4.8 Article

Replication fork regression in vitro by the Werner syndrome protein (WRN): Holliday junction formation, the effect of leading arm structure and a potential role for WRN exonuclease activity

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 17, 页码 5729-5747

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkm561

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [G9806167] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA113371] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. Medical Research Council [G9806167] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA113371, R01 CA113371-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The premature aging and cancer-prone disease Werner syndrome stems from loss of WRN protein function. WRN deficiency causes replication abnormalities, sensitivity to certain genotoxic agents, genomic instability and early replicative senescence in primary fibroblasts. As a RecQ helicase family member, WRN is a DNA-dependent ATPase and unwinding enzyme, but also possesses strand annealing and exonuclease activities. RecQ helicases are postulated to participate in pathways responding to replication blockage, pathways possibly initiated by fork regression. In this study, a series of model replication fork substrates were used to examine the fork regression capability of WRN. Our results demonstrate that WRN catalyzes fork regression and Holliday junction formation. This process is an ATP-dependent reaction that is particularly efficient on forks containing single-stranded gaps of at least 1113 nt on the leading arm at the fork junction. Importantly, WRN exonuclease activity, by digesting the leading daughter strand, enhances regression of forks with smaller gaps on the leading arm, thus creating an optimal structure for regression. Our results suggest that the multiple activities of WRN cooperate to promote replication fork regression. These findings, along with the established cellular consequences of WRN deficiency, strongly support a role for WRN in regression of blocked replication forks.

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