Roles of chromatin remodellers in DNA double strand break repair

Experimental Cell Research

Volumn 329, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 69-77

  Jeggo, Penny A ^a   Downs, Jessica A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chromatin; Chromatin remodelling complexes; DNA damage responses; DNA double strand break repair

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA;

CHROMATIN; CHROMATIN REMODELLING; CHROMOSOME DAMAGE; DNA END JOINING REPAIR; DNA REPAIR; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA BREAK; HETEROCHROMATIN; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; ANIMAL; CHROMATIN ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY; GENETICS;

ANIMALS; CHROMATIN ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY; DNA BREAKS, DOUBLE-STRANDED; DNA REPAIR; HUMANS;

EID: 84919455929     PISSN: 00144827     EISSN: 10902422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2014.09.023     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Williams G.J., et al. Structural insights into NHEJ: building up an integrated picture of the dynamic DSB repair super complex, one component and interaction at a time. DNA Repair 2014, 17:110-120. 10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.02.009.
2. Ochi T., Wu Q., Blundell T.L. The spatial organization of non-homologous end joining: from bridging to end joining. DNA Repair 2014, 17:98-109. 10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.02.010.
3. Jasin M., Rothstein R. Repair of strand breaks by homologous recombination. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2013, 5:a012740. 10.1101/cshperspect.a012740.
4. Walker J.R., Corpina R.A., Goldberg J. Structure of the Ku heterodimer bound to DNA and its implications for double-strand break repair. Nature 2001, 412:607-614.
5. Roberts S.A., Ramsden D.A. Loading of the nonhomologous end joining factor, Ku, on protein-occluded DNA ends. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282:10605-10613. 10.1074/jbc.M611125200.
6. Kysela B., Chovanec M., Jeggo P.A. Phosphorylation of linker histones by DNA-dependent protein kinase is required for DNA ligase IV-dependent ligation in the presence of histone H1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102:1877-1882.
7. Mahaney B.L., Hammel M., Meek K., Tainer J.A., Lees-Miller S.P. XRCC4 and XLF form long helical protein filaments suitable for DNA end protection and alignment to facilitate DNA double strand break repair. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2013, 91:31-41. 10.1139/bcb-2012-0058.
8. Wu Q., et al. Non-homologous end-joining partners in a helical dance: structural studies of XLF-XRCC4 interactions. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2011, 39:1387-1392. (Suppl 1382 p following 1392). 10.1042/BST0391387.
9. Ropars V., et al. Structural characterization of filaments formed by human Xrcc4-Cernunnos/XLF complex involved in nonhomologous DNA end-joining. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108:12663-12668. 10.1073/pnas.1100758108.
10. Andres S.N., et al. A human XRCC4-XLF complex bridges DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40:1868-1878. 10.1093/nar/gks022.
11. Waters C.A., et al. The fidelity of the ligation step determines how ends are resolved during nonhomologous end joining. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5:4286. 10.1038/ncomms5286.
12. Gu J., Lu H., Tsai A.G., Schwarz K., Lieber M.R. Single-stranded DNA ligation and XLF-stimulated incompatible DNA end ligation by the XRCC4-DNA ligase IV complex: influence of terminal DNA sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35:5755-5762. 10.1093/nar/gkm579.
13. Mimitou E.P., Symington L.S. DNA end resection-unraveling the tail. DNA Repair 2011, 10:344-348. (doi:S1568-7864(10)00413-1 [pii] 10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.12.004).
14. Symington L.S., Gautier J. Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2011, 45:247-271. 10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132435.
15. Yun M.H., Hiom K. CtIP-BRCA1 modulates the choice of DNA double-strand-break repair pathway throughout the cell cycle. Nature 2009, 459:460-463. (doi:nature07955 [pii] 10.1038/nature07955).
16. Corneo B., et al. Rag mutations reveal robust alternative end joining. Nature 2007, 449:483-486. 10.1038/nature06168.
