MCB
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haracska, L.
Right arrow Articles by Prakash, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haracska, L.
Right arrow Articles by Prakash, S.

Molecular and Cellular Biology, November 2001, p. 7199-7206, Vol. 21, No. 21
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.21.7199-7206.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Physical and Functional Interactions of Human DNA Polymerase eta  with PCNA

Lajos Haracska,1 Robert E. Johnson,1 Ildiko Unk,1 Barbara Phillips,2 Jerard Hurwitz,2 Louise Prakash,1 and Satya Prakash1,*

Sealy Center for Molecular Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-1061,1 and Department of Molecular Biology and Virology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021-60072

Received 5 July 2001/Returned for modification 20 July 2001/Accepted 27 July 2001


    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Human DNA polymerase eta  (hPoleta ) functions in the error-free replication of UV-damaged DNA, and mutations in hPoleta cause cancer-prone syndrome, the variant form of xeroderma pigmentosum. However, in spite of its key role in promoting replication through a variety of distorting DNA lesions, the manner by which hPoleta is targeted to the replication machinery stalled at a lesion site remains unknown. Here, we provide evidence for the physical interaction of hPoleta with proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and show that mutations in the PCNA binding motif of hPoleta inactivate this interaction. PCNA, together with replication factor C and replication protein A, stimulates the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta , and steady-state kinetic studies indicate that this stimulation accrues from an increase in the efficiency of nucleotide insertion resulting from a reduction in the apparent Km for the incoming nucleotide.


    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References

DNA polymerase eta  (Poleta ) is unique among eukaryotic DNA polymerases in its proficient ability to replicate through distorting DNA lesions. Both in yeast and in humans, Poleta functions in the error-free replication of UV-damaged DNA (19, 26, 34, 39), and mutations in human Poleta (hPoleta ) result in cancer-prone syndrome, the variant form of xeroderma pigmentosum (XP-V) (17, 25). Interestingly, both yeast Poleta and hPoleta replicate through a cis-syn thymine-thymine (TT) dimer with the same efficiency and accuracy as they replicate through undamaged T's (18, 21, 37). Also, genetic studies with yeast have indicated a role for Poleta in the error-free bypass of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers that are formed at 5'-TC-3' and 5'-CC-3' sites (40). Poleta also promotes replication through a (6-4) TT photoproduct, a highly distorting DNA lesion, by preferentially inserting a G residue opposite the 3' T of the photoproduct. Subsequently, Polzeta efficiently promotes extension from the G residue by inserting the correct nucleotide, A, opposite the 5' T of the lesion (16). Although the insertion of a G opposite the 3' T of the (6-4) TT photoproduct would cause 3' Tright-arrowC substitutions, it was previously suggested that a similar insertion of G by Poleta opposite the 3' C of the 5'-TC-3' and 5'-CC-3' (6-4) photoproducts, followed by extension by Polzeta by the insertion of the correct nucleotide opposite the 5' residue of this lesion, would lead to error-free bypass of the DNA lesion (16). Since (6-4) photoproducts are formed much more frequently at TC and CC sites than at TT sites (4, 6), Poleta would largely contribute to the error-free bypass of (6-4) lesions as well. Yeast Poleta and hPoleta also efficiently replicate through other DNA lesions, such as 8-oxoguanine (15) and O6-methylguanine (13).

The ability of Poleta to replicate through distorting DNA lesions has suggested that the active site of Poleta is tolerant of geometric distortions introduced into DNA by these lesions. As a consequence, Poleta is a low-fidelity enzyme, and on undamaged DNA, the yeast and human enzymes misincorporate nucleotides with a frequency of 10-2 to 10-3 (21, 38). In sharp contrast, replicative DNA polymerases exhibit a much higher fidelity, misinserting nucleotides with a frequency of 10-4 to 10-7 (3, 8, 33). However, because of their enhanced sensitivity to geometric distortions in DNA (9), these polymerases are unable to replicate through DNA lesions.

