Fbh1 Limits Rad51-Dependent Recombination at Blocked Replication Forks

Controlling the loading of Rad51 onto DNA is important for governing when and how homologous recombination is used. Here we use a combination of genetic assays and indirect immunofluorescence to show that the F-box DNA helicase (Fbh1) functions in direct opposition to the Rad52 orthologue Rad22 to curb Rad51 loading onto DNA in fission yeast. Surprisingly, this activity is unnecessary for limiting spontaneous direct-repeat recombination. Instead it appears to play an important role in preventing recombination when replication forks are blocked and/or broken. When overexpressed, Fbh1 specifically reduces replication fork block-induced recombination, as well as the number of Rad51 nuclear foci that are induced by replicative stress. These abilities are dependent on its DNA helicase/translocase activity, suggesting that Fbh1 exerts its control on recombination by acting as a Rad51 disruptase. In accord with this, overexpression of Fbh1 also suppresses the high levels of recombinant formation and Rad51 accumulation at a site-specific replication fork barrier in a strain lacking the Rad51 disruptase Srs2. Similarly overexpression of Srs2 suppresses replication fork block-induced gene conversion events in an fbh1Δ mutant, although an inability to suppress deletion events suggests that Fbh1 has a distinct functionality, which is not readily substituted by Srs2.Homologous recombination (HR) is often described as a double-edged sword: it can maintain genome stability by promoting DNA repair, while its injudicious action can disturb genome stability by causing gross chromosome rearrangement (GCR) or loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Both GCR and LOH are potential precursors of diseases such as cancer, and consequently there is need to control when and how HR is used.A key step in most HR is the loading of the Rad51 recombinase onto single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), which forms a nucleoprotein filament (nucleofilament) that catalyzes the pairing of homologous DNAs and subsequent strand invasion (32). This is a critical point at which recombination can be regulated through the removal of the Rad51 filament (60). Early removal can prevent strand invasion altogether, freeing the DNA for alternative processing. Later removal may limit unnecessary filament growth, free the 3′-OH of the invading strand to prime DNA synthesis, and ultimately enable ejection of the invading strand, which is important for the repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs) by synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA). SDSA avoids the formation of Holliday junctions that can be resolved into reciprocal exchange products (crossovers), which may result in GCR or LOH if the recombination is ectopic or allelic, respectively.One enzyme that appears to be able to control Rad51 in the aforementioned manner is the yeast superfamily 1 DNA helicase Srs2 (42). In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Srs2 is recruited to stalled replication forks by the SUMOylation of PCNA, and there it appears to block Rad51-dependent HR in favor of Rad6- and Rad18-dependent postreplication repair (1, 2, 35, 50, 53, 58). In vitro Srs2 can strip Rad51 from ssDNA via its DNA translocase activity (31, 62) and therefore probably controls HR at stalled replication forks by acting as a Rad51 disruptase. In accord with this, chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis has shown that Rad51 is enriched at or near replication forks in an srs2 mutant (50). Srs2 also plays an important role in crossover avoidance during DSB repair, where it is thought to promote SDSA by both disrupting Rad51 nucleofilaments and dissociating displacement (D) loops (20, 27).Srs2 is conserved in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe (19, 43, 63) and has a close relative in bacteria called UvrD, which can similarly control HR by disrupting RecA nucleofilaments (61). However, an obvious homologue in mammals has not been detected. Recently, two mammalian members of the RecQ DNA helicase family, BLM and RECQL5, were shown to disrupt Rad51 nucleofilaments in vitro (11, 25), although in the case of BLM, this activity appears to be relatively weak (5, 55). Nevertheless these data have led to speculation that both BLM and RECQL5 might perform a function similar to that of Srs2 in vivo (6). Certainly mutational inactivation of either helicase results in elevated levels of HR and genome instability, with an associated increased rate of cancer (23, 25). However, BLM and RECQL5 are not the only potential Rad51 disruptases in mammals; a relative of Srs2 and UvrD called FBH1 was recently implicated in this role by genetic studies of its orthologue in S. pombe and by its ability to partially compensate for the loss of Srs2 in S. cerevisiae, which, unlike S. pombe, lacks an FBH1 orthologue (15). FBH1 is so named because of an F box near its N terminus—a feature that makes it unique among DNA helicases (28). The F box is important for its interaction with SKP1 and therefore the formation of an E3 ubiquitin ligase SCF (SKP1-Cul1-F-box protein) complex (29). The targets of this complex are currently unknown. In S. pombe, mutations within Fbh1''s F-box block interaction with Skp1 and prevent Fbh1 from localizing to the nucleus and forming damage-induced foci therein (57). Fbh1''s role in constraining Rad51 activity in S. pombe is evidenced by the increase in spontaneous Rad51 foci and accumulation of UV irradiation-induced Rad51-dependent recombination intermediates in an fbh1Δ mutant (47). Moreover, loss of both Fbh1 and Srs2 in S. pombe results in a synergistic reduction in cell viability, and like Srs2, Fbh1 is essential for viability in the absence of the S. pombe RecQ family DNA helicase Rqh1, which processes recombination intermediates (47, 48). In both cases the synthetic interaction is suppressed by deleting rad51, suggesting that Fbh1 works in parallel with Srs2 and Rqh1 to prevent the formation of toxic recombination intermediates. In yeast, Rad51-mediated recombination is dependent on Rad52 (Rad22 in S. pombe), which is believed to promote the nucleation of Rad51 onto DNA that is coated with the ssDNA binding protein replication protein A (RPA) (18, 32). Intriguingly, the genotoxin sensitivity and recombination deficiency of a rad22 mutant are suppressed in a Rad51-dependent manner by deleting fbh1 (48). This suggests that Fbh1 and Rad22 act in opposing ways to modulate the assembly of the Rad51 nucleofilament. Although current data indicate a role for Fbh1 in controlling HR, the only evidence so far that Fbh1 limits recombinant formation is in chicken DT40 cells, for which a modest increase in sister chromatid exchange has been noted when FBH1 is deleted (30).Here we present in vivo evidence suggesting that Fbh1 does indeed act as a Rad51 disruptase, which is dependent on its DNA helicase/translocase activity. We confirm predictions that this activity works in opposition to Rad22 for the loading of Rad51 onto DNA and show that Fbh1''s modulation of Rad51 activity, while not essential for limiting spontaneous direct-repeat recombination, is critical for preventing recombination at blocked replication forks. Finally, we highlight similarities and differences between Fbh1 and Srs2, based on their mutant phenotypes and relative abilities to suppress recombination when overexpressed. Overall our data affirm that Fbh1 is one of the principal modulators of Rad51 activity in fission yeast and therefore may play a similar role in vertebrates.     