17. Wang M., et al. PARP-1 and Ku compete for repair of DNA double strand breaks by distinct NHEJ pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34:6170-6182. 10.1093/nar/gkl840.
18. Robert I., Dantzer F., Reina-San-Martin B. Parp1 facilitates alternative NHEJ, whereas Parp2 suppresses IgH/c-myc translocations during immunoglobulin class switch recombination. J. Exp. Med. 2009, 206:1047-1056. 10.1084/jem.20082468.
19. Simsek D., et al. DNA ligase III promotes alternative nonhomologous end-joining during chromosomal translocation formation. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7:e1002080. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002080.
20. Zhang Y., Jasin M. An essential role for CtIP in chromosomal translocation formation through an alternative end-joining pathway. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011, 18:80-84. (doi:nsmb.1940 [pii] 10.1038/nsmb.1940).
21. McVey M., Lee S.E. MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director's cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet. 2008, 24:529-538. 10.1016/j.tig.2008.08.007.
22. Oh S., et al. DNA ligase III and DNA ligase IV carry out genetically distinct forms of end joining in human somatic cells. DNA Repair 2014, e87203. (Epub). 10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.04.015.
23. Riballo E., et al. A pathway of double-strand break rejoining dependent upon ATM, Artemis, and proteins locating to gamma-H2AX foci. Mol. Cell 2004, 16:715-724.
24. Shibata A., et al. DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice is directed by distinct MRE11 nuclease activities. Mol. Cell 2014, 53:7-18. 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.11.003.
25. Shibata A., et al. Factors determining DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice in G2 phase. EMBO J. 2011, 30:1079-1092. 10.1038/emboj.2011.27.
26. Panier S., Durocher D. Push back to respond better: regulatory inhibition of the DNA double-strand break response. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14:661-672. 10.1038/nrm3659.
27. Shiloh Y., Ziv Y. The ATM protein kinase: regulating the cellular response to genotoxic stress, and more. Nat Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14:197-210.
28. Jackson S.P., Durocher D. Regulation of DNA damage responses by ubiquitin and SUMO. Mol. Cell 2013, 49:795-807. 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.01.017.
29. Xu Y., et al. Histone H2A.Z controls a critical chromatin remodeling step required for DNA double-strand break repair. Mol. Cell 2012, 48:723-733. 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.09.026.
30. Zimmermann M., de Lange T. 53BP1: pro choice in DNA repair. Trends Cell Biol. 2014, 24:108-117. 10.1016/j.tcb.2013.09.003.
31. Flaus A., Martin D.M., Barton G.J., Owen-Hughes T. Identification of multiple distinct Snf2 subfamilies with conserved structural motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34:2887-2905.
32. Clapier C.R., Cairns B.R. The biology of chromatin remodeling complexes. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2009, 78:273-304. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.062706.153223.
33. Seeber A., Hauer M., Gasser S.M. Nucleosome remodelers in double-strand break repair. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2013, 23:174-184. 10.1016/j.gde.2012.12.008.
34. Papamichos-Chronakis M., Peterson C.L. Chromatin and the genome integrity network. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2013, 14:62-75. 10.1038/nrg3345.
35. Goodarzi A.A., Jeggo P., Lobrich M. The influence of heterochromatin on DNA double strand break repair: getting the strong, silent type to relax. DNA Repair 2010, 9:1273-1282. (doi:S1568-7864(10)00318-6 [pii] 10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.09.013).
36. Mizuguchi G., et al. ATP-driven exchange of histone H2AZ variant catalyzed by SWR1 chromatin remodeling complex. Science 2004, 303:343-348.
37. Papamichos-Chronakis M., Watanabe S., Rando O.J., Peterson C.L. Global regulation of H2A.Z localization by the INO80 chromatin-remodeling enzyme is essential for genome integrity. Cell 2011, 144:200-213. (doi:S0092-8674(10)01479-0 [pii] 10.1016/j.cell.2010.12.021).
38. Awad S., Ryan D., Prochasson P., Owen-Hughes T., Hassan A.H. The Snf2 homolog Fun30 acts as a homodimeric ATP-dependent chromatin-remodeling enzyme. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285:9477-9484. 10.1074/jbc.M109.082149.
