DSB targeting and genome integrity in a manner analogous to loss of Kmt5 activity, and dimethylation of H4K20, but not trimethylation, is required for Crb2 activity (10, 14, 42). The tudor domain of 53BP1 can also directly bind H4K20me2, and this recognition event is required for its accumulation at IR-induced DSBs (3, 23, 45).After DNA damage, serine 139 phosphorylation in the mammalian H2A variant H2AX, or a homologous site in canonical yeast H2A, specifically marks sites of genomic lesions (7, 12). The fission yeast genome encodes two H2A proteins, H2A.1 and H2A.2, which differ slightly in their primary amino acid sequence. Phosphorylation of S129 in H2A.1 and S128 in H2A.2 is collectively referred to as phosphorylated H2AX (pH2AX). The ATM/ATR family of PI3-like kinases that includes the fission yeast Rad3 and Tel1 enzymes catalyzes pH2AX (37). H2AX phosphorylation has a critical role in controlling both DNA repair and checkpoint activation in a variety of organisms from yeast to humans (7, 12). Central to its function is the ability of the pH2AX mark to coordinate the recruitment of a number of proteins to genomic lesions, and several factors can directly bind the modification (40). Serine-to-alanine substitutions at the H2AX phosphorylation site in fission yeast H2A (h2ax⁻) severely reduce Crb2 accumulation at IR-induced DSBs and compromise the ability of cells to maintain checkpoint cell cycle arrest in a manner very similar to loss of H4K20 methylation (10, 27).The mechanism underlying the control of Crb2 DSB targeting and checkpoint activation by pH2AX is not understood. Because BRCT domains are known phospho-binding motifs (13), the initial demonstration that pH2AX is required for Crb2 function suggested that direct binding to the modification by Crb2 is critical for checkpoint activity (27). Supporting this idea, it has been demonstrated that the Crb2 BRCT repeats directly and specifically bind pH2AX peptides (22). Structural and biochemical studies have also identified a conserved pH2AX-binding motif in the BRCT repeats of Crb2, budding yeast Rad9, and human MDC1 and 53BP1 (Fig. ​(Fig.1A)1A) (15, 22, 39). As would be expected, mutation of Crb2''s critical phospho-binding motif impairs cell survival after DNA damage (22). Unexpectedly though, loss of its pH2AX-binding activity did not significantly affect the ability of Crb2 to localize to IR-induced DSBs (22). Rather, mutation of the Crb2 pH2AX-binding motif altered the kinetics of Rad22 accumulation at DSBs and triggered a prolonged checkpoint arrest after IR exposure (22). From these observations it was suggested that binding of the Crb2 BRCT repeats to pH2AX is critical for aspects of DNA repair but is not central to Crb2 targeting and checkpoint activity (22).The apparent dispensability of its pH2AX-binding motif in controlling Crb2 localization to IR-induced DSBs (22) was a surprising observation because of the established requirement for the pH2AX modification (10, 27). The extended checkpoint delay seen in Crb2 pH2AX-binding mutants (22) was also unexpected because h2ax⁻ cells cannot maintain checkpoint-mediated cell cycle arrest (10, 27). The prolonged checkpoint arrest was also surprising because a defect in IR-induced Chk1 phosphorylation was observed in the same Crb2 pH2AX-binding mutants (22). For these reasons we sought to reevaluate the requirement for the pH2AX-binding module of Crb2 in controlling DNA damage checkpoint activity. We demonstrate that the critical phospho-coordinating residue of Crb2 is required for binding to pH2AX peptides, Crb2 accumulation at IR-induced DSBs, cell survival after DNA damage, and maintenance of checkpoint-mediated cell cycle arrest. The observed impairments are similar to that reported for abolishment of pH2AX or mutation of the H4K20me2 binding tudor motif of Crb2. Strikingly, a combined ablation of the two modification binding modules of Crb2 produces an additive impairment in checkpoint dysfunction and genome integrity. These results argue that recognition of pH2AX by its BRCT repeats is critical for Crb2 accumulation at genomic lesions and its subsequent checkpoint activity. These observations also corroborate the independent findings of Sofueva et al. (38), who have observed a similar requirement for Crb2 binding to pH2AX in controlling DSB targeting and checkpoint activity.     

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.     

