ZTF-8 Interacts with the 9-1-1 Complex and Is Required for DNA Damage Response and Double-Strand Break Repair in the Germline

English version České info

Proper response to DNA damage and repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is important to maintain genomic integrity and promote both accurate chromosome segregation and tumor suppression. Here we define the roles of a previously uncharacterized and conserved protein, ZTF-8, which is required for proper DNA damage checkpoint activation as well as DSB repair. Specifically, we provide a direct demonstration that ZTF-8 participates in both mitotic and meiotic DSB repair and in the meiotic DNA damage checkpoint via interacting with the 9-1-1 complex in the C. elegans germline. We propose that ZTF-8 is involved in promoting repair at blocked replication fork sites and meiotic DSBs in part by transducing DNA damage checkpoint signaling via the 9-1-1 DNA damage response complex.

Vyšlo v časopise: ZTF-8 Interacts with the 9-1-1 Complex and Is Required for DNA Damage Response and Double-Strand Break Repair in the Germline. PLoS Genet 10(10): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004723
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004723

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. LengauerC, KinzlerKW, VogelsteinB (1998) Genetic instabilities in human cancers. Nature 396: 643–649.

2. KennedyRD, D'AndreaAD (2006) DNA repair pathways in clinical practice: lessons from pediatric cancer susceptibility syndromes. J Clin Oncol 24: 3799–3808.

3. BachratiCZ, HicksonID (2003) RecQ helicases: suppressors of tumorigenesis and premature aging. Biochem J 374: 577–606.

4. LynchHT, de la ChapelleA (1999) Genetic susceptibility to non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 36: 801–818.

5. VasenHF, WatsonP, MecklinJP, LynchHT (1999) New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 116: 1453–1456.

6. MurakamiH, NurseP (2000) DNA replication and damage checkpoints and meiotic cell cycle controls in the fission and budding yeasts. Biochem J 349: 1–12.

7. GuoZ, WangJ, MengL, WuQ, KimO, et al. (2001) Cutting edge: membrane lymphotoxin regulates CD8(+) T cell-mediated intestinal allograft rejection. J Immunol 167: 4796–4800.

8. HofmannER, MilsteinS, BoultonSJ, YeM, HofmannJJ, et al. (2002) Caenorhabditis elegans HUS-1 is a DNA damage checkpoint protein required for genome stability and EGL-1-mediated apoptosis. Curr Biol 12: 1908–1918.

9. StergiouL, HengartnerMO (2004) Death and more: DNA damage response pathways in the nematode C. elegans. Cell Death Differ 11: 21–28.

10. CraigAL, MoserSC, BaillyAP, GartnerA (2012) Methods for studying the DNA damage response in the Caenorhabdatis elegans germ line. Methods Cell Biol 107: 321–352.

11. O'NeilNJ, RoseAM (2006) DNA repair. Wormbook 13: 11–12.

12. ColaiacovoMP, StanfieldGM, ReddyKC, ReinkeV, KimSK, et al. (2002) A targeted RNAi screen for genes involved in chromosome morphogenesis and nuclear organization in the Caenorhabditis elegans germline. Genetics 162: 113–128.

13. Cotta-RamusinoC, McDonaldER3rd, HurovK, SowaME, HarperJW, et al. (2011) A DNA damage response screen identifies RHINO, a 9-1-1 and TopBP1 interacting protein required for ATR signaling. Science 332: 1313–1317.

14. IyerLM, KooninEV, AravindL (2002) Extensive domain shuffling in transcription regulators of DNA viruses and implications for the origin of fungal APSES transcription factors. Genome Biol 3: RESEARCH0012.

15. BartekJ, LukasC, LukasJ (2004) Checking on DNA damage in S phase. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5: 792–804.

16. Garcia-MuseT, BoultonSJ (2005) Distinct modes of ATR activation after replication stress and DNA double-strand breaks in Caenorhabditis elegans. EMBO J 24: 4345–4355.

17. KarnaniN, DuttaA (2011) The effect of the intra-S-phase checkpoint on origins of replication in human cells. Genes Dev 25: 621–633.

18. SaitoTT, YoudsJL, BoultonSJ, ColaiacovoMP (2009) Caenorhabditis elegans HIM-18/SLX-4 interacts with SLX-1 and XPF-1 and maintains genomic integrity in the germline by processing recombination intermediates. PLoS Genet 5: e1000735.

19. BaillyAP, FreemanA, HallJ, DeclaisAC, AlpiA, et al. (2010) The Caenorhabditis elegans homolog of Gen1/Yen1 resolvases links DNA damage signaling to DNA double-strand break repair. PLoS Genet 6: e1001025.

