Loss of Cdc13 causes genome instability by a deficiency in replication-dependent telomere capping.

In budding yeast, Cdc13, Stn1, and Ten1 form the telomere-binding heterotrimer CST complex. Here we investigate the role of Cdc13/CST in maintaining genome stability by using a Chr VII disome system that can generate recombinants, chromosome loss, and enigmatic unstable chromosomes. In cells expressing a temperature sensitive CDC13 allele, cdc13F684S, unstable chromosomes frequently arise from problems in or near a telomere. We found that, when Cdc13 is defective, passage through S phase causes Exo1-dependent ssDNA and unstable chromosomes that are then the source for additional chromosome instability events (e.g. recombinants, chromosome truncations, dicentrics, and/or chromosome loss). We observed that genome instability arises from a defect in Cdc13's function during DNA replication, not Cdc13's putative post-replication telomere capping function. The molecular nature of the initial unstable chromosomes formed by a Cdc13-defect involves ssDNA and does not involve homologous recombination nor non-homologous end joining; we speculate the original unstable chromosome may be a one-ended double strand break. This system defines a link between Cdc13's function during DNA replication and genome stability in the form of unstable chromosomes, that then progress to form other chromosome changes.

A Slowed Cell Cycle Stabilizes the Budding Yeast Genome.

During cell division, aberrant DNA structures are detected by regulators called checkpoints that slow division to allow error correction. In addition to checkpoint-induced delay, it is widely assumed, though rarely shown, that merely slowing the cell cycle might allow more time for error detection and correction, thus resulting in a more stable genome. Fidelity by a slowed cell cycle might be independent of checkpoints. Here we tested the hypothesis that a slowed cell cycle stabilizes the genome, independent of checkpoints, in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae We were led to this hypothesis when we identified a gene (ERV14, an ER cargo membrane protein) that when mutated, unexpectedly stabilized the genome, as measured by three different chromosome assays. After extensive studies of pathways rendered dysfunctional in erv14 mutant cells, we are led to the inference that no particular pathway is involved in stabilization, but rather the slowed cell cycle induced by erv14 stabilized the genome. We then demonstrated that, in genetic mutations and chemical treatments unrelated to ERV14, a slowed cell cycle indeed correlates with a more stable genome, even in checkpoint-proficient cells. Data suggest a delay in G2/M may commonly stabilize the genome. We conclude that chromosome errors are more rarely made or are more readily corrected when the cell cycle is slowed (even ∼15 min longer in an ∼100-min cell cycle). And, some chromosome errors may not signal checkpoint-mediated responses, or do not sufficiently signal to allow correction, and their correction benefits from this "time checkpoint."

Ontogeny of Unstable Chromosomes Generated by Telomere Error in Budding Yeast.

DNA replication errors at certain sites in the genome initiate chromosome instability that ultimately leads to stable genomic rearrangements. Where instability begins is often unclear. And, early instability may form unstable chromosome intermediates whose transient nature also hinders mechanistic understanding. We report here a budding yeast model that reveals the genetic ontogeny of genome rearrangements, from initial replication error to unstable chromosome formation to their resolution. Remarkably, the initial error often arises in or near the telomere, and frequently forms unstable chromosomes. Early unstable chromosomes may then resolve to an internal "collection site" where a dicentric forms and resolves to an isochromosome (other outcomes are possible at each step). The initial telomere-proximal unstable chromosome is increased in mutants in telomerase subunits, Tel1, and even Rad9, with no known telomere-specific function. Defects in Tel1 and in Rrm3, a checkpoint protein kinase with a role in telomere maintenance and a DNA helicase, respectively, synergize dramatically to generate unstable chromosomes, further illustrating the consequence of replication error in the telomere. Collectively, our results suggest telomeric replication errors may be a common cause of seemingly unrelated genomic rearrangements located hundreds of kilobases away.

Nifty Alleles, a Plethora of Interactions, and Imagination Advance Understanding of Smc5/6's Roles with Chromosomes.

The Smc5/6 complex is involved in DNA replication and repair, but why it is essential is less clear. In this issue of Molecular Cell, Menolfi et al. (2015) use cell cycle-specific alleles to link the essential function of Smc5/6 to resolving replication problems that persist into G2.

DNA replication: failures and inverted fusions.

DNA replication normally follows the rules passed down from Watson and Crick: the chromosome duplicates as dictated by its antiparallel strands, base-pairing and leading and lagging strand differences. Real-life replication is more complicated, fraught with perils posed by chromosome damage for one, and by transcription of genes and by other perils that disrupt progress of the DNA replication machinery. Understanding the replication fork, including DNA structures, associated replisome and its regulators, is key to understanding how cells overcome perils and minimize error. Replication fork error leads to genome rearrangements and, potentially, cell death. Interest in the replication fork and its errors has recently gained added interest by the results of deep sequencing studies of human genomes. Several pathologies are associated with sometimes-bizarre genome rearrangements suggestive of elaborate replication fork failures. To try and understand the links between the replication fork, its failure and genome rearrangements, we discuss here phases of fork behavior (stall, collapse, restart and fork failures leading to rearrangements) and analyze two examples of instability from our own studies; one in fission yeast and the other in budding yeast.

