MSH2 MSH6 Research Articles

Elevated MSH2 MSH3 expression interferes with DNA metabolism in vivo.

The Msh2-Msh3 mismatch repair (MMR) complex in Saccharomyces cerevisiae recognizes and directs repair of insertion/deletion loops (IDLs) up to ∼17 nucleotides. Msh2-Msh3 also recognizes and binds distinct looped and branched DNA structures with varying affinities, thereby contributing to genome stability outside post-replicative MMR through homologous recombination, double-strand break repair (DSBR)and the DNA damage response. In contrast, Msh2-Msh3 promotes genome instability through trinucleotide repeat (TNR) expansions, presumably by binding structures that form from single-stranded (ss) TNR sequences. We previously demonstrated that Msh2-Msh3 binding to 5' ssDNA flap structures interfered with Rad27 (Fen1 in humans)-mediated Okazaki fragment maturation (OFM) in vitro. Here we demonstrate that elevated Msh2-Msh3 levels interfere with DNA replication and base excision repair in vivo. Elevated Msh2-Msh3 also induced a cell cycle arrest that was dependent on RAD9 and ELG1 and led to PCNA modification. These phenotypes also required Msh2-Msh3 ATPase activity and downstream MMR proteins, indicating an active mechanism that is not simply a result of Msh2-Msh3 DNA-binding activity. This study provides new mechanistic details regarding how excess Msh2-Msh3 can disrupt DNA replication and repair and highlights the role of Msh2-Msh3 protein abundance in Msh2-Msh3-mediated genomic instability.

Complex mutation profiles in mismatch repair and ribonucleotide reductase mutants reveal novel repair substrate specificity of MutS homolog (MSH) complexes.

Determining mutation signatures is standard for understanding the etiology of human tumors and informing cancer treatment. Multiple determinants of DNA replication fidelity prevent mutagenesis that leads to carcinogenesis, including the regulation of free deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate pools by ribonucleotide reductase and repair of replication errors by the mismatch repair system. We identified genetic interactions between rnr1 alleles that skew and/or elevate deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate levels and mismatch repair gene deletions. These defects indicate that the rnr1 alleles lead to increased mutation loads that are normally acted upon by mismatch repair. We then utilized a targeted deep-sequencing approach to determine mutational profiles associated with mismatch repair pathway defects. By combining rnr1 and msh mutations to alter and/or increase deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate levels and alter the mutational load, we uncovered previously unreported specificities of Msh2-Msh3 and Msh2-Msh6. Msh2-Msh3 is uniquely able to direct the repair of G/C single-base deletions in GC runs, while Msh2-Msh6 specifically directs the repair of substitutions that occur at G/C dinucleotides. We also identified broader sequence contexts that influence variant profiles in different genetic backgrounds. Finally, we observed that the mutation profiles in double mutants were not necessarily an additive relationship of mutation profiles in single mutants. Our results have implications for interpreting mutation signatures from human tumors, particularly when mismatch repair is defective.

Mismatch Recognition by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2-Msh6: Role of Structure and Dynamics.

The mismatch repair (MMR) pathway maintains genome integrity by correcting errors such as mismatched base pairs formed during DNA replication. In MMR, Msh2–Msh6, a heterodimeric protein, targets single base mismatches and small insertion/deletion loops for repair. By incorporating the fluorescent nucleoside base analog 6-methylisoxanthopterin (6-MI) at or adjacent to a mismatch site to probe the structural and dynamic elements of the mismatch, we address how Msh2–Msh6 recognizes these mismatches for repair within the context of matched DNA. Fluorescence quantum yield and rotational correlation time measurements indicate that local base dynamics linearly correlate with Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2–Msh6 binding affinity where the protein exhibits a higher affinity (KD ≤ 25 nM) for mismatches that have a significant amount of dynamic motion. Energy transfer measurements measuring global DNA bending find that mismatches that are both well and poorly recognized by Msh2–Msh6 experience the same amount of protein-induced bending. Finally, base-specific dynamics coupled with protein-induced blue shifts in peak emission strongly support the crystallographic model of directional binding, in which Phe 432 of Msh6 intercalates 3′ of the mismatch. These results imply an important role for local base dynamics in the initial recognition step of MMR.