A New Borrelia Species Defined by Multilocus Sequence Analysis of Housekeeping Genes

Analysis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes, using a novel multilocus sequence analysis scheme, revealed that OspA serotype 4 strains (a rodent-associated ecotype) of Borrelia garinii were sufficiently genetically distinct from bird-associated B. garinii strains to deserve species status. We suggest that OspA serotype 4 strains be raised to species status and named Borrelia bavariensis sp. nov. The rooted phylogenetic trees provide novel insights into the evolutionary history of LB spirochetes.Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) have been shown to be powerful and pragmatic molecular methods for typing large numbers of microbial strains for population genetics studies, delineation of species, and assignment of strains to defined bacterial species (4, 13, 27, 40, 44). To date, MLST/MLSA schemes have been applied only to a few vector-borne microbial populations (1, 6, 30, 37, 40, 41, 47).Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes comprise a diverse group of zoonotic bacteria which are transmitted among vertebrate hosts by ixodid (hard) ticks. The most common agents of human LB are Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu stricto), Borrelia afzelii, Borrelia garinii, Borrelia lusitaniae, and Borrelia spielmanii (7, 8, 12, 35). To date, 15 species have been named within the group of LB spirochetes (6, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41). While several of these LB species have been delineated using whole DNA-DNA hybridization (3, 20, 33), most ecological or epidemiological studies have been using single loci (5, 9-11, 29, 34, 36, 38, 42, 51, 53). Although some of these loci have been convenient for species assignment of strains or to address particular epidemiological questions, they may be unsuitable to resolve evolutionary relationships among LB species, because it is not possible to define any outgroup. For example, both the 5S-23S intergenic spacer (5S-23S IGS) and the gene encoding the outer surface protein A (ospA) are present only in LB spirochete genomes (36, 43). The advantage of using appropriate housekeeping genes of LB group spirochetes is that phylogenetic trees can be rooted with sequences of relapsing fever spirochetes. This renders the data amenable to detailed evolutionary studies of LB spirochetes.LB group spirochetes differ remarkably in their patterns and levels of host association, which are likely to affect their population structures (22, 24, 46, 48). Of the three main Eurasian Borrelia species, B. afzelii is adapted to rodents, whereas B. valaisiana and most strains of B. garinii are maintained by birds (12, 15, 16, 23, 26, 45). However, B. garinii OspA serotype 4 strains in Europe have been shown to be transmitted by rodents (17, 18) and, therefore, constitute a distinct ecotype within B. garinii. These strains have also been associated with high pathogenicity in humans, and their finer-scale geographical distribution seems highly focal (10, 34, 52, 53).In this study, we analyzed the intra- and interspecific phylogenetic relationships of B. burgdorferi, B. afzelii, B. garinii, B. valaisiana, B. lusitaniae, B. bissettii, and B. spielmanii by means of a novel MLSA scheme based on chromosomal housekeeping genes (30, 48).     

Replacement of the Replication Factors of Porcine Circovirus (PCV) Type 2 with Those of PCV Type 1 Greatly Enhances Viral Replication In Vitro

Porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV1), originally isolated as a contaminant of PK-15 cells, is nonpathogenic, whereas porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) causes an economically important disease in pigs. To determine the factors affecting virus replication, we constructed chimeric viruses by swapping open reading frame 1 (ORF1) (rep) or the origin of replication (Ori) between PCV1 and PCV2 and compared the replication efficiencies of the chimeric viruses in PK-15 cells. The results showed that the replication factors of PCV1 and PCV2 are fully exchangeable and, most importantly, that both the Ori and rep of PCV1 enhance the virus replication efficiencies of the chimeric viruses with the PCV2 backbone.Porcine circovirus (PCV) is a single-stranded DNA virus in the family Circoviridae (34). Type 1 PCV (PCV1) was discovered in 1974 as a contaminant of porcine kidney cell line PK-15 and is nonpathogenic in pigs (31-33). Type 2 PCV (PCV2) was discovered in piglets with postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) in the mid-1990s and causes porcine circovirus-associated disease (PCVAD) (1, 9, 10, 25). PCV1 and PCV2 have similar genomic organizations, with two major ambisense open reading frames (ORFs) (16). ORF1 (rep) encodes two viral replication-associated proteins, Rep and Rep′, by differential splicing (4, 6, 21, 22). The Rep and Rep′ proteins bind to specific sequences within the origin of replication (Ori) located in the intergenic region, and both are responsible for viral replication (5, 7, 8, 21, 23, 28, 29). ORF2 (cap) encodes the immunogenic capsid protein (Cap) (26). PCV1 and PCV2 share approximately 80%, 82%, and 62% nucleotide sequence identity in the Ori, rep, and cap, respectively (19).In vitro studies using a reporter gene-based assay system showed that the replication factors of PCV1 and PCV2 are functionally interchangeable (2-6, 22), although this finding has not yet been validated in a live infectious-virus system. We have previously shown that chimeras of PCV in which cap has been exchanged between PCV1 and PCV2 are infectious both in vitro and in vivo (15), and an inactivated vaccine based on the PCV1-PCV2 cap (PCV1-cap2) chimera is used in the vaccination program against PCVAD (13, 15, 18, 27).PCV1 replicates more efficiently than PCV2 in PK-15 cells (14, 15); thus, we hypothesized that the Ori or rep is directly responsible for the differences in replication efficiencies. The objectives of this study were to demonstrate that the Ori and rep are interchangeable between PCV1 and PCV2 in a live-virus system and to determine the effects of swapped heterologous replication factors on virus replication efficiency in vitro.     