Use of Quantitative Mass Spectrometric Analysis to Elucidate the Mechanisms of Phospho-priming and Auto-activation of the Checkpoint Kinase Rad53 in Vivo

The cell cycle checkpoint kinases play central roles in the genome maintenance of eukaryotes. Activation of the yeast checkpoint kinase Rad53 involves Rad9 or Mrc1 adaptor-mediated phospho-priming by Mec1 kinase, followed by auto-activating phosphorylation within its activation loop. However, the mechanisms by which these adaptors regulate priming phosphorylation of specific sites and how this then leads to Rad53 activation remain poorly understood. Here we used quantitative mass spectrometry to delineate the stepwise phosphorylation events in the activation of endogenous Rad53 in response to S phase alkylation DNA damage, and we show that the two Rad9 and Mrc1 adaptors, the four N-terminal Mec1-target TQ sites of Rad53 (Rad53-SCD1), and Rad53-FHA2 coordinate intimately for optimal priming phosphorylation to support substantial Rad53 auto-activation. Rad9 or Mrc1 alone can mediate surprisingly similar Mec1 target site phosphorylation patterns of Rad53, including previously undetected tri- and tetraphosphorylation of Rad53-SCD1. Reducing the number of TQ motifs turns the SCD1 into a proportionally poorer Mec1 target, which then requires the presence of both Mrc1 and Rad9 for sufficient priming and auto-activation. The phosphothreonine-interacting Rad53-FHA domains, particularly FHA2, regulate phospho-priming by interacting with the checkpoint mediators but do not seem to play a major role in the phospho-SCD1-dependent auto-activation step. Finally, mutation of all four SCD1 TQ motifs greatly reduces Rad53 activation but does not eliminate it, and residual Rad53 activity in this mutant is dependent on Rad9 but not Mrc1. Altogether, our results provide a paradigm for how phosphorylation site clusters and checkpoint mediators can be involved in the regulation of signaling relay in protein kinase cascades in vivo and elucidate an SCD1-independent Rad53 auto-activation mechanism through the Rad9 pathway. The work also demonstrates the power of mass spectrometry for in-depth analyses of molecular mechanisms in cellular signaling in vivo.Eukaryotic cells are most vulnerable to exogenous DNA-damaging agents during the S phase of the cell cycle, when unprogrammed DNA lesions interfere with the tightly choreographed DNA replication process. DNA damage during this phase leads to the activation of two overlapping checkpoint pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the DNA replication checkpoint and the intra-S-phase DNA damage checkpoint (1, 2). Phospho-priming for auto-activation of the central checkpoint kinase Rad53 by the upstream kinase Mec1/Tel1 depends on Mrc1 as an adaptor in the DNA replication checkpoint pathway and Rad9 as an adaptor in the DNA damage checkpoint pathway (3–10). Rad53, a well-accepted model system for studying the function and regulation of Chk2-like kinases, contains two forkhead-associated (FHA)¹ domains (FHA1 and -2) and two SQ/TQ cluster domains (SCD1 and -2) enriched in Mec1/Tel1-target phosphorylation sites (11–13).Mrc1 normally is a replisome component that functionally couples DNA Pol ε with Cdc45 and MCM helicase during replication fork progression (14, 15). As the replication forks are stalled by replication stress, the recruited checkpoint sensor kinase Mec1 phosphorylates the SCD of Mrc1, which abolishes its N-terminal interaction with Pol ε and enables Mrc1 to recruit Rad53 and promote Rad53 phosphorylation by Mec1 as an initial step in the activation of Rad53 in the Mrc1 branch (6, 14, 16). Alanine substitution of all Mec1 target sites of Mrc1 (designated the mrc1-AQ allele) has been shown to selectively disable its checkpoint function for Rad53 activation without affecting its DNA replication functions (4). In response to DNA damage, Rad9 is able to associate with damaged chromatin via its BRCT and Tudor domains, which tether it to Ser129-phosphorylated histone H2A (γH2A) and Lys79-methylated histone H3, respectively (17, 18). Alternatively, the recruitment of Rad9 onto damaged DNA could also be facilitated by its phosphorylation by CDK1, which enables the specific interaction of Rad9 with Dpb11, allowing the formation of the ternary complex of Dpb11, Mec1, and Rad9 (19, 20). Similar to Mrc1, Mec1 activates the adaptor function of Rad9 by phosphorylation of its SCD, which then binds to the Rad53-FHA domains to promote Rad53 phosphorylation by Mec1 (3, 5, 10).Beyond serving as scaffolds to recruit Rad53, Mrc1 and Rad9 have been shown to promote Rad53 phosphorylation by Mec1 in a dose-dependent manner in vitro (3, 16), underlining their adaptor role to enhance the enzyme–substrate (Mec1–Rad53) interaction. However, how they can specifically regulate the priming phosphorylation at specific sites and how this then leads to Rad53 activation remains poorly understood. Finally, hyperphosphorylated Rad9 has also been shown to catalyze the auto-phosphorylation of recombinant Rad53 (21), but it remains to be examined whether and how this occurs in vivo.The activation of SCD-FHA containing kinases such as human Chk2 and fission yeast Cds1 has been suggested to involve a two-step phosphorylation process: first, SCD phosphorylation by an ATM/ATR-like kinase leads to intermolecular binding to the FHA domain of another Chk2/Cds1 monomer, which then results in dimerization/oligomerization-dependent auto-phosphorylation within the kinase activation loop (22–26). In addition to the characteristic N-terminal SCD-FHA module of Chk2-like kinases, Rad53 contains another SCD2-FHA2 module C-terminal to its kinase domain. Similar to its orthologues, Rad53 activation has been proposed to depend on SCD1 phosphorylation (but not SCD2 phosphorylation) and partially redundant functions of the two FHA domains (9, 27–29). However, although Rad53-FHA1 can interact with SCD1 in a phospho-threonine (pT)-dependent manner in vitro (9, 28), it appears to be required for Rad53 activation only in G2/M-arrested cells (27, 29). In contrast, the FHA2 domain, which seems to be more important overall for Rad53 activation, does not appreciably bind phospho-SCD1 peptides in vitro (27, 28). Thus, the mechanisms by which Mrc1, Rad9, SCD1 phosphorylation, and FHA domains interact during checkpoint-dependent Rad53 priming and auto-activation remain to be elucidated.Quantitative mass spectrometric analysis has revolutionized the functional analysis of cellular signaling pathways, including site-specific phosphorylation events of key signaling molecules (30–33), but an important caveat is that MS studies often involve protein tags or nonphysiological expression levels that can interfere with normal protein functions. For example, the integration of a triple HA tag into the endogenous RAD53 gene locus has been shown to reduce Rad53 protein levels, resulting in significantly altered checkpoint activity (34). In this study we used quantitative MS analyses to dissect the stepwise phosphorylation events of endogenous, untagged Rad53 in response to MMS-induced alkylation DNA damage and replication stress during the S phase. Together with functional analyses, our results delineate how the two Mec1 adaptors Rad9 and Mrc1 can coordinate with the four SCD1 priming sites (T5, T8, T12, and T15) to regulate the phospho-priming of Rad53 by Mec1. In addition, an SCD1-priming independent Rad53 auto-activation mechanism and the specific roles of the FHA domains during Rad53 hyperphosphorylation are also elucidated in this work.     

