Physical and functional interactions between Werner syndrome helicase and mismatch-repair initiation factors

Werner syndrome (WS) is a severe recessive disorder characterized by premature aging, cancer predisposition and genomic instability. The gene mutated in WS encodes a bi-functional enzyme called WRN that acts as a RecQ-type DNA helicase and a 3′-5′ exonuclease, but its exact role in DNA metabolism is poorly understood. Here we show that WRN physically interacts with the MSH2/MSH6 (MutSα), MSH2/MSH3 (MutSβ) and MLH1/PMS2 (MutLα) heterodimers that are involved in the initiation of mismatch repair (MMR) and the rejection of homeologous recombination. MutSα and MutSβ can strongly stimulate the helicase activity of WRN specifically on forked DNA structures with a 3′-single-stranded arm. The stimulatory effect of MutSα on WRN-mediated unwinding is enhanced by a G/T mismatch in the DNA duplex ahead of the fork. The MutLα protein known to bind to the MutS α–heteroduplex complexes has no effect on WRN-mediated DNA unwinding stimulated by MutSα, nor does it affect DNA unwinding by WRN alone. Our data are consistent with results of genetic experiments in yeast suggesting that MMR factors act in conjunction with a RecQ-type helicase to reject recombination between divergent sequences.     

Human DNA mismatch repair: coupling of mismatch recognition to strand-specific excision

Eukaryotic mismatch-repair (MMR) proteins MutSα and MutLα couple recognition of base mismatches to strand-specific excision, initiated in vivo at growing 3′ ends and 5′ Okazaki-fragment ends or, in human nuclear extracts, at nicks in exogenous circular substrates. We addressed five biochemical questions relevant to coupling models. Excision remained fully efficient at DNA:MutSα ratios of nearly 1 to 1 at various mismatch-nick distances, suggesting a requirement for only one MutSα molecule per substrate. As the mismatch-nick DNA contour distance D in exogenous substrates increased from 0.26 to 0.98 kbp, initiation of excision in extracts decreased as D^−0.43 rather than the D⁻¹ to D⁻² predicted by some translocation or diffusion models. Virtually all excision was along the shorter (3′–5′) nick-mismatch, even when the other (5′–3′) path was less than twice as long. These observations argue against stochastically directed translocating/diffusing recognition complexes. The failure of mismatched DNA in trans to provoke excision of separate nicked homoduplexes argues against one-stage (concerted) triggering of excision initiation by recognition complexes acting through space. However, proteins associated with gapped DNA did appear to compete in trans with those in cis to mismatch-associated proteins. Thus, as in Escherichia coli, eukaryotic MMR may involve distinct initial-activation and excision-path-commitment stages.     

Mutations in the MutSalpha interaction interface of MLH1 can abolish DNA mismatch repair

MutLα, a heterodimer of MLH1 and PMS2, plays a central role in human DNA mismatch repair. It interacts ATP-dependently with the mismatch detector MutSα and assembles and controls further repair enzymes. We tested if the interaction of MutLα with DNA-bound MutSα is impaired by cancer-associated mutations in MLH1, and identified one mutation (Ala128Pro) which abolished interaction as well as mismatch repair activity. Further examinations revealed three more residues whose mutation interfered with interaction. Homology modelling of MLH1 showed that all residues clustered in a small accessible surface patch, suggesting that the major interaction interface of MutLα for MutSα is located on the edge of an extensive β-sheet that backs the MLH1 ATP binding pocket. Bioinformatic analysis confirmed that this patch corresponds to a conserved potential protein–protein interaction interface which is present in both human MLH1 and its E.coli homologue MutL. MutL could be site-specifically crosslinked to MutS from this patch, confirming that the bacterial MutL–MutS complex is established by the corresponding interface in MutL. This is the first study that identifies the conserved major MutLα–MutSα interaction interface in MLH1 and demonstrates that mutations in this interface can affect interaction and mismatch repair, and thereby can also contribute to cancer development.     

Different Roles of Eukaryotic MutS and MutL Complexes in Repair of Small Insertion and Deletion Loops in Yeast

DNA mismatch repair greatly increases genome fidelity by recognizing and removing replication errors. In order to understand how this fidelity is maintained, it is important to uncover the relative specificities of the different components of mismatch repair. There are two major mispair recognition complexes in eukaryotes that are homologues of bacterial MutS proteins, MutSα and MutSβ, with MutSα recognizing base-base mismatches and small loop mispairs and MutSβ recognizing larger loop mispairs. Upon recognition of a mispair, the MutS complexes then interact with homologues of the bacterial MutL protein. Loops formed on the primer strand during replication lead to insertion mutations, whereas loops on the template strand lead to deletions. We show here in yeast, using oligonucleotide transformation, that MutSα has a strong bias toward repair of insertion loops, while MutSβ has an even stronger bias toward repair of deletion loops. Our results suggest that this bias in repair is due to the different interactions of the MutS complexes with the MutL complexes. Two mutants of MutLα, pms1-G882E and pms1-H888R, repair deletion mispairs but not insertion mispairs. Moreover, we find that a different MutL complex, MutLγ, is extremely important, but not sufficient, for deletion repair in the presence of either MutLα mutation. MutSβ is present in many eukaryotic organisms, but not in prokaryotes. We suggest that the biased repair of deletion mispairs may reflect a critical eukaryotic function of MutSβ in mismatch repair.     

