Reshaping Chromatin Architecture around DNA Breaks

Break-induced RNA-DNA hybrids (BIRDHs) in homologous recombination: friend or foe?

Double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the most harmful DNA lesions, with a strong impact on cell proliferation and genome integrity. Depending on cell cycle stage, DSBs are preferentially repaired by non-homologous end joining or homologous recombination (HR). In recent years, numerous reports have revealed that DSBs enhance DNA-RNA hybrid formation around the break site. We call these hybrids "break-induced RNA-DNA hybrids" (BIRDHs) to differentiate them from sporadic R-loops consisting of DNA-RNA hybrids and a displaced single-strand DNA occurring co-transcriptionally in intact DNA. Here, we review and discuss the most relevant data about BIRDHs, with a focus on two main questions raised: (i) whether BIRDHs form by de novo transcription after a DSB or by a pre-existing nascent RNA in DNA regions undergoing transcription and (ii) whether they have a positive role in HR or are just obstacles to HR accidentally generated as an intrinsic risk of transcription. We aim to provide a comprehensive view of the exciting and yet unresolved questions about the source and impact of BIRDHs in the cell.

A CDK-Dependent Phosphorylation of a Novel Domain of Rif1 Regulates its Function during Telomere Damage and Other Types of Stress

Rif1 mediates telomere length, DNA replication, and DNA damage responses in budding yeast. Previous work identified several posttranslational modifications of Rif1, however none of these was shown to mediate the molecular or cellular responses to DNA damage, including telomere damage. We searched for such modifications using immunoblotting methods and the cdc13-1 and tlc1Δ models of telomere damage. We found that Rif1 is phosphorylated during telomere damage, and that serines 57 and 110 within a novel phospho-gate domain (PGD) of Rif1 are important for this modification, in cdc13-1 cells. The phosphorylation of Rif1 appeared to inhibit its accumulation on damaged chromosomes and the proliferation of cells with telomere damage. Moreover, we found that checkpoint kinases were upstream of this Rif1 phosphorylation and that the Cdk1 activity was essential for maintaining it. Apart from telomere damage, S57 and S110 were essential for Rif1 phosphorylation during the treatment of cells with genotoxic agents or during mitotic stress. We propose a speculative "Pliers" model to explain the role of the PGD phosphorylation during telomere and other types of damage.

SLFN5-mediated chromatin dynamics sculpt higher-order DNA repair topology

Repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) elicits three-dimensional (3D) chromatin topological changes. A recent finding reveals that 53BP1 assembles into a 3D chromatin topology pattern around DSBs. How this formation of a higher-order structure is configured and regulated remains enigmatic. Here, we report that SLFN5 is a critical factor for 53BP1 topological arrangement at DSBs. Using super-resolution imaging, we find that SLFN5 binds to 53BP1 chromatin domains to assemble a higher-order microdomain architecture by driving damaged chromatin dynamics at both DSBs and deprotected telomeres. Mechanistically, we propose that 53BP1 topology is shaped by two processes: (1) chromatin mobility driven by the SLFN5-LINC-microtubule axis and (2) the assembly of 53BP1 oligomers mediated by SLFN5. In mammals, SLFN5 deficiency disrupts the DSB repair topology and impairs non-homologous end joining, telomere fusions, class switch recombination, and sensitivity to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We establish a molecular mechanism that shapes higher-order chromatin topologies to safeguard genomic stability.

Multifaceted regulation and functions of 53BP1 in NHEJ‑mediated DSB repair (Review)

The repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is crucial for the preservation of genomic integrity and the maintenance of cellular homeostasis. Non-homologous DNA end joining (NHEJ) is the predominant repair mechanism for any type of DNA DSB during the majority of the cell cycle. NHEJ defects regulate tumor sensitivity to ionizing radiation and anti-neoplastic agents, resulting in immunodeficiencies and developmental abnormalities in malignant cells. p53-binding protein 1 (53BP1) is a key mediator involved in DSB repair, which functions to maintain a balance in the repair pathway choices and in preserving genomic stability. 53BP1 promotes DSB repair via NHEJ and antagonizes DNA end overhang resection. At present, novel lines of evidence have revealed the molecular mechanisms underlying the recruitment of 53BP1 and DNA break-responsive effectors to DSB sites, and the promotion of NHEJ-mediated DSB repair via 53BP1, while preventing homologous recombination. In the present review article, recent advances made in the elucidation of the structural and functional characteristics of 53BP1, the mechanisms of 53BP1 recruitment and interaction with the reshaping of the chromatin architecture around DSB sites, the post-transcriptional modifications of 53BP1, and the up- and downstream pathways of 53BP1 are discussed. The present review article also focuses on the application perspectives, current challenges and future directions of 53BP1 research.

CDYL1-dependent decrease in lysine crotonylation at DNA double-strand break sites functionally uncouples transcriptional silencing and repair

Previously, we showed that CDYL1 is recruited to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) to promote homologous recombination (HR) repair and foster transcriptional silencing. However, how CDYL1 elicits DSB-induced silencing is not fully understood. Here, we identify a CDYL1-dependent local decrease in the transcriptionally active marks histone lysine crotonylation (Kcr) and crotonylated lysine 9 of H3 (H3K9cr) at AsiSI-induced DSBs, which correlates with transcriptional silencing. Mechanistically, we reveal that CDYL1 crotonyl-CoA hydratase activity counteracts Kcr and H3K9cr at DSB sites, which triggers the eviction of the transcription elongation factor ENL and fosters transcriptional silencing. Furthermore, genetic inhibition of CDYL1 hydratase activity blocks the reduction in H3K9cr and alleviates DSB-induced silencing, whereas HR efficiency unexpectedly remains intact. Therefore, our results functionally uncouple the repair and silencing activity of CDYL1 at DSBs. In a broader context, we address a long-standing question concerning the functional relationship between HR repair and DSB-induced silencing, suggesting that they may occur independently.

