Yeast-based screening of cancer mutations in the DNA damage response protein Mre11 demonstrates importance of conserved capping domain residues.

DNA damage response (DDR) pathways are initiated to prevent mutations from being passed on in the event of DNA damage. Mutations in DDR proteins can contribute to the development and maintenance of cancer cells, but many mutations observed in human tumors have not been functionally characterized. Because a proper response to DNA damage is fundamental to living organisms, DDR proteins and processes are often highly conserved. The goal of this project was to use Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model for functional screening of human cancer mutations in conserved DDR proteins. After comparing the cancer mutation frequency and conservation of DDR proteins, Mre11 was selected for functional screening. A subset of mutations in conserved residues was analyzed by structural modeling and screened for functional effects in yeast Mre11. Yeast expressing wild type or mutant Mre11 were then assessed for DNA damage sensitivity using hydroxyurea (HU) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS). The results were further validated in human cancer cells. The N-terminal point mutations tested in yeast Mre11 do not confer sensitivity to DNA damage sensitivity, suggesting that these residues are dispensable for yeast Mre11 function and may have conserved sequence without conserved function. However, a mutation near the capping domain associated with breast and colorectal cancers compromises Mre11 function in both yeast and human cells. These results provide novel insight into the function of this conserved capping domain residue and demonstrate a framework for yeast-based screening of cancer mutations.

DNA polymerase beta participates in DNA End-joining.

DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) are one of the most deleterious lesions and if left unrepaired, they lead to cell death, genomic instability and carcinogenesis. Cells combat DSBs by two pathways: homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ), wherein the two DNA ends are re-joined. Recently a back-up NHEJ pathway has been reported and is referred to as alternative NHEJ (aNHEJ), which joins ends but results in deletions and insertions. NHEJ requires processing enzymes including nucleases and polymerases, although the roles of these enzymes are poorly understood. Emerging evidence indicates that X family DNA polymerases lambda (Pol λ) and mu (Pol µ) promote DNA end-joining. Here, we show that DNA polymerase beta (Pol ß), another member of the X family of DNA polymerases, plays a role in aNHEJ. In the absence of DNA Pol ß, fewer small deletions are observed. In addition, depletion of Pol ß results in cellular sensitivity to bleomycin and DNA protein kinase catalytic subunit inhibitors due to defective repair of DSBs. In summary, our results indicate that Pol ß in functions in aNHEJ and provide mechanistic insight into its role in this process.

Cellular roles of DNA polymerase beta.

Since its discovery and purification in 1971, DNA polymerase ß (Pol ß) is one of the most well-studied DNA polymerases. Pol ß is a key enzyme in the base excision repair (BER) pathway that functions in gap filling DNA synthesis subsequent to the excision of damaged DNA bases. A major focus of our studies is on the cellular roles of Pol ß. We have shown that germline and tumor-associated variants of Pol ß catalyze aberrant BER that leads to genomic instability and cellular transformation. Our studies suggest that Pol ß is critical for the maintenance of genomic stability and that it is a tumor suppressor. We have also shown that Pol ß functions during Prophase I of meiosis. Pol ß localizes to the synaptonemal complex and is critical for removal of the Spo11 complex from the 5' ends of double-strand breaks. Studies with Pol ß mutant mice are currently being undertaken to more clearly understand the function of Pol ß during meiosis. In this review, we will highlight our contributions from our studies of Pol ß germline and cancer-associated variants.

Interaction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae HMO2 domains with distorted DNA.

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae high mobility group protein HMO2 is a component of the chromatin remodeling complex INO80. In this capacity, it has been shown to direct INO80 to DNA double-strand breaks, thereby contributing to double-strand break repair. Consistent with such function, HMO2 binds DNA ends, protecting them from exonucleolytic degradation. We show here that both domains of HMO2, HMO2-BoxA and HMO2-BoxB, bind preferentially to distorted DNA, with HMO2-BoxA binding preferentially to four-way DNA junctions and DNA with tandem mismatches and HMO2-BoxB binding four-way junctions as well as DNA with stem-loop structures, tandem mismatches, and abasic sites. As previously reported for mammalian high mobility group proteins, the acidic C-terminal extension significantly attenuates DNA binding. Notably, the unique ability of HMO2 to protect DNA ends is conferred by the Box A domain. Considering the reported roles for INO80 in other events such as recovery of stalled replication forks and nucleotide excision repair, we assessed the effect of DNA damaging agents on an hmo2Δ strain; while modest growth inhibition is seen upon exposure to UV light, exposure to hydroxyurea, which causes replication fork arrest, induces severe growth deficiency. These data suggest that HMO2 may also participate in directing the INO80 complex to sites such as stalled replication forks; the preferred binding of HMO2 domains to damaged DNA and intermediates in homologous recombination is consistent with such function.

The yeast high mobility group protein HMO2, a subunit of the chromatin-remodeling complex INO80, binds DNA ends.

DNA damage is a common hazard that all cells have to combat. Saccharomyces cerevisiae HMO2 is a high mobility group protein (HMGB) that is a component of the chromatin-remodeling complex INO80, which is involved in double strand break (DSB) repair. We show here using DNA end-joining and exonuclease protection assays that HMO2 binds preferentially to DNA ends. While HMO2 binds DNA with both blunt and cohesive ends, the sequence of a single stranded overhang significantly affects binding, supporting the conclusion that HMO2 recognizes features at DNA ends. Analysis of the effect of duplex length on the ability of HMO2 to protect DNA from exonucleolytic cleavage suggests that more than one HMO2 must assemble at each DNA end. HMO2 binds supercoiled DNA with higher affinity than linear DNA and has a preference for DNA with lesions such as pairs of tandem mismatches; however, comparison of DNA constructs of increasing length suggests that HMO2 may not bind stably as a monomer to distorted DNA. The remarkable ability of HMO2 to protect DNA from exonucleolytic cleavage, combined with reports that HMO2 arrives early at DNA DSBs, suggests that HMO2 may play a role in DSB repair beyond INO80 recruitment.

Thermodynamics of the DNA structural selectivity of the Pol I DNA polymerases from Escherichia coli and Thermus aquaticus.

Understanding the thermodynamics of substrate selection by DNA polymerase I is important for characterizing the balance between replication and repair for this enzyme in vivo. Due to their sequence and structural similarities, Klenow and Klentaq, the large fragments of the Pol I DNA polymerases from Escherichia coli and Thermus aquaticus, are considered functional homologs. Klentaq, however, does not have a functional proofreading site. Examination of the DNA binding thermodynamics of Klenow and Klentaq to different DNA structures: single-stranded DNA (ss-DNA), primer-template DNA (pt-DNA), and blunt-end double-stranded DNA (ds-DNA) show that the binding selectivity pattern is similar when examined across a wide range of salt concentration, but can significantly differ at any individual salt concentration. For both proteins, binding of single-stranded DNA shifts from weakest to tightest binding of the three structures as the salt concentration increases. Both Klenow and Klentaq release two to three more ions when binding to pt-DNA and ds-DNA than when binding to ss-DNA. Klenow exhibits significant differences in the Delta C(p) of binding to pt-DNA versus ds-DNA, and a difference in pI for these two complexes, whereas Klentaq does not, suggesting that Klenow and Klentaq discriminate between these two structures differently. Taken together, the data suggest that the two polymerases bind ds-DNA very differently, but that both bind pt-DNA and ss-DNA similarly, despite the absence of a proofreading site in Klentaq.