Alignment of the c-Type Cytochrome OmcS along Pili of Geobacter sulfurreducens

Immunogold localization revealed that OmcS, a cytochrome that is required for Fe(III) oxide reduction by Geobacter sulfurreducens, was localized along the pili. The apparent spacing between OmcS molecules suggests that OmcS facilitates electron transfer from pili to Fe(III) oxides rather than promoting electron conduction along the length of the pili.There are multiple competing/complementary models for extracellular electron transfer in Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms (8, 18, 20, 44). Which mechanisms prevail in different microorganisms or environmental conditions may greatly influence which microorganisms compete most successfully in sedimentary environments or on the surfaces of electrodes and can impact practical decisions on the best strategies to promote Fe(III) reduction for bioremediation applications (18, 19) or to enhance the power output of microbial fuel cells (18, 21).The three most commonly considered mechanisms for electron transfer to extracellular electron acceptors are (i) direct contact between redox-active proteins on the outer surfaces of the cells and the electron acceptor, (ii) electron transfer via soluble electron shuttling molecules, and (iii) the conduction of electrons along pili or other filamentous structures. Evidence for the first mechanism includes the necessity for direct cell-Fe(III) oxide contact in Geobacter species (34) and the finding that intensively studied Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms, such as Geobacter sulfurreducens and Shewanella oneidensis MR-1, display redox-active proteins on their outer cell surfaces that could have access to extracellular electron acceptors (1, 2, 12, 15, 27, 28, 31-33). Deletion of the genes for these proteins often inhibits Fe(III) reduction (1, 4, 7, 15, 17, 28, 40) and electron transfer to electrodes (5, 7, 11, 33). In some instances, these proteins have been purified and shown to have the capacity to reduce Fe(III) and other potential electron acceptors in vitro (10, 13, 29, 38, 42, 43, 48, 49).Evidence for the second mechanism includes the ability of some microorganisms to reduce Fe(III) that they cannot directly contact, which can be associated with the accumulation of soluble substances that can promote electron shuttling (17, 22, 26, 35, 36, 47). In microbial fuel cell studies, an abundance of planktonic cells and/or the loss of current-producing capacity when the medium is replaced is consistent with the presence of an electron shuttle (3, 14, 26). Furthermore, a soluble electron shuttle is the most likely explanation for the electrochemical signatures of some microorganisms growing on an electrode surface (26, 46).Evidence for the third mechanism is more circumstantial (19). Filaments that have conductive properties have been identified in Shewanella (7) and Geobacter (41) species. To date, conductance has been measured only across the diameter of the filaments, not along the length. The evidence that the conductive filaments were involved in extracellular electron transfer in Shewanella was the finding that deletion of the genes for the c-type cytochromes OmcA and MtrC, which are necessary for extracellular electron transfer, resulted in nonconductive filaments, suggesting that the cytochromes were associated with the filaments (7). However, subsequent studies specifically designed to localize these cytochromes revealed that, although the cytochromes were extracellular, they were attached to the cells or in the exopolymeric matrix and not aligned along the pili (24, 25, 30, 40, 43). Subsequent reviews of electron transfer to Fe(III) in Shewanella oneidensis (44, 45) appear to have dropped the nanowire concept and focused on the first and second mechanisms.Geobacter sulfurreducens has a number of c-type cytochromes (15, 28) and multicopper proteins (12, 27) that have been demonstrated or proposed to be on the outer cell surface and are essential for extracellular electron transfer. Immunolocalization and proteolysis studies demonstrated that the cytochrome OmcB, which is essential for optimal Fe(III) reduction (15) and highly expressed during growth on electrodes (33), is embedded in the outer membrane (39), whereas the multicopper protein OmpB, which is also required for Fe(III) oxide reduction (27), is exposed on the outer cell surface (39).OmcS is one of the most abundant cytochromes that can readily be sheared from the outer surfaces of G. sulfurreducens cells (28). It is essential for the reduction of Fe(III) oxide (28) and for electron transfer to electrodes under some conditions (11). Therefore, the localization of this important protein was further investigated.     