Bloom Syndrome Helicase Stimulates RAD51 DNA Strand Exchange Activity through a Novel Mechanism

Loss or inactivation of BLM, a helicase of the RecQ family, causes Bloom syndrome, a genetic disorder with a strong predisposition to cancer. Although the precise function of BLM remains unknown, genetic data has implicated BLM in the process of genetic recombination and DNA repair. Previously, we demonstrated that BLM can disrupt the RAD51-single-stranded DNA filament that promotes the initial steps of homologous recombination. However, this disruption occurs only if RAD51 is present in an inactive ADP-bound form. Here, we investigate interactions of BLM with the active ATP-bound form of the RAD51-single-stranded DNA filament. Surprisingly, we found that BLM stimulates DNA strand exchange activity of RAD51. In contrast to the helicase activity of BLM, this stimulation does not require ATP hydrolysis. These data suggest a novel BLM function that is stimulation of the RAD51 DNA pairing. Our results demonstrate the important role of the RAD51 nucleoprotein filament conformation in stimulation of DNA pairing by BLM.Mutations of BLM helicase cause Bloom syndrome (BS),² a rare autosomal disorder, which is associated with stunted growth, facial sun sensitivity, immunodeficiency, fertility defects, and a greatly elevated incidence of many types of cancer occurring at an early age (1). BLM belongs to the highly conserved family of RecQ helicases that are required for the maintenance of genome integrity in all organisms (2, 3). There are five RecQ helicases in humans; mutations in three of them, WRN, RECQ4, and BLM, have been associated with the genetic abnormalities known as Werner, Rothmund-Thomson, and Bloom syndrome, respectively (4, 5). The cells from BS patients display genomic instability; the hallmark of BS is an increase in the frequency of sister chromatid and interhomolog exchanges (1, 6). Because homologous recombination (HR) is responsible for chromosomal exchanges, it is thought that BLM helicase functions in regulating HR (7–9). Also, BLM helicase is required for faithful chromosome segregation (10) and repair of stalled replication forks (11, 12), the processes that are linked to HR (13–15). BLM was found to interact physically with RAD51, a key protein of HR (16) that catalyzes the central steps in HR including the search for homology and the exchange of strands between homologous ssDNA and dsDNA sequences (17). In cells, BLM forms nuclear foci, a subset of which co-localize with RAD51. Interestingly, the extent of RAD51 and BLM co-localization increases in response to ionizing radiation, indicating a possible role of BLM in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks (16).Biochemical studies suggest that BLM may perform several different functions in HR. BLM was shown to promote the dissociation of HR intermediates (D-loops) (18–20), branch migration of Holliday junctions (21), and dissolution of double Holliday junctions acting in a complex with TopoIIIα and BLAP75 (22–24). BLM may also facilitate DNA synthesis during the repair process by unwinding the DNA template in front of the replication fork (25). In addition, BLM and its yeast homolog Sgs1 may play a role at the initial steps of DNA double-strand break repair by participating in exonucleolitic resection of the DNA ends to generate DNA molecules with the 3′-ssDNA tails, a substrate for RAD51 binding (26–29).In vivo, the process of HR is tightly regulated by various mechanisms (30). Whereas some proteins promote HR (14, 31), others inhibit this process, thereby preventing its untimely initiation (32, 33). Disruption of the Rad51-ssDNA nucleoprotein filament appears to be an especially important mechanism of controlling HR. This filament disruption activity was demonstrated for the yeast Srs2 helicase (34, 35) and human RECQ5 helicase (36). Recently, we found that BLM can also catalyze disruption of the RAD51-ssDNA filament (25). This disruption only occurs if the filament is present in an inactive ADP-bound form, e.g. in the presence of Mg²⁺. Conversion of RAD51 into an active ATP-bound form, e.g. in the presence of Ca²⁺ (37), renders the filament resistant to BLM disruption (25). In this study, we analyze the interactions of BLM with an active ATP-bound RAD51-ssDNA filament. Surprisingly, we found that BLM stimulates the DNA strand exchange activity of RAD51. Thus, depending on the conformational state of the RAD51 nucleoprotein filament, BLM may either inhibit or stimulate the DNA strand exchange activity of RAD51. Our analysis demonstrated that, in contrast to several known stimulatory proteins that act by promoting formation of the RAD51-ssDNA filament, BLM stimulates the DNA strand exchange activity of RAD51 at a later stage, during synapsis. Stimulation appears to be independent of the ATPase activity of BLM. We suggest that this stimulation of RAD51 may represent a novel function of BLM in homologous recombination.     