Mismatch repair and nucleotide excision repair proteins cooperate in the recognition of DNA interstrand crosslinks

DNA interstrand crosslinks (ICLs) are among the most cytotoxic types of DNA damage, thus ICL-inducing agents such as psoralen, are clinically useful chemotherapeutics. Psoralen-modified triplex-forming oligonucleotides (TFOs) have been used to target ICLs to specific genomic sites to increase the selectivity of these agents. However, how TFO-directed psoralen ICLs (Tdp-ICLs) are recognized and processed in human cells is unclear. Previously, we reported that two essential nucleotide excision repair (NER) protein complexes, XPA–RPA and XPC–RAD23B, recognized ICLs in vitro, and that cells deficient in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) complex MutSβ were sensitive to psoralen ICLs. To further investigate the role of MutSβ in ICL repair and the potential interaction between proteins from the MMR and NER pathways on these lesions, we performed electrophoretic mobility-shift assays and chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis of MutSβ and NER proteins with Tdp-ICLs. We found that MutSβ bound to Tdp-ICLs with high affinity and specificity in vitro and in vivo, and that MutSβ interacted with XPA–RPA or XPC–RAD23B in recognizing Tdp-ICLs. These data suggest that proteins from the MMR and NER pathways interact in the recognition of ICLs, and provide a mechanistic link by which proteins from multiple repair pathways contribute to ICL repair.     

Phosphorylation of mismatch repair proteins MSH2 and MSH6 affecting MutSalpha mismatch-binding activity

Mismatch repair (MMR) is involved in the removal of mispaired bases from DNA and thus plays an important role in the maintenance of genomic stability and the prevention of mutations and cancer. Moreover, MMR triggers genotoxicity and apoptosis upon processing of DNA lesions such as O⁶-methylguanine. Whereas the enzymology of MMR has been elucidated in great detail, only limited data are available concerning its regulation. Here we show that the major mismatch-binding proteins MSH2 and MSH6, forming the MutSα complex, are phosphorylated in vitro by protein kinase C and casein kinase II, but not by protein kinase A. Phosphorylation of MSH2 and MSH6 was also found within the cell, with MSH6 being more extensively phosphorylated than MSH2. Lack of MSH2 and MSH6 phosphorylation in vivo due to phosphate depletion, kinase inhibition (by H7 and quercetin) and treatment with phosphatases (CIP, SAP and λ-PPase) significantly reduced mismatch-binding activity of MutSα. It also prevented methylation-induced nuclear translocation of the repair complex, indicating that nuclear translocation of MutSα upon mutagen treatment is dependent on protein phosphorylation. The finding that MSH2 and MSH6 are subject to phosphorylation resulting in increased mismatch binding by MutSα indicates a novel type of post-translational regulation of MMR which might be involved in the response of cells to genotoxic stress.     

MutL binds to 3′ resected DNA ends and blocks DNA polymerase access

DNA mismatch repair removes mis-incorporated bases after DNA replication and reduces the error rate a 100–1000-fold. After recognition of a mismatch, a large section of up to a thousand nucleotides is removed from the daughter strand followed by re-synthesis. How these opposite activities are coordinated is poorly understood. Here we show that the Escherichia coli MutL protein binds to the 3′ end of the resected strand and blocks access of Pol I and Pol III. The cryo-EM structure of an 85-kDa MutL-DNA complex, determined to 3.7 Å resolution, reveals a unique DNA binding mode that positions MutL at the 3′ end of a primer-template, but not at a 5′ resected DNA end or a blunt DNA end. Hence, our work reveals a novel role for MutL in the final stages of mismatch repair by preventing premature DNA synthesis during removal of the mismatched strand.     

Functions of MutL��, Replication Protein A (RPA), and HMGB1 in 5��-Directed Mismatch Repair

