Looping‐out mechanism for resolution of replicative stress at telomeres

Repetitive DNA is prone to replication fork stalling, which can lead to genome instability. Here, we find that replication fork stalling at telomeres leads to the formation of t‐circle‐tails, a new extrachromosomal structure that consists of circular telomeric DNA with a single‐stranded tail. Structurally, the t‐circle‐tail resembles cyclized leading or lagging replication intermediates that are excised from the genome by topoisomerase II‐mediated cleavage. We also show that the DNA damage repair machinery NHEJ is required for the formation of t‐circle‐tails and for the resolution of stalled replication forks, suggesting that NHEJ, which is normally constitutively suppressed at telomeres, is activated in the context of replication stress. Inhibition of NHEJ or knockout of DNA‐PKcs impairs telomere replication, leading to multiple‐telomere sites (MTS) and telomere shortening. Collectively, our results support a “looping‐out” mechanism, in which the stalled replication fork is cut out and cyclized to form t‐circle‐tails, and broken DNA is religated. The telomere loss induced by replication stress may serve as a new factor that drives replicative senescence and cell aging.     

RADX interacts with single‐stranded DNA to promote replication fork stability

Single‐stranded DNA (ssDNA) regions form as an intermediate in many DNA‐associated transactions. Multiple cellular proteins interact with ssDNA via the oligonucleotide/oligosaccharide‐binding (OB) fold domain. The heterotrimeric, multi‐OB fold domain‐containing Replication Protein A (RPA) complex has an essential genome maintenance role, protecting ssDNA regions from nucleolytic degradation and providing a recruitment platform for proteins involved in responses to replication stress and DNA damage. Here, we identify the uncharacterized protein RADX (CXorf57) as an ssDNA‐binding factor in human cells. RADX binds ssDNA via an N‐terminal OB fold cluster, which mediates its recruitment to sites of replication stress. Deregulation of RADX expression and ssDNA binding leads to enhanced replication fork stalling and degradation, and we provide evidence that a balanced interplay between RADX and RPA ssDNA‐binding activities is critical for avoiding these defects. Our findings establish RADX as an important component of cellular pathways that promote DNA replication integrity under basal and stressful conditions by means of multiple ssDNA‐binding proteins.     

Rad51 replication fork recruitment is required for DNA damage tolerance

Homologous recombination (HR) is essential for genome integrity. Recombination proteins participate in tolerating DNA lesions that interfere with DNA replication, but can also generate toxic recombination intermediates and genetic instability when they are not properly regulated. Here, we have studied the role of the recombination proteins Rad51 and Rad52 at replication forks and replicative DNA lesions. We show that Rad52 loads Rad51 onto unperturbed replication forks, where they facilitate replication of alkylated DNA by non‐repair functions. The recruitment of Rad52 and Rad51 to chromatin during DNA replication is a prerequisite for the repair of the non‐DSB DNA lesions, presumably single‐stranded DNA gaps, which are generated during the replication of alkylated DNA. We also show that the repair of these lesions requires CDK1 and is not coupled to the fork but rather restricted to G2/M by the replicative checkpoint. We propose a new scenario for HR where Rad52 and Rad51 are recruited to the fork to promote DNA damage tolerance by distinct and cell cycle‐regulated replicative and repair functions.     

Characterization of RNA primers synthesized by the human breast cancer cell DNA synthesome

