BRCT Domain Interactions with Phospho-Histone H2A Target Crb2 to Chromatin at Double-Strand Breaks and Maintain the DNA Damage Checkpoint

Relocalization of checkpoint proteins to chromatin flanking DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is critical for cellular responses to DNA damage. Schizosaccharomyces pombe Crb2, which mediates Chk1 activation by Rad3^ATR, forms ionizing radiation-induced nuclear foci (IRIF). Crb2 C-terminal BRCT domains (BRCT₂) bind histone H2A phosphorylated at a C-terminal SQ motif by Tel1^ATM and Rad3^ATR, although the functional significance of this interaction is controversial. Here, we show that polar interactions of Crb2 serine-548 and lysine-619 with the phosphate group of phospho-H2A (γ-H2A) are critical for Crb2 IRIF formation and checkpoint function. Mutations of these BRCT₂ domain residues have additive effects when combined in a single allele. Combining either mutation with an allele that eliminates the threonine-215 cyclin-dependent kinase phosphorylation site completely abrogates Crb2 IRIF and function. We propose that cooperative phosphate interactions in the BRCT₂ γ-H2A-binding pocket of Crb2, coupled with tudor domain interactions with lysine-20 dimethylation of histone H4, facilitate stable recruitment of Crb2 to chromatin surrounding DSBs, which in turn mediates efficient phosphorylation of Chk1 that is required for a sustained checkpoint response. This mechanism of cooperative interactions with the γ-H2A/X phosphate is likely conserved in S. pombe Brc1 and human Mdc1 genome maintenance proteins.Double-strand breaks (DSBs) are among the most dangerous forms of DNA damage (26, 30). Human cells experience DSBs several times a day, either during normal metabolism or as a consequence of exposure to DNA-damaging agents, such as ionizing radiation (IR) (18). Importantly, the unfaithful repair of such breaks can result in genome instability and cancer. The response to DSBs is coordinated by a conserved signal transduction cascade, which leads to cell cycle arrest and activation of DNA repair and constitutes the checkpoint response (9, 14, 20). The essential players in this process fall into four groups: sensors, mediators, transducers, and effectors (20). Sensors are the first to recognize and bind to DNA breaks and include the Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 complex in humans and Schizosaccharomyces pombe (Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae). The PIKKs (phosphoinositide 3-kinase-like kinases) ATR-ATRIP (ScMec1-ScDdc2/SpRad3-SpRad26) and ATM (ScTel1/SpTel1) act as transducers that transmit the signal to the effector kinases Chk1 (ScChk1/SpChk1) and Chk2 (ScRad53/SpCds1), whose role is to target downstream targets, such as p53 in mammals, and to amplify the signal (9, 14, 20).Signaling between transducers and effectors is facilitated and enhanced by mediator proteins (19, 20). In the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Crb2/Rhp9 is a critical mediator of the DNA damage checkpoint (31, 42) and is related to Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad9 and mammalian 53BP1 (p53 binding protein 1). Rad3^ATR-Rad26^ATRIP phosphorylates Crb2 in response to damage, and Crb2 is required for phosphorylation of Chk1 by Rad3^ATR-Rad26^ATRIP (31). Chk1, in turn, restrains entry into mitosis by phosphorylating and thus inactivating the phosphatase Cdc25 that is a mitotic inducer (10, 11, 28). Crb2-null cells are sensitive to a range of genotoxins and are unable to delay division in response to DNA damage (31, 42).Crb2 is a nuclear protein that rapidly relocalizes to DSBs. This occurs on such a large scale that IR-induced nuclear foci (IRIF) of yellow fluorescent protein (YFP)-tagged Crb2 expressed from the endogenous promoter are readily detected by live cell microscopy (5). These foci colocalize with homologous recombination (HR) repair factors such as Rad22^Rad52. Two types of histone modifications regulate Crb2 localization at DSBs: C-terminal phosphorylation of histone H2A, denoted as γ-H2A (23), and lysine-20 dimethylation of histone H4, denoted as H4-K20me2 (32). Phosphorylation of an SQ motif within the C-terminal