DNA non-homologous end-joining enters the resection arena

Modelling DNA damage-repair and beyond

The paper presents a review of mechanistic modelling studies of DNA damage and DNA repair, and consequences to follow in mammalian cell nucleus. We hypothesize DNA deletions are consequences of repair of double strand breaks leading to the modifications of genome that play crucial role in long term development of genetic inheritance and diseases. The aim of the paper is to review formation mechanisms underlying naturally occurring DNA deletions in the human genome and their potential relevance for bridging the gap between induced DNA double strand breaks and deletions in damaged human genome from endogenous and exogenous events. The model of the cell nucleus presented enables simulation of DNA damage at molecular level identifying the spectrum of damage induced in all chromosomal territories and loops. Our mechanistic modelling of DNA repair for double stand breaks (DSB), single strand breaks (SSB) and base damage (BD), shows the complexity of DNA damage is responsible for the longer repair times and the reason for the biphasic feature of mammalian cells repair curves. In the absence of experimentally determined data, the mechanistic model of repair predicts the in vivo rate constants for the proteins involved in the repair of DSB, SSB, and of BD.

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.

A Paradigm Revolution or Just Better Resolution-Will Newly Emerging Superresolution Techniques Identify Chromatin Architecture as a Key Factor in Radiation-Induced DNA Damage and Repair Regulation?

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) have been recognized as the most serious lesions in irradiated cells. While several biochemical pathways capable of repairing these lesions have been identified, the mechanisms by which cells select a specific pathway for activation at a given DSB site remain poorly understood. Our knowledge of DSB induction and repair has increased dramatically since the discovery of ionizing radiation-induced foci (IRIFs), initiating the possibility of spatiotemporally monitoring the assembly and disassembly of repair complexes in single cells. IRIF exploration revealed that all post-irradiation processes-DSB formation, repair and misrepair-are strongly dependent on the characteristics of DSB damage and the microarchitecture of the whole affected chromatin domain in addition to the cell status. The microscale features of IRIFs, such as their morphology, mobility, spatiotemporal distribution, and persistence kinetics, have been linked to repair mechanisms. However, the influence of various biochemical and structural factors and their specific combinations on IRIF architecture remains unknown, as does the hierarchy of these factors in the decision-making process for a particular repair mechanism at each individual DSB site. New insights into the relationship between the physical properties of the incident radiation, chromatin architecture, IRIF architecture, and DSB repair mechanisms and repair efficiency are expected from recent developments in optical superresolution microscopy (nanoscopy) techniques that have shifted our ability to analyze chromatin and IRIF architectures towards the nanoscale. In the present review, we discuss this relationship, attempt to correlate still rather isolated nanoscale studies with already better-understood aspects of DSB repair at the microscale, and consider whether newly emerging "correlated multiscale structuromics" can revolutionarily enhance our knowledge in this field.

One end to rule them all: Non-homologous end-joining and homologous recombination at DNA double-strand breaks

Double-strand breaks (DSBs) represent the most severe type of DNA damage since they can lead to genomic rearrangements, events that can initiate and promote tumorigenic processes. DSBs arise from various exogenous agents that induce two single-strand breaks at opposite locations in the DNA double helix. Such two-ended DSBs are repaired in mammalian cells by one of two conceptually different processes, non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR). NHEJ has the potential to form rearrangements while HR is believed to be error-free since it uses a homologous template for repair. DSBs can also arise from single-stranded DNA lesions if they lead to replication fork collapse. Such DSBs, however, have only one end and are repaired by HR and not by NHEJ. In fact, the majority of spontaneously arising DSBs are one-ended and HR has likely evolved to repair one-ended DSBs. HR of such DSBs demands the engagement of a second break end that is generated by an approaching replication fork. This HR process can cause rearrangements if a homologous template other than the sister chromatid is used. Thus, both NHEJ and HR have the potential to form rearrangements and the proper choice between them is governed by various factors, including cell cycle phase and genomic location of the lesion. We propose that the specific requirements for repairing one-ended DSBs have shaped HR in a way which makes NHEJ the better choice for the repair of some but not all two-ended DSBs.

Strong suppression of gene conversion with increasing DNA double-strand break load delimited by 53BP1 and RAD52

In vertebrates, genomic DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are removed by non-homologous end-joining processes: classical non-homologous end-joining (c-NHEJ) and alternative end-joining (alt-EJ); or by homology-dependent processes: gene-conversion (GC) and single-strand annealing (SSA). Surprisingly, these repair pathways are not real alternative options restoring genome integrity with equal efficiency, but show instead striking differences in speed, accuracy and cell-cycle-phase dependence. As a consequence, engagement of one pathway may be associated with processing-risks for the genome absent from another pathway. Characterization of engagement-parameters and their consequences is, therefore, essential for understanding effects on the genome of DSB-inducing agents, such as ionizing-radiation (IR). Here, by addressing pathway selection in G2-phase, we discover regulatory confinements in GC with consequences for SSA- and c-NHEJ-engagement. We show pronounced suppression of GC with increasing DSB-load that is not due to RAD51 availability and which is delimited but not defined by 53BP1 and RAD52. Strikingly, at low DSB-loads, GC repairs ∼50% of DSBs, whereas at high DSB-loads its contribution is undetectable. Notably, with increasing DSB-load and the associated suppression of GC, SSA gains ground, while alt-EJ is suppressed. These observations explain earlier, apparently contradictory results and advance our understanding of logic and mechanisms underpinning the wiring between DSB repair pathways.

Stress-Induced Phosphorylation of Nuclear YB-1 Depends on Nuclear Trafficking of p90 Ribosomal S6 Kinase

Ionizing radiation (IR) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) stimulate Y-box binding protein-1 (YB-1) phosphorylation at Ser-102 in KRAS wild-type (KRASwt) cells, whereas in KRAS mutated (KRASmut) cells, YB-1 is constitutively phosphorylated, independent of IR or EGF. YB-1 activity stimulates the repair of IR-induced DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in the nucleus. Thus far, the YB-1 nuclear translocation pattern after cell exposure to various cellular stressors is not clear. In the present study, we investigated the pattern of YB-1 phosphorylation and its possible translocation to the nucleus in KRASwt cells after exposure to IR, EGF treatment, and conditional expression of mutated KRAS(G12V). IR, EGF, and conditional KRAS(G12V) expression induced YB-1 phosphorylation in both the cytoplasmic and nuclear fractions of KRASwt cells. None of the stimuli induced YB-1 nuclear translocation, while p90 ribosomal s6 kinase (RSK) translocation was enhanced in KRASwt cells after any of the stimuli. EGF-induced RSK translocation to the nucleus and nuclear YB-1 phosphorylation were completely blocked by the EGF receptor kinase inhibitor erlotinib. Likewise, RSK inhibition blocked RSK nuclear translocation and nuclear YB-1 phosphorylation after irradiation and KRAS(G12V) overexpression. In summary, acute stimulation of YB-1 phosphorylation does not lead to YB-1 translocation from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. Rather, irradiation, EGF treatment, or KRAS(G12V) overexpression induces RSK activation, leading to its translocation to the nucleus, where it activates already-existing nuclear YB-1. Our novel finding illuminates the signaling pathways involved in nuclear YB-1 phosphorylation and provides a rationale for designing appropriate targeting strategies to block YB-1 in oncology as well as in radiation oncology.