DNA interstrand cross-link repair requires replication-fork convergence (original) (raw)

References

  1. Lawley, P.D. & Phillips, D.H. DNA adducts from chemotherapeutic agents. Mutat. Res. 355, 13–40 (1996).
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Clauson, C., Schärer, O.D. & Niedernhofer, L. Advances in understanding the complex mechanisms of DNA interstrand cross-link repair. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 3, a012732 (2013).
    Google Scholar
  3. Garaycoechea, J.I. & Patel, K.J. Why does the bone marrow fail in Fanconi anemia? Blood 123, 26–34 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  4. Zhang, J. & Walter, J.C. Mechanism and regulation of incisions during DNA interstrand cross-link repair. DNA Repair (Amst.) 19, 135–142 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  5. Deans, A.J. & West, S.C. DNA interstrand crosslink repair and cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 11, 467–480 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  6. Räschle, M. et al. Mechanism of replication-coupled DNA interstrand crosslink repair. Cell 134, 969–980 (2008).
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Fu, Y.V. et al. Selective bypass of a lagging strand roadblock by the eukaryotic replicative DNA helicase. Cell 146, 931–941 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  8. Long, D.T., Joukov, V., Budzowska, M. & Walter, J.C. BRCA1 promotes unloading of the CMG helicase from a stalled DNA replication fork. Mol. Cell 56, 174–185 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  9. Knipscheer, P. et al. The Fanconi anemia pathway promotes replication-dependent DNA interstrand cross-link repair. Science 326, 1698–1701 (2009).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  10. Klein Douwel, D. et al. XPF-ERCC1 acts in unhooking DNA interstrand crosslinks in cooperation with FANCD2 and FANCP/SLX4. Mol. Cell 54, 460–471 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  11. Long, D.T., Räschle, M., Joukov, V. & Walter, J.C. Mechanism of RAD51-dependent DNA interstrand cross-link repair. Science 333, 84–87 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Berezney, R., Dubey, D.D. & Huberman, J.A. Heterogeneity of eukaryotic replicons, replicon clusters, and replication foci. Chromosoma 108, 471–484 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  13. Kottemann, M.C. & Smogorzewska, A. Fanconi anaemia and the repair of Watson and Crick DNA crosslinks. Nature 493, 356–363 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  14. Walden, H. & Deans, A.J. The Fanconi anemia DNA repair pathway: structural and functional insights into a complex disorder. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 43, 257–278 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  15. Williams, H.L., Gottesman, M.E. & Gautier, J. The differences between ICL repair during and outside of S phase. Trends Biochem. Sci. 38, 386–393 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  16. Bunting, S.F. & Nussenzweig, A. Dangerous liaisons: Fanconi anemia and toxic nonhomologous end joining in DNA crosslink repair. Mol. Cell 39, 164–166 (2010).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  17. Legerski, R.J. Repair of DNA interstrand cross-links during S phase of the mammalian cell cycle. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 51, 540–551 (2010).
    CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  18. Muniandy, P.A., Liu, J., Majumdar, A., Liu, S.-T. & Seidman, M.M. DNA interstrand crosslink repair in mammalian cells: step by step. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 45, 23–49 (2010).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  19. Nakanishi, K. et al. Homology-directed Fanconi anemia pathway cross-link repair is dependent on DNA replication. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 500–503 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  20. Willis, N.A. et al. BRCA1 controls homologous recombination at Tus/_Ter_-stalled mammalian replication forks. Nature 510, 556–559 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  21. Le Breton, C., Hennion, M., Arimondo, P.B. & Hyrien, O. Replication-fork stalling and processing at a single psoralen interstrand crosslink in Xenopus egg extracts. PLoS ONE 6, e18554 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  22. Huang, J. et al. The DNA translocase FANCM/MHF promotes replication traverse of DNA interstrand crosslinks. Mol. Cell 52, 434–446 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  23. Duxin, J.P., Dewar, J.M., Yardimci, H. & Walter, J.C. Repair of a DNA-protein crosslink by replication-coupled proteolysis. Cell 159, 346–357 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  24. Crossan, G.P. & Patel, K.J. The Fanconi anaemia pathway orchestrates incisions at sites of crosslinked DNA. J. Pathol. 226, 326–337 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  25. Leonard, A.C. & Méchali, M. DNA replication origins. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a010116 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  26. Duderstadt, K.E., Reyes-Lamothe, R., van Oijen, A.M. & Sherratt, D.J. Replication-fork dynamics. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6, a010157 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
  27. Blow, J.J., Ge, X.Q. & Jackson, D.A. How dormant origins promote complete genome replication. Trends Biochem. Sci. 36, 405–414 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  28. Ishibashi, T. & Lippard, S.J. Telomere loss in cells treated with cisplatin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 4219–4223 (1998).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  29. Sobeck, A., Stone, S., Landais, I., de Graaf, B. & Hoatlin, M.E. The Fanconi anemia protein FANCM is controlled by FANCD2 and the ATR/ATM pathways. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 25560–25568 (2009).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  30. Branzei, D. & Foiani, M. Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 11, 208–219 (2010).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  31. León-Ortiz, A.M., Svendsen, J. & Boulton, S.J. Metabolism of DNA secondary structures at the eukaryotic replication fork. DNA Repair (Amst.) 19, 152–162 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
  32. Enoiu, M., Ho, T.V., Long, D.T., Walter, J.C. & Schärer, O.D. Construction of plasmids containing site-specific DNA interstrand cross-links for biochemical and cell biological studies. Methods Mol. Biol. 920, 203–219 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  33. Lebofsky, R., Takahashi, T. & Walter, J.C. DNA replication in nucleus-free Xenopus egg extracts. Methods Mol. Biol. 521, 229–252 (2009).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  34. Walter, J. & Newport, J. Initiation of eukaryotic DNA replication: origin unwinding and sequential chromatin association of Cdc45, RPA, and DNA polymerase α. Mol. Cell 5, 617–627 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  35. Fang, F. & Newport, J.W. Distinct roles of cdk2 and cdc2 in RP-A phosphorylation during the cell cycle. J. Cell Sci. 106, 983–994 (1993).
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  36. Knipscheer, P., Räschle, M., Schärer, O.D. & Walter, J.C. Replication-coupled DNA interstrand cross-link repair in Xenopus egg extracts. Methods Mol. Biol. 920, 221–243 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Elledge, L. Zou, A. Smogorzewska, P. Knipscheer and the members of the Walter laboratory for feedback on the manuscript. M.B. was supported by Human Frontiers Science Program long-term fellowship LT000773/2010-l and European Molecular Biology Organization long-term fellowship ALTF 742-2009. A.M. was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada scholarship. M.A.C. was supported by UK Royal Society grant UF100717 and Fell Fund grant 103/789. J.C.W. was supported by US National Institutes of Health grants GM62267 and HL098316. J.C.W. is supported as an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
    Jieqiong Zhang, James M Dewar & Magda Budzowska
  2. Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
    Anna Motnenko & Martin A Cohn
  3. Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
    Johannes C Walter

