DNA replication: Failures and inverted fusions

Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 866-874

  Carr, Antony M ^a   Paek, Andrew L ^b   Weinert, Ted ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

Recombination; Replication; Template switch; Yeast models

Indexed keywords

REPLISOME;

CELL DEATH; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPLICATION; DNA STRUCTURE; EUKARYOTIC CELL; GENE REARRANGEMENT; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; YEAST;

SACCHAROMYCETALES; SCHIZOSACCHAROMYCETACEAE;

EID: 81955167432     PISSN: 10849521     EISSN: 10963634     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2011.10.008     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Lowden M.R., Flibotte S., Moerman D.G., Ahmed S. DNA synthesis generates terminal duplications that seal end-to-end chromosome fusions. Science 2011, 332:468-471.
2. Georgescu R.E., Yao N.Y., O'Donnell M. Single-molecule analysis of the Escherichia coli replisome and use of clamps to bypass replication barriers. FEBS Letters 2010, 584:2596-2605.
3. Brewer B.J., Payen C., Raghuraman M.K., Dunham M.J. Origin-dependent inverted-repeat amplification: a replication-based model for generating palindromic amplicons. PLoS Genetics 2011, 7:e1002016.
4. Pevzner P., Tesler G. Genome rearrangements in mammalian evolution: lessons from human and mouse genomes. Genome Research 2003, 13:37-45.
5. Kellis M., Patterson N., Endrizzi M., Birren B., Lander E.S. Sequencing and comparison of yeast species to identify genes and regulatory elements. Nature 2003, 423:241-254.
6. Lupski J.R. Genomic rearrangements and sporadic disease. Nature Genetics 2007, 39:S43-S47.
7. Lee J.A., Carvalho C.M., Lupski J.R. A DNA replication mechanism for generating nonrecurrent rearrangements associated with genomic disorders. Cell 2007, 131:1235-1247.
8. Campbell P.J., Yachida S., Mudie L.J., Stephens P.J., Pleasance E.D., et al. The patterns and dynamics of genomic instability in metastatic pancreatic cancer. Nature 2010, 467:1109-1113.
9. Stephens P.J., Greenman C.D., Fu B., Yang F., Bignell G.R., et al. Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell 2011, 144:27-40.
10. Ikeuchi T., Weinfeld H., Sandberg A.A. Chromosome pulverization in micronuclei induced by tritiated thymidine. The Journal of Cell Biology 1972, 52:97-104.
11. Richard G.F., Kerrest A., Dujon B. Comparative genomics and molecular dynamics of DNA repeats in eukaryotes. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews: MMBR 2008, 72:686-727.
12. Bruder C.E., Piotrowski A., Gijsbers A.A., Andersson R., Erickson S., et al. Phenotypically concordant and discordant monozygotic twins display different DNA copy-number-variation profiles. American Journal of Human Genetics 2008, 82:763-771.
13. McClintock B. The stability of broken ends of chromosomes in Zea Mays. Genetics 1941, 26:234-282.
14. Ou Z., Stankiewicz P., Xia Z., Breman A.M., Dawson B., et al. Observation and prediction of recurrent human translocations mediated by NAHR between nonhomologous chromosomes. Genome Research 2011, 21:33-46.
15. Ruiz J.F., Gomez-Gonzalez B., Aguilera A. Chromosomal translocations caused by either pol32-dependent or pol32-independent triparental break-induced replication. Molecular and Cellular Biology 2009, 29:5441-5454.
16. Mizuno K., Lambert S., Baldacci G., Murray J.M., Carr A.M. Nearby inverted repeats fuse to generate acentric and dicentric palindromic chromosomes by a replication template exchange mechanism. Genes and Development 2009, 23:2876-2886.
17. Paek A.L., Kaochar S., Jones H., Elezaby A., Shanks L., et al. 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 and Development 2009, 23:2861-2875.
18. Deshpande A.M., Newlon C.S. DNA replication fork pause sites dependent on transcription. Science 1996, 272:1030-1033.
19. Breier A.M., Weier H.U., Cozzarelli N.R. Independence of replisomes in Escherichia coli chromosomal replication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in United States of America 2005, 102:3942-3947.
20. Calzada A., Hodgson B., Kanemaki M., Bueno A., Labib K. Molecular anatomy and regulation of a stable replisome at a paused eukaryotic DNA replication fork. Genes and Development 2005, 19:1905-1919.