39. Kent N.A., Chambers A.L., Downs J.A. Dual chromatin remodeling roles for RSC during DNA double strand break induction and repair at the yeast MAT locus. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282:27693-27701.
40. Shim E.Y., et al. RSC mobilizes nucleosomes to improve accessibility of repair machinery to the damaged chromatin. Mol. Cell Biol. 2007, 27:1602-1613.
41. Bennett G., Papamichos-Chronakis M., Peterson C.L. DNA repair choice defines a common pathway for recruitment of chromatin regulators. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4:2084. 10.1038/ncomms3084.
42. Chambers A.L., et al. The two different isoforms of the RSC chromatin remodeling complex play distinct roles in DNA damage responses. PLoS One 2012, 7:e32016. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032016.
43. Shim E.Y., Ma J.L., Oum J.H., Yanez Y., Lee S.E. The yeast chromatin remodeler RSC complex facilitates end joining repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Mol. Cell Biol. 2005, 25:3934-3944.
44. van Attikum H., Fritsch O., Gasser S.M. Distinct roles for SWR1 and INO80 chromatin remodeling complexes at chromosomal double-strand breaks. EMBO J. 2007, 26:4113-4125.
45. Kalocsay M., Hiller N.J., Jentsch S. Chromosome-wide Rad51 spreading and SUMO-H2A.Z-dependent chromosome fixation in response to a persistent DNA double-strand break. Mol. Cell 2009, 33:335-343. (doi:S1097-2765(09)00060-4 [pii] 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.01.016).
46. Watanabe R., et al. SWI/SNF factors required for cellular resistance to DNA damage include ARID1A and ARID1B and show interdependent protein stability. Cancer Res. 2014, 74:2465-2475. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-3608.
47. Ogiwara H., et al. Histone acetylation by CBP and p300 at double-strand break sites facilitates SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling and the recruitment of non-homologous end joining factors. Oncogene 2011, 30:2135-2146. (doi:onc2010592 [pii] 10.1038/onc.2010.592).
48. Park J.H., et al. Mammalian SWI/SNF complexes facilitate DNA double-strand break repair by promoting gamma-H2AX induction. EMBO J. 2006, 25:3988-3997.
49. Kakarougkas A., et al. Requirement for PBAF in transcriptional repression and repair at DNA breaks in actively transcribed regions of chromatin. Mol. Cell 2014, 55:723-732. 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.06.028.
50. Peng G., et al. BRIT1/MCPH1 links chromatin remodelling to DNA damage response. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11:865-872. (doi:ncb1895 [pii] 10.1038/ncb1895).
51. Lan L., et al. The ACF1 complex is required for DNA double-strand break repair in human cells. Mol. Cell 2010, 40:976-987. (doi:S1097-2765(10)00959-7 [pii]). 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.12.003.
52. Narlikar G.J., Sundaramoorthy R., Owen-Hughes T. Mechanisms and functions of ATP-dependent chromatin-remodeling enzymes. Cell 2013, 154:490-503. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.07.011.
53. Pessina F., Lowndes N.F. The RSF1 histone-remodelling factor facilitates DNA double-strand break repair by recruiting centromeric and Fanconi Anaemia proteins. PLoS Biol. 2014, 12:e1001856. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001856.
54. Helfricht A., et al. Remodeling and spacing factor 1 (RSF1) deposits centromere proteins at DNA double-strand breaks to promote non-homologous end-joining. Cell Cycle 2013, 12:3070-3082. 10.4161/cc.26033.
55. Ahel D., et al. Poly(ADP-ribose)-dependent regulation of DNA repair by the chromatin remodeling enzyme ALC1. Science 2009, 325:1240-1243. 10.1126/science.1177321.
56. Goodarzi A.A., et al. ATM signaling facilitates repair of DNA double-strand breaks associated with heterochromatin. Mol. Cell 2008, 31:167-177. 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.05.017.
57. Goodarzi A.A., Kurka T., Jeggo P.A. KAP-1 phosphorylation regulates CHD3 nucleosome remodeling during the DNA double-strand break response. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011, 18:831-839. 10.1038/nsmb.2077.
58. Goodarzi A.A., Jeggo P.A. The heterochromatic barrier to DNA double strand break repair: how to get the entry visa. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13:11844-11860. 10.3390/ijms130911844.
