Aging
is the accumulation of unrepaired damage to cellular and organismal components
over time. Damage to nuclear DNA likely contributes to the degenerative effects
of aging; unlike other cellular constituents, nuclear DNA cannot be replaced [1]. A wide
spectrum of DNA lesions and associated repair pathways exist [1]: non-helix
distorting lesions, such as those induced by oxidative damage, are repaired via
base excision repair (BER); whereas helix-distorting base changes, like those
caused by UV, are fixed via nucleotide excision repair (NER) and its
subpathways. DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) represent a particularly severe
challenge to the cell; if left unrepaired these lesions can induce cell death,
replicative senescence, or conversely promote oncogenic transformation. For
this reason, cells have evolved multiple pathways to repair DSBs: classical
non-homologous end-joining (C-NHEJ), homologous recombination (HR), and other
pathways such as alternative NHEJ [2,3,4]. In
this issue of Aging, workby Chua, McCord et al. suggests that
SIRT6, a member of a protein family previously implicated in promoting
longevity, may function at least in part via increasing efficacy of DNA repair.In eukaryotic cells, DNA does not exist
as a naked double-stranded molecule; rather it is packaged with histones and
other proteins into a complex structure called chromatin [5].
Transcription, replication, and repair factors must navigate this environment
to interact with DNA. Covalent modification of N-terminal histone tails (via
phosphorylation, methylation, ubiquitination, sumoylation, ADP-ribosylation,
and acetylation) leads to alterations in chromatin function. Chromatin itself may serve as a target of age-related change;
significant alterations in chromatin structure occur during senescence
of mammalian cells in vitro, and perhaps in the context of the whole
organism as well [5]. One
consequence of accumulated DNA damage and/or chromatin aberrations seems to be
age-related perturbations in gene expression in some tissues [5,6,7], which
may in turn lead to progressive loss of cellular and organismal homeostasis.
However, these transcriptional changes are not found in all cell types [8], implying
that different tissues vary with respect to their maintenance of an appropriate
gene expression pattern, and potentially chromatin structure, with age.In
budding yeast and higher organisms, homologs of the Sir2 protein (the sirtuins)
link chromatin structure with lifespan [9,10]. In
yeast, transcription and recom-bination of certain regions of the genome - the
telomeres, the ribosomal DNA array, and the silent mating type loci - are
down-regulated through the action of Sir2 and multiple other factors. Sir2
possess histone deacetylase and ADP-ribosyltransferase activities, both
dependent on the metabolic cofactor NAD+. In general, histone
deacetylation promotes a more compact chromatin structure and inhibits
transcription and recombination. In yeast, overexpression of Sir2 increases
replicative lifespan - that is, the longevity of a single yeast mother cell -
whereas deletion of Sir2 shortens it [11]. Sir2
possesses at least two functions in yeast relevant for longevity. First, Sir2
suppresses recombination at the repetitive array encoding the ribosomal rRNA
(the rDNA locus) [5].
HR-mediated excision and subsequent replication of extra-chromosomal rDNA
circles is an important cause of replicative aging in this organism. Second,
Sir2 regulates the distribution of oxidatively damaged proteins [12]. In
wild-type cells, oxidized proteins are specifically partitioned to the mother
cell, so that each daughter cell emerges with a complement of undamaged
proteins and suffers reduced levels of oxidative stress; in Sir2 mutants this
process fails to occur.A
great deal of excitement has emerged from the observation that sirtuins in
higher organisms are also involved in promoting longevity. In C. elegans and D. melanogaster, sirtuin overexpression or hyperactivity increases
lifespan [13,14,15].