tail of histone H2A of budding yeast or fission yeast, or the H2AX variant in mammals, is one of the earliest cellular responses triggered by DNA damage (3, 23, 29). The γ-H2A/X modification, which is catalyzed by the checkpoint kinases ATR^Rad3 and ATM^Tel1, spans large distances on both sides of a DSB, and it plays a critical role in recruiting DNA damage response proteins, chromatin remodeling complexes, and cohesin (2, 21, 23, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40). Protein crystallography and biochemical studies established that mammalian Mdc1, S. pombe Crb2, and Brc1 DNA damage response proteins directly bind the phosphorylated tail of histone H2A/X through tandem C-terminal BRCT domains (16, 35, 40). In contrast to γ-H2A, H4-K20 methylation catalyzed by Set9/Kmt5 histone methyltransferase appears to be constitutive and not regulated by DNA damage (32). H4-K20me2 directly binds tandem tudor domains (Tudor₂) located to the N-terminal side of the BRCT domains in Crb2 (1).YFP-Crb2 does not form IRIF in hta1-S129A hta2-S128A (htaAQ) or rad3Δ tel1Δ cells, in which γ-H2A phosphorylation is abolished (23), or in set9Δ cells or tudor domain mutants of Crb2 that ablate binding to H4-K20me2 (6, 32). However, Crb2 checkpoint functions are only partially impaired in an htaAQ set9Δ strain, implying that physiologically significant recruitment of Crb2 to DSBs also occurs by a histone modification-independent pathway. Indeed, we found that YFP-Crb2 forms microscopically visible foci in htaAQ set9Δ cells when DSBs are created by HO endonuclease or by treating cells in G₁ phase with IR (6). Unlike IR-induced DSBs formed during G₂ phase, these types of DSBs lack an intact sister chromatid that can be used for HR repair and therefore they are highly persistent. Further analysis revealed that the histone modification-independent pathway of recruiting Crb2 to DSBs requires threonine-215 (Thr215) phosphorylation catalyzed by the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) Cdc2, which facilitates an interaction with Cut5 (ScDpb11; mammalian TopBP1) (6, 8, 31). The crb2-T215A mutation does not ablate YFP-Crb2 IRIF formation; however, Crb2 Thr215 phosphorylation is required for formation of YFP-Crb2 foci at persistent DSBs in htaAQ or set9Δ cells, and combining crb2-T215A with htaAQ or set9Δ abolishes Crb2 function (6).The tandem C-terminal BRCT domains (BRCT₂) of Crb2 not only mediate interactions with γ-H2A but also coordinate Crb2 homodimerization (4). In fact, replacing BRCT₂ with a leucine zipper (LZ) dimerization motif restores substantial function to Crb2 without restoring its ability to form IRIF. Thus, the most crucial task of the Crb2 BRCT domains is to provide a homodimerization platform, while binding to γ-H2A provides an additional function that is necessary for full resistance to DNA damage (4).In a recent study, Kilkenny et al. (16) solved the crystal structures of Crb2-BRCT₂ alone and in complex with a γ-H2A-derived phosphopeptide containing the common C-terminal residues of H2A.1 and H2A.2 (the two H2A paralogues in S. pombe). These analyses revealed the structural determinants of BRCT₂ binding to γ-H2A and BRCT₂-mediated homodimerization of Crb2. Ser666 was found to be critical for homodimerization in vitro, and mutation of this residue severely impaired Crb2 function in vivo. Residues Ser548 and Lys619 were identified as important for the interaction with the phosphate group on γ-H2A.1 pSer129. However, a charge reversal mutation of Lys619 did not abrogate Crb2 IRIF formation measured using methanol-fixed cells, although it did disrupt binding to a γ-H2A peptide in vitro (16). These unexpected findings indicated that γ-H2A likely has an indirect role in regulating Crb2 localization at DSBs. Here, we investigate Crb2 localization in live cells and find that while mutations of Ser548 or Lys619 partially impair Crb2 IRIF, the corresponding double mutant is severely deficient in Crb2 IRIF formation. Our findings and an independent study by Sanders et al. (33) show that γ-H2A binding to BRCT₂ is critical for Crb2 focus formation at IR-induced DSBs and for maintaining a DNA damage checkpoint response.     