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

Loss or rearrangement of genetic information can result from incorrect responses to DNA double strand breaks (DSBs). The cellular responses to DSBs encompass a range of highly coordinated events designed to detect and respond appropriately to the damage, thereby preserving genomic integrity. In analogy with events occurring during viral infection, we appropriate the terms Immediate-Early, Early, and Late to describe the pre-repair responses to DSBs. A distinguishing feature of the Immediate-Early response is that the large protein condensates that form during the Early and Late response and are resolved upon repair, termed foci, are not visible. The Immediate-Early response encompasses initial lesion sensing, involving poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs), KU70/80, and MRN, as well as rapid repair by so-called ‘fast-kinetic’ canonical non-homologous end joining (cNHEJ). Initial binding of PARPs and the KU70/80 complex to breaks appears to be mutually exclusive at easily ligatable DSBs that are repaired efficiently by fast-kinetic cNHEJ; a process that is PARP-, ATM-, 53BP1-, Artemis-, and resection-independent. However, at more complex breaks requiring processing, the Immediate-Early response involving PARPs and the ensuing highly dynamic PARylation (polyADP ribosylation) of many substrates may aid recruitment of both KU70/80 and MRN to DSBs. Complex DSBs rely upon the Early response, largely defined by ATM-dependent focal recruitment of many signalling molecules into large condensates, and regulated by complex chromatin dynamics. Finally, the Late response integrates information from cell cycle phase, chromatin context, and type of DSB to determine appropriate pathway choice. Critical to pathway choice is the recruitment of p53 binding protein 1 (53BP1) and breast cancer associated 1 (BRCA1). However, additional factors recruited throughout the DSB response also impact upon pathway choice, although these remain to be fully characterised. The Late response somehow channels DSBs into the appropriate high-fidelity repair pathway, typically either ‘slow-kinetic’ cNHEJ or homologous recombination (HR). Loss of specific components of the DSB repair machinery results in cells utilising remaining factors to effect repair, but often at the cost of increased mutagenesis. Here we discuss the complex regulation of the Immediate-Early, Early, and Late responses to DSBs proceeding repair itself.

Biomolecular condensates at sites of DNA damage: More than just a phase

Protein recruitment to DNA break sites is an integral part of the DNA damage response (DDR). Elucidation of the hierarchy and temporal order with which DNA damage sensors as well as repair and signaling factors assemble around chromosome breaks has painted a complex picture of tightly regulated macromolecular interactions that build specialized compartments to facilitate repair and maintenance of genome integrity. While many of the underlying interactions, e.g. between repair factors and damage-induced histone marks, can be explained by lock-and-key or induced fit binding models assuming fixed stoichiometries, structurally less well defined interactions, such as the highly dynamic multivalent interactions implicated in phase separation, also participate in the formation of multi-protein assemblies in response to genotoxic stress. Although much remains to be learned about these types of cooperative and highly dynamic interactions and their functional roles, the rapidly growing interest in material properties of biomolecular condensates and in concepts from polymer chemistry and soft matter physics to understand biological processes at different scales holds great promises. Here, we discuss nuclear condensates in the context of genome integrity maintenance, highlighting the cooperative potential between clustered stoichiometric binding and phase separation. Rather than viewing them as opposing scenarios, their combined effects can balance structural specificity with favorable physicochemical properties relevant for the regulation and function of multilayered nuclear condensates.

The PARP Enzyme Family and the Hallmarks of Cancer Part 1. Cell Intrinsic Hallmarks

The 17-member poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme family, also known as the ADP-ribosyl transferase diphtheria toxin-like (ARTD) enzyme family, contains DNA damage-responsive and nonresponsive members. Only PARP1, 2, 5a, and 5b are capable of modifying their targets with poly ADP-ribose (PAR) polymers; the other PARP family members function as mono-ADP-ribosyl transferases. In the last decade, PARP1 has taken center stage in oncology treatments. New PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have been introduced for the targeted treatment of breast cancer 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2)-deficient ovarian and breast cancers, and this novel therapy represents the prototype of the synthetic lethality paradigm. Much less attention has been paid to other PARPs and their potential roles in cancer biology. In this review, we summarize the roles played by all PARP enzyme family members in six intrinsic hallmarks of cancer: uncontrolled proliferation, evasion of growth suppressors, cell death resistance, genome instability, reprogrammed energy metabolism, and escape from replicative senescence. In a companion paper, we will discuss the roles of PARP enzymes in cancer hallmarks related to cancer-host interactions, including angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis, evasion of the anticancer immune response, and tumor-promoting inflammation. While PARP1 is clearly involved in all ten cancer hallmarks, an increasing body of evidence supports the role of other PARPs in modifying these cancer hallmarks (e.g., PARP5a and 5b in replicative immortality and PARP2 in cancer metabolism). We also highlight controversies, open questions, and discuss prospects of recent developments related to the wide range of roles played by PARPs in cancer biology. Some of the summarized findings may explain resistance to PARPi therapy or highlight novel biological roles of PARPs that can be therapeutically exploited in novel anticancer treatment paradigms.