Homologous recombination maintenance of genome integrity during DNA damage tolerance

Molecular and Cellular Oncology

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Prado, Félix ^a  

^a CSIC   (Spain)

Author keywords

BRCA2; DNA damage tolerance; DNA repair homologous recombination; Rad18; Rad51; replication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930054315     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23723556     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4161/23723548.2014.957039     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. Ciccia A, Elledge SJ. The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol Cell 2010; 40:179-204; PMID:20965415; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.019
2. Friedberg EC. Suffering in silence: the tolerance of DNA damage. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2005; 6:943-53.; PMID:16341080; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm1781
3. Rupp WD, Howard-Flanders P. Discontinuities in the DNA synthesized in an excision-defective strain of escherichia coli following ultraviolet irradiation. J Mol Biol 1968; 31:291-304; PMID:4865486; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(68)90445-2
4. Ganesan AK. Persistenceof pyrimidine dimers during post-replication repair in ultraviolet light-irradiated escherichia coli K12. J Mol Biol 1974; 87:103-19; PMID:4610149; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(74)90563-4
5. Radman M. Molecular and Environmental Aspects of Mutagenesis (eds Prakash L, Sherman F, Miller MW, Tabor H,). 1974; 128-142
6. San Filippo J, Sung P, Klein H. Mechanism of eukaryotic homologous recombination. Annu Rev Biochem 2008; 77:229-57.; PMID:18275380; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.061306.125255
7. Huang D, Piening BD, Paulovich AG. The preference for error-free or error-prone postreplication repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae exposed to low-dose methyl methanesulfonate is cell cycle dependent. Mol Cell Biol 2013; 33:1515-27; PMID:23382077; http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01392-12
8. Hishida T, Kubota Y, Carr AM, Iwasaki H. RAD6-RAD18-RAD5-pathway-dependent tolerance to chronic low-dose ultraviolet light. Nature 2009; 457:612-5; PMID:19079240; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07580
9. Resnick MA, Boyce J, Cox B. Postreplication repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 1981; 146:285-90; PMID:7012117
10. Jachymczyk WJ, Chlebowicz E, Swietlinska Z, Zuk J. Alkaline sucrose sedimentation studies of MMS-induced DNA single-strand breakage and rejoining in the wild type and in UV-sensitive mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mutat Res 1977; 43:1-10; PMID:194147; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0027-5107(77)90126-9
11. Prakash L. Characterization of postreplication repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and effects of rad6, rad18, rev3 and rad52 mutations. Mol Gen Genet 1981; 184:471-8; PMID:7038396; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00352525
12. Mortensen UH, Lisby M, Rothstein R. Rad52. Curr Biol 2009; 19:676-7; PMID:19706272; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.001
13. Prado F, Cortés-Ledesma F, Huertas P, Aguilera A. Mitotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Genet 2003; 42:185-98; PMID:12589470
14. Gangavarapu V, Prakash S, Prakash L. Requirement of RAD52 group genes for postreplication repair of UV-damaged DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 2007; 27:7758-64; PMID:17785441; http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01331-07
15. Bailly V, Lauder S, Prakash S, Prakash L. Yeast DNA repair proteins Rad6 and Rad18 form a heterodimer that has ubiquitin conjugating, DNA binding, and ATP hydrolytic activities. J Biol Chem 1997; 272:23360-5; PMID:9287349; http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.37.23360
16. Hoege C, Pfander B, Moldovan G-L, Pyrowolakis G, Jentsch S. RAD6-dependent DNA repair is linked to modification of PCNA by ubiquitin and SUMO. Nature 2002; 419:135-41; PMID:12226657; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature00991
17. Unk I, Hajdu I, Blastyák A, Haracska L. Role of yeast Rad5 and its human orthologs, HLTF and SHPRH in DNA damage tolerance. DNA Repair 2010; 9:257-67; PMID:20096653; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2009.12.013