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.     

Functional Studies and Homology Modeling of Msh2-Msh3 Predict that Mispair Recognition Involves DNA Bending and Strand Separation

The Msh2-Msh3 heterodimer recognizes various DNA mispairs, including loops of DNA ranging from 1 to 14 nucleotides and some base-base mispairs. Homology modeling of the mispair-binding domain (MBD) of Msh3 using the related Msh6 MBD revealed that mismatch recognition must be different, even though the MBD folds must be similar. Model-based point mutation alleles of Saccharomyces cerevisiae msh3 designed to disrupt mispair recognition fell into two classes. One class caused defects in repair of both small and large insertion/deletion mispairs, whereas the second class caused defects only in the repair of small insertion/deletion mispairs; mutations of the first class also caused defects in the removal of nonhomologous tails present at the ends of double-strand breaks (DSBs) during DSB repair, whereas mutations of the second class did not cause defects in the removal of nonhomologous tails during DSB repair. Thus, recognition of small insertion/deletion mispairs by Msh3 appears to require a greater degree of interactions with the DNA conformations induced by small insertion/deletion mispairs than with those induced by large insertion/deletions that are intrinsically bent and strand separated. Mapping of the two classes of mutations onto the Msh3 MBD model appears to distinguish mispair recognition regions from DNA stabilization regions.The DNA mismatch repair (MMR) pathway recognizes and repairs mispaired and damaged bases in DNA, which primarily result from replication errors but which also result from recombination and chemical damage to DNA and DNA precursors (16, 22). Repairing mispairs improves the overall fidelity of DNA replication and is important for genome stability (24). Inherited defects in MMR are responsible for most cases of Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer [HNPCC]), and furthermore, the epigenetic silencing of one of the genes involved in MMR, MLH1, underlies most cases of sporadic MMR-defective cancer (19, 29).MMR is initiated by the recognition of base-base mismatches or insertion/deletion mispairs. In bacteria, the homodimeric MutS complex directly binds mispairs, bending the mispair-containing DNA by almost 60 degrees and shifting one of the mispaired bases, such as the thymidine base from G-T or +T mispairs, out of the DNA base stack (17). The mispaired base is stabilized by π stacking with a conserved phenylalanine (17, 26, 26a). DNA binding induces a functional asymmetry to the MutS complex; one subunit directly recognizes the mispair via a mispair-binding domain (MBD), whereas the MBD of the second subunit is primarily involved in nonspecific backbone interactions (17, 26a).In eukaryotes, mitotic MMR utilizes two heterodimeric complexes of MutS homologs: Msh2-Msh6 and Msh2-Msh3 (5, 16, 23, 41). In these asymmetric heterodimers, Msh6 and Msh3 directly recognize the mispair via their MBDs, whereas the Msh2 subunit appears to be functionally equivalent to the MutS subunit that nonspecifically binds the DNA backbone. In wild-type cells, the Msh2-Msh6 heterodimer is thought to primarily recognize and act in the repair of base-base mispairs and small 1- or 2-nucleotide insertion/deletions (12, 16, 20-24). The crystal structure of human Msh2-Msh6 revealed that mispair recognition by Msh6 shares many details with Escherichia coli MutS, including the π-stacking phenylalanine (17, 26a, 39). In contrast, in wild-type cells the Msh2-Msh3 heterodimer is thought to primarily recognize and act in the repair of insertions and deletions from 1 to 14 nucleotides in size (11, 20, 21, 27, 33, 37, 40), although we have previously shown that Msh2-Msh3 also recognizes some base-base mispairs with a preference for those that have weak hydrogen bonding (13). Msh2-Msh3 is also targeted to sites of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), potentially before a branched recombination intermediate is formed, where it acts in the processing of 3′ single-stranded tails (10, 28, 36).While no structural information for any Msh3 homolog is available, several lines of evidence suggest that mispairs are recognized by Msh2-Msh3 in a substantially different way than mispairs are recognized by MutS and Msh2-Msh6. First, Msh3 lacks the conserved π-stacking phenylalanine present in both MutS and Msh6, which is required for MMR by these proteins in vivo (9, 18). In contrast, mutagenesis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh3 residue located at the position equivalent to that of the phenylalanine conserved in MutS and Msh6 (K158, called K187 prior to the identification of the correct start codon [13]) caused only a modest MMR defect (18). Second, when other conserved residues and predicted DNA-backbone-contacting residues in S. cerevisiae Msh3 were mutated to alanine, only msh3-R247A (previously called msh3-R276A) caused a significant defect in the repair of 1-, 2-, and 4-nucleotide-long insertion/deletion mispairs (18).Despite these differences, the Msh3 MBD is likely related to the MBD of Msh6 and MutS. Replacement of the Msh6 MBD with the Msh3 MBD generated a functional chimera possessing Msh3 substrate specificity (32). Moreover, combining the msh3-K158A mutation with K160A gave rise to an msh3 mutant with an MMR defect greater than that for either single mutant alone (18). This double mutant caused a loss of specificity for mispaired DNA (18). Together these data indicate not only that mispair specificity is determined by the Msh3 MBD but also that the critical region of the Msh3 MBD mediating mispair recognition likely overlaps the same region as the MBDs of MutS and Msh6, even if the nature of the recognition is different. We have therefore used homology modeling and site-directed mutagenesis to gain insight into how Msh3 recognizes a diverse array of mispairs.     

