Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair by ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like modifiers

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 379-394

  Schwertman, Petra ^a   Bekker Jensen, Simon ^a   Mailand, Niels ^a  

^a University of Copenhagen   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DOUBLE STRANDED DNA; UBIQUITIN; UBIQUITIN PROTEIN LIGASE;

CONJUGATION; DNA REPAIR; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA BREAK; GENETIC REGULATION; GENOMIC INSTABILITY; HOMOLOGOUS RECOMBINATION; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ASSEMBLY; PROTEIN INTERACTION; REVIEW; SUMOYLATION; UBIQUITINATION; ANIMAL; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION;

ANIMALS; DNA BREAKS, DOUBLE-STRANDED; DNA REPAIR; HUMANS; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; UBIQUITIN; UBIQUITIN-PROTEIN LIGASES; UBIQUITINATION;

EID: 84969963406     PISSN: 14710072     EISSN: 14710080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrm.2016.58     Document Type: Review

References (171)

1. Lindahl, T. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature 362, 709-715 (1993).
2. Jackson, S. P. & Bartek, J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461, 1071-1078 (2009).
3. Hoeijmakers, J. H. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature 411, 366-374 (2001).
4. Alt, F. W., Zhang, Y., Meng, F. L., Guo, C. & Schwer, B. Mechanisms of programmed DNA lesions and genomic instability in the immune system. Cell 152, 417-429 (2013).
5. Ciccia, A. & Elledge, S. J. The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol. Cell 40, 179-204 (2010).
6. Lieber, M. R. The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79, 181-211 (2010).
7. Heyer, W. D., Ehmsen, K. T. & Liu, J. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 44, 113-139 (2010).
8. Chapman, J. R., Taylor, M. R. & Boulton, S. J. Playing the end game: DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Mol. Cell 47, 497-510 (2012).
9. Jackson, S. P. & Durocher, D. Regulation of DNA damage responses by ubiquitin and SUMO. Mol. Cell 49, 795-807 (2013).
10. Bekker-Jensen, S. & Mailand, N. The ubiquitin- and SUMO-dependent signaling response to DNA double-strand breaks. FEBS Lett. 585, 2914-2919 (2011).
11. Kim, W. et al. Systematic and quantitative assessment of the ubiquitin-modified proteome. Mol. Cell 44, 325-340 (2011).
12. Wagner, S. A. et al. A proteome-wide, quantitative survey of in vivo ubiquitylation sites reveals widespread regulatory roles. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 10, M111.013284 (2011).
13. Komander, D. & Rape, M. The ubiquitin code. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 81, 203-229 (2012).
14. Komander, D., Clague, M. J. & Urbe, S. Breaking the chains: structure and function of the deubiquitinases. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 550-563 (2009).
15. Nishi, R. et al. Systematic characterization of deubiquitylating enzymes for roles in maintaining genome integrity. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 1016-1026 (2014).
16. Schmidt, C. K. et al. Systematic E2 screening reveals a UBE2D-RNF138-CtIP axis promoting DNA repair. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 1458-1470 (2015).
17. Elia, A. E. et al. Quantitative proteomic atlas of ubiquitination and acetylation in the DNA damage response. Mol. Cell 59, 867-881 (2015).
18. van der Veen, A. G. & Ploegh, H. L. Ubiquitin-like proteins. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 81, 323-357 (2012).
19. Gareau, J. R. & Lima, C. D. The SUMO pathway: emerging mechanisms that shape specificity, conjugation and recognition. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 11, 861-871 (2010).
20. Hendriks, I. A. et al. Uncovering global SUMOylation signaling networks in a site-specific manner. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 927-936 (2014).
21. Huen, M. S. et al. RNF8 transduces the DNA-damage signal via histone ubiquitylation and checkpoint protein assembly. Cell 131, 901-914 (2007).
22. Morris, J. R. & Solomon, E. BRCA1: BARD1 induces the formation of conjugated ubiquitin structures, dependent on K6 of ubiquitin, in cells during DNA replication and repair. Hum. Mol. Genet. 13, 807-817 (2004).