18. Pfander B, Moldovan G-L, Sacher M, Hoege C, Jentsch S. SUMO-modified PCNA recruits Srs2 to prevent recombination during S phase. Nature 2005; 436:428-33; PMID:15931174
19. Papouli E, Chen S, Davies AA, Huttner D, Krejci L, Sung P, Ulrich HD. Crosstalk between SUMO and ubiquitin on PCNA is mediated by recruitment of the helicase Srs2p. Mol Cell 2005; 19:123-33; PMID:15989970; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.06.001
20. Krejci L, van Komen S, Li Y, Villemain J, Reddy MS, Klein H, Ellenberger T, Sung P. DNA helicase Srs2 disrupts the Rad51 presynaptic filament. Nature 2003; 423:305-9; PMID:12748644; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01577
21. Veaute X, Jeusset J, Soustelle C, Kowalczykowski SC, Le Cam E, Fabre F. The Srs2 helicase prevents recombination by disrupting Rad51 nucleoprotein filaments. Nature 2003; 423:309-12; PMID:12748645; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01585
22. Burkovics P, Sebesta M, Sisakova A, Plault N, Szukacsov V, Robert T, Pintér L, Marini V, Kolesar P, Haracska L, et al. Srs2 mediates PCNA-SUMO-dependent inhibition of DNA repair synthesis. EMBO J 2013; 32:742-55; PMID:23395907; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2013.9
23. Schiestl RH, Prakash S, Prakash L. The SRS2 suppressor of rad6 mutations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae acts by channeling DNA lesions into the RAD52 DNA repair pathway. Genetics 1990; 124:817-31.; PMID:2182387
24. Moldovan G-L, Dejsuphong D, Petalcorin MIR, Hofmann K, Takeda S, Boulton SJ, D’Andrea AD. Inhibition of homologous recombination by the PCNA-interacting protein PARI. Mol Cell 2012; 45:75-86; PMID:22153967; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.11.010
25. Sale JE, Lehmann AR, Woodgate R. Y-family DNA polymerases and their role in tolerance of cellular DNA damage. Nature 2012; 13:141-52; PMID:22358330; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm3289
26. Stelter P, Ulrich HD. Control of spontaneous and damage-induced mutagenesis by SUMO and ubiquitin conjugation. Nature 2003; 425:188-91; PMID:12968183; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01965
27. Baynton K, Bresson-Roy A, Fuchs RP. Analysis of damage tolerance pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a requirement for Rev3 DNA polymerase in translesion synthesis. Mol Cell Biol 1998; 18:960-6; PMID:9447993
28. Torres-Ramos CA, Prakash S, Prakash L. Requirement of RAD5 and MMS2 for postreplication repair of UV-damaged DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 2002; 22:2419-26; PMID:11884624; http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MCB.22.7.2419-2426.2002
29. Lopes M, Foiani M, Sogo JM. Multiple mechanisms control chromosome integrity after replication fork uncoupling and restart at irreparable UV lesions. Mol Cell 2006; 21:15-27; PMID:16387650; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.11.015
30. Elvers I, Johansson F, Groth P, Erixon K, Helleday T. UV stalled replication forks restart by re-priming in human fibroblasts. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39:7049-57; PMID:21646340; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr420
31. Broomfield S, Hryciw T, Xiao W. DNA postreplication repair and mutagenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mutat Res 2001; 486:167-84; PMID:11459630; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8777(01)00091-X
32. Motegi A, Liaw H-J, Lee K-Y, Roest HP, Maas A, Wu X, Moinova H, Markowitz SD, Ding H, Hoeijmakers JHJ, et al. Polyubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen by HLTF and SHPRH prevents genomic instability from stalled replication forks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105:12411-6; PMID:18719106; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805685105
33. Blastyák A, Pintér L, Unk I, Prakash L, Prakash S, Haracska L. Yeast Rad5 protein required for postreplication repair Has a DNA helicase activity specific for replication fork regression. Mol Cell 2007; 28:167-75; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2007.07.030
34. Blastyak A, Hajdu I, Unk I, Haracska L. Role of double-stranded DNA translocase activity of human HLTF in replication of damaged DNA. Mol Cell Biol 2010; 30:684-93; PMID:19948885; http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00863-09
