4.8 Article

PARP3 affects the relative contribution of homologous recombination and nonhomologous end-joining pathways

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 5616-5632

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku174

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  2. Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer
  3. Electricite de France
  4. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  5. Universite de Strasbourg
  6. National Institutes of Health [R01 GM073894]
  7. French government
  8. Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (Equipe Labellisee)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The repair of toxic double-strand breaks (DSB) is critical for the maintenance of genome integrity. The major mechanisms that cope with DSB are: homologous recombination (HR) and classical or alternative nonhomologous end joining (C-NHEJ versus A-EJ). Because these pathways compete for the repair of DSB, the choice of the appropriate repair pathway is pivotal. Among the mechanisms that influence this choice, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) end resection plays a critical role by driving cells to HR, while accurate C-NHEJ is suppressed. Furthermore, end resection promotes error-prone A-EJ. Increasing evidence define Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 3 (PARP3, also known as ARTD3) as an important player in cellular response to DSB. In this work, we reveal a specific feature of PARP3 that together with Ku80 limits DNA end resection and thereby helps in making the choice between HR and NHEJ pathways. PARP3 interacts with and PARylates Ku70/Ku80. The depletion of PARP3 impairs the recruitment of YFP-Ku80 to laser-induced DNA damage sites and induces an imbalance between BRCA1 and 53BP1. Both events result in compromised accurate C-NHEJ and a concomitant increase in DNA end resection. Nevertheless, HR is significantly reduced upon PARP3 silencing while the enhanced end resection causes mutagenic deletions during A-EJ. As a result, the absence of PARP3 confers hypersensitivity to anti-tumoral drugs generating DSB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据