20. ColaiacovoMP, MacQueenAJ, Martinez-PerezE, McDonaldK, AdamoA, et al. (2003) Synaptonemal complex assembly in C. elegans is dispensable for loading strand-exchange proteins but critical for proper completion of recombination. Dev Cell 5: 463–474.

21. GasiorSL, OlivaresH, EarU, HariDM, WeichselbaumR, et al. (2001) Assembly of RecA-like recombinases: distinct roles for mediator proteins in mitosis and meiosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 8411–8418.

22. GartnerA, MilsteinS, AhmedS, HodgkinJ, HengartnerMO (2000) A conserved checkpoint pathway mediates DNA damage–induced apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in C. elegans. Mol Cell 5: 435–443.

23. BarnesTM, KoharaY, CoulsonA, HekimiS (1995) Meiotic recombination, noncoding DNA and genomic organization in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 141: 159–179.

24. KellyKO, DernburgAF, StanfieldGM, VilleneuveAM (2000) Caenorhabditis elegans msh-5 is required for both normal and radiation-induced meiotic crossing over but not for completion of meiosis. Genetics 156: 617–630.

25. TzurYB, Egydio de CarvalhoC, NadarajanS, Van BostelenI, GuY, et al. (2012) LAB-1 targets PP1 and restricts Aurora B kinase upon entrance into meiosis to promote sister chromatid cohesion. PLoS Biol 10: e1001378.

26. BhallaN, WynneDJ, JantschV, DernburgAF (2008) ZHP-3 acts at crossovers to couple meiotic recombination with synaptonemal complex disassembly and bivalent formation in C. elegans. PLoS Genet 4: e1000235.

27. AdamoA, MontemauriP, SilvaN, WardJD, BoultonSJ, et al. (2008) BRC-1 acts in the inter-sister pathway of meiotic double-strand break repair. EMBO Rep 9: 287–292.

28. AdamoA, CollisSJ, AdelmanCA, SilvaN, HorejsiZ, et al. (2010) Preventing nonhomologous end joining suppresses DNA repair defects of Fanconi anemia. Mol Cell 39: 25–35.

29. SmolikovS, EizingerA, Schild-PrufertK, HurlburtA, McDonaldK, et al. (2007) SYP-3 restricts synaptonemal complex assembly to bridge paired chromosome axes during meiosis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 176: 2015–2025.

30. SymingtonLS, GautierJ (2011) Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet 45: 247–271.

31. StrackerTH, PetriniJH (2011) The MRE11 complex: starting from the ends. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 12: 90–103.

32. AlaniE, ThresherR, GriffithJD, KolodnerRD (1992) Characterization of DNA-binding and strand-exchange stimulation properties of y-RPA, a yeast single-strand-DNA-binding protein. J Mol Biol 227: 54–71.

33. SungP (1994) Catalysis of ATP-dependent homologous DNA pairing and strand exchange by yeast RAD51 protein. Science 265: 1241–1243.

34. SolingerJA, KiianitsaK, HeyerWD (2002) Rad54, a Swi2/Snf2-like recombinational repair protein, disassembles Rad51:dsDNA filaments. Mol Cell 10: 1175–1188.

35. ByrneAB, WeirauchMT, WongV, KoevaM, DixonSJ, et al. (2007) A global analysis of genetic interactions in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Biol 6: 8.

36. ZhouBB, BartekJ (2004) Targeting the checkpoint kinases: chemosensitization versus chemoprotection. Nat Rev Cancer 4: 216–225.

37. KimST, LimDS, CanmanCE, KastanMB (1999) Substrate specificities and identification of putative substrates of ATM kinase family members. J Biol Chem 274: 37538–37543.

38. BernsteinKA, ReidRJ, SunjevaricI, DemuthK, BurgessRC, et al. (2011) The Shu complex, which contains Rad51 paralogues, promotes DNA repair through inhibition of the Srs2 anti-recombinase. Mol Biol Cell 22: 1599–1607.

39. MartinV, ChahwanC, GaoH, BlaisV, WohlschlegelJ, et al. (2006) Sws1 is a conserved regulator of homologous recombination in eukaryotic cells. EMBO J 25: 2564–2574.

40. YoudsJL, O'NeilNJ, RoseAM (2006) Homologous recombination is required for genome stability in the absence of DOG-1 in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 173: 697–708.