21. de la Loza M.C., Wellinger R.E., Aguilera A. Stimulation of direct-repeat recombination by RNA polymerase III transcription. DNA Repair 2009, 8:620-626.
22. Lambert S., Watson A., Sheedy D.M., Martin B., Carr A.M. Gross chromosomal rearrangements and elevated recombination at an inducible site-specific replication fork barrier. Cell 2005, 121:689-702.
23. Ivessa A.S., Lenzmeier B.A., Bessler J.B., Goudsouzian L.K., Schnakenberg S.L., et al. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae helicase Rrm3p facilitates replication past nonhistone protein-DNA complexes. Molecular Cell 2003, 12:1525-1536.
24. Zegerman P., Diffley J.F. DNA replication as a target of the DNA damage checkpoint. DNA Repair 2009, 8:1077-1088.
25. Branzei D., Foiani M. The checkpoint response to replication stress. DNA Repair 2009, 8:1038-1046.
26. Yao N.Y., O'Donnell M. SnapShot: the replisome. Cell 2010, 141:1081-1088.
27. Gambus A., Jones R.C., Sanchez-Diaz A., Kanemaki M., van Deursen F., et al. GINS maintains association of Cdc45 with MCM in replisome progression complexes at eukaryotic DNA replication forks. Nature Cell Biology 2006, 8:358-366.
28. Cotta-Ramusino C., Fachinetti D., Lucca C., Doksani Y., Lopes M., et al. Exo1 processes stalled replication forks and counteracts fork reversal in checkpoint-defective cells. Molecular Cell 2005, 17:153-159.
29. Sogo J.M., Lopes M., Foiani M. Fork reversal and ssDNA accumulation at stalled replication forks owing to checkpoint defects. Science 2002, 297:599-602.
30. Liberi G., Maffioletti G., Lucca C., Chiolo I., Baryshnikova A., et al. Rad51-dependent DNA structures accumulate at damaged replication forks in sgs1 mutants defective in the yeast ortholog of BLM RecQ helicase. Genes and Development 2005, 19:339-350.
31. Murray J.M., Carr A.M. Smc5/6: a link between DNA repair and unidirectional replication?. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2008, 9:177-182.
32. Yao N.Y., Georgescu R.E., Finkelstein J., O'Donnell M.E. Single-molecule analysis reveals that the lagging strand increases replisome processivity but slows replication fork progression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2009, 106:13236-13241.
33. Raghuraman M.K., Winzeler E.A., Collingwood D., Hunt S., Wodicka L., et al. Replication dynamics of the yeast genome. Science 2001, 294:115-121.
34. Spiesser T.W., Diener C., Barberis M., Klipp E. What influences DNA replication rate in budding yeast?. PloS One 2010, 5:e10203.
35. Possoz C., Filipe S.R., Grainge I., Sherratt D.J. Tracking of controlled Escherichia coli replication fork stalling and restart at repressor-bound DNA in vivo. The EMBO Journal 2006, 25:2596-2604.
36. Kitamura E., Blow J.J., Tanaka T.U. Live-cell imaging reveals replication of individual replicons in eukaryotic replication factories. Cell 2006, 125:1297-1308.
37. Heller R.C., Kang S., Lam W.M., Chen S., Chan C.S., et al. Eukaryotic origin-dependent DNA replication in vitro reveals sequential action of DDK and S-CDK kinases. Cell 2011, 146:80-91.
38. Pomerantz R.T., O'Donnell M. Direct restart of a replication fork stalled by a head-on RNA polymerase. Science 2010, 327:590-592.
39. Heller R.C., Marians K.J. Replication fork reactivation downstream of a blocked nascent leading strand. Nature 2006, 439:557-562.
40. Pomerantz R.T., O'Donnell M. The replisome uses mRNA as a primer after colliding with RNA polymerase. Nature 2008, 456:762-766.
41. Sundararajan R., Freudenreich C.H. Expanded CAG/CTG repeat DNA induces a checkpoint response that impacts cell proliferation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genetics 2011, 7:e1001339.
42. Voineagu I., Narayanan V., Lobachev K.S., Mirkin S.M. Replication stalling at unstable inverted repeats: interplay between DNA hairpins and fork stabilizing proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 105:9936-9941.
43. Paeschke K., Capra J.A., Zakian V.A. DNA replication through G-Quadruplex Motifs is promoted by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Pif1 DNA helicase. Cell 2011, 145:678-691.
44. Makovets S., Herskowitz I., Blackburn E.H. Anatomy and dynamics of DNA replication fork movement in yeast telomeric regions. Molecular and Cellular Biology 2004, 24:4019-4031.
