A SAM-key domain required for enzymatic activity of the Fun30 nucleosome remodeler.

Fun30 is the prototype of the Fun30-SMARCAD1-ETL subfamily of nucleosome remodelers involved in DNA repair and gene silencing. These proteins appear to act as single-subunit nucleosome remodelers, but their molecular mechanisms are, at this point, poorly understood. Using multiple sequence alignment and structure prediction, we identify an evolutionarily conserved domain that is modeled to contain a SAM-like fold with one long, protruding helix, which we term SAM-key. Deletion of the SAM-key within budding yeast Fun30 leads to a defect in DNA repair and gene silencing similar to that of the fun30Δ mutant. In vitro, Fun30 protein lacking the SAM-key is able to bind nucleosomes but is deficient in DNA-stimulated ATPase activity and nucleosome sliding and eviction. A structural model based on AlphaFold2 prediction and verified by crosslinking-MS indicates an interaction of the long SAM-key helix with protrusion I, a subdomain located between the two ATPase lobes that is critical for control of enzymatic activity. Mutation of the interaction interface phenocopies the domain deletion with a lack of DNA-stimulated ATPase activation and a nucleosome-remodeling defect, thereby confirming a role of the SAM-key helix in regulating ATPase activity. Our data thereby demonstrate a central role of the SAM-key domain in mediating the activation of Fun30 catalytic activity, thus highlighting the importance of allosteric activation for this class of enzymes.

Structural mechanism of extranucleosomal DNA readout by the INO80 complex.

The nucleosomal landscape of chromatin depends on the concerted action of chromatin remodelers. The INO80 remodeler specifically places nucleosomes at the boundary of gene regulatory elements, which is proposed to be the result of an ATP-dependent nucleosome sliding activity that is regulated by extranucleosomal DNA features. Here, we use cryo-electron microscopy and functional assays to reveal how INO80 binds and is regulated by extranucleosomal DNA. Structures of the regulatory A-module bound to DNA clarify the mechanism of linker DNA binding. The A-module is connected to the motor unit via an HSA/post-HSA lever element to chemomechanically couple the motor and linker DNA sensing. Two notable sites of curved DNA recognition by coordinated action of the four actin/actin-related proteins and the motor suggest how sliding by INO80 can be regulated by extranucleosomal DNA features. Last, the structures clarify the recruitment of YY1/Ies4 subunits and reveal deep architectural similarities between the regulatory modules of INO80 and SWI/SNF complexes.

Strand-specific ChIP-seq at DNA breaks distinguishes ssDNA versus dsDNA binding and refutes single-stranded nucleosomes.

In a first step of DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair by homologous recombination, DNA ends are resected such that single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhangs are generated. ssDNA is specifically bound by RPA and other factors, which constitutes a ssDNA-domain on damaged chromatin. The molecular organization of this ssDNA and the adjacent dsDNA domain is crucial during DSB signaling and repair. However, data regarding the presence of nucleosomes, the most basic chromatin components, in the ssDNA domain have been contradictory. Here, we use site-specific induction of DSBs and chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by strand-specific sequencing to analyze in vivo binding of key DSB repair and signaling proteins to either the ssDNA or dsDNA domain. In the case of nucleosomes, we show that recently proposed ssDNA nucleosomes are not a major, persistent species, but that nucleosome eviction and DNA end resection are intrinsically coupled. These results support a model of separated dsDNA-nucleosome and ssDNA-RPA domains during DSB repair.

Quantitative mechanisms of DNA damage sensing and signaling.

DNA damage occurs abundantly during normal cellular proliferation. This necessitates that cellular DNA damage response and checkpoint pathways monitor the cellular DNA damage load and that DNA damage signaling is quantitative. Yet, how DNA lesions are counted and converted into a quantitative response remains poorly understood. We have recently obtained insights into this question investigating DNA damage signaling elicited by single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). Intriguingly, our findings suggest that local and global DNA damage signaling react differentially to increasing amounts of DNA damage. In this mini-review, we will discuss these findings and put them into perspective of current knowledge on the DNA damage response.

Nucleosome Remodeling by Fun30SMARCAD1 in the DNA Damage Response.

Many cellular pathways are dedicated to maintain the integrity of the genome. In eukaryotes, the underlying DNA transactions occur in the context of chromatin. Cells utilize chromatin and its dynamic nature to regulate those genome integrity pathways. Accordingly, chromatin becomes restructured and modified around DNA damage sites. Here, we review the current knowledge of a chromatin remodeler Fun30SMARCAD1, which plays a key role in genome maintenance. Fun30SMARCAD1 promotes DNA end resection and the repair of DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs). Notably, however, Fun30SMARCAD1 plays additional roles in maintaining heterochromatin and promoting transcription. Overall, Fun30SMARCAD1 is involved in distinct processes and the specific roles of Fun30SMARCAD1 at DSBs, replication forks and sites of transcription appear discordant at first view. Nonetheless, a picture emerges in which commonalities within these context-dependent roles of Fun30SMARCAD1 exist, which may help to gain a more global understanding of chromatin alterations induced by Fun30SMARCAD1.

