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

PLoS Genetics

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Sarangi, Prabha ^a,b   Steinacher, Roland ^c   Altmannova, Veronika ^d   Fu, Qiong ^e   Paull, Tanya T ^e   Krejci, Lumir ^d,f   Whitby, Matthew C ^c   Zhao, Xiaolan ^a,b  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b Weill Cornell Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d MASARYK UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^e HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f ST ANNE S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARGININE; BINDING PROTEIN; CELL PROTEIN; LYSINE; MRE11 PROTEIN; NUCLEASE; PROTEIN RAD9; SAE2 PROTEIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; XRS2 PROTEIN; DEOXYRIBONUCLEASE; DNA BINDING PROTEIN; ENDONUCLEASE; EXODEOXYRIBONUCLEASE; MRE11 PROTEIN, S CEREVISIAE; RAD50 PROTEIN, S CEREVISIAE; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE PROTEIN; SAE2 PROTEIN, S CEREVISIAE; XRS2 PROTEIN, S CEREVISIAE;

ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; COMPLEX FORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA DAMAGE; DNA END CLIPPING; DNA REPAIR; DNA STRAND BREAKAGE; GENETIC CONSERVATION; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; NONHUMAN; NUCLEIC ACID STRUCTURE, METABOLISM AND FUNCTION; PEPTIDE MAPPING; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN DETERMINATION; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN PHOSPHORYLATION; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SOLUBILITY; SUMOYLATION; DNA END JOINING REPAIR; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA BREAK; GENETICS; HUMAN; PHOSPHORYLATION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

DNA BREAKS, DOUBLE-STRANDED; DNA DAMAGE; DNA END-JOINING REPAIR; DNA REPAIR; DNA-BINDING PROTEINS; ENDODEOXYRIBONUCLEASES; ENDONUCLEASES; EXODEOXYRIBONUCLEASES; HUMANS; PHOSPHORYLATION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE PROTEINS; SOLUBILITY; SUMOYLATION;

EID: 84924402458     PISSN: 15537390     EISSN: 15537404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004899     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Ciccia A, Elledge SJ, (2010) The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol Cell 40: 179–204.
2. Marechal A, Zou L, (2013) DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5.
3. Polo SE, Jackson SP, (2011) Dynamics of DNA damage response proteins at DNA breaks: a focus on protein modifications. Genes Dev 25: 409–433.
4. Symington LS, Gautier J, (2011) Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet 45: 247–271.
5. Chapman JR, Taylor MR, Boulton SJ, (2012) Playing the end game: DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Mol Cell 47: 497–510.
6. Herzberg K, Bashkirov VI, Rolfsmeier M, Haghnazari E, McDonald WH, 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. Smolka MB, Albuquerque CP, Chen SH, Zhou H, (2007) Proteome-wide identification of in vivo targets of DNA damage checkpoint kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 10364–10369.
8. Chen X, Niu H, Chung WH, Zhu Z, Papusha A, 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. Matos J, Blanco MG, Maslen S, Skehel JM, West SC, (2011) Regulatory control of the resolution of DNA recombination intermediates during meiosis and mitosis. Cell 147: 158–172.
10. Cremona CA, Sarangi P, Zhao X, (2012) Sumoylation and the DNA Damage Response. Biomolecules 2: 376–388.
11. Jackson SP, Durocher D, (2013) Regulation of DNA damage responses by ubiquitin and SUMO. Mol Cell 49: 795–807.
12. Ulrich HD, (2014) Two-way communications between ubiquitin-like modifiers and DNA. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 317–324.
13. Jentsch S, Psakhye I, (2013) Control of nuclear activities by substrate-selective and protein-group SUMOylation. Annu Rev Genet 47: 167–186.
14. Maeda D, Seki M, Onoda F, Branzei D, Kawabe Y, et al. (2004) Ubc9 is required for damage-tolerance and damage-induced interchromosomal homologous recombination in S. cerevisiae. DNA Repair 3: 335–341.
15. Morris JR, Boutell C, Keppler M, Densham R, Weekes D, et al. (2009) The SUMO modification pathway is involved in the BRCA1 response to genotoxic stress. Nature 462: 886–890.