Reconstitution of Rad53 Activation by Mec1 through Adaptor Protein Mrc1

Upon DNA replication stress, stalled DNA replication forks serve as a platform to recruit many signaling proteins, leading to the activation of the DNA replication checkpoint. Activation of Rad53, a key effector kinase in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is essential for stabilizing DNA replication forks during replication stress. Using an activity-based assay for Rad53, we found that Mrc1, a replication fork-associated protein, cooperates with Mec1 to activate Rad53 directly. Reconstitution of Rad53 activation using purified Mec1 and Mrc1 showed that the addition of Mrc1 stimulated a more than 70-fold increase in the ability of Mec1 to activate Rad53. Instead of increasing the catalytic activity of Mec1, Mrc1 was found to facilitate the phosphorylation of Rad53 by Mec1 via promotion of a stronger enzyme-substrate interaction between them. Further, the conserved C-terminal domain of Mrc1 was found to be required for Rad53 activation. These results thus provide insights into the role of the adaptor protein Mrc1 in activating Rad53 in the DNA replication checkpoint.Faithful replication of the genome is important for the survival of all organisms. During DNA replication, replication stress can arise from a variety of situations, including intrinsic errors made by DNA polymerases, difficulties in replicating repeated DNA sequences, and failures to repair damaged DNA caused by either endogenous oxidative agents or exogenous mutagens such as UV light and DNA-damaging chemicals (1–3). In eukaryotes, there is an evolutionarily conserved DNA replication checkpoint that becomes activated in response to DNA replication stress. It helps to stabilize DNA replication forks, block late replication origin firing, and delay mitosis and ultimately helps recovery from stalled replication forks after DNA repair (4–7). Defects in the DNA replication checkpoint could result in elevated genomic instabilities, cancer development, or cell death (8, 9).Aside from replicating the genome, the DNA replication forks also provide a platform to assemble many signaling proteins that function in the DNA replication checkpoint. In the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Mec1, an ortholog of human ATR,² is a phosphoinositide 3-kinase-like kinase (PIKK) involved in sensing stalled DNA replication forks. Mec1 forms a protein complex with Ddc2 (ortholog of human ATRIP). The Mec1-Ddc2 complex is recruited to stalled replication forks through replication protein A (RPA)-coated single-stranded DNA (10, 11). The Mec3-Rad17-Ddc1 complex, a proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)-like checkpoint clamp and ortholog of the human 9-1-1 complex, was shown to be loaded onto the single- and double-stranded DNA junction of the stalled replication forks by the clamp loader Rad24-RFC complex (12). Once loaded, the Mec3-Rad17-Ddc1 complex stimulates Mec1 kinase activity (13). Dbp11 and its homolog TopBP1 in vertebrates are known components of the replication machinery (14). In addition to regulating the initiation of DNA replication, they were found to play a role in the DNA replication checkpoint (15–17). They interact with the 9-1-1 complex and directly stimulate Mec1/ATR activity in vitro (18–20). Thus, the assembly of multiple protein complexes at stalled DNA replication forks appears to facilitate activation of the DNA replication checkpoint (13, 18).Mrc1 (for mediator of replication checkpoint) was originally identified to be important for cells to respond to hydroxyurea in S. cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe (21, 22). Mrc1 is a component of the DNA replisome and travels with the replication forks along chromosome during DNA synthesis (23–25). Deletion of MRC1 causes defects in DNA replication, indicating its role in the normal progression of DNA replication (23). Interestingly, when DNA replication is blocked by hydroxyurea, Mrc1 undergoes Mec1- and Rad3 (S. pombe ortholog of Mec1)-dependent phosphorylation (21, 22). In S. cerevisiae, mutations of Mrc1 at the (S/T)Q sites, which are consensus phosphorylation sites of the Mec1/ATR family kinases, abolishes hydroxyurea-induced Mrc1 phosphorylation in vivo, suggesting a direct phosphorylation of Mrc1 by Mec1 (21, 22).Rad53 and Cds1, homologs of human Chk2, are the major effector kinases in the DNA replication checkpoints in S. cerevisiae and S. pombe, respectively. Activation of Rad53 is a hallmark of DNA replication checkpoint activation and is important for the maintenance of DNA replication forks in response to DNA replication stress (5, 6). Thus, it is important to understand how Rad53 activity is controlled. Interestingly, mutation of all the (S/T)Q sites of Mrc1 not only abolishes the phosphorylation of Mrc1 by Mec1 but also compromises hydroxyurea-induced Rad53 activation in S. cerevisiae (21). Similarly, mutation of the TQ sites of Mrc1 in S. pombe was shown to abolish the binding between Cds1 and Mrc1 as well as Cds1 activation (22). Further, mutation of specific TQ sites of Mrc1 in S. pombe abolishes its binding to Cds1 in vitro and the activation of Cds1 in vivo (26). Thus, Mec1/Rad3-dependent phosphorylation of Mrc1 is responsible for Mrc1 binding to Rad53/Cds1, which is essential for Rad53/Cds1 activation.An intriguing property of the Chk2 family kinases is their ability to undergo autophosphorylation and activation in the absence of other proteins in vitro (27, 28). First, autophosphorylation of a conserved threonine residue in the activation loop of Chk2 family kinase was found to be an essential part of their activation processes (26, 29–31). Second, a direct and trans-phosphorylation of the N-terminal TQ sites of the Chk2 family kinases by the Mec1/ATR family kinases is also important for their activation in vivo. Analogous to the requirement of N-terminal TQ site phosphorylation of Chk2 by ATR in human (32), the activation of Rad53/Cds1 in vivo requires phosphorylation of TQ sites in their N termini by Mec1/Rad3 (33, 34).Considering that Mec1, Mrc1, and many other proteins are recruited at stalled DNA replication forks and have been shown to be involved in DNA replication checkpoint activation, a key question remains unresolved: what is the minimal system that is capable of activating Rad53 directly? Given the direct physical interaction between Mrc1 and Rad53 and the requirement of Mrc1 and Mec1 in vivo, it is likely that they both play a role in Rad53 activation. Furthermore, what is the molecular mechanism of Rad53 activation by its upstream activators? To address these questions, a faithful reconstitution of the activation of Rad53 using purified proteins is necessary. In this study, we developed an activity-based assay consisting of the Dun1 kinase, a downstream substrate of Rad53, and Sml1, as a substrate of Dun1, to quantitatively measure the activity of Rad53. Using this coupled kinase assay from Rad53 to Dun1 and then to Sml1, we screened for Mrc1 and its associated factors to see whether they could directly activate Rad53 in vitro. Our results showed that Mec1 and Mrc1 collaborate to constitute a minimal system in direct activation of Rad53.     

