Selective disruption of the DNA polymerase III α–β complex by the umuD gene products

DNA polymerase III (DNA pol III) efficiently replicates the Escherichia coli genome, but it cannot bypass DNA damage. Instead, translesion synthesis (TLS) DNA polymerases are employed to replicate past damaged DNA; however, the exchange of replicative for TLS polymerases is not understood. The umuD gene products, which are up-regulated during the SOS response, were previously shown to bind to the α, β and ε subunits of DNA pol III. Full-length UmuD inhibits DNA replication and prevents mutagenic TLS, while the cleaved form UmuD′ facilitates mutagenesis. We show that α possesses two UmuD binding sites: at the N-terminus (residues 1–280) and the C-terminus (residues 956–975). The C-terminal site favors UmuD over UmuD′. We also find that UmuD, but not UmuD′, disrupts the α–β complex. We propose that the interaction between α and UmuD contributes to the transition between replicative and TLS polymerases by removing α from the β clamp

PCNA ubiquitylation ensures timely completion of unperturbed DNA replication in fission yeast

PCNA ubiquitylation on lysine 164 is required for DNA damage tolerance. In many organisms PCNA is also ubiquitylated in unchallenged S phase but the significance of this has not been established. Using Schizosaccharomyces pombe, we demonstrate that lysine 164 ubiquitylation of PCNA contributes to efficient DNA replication in the absence of DNA damage. Loss of PCNA ubiquitylation manifests most strongly at late replicating regions and increases the frequency of replication gaps. We show that PCNA ubiquitylation increases the proportion of chromatin associated PCNA and the co-immunoprecipitation of Polymerase δ with PCNA during unperturbed replication and propose that ubiquitylation acts to prolong the chromatin association of these replication proteins to allow the efficient completion of Okazaki fragment synthesis by mediating gap filling

Genetic diversity of Leishmania amazonensis strains isolated in northeastern Brazil as revealed by DNA sequencing, PCR-based analyses and molecular karyotyping

Abstract\ud \ud \ud \ud Background\ud \ud Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis infection in man results in a clinical spectrum of disease manifestations ranging from cutaneous to mucosal or visceral involvement. In the present study, we have investigated the genetic variability of 18 L. amazonensis strains isolated in northeastern Brazil from patients with different clinical manifestations of leishmaniasis. Parasite DNA was analyzed by sequencing of the ITS flanking the 5.8 S subunit of the ribosomal RNA genes, by RAPD and SSR-PCR and by PFGE followed by hybridization with gene-specific probes.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud ITS sequencing and PCR-based methods revealed genetic heterogeneity among the L. amazonensis isolates examined and molecular karyotyping also showed variation in the chromosome size of different isolates. Unrooted genetic trees separated strains into different groups.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud These results indicate that L. amazonensis strains isolated from leishmaniasis patients from northeastern Brazil are genetically diverse, however, no correlation between genetic polymorphism and phenotype were found.We thank Lucile FloeterWinter for critical reading of the manuscript and Artur T.L. de Queiroz for initial help with phylogenetic analysis. This work is supported by grants from CNPq, FAPESB and PAPES/FIOCRUZ. J.P.C. de Oliveira was supported by a CNPq fellowship; C.I.O. and F.M.C.F were supported by a FAPESB fellowship. AAC, AB, and CIO are senior investigators from CNPq. AB is a senior investigator for Instituto de Investigação em Imunologia (iii).We thank Lucile Floeter-Winter for critical reading of the manuscript and Artur T.L. de Queiroz for initial help with phylogenetic analysis. This work is supported by grants from CNPq, FAPESB and PAPES/FIOCRUZ. J.P.C. de Oliveira was supported by a CNPq fellowship; C.I.O. and F.M.C.F were supported by a FAPESB fellowship. AAC, AB, and CIO are senior investigators from CNPq. AB is a senior investigator for Instituto de Investigação em Imunologia (iii)

