A solution to release twisted DNA during chromosome replication by coupled DNA polymerases.

Chromosomal replication machines contain coupled DNA polymerases that simultaneously replicate the leading and lagging strands. However, coupled replication presents a largely unrecognized topological problem. Because DNA polymerase must travel a helical path during synthesis, the physical connection between leading- and lagging-strand polymerases causes the daughter strands to entwine, or produces extensive build-up of negative supercoils in the newly synthesized DNA. How DNA polymerases maintain their connection during coupled replication despite these topological challenges is unknown. Here we examine the dynamics of the Escherichia coli replisome, using ensemble and single-molecule methods, and show that the replisome may solve the topological problem independent of topoisomerases. We find that the lagging-strand polymerase frequently releases from an Okazaki fragment before completion, leaving single-strand gaps behind. Dissociation of the polymerase does not result in loss from the replisome because of its contact with the leading-strand polymerase. This behaviour, referred to as 'signal release', had been thought to require a protein, possibly primase, to pry polymerase from incompletely extended DNA fragments. However, we observe that signal release is independent of primase and does not seem to require a protein trigger at all. Instead, the lagging-strand polymerase is simply less processive in the context of a replisome. Interestingly, when the lagging-strand polymerase is supplied with primed DNA in trans, uncoupling it from the fork, high processivity is restored. Hence, we propose that coupled polymerases introduce topological changes, possibly by accumulation of superhelical tension in the newly synthesized DNA, that cause lower processivity and transient lagging-strand polymerase dissociation from DNA.

Evolution of replication machines.

The machines that decode and regulate genetic information require the translation, transcription and replication pathways essential to all living cells. Thus, it might be expected that all cells share the same basic machinery for these pathways that were inherited from the primordial ancestor cell from which they evolved. A clear example of this is found in the translation machinery that converts RNA sequence to protein. The translation process requires numerous structural and catalytic RNAs and proteins, the central factors of which are homologous in all three domains of life, bacteria, archaea and eukarya. Likewise, the central actor in transcription, RNA polymerase, shows homology among the catalytic subunits in bacteria, archaea and eukarya. In contrast, while some "gears" of the genome replication machinery are homologous in all domains of life, most components of the replication machine appear to be unrelated between bacteria and those of archaea and eukarya. This review will compare and contrast the central proteins of the "replisome" machines that duplicate DNA in bacteria, archaea and eukarya, with an eye to understanding the issues surrounding the evolution of the DNA replication apparatus.

CMG helicase and DNA polymerase ε form a functional 15-subunit holoenzyme for eukaryotic leading-strand DNA replication.

DNA replication in eukaryotes is asymmetric, with separate DNA polymerases (Pol) dedicated to bulk synthesis of the leading and lagging strands. Pol α/primase initiates primers on both strands that are extended by Pol ε on the leading strand and by Pol δ on the lagging strand. The CMG (Cdc45-MCM-GINS) helicase surrounds the leading strand and is proposed to recruit Pol ε for leading-strand synthesis, but to date a direct interaction between CMG and Pol ε has not been demonstrated. While purifying CMG helicase overexpressed in yeast, we detected a functional complex between CMG and native Pol ε. Using pure CMG and Pol ε, we reconstituted a stable 15-subunit CMG-Pol ε complex and showed that it is a functional polymerase-helicase on a model replication fork in vitro. On its own, the Pol2 catalytic subunit of Pol ε is inefficient in CMG-dependent replication, but addition of the Dpb2 protein subunit of Pol ε, known to bind the Psf1 protein subunit of CMG, allows stable synthesis with CMG. Dpb2 does not affect Pol δ function with CMG, and thus we propose that the connection between Dpb2 and CMG helps to stabilize Pol ε on the leading strand as part of a 15-subunit leading-strand holoenzyme we refer to as CMGE. Direct binding between Pol ε and CMG provides an explanation for specific targeting of Pol ε to the leading strand and provides clear mechanistic evidence for how strand asymmetry is maintained in eukaryotes.

Replisome mechanics: lagging strand events that influence speed and processivity.

