Sumoylation Influences DNA Break Repair Partly by Increasing the Solubility of a Conserved End Resection Protein

English version České info

Proper repair of DNA lesions is crucial for cell growth and organism development. Both the choice and capacity of DNA repair pathways are tightly regulated in response to environmental cues and cell cycle phase. Recent work has uncovered the importance of protein modifications, such as phosphorylation and sumoylation, in this regulation. Sumoylation is known to be critical for the efficient repair of highly toxic DNA double-strand breaks in both yeast and humans, and this is partly mediated by influencing DNA end resection. However, it has been unclear for which resection factor sumoylation is important, how sumoylation influences specific attributes of the relevant targets, and how this modification is coordinated with phosphorylation-based regulation. Here, we provide exciting new insights into these issues by revealing that 1) a conserved end resection factor is a SUMO target relevant to this process, 2) this regulation favors a specific repair pathway, 3) sumoylation collaborates with phosphorylation to promote protein solubility, and 4) sumoylation influences DNA repair via an “ensemble effect” that entails simultaneous small alterations of multiple substrates. Our work reveals both a novel mechanism and a general principle for SUMO-mediated regulation of DNA repair.

Vyšlo v časopise: Sumoylation Influences DNA Break Repair Partly by Increasing the Solubility of a Conserved End Resection Protein. PLoS Genet 11(1): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004899
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004899

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. CicciaA, ElledgeSJ (2010) The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol Cell 40: 179–204.

2. MarechalA, ZouL (2013) DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5.

3. PoloSE, JacksonSP (2011) Dynamics of DNA damage response proteins at DNA breaks: a focus on protein modifications. Genes Dev 25: 409–433.

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

5. ChapmanJR, TaylorMR, BoultonSJ (2012) Playing the end game: DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Mol Cell 47: 497–510.

6. HerzbergK, BashkirovVI, RolfsmeierM, HaghnazariE, McDonaldWH, et al. (2006) Phosphorylation of Rad55 on serines 2, 8, and 14 is required for efficient homologous recombination in the recovery of stalled replication forks. Mol Cell Biol 26: 8396–8409.

7. SmolkaMB, AlbuquerqueCP, ChenSH, ZhouH (2007) Proteome-wide identification of in vivo targets of DNA damage checkpoint kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 10364–10369.

8. ChenX, NiuH, ChungWH, ZhuZ, PapushaA, et al. (2011) Cell cycle regulation of DNA double-strand break end resection by Cdk1-dependent Dna2 phosphorylation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 18: 1015–1019.

9. MatosJ, BlancoMG, MaslenS, SkehelJM, WestSC (2011) Regulatory control of the resolution of DNA recombination intermediates during meiosis and mitosis. Cell 147: 158–172.

10. CremonaCA, SarangiP, ZhaoX (2012) Sumoylation and the DNA Damage Response. Biomolecules 2: 376–388.

11. JacksonSP, DurocherD (2013) Regulation of DNA damage responses by ubiquitin and SUMO. Mol Cell 49: 795–807.

12. UlrichHD (2014) Two-way communications between ubiquitin-like modifiers and DNA. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 317–324.

13. JentschS, PsakhyeI (2013) Control of nuclear activities by substrate-selective and protein-group SUMOylation. Annu Rev Genet 47: 167–186.

14. MaedaD, SekiM, OnodaF, BranzeiD, KawabeY, et al. (2004) Ubc9 is required for damage-tolerance and damage-induced interchromosomal homologous recombination in S. cerevisiae. DNA Repair 3: 335–341.

15. MorrisJR, BoutellC, KepplerM, DenshamR, WeekesD, et al. (2009) The SUMO modification pathway is involved in the BRCA1 response to genotoxic stress. Nature 462: 886–890.

16. GalantyY, BelotserkovskayaR, CoatesJ, PoloS, MillerKM, et al. (2009) Mammalian SUMO E3-ligases PIAS1 and PIAS4 promote responses to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 462: 935–939.

17. CremonaCA, SarangiP, YangY, HangLE, RahmanS, et al. (2012) Extensive DNA damage-induced sumoylation contributes to replication and repair and acts in addition to the Mec1 checkpoint. Mol Cell 45: 422–432.

18. PsakhyeI, JentschS (2012) Protein group modification and synergy in the SUMO pathway as exemplified in DNA repair. Cell 151: 807–820.

19. PaullTT (2010) Making the best of the loose ends: Mre11/Rad50 complexes and Sae2 promote DNA double-strand break resection. DNA Repair (Amst) 9: 1283–1291.