35. Saugar I, Parker JL, Zhao S, Ulrich HD. The genome maintenance factor Mgs1 is targeted to sites of replication stress by ubiquitylated PCNA. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 40:245-57; PMID:21911365; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr738
36. Hishida T, Ohno T, Iwasaki H, Shinagawa H. Saccharomyces cerevisiae MGS1 is essential in strains deficient in the RAD6-dependent DNA damage tolerance pathway. EMBO J 2002; 21:2019-29; PMID:11953321; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/emboj/21.8.2019
37. Ciccia A, Nimonkar AV, Hu Y, Hajdu I, Achar YJ, Izhar L, Petit SA, Adamson B, Yoon JC, Kowalczykowski SC, et al. Polyubiquitinated PCNA recruits the ZRANB3 translocase to maintain genomic integrity after replication stress. Mol Cell 2012; 47:396-409; PMID:22704558; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.05.024
38. Weston R, Peeters H, Ahel D. ZRANB3 is a structure-specific ATP-dependent endonuclease involved in replication stress response. Genes Dev 2012; 26:1558-72; PMID:22759634; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.193516.112
39. Yuan J, Ghosal G, Chen J. The HARP-like domain-containing protein AH2ZRANB3 binds to PCNA and participates in cellular response to replication stress. Mol Cell 2012; 47:410-21; PMID:22705370; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.05.025
40. Johnson RE, Henderson ST, Petes TD, Prakash S, Bankmann M, Prakash L. Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD5-encoded DNA repair protein contains DNA helicase and zinc-binding sequence motifs and affects the stability of simple repetitive sequences in the genome. Mol Cell Biol 1992; 12:3807-18; PMID:1324406
41. Zhang H, Lawrence CW. The error-free component of the RAD6RAD18 DNA damage tolerance pathway of budding yeast employs sister-strand recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102:15954-9; PMID:16247017; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504586102
42. Branzei D, Vanoli F, Foiani M. SUMOylation regulates Rad18-mediated template switch. Nature 2008; 456:915-20; PMID:19092928; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07587
43. Liberi G, Maffioletti G, Lucca C, Chiolo I, Baryshnikova A, Cotta-Ramusino C, Lopes M, Pellicioli A, Haber JE, Foiani M. Rad51-dependent DNA structures accumulate at damaged replication forks in sgs1 mutants defective in the yeast ortholog of BLM RecQ helicase. Genes Dev 2005; 19:339-50; PMID:15687257; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.322605
44. Minca EC, Kowalski D. Multiple Rad5 activities mediate sister chromatid recombination to bypass DNA damage at stalled replication forks. Mol Cell 2010; 38:649-61; PMID:20541998; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.03.020
45. Burkovics P, Sebesta M, Balogh D, Haracska L, Krejci L. Strand invasion by HLTF as a mechanism for template switch in fork rescue. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42:1711-20; PMID:24198246; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1040
46. 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 Genet 2010; 6:e1001205; PMID:21085632; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001205
47. Karras GI, Fumasoni M, Sienski G, Vanoli F, Branzei D, Jentsch S. Noncanonical role of the 9-1-1 clamp in the error-free DNA damage tolerance pathway. Mol Cell 2013; 49:536-46; PMID:23260657; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.11.016
48. Matos J, West SC. Holliday junction resolution: regulation in space and time. DNA Repair 2014; 19:176-81; PMID:24767945; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.03.013
49. Prado F, Aguilera A. Control of cross-over by single-strand DNA resection. Trends Genet 2003; 19:428-31; PMID:12902160; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(03)00173-2
50. Mankouri HW, Ashton TM, Hickson ID. Holliday junction-containing DNA structures persist in cells lacking Sgs1 or Top3 following exposure to DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011; 108:4944-9; PMID:21383164; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014240108
51. Kannouche P, Broughton BC, Volker M, Hanaoka F, Mullenders LH, Lehmann AR. Domain structure, localization, and function of DNA polymerase eta, defective in xeroderma pigmentosum variant cells. Genes Dev 2001; 15:158-72; PMID:11157773; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.187501
