Recovery of Arrested Replication Forks by Homologous Recombination Is Error-Prone

English version České info

Homologous recombination is a universal mechanism that allows repair of DNA and provides support for DNA replication. Homologous recombination is therefore a major pathway that suppresses non-homology-mediated genome instability. Here, we report that recovery of impeded replication forks by homologous recombination is error-prone. Using a fork-arrest-based assay in fission yeast, we demonstrate that a single collapsed fork can cause mutations and large-scale genomic changes, including deletions and translocations. Fork-arrest-induced gross chromosomal rearrangements are mediated by inappropriate ectopic recombination events at the site of collapsed forks. Inverted repeats near the site of fork collapse stimulate large-scale genomic changes up to 1,500 times over spontaneous events. We also show that the high accuracy of DNA replication during S-phase is impaired by impediments to fork progression, since fork-arrest-induced mutation is due to erroneous DNA synthesis during recovery of replication forks. The mutations caused are small insertions/duplications between short tandem repeats (micro-homology) indicative of replication slippage. Our data establish that collapsed forks, but not stalled forks, recovered by homologous recombination are prone to replication slippage. The inaccuracy of DNA synthesis does not rely on PCNA ubiquitination or trans-lesion-synthesis DNA polymerases, and it is not counteracted by mismatch repair. We propose that deletions/insertions, mediated by micro-homology, leading to copy number variations during replication stress may arise by progression of error-prone replication forks restarted by homologous recombination.

Vyšlo v časopise: Recovery of Arrested Replication Forks by Homologous Recombination Is Error-Prone. PLoS Genet 8(10): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002976
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002976

Souhrn

Zdroje

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

2. BranzeiD, FoianiM (2010) Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11: 208–219.

3. HalazonetisTD, GorgoulisVG, BartekJ (2008) An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 319: 1352–1355.

4. ZhangF, CarvalhoCM, LupskiJR (2009) Complex human chromosomal and genomic rearrangements. Trends Genet 25: 298–307.

5. LetessierA, MillotGA, KoundrioukoffS, LachagesAM, VogtN, et al. (2011) Cell-type-specific replication initiation programs set fragility of the FRA3B fragile site. Nature 470: 120–123.

6. Le TallecB, DutrillauxB, LachagesAM, MillotGA, BrisonO, et al. (2011) Molecular profiling of common fragile sites in human fibroblasts. Nat Struct Mol Biol 18: 1421–1423.

7. PetermannE, HelledayT (2010) Pathways of mammalian replication fork restart. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11: 683–687.

8. HastingsPJ, IraG, LupskiJR (2009) A microhomology-mediated break-induced replication model for the origin of human copy number variation. PLoS Genet 5: e1000327 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000327

9. WeinertT, KaocharS, JonesH, PaekA, ClarkAJ (2009) The replication fork's five degrees of freedom, their failure and genome rearrangements. Curr Opin Cell Biol 21: 778–784.

10. 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.

11. MizunoK, LambertS, BaldacciG, MurrayJM, CarrAM (2009) Nearby inverted repeats fuse to generate acentric and dicentric palindromic chromosomes by a replication template exchange mechanism. Genes Dev 23: 2876–2886.

12. BesterAC, RonigerM, OrenYS, ImMM, SarniD, et al. (2011) Nucleotide deficiency promotes genomic instability in early stages of cancer development. Cell 145: 435–446.

13. Ozeri-GalaiE, LebofskyR, RahatA, BesterAC, BensimonA, et al. (2011) Failure of origin activation in response to fork stalling leads to chromosomal instability at fragile sites. Mol Cell 43: 122–131.

14. PaekAL, KaocharS, JonesH, ElezabyA, ShanksL, et al. (2009) Fusion of nearby inverted repeats by a replication-based mechanism leads to formation of dicentric and acentric chromosomes that cause genome instability in budding yeast. Genes Dev 23: 2861–2875.

15. BlowJJ, GeXQ, JacksonDA (2011) How dormant origins promote complete genome replication. Trends Biochem Sci 36: 405–414.

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

17. LambertS, FrogetB, CarrAM (2007) Arrested replication fork processing: interplay between checkpoints and recombination. DNA Repair (Amst) 6: 1042–1061.

18. KawabataT, LuebbenSW, YamaguchiS, IlvesI, MatiseI, et al. (2011) Stalled fork rescue via dormant replication origins in unchallenged S phase promotes proper chromosome segregation and tumor suppression. Mol Cell 41: 543–553.

19. MurrayJM, CarrAM (2008) Smc5/6: a link between DNA repair and unidirectional replication? Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9: 177–182.

20. LambertS, MizunoK, BlaisonneauJ, MartineauS, ChanetR, et al. (2010) Homologous recombination restarts blocked replication forks at the expense of genome rearrangements by template exchange. Mol cell 39: 346–359.

21. 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.