20. MimitouEP, SymingtonLS (2011) DNA end resection–unraveling the tail. DNA Repair (Amst) 10: 344–348.

21. LengsfeldBM, RattrayAJ, BhaskaraV, GhirlandoR, PaullTT (2007) Sae2 is an endonuclease that processes hairpin DNA cooperatively with the Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 complex. Mol Cell 28: 638–651.

22. MimitouEP, SymingtonLS (2008) Sae2, Exo1 and Sgs1 collaborate in DNA double-strand break processing. Nature 455: 770–774.

23. ClericiM, MantieroD, LucchiniG, LongheseMP (2005) The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sae2 protein promotes resection and bridging of double strand break ends. J Biol Chem 280: 38631–38638.

24. ZhuZ, ChungWH, ShimEY, LeeSE, IraG (2008) Sgs1 helicase and two nucleases Dna2 and Exo1 resect DNA double-strand break ends. Cell 134: 981–994.

25. NicoletteML, LeeK, GuoZ, RaniM, ChowJM, et al. (2010) Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 and Sae2 promote 5′ strand resection of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17: 1478–1485.

26. CannavoE, CejkaP (2014) Sae2 promotes dsDNA endonuclease activity within Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 to resect DNA breaks. Nature 514: 122–125.

27. 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.

28. NealeMJ, PanJ, KeeneyS (2005) Endonucleolytic processing of covalent protein-linked DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 436: 1053–1057.

29. DengC, BrownJA, YouD, BrownJM (2005) Multiple endonucleases function to repair covalent topoisomerase I complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 170: 591–600.

30. ZierhutC, DiffleyJF (2008) Break dosage, cell cycle stage and DNA replication influence DNA double strand break response. EMBO J 27: 1875–1885.

31. IraG, PellicioliA, BalijjaA, WangX, FioraniS, et al. (2004) DNA end resection, homologous recombination and DNA damage checkpoint activation require CDK1. Nature 431: 1011–1017.

32. AylonY, LiefshitzB, KupiecM (2004) The CDK regulates repair of double-strand breaks by homologous recombination during the cell cycle. EMBO J 23: 4868–4875.

33. BaroniE, ViscardiV, Cartagena-LirolaH, LucchiniG, LongheseMP (2004) The functions of budding yeast Sae2 in the DNA damage response require Mec1- and Tel1-dependent phosphorylation. Mol Cell Biol 24: 4151–4165.

34. FalckJ, FormentJV, CoatesJ, MistrikM, LukasJ, et al. (2012) CDK targeting of NBS1 promotes DNA-end resection, replication restart and homologous recombination. EMBO Rep 13: 561–568.

35. ZhangY, ShimEY, DavisM, LeeSE (2009) Regulation of repair choice: Cdk1 suppresses recruitment of end joining factors at DNA breaks. DNA Repair (Amst) 8: 1235–1241.

36. HuertasP, Cortes-LedesmaF, SartoriAA, AguileraA, JacksonSP (2008) CDK targets Sae2 to control DNA-end resection and homologous recombination. Nature 455: 689–692.

37. FuQ, ChowJ, BernsteinKA, MakharashviliN, AroraS, et al. (2014) Phosphorylation-regulated transitions in an oligomeric state control the activity of the Sae2 DNA repair enzyme. Mol Cell Biol 34: 778–793.

38. RodriguezMS, DargemontC, HayRT (2001) SUMO-1 conjugation in vivo requires both a consensus modification motif and nuclear targeting. J Biol Chem 276: 12654–12659.

39. SampsonDA, WangM, MatunisMJ (2001) The small ubiquitin-like modifier-1 (SUMO-1) consensus sequence mediates Ubc9 binding and is essential for SUMO-1 modification. J Biol Chem 276: 21664–21669.

40. DubinMJ, StokesPH, SumEY, WilliamsRS, ValovaVA, et al. (2004) Dimerization of CtIP, a BRCA1- and CtBP-interacting protein, is mediated by an N-terminal coiled-coil motif. J Biol Chem 279: 26932–26938.

41. KimHS, VijayakumarS, RegerM, HarrisonJC, HaberJE, et al. (2008) Functional interactions between Sae2 and the Mre11 complex. Genetics 178: 711–723.

42. YouZ, ShiLZ, ZhuQ, WuP, ZhangYW, et al. (2009) CtIP links DNA double-strand break sensing to resection. Mol Cell 36: 954–969.

43. 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.

44. FosterSS, BalestriniA, PetriniJH (2011) Functional interplay of the Mre11 nuclease and Ku in the response to replication-associated DNA damage. Mol Cell Biol 31: 4379–4389.

