CNV Formation in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells Occurs in the Absence of Xrcc4-Dependent Nonhomologous End Joining
Spontaneous copy number variant (CNV) mutations are an important factor in genomic structural variation, genomic disorders, and cancer. A major class of CNVs, termed nonrecurrent CNVs, is thought to arise by nonhomologous DNA repair mechanisms due to the presence of short microhomologies, blunt ends, or short insertions at junctions of normal and de novo pathogenic CNVs, features recapitulated in experimental systems in which CNVs are induced by exogenous replication stress. To test whether the canonical nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway of double-strand break (DSB) repair is involved in the formation of this class of CNVs, chromosome integrity was monitored in NHEJ–deficient Xrcc4−/− mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells following treatment with low doses of aphidicolin, a DNA replicative polymerase inhibitor. Mouse ES cells exhibited replication stress-induced CNV formation in the same manner as human fibroblasts, including the existence of syntenic hotspot regions, such as in the Auts2 and Wwox loci. The frequency and location of spontaneous and aphidicolin-induced CNV formation were not altered by loss of Xrcc4, as would be expected if canonical NHEJ were the predominant pathway of CNV formation. Moreover, de novo CNV junctions displayed a typical pattern of microhomology and blunt end use that did not change in the absence of Xrcc4. A number of complex CNVs were detected in both wild-type and Xrcc4−/− cells, including an example of a catastrophic, chromothripsis event. These results establish that nonrecurrent CNVs can be, and frequently are, formed by mechanisms other than Xrcc4-dependent NHEJ.
Vyšlo v časopise:
CNV Formation in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells Occurs in the Absence of Xrcc4-Dependent Nonhomologous End Joining. PLoS Genet 8(9): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002981
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002981
Souhrn
Spontaneous copy number variant (CNV) mutations are an important factor in genomic structural variation, genomic disorders, and cancer. A major class of CNVs, termed nonrecurrent CNVs, is thought to arise by nonhomologous DNA repair mechanisms due to the presence of short microhomologies, blunt ends, or short insertions at junctions of normal and de novo pathogenic CNVs, features recapitulated in experimental systems in which CNVs are induced by exogenous replication stress. To test whether the canonical nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway of double-strand break (DSB) repair is involved in the formation of this class of CNVs, chromosome integrity was monitored in NHEJ–deficient Xrcc4−/− mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells following treatment with low doses of aphidicolin, a DNA replicative polymerase inhibitor. Mouse ES cells exhibited replication stress-induced CNV formation in the same manner as human fibroblasts, including the existence of syntenic hotspot regions, such as in the Auts2 and Wwox loci. The frequency and location of spontaneous and aphidicolin-induced CNV formation were not altered by loss of Xrcc4, as would be expected if canonical NHEJ were the predominant pathway of CNV formation. Moreover, de novo CNV junctions displayed a typical pattern of microhomology and blunt end use that did not change in the absence of Xrcc4. A number of complex CNVs were detected in both wild-type and Xrcc4−/− cells, including an example of a catastrophic, chromothripsis event. These results establish that nonrecurrent CNVs can be, and frequently are, formed by mechanisms other than Xrcc4-dependent NHEJ.
Zdroje
1. MillsRE, WalterK, StewartC, HandsakerRE, ChenK, et al. (2011) Mapping copy number variation by population-scale genome sequencing. Nature 470: 59–65.
2. IafrateAJ, FeukL, RiveraMN, ListewnikML, DonahoePK, et al. (2004) Detection of large-scale variation in the human genome. Nature Genetics 36: 949–951.
3. RedonR, IshikawaS, FitchKR, FeukL, PerryGH, et al. (2006) Global variation in copy number in the human genome. Nature 444: 428–249.
4. SebatJ, LakshmiB, TrogeJ, AlexanderJ, YoungJ, et al. (2004) Large-scale copy number polymorphism in the human genome. Science 305: 525–528.
5. SharpAJ, LockeDP, McGrathSD, ChengZ, BaileyJA, et al. (2005) Segmental duplications and copy-number variation in the human genome. American Journal of Human Genetics 77: 78–88.
6. ConradDF, PintoD, RedonR, FeukL, GokcumenO, et al. (2010) Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome. Nature 464: 704–712.
7. SebatJ, LakshmiB, MalhotraD, TrogeJ, Lese-MartinC, et al. (2007) Strong association of de novo copy number mutations with autism. Science 316: 445–449.
8. MarshallCR, NoorA, VincentJB, LionelAC, FeukL, et al. (2008) Structural variation of chromosomes in autism spectrum disorder. Am J Hum Genet 82: 477–488.
9. ChristianSL, BruneCW, SudiJ, KumarRA, LiuS, et al. (2008) Novel submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities detected in autism spectrum disorder. Biol Psychiatry 63: 1111–1117.
