Discovery of a two protease DNA damage checkpoint recovery mechanism

AbstractThe DNA damage response is a signaling pathway found throughout biology. In many bacteria the DNA damage checkpoint is enforced by inducing expression of a small, membrane bound inhibitor that delays cell division providing time to repair damaged chromosomes. How cells sense successful DNA repair and promote checkpoint recovery is unknown. By using a high-throughput, forward genetic screen, we identified two unrelated proteases, YlbL and CtpA, that promote DNA damage checkpoint recovery inBacillus subtilis. Deletion of both proteases leads to accumulation of the checkpoint protein YneA. DNA damage sensitivity and increased cell elongation in protease mutants depends onyneA. Further, expression of YneA in protease mutants was sufficient to inhibit cell proliferation. Finally, we show that one of the two proteases, CtpA, directly cleaves YneAin vitro. With these results, we report the mechanism for DNA damage checkpoint recovery in bacteria that use membrane bound cell division inhibitors.

Download Full-text

DdcA antagonizes a bacterial DNA damage checkpoint

10.1101/391730 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Peter E. Burby ◽

Zackary W. Simmons ◽

Lyle A. Simmons

Keyword(s):

Dna Damage ◽

Cell Division ◽

Dna Replication ◽

Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽

Bacterial Dna ◽

Delay Cell ◽

Checkpoint Recovery ◽

Damage Response ◽

A Cell ◽

Cell Division Inhibitor

AbstractBacteria coordinate DNA replication and cell division, ensuring that a complete set of genetic material is passed onto the next generation. When bacteria encounter DNA damage or impediments to DNA replication, a cell cycle checkpoint is activated to delay cell division by expressing a cell division inhibitor. The prevailing model for bacterial DNA damage checkpoints is that activation of the DNA damage response and protease mediated degradation of the cell division inhibitor is sufficient to regulate the checkpoint process. Our recent genome-wide screens identified the geneddcAas critical for surviving exposure to a broad spectrum of DNA damage. TheddcAdeletion phenotypes are dependent on the checkpoint enforcement protein YneA. We found that expression of the checkpoint recovery proteases could not compensate forddcAdeletion. Similarly, expression ifddcAcould not compensate for the absence of the checkpoint recovery proteases, indicating that DdcA function is distinct from the checkpoint recovery step. Deletion ofddcAresulted in sensitivity toyneAoverexpression independent of YneA protein levels or stability, further supporting the conclusion that DdcA regulates YneA through a proteolysis independent mechanism. Using a functional GFP-YneA we found that DdcA inhibits YneA activity independent of YneA localization, suggesting that DdcA may regulate YneA access to its target. These results uncover a regulatory step that is important for controlling the DNA damage checkpoint in bacteria, and suggests that the typical mechanism of degrading the checkpoint enforcement protein is insufficient to control the rate of cell division in response to DNA damage.Author SummaryAll cells coordinate DNA replication and cell division. When cells encounter DNA damage, the process of DNA replication is slowed and the cell must also delay cell division. In bacteria, the process has long been thought to occur using two principle modes of regulation. The first, is RecA coated ssDNA transmits the signal of DNA damage through inactivation of the repressor of the DNA damage (SOS) response regulon, which results in expression of a cell division inhibitor establishing the checkpoint. The second principle step is protease mediated degradation of the cell division inhibitor relieving the checkpoint. Recent work by our lab and others has suggested that this process may be more complex than originally thought. Here, we investigated a gene of unknown function that we previously identified as important for survival when the bacteriumBacillus subtilisis exposed to DNA damage. We found that this gene negatively regulates the cell division inhibitor, but is functionally distinct from the checkpoint recovery process. We provide evidence that this gene functions as an antagonist to establishing the DNA damage checkpoint. Our study uncovers a novel layer of regulation in the bacterial DNA damage checkpoint process challenging the longstanding models established in the bacterial DNA damage response field.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of A DNA damage checkpoint in Caulobacter crescentus inhibits cell division through a direct interaction with FtsW.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.12707956.14261058 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Susan Golden ◽