23. Gatti, M. et al. RNF168 promotes noncanonical K27 ubiquitination to signal DNA damage. Cell Rep. 10, 226-238 (2015).
24. Tatham, M. H. et al. Polymeric chains of SUMO-2 and SUMO-3 are conjugated to protein substrates by SAE1/SAE2 and Ubc9. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 35368-35374 (2001).
25. Dikic, I., Wakatsuki, S. & Walters, K. J. Ubiquitin-binding domains - from structures to functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 659-671 (2009).
26. Sims, J. J. & Cohen, R. E. Linkage-specific avidity defines the lysine 63-linked polyubiquitin-binding preference of Rap80. Mol. Cell 33, 775-783 (2009).
27. Sato, Y. et al. Structural basis for specific recognition of Lys 63-linked polyubiquitin chains by tandem UIMs of RAP80. EMBO J. 28, 2461-2468 (2009).
28. Panier, S. et al. Tandem protein interaction modules organize the ubiquitin-dependent response to DNA double-strand breaks. Mol. Cell 47, 383-395 (2012).
29. Fradet-Turcotte, A. et al. 53BP1 is a reader of the DNA-damage-induced H2A Lys 15 ubiquitin mark. Nature 499, 50-54 (2013). Reveals that 53BP1 contains a UDR domain that directly recognizes RNF168-ubiquitylated H2A and mediates its recruitment to DSBs.
30. Hecker, C. M., Rabiller, M., Haglund, K., Bayer, P. & Dikic, I. Specification of SUMO1- and SUMO2-interacting motifs. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 16117-16127 (2006).
31. Bekker-Jensen, S. & Mailand, N. Assembly and function of DNA double-strand break repair foci in mammalian cells. DNA Repair 9, 1219-1228 (2010).
32. Lukas, J., Lukas, C. & Bartek, J. More than just a focus: the chromatin response to DNA damage and its role in genome integrity maintenance. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 1161-1169 (2011).
33. Mailand, N. et al. RNF8 ubiquitylates histones at DNA double-strand breaks and promotes assembly of repair proteins. Cell 131, 887-900 (2007).
34. Kolas, N. K. et al. Orchestration of the DNA-damage response by the RNF8 ubiquitin ligase. Science 318, 1637-1640 (2007).
35. Doil, C. et al. RNF168 binds and amplifies ubiquitin conjugates on damaged chromosomes to allow accumulation of repair proteins. Cell 136, 435-446 (2009).
36. Stewart, G. S. et al. The RIDDLE syndrome protein mediates a ubiquitin-dependent signaling cascade at sites of DNA damage. Cell 136, 420-434 (2009).
37. Wang, B. & Elledge, S. J. Ubc13/Rnf8 ubiquitin ligases control foci formation of the Rap80/Abraxas/Brca1/Brcc36 complex in response to DNA damage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 20759-20763 (2007).
38. Shanbhag, N. M., Rafalska-Metcalf, I. U., Balane-Bolivar, C., Janicki, S. M. & Greenberg, R. A. ATM-dependent chromatin changes silence transcription in cis to DNA double-strand breaks. Cell 141, 970-981(2010).
39. Stucki, M. et al. MDC1 directly binds phosphorylated histone H2AX to regulate cellular responses to DNA double-strand breaks. Cell 123, 1213-1226 (2005).
40. Mattiroli, F. et al. RNF168 ubiquitinates K13-15 on H2A/H2AX to drive DNA damage signaling. Cell 150, 1182-1195 (2012).
41. Gatti, M. et al. A novel ubiquitin mark at the N-terminal tail of histone H2As targeted by RNF168 ubiquitin ligase. Cell Cycle 11, 2538-2544 (2012).
42. Mattiroli, F., Uckelmann, M., Sahtoe, D. D., van Dijk, W. J. & Sixma, T. K. The nucleosome acidic patch plays a critical role in RNF168-dependent ubiquitination of histone H2A. Nat. Commun. 5, 3291 (2014).
