Cdc18/CDC6 activates the Rad3-dependent checkpoint in the fission yeast

A screen for genes that can ectopically activate a Rad3-dependent checkpoint block over mitosis in fission yeast has identified the DNA replication initiation factor cdc18 (known as CDC6 in other organisms). Either a stabilized form of Cdc18, the Cdc18-T6A phosphorylation mutant, or overexpression of wild type Cdc18, activate the Rad3-dependent S-M checkpoint in the apparent absence of detectable replication structures and gross DNA damage. This cell cycle block relies on the Rad checkpoint pathway and requires Chk1 phosphorylation and activation. Unexpectedly, Cdc18-T6A induces changes in the mobility of Chromosome III, affecting the size of a restriction fragment containing rDNA repeats and producing aberrant nucleolar structures. Recombination events within the rDNA appear to contribute at least in part to the cell cycle delay. We propose that an elevated level of Cdc18 activates the Rad3-dependent checkpoint either directly or indirectly, and additionally causes expansion of the rDNA repeats on Chromosome III.     

G2 / M checkpoint genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae : further evidence for roles in DNA replication and / or repair

We have cloned, sequenced and disrupted the checkpoint genes RAD17, RAD24 and MEC3 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mec3p shows no strong similarity to other proteins currently in the database. Rad17p is similar to Rec1 from Ustilago maydis, a 3′ to 5′ DNA exonuclease/checkpoint protein, and the checkpoint protein Rad1p from Schizosaccharomyces pombe (as we previously reported). Rad24p shows sequence similarity to replication factor C (RFC) subunits, and the S. pombe Rad17p checkpoint protein, suggesting it has a role in DNA replication and/or repair. This hypothesis is supported by our genetic experiments which show that overexpression of RAD24 strongly reduces the growth rate of yeast strains that are defective in the DNA replication/repair proteins Rfc1p (cdc44), DNA polα (cdc17) and DNA polδ (cdc2) but has much weaker effects on cdc6, cdc9, cdc15 and CDC ⁺ strains. The idea that RAD24 overexpression induces DNA damage, perhaps by interfering with replication/repair complexes, is further supported by our observation that RAD24 overexpression increases mitotic chromosome recombination in CDC ⁺ strains. Although RAD17, RAD24 and MEC3 are not required for cell cycle arrest when S phase is inhibited by hydroxyurea (HU), they do contribute to the viability of yeast cells grown in the presence of HU, possibly because they are required for the repair of HU-induced DNA damage. In addition, all three are required for the rapid death of cdc13 rad9 mutants. All our data are consistent with models in which RAD17, RAD24 and MEC3 are coordinately required for the activity of one or more DNA repair pathways that link DNA damage to cell cycle arrest. Received: 8 April 1997 / Accepted: 10 May 1997     

Phosphorylation of the budding yeast 9-1-1 complex is required for Dpb11 function in the full activation of the UV-induced DNA damage checkpoint

Following genotoxic insults, eukaryotic cells trigger a signal transduction cascade known as the DNA damage checkpoint response, which involves the loading onto DNA of an apical kinase and several downstream factors. Chromatin modifications play an important role in recruiting checkpoint proteins. In budding yeast, methylated H3-K79 is bound by the checkpoint factor Rad9. Loss of Dot1 prevents H3-K79 methylation, leading to a checkpoint defect in the G₁ phase of the cell cycle and to a reduction of checkpoint activation in mitosis, suggesting that another pathway contributes to Rad9 recruitment in M phase. We found that the replication factor Dpb11 is the keystone of this second pathway. dot1Δ dpb11-1 mutant cells are sensitive to UV or Zeocin treatment and cannot activate Rad53 if irradiated in M phase. Our data suggest that Dpb11 is held in proximity to damaged DNA through an interaction with the phosphorylated 9-1-1 complex, leading to Mec1-dependent phosphorylation of Rad9. Dpb11 is also phosphorylated after DNA damage, and this modification is lost in a nonphosphorylatable ddc1-T602A mutant. Finally, we show that, in vivo, Dpb11 cooperates with Dot1 in promoting Rad9 phosphorylation but also contributes to the full activation of Mec1 kinase.     

