DNA Replication in the Face of (In)surmountable Odds

We describe here a model for sequential recruitment of various enzymatic systems that maintain DNA replication fidelity in cells with damaged bases, especially those formed by ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. Systems of increasing complexity but decreasing fidelity are recruited to restore replication of damaged DNA. The first and most accurate response is nucleotide excision repair (NER) that is cell cycle-independent; next come various delaying cell cycle checkpoints that provide an extended time window for NER. These delay the onset of the S phase at the G1/S boundary, and inhibit the initiation of individual replicating units (replicons and clusters of replicons) within the S phase. When checkpoints fail to operate completely, DNA replication forks must negotiate damage and the loss of coding information on the parental DNA strands. Replication can be resumed using bypass polymerases, or alternative bypass mechanisms. Finally, if all else fails, replication forks may degrade to double strand breaks and recombinational processes then allow their reconstruction. A network of signaling kinases modulates the efficiency of many damage responsive proteins to tailor their activities and subcellular localizations by phosphorylation and dephosphorylation.     

Polymerase eta and p53 jointly regulate cell survival,apoptosis and Mre11 recombination during S phase checkpoint arrest after UV irradiation

Xeroderma pigmentosum variant (XPV) cells lack the damage-specific polymerase eta and undergo a protracted arrest at the S phase checkpoint(s) following UV damage. The S phase checkpoints encompass several qualitatively different processes, and stimulate downstream events that are dependent on the functional state of p53. Primary fibroblasts with wild-type p53 arrest in S, and require a functional polymerase eta (pol eta) to carry out bypass replication, but do not recruit recombination factors for recovery. XPV cells with non-functional p53, as a result of transformation by SV40 or HPV16 (E6/E7), recruit the hMre11/hRad50/Nbs1 complex to arrested replication forks, coincident with PCNA, whereas normal transformed cells preferentially use the pol eta bypass replication pathway. The formation of hMre11 foci implies that arrested replication forks rapidly undergo a collapse involving double strand breakage and rejoining. Apoptosis occurs after UV only in cells transformed by SV40, and not in normal or XPV fibroblasts or HPV16 (E6/E7) transformed cells. Conversely, ultimate cell survival in XPV cells was much less in HPV16 (E6/E7) transformed cells than in SV40 transformed cells, indicating that apoptosis was not a reliable predictor of cell survival. Inhibition of p53 transactivation by pifithrin-alpha or inhibition of protein synthesis by cycloheximide did not induce hMre11 foci or apoptosis in UV damaged fibroblasts. Inhibition of kinase activity with wortmannin did not increase killing by UV, unlike the large increase seen with caffeine. Since HPV16 (E6/E7) transformed XPV cells were highly UV sensitive and not further sensitized by caffeine, it appears likely that caffeine sensitization proceeds through a p53 pathway. The S phase checkpoints are therefore, a complex set of different checkpoints that are coordinated by p53 with the capacity to differentially modulate cell survival, apoptosis, bypass replication and hMre11 recombination.     

Mechanisms of Dealing with DNA Damage-Induced Replication Problems

During every S phase, cells need to duplicate their genomes so that both daughter cells inherit complete copies of genetic information. Given the large size of mammalian genomes and the required precision of DNA replication, genome duplication requires highly fine-tuned corrective and quality control processes. A major threat to the accuracy and efficiency of DNA synthesis is the presence of DNA lesions, caused by both endogenous and exogenous damaging agents. Replicative DNA polymerases, which carry out the bulk of DNA synthesis, evolved to do their job extremely precisely and efficiently. However, they are unable to use damaged DNA as a template and, consequently, are stopped at most DNA lesions. Failure to restart such stalled replication forks can result in major chromosomal aberrations and lead to cell dysfunction or death. Therefore, a well-coordinated response to replication perturbation is essential for cell survival and fitness. Here we review how this response involves activating checkpoint signaling and the use of specialized pathways promoting replication restart. Checkpoint signaling adjusts cell cycle progression to the emergency situation and thus gives cells more time to deal with the damage. Replication restart is mediated by two pathways. Homologous recombination uses homologous DNA sequence to repair or bypass the lesion and is therefore mainly error free. Error-prone translesion synthesis employs specialized, low fidelity polymerases to bypass the damage.     