43. Leung, J. W. et al. Nucleosome acidic patch promotes RNF168- and RING1B/BMI1-dependent H2AX and H2A ubiquitination and DNA damage signaling. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004178 (2014).
44. Thorslund, T. et al. Histone H1 couples initiation and amplification of ubiquitin signalling after DNA damage. Nature 527, 389-393 (2015). Discovery that RNF8 promotes K63-linked ubiquitylation of H1-type histones to promote recruitment of RNF168.
45. Bekker-Jensen, S. et al. HERC2 coordinates ubiquitin-dependent assembly of DNA repair factors on damaged chromosomes. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 80-86 (2010).
46. Mailand, N., Gibbs-Seymour, I. & Bekker-Jensen, S. Regulation of PCNA-protein interactions for genome stability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 269-282 (2013).
47. Raschle, M. et al. Proteomics reveals dynamic assembly of repair complexes during bypass of DNA cross-links. Science 348, 1253671 (2015).
48. Huang, J. et al. RAD18 transmits DNA damage signalling to elicit homologous recombination repair. Nat. Cell Biol. 11, 592-603 (2009).
49. Poulsen, M., Lukas, C., Lukas, J., Bekker-Jensen, S. & Mailand, N. Human RNF169 is a negative regulator of the ubiquitin-dependent response to DNA double-strand breaks. J. Cell Biol. 197, 189-199 (2012).
50. Chen, J., Feng, W., Jiang, J., Deng, Y. & Huen, M. S. Ring finger protein RNF169 antagonizes the ubiquitin-dependent signaling cascade at sites of DNA damage. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 27715-27722 (2012).
51. Polanowska, J., Martin, J. S., Garcia-Muse, T., Petalcorin, M. I. & Boulton, S. J. A conserved pathway to activate BRCA1-dependent ubiquitylation at DNA damage sites. EMBO J. 25, 2178-2188 (2006).
52. Moyal, L. et al. Requirement of ATM-dependent monoubiquitylation of histone H2B for timely repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Mol. Cell 41, 529-542 (2011).
53. Nakamura, K. et al. Regulation of homologous recombination by RNF20-dependent H2B ubiquitination. Mol. Cell 41, 515-528 (2011).
54. Ismail, I. H., Andrin, C., McDonald, D. & Hendzel, M. J. BMI1-mediated histone ubiquitylation promotes DNA double-strand break repair. J. Cell Biol. 191, 45-60 (2010).
55. Ginjala, V. et al. BMI1 is recruited to DNA breaks and contributes to DNA damage-induced H2A ubiquitination and repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 31, 1972-1982 (2011).
56. Pan, M. R., Peng, G., Hung, W. C. & Lin, S. Y. Monoubiquitination of H2AX protein regulates DNA damage response signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 28599-28607 (2011).
57. Liu, C., Wu, J., Paudyal, S. C., You, Z. & Yu, X. CHFR is important for the first wave of ubiquitination at DNA damage sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 1698-1710 (2013).
58. Bekker-Jensen, S. et al. Spatial organization of the mammalian genome surveillance machinery in response to DNA strand breaks. J. Cell Biol. 173, 195-206 (2006).
59. Marechal, A. et al. PRP19 transforms into a sensor of RPA-ssDNA after DNA damage and drives ATR activation via a ubiquitin-mediated circuitry. Mol. Cell 53, 235-246 (2014).
60. Elia, A. E. et al. RFWD3-dependent ubiquitination of RPA regulates repair at stalled replication forks. Mol. Cell 60, 280-293 (2015).
61. Ismail, I. H. et al. The RNF138 E3 ligase displaces Ku to promote DNA end resection and regulate DNA repair pathway choice. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 1446-1457 (2015).
62. Panier, S. & Durocher, D. Push back to respond better: regulatory inhibition of the DNA double-strand break response. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 661-672 (2013).
63. Gudjonsson, T. et al. TRIP12 and UBR5 suppress spreading of chromatin ubiquitylation at damaged chromosomes. Cell 150, 697-709 (2012).