45. Kobayashi T. The replication fork barrier site forms a unique structure with Fob1p and inhibits the replication fork. Molecular and Cellular Biology 2003, 23:9178-9188.
46. Tsang E., Carr A.M. Replication fork arrest, recombination and the maintenance of ribosomal DNA stability. DNA Repair 2008, 7:1613-1623.
47. Ahn J.S., Osman F., Whitby M.C. Replication fork blockage by RTS1 at an ectopic site promotes recombination in fission yeast. The EMBO Journal 2005, 24:2011-2023.
48. Lambert S., Mizuno K., Blaisonneau J., Martineau S., Chanet R., et al. Homologous recombination restarts blocked replication forks at the expense of genome rearrangements by template exchange. Molecular Cell 2010, 39:346-359.
49. Doksani Y., Bermejo R., Fiorani S., Haber J.E., Foiani M. Replicon dynamics, dormant origin firing, and terminal fork integrity after double-strand break formation. Cell 2009, 137:247-258.
50. Tinline-Purvis H., Savory A.P., Cullen J.K., Dave A., Moss J., et al. Failed gene conversion leads to extensive end processing and chromosomal rearrangements in fission yeast. The EMBO Journal 2009, 28:3400-3412.
51. Myung K., Kolodner R.D. Induction of genome instability by DNA damage in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA Repair 2003, 2:243-258.
52. VanHulle K., Lemoine F.J., Narayanan V., Downing B., Hull K., et al. Inverted DNA repeats channel repair of distant double-strand breaks into chromatid fusions and chromosomal rearrangements. Molecular and Cellular Biology 2007, 27:2601-2614.
53. Heyer W.D., Ehmsen K.T., Liu J. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annual Review of Genetics 2010, 44:113-139.
54. Kaykov A., Holmes A.M., Arcangioli B. Formation, maintenance and consequences of the imprint at the mating-type locus in fission yeast. The EMBO Journal 2004, 23:930-938.
55. Branzei D., Foiani M. Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2010, 11:208-219.
56. Ulrich H.D. Timing and spacing of ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass. FEBS Letters 2011.
57. Lehmann A.R., Niimi A., Ogi T., Brown S., Sabbioneda S., et al. Translesion synthesis: Y-family polymerases and the polymerase switch. DNA Repair (Amst) 2007, 6:891-899.
58. Putnam C.D., Hayes T.K., Kolodner R.D. Post-replication repair suppresses duplication-mediated genome instability. PLoS Genetics 2010, 6:e1000933.
59. Lopes M., Cotta-Ramusino C., Pellicioli A., Liberi G., Plevani P., et al. The DNA replication checkpoint response stabilizes stalled replication forks. Nature 2001, 412:557-561.
60. Tercero J.A., Diffley J.F. Regulation of DNA replication fork progression through damaged DNA by the Mec1/Rad53 checkpoint. Nature 2001, 412:553-557.
61. Lambert S., Froget B., Carr A.M. Arrested replication fork processing: interplay between checkpoints and recombination. DNA Repair (Amst) 2007, 6:1042-1061.
62. Daigaku Y., Davies A.A., Ulrich H.D. Ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass is separable from genome replication. Nature 2010, 465:951-955.
63. Admire A., Shanks L., Danzl N., Wang M., Weier U., et al. Cycles of chromosome instability are associated with a fragile site and are increased by defects in DNA replication and checkpoint controls in yeast. Genes and Development 2006, 20:159-173.
64. Lemoine F.J., Degtyareva N.P., Lobachev K., Petes T.D. Chromosomal translocations in yeast induced by low levels of DNA polymerase a model for chromosome fragile sites. Cell 2005, 120:587-598.
65. Gomez-Gonzalez B., Felipe-Abrio I., Aguilera A. The S-phase checkpoint is required to respond to R-loops accumulated in THO mutants. Molecular and Cellular Biology 2009, 29:5203-5213.
66. Schmidt K.H., Kolodner R.D. Suppression of spontaneous genome rearrangements in yeast DNA helicase mutants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006, 103:18196-18201.
67. Pannunzio N.R., Manthey G.M., Bailis A.M. RAD59 is required for efficient repair of simultaneous double-strand breaks resulting in translocations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA Repair 2008, 7:788-800.
68. Narayanan V., Mieczkowski P.A., Kim H.M., Petes T.D., Lobachev K.S. The pattern of gene amplification is determined by the chromosomal location of hairpin-capped breaks. Cell 2006, 125:1283-1296.
