The cooperative action of CSB, CSA, and UVSSA target TFIIH to DNA damage-stalled RNA polymerase II

The response to DNA damage-stalled RNA polymerase II (RNAPIIo) involves the assembly of the transcription-coupled repair (TCR) complex on actively transcribed strands. The function of the TCR proteins CSB, CSA and UVSSA and the manner in which the core DNA repair complex, including transcription factor IIH (TFIIH), is recruited are largely unknown. Here, we define the assembly mechanism of the TCR complex in human isogenic knockout cells. We show that TCR is initiated by RNAPIIo-bound CSB, which recruits CSA through a newly identified CSA-interaction motif (CIM). Once recruited, CSA facilitates the association of UVSSA with stalled RNAPIIo. Importantly, we find that UVSSA is the key factor that recruits the TFIIH complex in a manner that is stimulated by CSB and CSA. Together these findings identify a sequential and highly cooperative assembly mechanism of TCR proteins and reveal the mechanism for TFIIH recruitment to DNA damage-stalled RNAPIIo to initiate repair. The response to DNA damage-stalled RNA polymerase II leads to the assembly of the transcription-coupled repair (TCR) complex on actively transcribed strands. Here, the authors reveal the complex assembly mechanism of the TCR complex in human cells.Genome Instability and Cance

External quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2-sequencing: An ESGMD-SSM pilot trial across 15 European laboratories

Objective: This first pilot on external quality assessment (EQA) of SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing, initiated by the ESCMID Study Group for Genomic and Molecular Diagnostics (ESGMD) and Swiss Society for Microbiology (SSM), aims to build a framework between laboratories in order to improve pathogen surveillance sequencing.Methods: Ten samples with varying viral loads were sent out to 15 clinical laboratories who had free choice of sequencing methods and bioinformatic analyses. The key aspects on which the individual centres were compared on were identification of 1) SNPs and indels, 2) Pango lineages, and 3) clusters between samples.Results: The participating laboratories used a wide array of methods and analysis pipelines. Most were able to generate whole genomes for all samples. Genomes were sequenced to varying depth (up to 100-fold difference across centres). There was a very good consensus regarding the majority of reporting criteria, but there were a few discrepancies in lineage and cluster assignment. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in variant calling. The main reasons for discrepancies were missing data, bioinformatic choices, and interpretation of data.Conclusions: The pilot EQA was an overall success. It was able to show the high quality of participating labs and provide valuable feedback in cases where problems occurred, thereby improving the sequencing setup of laboratories. A larger follow-up EQA should, however, improve on defining the variables and format of the report. Additionally, contamination and/or minority variants should be a further aspect of assessment.</p

The cooperative action of CSB, CSA, and UVSSA target TFIIH to DNA damage-stalled RNA polymerase II (vol 11, 2104, 2020)

Cancer Signaling networks and Molecular Therapeutic

External quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2-sequencing: An ESGMD-SSM pilot trial across 15 European laboratories.

OBJECTIVE This first pilot on external quality assessment (EQA) of SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing, initiated by the ESCMID Study Group for Genomic and Molecular Diagnostics (ESGMD) and Swiss Society for Microbiology (SSM), aims to build a framework between laboratories in order to improve pathogen surveillance sequencing. METHODS Ten samples with varying viral loads were sent out to 15 clinical laboratories who had free choice of sequencing methods and bioinformatic analyses. The key aspects on which the individual centres were compared on were identification of 1) SNPs and indels, 2) Pango lineages, and 3) clusters between samples. RESULTS The participating laboratories used a wide array of methods and analysis pipelines. Most were able to generate whole genomes for all samples. Genomes were sequenced to varying depth (up to 100-fold difference across centres). There was a very good consensus regarding the majority of reporting criteria, but there were a few discrepancies in lineage and cluster assignment. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in variant calling. The main reasons for discrepancies were missing data, bioinformatic choices, and interpretation of data. CONCLUSIONS The pilot EQA was an overall success. It was able to show the high quality of participating labs and provide valuable feedback in cases where problems occurred, thereby improving the sequencing setup of laboratories. A larger follow-up EQA should, however, improve on defining the variables and format of the report. Additionally, contamination and/or minority variants should be a further aspect of assessment