64. Nicassio, F. et al. Human USP3 is a chromatin modifier required for S phase progression and genome stability. Curr. Biol. 17, 1972-1977 (2007).
65. Mosbech, A., Lukas, C., Bekker-Jensen, S. & Mailand, N. The deubiquitylating enzyme USP44 counteracts the DNA double-strand break response mediated by the RNF8 and RNF168 ubiquitin ligases. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 16579-16587 (2013).
66. Sharma, N. et al. USP3 counteracts RNF168 via deubiquitinating H2A and γH2AX at lysine 13 and 15. Cell Cycle 13, 106-114 (2014).
67. Lancini, C. et al. Tight regulation of ubiquitin-mediated DNA damage response by USP3 preserves the functional integrity of hematopoietic stem cells. J. Exp. Med. 211, 1759-1777 (2014).
68. Nakada, S. et al. Non-canonical inhibition of DNA damage-dependent ubiquitination by OTUB1. Nature 466, 941-946 (2010).
69. Juang, Y. C. et al. OTUB1 co-opts Lys48-linked ubiquitin recognition to suppress E2 enzyme function. Mol. Cell 45, 384-397 (2012).
70. Shao, G. et al. The Rap80-BRCC36 de-ubiquitinating enzyme complex antagonizes RNF8-Ubc13-dependent ubiquitination events at DNA double strand breaks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3166-3171 (2009).
71. Kato, K. et al. Fine-tuning of DNA damage-dependent ubiquitination by OTUB2 supports the DNA repair pathway choice. Mol. Cell 53, 617-630 (2014).
72. Butler, L. R. et al. The proteasomal de-ubiquitinating enzyme POH1 promotes the double-strand DNA break response. EMBO J. 31, 3918-3934 (2012).
73. Meerang, M. et al. The ubiquitin-selective segregase VCP/p97 orchestrates the response to DNA double-strand breaks. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 1376-1382 (2011).
74. Galanty, Y., Belotserkovskaya, R., Coates, J. & Jackson, S. P. RNF4, a SUMO-targeted ubiquitin E3 ligase, promotes DNA double-strand break repair. Genes Dev. 26, 1179-1195 (2012).
75. Acs, K. et al. The AAA-ATPase VCP/p97 promotes 53BP1 recruitment by removing L3MBTL1 from DNA double-strand breaks. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 1345-1350 (2011).
76. Giunta, S., Belotserkovskaya, R. & Jackson, S. P. DNA damage signaling in response to double-strand breaks during mitosis. J. Cell Biol. 190, 197-207 (2010).
77. Orthwein, A. et al. Mitosis inhibits DNA double-strand break repair to guard against telomere fusions. Science 344, 189-193 (2014). Shows that the RNF8-RNF168-mediated DSB response is inactivated during mitosis to suppress telomere fusions and genomic instability.
78. Peuscher, M. H. & Jacobs, J. J. DNA-damage response and repair activities at uncapped telomeres depend on RNF8. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 1139-1145 (2011).
79. Okamoto, K. et al. A two-step mechanism for TRF2-mediated chromosome-end protection. Nature 494, 502-505 (2013).
80. Tomimatsu, N. et al. Phosphorylation of EXO1 by CDKs 1 and 2 regulates DNA end resection and repair pathway choice. Nat. Commun. 5, 3561 (2014).
81. Lafranchi, L. et al. APC/CCdh1 controls CtIP stability during the cell cycle and in response to DNA damage. EMBO J. 33, 2860-2879 (2014).
82. Feng, L. & Chen, J. The E3 ligase RNF8 regulates KU80 removal and NHEJ repair. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 201-206 (2012).
83. Postow, L. & Funabiki, H. An SCF complex containing Fbxl12 mediates DNA damage-induced Ku80 ubiquitylation. Cell Cycle 12, 587-595 (2013).