The mechanisms by which sirtuin action increases longevity appear to be
species-specific; aberrant rDNA recombination has not thus far been implicated
in limiting lifespan in any organism aside from budding yeast. However, in
flies, Sir2 lies downstream of the histone deacetylase Rpd3 in lifespan
extension [13],
suggesting that, at least in this organism, chromatin represents the relevant
Sir2 target in the context of longevity.Mammals possess seven sirtuins, called
SIRT1-SIRT7 [16]. Unlike
yeastSir2, which is only known to modify histones, mammalian sirtuins have
evolved to target a plethora of distinct protein substrates, modulating a wide
variety of biological processes: metabolism, cell survival, development,
chromatin dynamics, DNA repair, and other phenomena [9,10]. Among
sirtuin-deficient mouse strains, the SIRT6 knockout is particularly relevant in
the context of the study of aging [17,18]. SIRT6
is found bound to nuclear chromatin [18]. In cells,
deletion of SIRT6 results in genomic instability, manifested as chromosomal
breaks and fusions, as well as sensitivity to specific genotoxins: the
alkylating agent methyl methanesulfonate, hydrogen peroxide, and ionizing
radiation, but not UV. This is a spectrum of sensitivities associated with
defects in BER; indeed, these sensitivities can be rescued via introduction of
a fragment of polymerase beta (polb), the major polymerase involved in
"short-patch" BER. These observations suggest that SIRT6 might be involved in
the BER process itself, either by modifying BER factors to promote repair or by
modulating chromatin structure to permit access to DNA lesions. No interactions
between SIRT6 and BER factors have been observed to date however; nor does
SIRT6 have an apparent role in deacetylating polb itself in vivo [18]. In mice,
the phenotype of SIRT6 deficiency is dominated by metabolic defects [18]. SIRT6
knockout mice are born at a Mendelian ratio and, though smaller than littermate
controls, are fairly normal during the first two weeks of life. Subsequently,
these mice begin to suffer from a complex metabolic/degenerative syndrome, with
progressive severe hypoglycemia, lymphocytic apoptosis and wasting,
culminating in death by four weeks of age.How
does the lack of SIRT6 produce such pleiotropic effects? It was originally
shown that SIRT6 possesses ADP-ribosyltransferase activity [18,19]. More
recently, Chua, Michishita and colleagues showed that SIRT6 has deacetylase
activity as well, specifically targeting histone H3 on lysine 9 (H3K9) [20]. Knockdown
of SIRT6 (S6KD) in human cells led to premature senescence coupled with genomic
instability, although the pattern of instability - primarily involving
telomeres - was distinct from the general instability observed in
SIRT6-deficientmouse embryonic fibroblasts and ES cells [18]. The
authors suggested that an altered chromatin state at telomeres in S6KD cells
due to increased levels of acetylated H3K9 prevents association of factors
required for proper telomere maintenance. One of these factors may be WRN, the
protein defective in Werner syndrome, a disease with some manifestations
resembling premature aging. Chua and colleagues found that WRN's association
with telomeric DNA was greatly reduced in S6KD cells. This model is unlikely to
explain the effects of SIRT6 deficiency in the mouse, however. The cellular and
metabolic defects observed in the SIRT6 knockout mouse do not resemble those
occurring with telomere maintenance defects, either in mouse or human, nor do
they resemble the effects of WRN deficiency in either species [21]. The long
mouse telomere reserve relative to human may explain some of these
discrepancies.In
this issue of Aging, Chua, McCord and colleagues have now extended their
characterization of SIRT6 function to a more general assessment of the role of
this factor in DNA repair. They find that the association of SIRT6 with chromatin
increases following induction of DNA damage, whereas overall levels of
acetylated H3K9 decline in a SIRT6-dependent manner. In human cell lines, SIRT6
interacts with DNA-PKcs, a protein involved in NHEJ. Chromatin-associated
DNA-PKcs also increases upon DNA damage in a SIRT6-dependent manner. In order
to define more precisely the potential role of SIRT6 at DNA lesions, Chua and
colleagues employ the meganucleases I-PpoI and I-SceI, which generate a few
hundred DSBs (in the case of I-PpoI), or a single DSB following introduction of
an appropriate site into the human genome (in the case of I-SceI). Using these
systems, the authors find that DNA-PKcs is enriched around the site of a DSB;
again this effect is dependent upon catalytically active SIRT6. Moreover, S6KD
cells show defective DSB repair, as assessed by comet assay, although repair is
normal when measured in SIRT6-immunodepleted extracts in vitro. The
authors suggest that SIRT6 may function to deacetylate H3K9 at chromatin
surrounding DSBs, potentially modulating access for DNA-PKcs and other repair
factors.This
study is reminiscent of work in lower other organisms implicating sirtuins in
DNA repair, as well as more recent studies on mammalianSIRT1 (see below). In
yeast, loss of Sir2 leads to defective NHEJ indirectly, via silencing of
essential end-joining factors such as Nej1 [22]. Loss of
the sirtuins Hst3 and Hst4, which target acetylated H3K56, promotes genomic
instability and DNA damage sensitivity [23,24,25,26].