Defects in DNA Lesion Bypass Lead to Spontaneous Chromosomal Rearrangements and Increased Cell Death

Rev3 polymerase and Mph1 DNA helicase participate in error-prone and error-free pathways, respectively, for the bypassing of template lesions during DNA replication. Here we have investigated the role of these pathways and their genetic interaction with recombination factors, other nonreplicative DNA helicases, and DNA damage checkpoint components in the maintenance of genome stability, viability, and sensitivity to the DNA-damaging agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS). We find that cells lacking Rev3 and Mph1 exhibit a synergistic, Srs2-dependent increase in the rate of accumulating spontaneous, gross chromosomal rearrangements, suggesting that the suppression of point mutations by deletion of REV3 may lead to chromosomal rearrangements. While mph1Δ is epistatic to homologous recombination (HR) genes, both Rad51 and Rad52, but not Rad59, are required for normal growth of the rev3Δ mutant and are essential for survival of rev3Δ cells during exposure to MMS, indicating that Mph1 acts in a Rad51-dependent, Rad59-independent subpathway of HR-mediated lesion bypass. Deletion of MPH1 helicase leads to synergistic DNA damage sensitivity increases in cells with chl1Δ or rrm3Δ helicase mutations, whereas mph1Δ is hypostatic to sgs1Δ. Previously reported slow growth of mph1Δ srs2Δ cells is accompanied by G₂/M arrest and fully suppressed by disruption of the Mec3-dependent DNA damage checkpoint. We propose a model for replication fork rescue mediated by translesion DNA synthesis and homologous recombination that integrates the role of Mph1 in unwinding D loops and its genetic interaction with Rev3 and Srs2-regulated pathways in the suppression of spontaneous genome rearrangements and in mutation avoidance.Nonreplicative DNA helicases play an important role in the maintenance of genome stability from bacteria to humans, most likely by affecting the formation and/or resolution of recombination intermediates and by facilitating replication fork progression through chromosomal regions with a propensity to adopt unusual DNA structures or those bound by proteins. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, this group of DNA helicases includes the 3′-to-5′ helicases Sgs1 and Srs2 and the 5′-to-3′ DNA helicase Rrm3. In the absence of any two of these three helicases, unresolved recombination intermediates accumulate and lead to extremely slow growth that is fully suppressed by deletion of genes encoding early homologous recombination (HR) factors (4, 6, 17, 20, 37, 46). In the absence of Sgs1, cells exhibit increased rates of mitotic recombination, frequent chromosome missegregation, accumulation of extrachromosomal ribosomal DNA (rDNA) circles, and increased rates of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) involving nonhomologous chromosomes (5, 24, 25, 38, 40, 43, 49, 50). Based on the increased crossover frequency during HO endonuclease-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) in cells lacking Sgs1, it has also been proposed that Sgs1 may function in decatenation of Holliday junctions (HJs) to yield noncrossovers (12, 22). Like Sgs1, Srs2 acts to favor noncrossover outcomes during DSB repair but appears to act earlier than Sgs1 in regulating recombination outcomes through its ability to dislodge Rad51 from recombinogenic 3′ overhangs, thereby promoting a noncrossover synthesis-dependent single-strand annealing (SDSA) pathway (12, 33, 35). In contrast, Rrm3 has not been implicated in DNA repair but is thought to be important for avoidance of recombination substrate formation by removal of DNA protein complexes in certain chromosomal locations, such as chromosome ends and replication fork barriers at the rDNA locus, thus facilitating replication fork progression (13, 14).In addition to Sgs1, Rrm3, and Srs2, the yeast genome encodes two other nonreplicative DNA helicases with proposed functions in DNA repair, Mph1 and Chl1. Mph1 possesses 3′-to-5′ helicase activity, and its ATPase activity requires a relatively long fragment of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) (≥40 nucleotides [nt]) for full activity in vitro (32). Mph1 is also necessary for resistance to the DNA damaging agents methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) and 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide (4-NQO) and suppresses spontaneous mutations toward canavanine resistance (3, 41). The modest mutator phenotype of the mph1Δ mutant is enhanced by additional mutations in base excision repair (apn1Δ and apn2Δ) and is suppressed by mutations in translesion DNA synthesis (TLS) (rev3Δ) (36, 41). These findings, in combination with the observation of an epistatic relationship between mph1Δ and homologous recombination mutations, have led to the proposal that Mph1 may act in Rad52-dependent, error-free bypassing of DNA lesions (41). Like the 3′-to-5′ DNA helicases Sgs1 and Srs2, Mph1 was recently shown to affect crossover frequency during repair of an HO endonuclease-induced DNA DSB, favoring noncrossovers as the outcome (33). The authors showed that Mph1 can unwind intermediates of homologous recombination in vitro, specifically D loops that are thought to form early during homologous recombination when a homoduplex is invaded by a Rad51 filament. While Srs2 has been shown to be able to disassemble Rad51 filaments in vitro, it does not appear to possess Mph1''s ability to dissociate D loops once they have formed (19, 47).Although Chl1 has been shown to be required for the establishment of sister chromatid cohesion, a possible role in DNA repair by homologous recombination has also been proposed (11, 28, 30, 42). While Chl1 possesses a conserved helicase domain, helicase activity has so far been shown only for its putative human homolog, hCHLR1 (10).To further elucidate the functional interaction between nonreplicative DNA helicases and DNA repair pathways, we generated a series of mutants with combinations of mph1Δ, chl1Δ, rrm3Δ, srs2Δ, and sgs1Δ mutations and mutations in translesion DNA synthesis (TLS), base excision repair (BER), homologous recombination (HR), and DNA damage checkpoints. In addition to synthetic fitness defects due to aberrant HR and checkpoint activation, we identified epistatic and synergistic relationships with regard to fitness, the accumulation of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs), and sensitivity to DNA damage. We propose that Mph1 functions in a Rad51-dependent, Rad59-independent pathway of HR for DNA lesion bypass and interacts genetically with REV3 in the suppression of gross chromosomal rearrangements.     

Synthesis of Free and Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen-bound Polyubiquitin Chains by the RING E3 Ubiquitin Ligase Rad5