84. Wijnhoven, P. et al. USP4 auto-deubiquitylation promotes homologous recombination. Mol. Cell 60, 362-373 (2015).
85. Liu, H. et al. The deubiquitylating enzyme USP4 cooperates with CtIP in DNA double-strand break end resection. Cell Rep. 13, 93-107 (2015).
86. Sobhian, B. et al. RAP80 targets BRCA1 to specific ubiquitin structures at DNA damage sites. Science 316, 1198-1202 (2007).
87. Kim, H., Chen, J. & Yu, X. Ubiquitin-binding protein RAP80 mediates BRCA1-dependent DNA damage response. Science 316, 1202-1205 (2007).
88. Wang, B. et al. Abraxas and RAP80 form a BRCA1 protein complex required for the DNA damage response. Science 316, 1194-1198 (2007).
89. Wu, J. et al. Histone ubiquitination associates with BRCA1-dependent DNA damage response. Mol. Cell. Biol. 29, 849-860 (2009).
90. Panier, S. & Boulton, S. J. Double-strand break repair: 53BP1 comes into focus. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 7-18 (2014).
91. Pesavento, J. J., Yang, H., Kelleher, N. L. & Mizzen, C. A. Certain and progressive methylation of histone H4 at lysine 20 during the cell cycle. Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 468-486 (2008).
92. Mallette, F. A. et al. RNF8- and RNF168-dependent degradation of KDM4A/JMJD2A triggers 53BP1 recruitment to DNA damage sites. EMBO J. 31, 1865-1878 (2012).
93. Cao, L. et al. A selective requirement for 53BP1 in the biological response to genomic instability induced by Brca1 deficiency. Mol. Cell 35, 534-541 (2009).
94. Bunting, S. F. et al. 53BP1 inhibits homologous recombination in Brca1-deficient cells by blocking resection of DNA breaks. Cell 141, 243-254 (2010).
95. Bouwman, P. et al. 53BP1 loss rescues BRCA1 deficiency and is associated with triple-negative and BRCA-mutated breast cancers. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 688-695 (2010). References 94 and 95 demonstrate that 53BP1 inhibits DSB end resection and homologous recombination.
96. Escribano-Diaz, C. et al. A cell cycle-dependent regulatory circuit composed of 53BP1-RIF1 and BRCA1-CtIP controls DNA repair pathway choice. Mol. Cell 49, 872-883 (2013).
97. Chapman, J. R. et al. RIF1 is essential for 53BP1-dependent nonhomologous end joining and suppression of DNA double-strand break resection. Mol. Cell 49, 858-871 (2013).
98. Di Virgilio, M. et al. Rif1 prevents resection of DNA breaks and promotes immunoglobulin class switching. Science 339, 711-715 (2013).
99. Zimmermann, M., Lottersberger, F., Buonomo, S. B., Sfeir, A. & de Lange, T. 53BP1 regulates DSB repair using Rif1 to control 5' end resection. Science 339, 700-704 (2013).
100. Boersma, V. et al. MAD2L2 controls DNA repair at telomeres and DNA breaks by inhibiting 5' end resection. Nature 521, 537-540 (2015).
101. Xu, G. et al. REV7 counteracts DNA double-strand break resection and affects PARP inhibition. Nature 521, 541-544 (2015).
102. Kakarougkas, A. et al. Co-operation of BRCA1 and POH1 relieves the barriers posed by 53BP1 and RAP80 to resection. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 10298-10311 (2013).
103. Chapman, J. R., Sossick, A. J., Boulton, S. J. & Jackson, S. P. BRCA1-associated exclusion of 53BP1 from DNA damage sites underlies temporal control of DNA repair. J. Cell Sci. 125, 3529-3534 (2012).
104. Munoz, I. M., Jowsey, P. A., Toth, R. & Rouse, J. Phospho-epitope binding by the BRCT domains of hPTIP controls multiple aspects of the cellular response to DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 5312-5322 (2007).
105. Callen, E. et al. 53BP1 mediates productive and mutagenic DNA repair through distinct phosphoprotein interactions. Cell 153, 1266-1280 (2013).
