A New Borrelia Species Defined by Multilocus Sequence Analysis of Housekeeping Genes

Analysis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes, using a novel multilocus sequence analysis scheme, revealed that OspA serotype 4 strains (a rodent-associated ecotype) of Borrelia garinii were sufficiently genetically distinct from bird-associated B. garinii strains to deserve species status. We suggest that OspA serotype 4 strains be raised to species status and named Borrelia bavariensis sp. nov. The rooted phylogenetic trees provide novel insights into the evolutionary history of LB spirochetes.Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) have been shown to be powerful and pragmatic molecular methods for typing large numbers of microbial strains for population genetics studies, delineation of species, and assignment of strains to defined bacterial species (4, 13, 27, 40, 44). To date, MLST/MLSA schemes have been applied only to a few vector-borne microbial populations (1, 6, 30, 37, 40, 41, 47).Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes comprise a diverse group of zoonotic bacteria which are transmitted among vertebrate hosts by ixodid (hard) ticks. The most common agents of human LB are Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu stricto), Borrelia afzelii, Borrelia garinii, Borrelia lusitaniae, and Borrelia spielmanii (7, 8, 12, 35). To date, 15 species have been named within the group of LB spirochetes (6, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41). While several of these LB species have been delineated using whole DNA-DNA hybridization (3, 20, 33), most ecological or epidemiological studies have been using single loci (5, 9-11, 29, 34, 36, 38, 42, 51, 53). Although some of these loci have been convenient for species assignment of strains or to address particular epidemiological questions, they may be unsuitable to resolve evolutionary relationships among LB species, because it is not possible to define any outgroup. For example, both the 5S-23S intergenic spacer (5S-23S IGS) and the gene encoding the outer surface protein A (ospA) are present only in LB spirochete genomes (36, 43). The advantage of using appropriate housekeeping genes of LB group spirochetes is that phylogenetic trees can be rooted with sequences of relapsing fever spirochetes. This renders the data amenable to detailed evolutionary studies of LB spirochetes.LB group spirochetes differ remarkably in their patterns and levels of host association, which are likely to affect their population structures (22, 24, 46, 48). Of the three main Eurasian Borrelia species, B. afzelii is adapted to rodents, whereas B. valaisiana and most strains of B. garinii are maintained by birds (12, 15, 16, 23, 26, 45). However, B. garinii OspA serotype 4 strains in Europe have been shown to be transmitted by rodents (17, 18) and, therefore, constitute a distinct ecotype within B. garinii. These strains have also been associated with high pathogenicity in humans, and their finer-scale geographical distribution seems highly focal (10, 34, 52, 53).In this study, we analyzed the intra- and interspecific phylogenetic relationships of B. burgdorferi, B. afzelii, B. garinii, B. valaisiana, B. lusitaniae, B. bissettii, and B. spielmanii by means of a novel MLSA scheme based on chromosomal housekeeping genes (30, 48).     

Virus Entry via the Alternative Coreceptors CCR3 and FPRL1 Differs by Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Subtype

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infects target cells by binding to CD4 and a chemokine receptor, most commonly CCR5. CXCR4 is a frequent alternative coreceptor (CoR) in subtype B and D HIV-1 infection, but the importance of many other alternative CoRs remains elusive. We have analyzed HIV-1 envelope (Env) proteins from 66 individuals infected with the major subtypes of HIV-1 to determine if virus entry into highly permissive NP-2 cell lines expressing most known alternative CoRs differed by HIV-1 subtype. We also performed linear regression analysis to determine if virus entry via the major CoR CCR5 correlated with use of any alternative CoR and if this correlation differed by subtype. Virus pseudotyped with subtype B Env showed robust entry via CCR3 that was highly correlated with CCR5 entry efficiency. By contrast, viruses pseudotyped with subtype A and C Env proteins were able to use the recently described alternative CoR FPRL1 more efficiently than CCR3, and use of FPRL1 was correlated with CCR5 entry. Subtype D Env was unable to use either CCR3 or FPRL1 efficiently, a unique pattern of alternative CoR use. These results suggest that each subtype of circulating HIV-1 may be subject to somewhat different selective pressures for Env-mediated entry into target cells and suggest that CCR3 may be used as a surrogate CoR by subtype B while FPRL1 may be used as a surrogate CoR by subtypes A and C. These data may provide insight into development of resistance to CCR5-targeted entry inhibitors and alternative entry pathways for each HIV-1 subtype.Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infects target cells by binding first to CD4 and then to a coreceptor (CoR), of which C-C chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) is the most common (6, 53). CXCR4 is an additional CoR for up to 50% of subtype B and D HIV-1 isolates at very late stages of disease (4, 7, 28, 35). Many other seven-membrane-spanning G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been identified as alternative CoRs when expressed on various target cell lines in vitro, including CCR1 (76, 79), CCR2b (24), CCR3 (3, 5, 17, 32, 60), CCR8 (18, 34, 38), GPR1 (27, 65), GPR15/BOB (22), CXCR5 (39), CXCR6/Bonzo/STRL33/TYMSTR (9, 22, 25, 45, 46), APJ (26), CMKLR1/ChemR23 (49, 62), FPLR1 (67, 68), RDC1 (66), and D6 (55). HIV-2 and simian immunodeficiency virus SIVmac isolates more frequently show expanded use of these alternative CoRs than HIV-1 isolates (12, 30, 51, 74), and evidence that alternative CoRs other than CXCR4 mediate infection of primary target cells by HIV-1 isolates is sparse (18, 30, 53, 81). Genetic deficiency in CCR5 expression is highly protective against HIV-1 transmission (21, 36), establishing CCR5 as the primary CoR. The importance of alternative CoRs other than CXCR4 has remained elusive despite many studies (1, 30, 70, 81). Expansion of CoR use from CCR5 to include CXCR4 is frequently associated with the ability to use additional alternative CoRs for viral entry (8, 16, 20, 63, 79) in most but not all studies (29, 33, 40, 77, 78). This finding suggests that the sequence changes in HIV-1 env required for use of CXCR4 as an additional or alternative CoR (14, 15, 31, 37, 41, 57) are likely to increase the potential to use other alternative CoRs.We have used the highly permissive NP-2/CD4 human glioma cell line developed by Soda et al. (69) to classify virus entry via the alternative CoRs CCR1, CCR3, CCR8, GPR1, CXCR6, APJ, CMKLR1/ChemR23, FPRL1, and CXCR4. Full-length molecular clones of 66 env genes from most prevalent HIV-1 subtypes were used to generate infectious virus pseudotypes expressing a luciferase reporter construct (19, 57). Two types of analysis were performed: the level of virus entry mediated by each alternative CoR and linear regression of entry mediated by CCR5 versus all other alternative CoRs. We thus were able to identify patterns of alternative CoR use that were subtype specific and to determine if use of any alternative CoR was correlated or independent of CCR5-mediated entry. The results obtained have implications for the evolution of env function, and the analyses revealed important differences between subtype B Env function and all other HIV-1 subtypes.     

Allele-Specific H3K79 Di- versus Trimethylation Distinguishes Opposite Parental Alleles at Imprinted Regions

Imprinted gene expression corresponds to parental allele-specific DNA CpG methylation and chromatin composition. Histone tail covalent modifications have been extensively studied, but it is not known whether modifications in the histone globular domains can also discriminate between the parental alleles. Using multiplex chromatin immunoprecipitation-single nucleotide primer extension (ChIP-SNuPE) assays, we measured the allele-specific enrichment of H3K79 methylation and H4K91 acetylation along the H19/Igf2 imprinted domain. Whereas H3K79me1, H3K79me2, and H4K91ac displayed a paternal-specific enrichment at the paternally expressed Igf2 locus, H3K79me3 was paternally biased at the maternally expressed H19 locus, including the paternally methylated imprinting control region (ICR). We found that these allele-specific differences depended on CTCF binding in the maternal ICR allele. We analyzed an additional 11 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) and found that, in general, H3K79me3 was associated with the CpG-methylated alleles, whereas H3K79me1, H3K79me2, and H4K91ac enrichment was specific to the unmethylated alleles. Our data suggest that allele-specific differences in the globular histone domains may constitute a layer of the “histone code” at imprinted genes.Imprinted genes are defined by the characteristic monoallelic silencing of either the paternally or maternally inherited allele. Most imprinted genes exist in imprinted gene clusters (10), and these clusters are usually associated with one or more differentially methylated regions (DMRs) (27, 65). DNA