A purified system comprised of MutSα, MutLα, exonuclease 1 (Exo1), and replication protein A (RPA) (in the absence or presence of HMGB1) supports 5′-directed mismatch-provoked excision that terminates after mismatch removal. MutLα is not essential for this reaction but enhances excision termination, although the basis of this effect has been uncertain. One model attributes the primary termination function in this system to RPA, with MutLα functioning in a secondary capacity by suppressing Exo1 hydrolysis of mismatch-free DNA (Genschel, J., and Modrich, P. (2003) Mol. Cell 12, 1077–1086). A second invokes MutLα as the primary effector of excision termination (Zhang, Y., Yuan, F., Presnell, S. R., Tian, K., Gao, Y., Tomkinson, A. E., Gu, L., and Li, G. M. (2005) Cell 122, 693–705). In the latter model, RPA provides a secondary termination function, but together with HMGB1, also participates in earlier steps of the reaction. To distinguish between these models, we have reanalyzed the functions of MutLα, RPA, and HMGB1 in 5′-directed mismatch-provoked excision using purified components as well as mammalian cell extracts. Analysis of extracts derived from A2780/AD cells, which are devoid of MutLα but nevertheless support 5′-directed mismatch repair, has demonstrated that 5′-directed excision terminates normally in the absence of MutLα. Experiments using purified components confirm a primary role for RPA in terminating excision by MutSα-activated Exo1 but are inconsistent with direct participation of MutLα in this process. While HMGB1 attenuates excision by activated Exo1, this effect is distinct from that mediated by RPA. Assay of extracts derived from HMGB1^+/+ and HMGB1^−/− mouse embryo fibroblast cells indicates that HMGB1 is not essential for mismatch repair.DNA mismatch repair provides several genetic stabilization functions but is best known for its role in the correction of replication errors (reviewed in Refs. 1–5). When triggered by a mismatched base pair, removal of a DNA biosynthetic error by this system is targeted to the newly synthesized strand by secondary signals within the helix. Although the strand signals that direct eukaryotic mismatch repair have not been identified, a strand break in the form of a nick or gap is sufficient to direct repair to the discontinuous strand in cell extracts, and there is evidence that similar signals may function in vivo (6). Analysis of the cell extract reaction has shown that the mammalian repair system possesses a bidirectional capability in the sense that the strand break that directs repair can be located either 3′ or 5′ to the mismatch (7–9).Several purified mammalian systems have been described that support 3′ and/or 5′-directed mismatch-provoked excision or repair (10–13). The simplest of these depends on the mismatch recognition activities MutSα (MSH2·MSH6 heterodimer) or MutSβ (MSH2·MSH3 heterodimer), MutLα (MLH1·PMS2 heterodimer), the single-stranded DNA-binding protein replication protein A (RPA),² and the 5′ to 3′ double-strand hydrolytic activity Exo1 (exonuclease 1). These four activities support a mismatch-provoked excision reaction directed by a 5′ strand break, and excision terminates upon mismatch removal. MutLα is not essential for this excision reaction, but together with RPA has been implicated in excision termination (10, 12). In addition, the non-histone protein HMGB1 has been found to be required for mismatch repair in partially fractionated mammalian nuclear extracts (14). This small DNA binding protein has been postulated to functionally complement RPA in this 5′-directed system (12).Supplementation of MutSα, MutLα, RPA, and Exo1 with the replication clamp PCNA proliferative cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and the clamp loader replication factor C (RFC) yields a system that supports mismatch-provoked excision directed by a 3′ or 5′ strand break (11). The basis of the bidirectional excision capability of this system was clarified with the demonstration that MutLα is a latent endonuclease that is activated in a mismatch-, MutSα-, RFC-, and ATP-dependent fashion (15). Incision by activated MutLα is restricted to the discontinuous strand of a nicked heteroduplex and tends to occur on the distal side of the mismatch. Thus, for a nicked heteroduplex in which the strand break resides 3′ to the mismatch, activated MutLα introduces an additional strand break 5′ to the mispair. This 5′ strand discontinuity provides the loading site for the 5′ to 3′ excision system described above, which removes the mismatch.MutSα has been shown to activate the 5′ to 3′ hydrolytic function of Exo1 on heteroduplex DNA, rendering the exonuclease highly processive, an effect attributed to physical interaction of the two activities (10). However, there are differences in the literature with respect to the roles of RPA and MutLα in the control of this processive activity that leads to termination of 5′-directed excision (10, 12). One study has ascribed the primary excision termination function to RPA, which was shown to reduce the processive hydrolytic tracts of the MutSα·Exo1 complex from ≈2,000 to ≈250 nucleotides and by binding to gaps, to restrict Exo1 access to 5′ termini in excision intermediates and products (10). Analysis of excision intermediates as a function of nick-mismatch separation distance led to the conclusion that MutSα is able to reload Exo1 at an RPA-filled gap provided that a mismatch remains in the molecule; however, excision is attenuated upon mismatch removal because MutSα is no longer able to assist in this regard. In this mechanism MutLα functions in excision termination by suppressing nonspecific hydrolysis of the mismatch-free product, an effect attributed to its function as a general negative regulator of Exo1 (10, 16). By contrast, a second study has attributed the primary termination function in this 5′-directed excision system to MutLα, with RPA playing a secondary role (12). In this mechanism RPA has several proposed functions. It is postulated to bind to the 5′ strand break where MutSα recruits HMGB1. RPA and HGB1 then partially melt the helix in the vicinity of the strand break leading to recruitment of Exo1, which initiates processive 5′ to 3′ hydrolysis. Binding of RPA to the ensuing gap results in displacement of MutSα and HMGB1 from the DNA and promotes physical interaction of the exonuclease with MutLα. This results in Exo1 inactivation and dissociation of the MutLα·Exo1 complex from the substrate. As in the other mechanism described above, Exo1 is reloaded if a mismatch remains within the DNA.To distinguish between these models, we have reassessed the roles of MutLα, RPA, and HMGB1 in mammalian mismatch repair. We demonstrate that 5′-directed excision terminates normally in extracts of A2780/AD cells, which support 5′-directed mismatch repair despite deficiency of MLH1 and PMS2 (17). Reanalysis of 5′-directed mismatch-provoked excision in the purified system described above has confirmed a direct role for RPA in terminating processive excision by MutSα-activated Exo1 but is inconsistent with direct participation of MutLα in this process. These experiments also indicate that while HMGB1 can attenuate Exo1 excision, this effect is distinct from that mediated by RPA. We also show that in contrast to results obtained with partially fractionated HeLa extracts (14), extracts derived from HMGB1^−/− mouse embryo fibroblast cells are fully proficient in mismatch repair.     