106. Wang, J. et al. PTIP associates with Artemis to dictate DNA repair pathway choice. Genes Dev. 28, 2693-2698 (2014).
107. Reczek, C. R., Szabolcs, M., Stark, J. M., Ludwig, T. & Baer, R. The interaction between CtIP and BRCA1 is not essential for resection-mediated DNA repair or tumor suppression. J. Cell Biol. 201, 693-707 (2013).
108. Polato, F. et al. CtIP-mediated resection is essential for viability and can operate independently of BRCA1. J. Exp. Med. 211, 1027-1036 (2014).
109. Cruz-Garcia, A., Lopez-Saavedra, A. & Huertas, P. BRCA1 accelerates CtIP-mediated DNA-end resection. Cell Rep. 9, 451-459 (2014).
110. Coleman, K. A. & Greenberg, R. A. The BRCA1-RAP80 complex regulates DNA repair mechanism utilization by restricting end resection. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 13669-13680 (2011).
111. Hu, Y. et al. RAP80-directed tuning of BRCA1 homologous recombination function at ionizing radiation-induced nuclear foci. Genes Dev. 25, 685-700 (2011).
112. Shakya, R. et al. BRCA1 tumor suppression depends on BRCT phosphoprotein binding, but not its E3 ligase activity. Science 334, 525-528 (2011).
113. Drost, R. et al. BRCA1 RING function is essential for tumor suppression but dispensable for therapy resistance. Cancer Cell 20, 797-809 (2011).
114. Yu, X., Fu, S., Lai, M., Baer, R. & Chen, J. BRCA1 ubiquitinates its phosphorylation-dependent binding partner CtIP. Genes Dev. 20, 1721-1726 (2006).
115. Kalb, R., Mallery, D. L., Larkin, C., Huang, J. T. & Hiom, K. BRCA1 is a histone-H2A-specific ubiquitin ligase. Cell Rep. 8, 999-1005 (2014).
116. Zhu, Q. et al. BRCA1 tumour suppression occurs via heterochromatin-mediated silencing. Nature 477, 179-184 (2011).
117. Wu-Baer, F., Lagrazon, K., Yuan, W. & Baer, R. The BRCA1/BARD1 heterodimer assembles polyubiquitin chains through an unconventional linkage involving lysine residue K6 of ubiquitin. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 34743-34746 (2003).
118. Orthwein, A. et al. A mechanism for the suppression of homologous recombination in G1 cells. Nature 528, 422-426 (2015). Reveals that homologous recombination is suppressed in the G1 phase by CRL3KEAP1-mediated ubiquitylation of PALB2, preventing its binding to BRCA2.
119. Morris, J. R. et al. The SUMO modification pathway is involved in the BRCA1 response to genotoxic stress. Nature 462, 886-890 (2009).
120. Galanty, Y. et al. Mammalian SUMO E3-ligases PIAS1 and PIAS4 promote responses to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 462, 935-939 (2009).
121. Danielsen, J. R. et al. DNA damage-inducible SUMOylation of HERC2 promotes RNF8 binding via a novel SUMO-binding Zinc finger. J. Cell Biol. 197, 179-187 (2012).
122. Yin, Y. et al. SUMO-targeted ubiquitin E3 ligase RNF4 is required for the response of human cells to DNA damage. Genes Dev. 26, 1196-1208 (2012).
123. Luo, K., Zhang, H., Wang, L., Yuan, J. & Lou, Z. Sumoylation of MDC1 is important for proper DNA damage response. EMBO J. 31, 3008-3019 (2012).
124. Ismail, I. H. et al. CBX4-mediated SUMO modification regulates BMI1 recruitment at sites of DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 5497-5510 (2012).
125. Yan, J., Yang, X. P., Kim, Y. S., Joo, J. H. & Jetten, A. M. RAP80 interacts with the SUMO-conjugating enzyme UBC9 and is a novel target for sumoylation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 362, 132-138 (2007).