Effective mismatch repair depends on timely control of PCNA retention on DNA by the Elg1 complex.

Proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) is a sliding clamp that acts as a central co-ordinator for mismatch repair (MMR) as well as DNA replication. Loss of Elg1, the major subunit of the PCNA unloader complex, causes over-accumulation of PCNA on DNA and also increases mutation rate, but it has been unclear if the two effects are linked. Here we show that timely removal of PCNA from DNA by the Elg1 complex is important to prevent mutations. Although premature unloading of PCNA generally increases mutation rate, the mutator phenotype of elg1Δ is attenuated by PCNA mutants PCNA-R14E and PCNA-D150E that spontaneously fall off DNA. In contrast, the elg1Δ mutator phenotype is exacerbated by PCNA mutants that accumulate on DNA due to enhanced electrostatic PCNA–DNA interactions. Epistasis analysis suggests that PCNA over-accumulation on DNA interferes with both MMR and MMR-independent process(es). In elg1Δ, over-retained PCNA hyper-recruits the Msh2–Msh6 mismatch recognition complex through its PCNA-interacting peptide motif, causing accumulation of MMR intermediates. Our results suggest that PCNA retention controlled by the Elg1 complex is critical for efficient MMR: PCNA needs to be on DNA long enough to enable MMR, but if it is retained too long it interferes with downstream repair steps.

DNA Breaks in Ig V Regions Are Predominantly Single Stranded and Are Generated by UNG and MSH6 DNA Repair Pathways.

Antibody diversity is initiated by activation-induced deaminase (AID), which deaminates cytosine to uracil in DNA. Uracils in the Ig gene loci can be recognized by uracil DNA glycosylase (UNG) or mutS homologs 2 and 6 (MSH2-MSH6) proteins, and then processed into DNA breaks. Breaks in switch regions of the H chain locus cause isotype switching and have been extensively characterized as staggered and blunt double-strand breaks. However, breaks in V regions that arise during somatic hypermutation are poorly understood. In this study, we characterize AID-dependent break formation in JH introns from mouse germinal center B cells. We used a ligation-mediated PCR assay to detect single-strand breaks and double-strand breaks that were either staggered or blunt. In contrast to switch regions, V regions contained predominantly single-strand breaks, which peaked 10 d after immunization. We then examined the pathways used to generate these breaks in UNG- and MSH6-deficient mice. Surprisingly, both DNA repair pathways contributed substantially to break formation, and in the absence of both UNG and MSH6, the frequency of breaks was severely reduced. When the breaks were sequenced and mapped, they were widely distributed over a 1000-bp intron region downstream of JH3 and JH4 exons and were unexpectedly located at all 4 nt. These data suggest that during DNA repair, nicks are generated at distal sites from the original deaminated cytosine, and these repair intermediates could generate both faithful and mutagenic repair. During mutagenesis, single-strand breaks would allow entry for low-fidelity DNA polymerases to generate somatic hypermutation.

The properties of Msh2–Msh6 ATP binding mutants suggest a signal amplification mechanism in DNA mismatch repair