52. McIlwraith MJ, Vaisman A, Liu Y, Fanning E, Woodgate R, West SC. Human DNA polymerase η promotes DNA synthesis from strand invasion intermediates of homologous recombination. Mol Cell 2005; 20:783-92; PMID:16337601; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.10.001
53. Kawamoto T, Araki K, Sonoda E, Yamashita YM, Harada K, Kikuchi K, Masutani C, Hanaoka F, Nozaki K, Hashimoto N, et al. Dual roles for DNA polymerase η in homologous DNA recombination and translesion DNA synthesis. Mol Cell 2005; 20:793-9; PMID:16337602; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.10.016
54. Buisson R, Niraj J, Pauty J, Maity R, Zhao W, Coulombe Y, Sung P, Masson J-Y. Breast cancer proteins PALB2 and BRCA2 stimulate polymerase h in recombination-associated DNA synthesis at blocked replication forks. Cell Rep 2014; 6:553-64; PMID:24485656; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.01.009
55. Hashimoto Y, Ray Chaudhuri A, Lopes M, Costanzo V. Rad51 protects nascent DNA from Mre11-dependent degradation and promotes continuous DNA synthesis. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2010; 17:1305-11; PMID:20935632; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1927
56. Karras GI, Jentsch S. The RAD6 DNA damage tolerance pathway operates uncoupled from the replication fork and is functional beyond S phase. Cell 2010; 141:255-67; PMID:20403322; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.028
57. Daigaku Y, Davies AA, Ulrich HD. Ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass is separable from genome replication. Nature 2010; 465:951-5; PMID:20453836; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09097
58. González-Prieto R, Muñoz-Cabello AM, Cabello-Lobato MJ, Prado F. Rad51 replication fork recruitment is required for DNA damage tolerance. EMBO J 2013; 32:1307-21; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2013.73
59. Pagès V, Fuchs RP. Uncoupling of leading- and lagging-strand DNA replication during lesion bypass in vivo. Science 2003; 300:1300-3; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1083964
60. Higuchi K, Katayama T, Iwai S, Hidaka M, Horiuchi T, Maki H. Fate of DNA replication fork encountering a single DNA lesion during oriC plasmid DNA replication in vitro. Genes Cells 2003; 8:437-49; PMID:12694533; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2443.2003.00646.x
61. McInerney P, O’Donnell M. Functional uncoupling of twin polymerases: mechanism of polymerase dissociation from a lagging-strand block. J Biol Chem 2004; 279:21543-51; PMID:15014081; http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M401649200
62. García-Gómez S, Reyes A, Martínez-Jiménez MI, Chocrón ES, Mourón S, Terrados G, Powell C, Salido E, Méndez J, Holt IJ, et al. PrimPol, an archaic primasepolymerase operating in human cells. Mol Cell 2013; 52:541-53; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2013.09.025
63. Mourón S, Rodriguez-Acebes S, Martínez-Jiménez MI, García-Gómez S, Chocrón S, Blanco L, Méndez J. Repriming of DNA synthesis at stalled replication forks by human PrimPol. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2013; 20:1383-9; PMID:24240614; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2719
64. Callegari AJ, Clark E, Pneuman A, Kelly TJ. Postreplication gaps at UV lesions are signals for checkpoint activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107:8219-24; PMID:20404181; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003449107
65. Quinet A, Vessoni AT, Rocha CRR, Gottifredi V, Biard D, Sarasin A, Menck CFM, Stary A. Gap-filling and bypass at the replication fork are both active mechanisms for tolerance of low-dose ultraviolet-induced DNA damage in the human genome. DNA Repair 2014; 14:27-38; PMID:24380689; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2013.12.005
66. Edmunds CE, Simpson LJ, Sale JE. PCNA ubiquitination and REV1 define temporally distinct mechanisms for controlling translesion synthesis in the avian cell line DT40. Mol Cell 2008; 30:519-29; PMID:18498753; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.03.024
67. Sonoda E, Sasaki MS, Buerstedde JM, Bezzubova O, Shinohara A, Ogawa H, Takata M, Yamaguchi-Iwai Y, Takeda S. Rad51-deficient vertebrate cells accumulate chromosomal breaks prior to cell death. EMBO J 1998; 17:598-608; PMID:9430650; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/emboj/17.2.598
68. Daboussi F, Courbet S, Benhamou S, Kannouche P, Zdzienicka MZ, Debatisse M, Lopez BS. A homologous recombination defect affects replication-fork progression in mammalian cells. J Cell Sci 2008; 121:162-6; PMID:18089650; http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jcs.010330