59. Costelloe T., et al. The yeast Fun30 and human SMARCAD1 chromatin remodellers promote DNA end resection. Nature 2012, 489:581-584. 10.1038/nature11353.
60. Chen X., et al. The Fun30 nucleosome remodeller promotes resection of DNA double-strand break ends. Nature 2012, 489:576-580. 10.1038/nature11355.
61. Chambers A.L., Downs J.A. The RSC and INO80 chromatin-remodeling complexes in DNA double-strand break repair. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl. Sci. 2012, 110:229-261. 10.1016/B978-0-12-387665-2.00009-2.
62. Gospodinov A., et al. Mammalian Ino80 mediates double-strand break repair through its role in DNA end strand resection. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 31:4735-4745. 10.1128/MCB.06182-11.
63. Papamichos-Chronakis M., Krebs J.E., Peterson C.L. Interplay between Ino80 and Swr1 chromatin remodeling enzymes regulates cell cycle checkpoint adaptation in response to DNA damage. Genes Dev. 2006, 20:2437-2449.
64. Min S., et al. ATM-dependent chromatin remodeler Rsf-1 facilitates DNA damage checkpoints and homologous recombination repair. Cell Cycle 2014, 13:666-677. 10.4161/cc.27548.
65. Toiber D., et al. SIRT6 recruits SNF2H to DNA break sites, preventing genomic instability through chromatin remodeling. Mol. Cell 2013, 51:454-468. 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.06.018.
66. Courilleau C., et al. The chromatin remodeler p400 ATPase facilitates Rad51-mediated repair of DNA double-strand breaks. J. Cell Biol. 2012, 199:1067-1081. 10.1083/jcb.201205059.
67. Dion V., Gasser S.M. Chromatin movement in the maintenance of genome stability. Cell 2013, 152:1355-1364. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.010.
68. Oum J.H., et al. RSC facilitates Rad59-dependent homologous recombination between sister chromatids by promoting cohesin loading at DNA double-strand breaks. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 31:3924-3937. (doi:MCB.01269-10 [pii] 10.1128/MCB.01269-10).
69. Sinha M., Watanabe S., Johnson A., Moazed D., Peterson C.L. Recombinational repair within heterochromatin requires ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling. Cell 2009, 138:1109-1121. (doi:S0092-8674(09)00852-6 [pii] 10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.013).
70. Lopez-Perrote A., et al. Structure of Yin Yang 1 oligomers that cooperate with RuvBL1-RuvBL2 ATPases. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289:22614-22629. 10.1074/jbc.M114.567040.
71. Wu S., et al. A YY1-INO80 complex regulates genomic stability through homologous recombination-based repair. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2007, 14:1165-1172.
72. Polo S.E., Kaidi A., Baskcomb L., Galanty Y., Jackson S.P. Regulation of DNA-damage responses and cell-cycle progression by the chromatin remodelling factor CHD4. EMBO J. 2010, 29:3130-3139. 10.1038/emboj.2010.188.
73. Urquhart A.J., Gatei M., Richard D.J., Khanna K.K. ATM mediated phosphorylation of CHD4 contributes to genome maintenance. Genome Integr. 2011, 2:1. 10.1186/2041-9414-2-1.
74. Smeenk G., et al. The NuRD chromatin-remodeling complex regulates signaling and repair of DNA damage. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 190:741-749. 10.1083/jcb.201001048.
75. Larsen D.H., et al. The chromatin-remodeling factor CHD4 coordinates signaling and repair after DNA damage. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 190:731-740. 10.1083/jcb.200912135.
76. Pan M.R., et al. Chromodomain helicase DNA-binding protein 4 (CHD4) regulates homologous recombination DNA repair, and its deficiency sensitizes cells to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor treatment. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287:6764-6772. 10.1074/jbc.M111.287037.
77. Xiao A., et al. WSTF regulates the H2A.X DNA damage response via a novel tyrosine kinase activity. Nature 2009, 457:57-62. (doi:nature07668 [pii] 10.1038/nature07668).
78. Singh N., et al. Dual recognition of phosphoserine and phosphotyrosine in histone variant H2A.X by DNA damage response protein MCPH1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109:14381-14386. 10.1073/pnas.1212366109.
79. Smeenk G., et al. Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation links the chromatin remodeler SMARCA5/SNF2H to RNF168-dependent DNA damage signaling. J. Cell Sci. 2013, 126:889-903. 10.1242/jcs.109413.