Widespread Phosphorylation of Histone H2AX by Species C Adenovirus Infection Requires Viral DNA Replication

Adenovirus infection activates cellular DNA damage response and repair pathways. Viral proteins that are synthesized before viral DNA replication prevent recognition of viral genomes as a substrate for DNA repair by targeting members of the sensor complex composed of Mre11/Rad50/NBS1 for degradation and relocalization, as well as targeting the effector protein DNA ligase IV. Despite inactivation of these cellular sensor and effector proteins, infection results in high levels of histone 2AX phosphorylation, or γH2AX. Although phosphorylated H2AX is a characteristic marker of double-stranded DNA breaks, this modification was widely distributed throughout the nucleus of infected cells and was coincident with the bulk of cellular DNA. H2AX phosphorylation occurred after the onset of viral DNA replication and after the degradation of Mre11. Experiments with inhibitors of the serine-threonine kinases ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), AT- and Rad3-related (ATR), and DNA protein kinase (DNA-PK), the kinases responsible for H2AX phosphorylation, indicate that H2AX may be phosphorylated by ATR during a wild-type adenovirus infection, with some contribution from ATM and DNA-PK. Viral DNA replication appears to be the stimulus for this phosphorylation event, since infection with a nonreplicating virus did not elicit phosphorylation of H2AX. Infected cells also responded to high levels of input viral DNA by localized phosphorylation of H2AX. These results are consistent with a model in which adenovirus-infected cells sense and respond to both incoming viral DNA and viral DNA replication.Cellular DNA damage response pathways protect and preserve the integrity of the genome. These pathways, which are activated in response to various forms of DNA damage, involve a number of proteins that participate in both DNA repair and cell cycle progression (62). The serine-threonine kinases ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), AT- and Rad3-related (ATR), and DNA protein kinase (DNA-PK) are activated in response to distinct types of damage. The ATM pathway is activated primarily by double-stranded DNA breaks (4, 30). DNA-PK acts in conjunction with the DNA ligase IV/XRCC4 complex to mediate the ligation of double-stranded breaks through nonhomologous end joining (34). The ATR pathway can be activated in response to a wide range of genotoxic stresses, such as base or nucleotide excision, double-stranded breaks, or single-stranded breaks. Activation of ATR is generally thought to occur via the recognition of single-stranded tracks of DNA (63). Each of these pathways leads to the phosphorylation and activation of a number of cellular proteins such as the variant histone H2AX, checkpoint kinases 1 and 2 (Chk1 and Chk2), and Nijmegen break syndrome protein 1 (NBS1), among others (62). Signals transmitted by a cascade of phosphorylation events result in cell cycle arrest and the accumulation of repair protein complexes at sites of DNA damage.Upon recognition of a double-stranded DNA break by the cell, H2AX is phosphorylated on an extended C-terminal tail at serine 139 by the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-related kinases ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK (9, 41, 44, 58). Considered one of the earliest indications of a double-stranded DNA break, phosphorylated H2AX (γH2AX) acts as a scaffolding protein to which a number of DNA repair factors can dock to facilitate repair of the damaged DNA (36, 42, 53). Areas of phosphorylated H2AX, termed γH2AX foci, are enriched for proteins involved in both homologous recombination and nonhomologous end joining, such as NBS1, BRCA1 (42), and Mdc1 (24, 50).Although adenovirus is able to activate both ATM and ATR pathways (11), adenoviral proteins limit the extent and consequences of signaling through these pathways. The E1B-55K and E4orf6 proteins form an E3 ubiquitin ligase with the cellular proteins Cullin-5, elongins B and C, and Rbx1 (28, 43). This complex targets key cellular proteins involved in cellular response to DNA damage, including p53 (28, 43), Mre11 (51), and DNA ligase IV (3). The E4orf3 gene product targets cellular proteins central to both the cellular DNA damage response and the antiviral response. The E4orf3 protein of species C adenoviruses alters the localization of Mre11/Rad50/NBS1 (MRN) complex members within the nucleus to prevent association with centers of viral DNA replication and to ensure efficient viral DNA replication (17, 18, 52). In addition, these three viral early proteins direct members of the MRN complex (2, 35) and the single-stranded DNA-binding protein 2 (20) to cytoplasmic aggresomes, where these sequestered proteins are effectively inactivated. These viral activities, along with the inactivation of DNA-PK by E4orf3 and E4orf6 gene products (7), appear to prevent recognition of viral genomes by the MRN complex and prevent ligation of these genomes through nonhomologous end joining. In cells infected with a virus with E4 deleted, Mre11 physically binds to viral DNA in an NBS1-dependent manner and may prevent efficient genome replication (37). The overlapping means by which adenovirus disables the MRN complex and prevents DNA damage repair serves to illustrate the importance of this activity for a productive adenovirus infection. However, despite having DNA damage signaling and DNA repair pathways dismantled, adenovirus-infected cells exhibit some characteristic changes associated with DNA damage signaling events, such as the phosphorylation of H2AX (6, 15). Thus, it appears that adenovirus effectively inhibits DNA repair activity but may not fully suppress the early events of DNA damage signaling.The focus of the present study was to elucidate the activation of DNA damage signaling pathways revealed by phosphorylation of the variant histone H2AX during wild-type adenovirus infection and to determine what stage of the virus life cycle leads to this activation. We demonstrate that infected cells respond to viral genome replication with high levels of H2AX phosphorylation throughout the cell nucleus. This phosphorylation event is not localized to viral replication centers and does not appear to be concurrent with cellular double-stranded DNA breaks; rather, H2AX phosphorylation occurs coincident with the bulk of cellular chromatin. H2AX phosphorylation follows viral DNA replication and reaches peak levels after the degradation of the Mre11. In addition, we observed that infected cells can respond to both the presence of incoming viral genomes and genome replication by initiating H2AX phosphorylation.     