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) corrects mispaired DNA bases and small insertion/deletion loops generated by DNA replication errors. After binding a mispair, the eukaryotic mispair recognition complex Msh2–Msh6 binds ATP in both of its nucleotide-binding sites, which induces a conformational change resulting in the formation of an Msh2–Msh6 sliding clamp that releases from the mispair and slides freely along the DNA. However, the roles that Msh2–Msh6 sliding clamps play in MMR remain poorly understood. Here, using Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we created Msh2 and Msh6 Walker A nucleotide–binding site mutants that have defects in ATP binding in one or both nucleotide-binding sites of the Msh2–Msh6 heterodimer. We found that these mutations cause a complete MMR defect in vivo. The mutant Msh2–Msh6 complexes exhibited normal mispair recognition and were proficient at recruiting the MMR endonuclease Mlh1–Pms1 to mispaired DNA. At physiological (2.5 mm) ATP concentration, the mutant complexes displayed modest partial defects in supporting MMR in reconstituted Mlh1–Pms1-independent and Mlh1–Pms1-dependent MMR reactions in vitro and in activation of the Mlh1–Pms1 endonuclease and showed a more severe defect at low (0.1 mm) ATP concentration. In contrast, five of the mutants were completely defective and one was mostly defective for sliding clamp formation at high and low ATP concentrations. These findings suggest that mispair-dependent sliding clamp formation triggers binding of additional Msh2–Msh6 complexes and that further recruitment of additional downstream MMR proteins is required for signal amplification of mispair binding during MMR.

Nucleosomes around a mismatched base pair are excluded via an Msh2-dependent reaction with the aid of SNF2 family ATPase Smarcad1.

Post-replicative correction of replication errors by the mismatch repair (MMR) system is critical for suppression of mutations. Although the MMR system may need to handle nucleosomes at the site of chromatin replication, how MMR occurs in the chromatin environment remains unclear. Here, we show that nucleosomes are excluded from a >1-kb region surrounding a mismatched base pair in Xenopus egg extracts. The exclusion was dependent on the Msh2-Msh6 mismatch recognition complex but not the Mlh1-containing MutL homologs and counteracts both the HIRA- and CAF-1 (chromatin assembly factor 1)-mediated chromatin assembly pathways. We further found that the Smarcad1 chromatin remodeling ATPase is recruited to mismatch-carrying DNA in an Msh2-dependent but Mlh1-independent manner to assist nucleosome exclusion and that Smarcad1 facilitates the repair of mismatches when nucleosomes are preassembled on DNA. In budding yeast, deletion of FUN30, the homolog of Smarcad1, showed a synergistic increase of spontaneous mutations in combination with MSH6 or MSH3 deletion but no significant increase with MSH2 deletion. Genetic analyses also suggested that the function of Fun30 in MMR is to counteract CAF-1. Our study uncovers that the eukaryotic MMR system has an ability to exclude local nucleosomes and identifies Smarcad1/Fun30 as an accessory factor for the MMR reaction.

Coordination of Rad1-Rad10 interactions with Msh2-Msh3, Saw1 and RPA is essential for functional 3' non-homologous tail removal.

Double strand DNA break repair (DSBR) comprises multiple pathways. A subset of DSBR pathways, including single strand annealing, involve intermediates with 3′ non-homologous tails that must be removed to complete repair. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Rad1–Rad10 is the structure-specific endonuclease that cleaves the tails in 3′ non-homologous tail removal (3′ NHTR). Rad1–Rad10 is also an essential component of the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway. In both cases, Rad1–Rad10 requires protein partners for recruitment to the relevant DNA intermediate. Msh2–Msh3 and Saw1 recruit Rad1–Rad10 in 3′ NHTR; Rad14 recruits Rad1–Rad10 in NER. We created two rad1 separation-of-function alleles, rad1R203A,K205A and rad1R218A; both are defective in 3′ NHTR but functional in NER. In vitro, rad1R203A,K205A was impaired at multiple steps in 3′ NHTR. The rad1R218A in vivo phenotype resembles that of msh2- or msh3-deleted cells; recruitment of rad1R218A–Rad10 to recombination intermediates is defective. Interactions among rad1R218A–Rad10 and Msh2–Msh3 and Saw1 are altered and rad1R218A–Rad10 interactions with RPA are compromised. We propose a model in which Rad1–Rad10 is recruited and positioned at the recombination intermediate through interactions, between Saw1 and DNA, Rad1–Rad10 and Msh2–Msh3, Saw1 and Msh2–Msh3 and Rad1–Rad10 and RPA. When any of these interactions is altered, 3′ NHTR is impaired.