The antiparallel structure of DNA requires lagging strand synthesis to proceed in the opposite direction of the replication fork. This imposes unique events that occur only on the lagging strand, such as primase binding to DnaB helicase, RNA synthesis, and SS B antigen (SSB) displacement during Okazaki fragment extension. Single-molecule and ensemble techniques are combined to examine the effect of lagging strand events on the Escherichia coli replisome rate and processivity. We find that primase activity lowers replisome processivity but only when lagging strand extension is inoperative. rNTPs also lower replisome processivity. However, the negative effects of primase and rNTPs on processivity are overcome by the extra grip on DNA provided by the lagging strand polymerases. Visualization of single molecules reveals that SSB accumulates at forks and may wrap extensive amounts of single-strand DNA. Interestingly SSB has an inter-strand positive effect on the rate of the leading strand based in its interaction with the replicase χ-subunit. Further, the lagging strand polymerase is faster than leading strand synthesis, indicating that replisome rate is limited by the helicase. Overall, lagging strand events that impart negative effects on the replisome are counterbalanced by the positive effects of SSB and additional sliding clamps during Okazaki fragment extension.

RecA acts as a switch to regulate polymerase occupancy in a moving replication fork.

This report discovers a role of Escherichia coli RecA, the cellular recombinase, in directing the action of several DNA polymerases at the replication fork. Bulk chromosome replication is performed by DNA polymerase (Pol) III. However, E. coli contains translesion synthesis (TLS) Pols II, IV, and V that also function with the helicase, primase, and sliding clamp in the replisome. Surprisingly, we find that RecA specifically activates replisomes that contain TLS Pols. In sharp contrast, RecA severely inhibits the Pol III replisome. Given the opposite effects of RecA on Pol III and TLS replisomes, we propose that RecA acts as a switch to regulate the occupancy of polymerases within a moving replisome.

Cost of rNTP/dNTP pool imbalance at the replication fork.

The concentration of ribonucleoside triphosphates (rNTPs) in cells is far greater than the concentration of deoxyribonucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs), and this pool imbalance presents a challenge for DNA polymerases (Pols) to select their proper substrate. This report examines the effect of nucleotide pool imbalance on the rate and fidelity of the Escherichia coli replisome. We find that rNTPs decrease replication fork rate by competing with dNTPs at the active site of the C-family Pol III replicase at a step that does not require correct base-pairing. The effect of rNTPs on Pol rate generalizes to B-family eukaryotic replicases, Pols δ and ε. Imbalance of the dNTP pool also slows the replisome and thus is not specific to rNTPs. We observe a measurable frequency of rNMP incorporation that predicts one rNTP incorporated every 2.3 kb during chromosome replication. Given the frequency of rNMP incorporation, the repair of rNMPs is likely rapid. RNase HII nicks DNA at single rNMP residues to initiate replacement with dNMP. Considering that rNMPs will mark the new strand, RNase HII may direct strand-specificity for mismatch repair (MMR). How the newly synthesized strand is recognized for MMR is uncertain in eukaryotes and most bacteria, which lack a methyl-directed nicking system. Here we demonstrate that Bacillus subtilis incorporates rNMPs in vivo, that RNase HII plays a role in their removal, and the RNase HII gene deletion enhances mutagenesis, suggesting a possible role of incorporated rNMPs in MMR.

Optimizing CMG helicase and CMG-dependent replication assays by designing DNA fork substrates and choosing nucleotide analogues for helicase preloading.

The replication machinery that synthesizes new copies of chromosomal DNA is located at the junction where double-stranded DNA is separated into its two strands. This replication fork DNA structure is at the heart of most assays involving DNA helicases. The helicase enzyme unwinds the replication fork structure into two single-stranded templates which are converted into two daughter duplexes by other proteins, including DNA polymerases. In eukaryotes, the CMG (Cdc45/Mcm2-7/GINS) helicase plays the pivotal role of unwinding the parental duplex DNA and at the same time interacts with numerous other proteins, including the leading strand polymerase, Pol ɛ. This chapter first describes how we design and prepare synthetic replication forks used in our CMG-related assays. Then we describe how to load CMG onto the fork. The Mcm2-7 motor subunits of CMG form a closed ring, as do all cellular replicative helicases, that encircles ssDNA for helicase function. Thus, the first step in these assays is the loading of CMG onto the fork DNA, followed by DNA unwinding and replication. We explain protocols for different strategies of preloading CMG onto the DNA fork using different ATP analogues. Additionally, the presence of Mcm10, an intimate partner of CMG, affects how CMG is preloaded onto a fork substrate.