Physical and functional interactions between Escherichia coli MutL and the Vsr repair endonuclease

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and very-short patch (VSP) repair are two pathways involved in the repair of T:G mismatches. To learn about competition and cooperation between these two repair pathways, we analyzed the physical and functional interaction between MutL and Vsr using biophysical and biochemical methods. Analytical ultracentrifugation reveals a nucleotide-dependent interaction between Vsr and the N-terminal domain of MutL. Using chemical crosslinking, we mapped the interaction site of MutL for Vsr to a region between the N-terminal domains similar to that described before for the interaction between MutL and the strand discrimination endonuclease MutH of the MMR system. Competition between MutH and Vsr for binding to MutL resulted in inhibition of the mismatch-provoked MutS- and MutL-dependent activation of MutH, which explains the mutagenic effect of Vsr overexpression. Cooperation between MMR and VSP repair was demonstrated by the stimulation of the Vsr endonuclease in a MutS-, MutL- and ATP-hydrolysis-dependent manner, in agreement with the enhancement of VSP repair by MutS and MutL in vivo. These data suggest a mobile MutS–MutL complex in MMR signalling, that leaves the DNA mismatch prior to, or at the time of, activation of downstream effector molecules such as Vsr or MutH.     

Activation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mlh1-Pms1 Endonuclease in a Reconstituted Mismatch Repair System

Previous studies reported the reconstitution of an Mlh1-Pms1-independent 5′ nick-directed mismatch repair (MMR) reaction using Saccharomyces cerevisiae proteins. Here we describe the reconstitution of a mispair-dependent Mlh1-Pms1 endonuclease activation reaction requiring Msh2-Msh6 (or Msh2-Msh3), proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), and replication factor C (RFC) and a reconstituted Mlh1-Pms1-dependent 3′ nick-directed MMR reaction requiring Msh2-Msh6 (or Msh2-Msh3), exonuclease 1 (Exo1), replication protein A (RPA), RFC, PCNA, and DNA polymerase δ. Both reactions required Mg²⁺ and Mn²⁺ for optimal activity. The MMR reaction also required two reaction stages in which the first stage required incubation of Mlh1-Pms1 with substrate DNA, with or without Msh2-Msh6 (or Msh2-Msh3), PCNA, and RFC but did not require nicking of the substrate, followed by a second stage in which other proteins were added. Analysis of different mutant proteins demonstrated that both reactions required a functional Mlh1-Pms1 endonuclease active site, as well as mispair recognition and Mlh1-Pms1 recruitment by Msh2-Msh6 but not sliding clamp formation. Mutant Mlh1-Pms1 and PCNA proteins that were defective for Exo1-independent but not Exo1-dependent MMR in vivo were partially defective in the Mlh1-Pms1 endonuclease and MMR reactions, suggesting that both reactions reflect the activation of Mlh1-Pms1 seen in Exo1-independent MMR in vivo. The availability of this reconstituted MMR reaction should now make it possible to better study both Exo1-independent and Exo1-dependent MMR.     

In vitro and in vivo modulations of benzo[c]phenanthrene-DNA adducts by DNA mismatch repair system

Benzo[c]phenanthrene dihydrodiol epoxide (B[c] PhDE) is well known as an important environmental chemical carcinogen that preferentially modifies DNA in adenine residues. However, the molecular mechanism by which B[c]PhDE induces tumorigenesis is not fully understood. In this report, we demonstrate that DNA mismatch repair (MMR), a genome maintenance system, plays an important role in B[c]PhDE-induced carcinogensis by promoting apoptosis in cells treated with B[c]PhDE. We show that purified human MMR recognition proteins, MutSα and MutSβ, specifically recognized B[c]PhDE-DNA adducts. Cell lines proficient in MMR exhibited several-fold more sensitivity to killing than cell lines defective in either MutSα or MutLα by B[c]PhDE; the nature of this sensitivity was shown to be due to increased apoptosis. Additionally, wild-type mice exposed to B[c]PhDE had intestinal crypt cells that underwent apoptosis significantly more often than intestinal crypt cells found in B[c]PhDE-treated Msh2^–/– or Mlh1^–/– mice. These findings, combined with previous studies, suggest that the MMR system may serve as a general sensor for chemical-caused DNA damage to prevent damaged cells from mutagenesis and carcinogenesis by promoting apoptosis.     