16. Galanty Y, Belotserkovskaya R, Coates J, Polo S, Miller KM, et al. (2009) Mammalian SUMO E3-ligases PIAS1 and PIAS4 promote responses to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 462: 935–939.
17. Cremona CA, Sarangi P, Yang Y, Hang LE, Rahman S, 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. Psakhye I, Jentsch S, (2012) Protein group modification and synergy in the SUMO pathway as exemplified in DNA repair. Cell 151: 807–820.
19. Paull TT, (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. Mimitou EP, Symington LS, (2011) DNA end resection–unraveling the tail. DNA Repair (Amst) 10: 344–348.
21. Lengsfeld BM, Rattray AJ, Bhaskara V, Ghirlando R, Paull TT, (2007) Sae2 is an endonuclease that processes hairpin DNA cooperatively with the Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 complex. Mol Cell 28: 638–651.
22. Mimitou EP, Symington LS, (2008) Sae2, Exo1 and Sgs1 collaborate in DNA double-strand break processing. Nature 455: 770–774.
23. Clerici M, Mantiero D, Lucchini G, Longhese MP, (2005) The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sae2 protein promotes resection and bridging of double strand break ends. J Biol Chem 280: 38631–38638.
24. Zhu Z, Chung WH, Shim EY, Lee SE, Ira G, (2008) Sgs1 helicase and two nucleases Dna2 and Exo1 resect DNA double-strand break ends. Cell 134: 981–994.
25. Nicolette ML, Lee K, Guo Z, Rani M, Chow JM, 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. Cannavo E, Cejka P, (2014) Sae2 promotes dsDNA endonuclease activity within Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 to resect DNA breaks. Nature 514: 122–125.
27. Lobachev KS, Gordenin DA, Resnick MA, (2002) The Mre11 complex is required for repair of hairpin-capped double-strand breaks and prevention of chromosome rearrangements. Cell 108: 183–193.
28. Neale MJ, Pan J, Keeney S, (2005) Endonucleolytic processing of covalent protein-linked DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 436: 1053–1057.
29. Deng C, Brown JA, You D, Brown JM, (2005) Multiple endonucleases function to repair covalent topoisomerase I complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 170: 591–600.
30. Zierhut C, Diffley JF, (2008) Break dosage, cell cycle stage and DNA replication influence DNA double strand break response. EMBO J 27: 1875–1885.
31. Ira G, Pellicioli A, Balijja A, Wang X, Fiorani S, et al. (2004) DNA end resection, homologous recombination and DNA damage checkpoint activation require CDK1. Nature 431: 1011–1017.
32. Aylon Y, Liefshitz B, Kupiec M, (2004) The CDK regulates repair of double-strand breaks by homologous recombination during the cell cycle. EMBO J 23: 4868–4875.
33. Baroni E, Viscardi V, Cartagena-Lirola H, Lucchini G, Longhese MP, (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. Falck J, Forment JV, Coates J, Mistrik M, Lukas J, et al. (2012) CDK targeting of NBS1 promotes DNA-end resection, replication restart and homologous recombination. EMBO Rep 13: 561–568.
35. Zhang Y, Shim EY, Davis M, Lee SE, (2009) Regulation of repair choice: Cdk1 suppresses recruitment of end joining factors at DNA breaks. DNA Repair (Amst) 8: 1235–1241.
36. Huertas P, Cortes-Ledesma F, Sartori AA, Aguilera A, Jackson SP, (2008) CDK targets Sae2 to control DNA-end resection and homologous recombination. Nature 455: 689–692.
37. Fu Q, Chow J, Bernstein KA, Makharashvili N, Arora S, 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. Rodriguez MS, Dargemont C, Hay RT, (2001) SUMO-1 conjugation in vivo requires both a consensus modification motif and nuclear targeting. J Biol Chem 276: 12654–12659.
39. Sampson DA, Wang M, Matunis MJ, (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. Dubin MJ, Stokes PH, Sum EY, Williams RS, Valova VA, 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. Kim HS, Vijayakumar S, Reger M, Harrison JC, Haber JE, et al. (2008) Functional interactions between Sae2 and the Mre11 complex. Genetics 178: 711–723.