DNA damage and repair (DDR) gene variants and outcomes in localized and metastatic prostate cancer (mPC).

304 Background: Moderate frequencies of DDR gene variants exist in mPC. Their prognostic role in localized and mPC is unclear. This study aims to characterize DDR variants in a cohort of hormone sensitive localized and mPC and assess for association with outcome. Methods: A retrospective cohort of men with PC and ≥ 2 follow up visits at DFCI and targeted next generation sequencing of prostate or metastatic tissue was identified. Biomarker (BM) positive was defined as pathogenic changes in the following DDR genes: ATM BAP1 BRCA1 BRCA2 BRIP1 CHEK2 MSH2 MSH6 PALB2 PMS2. For localized PC, outcome endpoints included event-free survival (EFS) (time from prostate biopsy to PSA relapse/metastasis/death), metastasis-free survival (MFS) (time to metastasis/death), time to castration resistance (CRPC), and death (OS); for mPC, outcome events included time from androgen deprivation start to CRPC and OS. BM status was descriptively summarized. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model assessed associations of BM status with clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 237 men included, 16 (7%) were BM positive; 12 (6%) in 205 localized PC, 6 (14%) in 43 mPC. BM positive genes included 9 (4%) ATM, 6 (3%) BRCA2, and 2 (0.8%) CHEK2. In men with localized PC, EFS events occurred in 58% (7/12) BM positive vs 34% (66/193) BM negative at median follow up of 3.1 years; BM positive trended toward a shorter EFS (median 1.9 vs 5 years) than BM negative (HR 2.17, 95%CI 0.99-4.76). MFS events were observed in 17% (2/12) BM positive vs 7% (15/193) BM negative. CRPC events occurred in 17% (2/12) BM positive vs 6% (11/193) BM negative. In men with mPC, there were CRPC events in 100% (6/6) BM positive vs 67% (25/37) BM negative at median follow up of 3.3 years; BM positive trended toward a shorter time to CRPC (median 4 vs 8.8 months) compared to BM negative (HR 1.87, 95%CI 0.76-4.64). There was no association between BM status and OS. Conclusions: DDR variants appear infrequently in localized PC but may portend a shorter time to PSA relapse and metastasis. Similarly, DDR variants in mPC may be associated with a shorter time to CRPC. Low frequency of variants and short follow up limit these analyses. The prognostic value of DDR variants remains unclear and requires further research.

Crosstalk between MSH2-MSH3 and polβ promotes trinucleotide repeat expansion during base excision repair.

Studies in knockout mice provide evidence that MSH2–MSH3 and the BER machinery promote trinucleotide repeat (TNR) expansion, yet how these two different repair pathways cause the mutation is unknown. Here we report the first molecular crosstalk mechanism, in which MSH2–MSH3 is used as a component of the BER machinery to cause expansion. On its own, pol β fails to copy TNRs during DNA synthesis, and bypasses them on the template strand to cause deletion. Remarkably, MSH2–MSH3 not only stimulates pol β to copy through the repeats but also enhances formation of the flap precursor for expansion. Our results provide direct evidence that MMR and BER, operating together, form a novel hybrid pathway that changes the outcome of TNR instability from deletion to expansion during the removal of oxidized bases. We propose that cells implement crosstalk strategies and share machinery when a canonical pathway is ineffective in removing a difficult lesion.