Multiple Roles of Replication Forks in S Phase Checkpoints: Sensors,Effectors and Targets

There is mounting evidence that replication defects are the major source of spontaneous genomic instability in the cell and that S phase checkpoints are the principle defense against such instability. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, S phase checkpoints can be provoked by either depletion of dNTPs or DNA damage. In both cases the checkpoint kinases Mec1 and Rad53 act to suppress late origin firing, stabilize slowed or stalled replication forks and prevent S phase progression until conditions are appropriate for the resumption of DNA replication. The present review highlights recent work emphasizing the central importance of replication forks, not just as targets, but also as sensors and primary effectors of checkpoint responses, and identifies the roles played by specific fork-associated factors in these processes.     

Multiple roles of replication forks in S phase checkpoints: sensors, effectors and targets

There is mounting evidence that replication defects are the major source of spontaneous genomic instability in the cell and that S phase checkpoints are the principle defense against such instability. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, S phase checkpoints can be provoked by either depletion of dNTPs or DNA damage. In both cases the checkpoint kinases Mec1 and Rad53 act to suppress late origin firing, stabilize slowed or stalled replication forks and prevent S phase progression until conditions are appropriate for the resumption of DNA replication. The present review highlights recent work emphasizing the central importance of replication forks, not just as targets, but also as sensors and primary effectors of checkpoint responses, and identifies the roles played by specific fork-associated factors in these processes.     

Multiple pathways cooperate to facilitate DNA replication fork progression through alkylated DNA

Eukaryotic genomes are especially vulnerable to DNA damage during the S phase of the cell cycle, when chromosomes must be duplicated. The stability of DNA replication forks is critical to achieve faithful chromosome replication and is severely compromised when forks encounter DNA lesions. To maintain genome integrity, replication forks need to be protected by the S-phase checkpoint and DNA insults must be repaired. Different pathways help to repair or tolerate the lesions in the DNA, but their contribution to the progression of replication forks through damaged DNA is not well known. Here we show in budding yeast that, when the DNA template is damaged with the alkylating agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), base excision repair, homologous recombination and DNA damage tolerance pathways, together with a functional S-phase checkpoint, are essential for the efficient progression of DNA replication forks and the maintenance of cell survival. In the absence of base excision repair, replication forks stall reversibly in cells exposed to MMS. This repair reaction is necessary to eliminate the lesions that impede fork progression and has to be coordinated with recombination and damage tolerance activities to avoid fork collapse and allow forks to resume and complete chromosome replication.     

Checkpoint responses to replication fork barriers

The fidelity of DNA replication is of paramount importance to the maintenance of genome integrity. When an active replication fork is perturbed, multiple cellular pathways are recruited to stabilize the replication apparatus and to help to bypass or correct the causative problem. However, if the problem is not corrected, the fork may collapse, exposing free DNA ends to potentially inappropriate processing. In prokaryotes, replication fork collapse promotes the activity of recombination proteins to restore a replication fork. Recent work has demonstrated that recombination is also intimately linked to replication in eukaryotic cells, and that recombination proteins are recruited to collapsed, but not stalled, replication forks. In this review we discuss the different types of potential replication fork barriers (RFB) and how these distinct RFBs can result in different DNA structures at the stalled replication fork. The DNA structure checkpoints which act within S phase respond to different RFBs in different ways and we thus discuss the processes that are controlled by the DNA replication checkpoints, paying particular attention to the function of the intra-S phase checkpoint that stabilises the stalled fork.     

DNA damage induced Pol η recruitment takes place independently of the cell cycle phase

When DNA is damaged in cells progressing through S phase, replication blockage can be avoided by TLS (Translesion DNA synthesis). This is an auxiliary replication mechanism that relies on the function of specialized polymerases that accomplish DNA damage bypass. Intriguingly, recent evidence has linked TLS polymerases to processes that can also take place outside S phase such as nucleotide excision repair (NER). Here we show that Pol η is recruited to UV-induced DNA lesions in cells outside S phase including cells permanently arrested in G1. This observation was confirmed by different strategies including global UV irradiation, local UV irradiation and local multi-photon laser irradiation of single nuclei in living cells. The potential connection between Pol η recruitment to DNA lesions outside S phase and NER was further evaluated. Interestingly, the recruitment of Pol η to damage sites outside S phase did not depend on active NER, as UV-induced focus formation occurred normally in XPA, XPG and XPF deficient fibroblasts. Our data reveals that the re-localization of the TLS polymerase Pol η to photo-lesions might be temporally and mechanistically uncoupled from replicative DNA synthesis and from DNA damage processing.     