10. CookEHJr, SchererSW (2008) Copy-number variations associated with neuropsychiatric conditions. Nature 455: 919–923.
11. KirovG, GrozevaD, NortonN, IvanovD, MantripragadaKK, et al. (2009) Support for the involvement of large copy number variants in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. Hum Mol Genet 18: 1497–1503.
12. StankiewiczP, BeaudetAL (2007) Use of array CGH in the evaluation of dysmorphology, malformations, developmental delay, and idiopathic mental retardation. Curr Opin Genet Dev 17: 182–192.
13. ZhangF, GuW, HurlesME, LupskiJR (2009) Copy number variation in human health, disease, and evolution. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 10: 451–481.
14. TamGW, RedonR, CarterNP, GrantSG (2009) The role of DNA copy number variation in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 66: 1005–1012.
15. ItsaraA, WuH, SmithJD, NickersonDA, RomieuI, et al. (2010) De novo rates and selection of large copy number variation. Genome Res.
16. EganCM, SridharS, WiglerM, HallIM (2007) Recurrent DNA copy number variation in the laboratory mouse. Nat Genet 39: 1384–1389.
17. LupskiJR (2007) Genomic rearrangements and sporadic disease. Nat Genet 39: S43–47.
18. TalkowskiME, RosenfeldJA, BlumenthalI, PillalamarriV, ChiangC, et al. (2012) Sequencing Chromosomal Abnormalities Reveals Neurodevelopmental Loci that Confer Risk across Diagnostic Boundaries. Cell 149: 525–537.
19. ArltMF, OzdemirAC, BirkelandSR, LyonsRHJr, GloverTW, et al. (2011) Comparison of constitutional and replication stress-induced genome structural variation by SNP array and mate-pair sequencing. Genetics 187: 675–683.
20. 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.
21. StankiewiczP, InoueK, BiW, WalzK, ParkSS, et al. (2003) Genomic disorders: genomic architecture results in susceptibility to DNA rearrangements causing common human traits. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 68: 445–454.
22. LuoY, HermetzKE, JacksonJM, MulleJG, DoddA, et al. (2011) Diverse mutational mechanisms cause pathogenic subtelomeric rearrangements. Hum Mol Genet 20: 3769–3778.
23. LeeJA, CarvalhoCM, LupskiJR (2007) A DNA replication mechanism for generating nonrecurrent rearrangements associated with genomic disorders. Cell 131: 1235–1247.
24. CampbellPJ, StephensPJ, PleasanceED, O'MearaS, LiH, et al. (2008) Identification of somatically acquired rearrangements in cancer using genome-wide massively parallel paired-end sequencing. Nat Genet 40: 722–729.
25. ShawCJ, LupskiJR (2005) Non-recurrent 17p11.2 deletions are generated by homologous and non-homologous mechanisms. Hum Genet 116: 1–7.
26. HastingsPJ, LupskiJR, RosenbergSM, IraG (2009) Mechanisms of change in gene copy number. Nat Rev Genet 10: 551–564.
27. MahaneyBL, MeekK, Lees-MillerSP (2009) Repair of ionizing radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks by non-homologous end-joining. Biochem J 417: 639–650.
28. McVeyM, LeeSE (2008) MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director's cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet 24: 529–538.
29. Boubakour-AzzouzI, RicchettiM (2008) Low joining efficiency and non-conservative repair of two distant double-strand breaks in mouse embryonic stem cells. DNA Repair (Amst) 7: 149–161.
30. InoueK, OsakaH, ThurstonVC, ClarkeJT, YoneyamaA, et al. (2002) Genomic rearrangements resulting in PLP1 deletion occur by nonhomologous end joining and cause different dysmyelinating phenotypes in males and females. Am J Hum Genet 71: 838–853.
31. ToffolattiL, CardazzoB, NobileC, DanieliGA, GualandiF, et al. (2002) Investigating the mechanism of chromosomal deletion: characterization of 39 deletion breakpoints in introns 47 and 48 of the human dystrophin gene. Genomics 80: 523–530.
32. ConradDF, BirdC, BlackburneB, LindsayS, MamanovaL, et al. (2010) Mutation spectrum revealed by breakpoint sequencing of human germline CNVs. Nat Genet 42: 385–391.
33. WoodwardKJ, CundallM, SperleK, SistermansEA, RossM, et al. (2005) Heterogeneous duplications in patients with Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease suggest a mechanism of coupled homologous and nonhomologous recombination. Am J Hum Genet 77: 966–987.
34. YanCT, BoboilaC, SouzaEK, FrancoS, HickernellTR, et al. (2007) IgH class switching and translocations use a robust non-classical end-joining pathway. Nature 449: 478–482.
35. SimsekD, JasinM (2010) Alternative end-joining is suppressed by the canonical NHEJ component Xrcc4-ligase IV during chromosomal translocation formation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17: 410–416.
36. DaleyJM, WilsonTE (2005) Rejoining of DNA double-strand breaks as a function of overhang length. Mol Cell Biol 25: 896–906.
37. 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.