methylation at DMRs is essential for the allele-specific expression of most imprinted genes (31). Maternal or paternal allele-specific DNA methylation of a subset of DMRs (germ line DMRs) is gamete specific (27, 39). These maternal or paternal methylation differences are established during oogenesis or spermatogenesis, respectively, by the de novo DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b together with Dnmt3L (5, 26, 48). The gamete-specific methylation differences set the stage for the parental allele-specific action of germ line DMRs, some of which have been shown to control the monoallelic expression of the associated genes in the respective domains (11, 34, 36, 53, 66, 71-73, 77). These DMRs are called imprinting control regions (ICRs).Two recurring themes have been reported for ICR action. ICRs can function as DNA methylation-regulated promoters of a noncoding RNA or as methylation-regulated insulators. Recent evidence suggests that both of these mechanisms involve chromatin organization by either the noncoding RNA (45, 50) or the CTCF insulator protein (17, 32) along the respective imprinted domains. The CTCF insulator binds in the unmethylated maternal allele of the H19/Igf2 ICR and blocks the access of the Igf2 promoters to the shared downstream enhancers. CTCF cannot bind in the methylated paternal ICR allele; hence, here the Igf2 promoters have access to the enhancers (4, 18, 24, 25, 62). When CTCF binding is abolished in the ICR of the maternal allele, Igf2 expression becomes biallelic, and H19 expression is missing from both alleles (17, 52, 58, 63). Importantly, CTCF is the single major organizer of the allele-specific chromatin along the H19/Igf2 imprinted domain (17). Significantly, CTCF recruits, at a distance, Polycomb-mediated H3K27me3 repressive marks at the Igf2 promoter and at the Igf2 DMRs (17, 32).A role for chromatin composition is suggested in the parental allele-specific expression of imprinted genes. Repressive histone tail covalent modifications, such as H3K9me2 H3K9me3, H4K20me3, H3K27me3, and the symmetrically methylated H4R3me2 marks, are generally associated with the methylated DMR alleles, while activating histone tail covalent modifications, such as acetylated histone tails and also H3K4me2 and H3K4me3, are characteristic of the unmethylated alleles (7-9, 12-15, 17, 21, 33, 35, 43, 44, 51, 55, 56, 67, 69, 74, 75). Importantly, the maintenance of imprinted gene expression depends on the allele-specific chromatin differences. ICR-dependent H3K9me2 and H3K27me3 enrichment in the paternal allele (67) is required for paternal repression of a set of imprinted genes along the Kcnq1 imprinted domain in the placenta (30). Imprinted Cdkn1c and Cd81 expression depends on H3K27 methyltransferase Ezh2 activity in the extraembryonic ectoderm (64). Similarly, H3K9 methyltransferase Ehmt2 is required for parental allele-specific expression of a number of imprinted genes, including Osbpl5, Cd81, Ascl2, Tfpi2, and Slc22a3 in the placenta (44, 45, 70).There is increasing evidence that covalent modifications, not only in the histone tails but also in the histone globular domains, carry essential information for development and gene regulation. The H3K79 methyltransferase gene is essential for development in Drosophila (60) and in mice (22). H3K79 methylation is required for telomeric heterochromatin silencing in Drosophila (60), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (47, 68), and mice (22). The H4K91 residue regulates nucleosome assembly (76). Whereas mutations at single acetylation sites in the histone tails have only minor consequences, mutation of the H4K91 site in the histone H4 globular domain causes severe defects in silent chromatin formation and DNA repair in yeast (37, 42, 76).Contrary to the abundant information that exists regarding the allele-specific chromatin composition at DMRs of imprinted genes, no information is available about the parental allele-specific marking in the histone globular domains at the DMRs. We hypothesized that chromatin marks in the globular domains of histones also distinguish the parental alleles of germ line DMRs. In order to demonstrate this, we measured the allele-specific enrichment of H3K79me1, H3K79me2, H3K79me3, and H4K91ac at 11 mouse DMRs using quantitative multiplex chromatin immunoprecipitation-single nucleotide primer extension (ChIP-SNuPE) assays. In general, H3K79me3 was associated with the methylated allele at most DMRs, whereas the unmethylated allele showed enrichment for H3K79me1, H3K79me2, and H4K91ac. These results are consistent with the possibility that allele-specific differences in the globular domains of histones contribute to the “histone code” at DMRs.     

