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.     

Cleavage of stalled forks by fission yeast Mus81/Eme1 in absence of DNA replication checkpoint

During replication arrest, the DNA replication checkpoint plays a crucial role in the stabilization of the replisome at stalled forks, thus preventing the collapse of active forks and the formation of aberrant DNA structures. How this checkpoint acts to preserve the integrity of replication structures at stalled fork is poorly understood. In Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the DNA replication checkpoint kinase Cds1 negatively regulates the structure-specific endonuclease Mus81/Eme1 to preserve genomic integrity when replication is perturbed. Here, we report that, in response to hydroxyurea (HU) treatment, the replication checkpoint prevents S-phase-specific DNA breakage resulting from Mus81 nuclease activity. However, loss of Mus81 regulation by Cds1 is not sufficient to produce HU-induced DNA breaks. Our results suggest that unscheduled cleavage of stalled forks by Mus81 is permitted when the replisome is not stabilized by the replication checkpoint. We also show that HU-induced DNA breaks are partially dependent on the Rqh1 helicase, the fission yeast homologue of BLM, but are independent of its helicase activity. This suggests that efficient cleavage of stalled forks by Mus81 requires Rqh1. Finally, we identified an interplay between Mus81 activity at stalled forks and the Chk1-dependent DNA damage checkpoint during S-phase when replication forks have collapsed.     

14-3-3 Proteins regulate exonuclease 1-dependent processing of stalled replication forks

Replication fork integrity, which is essential for the maintenance of genome stability, is monitored by checkpoint-mediated phosphorylation events. 14-3-3 proteins are able to bind phosphorylated proteins and were shown to play an undefined role under DNA replication stress. Exonuclease 1 (Exo1) processes stalled replication forks in checkpoint-defective yeast cells. We now identify 14-3-3 proteins as in vivo interaction partners of Exo1, both in yeast and mammalian cells. Yeast 14-3-3-deficient cells fail to induce Mec1-dependent Exo1 hyperphosphorylation and accumulate Exo1-dependent ssDNA gaps at stalled forks, as revealed by electron microscopy. This leads to persistent checkpoint activation and exacerbated recovery defects. Moreover, using DNA bi-dimensional electrophoresis, we show that 14-3-3 proteins promote fork progression under limiting nucleotide concentrations. We propose that 14-3-3 proteins assist in controlling the phosphorylation status of Exo1 and additional unknown targets, promoting fork progression, stability, and restart in response to DNA replication stress.     

Mrc1 and Tof1 promote replication fork progression and recovery independently of Rad53

The yeast checkpoint factors Mrc1p and Tof1p travel with the replication fork and mediate the activation of the Rad53p kinase in response to a replication stress. We show here that both proteins are required for normal fork progression but play different roles at stalled forks. Tof1p is critical for the activity of the rDNA replication fork barrier (RFB) but plays a minor role in the replication checkpoint. In contrast, Mrc1p is not necessary for RFB activity but is essential to mediate the replication stress response. Interestingly, stalled forks did not collapse in mrc1Delta cells exposed to hydroxyurea (HU) as they do in rad53 mutants. However, forks failed to restart when mrc1Delta cells were released from the block. The critical role of Mrc1p in HU is therefore to promote fork recovery in a Rad53p-independent manner, presumably through the formation of a stable fork-pausing complex.     

DNA2 drives processing and restart of reversed replication forks in human cells

Accurate processing of stalled or damaged DNA replication forks is paramount to genomic integrity and recent work points to replication fork reversal and restart as a central mechanism to ensuring high-fidelity DNA replication. Here, we identify a novel DNA2- and WRN-dependent mechanism of reversed replication fork processing and restart after prolonged genotoxic stress. The human DNA2 nuclease and WRN ATPase activities functionally interact to degrade reversed replication forks with a 5′-to-3′ polarity and promote replication restart, thus preventing aberrant processing of unresolved replication intermediates. Unexpectedly, EXO1, MRE11, and CtIP are not involved in the same mechanism of reversed fork processing, whereas human RECQ1 limits DNA2 activity by preventing extensive nascent strand degradation. RAD51 depletion antagonizes this mechanism, presumably by preventing reversed fork formation. These studies define a new mechanism for maintaining genome integrity tightly controlled by specific nucleolytic activities and central homologous recombination factors.     

