Literature DB >> 29212151

DNA non-homologous end-joining enters the resection arena.

Penny A Jeggo1, Markus Löbrich1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA double-strand breaks; Ionizing radiation; deletions; non-homologous end-joining; resection

Year:  2017        PMID: 29212151      PMCID: PMC5706797          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.22075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


× No keyword cloud information.
DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are arguably the most severe genetic damages that threaten cellular viability. They occur physiologically during recombinational processes to generate antibody diversity in immune cells or genetic variability in germ cells. They also arise following exposure to exogenous agents such as ionizing radiation or chemotherapeutic drugs. Understanding how cells respond to DSBs lies at the heart of evaluating the efficacy of radio- and chemotherapy as well as assessing risks from low dose radiation exposure [1]. The DNA damage response (DDR) pathways comprise mechanisms to halt cell cycle progression, pathways to repair the damage and routes to activate cell death, such as apoptosis. Two conceptually different repair pathways counteract the presence of DSBs, homologous recombination (HR) and canonical non-homologous end-joining (c-NHEJ).The former process elegantly repairs DSBs using an identical copy on the sister chromatid, and thus can restore any genetic information lost at the DSB site. This copying mechanism requires invasion by a single strand of the damaged chromosome to base-pair with the same sequence on the sister chromatid. The process for generating single-stranded tails at DSBs is called end-resection and is argued to determine whether DSB repair occurs by HR or c-NHEJ [2]. c-NHEJ, in contrast, does not have the capacity to retrieve genetic information lost at the break site. Instead, this pathway mends the two ends of a DSB without the need for sequence homology (hence the name “non-homologous end-joining”). The beauty of c-NHEJ is its simplicity, being fast, versatile and able to function in all cell cycle stages. Hence, it is the major pathway repairing exogenously induced DSBs in pre-replicative cell cycle phases; HR, in contrast, is restricted to post-replicative cell cycle phases where a sister homologue is available [3]. A fundamental difference in the initiation of the two pathways is end-resection, which is believed to promote HR and suppress c-NHEJ [2]. However, recent work has challenged the dogma that end-resection suppresses c-NHEJ and shown that a sub-pathway of c-NHEJ involves an orchestrated resection process [4]. Although alternative NHEJ pathways that handle resected DSBs have previously been described, such alternative modes of DSB repair mainly occur in the absence of the two classical DSB repair pathways [5].In contrast, the sub-pathway described in Biehs et al. [4] is used in conjunction with resection-independent c-NHEJ. Although factors regulating the interplay between the two forms of c-NHEJ remain unclear, resection-dependent c-NHEJ appears to be used at DSBs that arise in “challenging” genomic regions or at DSBs harbouring complex end-structures. Importantly, resection-dependent c-NHEJ represents the pathway that repairs 10-20% of the DSBs induced by ionising radiation with slow kinetics in G1-phase cells, a process initially unearthed using physical methods to monitor DSB repair and more recently dissected using current “DDR foci” approaches [6]. Most notably, the resection process leading to c-NHEJ uses many of the same factors and enzymes as the resection process in the context of HR, although several fundamental differences exist which tailor the resection process to either c-NHEJ or HR [4]. Importantly, resection during c-NHEJ is generally more limited, a feature that is likely necessary for compatibility with the c-NHEJ machinery which has evolved to fix double-stranded and not single-stranded DNA ends. This concept is also pursued by the mode of initiating resection, starting from the end and maintaining the end-joining machinery at the break site for resection-dependent c-NHEJ and, for HR, initiating resection internally followed by eviction of the end-joining machinery and subsequent generation of long stretches of single-stranded DNA. Another difference is that the process initiating resection is regulated by cell stage specific kinases, PLK3 in G1 for c-NHEJ and CDKs in S/G2 for HR [7]. Finally, it is noteworthy that failure to initiate resection in either phase can allow repair by resection-independent c-NHEJ whilst failure to block downstream steps confers a DSB repair defect, a feature that has long obscured the identification of resection-dependent c-NHEJ. An interesting but yet unanswered question concerns the fidelity of repair. Whereas resection pursued by HR will eventually restore the original sequence information at the break site, the fidelity of resection-dependent c-NHEJ is currently unclear. The absence of an intact template would suggest that resection-dependent c-NHEJ would predominantly confer small deletions. It is possible that the generation of resected ends provides a signal which halts cell cycle progression allowing the completion of repair before the onset of replication - similar to the way in which resected ends during HR provide a checkpoint signal. In this case, resection-dependent NHEJ might be regarded as a last-resort pathway which ensures that even the most difficult DSBs are repaired before replication commences, albeit at the cost of generating small deletions. However, an alternative explanation is that RNA molecules, generated by the significant proportion of our genome that is transcribed, might be exploited to retrieve sequence information lost at the DSB site. Indeed, there is increasing evidence that RNA is observed at DSB sites [8]. Further studies are required to address the important issue of the fidelity of DSB repair, particularly in the light of the findings that a significant number of DSBs are repaired via a resection-mediated pathway in the absence of a sister chromatid as a template.
  8 in total