41. YoudsJL, BarberLJ, WardJD, CollisSJ, O'NeilNJ, et al. (2008) DOG-1 is the Caenorhabditis elegans BRIP1/FANCJ homologue and functions in interstrand cross-link repair. Mol Cell Biol 28: 1470–1479.

42. Gomez-GonzalezB, Felipe-AbrioI, AguileraA (2009) The S-phase checkpoint is required to respond to R-loops accumulated in THO mutants. Mol Cell Biol 29: 5203–5213.

43. Castellano-PozoM, Garcia-MuseT, AguileraA (2012) R-loops cause replication impairment and genome instability during meiosis. EMBO Rep 13: 923–929.

44. BienkoM, GreenCM, CrosettoN, RudolfF, ZapartG, et al. (2005) Ubiquitin-binding domains in Y-family polymerases regulate translesion synthesis. Science 310: 1821–1824.

45. RoerinkSF, KooleW, StapelLC, RomeijnRJ, TijstermanM (2012) A broad requirement for TLS polymerases eta and kappa, and interacting sumoylation and nuclear pore proteins, in lesion bypass during C. elegans embryogenesis. PLoS Genet 8: e1002800.

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

47. Parrilla-CastellarER, ArlanderSJ, KarnitzL (2004) Dial 9-1-1 for DNA damage: the Rad9-Hus1-Rad1 (9-1-1) clamp complex. DNA Repair (Amst) 3: 1009–1014.

48. KempM, SancarA (2009) DNA distress: just ring 9-1-1. Curr Biol 19: R733–734.

49. HeltCE, WangW, KengPC, BambaraRA (2005) Evidence that DNA damage detection machinery participates in DNA repair. Cell Cycle 4: 529–532.

50. KimJW, FukukawaC, UedaK, NishidateT, KatagiriT, et al. (2010) Involvement of C12orf32 overexpression in breast carcinogenesis. Int J Oncol 37: 861–867.

51. BrennerS (1974) The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 77: 71–94.

52. DernburgAF, McDonaldK, MoulderG, BarsteadR, DresserM, et al. (1998) Meiotic recombination in C. elegans initiates by a conserved mechanism and is dispensable for homologous chromosome synapsis. Cell 94: 387–398.

53. ZalevskyJ, MacQueenAJ, DuffyJB, KemphuesKJ, VilleneuveAM (1999) Crossing over during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis requires a conserved MutS-based pathway that is partially dispensable in budding yeast. Genetics 153: 1271–1283.

54. HodgkinJ, HorvitzHR, BrennerS (1979) Nondisjunction Mutants of the Nematode CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS. Genetics 91: 67–94.

55. FaresH, GreenwaldI (1999) SEL-5, a serine/threonine kinase that facilitates lin-12 activity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 153: 1641–1654.

56. D'AgostinoI, MerrittC, ChenPL, SeydouxG, SubramaniamK (2006) Translational repression restricts expression of the C. elegans Nanos homolog NOS-2 to the embryonic germline. Dev Biol 292: 244–252.

57. MerrittC, RasolosonD, SeydouxG (2010) Transgenic solutions for the germline, Wormbook.1.148.1.

58. Kage-NakadaiE, KobunaH, FunatsuO, OtoriM, Gengyo-AndoK, et al. (2012) Single/low-copy integration of transgenes in Caenorhabditis elegans using an ultraviolet trimethylpsoralen method. BMC Biotechnol 12: 1.

59. SonnhammerEL, EddySR, DurbinR (1997) Pfam: a comprehensive database of protein domain families based on seed alignments. Proteins 28: 405–420.

60. TimmonsL, CourtDL, FireA (2001) Ingestion of bacterially expressed dsRNAs can produce specific and potent genetic interference in Caenorhabditis elegans. Gene 263: 103–112.

61. KimSH, HolwayAH, WolffS, DillinA, MichaelWM (2007) SMK-1/PPH-4.1-mediated silencing of the CHK-1 response to DNA damage in early C. elegans embryos. J Cell Biol 179: 41–52.

62. MacQueenAJ, ColaiacovoMP, McDonaldK, VilleneuveAM (2002) Synapsis-dependent and -independent mechanisms stabilize homolog pairing during meiotic prophase in C. elegans. Genes Dev 16: 2428–2442.

63. WalhoutAJ, VidalM (2001) High-throughput yeast two-hybrid assays for large-scale protein interaction mapping. Methods 24: 297–306.

64. VidalM, BrachmannRK, FattaeyA, HarlowE, BoekeJD (1996) Reverse two-hybrid and one-hybrid systems to detect dissociation of protein-protein and DNA-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93: 10315–10320.