Fragile Site Instability in Causes Loss of Heterozygosity by Mitotic Crossovers and Break-Induced Replication

English version České info

Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at tumor suppressor loci is a major contributor to cancer initiation and progression. Both deletions and mitotic recombination can lead to LOH. Certain chromosomal loci known as common fragile sites are susceptible to DNA lesions under replication stress, and replication stress is prevalent in early stage tumor cells. There is extensive evidence for deletions stimulated by common fragile sites in tumors, but the role of fragile sites in stimulating mitotic recombination that causes LOH is unknown. Here, we have used the yeast model system to study the relationship between fragile site instability and mitotic recombination that results in LOH. A naturally occurring fragile site, FS2, exists on the right arm of yeast chromosome III, and we have analyzed LOH on this chromosome. We report that the frequency of spontaneous mitotic BIR events resulting in LOH on the right arm of yeast chromosome III is higher than expected, and that replication stress by low levels of polymerase alpha increases mitotic recombination 12-fold. Using single-nucleotide polymorphisms between the two chromosome III homologs, we mapped the locations of recombination events and determined that FS2 is a strong hotspot for both mitotic reciprocal crossovers and break-induced replication events under conditions of replication stress.

Vyšlo v časopise: Fragile Site Instability in Causes Loss of Heterozygosity by Mitotic Crossovers and Break-Induced Replication. PLoS Genet 9(9): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003817
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003817

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. DurkinSG, GloverTW (2007) Chromosome fragile sites. Annu Rev Genet 41: 169–192.

2. SheaffR, IlsleyD, KuchtaR (1991) Mechanism of DNA polymerase alpha inhibition by aphidicolin. Biochemistry 30: 8590–8597.

3. ChengCH, KuchtaRD (1993) DNA polymerase epsilon: aphidicolin inhibition and the relationship between polymerase and exonuclease activity. Biochemistry 32: 8568–8574.

4. MooreEC, HurlbertRB (1985) The inhibition of ribonucleoside diphosphate reductase by hydroxyurea, guanazole and pyrazoloimidazole (IMPY). Pharmacol Ther 27: 167–196.

5. CasperAM, NghiemP, ArltMF, GloverTW (2002) ATR regulates fragile site stability. Cell 111: 779–789.

6. ZhangH, FreudenreichCH (2007) An AT-rich sequence in human common fragile site FRA16D causes fork stalling and chromosome breakage in S. cerevisiae. Mol Cell 27: 367–379.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. El AchkarE, Gerbault-SeureauM, MulerisM, DutrillauxB, DebatisseM (2005) Premature condensation induces breaks at the interface of early and late replicating chromosome bands bearing common fragile sites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 18069–18074.

10. PalumboE, MatricardiL, TosoniE, BensimonA, RussoA (2010) Replication dynamics at common fragile site FRA6E. Chromosoma 119: 575–587.

11. HelmrichA, BallarinoM, ToraL (2011) Collisions between replication and transcription complexes cause common fragile site instability at the longest human genes. Mol Cell 44: 966–977.

12. LaiLA, KostadinovR, BarrettMT, PeifferDA, PokholokD, et al. (2010) Deletion at fragile sites is a common and early event in Barrett's esophagus. Mol Cancer Res 8: 1084–1094.

13. BartkovaJ, HorejsiZ, KoedK, KramerA, TortF, et al. (2005) DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature 434: 864–870.

14. TsantoulisPK, KotsinasA, SfikakisPP, EvangelouK, SideridouM, et al. (2008) Oncogene-induced replication stress preferentially targets common fragile sites in preneoplastic lesions. A genome-wide study. Oncogene 27: 3256–3264.

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

16. BartkovaJ, RezaeiN, LiontosM, KarakaidosP, KletsasD, et al. (2006) Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 444: 633–637.

17. Di MiccoR, FumagalliM, CicaleseA, PiccininS, GaspariniP, et al. (2006) Oncogene-induced senescence is a DNA damage response triggered by DNA hyper-replication. Nature 444: 638–642.

18. Ozeri-GalaiE, BesterAC, KeremB (2012) The complex basis underlying common fragile site instability in cancer. Trends Genet 28: 295–302.

19. GloverTW, SteinCK (1987) Induction of sister chromatid exchanges at common fragile sites. Am J Hum Genet 41: 882–890.

