Rong Tan1, Li Lan2. 1. Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410008, China University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, USA. 2. University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, USA lil64@pitt.edu.
Abstract
The ends of each chromosome are capped by the telomere assembly to protect chromosomal integrity from telomere attrition and DNA damage. In response to DNA damage, DNA repair factors are enriched at damage sites by a sophisticated signaling and recruitment cascade. However, DNA damage response at telomeres is different from non-telomeric region of genomic DNA due to specialized sequences and structures of the telomeres. In the course of normal DNA replication or DNA damage repair, both the telomere shelterin protein complex and the condensed telomeric chromatin structure in mammalian cells are modified to protect telomeres from exposing free DNA ends which are subject to both telemere shortening and chromosome end fusion. Initiation of either homologous recombination or non-homologous end joint repair at telomeres requires disassembling and/or post-translational modifications of the shelterin complex and telomeric chromatin. In addition, cancer cells utilize distinct mechanisms to maintain telomere length and cell survival upon damage. In this review, we summarize current studies that focus on telomere end protection and telomere DNA repair using different methodologies to model telomere DNA damage and disruption. These include genetic ablation of sheltering proteins, targeting endonuclease to telomeres, and delivering oxidative damage directly. These different approaches, when combined, offer better understanding of the mechanistic differences in DNA damage response between telomeric and genomic DNA, which will provide new hope to identify potential cancer therapeutic targets to curtail cancer cell proliferation via induction of telomere dysfunctions.
The ends of each chromosome are capped by the telomere assembly to protect chromosomal integrity from telomere attrition and DNA damage. In response to DNA damage, DNA repair factors are enriched at damage sites by a sophisticated signaling and recruitment cascade. However, DNA damage response at telomeres is different from non-telomeric region of genomic DNA due to specialized sequences and structures of the telomeres. In the course of normal DNA replication or DNA damage repair, both the telomere shelterin protein complex and the condensed telomeric chromatin structure in mammalian cells are modified to protect telomeres from exposing free DNA ends which are subject to both telemere shortening and chromosome end fusion. Initiation of either homologous recombination or non-homologous end joint repair at telomeres requires disassembling and/or post-translational modifications of the shelterin complex and telomeric chromatin. In addition, cancer cells utilize distinct mechanisms to maintain telomere length and cell survival upon damage. In this review, we summarize current studies that focus on telomere end protection and telomere DNA repair using different methodologies to model telomere DNA damage and disruption. These include genetic ablation of sheltering proteins, targeting endonuclease to telomeres, and delivering oxidative damage directly. These different approaches, when combined, offer better understanding of the mechanistic differences in DNA damage response between telomeric and genomic DNA, which will provide new hope to identify potential cancer therapeutic targets to curtail cancer cell proliferation via induction of telomere dysfunctions.
Authors: Anthony J Cesare; Zeenia Kaul; Scott B Cohen; Christine E Napier; Hilda A Pickett; Axel A Neumann; Roger R Reddel Journal: Nat Struct Mol Biol Date: 2009-11-22 Impact factor: 15.369
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: Marta García-Cao; Roderick O'Sullivan; Antoine H F M Peters; Thomas Jenuwein; María A Blasco Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2003-12-14 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Graeme Hewitt; Diana Jurk; Francisco D M Marques; Clara Correia-Melo; Timothy Hardy; Agata Gackowska; Rhys Anderson; Morgan Taschuk; Jelena Mann; João F Passos Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Irene Pusceddu; Wolfgang Herrmann; Marcus E Kleber; Hubert Scharnagl; Michael M Hoffmann; Brigitte M Winklhofer-Roob; Winfried März; Markus Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 5.614