Authors

  1. Jieqiong Zhang
  2. James M Dewar
  3. Magda Budzowska
  4. Anna Motnenko
  5. Martin A Cohn
  6. Johannes C Walter

Contributions

J.M.D. generated the lacO array (48 lacO repeats) and validated its use as a replication-fork barrier; M.B. and J.Z. prepared pICL-_lacO_Pt; A.M. and M.A.C. prepared psoralen-cross-linked oligonucleotides; J.Z. and J.C.W. designed and analyzed the experiments; J.Z. performed all the experiments; J.Z. and J.C.W. prepared the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toJohannes C Walter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Model for ICL repair with two forks and one fork.

Model for ICL repair with two forks (a) and one fork (b). The details of the single fork model are inferred from the mechanism previously established for the fork convergence modeln6–11.

Supplementary Figure 2 The LacI-lacO array efficiently blocks fork progression.

(a) Schematic of p_lacO_ replication intermediates expected in the presence and absence of LacI after digestion with XmnI.

(b) p_lacO_ was replicated with or without LacI, and IPTG was added at the indicated times. Replication intermediates were digested with XmnI, separated on an agarose gel, and detected by autoradiography.

Supplementary Figure 3 Leading strands persist at –20 to –40 when there is only a single fork.

(a) The intensity of leading strands located between the –20 to –40 positions in Fig. 1d and two repetitions of this experiment was quantified and graphed. Error bars represent standard deviations.

(b) Schematic illustration of nascent leading strands generated in the experiment described in (c).

(c) The LacI-lacO array does not inhibit ICL repair once forks have converged on the ICL. pICL-lacO was replicated in egg extracts, and LacI was added at the indicated times relative to NPE addition. Nascent leading strands were digested with AflIII and EcoRI and analyzed on a sequencing gel, as described in Fig. 1d. Note that LacI addition at 0 and 8 minutes after replication initiation, when most forks had not yet converged on the ICL (lane 11), inhibited approach (lanes 6–10 and 12–16). In contrast, LacI addition at 13 and 30 minutes, when most forks had converged (lanes 17 and 23), was not inhibitory for approach (lanes 18–22 and 24–27). Asterisk (*), background bands described in (d).

