Inversions with Deletions and Duplications

Complex mutational events, including de novo inversion with deletion and duplication of sequence, have been observed but are difficult to model. We propose that nascent leading-strand misalignment upon the lagging-strand template during DNA replication can result in the inversion of sequence. The positioning of this misalignment and of the realignment of the leading strand back onto the leading-strand template will determine if the inversion is accompanied by deletion and duplication of sequence. We suggest that such strand misalignment-realignment events may occur at the replication fork during concurrent DNA replication.     

Termination of DNA replication at Tus-ter barriers results in under-replication of template DNA

The complete and accurate duplication of genomic information is vital to maintain genome stability in all domains of life. In Escherichia coli, replication termination, the final stage of the duplication process, is confined to the “replication fork trap” region by multiple unidirectional fork barriers formed by the binding of Tus protein to genomic ter sites. Termination typically occurs away from Tus-ter complexes, but they become part of the fork fusion process when a delay to one replisome allows the second replisome to travel more than halfway around the chromosome. In this instance, replisome progression is blocked at the nonpermissive interface of the Tus-ter complex, termination then occurs when a converging replisome meets the permissive interface. To investigate the consequences of replication fork fusion at Tus-ter complexes, we established a plasmid-based replication system where we could mimic the termination process at Tus-ter complexes in vitro. We developed a termination mapping assay to measure leading strand replication fork progression and demonstrate that the DNA template is under-replicated by 15 to 24 bases when replication forks fuse at Tus-ter complexes. This gap could not be closed by the addition of lagging strand processing enzymes or by the inclusion of several helicases that promote DNA replication. Our results indicate that accurate fork fusion at Tus-ter barriers requires further enzymatic processing, highlighting large gaps that still exist in our understanding of the final stages of chromosome duplication and the evolutionary advantage of having a replication fork trap.     

Bacterial DNA repair genes and their eukaryotic homologues: 5. The role of recombination in DNA repair and genome stability

Recombinational repair is a well conserved DNA repair mechanism present in all living organisms. Repair by homologous recombination is generally accurate as it uses undamaged homologous DNA molecule as a repair template. In Escherichia coli homologous recombination repairs both the double-strand breaks and single-strand gaps in DNA. DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) can be induced upon exposure to exogenous sources such as ionizing radiation or endogenous DNA-damaging agents including reactive oxygen species (ROS) as well as during natural biological processes like conjugation. However, the bulk of double strand breaks are formed during replication fork collapse encountering an unrepaired single strand gap in DNA. Under such circumstances DNA replication on the damaged template can be resumed only if supported by homologous recombination. This functional cooperation of homologous recombination with replication machinery enables successful completion of genome duplication and faithful transmission of genetic material to a daughter cell. In eukaryotes, homologous recombination is also involved in essential biological processes such as preservation of genome integrity, DNA damage checkpoint activation, DNA damage repair, DNA replication, mating type switching, transposition, immune system development and meiosis. When unregulated, recombination can lead to genome instability and carcinogenesis.     

Rescue of replication failure by Fanconi anaemia proteins

Chromosomal aberrations are often associated with incomplete genome duplication, for instance at common fragile sites, or as a consequence of chemical alterations in the DNA template that block replication forks. Studies of the cancer-prone disease Fanconi anaemia (FA) have provided important insights into the resolution of replication problems. The repair of interstrand DNA crosslinks induced by chemotherapy drugs is coupled with DNA replication and controlled by FA proteins. We discuss here the recent discovery of new FA-associated proteins and the development of new tractable repair systems that have dramatically improved our understanding of crosslink repair. We focus also on how FA proteins protect against replication failure in the context of fragile sites and on the identification of reactive metabolites that account for the development of Fanconi anaemia symptoms.     

Timing and spacing of ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass

During its duplication, DNA, the carrier of our genetic information, is particularly vulnerable to decay, and the capacity of cells to deal with replication stress has been recognised as a major factor protecting us from genome instability and cancer. One of the major pathways controlling the bypass of DNA lesions during replication is activated by ubiquitylation of the sliding clamp, PCNA. Whereas monoubiquitylation of PCNA allows mutagenic translesion synthesis by damage-tolerant DNA polymerases, polyubiquitylation is required mainly for an error-free pathway that likely involves template switching. This review is focussed on our understanding of the timing of damage bypass during the cell cycle and the question of how it is coordinated with the progression of replication forks.     