20. SchwartzM, ZlotorynskiE, GoldbergM, OzeriE, RahatA, et al. (2005) Homologous recombination and nonhomologous end-joining repair pathways regulate fragile site stability. Genes Dev 19: 2715–2726.

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

22. FabreF, ChanA, HeyerWD, GangloffS (2002) Alternate pathways involving Sgs1/Top3, Mus81/Mms4, and Srs2 prevent formation of toxic recombination intermediates from single-stranded gaps created by DNA replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 16887–16892.

23. PetermannE, OrtaML, IssaevaN, SchultzN, HelledayT (2010) Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol Cell 37: 492–502.

24. MoynahanME, JasinM (2010) Mitotic homologous recombination maintains genomic stability and suppresses tumorigenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11: 196–207.

25. AndersenSL, SekelskyJ (2010) Meiotic versus mitotic recombination: two different routes for double-strand break repair: the different functions of meiotic versus mitotic DSB repair are reflected in different pathway usage and different outcomes. Bioessays 32: 1058–1066.

26. DayaniY, SimchenG, LichtenM (2011) Meiotic recombination intermediates are resolved with minimal crossover formation during return-to-growth, an analogue of the mitotic cell cycle. PLoS Genet 7: e1002083.

27. Munoz-GalvanS, JimenoS, RothsteinR, AguileraA (2013) Histone H3K56 acetylation, Rad52, and non-DNA repair factors control double-strand break repair choice with the sister chromatid. PLoS Genet 9: e1003237.

28. St CharlesJA, PetesTD (2013) High-Resolution Mapping of Spontaneous Mitotic Recombination Hotspots on the 1.1 Mb Arm of Yeast Chromosome IV. PLoS Genet 9: e1003434 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003434.

29. TangW, DominskaM, GreenwellPW, HarvanekZ, LobachevKS, et al. (2011) Friedreich's ataxia (GAA)n*(TTC)n repeats strongly stimulate mitotic crossovers in Saccharomyces cerevisae. PLoS Genet 7: e1001270.

30. 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.

31. LemoineFJ, DegtyarevaNP, KokoskaRJ, PetesTD (2008) Reduced levels of DNA polymerase delta induce chromosome fragile site instability in yeast. Mol Cell Biol 28: 5359–5368.

32. ChanJE, KolodnerRD (2011) A genetic and structural study of genome rearrangements mediated by high copy repeat Ty1 elements. PLoS Genet 7: e1002089.

33. ChanJE, KolodnerRD (2012) Rapid analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome rearrangements by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. PLoS Genet 8: e1002539.

34. CasperAM, GreenwellPW, TangW, PetesTD (2009) Chromosome aberrations resulting from double-strand DNA breaks at a naturally occurring yeast fragile site composed of inverted ty elements are independent of Mre11p and Sae2p. Genetics 183: 423–439, 421SI–426SI.

35. St CharlesJ, Hazkani-CovoE, YinY, AndersenSL, DietrichFS, et al. (2012) High-resolution genome-wide analysis of irradiated (UV and gamma-rays) diploid yeast cells reveals a high frequency of genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events. Genetics 190: 1267–1284.

36. HoCK, MazonG, LamAF, SymingtonLS (2010) Mus81 and Yen1 promote reciprocal exchange during mitotic recombination to maintain genome integrity in budding yeast. Mol Cell 40: 988–1000.

37. McMurrayMA, GottschlingDE (2003) An age-induced switch to a hyper-recombinational state. Science 301: 1908–1911.

38. BarberaMA, PetesTD (2006) Selection and analysis of spontaneous reciprocal mitotic cross-overs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 12819–12824.

39. LeePS, GreenwellPW, DominskaM, GawelM, HamiltonM, et al. (2009) A fine-structure map of spontaneous mitotic crossovers in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 5: e1000410.

40. ChuaP, Jinks-RobertsonS (1991) Segregation of recombinant chromatids following mitotic crossing over in yeast. Genetics 129: 359–369.

41. MorrowDM, ConnellyC, HieterP (1997) “Break copy” duplication: a model for chromosome fragment formation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 147: 371–382.

42. WeiW, McCuskerJH, HymanRW, JonesT, NingY, et al. (2007) Genome sequencing and comparative analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain YJM789. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 12825–12830.