In T. brucei, the sirtuin TbSIR2RP1 both deacetylates and
ADP-ribosylates histones to promote DNA damage resistance, associated with
increased bulk chromatin accessibility [27].The
study by Chua and colleagues raises a number of questions, particularly in
light of previous characterization of the mouseSIRT6 knockout [18]. Mice
deficient in DNA-PKcs or other NHEJ factors show profound defects in lymphocyte
development as a consequence of a failure to rejoin RAG-mediated DNA breaks
generated during immunoglobulin gene rearrangement [28]. However,
SIRT6-deficientmice possess a normal lymphocyte complement prior to the onset
of apoptosis [18]. Chua et
al. suggest that lymphocyte-specific factors, such as the RAG proteins
themselves, may compensate for the lack of SIRT6 during lymphocyte development.
Other explanations are conceivable; for example, loss of SIRT6 may confer only
a partial defect in DNA-PKcs function insufficient to impair gross lymphocyte
development. One other discrepancy between this work and the previous study of
the SIRT6 knockout concerns the nature of the DNA repair defect. While
SIRT6-deficientmouse cells do not show impaired resolution of DSBs, human S6KD
cells do demonstrate such a defect. The authors suggest that this discrepancy
may reflect differing sensitivities of the assays used (pulsed field gel
electrophoresis in the previous work versus comet assay in the current study).
Equally well, these differences may reflect cell type-specific and/or species
differences in SIRT6 function. To resolve these questions, it will be extremely
helpful to assess SIRT6 and DNA-PKcs recruitment to DSBs, as well as DSB
repair, in primary mouse cells using assays identical to the ones performed by
Chua and coworkers.More generally, in order to provide
further mechanistic detail concerning the functional role of SIRT6 at chromatin
in the context of DNA repair, it will be necessary to determine whether SIRT6
is recruited genome-wide in response to DNA damage, or locally, at the site of
a DSB; as well as to assess the relationship between potential local SIRT6
recruitment and acetyl-H3K9 levels. The data presented do not provide insight
into these issues. Moreover, in defining the role of SIRT6 in DSB repair, it
would be helpful to perform studies to clarify the kinetics and order of SIRT6
recruitment relative to DNA-PKcs, as well as the kinetics of DSB repair in S6KD
cells relative to controls (as opposed to testing at a single timepoint).
Finally, given the data linking SIRT6 to BER function in mouse cells, it will
be very informative to assess whether SIRT6 might promote association of other
repair factors, such as those involved in BER, to DNA lesions, as the authors
suggest.Two
recent studies on SIRT1 are relevant to the findings of Chua et al. Seto, Yuan
and coworkers find that SIRT1 deacetylates and activates NBS1, an upstream DSB
sensor [29]. More
recently, Sinclair, Oberdoerffer and colleagues have described a role for SIRT1
in DNA repair and age-related alterations in gene expression [5]. They find
that the association of SIRT1 with chromatin, like that of SIRT6, increases in
response to DNA damage. Under basal conditions, SIRT1 is associated with a
subset of promoters; induction of DNA damage leads to relocalization of SIRT1
protein and derepression of many of these SIRT1 target genes. SIRT1 is required
for optimal HR and NHEJ, and, consistent with a direct role for SIRT1 at sites
of DNA breaks, SIRT1 is recruited at these sites and is required for optimal
recruitment of NBS1 and the HR factor RAD51. This function of SIRT1 may be
important in aging; SIRT1 target promoters are derepressed during brain aging,
a change blocked by overexpression of SIRT1. The authors suggest that over the
lifetime of the cell, this relocalization of SIRT1 in response to DNA damage
may lead to age-related perturbations in gene expression. Overall, SIRT1
appears to be involved in both modulating gene expression as well as directly
recruiting factors to sites of DSBs.These
results regarding SIRT1 raise additional questions about the role of SIRT6 in
DSB repair, and organismal homeostasis overall. What is the nature of the
signal that triggers increased SIRT6 association with chromatin in response to
DNA damage? ATM kinase and histone H2AX, two proteins involved in the DSB
response, are required for SIRT1 recruitment in this context [5]. Is
acetyl-H3K9 the only relevant SIRT6 target or, like SIRT1, does SIRT6 modify
other proteins during this process? Could SIRT6 modulate transcription of genes
relevant for DSB repair, either in the basal state or following genomic insult?