mTORC1-Activated S6K1 Phosphorylates Rictor on Threonine 1135 and Regulates mTORC2 Signaling

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a conserved Ser/Thr kinase that forms two functionally distinct complexes important for nutrient and growth factor signaling. While mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) regulates mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, mTORC2 plays an important role in the phosphorylation and subsequent activation of Akt. Interestingly, mTORC1 negatively regulates Akt activation, but whether mTORC1 signaling directly targets mTORC2 remains unknown. Here we show that growth factors promote the phosphorylation of Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), an essential subunit of mTORC2. We found that Rictor phosphorylation requires mTORC1 activity and, more specifically, the p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1). We identified several phosphorylation sites in Rictor and found that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 in vitro and in vivo, in a rapamycin-sensitive manner. Phosphorylation of Rictor on Thr1135 did not affect mTORC2 assembly, kinase activity, or cellular localization. However, cells expressing a Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased mTORC2-dependent phosphorylation of Akt. In addition, phosphorylation of the Akt substrates FoxO1/3a and glycogen synthase kinase 3α/β (GSK3α/β) was found to be increased in these cells, indicating that S6K1-mediated phosphorylation of Rictor inhibits mTORC2 and Akt signaling. Together, our results uncover a new regulatory link between the two mTOR complexes, whereby Rictor integrates mTORC1-dependent signaling.The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an evolutionarily conserved phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-related Ser/Thr kinase that integrates signals from nutrients, energy sufficiency, and growth factors to regulate cell growth as well as organ and body size in a variety of organisms (reviewed in references 4, 38, 49, and 77). mTOR was discovered as the molecular target of rapamycin, an antifungal agent used clinically as an immunosuppressant and more recently as an anticancer drug (5, 20). Recent evidence indicates that deregulation of the mTOR pathway occurs in a majority of human cancers (12, 18, 25, 46), suggesting that rapamycin analogs may be potent antineoplastic therapeutic agents.mTOR forms two distinct multiprotein complexes, the rapamycin-sensitive and -insensitive mTOR complexes 1 and 2 (mTORC1 and mTORC2), respectively (6, 47). In cells, rapamycin interacts with FKBP12 and targets the FKBP12-rapamycin binding (FRB) domain of mTORC1, thereby inhibiting some of its function (13, 40, 66). mTORC1 is comprised of the mTOR catalytic subunit and four associated proteins, Raptor (regulatory associated protein of mTOR), mLST8 (mammalian lethal with sec13 protein 8), PRAS40 (proline-rich Akt substrate of 40 kDa), and Deptor (28, 43, 44, 47, 59, 73, 74). The small GTPase Rheb (Ras homolog enriched in brain) is a key upstream activator of mTORC1 that is negatively regulated by the tuberous sclerosis complex 1 (TSC1)/TSC2 GTPase-activating protein complex (reviewed in reference 35). mTORC1 is activated by PI3K and Ras signaling through direct phosphorylation and inactivation of TSC2 by Akt, extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), and p90 ribosomal protein S6 kinase (RSK) (11, 37, 48, 53, 63). mTORC1 activity is also regulated at the level of Raptor. Whereas low cellular energy levels negatively regulate mTORC1 activity through phosphorylation of Raptor by AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) (27), growth signaling pathways activating the Ras/ERK pathway positively regulate mTORC1 activity through direct phosphorylation of Raptor by RSK (10). More recent evidence has also shown that mTOR itself