Colocalization of Mec1 and Mrc1 is sufficient for Rad53 phosphorylation in vivo

Phosphoregulation of the checkpoint kinase Mec1ATR

Yeast Mec1, and its mammalian ortholog, Ataxia-Telangiectasia and Rad3-related, are giant protein kinases central to replication stress and double strand DNA break repair. Mec1ATR, in complex with Ddc2ATRIP, is a 'sensor' of single stranded DNA, and phosphorylates numerous cell cycle and DNA repair factors to enforce cell cycle arrest and facilitate repair. Over the last several years, new techniques - particularly in structural biology - have provided molecular mechanisms for Mec1ATR function. It is becoming increasingly clear how post-translational modification of Mec1ATR and its interaction partners modulates the DNA damage checkpoint. In this review, we summarise the most recent work unravelling Mec1ATR function in the DNA damage checkpoint and provide a molecular context for its regulation by phosphorylation.

The DNA damage checkpoint: A tale from budding yeast

Studies performed in the yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe have led the way in defining the DNA damage checkpoint and in identifying most of the proteins involved in this regulatory network, which turned out to have structural and functional equivalents in humans. Subsequent experiments revealed that the checkpoint is an elaborate signal transduction pathway that has the ability to sense and signal the presence of damaged DNA and transduce this information to influence a multifaceted cellular response that is essential for cancer avoidance. This review focuses on the work that was done in Saccharomyces cerevisiae to articulate the checkpoint concept, to identify its players and the mechanisms of activation and deactivation.

A Comparative Assessment of Replication Stress Markers in the Context of Telomerase

Simple Summary

Genetic alterations such as oncogenic- or aneuploidy-inducing mutations can induce replication stress as a tumor protection mechansim. Previous data indicated that telomerase may ameliorate the cellular responses that induce replication stress. However, the mechanisms how this may occur are still unclear. In order to address this question, the accurate evaluation of replication stress in the presence and absence of telomerase is crucial. Therefore, we used telomerase negative normal human fibroblasts, as well as their telomerase positive counterparts to compare the suitability of three protein markers (pRPA2, γ-H2AX and 53BP1), which were previously reported to accumulate in response to harmful conditions leading to replication stress in cells. In summary, we find that pRPA2 is the most consistent and reliable marker for the detection of replication stress. Further, we demonstrated that the inhibition of the DNA-damage activated ATM and ATR kinases by specific small compounds impaired the accumulation of pRPA2 foci in the absence of telomerase. These data suggest that telomerase rescues the cells from replication stress upon supression of DNA damage induction by modulating the ATM and ATR signaling pathways, and may therefore support tumor formation of genetically unstable cells.

Abstract

Aberrant replication stress (RS) is a source of genome instability and has serious implications for cell survival and tumourigenesis. Therefore, the detection of RS and the identification of the underlying molecular mechanisms are crucial for the understanding of tumourigenesis. Currently, three protein markers—p33-phosphorylated replication protein A2 (pRPA2), γ-phosphorylated H2AX (γ-H2AX), and Tumor Protein P53 Binding Protein 1 (53BP1)—are frequently used to detect RS. However, to our knowledge, there is no report that compares their suitability for the detection of different sources of RS. Therefore, in this study, we evaluate the suitability of pRPA2, γ-H2AX, and 53BP1 for the detection of RS caused by different sources of RS. In addition, we examine their suitability as markers of the telomerase-mediated alleviation of RS. For these purposes, we use here telomerase-negative human fibroblasts (BJ) and their telomerase-immortalized counterparts (BJ-hTERT). Replication stress was induced by the ectopic expression of the oncogenic RAS mutant RAS^G12V (OI-RS), by the knockdown of ploidy-control genes ORP3 or MAD2 (AI-RS), and by treatment with hydrogen peroxide (ROS-induced RS). The level of RS was determined by immunofluorescence staining for pRPA2, γ-H2AX, and 53BP1. Evaluation of the staining results revealed that pRPA2- and γ-H2AX provide a significant and reliable assessment of OI-RS and AI-RS compared to 53BP1. On the other hand, 53BP1 and pRPA2 proved to be superior to γ-H2AX for the evaluation of ROS-induced RS. Moreover, the data showed that among the tested markers, pRPA2 is best suited to evaluate the telomerase-mediated suppression of all three types of RS. In summary, the data indicate that the choice of marker is important for the evaluation of RS activated through different conditions.

