Antonia Frohns1, Florian Frohns2, Steffen C Naumann1, Paul G Layer2, Markus Löbrich3. 1. Darmstadt University of Technology, Radiation Biology and DNA Repair, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany. 2. Darmstadt University of Technology, Developmental Biology and Neurogenetics, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany. 3. Darmstadt University of Technology, Radiation Biology and DNA Repair, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany. Electronic address: lobrich@bio.tu-darmstadt.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair is crucial for the maintenance of genomic stability, and chromatin organization represents one important factor influencing repair efficiency. Mouse rod photoreceptors with their inverted heterochromatin organization containing a single large chromocenter in the middle of the nucleus provide a unique model system to study DSB repair in heterochromatin of living animals. RESULTS: We observed that adult rod photoreceptors repair only half of the induced DSBs within 1 day after damage induction, a defect that is neither observed in any other cell type of the adult retina nor in rod photoreceptor precursor cells of postnatal day 4 mice. We show that adult wild-type rods are deficient in a repair pathway involving ATM, a protein that promotes heterochromatic DSB repair by phosphorylating KAP1 and facilitating heterochromatin relaxation. Of note, we observed that rods fail to robustly accumulate active ATM at DSBs, exhibit low KAP1 levels, and display high levels of SPOC1, a factor suppressing KAP1 phosphorylation. Collectively, this results in dramatically reduced KAP1 phosphorylation and the inability to repair heterochromatic DSBs. CONCLUSIONS: Because the distinct heterochromatic structure of rods focuses transmitting light to enable vision at low photon levels, the inability to phosphorylate KAP1 and the failure to relax heterochromatin could serve to maintain this structure and the functionality of rods in the presence of DSBs. Collectively, our findings show that the unique chromatin organization of adult rods renders them incapable to efficiently repair heterochromatic DSBs, providing evidence that heterochromatin affects mammalian DSB repair in vivo.
BACKGROUND: DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair is crucial for the maintenance of genomic stability, and chromatin organization represents one important factor influencing repair efficiency. Mouse rod photoreceptors with their inverted heterochromatin organization containing a single large chromocenter in the middle of the nucleus provide a unique model system to study DSB repair in heterochromatin of living animals. RESULTS: We observed that adult rod photoreceptors repair only half of the induced DSBs within 1 day after damage induction, a defect that is neither observed in any other cell type of the adult retina nor in rod photoreceptor precursor cells of postnatal day 4 mice. We show that adult wild-type rods are deficient in a repair pathway involving ATM, a protein that promotes heterochromatic DSB repair by phosphorylating KAP1 and facilitating heterochromatin relaxation. Of note, we observed that rods fail to robustly accumulate active ATM at DSBs, exhibit low KAP1 levels, and display high levels of SPOC1, a factor suppressing KAP1 phosphorylation. Collectively, this results in dramatically reduced KAP1 phosphorylation and the inability to repair heterochromatic DSBs. CONCLUSIONS: Because the distinct heterochromatic structure of rods focuses transmitting light to enable vision at low photon levels, the inability to phosphorylate KAP1 and the failure to relax heterochromatin could serve to maintain this structure and the functionality of rods in the presence of DSBs. Collectively, our findings show that the unique chromatin organization of adult rods renders them incapable to efficiently repair heterochromatic DSBs, providing evidence that heterochromatin affects mammalian DSB repair in vivo.
Authors: Johanna Mirsch; Francesco Tommasino; Antonia Frohns; Sandro Conrad; Marco Durante; Michael Scholz; Thomas Friedrich; Markus Löbrich Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kaushikaram Subramanian; Martin Weigert; Oliver Borsch; Heike Petzold; Alfonso Garcia-Ulloa; Eugene W Myers; Marius Ader; Irina Solovei; Moritz Kreysing Journal: Elife Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Frank M Dyka; Laurie L Molday; Vince A Chiodo; Robert S Molday; William W Hauswirth Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 5.695
Authors: Gayle B Collin; Navdeep Gogna; Bo Chang; Nattaya Damkham; Jai Pinkney; Lillian F Hyde; Lisa Stone; Jürgen K Naggert; Patsy M Nishina; Mark P Krebs Journal: Cells Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 7.666