69. Henry-Mowatt J, Jackson D, Masson J-Y, Johnson PA, Clements PM, Benson FE, Thompson LH, Takeda S, West SC, Caldecott KW. XRCC3 and Rad51 modulate replication fork progression on damaged vertebrate chromosomes. Mol Cell 2003; 11:1109-17; PMID:12718895; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00132-1
70. Vázquez MV, Rojas V, Tercero JA. Multiple pathways cooperate to facilitate DNA replication fork progression through alkylated DNA. DNA Repair 2008; 7:1693-704; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2008.06.014
71. Alabert C, Bianco JN, Pasero P. Differential regulation of homologous recombination at DNA breaks and replication forks by the Mrc1 branch of the S-phase checkpoint. EMBO J 2009; 28:1131-41; PMID:19322196; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.75
72. Petermann E, Orta ML, Issaeva N, Schultz N, Helleday T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol Cell 2010; 37:492-502; PMID:20188668; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.01.021
73. Yoon J-H, Prakash S, Prakash L. Requirement of Rad18 protein for replication through DNA lesions in mouse and human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109:7799-804; PMID:22547805; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204105109
74. Higgins NP, Kato K, Strauss B. A model for replication repair in mammalian cells. J Mol Biol 1976; 101:417-25; PMID:1255724; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(76)90156-X
75. Ball LG, Xu X, Blackwell S, Hanna MD, Lambrecht AD, Xiao W. The Rad5 helicase activity is dispensable for error-free DNA post-replication repair. DNA Repair 2014; 16:74-83; PMID:24674630; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.02.016
76. Petermann E, Helleday T. Pathways of mammalian replication fork restart. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2010; 11:683-7; PMID:20842177; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm2974
77. Yoon D, Wang Y, Stapleford K, Wiesmüller L, Chen J. p53 inhibits strand exchange and replication fork regression promoted by human Rad51. J Mol Biol 2004; 336:639-54; PMID:15095978; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2003.12.050
78. Jossen R, Bermejo R. The DNA damage checkpoint response to replication stress: a game of forks. Front Genet 2013; 4:26; PMID:23493417; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00026
79. Lomonosov M. Stabilization of stalled DNA replication forks by the BRCA2 breast cancer susceptibility protein. Genes Dev 2003; 17:3017-22; PMID:14681210; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.279003
80. Schlacher K, Christ N, Siaud N, Egashira A, Wu H, Jasin M. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell 2011; 145:529-42; PMID:21565612; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.03.041
81. Bjergbaek L, Cobb JA, Tsai-Pflugfelder M, Gasser SM. Mechanistically distinct roles for Sgs1p in checkpoint activation and replication fork maintenance. EMBO J 2005; 24:405-17; PMID:15616582; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7600511
82. Feng Z, Zhang J. A dual role of BRCA1 in two distinct homologous recombination mediated repair in response to replication arrest. Nucleic Acids Res 2012; 40:726-38; PMID:21954437; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr748
83. Tian F, Sharma S, Zou J, Lin S-Y, Wang B, Rezvani K, Wang H, Parvin JD, Ludwig T, Canman CE, et al. BRCA1 promotes the ubiquitination of PCNA and recruitment of translesion polymerases in response to replication blockade. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110:13558-63; PMID:23901102; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306534110
84. Gonzalez-Huici V, Szakal B, Urulangodi M, Psakhye I, Castellucci F, Menolfi D, Rajakumara E, Fumasoni M, Bermejo R, Jentsch S, et al. DNA bending facilitates the error-free DNA damage tolerance pathway and upholds genome integrity. EMBO J 2014; 33:327-40; PMID:24473148; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/embj.201387425
85. Ulrich HD. Regulating post-translational modifications of the eukaryotic replication clamp PCNA. DNA Repair 2009; 8:461-9; PMID:19217833; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2009.01.006