PCNA Loaders and Unloaders-One Ring That Rules Them All

During each cell duplication, the entirety of the genomic DNA in every cell must be accurately and quickly copied. Given the short time available for the chore, the requirement of many proteins, and the daunting amount of DNA present, DNA replication poses a serious challenge to the cell. A high level of coordination between polymerases and other DNA and chromatin-interacting proteins is vital to complete this task. One of the most important proteins for maintaining such coordination is PCNA. PCNA is a multitasking protein that forms a homotrimeric ring that encircles the DNA. It serves as a processivity factor for DNA polymerases and acts as a landing platform for different proteins interacting with DNA and chromatin. Therefore, PCNA is a signaling hub that influences the rate and accuracy of DNA replication, regulates DNA damage repair, controls chromatin formation during the replication, and the proper segregation of the sister chromatids. With so many essential roles, PCNA recruitment and turnover on the chromatin is of utmost importance. Three different, conserved protein complexes are in charge of loading/unloading PCNA onto DNA. Replication factor C (RFC) is the canonical complex in charge of loading PCNA during the S-phase. The Ctf18 and Elg1 (ATAD5 in mammalian) proteins form complexes similar to RFC, with particular functions in the cell’s nucleus. Here we summarize our current knowledge about the roles of these important factors in yeast and mammals.

Separable functions of Tof1/Timeless in intra-S-checkpoint signalling, replisome stability and DNA topological stress

The highly conserved Tof1/Timeless proteins minimise replication stress and promote normal DNA replication. They are required to mediate the DNA replication checkpoint (DRC), the stable pausing of forks at protein fork blocks, the coupling of DNA helicase and polymerase functions during replication stress (RS) and the preferential resolution of DNA topological stress ahead of the fork. Here we demonstrate that the roles of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Timeless protein Tof1 in DRC signalling and resolution of DNA topological stress require distinct N and C terminal regions of the protein, whereas the other functions of Tof1 are closely linked to the stable interaction between Tof1 and its constitutive binding partner Csm3/Tipin. By separating the role of Tof1 in DRC from fork stabilisation and coupling, we show that Tof1 has distinct activities in checkpoint activation and replisome stability to ensure the viable completion of DNA replication following replication stress.

Hof1 plays a checkpoint-related role in MMS-induced DNA damage response in Candida albicans

Cells depend on robust DNA damage recognition and repair systems to maintain genomic integrity for survival in a mutagenic environment. In the pathogenic yeast Candida albicans, a subset of genes involved in the response to DNA damage-induced genome instability and morphological changes has been found to regulate virulence. To better understand the virulence-linked DNA repair network, we screened for methyl methane sulfonate (MMS) sensitivity within the GRACE conditional expression collection and identified 56 hits. One of these potential DNA damage repair-associated genes, a HOF1 conditional mutant, unexpectedly had a previously characterized function in cytokinesis. Deletion of HOF1 resulted in MMS sensitivity and genome instability, suggesting Hof1 acts in the DNA damage response. By probing genetic interactions with distinct DNA repair pathways, we found that Hof1 is genetically linked to the Rad53 pathway. Furthermore, Hof1 is down-regulated in a Rad53-dependent manner and its importance in the MMS response is reduced when Rad53 is overexpressed or when RAD4 or RAD23 is deleted. Together, this work expands our understanding of the C. albicans DNA repair network and uncovers interplay between the cytokinesis regulator Hof1 and the Rad53-mediated checkpoint.

Ddc2ATRIP promotes Mec1ATR activation at RPA-ssDNA tracts

The DNA damage checkpoint response is controlled by the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-related kinases (PIKK), including ataxia telangiectasia-mutated (ATM) and ATM and Rad3-related (ATR). ATR forms a complex with its partner ATRIP. In budding yeast, ATR and ATRIP correspond to Mec1 and Ddc2, respectively. ATRIP/Ddc2 interacts with replication protein A-bound single-stranded DNA (RPA-ssDNA) and recruits ATR/Mec1 to sites of DNA damage. Mec1 is stimulated by the canonical activators including Ddc1, Dpb11 and Dna2. We have characterized the ddc2-S4 mutation and shown that Ddc2 not only recruits Mec1 to sites of DNA damage but also stimulates Mec1 kinase activity. However, the underlying mechanism of Ddc2-dependent Mec1 activation remains to be elucidated. Here we show that Ddc2 promotes Mec1 activation independently of Ddc1/Dpb11/Dna2 function in vivo and through ssDNA recognition in vitro. The ddc2-S4 mutation diminishes damage-induced phosphorylation of the checkpoint mediators, Rad9 and Mrc1. Rad9 controls checkpoint throughout the cell-cycle whereas Mrc1 is specifically required for the S-phase checkpoint. Notably, S-phase checkpoint signaling is more defective in ddc2-S4 mutants than in cells where the Mec1 activators (Ddc1/Dpb11 and Dna2) are dysfunctional. To understand a role of Ddc2 in Mec1 activation, we reconstituted an in vitro assay using purified Mec1-Ddc2 complex, RPA and ssDNA. Whereas ssDNA stimulates kinase activity of the Mec1-Ddc2 complex, RPA does not. However, RPA can promote ssDNA-dependent Mec1 activation. Neither ssDNA nor RPA-ssDNA efficiently stimulates the Mec1-Ddc2 complex containing Ddc2-S4 mutant. Together, our data support a model in which Ddc2 promotes Mec1 activation at RPA-ssDNA tracts.