Rad17 Plays a Central Role in Establishment of the Interaction between TopBP1 and the Rad9-Hus1-Rad1 Complex at Stalled Replication Forks

Rad17 is critical for the ATR-dependent activation of Chk1 during checkpoint responses. It is known that Rad17 loads the Rad9-Hus1-Rad1 (9-1-1) complex onto DNA. We show that Rad17 also mediates the interaction of 9-1-1 with the ATR-activating protein TopBP1 in Xenopus egg extracts. Studies with Rad17 mutants indicate that binding of ATP to Rad17 is essential for the association of 9-1-1 and TopBP1. Furthermore, hydrolysis of ATP by Rad17 is necessary for the loading of 9-1-1 onto DNA and the elevated, checkpoint-dependent accumulation of TopBP1 on chromatin. Significantly, a mutant 9-1-1 complex that cannot bind TopBP1 has a normal capacity to promote elevated accumulation of TopBP1 on chromatin. Taken together, we propose the following mechanism. First, Rad17 loads 9-1-1 onto DNA. Second, TopBP1 accumulates on chromatin in a manner that depends on both Rad17 and 9-1-1. Finally, 9-1-1 and TopBP1 dock in a Rad17-dependent manner before activation of Chk1

Competition of Escherichia coli DNA Polymerases I, II and III with DNA Pol IV in Stressed Cells

Escherichia coli has five DNA polymerases, one of which, the low-fidelity Pol IV or DinB, is required for stress-induced mutagenesis in the well-studied Lac frameshift-reversion assay. Although normally present at ∼200 molecules per cell, Pol IV is recruited to acts of DNA double-strand-break repair, and causes mutagenesis, only when at least two cellular stress responses are activated: the SOS DNA-damage response, which upregulates DinB ∼10-fold, and the RpoS-controlled general-stress response, which upregulates Pol IV about 2-fold. DNA Pol III was also implicated but its role in mutagenesis was unclear. We sought in vivo evidence on the presence and interactions of multiple DNA polymerases during stress-induced mutagenesis. Using multiply mutant strains, we provide evidence of competition of DNA Pols I, II and III with Pol IV, implying that they are all present at sites of stress-induced mutagenesis. Previous data indicate that Pol V is also present. We show that the interactions of Pols I, II and III with Pol IV result neither from, first, induction of the SOS response when particular DNA polymerases are removed, nor second, from proofreading of DNA Pol IV errors by the editing functions of Pol I or Pol III. Third, we provide evidence that Pol III itself does not assist with but rather inhibits Pol IV-dependent mutagenesis. The data support the remaining hypothesis that during the acts of DNA double-strand-break (DSB) repair, shown previously to underlie stress-induced mutagenesis in the Lac system, there is competition of DNA polymerases I, II and III with DNA Pol IV for action at the primer terminus. Up-regulation of Pol IV, and possibly other stress-response-controlled factor(s), tilt the competition in favor of error-prone Pol IV at the expense of more accurate polymerases, thus producing stress-induced mutations. This mutagenesis assay reveals the DNA polymerases operating in DSB repair during stress and also provides a sensitive indicator for DNA polymerase competition and choice in vivo

Clamp loader ATPases and the evolution of DNA replication machinery

Clamp loaders are pentameric ATPases of the AAA+ family that operate to ensure processive DNA replication. They do so by loading onto DNA the ring-shaped sliding clamps that tether the polymerase to the DNA. Structural and biochemical analysis of clamp loaders has shown how, despite differences in composition across different branches of life, all clamp loaders undergo the same concerted conformational transformations, which generate a binding surface for the open clamp and an internal spiral chamber into which the DNA at the replication fork can slide, triggering ATP hydrolysis, release of the clamp loader, and closure of the clamp round the DNA. We review here the current understanding of the clamp loader mechanism and discuss the implications of the differences between clamp loaders from the different branches of life