Checkpoint genes and Exo1 regulate nearby inverted repeat fusions that form dicentric chromosomes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Genomic rearrangements are common, occur by largely unknown mechanisms, and can lead to human diseases. We previously demonstrated that some genome rearrangements occur in budding yeast through the fusion of two DNA sequences that contain limited sequence homology, lie in inverted orientation, and are within 5 kb of one another. This inverted repeat fusion reaction forms dicentric chromosomes, which are well-known intermediates to additional rearrangements. We have previously provided evidence indicating that an error of stalled or disrupted DNA replication forks can cause inverted repeat fusion. Here we analyze how checkpoint protein regulatory pathways known to stabilize stalled forks affect this form of instability. We find that two checkpoint pathways suppress inverted repeat fusion, and that their activities are distinguishable by their interactions with exonuclease 1 (Exo1). The checkpoint kinase Rad53 (Chk2) and recombination protein complex MRX(MRN) inhibit Exo1 in one pathway, whereas in a second pathway the ATR-like kinases Mec1 and Tel1, adaptor protein Rad9, and effector kinases Chk1 and Dun1 act independently of Exo1 to prevent inverted repeat fusion. We provide a model that indicates how in Rad53 or MRX mutants, an inappropriately active Exo1 may facilitate faulty template switching between nearby inverted repeats to form dicentric chromosomes. We further investigate the role of Rad53, using hypomorphic alleles of Rad53 and null mutations in Rad9 and Mrc1, and provide evidence that only local, as opposed to global, activity of Rad53 is sufficient to prevent inverted repeat fusion.

Choreography of the 9-1-1 checkpoint complex: DDK puts a check on the checkpoints.

Checkpoint proteins respond to DNA damage by halting the cell cycle until the damage is repaired. In this issue of Molecular Cell, Furuya et al. (2010) provide evidence that checkpoint proteins need to be removed from sites of damage in order to properly repair it.

The role of replication bypass pathways in dicentric chromosome formation in budding yeast.

Gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) are large scale changes to chromosome structure and can lead to human disease. We previously showed in Saccharomyces cerevisiae that nearby inverted repeat sequences (∼20-200 bp of homology, separated by ∼1-5 kb) frequently fuse to form unstable dicentric and acentric chromosomes. Here we analyzed inverted repeat fusion in mutants of three sets of genes. First, we show that genes in the error-free postreplication repair (PRR) pathway prevent fusion of inverted repeats, while genes in the translesion branch have no detectable role. Second, we found that siz1 mutants, which are defective for Srs2 recruitment to replication forks, and srs2 mutants had opposite effects on instability. This may reflect separate roles for Srs2 in different phases of the cell cycle. Third, we provide evidence for a faulty template switch model by studying mutants of DNA polymerases; defects in DNA pol delta (lagging strand polymerase) and Mgs1 (a pol delta interacting protein) lead to a defect in fusion events as well as allelic recombination. Pol delta and Mgs1 may collaborate either in strand annealing and/or DNA replication involved in fusion and allelic recombination events. Fourth, by studying genes implicated in suppression of GCRs in other studies, we found that inverted repeat fusion has a profile of genetic regulation distinct from these other major forms of GCR formation.

Fusion of nearby inverted repeats by a replication-based mechanism leads to formation of dicentric and acentric chromosomes that cause genome instability in budding yeast.

Large-scale changes (gross chromosomal rearrangements [GCRs]) are common in genomes, and are often associated with pathological disorders. We report here that a specific pair of nearby inverted repeats in budding yeast fuse to form a dicentric chromosome intermediate, which then rearranges to form a translocation and other GCRs. We next show that fusion of nearby inverted repeats is general; we found that many nearby inverted repeats that are present in the yeast genome also fuse, as does a pair of synthetically constructed inverted repeats. Fusion occurs between inverted repeats that are separated by several kilobases of DNA and share >20 base pairs of homology. Finally, we show that fusion of inverted repeats, surprisingly, does not require genes involved in double-strand break (DSB) repair or genes involved in other repeat recombination events. We therefore propose that fusion may occur by a DSB-independent, DNA replication-based mechanism (which we term "faulty template switching"). Fusion of nearby inverted repeats to form dicentrics may be a major cause of instability in yeast and in other organisms.

tRNA traffic meets a cell-cycle checkpoint.

The molecular pathways linking DNA-damage checkpoint proteins to cell-cycle progression remain largely unresolved. Findings by Ghavidel et al. (2007) reported in this issue suggest that tRNA trafficking and the transcription factor Gcn4 are key intermediates in the process by which yeast cells detect DNA damage and delay cell-cycle progression at the G1 to S phase transition.

Cycles of chromosome instability are associated with a fragile site and are increased by defects in DNA replication and checkpoint controls in yeast.

