4.1 Review

Regulation of repair pathway choice at two-ended DNA double-strand breaks

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2017.07.011

关键词

DSB; NHEJ; HR; Two-ended DSB; BRCA1; 53BP1

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP26670549, JP26701005]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26701005] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A DNA double-strand break (DSB) is considered to be a critical DNA lesion because its misrepair can cause severe mutations, such as deletions or chromosomal translocations. For the precise repair of DSBs, the repair pathway that is optimal for the particular circumstance needs to be selected. Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) functions in G(1)/S/G(2) phase, while homologous recombination (HR) becomes active only in S/G(2) phase after DNA replication. DSB end structure is another factor affecting the repair pathway. For example, one-ended DSBs in S phase are mainly repaired by HR due to the lack of a partner DSB end for NHEJ. In contrast, two-ended DSBs, which are mainly induced by ionizing radiation, are repaired by either NHEJ or HR in G(2) cells. Under the current model in terms of DSB repair pathway usage in G(2) phase, NHEJ repairs similar to 70% of two-ended DSBs, whereas HR repairs only similar to 30%. Recent studies propose that NHEJ factors can bind all the DSB ends and are then either used to progress that pathway of DSB repair, or the repair proceeds by HR. In addition, molecular regulation by BRCA1 and 53BP1 has also been proposed. At DSB sites, BRCA1 functions to alleviate the 53BP1 barrier to resection by promoting 53BP1 dephosphorylation, followed by RIF1 release and 53BP1 repositioning. This timely 53BP1 repositioning may be important for the establishment of a chromatin environment that promotes the recruitment of EXO1 for resection in HR. This review summarizes current knowledge on factors regulating DSB repair pathway choice in terms of spatiotemporal regulation by focusing on the repair events at two-ended DSBs in G(2) cells.

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

4.1
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