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.     

Cell Cycle-Dependent Role of MRN at Dysfunctional Telomeres: ATM Signaling-Dependent Induction of Nonhomologous End Joining (NHEJ) in G1 and Resection-Mediated Inhibition of NHEJ in G2

Here, we address the role of the MRN (Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1) complex in the response to telomeres rendered dysfunctional by deletion of the shelterin component TRF2. Using conditional NBS1/TRF2 double-knockout MEFs, we show that MRN is required for ATM signaling in response to telomere dysfunction. This establishes that MRN is the only sensor for the ATM kinase and suggests that TRF2 might block ATM signaling by interfering with MRN binding to the telomere terminus, possibly by sequestering the telomere end in the t-loop structure. We also examined the role of the MRN/ATM pathway in nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) of damaged telomeres. NBS1 deficiency abrogated the telomere fusions that occur in G₁, consistent with the requirement for ATM and its target 53BP1 in this setting. Interestingly, NBS1 and ATM, but not H2AX, repressed NHEJ at dysfunctional telomeres in G₂, specifically at telomeres generated by leading-strand DNA synthesis. Leading-strand telomere ends were not prone to fuse in the absence of either TRF2 or MRN/ATM, indicating redundancy in their protection. We propose that MRN represses NHEJ by promoting the generation of a 3′ overhang after completion of leading-strand DNA synthesis. TRF2 may ensure overhang formation by recruiting MRN (and other nucleases) to newly generated telomere ends. The activation of the MRN/ATM pathway by the dysfunctional telomeres is proposed to induce resection that protects the leading-strand ends from NHEJ when TRF2 is absent. Thus, the role of MRN at dysfunctional telomeres is multifaceted, involving both repression of NHEJ in G₂ through end resection and induction of NHEJ in G₁ through ATM-dependent signaling.Mammalian telomeres solve the end protection problem through their association with shelterin. The shelterin factor TRF2 (telomere repeat-binding factor 2) protects chromosome ends from inappropriate DNA repair events that threaten the integrity of the genome (reviewed in reference 32). When TRF2 is removed by Cre-mediated deletion from conditional knockout mouse embryo fibroblasts (TRF2^F/− MEFs), telomeres activate the ATM kinase pathway and are processed by the canonical nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway to generate chromosome end-to-end fusions (10, 11).The repair of telomeres in TRF2-deficient cells is readily monitored in metaphase spreads. Over the course of four or five cell divisions, the majority of chromosome ends become fused, resulting in metaphase spreads displaying the typical pattern of long trains of joined chromosomes (10). The reproducible pace and the efficiency of telomere NHEJ have allowed the study of factors involved in its execution and regulation. In addition to depending on the NHEJ factors Ku70 and DNA ligase IV (10, 11), telomere fusions are facilitated by the ATM kinase (26). This aspect of telomere NHEJ is mediated through the ATM kinase target 53BP1. 53BP1 accumulates at telomeres in TRF2-depleted cells and stimulates chromatin mobility, thereby promoting the juxtaposition of distantly positioned chromosome ends prior to their fusion (18). Telomere NHEJ is also accelerated by the ATM phosphorylation target MDC1, which is required for the prolonged association of 53BP1 at sites of DNA damage (19).Although loss of TRF2 leads to telomere deprotection at all stages of the cell cycle, NHEJ of uncapped telomeres takes place primarily before their replication in G₁ (25). Postreplicative (G₂) telomere fusions can occur at a low frequency upon TRF2 deletion, but only when cyclin-dependent kinase activity is inhibited with roscovitine (25). The target of Cdk1 in this setting is not known.Here, we dissect the role of the MRN (Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1) complex and H2AX at telomeres rendered dysfunctional through deletion of TRF2. The highly conserved MRN complex has been proposed to function as the double-stranded break (DSB) sensor in the ATM pathway (reviewed in references 34 and 35). In support of this model, Mre11 interacts directly with DNA ends via two carboxy-terminal DNA binding domains (13, 14); the recruitment of MRN to sites of damage is independent of ATM signaling, as it occurs in the presence of the phosphoinositide-3-kinase-related protein kinase inhibitor caffeine (29, 44); in vitro analysis has demonstrated that MRN is required for activation of ATM by linear DNAs (27); a mutant form of Rad50 (Rad50S) can induce ATM signaling in the absence of DNA damage (31); and phosphorylation of ATM targets in response to ionizing radiation is completely abrogated upon deletion of NBS1 from MEFs (17). These data and the striking similarities between syndromes caused by mutations in ATM, Nbs1, and Mre11 (ataxia telangiectasia, Nijmegen breakage syndrome, and ataxia telangiectasia-like disease, respectively) are consistent with a sensor function for MRN.MRN has also been implicated in several aspects of DNA repair. Potentially relevant to DNA repair events, Mre11 dimers can bridge and align the two DNA ends in vitro (49) and Rad50 may promote long-range tethering of sister chromatids (24, 50). In addition, a binding partner of the MRN complex, CtIP, has been implicated in end resection of DNA ends during homology-directed repair (39, 45). The role of MRN in NHEJ has been much less clear. MRX, the yeast orthologue of MRN, functions during NHEJ in Saccharomyces cerevisiae but not in Schizosaccharomyces pombe (28, 30). In mammalian cells, MRN is not recruited to I-SceI-induced DSBs in G₁, whereas Ku70 is, and MRN does not appear to be required for NHEJ-mediated repair of these DSBs (38, 54). On the other hand, MRN promotes class switch recombination (37) and has been implicated in accurate NHEJ repair during V(D)J recombination (22).The involvement of MRN in ATM signaling and DNA repair pathways has been intriguing from the perspective of telomere biology. While several of the attributes of MRN might be considered a threat to telomere integrity, MRN is known to associate with mammalian telomeres, most likely through an interaction with the TRF2 complex (48, 51, 57). MRN has been implicated in the generation of the telomeric overhang (12), the telomerase pathway (36, 52), the ALT pathway (55), and the protection of telomeres from stochastic deletion events (1). It has also been speculated that MRN may contribute to formation of the t-loop structure (16). t-loops, the lariats formed through the strand invasion of the telomere terminus into the duplex telomeric DNA (21), are thought to contribute to telomere protection by effectively shielding the chromosome end from DNA damage response factors that interact with DNA ends, including nucleases, and the Ku heterodimer (15).H2AX has been studied extensively in the context of chromosome-internal DSBs. When a DSB is formed, ATM acts near the lesion to phosphorylate a conserved carboxy-terminal serine of H2AX, a histone variant present throughout the genome (7). Phosphorylated H2AX (referred to as γ-H2AX) promotes the spreading of DNA damage factors over several megabases along the damaged chromatin and mediates the amplification of the DNA damage signal (43). The signal amplification is accomplished through a sequence of phospho-specific interactions among γ-H2AX, MDC1, NBS1, RNF8, and RNF168, which results in the additional binding of ATM and additional phosphorylation of H2AX in adjacent chromatin (reviewed in reference 33). The formation of these large domains of altered chromatin, referred to as irradiation-induced foci at DSBs and telomere dysfunction-induced foci (TIFs) at dysfunctional telomeres (44), promotes the binding of several factors implicated in DNA repair, including the BRCA1 A complex and 53BP1 (33).In agreement with a role for H2AX in DNA repair, H2AX-deficient cells exhibit elevated levels of irradiation-induced chromosome abnormalities (5, 9). In addition, H2AX-null B cells are prone to chromosome breaks and translocations in the immunoglobulin locus, indicative of impaired class switch recombination, a process that involves the repair of DSBs through the NHEJ pathway (9, 20). Since H2AX is dispensable for the activation of irradiation-induced checkpoints (8), these data argue that H2AX contributes directly to DNA repair. However, a different set of studies has concluded that H2AX is not required for NHEJ during V(D)J recombination (5, 9) but that it plays a role in homology-directed repair (53). In this study, we have further queried the contribution of H2AX to NHEJ in the context of dysfunctional telomeres.Our aim was to dissect the contribution of MRN and H2AX to DNA damage signaling and NHEJ-mediated repair in response to telomere dysfunction elicited by deletion of TRF2. Importantly, since ATM is the only kinase activated in this setting, deletion of TRF2 can illuminate the specific contribution of these factors in the absence of the confounding effects of ATR signaling (26). This approach revealed a dual role for MRN at telomeres, involving both its function as a sensor in the ATM pathway and its ability to protect telomeres from NHEJ under certain circumstances.     