We previously reported on the purification and characterization of a functional multi‐protein DNA replication complex (the DNA synthesome) from human cells and tissues. The synthesome is fully competent to carry‐out all phases of the DNA replication process in vitro. In this study, DNA primase, a component of the synthesome, is examined to determine its activity and processivity in the in vitro synthesis and extension of RNA primers. Our results show that primase activity in the P4 fraction of the synthesome is 30‐fold higher than that of crude cell extracts. The synthesome synthesizes RNA primers that are 7–10 ribonucleotides long and DNA primers that are 20–40 deoxyribonucleotides long using a poly(dT) template of exogenous single‐stranded DNA. The synthesome‐catalyzed RNA primers can be elongated by E. coli DNA polymerase I to form the complementary DNA strands on the poly(dT) template. In addition, the synthesome also supports the synthesis of native RNA primers in vitro using an endogenous supercoiled double‐stranded DNA template. Gel analysis demonstrates that native RNA primers are oligoribonucleotides of 10–20 nt in length and the primers are covalently link to DNA to form RNA‐primed nascent DNA of 100–200 nt. Our study reveals that the synthesome model is capable of priming and continuing DNA replication. The ability of the synthesome to synthesize and extend RNA primers in vitro elucidates the organizational and functional properties of the synthesome as a potentially useful replication apparatus to study the function of primase and the interaction of primase with other replication proteins. J. Cell. Biochem. 106: 798–811, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A structural view of bacterial DNA replication

DNA replication mechanisms are conserved across all organisms. The proteins required to initiate, coordinate, and complete the replication process are best characterized in model organisms such as Escherichia coli. These include nucleotide triphosphate‐driven nanomachines such as the DNA‐unwinding helicase DnaB and the clamp loader complex that loads DNA‐clamps onto primer–template junctions. DNA‐clamps are required for the processivity of the DNA polymerase III core, a heterotrimer of α, ε, and θ, required for leading‐ and lagging‐strand synthesis. DnaB binds the DnaG primase that synthesizes RNA primers on both strands. Representative structures are available for most classes of DNA replication proteins, although there are gaps in our understanding of their interactions and the structural transitions that occur in nanomachines such as the helicase, clamp loader, and replicase core as they function. Reviewed here is the structural biology of these bacterial DNA replication proteins and prospects for future research.     

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.     

Spatial separation between replisome‐ and template‐induced replication stress signaling

Polymerase‐blocking DNA lesions are thought to elicit a checkpoint response via accumulation of single‐stranded DNA at stalled replication forks. However, as an alternative to persistent fork stalling, re‐priming downstream of lesions can give rise to daughter‐strand gaps behind replication forks. We show here that the processing of such structures by an exonuclease, Exo1, is required for timely checkpoint activation, which in turn prevents further gap erosion in S phase. This Rad9‐dependent mechanism of damage signaling is distinct from the Mrc1‐dependent, fork‐associated response to replication stress induced by conditions such as nucleotide depletion or replisome‐inherent problems, but reminiscent of replication‐independent checkpoint activation by single‐stranded DNA. Our results indicate that while replisome stalling triggers a checkpoint response directly at the stalled replication fork, the response to replication stress elicited by polymerase‐blocking lesions mainly emanates from Exo1‐processed, postreplicative daughter‐strand gaps, thus offering a mechanistic explanation for the dichotomy between replisome‐ versus template‐induced checkpoint signaling.     

A role for replication repair in the genesis of templated mutations

Replication repair mediates error-free bypass of DNA damage in a series of steps that include regression of the replication fork, primer-terminus switching to use the other daughter strand as an undamaged template, primer extension, primer switching back to its cognate template with the primer terminus now having bypassed the damage, and fork rearrangement to a normal configuration. By both genetic and biochemical criteria, bacteriophage T4 catalyzes replication repair with two alternative sets of proteins, one including the gp32 SSB and the gp41 DNA helicase and the other including the UvsX recombinase. In each pathway, synthesis is conducted by the gp43 DNA polymerase. Here we show that defects in gp32, gp41 or UvsX that impair replication repair also increase mutation rates generally, but especially for templated mutations. Such templated mutations are associated with palindromic or direct repeats that are either perfect or imperfect. Models of templated mutagenesis require that the primer terminus switches to an ectopic template, but one that yields mutations instead of error-free bypass. We suggest that the proteins that conduct replication repair normally direct a blocked primer strand specifically to the other daughter strand with considerable accuracy, but that strand switching becomes promiscuous when these proteins are mutationally impaired, thus promoting templated mutations.     

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.     