Okazaki fragment maturation involves α-segment error editing by the mammalian FEN1/MutSα functional complex

During nuclear DNA replication, proofreading-deficient DNA polymerase α (Pol α) initiates Okazaki fragment synthesis with lower fidelity than bulk replication by proofreading-proficient Pol δ or Pol ε. Here, we provide evidence that the exonuclease activity of mammalian flap endonuclease (FEN1) excises Pol α replication errors in a MutSα-dependent, MutLα-independent mismatch repair process we call Pol α-segment error editing (AEE). We show that MSH2 interacts with FEN1 and facilitates its nuclease activity to remove mismatches near the 5′ ends of DNA substrates. Mouse cells and mice encoding FEN1 mutations display AEE deficiency, a strong mutator phenotype, enhanced cellular transformation, and increased cancer susceptibility. The results identify a novel role for FEN1 in a specialized mismatch repair pathway and a new cancer etiological mechanism.     

Mph1 requires mismatch repair-independent and -dependent functions of MutSα to regulate crossover formation during homologous recombination repair

In budding yeast the DNA helicase Mph1 prevents genome rearrangements during ectopic homologous recombination (HR) by suppressing the formation of crossovers (COs). Here we show that during ectopic HR repair, the anti-CO function of Mph1 is intricately associated with the mismatch repair (MMR) factor, MutSα. In particular, during HR repair using a completely homologous substrate, we reveal an MMR-independent function of MutSα in generating COs that is specifically antagonized by Mph1, but not Sgs1. In contrast, both Mph1 and MutSα are required to efficiently suppress COs in the presence of a homeologous substrate. Mph1 acts redundantly with Sgs1 in this respect since mph1Δ sgs1Δ double mutant cells pheno-copy MutSα mutants and completely fail to discriminate homologous and homeologous sequences during HR repair. However, this defect of mph1Δ sgs1Δ cells is not due to an inability to carry out MMR but rather is accompanied by elevated levels of gene conversion (GC) and bi-directional GC tracts specifically in non-crossover products. Models describing how Mph1, MutSα and Sgs1 act in concert to suppress genome rearrangements during ectopic HR repair are discussed.     

Involvement of the �� Clamp in Methyl-directed Mismatch Repair in Vitro

We have examined function of the bacterial β replication clamp in the different steps of methyl-directed DNA mismatch repair. The mismatch-, MutS-, and MutL-dependent activation of MutH is unaffected by the presence or orientation of loaded β clamp on either 3′ or 5′ heteroduplexes. Similarly, β is not required for 3′ or 5′ mismatch-provoked excision when scored in the presence of γ complex or in the presence of γ complex and DNA polymerase III core components. However, mismatch repair does not occur in the absence of β, an effect we attribute to a requirement for the clamp in the repair DNA synthesis step of the reaction. We have confirmed previous findings that β clamp interacts specifically with MutS and MutL (López de Saro, F. J., Marinus, M. G., Modrich, P., and O''Donnell, M. (2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 14340–14349) and show that the mutator phenotype conferred by amino acid substitution within the MutS N-terminal β-interaction motif is the probable result of instability coupled with reduced activity in multiple steps of the repair reaction. In addition, we have found that the DNA polymerase III α catalytic subunit interacts strongly and specifically with both MutS and MutL. Because interactions of polymerase III holoenzyme components with MutS and MutL appear to be of limited import during the initiation and excision steps of mismatch correction, we suggest that their significance might lie in the control of replication fork events in response to the sensing of DNA lesions by the repair system.     

Differential Mismatch Recognition Specificities of Eukaryotic MutS Homologs,MutSα and MutSβ

In eukaryotes, the recognition of the DNA postreplication errors and initiation of the mismatch repair is carried out by two MutS homologs: MutSα and MutSβ. MutSα recognizes base mismatches and 1 to 2 unpaired nucleotides whereas MutSβ recognizes longer insertion-deletion loops (IDLs) with 1 to 15 unpaired nucleotides as well as certain mismatches. Results from molecular dynamics simulations of native MutSβ:IDL-containing DNA and MutSα:mismatch DNA complexes as well as complexes with swapped DNA substrates provide mechanistic insight into how the differential substrate specificities are achieved by MutSα and MutSβ, respectively. Our simulations results suggest more extensive interactions between MutSβ and IDL-DNA and between MutSα and mismatch-containing DNA that suggest corresponding differences in stability. Furthermore, our simulations suggest more expanded mechanistic details involving a different degree of bending when DNA is bound to either MutSα or MutSβ and a more likely opening of the clamp domains when noncognate substrates are bound. The simulation results also provide detailed information on key residues in MutSβ and MutSα that are likely involved in recognizing IDL-DNA and mismatch-containing DNA, respectively.     