Susan Cohen

Keyword(s):

Dna Damage ◽

Cell Division ◽

Caulobacter Crescentus ◽

Direct Interaction ◽

Dna Damage Checkpoint

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Coupling of human DNA excision repair and the DNA damage checkpoint in a defined in vitro system.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.718232039.793490409 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Paul Nghiem ◽

Kaifeng Hung

Keyword(s):

Dna Damage ◽

Excision Repair ◽

Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽

In Vitro System ◽

Dna Excision Repair ◽

Human Dna

Download Full-text

The DNA damage inducible lncRNA SCAT7 regulates genomic integrity and topoisomerase 1 turnover in lung adenocarcinoma

NAR Cancer ◽

10.1093/narcan/zcab002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Luisa Statello ◽

Mohamad M Ali ◽

Silke Reischl ◽

Sagar Mahale ◽

Subazini Thankaswamy Kosalai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dna Damage ◽

Dna Damage Response ◽

Cancer Biology ◽

Topoisomerase I ◽

Cell Cycle Checkpoints ◽

Topoisomerase 1 ◽

Damage Response ◽

Promote Cell Survival

Abstract Despite the rapid improvements in unveiling the importance of lncRNAs in all aspects of cancer biology, there is still a void in mechanistic understanding of their role in the DNA damage response. Here we explored the potential role of the oncogenic lncRNA SCAT7 (ELF3-AS1) in the maintenance of genome integrity. We show that SCAT7 is upregulated in response to DNA-damaging drugs like cisplatin and camptothecin, where SCAT7 expression is required to promote cell survival. SCAT7 silencing leads to decreased proliferation of cisplatin-resistant cells in vitro and in vivo through interfering with cell cycle checkpoints and DNA repair molecular pathways. SCAT7 regulates ATR signaling, promoting homologous recombination. Importantly, SCAT7 also takes part in proteasome-mediated topoisomerase I (TOP1) degradation, and its depletion causes an accumulation of TOP1–cc structures responsible for the high levels of intrinsic DNA damage. Thus, our data demonstrate that SCAT7 is an important constituent of the DNA damage response pathway and serves as a potential therapeutic target for hard-to-treat drug resistant cancers.

Download Full-text

PAICS contributes to gastric carcinogenesis and participates in DNA damage response by interacting with histone deacetylase 1/2

Cell Death and Disease ◽

10.1038/s41419-020-2708-5 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 (7) ◽

Author(s):

Nan Huang ◽

Chang Xu ◽

Liang Deng ◽

Xue Li ◽

Zhixuan Bian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dna Damage ◽

Histone Deacetylase ◽

Dna Damage Response ◽

De Novo ◽

Dna Damage Repair ◽

Histone Deacetylase 1 ◽

Damage Repair ◽

Damage Response

AbstractPhosphoribosylaminoimidazole carboxylase, phosphoribosylaminoimidazole succinocarboxamide synthetase (PAICS), an essential enzyme involved in de novo purine biosynthesis, is connected with formation of various tumors. However, the specific biological roles and related mechanisms of PAICS in gastric cancer (GC) remain unclear. In the present study, we identified for the first time that PAICS was significantly upregulated in GC and high expression of PAICS was correlated with poor prognosis of patients with GC. In addition, knockdown of PAICS significantly induced cell apoptosis, and inhibited GC cell growth both in vitro and in vivo. Mechanistic studies first found that PAICS was engaged in DNA damage response, and knockdown of PAICS in GC cell lines induced DNA damage and impaired DNA damage repair efficiency. Further explorations revealed that PAICS interacted with histone deacetylase HDAC1 and HDAC2, and PAICS deficiency decreased the expression of DAD51 and inhibited its recruitment to DNA damage sites by impairing HDAC1/2 deacetylase activity, eventually preventing DNA damage repair. Consistently, PAICS deficiency enhanced the sensitivity of GC cells to DNA damage agent, cisplatin (CDDP), both in vitro and in vivo. Altogether, our findings demonstrate that PAICS plays an oncogenic role in GC, which act as a novel diagnosis and prognostic biomarker for patients with GC.