Review 1.  Alternative end-joining repair pathways are the ultimate backup for abrogated classical non-homologous end-joining and homologous recombination repair: Implications for the formation of chromosome translocations.

Authors:  George Iliakis; Tamara Murmann; Aashish Soni
Journal:  Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen       Date:  2015-07-04       Impact factor: 2.873

Review 2.  A Process of Resection-Dependent Nonhomologous End Joining Involving the Goddess Artemis.

Authors:  Markus Löbrich; Penny Jeggo
Journal:  Trends Biochem Sci       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 13.807

3.  A pathway of double-strand break rejoining dependent upon ATM, Artemis, and proteins locating to gamma-H2AX foci.

Authors:  Enriqueta Riballo; Martin Kühne; Nicole Rief; Aidan Doherty; Graeme C M Smith; María-José Recio; Caroline Reis; Kirsten Dahm; Andreas Fricke; Andrea Krempler; Antony R Parker; Stephen P Jackson; Andrew Gennery; Penny A Jeggo; Markus Löbrich
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2004-12-03       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 4.  Mechanism and regulation of DNA end resection in eukaryotes.

Authors:  Lorraine S Symington
Journal:  Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 8.250

5.  Site-specific DICER and DROSHA RNA products control the DNA-damage response.

Authors:  Sofia Francia; Flavia Michelini; Alka Saxena; Dave Tang; Michiel de Hoon; Viviana Anelli; Marina Mione; Piero Carninci; Fabrizio d'Adda di Fagagna
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Polo-like kinase 3 regulates CtIP during DNA double-strand break repair in G1.

Authors:  Olivia Barton; Steffen C Naumann; Ronja Diemer-Biehs; Julia Künzel; Monika Steinlage; Sandro Conrad; Nodar Makharashvili; Jiadong Wang; Lin Feng; Bernard S Lopez; Tanya T Paull; Junjie Chen; Penny A Jeggo; Markus Löbrich
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 10.539

7.  DNA Double-Strand Break Resection Occurs during Non-homologous End Joining in G1 but Is Distinct from Resection during Homologous Recombination.

Authors:  Ronja Biehs; Monika Steinlage; Olivia Barton; Szilvia Juhász; Julia Künzel; Julian Spies; Atsushi Shibata; Penny A Jeggo; Markus Löbrich
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 17.970

8.  ATM and Artemis promote homologous recombination of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks in G2.

Authors:  Andrea Beucher; Julie Birraux; Leopoldine Tchouandong; Olivia Barton; Atsushi Shibata; Sandro Conrad; Aaron A Goodarzi; Andrea Krempler; Penny A Jeggo; Markus Löbrich
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 11.598

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Stress-Induced Phosphorylation of Nuclear YB-1 Depends on Nuclear Trafficking of p90 Ribosomal S6 Kinase.

Authors:  Aadhya Tiwari; Simone Rebholz; Eva Maier; Mozhgan Dehghan Harati; Daniel Zips; Christine Sers; H Peter Rodemann; Mahmoud Toulany
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-08-18       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 2.  Immediate-Early, Early, and Late Responses to DNA Double Stranded Breaks.

Authors:  Shaylee R Kieffer; Noel F Lowndes
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 4.599

3.  Strong suppression of gene conversion with increasing DNA double-strand break load delimited by 53BP1 and RAD52.

Authors:  Emil Mladenov; Christian Staudt; Aashish Soni; Tamara Murmann-Konda; Maria Siemann-Loekes; George Iliakis
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 16.971

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.