Substrate binding promotes formation of the Skp1-Cul1-Fbxl3 (SCF(Fbxl3)) protein complex.

The Skp1-Cul1-F-box protein (SCF) complex is one of the most well characterized types of ubiquitin ligase (E3), with the E3 activity of the complex being regulated in part at the level of complex formation. Fbxl3 is an F-box protein that is responsible for the ubiquitylation and consequent degradation of cryptochromes (Crys) and thus regulates oscillation of the circadian clock. Here we show that formation of the SCF(Fbxl3) complex is regulated by substrate binding in vivo. Fbxl3 did not associate with Skp1 and Cul1 to a substantial extent in transfected mammalian cells. Unexpectedly, however, formation of the SCF(Fbxl3) complex was markedly promoted by forced expression of its substrate Cry1 in these cells. A mutant form of Fbxl3 that does not bind to Cry1 was unable to form an SCF complex, suggesting that interaction of Cry1 with Fbxl3 is essential for formation of SCF(Fbxl3). In contrast, recombinant Fbxl3 associated with recombinant Skp1 and Cul1 in vitro even in the absence of recombinant Cry1. Domain-swap analysis revealed that the COOH-terminal leucine-rich repeat domain of Fbxl3 attenuates the interaction of Skp1, suggesting that a yet unknown protein associated with the COOH-terminal domain of Fbxl3 and inhibited SCF complex formation. Our results thus provide important insight into the regulation of both SCF ubiquitin ligase activity and circadian rhythmicity.

Homologous recombination but not nucleotide excision repair plays a pivotal role in tolerance of DNA-protein cross-links in mammalian cells.

DNA-protein cross-links (DPCs) are unique among DNA lesions in their unusually bulky nature. The steric hindrance imposed by cross-linked proteins (CLPs) will hamper DNA transactions, such as replication and transcription, posing an enormous threat to cells. In bacteria, DPCs with small CLPs are eliminated by nucleotide excision repair (NER), whereas oversized DPCs are processed exclusively by RecBCD-dependent homologous recombination (HR). Here we have assessed the roles of NER and HR for DPCs in mammalian cells. We show that the upper size limit of CLPs amenable to mammalian NER is relatively small (8-10 kDa) so that NER cannot participate in the repair of chromosomal DPCs in mammalian cells. Moreover, CLPs are not polyubiquitinated and hence are not subjected to proteasomal degradation prior to NER. In contrast, HR constitutes the major pathway in tolerance of DPCs as judged from cell survival and RAD51 and gamma-H2AX nuclear foci formation. Induction of DPCs results in the accumulation of DNA double strand breaks in HR-deficient but not HR-proficient cells, suggesting that fork breakage at the DPC site initiates HR and reactivates the stalled fork. DPCs activate both ATR and ATM damage response pathways, but there is a time lag between two responses. These results highlight the differential involvement of NER in the repair of DPCs in bacterial and mammalian cells and demonstrate the versatile and conserved role of HR in tolerance of DPCs among species.

Genetic analysis of repair and damage tolerance mechanisms for DNA-protein cross-links in Escherichia coli.

DNA-protein cross-links (DPCs) are unique among DNA lesions in their unusually bulky nature. We have recently shown that nucleotide excision repair (NER) and RecBCD-dependent homologous recombination (HR) collaboratively alleviate the lethal effect of DPCs in Escherichia coli. In this study, to gain further insight into the damage-processing mechanism for DPCs, we assessed the sensitivities of a panel of repair-deficient E. coli mutants to DPC-inducing agents, including formaldehyde (FA) and 5-azacytidine (azaC). We show here that the damage tolerance mechanism involving HR and subsequent replication restart (RR) provides the most effective means of cell survival against DPCs. Translesion synthesis does not serve as an alternative damage tolerance mechanism for DPCs in cell survival. Elimination of DPCs from the genome relies primarily on NER, which provides a second and moderately effective means of cell survival against DPCs. Interestingly, Cho rather than UvrC seems to be an effective nuclease for the NER of DPCs. Together with the genes responsible for HR, RR, and NER, the mutation of genes involved in several aspects of DNA repair and transactions, such as recQ, xth nfo, dksA, and topA, rendered cells slightly but significantly sensitive to FA but not azaC, possibly reflecting the complexity of DPCs or cryptic lesions induced by FA. UvrD may have an additional role outside NER, since the uvrD mutation conferred a slight azaC sensitivity on cells. Finally, DNA glycosylases mitigate azaC toxicity, independently of the repair of DPCs, presumably by removing 5-azacytosine or its degradation product from the chromosome.