126. Wu, N. et al. Scc1 sumoylation by Mms21 promotes sister chromatid recombination through counteracting Wapl. Genes Dev. 26, 1473-1485 (2012).
127. Jacome, A. et al. NSMCE2 suppresses cancer and aging in mice independently of its SUMO ligase activity. EMBO J. 34, 2604-2619 (2015).
128. Psakhye, I. & Jentsch, S. Protein group modification and synergy in the SUMO pathway as exemplified in DNA repair. Cell 151, 807-820 (2012). Describes the principle of SUMO group modification in DSB repair.
129. Ouyang, K. J. et al. SUMO modification regulates BLM and RAD51 interaction at damaged replication forks. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000252 (2009).
130. Dou, H., Huang, C., Singh, M., Carpenter, P. B. & Yeh, E. T. Regulation of DNA repair through deSUMOylation and SUMOylation of replication protein A complex. Mol. Cell 39, 333-345 (2010).
131. Garvin, A. J. et al. The deSUMOylase SENP7 promotes chromatin relaxation for homologous recombination DNA repair. EMBO Rep. 14, 975-983 (2013).
132. Ivanov, A. V. et al. PHD domain-mediated E3 ligase activity directs intramolecular sumoylation of an adjacent bromodomain required for gene silencing. Mol. Cell 28, 823-837 (2007).
133. 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. 18, 831-839 (2011).
134. Noon, A. T. et al. 53BP1-dependent robust localized KAP-1 phosphorylation is essential for heterochromatic DNA double-strand break repair. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 177-184 (2010).
135. Poulsen, S. L. et al. RNF111/Arkadia is a SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligase that facilitates the DNA damage response. J. Cell Biol. 201, 797-807 (2013).
136. Ma, T. et al. RNF111-dependent neddylation activates DNA damage-induced ubiquitination. Mol. Cell 49, 897-907 (2013).
137. Gibbs-Seymour, I. et al. Ubiquitin-SUMO circuitry controls activated Fanconi anemia ID complex dosage in response to DNA damage. Mol. Cell 57, 150-164 (2015).
138. Branigan, E., Plechanovova, A., Jaffray, E. G., Naismith, J. H. & Hay, R. T. Structural basis for the RING-catalyzed synthesis of K63-linked ubiquitin chains. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 597-602 (2015).
139. Tatham, M. H. et al. RNF4 is a poly-SUMO-specific E3 ubiquitin ligase required for arsenic-induced PML degradation. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 538-546 (2008).
140. Guzzo, C. M. et al. RNF4-dependent hybrid SUMO-ubiquitin chains are signals for RAP80 and thereby mediate the recruitment of BRCA1 to sites of DNA damage. Sci. Signal. 5, ra88 (2012).
141. Hu, X., Paul, A. & Wang, B. Rap80 protein recruitment to DNA double-strand breaks requires binding to both small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) and ubiquitin conjugates. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 25510-25519 (2012).
142. Li, T., Guan, J., Huang, Z., Hu, X. & Zheng, X. RNF168-mediated H2A neddylation antagonizes ubiquitylation of H2A and regulates DNA damage repair. J. Cell Sci. 127, 2238-2248 (2014).
143. Hjerpe, R. et al. Changes in the ratio of free NEDD8 to ubiquitin triggers NEDDylation by ubiquitin enzymes. Biochem. J. 441, 927-936 (2012).
144. Hjerpe, R., Thomas, Y. & Kurz, T. NEDD8 overexpression results in neddylation of ubiquitin substrates by the ubiquitin pathway. J. Mol. Biol. 421, 27-29 (2012).
145. Enchev, R. I., Schulman, B. A. & Peter, M. Protein neddylation: beyond cullin-RING ligases. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 30-44 (2015).
146. Brown, J. S. et al. Neddylation promotes ubiquitylation and release of Ku from DNA-damage sites. Cell Rep. 11, 704-714 (2015).
147. Zhao, Y., Brickner, J. R., Majid, M. C. & Mosammaparast, N. Crosstalk between ubiquitin and other post-translational modifications on chromatin during double-strand break repair. Trends Cell Biol. 24, 426-434 (2014).