38. PerryGH, Ben-DorA, TsalenkoA, SampasN, Rodriguez-RevengaL, et al. (2008) The fine-scale and complex architecture of human copy-number variation. Am J Hum Genet 82: 685–695.
39. YalcinB, WongK, BhomraA, GoodsonM, KeaneTM, et al. (2012) The fine-scale architecture of structural variants in 17 mouse genomes. Genome Biol 13: R18.
40. LiuP, CarvalhoCM, HastingsP, LupskiJR (2012) Mechanisms for recurrent and complex human genomic rearrangements. Curr Opin Genet Dev.
41. LowdenMR, FlibotteS, MoermanDG, AhmedS (2011) DNA synthesis generates terminal duplications that seal end-to-end chromosome fusions. Science 332: 468–471.
42. ArltMF, OzdemirAC, BirkelandSR, WilsonTE, GloverTW (2011) Hydroxyurea induces de novo copy number variants in human cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108: 17360–17365.
43. ArltMF, MulleJG, SchaibleyVM, RaglandRL, DurkinSG, et al. (2009) Replication stress induces genome-wide copy number changes in human cells that resemble polymorphic and pathogenic variants. Am J Hum Genet 84: 339–350.
44. DurkinSG, RaglandRL, ArltMF, MulleJG, WarrenST, et al. (2008) Replication stress induces tumor-like microdeletions in FHIT/FRA3B. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105: 246–251.
45. StephensPJ, GreenmanCD, FuB, YangF, BignellGR, et al. (2011) Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell 144: 27–40.
46. SimsekD, BrunetE, WongSY, KatyalS, GaoY, et al. (2011) DNA ligase III promotes alternative nonhomologous end-joining during chromosomal translocation formation. PLoS Genet 7: e1002080 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002080.
47. ZhangY, JasinM (2011) An essential role for CtIP in chromosomal translocation formation through an alternative end-joining pathway. Nat Struct Mol Biol 18: 80–84.
48. KloostermanWP, GuryevV, van RoosmalenM, DuranKJ, de BruijnE, et al. (2011) Chromothripsis as a mechanism driving complex de novo structural rearrangements in the germline. Hum Mol Genet 20: 1916–1924.
49. LiuP, ErezA, NagamaniSC, DharSU, KolodziejskaKE, et al. (2011) Chromosome catastrophes involve replication mechanisms generating complex genomic rearrangements. Cell 146: 889–903.
50. StephensPJ, McBrideDJ, LinML, VarelaI, PleasanceED, et al. (2009) Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer genomes. Nature 462: 1005–1010.
51. ChiangC, JacobsenJC, ErnstC, HanscomC, HeilbutA, et al. (2012) Complex reorganization and predominant non-homologous repair following chromosomal breakage in karyotypically balanced germline rearrangements and transgenic integration. Nat Genet 44: 390–397, S391.
52. MrasekK, SchoderC, TeichmannAC, BehrK, FranzeB, et al. (2010) Global screening and extended nomenclature for 230 aphidicolin-inducible fragile sites, including 61 yet unreported ones. Int J Oncol 36: 929–940.
53. Le TallecB, DutrillauxB, LachagesAM, MillotGA, BrisonO, et al. (2011) Molecular profiling of common fragile sites in human fibroblasts. Nat Struct Mol Biol.
54. WoodwardAM, GohlerT, LucianiMG, OehlmannM, GeX, et al. (2006) Excess Mcm2–7 license dormant origins of replication that can be used under conditions of replicative stress. J Cell Biol 173: 673–683.
55. GeXQ, JacksonDA, BlowJJ (2007) Dormant origins licensed by excess Mcm2–7 are required for human cells to survive replicative stress. Genes Dev 21: 3331–3341.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. PalakodetiA, HanY, JiangY, Le BeauMM (2004) The role of late/slow replication of the FRA16D in common fragile site induction. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer 39: 71–76.
59. GaoY, SunY, FrankKM, DikkesP, FujiwaraY, et al. (1998) A critical role for DNA end-joining proteins in both lymphogenesis and neurogenesis. Cell 95: 891–902.
60. KrishnamoorthyK, ThomsonJ (2004) A more powerful test for comparing two Poisson means. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 119: 23–35.
Štítky
Genetika Reprodukčná medicínaČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Genetics
2012 Číslo 9
- Je „freeze-all“ pro všechny? Odborníci na fertilitu diskutovali na virtuálním summitu
- Gynekologové a odborníci na reprodukční medicínu se sejdou na prvním virtuálním summitu
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Enrichment of HP1a on Drosophila Chromosome 4 Genes Creates an Alternate Chromatin Structure Critical for Regulation in this Heterochromatic Domain
- Normal DNA Methylation Dynamics in DICER1-Deficient Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells
- The NDR Kinase Scaffold HYM1/MO25 Is Essential for MAK2 MAP Kinase Signaling in
- Functional Variants in and Involved in Activation of the NF-κB Pathway Are Associated with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Japanese