Interplay of replication checkpoints and repair proteins at stalled replication forks

DNA replication is an essential process that occurs in all growing cells and needs to be tightly regulated in order to preserve genetic integrity. Eukaryotic cells have developed multiple mechanisms to ensure the fidelity of replication and to coordinate the progression of replication forks. Replication is often impeded by DNA damage or replication blocks, and the resulting stalled replication forks are sensed and protected by specialized surveillance mechanisms called checkpoints. The replication checkpoint plays an essential role in preventing the breakdown of stalled replication forks and the accumulation of DNA structures that enhance recombination and chromosomal rearrangements that ultimately lead to genomic instability and cancer development. In addition, the replication checkpoint is thought to assist and coordinate replication fork restart processes by controlling DNA repair pathways, regulating chromatin structure, promoting the recruitment of proteins to sites of damage, and controlling cell cycle progression. In this review we focus mainly on the results obtained in budding yeast to discuss on the multiple roles of checkpoints in maintaining fork integrity and on the enzymatic activities that cooperate with the checkpoint pathway to promote fork resumption and repair of DNA lesions thereby contributing to genome integrity.     

Gap-filling and bypass at the replication fork are both active mechanisms for tolerance of low-dose ultraviolet-induced DNA damage in the human genome

Ultraviolet (UV)-induced DNA damage are removed by nucleotide excision repair (NER) or can be tolerated by specialized translesion synthesis (TLS) polymerases, such as Polη. TLS may act at stalled replication forks or through an S-phase independent gap-filling mechanism. After UVC irradiation, Polη-deficient (XP-V) human cells were arrested in early S-phase and exhibited both single-strand DNA (ssDNA) and prolonged replication fork stalling, as detected by DNA fiber assay. In contrast, NER deficiency in XP-C cells caused no apparent defect in S-phase progression despite the accumulation of ssDNA and a G2-phase arrest. These data indicate that while Polη is essential for DNA synthesis at ongoing damaged replication forks, NER deficiency might unmask the involvement of tolerance pathway through a gap-filling mechanism. ATR knock down by siRNA or caffeine addition provoked increased cell death in both XP-V and XP-C cells exposed to low-dose of UVC, underscoring the involvement of ATR/Chk1 pathway in both DNA damage tolerance mechanisms. We generated a unique human cell line deficient in XPC and Polη proteins, which exhibited both S- and G2-phase arrest after UVC irradiation, consistent with both single deficiencies. In these XP-C/Polη^KD cells, UVC-induced replicative intermediates may collapse into double-strand breaks, leading to cell death. In conclusion, both TLS at stalled replication forks and gap-filling are active mechanisms for the tolerance of UVC-induced DNA damage in human cells and the preference for one or another pathway depends on the cellular genotype.     

Mutations in Replicative Stress Response Pathways Are Associated with S Phase-specific Defects in Nucleotide Excision Repair

Nucleotide excision repair (NER) is a highly conserved pathway that removes helix-distorting DNA lesions induced by a plethora of mutagens, including UV light. Our laboratory previously demonstrated that human cells deficient in either ATM and Rad3-related (ATR) kinase or translesion DNA polymerase η (i.e. key proteins that promote the completion of DNA replication in response to UV-induced replicative stress) are characterized by profound inhibition of NER exclusively during S phase. Toward elucidating the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon, we developed a novel assay to quantify NER kinetics as a function of cell cycle in the model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Using this assay, we demonstrate that in yeast, deficiency of the ATR homologue Mec1 or of any among several other proteins involved in the cellular response to replicative stress significantly abrogates NER uniquely during S phase. Moreover, initiation of DNA replication is required for manifestation of this defect, and S phase NER proficiency is correlated with the capacity of individual mutants to respond to replicative stress. Importantly, we demonstrate that partial depletion of Rfa1 recapitulates defective S phase-specific NER in wild type yeast; moreover, ectopic RPA1–3 overexpression rescues such deficiency in either ATR- or polymerase η-deficient human cells. Our results strongly suggest that reduction of NER capacity during periods of enhanced replicative stress, ostensibly caused by inordinate sequestration of RPA at stalled DNA replication forks, represents a conserved feature of the multifaceted eukaryotic DNA damage response.     