Mcm10 promotes rapid isomerization of CMG-DNA for replisome bypass of lagging strand DNA blocks.

Replicative helicases in all cell types are hexameric rings that unwind DNA by steric exclusion in which the helicase encircles the tracking strand only and excludes the other strand from the ring. This mode of translocation allows helicases to bypass blocks on the strand that is excluded from the central channel. Unlike other replicative helicases, eukaryotic CMG helicase partially encircles duplex DNA at a forked junction and is stopped by a block on the non-tracking (lagging) strand. This report demonstrates that Mcm10, an essential replication protein unique to eukaryotes, binds CMG and greatly stimulates its helicase activity in vitro. Most significantly, Mcm10 enables CMG and the replisome to bypass blocks on the non-tracking DNA strand. We demonstrate that bypass occurs without displacement of the blocks and therefore Mcm10 must isomerize the CMG-DNA complex to achieve the bypass function.

Reconstitution of a eukaryotic replisome reveals suppression mechanisms that define leading/lagging strand operation.

We have reconstituted a eukaryotic leading/lagging strand replisome comprising 31 distinct polypeptides. This study identifies a process unprecedented in bacterial replisomes. While bacteria and phage simply recruit polymerases to the fork, we find that suppression mechanisms are used to position the distinct eukaryotic polymerases on their respective strands. Hence, Pol ε is active with CMG on the leading strand, but it is unable to function on the lagging strand, even when Pol δ is not present. Conversely, Pol δ-PCNA is the only enzyme capable of extending Okazaki fragments in the presence of Pols ε and α. We have shown earlier that Pol δ-PCNA is suppressed on the leading strand with CMG (Georgescu et al., 2014). We propose that CMG, the 11-subunit helicase, is responsible for one or both of these suppression mechanisms that spatially control polymerase occupancy at the fork.

Mechanism of asymmetric polymerase assembly at the eukaryotic replication fork.

Eukaryotes use distinct polymerases for leading- and lagging-strand replication, but how they target their respective strands is uncertain. We reconstituted Saccharomyces cerevisiae replication forks and found that CMG helicase selects polymerase (Pol) ɛ to the exclusion of Pol δ on the leading strand. Even if Pol δ assembles on the leading strand, Pol ɛ rapidly replaces it. Pol δ-PCNA is distributive with CMG, in contrast to its high stability on primed ssDNA. Hence CMG will not stabilize Pol δ, instead leaving the leading strand accessible for Pol ɛ and stabilizing Pol ɛ. Comparison of Pol ɛ and Pol δ on a lagging-strand model DNA reveals the opposite. Pol δ dominates over excess Pol ɛ on PCNA-primed ssDNA. Thus, PCNA strongly favors Pol δ over Pol ɛ on the lagging strand, but CMG over-rides and flips this balance in favor of Pol ɛ on the leading strand.

Preferential D-loop extension by a translesion DNA polymerase underlies error-prone recombination.

Although homologous recombination is considered an accurate form of DNA repair, genetics suggest that the Escherichia coli translesion DNA polymerase IV (Pol IV, also known as DinB) promotes error-prone recombination during stress, which allows cells to overcome adverse conditions. However, how Pol IV functions and is regulated during recombination under stress is unknown. We show that Pol IV is highly proficient in error-prone recombination and is preferentially recruited to displacement loops (D loops) at stress-induced concentrations in vitro. We also found that high-fidelity Pol II switches to exonuclease mode at D loops, which is stimulated by topological stress and reduced deoxyribonucleotide pool concentration during stationary phase. The exonuclease activity of Pol II enables it to compete with Pol IV, which probably suppresses error-prone recombination. These findings indicate that preferential D-loop extension by Pol IV facilitates error-prone recombination and explain how Pol II reduces such errors in vivo.

Single-molecule studies reveal the function of a third polymerase in the replisome.

The Escherichia coli replisome contains three polymerases, one more than necessary to duplicate the two parental strands. Using single-molecule studies, we reveal two advantages conferred by the third polymerase. First, dipolymerase replisomes are inefficient at synthesizing lagging strands, leaving single-strand gaps, whereas tripolymerase replisomes fill strands almost to completion. Second, tripolymerase replisomes are much more processive than dipolymerase replisomes. These features account for the unexpected three-polymerase-structure of bacterial replisomes.