Alignment of the c-Type Cytochrome OmcS along Pili of Geobacter sulfurreducens

Immunogold localization revealed that OmcS, a cytochrome that is required for Fe(III) oxide reduction by Geobacter sulfurreducens, was localized along the pili. The apparent spacing between OmcS molecules suggests that OmcS facilitates electron transfer from pili to Fe(III) oxides rather than promoting electron conduction along the length of the pili.There are multiple competing/complementary models for extracellular electron transfer in Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms (8, 18, 20, 44). Which mechanisms prevail in different microorganisms or environmental conditions may greatly influence which microorganisms compete most successfully in sedimentary environments or on the surfaces of electrodes and can impact practical decisions on the best strategies to promote Fe(III) reduction for bioremediation applications (18, 19) or to enhance the power output of microbial fuel cells (18, 21).The three most commonly considered mechanisms for electron transfer to extracellular electron acceptors are (i) direct contact between redox-active proteins on the outer surfaces of the cells and the electron acceptor, (ii) electron transfer via soluble electron shuttling molecules, and (iii) the conduction of electrons along pili or other filamentous structures. Evidence for the first mechanism includes the necessity for direct cell-Fe(III) oxide contact in Geobacter species (34) and the finding that intensively studied Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms, such as Geobacter sulfurreducens and Shewanella oneidensis MR-1, display redox-active proteins on their outer cell surfaces that could have access to extracellular electron acceptors (1, 2, 12, 15, 27, 28, 31-33). Deletion of the genes for these proteins often inhibits Fe(III) reduction (1, 4, 7, 15, 17, 28, 40) and electron transfer to electrodes (5, 7, 11, 33). In some instances, these proteins have been purified and shown to have the capacity to reduce Fe(III) and other potential electron acceptors in vitro (10, 13, 29, 38, 42, 43, 48, 49).Evidence for the second mechanism includes the ability of some microorganisms to reduce Fe(III) that they cannot directly contact, which can be associated with the accumulation of soluble substances that can promote electron shuttling (17, 22, 26, 35, 36, 47). In microbial fuel cell studies, an abundance of planktonic cells and/or the loss of current-producing capacity when the medium is replaced is consistent with the presence of an electron shuttle (3, 14, 26). Furthermore, a soluble electron shuttle is the most likely explanation for the electrochemical signatures of some microorganisms growing on an electrode surface (26, 46).Evidence for the third mechanism is more circumstantial (19). Filaments that have conductive properties have been identified in Shewanella (7) and Geobacter (41) species. To date, conductance has been measured only across the diameter of the filaments, not along the length. The evidence that the conductive filaments were involved in extracellular electron transfer in Shewanella was the finding that deletion of the genes for the c-type cytochromes OmcA and MtrC, which are necessary for extracellular electron transfer, resulted in nonconductive filaments, suggesting that the cytochromes were associated with the filaments (7). However, subsequent studies specifically designed to localize these cytochromes revealed that, although the cytochromes were extracellular, they were attached to the cells or in the exopolymeric matrix and not aligned along the pili (24, 25, 30, 40, 43). Subsequent reviews of electron transfer to Fe(III) in Shewanella oneidensis (44, 45) appear to have dropped the nanowire concept and focused on the first and second mechanisms.Geobacter sulfurreducens has a number of c-type cytochromes (15, 28) and multicopper proteins (12, 27) that have been demonstrated or proposed to be on the outer cell surface and are essential for extracellular electron transfer. Immunolocalization and proteolysis studies demonstrated that the cytochrome OmcB, which is essential for optimal Fe(III) reduction (15) and highly expressed during growth on electrodes (33), is embedded in the outer membrane (39), whereas the multicopper protein OmpB, which is also required for Fe(III) oxide reduction (27), is exposed on the outer cell surface (39).OmcS is one of the most abundant cytochromes that can readily be sheared from the outer surfaces of G. sulfurreducens cells (28). It is essential for the reduction of Fe(III) oxide (28) and for electron transfer to electrodes under some conditions (11). Therefore, the localization of this important protein was further investigated.     