148. Xu, Y. et al. The p400 ATPase regulates nucleosome stability and chromatin ubiquitination during DNA repair. J. Cell Biol. 191, 31-43 (2010).
149. Maxwell, K. N. & Domchek, S. M. Cancer treatment according to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9, 520-528 (2012).
150. Stewart, G. S. et al. RIDDLE immunodeficiency syndrome is linked to defects in 53BP1-mediated DNA damage signaling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 16910-16915 (2007).
151. Devgan, S. S. et al. Homozygous deficiency of ubiquitin-ligase ring-finger protein RNF168 mimics the radiosensitivity syndrome of ataxia-telangiectasia. Cell Death Differ. 18, 1500-1506 (2011). References 36 and 151 describe two independent cases of patients with biallelic mutations in RNF168, providing direct evidence that ubiquitin-mediated recruitment of repair factors to DSB sites is crucial for human health.
152. Lilley, C. E. et al. A viral E3 ligase targets RNF8 and RNF168 to control histone ubiquitination and DNA damage responses. EMBO J. 29, 943-955 (2010).
153. Chaurushiya, M. S. et al. Viral E3 ubiquitin ligase-mediated degradation of a cellular E3: viral mimicry of a cellular phosphorylation mark targets the RNF8 FHA domain. Mol. Cell 46, 79-90 (2012).
154. Vyas, R. et al. RNF4 is required for DNA double-strand break repair in vivo. Cell Death Differ. 20, 490-502 (2013).
155. Santos, M. A. et al. Class switching and meiotic defects in mice lacking the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF8. J. Exp. Med. 207, 973-981 (2010).
156. Li, L. et al. Rnf8 deficiency impairs class switch recombination, spermatogenesis, and genomic integrity and predisposes for cancer. J. Exp. Med. 207, 983-997 (2010).
157. Bohgaki, T. et al. Genomic instability, defective spermatogenesis, immunodeficiency, and cancer in a mouse model of the RIDDLE syndrome. PLoS Genet. 7, e1001381 (2011).
158. Ward, I. M. et al. 53BP1 is required for class switch recombination. J. Cell Biol. 165, 459-464 (2004).
159. Manis, J. P. et al. 53BP1 links DNA damage-response pathways to immunoglobulin heavy chain class-switch recombination. Nat. Immunol. 5, 481-487 (2004).
160. Farmer, H. et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434, 917-921 (2005).
161. Bryant, H. E. et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 434, 913-917 (2005).
162. Popovic, D., Vucic, D. & Dikic, I. Ubiquitination in disease pathogenesis and treatment. Nat. Med. 20, 1242-1253 (2014).
163. Zhao, Y., Morgan, M. A. & Sun, Y. Targeting neddylation pathways to inactivate cullin-RING ligases for anticancer therapy. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 21, 2383-2400 (2014).
164. Magnaghi, P. et al. Covalent and allosteric inhibitors of the ATPase VCP/p97 induce cancer cell death. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9, 548-556 (2013).
165. Povlsen, L. K. et al. Systems-wide analysis of ubiquitylation dynamics reveals a key role for PAF15 ubiquitylation in DNA-damage bypass. Nat. Cell Biol. 14, 1089-1098 (2012).
166. Hendriks, I. A., Treffers, L. W., Verlaan-de Vries, M., Olsen, J. V. & Vertegaal, A. C. SUMO-2 orchestrates chromatin modifiers in response to DNA damage. Cell Rep. 10, 1778-1791 (2015).
167. Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823-826 (2013).
168. Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819-823 (2013).
169. Shalem, O. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84-87 (2014).
170. Wang, T., Wei, J. J., Sabatini, D. M. & Lander, E. S. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343, 80-84 (2014).
171. Hospenthal, M. K., Mevissen, T. E. & Komander, D. Deubiquitinase-based analysis of ubiquitin chain architecture using Ubiquitin Chain Restriction (UbiCRest). Nat. Protoc. 10, 349-361 (2015).