Evaluation of Replication and Cross-Reactive Antibody Responses of H2 Subtype Influenza Viruses in Mice and Ferrets

H2 influenza viruses have not circulated in humans since 1968, and therefore a large segment of the population would likely be susceptible to infection should H2 influenza viruses reemerge. The development of an H2 pandemic influenza virus vaccine candidate should therefore be considered a priority in pandemic influenza preparedness planning. We selected a group of geographically and temporally diverse wild-type H2 influenza viruses and evaluated the kinetics of replication and compared the ability of these viruses to induce a broadly cross-reactive antibody response in mice and ferrets. In both mice and ferrets, A/Japan/305/1957 (H2N2), A/mallard/NY/1978 (H2N2), and A/swine/MO/2006 (H2N3) elicited the broadest cross-reactive antibody responses against heterologous H2 influenza viruses as measured by hemagglutination inhibition and microneutralization assays. These data suggested that these three viruses may be suitable candidates for development as live attenuated H2 pandemic influenza virus vaccines.Influenza pandemics occur when a novel influenza virus enters a population with little preexisting immunity (36). During the pandemics of the last century, novel influenza viruses were introduced either directly from an avian reservoir (34) or were the result of reassortment between contemporaneously circulating human, avian, and swine influenza viruses (5, 29, 36). Due to the lack of preexisting immunity to the novel virus, morbidity and mortality rates are typically higher than in epidemics caused by seasonal influenza viruses (4).Although pandemic preparedness planning has largely focused on the highly pathogenic H5 and H7 avian influenza virus subtypes, the recent emergence of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 viruses underscores the need to consider other influenza virus subtypes as well. Of the 16 hemagglutinin (HA) influenza A virus subtypes that have been identified to date, H1, H2, and H3 have been known to cause influenza pandemics (7, 27), suggesting that these viruses are capable of sustained transmission and can cause disease in humans. While the H1 and H3 subtypes have cocirculated in humans since 1977, H2 influenza viruses have not circulated in humans since 1968 (36) and therefore a large segment of the population would likely be susceptible to infection should H2 influenza viruses reemerge. The 1957 H2 pandemic virus was a reassortant that derived the HA, neuraminidase (NA), and PB1 genes from an avian virus and the remaining gene segments from the circulating H1N1 virus (15, 30). As H2 subtype viruses continue to circulate in avian reservoirs worldwide (12, 17, 18, 22, 33), they remain a potential pandemic threat. The development of an H2 influenza virus vaccine candidate should therefore be considered a priority in future pandemic influenza preparedness planning.Given the low likelihood that a previously selected vaccine virus will exactly match the pandemic virus, the ability to elicit a broadly cross-reactive antibody response to antigenically distinct viruses within a subtype is an important consideration in the selection of a pandemic influenza vaccine candidate. Previous studies have examined the ability of inactivated H2 influenza viruses to provide cross-protection against mouse-adapted variants of reassortant human viruses and an avian H2 influenza virus from 1978 (9, 14). Given the potential for live attenuated influenza virus vaccines to confer a great breadth of heterologous cross-protection (1, 2, 6, 35), we recently conducted a study evaluating cold-adapted A/Ann Arbor/6/1960 (AA CA), an H2 influenza virus used as the backbone of the seasonal live attenuated influenza A virus vaccine currently licensed in the United States (3). However, as H2 influenza virus continues to circulate widely and appear in migratory birds (10, 24, 26), in poultry markets (20), and in swine (21), with evidence of interregional gene transmission (19, 22), a more extensive evaluation of recent isolates may be warranted in the selection of a potential H2 pandemic vaccine candidate.H2 influenza viruses fall into three main lineages: a human lineage, a North American avian lineage, and a Eurasian avian lineage (29). In addition to viruses whose replicative ability in mammals has previously been established (11, 21, 23, 25), we selected a group of geographically and temporally diverse H2 influenza viruses from each lineage. We evaluated the kinetics of replication of each of these viruses in mice and ferrets and compared the abilities of these viruses to induce a broadly cross-reactive antibody response to determine which of these viruses would be suitable for further development as an H2 pandemic influenza vaccine candidate.     

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.     

