DNA End Resection: Mechanism and Control

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are cytotoxic lesions that threaten genome integrity and cell viability. Typically, cells repair DSBs by either nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) or homologous recombination (HR). The relative use of these two pathways depends on many factors, including cell cycle stage and the nature of the DNA ends. A critical determinant of repair pathway selection is the initiation of 5′→3′ nucleolytic degradation of DNA ends, a process referred to as DNA end resection. End resection is essential to create single-stranded DNA overhangs, which serve as the substrate for the Rad51 recombinase to initiate HR and are refractory to NHEJ repair. Here, we review recent insights into the mechanisms of end resection, how it is regulated, and the pathological consequences of its dysregulation.

MRE11 and UBR5 Co-Operate to Suppress RNF168-Mediated Fusion of Dysfunctional Telomeres

TRF2 is part of the shelterin complex that hides telomeric DNA ends and prevents the activation of the cNHEJ pathway that can lead to chromosomal fusion. TRF2, however, also actively suppresses the cNHEJ pathway by recruiting two proteins, MRE11 and UBR5. MRE11 binds BRCC3, which in turn deubiquitinates γH2AX deposited at exposed telomeric DNA ends and limits RNF168 recruitment to the telomere. UBR5, in contrast directly ubiquitinates and destroys RNF168. The loss of telomeric RNF168 in turn blocks the subsequent recruitment of 53BP1 and prevents the cNHEJ-mediated fusion of chromosomes with exposed telomeric DNA ends. Although MRE11 and UBR5 are both involved in the control of telomeric RNF168 levels and the chromosome fusion process, their relative contributions have not been directly addressed. To do so we genetically suppressed MRE11 and UBR5 alone or in combination in glioma cell lines which we previously showed contained dysfunctional telomeres that were dependent on TRF2 for suppression of telomeric fusion and monitored the effects on events associated with telomere fusion. We here show that while suppression of either MRE11 or UBR5 alone had minimal effects on RNF168 telomeric accumulation, 53BP1 recruitment, and telomeric fusion, their combined suppression led to significant increases in RNF168 and 53BP1 telomeric recruitment and telomeric fusion and eventually cell death, all of which were reversible by suppression of RNF168 itself. These results show that MRE11 and UBR5 co-operate to suppress fusion at dysfunctional telomeres.

Mechanisms of Nucleosome Reorganization by PARP1

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is an enzyme involved in DNA repair, chromatin organization and transcription. During transcription initiation, PARP1 interacts with gene promoters where it binds to nucleosomes, replaces linker histone H1 and participates in gene regulation. However, the mechanisms of PARP1-nucleosome interaction remain unknown. Here, using spFRET microscopy, molecular dynamics and biochemical approaches we identified several different PARP1-nucleosome complexes and two types of PARP1 binding to mononucleosomes: at DNA ends and end-independent. Two or three molecules of PARP1 can bind to a nucleosome depending on the presence of linker DNA and can induce reorganization of the entire nucleosome that is independent of catalytic activity of PARP1. Nucleosome reorganization depends upon binding of PARP1 to nucleosomal DNA, likely near the binding site of linker histone H1. The data suggest that PARP1 can induce the formation of an alternative nucleosome state that is likely involved in gene regulation and DNA repair.

Proximal-end bias from in-vitro reconstituted nucleosomes and the result on downstream data analysis

The most basic level of eukaryotic gene regulation is the presence or absence of nucleosomes on DNA regulatory elements. In an effort to elucidate in vivo nucleosome patterns, in vitro studies are frequently used. In vitro, short DNA fragments are more favorable for nucleosome formation, increasing the likelihood of nucleosome occupancy. This may in part result from the fact that nucleosomes prefer to form on the terminal ends of linear DNA. This phenomenon has the potential to bias in vitro reconstituted nucleosomes and skew results. If the ends of DNA fragments are known, the reads falling close to the ends are typically discarded. In this study we confirm the phenomenon of end bias of in vitro nucleosomes. We describe a method in which nearly identical libraries, with different known ends, are used to recover nucleosomes which form towards the terminal ends of fragmented DNA. Finally, we illustrate that although nucleosomes prefer to form on DNA ends, it does not appear to skew results or the interpretation thereof.