42. You Z, Shi LZ, Zhu Q, Wu P, Zhang YW, et al. (2009) CtIP links DNA double-strand break sensing to resection. Mol Cell 36: 954–969.
43. Lobachev KS, Stenger JE, Kozyreva OG, Jurka J, Gordenin DA, et al. (2000) Inverted Alu repeats unstable in yeast are excluded from the human genome. EMBO J 19: 3822–3830.
44. Foster SS, Balestrini A, Petrini JH, (2011) Functional interplay of the Mre11 nuclease and Ku in the response to replication-associated DNA damage. Mol Cell Biol 31: 4379–4389.
45. Prinz S, Amon A, Klein F, (1997) Isolation of COM1, a new gene required to complete meiotic double-strand break-induced recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 146: 781–795.
46. Keeney S, Kleckner N, (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. McKee AH, Kleckner N, (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. Chen H, Lisby M, Symington LS, (2013) RPA coordinates DNA end resection and prevents formation of DNA hairpins. Mol Cell 50: 589–600.
49. Lee K, Lee SE, (2007) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sae2- and Tel1-dependent single-strand DNA formation at DNA break promotes microhomology-mediated end joining. Genetics 176: 2003–2014.
50. Deng SK, Gibb B, de Almeida MJ, Greene EC, Symington LS, (2014) RPA antagonizes microhomology-mediated repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 405–412.
51. Boulton SJ, Jackson SP, (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. Almedawar S, Colomina N, Bermudez-Lopez M, Pocino-Merino I, Torres-Rosell J, (2012) A SUMO-dependent step during establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. Curr Biol 22: 1576–1581.
53. Wu D, Topper LM, Wilson TE, (2008) Recruitment and dissociation of nonhomologous end joining proteins at a DNA double-strand break in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 178: 1237–1249.
54. Palmbos PL, Daley JM, Wilson TE, (2005) Mutations of the Yku80 C terminus and Xrs2 FHA domain specifically block yeast nonhomologous end joining. Mol Cell Biol 25: 10782–10790.
55. Lisby M, Barlow JH, Burgess RC, Rothstein R, (2004) Choreography of the DNA damage response: spatiotemporal relationships among checkpoint and repair proteins. Cell 118: 699–713.
56. Mimitou EP, Symington LS, (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. Hang LE, Lopez CR, Liu X, Williams JM, Chung I, et al. (2014) Regulation of Ku-DNA association by Yku70 C-terminal tail and SUMO modification. J Biol Chem
58. Li F, Dong J, Pan X, Oum JH, Boeke JD, 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. Guzder SN, Sommers CH, Prakash L, Prakash S, (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. Toh GW, Sugawara N, Dong J, Toth R, Lee SE, 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. Shim EY, Chung WH, Nicolette ML, Zhang Y, Davis M, 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. Robert T, Vanoli F, Chiolo I, Shubassi G, Bernstein KA, et al. (2011) HDACs link the DNA damage response, processing of double-strand breaks and autophagy. Nature 471: 74–79.
63. Lafranchi L, de Boer HR, de Vries EG, Ong SE, Sartori AA, et al. (2014) APC/CCdh1 controls CtIP stability during the cell cycle and in response to DNA damage. EMBO J
64. Steffan JS, Agrawal N, Pallos J, Rockabrand E, Trotman LC, et al. (2004) SUMO modification of Huntingtin and Huntington's disease pathology. Science 304: 100–104.
65. Janer A, Werner A, Takahashi-Fujigasaki J, Daret A, Fujigasaki H, et al. (2010) SUMOylation attenuates the aggregation propensity and cellular toxicity of the polyglutamine expanded ataxin-7. Hum Mol Genet 19: 181–195.
66. Krumova P, Meulmeester E, Garrido M, Tirard M, Hsiao HH, et al. (2011) Sumoylation inhibits alpha-synuclein aggregation and toxicity. J Cell Biol 194: 49–60.
