3 research outputs found

    A genetic study based on PCNA-ubiquitin fusions reveals no requirement for PCNA polyubiquitylation in DNA damage tolerance

    Get PDF
    Post-translational modifications of Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA) play a key role in regulating the bypass of DNA lesions during DNA replication. PCNA can be monoubiquitylated at lysine 164 by the RAD6-RAD18 ubiquitin ligase complex. Through this modification, PCNA can interact with low fidelity Y family DNA polymerases to promote translesion synthesis. Monoubiquitylated PCNA can be polyubiquitylated on lysine 63 of ubiquitin by a further ubiquitin-conjugating complex. This modification promotes a template switching bypass process in yeast, while its role in higher eukaryotes is less clear. We investigated the function of PCNA ubiquitylation using a PCNAK164R mutant DT40 chicken B lymphoblastoma cell line, which is hypersensitive to DNA damaging agents such as methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), cisplatin or ultraviolet radiation (UV) due to the loss of PCNA modifications. In the PCNAK164R mutant we also detected cell cycle arrest following UV treatment, a reduced rate of damage bypass through translesion DNA synthesis on synthetic UV photoproducts, and an increased rate of genomic mutagenesis following MMS treatment. PCNA-ubiquitin fusion proteins have been reported to mimic endogenous PCNA ubiquitylation. We found that the stable expression of a PCNAK164R-ubiquitin fusion protein fully or partially rescued the observed defects of the PCNAK164R mutant. The expression of a PCNAK164R-ubiquitinK63R fusion protein, on which the formation of lysine 63-linked polyubiquitin chains is not possible, similarly rescued the cell cycle arrest, DNA damage sensitivity, reduction of translesion synthesis and increase of MMS-induced genomic mutagenesis. Template switching bypass was not affected by the genetic elimination of PCNA polyubiquitylation, but it was reduced in the absence of the recombination proteins BRCA1 or XRCC3. Our study found no requirement for PCNA polyubiquitylation to protect cells from replication-stalling DNA damage. © 2017 Elsevier B.V

    Loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 markedly increases the rate of base substitution mutagenesis and has distinct effects on genomic deletions

    Get PDF
    Loss-of-function mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes increase the risk of cancer. Owing to their function in homologous recombination repair, much research has focused on the unstable genomic phenotype of BRCA1/2 mutant cells manifest mainly as large-scale rearrangements. We used whole-genome sequencing of multiple isogenic chicken DT40 cell clones to precisely determine the consequences of BRCA1/2 loss on all types of genomic mutagenesis. Spontaneous base substitution mutation rates increased sevenfold upon the disruption of either BRCA1 or BRCA2, and the arising mutation spectra showed strong and specific correlation with a mutation signature associated with BRCA1/2 mutant tumours. To model endogenous alkylating damage, we determined the mutation spectrum caused by methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), and showed that MMS also induces more base substitution mutations in BRCA1/2-deficient cells. Spontaneously arising and MMS-induced insertion/deletion mutations and large rearrangements were also more common in BRCA1/2 mutant cells compared with the wild-type control. A difference in the short deletion phenotypes of BRCA1 and BRCA2 suggested distinct roles for the two proteins in the processing of DNA lesions, as BRCA2 mutants contained more short deletions, with a wider size distribution, which frequently showed microhomology near the breakpoints resembling repair by non-homologous end joining. An increased and prolonged gamma-H2AX signal in MMS-treated BRCA1/2 cells suggested an aberrant processing of stalled replication forks as the cause of increased mutagenesis. The high rate of base substitution mutagenesis demonstrated by our experiments is likely to significantly contribute to the oncogenic effect of the inactivation of BRCA1 or BRCA2.Oncogene advance online publication, 25 July 2016; doi:10.1038/onc.2016.243. © 2016 The Author(s
    corecore