4.8 Article

XRCC1 prevents toxic PARP1 trapping during DNA base excision repair

期刊

MOLECULAR CELL
卷 81, 期 14, 页码 3018-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.05.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [MR/P010121/1]
  2. ERC advanced investigator award (SIDSCA) [694996]
  3. Ministry of Education, Science, Sport and Culture [KAKENHI 25650006, 23221005, 16H06306]
  4. Takeda Research
  5. Mitsubishi Foundation
  6. JSPS
  7. NIH/NCI [R01CA226852]
  8. MRC [MR/P010121/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. European Research Council (ERC) [694996] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PARPs and XRCC1 accelerate mammalian DNA base excision repair (BER), where XRCC1 prevents excessive PARP1 engagement during BER and traps PARP1 on BER intermediates. Excessive PARP1 engagement poses a threat to genome integrity, while XRCC1 acts as an anti-trapper preventing toxic PARP1 activity. Deletion of PARP1 rescues BER and resistance to base damage in XRCC1-deficient cells.
Mammalian DNA base excision repair (BER) is accelerated by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) and the scaffold protein XRCC1. PARPs are sensors that detect single-strand break intermediates, but the critical role of XRCC1 during BER is unknown. Here, we show that protein complexes containing DNA polymerase beta and DNA ligase III that are assembled by XRCC1 prevent excessive engagement and activity of PARP1 during BER. As a result, PARP1 becomes trapped on BER intermediates in XRCC1-deficient cells in a manner similar to that induced by PARP inhibitors, including in patient fibroblasts from XRCC1-mutated disease. This excessive PARP1 engagement and trapping renders BER intermediates inaccessible to enzymes such as DNA polymerase beta and impedes their repair. Consequently, PARP1 deletion rescues BER and resistance to base damage in XRCC1(-/-) cells. These data reveal excessive PARP1 engagement during BER as a threat to genome integrity and identify XRCC1 as an anti-trapper that prevents toxic PARP1 activity.

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