Regulation of chromatin architecture by the PWWP domain-containing DNA damage-responsive factor EXPAND1/MUM1.
ABSTRACT Dynamic changes of chromatin structure facilitate diverse biological events, including DNA replication, repair, recombination, and gene transcription. Recent evidence revealed that DNA damage elicits alterations to the chromatin to facilitate proper checkpoint activation and DNA repair. Here we report the identification of the PWWP domain-containing protein EXPAND1/MUM1 as an architectural component of the chromatin, which in response to DNA damage serves as an accessory factor to promote cell survival. Depletion of EXPAND1/MUM1 or inactivation of its PWWP domain resulted in chromatin compaction. Upon DNA damage, EXPAND1/MUM1 rapidly concentrates at the vicinity of DNA damage sites via its direct interaction with 53BP1. Ablation of this interaction impaired damage-induced chromatin decondensation, which is accompanied by sustained DNA damage and hypersensitivity to genotoxic stress. Collectively, our study uncovers a chromatin-bound factor that serves an accessory role in coupling damage signaling with chromatin changes in response to DNA damage.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Yick-Pang Ching, Dec 19, 2013
- SourceAvailable from: Myth T.S. Mok[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: MDC1 (NFBD1) and 53BP1 are critical mediators of the mammalian DNA damage response (DDR) at nuclear foci. Here we show by quantitative imaging assays that MDC1 and 53BP1 are similar in total copy number (~1200 copies per focus), but differ substantially in dynamics at both replication-associated nuclear bodies in normal cells and DNA repair foci in ionizing radiation (IR)-damaged cells. The majority of MDC1 (~80%) is extremely mobile and under continuous exchange, with only a small fraction (~20%) remaining immobile at foci irrespective of IR treatment. By contrast, 53BP1 has a smaller mobile fraction (~35%) and a larger immobile fraction (~65%) at nuclear bodies, and becomes more dynamic (~20% increase in mobile pool) upon IR-induced DNA damage. More specifically, the dynamics of 53BP1 is dependent on a minimal foci-targeting region (1231-1709), and differentially regulated by its N-terminus (1-1231) and C-terminal tBRCT domain (1709-1972). Furthermore, MDC1 knockdown, or disruption of 53BP1-MDC1 interaction, reduced the number of 53BP1 molecules at foci by ~60%, but only modestly affected 53BP1 retention. This novel in vivo evidence reveals distinct dynamics of MDC1 and 53BP1 at different types of nuclear structures, and shows that MDC1 directly recruits and retains a subset of 53BP1 for DNA repair.The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology 06/2012; 44(9):1398-409. DOI:10.1016/j.biocel.2012.05.025 · 4.24 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Chromosome 19 Consortium, a part of the Chromosome-Centric Human Proteome Project (C-HPP, http://www.C-HPP.org ), is tasked with the understanding chromosome 19 functions at the gene and protein levels, as well as their roles in lung oncogenesis. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies revealed chromosome aberration in lung cancer subtypes, including ADC, SCC, LCC, and SCLC. The most common abnormality is 19p loss and 19q gain. Sixty-four aberrant genes identified in previous genomic studies and their encoded protein functions were further validated in the neXtProt database ( http://www.nextprot.org/ ). Among those, the loss of tumor suppressor genes STK11, MUM1, KISS1R (19p13.3), and BRG1 (19p13.13) is associated with lung oncogenesis or remote metastasis. Gene aberrations include translocation t(15, 19) (q13, p13.1) fusion oncogene BRD4-NUT, DNA repair genes (ERCC1, ERCC2, XRCC1), TGFβ1 pathway activation genes (TGFB1, LTBP4), Dyrk1B, and potential oncogenesis protector genes such as NFkB pathway inhibition genes (NFKBIB, PPP1R13L) and EGLN2. In conclusion, neXtProt is an effective resource for the validation of gene aberrations identified in genomic studies. It promises to enhance our understanding of lung cancer oncogenesis.Cancer and metastasis reviews 05/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10555-015-9556-2 · 6.45 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The faithful maintenance of chromosome continuity in human cells during DNA replication and repair is critical for preventing the conversion of normal diploid cells to an oncogenic state. The evolution of higher eukaryotic cells endowed them with a large genetic investment in the molecular machinery that ensures chromosome stability. In mammalian and other vertebrate cells, the elimination of double-strand breaks with minimal nucleotide sequence change involves the spatiotemporal orchestration of a seemingly endless number of proteins ranging in their action from the nucleotide level to nucleosome organization and chromosome architecture. DNA DSBs trigger a myriad of post-translational modifications that alter catalytic activities and the specificity of protein interactions: phosphorylation, acetylation, methylation, ubiquitylation, and SUMOylation, followed by the reversal of these changes as repair is completed. "Superfluous" protein recruitment to damage sites, functional redundancy, and alternative pathways ensure that DSB repair is extremely efficient, both quantitatively and qualitatively. This review strives to integrate the information about the molecular mechanisms of DSB repair that has emerged over the last two decades with a focus on DSBs produced by the prototype agent ionizing radiation (IR). The exponential growth of molecular studies, heavily driven by RNA knockdown technology, now reveals an outline of how many key protein players in genome stability and cancer biology perform their interwoven tasks, e.g. ATM, ATR, DNA-PK, Chk1, Chk2, PARP1/2/3, 53BP1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BLM, RAD51, and the MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 complex. Thus, the nature of the intricate coordination of repair processes with cell cycle progression is becoming apparent. This review also links molecular abnormalities to cellular pathology as much a possible and provides a framework of temporal relationships.Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 06/2012; 751(2):158-246. DOI:10.1016/j.mrrev.2012.06.002 · 4.44 Impact Factor