Recombination and Replication

The links between recombination and replication have been appreciated for decades and it is now generally accepted that these two fundamental aspects of DNA metabolism are inseparable: Homologous recombination is essential for completion of DNA replication and vice versa. This review focuses on the roles that recombination enzymes play in underpinning genome duplication, aiding replication fork movement in the face of the many replisome barriers that challenge genome stability. These links have many conserved features across all domains of life, reflecting the conserved nature of the substrate for these reactions, DNA.The interplay between replication and recombination is complex in terms of both mechanism and integration within DNA metabolism. At the heart of this interplay is the requirement for single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), the substrate for DNA-strand-exchange proteins, to initiate recombination (Cox 2007b; San Filippo et al. 2008). Whether, when, and where this ssDNA is generated determines the functional relationship between replication and recombination, a relationship that can operate in both directions. Homologous recombination enzymes are critical for successful completion of genome duplication (Kogoma 1997; Cox et al. 2000) but DNA replication also underpins homologous recombination, as discussed elsewhere in this collection. The links between recombination and replication are therefore intimate and one cannot be considered in isolation from the other. However, involvement of DNA-strand-exchange proteins, regardless of the metabolic context, comes with the unavoidable risk of genome rearrangements. This genome instability can occasionally increase evolutionary fitness but more frequently is deleterious to the viability of the individual.This review will focus on fundamental aspects of the links between replication and recombination enzymes rather than simply providing a list of known enzymes and reactions. The substrate, DNA, is identical in all of these reactions and this is reflected in the high mechanistic conservation of replication and recombination.     

Running into problems: how cells cope with replicating damaged DNA

The ability of cells to fully and faithfully replicate DNA is essential for preventing genomic instability and cancer. DNA is susceptible to damage both in resting and in actively replicating cells. Thus, genome duplication necessarily involves replication of damaged DNA. The many mechanism cells use to avoid or overcome the problems of replicating an imperfect DNA template are discussed.     

Replication forks blocked by protein-DNA complexes have limited stability in vitro

There are many barriers that replication forks must overcome in order to duplicate a genome in vivo. These barriers include damage to the template DNA and proteins bound to this template. If replication is halted by such a block, then the block must be either removed or bypassed for replication to continue. If continuation of replication employs the original fork, avoiding the need to reload the replication apparatus, then the blocked replisome must retain functionality. In vivo studies of Escherichia coli replication forks suggest that replication forks blocked by protein-DNA complexes retain the ability to resume replication upon removal of the block for several hours. Here we tested the functional stability of replication forks reconstituted in vitro and blocked by lac repressor-operator complexes. Once a fork comes to a halt at such a block, it cannot continue subsequently to translocate through the block until addition of IPTG induces repressor dissociation. However, the ability to resume replication is retained only for 4-6 min regardless of the topological state of the template DNA. Comparison of our in vitro data with previous in vivo data suggests that either accessory factors that stabilise blocked forks are present in vivo or the apparent stability of blocked forks in vivo is due to continual reloading of the replication apparatus at the site of the block.     

PriB stimulates PriA helicase via an interaction with single-stranded DNA

The frequency with which replication forks break down in all organisms requires that specific mechanisms ensure completion of genome duplication. In Escherichia coli a major pathway for reloading of the replicative apparatus at sites of fork breakdown is dependent on PriA helicase. PriA acts in conjunction with PriB and DnaT to effect loading of the replicative helicase DnaB back onto the lagging strand template, either at stalled fork structures or at recombination intermediates. Here we showed that PriB stimulates PriA helicase, acting to increase the apparent processivity of PriA. This stimulation correlates with the ability of PriB to form a ternary complex with PriA and DNA structures containing single-stranded DNA, suggesting that the known single-stranded DNA binding function of PriB facilitates unwinding by PriA helicase. This enhanced apparent processivity of PriA might play an important role in generating single-stranded DNA at stalled replication forks upon which to load DnaB. However, stimulation of PriA by PriB is not DNA structure-specific, demonstrating that targeting of stalled forks and recombination intermediates during replication restart likely resides with PriA alone.     

Studies on the mechanism of enzymatic DNA elongation by Escherichia coli DNA polymerase II.

The mechanism of enzymatic elongation by Escherichia coli DNA polymerase II of a DNA primer, which is annealed to a unique position on the bacteriophage fd viral DNA, has been studied. The enzyme is found to dissociate from the substrate at specific positions on the genome which act as “barriers” to further primer extension. It is believed these are sites of secondary structure in the DNA. When the template is complexed with E. coli DNA binding protein many of these barriers are eliminated and the enzyme remains associated with the same primer-template molecule during extensive intervals of DNA synthesis. Despite the presence of E. coli DNA binding protein, at least one barrier on the fd genome remains rate-limiting to chain extension and disturbs the otherwise processive mechanism of DNA synthesis. This barrier is overcome by increasing the concentration of enzyme.In contrast, it is found that DNA polymerase I is not rate-limited by structural barriers in the template, however, it exhibits a non-processive mechanism of elongation.These findings provide a framework for understanding the necessity for participation of proteins other than a DNA polymerase in chain extension during chromosomal replication.     

