Tilting at windmills? The nucleotide excision repair of chromosomal DNA

A typical view of how DNA repair functions in chromatin usually depicts a struggle in which the DNA repair machinery battles to overcome the inhibitory effect of chromatin on the repair process. It may be that in this current interpretation the repair mechanisms are ‘tilting at windmills’, fighting an imaginary foe. An emerging picture suggests that we should not consider chromatin as an inhibitory force to be overcome like some quixotic giant by the DNA repair processes. Instead we should now recognize that DNA repair and chromatin metabolism are inextricably and mechanistically linked. Here we discuss the latest findings which are beginning to reveal how changes in chromatin dynamics integrate with the DNA repair process in response to UV induced DNA damage, with an emphasis on events in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.     

Diversity of operation in ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers

Chromatin is actively restructured by a group of proteins that belong to the family of ATP-dependent DNA translocases. These chromatin remodelers can assemble, relocate or remove nucleosomes, the fundamental building blocks of chromatin. The family of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers has many properties in common, but there are also important differences that may account for their varying roles in the cell. Some of the important characteristics of these complexes have begun to be revealed such as their interactions with chromatin and their mechanism of operation. The different domains of chromatin remodelers are discussed in terms of their targets and functional roles in mobilizing nucleosomes. The techniques that have driven these findings are discussed and how these have helped develop the current models for how nucleosomes are remodeled. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Snf2/Swi2 ATPase structure and function.     

Chromatin, epigenetics and stem cells

Epigenetics is a term that has changed its meaning with the increasing biological knowledge on developmental processes. However, its current application to stem cell biology is often imprecise and is conceptually problematic. This article addresses two different subjects, the definition of epigenetics and chromatin states of stem and differentiated cells. We describe mechanisms that regulate chromatin changes and provide an overview of chromatin states of stem and differentiated cells. Moreover, a modification of the current epigenetics definition is proposed that is not restricted by the heritability of gene expression throughout cell divisions and excludes translational gene expression control.     

Current insights into chromatin structure organization

This review summarizes current insights into organization of chromatin structure at different levels of DNA compaction. Analysis of available experimental data allowed concluding that only nucleosomal level of structural organization was sufficiently investigated, whereas structure of a 30-nm chromatin fiber remains an open issue. The data on the chromatin structure obtained at the level of the nucleus speak in favor of a biphasic fractal organization of chromatin.     

Chromatin dynamics after DNA damage: The legacy of the access–repair–restore model

Eukaryotic genomes are packaged into chromatin, which is the physiological substrate for all DNA transactions, including DNA damage and repair. Chromatin organization imposes major constraints on DNA damage repair and thus undergoes critical rearrangements during the repair process. These rearrangements have been integrated into the “access–repair–restore” (ARR) model, which provides a molecular framework for chromatin dynamics in response to DNA damage. Here, we take a historical perspective on the elaboration of this model and describe the molecular players involved in damaged chromatin reorganization in human cells. In particular, we present our current knowledge of chromatin assembly coupled to DNA damage repair, focusing on the role of histone variants and their dedicated chaperones. Finally, we discuss the impact of chromatin rearrangements after DNA damage on chromatin function and epigenome maintenance.     

