133 research outputs found

    Damage-induced phosphorylation of Sld3 is important to block late origin firing.

    Get PDF
    Origins of replication are activated throughout the S phase of the cell cycle such that some origins fire early and others fire late to ensure that each chromosome is completely replicated in a timely fashion. However, in response to DNA damage or replication fork stalling, eukaryotic cells block activation of unfired origins. Human cells derived from patients with ataxia telangiectasia are deficient in this process due to the lack of a functional ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) kinase and elicit radioresistant DNA synthesis after γ-irradiation(2). This effect is conserved in budding yeast, as yeast cells lacking the related kinase Mec1 (ATM and Rad3-related (ATR in humans)) also fail to inhibit DNA synthesis in the presence of DNA damage. This intra-S-phase checkpoint actively regulates DNA synthesis by inhibiting the firing of late replicating origins, and this inhibition requires both Mec1 and the downstream checkpoint kinase Rad53 (Chk2 in humans). However, the Rad53 substrate(s) whose phosphorylation is required to mediate this function has remained unknown. Here we show that the replication initiation protein Sld3 is phosphorylated by Rad53, and that this phosphorylation, along with phosphorylation of the Cdc7 kinase regulatory subunit Dbf4, blocks late origin firing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Upon exposure to DNA-damaging agents, cells expressing non-phosphorylatable alleles of SLD3 and DBF4 (SLD3-m25 and dbf4-m25, respectively) proceed through the S phase faster than wild-type cells by inappropriately firing late origins of replication. SLD3-m25 dbf4-m25 cells grow poorly in the presence of the replication inhibitor hydroxyurea and accumulate multiple Rad52 foci. Moreover, SLD3-m25 dbf4-m25 cells are delayed in recovering from transient blocks to replication and subsequently arrest at the DNA damage checkpoint. These data indicate that the intra-S-phase checkpoint functions to block late origin firing in adverse conditions to prevent genomic instability and maximize cell survival

    Optimizing sparse testing for genomic prediction of plant breeding crops

    Get PDF
    While sparse testing methods have been proposed by researchers to improve the efficiency of genomic selection (GS) in breeding programs, there are several factors that can hinder this. In this research, we evaluated four methods (M1–M4) for sparse testing allocation of lines to environments under multi-environmental trails for genomic prediction of unobserved lines. The sparse testing methods described in this study are applied in a two-stage analysis to build the genomic training and testing sets in a strategy that allows each location or environment to evaluate only a subset of all genotypes rather than all of them. To ensure a valid implementation, the sparse testing methods presented here require BLUEs (or BLUPs) of the lines to be computed at the first stage using an appropriate experimental design and statistical analyses in each location (or environment). The evaluation of the four cultivar allocation methods to environments of the second stage was done with four data sets (two large and two small) under a multi-trait and uni-trait framework. We found that the multi-trait model produced better genomic prediction (GP) accuracy than the uni-trait model and that methods M3 and M4 were slightly better than methods M1 and M2 for the allocation of lines to environments. Some of the most important findings, however, were that even under a scenario where we used a training-testing relation of 15–85%, the prediction accuracy of the four methods barely decreased. This indicates that genomic sparse testing methods for data sets under these scenarios can save considerable operational and financial resources with only a small loss in precision, which can be shown in our cost-benefit analysis

    Separation of DNA Replication from the Assembly of Break-Competent Meiotic Chromosomes

    Get PDF
    The meiotic cell division reduces the chromosome number from diploid to haploid to form gametes for sexual reproduction. Although much progress has been made in understanding meiotic recombination and the two meiotic divisions, the processes leading up to recombination, including the prolonged pre-meiotic S phase (meiS) and the assembly of meiotic chromosome axes, remain poorly defined. We have used genome-wide approaches in Saccharomyces cerevisiae to measure the kinetics of pre-meiotic DNA replication and to investigate the interdependencies between replication and axis formation. We found that replication initiation was delayed for a large number of origins in meiS compared to mitosis and that meiotic cells were far more sensitive to replication inhibition, most likely due to the starvation conditions required for meiotic induction. Moreover, replication initiation was delayed even in the absence of chromosome axes, indicating replication timing is independent of the process of axis assembly. Finally, we found that cells were able to install axis components and initiate recombination on unreplicated DNA. Thus, although pre-meiotic DNA replication and meiotic chromosome axis formation occur concurrently, they are not strictly coupled. The functional separation of these processes reveals a modular method of building meiotic chromosomes and predicts that any crosstalk between these modules must occur through superimposed regulatory mechanisms

    Evolution of protein domain architectures

    Get PDF
    This chapter reviews current research on how protein domain architectures evolve. We begin by summarizing work on the phylogenetic distribution of proteins, as this will directly impact which domain architectures can be formed in different species. Studies relating domain family size to occurrence have shown that they generally follow power law distributions, both within genomes and larger evolutionary groups. These findings were subsequently extended to multi-domain architectures. Genome evolution models that have been suggested to explain the shape of these distributions are reviewed, as well as evidence for selective pressure to expand certain domain families more than others. Each domain has an intrinsic combinatorial propensity, and the effects of this have been studied using measures of domain versatility or promiscuity. Next, we study the principles of protein domain architecture evolution and how these have been inferred from distributions of extant domain arrangements. Following this, we review inferences of ancestral domain architecture and the conclusions concerning domain architecture evolution mechanisms that can be drawn from these. Finally, we examine whether all known cases of a given domain architecture can be assumed to have a single common origin (monophyly) or have evolved convergently (polyphyly). We end by a discussion of some available tools for computational analysis or exploitation of protein domain architectures and their evolution

    Chromosome Duplication in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>

    Get PDF
    The accurate and complete replication of genomic DNA is essential for all life. In eukaryotic cells, the assembly of the multi-enzyme replisomes that perform replication is divided into stages that occur at distinct phases of the cell cycle. Replicative DNA helicases are loaded around origins of DNA replication exclusively during G 1 phase. The loaded helicases are then activated during S phase and associate with the replicative DNA polymerases and other accessory proteins. The function of the resulting replisomes is monitored by checkpoint proteins that protect arrested replisomes and inhibit new initiation when replication is inhibited. The replisome also coordinates nucleosome disassembly, assembly, and the establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. Finally, when two replisomes converge they are disassembled. Studies in Saccharomyces cerevisiae have led the way in our understanding of these processes. Here, we review our increasingly molecular understanding of these events and their regulation. Keywords: DNA replication; cell cycle; chromatin; chromosome duplication; genome stability; YeastBookNational Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant GM-052339

    Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

    Get PDF
    Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p&lt;0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p&lt;0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised
    • …
    corecore