Movement of replicating DNA through a stationary replisome

We found that DNA is replicated at a central stationary polymerase, and each replicated region moves away from the replisome. In Bacillus subtilis, DNA polymerase is predominantly located at or near midcell. When replication was blocked in a specific chromosomal region, that region was centrally located with DNA polymerase. Upon release of the block, each copy of the duplicated region was located toward opposite cell poles, away from the central replisome. In a roughly synchronous population of cells, a region of chromosome between origin and terminus moved to the replisome prior to duplication. Thus, the polymerase at the replication forks is stationary, and the template is pulled in and released outward during duplication. We propose that B. subtilis, and probably many bacteria, harness energy released during nucleotide condensation by a stationary replisome to facilitate chromosome partitioning.     

Duplications between direct repeats stabilized by DNA secondary structure occur preferentially in the leading strand during DNA replication

To ascertain a leading or lagging strand preference for duplication mutations, several short DNA sequences, i.e. mutation inserts, were designed that should demonstrate an asymmetric propensity for duplication mutations in the two complementary DNA strands during replication. The design of the mutation insert involved a 7-bp quasi inverted repeat that forms a remarkably stable hairpin in one DNA strand, but not the other. The inverted repeat is asymmetrically placed between flanking direct repeats. This sequence was cloned into a modified chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) gene containing a −1 frameshift mutation. Duplication of the mutation insert restores the reading frame of the CAT gene resulting in a chloramphenicol resistant phenotype. The mutation insert showed greater than a 200-fold preference for duplication mutations during leading strand, compared with lagging strand, replication. This result suggests that misalignment stabilized by DNA secondary structure, leading to duplication between direct repeats, occurred preferentially during leading strand synthesis.     

Contributions of the specialised DNA polymerases to replication of structured DNA

It is becoming increasingly clear that processive DNA replication is threatened not only by DNA damage but also by secondary structures that can form in the DNA template. Failure to resolve these structures promptly leads to both genetic instability, for instance DNA breaks and rearrangements, and to epigenetic instability, in which inaccurate propagation of the parental chromatin state leads to unscheduled changes in gene expression. Multiple overlapping mechanisms are needed to deal with the wide range of potential DNA structural challenges to replication. This review focuses on the emerging mechanisms by which specialised DNA polymerases, best known for their role in the replication of damaged DNA, contribute to the replication of undamaged but structured DNA, particularly G quadruplexes.     

Dynamics of some postreplication DNA repair proteins in carcinogen-damaged mammalian cells

Many types of DNA lesions in template strands block DNA replication and lead to a stalling of replication forks. This block can be overcome (bypassed) by special DNA polymerases (for example, DNA polymerase eta, Pol eta) that perform translesion synthesis on damaged template DNA. The phenomenon of completing DNA replication, while DNA lesions remain in the template strands, has been named post-replication repair (PRR). In yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, PRR includes mutagenic and error-free pathways under the regulation of the RAD6/RAD18 complex, which induces ubiquitylation of PCNA. In mammalian cells, Pol eta accumulates in replication foci but the mechanism of this accumulation is not known. Pol eta possesses a conserved PCNA binding motif at the C terminal and phosphorylation of this motif might be essential for its interaction with PCNA. We have shown previously that staurosporine, an inhibitor of protein kinases, inhibits PRR in human cells. In this study we examined whether the accumulation of Pol eta in replication foci after DNA damage is dependent on phosphorylation of the PCNA binding motif. We also studied DNA damage-induced phosphorylation of GFP-tagged human Rad18 (hRad18) and its accumulation in replication foci. Our data indicate that (1) Pol eta is not phosphorylated in response to UV irradiation or MMS treatment, but its diffusional mobility is slightly decreased, and (2) hRad18 accumulates in MMS-treated cells, and considerable amount of the protein co-localizes with detergent insoluble PCNA in replication foci; these responses are sensitive to staurosporine. Our data suggest that hRad18 phosphorylation is the staurosporine-sensitive PRR step.     

Post-Translational Modifications of PCNA in Control of DNA Synthesis and DNA Damage Tolerance-the Implications in Carcinogenesis

The faithful DNA replication is a critical event for cell survival and inheritance. However, exogenous or endogenous sources of damage challenge the accurate synthesis of DNA, which causes DNA lesions. The DNA lesions are obstacles for replication fork progression. However, the prolonged replication fork stalling leads to replication fork collapse, which may cause DNA double-strand breaks (DSB). In order to maintain genomic stability, eukaryotic cells evolve translesion synthesis (TLS) and template switching (TS) to resolve the replication stalling. Proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) trimer acts as a slide clamp and encircles DNA to orchestrate DNA synthesis and DNA damage tolerance (DDT). The post-translational modifications (PTMs) of PCNA regulate these functions to ensure the appropriate initiation and termination of replication and DDT. The aberrant regulation of PCNA PTMs will result in DSB, which causes mutagenesis and poor response to chemotherapy. Here, we review the roles of the PCNA PTMs in DNA duplication and DDT. We propose that clarifying the regulation of PCNA PTMs may provide insights into understanding the development of cancers.