4.8 Article

A role for human homologous recombination factors in suppressing microhomology-mediated end joining

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 12, 页码 5743-5757

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw326

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC PC 12003]
  2. Cancer Research UK [C5255/A15935, C38302/A12981, C34326/A13092]
  3. Clarendon Scholarship
  4. BBSRC [BB/H003371/1]
  5. BBSRC [BB/H003371/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. MRC [MC_PC_12003] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/H003371/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Cancer Research UK [19590] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_12003, MC_U142784382] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are toxic lesions, which if improperly repaired can result in cell death or genomic instability. DSB repair is usually facilitated by the classical non-homologous end joining (C-NHEJ), or homologous recombination (HR) pathways. However, a mutagenic alternative NHEJ pathway, microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ), can also be deployed. While MMEJ is suppressed by C-NHEJ, the relationship between HR and MMEJ is less clear. Here, we describe a role for HR genes in suppressing MMEJ in human cells. By monitoring DSB mis-repair using a sensitive HPRT assay, we found that depletion of HR proteins, including BRCA2, BRCA1 or RPA, resulted in a distinct mutational signature associated with significant increases in break-induced mutation frequencies, deletion lengths and the annealing of short regions of microhomology (2-6 bp) across the break-site. This signature was dependent on CtIP, MRE11, POLQ and PARP, and thus indicative of MMEJ. In contrast to CtIP or MRE11, depletion of BRCA1 resulted in increased partial resection and MMEJ, thus revealing a functional distinction between these early acting HR factors. Together these findings indicate that HR factors suppress mutagenic MMEJ following DSB resection.

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