Although hPoleta plays a critical role in the error-free replication of UV-damaged DNA and thus prevents the formation of sunlight-induced skin cancers, the manner by which this polymerase gains access to the replication machinery stalled at a lesion site is not known. Here, we examine the role of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) in promoting the access of hPoleta to the replication machinery. PCNA, a ring-shaped homotrimeric protein, forms a sliding clamp at the primer-template junction. PCNA is loaded onto DNA by the multiprotein clamp loader, replication factor C (RFC), which couples ATP hydrolysis to open and close the PCNA ring around the DNA. Replication protein A (RPA) binds single-stranded DNA, and after the loading of PCNA, RFC stays on DNA via its interaction with RPA (2, 22, 41). The replicative DNA polymerase, Poldelta , then assembles with the PCNA ring, and this association endows the polymerase with a high processivity (30, 32). However, because of its inability to replicate through DNA lesions such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, Poldelta stalls at such lesion sites (18), necessitating the action of a translesion synthesis polymerase, such as Poleta . Here, we provide evidence for the physical interaction of hPoleta with PCNA and show that PCNA, together with RFC and RPA, stimulates the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta . These studies identify PCNA as a crucial element for the assembly of hPoleta into the replication machinery.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Proteins. Human PCNA (hPCNA), RFC, and RPA were purified as described previously (5, 10, 24). Six-His-tagged hPCNA, used for interaction studies, was overexpressed in Escherichia coli and purified as described previously (23). Wild-type and mutant hPoleta proteins fused with glutathione S-transferase (GST) were purified as described previously (16, 21); for the DNA synthesis studies (see Fig. 3 and 4), the GST portion was removed by treatment with PreScission protease (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).

Generation of hrad30A mutations. To generate the hrad30A F707-F708 right-arrow A707-A708 and the hrad30A (1-695) mutations, a portion of the 3' end of the hRAD30A gene was amplified by PCR using oligonucleotide N4919 (5'-GGGGTGTCGA AGCTAGAAG AATCCTCTA AAGCAACTCC-3' (17) and mutagenic oligonucleotides N7819 (5'-CCTGGGATCC TAATGTGTTA ATGGCTTAG CAGCTGATTC CAATGTTTG CATGCCC-3') and N7820 (5'-CTTGGGATCC TAGCGTTTAT TAGTGCAGGC CAAAGGGCTC-3'), respectively. The hrad30A (1-695) mutant gene encodes only amino acid residues 1 to 695. A 223-bp Asp718/BamHI PCR fragment containing the hRAD30A F707-F708 right-arrow A707-A708 mutation and a 169-bp Asp718/BamHI PCR fragment containing the hrad30A (1-695) mutation were cloned into plasmid YIplac211, generating plasmids pBJ835 and pBJ840, respectively. The cloned PCR fragments in pBJ835 and pBJ840 were sequenced to confirm the presence of the mutations. Subsequently, an Asp718 DNA fragment containing the rest of the hRAD30A gene was cloned into plasmids pBJ835 and pBJ840; the hRAD30A open reading frame was restored, but either the hrad30A A707-A708 or the hrad30A (1-695) mutation was retained. Each hrad30A mutant gene was cloned in frame with the GST gene under the control of the galactose-inducible phosphoglycerate kinase promoter in pBJ842, generating plasmids pBJ867 and pBJ868, respectively. For the yeast two-hybrid analysis, the hrad30A (1-695) and hrad30A A707-A708 mutant genes and the wild-type hRAD30A gene were cloned in frame with the GAL4 DNA binding domain (BD) (amino acid residues 1 to 147) in plasmid pAS1, and the resulting plasmids were designated pR30.219, pR30.220, and pR30.218, respectively. Also, for these studies, hPCNA was cloned in frame with the GAL4 activation domain (AD) in plasmid pPCNA1.32.