Suppression of telomere capping defects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yku70 and yku80 mutants by telomerase

The Ku complex performs multiple functions inside eukaryotic cells, including protection of chromosomal DNA ends from degradation and fusion events, recruitment of telomerase, and repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs). Inactivation of Ku complex genes YKU70 or YKU80 in cells of the yeast S. cerevisiae gives rise to mutants that exhibit shortened telomeres and temperature-sensitive growth. In this study we have investigated the mechanism by which overexpression of telomerase suppresses the temperature sensitivity of yku mutants. Viability of yku cells was restored by overexpression of the Est2 reverse transcriptase and TLC1 RNA template subunits of telomerase, but not the Est1 or Est3 proteins. Overexpression of other telomerase- and telomere-associated proteins (Cdc13, Stn1, Ten1, Rif1, Rif2, Sir3, Sir4) did not suppress the growth defects of yku70 cells. Mechanistic features of suppression were assessed using several TLC1 RNA deletion derivatives and Est2 enzyme mutants. Supraphysiological levels of three catalytically inactive reverse transcriptase mutants (Est2-D530A, Est2-D670A and Est2-D671A) suppressed the loss of viability as efficiently as the wildtype Est2 protein, without inducing cell senescence. Roles of proteins regulating telomere length were also determined. The results support a model in which chromosomes in yku mutants are stabilized via a replication-independent mechanism involving structural reinforcement of protective telomere cap structures.

DNA End Joining: G0-ing to the Core

Humans have evolved a series of DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathways to efficiently and accurately rejoin nascently formed pairs of double-stranded DNA ends (DSEs). In G0/G1-phase cells, non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and alternative end joining (A-EJ) operate to support covalent rejoining of DSEs. While NHEJ is predominantly utilized and collaborates extensively with the DNA damage response (DDR) to support pairing of DSEs, much less is known about A-EJ collaboration with DDR factors when NHEJ is absent. Non-cycling lymphocyte progenitor cells use NHEJ to complete V(D)J recombination of antigen receptor genes, initiated by the RAG1/2 endonuclease which holds its pair of targeted DSBs in a synapse until each specified pair of DSEs is handed off to the NHEJ DSB sensor complex, Ku. Similar to designer endonuclease DSBs, the absence of Ku allows for A-EJ to access RAG1/2 DSEs but with random pairing to complete their repair. Here, we describe recent insights into the major phases of DSB end joining, with an emphasis on synapsis and tethering mechanisms, and bring together new and old concepts of NHEJ vs. A-EJ and on RAG2-mediated repair pathway choice.

The DNAPKcs long-range C-NHEJ complex is required for blunt DNA end joining when XLF is weakened

Canonical non-homologous end joining (C-NHEJ) factors can assemble into a long-range (LR) complex with DNA ends relatively far apart that contains DNAPKcs, XLF, XRCC4, LIG4, and the KU heterodimer and a short-range (SR) complex lacking DNAPKcs that has the ends positioned for ligation. Since the SR complex can form de novo, the role of the LR complex (i.e., DNAPKcs) for chromosomal EJ is unclear. We have examined EJ of chromosomal blunt DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), and found that DNAPKcs is significantly less important than XLF and XRCC4 for such EJ. However, weakening XLF via disrupting interaction interfaces (e.g., disrupting the XLF homodimer interface) causes a marked requirement for DNAPKcs, its kinase activity, and its ABCDE-cluster autophosphorylation sites for blunt DSB EJ. In contrast, other aspects of genome maintenance are sensitive to DNAPKcs kinase inhibition in a manner that is not further enhanced by XLF loss (i.e., suppression of homology-directed repair and structural variants, and IR-resistance). We suggest that DNAPKcs is required to position a weakened XLF in an LR complex that can transition into a functional SR complex for blunt DSB EJ, but also has distinct functions for other aspects of genome maintenance.