Search

We show that the rates of single base substitutions, additions, and deletions across the nuclear genome are strongly increased in a strain harboring a mutator variant of DNA polymerase α combined with a mutation that inactivates the 3´-5´ exonuclease activity of DNA polymerase δ. Moreover, tetrad dissections attempting to produce a haploid triple mutant lacking Msh6, which is essential for DNA mismatch repair (MMR) of base•base mismatches made during replication, result in tiny colonies that grow very slowly and appear to be aneuploid and/or defective in oxidative metabolism. These observations are consistent with the hypothesis that during initiation of nuclear DNA replication, single-base mismatches made by naturally exonuclease-deficient DNA polymerase α are extrinsically proofread by DNA polymerase δ, such that in the absence of this proofreading, the mutation rate is strongly elevated. Several implications of these data are discussed, including that the mutational signature of defective extrinsic proofreading in yeast could appear in human tumors. • Errors by Pol α variant, Pol1-L868M, are proofread by Pol δ across the yeast genome. • Indels by Pol α in long homopolymer runs are preferentially repaired by Pol δ. • Haploid pol1-L868M pol3–5DV msh6Δ yeast approach error catastrophe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proofreading and DNA repair are important factors in maintaining the high fidelity of genetic information during DNA replication. Herein, we designed a non-labeled and non-radio-isotopic simple method to measure proofreading. An oligonucleotide primer is annealed to a template DNA forming a mismatched site and is proofread by Klenow fragment of Escherichia coli DNA polymerase I (pol I) in the presence of all four dideoxyribonucleotide triphosphates. The proofreading excision products and re-synthesis products of single nucleotide extension are subjected to MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MS). The proofreading at the mismatched site is identified by the mass change of the primer. We examined proofreading of Klenow fragment with DNAs containing various base mismatches. Single mismatches at the primer terminus can be proofread efficiently. Internal single mismatches can also be proofread at different efficiencies, with the best correction for mismatches located 2–4-nucleotides from the primer terminus. For mismatches located 5-nucleotides from the primer terminus there was partial correction and extension. No significant proofreading was observed for mismatches located 6–9-nucleotides from the primer terminus. We also subjected primers containing 3′ penultimate deoxyinosine (dI) lesions, which mimic endonuclease V nicked repair intermediates, to pol I repair assay. The results showed that T-I was a better substrate than G-I and A-I, however C-I was refractory to repair. The high resolution of MS results clearly demonstrated that all the penultimate T-I, G-I and A-I substrates had been excised last 2 dI-containing nucleotides by pol I before adding a correct ddNMP, however, pol I proofreading exonuclease tolerated the penultimate C-I mismatch allowing the primer to be extended by polymerase activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapeutic nucleoside analogs, such as cytarabine (Ara-C), are incorporated into genomic DNA during replication. Incorporated Ara-CMP (Ara-cytidine monophosphate) serves as a chain terminator and inhibits DNA synthesis by replicative polymerase epsilon (Polε). The proofreading exonuclease activity of Polε removes the misincorporated Ara-CMP, thereby contributing to the cellular tolerance to Ara-C. Purified Polε performs proofreading, and it is generally believed that proofreading in vivo does not need additional factors. In this study, we demonstrated that the proofreading by Polε in vivo requires CTF18, a component of the leading-strand replisome. We found that loss of CTF18 in chicken DT40 cells and human TK6 cells results in hypersensitivity to Ara-C, indicating the conserved function of CTF18 in the cellular tolerance of Ara-C. Strikingly, we found that proofreading-deficient POLE1 D269A/-, CTF18 -/-, and POLE1 D269A/ - /CTF18 -/- cells showed indistinguishable phenotypes, including the extent of hypersensitivity to Ara-C and decreased replication rate with Ara-C. This observed epistatic relationship between POLE1 D269A/- and CTF18 -/- suggests that they are interdependent in removing mis-incorporated Ara-CMP from the 3' end of primers. Mechanistically, we found that CTF18 -/- cells have reduced levels of chromatin-bound Polε upon Ara-C treatment, suggesting that CTF18 contributes to the tethering of Polε on fork at the stalled end and thereby facilitating the removal of inserted Ara-C. Collectively, these data reveal the previously unappreciated role of CTF18 in Polε-exonuclease-mediated maintenance of the replication fork upon Ara-C incorporation. • CTF18 plays a role in the Polε-exonuclease-dependent removal of CTNAs from the genome. • CTF18 and Polε-exonuclease prevent replication fork collapse by Ara-C. • CTF18 is required for the continued replication after Ara-CMP incorporation. • CTF18 stabilizes Polε on chromatin promoting removal of incorporated