Download Full-text

Slx4 Regulates DNA Damage Checkpoint-dependent Phosphorylation of the BRCT Domain Protein Rtt107/Esc4

Molecular Biology of the Cell ◽

10.1091/mbc.e05-08-0785 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 539-548 ◽

Cited By ~ 59

Author(s):

Tania M. Roberts ◽

Michael S. Kobor ◽

Suzanne A. Bastin-Shanower ◽

Miki Ii ◽

Sonja A. Horte ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dna Damage ◽

Dna Damage Response ◽

Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽

Checkpoint Activation ◽

Alkylation Damage ◽

Binding Partner ◽

Replication Restart ◽

Damage Response ◽

Domain Protein

RTT107 (ESC4, YHR154W) encodes a BRCA1 C-terminal-domain protein that is important for recovery from DNA damage during S phase. Rtt107 is a substrate of the checkpoint protein kinase Mec1, although the mechanism by which Rtt107 is targeted by Mec1 after checkpoint activation is currently unclear. Slx4, a component of the Slx1-Slx4 structure-specific nuclease, formed a complex with Rtt107. Deletion of SLX4 conferred many of the same DNA-repair defects observed in rtt107Δ, including DNA damage sensitivity, prolonged DNA damage checkpoint activation, and increased spontaneous DNA damage. These phenotypes were not shared by the Slx4 binding partner Slx1, suggesting that the functions of the Slx4 and Slx1 proteins in the DNA damage response were not identical. Of particular interest, Slx4, but not Slx1, was required for phosphorylation of Rtt107 by Mec1 in vivo, indicating that Slx4 was a mediator of DNA damage-dependent phosphorylation of the checkpoint effector Rtt107. We propose that Slx4 has roles in the DNA damage response that are distinct from the function of Slx1-Slx4 in maintaining rDNA structure and that Slx4-dependent phosphorylation of Rtt107 by Mec1 is critical for replication restart after alkylation damage.

Download Full-text

Dephosphorylation of the C-terminal Tyrosyl Residue of the DNA Damage-related Histone H2A.X Is Mediated by the Protein Phosphatase Eyes Absent

Journal of Biological Chemistry ◽

10.1074/jbc.c900032200 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 284 (24) ◽

pp. 16066-16070 ◽

Cited By ~ 88

Author(s):

Navasona Krishnan ◽

Dae Gwin Jeong ◽

Suk-Kyeong Jung ◽

Seong Eon Ryu ◽

Andrew Xiao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dna Damage ◽

Dna Damage Response ◽

Mammalian Cells ◽

Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases ◽

Histone H2a ◽

Eyes Absent ◽

Damage Repair ◽

Damage Response

In mammalian cells, the DNA damage-related histone H2A variant H2A.X is characterized by a C-terminal tyrosyl residue, Tyr-142, which is phosphorylated by an atypical kinase, WSTF. The phosphorylation status of Tyr-142 in H2A.X has been shown to be an important regulator of the DNA damage response by controlling the formation of γH2A.X foci, which are platforms for recruiting molecules involved in DNA damage repair and signaling. In this work, we present evidence to support the identification of the Eyes Absent (EYA) phosphatases, protein-tyrosine phosphatases of the haloacid dehalogenase superfamily, as being responsible for dephosphorylating the C-terminal tyrosyl residue of histone H2A.X. We demonstrate that EYA2 and EYA3 displayed specificity for Tyr-142 of H2A.X in assays in vitro. Suppression of eya3 by RNA interference resulted in elevated basal phosphorylation and inhibited DNA damage-induced dephosphorylation of Tyr-142 of H2A.X in vivo. This study provides the first indication of a physiological substrate for the EYA phosphatases and suggests a novel role for these enzymes in regulation of the DNA damage response.

Download Full-text