Article

Mechanisms of dealing with DNA damage-induced replication problems.

Department of Cell Biology & Genetics, Cancer Genomics Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cell biochemistry and biophysics (Impact Factor: 3.34). 12/2008; 53(1):17-31.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT During every S phase, cells need to duplicate their genomes so that both daughter cells inherit complete copies of genetic information. Given the large size of mammalian genomes and the required precision of DNA replication, genome duplication requires highly fine-tuned corrective and quality control processes. A major threat to the accuracy and efficiency of DNA synthesis is the presence of DNA lesions, caused by both endogenous and exogenous damaging agents. Replicative DNA polymerases, which carry out the bulk of DNA synthesis, evolved to do their job extremely precisely and efficiently. However, they are unable to use damaged DNA as a template and, consequently, are stopped at most DNA lesions. Failure to restart such stalled replication forks can result in major chromosomal aberrations and lead to cell dysfunction or death. Therefore, a well-coordinated response to replication perturbation is essential for cell survival and fitness. Here we review how this response involves activating checkpoint signaling and the use of specialized pathways promoting replication restart. Checkpoint signaling adjusts cell cycle progression to the emergency situation and thus gives cells more time to deal with the damage. Replication restart is mediated by two pathways. Homologous recombination uses homologous DNA sequence to repair or bypass the lesion and is therefore mainly error free. Error-prone translesion synthesis employs specialized, low fidelity polymerases to bypass the damage.

1 Bookmark
 · 
90 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Y-family DNA polymerases specialize in translesion synthesis, bypassing damaged bases that would otherwise block normal progression of replication forks. Y-family polymerases have unique structural features that allow them to bind damaged DNA and use a modified template base to direct nucleotide incorporation. Each Y-family polymerase is unique and has different preferences for lesions to bypass and for dNTPs to incorporate. Y-family polymerases are also characterized by low catalytic efficiency, low processivity and low-fidelity on normal DNA. Recruitment of these specialized polymerases to replication forks is therefore regulated. The catalytic center of the Y-family polymerases is highly conserved and homologous to that of high-fidelity and high-processivity DNA replicases. In this review, structural differences between Y-family and A- and B-family polymerases are compared and correlated with their functional differences. A time-resolved X-ray crystallographic study of the DNA synthesis reaction catalyzed by the Y-family DNA polymerase human pol η revealed transient elements that lead to the nucleotidyl-transfer reaction.
    Biochemistry 04/2014; · 3.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Genotoxins and other factors cause replication stress that activate the DNA damage response (DDR), comprising checkpoint and repair systems. The DDR suppresses cancer by promoting genome stability, and it regulates tumor resistance to chemo- and radiotherapy. Three members of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-related kinase (PIKK) family, ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK, are important DDR proteins. A key PIKK target is replication protein A (RPA), which binds single-stranded DNA and functions in DNA replication, DNA repair, and checkpoint signaling. An early response to replication stress is ATR activation, which occurs when RPA accumulates on ssDNA. Activated ATR phosphorylates many targets, including the RPA32 subunit of RPA, leading to Chk1 activation and replication arrest. DNA-PK also phosphorylates RPA32 in response to replication stress, and we demonstrate that cells with DNA-PK defects, or lacking RPA32 Ser4/Ser8 targeted by DNA-PK, confer similar phenotypes, including defective replication checkpoint arrest, hyper-recombination, premature replication fork restart, failure to block late origin firing, and increased mitotic catastrophe. We present evidence that hyper-recombination in these mutants is ATM-dependent, but the other defects are ATM-independent. These results indicate that DNA-PK and ATR signaling through RPA32 plays a critical role in promoting genome stability and cell survival in response to replication stress.
    DNA repair 05/2014; · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: DNA damage recognition and repair is a complex system of genes focused on maintaining genomic stability. Recently, there has been a focus on how breast cancer susceptibility relates to genetic variation in the DNA bypass polymerases pathway. Race-stratified and subtype-specific logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between 22 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in seven bypass polymerase genes and breast cancer risk in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based, case-control study (1,972 cases and 1,776 controls). We used SNP-set kernel association test (SKAT) to evaluate the multi-gene, multi-locus (combined) SNP effects within bypass polymerase genes. We found similar ORs for breast cancer with three POLQ SNPs (rs487848 AG/AA vs. GG; OR = 1.31, 95 % CI 1.03-1.68 for Whites and OR = 1.22, 95 % CI 1.00-1.49 for African Americans), (rs532411 CT/TT vs. CC; OR = 1.31, 95 % CI 1.02-1.66 for Whites and OR = 1.22, 95 % CI 1.00-1.48 for African Americans), and (rs3218634 CG/CC vs. GG; OR = 1.29, 95 % CI 1.02-1.65 for Whites). These three SNPs are in high linkage disequilibrium in both races. Tumor subtype analysis showed the same SNPs to be associated with increased risk of Luminal breast cancer. SKAT analysis showed no significant combined SNP effects. These results suggest that variants in the POLQ gene may be associated with the risk of Luminal breast cancer.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 11/2014; · 4.47 Impact Factor