86. Parnas O, Zipin-Roitman A, Pfander B, Liefshitz B, Mazor Y, Ben-Aroya S, Jentsch S, Kupiec M. Elg1, an alternative subunit of the RFC clamp loader, preferentially interacts with SUMOylated PCNA. EMBO J 2010; 29:2611-22; PMID:20571511; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2010.128
87. Kubota T, Nishimura K, Kanemaki MT, Donaldson AD. Short article. Mol Cell 2013; 50:273-80; PMID:23499004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2013.02.012
88. Lee KY, Yang K, Cohn MA, Sikdar N, D’Andrea AD, Myung K. Human ELG1 Regulates the Level of Ubiquitinated Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA) through Its Interactions with PCNA and USP1. J Biol Chem 2010; 285:10362-9; PMID:20147293; http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.092544
89. Falbo KB, Alabert C, Katou Y, Wu S, Han J, Wehr T, Xiao J, He X, Zhang Z, Shi Y, et al. Involvement of a chromatin remodeling complex in damage tolerance during DNA replication. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2009; 16:1167-72; PMID:19855395; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1686
90. Waters LS, Walker GC. The critical mutagenic translesion DNA polymerase Rev1 is highly expressed during G(2)M phase rather than S phase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103:8971-6; PMID:16751278; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0510167103
91. Lin J-R, Zeman MK, Chen J-Y, Yee M-C, Cimprich KA. SHPRH and HLTF act in a damage-specific manner to coordinate different forms of postreplication repair and prevent mutagenesis. Mol Cell 2011; 42:237-49; PMID:21396873; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.02.026
92. Gangavarapu V, Haracska L, Unk I, Johnson RE, Prakash S, Prakash L. Mms2-Ubc13-dependent and -independent roles of Rad5 ubiquitin ligase in postreplication repair and translesion DNA synthesis in saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 2006; 26:7783-90; PMID:16908531; http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01260-06
93. Gangavarapu V, Santa Maria SR, Prakash S, Prakash L. Requirement of replication checkpoint protein kinases Mec1Rad53 for postreplication repair in yeast. mBio 2011; 2:e00079-11; PMID:21586645; http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00079-11
94. Pages V, Santa Maria SR, Prakash L, Prakash S. Role of DNA damage-induced replication checkpoint in promoting lesion bypass by translesion synthesis in yeast. Genes Dev 2009; 23:1438-49; PMID:19528320; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.1793409
95. Flott S, Kwon Y, Pigli YZ, Rice PA, Sung P, Jackson SP. Regulation of Rad51 function by phosphorylation. EMBO Rep 2011; 12:833-9; PMID:21738226; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.127
96. Conde F, Ontoso D, Acosta I, Gallego-Sánchez A, Bueno A, San-Segundo PA. Regulation of tolerance to DNA alkylating damage by Dot1 and Rad53 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA Repair 2010; 9:1038-49; PMID:20674515; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.07.003
97. Naiman K, Philippin G, Fuchs RP, Pages V. Chronology in lesion tolerance gives priority to genetic variability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014; 111:5526-31; PMID:24706928; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321008111
98. Friedberg EC. How nucleotide excision repair protects against cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2001; 1:22-33; PMID:11900249; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35094000
99. Novarina D, Amara F, Lazzaro F, Plevani P, Muzi-Falconi M. Mind the gap: keeping UV lesions in check. DNA Repair 2011; 10:751-9; PMID:21602108; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2011.04.030
100. Halazonetis TD, Gorgoulis VG, Bartek J. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 2008; 319:1352-5; PMID:18323444; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1140735
101. Masutani C, Kusumoto R, Yamada A, Dohmae N, Yokoi M, Yuasa M, Araki M, Iwai S, Takio K, Hanaoka F. The XPV (xeroderma pigmentosum variant) gene encodes human DNA polymerase eta. Nature 1999; 399:700-4; PMID:10385124; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/21447
102. Avkin S, Sevilya Z, Toube L, Geacintov N, Chaney SG, Oren M, Livneh Z. p53 and p21 regulate error-prone DNA repair to yield a lower mutation load. Mol Cell 2006; 22:407-13; PMID:16678112; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2006.03.022