The Mammalian DNA Replication Elongation Checkpoint: Implication of Chk1 and Relationship with Origin Firing as Determined by Single DNA Molecule and Single Cell Analyses

The regulation of DNA replication initiation is well documented, for both unperturbed and damaged cells. The regulation of elongation, or fork velocity, however, has only recently been revealed with the advent of new techniques allowing us to view DNA replication at the single cell and single DNA molecule levels. Normally in S phase, the progression of replication forks and their stability are regulated by the ATR-Claspin-Chk1 pathway. We recently showed that replication fork velocity varies across the human genome in normal and cancer cells, but that the velocity of a given fork is positively correlated with the distance between origins on the same DNA fiber. Accordingly, in DNA replication-deficient Bloom’s syndrome cells, reduced fork velocity is associated with an increased density of replication origins. Replication elongation is also regulated in response to DNA damage. In human colon carcinoma cells treated with the topoisomerase I inhibitor camptothecin, DNA replication is inhibited both at the level of initiation and at the level of elongation through a Chk1-dependent checkpoint mechanism. Together, these new findings demonstrate that replication fork velocity (fork progression) is coordinated with inter-origin distance and that it can be actively slowed down by Chk1-dependent mechanisms in response to DNA damage. Thus, we propose that the intra-S phase checkpoint consist of at least three elements: (1) stabilization of damaged replication forks; (2) suppression of firing of late origins; and (3) arrests of normal ongoing forks to prevent further DNA lesions by replication of a damaged DNA template.     

Lysine 63-polyubiquitination guards against translesion synthesis-induced mutations

Eukaryotic cells possess several mechanisms to protect the integrity of their DNA against damage. These include cell-cycle checkpoints, DNA-repair pathways, and also a distinct DNA damage-tolerance system that allows recovery of replication forks blocked at sites of DNA damage. In both humans and yeast, lesion bypass and restart of DNA synthesis can occur through an error-prone pathway activated following mono-ubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a protein found at sites of replication, and recruitment of specialized translesion synthesis polymerases. In yeast, there is evidence for a second, error-free, pathway that requires modification of PCNA with non-proteolytic lysine 63-linked polyubiquitin (K63-polyUb) chains. Here we demonstrate that formation of K63-polyUb chains protects human cells against translesion synthesis-induced mutations by promoting recovery of blocked replication forks through an alternative error-free mechanism. Furthermore, we show that polyubiquitination of PCNA occurs in UV-irradiated human cells. Our findings indicate that K63-polyubiquitination guards against environmental carcinogenesis and contributes to genomic stability.     

Checkpoint bypass and cell viability

DNA damage impairs cell growth by delaying or preventing critical processes such as DNA replication and chromosome segregation. In normal proliferating cells, initiation of these processes is controlled by genetically-defined pathways known as checkpoints. Tumors often acquire mutations that disable checkpoints and cancer cells can therefore progress unimpeded into S-phase, through G2 and into mitosis with chromosomal DNA damage. Checkpoint bypass in cancer cells is associated with cell death and loss of proliferative capacity and therefore is believed to contribute to the efficacy of DNA-damaging therapies. Are cancer cell clones that bypass checkpoints invariably more sensitive to DNA damage than checkpoint-proficient cells in normal tissues? We present evidence that the inherent survival of damaged human cells can be surprisingly independent of checkpoint control.     

Lysine 63-Polyubiquitination Guards against Translesion Synthesis–Induced Mutations

Eukaryotic cells possess several mechanisms to protect the integrity of their DNA against damage. These include cell-cycle checkpoints, DNA-repair pathways, and also a distinct DNA damage–tolerance system that allows recovery of replication forks blocked at sites of DNA damage. In both humans and yeast, lesion bypass and restart of DNA synthesis can occur through an error-prone pathway activated following mono-ubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a protein found at sites of replication, and recruitment of specialized translesion synthesis polymerases. In yeast, there is evidence for a second, error-free, pathway that requires modification of PCNA with non-proteolytic lysine 63-linked polyubiquitin (K63-polyUb) chains. Here we demonstrate that formation of K63-polyUb chains protects human cells against translesion synthesis–induced mutations by promoting recovery of blocked replication forks through an alternative error-free mechanism. Furthermore, we show that polyubiquitination of PCNA occurs in UV-irradiated human cells. Our findings indicate that K63-polyubiquitination guards against environmental carcinogenesis and contributes to genomic stability.     

DNA replication and spindle checkpoints cooperate during S phase to delay mitosis and preserve genome integrity

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) replication and chromosome segregation must occur in ordered sequence to maintain genome integrity during cell proliferation. Checkpoint mechanisms delay mitosis when DNA is damaged or upon replication stress, but little is known on the coupling of S and M phases in unperturbed conditions. To address this issue, we postponed replication onset in budding yeast so that DNA synthesis is still underway when cells should enter mitosis. This delayed mitotic entry and progression by transient activation of the S phase, G2/M, and spindle assembly checkpoints. Disabling both Mec1/ATR- and Mad2-dependent controls caused lethality in cells with deferred S phase, accompanied by Rad52 foci and chromosome missegregation. Thus, in contrast to acute replication stress that triggers a sustained Mec1/ATR response, multiple pathways cooperate to restrain mitosis transiently when replication forks progress unhindered. We suggest that these surveillance mechanisms arose when both S and M phases were coincidently set into motion by a unique ancestral cyclin–Cdk1 complex.     