DNA polymerase assays. The circular DNA substrate used for some of the DNA synthesis studies (see Fig. 3A) was a 7.2-kb M13mp18 single-stranded DNA primed with a nonlabeled 36-nucleotide oligomer spanning nucleotides 6330 to 6294. For the processivity assays shown in Fig. 3B and the kinetic studies shown in Fig. 4, we used a single-stranded M13-derived (M13mp7L2) DNA primed with a 5' 32P-labeled oligomer primer, LP-097, 5'-GGGTAACGCCAGGGTTTTCCCAGTCACGACGTTGTAAAACGACGGCCAG-3'. The standard DNA polymerase reaction mixture (10 µl) contained 40 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5); 8 mM MgCl2; 150 mM NaCl; 1 mM dithiothreitol; 100 µg of bovine serum albumin/ml; 500 µM ATP; and 100 µM each dGTP, dATP, dTTP, and dCTP. For reactions with a circular DNA substrate primed with a nonlabeled oligonucleotide (see Fig. 3A), alpha -32P-labeled dATP (final dATP concentration, ~200 to 500 cpm/pmol) was added. When needed, wild-type or mutant hPoleta (10 ng), PCNA (100 ng), RFC (50 ng), and/or RPA (250 ng) was incubated with 25 ng of M13 DNA substrate. Assays were assembled on ice and incubated at 37°C for 10 min, and the reaction was stopped by the addition of loading buffer (40 µl) containing EDTA (20 mM), 95% formamide, 0.3% bromphenol blue, and 0.3% cyanol blue. The reaction products were resolved on 10% polyacrylamide gels containing 8 M urea. Quantitation of the results was done using a Molecular Dynamics STORM PhosphorImager and ImageQuant software.

Processivity assays. hPoleta (10 ng) was preincubated with a circular M13 primer-template DNA substrate (50 ng) in standard reaction buffer, which contained no deoxynucleotides, for 5 min at 37°C. Reactions were initiated by adding all four deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs) (500 µM each) or all four dNTPs plus excess sonicated herring sperm DNA (0.5 mg/ml) as a trap. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the trap, hPoleta was preincubated with the DNA trap and the primer-template substrate before the addition of dNTPs.

Steady-state kinetic analyses. Steady-state kinetic analyses for deoxynucleotide incorporation opposite an A or a C site were performed as described previously (7, 11). Briefly, hPoleta alone or in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA was incubated with increasing concentrations of a single dNTP for 10 min under standard reaction conditions. In the running-start assay, each reaction included dTTP (15 µM). Gel band intensities of the substrates and products were quantitated with a PhosphorImager, and the percentage of primer extension was plotted as a function of dNTP concentration. The data were fit by nonlinear regression, using SigmaPlot 5.0, to the Michaelis-Menten equation describing a hyperbola, v = (Vmax × [dNTP])/(Km+ [dNTP]). Apparent Km and Vmax steady-state parameters were obtained from the fit and used to calculate the efficiency of deoxynucleotide incorporation (Vmax/Km).

Physical interaction of hPoleta with PCNA. To make complexes, wild-type or mutant GST-hPoleta proteins (4 µg) were mixed with six-His-hPCNA (4 µg) in 75 µl of buffer I [50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM Tris(2 carboxyethyl)-phosphine-HCl, 0.01% Nonidet P-40, 10% glycerol] and incubated for 30 min at 4°C followed by 10 min at 25°C. Subsequently, to 25 µl of these samples, either 10 µl of glutathione-Sepharose (Pharmacia) beads or 10 µl of Ni-nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) (Qiagen) beads was added to bind GST-Poleta or six-His-PCNA and their complexes, respectively. The samples were further incubated with rocking for 30 min at 4°C. The glutathione-Sepharose and Ni-NTA beads were washed five times each with buffer I, followed by elution of the bound proteins with buffer I containing 40 mM glutathione and 500 mM imidazole, respectively. All protein samples, including the protein mixture before the addition of affinity beads, the flowthrough plus wash fractions, and the eluted proteins, were precipitated with 5% trichloroacetic acetic acid (TCA) and separated on a sodium dodecyl sulfate-12% polyacrylamide gel followed by Coomassie blue R-250 staining.

Two-hybrid analyses. The HF7c yeast cell line was transformed with the GAL4 BD-hPoleta and theGAL4 AD-hPCNA fusion constructs. Transformants harboring both the GAL4 BD-hPoleta and the GAL4 AD-hPCNA fusion constructs were grown on synthetic complete media lacking leucine and tryptophan. beta -Galactosidase activity was examined to determine the interaction between hPoleta and PCNA as described in the Clontech Yeast Protocols Handbook (PT3024-1; chapter VI). Experiments were performed at least three times with triplicate samples.