Regulation of IRSp53-Dependent Filopodial Dynamics by Antagonism between 14-3-3 Binding and SH3-Mediated Localization

Filopodia are dynamic structures found at the leading edges of most migrating cells. IRSp53 plays a role in filopodium dynamics by coupling actin elongation with membrane protrusion. IRSp53 is a Cdc42 effector protein that contains an N-terminal inverse-BAR (Bin-amphipysin-Rvs) domain (IRSp53/MIM homology domain [IMD]) and an internal SH3 domain that associates with actin regulatory proteins, including Eps8. We demonstrate that the SH3 domain functions to localize IRSp53 to lamellipodia and that IRSp53 mutated in its SH3 domain fails to induce filopodia. Through SH3 domain-swapping experiments, we show that the related IRTKS SH3 domain is not functional in lamellipodial localization. IRSp53 binds to 14-3-3 after phosphorylation in a region that lies between the CRIB and SH3 domains. This association inhibits binding of the IRSp53 SH3 domain to proteins such as WAVE2 and Eps8 and also prevents Cdc42-GTP interaction. The antagonism is achieved by phosphorylation of two related 14-3-3 binding sites at T340 and T360. In the absence of phosphorylation at these sites, filopodium lifetimes in cells expressing exogenous IRSp53 are extended. Our work does not conform to current views that the inverse-BAR domain or Cdc42 controls IRSp53 localization but provides an alternative model of how IRSp53 is recruited (and released) to carry out its functions at lamellipodia and filopodia.The ability of a cell to rapidly respond to extracellular cues and direct cytoskeletal rearrangements is dependent on an array of signaling complexes that control actin assembly (58). The protrusive structures at the leading edges of motile cells are broadly defined as lamellipodia or filopodia (14). Lamellae are sheet-like protrusions composed of dendritic actin arrays that drive membrane expansion, with the “lamellipodium” representing a narrow region at the edge of the cell (in culture) characterized by rapid actin polymerization. This F-actin assembly is suggested to require Arp2/3 activity that nucleates new actin filaments from the sides of existing ones (58, 71) and capping proteins that limit the length of these new filaments and stabilize them (7). Arp2/3 activity in turn is regulated by the WASP/WAVE family of proteins, such as N-WASP and WAVE2 (68), whose regulation is a subject of intense interest (12, 29, 36, 41, 56, 76).Filopodia contain parallel bundles of actin filaments containing fascin (22). These are dynamic structures that emanate from the periphery of the cell and are retracted, with occasional attachment (to the dish in culture). Thus, they have been thought to have a sensory or exploratory role during cell migration (28). This is the case for neuronal growth cones, where filopodia sense attractant or repulsive cues and dictate direction in axonal path finding (9, 17, 25, 35). Filopodia have been shown to be important in the context of dendritic-spine development (64, 77), epithelial-sheet closure (26, 60, 79), and cell invasion/metastasis (80, 83).Lamellipodia have been well characterized since the pioneering work of Abercrombie et al. in the early 1970s (2, 3, 4). Filopodia require symmetry breaking at the leading edge (initiation), followed by elongation driven by a filopodial-tip protein complex (14, 28). A few proteins have been identified in this complex; Mena/Vasp serve to prevent capping at the barbed ends of bundled actin filaments (7, 53), and Dia2 promotes F-actin elongation (57, 85). Termination of filopodial elongation is not understood but nonetheless is likely to be tightly regulated. In the absence of F-actin elongation, retraction of the filopodium takes place by a rearward flow of F-actin and filament depolymerization (22).IRSp53 is in a position to play a pivotal role in generating filopodia; this brain-enriched protein was discovered as a substrate of the insulin receptor (87). Subsequently, IRSp53 was identified as an effector for Rac1 (50) and Cdc42 (27, 38), where it participates in filopodium and lamellipodium production (38, 51, 54, 86), neurite extension (27), dendritic-spine morphogenesis (1, 15, 66, 67), cell motility and invasiveness (24). The N terminus of IRSp53 contains a conserved helical domain that is found in five different gene products and is referred to as the IRSp53/MIM homology domain (IMD) (51, 70). This domain has been postulated to bind to Rac1 (50, 70) in a nucleotide-independent manner (52), but no convincing effector-like region has been identified. A Cdc42-specific CRIB-like sequence that does not bind Rac1 (27, 38) allows coupling of this and perhaps related Rho GTPases. The structure of the IMD reveals a zeppelin-shaped dimer that could bind “bent” membranes; thus, its potential as an F-actin-bundling domain (51, 82) could be an in vitro artifact often attributed to proteins with basic patches (46). Although there are reports of F-actin binding at physiological ionic strength (ca. 100 mM KCl) (82, 19), this region when expressed in isolation does not decorate F-actin in vivo.Two reports showed the IMD to be an “inverse-BAR” domain. BAR (Bin-amphipysin-Rvs) domains are found in proteins involved in endocytic trafficking, such as amphipysin and