Investigating the Intersection between DNA Mismatch Repair and Triplet Nucleotide Repeat Expansion

Mismatch repair (MMR) is a highly effective system dedicated to correcting errors produced during DNA replication. Errors arise when DNA polymerases incorporate incorrect nucleotides, leading to base pair mismatches, or slip from the primer‐template junction, leading to insertion‐deletion loops (IDLs). The proteins of interest in this study are the eukaryotic MutS homologs Msh2–Msh6 and Msh2–Msh3, which recognize single base pair mismatches or small IDLs, and larger IDLs, respectively1. Polymerases slip more easily at repeat sequences, which can lead to the formation of triplet nucleotide repeat (TNR) hairpins during replication. Msh2–Msh3 is known to recognize and promote the expansion of these TNR hairpin structures, which in turn is associated with neurological disorders such as Huntington's disease2. The goal of my research project is to understand how Msh2–Msh6 and Msh2–Msh3 interact with IDLs compared to TNRs. Gel mobility shift assays (GMSA) are being used to determine if there are differences in Msh2–Msh6 or Msh2–Msh3 complexes bound to these DNA structures. Preliminary results indicate that Msh2–Msh6 binds CAG repeat TNR hairpins with high affinity, similar to Msh2–Msh3. This leads to the question of why Msh2–Msh6 binding does not affect the TNR structure nor lead to its repair, while Msh2–Msh3 binding leads to its expansion. The answer may lie in differences in the affinity and dynamics of interaction between the proteins and DNA, or their ATPase activity, which is essential for the response to an error in the DNA3. In previous pre‐steady state ATPase studies of Msh2–Msh6, a rapid burst in hydrolysis was observed in the presence of duplex DNA3. In the presence of a mismatched DNA, however, this burst phase is absent, allowing Msh2–Msh6 to adopt a dual ATP‐bound form capable of sliding away from the mismatch, which is critical for signaling mismatch repair3. Due to the presence of ‘A‐A’ mismatches in the hairpin stem, it is possible that Msh2–Msh6 is recognizing this structure as error containing DNA. This hypothesis can be tested by measuring the ATPase response and related actions of Msh2–Msh6 on the TNR hairpin. Currently, a malachite green phosphate release assay is being used to measure the steady state ATPase activity of Msh2–Msh6, to determine any changes in the absence or presence of the TNR and to find optimal conditions for pre‐steady state experiments. In addition, a fluorescence‐based assay is being developed to measure the kinetics of Msh2–Msh6 interaction with the TNR and determine if the protein can adopt an ATP‐bound sliding clamp form on this DNA substrate. It is anticipated that the results of this kinetic analysis will help us understand in a quantitative manner how and why Msh2–Msh6 may not promote TNR expansion, while Msh2–Msh3 does. This mechanistic knowledge may help us find ways to avoid and possibly mitigate the devastating effects of TNR‐induced neurological disorders.Support or Funding InformationNSF grant MCB 1022203; ASBMB Undergraduate Research Award

Dynamic DNA binding licenses a repair factor to bypass roadblocks in search of DNA lesions.

DNA-binding proteins search for specific targets via facilitated diffusion along a crowded genome. However, little is known about how crowded DNA modulates facilitated diffusion and target recognition. Here we use DNA curtains and single-molecule fluorescence imaging to investigate how Msh2–Msh3, a eukaryotic mismatch repair complex, navigates on crowded DNA. Msh2–Msh3 hops over nucleosomes and other protein roadblocks, but maintains sufficient contact with DNA to recognize a single lesion. In contrast, Msh2–Msh6 slides without hopping and is largely blocked by protein roadblocks. Remarkably, the Msh3-specific mispair-binding domain (MBD) licences a chimeric Msh2–Msh6(3MBD) to bypass nucleosomes. Our studies contrast how Msh2–Msh3 and Msh2–Msh6 navigate on a crowded genome and suggest how Msh2–Msh3 locates DNA lesions outside of replication-coupled repair. These results also provide insights into how DNA repair factors search for DNA lesions in the context of chromatin.