    RESULTS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Generating mutations in the PCNA binding motif of hPoleta . Many proteins involved in DNA replication and repair contain a consensus PCNA binding motif, QXX(I, L, or M)XXF(F or Y) (22, 35), and structural and mutational studies have indicated the involvement of the conserved hydrophobic residues within this motif in the interaction with PCNA (27, 31, 36). In the protein sequence of hPoleta , the product of the human RAD30A gene, a putative PCNA binding sequence, Q-TLESFF, is located at the extreme C terminus and encompasses residues 702 to 708 of the 713-amino-acid protein (Fig. 1). To test if this motif was involved in the interaction of hPoleta with PCNA, two mutations in the hRAD30A gene were generated, rad30A (1-695) and rad30A A707-A708. In the hPoleta (1-695) protein, the C-terminal 18 amino acids, including the conserved F707 and F708 residues of the putative PCNA binding motif (Fig. 1B), have been removed, whereas in the hPoleta A707-A708 protein, both of these phenylalanine residues have been changed to alanines (Fig. 1B). The wild-type and mutant hPoleta proteins were expressed in yeast as GST fusion proteins. During purification, the mutant hPoleta proteins displayed the same chromatographic properties as the wild-type protein, and the proteins were at least 95% pure, as judged from Coomassie blue staining (data not shown). To rule out the possibility that the mutations caused improper folding, the DNA polymerase activities of the wild-type and mutant hPoleta proteins were compared. Running start-DNA synthesis reactions were carried out using a linear DNA substrate either containing or not containing a cis-syn TT dimer. The wild-type and mutant hPoleta (1-695) and hPoleta A707-A708 proteins displayed identical DNA polymerase and TT dimer bypass activities (data not shown).


View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.   PCNA binding motif of hPoleta . (A) C-terminal amino acids 699 to 712 of hPoleta are aligned with the PCNA binding motifs identified in various PCNA binding proteins. The highly conserved residues are shown in bold. Hs, human; Sc, S. cerevisiae. (B) Mutations made in the PCNA binding motif of hPoleta . In the schematic representation of hPoleta , the five highly conserved motifs (I to V) shared among different members of the Poleta /UmuC/DinB protein family are indicated, and the C2H2 motif conserved in the Poleta family is shown (20). The amino acid residues present in the extreme C-terminal region are shown; the amino acids highly conserved in the consensus PCNA binding motif are shown in bold. In the hPoleta (1-695) mutant protein, the last 18 amino acids from the C terminus were deleted (indicated by an arrow). In the hPoleta A707-A708 mutant protein, the F residues at positions 707 and 708 (indicated by asterisks) were changed to A residues.

Interaction of hPoleta with PCNA---two-hybrid analysis. We used the yeast two-hybrid system to examine the interaction of hPoleta and hPCNA proteins in vivo. In one of the plasmids, the GAL4 BD was fused with either wild-type RAD30A or mutant rad30 (1-695) or rad30 A707-A708 open reading frames, and in the other plasmid, the GAL4 AD was fused with hPCNA. The HF7c yeast reporter strain harboring the GAL4 AD-hPCNA plasmid was transformed with one of the GAL4 BD-hPoleta plasmids. The expression of GAL4 BD-hPoleta fusion proteins was confirmed by immunoblotting using anti-hPoleta antibodies (data not shown). The interaction of the wild-type and mutant hPoleta proteins with PCNA in these transformants was analyzed by a beta -galactosidase liquid assay, and the results are summarized in Table 1. Compared to the low level of beta -galactosidase activity detected with the wild-type GAL4 BD-hPoleta protein and the GAL4 AD protein, the wild-type GAL4 BD-hPoleta protein showed a strong interaction with PCNA bound to GAL4 AD, resulting in 21-fold higher level of beta -galactosidase activity. Deletion or point mutations in the conserved PCNA binding site in the hPoleta (1-695) and hPoleta A707-A708 proteins strongly reduced the interaction between hPoleta and PCNA, yielding only a small increase in beta -galactosidase activity. These results establish an interaction of hPoleta with PCNA in vivo and show that the PCNA binding motif at the C terminus of hPoleta plays an important role in mediating this interaction.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1.   Interaction of hPoleta with hPCNA in the yeast two-hybrid system

Physical interaction of hPoleta with PCNA. Next, we examined if purified hPoleta physically interacts with purified hPCNA in vitro. Wild-type GST-hPoleta or mutant GST-hPoleta (1-695) or GST-hPoleta A707-A708 proteins were incubated with six-His-PCNA, and a pull down assay was carried out using Ni-NTA or glutathione-Sepharose affinity beads (Fig. 2). As expected, the Ni-NTA beads bound only six-His-PCNA and not GST hPoleta (Fig. 2, lanes 10 to 12) and the gluthathione-Sepharose beads bound GST-hPoleta but not six-His-PCNA (Fig. 2, lanes 22 to 24). Hence, the two proteins could be pulled down together only if they interacted with one another.