In replicating yeast, lysine 63-linked polyubiquitin (polyUb) chains are extended from the ubiquitin moiety of monoubiquitinated proliferating cell nuclear antigen (monoUb-PCNA) by the E2-E3 complex of (Ubc13-Mms2)-Rad5. This promotes error-free bypass of DNA damage lesions. The unusual ability of Ubc13-Mms2 to synthesize unanchored Lys⁶³-linked polyUb chains in vitro allowed us to resolve the individual roles that it and Rad5 play in the catalysis and specificity of PCNA polyubiquitination. We found that Rad5 stimulates the synthesis of free polyUb chains by Ubc13-Mms2 in part by enhancing the reactivity of the Ubc13∼Ub thiolester bond. Polyubiquitination of monoUb-PCNA was further enhanced by interactions between the N-terminal domain of Rad5 and PCNA. Thus, Rad5 acts both to align monoUb-PCNA with Ub-charged Ubc13 and to stimulate Ub transfer onto Lys⁶³ of a Ub acceptor. We also found that Rad5 interacts with PCNA independently of the number of monoubiquitinated subunits in the trimer and that it binds to both unmodified and monoUb-PCNA with similar affinities. These findings indicate that Rad5-mediated recognition of monoUb-PCNA in vivo is likely to depend upon interactions with additional factors at stalled replication forks.DNA is susceptible to chemical alteration by many endogenous and exogenous agents. To counter this threat and maintain genome integrity, eukaryotic cells employ three main strategies: DNA repair pathways that directly reverse DNA damage, cell cycle checkpoints that allow time to repair the damage prior to replication, and DNA damage tolerance (DDT),² which is a method of bypassing DNA damage lesions during the DNA replication phase of the cell cycle.Proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) is a key regulatory protein in DNA replication and repair (1). At the replication fork, DNA is encircled by PCNA, a homotrimeric protein that promotes processive movement of the replicative DNA polymerase. Upon DNA damage and subsequent stalling of the replicative polymerase, Ub modifications of PCNA signal DDT, which allows a cell to bypass the lesion and proceed past this potential block in replication (2–4).In the DDT pathway, as in other Ub-dependent pathways, Ub is conjugated to a substrate by the actions of three enzymes, an E1 activating enzyme, an E2 conjugating enzyme, and an E3 ligase (5). The E1 enzyme initiates the pathway in a two-step reaction that utilizes ATP hydrolysis to activate the C terminus of Ub, culminating in the formation of an E1∼Ub thiolester. Subsequent transthiolation to the active site cysteine of the E2 generates an E2∼Ub thiolester. An E3 ligase then brings a substrate into close proximity to the E2∼Ub intermediate, thereby catalyzing the formation of an isopeptide bond between the amino group of a substrate lysine and the C-terminal glycine of Ub. Polyubiquitination occurs when this substrate is another Ub, either free or as part of a Ub-protein conjugate.The DDT pathway is characterized by distinct ubiquitination events on PCNA that occur in two stages (3, 4, 6). The first of these is monoubiquitination of lysine 164 on one or more of the PCNA subunits by the E2-E3 complex of Rad6-Rad18 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (3, 4, 7). monoUb-PCNA can serve either as a signal for error-prone bypass of the DNA lesion by recruiting translesion polymerases or as a substrate for subsequent polyubiquitination by the E2 heterodimer Ubc13-Mms2 and the E3 ligase Rad5 (3, 4, 8, 9). The polyUb chain extended from the initial Ub moiety on monoUb-PCNA is linked specifically through Ub Lys⁶³ residues. This Lys⁶³-linked chain is thought to enable a template switch mechanism that allows for error-free bypass of the DNA lesion, in part by utilizing the single-strand DNA-dependent helicase activity of Rad5 (3, 4, 10, 11). Both PCNA ubiquitination events promote bypass of the DNA lesion rather than direct removal or repair of the lesion.We have been interested in the mechanism by which the yeast (Ubc13-Mms2)-Rad5 complex catalyzes the formation of Lys⁶³-linked polyUb on PCNA. Previous studies have shown that heterodimerization of the Ubc13-Mms2 E2 is essential for Lys⁶³-specific Ub-Ub conjugation in vitro and in vivo (12–15). Ubc13 is a canonical E2 enzyme with an active site cysteine that receives activated Ub by transthiolation from the E1∼Ub complex (12, 13). This Ub is referred to as the “donor Ub.” Mms2 is a Ub E2 variant protein that lacks the active site cysteine (12, 15); rather, Mms2 binds to a second Ub, the “acceptor Ub,” and positions it to facilitate nucleophilic attack on the Ubc13∼Ub thiolester bond by the ϵ-amine of Lys⁶³ (15, 16). The positioning of the acceptor Ub by Mms2 controls the specificity of polyUb assembly such that only Lys⁶³-linked chains can be formed (16).Ubc13-Mms2 can synthesize Lys⁶³-linked chains in vitro in the absence of a PCNA substrate or an E3 ligase (12, 13). However, unlike the synthesis of free Lys⁶³-linked polyUb chains by Ubc13-Mms2, little is known about the polyubiquitination of PCNA or the role of the Rad5 E3 ligase in these reactions. Rad5 can bind PCNA and Rad18, and it contains a catalytic RING domain that characterizes the largest class of E3 ligases (17–21). There is evidence that RING E3s like Rad5 may play a more active role in ubiquitination than simply bringing the substrate into close proximity with the E2∼Ub. Several RING E3s have been shown to stimulate the synthesis of unanchored polyUb chains or autoubiquitination of their cognate E2s in the absence of substrates (22–24). This stimulation may be related to the ability of RING E3s to enhance reactivity of the E2∼Ub thiolester bond through allosteric effects (25, 26).Using purified recombinant forms of Ubc13, Mms2, and Rad5, we have explored the assembly of free Lys⁶³-linked polyUb chains as well as the extension of a polyUb chain on a synthetic analog of monoUb-PCNA. We show that Rad5 facilitates ubiquitination in part by increasing the reactivity of the Ubc13∼Ub thiolester bond. With monoUb-PCNA substrates, Rad5 also stimulated polyubiquitination through direct interactions with PCNA and recruitment of Ub-charged Ubc13-Mms2. Surprisingly, Rad5 recognition of monoUb-PCNA appeared to depend on interactions only with the PCNA moiety of the conjugate, which suggests that substrate selectivity in vivo is likely to depend on additional factors.     

A Non-canonical DNA Structure Enables Homologous Recombination in Various Genetic Systems