endophilin, and stabilize positively bent membranes, such as those on endocytic vesicles (31, 47). The IMD domains of both IRSp53 (70) and MIM-B (46) associate with lipids and can induce tubulations of PI(3,4,5)P₃ or PI(4,5)P₂-rich membranes, respectively. These tubulations are equivalent to membrane protrusions and are also referred to as negatively bent membranes. Ectopic expression of the IMD from IRSp53 (51, 70, 82, 86) or two other family members, MIM-B (11, 46) and IRTKS (52), can give rise to cells with many peripheral extensions. MIM-B is said to stimulate lamellipodia (11), while IRTKS generates “short actin clusters” at the cell periphery (52).In IRSp53 is a CRIB-like motif that mediates binding to Cdc42 (27, 38), but the function of this interaction in unclear. Cdc42 could relieve IRSp53 autoinhibition as described for N-Wasp (38), but there is little evidence for this. It has been suggested that Cdc42 controls IRSp53 localization and actin remodeling (27, 38), but another study indicated that these events are Cdc42 independent (19). IRSp53 contains a central SH3 domain that may bind proline-rich proteins, such as Dia1 (23), Mena (38), WAVE2 (49, 50, 69), and Eps8 (19, 24). However, it seems unlikely that all of these represent bona fide partners, and side-by-side comparison is provided in this study. Mena is involved in filopodium production (37), Dia1 in stress fiber formation (81), and WAVE2 in lamellipodium extension (72). Thus, Mena is a better candidate as a partner for IRSp53-mediated filopodia than Dia1 or WAVE2.There is good evidence for IRSp53 as a cellular partner for Eps8 (19). Eps8 is an adaptor protein containing an N-terminal PTB domain that can associate with receptor tyrosine kinases (65), and perhaps β integrins (13), and a C-terminal SH3 domain that can associate with Abi1 (30). Binding of the general adaptor Abi1 appears to positively regulate the actin-capping domain at the C terminus of Eps8 (18). It has been suggested that IRSp53 and Eps8 as a complex regulate cell motility, and perhaps Rac1 activation, via SOS (24); more recently, their roles in filopodium formation have been addressed (19). The involvement of IRSp53, but not MIM-B or IRTKS, in filopodium formation might be related to its role as a Cdc42 effector. We show here that, surprisingly, the CRIB motif is not essential for this activity, but rather, the ability of IRSp53 to associate via its SH3 domain is required, and that this domain is controlled by 14-3-3 binding.We have focused on the regulation of Cdc42 effectors that bind 14-3-3, including IRSp53 and PAK4, which are found as 14-3-3 targets in various proteomic projects (32, 44). In this study, we characterize the binding of 14-3-3 to IRSp53 and uncover how this activity regulates IRSp53 function. The phosphorylation-dependent 14-3-3 binding is GSK3β dependent, and 14-3-3 blocks the accessibility of both the CRIB and SH3 domains of IRSp53, thus indicating its primary function in controlling IRSp53 partners. This regulation of the SH3 domain by 14-3-3 is critical in the proper localization and termination of IRSp53 function to promote filopodium dynamics.     

XRCC2 and XRCC3 Regulate the Balance between Short- and Long-Tract Gene Conversions between Sister Chromatids

Sister chromatid recombination (SCR) is a potentially error-free pathway for the repair of DNA lesions associated with replication and is thought to be important for suppressing genomic instability. The mechanisms regulating the initiation and termination of SCR in mammalian cells are poorly understood. Previous work has implicated all the Rad51 paralogs in the initiation of gene conversion and the Rad51C/XRCC3 complex in its termination. Here, we show that hamster cells deficient in the Rad51 paralog XRCC2, a component of the Rad51B/Rad51C/Rad51D/XRCC2 complex, reveal a bias in favor of long-tract gene conversion (LTGC) during SCR. This defect is corrected by expression of wild-type XRCC2 and also by XRCC2 mutants defective in ATP binding and hydrolysis. In contrast, XRCC3-mediated homologous recombination and suppression of LTGC are dependent on ATP binding and hydrolysis. These results reveal an unexpectedly general role for Rad51 paralogs in the control of the termination of gene conversion between sister chromatids.DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are potentially dangerous lesions, since their misrepair may cause chromosomal translocations, gene amplifications, loss of heterozygosity (LOH), and other types of genomic instability characteristic of human cancers (7, 9, 21, 40, 76, 79). DSBs are repaired predominantly by nonhomologous end joining or homologous recombination (HR), two evolutionarily conserved DSB repair mechanisms (8, 12, 16, 33, 48, 60, 71). DSBs generated during the S or G₂ phase of the cell cycle may be repaired preferentially by HR, using the intact sister chromatid as a template for repair (12, 26, 29, 32, 71). Sister chromatid recombination (SCR) is a potentially error-free pathway for the repair of DSBs, which has led to the proposal that SCR protects against genomic instability, cancer, and aging. Indeed, a number of human cancer predisposition genes are implicated in SCR control (10, 24, 45, 57, 75).HR entails an initial processing of the DSB to