A role for the yeast PCNA unloader Elg1 in eliciting the DNA damage checkpoint

During cell proliferation, the genome is constantly threatened by cellular and external factors. When the DNA is damaged, or when its faithful duplication is delayed by DNA polymerase stalling, the cells induce a coordinated response termed the DNA damage response (DDR) or checkpoint. Elg1 forms an RFC-like complex in charge of unloading the DNA polymerase processively factor PCNA during DNA replication and DNA repair. Using checkpoint-inducible strains, a recently published paper (Sau et al. in mBio 10(3):e01159-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01159-19, 2019) uncovered a role for Elg1 in eliciting the DNA damage checkpoint (DC), one of the branches of the DDR. The apical kinase Mec1/ATR phosphorylates Elg1, as well as the adaptor proteins Rad9/53BP1 and Dpb11/TopBP1, which are recruited to the site of DNA damage to amplify the checkpoint signal. In the absence of Elg1, Rad9 and Dpb11 are recruited but fail to be phosphorylated and the signal is therefore not amplified. Thus, Elg1 appears to coordinate DNA repair and the induction of the DNA damage checkpoint.

The Yeast PCNA Unloader Elg1 RFC-Like Complex Plays a Role in Eliciting the DNA Damage Checkpoint

The Elg1protein forms an RFC-like complex in charge of unloading PCNA from chromatin during DNA replication and repair. Mutations in the ELG1 gene caused genomic instability in all organisms tested and cancer in mammals. Here we show that Elg1 plays a role in the induction of the DNA damage checkpoint, a cellular response to DNA damage. We show that this defect is due to a defect in the signal amplification process during induction. Thus, cells coordinate the cell's response and the PCNA unloading through the activity of Elg1.

The PCNA (proliferating cell nuclear antigen) ring plays central roles during DNA replication and repair. The yeast Elg1 RFC-like complex (RLC) is the principal unloader of chromatin-bound PCNA and thus plays a central role in maintaining genome stability. Here we identify a role for Elg1 in the unloading of PCNA during DNA damage. Using DNA damage checkpoint (DC)-inducible and replication checkpoint (RC)-inducible strains, we show that Elg1 is essential for eliciting the signal in the DC branch. In the absence of Elg1 activity, the Rad9 (53BP1) and Dpb11 (TopBP1) adaptor proteins are recruited but fail to be phosphorylated by Mec1 (ATR), resulting in a lack of checkpoint activation. The chromatin immunoprecipitation of PCNA at the Lac operator sites reveals that accumulated local PCNA influences the checkpoint activation process in elg1 mutants. Our data suggest that Elg1 participates in a mechanism that may coordinate PCNA unloading during DNA repair with DNA damage checkpoint induction.

Yeast cells reveal the misfolding and the cellular mislocalization of the human BRCA1 protein

Understanding the effect of an ever-growing number of human variants detected by genome sequencing is a medical challenge. The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae model has held attention for its capacity to monitor the functional impact of missense mutations found in human genes, including the BRCA1 breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. When expressed in yeast, the wild-type full-length BRCA1 protein forms a single nuclear aggregate and induces a growth inhibition. Both events are modified by pathogenic mutations of BRCA1. However, the biological processes behind these events in yeast remain to be determined. Here, we show that the BRCA1 nuclear aggregation and the growth inhibition are sensitive to misfolding effects induced by missense mutations. Moreover, misfolding mutations impair the nuclear targeting of BRCA1 in yeast cells and in a human cell line. In conclusion, we establish a connection between misfolding and nuclear transport impairment, and we illustrate that yeast is a suitable model to decipher the effect of misfolding mutations.