Role of mismatch repair proteins in the processing of cisplatin interstrand cross-links

Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency gives rise to cisplatin resistance and can lead to poor prognosis in cancers. Various models have been proposed to explain this low level of resistance caused due to loss of MMR proteins. We have shown that MMR proteins are required to maintain cisplatin interstrand cross-links (ICLs) on the DNA leading to increased cellular sensitivity. In our previous studies, we have shown that BER processing of the cisplatin ICLs is mutagenic. Polymerase β (Polβ) can generate mismatches which leads to the activation and the recruitment of mismatch repair proteins. In this paper, we distinguished between the requirement of different downstream MMR proteins for maintaining cisplatin sensitivity. We show that the MutSα (MSH2–MSH6) heterocomplex is required to maintain cisplatin sensitivity, whereas the Mutsβ complex has no effect. These results can be correlated with the increased repair of cisplatin ICLs and ICL induced DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in the resistant cells. Moreover, we show that MLH1 proficient cells displayed a cisplatin sensitive phenotype when compared with the MLH1 deficient cells and the ATPase activity of MLH1 is essential to mediate this effect. Based on these results, we propose that MutSα as well as the downstream MMR pathway proteins are essential to maintain a cisplatin sensitive phenotype as a consequence of processing Polβ induced mismatches at sites flanking cisplatin ICLs.

ATP binding and hydrolysis by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2–Msh3 are differentially modulated by mismatch and double-strand break repair DNA substrates

In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Msh2-Msh3-mediated mismatch repair (MMR) recognizes and targets insertion/deletion loops for repair. Msh2-Msh3 is also required for 3' non-homologous tail removal (3'NHTR) in double-strand break repair. In both pathways, Msh2-Msh3 binds double-strand/single-strand junctions and initiates repair in an ATP-dependent manner. However, we recently demonstrated that the two pathways have distinct requirements with respect to Msh2-Msh3 activities. We identified a set of aromatic residues in the nucleotide binding pocket (FLY motif) of Msh3 that, when mutated, disrupted MMR, but left 3'NHTR largely intact. One of these mutations, msh3Y942A, was predicted to disrupt the nucleotide sandwich and allow altered positioning of ATP within the pocket. To develop a mechanistic understanding of the differential requirements for ATP binding and/or hydrolysis in the two pathways, we characterized Msh2-Msh3 and Msh2-msh3Y942A ATP binding and hydrolysis activities in the presence of MMR and 3'NHTR DNA substrates. We observed distinct, substrate-dependent ATP hydrolysis and nucleotide turnover by Msh2-Msh3, indicating that the MMR and 3'NHTR DNA substrates differentially modify the ATP binding/hydrolysis activities of Msh2-Msh3. Msh2-msh3Y942A retained the ability to bind DNA and ATP but exhibited altered ATP hydrolysis and nucleotide turnover. We propose that both ATP and structure-specific repair substrates cooperate to direct Msh2-Msh3-mediated repair and suggest an explanation for the msh3Y942A separation-of-function phenotype.

Mismatch Repair Genes Mlh1 and Mlh3 Modify CAG Instability in Huntington's Disease Mice: Genome-Wide and Candidate Approaches