View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 2.   Poleta forms a complex with PCNA. Six-His-hPCNA (4 µg) was mixed either with wild-type GST-hPoleta protein (lanes 1 to 3 and 13 to 15) or with mutant GST-hPoleta A707-A708 (lanes 4 to 6 and 16 to 18) or GST-hPoleta (1-695) (lanes 7 to 9 and 19 to 21) protein (4 µg each). As controls, the same amounts of GST-hPoleta (lanes 10 to 12) or six-His-hPCNA (lanes 22 to 24) protein were used alone. After incubation, samples were bound to Ni-NTA (lanes 1 to 12) or glutathione-Sepharose (Seph.) (lanes 13 to 24) beads, followed by washing and elution of the bound proteins by imidazole- or glutathione-containing buffer, respectively. Aliquots of each sample before loading on the beads (L), the flowthrough and wash (F), and the eluted proteins (E) were precipitated by TCA and analyzed on a sodium dodecyl sulfate-12% polyacrylamide gel stained with Coomassie blue. The positions of GST-hPoleta and six-His-hPCNA are indicated on the right.

When six-His-PCNA was bound to the Ni-NTA beads, a large proportion of wild-type hPoleta remained bound to PCNA (Fig. 2, lanes 1 to 3); similarly, when GST-hPoleta was bound to the glutathione-Sepharose beads, PCNA was retained on the beads via an interaction with hPoleta (Fig. 2, lanes 13 to 15). However, the interaction of hPoleta with PCNA was greatly reduced for both the hPoleta A707-A708 and the hPoleta (1-695) mutant proteins. For example, when six-His-PCNA was bound to the Ni-NTA beads, almost all of each mutant hPoleta protein was recovered in the flowthrough (Fig. 2, lanes 5 and 8); conversely, when the mutant hPoleta proteins were bound to the glutathione-Sepharose beads, the majority of PCNA was recovered in the flowthrough (Fig. 2, lanes 17 and 20). Thus, hPoleta interacts with PCNA in vitro, and mutations in the conserved PCNA binding motif of hPoleta reduce this interaction very substantially.

PCNA cooperates with RFC and RPA to enhance the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta . Next, we examined if PCNA stimulates the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta . Stimulation of the synthetic activity of the replicative DNA polymerase, Poldelta , by PCNA requires the action of RFC and RPA as well. Therefore, we examined the effect of PCNA on the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta in the presence of RFC and RPA by using a single-stranded M13 template DNA primed at a unique site (Fig. 3A). The DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta is enhanced ~12-fold upon the addition of PCNA, RFC, and RPA (Fig. 3A, compare lanes 1 and 3). This stimulation requires PCNA, since in the absence of PCNA, RFC and RPA increased the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta only ~2-fold (Fig. 3A, compare lanes 1 and 2). This weak enhancement could be attributed to RPA, since the addition of RPA alone also resulted in ~2-fold stimulation (Fig. 3, lane 8). This effect probably stems from a reduction in the nonspecific binding of hPoleta to single-stranded DNA by the presence of RPA. No stimulation of DNA synthesis occurred with PCNA or RFC alone (Fig. 3, lanes 6 and 7). As no significant stimulation of DNA synthesis occurs unless all three proteins are present (Fig. 3A, lanes 1 to 8), PCNA, RFC, and RPA cooperate to stimulate the activity of hPoleta . In contrast, the hPoleta A707-A708 and hPoleta (1-695) mutant proteins were greatly impaired in their ability to be stimulated by PCNA in the presence of RFC and RPA (Fig. 3A, compare lanes 9 and 10 or lanes 11 and 12).