Mutations in Replicative Stress Response Pathways Are Associated with S Phase-specific Defects in Nucleotide Excision Repair

Nucleotide excision repair (NER) is a highly conserved pathway that removes helix-distorting DNA lesions induced by a plethora of mutagens, including UV light. Our laboratory previously demonstrated that human cells deficient in either ATM and Rad3-related (ATR) kinase or translesion DNA polymerase η (i.e. key proteins that promote the completion of DNA replication in response to UV-induced replicative stress) are characterized by profound inhibition of NER exclusively during S phase. Toward elucidating the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon, we developed a novel assay to quantify NER kinetics as a function of cell cycle in the model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Using this assay, we demonstrate that in yeast, deficiency of the ATR homologue Mec1 or of any among several other proteins involved in the cellular response to replicative stress significantly abrogates NER uniquely during S phase. Moreover, initiation of DNA replication is required for manifestation of this defect, and S phase NER proficiency is correlated with the capacity of individual mutants to respond to replicative stress. Importantly, we demonstrate that partial depletion of Rfa1 recapitulates defective S phase-specific NER in wild type yeast; moreover, ectopic RPA1-3 overexpression rescues such deficiency in either ATR- or polymerase η-deficient human cells. Our results strongly suggest that reduction of NER capacity during periods of enhanced replicative stress, ostensibly caused by inordinate sequestration of RPA at stalled DNA replication forks, represents a conserved feature of the multifaceted eukaryotic DNA damage response.

MRN- and 9-1-1-Independent Activation of the ATR-Chk1 Pathway during the Induction of the Virulence Program in the Phytopathogen Ustilago maydis

DNA damage response (DDR) leads to DNA repair, and depending on the extent of the damage, to further events, including cell death. Evidence suggests that cell differentiation may also be a consequence of the DDR. During the formation of the infective hypha in the phytopathogenic fungus Ustilago maydis, two DDR kinases, Atr1 and Chk1, are required to induce a G2 cell cycle arrest, which in turn is essential to display the virulence program. However, the triggering factor of DDR in this process has remained elusive. In this report we provide data suggesting that no DNA damage is associated with the activation of the DDR during the formation of the infective filament in U. maydis. We have analyzed bulk DNA replication during the formation of the infective filament, and we found no signs of impaired DNA replication. Furthermore, using RPA-GFP fusion as a surrogate marker of the presence of DNA damage, we were unable to detect any sign of DNA damage at the cellular level. In addition, neither MRN nor 9-1-1 complexes, both instrumental to transmit the DNA damage signal, are required for the induction of the above mentioned cell cycle arrest, as well as for virulence. In contrast, we have found that the claspin-like protein Mrc1, which in other systems serves as scaffold for Atr1 and Chk1, was required for both processes. We discuss possible alternative ways to trigger the DDR, independent of DNA damage, in U. maydis during virulence program activation.

Mcm2-7 Is an Active Player in the DNA Replication Checkpoint Signaling Cascade via Proposed Modulation of Its DNA Gate

The DNA replication checkpoint (DRC) monitors and responds to stalled replication forks to prevent genomic instability. How core replication factors integrate into this phosphorylation cascade is incompletely understood. Here, through analysis of a unique mcm allele targeting a specific ATPase active site (mcm2DENQ), we show that the Mcm2-7 replicative helicase has a novel DRC function as part of the signal transduction cascade. This allele exhibits normal downstream mediator (Mrc1) phosphorylation, implying DRC sensor kinase activation. However, the mutant also exhibits defective effector kinase (Rad53) activation and classic DRC phenotypes. Our previous in vitro analysis showed that the mcm2DENQ mutation prevents a specific conformational change in the Mcm2-7 hexamer. We infer that this conformational change is required for its DRC role and propose that it allosterically facilitates Rad53 activation to ensure a replication-specific checkpoint response.

Molecular mechanisms of DNA replication checkpoint activation

The major challenge of the cell cycle is to deliver an intact, and fully duplicated, genetic material to the daughter cells. To this end, progression of DNA synthesis is monitored by a feedback mechanism known as replication checkpoint that is untimely linked to DNA replication. This signaling pathway ensures coordination of DNA synthesis with cell cycle progression. Failure to activate this checkpoint in response to perturbation of DNA synthesis (replication stress) results in forced cell division leading to chromosome fragmentation, aneuploidy, and genomic instability. In this review, we will describe current knowledge of the molecular determinants of the DNA replication checkpoint in eukaryotic cells and discuss a model of activation of this signaling pathway crucial for maintenance of genomic stability.