Checkpoint-dependent phosphorylation of Exo1 modulates the DNA damage response

Exo1 is a nuclease involved in mismatch repair, DSB repair, stalled replication fork processing and in the DNA damage response triggered by dysfunctional telomeres. In budding yeast and mice, Exo1 creates single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) at uncapped telomeres. This ssDNA accumulation activates the checkpoint response resulting in cell cycle arrest. Here, we demonstrate that Exo1 is phosphorylated when telomeres are uncapped in cdc13-1 and yku70Delta yeast cells, and in response to the induction of DNA damage. After telomere uncapping, Exo1 phosphorylation depends on components of the checkpoint machinery such as Rad24, Rad17, Rad9, Rad53 and Mec1, but is largely independent of Chk1, Tel1 and Dun1. Serines S372, S567, S587 and S692 of Exo1 were identified as targets for phosphorylation. Furthermore, mutation of these Exo1 residues altered the DNA damage response to uncapped telomeres and camptothecin treatment, in a manner that suggests Exo1 phosphorylation inhibits its activity. We propose that Rad53-dependent Exo1 phosphorylation is involved in a negative feedback loop to limit ssDNA accumulation and DNA damage checkpoint activation.     

Checkpoint-dependent and -independent roles of Swi3 in replication fork recovery and sister chromatid cohesion in fission yeast

Multiple genome maintenance processes are coordinated at the replication fork to preserve genomic integrity. How eukaryotic cells accomplish such a coordination is unknown. Swi1 and Swi3 form the replication fork protection complex and are involved in various processes including stabilization of replication forks, activation of the Cds1 checkpoint kinase and establishment of sister chromatid cohesion in fission yeast. However, the mechanisms by which the Swi1-Swi3 complex achieves and coordinates these tasks are not well understood. Here, we describe the identification of separation-of-function mutants of Swi3, aimed at dissecting the molecular pathways that require Swi1-Swi3. Unlike swi3 deletion mutants, the separation-of-function mutants were not sensitive to agents that stall replication forks. However, they were highly sensitive to camptothecin that induces replication fork breakage. In addition, these mutants were defective in replication fork regeneration and sister chromatid cohesion. Interestingly, unlike swi3-deleted cell, the separation-of-functions mutants were proficient in the activation of the replication checkpoint, but their fork regeneration defects were more severe than those of checkpoint mutants including cds1Δ, chk1Δ and rad3Δ. These results suggest that, while Swi3 mediates full activation of the replication checkpoint in response to stalled replication forks, Swi3 activates a checkpoint-independent pathway to facilitate recovery of collapsed replication forks and the establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. Thus, our separation-of-function alleles provide new insight into understanding the multiple roles of Swi1-Swi3 in fork protection during DNA replication, and into understanding how replication forks are maintained in response to different genotoxic agents.     

Suppression of genomic instability by SLX5 and SLX8 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Replication forks can stall spontaneously at specific sites in the genome, and upon encountering DNA lesions resulting from chemical or radiation damage. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae proteins implicated in processing of stalled replication forks include those encoded by the SGS1, TOP3, MUS81, MMS4, SLX1, SLX4, SLX5/HEX3, and SLX8 genes. We tested the roles of these genes in suppressing gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs), which include translocations, large interstitial deletions, and loss of a chromosome arm with de novo telomere addition. We found that mus81, mms4, slx1, slx4, slx5, and slx8 mutants all have elevated levels of spontaneous GCRs, and that SLX5 and SLX8 are particularly critical suppressors of GCRs during normal cell cycle progression. In addition to increased GCRs, deletion of SLX5 or SLX8 resulted in increased relocalization of the DNA damage checkpoint protein Ddc2 and activation of the checkpoint kinase Rad53, indicating the accumulation of spontaneous DNA damage. Surprisingly, mutants in slx5 or slx8 were not sensitive to transient replication fork stalling induced by hydroxyurea, nor were they sensitive to replication dependent double-strand breaks induced by camptothecin. This suggested that Slx8 and Slx8 played limited roles in stabilizing, restarting, or resolving transiently stalled replication forks, but were critical for preventing the accumulation of DNA damage during normal cell cycle progression.     