A Novel Genotype H9N2 Influenza Virus Possessing Human H5N1 Internal Genomes Has Been Circulating in Poultry in Eastern China since 1998

Many novel reassortant influenza viruses of the H9N2 genotype have emerged in aquatic birds in southern China since their initial isolation in this region in 1994. However, the genesis and evolution of H9N2 viruses in poultry in eastern China have not been investigated systematically. In the current study, H9N2 influenza viruses isolated from poultry in eastern China during the past 10 years were characterized genetically and antigenically. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that these H9N2 viruses have undergone extensive reassortment to generate multiple novel genotypes, including four genotypes (J, F, K, and L) that have never been recognized before. The major H9N2 influenza viruses represented by A/Chicken/Beijing/1/1994 (Ck/BJ/1/94)-like viruses circulating in poultry in eastern China before 1998 have been gradually replaced by A/Chicken/Shanghai/F/1998 (Ck/SH/F/98)-like viruses, which have a genotype different from that of viruses isolated in southern China. The similarity of the internal genes of these H9N2 viruses to those of the H5N1 influenza viruses isolated from 2001 onwards suggests that the Ck/SH/F/98-like virus may have been the donor of internal genes of human and poultry H5N1 influenza viruses circulating in Eurasia. Experimental studies showed that some of these H9N2 viruses could be efficiently transmitted by the respiratory tract in chicken flocks. Our study provides new insight into the genesis and evolution of H9N2 influenza viruses and supports the notion that some of these viruses may have been the donors of internal genes found in H5N1 viruses.Wild birds, including wild waterfowls, gulls, and shorebirds, are the natural reservoirs for influenza A viruses, in which they are thought to be in evolutionary stasis (2, 33). However, when avian influenza viruses are transmitted to new hosts such as terrestrial poultry or mammals, they evolve rapidly and may cause occasional severe systemic infection with high morbidity (20, 29). Despite the fact that avian influenza virus infection occurs commonly in chickens, it is unable to persist for a long period of time due to control efforts and/or a failure of the virus to adapt to new hosts (29). In the past 20 years, greater numbers of outbreaks in poultry have occurred, suggesting that the avian influenza virus can infect and spread in aberrant hosts for an extended period of time (5, 14-16, 18, 32).During the past 10 years, H9N2 influenza viruses have become panzootic in Eurasia and have been isolated from outbreaks in poultry worldwide (3, 5, 11, 14-16, 18, 24). A great deal of previous studies demonstrated that H9N2 influenza viruses have become established in terrestrial poultry in different Asian countries (5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 24, 35). In 1994, H9N2 viruses were isolated from diseased chickens in Guangdong province, China, for the first time (4), and later in domestic poultry in other provinces in China (11, 16, 18, 35). Two distinct H9N2 virus lineages represented by A/Chicken/Beijing/1/94 (H9N2) and A/Quail/Hong Kong/G1/98 (H9N2), respectively, have been circulating in terrestrial poultry of southern China (9). Occasionally these viruses expand their host range to other mammals, including pigs and humans (6, 17, 22, 34). Increasing epidemiological and laboratory findings suggest that chickens may play an important role in expanding the host range for avian influenza virus. Our systematic surveillance of influenza viruses in chickens in China showed that H9N2 subtype influenza viruses continued to be prevalent in chickens in mainland China from 1994 to 2008 (18, 19, 36).Eastern China contains one metropolitan city (Shanghai) and five provinces (Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Shandong, and Jiangxi), where domestic poultry account for approximately 50% of the total poultry population in China. Since 1996, H9N2 influenza viruses have been isolated regularly from both chickens and other minor poultry species in our surveillance program in the eastern China region, but their genetic diversity and the interrelationships between H9N2 influenza viruses and different types of poultry have not been determined. Therefore, it is imperative to explore the evolution and properties of these viruses. The current report provides insight into the genesis and evolution of H9N2 influenza viruses in eastern China and presents new evidence for the potential crossover between H9N2 and H5N1 influenza viruses in this region.     