103. Moinova HR, Chen W-D, Shen L, Smiraglia D, Olechnowicz J, Ravi L, Kasturi L, Myeroff L, Plass C, Parsons R, et al. HLTF gene silencing in human colon cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99:4562-7; PMID:11904375; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062459899
104. Sandhu S, Wu X, Nabi Z, Rastegar M, Kung S, Mai S, Ding H. Loss of HLTF function promotes intestinal carcinogenesis. Mol Cancer 2012; 11:18; PMID:22452792; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-11-18
105. Motegi A, Sood R, Moinova H, Markowitz SD, Liu PP, Myung K. Human SHPRH suppresses genomic instability through proliferating cell nuclear antigen polyubiquitination. J Cell Biol 2006; 175:703-8; PMID:17130289; http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200606145
106. Myung K, Smith S. The RAD5-dependent postreplication repair pathway is important to suppress gross chromosomal rearrangements. JNCI Monographs 2008; 2008:12-5; PMID:18647995; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgn019
107. Bell DW, Sikdar N, Lee K-Y, Price JC, Chatterjee R, Park H-D, Fox J, Ishiai M, Rudd ML, Pollock LM, et al. Predisposition to cancer caused by genetic and functional defects of mammalian Atad5. PLoS Genet 2011; 7:e1002245; PMID:21901109; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002245
108. Bishop A. Role of homologous recombination in carcinogenesis. Exp Mol Pathol 2003; 74:94-105; PMID:12710940; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0014-4800(03)00010-8
109. Hicks WM, Kim M, Haber JE. Increased mutagenesis and unique mutation signature associated with mitotic gene conversion. Science 2010; 329:82-5; PMID:20595613; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1191125
110. Deem A, Keszthelyi A, Blackgrove T, Vayl A, Coffey B, Mathur R, Chabes A, Malkova A. Break-induced replication is highly inaccurate. Plos Biol 2011; 9:e1000594; PMID:21347245; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000594
111. Couch FB, Bansbach CE, Driscoll R, Luzwick JW, Glick GG, Betous R, Carroll CM, Jung SY, Qin J, Cimprich KA, et al. ATR phosphorylates SMARCAL1 to prevent replication fork collapse. Genes Dev 2013; 27:1610-23; PMID:23873943; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.214080.113
112. Wu L, Hickson ID. The Bloom's syndrome helicase suppresses crossing over during homologous recombination. Nature 2003; 426:870-4; PMID:14685245; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02253
113. Janz C, Wiesmüller L. Wild-type p53 inhibits replication-associated homologous recombination. Oncogene 2002; 21:5929-33; PMID:12185593; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1205757
114. Lisby M, Barlow JH, Burgess RC, Rothstein R. Choreography of the DNA damage response. Cell 2004; 118:699-713; PMID:15369670; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2004.08.015
115. Barlow JH, Rothstein R. Rad52 recruitment is DNA replication independent and regulated by Cdc28 and the Mec1 kinase. EMBO J 2009; 28:1121-30; PMID:19262568; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.43
116. Meister P, Taddei A, Vernis L, Poidevin M, Gasser SM, Baldacci G. Temporal separation of replication and recombination requires the intra-S checkpoint. J Cell Biol 2005; 168:537-44; PMID:15716375; http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200410006
117. Prado F. Genetic instability is prevented by Mrc1-dependent spatio-temporal separation of replicative and repair activities of homologous recombination. Bioessays 2014; 36:451-62; PMID:24615940; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bies.201300161
118. Mankouri HW, Ngo H-P, Hickson ID. Shu proteins promote the formation of homologous recombination intermediates that are processed by Sgs1-Rmi1-Top3. Mol Biol Cell 2007; 18:4062-73; PMID:17671161; http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E07-05-0490
119. Sollier J, Driscoll R, Castellucci F, Foiani M, Jackson SP, Branzei D. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Esc2 and Smc5-6 proteins promote sister chromatid junction-mediated intra-S repair. Mol Biol Cell 2009; 20:1671-82; PMID:19158389; http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E08-08-0875
120. Branzei D, Sollier J, Liberi G, Zhao X, Maeda D, Seki M, Enomoto T, Ohta K, Foiani M. Ubc9- and Mms21-mediated sumoylation counteracts recombinogenic events at damaged replication forks. Cell 2006; 127:509-22; PMID:17081974; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.08.050