FANCM regulates DNA chain elongation and is stabilized by S‐phase checkpoint signalling

FANCM binds and remodels replication fork structures in vitro. We report that in vivo, FANCM controls DNA chain elongation in an ATPase‐dependent manner. In the presence of replication inhibitors that do not damage DNA, FANCM counteracts fork movement, possibly by remodelling fork structures. Conversely, through damaged DNA, FANCM promotes replication and recovers stalled forks. Hence, the impact of FANCM on fork progression depends on the underlying hindrance. We further report that signalling through the checkpoint effector kinase Chk1 prevents FANCM from degradation by the proteasome after exposure to DNA damage. FANCM also acts in a feedback loop to stabilize Chk1. We propose that FANCM is a ringmaster in the response to replication stress by physically altering replication fork structures and by providing a tight link to S‐phase checkpoint signalling.     

Interplay of replication checkpoints and repair proteins at stalled replication forks

DNA replication is an essential process that occurs in all growing cells and needs to be tightly regulated in order to preserve genetic integrity. Eukaryotic cells have developed multiple mechanisms to ensure the fidelity of replication and to coordinate the progression of replication forks. Replication is often impeded by DNA damage or replication blocks, and the resulting stalled replication forks are sensed and protected by specialized surveillance mechanisms called checkpoints. The replication checkpoint plays an essential role in preventing the breakdown of stalled replication forks and the accumulation of DNA structures that enhance recombination and chromosomal rearrangements that ultimately lead to genomic instability and cancer development. In addition, the replication checkpoint is thought to assist and coordinate replication fork restart processes by controlling DNA repair pathways, regulating chromatin structure, promoting the recruitment of proteins to sites of damage, and controlling cell cycle progression. In this review we focus mainly on the results obtained in budding yeast to discuss on the multiple roles of checkpoints in maintaining fork integrity and on the enzymatic activities that cooperate with the checkpoint pathway to promote fork resumption and repair of DNA lesions thereby contributing to genome integrity.     

Orchestration of the S-phase and DNA damage checkpoint pathways by replication forks from early origins

The S-phase checkpoint activated at replication forks coordinates DNA replication when forks stall because of DNA damage or low deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate pools. We explore the involvement of replication forks in coordinating the S-phase checkpoint using dun1Delta cells that have a defect in the number of stalled forks formed from early origins and are dependent on the DNA damage Chk1p pathway for survival when replication is stalled. We show that providing additional origins activated in early S phase and establishing a paused fork at a replication fork pause site restores S-phase checkpoint signaling to chk1Delta dun1Delta cells and relieves the reliance on the DNA damage checkpoint pathway. Origin licensing and activation are controlled by the cyclin-Cdk complexes. Thus, oncogene-mediated deregulation of cyclins in the early stages of cancer development could contribute to genomic instability through a deficiency in the forks required to establish the S-phase checkpoint.     

Genome-wide replication profiles of S-phase checkpoint mutants reveal fragile sites in yeast

The S-phase checkpoint kinases Mec1 and Rad53 in the budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, are activated in response to replication stress that induces replication fork arrest. In the absence of a functional S-phase checkpoint, stalled replication forks collapse and give rise to chromosome breakage. In an attempt to better understand replication dynamics in S-phase checkpoint mutants, we developed a replication origin array for budding yeast that contains 424 of 432 previously identified potential origin regions. As expected, mec1-1 and rad53-1 mutants failed to inhibit late origin activation. Surprisingly however, 17 early-firing regions were not replicated efficiently in these mutants. This was not due to a lack of initiation, but rather to problems during elongation, as replication forks arrested in close proximity to these origins, resulting in the accumulation of small replication intermediates and eventual replication fork collapse. Importantly, these regions were not only prone to chromosome breakage in the presence of exogenous stress but also in its absence, similar to fragile sites in the human genome.     