We report here that a normal budding yeast chromosome (ChrVII) can undergo remarkable cycles of chromosome instability. The events associated with cycles of instability caused a distinctive "sectoring" of colonies on selective agar plates. We found that instability initiated at any of several sites on ChrVII, and was sharply increased by the disruption of DNA replication or by defects in checkpoint controls. We studied in detail the cycles of instability associated with one particular chromosomal site (the "403 site"). This site contained multiple tRNA genes known to stall replication forks, and when deleted, the overall frequency of sectoring was reduced. Instability of the 403 site involved multiple nonallelic recombination events that led to the formation of a monocentric translocation. This translocation remained unstable, frequently undergoing either loss or recombination events linked to the translocation junction. These results suggest a model in which instability initiates at specific chromosomal sites that stall replication forks. Forks not stabilized by checkpoint proteins break and undergo multiple rounds of nonallelic recombination to form translocations. Some translocations remain unstable because they join two "incompatible" chromosomal regions. Cycles of instability of this normal yeast chromosome may be relevant to chromosome instability of mammalian fragile sites and of chromosomes in cancer cells.

Do telomeres ask checkpoint proteins: "gimme shelter-in"?

Telomeres are complicated structures designed to allow one thing and avoid another. They allow replication of chromosome ends, an issue mostly about telomerase, which we seem to understand (though details of its regulation are works in progress). Telomeres must also avoid being detected as DNA breaks. This is important for two reasons: DNA breaks activate checkpoints that cause arrest of cell division, and DNA breaks engage repair machinery. Clearly, normal telomeres neither activate cell cycle arrest nor allow themselves to be repaired; arrest blocks cell division, and repair fuses chromosomes.

A telomeric repeat sequence adjacent to a DNA double-stranded break produces an anticheckpoint.

Telomeres are complex structures that serve to protect chromosome ends. Here we provide evidence that in Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomeres may contain an anticheckpoint activity that prevents chromosome ends from signaling cell cycle arrest. We found that an internal tract of telomeric repeats inhibited DNA damage checkpoint signaling from adjacent double-strand breaks (DSBs); cell cycle arrest lasted 8-12 h from a normal DSB, whereas it lasted only 1-2 h from a DSB adjacent to a telomeric repeat. The shortened or abridged arrest was not the result of DNA repair, nor reduced amounts of single-stranded DNA, nor of adaptation. The molecular identity of this telomere repeat-associated anticheckpoint activity is unknown, though it is not dependent upon telomerase or telomere-proximal gene silencing. The anticheckpoint may inhibit the ATR yeast ortholog Mec1 because Rad9 and Rad53 became dephosphorylated and inactivated during the abridged arrest. The anticheckpoint acts regionally; it inhibited signaling from DNA breaks up to 0.6 kb away from the telomeric repeat but not from a DSB present on a separate chromosome. We propose that after formation of the DSB near the telomeric repeat, a mature telomere forms in 1-2 h, and the telomere then contains proteins that inhibit checkpoint signaling from nearby DNA breaks.

Mec1 and Rad53 inhibit formation of single-stranded DNA at telomeres of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cdc13-1 mutants.

Here we examine the roles of budding-yeast checkpoint proteins in regulating degradation of dsDNA to ssDNA at unprotected telomeres (in Cdc13 telomere-binding protein defective strains). We find that Rad17, Mec3, as well as Rad24, members of the putative checkpoint clamp loader (Rad24) and sliding clamp (Rad17, Mec3) complexes, are important for promoting degradation of dsDNA in and near telomere repeats. We find that Mec1, Rad53, as well as Rad9, have the opposite role: they inhibit degradation. Downstream checkpoint kinases Chk1 and Dun1 play no detectable role in either promoting degradation or inhibiting it. These data suggest, first, that the checkpoint sliding clamp regulates and/or recruits some nucleases for degradation, and, second, that Mec1 activates Rad9 to activate Rad53 to inhibit degradation. Further analysis shows that Rad9 inhibits ssDNA generation by both Mec1/Rad53-dependent and -independent pathways. Exo1 appears to be targeted by the Mec1/Rad53-dependent pathway. Finally, analysis of double mutants suggests a minor role for Mec1 in promoting Rad24-dependent degradation of dsDNA. Thus, checkpoint proteins orchestrate carefully ssDNA production at unprotected telomeres.

Toward maintaining the genome: DNA damage and replication checkpoints.

DNA checkpoints play a significant role in cancer pathology, perhaps most notably in maintaining genome stability. This review summarizes the genetic and molecular mechanisms of checkpoint activation in response to DNA damage. The major checkpoint proteins common to all eukaryotes are identified and discussed, together with how the checkpoint proteins interact to induce arrest within each cell cycle phase. Also discussed are the molecular signals that activate checkpoint responses, including single-strand DNA, double-strand breaks, and aberrant replication forks. We address the connection between checkpoint proteins and damage repair mechanisms, how cells recover from an arrest response, and additional roles that checkpoint proteins play in DNA metabolism. Finally, the connection between checkpoint gene mutation and genomic instability is considered.