Cdk1-dependent phosphorylation of Cdc13 coordinates telomere elongation during cell-cycle progression.

Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, Box 2200, San Francisco, CA 94143-2200, USA.
Cell (Impact Factor: 31.96). 02/2009; 136(1):50-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.11.027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Elongation of telomeres by telomerase replenishes the loss of terminal telomeric DNA repeats during each cell cycle. In budding yeast, Cdc13 plays an essential role in telomere length homeostasis, partly through its interactions with both the telomerase complex and the competing Stn1-Ten1 complex. Previous studies in yeast have shown that telomere elongation by telomerase is cell cycle dependent, but the mechanism underlying this dependence is unclear. In S. cerevisiae, a single cyclin-dependent kinase Cdk1 (Cdc28) coordinates the serial events required for the cell division cycle, but no Cdk1 substrate has been identified among telomerase and telomere-associated factors. Here we show that Cdk1-dependent phosphorylation of Cdc13 is essential for efficient recruitment of the yeast telomerase complex to telomeres by favoring the interaction of Cdc13 with Est1 rather than the competing Stn1-Ten1 complex. These results provide a direct mechanistic link between coordination of telomere elongation and cell-cycle progression in vivo.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Mammalian CST (CTC1-STN1-TEN1) is a telomere-associated complex that functions in telomere duplex replication and fill-in synthesis of the telomeric C-strand following telomerase action. CST also facilitates genome-wide replication recovery after HU-induced fork stalling by increasing origin firing. CTC1 and STN1 were originally isolated as a DNA polymerase α stimulatory factor. Here we explore how CST abundance affects recovery from drugs that cause different types of DNA damage and replication stress. We show that recovery from HU and aphidicolin induced replication stress is increased by CST over-expression. Elevated CST increases dNTP incorporation and origin firing after HU release and decreases the incidence of anaphase bridges and micronuclei after aphidicolin removal. While the frequency of origin firing after HU release is proportional to CST abundance, the number of cells entering S-phase to initiate replication is unchanged by CST overexpression or STN1 depletion. Instead the CST-related changes in origin firing take place in cells that were already in S-phase at the time of HU addition, indicating that CST modulates firing of late or dormant origins. CST abundance also influences cell viability after treatment with HU, aphidicolin, MMS and camptothecin. Viability is increased by elevated CST and decreased by STN1 depletion, indicating that endogenous CST levels are limiting. However, CST abundance does not affect viability after MMC treatment. Thus, CST facilitates recovery from many, but not all, forms of exogenous DNA damage. Overall our results suggest that CST is needed in stoichiometric amounts to facilitate re-initiation of DNA replication at repaired forks and/or dormant origins.
    Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) 09/2014; 13(22). DOI:10.4161/15384101.2014.964100 · 5.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Protection of Telomeres 1 (POT1) is a conserved nucleic acid binding protein implicated in both telomere replication and chromosome end protection. We previously showed that Arabidopsis thaliana POT1a associates with the TER1 telomerase RNP, and is required for telomere length maintenance in vivo. Here we further dissect the function of POT1a and explore its interplay with the CST (CTC1/STN1/TEN1) telomere complex. Analysis of pot1a null mutants revealed that POT1a is not required for telomerase recruitment to telomeres, but is required for telomerase to maintain telomere tracts. We show that POT1a stimulates the synthesis of long telomere repeat arrays by telomerase, likely by enhancing repeat addition processivity. We demonstrate that POT1a binds STN1 and CTC1 in vitro, and further STN1 and CTC1, like POT1a, associate with enzymatically active telomerase in vivo. Unexpectedly, the in vitro interaction of STN1 with TEN1 and POT1a was mutually exclusive, indicating that POT1a and TEN1 may compete for the same binding site on STN1 in vivo. Finally, unlike CTC1 and STN1, TEN1 was not associated with active telomerase in vivo, consistent with our previous data showing that TEN1 negatively regulates telomerase enzyme activity. Altogether, our data support a two-state model in which POT1a promotes an extendable telomere state via contacts with the telomerase RNP as well as STN1 and CTC1, while TEN1 opposes these functions.
    PLoS Genetics 10/2014; 10(10):e1004738. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004738 · 8.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In order to preserve genome integrity, extrinsic or intrinsic DNA damages must be repaired before they accumulate in cells and trigger other mutations and genome rearrangements. Eukaryotic cells are able to respond to different genotoxic stresses as well as to single DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), suggesting highly sensitive and robust mechanisms to detect lesions that trigger a signal transduction cascade which, in turn, controls the DNA damage response (DDR). Furthermore, cells must be able to distinguish natural chromosomal ends from DNA DSBs in order to prevent inappropriate checkpoint activation, DDR and chromosomal rearrangements. Since the original discovery of RAD9, the first DNA damage checkpoint gene identified in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, many genes that have a role in this pathway have been identified, including MRC1, MEC3, RAD24, RAD53, DUN1, MEC1 and TEL1. Extensive studies have established most of the genetic basis of the DNA damage checkpoint and uncovered its different functions in cell cycle regulation, DNA replication and repair, and telomere maintenance. However, major questions concerning the regulation and functions of the DNA damage checkpoint remain to be answered. First, how is the checkpoint activity coupled to DNA replication and repair? Second, how do cells distinguish natural chromosome ends from deleterious DNA DSBs? In this review we will examine primarily studies performed using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model system.
    12/2012; 2(4):505-23. DOI:10.3390/biom2040505
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format


Available from