Mechanisms of replication fork protection: a safeguard for genome stability

During S-phase, the genome is extremely vulnerable and the progression of replication forks is often threatened by exogenous and endogenous challenges. When replication fork progression is halted, the intra S-phase checkpoint is activated to promote structural stability of stalled forks, preventing the dissociation of replisome components. This ensures the rapid resumption of replication following DNA repair. Failure in protecting and/or restarting the stalled forks contributes to alterations of the genome. Several human genetic diseases coupled to an increased cancer predisposition are caused by mutations in genes involved in safeguarding genome integrity during DNA replication. Both the ATR (ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein) kinase and the Replication pausing complex (RPC) components Tipin, Tim1 and Claspin play key roles in activating the intra S-phase checkpoint and in stabilizing the stalled replication forks. Here, we discuss the specific contribution of these factors in preserving fork structure and ensuring accurate completion of DNA replication.     

Mechanisms of replication fork protection: a safeguard for genome stability

During S-phase, the genome is extremely vulnerable and the progression of replication forks is often threatened by exogenous and endogenous challenges. When replication fork progression is halted, the intra S-phase checkpoint is activated to promote structural stability of stalled forks, preventing the dissociation of replisome components. This ensures the rapid resumption of replication following DNA repair. Failure in protecting and/or restarting the stalled forks contributes to alterations of the genome. Several human genetic diseases coupled to an increased cancer predisposition are caused by mutations in genes involved in safeguarding genome integrity during DNA replication. Both the ATR (ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein) kinase and the Replication pausing complex (RPC) components Tipin, Tim1 and Claspin play key roles in activating the intra S-phase checkpoint and in stabilizing the stalled replication forks. Here, we discuss the specific contribution of these factors in preserving fork structure and ensuring accurate completion of DNA replication.     

Swi1 prevents replication fork collapse and controls checkpoint kinase Cds1

The replication checkpoint is a dedicated sensor-response system activated by impeded replication forks. It stabilizes stalled forks and arrests division, thereby preserving genome integrity and promoting cell survival. In budding yeast, Tof1 is thought to act as a specific mediator of the replication checkpoint signal that activates the effector kinase Rad53. Here we report studies of fission yeast Swi1, a Tof1-related protein required for a programmed fork-pausing event necessary for mating type switching. Our studies have shown that Swi1 is vital for proficient activation of the Rad53-like checkpoint kinase Cds1. Together they are required to prevent fork collapse in the ribosomal DNA repeats, and they also prevent irreversible fork arrest at a newly identified hydroxyurea pause site. Swi1 also has Cds1-independent functions. Rad22 DNA repair foci form during S phase in swi1 mutants and to a lesser extent in cds1 mutants, indicative of fork collapse. Mus81, a DNA endonuclease required for recovery from collapsed forks, is vital in swi1 but not cds1 mutants. Swi1 is recruited to chromatin during S phase. We propose that Swi1 stabilizes replication forks in a configuration that is recognized by replication checkpoint sensors.     

Mammalian RAD51 paralogs protect nascent DNA at stalled forks and mediate replication restart

Mammalian RAD51 paralogs are implicated in the repair of collapsed replication forks by homologous recombination. However, their physiological roles in replication fork maintenance prior to fork collapse remain obscure. Here, we report on the role of RAD51 paralogs in short-term replicative stress devoid of DSBs. We show that RAD51 paralogs localize to nascent DNA and common fragile sites upon replication fork stalling. Strikingly, RAD51 paralogs deficient cells exhibit elevated levels of 53BP1 nuclear bodies and increased DSB formation, the latter being attributed to extensive degradation of nascent DNA at stalled forks. RAD51C and XRCC3 promote the restart of stalled replication in an ATP hydrolysis dependent manner by disengaging RAD51 and other RAD51 paralogs from the halted forks. Notably, we find that Fanconi anemia (FA)-like disorder and breast and ovarian cancer patient derived mutations of RAD51C fails to protect replication fork, exhibit under-replicated genomic regions and elevated micro-nucleation. Taken together, RAD51 paralogs prevent degradation of stalled forks and promote the restart of halted replication to avoid replication fork collapse, thereby maintaining genomic integrity and suppressing tumorigenesis.     

