4.8 Article

NBS1-CtIP-mediated DNA end resection suppresses cGAS binding to micronuclei

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 5, 页码 2681-2699

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkac079

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01AG053341, R01HL138983]
  2. Cancer Prevention andResearch Institute of Texas [RP190435]
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, UTSW, Dallas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NBS1 protein, in coordination with ATM and CtIP, functions as an upstream regulator that prevents cGAS from binding micronuclear DNA. Cells lacking NBS1 recruit cGAS to micronuclear DNA and activate its function.
Cyclic guanosine monophosphate-adenosine monophosphate synthase (cGAS) is activated in cells with defective DNA damage repair and signaling (DDR) factors, but a direct role for DDR factors in regulating cGAS activation in response to micronuclear DNA is still poorly understood. Here, we provide novel evidence that Nijmegen breakage syndrome 1 (NBS1) protein, a well-studied DNA double-strand break (DSB) sensor-in coordination with Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM), a protein kinase, and Carboxy-terminal binding protein 1 interacting protein (CtIP), a DNA end resection factor-functions as an upstream regulator that prevents cGAS from binding micronuclear DNA. When NBS1 binds to micronuclear DNA via its fork-head-associated domain, it recruits CtIP and ATM via its N- and C-terminal domains, respectively. Subsequently, ATM stabilizes NBS1's interaction with micronuclear DNA, and CtIP converts DSB ends into single-strand DNA ends; these two key events prevent cGAS from binding micronuclear DNA. Additionally, by using a cGAS tripartite system, we show that cells lacking NBS1 not only recruit cGAS to a major fraction of micronuclear DNA but also activate cGAS in response to these micronuclear DNA. Collectively, our results underscore how NBS1 and its binding partners prevent cGAS from binding micronuclear DNA, in addition to their classical functions in DDR signaling.

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