(d) The LacI-lacO array does not inhibit the approach of pICL repair in trans. pICL (which lacks the lacO array) and p_lacO_ (no ICL) were mixed and replicated in the presence of buffer or LacI, as indicated. Samples were digested with AflIII, and leading strands of pICL were monitored on a sequencing gel. A series of species differing in size by multiples of 30 nt was observed whenever a _lacO_-containing plasmid was replicated in the presence of LacI (* bands in the right panel, see also Fig. 1d, 1f; Supplementary Figure. 3c, 4b). The formation of the ladder was independent of restriction enzyme digestion (data not shown), indicating that non-ligated nascent strands generated within the lacO array give rise to the repeating pattern.

Supplementary Figure 4 A single fork remains competent for ICL repair after prolonged stalling.

(a) Schematic illustration of nascent leading strands generated in the presence and absence of LacI.

(b) pICL-lacO was replicated with or without LacI, and IPTG was added at the indicated times. Nascent leading strands were digested with AflIII and EcoRI and analyzed on a sequencing gel, as described in Fig. 1d. Asterisk (*), background bands described in Supplementary Fig. 3d.

(c) The intensity of the –20 to –40 products after IPTG addition in (b) was quantified and graphed.

Supplementary Figure 5 ChIP results and quantification of incision assays.

(a-c) ChIP results for MCM7, CDC45, FANCD2, XPF, and SLX4

(a) Experimental replicate of the MCM7 and CDC45 ChIP described in Fig. 2b.

(b) Two independent examples of FANCD2 ChIP. pICL-lacO and pQuant were replicated with or without LacI, and IPTG was added immediately before the 20 minute time point, as indicated (green arrow). At different times, samples were withdrawn for FANCD2 ChIP using primer pairs for the ICL locus (Fig. 2a) or pQuant (Ctrl).

(c) Experimental replicate of the XPF and SLX4 ChIP described in Fig. 3e.

(d) Quantification of Incision Assay

We quantified and graphed the efficiency of incision in the experiment shown in Fig. 3d (left) and in two repetitions of this experiment (middle and right). Incisions convert the X-shaped parental structure into linear products (Fig. 3c, left). However, linear products are created not only via incision, but also from nascent strands generated during lesion bypass, from homologous recombination, and from replication of undamaged plasmid. In contrast, the disappearance of X-shaped molecules is caused exclusively by incision, making the reduction in the intensity of the X-shaped band a better readout of incision. To compare incisions in the presence of one and two forks, we therefore determined the reduction of the X-shaped species in the presence of buffer (two forks), in the presence of LacI (one fork), and in the presence of LacI and IPTG (two forks). We found that in the three experiments shown above, LacI inhibited the reduction in X-shaped species by an average of ~70%, consistent with the fact that on 26% of molecules, a leftward replication fork reaches the ICL even in the presence of LacI (Fig. 1d).

Supplementary Figure 6 Fork convergence versus traverse.

When a single DNA replication fork encounters an ICL, it can pause until the arrival of a second fork (left arrow, “fork convergence”) or bypass the lesion (right arrow, “traverse”)22. In both cases, an X-shaped DNA structure surrounding the ICL is generated (grey box). If traverse happened in our system, the leading strands of the rightward, single fork should approach to –1 (orange strand) since CMG either dissociates or bypasses the ICL, yet they stall at the –20 position. The 5′ ends of the leading strands of the traversed fork might be heterogeneous, depending on where DNA synthesis restarts on the other side of the ICL (blue strand). In addition, lagging strands of the traversed fork should approach directly to the lesion without –20 stalling since there is no CMG travelling ahead of the polymerase (purple strand). Although we observed a low abundance of nascent strands between the ICL and the lacO array, they initially stalled at the –20 position, after which they underwent approach (Fig. 1d, 1f, leftward fork panel). Therefore, we conclude that these signals came from the arrival of the leftward forks (green strand; Supplementary Figure. 2) rather than traverse (purple strand).

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, J., Dewar, J., Budzowska, M. et al. DNA interstrand cross-link repair requires replication-fork convergence.Nat Struct Mol Biol 22, 242–247 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2956

Download citation