BMB Reports

Korean Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (생화학분자생물학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ku complex suppresses recombination in the absence of MRX activity during budding yeast meiosis

  • Yun, Hyeseon (Department of Life Science, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Kim, Keunpil (Department of Life Science, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2018.10.21
  • Accepted : 2019.01.25
  • Published : 2019.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

During meiosis, programmed double-strand breaks (DSBs) are repaired via recombination pathways that are required for faithful chromosomal segregation and genetic diversity. In meiotic progression, the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway is suppressed and instead meiotic recombination initiated by nucleolytic resection of DSB ends is the major pathway employed. This requires diverse recombinase proteins and regulatory factors involved in the formation of crossovers (COs) and non-crossovers (NCOs). In mitosis, spontaneous DSBs occurring at the G1 phase are predominantly repaired via NHEJ, mediating the joining of DNA ends. The Ku complex binds to these DSB ends, inhibiting additional DSB resection and mediating end joining with Dnl4, Lif1, and Nej1, which join the Ku complex and DSB ends. Here, we report the role of the Ku complex in DSB repair using a physical analysis of recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae during meiosis. We found that the Ku complex is not essential for meiotic progression, DSB formation, joint molecule formation, or CO/NCO formation during normal meiosis. Surprisingly, in the absence of the Ku complex and functional Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 (MRX) complex, a large portion of meiotic DSBs was repaired via the recombination pathway to form COs and NCOs. Our data suggested that Ku complex prevents meiotic recombination in the elimination of MRX activity.