45. PrinzS, AmonA, KleinF (1997) Isolation of COM1, a new gene required to complete meiotic double-strand break-induced recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 146: 781–795.

46. KeeneyS, KlecknerN (1995) Covalent protein-DNA complexes at the 5′ strand termini of meiosis-specific double-strand breaks in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 11274–11278.

47. McKeeAH, KlecknerN (1997) A general method for identifying recessive diploid-specific mutations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, its application to the isolation of mutants blocked at intermediate stages of meiotic prophase and characterization of a new gene SAE2. Genetics 146: 797–816.

48. ChenH, LisbyM, SymingtonLS (2013) RPA coordinates DNA end resection and prevents formation of DNA hairpins. Mol Cell 50: 589–600.

49. LeeK, LeeSE (2007) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sae2- and Tel1-dependent single-strand DNA formation at DNA break promotes microhomology-mediated end joining. Genetics 176: 2003–2014.

50. DengSK, GibbB, de AlmeidaMJ, GreeneEC, SymingtonLS (2014) RPA antagonizes microhomology-mediated repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 405–412.

51. BoultonSJ, JacksonSP (1996) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku70 potentiates illegitimate DNA double-strand break repair and serves as a barrier to error-prone DNA repair pathways. EMBO J 15: 5093–5103.

52. AlmedawarS, ColominaN, Bermudez-LopezM, Pocino-MerinoI, Torres-RosellJ (2012) A SUMO-dependent step during establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. Curr Biol 22: 1576–1581.

53. WuD, TopperLM, WilsonTE (2008) Recruitment and dissociation of nonhomologous end joining proteins at a DNA double-strand break in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 178: 1237–1249.

54. PalmbosPL, DaleyJM, WilsonTE (2005) Mutations of the Yku80 C terminus and Xrs2 FHA domain specifically block yeast nonhomologous end joining. Mol Cell Biol 25: 10782–10790.

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

56. MimitouEP, SymingtonLS (2010) Ku prevents Exo1 and Sgs1-dependent resection of DNA ends in the absence of a functional MRX complex or Sae2. EMBO J 29: 3358–3369.

57. HangLE, LopezCR, LiuX, WilliamsJM, ChungI, et al. (2014) Regulation of Ku-DNA association by Yku70 C-terminal tail and SUMO modification. J Biol Chem

58. LiF, DongJ, PanX, OumJH, BoekeJD, et al. (2008) Microarray-based genetic screen defines SAW1, a gene required for Rad1/Rad10-dependent processing of recombination intermediates. Mol Cell 30: 325–335.

59. GuzderSN, SommersCH, PrakashL, PrakashS (2006) Complex formation with damage recognition protein Rad14 is essential for Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad1-Rad10 nuclease to perform its function in nucleotide excision repair in vivo. Mol Cell Biol 26: 1135–1141.

60. TohGW, SugawaraN, DongJ, TothR, LeeSE, et al. (2010) Mec1/Tel1-dependent phosphorylation of Slx4 stimulates Rad1-Rad10-dependent cleavage of non-homologous DNA tails. DNA Repair 9: 718–726.

61. ShimEY, ChungWH, NicoletteML, ZhangY, DavisM, et al. (2010) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 and Ku proteins regulate association of Exo1 and Dna2 with DNA breaks. Embo J 29: 3370–3380.

62. RobertT, VanoliF, ChioloI, ShubassiG, BernsteinKA, et al. (2011) HDACs link the DNA damage response, processing of double-strand breaks and autophagy. Nature 471: 74–79.

63. LafranchiL, de BoerHR, de VriesEG, OngSE, SartoriAA, et al. (2014) APC/CCdh1 controls CtIP stability during the cell cycle and in response to DNA damage. EMBO J

64. SteffanJS, AgrawalN, PallosJ, RockabrandE, TrotmanLC, et al. (2004) SUMO modification of Huntingtin and Huntington's disease pathology. Science 304: 100–104.

65. JanerA, WernerA, Takahashi-FujigasakiJ, DaretA, FujigasakiH, et al. (2010) SUMOylation attenuates the aggregation propensity and cellular toxicity of the polyglutamine expanded ataxin-7. Hum Mol Genet 19: 181–195.

66. KrumovaP, MeulmeesterE, GarridoM, TirardM, HsiaoHH, et al. (2011) Sumoylation inhibits alpha-synuclein aggregation and toxicity. J Cell Biol 194: 49–60.

67. Fernandez-EscamillaAM, RousseauF, SchymkowitzJ, SerranoL (2004) Prediction of sequence-dependent and mutational effects on the aggregation of peptides and proteins. Nat Biotechnol 22: 1302–1306.