Replicon Clusters Are Stable Units of Chromosome Structure: Evidence That Nuclear Organization Contributes to the Efficient Activation and Propagation of S Phase in Human Cells

In proliferating cells, DNA synthesis must be performed with extreme precision. We show that groups of replicons, labeled together as replicon clusters, form stable units of chromosome structure. HeLa cells were labeled with 5-bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) at different times of S phase. At the onset of S phase, clusters of replicons were activated in each of ~750 replication sites. The majority of these replication “foci” were shown to be individual replicon clusters that remained together, as stable cohorts, throughout the following 15 cell cycles. In individual cells, the same replication foci were labeled with BrdU and 5-iododeoxyuridine at the beginning of different cell cycles. In DNA fibers, 95% of replicons in replicon clusters that were labeled at the beginning of one S phase were also labeled at the beginning of the next. This shows that a subset of origins are activated both reliably and efficiently in different cycles.

The majority of replication forks activated at the onset of S phase terminated 45–60 min later. During this interval, secondary replicon clusters became active. However, while the activation of early replicons is synchronized at the onset of S phase, different secondary clusters were activated at different times. Nevertheless, replication foci pulse labeled during any short interval of S phase were stable for many cell cycles. We propose that the coordinated replication of related groups of replicons, that form stable replicon clusters, contributes to the efficient activation and propagation of S phase in mammalian cells.

     

Sensing, signaling, and responding to DNA damage: organization of the checkpoint pathways in mammalian cells

The DNA damage and replication checkpoints are signaling mechanisms that regulate and coordinate cellular responses to genotoxic conditions. Unlike typical signal transduction mechanisms that respond to one or a few stimuli, checkpoints can be activated by a broad spectrum of extrinsically or intrinsically derived DNA damage or replication interference. Recent investigations have shed light on how the damage and replication checkpoints are able to respond to such diverse stimuli. The activation of checkpoints not only attenuates cell cycle progression but also facilitates DNA repair and recovery of faltered replication forks, thereby preventing DNA lesions from being converted to inheritable mutations. Recently, more checkpoint targets from the cell cycle and DNA replication apparatus have been identified, revealing the increasing complexity of the checkpoint control of the cell cycle. In this article, we discuss current models of the DNA damage and replication checkpoints and highlight recent advances in the field.     

Local and global functions of Timeless and Tipin in replication fork protection

The eukaryotic cell replicates its chromosomal DNA with almost absolute fidelity in the course of every cell cycle. This accomplishment is remarkable considering that the conditions for DNA replication are rarely ideal. The replication machinery encounters a variety of obstacles on the chromosome, including damaged template DNA. In addition, a number of chromosome regions are considered to be difficult to replicate owing to DNA secondary structures and DNA binding proteins required for various transactions on the chromosome. Under these conditions, replication forks stall or break, posing grave threats to genomic integrity. How does the cell combat such stressful conditions during DNA replication? The replication fork protection complex (FPC) may help answer this question. Recent studies have demonstrated that the FPC is required for the smooth passage of replication forks at difficult-to-replicate genomic regions and plays a critical role in coordinating multiple genome maintenance processes at the replication fork.     

Local and global functions of Timeless and Tipin in replication fork protection

The eukaryotic cell replicates its chromosomal DNA with almost absolute fidelity in the course of every cell cycle. This accomplishment is remarkable considering that the conditions for DNA replication are rarely ideal. The replication machinery encounters a variety of obstacles on the chromosome, including damaged template DNA. In addition, a number of chromosome regions are considered to be difficult to replicate owing to DNA secondary structures and DNA binding proteins required for various transactions on the chromosome. Under these conditions, replication forks stall or break, posing grave threats to genomic integrity. How does the cell combat such stressful conditions during DNA replication? The replication fork protection complex (FPC) may help answer this question. Recent studies have demonstrated that the FPC is required for the smooth passage of replication forks at difficult-to-replicate genomic regions and plays a critical role in coordinating multiple genome maintenance processes at the replication fork.