DNA damage and transcription stress.

Genome damage and transcription are intimately linked. Tens to hundreds of thousands of DNA lesions arise in each cell each day, many of which can directly or indirectly impede transcription. Conversely, the process of gene expression is itself a source of endogenous DNA lesions as a result of the susceptibility of single-stranded DNA to damage, conflicts with the DNA replication machinery, and engagement by cells of topoisomerases and base excision repair enzymes to regulate the initiation and progression of gene transcription. Although such processes are tightly regulated and normally accurate, on occasion, they can become abortive and leave behind DNA breaks that can drive genome rearrangements, instability, or cell death.

Dispensability of HPF1 for cellular removal of DNA single-strand breaks.

In response to DNA damage, the histone PARylation factor 1 (HPF1) regulates PARP1/2 activity, facilitating serine ADP-ribosylation of chromatin-associated factors. While PARP1/2 are known for their role in DNA single-strand break repair (SSBR), the significance of HPF1 in this process remains unclear. Here, we investigated the impact of HPF1 deficiency on cellular survival and SSBR following exposure to various genotoxins. We found that HPF1 loss did not generally increase cellular sensitivity to agents that typically induce DNA single-strand breaks (SSBs) repaired by PARP1. SSBR kinetics in HPF1-deficient cells were largely unaffected, though its absence partially influenced the accumulation of SSB intermediates after exposure to specific genotoxins in certain cell lines, likely due to altered ADP-ribosylation of chromatin. Despite reduced serine mono-ADP-ribosylation, HPF1-deficient cells maintained robust poly-ADP-ribosylation at SSB sites, possibly reflecting PARP1 auto-poly-ADP-ribosylation at non-serine residues. Notably, poly-ADP-ribose chains were sufficient to recruit the DNA repair factor XRCC1, which may explain the relatively normal SSBR capacity in HPF1-deficient cells. These findings suggest that HPF1 and histone serine ADP-ribosylation are largely dispensable for PARP1-dependent SSBR in response to genotoxic stress, highlighting the complexity of mechanisms that maintain genomic stability and chromatin remodeling.

KBM-mediated interactions with KU80 promote cellular resistance to DNA replication stress in CHO cells.

The KU heterodimer (KU70/80) is rapidly recruited to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) to regulate their processing and repair. Previous work has revealed that the amino-terminal von Willebrand-like (vWA-like) domain in KU80 harbours a conserved hydrophobic pocket that interacts with a short peptide motif known as the Ku-binding motif (KBM). The KBM is present in a variety of DNA repair proteins such as APLF, CYREN, and Werner protein (WRN). Here, to investigate the importance of KBM-mediated protein-protein interactions for KU80 function, we employed KU80-deficient Chinese Hamster Ovary (Xrs-6) cells transfected with RFP-tagged wild-type human KU80 or KU80 harbouring a mutant vWA-like domain (KU80L68R). Surprisingly, while mutant RFP-KU80L68R largely or entirely restored NHEJ efficiency and radiation resistance in KU80-deficient Xrs-6 cells, it failed to restore cellular resistance to DNA replication stress induced by camptothecin (CPT) or hydroxyurea (HU). Moreover, KU80-deficient Xrs-6 cells expressing RFP-KU80L68R accumulated pan-nuclear γH2AX in an S/G2-phase-dependent manner following treatment with CPT or HU, suggesting that the binding of KU80 to one or more KBM-containing proteins is required for the processing and/or repair of DNA ends that arise during DNA replication stress. Consistent with this idea, depletion of WRN helicase/exonuclease recapitulated the CPT-induced γH2AX phenotype, and did so epistatically with mutation of the KU80 vWA-like domain. These data identify a role for the KBM-binding by KU80 in the response and resistance of CHO cells to arrested and/or collapsed DNA replication forks, and implicate the KBM-mediated interaction of KU80 with WRN as a critical effector of this role.

DNA combing versus DNA spreading and the separation of sister chromatids.

DNA combing and DNA spreading are two central approaches for studying DNA replication fork dynamics genome-wide at single-molecule resolution by distributing labeled genomic DNA on coverslips or slides for immunodetection. Perturbations in DNA replication fork dynamics can differentially affect either leading or lagging strand synthesis, for example, in instances where replication is blocked by a lesion or obstacle on only one of the two strands. Thus, we sought to investigate whether the DNA combing and/or spreading approaches are suitable for resolving adjacent sister chromatids during DNA replication, thereby enabling the detection of DNA replication dynamics within individual nascent strands. To this end, we developed a thymidine labeling scheme that discriminates between these two possibilities. Our data suggests that DNA combing resolves sister chromatids, allowing the detection of strand-specific alterations, whereas DNA spreading typically does not. These findings have important implications when interpreting DNA replication dynamics from data obtained by these two commonly used techniques.