Ara-CMP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fidelity of DNA replication relies on three error avoidance mechanisms acting in series: nucleotide selectivity of replicative DNA polymerases, exonucleolytic proofreading, and post-replicative DNA mismatch repair (MMR). MMR defects are well known to be associated with increased cancer incidence. Due to advances in DNA sequencing technologies, the past several years have witnessed a long-predicted discovery of replicative DNA polymerase defects in sporadic and hereditary human cancers. The polymerase mutations preferentially affect conserved amino acid residues in the exonuclease domain and occur in tumors with an extremely high mutation load. Thus, a concept has formed that defective proofreading of replication errors triggers the development of these tumors. Recent studies of the most common DNA polymerase variants, however, suggested that their pathogenicity may be determined by functional alterations other than loss of proofreading. In this review, we summarize our current understanding of the consequences of DNA polymerase mutations in cancers and the mechanisms of their mutator effects. We also discuss likely explanations for a high recurrence of some but not other polymerase variants and new ideas for therapeutic interventions emerging from the mechanistic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The high fidelity of replication of the nuclear DNA genome in eukaryotes involves three processes. Correct rather than incorrect dNTPs are almost always incorporated by the three major replicases, DNA polymerases α, δ and ε. When an incorrect base is occasionally inserted, the latter Pols δ and ε also have a 3 ´ to 5 ´ exonuclease activity that can remove the mismatch to allow correct DNA synthesis to proceed. Lastly, rare mismatches that escape proofreading activity and are present in newly replicated DNA can be removed by DNA mismatch repair. In this review, we consider evidence supporting the hypothesis that the second mechanism, proofreading, can operate in two different ways. Primer terminal mismatches made by either Pol δ or Pol ε can be 'intrinsically' proofread. This mechanism occurs by direct transfer of a misinserted base made at the polymerase active site to the exonuclease active site that is located a short distance away. Intrinsic proofreading allows mismatch excision without intervening enzyme dissociation. Alternatively, considerable evidence suggests that mismatches made by any of the three replicases can also be proofread by 'extrinsic' proofreading by Pol δ. Extrinsic proofreading occurs when a mismatch made by any of the three replicases is initially abandoned, thereby allowing the exonuclease active site of Pol δ to bind directly to and remove the mismatch before replication continues. Here we review the evidence that extrinsic proofreading significantly enhances the fidelity of nuclear DNA replication, and we then briefly consider the implications of this process for evolution and disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In both budding and fission yeast, a large number of ribonucleotides are incorporated into DNA during replication by the major replicative polymerases (Pols α, δ and ɛ). They are subsequently removed by RNase H2-dependent repair, which if defective leads to replication stress and genome instability. To extend these studies to humans, where an RNase H2 defect results in an autoimmune disease, here we compare the ability of human and yeast Pol δ to incorporate, proofread, and bypass ribonucleotides during DNA synthesis. In reactions containing nucleotide concentrations estimated to be present in mammalian cells, human Pol δ stably incorporates one rNTP for approximately 2000 dNTPs, a ratio similar to that for yeast Pol δ. This result predicts that human Pol δ may introduce more than a million ribonucleotides into the nuclear genome per replication cycle, an amount recently reported to be present in the genome of RNase H2-defective mouse cells. Consistent with such abundant stable incorporation, we show that the 3′-exonuclease activity of yeast and human Pol δ largely fails to edit ribonucleotides during polymerization. We also show that, like yeast Pol δ, human Pol δ pauses as it bypasses ribonucleotides in DNA templates, with four consecutive ribonucleotides in a DNA template being more problematic than single ribonucleotides. In conjunction with recent studies in yeast and mice, this ribonucleotide incorporation may be relevant to impaired development and disease when RNase H2 is defective in mammals. As one tool to investigate ribonucleotide incorporation by Pol δ in human cells, we show that human Pol δ containing a Leu606Met substitution in the polymerase active site incorporates 7-fold more ribonucleotides into DNA than does wild type Pol δ. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We have investigated the ability of the 3′ exonuclease activity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA polymerase ɛ (Pol ɛ) to proofread newly inserted ribonucleotides (rNMPs). During DNA synthesis in vitro, Pol ɛ proofreads ribonucleotides with apparent efficiencies that vary from none at some locations to more than 90% at others, with rA and rU being more efficiently proofread than rC and rG. Previous studies show that failure to repair ribonucleotides in the genome of rnh201Δ strains that lack RNase H2 activity elevates the rate of short deletions in tandem repeat sequences. Here we show that this rate is increased by 2–4-fold in pol2-4 rnh201Δ strains that are also defective in Pol ɛ proofreading. In comparison, defective proofreading in these same strains increases the rate of base substitutions by more than 100-fold. Collectively, the results indicate that although proofreading of an ‘incorrect’ sugar is less efficient than is proofreading of an incorrect base, Pol ɛ does proofread newly inserted rNMPs to enhance genome stability. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: A fundamental question in DNA repair is how a mismatched or modified base is detected when embedded in millions to billions of normal base pairs. A survey of the literature and structural database reveals a common feature in all repair protein-DNA complexes: the DNA double helix is discontinuous at a lesion site due to base unstacking, kinking and/or nucleotide extrusion. Lesions induce destabilization and distortion of short linear DNAs, and underwinding in negatively supercoiled DNA presumably could compound the reduced stability caused by a lesion. A hypothesis is thus put forward that DNA lesion recognition occurs in two steps. Repair proteins initially recognize the weakened base stacking, and thus a flexible hinge at a DNA lesion. Sampling of flexible hinges rather than all DNA base pairs can reduce the task of finding a lesion by two to three orders of magnitude, from searching millions base pairs to thousands. After the initial encounter, a repair protein scrutinizes the shape, hydrogen bonding and electrostatic potentials of bases at the flexible hinge and dissociates if it is not a correct substrate. MutS, which has a broad range of substrates, actively dissociates from non-specific binding via an ATP-dependent proofreading mechanism. A single lesion may thus be sampled by BER, NER and MMR proteins until repaired. This proposition immediately suggests a mechanism for crosstalk between different repair and signaling pathways. It also raises the possibility that sampling of a lesion by one protein could facilitate loading of another by direct protein–protein or DNA mediated interactions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Organisms control the specificity and frequency with which they mutate via their complement of proteins. The mismatch repair (MMR) proteins correct errors after they are made. The DNA polymerases of the cell determine the response to damaged DNA which has not been repaired by excision. Polymerase action can be considered as consisting of three main steps: addition of a base, proofreading of the added nucleotide and elongation. Each of these steps is kinetically complex and can be modulated. The modulation accounts for different behaviors of organisms in response to stress. The recent findings of DNA polymerases with properties appropriate for dealing with damaged DNA may help to account for the phenomenon of spontaneous mutation and for the hypermutability associated with immunoglobulin maturation and carcinogenesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A high resolution MALDI-TOF MS based assay were applied for the polI Klenow Fragment proofreading of indel errors. • Two approaches were used with reactions containing either 4 ddNTPs or 3 dNTPs to analyze proofreading products in detail. • KF proofreads Indel errors located 1–5-nucleotides (nt) from the primer terminus with high efficiency. • Indel errors located 7-9-nt from the primer terminus escape proofreading and are elongated by KF. Small nucleotide insertion/deletion (indel) errors are one of the common replication errors in DNA synthesis. The most frequent occurrence of indel error was thought to be due to repeated sequences being prone to slippage during DNA replication. Proofreading and DNA mismatch repair are important factors in indel error correction to maintain the high fidelity of genetic information transactions. We employed a MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MS) analysis to measure the efficiency of Klenow polymerase (KF) proofreading of indel errors. Herein, a non-labeled and non-radio-isotopic oligonucleotide primer is annealed to a template DNA forming a single nucleotide indel error and was proofread by KF in the presence of a combination of different deoxyribonucleotide triphosphates and/or dideoxyribonucleotide triphosphates. The proofreading products were identified by the KF modified mass change of the primer. We examined proofreading of DNAs containing indel errors at various positions of the primer-template junction. We found that indel errors located 1–5-nucleotides (nt) from the primer terminus can be proofread efficiently, while insertion/deletions at 6-nt from the 3' end are partially corrected and extended. Indels located 7–9-nt from the primer terminus escape proofreading and are elongated by polymerase. The possible underlying mechanisms of these observations are discussed in the context of the polymerase and primer-template junction interactions via a structure analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]