Tight Regulation of Srs2 Helicase Activity Is Crucial for Proper Functioning of DNA Repair Mechanisms

Srs2 binding to PCNA and its sumoylation contribute to RPA antagonism during the DNA damage response

Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint upon genotoxin treatment induces a multitude of cellular changes, such as cell cycle arrest, to cope with genome stress. After prolonged genotoxin treatment, the checkpoint can be downregulated to allow cell cycle and growth resumption. In yeast, downregulation of the DNA damage checkpoint requires the Srs2 DNA helicase, which removes the ssDNA binding complex RPA and the associated Mec1 checkpoint kinase from DNA, thus dampening Mec1 activation. However, it is unclear whether the 'anti-checkpoint' role of Srs2 is temporally and spatially regulated to both allow timely checkpoint termination and to prevent superfluous RPA removal. Here we address this question by examining regulatory elements of Srs2, including its phosphorylation, sumoylation, and protein-interaction sites. Our genetic analyses and checkpoint level assessment suggest that the RPA countering role of Srs2 is promoted by Srs2 binding to PCNA, which is known to recruit Srs2 to subsets of ssDNA regions. RPA antagonism is further fostered by Srs2 sumoylation, which we found depends on the Srs2-PCNA interaction. Srs2 sumoylation is additionally reliant on Mec1 and peaks after Mec1 activity reaches maximal levels. Collectively, our data provide evidence for a two-step model wherein checkpoint downregulation is facilitated by PCNA-mediated Srs2 recruitment to ssDNA-RPA filaments and the subsequent Srs2 sumoylation stimulated upon Mec1 hyperactivation. We propose that this mechanism allows Mec1 hyperactivation to trigger checkpoint recovery.

DNA damage checkpoint execution and the rules of its disengagement

Chromosomes are susceptible to damage during their duplication and segregation or when exposed to genotoxic stresses. Left uncorrected, these lesions can result in genomic instability, leading to cells’ diminished fitness, unbridled proliferation or death. To prevent such fates, checkpoint controls transiently halt cell cycle progression to allow time for the implementation of corrective measures. Prominent among these is the DNA damage checkpoint which operates at G2/M transition to ensure that cells with damaged chromosomes do not enter the mitotic phase. The execution and maintenance of cell cycle arrest are essential aspects of G2/M checkpoint and have been studied in detail. Equally critical is cells’ ability to switch-off the checkpoint controls after a successful completion of corrective actions and to recommence cell cycle progression. Interestingly, when corrective measures fail, cells can mount an unusual cellular response, termed adaptation, where they escape checkpoint arrest and resume cell cycle progression with damaged chromosomes at the cost of genome instability or even death. Here, we discuss the DNA damage checkpoint, the mitotic networks it inhibits to prevent segregation of damaged chromosomes and the strategies cells employ to quench the checkpoint controls to override the G2/M arrest.

DNA damage bypass pathways and their effect on mutagenesis in yeast

What is the origin of mutations? In contrast to the naïve notion that mutations are unfortunate accidents, genetic research in microorganisms has demonstrated that most mutations are created by genetically encoded error-prone repair mechanisms. However, error-free repair pathways also exist, and it is still unclear how cells decide when to use one repair method or the other. Here, we summarize what is known about the DNA damage tolerance mechanisms (also known as post-replication repair) for perhaps the best-studied organism, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We describe the latest research, which has established the existence of at least two error-free and two error-prone inter-related mechanisms of damage tolerance that compete for the handling of spontaneous DNA damage. We explore what is known about the induction of mutations by DNA damage. We point to potential paradoxes and to open questions that still remain unanswered.