69. Myung K., Datta A., Kolodner R.D. Suppression of spontaneous chromosomal rearrangements by S phase checkpoint functions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cell 2001, 104:397-408.
70. Putnam C.D., Hayes T.K., Kolodner R.D. Specific pathways prevent duplication-mediated genome rearrangements. Nature 2009, 460:984-989.
71. Fasullo M., St Amour C., Zeng L. Enhanced stimulation of chromosomal translocations and sister chromatid exchanges by either HO-induced double-strand breaks or ionizing radiation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae yku70 mutants. Mutation Research 2005, 578:158-169.
72. Schmidt K.H., Wu J., Kolodner R.D. Control of translocations between highly diverged genes by Sgs1, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homolog of the Bloom's syndrome protein. Molecular and Cellular Biology 2006, 26:5406-5420.
73. Dorsey M., Peterson C., Bray K., Paquin C.E. Spontaneous amplification of the ADH4 gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 1992, 132:943-950.
74. Theis J.F., Irene C., Dershowitz A., Brost R.L., Tobin M.L., et al. The DNA damage response pathway contributes to the stability of chromosome III derivatives lacking efficient replicators. PLoS Genetics 2010, 6:e1001227.
75. Elliott B., Richardson C., Jasin M. Chromosomal translocation mechanisms at intronic alu elements in mammalian cells. Molecular Cell 2005, 17:885-894.
76. Lange J., Skaletsky H., van Daalen S.K., Embry S.L., Korver C.M., et al. Isodicentric Y chromosomes and sex disorders as byproducts of homologous recombination that maintains palindromes. Cell 2009, 138:855-869.
77. Tanaka H., Bergstrom D.A., Yao M.C., Tapscott S.J. Widespread and nonrandom distribution of DNA palindromes in cancer cells provides a structural platform for subsequent gene amplification. Nature Genetics 2005, 37:320-327.
78. Bi X., Liu L.F. DNA rearrangement mediated by inverted repeats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1996, 93:819-823.
79. Ahmed A., Podemski L. Observations on template switching during DNA replication through long inverted repeats. Gene 1998, 223:187-194.
80. Albrecht E.B., Hunyady A.B., Stark G.R., Patterson T.E. Mechanisms of sod2 gene amplification in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Molecular Biology of the Cell 2000, 11:873-886.
81. Kaochar S., Shanks L., Weinert T. Checkpoint genes and Exo1 regulate nearby inverted repeat fusions that form dicentric chromosomes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010, 107:21605-21610.
82. Paek A.L., Jones H., Kaochar S., Weinert T. The role of replication bypass pathways in dicentric chromosome formation in budding yeast. Genetics 2010, 186:1161-1173.
83. Hashimoto Y., Chaudhuri A.R., Lopes M., Costanzo V. Rad51 protects nascent DNA from Mre11-dependent degradation and promotes continuous DNA synthesis. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 2010, 17:1305-1311.
84. Segurado M., Diffley J.F. Separate roles for the DNA damage checkpoint protein kinases in stabilizing DNA replication forks. Genes and Development 2008, 22:1816-1827.
85. Vanoli F., Fumasoni M., Szakal B., Maloisel L., Branzei D. Replication and recombination factors contributing to recombination-dependent bypass of DNA lesions by template switch. PLoS Genetics 2010, 6:e1001205.
86. Murakami-Sekimata A., Huang D., Piening B.D., Bangur C., Paulovich A.G. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD9, RAD17 and RAD24 genes are required for suppression of mutagenic post-replicative repair during chronic DNA damage. DNA Repair 2010, 9:824-834.
87. Petermann E., Orta M.L., Issaeva N., Schultz N., Helleday T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Molecular Cell 2010, 37:492-502.
88. Hastings P.J., Ira G., Lupski J.R. A microhomology-mediated break-induced replication model for the origin of human copy number variation. PLoS Genetics 2009, 5:e1000327.
89. Smith C.E., Llorente B., Symington L.S. Template switching during break-induced replication. Nature 2007, 447:102-105.
90. Galetto R., Negroni M. Mechanistic features of recombination in HIV. AIDS Reviews 2005, 7:92-102.
91. Rice P., Longden I., Bleasby A. EMBOSS: the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends Genetics 2000, 16:276-277.