#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Coordinated Degradation of Replisome Components Ensures Genome Stability upon Replication Stress in the Absence of the Replication Fork Protection Complex


The stabilization of the replisome complex is essential in order to achieve highly processive DNA replication and preserve genomic integrity. Conversely, it would also be advantageous for the cell to abrogate replisome functions to prevent inappropriate replication when fork progression is adversely perturbed. However, such mechanisms remain elusive. Here we report that replicative DNA polymerases and helicases, the major components of the replisome, are degraded in concert in the absence of Swi1, a subunit of the replication fork protection complex. In sharp contrast, ORC and PCNA, which are also required for DNA replication, were stably maintained. We demonstrate that this degradation of DNA polymerases and helicases is dependent on the ubiquitin-proteasome system, in which the SCFPof3 ubiquitin ligase is involved. Consistently, we show that Pof3 interacts with DNA polymerase ε. Remarkably, forced accumulation of replisome components leads to abnormal DNA replication and mitotic catastrophes in the absence of Swi1. Swi1 is known to prevent fork collapse at natural replication block sites throughout the genome. Therefore, our results suggest that the cell elicits a program to degrade replisomes upon replication stress in the absence of Swi1. We also suggest that this program prevents inappropriate duplication of the genome, which in turn contributes to the preservation of genomic integrity.


Vyšlo v časopise: Coordinated Degradation of Replisome Components Ensures Genome Stability upon Replication Stress in the Absence of the Replication Fork Protection Complex. PLoS Genet 9(1): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003213
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003213

Souhrn

The stabilization of the replisome complex is essential in order to achieve highly processive DNA replication and preserve genomic integrity. Conversely, it would also be advantageous for the cell to abrogate replisome functions to prevent inappropriate replication when fork progression is adversely perturbed. However, such mechanisms remain elusive. Here we report that replicative DNA polymerases and helicases, the major components of the replisome, are degraded in concert in the absence of Swi1, a subunit of the replication fork protection complex. In sharp contrast, ORC and PCNA, which are also required for DNA replication, were stably maintained. We demonstrate that this degradation of DNA polymerases and helicases is dependent on the ubiquitin-proteasome system, in which the SCFPof3 ubiquitin ligase is involved. Consistently, we show that Pof3 interacts with DNA polymerase ε. Remarkably, forced accumulation of replisome components leads to abnormal DNA replication and mitotic catastrophes in the absence of Swi1. Swi1 is known to prevent fork collapse at natural replication block sites throughout the genome. Therefore, our results suggest that the cell elicits a program to degrade replisomes upon replication stress in the absence of Swi1. We also suggest that this program prevents inappropriate duplication of the genome, which in turn contributes to the preservation of genomic integrity.


Zdroje

1. BellSP, DuttaA (2002) DNA replication in eukaryotic cells. Annu Rev Biochem 71: 333–374.

2. BoddyMN, RussellP (2001) DNA replication checkpoint. Curr Biol 11: R953–R956.

3. OsbornAJ, ElledgeSJ, ZouL (2002) Checking on the fork: the DNA-replication stress-response pathway. Trends Cell Biol 12: 509–516.

4. NybergKA, MichelsonRJ, PutnamCW, WeinertTA (2002) TOWARD MAINTAINING THE GENOME: DNA Damage and Replication Checkpoints. Annu Rev Genet 36: 617–656.

5. AbrahamRT (2001) Cell cycle checkpoint signaling through the ATM and ATR kinases. Genes Dev 15: 2177–2196.

6. RouseJ, JacksonSP (2002) Interfaces between the detection, signaling, and repair of DNA damage. Science 297: 547–551.

7. CarrAM (2002) DNA structure dependent checkpoints as regulators of DNA repair. DNA Repair (Amst) 1: 983–994.

8. LopesM, Cotta-RamusinoC, PellicioliA, LiberiG, PlevaniP, et al. (2001) The DNA replication checkpoint response stabilizes stalled replication forks. Nature 412: 557–561.