The Huntington's disease gene (HTT) CAG repeat mutation undergoes somatic expansion that correlates with pathogenesis. Modifiers of somatic expansion may therefore provide routes for therapies targeting the underlying mutation, an approach that is likely applicable to other trinucleotide repeat diseases. Huntington's disease HdhQ111 mice exhibit higher levels of somatic HTT CAG expansion on a C57BL/6 genetic background (B6.HdhQ111) than on a 129 background (129.HdhQ111). Linkage mapping in (B6x129).HdhQ111 F2 intercross animals identified a single quantitative trait locus underlying the strain-specific difference in expansion in the striatum, implicating mismatch repair (MMR) gene Mlh1 as the most likely candidate modifier. Crossing B6.HdhQ111 mice onto an Mlh1 null background demonstrated that Mlh1 is essential for somatic CAG expansions and that it is an enhancer of nuclear huntingtin accumulation in striatal neurons. HdhQ111 somatic expansion was also abolished in mice deficient in the Mlh3 gene, implicating MutLγ (MLH1–MLH3) complex as a key driver of somatic expansion. Strikingly, Mlh1 and Mlh3 genes encoding MMR effector proteins were as critical to somatic expansion as Msh2 and Msh3 genes encoding DNA mismatch recognition complex MutSβ (MSH2–MSH3). The Mlh1 locus is highly polymorphic between B6 and 129 strains. While we were unable to detect any difference in base-base mismatch or short slipped-repeat repair activity between B6 and 129 MLH1 variants, repair efficiency was MLH1 dose-dependent. MLH1 mRNA and protein levels were significantly decreased in 129 mice compared to B6 mice, consistent with a dose-sensitive MLH1-dependent DNA repair mechanism underlying the somatic expansion difference between these strains. Together, these data identify Mlh1 and Mlh3 as novel critical genetic modifiers of HTT CAG instability, point to Mlh1 genetic variation as the likely source of the instability difference in B6 and 129 strains and suggest that MLH1 protein levels play an important role in driving of the efficiency of somatic expansions.

Distinct Requirements within the Msh3 Nucleotide Binding Pocket for Mismatch and Double-Strand Break Repair

In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, repair of insertion/deletion loops is carried out by Msh2–Msh3-mediated mismatch repair (MMR). Msh2–Msh3 is also required for 3′ non-homologous tail removal (3′ NHTR) in double-strand break repair. In both pathways, Msh2–Msh3 binds double-strand/single-strand junctions and initiates repair in an ATP-dependent manner. However, the kinetics of the two processes appear different; MMR is likely rapid in order to coordinate with the replication fork, whereas 3′ NHTR has been shown to be a slower process. To understand the molecular requirements in both repair pathways, we performed an in vivo analysis of well-conserved residues in Msh3 that are hypothesized to be required for MMR and/or 3′ NHTR. These residues are predicted to be involved in either communication between the DNA-binding and ATPase domains within the complex or nucleotide binding and/or exchange within Msh2–Msh3. We identified a set of aromatic residues within the FLY motif of the predicted Msh3 nucleotide binding pocket that are essential for Msh2–Msh3-mediated MMR but are largely dispensable for 3′ NHTR. In contrast, mutations in other regions gave similar phenotypes in both assays. Based on these results, we suggest that the two pathways have distinct requirements with respect to the position of the bound ATP within Msh3. We propose that the differences are related, at least in part, to the kinetics of each pathway. Proper binding and positioning of ATP is required to induce rapid conformational changes at the replication fork, but is less important when more time is available for repair, as in 3′ NHTR.

Mismatch recognition function of Arabidopsis thaliana MutSγ

Genetic stability depends in part on an efficient DNA lesion recognition and correction by the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system. In eukaryotes, MMR is initiated by the binding of heterodimeric MutS homologue (MSH) complexes, MSH2–MSH6 and MSH2–MSH3, which recognize and bind mismatches and unpaired nucleotides. Plants encode another mismatch recognition protein, named MSH7. MSH7 forms a heterodimer with MSH2 and the protein complex is designated MutSγ. We here report the effect the expression of Arabidopsis MSH2 and MSH7 alone or in combination exert on the genomic stability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. AtMSH2 and AtMutSγ proteins failed to complement the hypermutator phenotype of an msh2 deficient strain. However, overexpressing AtMutSγ in MMR proficient strains generated a 4-fold increase in CAN1 forward mutation rate, when compared to wild-type strains. Canr mutation spectrum analysis of AtMutSγ overproducing strains revealed a substantial increase in the frequency of base substitution mutations, including an increased accumulation of base pair changes from G:C to A:T and T:A to C:G, G:C or A:T. Taken together, these results suggest that AtMutSγ affects yeast genomic stability by recognizing specific mismatches and preventing correction by yeast MutSα and MutSβ, with subsequent inability to interact with yeast downstream proteins needed to complete MMR.