Proteomic Analysis Reveals a Novel Mutator S (MutS) Partner Involved in Mismatch Repair Pathway

The mismatch repair (MMR) family is a highly conserved group of proteins that function in correcting base–base and insertion–deletion mismatches generated during DNA replication. Disruption of this process results in characteristic microsatellite instability (MSI), repair defects, and susceptibility to cancer. However, a significant fraction of MSI-positive cancers express MMR genes at normal levels and do not carry detectable mutation in known MMR genes, suggesting that additional factors and/or mechanisms may exist to explain these MSI phenotypes in patients. To systematically investigate the MMR pathway, we conducted a proteomic analysis and identified MMR-associated protein complexes using tandem-affinity purification coupled with mass spectrometry (TAP-MS) method. The mass spectrometry data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD003014 and DOI 10.6019/PXD003014. We identified 230 high-confidence candidate interaction proteins (HCIPs). We subsequently focused on MSH2, an essential component of the MMR pathway and uncovered a novel MSH2-binding partner, WDHD1. We further demonstrated that WDHD1 forms a stable complex with MSH2 and MSH3 or MSH6, i.e. the MutS complexes. The specific MSH2/WDHD1 interaction is mediated by the second lever domain of MSH2 and Ala¹¹²³ site of WDHD1. Moreover, we showed that, just like MSH2-deficient cells, depletion of WDHD1 also led to 6-thioguanine (6-TG) resistance, indicating that WDHD1 likely contributes to the MMR pathway. Taken together, our study uncovers new components involved in the MMR pathway, which provides candidate genes that may be responsible for the development of MSI-positive cancers.Cells are equipped with a number of repair mechanisms to correct various types of DNA lesions. At least five major complimentary, but partially overlapping, multistep damage repair pathways are known to operate in mammals: mismatch repair (MMR)¹, nucleotide excision repair, base excision repair, and double-strand break repair, which includes both homologous recombination repair and nonhomologous end joining (see review: (1, 2)). In particular, MMR is a major repair pathway that prevents both base substitution and insertion–deletion mismatches due to replication errors (3–5).MMR is a highly conserved biological pathway that exists from bacteria to mammals. MMR process can be divided into three key steps: mismatch recognition, excision, and resynthesis (5, 6). The initial mismatch recognition step is fulfilled by MutS protein complexes, either MutSα (the MSH2-MSH6 heterodimer) or MutSβ (the MSH2-MSH3 heterodimer). The MutSα is primarily responsible for repairing base–base mismatches and small insertion–deletion loops of 1–2 nucleotides (7–9), while MutSβ preferentially recognizes larger insertion–deletion loops containing up to 14 extra nucleotides (10–12). Binding to mispaired DNA primes MutS to undergo a conformational change and recruitment of MutL to form an ATP-dependent ternary complex (13). Three different MutL heterodimeric complexes, MutLα, MutLβ, and MutLγ have been identified in the mammalian system. MLH1 heterodimerizes with PMS2, PMS1, or MLH3 to form MutLα, MutLβ, or MutLγ, respectively. MutLα plays a crucial role in MMR, as cells that lack either protein inactivate MMR in human cells, while loss of MutLβ or MutLγ heterodimers leads to minor defects in MMR. MutL is able to recognize and excise the lagging strand from the mismatch both distally and proximally (14, 15). Moreover, MutL interacts physically with MutS, enhances mismatch recognition, and recruits and activates exonuclease1 (EXO1) (16, 17). Exonuclease1 (EXO1) is the only enzyme with capabilities to excise nucleotide in 5′-3′ direction (18). In the case of 3′ excision, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)/replication factor C-dependent endonuclease activity plays a critical role in 3′-5′ excision involving EXO1. EXO1 then excises nascent DNA from the nick toward and beyond the mismatch to generate a single-strand gap, which is filled by DNA polymerases δ (lagging strand) or ε (leading strand) using the parental DNA strand as a template. Finally, the nick is sealed by DNA ligase I (19, 20). In addition, two MutS homologues, MSH4 and MSH5, share similar structure and sequence features with the other members of the MutS family. Recent evidence suggests that they function beyond MMR and are involved in processes such as recombinant repair, DNA damage signaling, and immunoglobulin class switch recombination (21, 22).It has been well documented that impairment of MMR genes, especially MSH2 and MLH1, cause susceptibility to certain types of cancer, including human nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. At the cellular level, deficient MMR results in a strong mutator phenotype known as microsatellite instability (MSI), which is a hallmark of MMR deficiency (3–5). However, a significant fraction of MSI-positive colorectal cancers express MMR genes at normal levels and do not carry detectable mutation or hypermethylation in known MMR genes (23). Similarly, certain noncolorectal cancer cells with MSI also appear to have normal expression of known MMR protein (24, 25). These observations suggest that additional factors and/or mechanisms may exist to explain these MSI phenotypes in patients.To address this question, we performed tandem affinity purification coupled with mass spectrometry analysis (TAP-MS) to uncover MMR-associated protein complexes. Our proteomics study of the MMR family led to the discovery of many novel MMR-associated proteins, and gene ontology analysis expanded the roles of MMR in multiple biological processes. Specifically for MSH2, we uncovered a novel MutS binding partner WDHD1, which associates with both MutSα (MSH2-MSH6 heterodimer) and MutSβ (MSH2-MSH3 heterodimer). We provide additional evidence suggesting that WDHD1 is involved in the MMR pathway, which can be used as potential biomarker for MSI phenotypes in cancer patients.     