Error‐free DNA damage tolerance pathway is facilitated by the Irc5 translocase through cohesin

DNA damage tolerance (DDT) mechanisms facilitate replication resumption and completion when DNA replication is blocked by bulky DNA lesions. In budding yeast, template switching (TS) via the Rad18/Rad5 pathway is a favored DDT pathway that involves usage of the sister chromatid as a template to bypass DNA lesions in an error‐free recombination‐like process. Here, we establish that the Snf2 family translocase Irc5 is a novel factor that promotes TS and averts single‐stranded DNA persistence during replication. We demonstrate that, during replication stress, Irc5 enables replication progression by assisting enrichment of cohesin complexes, recruited in an Scc2/Scc4‐dependent fashion, near blocked replication forks. This allows efficient formation of sister chromatid junctions that are crucial for error‐free DNA lesion bypass. Our results support the notion of a key role of cohesin in the completion of DNA synthesis under replication stress and reveal that the Rad18/Rad5‐mediated DDT pathway is linked to cohesin enrichment at sites of perturbed replication via the Snf2 family translocase Irc5.     

Dynamics of DNA polymerase III holoenzyme of Escherichia coli in replication of a multiprimed template

Movements of DNA polymerase III holoenzyme (holoenzyme) in replicating a template multiprimed with synthetic pentadecadeoxynucleotides (15-mers) annealed at known positions on a single-stranded circular or linear DNA have been analyzed. After extension of one 15-mer on a multiprimed template, holoenzyme moves downstream in the direction of chain elongation to the next primer. Holoenzyme readily traverses a duplex, even 400 base pairs long, to exploit its 3'-hydroxyl end as the next available primer. This downstream polarity likely results from an inability to diffuse upstream along single-stranded DNA. These holoenzyme movements, unlike formation of the initial complex with a primer, do not require ATP. Time elapsed between completion of a chain and initiation on the next downstream primer is rapid (1 s or less); dissociation of holoenzyme to form a complex with another primed template is slow (1-2 min). Thus, holoenzyme diffuses rapidly only on duplex DNA, probably in both directions, and forms an initiation complex with the first primer encountered. Based on these findings, schemes can be considered for holoenzyme action at the replication fork of a duplex chromosome.     

RecQ and RecG helicases have distinct roles in maintaining the stability of polypurine.polypyrimidine sequences

DNA triplex structures can block the replication fork and result in double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs). RecQ and RecG helicases may be important for replication of such sequences as RecQ resolves synthetic triplex DNA structures and RecG mediates replication restart by fork regression. Primer extension on an 88bp triplex-forming polypurine.polypyrimidine (Pu.Py) tract from the PKD1 gene demonstrated that RecQ, but not RecG, facilitated primer extension by T7 DNA polymerase. A high-throughput, dual plasmid screening system using isogenic bacterial lines deficient in RecG, RecQ, or both, revealed that RecQ deficiency increased mutation to sequence flanking this 88bp tract by eight to ten-fold. Although RecG facilitated small deletions in an 88bp mirror repeat-containing sequence, it was absolutely required to maintain a 2.5kb Pu.Py tract containing multiple mirror repeats. These results support a two-tiered model where RecQ facilitates fork progression through triplex-forming tracts and, failing processivity, RecG is critical for replication fork restart.     

Srs2 mediates PCNA‐SUMO‐dependent inhibition of DNA repair synthesis

Completion of DNA replication needs to be ensured even when challenged with fork progression problems or DNA damage. PCNA and its modifications constitute a molecular switch to control distinct repair pathways. In yeast, SUMOylated PCNA (S‐PCNA) recruits Srs2 to sites of replication where Srs2 can disrupt Rad51 filaments and prevent homologous recombination (HR). We report here an unexpected additional mechanism by which S‐PCNA and Srs2 block the synthesis‐dependent extension of a recombination intermediate, thus limiting its potentially hazardous resolution in association with a cross‐over. This new Srs2 activity requires the SUMO interaction motif at its C‐terminus, but neither its translocase activity nor its interaction with Rad51. Srs2 binding to S‐PCNA dissociates Polδ and Polη from the repair synthesis machinery, thus revealing a novel regulatory mechanism controlling spontaneous genome rearrangements. Our results suggest that cycling cells use the Siz1‐dependent SUMOylation of PCNA to limit the extension of repair synthesis during template switch or HR and attenuate reciprocal DNA strand exchanges to maintain genome stability.     

