4.8 Article

Strong suppression of gene conversion with increasing DNA double-strand break load delimited by 53BP1 and RAD52

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 1905-1924

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz1167

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) [02S8254, 02S8467, 03NUK005C, 02NUK043B]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG [GRK1739, IL51-11-1]
  3. BMBF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vertebrates, genomic DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are removed by non-homologous end-joining processes: classical non-homologous end-joining (c-NHEJ) and alternative end-joining (alt-EJ); or by homology-dependent processes: gene-conversion (GC) and single-strand annealing (SSA). Surprisingly, these repair pathways are not real alternative options restoring genome integrity with equal efficiency, but show instead striking differences in speed, accuracy and cell-cycle-phase dependence. As a consequence, engagement of one pathway may be associated with processing-risks for the genome absent from another pathway. Characterization of engagement-parameters and their consequences is, therefore, essential for understanding effects on the genome of DSB-inducing agents, such as ionizin-gradiation (IR). Here, by addressing pathway selection in G(2)-phase, we discover regulatory confinements in GC with consequences for SSA- and c-NHEJ-engagement. We show pronounced suppression of GC with increasing DSB-load that is not due to RAD51 availability and which is delimited but not defined by 53BP1 and RAD52. Strikingly, at low DSB-loads, GC repairs similar to 50% of DSBs, whereas at high DSB-loads its contribution is undetectable. Notably, with increasing DSB-load and the associated suppression of GC, SSA gains ground, while alt-EJ is suppressed. These observations explain earlier, apparently contradictory results and advance our understanding of logic and mechanisms underpinning the wiring between DSB repair pathways.

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