Strand displacement synthesis by yeast DNA polymerase ε

DNA polymerase ε (Pol ε) is a replicative DNA polymerase with an associated 3′–5′ exonuclease activity. Here, we explored the capacity of Pol ε to perform strand displacement synthesis, a process that influences many DNA transactions in vivo. We found that Pol ε is unable to carry out extended strand displacement synthesis unless its 3′–5′ exonuclease activity is removed. However, the wild-type Pol ε holoenzyme efficiently displaced one nucleotide when encountering double-stranded DNA after filling a gap or nicked DNA. A flap, mimicking a D-loop or a hairpin structure, on the 5′ end of the blocking primer inhibited Pol ε from synthesizing DNA up to the fork junction. This inhibition was observed for Pol ε but not with Pol δ, RB69 gp43 or Pol η. Neither was Pol ε able to extend a D-loop in reconstitution experiments. Finally, we show that the observed strand displacement synthesis by exonuclease-deficient Pol ε is distributive. Our results suggest that Pol ε is unable to extend the invading strand in D-loops during homologous recombination or to add more than two nucleotides during long-patch base excision repair. Our results support the hypothesis that Pol ε participates in short-patch base excision repair and ribonucleotide excision repair.     

The nuclease activity of DNA2 promotes exonuclease 1–independent mismatch repair

The DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system is a major DNA repair system that corrects DNA replication errors. In eukaryotes, the MMR system functions via mechanisms both dependent on and independent of exonuclease 1 (EXO1), an enzyme that has multiple roles in DNA metabolism. Although the mechanism of EXO1-dependent MMR is well understood, less is known about EXO1-independent MMR. Here, we provide genetic and biochemical evidence that the DNA2 nuclease/helicase has a role in EXO1-independent MMR. Biochemical reactions reconstituted with purified human proteins demonstrated that the nuclease activity of DNA2 promotes an EXO1-independent MMR reaction via a mismatch excision-independent mechanism that involves DNA polymerase δ. We show that DNA polymerase ε is not able to replace DNA polymerase δ in the DNA2-promoted MMR reaction. Unlike its nuclease activity, the helicase activity of DNA2 is dispensable for the ability of the protein to enhance the MMR reaction. Further examination established that DNA2 acts in the EXO1-independent MMR reaction by increasing the strand-displacement activity of DNA polymerase δ. These data reveal a mechanism for EXO1-independent mismatch repair.

The mismatch repair (MMR) system has been conserved from bacteria to humans (1, 2). It promotes genome stability by suppressing spontaneous and DNA damage-induced mutations (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). The key function of the MMR system is the correction of DNA replication errors that escape the proofreading activities of replicative DNA polymerases (1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12). In addition, the MMR system removes mismatches formed during strand exchange in homologous recombination, suppresses homeologous recombination, initiates apoptosis in response to irreparable DNA damage caused by several anticancer drugs, and contributes to instability of triplet repeats and alternative DNA structures (1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). The principal components of the eukaryotic MMR system are MutSα (MSH2-MSH6 heterodimer), MutLα (MLH1-PMS2 heterodimer in humans and Mlh1-Pms1 heterodimer in yeast), MutSβ (MSH2-MSH3 heterodimer), proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), exonuclease 1 (EXO1), RPA, and DNA polymerase δ (Pol δ). Loss-of-function mutations in the MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2 genes of the human MMR system cause Lynch and Turcot syndromes, and hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter is responsible for ∼15% of sporadic cancers in several organs (19, 20). MMR deficiency leads to cancer initiation and progression via a multistage process that involves the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes and action of oncogenes (21).MMR occurs behind the replication fork (22, 23) and is a major determinant of the replication fidelity (24). The correction of DNA replication errors by the MMR system increases the replication fidelity by ∼100 fold (25). Strand breaks in leading and lagging strands as well as ribonucleotides in leading strands serve as signals that direct the eukaryotic MMR system to remove DNA replication errors (26, 27, 28, 29, 30). MMR is more efficient on the lagging than the leading strand (31). The substrates for MMR are all six base–base mismatches and 1 to 13-nt insertion/deletion loops (25, 32, 33, 34). Eukaryotic MMR commences with recognition of the mismatch by MutSα or MutSβ (32, 34, 35, 36). MutSα is the primary mismatch-recognition factor that recognizes both base–base mismatches and small insertion/deletion loops whereas MutSβ recognizes small insertion/deletion loops (32, 34, 35, 36, 37). After recognizing the mismatch, MutSα or MutSβ cooperates with RFC-loaded PCNA to activate MutLα endonuclease (38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43). The activated MutLα endonuclease incises the discontinuous daughter strand 5′ and 3′ to the mismatch. A 5'' strand break formed by MutLα endonuclease is utilized by EXO1 to enter the DNA and excise a discontinuous strand portion encompassing the mismatch in a 5''→3′ excision reaction stimulated by MutSα/MutSβ (38, 44, 45). The generated gap is filled in by the Pol δ holoenzyme, and the nick is ligated by a DNA ligase (44, 46, 47). DNA polymerase ε (Pol ε) can substitute for Pol δ in the EXO1-dependent MMR reaction, but its activity in this reaction is much lower than that of Pol δ (48). Although MutLα endonuclease is essential for MMR in vivo, 5′ nick-dependent MMR reactions reconstituted in the presence of EXO1 are MutLα-independent (44, 47, 49).EXO1 deficiency in humans does not seem to cause significant cancer predisposition (19). Nevertheless, it is known that Exo1^-/- mice are susceptible to the development of lymphomas (50). Genetic studies in yeast and mice demonstrated that EXO1 inactivation causes only a modest defect in MMR (50, 51, 52, 53). In agreement with these genetic studies, a defined human EXO1-independent MMR reaction that depends on the strand-displacement DNA synthesis activity of Pol δ holoenzyme to remove the mismatch was reconstituted (54). Furthermore, an EXO1-independent MMR reaction that occurred in a mammalian cell extract system without the formation of a gapped excision intermediate was observed (54). Together, these findings implicated the strand-displacement activity of Pol δ holoenzyme in EXO1-independent MMR.In this study, we investigated DNA2 in the context of MMR. DNA2 is an essential multifunctional protein that has nuclease, ATPase, and 5''→3′ helicase activities (55, 56, 57). Previous research ascertained that DNA2 removes long flaps during Okazaki fragment maturation (58, 59, 60), participates in the resection step of double-strand break repair (61, 62, 63), initiates the replication checkpoint (64), and suppresses the expansions of GAA repeats (65). We have found in vivo and in vitro evidence that DNA2 promotes EXO1-independent MMR. Our data have indicated that the nuclease activity of DNA2 enhances the strand-displacement activity of Pol δ holoenzyme in an EXO1-independent MMR reaction.     