generate a free 3′ single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhang (25, 48, 56). This is coupled to the loading of Rad51, the eukaryotic homolog of Escherichia coli RecA, which polymerizes to form an ssDNA-Rad51 “presynaptic” nucleoprotein filament. Formation of the presynaptic filament is tightly regulated and requires the concerted action of a large number of gene products (55, 66, 68). Rad51-coated ssDNA engages in a homology search by invading homologous duplex DNA. If sufficient homology exists between the invading and invaded strands, a triple-stranded synapse (D-loop) forms, and the 3′ end of the invading (nascent) strand is extended, using the donor as a template for gene conversion. This recombination intermediate is thought to be channeled into one of the following two major subpathways: classical gap repair or synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) (48). Gap repair entails the formation of a double Holliday junction, which may resolve into either crossover or noncrossover products. Although this is a major pathway in meiotic recombination, crossing-over is highly suppressed in somatic eukaryotic cells (26, 44, 48). Indeed, the donor DNA molecule is seldom rearranged during somatic HR, suggesting that SDSA is the major pathway for the repair of somatic DSBs (26, 44, 49, 69). SDSA terminates when the nascent strand is displaced from the D-loop and pairs with the second end of the DSB to form a noncrossover product. The mechanisms underlying displacement of the nascent strand are not well understood. However, failure to displace the nascent strand might be expected to result in the production of longer gene conversion tracts during HR (36, 44, 48, 63).Gene conversion triggered in response to a Saccharomyces cerevisiae or mammalian chromosomal DSB generally results in the copying of a short (50- to 300-bp) stretch of information from the donor (short-tract gene conversion [STGC]) (14, 47, 48, 67, 69). A minority of gene conversions in mammalian cells entail more-extensive copying, generating gene conversion tracts that are up to several kilobases in length (long-tract gene conversion [LTGC]) (26, 44, 51, 54, 64). In yeast, very long gene conversions can result from break-induced replication (BIR), a highly processive form of gene conversion in which a bona fide replication fork is thought to be established at the recombination synapse (11, 36, 37, 39, 61, 63). In contrast, SDSA does not require lagging-strand polymerases and appears to be much less processive than a conventional replication fork (37, 42, 78). BIR in yeast has been proposed to play a role in LOH in aging yeast, telomere maintenance, and palindromic gene amplification (5, 41, 52). It is unclear to what extent a BIR-like mechanism operates in mammalian cells, although BIR has been invoked to explain telomere elongation in tumors lacking telomerase (13). It is currently unknown whether LTGC and STGC in somatic mammalian cells are products of mechanistically distinct pathways or whether they represent alternative outcomes of a common SDSA pathway.Vertebrate cells contain five Rad51 paralogs—polypeptides with limited sequence homology to Rad51—Rad51B, Rad51C, Rad51D, XRCC2, and XRCC3 (74). The Rad51 paralogs form the following two major complexes: Rad51B/Rad51C/Rad51D/XRCC2 (BCDX2) and Rad51C/XRCC3 (CX3) (38, 73). Genetic deletion of any one of the rad51 paralogs in the mouse germ line produces early embryonic lethality, and mouse or chicken cells lacking any of the rad51 paralogs reveal hypersensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, reduced frequencies of HR and of sister chromatid exchanges, increased chromatid-type errors, and defective sister chromatid cohesion (18, 72, 73, 82). Collectively, these data implicate the Rad51 paralogs in SCR regulation. The purified Rad51B/Rad51C complex has been shown to assist Rad51-mediated strand exchange (62). XRCC3 null or Rad51C null hamster cells reveal a bias toward production of longer gene conversion tracts, suggesting a role for the CX3 complex in late stages of SDSA (6, 44). Rad51C copurifies with branch migration and Holliday junction resolution activities in mammalian cell extracts (35), and XRCC3, but not XRCC2, facilitates telomere shortening by reciprocal crossing-over in telomeric T loops (77). These data, taken together with the meiotic defects observed in Rad51C hypomorphic mice, suggest a specialized role for CX3, but not for BCDX2, in resolving Holliday junction structures (31, 58).To further address the roles of Rad51 paralogs in late stages of recombination, we have studied the balance between long-tract (>1-kb) and short-tract (<1-kb) SCR in XRCC2 mutant hamster cells. We found that DSB-induced gene conversion in both XRCC2 and XRCC3 mutant cells is biased in favor of LTGC. These defects were suppressed by expression of wild-type (wt) XRCC2 or XRCC3, respectively, although the dependence upon ATP binding and hydrolysis differed between the two Rad51 paralogs. These results indicate that Rad51 paralogs play a more general role in determining the balance between STGC and LTGC than was previously appreciated and suggest roles for both the BCDX2 and CX3 complexes in influencing the termination of gene conversion in mammals.     

