Literature DB >> 18593882

Separate roles for the DNA damage checkpoint protein kinases in stabilizing DNA replication forks.

Monica Segurado1, John F X Diffley.   

Abstract

The DNA damage checkpoint plays a crucial role in maintaining functional DNA replication forks when cells are exposed to genotoxic agents. In budding yeast, the protein kinases Mec1 (ATR) and Rad53 (Chk2) are especially important in this process. How these kinases act to stabilize DNA replication forks is currently unknown but is likely to have important implications for understanding how genomic instability is generated during oncogenesis and how chemotherapies that interfere with DNA replication could be improved. Here we show that the sensitivity of rad53 mutants to DNA-damaging agents can be almost completely suppressed by deletion of the EXO1 gene, which encodes an enigmatic flap endonuclease. Deletion of EXO1 also suppresses DNA replication fork instability in rad53 mutants. Surprisingly, deletion of EXO1 is completely ineffective in suppressing both the sensitivity and replication fork breakdown in mec1 mutants, indicating that Mec1 has a genetically separable role in replication fork stabilization from Rad53. Finally, our analysis indicates that a second downstream effector kinase, Chk1, can stabilize replication forks in the absence of Rad53. These results reveal previously unappreciated complexity in the downstream targets of the checkpoint kinases and provide a framework for elucidating the mechanisms of DNA replication fork stabilization by these kinases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18593882      PMCID: PMC2492668          DOI: 10.1101/gad.477208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genes Dev        ISSN: 0890-9369            Impact factor:   11.361


  56 in total

Review 1.  The G2-phase DNA-damage checkpoint.

Authors:  M J O'Connell; N C Walworth; A M Carr
Journal:  Trends Cell Biol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 20.808

2.  Uninterrupted MCM2-7 function required for DNA replication fork progression.

Authors:  K Labib; J A Tercero; J F Diffley
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-06-02       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Sensing and responding to DNA damage.

Authors:  N F Lowndes; J R Murguia
Journal:  Curr Opin Genet Dev       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 5.578

Review 4.  The DNA damage response: putting checkpoints in perspective.

Authors:  B B Zhou; S J Elledge
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-11-23       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Control of the DNA damage checkpoint by chk1 and rad53 protein kinases through distinct mechanisms.

Authors:  Y Sanchez; J Bachant; H Wang; F Hu; D Liu; M Tetzlaff; S J Elledge
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-11-05       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  DNA synthesis at individual replication forks requires the essential initiation factor Cdc45p.

Authors:  J A Tercero; K Labib; J F Diffley
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  2000-05-02       Impact factor: 11.598

Review 7.  DNA damage checkpoints and DNA replication controls in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  M Foiani; A Pellicioli; M Lopes; C Lucca; M Ferrari; G Liberi; M Muzi Falconi; P Plevani1
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2000-06-30       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Exo1 roles for repair of DNA double-strand breaks and meiotic crossing over in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  H Tsubouchi; H Ogawa
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.138

9.  Genomic mapping of single-stranded DNA in hydroxyurea-challenged yeasts identifies origins of replication.

Authors:  Wenyi Feng; David Collingwood; Max E Boeck; Lindsay A Fox; Gina M Alvino; Walton L Fangman; Mosur K Raghuraman; Bonita J Brewer
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2006-01-22       Impact factor: 28.824

Review 10.  Chk1 and Cds1: linchpins of the DNA damage and replication checkpoint pathways.

Authors:  N Rhind; P Russell
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.285

View more
  97 in total

1.  Keeping it together in times of stress: checkpoint function at stalled replication forks.

Authors:  Theresa J Berens; David P Toczyski
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 2.  Surviving chromosome replication: the many roles of the S-phase checkpoint pathway.

Authors:  Karim Labib; Giacomo De Piccoli
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  DNA replication stress: from molecular mechanisms to human disease.

Authors:  Sergio Muñoz; Juan Méndez
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 4.316

4.  14-3-3 proteins restrain the Exo1 nuclease to prevent overresection.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Chen; In-Kwon Kim; Yuchi Honaker; Sharad C Paudyal; Won Kyun Koh; Melanie Sparks; Shan Li; Helen Piwnica-Worms; Tom Ellenberger; Zhongsheng You
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 5.157

5.  Checkpoint genes and Exo1 regulate nearby inverted repeat fusions that form dicentric chromosomes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  Salma Kaochar; Lisa Shanks; Ted Weinert
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Genetic interaction of RAD53 protein kinase with histones is important for DNA replication.

Authors:  Teresa M Holzen; Robert Sclafani
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 4.534

7.  Differential regulation of homologous recombination at DNA breaks and replication forks by the Mrc1 branch of the S-phase checkpoint.

Authors:  Constance Alabert; Julien N Bianco; Philippe Pasero
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 11.598

8.  The checkpoint transcriptional response: make sure to turn it off once you are satisfied.

Authors:  Marcus B Smolka; Francisco M Bastos de Oliveira; Michael R Harris; Robertus A M de Bruin
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 4.534

9.  The preference for error-free or error-prone postreplication repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae exposed to low-dose methyl methanesulfonate is cell cycle dependent.

Authors:  Dongqing Huang; Brian D Piening; Amanda G Paulovich
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 4.272

10.  Ca2+-Stimulated AMPK-Dependent Phosphorylation of Exo1 Protects Stressed Replication Forks from Aberrant Resection.

Authors:  Shan Li; Zeno Lavagnino; Delphine Lemacon; Lingzhen Kong; Alessandro Ustione; Xuewen Ng; Yuanya Zhang; Yingchun Wang; Bin Zheng; Helen Piwnica-Worms; Alessandro Vindigni; David W Piston; Zhongsheng You
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 17.970

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.