Ddc2 mediates Mec1 activation through a Ddc1- or Dpb11-independent mechanism

The protein kinase Mec1 (ATR ortholog) and its partner Ddc2 (ATRIP ortholog) play a key role in DNA damage checkpoint responses in budding yeast. Previous studies have established the model in which Ddc1, a subunit of the checkpoint clamp, and Dpb11, related to TopBP1, activate Mec1 directly and control DNA damage checkpoint responses at G1 and G2/M. In this study, we show that Ddc2 contributes to Mec1 activation through a Ddc1- or Dpb11-independent mechanism. The catalytic activity of Mec1 increases after DNA damage in a Ddc2-dependent manner. In contrast, Mec1 activation occurs even in the absence of Ddc1 and Dpb11 function at G2/M. Ddc2 recruits Mec1 to sites of DNA damage. To dissect the role of Ddc2 in Mec1 activation, we isolated and characterized a separation-of-function mutation in DDC2, called ddc2-S4. The ddc2-S4 mutation does not affect Mec1 recruitment but diminishes Mec1 activation. Mec1 phosphorylates histone H2A in response to DNA damage. The ddc2-S4 mutation decreases phosphorylation of histone H2A more significantly than the absence of Ddc1 and Dpb11 function does. Our results suggest that Ddc2 plays a critical role in Mec1 activation as well as Mec1 localization at sites of DNA damage.

Replication checkpoint: tuning and coordination of replication forks in s phase

Checkpoints monitor critical cell cycle events such as chromosome duplication and segregation. They are highly conserved mechanisms that prevent progression into the next phase of the cell cycle when cells are unable to accomplish the previous event properly. During S phase, cells also provide a surveillance mechanism called the DNA replication checkpoint, which consists of a conserved kinase cascade that is provoked by insults that block or slow down replication forks. The DNA replication checkpoint is crucial for maintaining genome stability, because replication forks become vulnerable to collapse when they encounter obstacles such as nucleotide adducts, nicks, RNA-DNA hybrids, or stable protein-DNA complexes. These can be exogenously induced or can arise from endogenous cellular activity. Here, we summarize the initiation and transduction of the replication checkpoint as well as its targets, which coordinate cell cycle events and DNA replication fork stability.

The DNA damage checkpoint response to replication stress: A Game of Forks

Conditions challenging replication fork progression, collectively referred to as replication stress, represent a major source of genomic instability and are associated to cancer onset. The replication checkpoint, a specialized branch of the DNA damage checkpoint, monitors fork problems, and triggers a cellular response aimed at preserving genome integrity. Here, we review the mechanisms by which the replication checkpoint monitors and responds to replication stress, focusing on the checkpoint-mediated pathways contributing to protect replication fork integrity. We discuss how cells achieve checkpoint signaling inactivation once replication stress is overcome and how a failure to timely revert checkpoint-mediated changes in cellular physiology might impact on replication dynamics and genome integrity. We also highlight the checkpoint function as an anti-cancer barrier preventing cells malignant transformation following oncogene-induced replication stress.

Preserving Yeast Genetic Heritage through DNA Damage Checkpoint Regulation and Telomere Maintenance

In order to preserve genome integrity, extrinsic or intrinsic DNA damages must be repaired before they accumulate in cells and trigger other mutations and genome rearrangements. Eukaryotic cells are able to respond to different genotoxic stresses as well as to single DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), suggesting highly sensitive and robust mechanisms to detect lesions that trigger a signal transduction cascade which, in turn, controls the DNA damage response (DDR). Furthermore, cells must be able to distinguish natural chromosomal ends from DNA DSBs in order to prevent inappropriate checkpoint activation, DDR and chromosomal rearrangements. Since the original discovery of RAD9, the first DNA damage checkpoint gene identified in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, many genes that have a role in this pathway have been identified, including MRC1, MEC3, RAD24, RAD53, DUN1, MEC1 and TEL1. Extensive studies have established most of the genetic basis of the DNA damage checkpoint and uncovered its different functions in cell cycle regulation, DNA replication and repair, and telomere maintenance. However, major questions concerning the regulation and functions of the DNA damage checkpoint remain to be answered. First, how is the checkpoint activity coupled to DNA replication and repair? Second, how do cells distinguish natural chromosome ends from deleterious DNA DSBs? In this review we will examine primarily studies performed using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model system.