Novel essential DNA repair proteins Nse1 and Nse2 are subunits of the fission yeast Smc5-Smc6 complex
ABSTRACT The structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) family of proteins play essential roles in genomic stability. SMC heterodimers are required for sister-chromatid cohesion (Cohesin: Smc1 & Smc3), chromatin condensation (Condensin: Smc2 & Smc4), and DNA repair (Smc5 & Smc6). The SMC heterodimers do not function alone and must associate with essential non-SMC subunits. To gain further insight into the essential and DNA repair roles of the Smc5-6 complex, we have purified fission yeast Smc5 and identified by mass spectrometry the co-precipitating proteins, Nse1 and Nse2. We show that both Nse1 and Nse2 interact with Smc5 in vivo, as part of the Smc5-6 complex. Nse1 and Nse2 are essential proteins and conserved from yeast to man. Loss of Nse1 and Nse2 function leads to strikingly similar terminal phenotypes to those observed for Smc5-6 inactivation. In addition, cells expressing hypomorphic alleles of Nse1 and Nse2 are, like Smc5-6 mutants, hypersensitive to DNA damage. Epistasis analysis suggests that like Smc5-6, Nse1, and Nse2 function together with Rhp51 in the homologous recombination repair of DNA double strand breaks. The results of this study strongly suggest that Nse1 and Nse2 are novel non-SMC subunits of the fission yeast Smc5-6 DNA repair complex.
SourceAvailable from: Jan Palecek[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT The MAGE (Melanoma-associated antigen) protein family members are structurally related to each other by a MAGE-homology domain comprised of two winged helix motifs WH/A and WH/B. This family specifically evolved in placental mammals although single homologs designated NSE3 (non-SMC element) exist in most eukaryotes. NSE3, together with its partner proteins NSE1 and NSE4 form a tight subcomplex of the structural maintenance of chromosomes SMC5-6 complex. Previously, we showed that interactions of the WH/B motif of the MAGE proteins with their NSE4/EID partners are evolutionarily conserved (including the MAGEA1-NSE4 interaction). In contrast, the interaction of the WH/A motif of NSE3 with NSE1 diverged in the MAGE paralogs. We hypothesized that the MAGE paralogs acquired new RING-finger-containing partners through their evolution and form MAGE complexes reminiscent of NSE1-NSE3-NSE4 trimers. In this work, we employed the yeast two-hybrid system to screen a human RING-finger protein library against several MAGE baits. We identified a number of potential MAGE-RING interactions and confirmed several of them (MDM4, PCGF6, RNF166, TRAF6, TRIM8, TRIM31, TRIM41) in co-immunoprecipitation experiments. Amongst these MAGE-RING pairs, we chose to examine MAGEA1-TRIM31 in detail and showed that both WH/A and WH/B motifs of MAGEA1 bind to the coiled-coil domain of TRIM31 and that MAGEA1 interaction stimulates TRIM31 ubiquitin-ligase activity. In addition, TRIM31 directly binds to NSE4, suggesting the existence of a TRIM31-MAGEA1-NSE4 complex reminiscent of the NSE1-NSE3-NSE4 trimer. These results suggest that MAGEA1 functions as a co-factor of TRIM31 ubiquitin-ligase and that the TRIM31-MAGEA1-NSE4 complex may have evolved from an ancestral NSE1-NSE3-NSE4 complex.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) 03/2015; 14(6):920-930. DOI:10.1080/15384101.2014.1000112 · 5.01 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Modification of proteins by SUMO is essential for the maintenance of genome integrity. During DNA replication, the Mms21-branch of the SUMO pathway counteracts recombination intermediates at damaged replication forks, thus facilitating sister chromatid disjunction. The Mms21 SUMO ligase docks to the arm region of the Smc5 protein in the Smc5/6 complex; together, they cooperate during recombinational DNA repair. Yet how the activity of the SUMO ligase is controlled remains unknown. Here we show that the SUMO ligase and the chromosome disjunction functions of Mms21 depend on its docking to an intact and active Smc5/6 complex, indicating that the Smc5/6-Mms21 complex operates as a large SUMO ligase in vivo. In spite of the physical distance separating the E3 and the nucleotide-binding domains in Smc5/6, Mms21-dependent sumoylation requires binding of ATP to Smc5, a step that is part of the ligase mechanism that assists Ubc9 function. The communication is enabled by the presence of a conserved disruption in the coiled coil domain of Smc5, pointing to potential conformational changes for SUMO ligase activation. In accordance, scanning force microscopy of the Smc5-Mms21 heterodimer shows that the molecule is physically remodeled in an ATP-dependent manner. Our results demonstrate that the ATP-binding activity of the Smc5/6 complex is coordinated with its SUMO ligase, through the coiled coil domain of Smc5 and the physical remodeling of the molecule, to promote sumoylation and chromosome disjunction during DNA repair.PLoS Biology 03/2015; 13(3):e1002089. DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002089 · 11.77 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The SUMO ligase Mms21, which is a subunit of the Smc5/6 complex, is required for DNA repair. Here we present results showing that Mms21 was phosophorylated during S-phase in a manner dependent on the DNA damage kinase Mec1. Phosphorylation of Mms21 occurred in unchallenged cells, but was more abundant in the presence of DNA damaging agents. Mass spectrometry identified five phosphorylated serines organized in two regions of Mms21, and two C-terminal serines, S260 and S261, formed part of a Mec1/Tel1 consensus motif. Nonphosphorylatable substitutions of the C-terminal serines, inactivation of Mec1 or removal of the Mms21 C-terminus all abolished Mms21 phosphorylation. Additionally, strains carrying Mms21 phosphoablative alleles displayed reduced SUMO ligase activity, sensitivity to MMS and an increased rate of chromosome loss in the presence of MMS. We propose that one function of S260 S261 phosphorylation is to positively regulate the SUMO ligase activity of Mms21 and thereby promote genomic stability. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.DNA Repair 01/2015; 28. DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.01.006 · 3.36 Impact Factor