Influence of Oxidized Purine Processing on Strand Directionality of Mismatch Repair

Replicative DNA polymerases are high fidelity enzymes that misincorporate nucleotides into nascent DNA with a frequency lower than [1/10⁵], and this precision is improved to about [1/10⁷] by their proofreading activity. Because this fidelity is insufficient to replicate most genomes without error, nature evolved postreplicative mismatch repair (MMR), which improves the fidelity of DNA replication by up to 3 orders of magnitude through correcting biosynthetic errors that escaped proofreading. MMR must be able to recognize non-Watson-Crick base pairs and excise the misincorporated nucleotides from the nascent DNA strand, which carries by definition the erroneous genetic information. In eukaryotes, MMR is believed to be directed to the nascent strand by preexisting discontinuities such as gaps between Okazaki fragments in the lagging strand or breaks in the leading strand generated by the mismatch-activated endonuclease of the MutL homologs PMS1 in yeast and PMS2 in vertebrates. We recently demonstrated that the eukaryotic MMR machinery can make use also of strand breaks arising during excision of uracils or ribonucleotides from DNA. We now show that intermediates of MutY homolog-dependent excision of adenines mispaired with 8-oxoguanine (G^O) also act as MMR initiation sites in extracts of human cells or Xenopus laevis eggs. Unexpectedly, G^O/C pairs were not processed in these extracts and failed to affect MMR directionality, but extracts supplemented with exogenous 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase (OGG1) did so. Because OGG1-mediated excision of G^O might misdirect MMR to the template strand, our findings suggest that OGG1 activity might be inhibited during MMR.     

Mismatch Repair Balances Leading and Lagging Strand DNA Replication Fidelity

The two DNA strands of the nuclear genome are replicated asymmetrically using three DNA polymerases, α, δ, and ε. Current evidence suggests that DNA polymerase ε (Pol ε) is the primary leading strand replicase, whereas Pols α and δ primarily perform lagging strand replication. The fact that these polymerases differ in fidelity and error specificity is interesting in light of the fact that the stability of the nuclear genome depends in part on the ability of mismatch repair (MMR) to correct different mismatches generated in different contexts during replication. Here we provide the first comparison, to our knowledge, of the efficiency of MMR of leading and lagging strand replication errors. We first use the strand-biased ribonucleotide incorporation propensity of a Pol ε mutator variant to confirm that Pol ε is the primary leading strand replicase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We then use polymerase-specific error signatures to show that MMR efficiency in vivo strongly depends on the polymerase, the mismatch composition, and the location of the mismatch. An extreme case of variation by location is a T-T mismatch that is refractory to MMR. This mismatch is flanked by an AT-rich triplet repeat sequence that, when interrupted, restores MMR to >95% efficiency. Thus this natural DNA sequence suppresses MMR, placing a nearby base pair at high risk of mutation due to leading strand replication infidelity. We find that, overall, MMR most efficiently corrects the most potentially deleterious errors (indels) and then the most common substitution mismatches. In combination with earlier studies, the results suggest that significant differences exist in the generation and repair of Pol α, δ, and ε replication errors, but in a generally complementary manner that results in high-fidelity replication of both DNA strands of the yeast nuclear genome.