Requirement of JIP1-Mediated c-Jun N-Terminal Kinase Activation for Obesity-Induced Insulin Resistance

The c-Jun NH₂-terminal kinase (JNK) interacting protein 1 (JIP1) has been proposed to act as a scaffold protein that mediates JNK activation. However, recent studies have implicated JIP1 in multiple biochemical processes. Physiological roles of JIP1 that are related to the JNK scaffold function of JIP1 are therefore unclear. To test the role of JIP1 in JNK activation, we created mice with a germ line point mutation in the Jip1 gene (Thr¹⁰³ replaced with Ala) that selectively blocks JIP1-mediated JNK activation. These mutant mice exhibit a severe defect in JNK activation caused by feeding of a high-fat diet. The loss of JIP1-mediated JNK activation protected the mutant mice against obesity-induced insulin resistance. We conclude that JIP1-mediated JNK activation plays a critical role in metabolic stress regulation of the JNK signaling pathway.Diet-induced obesity causes insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, which can lead to β-cell dysfunction and type 2 diabetes (15). It is established that feeding mice a high-fat diet (HFD) causes activation of c-Jun NH₂-terminal kinase 1 (JNK1) (10). Moreover, Jnk1^−/− mice are protected against the effects of HFD-induced insulin resistance (10). Together, these observations indicate that JNK1 plays a critical role in the metabolic stress response. However, the mechanism that accounts for HFD-induced JNK1 activation is unclear. Recent studies have implicated the JIP1 scaffold protein in JNK1 activation caused by metabolic stress (23, 39).JIP1 can assemble a functional JNK activation module composed of a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) kinase kinase (a member of the mixed-lineage protein kinase [MLK] group), the MAPK kinase MKK7, and JNK (40, 42). This complex may be relevant to JNK activation caused by metabolic stress (23, 39). Indeed, MLK-deficient mice (14) and JIP1-deficient mice (13) exhibit defects in HFD-induced JNK activation and insulin resistance.The protection of Jip1^−/− mice against the effects of being fed an HFD may be mediated by loss of the JNK scaffold function of JIP1. However, JIP1 has also been reported to mediate other biochemical processes that would also be disrupted in Jip1^−/− mice. For example, JIP1 interacts with AKT and has been implicated in the mechanism of AKT activation (8, 17, 18, 34). Moreover, JIP1 interacts with members of the Src and Abl tyrosine kinase families (4, 16, 24), the lipid phosphatase SHIP2 (44), the MAPK phosphatase MKP7 (43), β-amyloid precursor protein (20, 31), the small GTPase regulatory proteins Ras-GRF1, p190-RhoGEF, RalGDS, and Tiam1 (2, 8, 21), ankyrin G (35), molecular chaperones (35), and the low-density-lipoprotein-related receptors LRP1, LRP2, and LRP8 (7, 37). JIP1 also interacts with other scaffold proteins, including the insulin receptor substrate proteins IRS1 and IRS2 (35). Finally, JIP1 may act as an adapter protein for kinesin-mediated (11, 12, 16, 38, 42) and dynein-mediated (35) trafficking on microtubules. The JNK scaffold properties of JIP1 therefore represent only one of the possible biochemical functions of JIP1 that are disrupted in Jip1^−/− mice.The purpose of this study was to test the role of JIP1 as a JNK scaffold protein in the response of mice to being fed an HFD. Our approach was to examine the effect of a point mutation that selectively prevents JIP1-induced JNK activation. It is established that phosphorylation of JIP1 on Thr¹⁰³ is required for JIP1-mediated JNK activation by the MLK pathway (25). Consequently, the phosphorylation-defective Thr103Ala JIP1 protein does not activate JNK (25). Here we describe the analysis of mice with a point mutation in the Jip1 gene that replaces the JIP1 phosphorylation site Thr¹⁰³ with Ala. We show that this mutation suppresses HFD-induced JNK activation and insulin resistance. These data demonstrate that JNK activation mediated by the JIP1 scaffold complex contributes to the response of mice to an HFD.