Activation of Mrc1, a mediator of the replication checkpoint, by telomere erosion

Background information. In budding yeast, the loss of either telomere sequences (in telomerase‐negative cells) or telomere capping (in mutants of two telomere end‐protection proteins, Cdc13 and Yku) lead, by distinct pathways, to telomeric senescence. After DNA damage, activation of Rad53, which together with Chk1 represents a protein kinase central to all checkpoint pathways, normally requires Rad9, a checkpoint adaptor. Results. We report that in telomerase‐negative (tlc1Δ) cells, activation of Rad53, although diminished, could still take place in the absence of Rad9. In contrast, Rad9 was essential for Rad53 activation in cells that entered senescence in the presence of functional telomerase, namely in senescent cells bearing mutations in telomere end‐protection proteins (cdc13‐1 yku70Δ). In telomerase‐negative cells deleted for RAD9, Mrc1, another checkpoint adaptor previously implicated in the DNA replication checkpoint, mediated Rad53 activation. Rad9 and Rad53, as well as other DNA damage checkpoint proteins (Mec1, Mec3, Chk1 and Dun1), were required for complete DNA‐damage‐induced cell‐cycle arrest after loss of telomerase function. However, unexpectedly, given the formation of an active Rad53–Mrc1 complex in tlc1Δ rad9Δ cells, Mrc1 did not mediate the cell‐cycle arrest elicited by telomerase loss. Finally, we report that Rad9, Mrc1, Dun1 and Chk1 are activated by phosphorylation after telomerase inactivation. Conclusions. These results indicate that loss of telomere capping and loss of telomere sequences, both of which provoke telomeric senescence, are perceived as two distinct types of damages. In contrast with the Rad53–Rad9‐mediated cell‐cycle arrest that functions in a similar way in both types of telomeric senescence, activation of Rad53–Mrc1 might represent a specific response to telomerase inactivation and/or telomere shortening, the functional significance of which has yet to be uncovered.     

Rad4TopBP1, a scaffold protein, plays separate roles in DNA damage and replication checkpoints and DNA replication

Rad4TopBP1, a BRCT domain protein, is required for both DNA replication and checkpoint responses. Little is known about how the multiple roles of Rad4TopBP1 are coordinated in maintaining genome integrity. We show here that Rad4TopBP1 of fission yeast physically interacts with the checkpoint sensor proteins, the replicative DNA polymerases, and a WD-repeat protein, Crb3. We identified four novel mutants to investigate how Rad4TopBP1 could have multiple roles in maintaining genomic integrity. A novel mutation in the third BRCT domain of rad4+TopBP1 abolishes DNA damage checkpoint response, but not DNA replication, replication checkpoint, and cell cycle progression. This mutant protein is able to associate with all three replicative polymerases and checkpoint proteins Rad3ATR-Rad26ATRIP, Hus1, Rad9, and Rad17 but has a compromised association with Crb3. Furthermore, the damaged-induced Rad9 phosphorylation is significantly reduced in this rad4TopBP1 mutant. Genetic and biochemical analyses suggest that Crb3 has a role in the maintenance of DNA damage checkpoint and influences the Rad4TopBP1 damage checkpoint function. Taken together, our data suggest that Rad4TopBP1 provides a scaffold to a large complex containing checkpoint and replication proteins thereby separately enforcing checkpoint responses to DNA damage and replication perturbations during the cell cycle.     

The S‐phase checkpoint: targeting the replication fork

The S‐phase checkpoint is a surveillance mechanism, mediated by the protein kinases Mec1 and Rad53 in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ATR and Chk2 in human cells, respectively) that responds to DNA damage and replication perturbations by co‐ordinating a global cellular response necessary to maintain genome integrity. A key aspect of this response is the stabilization of DNA replication forks, which is critical for cell survival. A defective checkpoint causes irreversible replication‐fork collapse and leads to genomic instability, a hallmark of cancer cells. Although the precise mechanisms by which Mec1/Rad53 maintain functional replication forks are currently unclear, our knowledge about this checkpoint function has significantly increased during the last years. Focusing mainly on the advances obtained in S. cerevisiae, the present review will summarize our understanding of how the S‐phase checkpoint preserves the integrity of DNA replication forks and discuss the most recent findings on this topic.