Homologous recombination, which is critical to genetic diversity, depends on homologous pairing (HP). HP is the switch from parental to recombinant base pairs, which requires expansion of inter-base pair spaces. This expansion unavoidably causes untwisting of the parental double-stranded DNA. RecA/Rad51-catalyzed ATP-dependent HP is extensively stimulated in vitro by negative supercoils, which compensates for untwisting. However, in vivo, double-stranded DNA is relaxed by bound proteins and thus is an unfavorable substrate for RecA/Rad51. In contrast, Mhr1, an ATP-independent HP protein required for yeast mitochondrial homologous recombination, catalyzes HP without the net untwisting of double-stranded DNA. Therefore, we questioned whether Mhr1 uses a novel strategy to promote HP. Here, we found that, like RecA, Mhr1 induced the extension of bound single-stranded DNA. In addition, this structure was induced by all evolutionarily and structurally distinct HP proteins so far tested, including bacterial RecO, viral RecT, and human Rad51. Thus, HP includes the common non-canonical DNA structure and uses a common core mechanism, independent of the species of HP proteins. We discuss the significance of multiple types of HP proteins.Homologous recombination (HR)² is essential for gametogenesis during meiosis and plays an important role in the generation of genetic diversity, a process that is critical for natural selection. A general HR intermediate is the heteroduplex joint, which is formed between a single-stranded (ss) DNA tail derived from a double-stranded break and a homologous double-stranded (ds) DNA by homologous pairing (HP) (1, 2) and subsequent strand exchange (3, 4). HP is a switch from parental dsDNA base pairs to recombinant base pairs involving the ssDNA and the complementary strand of the dsDNA, which form the core of the recombination intermediate, and strand exchange is the unidirectional replacement of a dsDNA strand by the incoming ssDNA. The RecA/Rad51 family of proteins, which include bacterial RecA, archaeal RadA/Rad51, eukaryotic Rad51, and meiosis-specific Dmc1, are essential for HR in their respective organisms, and these proteins can promote ATP-dependent HP and ATP hydrolysis-dependent strand exchange in vitro (see Refs. 5–10, for reviews). In HP, ATP-bound RecA first binds to ssDNA, and this ssDNA·RecA complex then interacts with dsDNA without homologous recognition. Within the RecA·ssDNA·dsDNA complex, a homologous region is identified (11). The base pair switch in HP is formally carried out by base rotation or base flipping (rotation around the base-sugar bond), either of which requires the expansion of the spaces between neighboring bases or base pairs (see Refs. 7 and 12).Electron microscopic studies have shown that RecA/Rad51 proteins form a well conserved right-handed helical filament around ssDNA or dsDNA (13–15). In the absence of ATP, these proteins assemble as a shorter inactive filament (helical pitch, ≈65–85 Å) (16, 17). In the presence of ATP (or ATPγS, a non-hydrolyzable ATP analogue), the filament adopts an extended active conformation with a helical pitch of ≈95 Å, and the contour length of ssDNA and dsDNA within the active filament is elongated to the same extent (13–15, 17, 18). This equalized elongation has been inferred to widen the spacing between bases of ssDNA and dsDNA equally in the nucleoprotein filament to facilitate the homologous alignment of both DNA substrates to achieve base pair switching (13). Previously, we analyzed the three-dimensional structure of the RecA·ssDNA complex in the presence of ATPγS by NMR, which showed that the axial rise per ssDNA base was extended to nearly 5 Å (19), and that the interconversion of sugar puckers induced horizontal base rotation (20). On the basis of these results, and as there was no other structural information at that time, we proposed a base rotation mechanism to explain the base pair switch in HP by assuming that the ssDNA and dsDNA were extended equally and uniformly (20). Recently, the crystal structure of the RecA·ssDNA complex has revealed a non-uniformly extended structure for the ssDNA (21). The crystal structure contains “a three-nucleotide segment” (triplet) region and “a long untwisted inter-nucleotide” (inter-triplet) region (see Fig. 4). However, it remains unclear which structure contributes to HP and how it does so.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 4.Comparison of the solution and crystal structures of ssDNA bound to RecA. A, superimposition of the solution structure of RecA-d(TACG) (19) (in magenta) and four DNA residues in the RecA₅-(dT)₁₅ crystal structure (21) (in cyan). The crystal structure is similar to the solution structure. D1, D2, and D3 indicate distances between adjacent bases (see also 18, 20). Actually, the dsDNA was shown to be untwisted (unwound) within the homology-independent RecA-ssDNA-dsDNA intermediate of HP described above (22, 23). HP mediated by RecA or Rad51 was shown to be extensively stimulated by negative supercoiling of the dsDNA substrate in vitro (24, 25). This is probably because negative supercoils in the dsDNA substrate would compensate for the positive supercoils generated by the untwisting for HP. Closed circular dsDNA isolated from living cells, including DNA from bacteria, nuclei, or mitochondria of eukaryotic cells, is similarly supercoiled. However, in vivo, the supercoils of cellular dsDNA are relaxed by nucleosome assembly in eukaryotic nuclei and by the binding of HU (26) and/or other DNA-binding proteins in bacteria. Thus, dsDNA in vivo is an unfavorable substrate for HP mediated by RecA/Rad51 family proteins.In mitochondria, which do not have RecA/Rad51 family proteins, negative supercoils are relaxed by the binding of TFAM (in mammals) or Abf2 (in yeast) (27, 28). In this in vivo dsDNA state, Mhr1, an ATP-independent HP protein required for mitochondrial HR in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (29) catalyzes HP without the net untwisting of dsDNA, i.e. Mhr1 catalyzes HP with relaxed closed circular dsDNA with similar efficiency as with dsDNA lacking topological constraints (linear dsDNA and closed circular dsDNA in the presence of a topoisomerase) (30). Furthermore, in contrast to what is observed for RecA/Rad51, Mhr1-catalyzed HP is prevented by negative dsDNA supercoiling. The absence of net untwisting of dsDNA appears at first glance to mean HP without the extension of the parental dsDNA. However, HP requires the expansion of inter-base pair spaces for base pair switching as described above, and thus we proposed that right-handed wrapping of dsDNA around Mhr1 with an extended and untwisted configuration allows base rotation for HP (30). However, it remained to be experimentally determined whether Mhr1 and RecA/Rad51 share a common or different mechanism for HP.In addition to Mhr1, several proteins that promote HP in vitro in the absence of nucleotide cofactors have been identified. These include the human (hs) Xrcc3·Rad51c/Rad51L2 complex (human Rad51 paralogues; 31), hsRad52 (32), Escherichia coli (ec) phage λ β-protein (33), ecRecT (a homologue of λ β-protein 34), ecRecO (35), and Ustilago maydis Brh2 (36). Some of these proteins are termed recombination mediators, but we refer to them as ATP-independent HP proteins for the purpose of this study (supplemental Fig. S1). In contrast to RecA/Rad51 family members, ATP-independent HP proteins, except for those in the Xrcc3·Rad51C complex, do not exhibit any amino acid sequence homology with RecA/Rad51 proteins or other ATP-independent HP proteins. In addition, ATP-independent HP proteins exhibit significantly different quaternary structures (31, 32, 36–40). The N-terminal domain of hsRad52 forms an undecameric ring around which ssDNA and/or dsDNA wrap(s) (32, 41), and the interaction of closed circular dsDNA with hsRad52 generates negative supercoils (41), whereas binding to RecA generates positive supercoils in this substrate. On the other hand, like RecA, RecT was shown to untwist dsDNA during HP (42). The binding of dsDNA to Mhr1 causes neither untwisting nor twisting (30). Thus, the properties of HP proteins vary considerably except for their HP activities.In this study, we questioned whether the extended structure of ssDNA as seen in the RecA·ssDNA complex is conserved among HP proteins, or whether each HP protein uses a different principle to promote HP. If the extended structure is a common determinant of HP, the different HP proteins are likely to use a common mechanism to promote HP, but their variation may reflect requirements for optimizing HP in different cellular environments. Thus, we focused on the structure of the HP protein-bound ssDNA, an HP intermediate. We determined the three-dimensional structures of ssDNA bound to Mhr1 and of three other evolutionarily distinct HP proteins, ecRecT (ATP-independent, from the λ-like cryptic prophage Rac of E. coli, involved in plasmid HR (43)), Thermus thermophilus (tt) RecO (ATP-independent HP protein in bacteria), and hsRad51 (ATP-dependent, human nuclear homologue of RecA) and compared them with ssDNA bound to ecRecA (E. coli, the prototype of the RecA family; supplemental Fig. S1). This is the first demonstration that diverse HP proteins, both ATP-dependent (RecA/Rad51) and ATP-independent (Mhr1, RecO, RecT), use the non-canonical extended DNA structure as a common intermediate for HP, and this suggests that they use a common mechanism for HP.     

