RESUMEN
Rad51 maintains genome integrity, whereas Rad52 causes non-canonical homologous recombination leading to gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs). Here we find that fission yeast Srr1/Ber1 and Skb1/PRMT5 promote GCRs at centromeres. Genetic and physical analyses show that srr1 and skb1 mutations reduce isochromosome formation mediated by centromere inverted repeats. srr1 increases DNA damage sensitivity in rad51 cells but does not abolish checkpoint response, suggesting that Srr1 promotes Rad51-independent DNA repair. srr1 and rad52 additively, while skb1 and rad52 epistatically reduce GCRs. Unlike srr1 or rad52, skb1 does not increase damage sensitivity. Skb1 regulates cell morphology and cell cycle with Slf1 and Pom1, respectively, but neither Slf1 nor Pom1 causes GCRs. Mutating conserved residues in the arginine methyltransferase domain of Skb1 greatly reduces GCRs. These results suggest that, through arginine methylation, Skb1 forms aberrant DNA structures leading to Rad52-dependent GCRs. This study has uncovered roles for Srr1 and Skb1 in GCRs at centromeres.
Asunto(s)
Isocromosomas , Proteínas de Schizosaccharomyces pombe , Schizosaccharomyces , Humanos , Schizosaccharomyces/genética , Schizosaccharomyces/metabolismo , Centrómero/genética , Centrómero/metabolismo , Proteínas de Schizosaccharomyces pombe/genética , Proteínas de Schizosaccharomyces pombe/metabolismo , Recombinación Homóloga , Proteína-Arginina N-Metiltransferasas/metabolismo , Proteínas Quinasas/genética , Metiltransferasas/genética , Proteínas de Unión al ARN/metabolismoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: We aimed to establish a novel screening system for identifying potential therapeutic agents for treating proliferative vitreoretinal diseases (PVDs). In this study, we focused on vitreous explants from chicken embryos and evaluated the usefulness of quantitatively analyzing the effects of potential candidates on cell-mediated vitreous contraction, which leads to blindness in PVDs. METHODS: Vitreous explants were extracted from 19-day-old embryonic chickens and then incubated with retinal Müller cells or endothelial cells to permit cell adhesion. After cell adhesion occurred, we examined the effect of the attached cells on the wet weight of vitreous explants as an index of vitreous contraction. We also performed hematoxylin and eosin staining to characterize the cell morphology on the vitreous surface. RESULTS: Contraction of the vitreous explants was observed after cell adhesion of not only retinal Müller cells but also endothelial cells. We confirmed the adhesion of these cells on vitreous explants and estimated the number of adherent cells with 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) analysis. The cells on the vitreous surface presented an elongated fibroblast-like phenotype. Integrin was found to be a receptor involved in cell adhesion on the vitreous surface. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that vitreous explants from chicken embryos may be novel useful tools for screening antiadhesion therapeutic agents in PVDs. This preliminary study must be validated with human vitreous and human retinal pigment epithelial cells.