Protein Phosphatase 6 Interacts with the DNA-Dependent Protein Kinase Catalytic Subunit and Dephosphorylates γ-H2AX

The catalytic subunit of the DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PKcs) plays a major role in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) by nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ). We have previously shown that DNA-PKcs is autophosphorylated in response to ionizing radiation (IR) and that dephosphorylation by a protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A)-like protein phosphatase (PP2A, PP4, or PP6) regulates the protein kinase activity of DNA-PKcs. Here we report that DNA-PKcs interacts with the catalytic subunits of PP6 (PP6c) and PP2A (PP2Ac), as well as with the PP6 regulatory subunits PP6R1, PP6R2, and PP6R3. Consistent with a role in the DNA damage response, silencing of PP6c by small interfering RNA (siRNA) induced sensitivity to IR and delayed release from the G₂/M checkpoint. Furthermore, siRNA silencing of either PP6c or PP6R1 led to sustained phosphorylation of histone H2AX on serine 139 (γ-H2AX) after IR. In contrast, silencing of PP6c did not affect the autophosphorylation of DNA-PKcs on serine 2056 or that of the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) protein on serine 1981. We propose that a novel function of DNA-PKcs is to recruit PP6 to sites of DNA damage and that PP6 contributes to the dephosphorylation of γ-H2AX, the dissolution of IR-induced foci, and release from the G₂/M checkpoint in vivo.DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the most cytotoxic form of DNA damage. In human cells there are two main pathways for the repair of DSBs, namely, nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR) (reviewed in reference 26). In the initial phase of NHEJ, DSBs are detected by the Ku70/80 heterodimer, which leads to recruitment of the DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs) and stimulation of its serine/threonine protein kinase activity. Upon autophosphorylation, DNA-PKcs undergoes a conformational change and dissociates from the DSB (25), providing other DNA repair proteins with access to the damage site (reviewed in reference 33). Another physiological substrate of DNA-PK is a histone H2A variant, H2AX. DNA-PKcs and the related protein kinase ATM (ataxia-telangiectasia mutated) both contribute to DNA damage-induced phosphorylation of H2AX on serine 139 to form γ-H2AX (51), which acts as a recruitment platform for MDC1, 53BP1, and other proteins involved in the DNA damage response and cell cycle checkpoint activation (7, 52).While the effects of phosphorylation on the repair process have been well documented, comparatively little is known about the role of serine/threonine phosphoprotein phosphatases (PPPs) in the DNA damage response. Within the PPP family, the catalytic subunits of PP2A (PP2Ac), PP4 (PP4c), and PP6 (PP6c) are most closely related and form a subgroup referred to as the PP2A-like protein phosphatases (reviewed in reference 40). In vitro, the PP2A-like enzymes display similar sensitivities to small-molecule inhibitors such as okadaic acid and microcystin (27, 45, 53). The specificity of PP2Ac, PP4c, and PP6c function in vivo is derived from a group of regulatory subunits that, with the exception of α4/TAP42 and TIP41, are unique to each enzyme (12, 13, 27, 45, 49). PP2Ac associates with a scaffolding A-α or A-β subunit and additional B-type subunits, while four direct binding partners and several other complex partners unique to PP4c have been characterized (12). The Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologue of PP6c, known as Sit4, interacts with three related proteins: the Sit4-associated proteins SAP155, SAP185, and SAP190, each of which contains a conserved domain known as the SAPs domain (32, 50). The SAPs domain is present in three human orthologues designated PP6R1, PP6R2, and PP6R3, which are therefore considered PP6c regulatory subunits, and each has been shown to bind independently to PP6c (48). More recently, three ankyrin repeat-containing proteins (ARS-A, ARS-B, and ARS-C) were identified as PP6R1 binding partners. One of these, ARS-A, has been shown to dock all three SAPs domain proteins (50), suggesting that, like PP2Ac, PP6c forms stable heterotrimers in vivo and that together these subunits define PP6 function.We have previously shown that inhibition of PP2A-like protein phosphatase activity by okadaic acid increases the phosphorylation status of DNA-PKcs and decreases its protein kinase activity (20), thus implicating PP2A-like phosphatases in the regulation of DNA-PK activity in vivo. More recently, both PP4 and PP2A have been shown to play roles in the DNA damage response by dephosphorylating γ-H2AX (14, 15, 28, 42). However, the potential role of PP6 in γ-H2AX dephosphorylation has not been addressed.Here we show that DNA-PKcs interacts with PP2Ac and PP6c, as well as with the PP6c regulatory subunits, PP6R1, PP6R2, and PP6R3. Depletion of PP6c by small interfering RNA (siRNA) induces sensitivity to ionizing radiation (IR) and delayed release from the G₂/M checkpoint. Furthermore, siRNA silencing of either PP6c or PP6R1 leads to sustained phosphorylation of γ-H2AX after DNA damage. Together, our studies reveal that a novel and previously unrecognized function of DNA-PKcs may be to recruit PP6 to sites of DNA damage and that PP6 regulates the phosphorylation status of γ-H2AX, the dissolution of IR-induced foci, and release from the G₂/M checkpoint.