In this context, SIRT6 emerged as a factor required for transcriptional
repression in a screen for genes involved in silencing of the Fas promoter [30]. More
recently, a study by Chua, Chang, Kawahara and colleagues demonstrated that
SIRT6 plays a role in attenuating NF- κB signaling via H3K9
deacetylation [31]. Thus,
SIRT6 clearly plays a role in modulating gene expression. Acetylated H3K9 is
associated with NER [32], a repair
pathway seemingly not involving SIRT6, and also marks actively transcribed
promoters [33]. Thus, it
is possible that the SIRT6-dependent bulk decrease in H3K9 acetylation in
response to DSBs observed by Chua and colleagues reflects overall
transcriptional alterations occurring in response to genomic insult, instead of
or in addition to changes in histone acetylation specifically at sites of
damage.Perhaps
the most fascinating question in this area concerns what the relationship is,
if any, between the profound metabolic abnormalities of SIRT6 knockout animals
and the genomic instability conferred by reduced levels of SIRT6 in mouse and
human cells; several models could conceivably explain this connection [17]. It
has been suggested that the organismal effects of SIRT6 deficiency, and similar
metabolic phenotypes in other repair-deficient mouse strains, represent a
homeostatic response to minimize ongoing genomic damage in the face of a DNA
repair defect [34]. Such a
model would not be consistent with the sole DNA repair function of mouseSIRT6
being to modulate DNA-PKcs activity, as DNA-PKcs knockout animals do not
display a dramatic metabolic phenotype [1]. Reduction
of NF-κB function partially rescues the lethality of SIRT6
deficiency [31]; however,
survivors still suffer a period of depressed serum glucose, implying that SIRT6
likely plays other roles in metabolism independent of NF-κB. It may be that SIRT6 affects transcription at many loci in a
tissue-specific manner; the metabolic defect associated with the lack of SIRT6
could represent the net result of defective regulation of multiple genes.
Clearly, much more remains to be learned concerning this fascinating and
enigmatic protein.
Authors: Luigi A Warren; Derrick J Rossi; Geoffrey R Schiebinger; Irving L Weissman; Stuart K Kim; Stephen R Quake Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2007-10-08 Impact factor: 9.304
Authors: Alexandre E Escargueil; Daniele Grazziotin Soares; Mirian Salvador; Annette K Larsen; João Antonio Pegas Henriques Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Philipp Oberdoerffer; Shaday Michan; Michael McVay; Raul Mostoslavsky; James Vann; Sang-Kyu Park; Andrea Hartlerode; Judith Stegmuller; Angela Hafner; Patrick Loerch; Sarah M Wright; Kevin D Mills; Azad Bonni; Bruce A Yankner; Ralph Scully; Tomas A Prolla; Frederick W Alt; David A Sinclair Journal: Cell Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Eriko Michishita; Ronald A McCord; Elisabeth Berber; Mitomu Kioi; Hesed Padilla-Nash; Mara Damian; Peggie Cheung; Rika Kusumoto; Tiara L A Kawahara; J Carl Barrett; Howard Y Chang; Vilhelm A Bohr; Thomas Ried; Or Gozani; Katrin F Chua Journal: Nature Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Tiara L A Kawahara; Eriko Michishita; Adam S Adler; Mara Damian; Elisabeth Berber; Meihong Lin; Ron A McCord; Kristine C L Ongaigui; Lisa D Boxer; Howard Y Chang; Katrin F Chua Journal: Cell Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Claude Gazin; Narendra Wajapeyee; Stephane Gobeil; Ching-Man Virbasius; Michael R Green Journal: Nature Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Vinodkumar B Pillai; Nagalingam R Sundaresan; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Mahesh P Gupta Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Zhu Xu; Lei Zhang; Wenjun Zhang; Du Meng; Hongxia Zhang; Ying Jiang; Xiaojun Xu; Michael Van Meter; Andrei Seluanov; Vera Gorbunova; Zhiyong Mao Journal: Cell Cycle Date: 2015 Impact factor: 4.534
Authors: Sylvia E Perez; Jennifer C Miguel; Bin He; Michael Malek-Ahmadi; Eric E Abrahamson; Milos D Ikonomovic; Ira Lott; Eric Doran; Melissa J Alldred; Stephen D Ginsberg; Elliott J Mufson Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: V Rottiers; S H Najafi-Shoushtari; F Kristo; S Gurumurthy; L Zhong; Y Li; D E Cohen; R E Gerszten; N Bardeesy; R Mostoslavsky; A M Näär Journal: Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol Date: 2011-12-12