67. Fernandez-Escamilla AM, Rousseau F, Schymkowitz J, Serrano L, (2004) Prediction of sequence-dependent and mutational effects on the aggregation of peptides and proteins. Nat Biotechnol 22: 1302–1306.
68. Pawar AP, Dubay KF, Zurdo J, Chiti F, Vendruscolo M, et al. (2005) Prediction of “aggregation-prone” and “aggregation-susceptible” regions in proteins associated with neurodegenerative diseases. J Mol Biol 350: 379–392.
69. Zuo X, Li S, Hall J, Mattern MR, Tran H, et al. (2005) Enhanced expression and purification of membrane proteins by SUMO fusion in Escherichia coli. J Struct Funct Genomics 6: 103–111.
70. Malakhov MP, Mattern MR, Malakhova OA, Drinker M, Weeks SD, et al. (2004) SUMO fusions and SUMO-specific protease for efficient expression and purification of proteins. J Struct Funct Genomics 5: 75–86.
71. Lin DY, Huang YS, Jeng JC, Kuo HY, Chang CC, 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. Shen TH, Lin HK, Scaglioni PP, Yung TM, Pandolfi PP, (2006) The mechanisms of PML-nuclear body formation. Mol Cell 24: 331–339.
73. Conchillo-Sole O, de Groot NS, Aviles FX, Vendrell J, Daura X, et al. (2007) AGGRESCAN: a server for the prediction and evaluation of “hot spots” of aggregation in polypeptides. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 65.
74. Silver HR, Nissley JA, Reed SH, Hou YM, Johnson ES, (2011) A role for SUMO in nucleotide excision repair. DNA Repair 10: 1243–1251.
75. Sarangi P, Bartosova Z, Altmannova V, Holland C, Chavdarova M, et al. (2014) Sumoylation of the Rad1 nuclease promotes DNA repair and regulates its DNA association. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 6393–6404.
76. Sarangi P, Altmannova V, Holland C, Bartosova Z, Hao F, et al. (2014) A Versatile Scaffold Contributes to Damage Survival via Sumoylation and Nuclease Interactions. Cell Rep 9: 143–152.
77. Sacher M, Pfander B, Hoege C, Jentsch S, (2006) Control of Rad52 recombination activity by double-strand break-induced SUMO modification. Nat Cell Biol 8: 1284–1290.
78. Tomimatsu N, Mukherjee B, Catherine Hardebeck M, Ilcheva M, Vanessa Camacho C, 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-Fernandez M, Saugar I, Ortiz-Bazan MA, Vazquez MV, Tercero JA, (2012) Cell cycle-dependent regulation of the nuclease activity of Mus81-Eme1/Mms4. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 8325–8335.
80. Morin I, Ngo HP, Greenall A, Zubko MK, Morrice N, et al. (2008) Checkpoint-dependent phosphorylation of Exo1 modulates the DNA damage response. EMBO J 27: 2400–2410.
81. Burgess RC, Rahman S, Lisby M, Rothstein R, Zhao X, (2007) The Slx5-Slx8 complex affects sumoylation of DNA repair proteins and negatively regulates recombination. Mol Cell Biol 27: 6153–6162.
82. Tsalik EL, Gartenberg MR, (1998) Curing Saccharomyces cerevisiae of the 2 micron plasmid by targeted DNA damage. Yeast 14: 847–852.
83. Zhao X, Blobel G, (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. Uchimura Y, Nakamura M, Sugasawa K, Nakao M, Saitoh H, (2004) Overproduction of eukaryotic SUMO-1- and SUMO-2-conjugated proteins in Escherichia coli. Anal Biochem 331: 204–206.
85. Sartori AA, Lukas C, Coates J, Mistrik M, Fu S, et al. (2007) Human CtIP promotes DNA end resection. Nature 450: 509–514.
86. Mossessova E, Lima CD, (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. Moore JK, Haber JE, (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. Zhao X, Muller EG, Rothstein R, (1998) A suppressor of two essential checkpoint genes identifies a novel protein that negatively affects dNTP pools. Mol Cell 2: 329–340.