Quantitative sensing and signalling of single-stranded DNA during the DNA damage response.

The DNA damage checkpoint senses the presence of DNA lesions and controls the cellular response thereto. A crucial DNA damage signal is single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), which is frequently found at sites of DNA damage and recruits the sensor checkpoint kinase Mec1-Ddc2. However, how this signal - and therefore the cell's DNA damage load - is quantified, is poorly understood. Here, we use genetic manipulation of DNA end resection to induce quantitatively different ssDNA signals at a site-specific double strand break in budding yeast and identify two distinct signalling circuits within the checkpoint. The local checkpoint signalling circuit leading to γH2A phosphorylation is unresponsive to increased amounts of ssDNA, while the global checkpoint signalling circuit, which triggers Rad53 activation, integrates the ssDNA signal quantitatively. The global checkpoint signal critically depends on the 9-1-1 and its downstream acting signalling axis, suggesting that ssDNA quantification depends on at least two sensor complexes.

A cell cycle-independent mode of the Rad9-Dpb11 interaction is induced by DNA damage.

Budding yeast Rad9, like its orthologs, controls two aspects of the cellular response to DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) - signalling of the DNA damage checkpoint and DNA end resection. Rad9 binds to damaged chromatin via modified nucleosomes independently of the cell cycle phase. Additionally, Rad9 engages in a cell cycle-regulated interaction with Dpb11 and the 9-1-1 clamp, generating a second pathway that recruits Rad9 to DNA damage sites. Binding to Dpb11 depends on specific S/TP phosphorylation sites of Rad9, which are modified by cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK). Here, we show that these sites additionally become phosphorylated upon DNA damage. We define the requirements for DNA damage-induced S/TP phosphorylation of Rad9 and show that it is independent of the cell cycle or CDK activity but requires prior recruitment of Rad9 to damaged chromatin, indicating that it is catalysed by a chromatin-bound kinase. The checkpoint kinases Mec1 and Tel1 are required for Rad9 S/TP phosphorylation, but their influence is likely indirect and involves phosphorylation of Rad9 at S/TQ sites. Notably, DNA damage-induced S/TP phosphorylation triggers Dpb11 binding to Rad9, but the DNA damage-induced Rad9-Dpb11 interaction is dispensable for recruitment to DNA damage sites, indicating that the Rad9-Dpb11 interaction functions beyond Rad9 recruitment.

Targeting of the Fun30 nucleosome remodeller by the Dpb11 scaffold facilitates cell cycle-regulated DNA end resection.

DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) can be repaired by either recombination-based or direct ligation-based mechanisms. Pathway choice is made at the level of DNA end resection, a nucleolytic processing step, which primes DSBs for repair by recombination. Resection is thus under cell cycle control, but additionally regulated by chromatin and nucleosome remodellers. Here, we show that both layers of control converge in the regulation of resection by the evolutionarily conserved Fun30/SMARCAD1 remodeller. Budding yeast Fun30 and human SMARCAD1 are cell cycle-regulated by interaction with the DSB-localized scaffold protein Dpb11/TOPBP1, respectively. In yeast, this protein assembly additionally comprises the 9-1-1 damage sensor, is involved in localizing Fun30 to damaged chromatin, and thus is required for efficient long-range resection of DSBs. Notably, artificial targeting of Fun30 to DSBs is sufficient to bypass the cell cycle regulation of long-range resection, indicating that chromatin remodelling during resection is underlying DSB repair pathway choice.

A cell cycle-regulated Slx4-Dpb11 complex promotes the resolution of DNA repair intermediates linked to stalled replication.

A key function of the cellular DNA damage response is to facilitate the bypass of replication fork-stalling DNA lesions. Template switch reactions allow such a bypass and involve the formation of DNA joint molecules (JMs) between sister chromatids. These JMs need to be resolved before cell division; however, the regulation of this process is only poorly understood. Here, we identify a regulatory mechanism in yeast that critically controls JM resolution by the Mus81-Mms4 endonuclease. Central to this regulation is a conserved complex comprising the scaffold proteins Dpb11 and Slx4 that is under stringent control. Cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation of Slx4 by Cdk1 promotes the Dpb11-Slx4 interaction, while in mitosis, phosphorylation of Mms4 by Polo-like kinase Cdc5 promotes the additional association of Mus81-Mms4 with the complex, thereby promoting JM resolution. Finally, the DNA damage checkpoint counteracts Mus81-Mms4 binding to the Dpb11-Slx4 complex. Thus, Dpb11-Slx4 integrates several cellular inputs and participates in the temporal program for activation of the JM-resolving nuclease Mus81.