View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 3.   Stimulation of DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta by PCNA. (A) DNA synthesis by the wild-type or PCNA binding site mutant hPoleta proteins in the presence or absence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA. The reaction mixtures contained either the wild type hPoleta protein (lanes 1 to 8) or the mutant hPoleta A707-A708 (lanes 9 and 10) or hPoleta (1-695) (lanes 11 and 12) proteins (10 ng each) along with singly primed M13 single-stranded DNA (25 ng), all four dNTPs (100 µM each), [alpha -32P]dATP, PCNA (100 ng), RFC (50 ng), or RPA (250 ng) or combinations of these proteins. No hPoleta was added in lane 13. The amount of DNA synthesis is indicated at the bottom as the relative nucleotide (nt) incorporation. HaeIII-digested phiX174 DNA labeled with polynucleotide kinase is shown on the left as a molecular size marker. (B) Processivity of hPoleta in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA. hPoleta (10 ng) alone (lanes 1 and 4) or in the presence of PCNA (100 ng), RFC (50 ng), and RPA (250 ng) (lanes 2 and 3) was preincubated with a circular single-stranded M13 template DNA (50 ng) singly primed with a 5' 32P-labeled oligonucleotide for 5 min at 37°C. Primer extension reactions were initiated by adding all four dNTPs (500 µM each) (lanes 1 and 2) or all four dNTPs and excess sonicated herring sperm DNA (0.5 mg/ml) as a trap (lanes 3 and 4). After incubation for10 min at 37°C , samples were quenched and run on a 10% polyacrylamide gel. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the trap, hPoleta , along with PCNA, RFC, and RPA, was preincubated with the trap DNA and the primer-template substrate before the addition of dNTPs (lane 5).

Effect of PCNA on the processivity of hPoleta . Both yeast Poleta and hPoleta are low-processivity enzymes, incorporating only a few nucleotides per DNA binding event (21, 38). A low processivity is desirable for this enzyme, in order to limit its activity to synthesizing only short stretches of DNA, thereby preventing the high mutation rates that would otherwise occur if this low-fidelity polymerase were to synthesize long tracts of DNA. However, the possibility existed that an increase in processivity was in fact responsible for stimulation of the activity of hPoleta by PCNA. To test if PCNA, together with RFC and RPA, increases the processivity of hPoleta , we used a circular single-stranded M13 template DNA primed singly with a 5' 32P-labeled oligonucleotide primer. To ensure that we were observing deoxynucleotide incorporation resulting from a single DNA binding event, we monitored DNA synthesis in the presence of an excess of nonradiolabeled, sonicated herring sperm DNA as a trap (Fig. 3B). The reactions were performed by first preincubating hPoleta in the absence (Fig. 3B, lanes 1 and 4) or in the presence (Fig. 3B, lanes 2 and 3) of PCNA, RFC, and RPA with the DNA substrate. All four dNTPs (Fig. 3B, lanes 1 and 2) or a mixture of excess herring sperm DNA and all four dNTPs (Fig. 3B, lanes 3 and 4) was then added to initiate the reaction. In the presence of the DNA trap, all hPoleta molecules that dissociate from the labeled DNA substrate will be bound by the excess of nonradiolabeled herring sperm DNA. The effectiveness of the trap was verified by first preincubating hPoleta with the DNA substrate together with the excess herring sperm DNA before the addition of nucleotides (Fig. 3B, lane 5). The lack of any DNA synthesis in this sample shows that the excess herring sperm DNA (about 100-fold) was sufficient to trap all hPoleta molecules. Despite the strong stimulation of hPoleta activity by PCNA, RFC, and RPA in the reactions containing no DNA trap (Fig. 3B, lane 2), in samples in which single-hit conditions were provided by excess herring sperm DNA, PCNA together with RFC and RPA stimulated the processivity of hPoleta only weakly; processivity remained low, at ~4 nucleotides per DNA binding event (Fig. 3B, compare lanes 3 and 4).

Kinetic analysis of the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta in the presence of PCNA. To identify the mechanism by which PCNA stimulates the activity of hPoleta , we examined the steady-state kinetic parameters Km and Vmax for nucleotide insertion by hPoleta in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA. Using a circular single-stranded M13 substrate DNA primed singly with a 5' 32P-labeled oligonucleotide primer, we examined the kinetics of insertion of a single deoxynucleotide opposite an A residue in a standing-start reaction (Fig. 4A) or opposite a C residue in a running-start reaction (Fig. 4B) under steady-state conditions. From the kinetics of deoxynucleotide incorporation, the steady-state apparent Km and Vmax values for each deoxynucleotide were obtained from the curve fitted to the Michaelis-Menten equation. These Km and Vmax values and the efficiencies of nucleotide incorporation (Vmax/Km) for hPoleta in the presence or absence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA are summarized in Table 2.


View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 4.   PCNA stimulates deoxynucleotide incorporation by hPoleta . (A) Steady-state kinetics of deoxynucleotide incorporation opposite an A residue by hPoleta in the presence or absence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA in a standing-start reaction. A portion of the DNA substrate is shown at the top. Poleta (10 ng) was incubated with a singly primed circular single-stranded M13 (ssM13) DNA substrate (25 ng) and increasing concentrations of a single deoxynucleotide in the absence or presence of PCNA (100 ng), RFC (50 ng), and RPA (250 ng). The nucleotide (nt) incorporation rate was plotted against the dNTP concentration, and the data were fit to the Michaelis-Menten equation describing a hyperbola. The apparent Km and Vmax values were obtained from the fit and used to calculate the efficiency of deoxynucleotide incorporation (Vmax/Km). (B) Steady-state kinetics of deoxynucleotide incorporation opposite a template C residue by hPoleta in the presence or absence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA in a running-start reaction. Reactions were carried out as described for panel A, except that each reaction also included the addition of dTTP (15 µM).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2.   Kinetic parameters for nucleotide insertion reactions catalyzed by hPoleta

As indicated by the Vmax/Km values, hPoleta incorporates the correct nucleotide about 15-fold more efficiently in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA than in the absence of these proteins (Table 2). The incorporation of incorrect nucleotides is also stimulated by PCNA, RFC, and RPA (Fig. 4); however, because of the low Vmax values for the insertion of incorrect nucleotides in the absence of these proteins, we did not quantitate this enhancement. Importantly, PCNA, together with RFC and RPA, promotes nucleotide insertion by hPoleta primarily via an ~10- to 14-fold reduction in the apparent Km for the nucleotide. In contrast, there was only a slight increase in the Vmax when PCNA, RFC, and RPA were present. As judged from the comparison of the Vmax/Km values for the incorporation of correct and incorrect nucleotides, the fidelity of nucleotide insertion of hPoleta in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA remains low, ranging from 8.5 × 10-3 to 2.7 × 10-4.


    DISCUSSION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Poleta plays a key role in the error-free replication of UV-damaged DNA, and inactivation of Poleta in humans results in the cancer-prone syndrome XP-V. However, the mechanism by which this important translesion synthesis DNA polymerase is recruited to the stalled replication machinery in humans has remained unclear so far. Here, we identify a PCNA binding motif in the C terminus of Poleta and provide both in vivo and in vitro evidence for the physical interaction of hPoleta with PCNA. Mutations in the PCNA binding motif greatly reduce the affinity of hPoleta for PCNA, indicating a role for this motif in PCNA binding.

PCNA, together with RFC and RPA, stimulates the DNA synthetic activity of hPoleta ~12-fold. However, this increase does not result from an increase in the processivity of the enzyme. We find that even in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA, hPoleta processivity remains low, at three or four nucleotides per DNA binding event. The effect of PCNA on hPoleta processivity stands in sharp contrast to the large increase in processivity that occurs for Poldelta in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA (30, 32). However, since Poleta misincorporates nucleotides at a higher rate than Poldelta , any increase in Poleta processivity would have conferred high mutagenicity.

Steady-state kinetic analyses showed that PCNA, RFC, and RPA increase the efficiency of hPoleta for inserting the correct nucleotide by ~15-fold, and this increase is achieved primarily by a reduction in the apparent Km for the nucleotide. Even though the processivity of hPoleta is not significantly increased, the stimulation of its synthetic activity in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA may be due to an increased affinity of the enzyme for the primer 3' end, as has been suggested for the stimulation in synthesis by E. coli PolV that occurs with RecA, single-stranded DNA binding protein, and the beta ,gamma -complex (28). However, the possibility that PCNA, RFC, and RPA stimulate the activity of hPoleta by increasing the affinity of the enzyme for the incoming nucleotide cannot be ruled out.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae Poleta and hPoleta resemble one another in their damage bypass ability, and they promote the error-free replication of UV-damaged DNA. Similar to the results reported here for hPoleta , evidence was recently provided for physical and functional interactions of yeast Poleta (Poleta ) with PCNA (12). Like that of hPoleta , the DNA synthetic activity of yeast Poleta is stimulated ~15-fold in the presence of PCNA, RFC, and RPA; processivity, however, is not affected. Both yeast Poleta and hPoleta are highly inefficient at inserting a nucleotide opposite an abasic site (14). However, yeast PCNA, together with yeast RFC and yeast RPA, greatly stimulates the ability of yeast Poleta to insert a nucleotide opposite an AP site; by comparison to the ~14-fold increase in the efficiency of G insertion opposite the template C, the ability of yeast Poleta to insert a G opposite an AP site is stimulated over 350-fold in the presence of these protein factors (12). Additionally, genetic studies with the yeast Poleta mutant proteins unable to bind PCNA have shown that an interaction with PCNA is indispensable for the in vivo function of Poleta . From these studies, we infer a crucial role for PCNA in the targeting of Poleta to the replication machinery stalled at a lesion site and in promoting the efficient bypass of DNA lesions.