positively regulates mTORC1 activity by directly phosphorylating Raptor at proline-directed sites (20a, 75). Countertransport of amino acids (55) and amino acid signaling through the Rag GTPases were also shown to regulate mTORC1 activity (45, 65). When activated, mTORC1 phosphorylates two main regulators of mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, the AGC (protein kinase A, G, and C) family kinase p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1), and thus stimulates protein synthesis and cellular growth (50, 60).The second mTOR complex, mTORC2, is comprised of mTOR, Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), mSin1 (mammalian stress-activated mitogen-activated protein kinase-interacting protein 1), mLST8, PRR5 (proline-rich region 5), and Deptor (21, 39, 58, 59, 66, 76, 79). Rapamycin does not directly target and inhibit mTORC2, but long-term treatment with this drug was shown to correlate with mTORC2 disassembly and cytoplasmic accumulation of Rictor (21, 39, 62, 79). Whereas mTORC1 regulates hydrophobic motif phosphorylation of S6K1, mTORC2 has been shown to phosphorylate other members of the AGC family of kinases. Biochemical and genetic evidence has demonstrated that mTORC2 phosphorylates Akt at Ser473 (26, 39, 68, 70), thereby contributing to growth factor-mediated Akt activation (6, 7, 52). Deletion or knockdown of the mTORC2 components mTOR, Rictor, mSin1, and mLST8 has a dramatic effect on mTORC2 assembly and Akt phosphorylation at Ser473 (26, 39, 79). mTORC2 was also shown to regulate protein kinase Cα (PKCα) (26, 66) and, more recently, serum- and glucocorticoid-induced protein kinase 1 (SGK1) (4, 22). Recent evidence implicates mTORC2 in the regulation of Akt and PKCα phosphorylation at their turn motifs (19, 36), but whether mTOR directly phosphorylates these sites remains a subject of debate (4).Activation of mTORC1 has been shown to negatively regulate Akt phosphorylation in response to insulin or insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) (reviewed in references 30 and 51). This negative regulation is particularly evident in cell culture models with defects in the TSC1/TSC2 complex, where mTORC1 and S6K1 are constitutively activated. Phosphorylation of insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) by mTORC1 (72) and its downstream target S6K1 has been shown to decrease its stability and lead to an inability of insulin or IGF1 to activate PI3K and Akt (29, 69). Although the mechanism is unknown, platelet-derived growth factor receptor β (PDGF-Rβ) has been found to be downregulated in TSC1- and TSC2-deficient murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), contributing to a reduction of PI3K signaling (80). Interestingly, inhibition of Akt phosphorylation by mTORC1 has also been observed in the presence of growth factors other than IGF-1, insulin, or PDGF, suggesting that there are other mechanisms by which mTORC1 activation restricts Akt activity in cells (reviewed in references 6 and 31). Recent evidence demonstrates that rapamycin treatment causes a significant increase in Rictor electrophoretic mobility (2, 62), suggesting that phosphorylation of the mTORC2 subunit Rictor may be regulated by mTORC1 or downstream protein kinases.Herein, we demonstrate that Rictor is phosphorylated by S6K1 in response to mTORC1 activation. We demonstrate that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 and found that a Rictor mutant lacking this phosphorylation site increases Akt phosphorylation induced by growth factor stimulation. Cells expressing the Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased Akt signaling to its substrates compared to Rictor wild-type- and T1135D mutant-expressing cells. Together, our results suggest that Rictor integrates mTORC1 signaling via its phosphorylation by S6K1, resulting in the inhibition of mTORC2 and Akt signaling.