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 Small Conserved Domain in the Yeast Spa2p Is Necessary and Sufficient for Its Polarized Localization

SPA2 encodes a yeast protein that is one of the first proteins to localize to sites of polarized growth, such as the shmoo tip and the incipient bud. The dynamics and requirements for Spa2p localization in living cells are examined using Spa2p green fluorescent protein fusions. Spa2p localizes to one edge of unbudded cells and subsequently is observable in the bud tip. Finally, during cytokinesis Spa2p is present as a ring at the mother–daughter bud neck. The bud emergence mutants bem1 and bem2 and mutants defective in the septins do not affect Spa2p localization to the bud tip. Strikingly, a small domain of Spa2p comprised of 150 amino acids is necessary and sufficient for localization to sites of polarized growth. This localization domain and the amino terminus of Spa2p are essential for its function in mating. Searching the yeast genome database revealed a previously uncharacterized protein which we name, Sph1p (Spa2p homolog), with significant homology to the localization domain and amino terminus of Spa2p. This protein also localizes to sites of polarized growth in budding and mating cells. SPH1, which is similar to SPA2, is required for bipolar budding and plays a role in shmoo formation. Overexpression of either Spa2p or Sph1p can block the localization of either protein fused to green fluorescent protein, suggesting that both Spa2p and Sph1p bind to and are localized by the same component. The identification of a 150–amino acid domain necessary and sufficient for localization of Spa2p to sites of polarized growth and the existence of this domain in another yeast protein Sph1p suggest that the early localization of these proteins may be mediated by a receptor that recognizes this small domain.Polarized cell growth and division are essential cellular processes that play a crucial role in the development of eukaryotic organisms. Cell fate can be determined by cell asymmetry during cell division (Horvitz and Herskowitz, 1992; Cohen and Hyman, 1994; Rhyu and Knoblich, 1995). Consequently, the molecules involved in the generation and maintenance of cell asymmetry are important in the process of cell fate determination. Polarized growth can occur in response to external signals such as growth towards a nutrient (Rodriguez-Boulan and Nelson, 1989; Eaton and Simons, 1995) or hormone (Jackson and Hartwell, 1990a , b ; Segall, 1993; Keynes and Cook, 1995) and in response to internal signals as in Caenorhabditis elegans (Goldstein et al., 1993; Kimble, 1994; Priess, 1994) and Drosophila melanogaster (St Johnston and Nusslein-Volhard, 1992; Anderson, 1995) early development. Saccharomyces cerevisiae undergo polarized growth towards an external cue during mating and to an internal cue during budding. Polarization towards a mating partner (shmoo formation) and towards a new bud site requires a number of proteins (Chenevert, 1994; Chant, 1996; Drubin and Nelson, 1996). Many of these proteins are necessary for both processes and are localized to sites of polarized growth, identified by the insertion of new cell wall material (Tkacz and Lampen, 1972; Farkas et al., 1974; Lew and Reed, 1993) to the shmoo tip, bud tip, and mother–daughter bud neck. In yeast, proteins localized to growth sites include cytoskeletal proteins (Adams and Pringle, 1984; Kilmartin and Adams, 1984; Ford, S.K., and J.R. Pringle. 1986. Yeast. 2:S114; Drubin et al., 1988; Snyder, 1989; Snyder et al., 1991; Amatruda and Cooper, 1992; Lew and Reed, 1993; Waddle et al., 1996), neck filament components (septins) (Byers and Goetsch, 1976; Kim et al., 1991; Ford and Pringle, 1991; Haarer and Pringle, 1987; Longtine et al., 1996), motor proteins (Lillie and Brown, 1994), G-proteins (Ziman, 1993; Yamochi et al., 1994; Qadota et al., 1996), and two membrane proteins (Halme et al., 1996; Roemer et al., 1996; Qadota et al., 1996). Septins, actin, and actin-associated proteins localize early in the cell cycle, before a bud or shmoo tip is recognizable. How this group of proteins is localized to and maintained at sites of cell growth remains unclear.Spa2p is one of the first proteins involved in bud formation to localize to the incipient bud site before a bud is recognizable (Snyder, 1989; Snyder et al., 1991; Chant, 1996). Spa2p has been localized to where a new bud will form at approximately the same time as actin patches concentrate at this region (Snyder et al., 1991). An understanding of how Spa2p localizes to incipient bud sites will shed light on the very early stages of cell polarization. Later in the cell cycle, Spa2p is also found at the mother–daughter bud neck in cells undergoing cytokinesis. Spa2p, a nonessential protein, has been shown to be involved in bud site selection (Snyder, 1989; Zahner et al., 1996), shmoo formation (Gehrung and Snyder, 1990), and mating (Gehrung and Snyder, 1990; Chenevert et al., 1994; Yorihuzi and Ohsumi, 1994; Dorer et al., 1995). Genetic studies also suggest that Spa2p has a role in cytokinesis (Flescher et al., 1993), yet little is known about how this protein is localized to sites of polarized growth.We have used Spa2p green fluorescent protein (GFP)¹ fusions to investigate the early localization of Spa2p to sites of polarized growth in living cells. Our results demonstrate that a small domain of ∼150 amino acids of this large 1,466-residue protein is sufficient for targeting to sites of polarized growth and is necessary for Spa2p function. Furthermore, we have identified and characterized a novel yeast protein, Sph1p, which has homology to both the Spa2p amino terminus and the Spa2p localization domain. Sph1p localizes to similar regions of polarized growth and sph1 mutants have similar phenotypes as spa2 mutants.