9. PaciottiV, ClericiM, ScottiM, LucchiniG, LongheseMP (2001) Characterization of mec1 kinase-deficient mutants and of new hypomorphic mec1 alleles impairing subsets of the DNA damage response pathway. Mol Cell Biol 21: 3913–3925.

10. SogoJM, LopesM, FoianiM (2002) Fork reversal and ssDNA accumulation at stalled replication forks owing to checkpoint defects. Science 297: 599–602.

11. TerceroJA, DiffleyJF (2001) Regulation of DNA replication fork progression through damaged DNA by the Mec1/Rad53 checkpoint. Nature 412: 553–557.

12. TerceroJA, LongheseMP, DiffleyJF (2003) A central role for DNA replication forks in checkpoint activation and response. Mol Cell 11: 1323–1336.

13. LeeBS, GrewalSI, KlarAJ (2004) Biochemical interactions between proteins and mat1 cis-acting sequences required for imprinting in fission yeast. Mol Cell Biol 24: 9813–9822.

14. LemanAR, NoguchiE (2012) Local and global functions of Timeless and Tipin in replication fork protection. Cell Cycle 11: 3945–3955.

15. McFarlaneRJ, MianS, DalgaardJZ (2010) The many facets of the Tim-Tipin protein families' roles in chromosome biology. Cell Cycle 9: 700–705.

16. NoguchiE, NoguchiC, McDonaldWH, YatesJR3rd, RussellP (2004) Swi1 and Swi3 are components of a replication fork protection complex in fission yeast. Mol Cell Biol 24: 8342–8355.

17. NoguchiE, NoguchiC, DuLL, RussellP (2003) Swi1 prevents replication fork collapse and controls checkpoint kinase Cds1. Mol Cell Biol 23: 7861–7874.

18. GotterAL, SuppaC, EmanuelBS (2007) Mammalian TIMELESS and Tipin are evolutionarily conserved replication fork-associated factors. J Mol Biol 366: 36–52.

19. NoguchiE (2010) The DNA Replication Checkpoint and Preserving Genomic Integrity During DNA Synthesis. Nature Education 3: 46.

20. SabatinosSA (2010) Replication Fork Stalling and the Fork Protection Complex. Nature Education 3: 40.

21. CalzadaA, HodgsonB, KanemakiM, BuenoA, LabibK (2005) Molecular anatomy and regulation of a stable replisome at a paused eukaryotic DNA replication fork. Genes Dev 19: 1905–1919.

22. ChouDM, ElledgeSJ (2006) Tipin and Timeless form a mutually protective complex required for genotoxic stress resistance and checkpoint function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 18143–18147.

23. ErricoA, CostanzoV, HuntT (2007) Tipin is required for stalled replication forks to resume DNA replication after removal of aphidicolin in Xenopus egg extracts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 14929–14934.

24. KatouY, KanohY, BandoM, NoguchiH, TanakaH, et al. (2003) S-phase checkpoint proteins Tof1 and Mrc1 form a stable replication-pausing complex. Nature 424: 1078–1083.

25. LemanAR, NoguchiC, LeeCY, NoguchiE (2010) Human Timeless and Tipin stabilize replication forks and facilitate sister-chromatid cohesion. J Cell Sci 123: 660–670.

26. TanakaH, KubotaY, TsujimuraT, KumanoM, MasaiH, et al. (2009) Replisome progression complex links DNA replication to sister chromatid cohesion in Xenopus egg extracts. Genes Cells 14: 949–963.

27. Unsal-KacmazK, ChastainPD, QuP-P, MinooP, Cordeiro-StoneM, et al. (2007) The Human Tim/Tipin Complex Coordinates an Intra-S Checkpoint Response to UV That Slows Replication Fork Displacement. Mol Cell Biol 27: 3131–3142.

28. Yoshizawa-SugataN, MasaiH (2007) Human Tim/Timeless-interacting protein, Tipin, is required for efficient progression of S phase and DNA replication checkpoint. J Biol Chem 282: 2729–2740.

29. DalgaardJZ, KlarAJ (2000) swi1 and swi3 perform imprinting, pausing, and termination of DNA replication in S. pombe. Cell 102: 745–751.

30. AguileraA, Gomez-GonzalezB (2008) Genome instability: a mechanistic view of its causes and consequences. Nat Rev Genet 9: 204–217.

31. AzvolinskyA, DunawayS, TorresJZ, BesslerJB, ZakianVA (2006) The S. cerevisiae Rrm3p DNA helicase moves with the replication fork and affects replication of all yeast chromosomes. Genes Dev 20: 3104–3116.

32. LemoineFJ, DegtyarevaNP, LobachevK, PetesTD (2005) Chromosomal translocations in yeast induced by low levels of DNA polymerase: A model for chromosome fragile sites. Cell 120: 587–598.

33. MirkinEV, MirkinSM (2007) Replication fork stalling at natural impediments. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71: 13–35.

34. PearsonCE, Nichol EdamuraK, ClearyJD (2005) Repeat instability: mechanisms of dynamic mutations. Nat Rev Genet 6: 729–742.

35. RaveendranathanM, ChattopadhyayS, BolonYT, HaworthJ, ClarkeDJ, et al. (2006) Genome-wide replication profiles of S-phase checkpoint mutants reveal fragile sites in yeast. EMBO J 25: 3627–3639.

36. KobayashiT, HoriuchiT (1996) A yeast gene product, Fob1 protein, required for both replication fork blocking and recombinational hotspot activities. Genes Cells 1: 465–474.

37. TakeuchiY, HoriuchiT, KobayashiT (2003) Transcription-dependent recombination and the role of fork collision in yeast rDNA. Genes Dev 17: 1497–1506.

38. HodgsonB, CalzadaA, LabibK (2007) Mrc1 and Tof1 regulate DNA replication forks in different ways during normal S phase. Mol Biol Cell 18: 3894–3902.

39. KringsG, BastiaD (2004) swi1- and swi3-dependent and independent replication fork arrest at the ribosomal DNA of Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 14085–14090.

40. MohantyBK, BairwaNK, BastiaD (2006) The Tof1p-Csm3p protein complex counteracts the Rrm3p helicase to control replication termination of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 897–902.

41. Sanchez-GorostiagaA, Lopez-EstranoC, KrimerDB, SchvartzmanJB, HernandezP (2004) Transcription termination factor reb1p causes two replication fork barriers at its cognate sites in fission yeast ribosomal DNA in vivo. Mol Cell Biol 24: 398–406.

42. SommarivaE, PellnyTK, KarahanN, KumarS, HubermanJA, et al. (2005) Schizosaccharomyces pombe Swi1, Swi3, and Hsk1 are components of a novel S-phase response pathway to alkylation damage. Mol Cell Biol 25: 2770–2784.

43. PryceDW, RamayahS, JaendlingA, McFarlaneRJ (2009) Recombination at DNA replication fork barriers is not universal and is differentially regulated by Swi1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 4770–4775.

44. RozenzhakS, Mejia-RamirezE, WilliamsJS, SchafferL, HammondJA, et al. (2010) Rad3ATR decorates critical chromosomal domains with γH2A to protect genome integrity during S-Phase in fission yeast. PLoS Genet 6: e1001032 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001032.

45. SabouriN, McDonaldKR, WebbCJ, CristeaIM, ZakianVA (2012) DNA replication through hard-to-replicate sites, including both highly transcribed RNA Pol II and Pol III genes, requires the S. pombe Pfh1 helicase. Genes Dev 26: 581–593.

46. CherngN, ShishkinAA, SchlagerLI, TuckRH, SloanL, et al. (2011) Expansions, contractions, and fragility of the spinocerebellar ataxia type 10 pentanucleotide repeat in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 2843–2848.

47. LemanAR, DheekolluJ, DengZ, LeeSW, DasMM, et al. (2012) Timeless preserves telomere length by promoting efficient DNA replication through human telomeres. Cell Cycle 11: 2337–2347.

48. LiuG, ChenX, GaoY, LewisT, BarthelemyJ, et al. (2012) Altered replication in human cells promotes DMPK (CTG)(n). (CAG)(n) repeat instability. Mol Cell Biol 32: 1618–1632.

49. RazidloDF, LahueRS (2008) Mrc1, Tof1 and Csm3 inhibit CAG.CTG repeat instability by at least two mechanisms. DNA Repair (Amst) 7: 633–640.

50. ShishkinAA, VoineaguI, MateraR, CherngN, ChernetBT, et al. (2009) Large-scale expansions of Friedreich's ataxia GAA repeats in yeast. Mol Cell 35: 82–92.

51. VoineaguI, NarayananV, LobachevKS, MirkinSM (2008) Replication stalling at unstable inverted repeats: interplay between DNA hairpins and fork stabilizing proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 9936–9941.

52. TourriereH, VersiniG, Cordon-PreciadoV, AlabertC, PaseroP (2005) Mrc1 and Tof1 promote replication fork progression and recovery independently of Rad53. Mol Cell 19: 699–706.

53. PursellZF, IsozI, LundstromEB, JohanssonE, KunkelTA (2007) Yeast DNA polymerase ε participates in leading-strand DNA replication. Science 317: 127–130.

54. Nick McElhinnySA, GordeninDA, StithCM, BurgersPM, KunkelTA (2008) Division of labor at the eukaryotic replication fork. Mol Cell 30: 137–144.

55. ShimmotoM, MatsumotoS, OdagiriY, NoguchiE, RussellP, et al. (2009) Interactions between Swi1–Swi3, Mrc1 and S phase kinase, Hsk1 may regulate cellular responses to stalled replication forks in fission yeast. Genes Cells 14: 669–682.

56. KaiM, TanakaH, WangTS (2001) Fission yeast Rad17 associates with chromatin in response to aberrant genomic structures. Mol Cell Biol 21: 3289–3301.

57. GordonC, McGurkG, WallaceM, HastieND (1996) A conditional lethal mutant in the fission yeast 26 S protease subunit mts3+ is defective in metaphase to anaphase transition. J Biol Chem 271: 5704–5711.

58. SeegerM, GordonC, FerrellK, DubielW (1996) Characteristics of 26 S proteases from fission yeast mutants, which arrest in mitosis. J Mol Biol 263: 423–431.

59. FuH, LinYL, FatimababyAS (2010) Proteasomal recognition of ubiquitylated substrates. Trends Plant Sci 15: 375–386.

60. SchraderEK, HarstadKG, MatouschekA (2009) Targeting proteins for degradation. Nat Chem Biol 5: 815–822.

61. FramptonJ, IrmischA, GreenCM, NeissA, TrickeyM, et al. (2006) Postreplication repair and PCNA modification in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Mol Biol Cell 17: 2976–2985.

62. NakayamaKI, NakayamaK (2006) Ubiquitin ligases: cell-cycle control and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 6: 369–381.

63. LehmannA, KatayamaS, HarrisonC, DhutS, KitamuraK, et al. (2004) Molecular interactions of fission yeast Skp1 and its role in the DNA damage checkpoint. Genes Cells 9: 367–382.

64. KatayamaS, KitamuraK, LehmannA, NikaidoO, TodaT (2002) Fission yeast F-box protein Pof3 is required for genome integrity and telomere function. Mol Biol Cell 13: 211–224.

65. MamnunYM, KatayamaS, TodaT (2006) Fission yeast Mcl1 interacts with SCF(Pof3) and is required for centromere formation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 350: 125–130.

66. WilliamsDR, McIntoshJR (2002) mcl1+, the Schizosaccharomyces pombe homologue of CTF4, is important for chromosome replication, cohesion, and segregation. Eukaryot Cell 1: 758–773.

67. KoeppDM, KileAC, SwaminathanS, Rodriguez-RiveraV (2006) The F-box protein Dia2 regulates DNA replication. Mol Biol Cell 17: 1540–1548.

68. MorohashiH, MaculinsT, LabibK (2009) The amino-terminal TPR domain of Dia2 tethers SCF(Dia2) to the replisome progression complex. Curr Biol 19: 1943–1949.

69. MimuraS, KomataM, KishiT, ShirahigeK, KamuraT (2009) SCF(Dia2) regulates DNA replication forks during S-phase in budding yeast. EMBO J 28: 3693–3705.

70. RappJB, NoguchiC, DasMM, WongLK, AnsbachAB, et al. (2010) Checkpoint-dependent and -independent roles of Swi3 in replication fork recovery and sister chromatid cohesion in fission yeast. PLoS ONE 5: e13379 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013379.

71. HookSS, LinJJ, DuttaA (2007) Mechanisms to control rereplication and implications for cancer. Curr Opin Cell Biol 19: 663–671.

72. O'ConnellBC, HarperJW (2007) Ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS): what can chromatin do for you? Curr Opin Cell Biol 19: 206–214.

73. Hammond-MartelI, YuH, AffarEB (2012) Roles of ubiquitin signaling in transcription regulation. Cell Signal 24: 410–421.

74. SvejstrupJQ (2007) Contending with transcriptional arrest during RNAPII transcript elongation. Trends Biochem Sci 32: 165–171.

75. WoudstraEC, GilbertC, FellowsJ, JansenL, BrouwerJ, et al. (2002) A Rad26-Def1 complex coordinates repair and RNA pol II proteolysis in response to DNA damage. Nature 415: 929–933.

76. RatnerJN, BalasubramanianB, CordenJ, WarrenSL, BregmanDB (1998) Ultraviolet radiation-induced ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation of the large subunit of RNA polymerase II. Implications for transcription-coupled DNA repair. J Biol Chem 273: 5184–5189.

77. HuibregtseJM, YangJC, BeaudenonSL (1997) The large subunit of RNA polymerase II is a substrate of the Rsp5 ubiquitin-protein ligase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94: 3656–3661.

78. BeaudenonSL, HuacaniMR, WangG, McDonnellDP, HuibregtseJM (1999) Rsp5 ubiquitin-protein ligase mediates DNA damage-induced degradation of the large subunit of RNA polymerase II in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 19: 6972–6979.

79. AnindyaR, AygunO, SvejstrupJQ (2007) Damage-induced ubiquitylation of human RNA polymerase II by the ubiquitin ligase Nedd4, but not Cockayne syndrome proteins or BRCA1. Mol Cell 28: 386–397.

80. LommelL, BucheliME, SwederKS (2000) Transcription-coupled repair in yeast is independent from ubiquitylation of RNA pol II: implications for Cockayne's syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 9088–9092.

81. SomeshBP, ReidJ, LiuWF, SogaardTM, Erdjument-BromageH, et al. (2005) Multiple mechanisms confining RNA polymerase II ubiquitylation to polymerases undergoing transcriptional arrest. Cell 121: 913–923.

82. SomeshBP, SigurdssonS, SaekiH, Erdjument-BromageH, TempstP, et al. (2007) Communication between distant sites in RNA polymerase II through ubiquitylation factors and the polymerase CTD. Cell 129: 57–68.

83. TrenzK, SmithE, SmithS, CostanzoV (2006) ATM and ATR promote Mre11 dependent restart of collapsed replication forks and prevent accumulation of DNA breaks. EMBO J 25: 1764–1774.

84. ErricoA, CosentinoC, RiveraT, LosadaA, SchwobE, et al. (2009) Tipin/Tim1/And1 protein complex promotes Polα chromatin binding and sister chromatid cohesion. EMBO J 28: 3681–3692.

85. MatsumotoS, OginoK, NoguchiE, RussellP, MasaiH (2005) Hsk1-Dfp1/Him1, the Cdc7-Dbf4 kinase in Schizosaccharomyces pombe, associates with Swi1, a component of the replication fork protection complex. J Biol Chem 280: 42536–42542.

86. NedelchevaMN, RoguevA, DolapchievLB, ShevchenkoA, TaskovHB, et al. (2005) Uncoupling of unwinding from DNA synthesis implies regulation of MCM helicase by Tof1/Mrc1/Csm3 checkpoint complex. J Mol Biol 347: 509–521.

87. NumataY, IshiharaS, HasegawaN, NozakiN, IshimiY (2010) Interaction of human MCM2-7 proteins with TIM, TIPIN and Rb. J Biochem 147: 917–927.

88. TakayamaY, MamnunYM, TrickeyM, DhutS, MasudaF, et al. (2010) Hsk1- and SCF(Pof3)-dependent proteolysis of S. pombe Ams2 ensures histone homeostasis and centromere function. Dev Cell 18: 385–396.

89. BairwaNK, MohantyBK, StamenovaR, CurcioMJ, BastiaD (2011) The intra-S phase checkpoint protein Tof1 collaborates with the helicase Rrm3 and the F-box protein Dia2 to maintain genome stability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem 286: 2445–2454.

90. MorenoS, KlarA, NurseP (1991) Molecular genetic analysis of fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Methods Enzymol 194: 795–823.

91. Alfa C, Fantes P, Hyams J, McLeod M, Warbrick E (1993) Experiments with Fission Yeast: A laboratory course manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.

92. NoguchiC, NoguchiE (2007) Sap1 promotes the association of the replication fork protection complex with chromatin and is involved in the replication checkpoint in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Genetics 175: 553–566.

93. RhindN, RussellP (1998) The Schizosaccharomyces pombe S-phase checkpoint differentiates between different types of DNA damage. Genetics 149: 1729–1737.

94. NoguchiE, ShanahanP, NoguchiC, RussellP (2002) CDK phosphorylation of Drc1 regulates DNA replication in fission yeast. Curr Biol 12: 599–605.

95. KrawchukMD, WahlsWP (1999) High-efficiency gene targeting in Schizosaccharomyces pombe using a modular, PCR-based approach with long tracts of flanking homology. Yeast 15: 1419–1427.

96. OgawaY, TakahashiT, MasukataH (1999) Association of fission yeast Orp1 and Mcm6 proteins with chromosomal replication origins. Mol Cell Biol 19: 7228–7236.

97. MoserBA, SubramanianL, ChangYT, NoguchiC, NoguchiE, et al. (2009) Differential arrival of leading and lagging strand DNA polymerases at fission yeast telomeres. EMBO J 28: 810–820.

98. YabuuchiH, YamadaY, UchidaT, SunathvanichkulT, NakagawaT, et al. (2006) Ordered assembly of Sld3, GINS and Cdc45 is distinctly regulated by DDK and CDK for activation of replication origins. EMBO J 25: 4663–4674.

99. FantesP (1979) Epistatic gene interactions in the control of division in fission yeast. Nature 279: 428–430.

100. MasaiH, MiyakeT, AraiK (1995) hsk1+, a Schizosaccharomyces pombe gene related to Saccharomyces cerevisiae CDC7, is required for chromosomal replication. EMBO J 14: 3094–3104.

101. AnsbachAB, NoguchiC, KlansekIW, HeidlebaughM, NakamuraTM, et al. (2008) RFCCtf18 and the Swi1–Swi3 complex function in separate and redundant pathways required for the stabilization of replication forks to facilitate sister chromatid cohesion in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Mol Biol Cell 19: 595–607.

Štítky
Genetika Reprodukčná medicína

Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS Genetics


2013 Číslo 1
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika
nový kurz

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou
Autori: doc. MUDr. Martina Doubková, Ph.D.

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#