DNA damage signalling prevents deleterious telomere addition at DNA breaks

The response to DNA damage involves regulation of multiple essential processes to maximize the accuracy of DNA damage repair and cell survival 1. Telomerase has the potential to interfere with repair by inappropriately adding telomeres to DNA breaks. It was unknown whether cells modulate telomerase in response to DNA damage, to increase the accuracy of repair. Here we report that telomerase action is regulated as a part of the cellular response to a DNA double-strand break (DSB). Using yeast, we show that the major ATR/Mec1 DNA damage signalling pathway regulates telomerase action at DSBs. Upon DNA damage, MEC1-RAD53-DUN1-dependent phosphorylation of the telomerase inhibitor Pif1 occurs. Utilizing a separation of function PIF1 mutation, we show that this phosphorylation is required for the Pif1-mediated telomerase inhibition that takes place specifically at DNA breaks, but not telomeres. Hence DNA damage signalling down-modulates telomerase action at a DNA break via Pif1 phosphorylation, thus preventing aberrant healing of broken DNA ends by telomerase. These findings uncover a novel regulatory mechanism that coordinates competing DNA end-processing activities and thereby promotes DNA repair accuracy and genome integrity

Carnosine:can understanding its actions on energy metabolism and protein homeostasis inform its therapeutic potential?

The dipeptide carnosine (β-alanyl-L-histidine) has contrasting but beneficial effects on cellular activity. It delays cellular senescence and rejuvenates cultured senescent mammalian cells. However, it also inhibits the growth of cultured tumour cells. Based on studies in several organisms, we speculate that carnosine exerts these apparently opposing actions by affecting energy metabolism and/or protein homeostasis (proteostasis). Specific effects on energy metabolism include the dipeptide's influence on cellular ATP concentrations. Carnosine's ability to reduce the formation of altered proteins (typically adducts of methylglyoxal) and enhance proteolysis of aberrant polypeptides is indicative of its influence on proteostasis. Furthermore these dual actions might provide a rationale for the use of carnosine in the treatment or prevention of diverse age-related conditions where energy metabolism or proteostasis are compromised. These include cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and the complications of type-2 diabetes (nephropathy, cataracts, stroke and pain), which might all benefit from knowledge of carnosine's mode of action on human cells. © 2013 Hipkiss et al.; licensee Chemistry Central Ltd

Structures of eukaryotic ribonucleotide reductase I provide insights into dNTP regulation

Ribonucleotide reductase catalyzes a crucial step in de novo DNA synthesis and is allosterically controlled by relative levels of dNTPs to maintain a balanced pool of deoxynucleoside triphosphates in the cell. In eukaryotes, the enzyme comprises a heterooligomer of α(2) and β(2) subunits. The α subunit, Rnr1, contains catalytic and regulatory sites. Here, we report the only x-ray structures of the eukaryotic α subunit of ribonucleotide reductase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The structures of the apo-, AMPPNP only-, AMPPNP–CDP-, AMPPNP–UDP-, dGTP–ADP- and TTP–GDP-bound complexes give insight into substrate and effector binding and specificity cross-talk. These are Class I structures with the only fully ordered catalytic sites, including loop 2, a stretch of polypeptide that spans specificity and catalytic sites, conferring specificity. Binding of specificity effector rearranges loop 2; in our structures, this rearrangement moves P294, a residue unique to eukaryotes, out of the catalytic site, accommodating substrate binding. Substrate binding further rearranges loop 2. Cross-talk, by which effector binding regulates substrate preference, occurs largely through R293 and Q288 of loop 2, which are analogous to residues in Thermotoga maritima that mediate cross-talk. However loop-2 conformations and residue–substrate interactions differ substantially between yeast and T. maritima. In most effector–substrate complexes, water molecules help mediate substrate–loop 2 interactions. Finally, the substrate ribose binds with its 3′ hydroxyl closer than its 2′ hydroxyl to C218 of the catalytic redox pair. We also see a conserved water molecule at the catalytic site in all our structures, near the ribose 2′ hydroxyl