Literature DB >> 27842255

Differences in the recruitment of DNA repair proteins at subtelomeric and interstitial I-SceI endonuclease-induced DNA double-strand breaks.

Bárbara Alcaraz Silva1, Trevor J Jones1, John P Murnane2.   

Abstract

Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures that are required to protect chromosome ends. Dysfunctional telomeres are recognized as DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), and elicit the activation of a DNA damage response (DDR). We have previously reported that DSBs near telomeres are poorly repaired, resulting in a high frequency of large deletions and gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs). Our previous genetic studies have demonstrated that this sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs is a result of excessive processing. In the current study, we have further investigated the sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs through the analysis of repair proteins associated with DSBs at interstitial and telomeric sites. Following the inducible expression of I-SceI endonuclease, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) and real-time quantitative PCR were used to compare the recruitment of repair proteins at I-SceI-induced DSBs at interstitial and subtelomeric sites. We observed that proteins that are specifically associated with processing of DSBs during homologous recombination repair, RAD51, BRCA1, and CtIP, are present at a much greater abundance at subtelomeric DSBs. In contrast, Ku70, which is specifically involved in classical nonhomologous end joining, showed no difference at interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs. Importantly, ATM was lower in abundance at subtelomeric DSBs, while ATR was in greater abundance at subtelomeric DSBs, consistent with the accumulation of processed DSBs near telomeres, since processing is accompanied by a transition from ATM to ATR binding. Combined, our results suggest that excessive processing is responsible for the increased frequency of large deletions and GCRs at DSBs near telomeres.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA repair; Double-strand breaks; Telomere

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27842255      PMCID: PMC5218964          DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.10.008

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


  74 in total

1.  53BP1 contributes to survival of cells irradiated with X-ray during G1 without Ku70 or Artemis.

Authors:  Kuniyoshi Iwabuchi; Mitsumasa Hashimoto; Tadashi Matsui; Takayuki Kurihara; Hiroko Shimizu; Noritaka Adachi; Masamichi Ishiai; Ken-ichi Yamamoto; Hiroshi Tauchi; Minoru Takata; Hideki Koyama; Takayasu Date
Journal:  Genes Cells       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Positional stability of single double-strand breaks in mammalian cells.

Authors:  Evi Soutoglou; Jonas F Dorn; Kundan Sengupta; Maria Jasin; Andre Nussenzweig; Thomas Ried; Gaudenz Danuser; Tom Misteli
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2007-05-07       Impact factor: 28.824

Review 3.  ATR signalling: more than meeting at the fork.

Authors:  Edward A Nam; David Cortez
Journal:  Biochem J       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 3.857

4.  CtIP links DNA double-strand break sensing to resection.

Authors:  Zhongsheng You; Linda Z Shi; Quan Zhu; Peng Wu; You-Wei Zhang; Andrew Basilio; Nina Tonnu; Inder M Verma; Michael W Berns; Tony Hunter
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2009-12-25       Impact factor: 17.970

5.  Double-strand break repair by homologous recombination in primary mouse somatic cells requires BRCA1 but not the ATM kinase.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Kass; Hildur R Helgadottir; Chun-Chin Chen; Maria Barbera; Raymond Wang; Ulrica K Westermark; Thomas Ludwig; Mary Ellen Moynahan; Maria Jasin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  DNA double-strand break repair and V(D)J recombination: involvement of DNA-PK.

Authors:  S P Jackson; P A Jeggo
Journal:  Trends Biochem Sci       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 13.807

7.  ATM limits incorrect end utilization during non-homologous end joining of multiple chromosome breaks.

Authors:  Nicole Bennardo; Jeremy M Stark
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 5.917

8.  Telomeres are favoured targets of a persistent DNA damage response in ageing and stress-induced senescence.

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

9.  DNA damage response factors from diverse pathways, including DNA crosslink repair, mediate alternative end joining.

Authors:  Sean M Howard; Diana A Yanez; Jeremy M Stark
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Development of an assay to measure mutagenic non-homologous end-joining repair activity in mammalian cells.

Authors:  Ranjit S Bindra; Alexander G Goglia; Maria Jasin; Simon N Powell
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 19.160

View more
  2 in total

1.  Genome-Wide Profiling of Acquired Uniparental Disomy Reveals Prognostic Factors in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Musaffe Tuna; Wenbin Liu; Christopher I Amos; Gordon B Mills
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 5.715

2.  High-throughput screen to identify compounds that prevent or target telomere loss in human cancer cells.

Authors:  Chris Wilson; John P Murnane
Journal:  NAR Cancer       Date:  2022-10-03
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.