43. GoldsteinAL, McCuskerJH (1999) Three new dominant drug resistance cassettes for gene disruption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 15: 1541–1553.

44. CasperAM, MieczkowskiPA, GawelM, PetesTD (2008) Low levels of DNA polymerase alpha induce mitotic and meiotic instability in the ribosomal DNA gene cluster of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 4: e1000105.

45. ChungWH, ZhuZ, PapushaA, MalkovaA, IraG (2010) Defective resection at DNA double-strand breaks leads to de novo telomere formation and enhances gene targeting. PLoS Genet 6: e1000948.

46. LeePS, PetesTD (2010) Mitotic gene conversion events induced in G1-synchronized yeast cells by gamma rays are similar to spontaneous conversion events. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 7383–7388.

47. NickoloffJA, SweetserDB, ClikemanJA, KhalsaGJ, WheelerSL (1999) Multiple heterologies increase mitotic double-strand break-induced allelic gene conversion tract lengths in yeast. Genetics 153: 665–679.

48. NagDK, PetesTD (1990) Genetic evidence for preferential strand transfer during meiotic recombination in yeast. Genetics 125: 753–761.

49. MerkerJD, DominskaM, PetesTD (2003) Patterns of heteroduplex formation associated with the initiation of meiotic recombination in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 165: 47–63.

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

51. BzymekM, ThayerNH, OhSD, KlecknerN, HunterN (2010) Double Holliday junctions are intermediates of DNA break repair. Nature 464: 937–941.

52. KadykLC, HartwellLH (1992) Sister chromatids are preferred over homologs as substrates for recombinational repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 132: 387–402.

53. IraG, MalkovaA, LiberiG, FoianiM, HaberJE (2003) Srs2 and Sgs1-Top3 suppress crossovers during double-strand break repair in yeast. Cell 115: 401–411.

54. MitchelK, ZhangH, Welz-VoegeleC, Jinks-RobertsonS (2010) Molecular structures of crossover and noncrossover intermediates during gap repair in yeast: implications for recombination. Mol Cell 38: 211–222.

55. 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.

56. LobachevKS, StengerJE, KozyrevaOG, JurkaJ, GordeninDA, et al. (2000) Inverted Alu repeats unstable in yeast are excluded from the human genome. Embo J 19: 3822–3830.

57. JuddSR, PetesTD (1988) Physical lengths of meiotic and mitotic gene conversion tracts in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 118: 401–410.

58. BortsRH, HaberJE (1989) Length and distribution of meiotic gene conversion tracts and crossovers in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 123: 69–80.

59. ManceraE, BourgonR, BrozziA, HuberW, SteinmetzLM (2008) High-resolution mapping of meiotic crossovers and non-crossovers in yeast. Nature 454: 479–485.

60. GloverTW, BergerC, CoyleJ, EchoB (1984) DNA polymerase alpha inhibition by aphidicolin induces gaps and breaks at common fragile sites in human chromosomes. Hum Genet 67: 136–142.

61. BurrowAA, WilliamsLE, PierceLC, WangYH (2009) Over half of breakpoints in gene pairs involved in cancer-specific recurrent translocations are mapped to human chromosomal fragile sites. BMC Genomics 10: 59.

62. BignellGR, GreenmanCD, DaviesH, ButlerAP, EdkinsS, et al. (2010) Signatures of mutation and selection in the cancer genome. Nature 463: 893–898.

63. BergerAH, KnudsonAG, PandolfiPP (2011) A continuum model for tumour suppression. Nature 476: 163–169.

64. KokoskaRJ, StefanovicL, DeMaiJ, PetesTD (2000) Increased rates of genomic deletions generated by mutations in the yeast gene encoding DNA polymerase delta or by decreases in the cellular levels of DNA polymerase delta. Mol Cell Biol 20: 7490–7504.

65. Guthrie CaF, G.R. (1991) Guide to Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

66. NewcombeRG (1998) Two-Sided Confidence Intervals for the Single Proportion: Comparison of Seven Methods. Statistics in Medicine 17: 857–872.

67. LobachevKS, GordeninDA, ResnickMA (2002) The Mre11 complex is required for repair of hairpin-capped double-strand breaks and prevention of chromosome rearrangements. Cell 108: 183–193.