Mus81-Eme1 and Rqh1 involvement in processing stalled and collapsed replication forks

The processing of stalled replication forks and the repair of collapsed replication forks are essential functions in all organisms. In fission yeast DNA junctions at stalled replication forks appear to be processed by either the Rqh1 DNA helicase or Mus81-Eme1 endonuclease. Accordingly, we show that the hypersensitivity to agents that cause replication fork stalling of mus81, eme1, and rqh1 mutants is suppressed by a Holliday junction resolvase (RusA), as is the synthetic lethality of a mus81(-) rqh1(-) double mutant. Recombinant Mus81-Eme1, purified from Escherichia coli, readily cleaves replication fork structures but cleaves synthetic Holliday junctions relatively poorly in vitro. From these data we propose that Mus81-Eme1 can process stalled replication forks before they have regressed to form a Holliday junction. We also implicate Mus81-Eme1 and Rqh1 in the repair of collapsed replication forks. Here Mus81-Eme1 and Rqh1 seem to function on different substrates because RusA can substitute for Mus81-Eme1 but not Rqh1.     

The ATR pathway: fine-tuning the fork

The proper detection and repair of DNA damage is essential to the maintenance of genomic stability. The genome is particularly vulnerable during DNA replication, when endogenous and exogenous events can hinder replication fork progression. Stalled replication forks can fold into deleterious conformations and are also unstable structures that are prone to collapse or break. These events can lead to inappropriate processing of the DNA, ultimately resulting in genomic instability, chromosomal alterations and cancer. To cope with stalled replication forks, the cell relies on the replication checkpoint to block cell cycle progression, downregulate origin firing, stabilize the fork itself, and restart replication. The ATR (ATM and Rad3-related) kinase and its downstream effector kinase, Chk1, are central regulators of the replication checkpoint. Loss of these checkpoint proteins causes replication fork collapse and chromosomal rearrangements which may ultimately predispose affected individuals to cancer. This review summarizes our current understanding of how the ATR pathway recognizes and stabilizes stalled replication forks.     

Checkpoint responses to replication fork barriers

The fidelity of DNA replication is of paramount importance to the maintenance of genome integrity. When an active replication fork is perturbed, multiple cellular pathways are recruited to stabilize the replication apparatus and to help to bypass or correct the causative problem. However, if the problem is not corrected, the fork may collapse, exposing free DNA ends to potentially inappropriate processing. In prokaryotes, replication fork collapse promotes the activity of recombination proteins to restore a replication fork. Recent work has demonstrated that recombination is also intimately linked to replication in eukaryotic cells, and that recombination proteins are recruited to collapsed, but not stalled, replication forks. In this review we discuss the different types of potential replication fork barriers (RFB) and how these distinct RFBs can result in different DNA structures at the stalled replication fork. The DNA structure checkpoints which act within S phase respond to different RFBs in different ways and we thus discuss the processes that are controlled by the DNA replication checkpoints, paying particular attention to the function of the intra-S phase checkpoint that stabilises the stalled fork.     

Distinct modes of ATR activation after replication stress and DNA double-strand breaks in Caenorhabditis elegans

ATM and ATR are key components of the DNA damage checkpoint. ATR primarily responds to UV damage and replication stress, yet may also function with ATM in the checkpoint response to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), although this is less clear. Here, we show that atl-1 (Caenorhabditis elegans ATR) and rad-5/clk-2 prevent mitotic catastrophe, function in the S-phase checkpoint and also cooperate with atm-1 in the checkpoint response to DSBs after ionizing radiation (IR) to induce cell cycle arrest or apoptosis via the cep-1(p53)/egl-1 pathway. ATL-1 is recruited to stalled replication forks by RPA-1 and functions upstream of rad-5/clk-2 in the S-phase checkpoint. In contrast, mre-11 and atm-1 are dispensable for ATL-1 recruitment to stalled replication forks. However, mre-11 is required for RPA-1 association and ATL-1 recruitment to DSBs. Thus, DNA processing controlled by mre-11 is important for ATL-1 activation at DSBs but not following replication fork stalling. We propose that atl-1 and rad-5/clk-2 respond to single-stranded DNA generated by replication stress and function with atm-1 following DSB resection.