Roles for DNA polymerase δ in initiating and terminating leading strand DNA replication

Choosing tumor mutational burden wisely for immunotherapy: A hard road to explore

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer due to its remarkable efficacy and extensive survival benefit in multiple tumor types. However, predictive biomarkers are required to identify patients who are likely to respond to immunotherapy. Recently, tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been shown to be associated with clinical outcomes in diverse cancers, such as melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer. Several studies have demonstrated that high TMB can effectively predict the objective response rate and progression-free survival, but the ability of TMB to predict overall survival is limited. Thus, the clinical utility of TMB as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in immunotherapy is currently controversial. Importantly, multiple factors can affect the accurate assessment of TMB and further interfere with its prediction of clinical outcomes. These factors include preanalytical factors such as sample status, analytical factors such as differences in platforms and methods for determining TMB and variability of cutoff values, and postanalytical factors such as inconsistent interpretation and reporting of results. In addition, the optimal definition and quantification of TMB are unclear and require harmonization and standardization for reliable clinical application. This review elaborates on the factors affecting TMB status in primary tumors, summarizes the clinical utility of TMB as a biomarker in immunotherapy, and evaluates the impact of each analysis stage on the accurate estimation of TMB, especially its quantification, aiming to facilitate TMB assessment in routine clinical settings.

Lymphocyte-Specific Function of the DNA Polymerase Epsilon Subunit Pole3 Revealed by Neomorphic Alleles

Immunodeficiencies are typically caused by loss-of-function mutations in lymphocyte-specific genes. Occasionally, mutations in ubiquitous general-purpose factors, including those affecting essential components of the DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE) holoenzyme, have cell-type-specific consequences. POLE3, one of the four components of the POLE holoenzyme, features a histone fold domain and a unique acidic C terminus, making it a particularly attractive candidate mediating cell type-specific activities of POLE. Mice lacking Pole3 survive up to late embryonic stages, indicating that this subunit is dispensable for DNA replication. The phenotypes of viable hypomorphic and neomorphic alleles are surprisingly tissue restricted and reveal a stage-specific function of the histone fold domain of Pole3 during T and B cell development. Gradual introduction of positively charged residues into the acidic C terminus leads to peripheral lymphopenia of increasing severity. Our findings serve as a paradigm to understand the molecular basis of cell-type-specific non-replicative functions of the ubiquitous POLE complex.

Reconstitution of translesion synthesis reveals a mechanism of eukaryotic DNA replication restart

Leading-strand template aberrations cause helicase-polymerase uncoupling and impede replication fork progression, but the details of how uncoupled forks are restarted remain uncertain. Using purified proteins from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we have reconstituted translesion synthesis (TLS)-mediated restart of a eukaryotic replisome following collision with a cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer. We find that TLS functions 'on the fly' to promote resumption of rapid replication fork rates, despite lesion bypass occurring uncoupled from the Cdc45-MCM-GINS (CMG) helicase. Surprisingly, the main lagging-strand polymerase, Pol δ, binds the leading strand upon uncoupling and inhibits TLS. Pol δ is also crucial for efficient recoupling of leading-strand synthesis to CMG following lesion bypass. Proliferating cell nuclear antigen monoubiquitination positively regulates TLS to overcome Pol δ inhibition. We reveal that these mechanisms of negative and positive regulation also operate on the lagging strand. Our observations have implications for both fork restart and the division of labor during leading-strand synthesis generally.

Quaternary structural diversity in eukaryotic DNA polymerases: monomeric to multimeric form

Sixteen eukaryotic DNA polymerases have been identified and studied so far. Based on the sequence similarity of the catalytic subunits of DNA polymerases, these have been classified into four A, B, X and Y families except PrimPol, which belongs to the AEP family. The quaternary structure of these polymerases also varies depending upon whether they are composed of one or more subunits. Therefore, in this review, we used a quaternary structure-based classification approach to group DNA polymerases as either monomeric or multimeric and highlighted functional significance of their accessory subunits. Additionally, we have briefly summarized various DNA polymerase discoveries from a historical perspective, emphasized unique catalytic mechanism of each DNA polymerase and highlighted recent advances in understanding their cellular functions.

DNA polymerase δ proofreads errors made by DNA polymerase ε

Polδ and Polε are the two major replicative polymerases in eukaryotes, but their precise roles at the replication fork remain a subject of debate. A bulk of data supports a model where Polε and Polδ synthesize leading and lagging DNA strands, respectively. However, this model has been difficult to reconcile with the fact that mutations in Polδ have much stronger consequences for genome stability than equivalent mutations in Polε. We provide direct evidence for a long-entertained idea that Polδ can proofread errors made by Polε in addition to its own errors, thus, making a more prominent contribution to mutation avoidance. This paper provides an essential advance in the understanding of the mechanism of eukaryotic DNA replication.

During eukaryotic replication, DNA polymerases ε (Polε) and δ (Polδ) synthesize the leading and lagging strands, respectively. In a long-known contradiction to this model, defects in the fidelity of Polε have a much weaker impact on mutagenesis than analogous Polδ defects. It has been previously proposed that Polδ contributes more to mutation avoidance because it proofreads mismatches created by Polε in addition to its own errors. However, direct evidence for this model was missing. We show that, in yeast, the mutation rate increases synergistically when a Polε nucleotide selectivity defect is combined with a Polδ proofreading defect, demonstrating extrinsic proofreading of Polε errors by Polδ. In contrast, combining Polδ nucleotide selectivity and Polε proofreading defects produces no synergy, indicating that Polε cannot correct errors made by Polδ. We further show that Polδ can remove errors made by exonuclease-deficient Polε in vitro. These findings illustrate the complexity of the one-strand–one-polymerase model where synthesis appears to be largely divided, but Polδ proofreading operates on both strands.

Plant DNA Polymerases

Maintenance of genome integrity is a key process in all organisms. DNA polymerases (Pols) are central players in this process as they are in charge of the faithful reproduction of the genetic information, as well as of DNA repair. Interestingly, all eukaryotes possess a large repertoire of polymerases. Three protein complexes, DNA Pol α, δ, and ε, are in charge of nuclear DNA replication. These enzymes have the fidelity and processivity required to replicate long DNA sequences, but DNA lesions can block their progression. Consequently, eukaryotic genomes also encode a variable number of specialized polymerases (between five and 16 depending on the organism) that are involved in the replication of damaged DNA, DNA repair, and organellar DNA replication. This diversity of enzymes likely stems from their ability to bypass specific types of lesions. In the past 10–15 years, our knowledge regarding plant DNA polymerases dramatically increased. In this review, we discuss these recent findings and compare acquired knowledge in plants to data obtained in other eukaryotes. We also discuss the emerging links between genome and epigenome replication.