Literature DB >> 27130982

The non-homologous end-joining pathway of S. cerevisiae works effectively in G1-phase cells, and religates cognate ends correctly and non-randomly.

Shujuan Gao1, Sangeet Honey2, Bruce Futcher3, Arthur P Grollman1.   

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are potentially lethal lesions repaired by two major pathways: homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). Homologous recombination preferentially reunites cognate broken ends. In contrast, non-homologous end-joining could ligate together any two ends, possibly generating dicentric or acentric fragments, leading to inviability. Here, we characterize the yeast NHEJ pathway in populations of pure G1 phase cells, where there is no possibility of repair using a homolog. We show that in G1 yeast cells, NHEJ is a highly effective repair pathway for gamma-ray induced breaks, even when many breaks are present. Pulsed-field gel analysis showed chromosome karyotypes following NHEJ repair of cells from populations with multiple breaks. The number of reciprocal translocations was surprisingly low, perhaps zero, suggesting that NHEJ preferentially re-ligates the "correct" broken ends instead of randomly-chosen ends. Although we do not know the mechanism, the preferential correct ligation is consistent with the idea that broken ends are continuously held together by protein-protein interactions or by larger scale chromatin structure.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cell cycle; DSBs; Double strand breaks; G1-phase; Karyotype; NHEJ; Non-homologous end-joining; Translocation; Yeast

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27130982      PMCID: PMC4907342          DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.03.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)        ISSN: 1568-7856


  64 in total

Review 1.  Recombination: a frank view of exchanges and vice versa.

Authors:  J E Haber
Journal:  Curr Opin Cell Biol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 8.382

2.  Choreography of the DNA damage response: spatiotemporal relationships among checkpoint and repair proteins.

Authors:  Michael Lisby; Jacqueline H Barlow; Rebecca C Burgess; Rodney Rothstein
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2004-09-17       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  Two modes of DNA double-strand break repair are reciprocally regulated through the fission yeast cell cycle.

Authors:  Miguel Godinho Ferreira; Julia Promisel Cooper
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 11.361

4.  A genetic study of x-ray sensitive mutants in yeast.

Authors:  J C Game; R K Mortimer
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1974-09       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Rad52 forms DNA repair and recombination centers during S phase.

Authors:  M Lisby; R Rothstein; U H Mortensen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-07-17       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Chromosome fragmentation after induction of a double-strand break is an active process prevented by the RMX repair complex.

Authors:  Kirill Lobachev; Eric Vitriol; Jennifer Stemple; Michael A Resnick; Kerry Bloom
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2004-12-14       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  Tbf1 and Vid22 promote resection and non-homologous end joining of DNA double-strand break ends.

Authors:  Diego Bonetti; Savani Anbalagan; Giovanna Lucchini; Michela Clerici; Maria Pia Longhese
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 11.598

8.  The C-terminus of Nej1 is critical for nuclear localization and non-homologous end-joining.

Authors:  Brandi L Mahaney; Susan P Lees-Miller; Jennifer A Cobb
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2013-12-24

9.  Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization.

Authors:  P T Spellman; G Sherlock; M Q Zhang; V R Iyer; K Anders; M B Eisen; P O Brown; D Botstein; B Futcher
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.138

10.  Isolation and characterization of WHI3, a size-control gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  R S Nash; T Volpe; B Futcher
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.402

View more
  6 in total

1.  Frequency of DNA end joining in trans is not determined by the predamage spatial proximity of double-strand breaks in yeast.

Authors:  Sham Sunder; Thomas E Wilson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mhr1 can bind Xho I-induced mitochondrial DNA double-strand breaks in vivo.

Authors:  Kanchanjunga Prasai; Lucy C Robinson; Kelly Tatchell; Lynn Harrison
Journal:  Mitochondrion       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 4.160

Review 3.  Double-strand breaks in motion: implications for chromosomal rearrangement.

Authors:  Thomas E Wilson; Sham Sunder
Journal:  Curr Genet       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 3.886

4.  Local nucleosome dynamics and eviction following a double-strand break are reversible by NHEJ-mediated repair in the absence of DNA replication.

Authors:  Vinay Tripuraneni; Gonen Memisoglu; Heather K MacAlpine; Trung Q Tran; Wei Zhu; Alexander J Hartemink; James E Haber; David M MacAlpine
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 5.  The Dynamic Behavior of Chromatin in Response to DNA Double-Strand Breaks.

Authors:  Fabiola García Fernández; Emmanuelle Fabre
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 4.096

Review 6.  Mechanisms driving chromosomal translocations: lost in time and space.

Authors:  Dale A Ramsden; Andre Nussenzweig
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 9.867

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.