Mechanisms of primer RNA synthesis and D-loop/R-loop-dependent DNA replication in Escherichia coli

In DNA replication, DNA chains are generally initiated from small pieces of ribonucleotides attached to DNA templates. These ‘primers’ are synthesized by various enzymatic mechanisms in Escherichia coli. Studies on primer RNA synthesis on single-stranded DNA templates containing specific ‘priming signals’ revealed the presence of two distinct modes, ie immobile and mobile priming. The former includes primer RNA synthesis by primase encoded by dnaG and by RNA polymerase containing a σ⁷⁰ subunit. Priming is initiated at a specific site in immobile priming. Novel immobile priming signals were identified from various plasmid replicaons, some of which function in initiation of the leading strand synthesis. The latter, on the other hand, involves a protein complex, primosome, which contains DnaB, the replicative helicase for E coli chromosomal replication. Utilizing the energy fueled by ATP hydrolysis of DnaB protein, primosomes are able to translocate on a template DNA and primase synthesizes primer RNAs at multiple sites. Two distinct primosomes. DnaA-dependent primosome supports normal chromosomal identified, which are differentially utilized for E coli chromosomal replication. Whereas DnaA-dependent primosome supports normal chromosomal replication from oriC, the PriA-dependent primosome functions in oriC-independent chromosomal replication observed in DNA-damaged cells or cells lacking RNaseH activity. In oriC-independent replication, PriA protein may recognize the D- or R-loop structure, respectively, to initiate assembly of a primosome which mediates primer RNA synthesis and replication fork progression.     

真核细胞染色体DNA复制起始及复制叉稳定性维持的机制

在真核生物中,DNA复制在染色体上特定的多位点起始．当细胞处在晚M及G1期,多个复制起始蛋白依次结合到DNA复制源,组装形成复制前复合体．pre．RC在Gl-S的转折期得到激活,随后,多个直接参与DNA复制又形成的蛋白结合到DNA复制源,启动DNA的复制,形成两个双向的DNA复制又．在染色体上,移动的DNA复制又经常会碰到复制障碍（二级DNA结构、一些蛋白的结合位点、损伤的碱基等）而暂停下来,此时,需要细胞周期检验点的调控来稳定复制叉,否则,会导致复制又垮塌及基因组不稳定．本文就真核细胞染色体DNA复制起始的机制,以及复制又稳定性的维持机制进行简要综述．     

Replication Fork Barriers and Topological Barriers: Progression of DNA Replication Relies on DNA Topology Ahead of Forks

During replication, the topology of DNA changes continuously in response to well-known activities of DNA helicases, polymerases, and topoisomerases. However, replisomes do not always progress at a constant speed and can slow-down and even stall at precise sites. The way these changes in the rate of replisome progression affect DNA topology is not yet well understood. The interplay of DNA topology and replication in several cases where progression of replication forks reacts differently to changes in DNA topology ahead is discussed here. It is proposed, there are at least two types of replication fork barriers: those that behave also as topological barriers and those that do not. Two-Dimensional (2D) agarose gel electrophoresis is the method of choice to distinguish between these two different types of replication fork barriers.     