DNA-protein interactions and chromosome banding

Pancreatic DNase I was used as a probe to study DNA-protein interactions in condensed and extended chromatin fractions isolated from Chinese hamster liver, and in human lymphocyte and mouse L cell metaphase chromosomes in situ. By studying the rate of digestion of chromatin DNA by DNase, we have previously shown that DNA in extended chromatin is more sensitive to DNase digestion than that in condensed chromatin. In the current investigation, we have examined whether this differential sensitivity of the chromatin fractions to DNase is due to differences in protein binding to DNA or differences in the degree of chromatin condensation. By “decondensing” the condensed chromatin and comparing its rate of digestion to that of untreated condensed and extended chromatin, it was found that differences in the degree of binding of proteins to DNA rather than the degree of condensation of the chromatin primarily determines the sensitivity of each fraction to DNase. Extraction of the various classes of chromosomal proteins, followed by DNase digestion of the residual chromatin revealed that both the histone and non-histone proteins protect the DNA in the chromatin fractions from DNase attack; however, the more tightly associated non-histones appear to be specifically responsible for the differential sensitivity of the chromatin fractions to DNase digestion. These non-histones may be more tightly associated with the DNA in condensed than in extended chromatin, thereby protecting the DNA in condensed chromatin against DNase attack to a greater extent than that in extended chromatin. When metaphase chromosomes were briefly digested with DNase in situ and subsequently stained with Feulgen reagent, incontrovertible C-banding and some G-banding was obtained. This DNaseinduced banding demonstrates that the DNA in C-band and possibly G-band regions is less accessible to DNase than that in the interband regions, and our biochemical data suggest that this differential accessibility is caused by differential DNA-protein binding such that the non-histones are more tightly coupled to the DNA in the G- and C-band regions than they are in the interbands. Differences in the binding of non-histones to DNA in different segments of the metaphase chromosome may be involved in the mechanism of G- and C-banding.     

Fluid-like chromatin: Toward understanding the real chromatin organization present in the cell

Eukaryotic chromatin is a negatively charged polymer consisting of genomic DNA, histones, and various nonhistone proteins. Because of its highly charged character, the structure of chromatin varies greatly depending on the surrounding environment (i.e. cations etc.): from an extended 10-nm fiber, to a folded 30-nm fiber, to chromatin condensates/liquid-droplets. Over the last ten years, newly developed technologies have drastically shifted our view on chromatin from a static regular structure to a more irregular and dynamic one, locally like a fluid. Since no single imaging (or genomics) method can tell us everything and beautiful images (or models) can fool our minds, comprehensive analyses based on many technical approaches are important to capture actual chromatin organization inside the cell. Here we critically discuss our current view on chromatin and methodology used to support the view.     

Detection of bulky DNA lesions: DDB2 at the interface of chromatin and DNA repair in eukaryotes

Bulky DNA damage is corrected by the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway. Although the core biochemical mechanism of NER is understood, details including lesion recognition and repair in the context of chromatin remain to be elucidated. As more data become available, the complexity of lesion recognition in chromatin is becoming clear. This review will discuss current knowledge of DNA damage recognition in the context of chromatin, with a focus on the roles of chromatin remodeling and the specific lesion recognition protein DDB2 (DNA damage-binding protein 2) in chromatin repair. Additionally, we propose a model that ubiquitination-mediated DDB2 dissociation from chromatin, not its degradation, is important for GG-NER progression.     

Roles of chromatin remodellers in DNA double strand break repair

Now that we have a good understanding of the DNA double strand break (DSB) repair mechanisms and DSB-induced damage signalling, attention is focusing on the changes to the chromatin environment needed for efficient DSB repair. Mutations in chromatin remodelling complexes have been identified in cancers, making it important to evaluate how they impact upon genomic stability. Our current understanding of the DSB repair pathways suggests that each one has distinct requirements for chromatin remodelling. Moreover, restricting the extent of chromatin modifications could be a significant factor regulating the decision of pathway usage. In this review, we evaluate the distinct DSB repair pathways for their potential need for chromatin remodelling and review the roles of ATP-driven chromatin remodellers in the pathways.     

Chromatin plasticity in response to DNA damage: The shape of things to come

DNA damage poses a major threat to cell function and viability by compromising both genome and epigenome integrity. The DNA damage response indeed operates in the context of chromatin and relies on dynamic changes in chromatin organization. Here, we review the molecular bases of chromatin alterations in response to DNA damage, focusing on core histone mobilization in mammalian cells. Building on our current view of nucleosome dynamics in response to DNA damage, we highlight open challenges and avenues for future development. In particular, we discuss the different levels of regulation of chromatin plasticity during the DNA damage response and their potential impact on cell function and epigenome maintenance.