Rad51 filament dynamics and its antagonistic modulators

Rad51 recombinase is the central player in homologous recombination, the faithful repair pathway for double-strand breaks and key event during meiosis. Rad51 forms nucleoprotein filaments on single-stranded DNA, exposed by a double-strand break. These filaments are responsible for homology search and strand invasion, which lead to homology-directed repair. Due to its central roles in DNA repair and genome stability, Rad51 is modulated by multiple factors and post-translational modifications. In this review, we summarize our current understanding of the dynamics of Rad51 filaments, the roles of other factors and their modes of action in modulating key stages of Rad51 filaments: formation, stability and disassembly.

Rdh54/Tid1 inhibits Rad51-Rad54-mediated D-loop formation and limits D-loop length

Displacement loops (D-loops) are critical intermediates formed during homologous recombination. Rdh54 (a.k.a. Tid1), a Rad54 paralog in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is well-known for its role with Dmc1 recombinase during meiotic recombination. Yet contrary to Dmc1, Rdh54/Tid1 is also present in somatic cells where its function is less understood. While Rdh54/Tid1 enhances the Rad51 DNA strand invasion activity in vitro, it is unclear how it interplays with Rad54. Here, we show that Rdh54/Tid1 inhibits D-loop formation by Rad51 and Rad54 in an ATPase-independent manner. Using a novel D-loop Mapping Assay, we further demonstrate that Rdh54/Tid1 uniquely restricts the length of Rad51-Rad54-mediated D-loops. The alterations in D-loop properties appear to be important for cell survival and mating-type switch in haploid yeast. We propose that Rdh54/Tid1 and Rad54 compete for potential binding sites within the Rad51 filament, where Rdh54/Tid1 acts as a physical roadblock to Rad54 translocation, limiting D-loop formation and D-loop length.

How yeast cells deal with stalled replication forks

DNA polymerases sometimes stall during DNA replication at sites where DNA is damaged, or upon encounter with proteins or secondary structures of DNA. When that happens, the polymerase clamp PCNA can become modified with a single ubiquitin moiety at lysine 164, opening DNA Damage Tolerance (DDT) mechanisms that either repair or bypass the lesions. An alternative repair mechanism is the salvage recombination (SR) pathway, which copies information from the sister chromatid. SUMOylation of PCNA at the same lysine, or at lysine 127, can recruit the Srs2 helicase, which negatively controls SR. Recently, we have dissected the relationship between SR and the DDT pathways, and showed that overexpression of either the PCNA unloader Elg1, or the Rad52 homologous recombination protein, can bypass the repression by Srs2. Our results shed light on the interactions between different DNA damage repair/bypass proteins, and underscore the importance of PCNA modifications in organizing the complex task of dealing with DNA damage during replication of the genetic material.

Access to PCNA by Srs2 and Elg1 Controls the Choice between Alternative Repair Pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

PCNA, the ring that encircles DNA maintaining the processivity of DNA polymerases, is modified by ubiquitin and SUMO. Whereas ubiquitin is required for bypassing lesions through the DNA damage tolerance (DDT) pathways, we show here that SUMOylation represses another pathway, salvage recombination. The Srs2 helicase is recruited to SUMOylated PCNA and prevents the salvage pathway from acting. The pathway can be induced by overexpressing the PCNA unloader Elg1, or the homologous recombination protein Rad52. Our results underscore the role of PCNA modifications in controlling the various bypass and DNA repair mechanisms.

During DNA replication, stalling can occur when the replicative DNA polymerases encounter lesions or hard-to replicate regions. Under these circumstances, the processivity factor PCNA gets ubiquitylated at lysine 164, inducing the DNA damage tolerance (DDT) mechanisms that can bypass lesions encountered during DNA replication. PCNA can also be SUMOylated at the same residue or at lysine 127. Surprisingly, pol30-K164R mutants display a higher degree of sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents than pol30-KK127,164RR strains, unable to modify any of the lysines. Here, we show that in addition to translesion synthesis and strand-transfer DDT mechanisms, an alternative repair mechanism (“salvage recombination”) that copies information from the sister chromatid is repressed by the recruitment of Srs2 to SUMOylated PCNA. Overexpression of Elg1, the PCNA unloader, or of the recombination protein Rad52 allows its activation. We dissect the genetic requirements for this pathway, as well as the interactions between Srs2 and Elg1.

Targeted Forward Genetics: Population-Scale Analyses of Allele Replacements Spanning Thousands of Base Pairs in Fission Yeast

Precise allele replacement (genome editing), without unwanted changes to the genome, provides a powerful tool to define the functions of DNA elements and encoded factors in their normal biological context. While CRISPR is now used extensively for gene targeting, its utility for precise allele replacement at population scale is limited because: (A) there is a strict requirement for a correctly positioned PAM motif to introduce recombinogenic dsDNA breaks (DSBs); (B) efficient replacements only occur very close to the DSBs; and (C) indels and off-target changes are frequently generated. Here we show, using a saturated mutation library with about 15,000 alleles of the ade6 gene of Schizosaccharomyces pombe, that pop-in, pop-out allele replacement circumvents these problems. Two rounds of selection ensure that clones arise by homologous recombination with the target locus. Moreover, the exceptionally high efficiency allows one to carry out the process in bulk, then screen individual clones for phenotypes and genotypes. Alleles were introduced successfully throughout the region targeted, up to 1,956 base pairs from the DSB. About 11% of mutant alleles were hypomorphic, demonstrating utility for analyses of essential genes and genetic elements. This process of “targeted forward genetics” can be used to analyze comprehensively, across thousands of base pairs within a specific target region, a variety of allelic changes, such as scanning amino acid substitutions, deletions, and epitope tags. The overall approach and optimized workflow are extensible to other organisms that support gene targeting.

The Main Role of Srs2 in DNA Repair Depends on Its Helicase Activity, Rather than on Its Interactions with PCNA or Rad51

Homologous recombination (HR) is a mechanism that repairs a variety of DNA lesions. Under certain circumstances, however, HR can generate intermediates that can interfere with other cellular processes such as DNA transcription or replication. Cells have therefore developed pathways that abolish undesirable HR intermediates. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast Srs2 helicase has a major role in one of these pathways. Srs2 also works during DNA replication and interacts with the clamp PCNA. The relative importance of Srs2’s helicase activity, Rad51 removal function, and PCNA interaction in genome stability remains unclear. We created a new SRS2 allele [srs2(1-850)] that lacks the whole C terminus, containing the interaction site for Rad51 and PCNA and interactions with many other proteins. Thus, the new allele encodes an Srs2 protein bearing only the activity of the DNA helicase. We find that the interactions of Srs2 with Rad51 and PCNA are dispensable for the main role of Srs2 in the repair of DNA damage in vegetative cells and for proper completion of meiosis. On the other hand, it has been shown that in cells impaired for the DNA damage tolerance (DDT) pathways, Srs2 generates toxic intermediates that lead to DNA damage sensitivity; we show that this negative Srs2 activity requires the C terminus of Srs2. Dissection of the genetic interactions of the srs2(1-850) allele suggest a role for Srs2’s helicase activity in sister chromatid cohesion. Our results also indicate that Srs2’s function becomes more central in diploid cells.

Homologous recombination (HR) is a key mechanism that repairs damaged DNA. However, this process has to be tightly regulated; failure to regulate it can lead to genome instability. The Srs2 helicase is considered a regulator of HR; it was shown to be able to evict the recombinase Rad51 from DNA. Cells lacking Srs2 exhibit sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, and in some cases, they display defects in DNA replication. The relative roles of the helicase and Rad51 removal activities of Srs2 in genome stability remain unclear. To address this question, we created a new Srs2 mutant which has only the DNA helicase domain. Our study shows that only the DNA helicase domain is needed to deal with DNA damage and assist in DNA replication during vegetative growth and in meiosis. Thus, our findings shift the view on the role of Srs2 in the maintenance of genome integrity.