4.8 Article

Homology directed telomere clustering, ultrabright telomere formation and nuclear envelope rupture in cells lacking TRF2B and RAP1

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37761-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals that the basic domain of TRF2 (TRF2(B)) and RAP1 cooperate to repress homology directed repair (HDR) at telomeres and prevent the formation of ultrabright telomere structures.
Double-strand breaks (DSBs) due to genotoxic stress represent potential threats to genome stability. Dysfunctional telomeres are recognized as DSBs and are repaired by distinct DNA repair mechanisms. RAP1 and TRF2 are telomere binding proteins essential to protect telomeres from engaging in homology directed repair (HDR), but how this occurs remains unclear. In this study, we examined how the basic domain of TRF2 (TRF2(B)) and RAP1 cooperate to repress HDR at telomeres. Telomeres lacking TRF2(B) and RAP1 cluster into structures termed ultrabright telomeres (UTs). HDR factors localize to UTs, and UT formation is abolished by RNaseH1, DDX21 and ADAR1p110, suggesting that they contain DNA-RNA hybrids. Interaction between the BRCT domain of RAP1 and KU70/KU80 is also required to repress UT formation. Expressing TRF2( increment B) in Rap1(-/-) cells resulted in aberrant lamin A localization in the nuclear envelope and dramatically increased UT formation. Expressing lamin A phosphomimetic mutants induced nuclear envelope rupturing and aberrant HDR-mediated UT formation. Our results highlight the importance of shelterin and proteins in the nuclear envelope in repressing aberrant telomere-telomere recombination to maintain telomere homeostasis. The telomere binding proteins RAP1 and TRF2 protect telomeres from engaging in homology directed repair (HDR). In this study, the authors reveal that the basic domain of TRF2 (TRF2B) and RAP 1 cooperate to repress HDR at telomeres and prevent formation ultrabright telomere structures.

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