68. PawarAP, DubayKF, ZurdoJ, ChitiF, VendruscoloM, et al. (2005) Prediction of “aggregation-prone” and “aggregation-susceptible” regions in proteins associated with neurodegenerative diseases. J Mol Biol 350: 379–392.

69. ZuoX, LiS, HallJ, MatternMR, TranH, et al. (2005) Enhanced expression and purification of membrane proteins by SUMO fusion in Escherichia coli. J Struct Funct Genomics 6: 103–111.

70. MalakhovMP, MatternMR, MalakhovaOA, DrinkerM, WeeksSD, et al. (2004) SUMO fusions and SUMO-specific protease for efficient expression and purification of proteins. J Struct Funct Genomics 5: 75–86.

71. LinDY, HuangYS, JengJC, KuoHY, ChangCC, et al. (2006) Role of SUMO-interacting motif in Daxx SUMO modification, subnuclear localization, and repression of sumoylated transcription factors. Mol Cell 24: 341–354.

72. ShenTH, LinHK, ScaglioniPP, YungTM, PandolfiPP (2006) The mechanisms of PML-nuclear body formation. Mol Cell 24: 331–339.

73. Conchillo-SoleO, de GrootNS, AvilesFX, VendrellJ, DauraX, et al. (2007) AGGRESCAN: a server for the prediction and evaluation of “hot spots” of aggregation in polypeptides. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 65.

74. SilverHR, NissleyJA, ReedSH, HouYM, JohnsonES (2011) A role for SUMO in nucleotide excision repair. DNA Repair 10: 1243–1251.

75. SarangiP, BartosovaZ, AltmannovaV, HollandC, ChavdarovaM, et al. (2014) Sumoylation of the Rad1 nuclease promotes DNA repair and regulates its DNA association. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 6393–6404.

76. SarangiP, AltmannovaV, HollandC, BartosovaZ, HaoF, et al. (2014) A Versatile Scaffold Contributes to Damage Survival via Sumoylation and Nuclease Interactions. Cell Rep 9: 143–152.

77. SacherM, PfanderB, HoegeC, JentschS (2006) Control of Rad52 recombination activity by double-strand break-induced SUMO modification. Nat Cell Biol 8: 1284–1290.

78. TomimatsuN, MukherjeeB, Catherine HardebeckM, IlchevaM, Vanessa CamachoC, et al. (2014) Phosphorylation of Exo1 by CDKs 1 and 2 regulates DNA end resection and repair pathway choice. Nat Commun 5: 3561.

79. Gallo-FernandezM, SaugarI, Ortiz-BazanMA, VazquezMV, TerceroJA (2012) Cell cycle-dependent regulation of the nuclease activity of Mus81-Eme1/Mms4. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 8325–8335.

80. MorinI, NgoHP, GreenallA, ZubkoMK, MorriceN, et al. (2008) Checkpoint-dependent phosphorylation of Exo1 modulates the DNA damage response. EMBO J 27: 2400–2410.

81. BurgessRC, RahmanS, LisbyM, RothsteinR, ZhaoX (2007) The Slx5-Slx8 complex affects sumoylation of DNA repair proteins and negatively regulates recombination. Mol Cell Biol 27: 6153–6162.

82. TsalikEL, GartenbergMR (1998) Curing Saccharomyces cerevisiae of the 2 micron plasmid by targeted DNA damage. Yeast 14: 847–852.

83. ZhaoX, BlobelG (2005) A SUMO ligase is part of a nuclear multiprotein complex that affects DNA repair and chromosomal organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 4777–4782.

84. UchimuraY, NakamuraM, SugasawaK, NakaoM, SaitohH (2004) Overproduction of eukaryotic SUMO-1- and SUMO-2-conjugated proteins in Escherichia coli. Anal Biochem 331: 204–206.

85. SartoriAA, LukasC, CoatesJ, MistrikM, FuS, et al. (2007) Human CtIP promotes DNA end resection. Nature 450: 509–514.

86. MossessovaE, LimaCD (2000) Ulp1-SUMO crystal structure and genetic analysis reveal conserved interactions and a regulatory element essential for cell growth in yeast. Mol Cell 5: 865–876.

87. MooreJK, HaberJE (1996) Cell cycle and genetic requirements of two pathways of nonhomologous end-joining repair of double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 16: 2164–2173.

88. ZhaoX, MullerEG, RothsteinR (1998) A suppressor of two essential checkpoint genes identifies a novel protein that negatively affects dNTP pools. Mol Cell 2: 329–340.