Differences in the recruitment of DNA repair proteins at subtelomeric and interstitial I-Scel endonuclease-induced DNA double-strand breaks

被引:6
|
作者
Silva, Barbara Alcaraz [1 ]
Jones, Trevor J. [1 ]
Murnane, John P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiat Oncol, 2340 Sutter St, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
NA repair; Double-strand breaks; Telomere; HOMOLOGOUS RECOMBINATION; END RESECTION; DAMAGE-RESPONSE; HUMAN-CELLS; 53BP1; ATM; CTIP; MECHANISMS; TELOMERES; PATHWAY;
D O I
10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.10.008
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures that are required to protect chromosome ends. Dysfunctional telomeres are recognized as DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), and elicit the activation of a DNA damage response (DDR). We have previously reported that DSBs near telomeres are poorly repaired, resulting in a high frequency of large deletions and gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs). Our previous genetic studies have demonstrated that this sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs is a result of excessive processing. In the current study, we have further investigated the sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs through the analysis of repair proteins associated with DSBs at interstitial and telomeric sites. Following the inducible expression of I-Seel endonuclease, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) and real-time quantitative PCR were used to compare the recruitment of repair proteins at I-SceI-induced DSBs at interstitial and subtelomeric sites. We observed that proteins that are specifically associated with processing of DSBs during homologous recombination repair, RAD51, BRCA1, and CtIP, are present at a much greater abundance at subtelomeric DSBs. In contrast, Ku70, which is specifically involved in classical nonhomologous end joining, showed no difference at interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs. Importantly, ATM was lower in abundance at subtelomeric DSBs, while ATR was in greater abundance at subtelomeric DSBs, consistent with the accumulation of processed DSBs near telomeres, since processing is accompanied by a transition from ATM to ATR binding. Combined, our results suggest that excessive processing is responsible for the increased frequency of large deletions and GCRs at DSBs near telomeres. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 8
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Multiple pathways of repair for endonuclease-induced double-strand breaks within chromosomal DNA
    Summers, Jennifer
    Lewis, L. Kevin
    [J]. FASEB JOURNAL, 2007, 21 (06): : A1037 - A1037
  • [2] REPAIR OF A SPECIFIC DOUBLE-STRAND BREAK GENERATED WITHIN A MAMMALIAN CHROMOSOME BY YEAST ENDONUCLEASE I-SCEL
    LUKACSOVICH, T
    YANG, D
    WALDMAN, AS
    [J]. NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 1994, 22 (25) : 5649 - 5657
  • [3] The DNA damage response at dysfunctional telomeres, and at interstitial and subtelomeric DNA double-strand breaks
    Muraki, Keiko
    Murnane, John P.
    [J]. GENES & GENETIC SYSTEMS, 2017, 92 (03) : 135 - 152
  • [4] REPAIR OF DNA DOUBLE-STRAND BREAKS
    HUTCHINSON, F
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SUPRAMOLECULAR STRUCTURE, 1978, : 18 - 18
  • [5] Repair of induced double-strand breaks in mitochondrial DNA
    Stein, Alexis
    Sia, Eliane
    [J]. YEAST, 2013, 30 : 139 - 139
  • [6] Postreplicative recruitment of cohesin to double-strand breaks is required for DNA repair
    Ström, L
    Lindroos, HB
    Shirahige, K
    Sjögren, C
    [J]. MOLECULAR CELL, 2004, 16 (06) : 1003 - 1015
  • [7] Recombinational repair of chromosomal DNA double-strand breaks generated by a restriction endonuclease
    Cromie, GA
    Leach, DRF
    [J]. MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY, 2001, 41 (04) : 873 - 883
  • [8] DNA mismatch repair-induced double-strand breaks
    Nowosielska, Anetta
    Marinus, M. G.
    [J]. DNA REPAIR, 2008, 7 (01) : 48 - 56
  • [9] REPAIR OF DOUBLE-STRAND DNA BREAKS IN DROSOPHILA
    DEZZANI, W
    HARRIS, PV
    BOYD, JB
    [J]. MUTATION RESEARCH, 1982, 92 (1-2): : 151 - 160
  • [10] Regulation and repair of double-strand DNA breaks
    Weaver, DT
    [J]. CRITICAL REVIEWS IN EUKARYOTIC GENE EXPRESSION, 1996, 6 (04): : 345 - 375