Mutation mismatch repair gene deletions in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

To further unravel the molecular pathogenesis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), we performed high-resolution comparative genomic hybridization on lymph node biopsies from 70 patients. With this strategy, we identified microdeletions of genes involved in the mutation mismatch repair (MMR) pathway in two samples. The first patient presented with a homozygous deletion of MSH2–MSH6 due to duplication of an unbalanced pericentric inversion of chromosome 2. The other case showed a PMS2 heterozygous deletion. PMS2 and MSH2–MSH6 abnormalities, respectively, resulted in a decrease and complete loss of gene expression. However, unlike tumors associated with the hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome or immunodeficiency-related lymphomas, no microsatellite instability was detected. Mutational profiles revealed especially in one patient an aberrant hypermutation without a clear activation-induced cytidine deaminase signature, indicating a breakdown of the high-fidelity repair in favor of the error-prone repair pathway. Our findings suggest that in a rare subset of patients, inactivation of the genes of the MMR pathway is likely an important step in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL and does not involve the same molecular mechanisms as other common neoplasms with MMR deficiency.

DNA polymerase ζ generates tandem mutations in immunoglobulin variable regions

Low-fidelity DNA polymerases introduce nucleotide substitutions in immunoglobulin variable regions during somatic hypermutation. Although DNA polymerase (pol) η is the major low-fidelity polymerase, other DNA polymerases may also contribute. Existing data are contradictory as to whether pol ζ is involved. We reasoned that the presence of pol η may mask the contribution of pol ζ, and therefore we generated mice deficient for pol η and heterozygous for pol ζ. The frequency and spectra of hypermutation was unaltered between Polζ(+/-) Polη(-/-) and Polζ(+/+) Polη(-/-) clones. However, there was a decrease in tandem double-base substitutions in Polζ(+/-) Polη(-/-) cells compared with Polζ(+/+) Polη(-/-) cells, suggesting that pol ζ generates tandem mutations. Contiguous mutations are consistent with the biochemical property of pol ζ to extend a mismatch with a second mutation. The presence of this unique signature implies that pol ζ contributes to mutational synthesis in vivo. Additionally, data on tandem mutations from wild type, Polζ(+/-), Polζ(-/-), Ung(-/-), Msh2(-/-), Msh6(-/-), and Ung(-/-) Msh2(-/-) clones suggest that pol ζ may function in the MSH2-MSH6 pathway.

Multiple Factors Insulate Msh2–Msh6 Mismatch Repair Activity from Defects in Msh2 Domain I

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is a highly conserved mutation avoidance mechanism that corrects DNA polymerase misincorporation errors. In initial steps in MMR, Msh2–Msh6 binds mispairs and small insertion/deletion loops, and Msh2–Msh3 binds larger insertion/deletion loops. The msh2Δ1 mutation, which deletes the conserved DNA-binding domain I of Msh2, does not dramatically affect Msh2–Msh6-dependent repair. In contrast, msh2Δ1 mutants show strong defects in Msh2–Msh3 functions. Interestingly, several mutations identified in patients with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer map to domain I of Msh2; none have been found in MSH3. To understand the role of Msh2 domain I in MMR, we examined the consequences of combining the msh2Δ1 mutation with mutations in two distinct regions of MSH6 and those that increase cellular mutational load (pol3-01 and rad27). These experiments reveal msh2Δ1-specific phenotypes in Msh2–Msh6 repair, with significant effects on mutation rates. In vitro assays demonstrate that msh2Δ1–Msh6 DNA binding is less specific for DNA mismatches and produces an altered footprint on a mismatch DNA substrate. Together, these results provide evidence that, in vivo, multiple factors insulate MMR from defects in domain I of Msh2 and provide insights into how mutations in Msh2 domain I may cause hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer.