Gross Chromosomal Rearrangements Research Articles

Cdc73 suppresses genome instability by mediating telomere homeostasis.

Defects in the genes encoding the Paf1 complex can cause increased genome instability. Loss of Paf1, Cdc73, and Ctr9, but not Rtf1 or Leo1, caused increased accumulation of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs). Combining the cdc73Δ mutation with individual deletions of 43 other genes, including TEL1 and YKU80, which are involved in telomere maintenance, resulted in synergistic increases in GCR rates. Whole genome sequence analysis of GCRs indicated that there were reduced relative rates of GCRs mediated by de novo telomere additions and increased rates of translocations and inverted duplications in cdc73Δ single and double mutants. Analysis of telomere lengths and telomeric gene silencing in strains containing different combinations of cdc73Δ, tel1Δ and yku80Δ mutations suggested that combinations of these mutations caused increased defects in telomere maintenance. A deletion analysis of Cdc73 revealed that a central 105 amino acid region was necessary and sufficient for suppressing the defects observed in cdc73Δ strains; this region was required for the binding of Cdc73 to the Paf1 complex through Ctr9 and for nuclear localization of Cdc73. Taken together, these data suggest that the increased GCR rate of cdc73Δ single and double mutants is due to partial telomere dysfunction and that Ctr9 and Paf1 play a central role in the Paf1 complex potentially by scaffolding the Paf1 complex subunits or by mediating recruitment of the Paf1 complex to the different processes it functions in.

Generation of Gross Chromosomal Rearrangements by a Single Engineered DNA Double Strand Break

Gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs), including translocations, inversions amplifications, and deletions, can be causal events leading to malignant transformation. GCRs are thought to be triggered by DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), which in turn can be spontaneous or induced by external agents (eg. cytotoxic chemotherapy, ionizing radiation). It has been shown that induction of DNA DSBs at two defined loci can produce stable balanced chromosomal translocations, however, a single engineered DNA DSB could not. Herein, we report that although a single engineered DNA DSB in H2AX “knockdown” cells did not generate GCRs, repair of a single engineered DNA DSB in fibroblasts that had ablated H2ax did produce clonal, stable GCRs, including balanced translocations and megabase-pair inversions. Upon correction of the H2ax deficiency, cells no longer generated GCRs following a single engineered DNA DSB. These findings demonstrate that clonal, stable GCRs can be produced by a single engineered DNA DSB in H2ax knockout cells, and that the production of these GCRs is ameliorated by H2ax expression.

Differences in the recruitment of DNA repair proteins at subtelomeric and interstitial I-SceI endonuclease-induced DNA double-strand breaks

Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures that are required to protect chromosome ends. Dysfunctional telomeres are recognized as DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), and elicit the activation of a DNA damage response (DDR). We have previously reported that DSBs near telomeres are poorly repaired, resulting in a high frequency of large deletions and gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs). Our previous genetic studies have demonstrated that this sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs is a result of excessive processing. In the current study, we have further investigated the sensitivity of telomeric regions to DSBs through the analysis of repair proteins associated with DSBs at interstitial and telomeric sites. Following the inducible expression of I-SceI endonuclease, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) and real-time quantitative PCR were used to compare the recruitment of repair proteins at I-SceI-induced DSBs at interstitial and subtelomeric sites. We observed that proteins that are specifically associated with processing of DSBs during homologous recombination repair, RAD51, BRCA1, and CtIP, are present at a much greater abundance at subtelomeric DSBs. In contrast, Ku70, which is specifically involved in classical nonhomologous end joining, showed no difference at interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs. Importantly, ATM was lower in abundance at subtelomeric DSBs, while ATR was in greater abundance at subtelomeric DSBs, consistent with the accumulation of processed DSBs near telomeres, since processing is accompanied by a transition from ATM to ATR binding. Combined, our results suggest that excessive processing is responsible for the increased frequency of large deletions and GCRs at DSBs near telomeres.

Rad51 and Rad54 promote noncrossover recombination between centromere repeats on the same chromatid to prevent isochromosome formation

Centromeres consist of DNA repeats in many eukaryotes. Non-allelic homologous recombination (HR) between them can result in gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs). In fission yeast, Rad51 suppresses isochromosome formation that occurs between inverted repeats in the centromere. However, how the HR enzyme prevents homology-mediated GCRs remains unclear. Here, we provide evidence that Rad51 with the aid of the Swi/Snf-type motor protein Rad54 promotes non-crossover recombination between centromere repeats to prevent isochromosome formation. Mutations in Rad51 and Rad54 epistatically increased the rates of isochromosome formation and chromosome loss. In sharp contrast, these mutations decreased gene conversion between inverted repeats in the centromere. Remarkably, analysis of recombinant DNAs revealed that rad51 and rad54 increase the proportion of crossovers. In the absence of Rad51, deletion of the structure-specific endonuclease Mus81 decreased both crossovers and isochromosomes, while the cdc27/pol32-D1 mutation, which impairs break-induced replication, did not. We propose that Rad51 and Rad54 promote non-crossover recombination between centromere repeats on the same chromatid, thereby suppressing crossover between non-allelic repeats on sister chromatids that leads to chromosomal rearrangements. Furthermore, we found that Rad51 and Rad54 are required for gene silencing in centromeres, suggesting that HR also plays a role in the structure and function of centromeres.

Molecular Circuitry of the SUMO (Small Ubiquitin-like Modifier) Pathway in Controlling Sumoylation Homeostasis and Suppressing Genome Rearrangements

Small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) E3 ligases are known to have a major role in preventing gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs); however, relatively little is known about the role of SUMO isopeptidases in genome maintenance and their role in controlling intracellular sumoylation homeostasis. Here we show the SUMO isopeptidase Ulp2 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae does not prevent the accumulation of GCRs, and interestingly, its loss causes subunit-specific changes of sumoylated minichromosome maintenance (MCM) helicase in addition to drastic accumulation of sumoylated nucleolar RENT and inner kinetochore complexes. In contrast, loss of Ulp1 or its mis-localization from the nuclear periphery causes substantial accumulations of GCRs and elevated sumoylation of most proteins except for Ulp2 targets. Interestingly, the E3 ligase Mms21, which has a major role in genome maintenance, preferentially controls the sumoylation of Mcm3 during DNA replication. These findings reveal distinct roles for Ulp1 and Ulp2 in controlling homeostasis of intracellular sumoylation and show that sumoylation of MCM is controlled in a subunit-specific and cell cycle dependent manner.

Conserved interaction of Ctf18-RFC with DNA polymerase ε is critical for maintenance of genome stability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Human Ctf18-RFC, a PCNA loader complex, interacts with DNA polymerase ε (Polε) through a structure formed by the Ctf18, Dcc1 and Ctf8 subunits. The C-terminal stretch of Ctf18, which is highly conserved from yeast to human, is necessary to form the Polε-capturing structure. We found that in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Ctf18, Dcc1 and Ctf8 formed the same structure through the conserved C-terminus and interacted specifically with Polε. Thus, the specific interaction of Ctf18-RFC with Polε is a conserved feature between these proteins. A C-terminal deletion mutant of Ctf18 (ctf18(ΔC) ) exhibited the same high sensitivity to hydroxyurea as the complete deletion strain (ctf18Δ) or ATPase-deficient mutant (ctf18(K189A) ), but was somewhat less sensitive to methyl methanesulfonate than either of them. These phenotypes were also observed in dcc1Δ and ctf8Δ, predicted to be deficient in the interaction with Polε. Furthermore, both plasmid loss and gross chromosomal rearrangement (GCR) rates were increased in ctf18(ΔC) cells to the same extent as in ctf18Δ cells. These results indicate thatthe Ctf18-RFC/Polε interaction plays a crucial role in maintaining genome stability in budding yeast, probably through recruitment of this PCNA loader to the replication fork.

Expansion of Interstitial Telomeric Sequences in Yeast.

Telomeric repeats located within chromosomes are called interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs). They are polymorphic in length and are likely hotspots for initiation of chromosomal rearrangements that have been linked to human disease. Using our S. cerevisiae system to study repeat-mediated genome instability, we have previously shown that yeast telomeric (Ytel) repeats induce various gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCR) when their G-rich strands serve as the lagging strand template for replication (G orientation). Here, we show that interstitial Ytel repeats in the opposite C orientation prefer to expand rather than cause GCR. A tract of eight Ytel repeats expands at a rate of 4 × 10(-4) per replication, ranking them among the most expansion-prone DNA microsatellites. A candidate-based genetic analysis implicates both post-replication repair and homologous recombination pathways in the expansion process. We propose a model for Ytel repeat expansions and discuss its applications for genome instability and alternative telomere lengthening (ALT).

Abstract KP01: Identification of genes and pathways that prevent genome instability

Abstract The genome of many cancers is characterized by ongoing genome instability; however, the causes of genome instability in cancer are not well understood. To understand the control genome instability, we developed three types of genetic assays for measuring the rate of accumulating gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae - one that detects GCRs containing breakpoints in single copy sequences, a second that detects GCRs mediated by segmental duplications, and a third that detects GCRs mediated by Ty elements which are similar to mammalian LINE elements. Initial studies characterizing these three types of assays found that there are specific pathways that suppress duplication-mediated GCRs and identified sequences that are hotspots for the formation of GCRs. We have subsequently used these three assays to perform a genetic screen of the non-essential genes in S. cerevisiae to identify the genetic network that acts to prevent genome instability. This screen involved three steps: a novel bioinformatics screen to identify and prioritize candidate genome instability suppressing genes; a biological genetic screen to identify which of the predicted genes actually suppress genome instability; and a biological genetic screen to identify interacting genes. As a result of these screens, we have identified 184 genes in which defects cause increased GCRs and an additional 459 genes in which mutations only cause increased GCRs when combined with a second mutation thus defining multiple pathways that prevent GCRs. Control experiments indicated that this approach led to the identification of greater than 95% of the non-essential genes that act to suppress genome instability. In a second screen, we identified 44 essential genes in which defects caused increased GCRs. We are now beginning to use the S. cerevisiae genome instability suppressing genes to predict the mammalian genome instability genetic suppressing network. Citation Format: Richard Kolodner, PhD. Identification of genes and pathways that prevent genome instability [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Ovarian Cancer Research Symposium; Sep 8-9, 2014; Seattle, WA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2015;21(16 Suppl):Abstract nr KP01.

Processing by MRE11 is involved in the sensitivity of subtelomeric regions to DNA double-strand breaks.

The caps on the ends of chromosomes, called telomeres, keep the ends of chromosomes from appearing as DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and prevent chromosome fusion. However, subtelomeric regions are sensitive to DSBs, which in normal cells is responsible for ionizing radiation-induced cell senescence and protection against oncogene-induced replication stress, but promotes chromosome instability in cancer cells that lack cell cycle checkpoints. We have previously reported that I-SceI endonuclease-induced DSBs near telomeres in a human cancer cell line are much more likely to generate large deletions and gross chromosome rearrangements (GCRs) than interstitial DSBs, but found no difference in the frequency of I-SceI-induced small deletions at interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs. We now show that inhibition of MRE11 3′–5′ exonuclease activity with Mirin reduces the frequency of large deletions and GCRs at both interstitial and subtelomeric DSBs, but has little effect on the frequency of small deletions. We conclude that large deletions and GCRs are due to excessive processing of DSBs, while most small deletions occur during classical nonhomologous end joining (C-NHEJ). The sensitivity of subtelomeric regions to DSBs is therefore because they are prone to undergo excessive processing, and not because of a deficiency in C-NHEJ in subtelomeric regions.

Yeast Assay Highlights the Intrinsic Genomic Instability of Human PML Intron 6 over Intron 3 and the Role of Replication Fork Proteins.

Human acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is characterized by a specific balanced translocation t(15;17)(q22;q21) involving the PML and RARA genes. In both de novo and therapy-related APL, the most frequent PML breakpoints are located within intron 6, and less frequently in intron 3; the precise mechanisms by which these breakpoints arise and preferentially in PML intron 6 remain unsolved. To investigate the intrinsic properties of the PML intron sequences in vivo, we designed Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains containing human PML intron 6 or intron 3 sequences inserted in yeast chromosome V and measured gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCR). This approach provided evidence that intron 6 had a superior instability over intron 3 due to an intrinsic property of the sequence and identified the 3’ end of intron 6 as the most susceptible to break. Using yeast strains invalidated for genes that control DNA replication, we show that this differential instability depended at least upon Rrm3, a DNA helicase, and Mrc1, the human claspin homolog. GCR induction by hydrogen peroxide, a general genotoxic agent, was also dependent on genetic context. We conclude that: 1) this yeast system provides an alternative approach to study in detail the properties of human sequences in a genetically controlled situation and 2) the different susceptibility to produce DNA breaks in intron 6 versus intron 3 of the human PML gene is likely due to an intrinsic property of the sequence and is under replication fork genetic control.

Hyper-Acetylation of Histone H3K56 Limits Break-Induced Replication by Inhibiting Extensive Repair Synthesis.

Break-induced replication (BIR) has been implicated in restoring eroded telomeres and collapsed replication forks via single-ended invasion and extensive DNA synthesis on the recipient chromosome. Unlike other recombination subtypes, DNA synthesis in BIR likely relies heavily on mechanisms enabling efficient fork progression such as chromatin modification. Herein we report that deletion of HST3 and HST4, two redundant de-acetylases of histone H3 Lysine 56 (H3K56), inhibits BIR, sensitizes checkpoint deficient cells to deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate pool depletion, and elevates translocation-type gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCR). The basis for deficiency in BIR and gene conversion with long gap synthesis in hst3Δ hst4Δ cells can be traced to a defect in extensive DNA synthesis. Distinct from other cellular defects associated with deletion of HST3 and HST4 including thermo-sensitivity and elevated spontaneous mutagenesis, the BIR defect in hst3Δ hst4Δ cannot be offset by the deletion of RAD17 or MMS22, but rather by the loss of RTT109 or ASF1, or in combination with the H3K56R mutation, which also restores tolerance to replication stress in mrc1 mutants. Our studies suggest that acetylation of H3K56 limits extensive repair synthesis and interferes with efficient fork progression in BIR.

DNA Repair Pathway Selection Caused by Defects in TEL1, SAE2, and De Novo Telomere Addition Generates Specific Chromosomal Rearrangement Signatures

Whole genome sequencing of cancer genomes has revealed a diversity of recurrent gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) that are likely signatures of specific defects in DNA damage response pathways. However, inferring the underlying defects has been difficult due to insufficient information relating defects in DNA metabolism to GCR signatures. By analyzing over 95 mutant strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we found that the frequency of GCRs that deleted an internal CAN1/URA3 cassette on chrV L while retaining a chrV L telomeric hph marker was significantly higher in tel1Δ, sae2Δ, rad53Δ sml1Δ, and mrc1Δ tof1Δ mutants. The hph-retaining GCRs isolated from tel1Δ mutants contained either an interstitial deletion dependent on non-homologous end-joining or an inverted duplication that appeared to be initiated from a double strand break (DSB) on chrV L followed by hairpin formation, copying of chrV L from the DSB toward the centromere, and homologous recombination to capture the hph-containing end of chrV L. In contrast, hph-containing GCRs from other mutants were primarily interstitial deletions (mrc1Δ tof1Δ) or inverted duplications (sae2Δ and rad53Δ sml1Δ). Mutants with impaired de novo telomere addition had increased frequencies of hph-containing GCRs, whereas mutants with increased de novo telomere addition had decreased frequencies of hph-containing GCRs. Both types of hph-retaining GCRs occurred in wild-type strains, suggesting that the increased frequencies of hph retention were due to the relative efficiencies of competing DNA repair pathways. Interestingly, the inverted duplications observed here resemble common GCRs in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Template homology determines the genetics and mechanisms of gross chromosomal rearrangements in S. cerevisiae (736.11)

Double strand breaks (DSBs) can lead to genome instability and cell death, and must be faithfully repaired. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, DSBs are primarily repaired via homologous recombination (HR), which uses homologous sequence as a template for repair. Improper repair can result in gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) such as translocations. Aberrant HR may occur when a template sequence with imperfect homology is used instead of completely homologous sequence. It is not known how divergent homologous sequences are selected as targets for non‐allelic HR, or which pathways suppress the formation of such GCRs. To examine this, we devised 3 separate genetic assays to detect GCRs mediated by a distinct sequence with imperfect homology to the rest of the genome. The assays differ from each other in both percent homology to their target sequences and number of potential rearrangement targets. We find that the GCR rates for these assays differ from each other as well as from existing assays. Additionally, the GCRs detected by the 3 assays exhibit diverse genetic requirements, responding differently to mutations affecting the HR pathways, HR between divergent sequences, and the DNA replication checkpoint. Finally, we characterized the products of the GCRs observed in the 3 assays. These results suggest that the homology between the recombination substrate and its rearrangement targets influences the mechanisms and genetics of GCR formation and the GCR spectrum.Grant Funding Source: NIH Grant GM26017

Analysis of yeast SUMO ligase MMS21‐dependent genome maintenance pathway (925.4)

Genome instability often characterizes many cancers and is indicative of high frequency of mutations and genome rearrangements. Several pathways, including the DNA damage checkpoint, play a role in maintaining the stability of the genome by suppressing gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs). Additionally, eukaryotic genomes contain numerous repetitive sequences, segmental duplications and regions of copy number variation, which influence the outcomes of gross chromosomal rearrangements.Using a genetic assay in Saccharomyces cerevisiae to screen for suppressors of GCRs, we recently reported that Mms21‐dependent sumoylation specifically suppress GCRs mediated by homeologous sequences. These types of duplication‐mediated GCRs are attributed to Rad52‐dependent non‐allelic homologous recombination (NAHR). We will present findings that show unexpectedly, the DNA damage checkpoint to be required for the formation of duplication‐mediated GCRs in the absence of Mms21‐dependent sumoylation. The canonical DNA damage checkpoint genes MEC1, RAD24, MEC3, RAD9 and RAD53 are required for formation of duplication‐mediated GCRs in the mms21 mutant, while TEL1, MRC1 and CHK1 are minimally involved. Among the checkpoint genes, mutation of RAD9 strongly suppresses GCRs formed in the mms21 mutant and this suppression is independent of either SIZ1 or SIZ2, which encode two other SUMO ligases in yeast. We will also present findings on the role of DNA damage checkpoint in regulating the SUMO proteome. These results show that the outcomes of GCRs are dynamic and are governed by a fine balance of distinct genome maintenance pathways.Grant Funding Source: GM080469, T32CA009523 ,LICR

A Saccharomyces cerevisiae RNase H2 Interaction Network Functions To Suppress Genome Instability

Errors during DNA replication are one likely cause of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs). Here, we analyze the role of RNase H2, which functions to process Okazaki fragments, degrade transcription intermediates, and repair misincorporated ribonucleotides, in preventing genome instability. The results demonstrate that rnh203 mutations result in a weak mutator phenotype and cause growth defects and synergistic increases in GCR rates when combined with mutations affecting other DNA metabolism pathways, including homologous recombination (HR), sister chromatid HR, resolution of branched HR intermediates, postreplication repair, sumoylation in response to DNA damage, and chromatin assembly. In some cases, a mutation in RAD51 or TOP1 suppressed the increased GCR rates and/or the growth defects of rnh203Δ double mutants. This analysis suggests that cells with RNase H2 defects have increased levels of DNA damage and depend on other pathways of DNA metabolism to overcome the deleterious effects of this DNA damage.

Genomic instability and repair mediated by common repeated sequences

If you happen to find a suspicious cell, say, in your soup, you may recognize to what species it belongs simply by looking at its chromosome configuration (karyotype) under the microscope. This approach works because most cells of most organisms have a stable genome, and gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) such as translocations, inversions, and deletions of big chunks of chromosomes are relatively rare. This is in stark contrast to cancer cells, which exhibit abundant GCRs (1). When the borders of such rearrangements are mapped, they often belong to repetitive sequences, which are scattered across the genome of all organisms. Tandem repetitive sequences are also present at the ends of the eukaryotic chromosomes, forming the telomeres, which help replicate the genome and protect it from degradation (2). Interestingly, telomeric repeats can also be found at internal positions along the chromosomes in many organisms. These interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) often colocalize with chromosomal fragile sites and with endpoints of GCRs (3, 4). However, little is known about the mechanisms responsible for genome instability at interstitial telomeric sequences. In PNAS, Aksenova et al. (5) present a study in which the power of yeast genetics is harnessed to address this particular question. Using a sophisticated genetic trap, the authors measure the rate of GCR formation and characterize the molecular mechanisms leading to them. The results show a surprisingly high level of recombinational activity involving these repeated sequences.

Repair Of DNA Double Strand Breaks By Insertion Of Nucleotide Sequences Derived From Distant Regions Of The Genome

It has been suggested that errors in the repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSB) can result in gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCR), including chromosomal amplifications, deletions, inversions, and translocations. To study repair of DNA DSB in vivo, we established a subclone of the U937 cell line designated F5, in which a single copy of the rare-cutting meganuclease I-SceI recognition site has been integrated into chromosome 7. We transfected an I-SceI expression vector into these cells and analyzed misrepair events. We recovered no GCR, but instead found that most DSBs were repaired by small (<50bp) indels (91.8%). We also noticed some DSBs were repaired by large (<50bp) deletions (6.4%) and rare DSBs were repaired by large (100-500 bp) insertions (1.8%). Surprisingly, the nucleotide sequence of these insertions matched distant regions of the genome. To determine if this templated sequence insertion (TSI) was peculiar to I-SceI induced DNA DSB, we repeated the experiment using TALENs to produce DNA DSB. Again, we found insertions that were derived from distant genomic regions.To determine whether this form of DNA repair was restricted to experimentally induced DNA DSB, we analyzed structural variations identified by whole genome sequence (WGS) of two myeloma cell lines (KP6, MC1286PE1), and identified 15 independent TSIs. These TSIs were verified by Sanger sequencing, and lengths of inserted fragment were 38 to 666 bp (median 189 bp). Six insertions were noted to be identical between the 2 cell lines, suggesting that these TSIs were germline polymorphic events. These TSIs were compared to a catalog of known structural variations identified by WGS of 52 healthy individuals; 13 of 15 TSI junctions were identified, suggesting that these represented polymorphic insertions in the human genome. Two TSIs were potential somatic mutations in the KP6 cell line, including one that had 85bp insertion at the junction of an acquired t(6;12) chromosomal translocation. Six TSIs showed the hallmarks of L1 retrotransposon-mediated insertions, with a 5'-TTTT/A-3' integration site, a target site duplication (TSD), a polyA tract at the insertion site, and a polyadenylation signal. However, the inserted sequence was neither a LINE nor a SINE, but instead was a transcribed, genic region mapping to a distant genomic region. The presence of these L1 ORF1 hallmarks strongly suggests that these insertions were caused by the L1 integrase and reverse-transcriptase acting on nuclear pre-mRNA. A second class of TSI showed no preference for a 5'-TTTT/A-3' integration site, no TSD, no poly A tract, but instead showed several bp of microhomology at the insertion junctions. This second class is similar to TSI detected at I-SceI induced DNA DSB, and we predict that these TSI were generated by reverse transcription of pre-mRNA creating a “patch” for a spontaneous DNA DSB that occurred in a germ cell.To determine if TSI at I-SceI induced DNA DSB could be repaired by RNA-templated sequences, we cotransfected murine RNA and an I-SceI expression vector into F5 cells. Approximately 10% of the TSI recovered from these experiments contained mouse sequences, indicating that they were derived from mouse RNA. To further support the contention that TSIs were derived from RNA, we again used I-SceI to induce a DNA DSB, and treated the cells with reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The TSI frequency was reduced by 70%. Finally, a subset of insertions were due to telomere repeat sequences, lending further support for the hypothesis that RNA could serve as a template for the repair of DNA DSB. TSI is novel form of potentially mutagenic DNA DSB repair, which should be considered as an alternative to a balanced chromosomal translocation in the interpretation of reciprocal interchromosomal structural variations identified by short-read deep sequencing. Disclosures:No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Distinct SUMO Ligases Cooperate with Esc2 and Slx5 to Suppress Duplication-Mediated Genome Rearrangements

Suppression of duplication-mediated gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) is essential to maintain genome integrity in eukaryotes. Here we report that SUMO ligase Mms21 has a strong role in suppressing GCRs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, while Siz1 and Siz2 have weaker and partially redundant roles. Understanding the functions of these enzymes has been hampered by a paucity of knowledge of their substrate specificity in vivo. Using a new quantitative SUMO-proteomics technology, we found that Siz1 and Siz2 redundantly control the abundances of most sumoylated substrates, while Mms21 more specifically regulates sumoylation of RNA polymerase-I and the SMC-family proteins. Interestingly, Esc2, a SUMO-like domain-containing protein, specifically promotes the accumulation of sumoylated Mms21-specific substrates and functions with Mms21 to suppress GCRs. On the other hand, the Slx5-Slx8 complex, a SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligase, suppresses the accumulation of sumoylated Mms21-specific substrates. Thus, distinct SUMO ligases work in concert with Esc2 and Slx5-Slx8 to control substrate specificity and sumoylation homeostasis to prevent GCRs.

Fragile DNA Motifs Trigger Mutagenesis at Distant Chromosomal Loci in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

DNA sequences capable of adopting non-canonical secondary structures have been associated with gross-chromosomal rearrangements in humans and model organisms. Previously, we have shown that long inverted repeats that form hairpin and cruciform structures and triplex-forming GAA/TTC repeats induce the formation of double-strand breaks which trigger genome instability in yeast. In this study, we demonstrate that breakage at both inverted repeats and GAA/TTC repeats is augmented by defects in DNA replication. Increased fragility is associated with increased mutation levels in the reporter genes located as far as 8 kb from both sides of the repeats. The increase in mutations was dependent on the presence of inverted or GAA/TTC repeats and activity of the translesion polymerase Polζ. Mutagenesis induced by inverted repeats also required Sae2 which opens hairpin-capped breaks and initiates end resection. The amount of breakage at the repeats is an important determinant of mutations as a perfect palindromic sequence with inherently increased fragility was also found to elevate mutation rates even in replication-proficient strains. We hypothesize that the underlying mechanism for mutagenesis induced by fragile motifs involves the formation of long single-stranded regions in the broken chromosome, invasion of the undamaged sister chromatid for repair, and faulty DNA synthesis employing Polζ. These data demonstrate that repeat-mediated breaks pose a dual threat to eukaryotic genome integrity by inducing chromosomal aberrations as well as mutations in flanking genes.

Abstract 639: Repair of DNA double strand breaks by 20-1000 bp “patches” derived from distant genomic regions.

Abstract It has been suggested that errors in the repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSB) can result in gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCR). To study DNA DSB repair in vivo, we generated a vector with the EF1a promoter driving expression of the herpes simplex thymidine kinase (HsTK); interspersed between the EF1a promoter and Hstk was the recognition site for the meganuclease I-SceI. The EF1aTk vector was introduced into U937 cells and a clone (designated F5) with a single copy of the vector was isolated. Transfection of F5 cells with an I-SceI expression vector, followed by ganciclovir (GCV) selection, identified clones that lost expression of HsTK. We recovered no GCR, as most of the GCV-resistant clones had deletions of the EF1a promoter or the HsTK. However ∼10% of the clones had insertions (47-756 bp) of DNA sequences derived from distant regions of the genome; all inserted fragments were derived from gene and/or retrotransposon repeat elements such as LINE or SINE sequences. Therefore, we hypothesized that the inserted sequences used to “patch” the DNA DSB could be based on reverse transcription of an RNA template. Since sequences derived from human RNA and human genomic DNA are identical (with the exception of RNA splice events, poly-A tails, and RNA-edited nucleotides), we co-transfected the F5 cells with murine RNA and an I-SceI expression vector to determine if patches at the DNA DSB sites could be derived from RNA. We identified 121 independent sequences which represented insertions of 20-609 bp at the I-SceI cleavage site. Of these 121 insertions, 6 were vector or E. coli capture events and 7 were too short to identify. The chromosomal origin of 5 insertions could not be assigned as these insertions consisted of 5 or 6 bp tandem repeat sequences; 3 had a (CCCTAA)n repeat, identical to a mammalian telomere repeat. Of the remaining 103 insertions, 94 were derived from a single genomic loci, and 9 samples contained sequences from more than 2 distinct genomic regions. The sequences were derived from 22 of the 24 human chromosomes. 65% of the sequences were found to contain sequences from a transcribed gene region, and 52% contained repeat sequences such as LINE, SINE, or LTR. The involvement of retrotransposon sequences, which are known to be reverse transcribed and integrated into the genome, supports the hypothesis that at least some of the insertions may be templated from RNA. Although most insertions were derived from human sequences; 9 insertions matched murine sequences, and were derived from the co-transfected mouse RNA. All of these were derived from gene and/or retrotransposon sequence. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that I-SceI-induced DNA DSB can be repaired by “patches” derived from distant regions of the genome, and suggest that transcribed mRNA and retrotransposons can play an important role in the repair of DNA DSB and preservation of genomic integrity. Citation Format: Masahiro Onozawa, Tamas Varga, Zhenhua Zhang, Yoo Jung Kim, Peter Aplan. Repair of DNA double strand breaks by 20-1000 bp “patches” derived from distant genomic regions. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 639. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-639