Keywords

References

  1. Chung WH (2014) To peep into Pif1 helicase: Multifaceted all the way from genome stability to repair-associated DNA synthesis. J Microbiol 52, 89-98 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-014-3524-3
  2. Choi DH, Lee R, Kwon SH and Bae SH (2013) Hrq1 functions independently of Sgs1 to preserve genome integrity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Microbiol 51, 105-112 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-013-3048-2
  3. Sung P (2018) Introduction to the Thematic Minireview Series: DNA double-strand break repair and pathway choice. J Biol Chem 293, 10500-10501 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.TM118.003212
  4. Haber JE (2018) DNA Repair: The Search for Homology. BioEssays 40, 1700229 https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201700229
  5. Fouquin A, Guirouilh-Barbat J, Lopez B, Hall J, Amor-Gueret M and Pennaneach V (2017) PARP2 controls double-strand break repair pathway choice by limiting 53BP1 accumulation at DNA damage sites and promoting end-resection. Nucleic Acids Res 45, 12325-12339 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx881
  6. Daley JM, Laan RLV, Suresh A and Wilson TE (2005) DNA Joint dependence of Pol X family polymerase action in nonhomologous end joining. J Biol Chem 280, 29030-29037 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M505277200
  7. Cannavo E, Johnson D, Andres SN et al (2018) Regulatory control of DNA end resection by Sae2 phosphorylation. Nat Commun 9, 4016 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06417-5
  8. Kim KP, Weiner BM, Zhang L, Jordan A, Dekker J and Kleckner N (2010) Sister cohesion and structural axis components mediate homolog bias of meiotic recombination. Cell 143, 924-937 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.11.015
  9. Hong S, Sung Y, Yu M, Lee M, Kleckner N and Kim KP (2013) The logic and mechanism of homologous recombination partner choice. Mol Cell 51, 440-453 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2013.08.008
  10. Hong S and Kim KP (2013) Shu1 promotes homolog bias of meiotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cells 36, 446-454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10059-013-0215-6
  11. Yoon SW, Lee MS, Xaver M et al (2016) Meiotic prophase roles of Rec8 in crossover recombination and chromosome structure. Nucleic Acids Res 44, 9296-9314 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw682
  12. Marcon E and Moens PB (2005) The evolution of meiosis: Recruitment and modification of somatic DNA-repair proteins. Bioessays 27, 795-808 https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20264
  13. Lam I and Keeney S (2015) Mechanism and regulation of meiotic recombination initiation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 7, a016634-a016634 https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a016634
  14. Gobbini E, Cassani C, Villa M, Bonetti D and Longhese MP (2016) Functions and regulation of the MRX complex at DNA double-strand breaks. Microbial Cell 3, 329-337 https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2016.08.517
  15. Seeber A, Hegnauer AM, Hustedt N et al (2016) RPA mediates recruitment of MRX to forks and double-strand breaks to hold sister chromatids together. Molecular Cell 64, 951-966 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.10.032
  16. Chen H, Donnianni RA, Handa N et al (2015) Sae2 promotes DNA damage resistance by removing the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 complex from DNA and attenuating Rad53 signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112, E1880-E1887 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503331112
  17. Hefferin ML and Tomkinson AE (2005) Mechanism of DNA double-strand break repair by non-homologous end joining. DNA Repair 4, 639-648 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2004.12.005
  18. Huertas P and Jackson SP (2009) Human CtIP mediates cell cycle control of DNA end resection and double strand break repair. J Biol Chem 284, 9558-9565 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M808906200
  19. Huertas P, Cortes-Ledesma F, Sartori AA, Aguilera A and Jackson SP (2008) CDK targets Sae2 to control DNA-end resection and homologous recombination. Nature 455, 689-692 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07215
  20. Mimitou EP and Symington LS (2011) DNA end resection - unraveling the tail. DNA Repair (Amst) 10, 344-348 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.12.004
  21. Kim KP and Mirkin EV (2018) So similar yet so different: The two ends of a double strand break. Mutat Res 809, 70-80 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2017.06.007
  22. Tsukamoto Y, Kato J and Ikeda H (1996) Hdf1, a yeast Ku-protein homologue, is involved in illegitimate recombination, but not in homologous recombination. Nucleic Acids Res 24, 2067-2072 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/24.11.2067
  23. Gu Y, Jin S, Gao Y, Weaver DT and Alt FW (1997) Ku70-deficient embryonic stem cells have increased ionizing radiosensitivity, defective DNA end-binding activity, and inability to support V(D)J recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94, 8076-8081 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.15.8076
  24. Sorenson KS, Mahaney BL, Lees-Miller SP and Cobb JA (2017) The non-homologous end-joining factor Nej1 inhibits resection mediated by Dna2-Sgs1 nucleasehelicase at DNA double strand breaks. J Biol Chem 292, 14576-14586 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M117.796011
  25. Pannunzio NR, Watanabe G and Lieber MR (2018) Nonhomologous DNA end-joining for repair of DNA double-strand breaks. J Biol Chem 293, 10512-10523 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.TM117.000374
  26. Lieber MR (2010) The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Ann Rev Biochem 79, 181-211 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.052308.093131
  27. Valencia M, Bentele M, Vaze MB et al (2001) NEJ1 controls non-homologous end joining in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 414, 666-669 https://doi.org/10.1038/414666a
  28. Lee MS, Yoon SW and Kim KP (2015) Mitotic cohesin subunit Mcd1 regulates the progression of meiotic recombination in budding yeast. J Microbiol Biotechnol 25, 598-605 https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1501.01081
  29. Cho HR, Kong YJ, Hong SG and Kim KP (2016) Hop2 and Sae3 are required for Dmc1-mediated double-strand break repair via homolog bias during meiosis. Mol Cells 39, 550-556 https://doi.org/10.14348/molcells.2016.0069
  30. Hong S, Choi EH and Kim KP (2015) Ycs4 is required for efficient double-strand break formation and homologous recombination during meiosis. J Microbiol Biotechnol 25, 1026-1035 https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1504.04013
  31. Yin Y and Smolikove S (2013) Impaired resection of meiotic duble-strand breaks channels repair to nonhomologous end joining in caenorhabditis elegans. Mol Cell Biol 33, 2732-2747 https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00055-13
  32. Ho HC and Burgess SM (2011) Pch2 Acts through Xrs2 and Tel1/ATM to modulate interhomolog bias and checkpoint function during meiosis. PLoS Genet 7, e1002351 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002351
  33. Hunter N (2006) Meiotic Recombination. molecular genetics of recombination, Topics in Current Genetics, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 381-442
  34. Neale M, Pan J and Keeney S (2005) Endonucleolytic processing of covalent protein-linked DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 436, 1053-1057 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03872
  35. Devkota S (2018) The road less traveled: strategies to enhance the frequency of homology-directed repair (HDR) for increased efficiency of CRISPR/Cas-mediated transgenesis. BMB Rep 51, 437-443 https://doi.org/10.5483/BMBRep.2018.51.9.187