The Ku‐dependent non‐homologous end‐joining pathway contributes to low‐dose radiation‐stimulated cell survival

Low‐dose (≤0.1 Gy) radiation‐induced adaptive responses could protect cells from high‐challenge dose radiation‐induced killing. The protective role is believed to promote the repair of DNA double‐strand breaks (DSBs) that are a severe threat to cell survival. However, it remains unclear which repair pathway, homologous recombination repair (HRR) or non‐homologous end‐joining (NHEJ), is promoted by low‐dose radiation. To address this question, we examined the effects of low‐dose (0.1 Gy) on high‐challenge dose (2–4 Gy) induced killing in NHEJ‐ or HRR‐deficient cell lines. We showed that 0.1 Gy reduced the high‐dose radiation‐induced killing for wild‐type or HRR‐deficient cells, but enhanced the killing for NHEJ‐deficient cells. Interestingly, low‐dose radiation also enhanced the killing for wild‐type cells exposed to high‐challenge dose radiation with high‐linear energy transfer (LET). Because it is known that high‐LET radiation induces an inefficient NHEJ, these results support that the low‐dose radiation‐stimulated protective role in reducing high‐challenge dose (low‐LET)‐induced cell killing might depend on NHEJ. In addition, we showed that low‐dose radiation activated the DNA‐PK catalytic subunit (DNA‐PKcs) and the inhibitor of DNA‐PKcs destroyed the low‐dose radiation‐induced protective role. These results suggest that low‐dose radiation might promote NHEJ through the stimulation of DNA‐PKcs activity and; therefore, increase the resistance of cells to high‐challenge dose radiation‐induced killing. J. Cell. Physiol. 226: 369–374, 2011. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Mechanism of strand displacement synthesis by DNA replicative polymerases

Replicative holoenzymes exhibit rapid and processive primer extension DNA synthesis, but inefficient strand displacement DNA synthesis. We investigated the bacteriophage T4 and T7 holoenzymes primer extension activity and strand displacement activity on a DNA hairpin substrate manipulated by a magnetic trap. Holoenzyme primer extension activity is moderately hindered by the applied force. In contrast, the strand displacement activity is strongly stimulated by the applied force; DNA polymerization is favoured at high force, while a processive exonuclease activity is triggered at low force. We propose that the DNA fork upstream of the holoenzyme generates a regression pressure which inhibits the polymerization-driven forward motion of the holoenzyme. The inhibition is generated by the distortion of the template strand within the polymerization active site thereby shifting the equilibrium to a DNA-protein exonuclease conformation. We conclude that stalling of the holoenzyme induced by the fork regression pressure is the basis for the inefficient strand displacement synthesis characteristic of replicative polymerases. The resulting processive exonuclease activity may be relevant in replisome disassembly to reset a stalled replication fork to a symmetrical situation. Our findings offer interesting applications for single-molecule DNA sequencing.     

Distinct roles of ATR and DNA‐PKcs in triggering DNA damage responses in ATM‐deficient cells

The cellular response to DNA double‐strand breaks involves direct activation of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and indirect activation of ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3 related (ATR) in an ATM/Mre11/cell‐cycle‐dependent manner. Here, we report that the crucial checkpoint signalling proteins—p53, structural maintainance of chromosomes 1 (SMC1), p53 binding protein 1 (53BP1), checkpoint kinase (Chk)1 and Chk2—are phosphorylated rapidly by ATR in an ATM/Mre11/cell‐cycle‐independent manner, albeit at low levels. We observed the sequential recruitment of replication protein A (RPA) and ATR to the sites of DNA damage in ATM‐deficient cells, which provides a mechanistic basis for the observed phosphorylations. The recruitment of ATR and consequent phosphorylations do not require Mre11 but are dependent on Exo1. We show that these low levels of phosphorylation are biologically important, as ATM‐deficient cells enforce an early G2/M checkpoint that is ATR‐dependent. ATR is also essential for the late G2 accumulation that is peculiar to irradiated ATM‐deficient cells. Interestingly, phosphorylation of KRAB associated protein 1 (KAP‐1), a protein involved in chromatin remodelling, is mediated by DNA‐dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA‐PKcs) in a spatio‐temporal manner in addition to ATM. We posit that ATM substrates involved in cell‐cycle checkpoint signalling can be minimally phosphorylated independently by ATR, while a small subset of proteins involved in chromatin remodelling are phosphorylated by DNA‐PKcs in addition to ATM.