4.6 Article

Histone chaperone ASF1 acts with RIF1 to promote DNA end joining in BRCA1-deficient cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 298, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbc.2022.101979

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas [RP160667, RP180813]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01CA210929, R01CA216911, R01CA216437]
  3. Pamela and Wayne Garrison Distinguished Chair in Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ASF1 associates with RIF1 and regulates its functions in the DNA damage response, restoring homologous recombination in BRCA1-deficient cells and decreasing telomere fusion in TRF2-depleted cells.
Replication timing regulatory factor 1 (RIF1) acts downstream of p53-binding protein 53BP1 to inhibit the resection of DNA broken ends, which plays critical roles in determining the DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice between nonhomologous end joining and homologous recombination (HR). However, the mechanism by which this choice is made is not yet clear. In this study, we identified that histone chaperone protein ASF1 associates with RIF1 and regulates RIF1-dependent functions in the DNA damage response. Similar to loss of RIF1, we found that loss of ASF1 resulted in resistance to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in BRCA1-deficient cells with restored HR and decreased telomere fusion in telomeric repeat-binding protein 2 (TRF2)-depleted cells. Moreover, we showed that these functions of ASF1 are dependent on its interaction with RIF1 but not on its histone chaperone activity. Thus, our study supports a new role for ASF1 in dictating double-strand break repair choice. Considering that the status of 53BP1-RIF1 axis is important in determining the outcome of PARP inhibitor-based therapy in BRCA1- or HR-deficient cancers, the identification of ASF1 function in this critical pathway uncovers an interesting connection between these S-phase events, which may reveal new strategies to overcome PARP inhibitor resistance.

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

4.6
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