22. De PiccoliG, KatouY, ItohT, NakatoR, ShirahigeK, et al. (2012) Replisome stability at defective DNA replication forks is independent of s phase checkpoint kinases. Mol Cell 45: 696–704.

23. FrogetB, BlaisonneauJ, LambertS, BaldacciG (2008) Cleavage of stalled forks by fission yeast Mus81/Eme1 in absence of DNA replication checkpoint. Mol Biol Cell 19: 445–456.

24. Cotta-RamusinoC, FachinettiD, LuccaC, DoksaniY, LopesM, et al. (2005) Exo1 processes stalled replication forks and counteracts fork reversal in checkpoint-defective cells. Mol Cell 17: 153–159.

25. HellerRC, MariansKJ (2006) Replisome assembly and the direct restart of stalled replication forks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 932–943.

26. MichelB, BoubakriH, BaharogluZ, LeMassonM, LestiniR (2007) Recombination proteins and rescue of arrested replication forks. DNA Repair (Amst) 6: 967–980.

27. HashimotoY, PudduF, CostanzoV (2011) RAD51- and MRE11-dependent reassembly of uncoupled CMG helicase complex at collapsed replication forks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 19: 17–24.

28. RoseaulinL, YamadaY, TsutsuiY, RussellP, IwasakiH, et al. (2008) Mus81 is essential for sister chromatid recombination at broken replication forks. Embo J 27: 1378–1387.

29. Moriel-CarreteroM, AguileraA (2010) A postincision-deficient TFIIH causes replication fork breakage and uncovers alternative Rad51- or Pol32-mediated restart mechanisms. Mol Cell 37: 690–701.

30. LydeardJR, Lipkin-MooreZ, SheuYJ, StillmanB, BurgersPM, et al. (2010) Break-induced replication requires all essential DNA replication factors except those specific for pre-RC assembly. Genes Dev 24: 1133–1144.

31. LlorenteB, SmithCE, SymingtonLS (2008) Break-induced replication: what is it and what is it for? Cell Cycle 7: 859–864.

32. McEachernMJ, HaberJE (2006) Break-induced replication and recombinational telomere elongation in yeast. Annu Rev Biochem 75: 111–135.

33. SmithCE, LlorenteB, SymingtonLS (2007) Template switching during break-induced replication. Nature 447: 102–105.

34. DeemA, KeszthelyiA, BlackgroveT, VaylA, CoffeyB, et al. (2011) Break-induced replication is highly inaccurate. PLoS Biol 9: e1000594 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000594

35. LambertS, WatsonA, SheedyDM, MartinB, CarrAM (2005) Gross chromosomal rearrangements and elevated recombination at an inducible site-specific replication fork barrier. Cell 121: 689–702.

36. EydmannT, SommarivaE, InagawaT, MianS, KlarAJ, et al. (2008) Rtf1-mediated eukaryotic site-specific replication termination. Genetics 180: 27–39.

37. KaplanDL, BastiaD (2009) Mechanisms of polar arrest of a replication fork. Mol Microbiol 72: 279–285.

38. McInerneyP, O'DonnellM (2007) Replisome fate upon encountering a leading strand block and clearance from DNA by recombination proteins. J Biol Chem 282: 25903–25916.

39. 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.

40. SteinacherR, OsmanF, DalgaardJZ, LorenzA, WhitbyMC (2012) The DNA helicase Pfh1 promotes fork merging at replication termination sites to ensure genome stability. Genes Dev 26: 594–602.

41. BranzeiD, VanoliF, FoianiM (2008) SUMOylation regulates Rad18-mediated template switch. Nature 456: 915–920.

42. MiyabeI, KunkelTA, CarrAM (2011) The major roles of DNA polymerases epsilon and delta at the eukaryotic replication fork are evolutionarily conserved. PLoS Genet 7: e1002407 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002407

43. MyungK, ChenC, KolodnerRD (2001) Multiple pathways cooperate in the suppression of genome instability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 411: 1073–1076.

44. ChenC, KolodnerRD (1999) Gross chromosomal rearrangements in Saccharomyces cerevisiae replication and recombination defective mutants. Nat Genet 23: 81–85.

45. PutnamCD, HayesTK, KolodnerRD (2009) Specific pathways prevent duplication-mediated genome rearrangements. Nature 460: 984–989.

46. 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.

47. CarvalhoCM, RamockiMB, PehlivanD, FrancoLM, Gonzaga-JaureguiC, et al. (2011) Inverted genomic segments and complex triplication rearrangements are mediated by inverted repeats in the human genome. Nat Genet 43: 1074–1081.

48. LichtenM, HaberJE (1989) Position effects in ectopic and allelic mitotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 123: 261–268.

49. TranHT, DegtyarevaNP, KolotevaNN, SuginoA, MasumotoH, et al. (1995) Replication slippage between distant short repeats in Saccharomyces cerevisiae depends on the direction of replication and the RAD50 and RAD52 genes. Mol Cell Biol 15: 5607–5617.

50. LorenzA, OsmanF, FolkyteV, SofuevaS, WhitbyMC (2009) Fbh1 limits Rad51-dependent recombination at blocked replication forks. Mol Cell Biol 29: 4742–4756.

51. OsmanF, DixonJ, BarrAR, WhitbyMC (2005) The F-Box DNA helicase Fbh1 prevents Rhp51-dependent recombination without mediator proteins. Mol Cell Biol 25: 8084–8096.

52. AlabertC, BiancoJN, PaseroP (2009) Differential regulation of homologous recombination at DNA breaks and replication forks by the Mrc1 branch of the S-phase checkpoint. Embo J 28: 1131–1141.

53. LisbyM, BarlowJH, BurgessRC, RothsteinR (2004) Choreography of the DNA damage response: spatiotemporal relationships among checkpoint and repair proteins. Cell 118: 699–713.

54. MeisterP, TaddeiA, VernisL, PoidevinM, GasserSM, et al. (2005) Temporal separation of replication and recombination requires the intra-S checkpoint. J Cell Biol 168: 537–544.

55. CoulonS, RamasubramanyanS, AliesC, PhilippinG, LehmannA, et al. (2010) Rad8Rad5/Mms2-Ubc13 ubiquitin ligase complex controls translesion synthesis in fission yeast. Embo J 29: 2048–2058.

56. HombauerH, CampbellCS, SmithCE, DesaiA, KolodnerRD (2011) Visualization of eukaryotic DNA mismatch repair reveals distinct recognition and repair intermediates. Cell 147: 1040–1053.

57. TranHT, GordeninDA, ResnickMA (1996) The prevention of repeat-associated deletions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mismatch repair depends on size and origin of deletions. Genetics 143: 1579–1587.

58. SiaEA, Jinks-RobertsonS, PetesTD (1997) Genetic control of microsatellite stability. Mutat Res 383: 61–70.

59. LiuP, CarvalhoCM, HastingsP, LupskiJR (2012) Mechanisms for recurrent and complex human genomic rearrangements. Curr Opin Genet Dev

60. OuZ, StankiewiczP, XiaZ, BremanAM, DawsonB, et al. (2010) Observation and prediction of recurrent human translocations mediated by NAHR between nonhomologous chromosomes. Genome Res 21: 33–46.

61. BoscoG, HaberJE (1998) Chromosome break-induced DNA replication leads to nonreciprocal translocations and telomere capture. Genetics 150: 1037–1047.

62. DalgaardJZ, KlarAJ (2001) A DNA replication-arrest site RTS1 regulates imprinting by determining the direction of replication at mat1 in S. pombe. Genes Dev 15: 2060–2068.

63. RuizJF, Gomez-GonzalezB, AguileraA (2009) Chromosomal translocations caused by either pol32-dependent or pol32-independent triparental break-induced replication. Mol Cell Biol 29: 5441–5454.

64. SchmidtKH, WuJ, KolodnerRD (2006) Control of translocations between highly diverged genes by Sgs1, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homolog of the Bloom's syndrome protein. Mol Cell Biol 26: 5406–5420.

65. YangY, SterlingJ, StoriciF, ResnickMA, GordeninDA (2008) Hypermutability of damaged single-strand DNA formed at double-strand breaks and uncapped telomeres in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 4: e1000264 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000264

66. HicksWM, KimM, HaberJE (2010) Increased mutagenesis and unique mutation signature associated with mitotic gene conversion. Science 329: 82–85.

67. KaiM, BoddyMN, RussellP, WangTS (2005) Replication checkpoint kinase Cds1 regulates Mus81 to preserve genome integrity during replication stress. Genes Dev 19: 919–932.

68. KaiM, WangTS (2003) Checkpoint activation regulates mutagenic translesion synthesis. Genes Dev 17: 64–76.

69. HuangME, de CalignonA, NicolasA, GalibertF (2000) POL32, a subunit of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA polymerase delta, defines a link between DNA replication and the mutagenic bypass repair pathway. Curr Genet 38: 178–187.

70. PayenC, KoszulR, DujonB, FischerG (2008) Segmental duplications arise from Pol32-dependent repair of broken forks through two alternative replication-based mechanisms. PLoS Genet 4: e1000175 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000175

71. LydeardJR, JainS, YamaguchiM, HaberJE (2007) Break-induced replication and telomerase-independent telomere maintenance require Pol32. Nature 448: 820–823.

72. ColnaghiR, CarpenterG, VolkerM, O'DriscollM (2011) The consequences of structural genomic alterations in humans: Genomic Disorders, genomic instability and cancer. Semin Cell Dev Biol 22: 875–885.

73. ArltMF, WilsonTE, GloverTW (2012) Replication stress and mechanisms of CNV formation. Curr Opin Genet Dev

74. DurkinSG, RaglandRL, ArltMF, MulleJG, WarrenST, et al. (2008) Replication stress induces tumor-like microdeletions in FHIT/FRA3B. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 246–251.