Poldelta , required for the replication of both the leading and the lagging strands, stalls at DNA lesion sites, such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers. While an interaction with PCNA would promote the targeting of Poleta to the replication machinery stalled at a lesion site, the question remains as to how Poleta displaces stalled Poldelta and gains access to the template-primer junction. Studies of human DNA replication have revealed that the Polalpha -to-Poldelta switch is coordinated via competition for RPA (41). First, Polalpha binds RPA for firm attachment to the primed site. After Polalpha has synthesized the primer, RFC is able to bind RPA at the primed template junction and competes with Polalpha for RPA, resulting in the release of Polalpha from DNA. RFC then loads PCNA onto DNA. Next, Poldelta binds both PCNA and RPA and competes with RFC for these two proteins. This process results in the displacement of RFC from the 3' terminus and in the binding of Poldelta to the 3' terminus. RFC, however, remains bound to DNA via its interaction with RPA. The Poldelta -to-Poleta switch differs from the Polalpha -to-Poldelta switch in that whereas both Poldelta and Poleta bind PCNA, Polalpha does not. The Poldelta -to-Poleta switch could occur in any of the following ways. First, Poleta may compete with Poldelta for the 3' terminus opposite a lesion site, perhaps because Poleta binds such a terminus more tightly than does Poldelta , resulting in the release of Poldelta from the replication complex. Alternatively, the displacement of Poldelta may be a more active process, requiring the action of the Rad6-Rad18 complex, which is essential for the replication of damaged DNA (29) and which comprises ubiquitin-conjugating and DNA binding activities (1). Conjugation of ubiquitin to a stalled Poldelta subunit may destabilize the Poldelta interaction with PCNA as well as its binding to the 3' terminus. Finally, it is possible that Poleta displaces Poldelta from the 3' terminus but that both polymerases remain in the replication ensemble via their binding to different monomers of the homotrimeric PCNA ring. This scenario raises the possibility of physical and functional interactions of Poleta with Poldelta that may further affect the fidelity, processivity, or damage bypass ability of Poleta .


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants GM19261 and GM38559.


    FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Sealy Center for Molecular Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, 6.104 Blocker Medical Research Building, 11th and Mechanic Streets, Galveston, TX 77555-1061. Phone: (409) 747-8602. Fax: (409) 747-8608. E-mail: sprakash{at}scms.utmb.edu.


    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References

1. Bailly, V., S. Lauder, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 1997. Yeast DNA repair proteins Rad6 and Rad18 form a heterodimer that has ubiquitin conjugating, DNA binding, and ATP hydrolytic activities. J. Biol. Chem. 272:23360-23365[Abstract/Free Full Text].
2. Bambara, R. A., R. S. Murante, and L. A. Henricksen. 1997. Enzymes and reactions at the eukaryotic DNA replication fork. J. Biol. Chem. 272:4647-4650[Free Full Text].
3. Bloom, L. B., X. Chen, D. K. Fygenson, J. Turner, M. O'Donnell, and M. F. Goodman. 1997. Fidelity of Escherichia coli DNA polymerase III holoenzyme The effects of beta , gamma  complex processivity proteins and varepsilon  proofreading exonuclease on nucleotide misincorporation efficiencies. J. Biol. Chem. 272:27919-27930[Abstract/Free Full Text].
4. Brash, D. E. 1997. Sunlight and the onset of skin cancer. Trends Genet. 13:410-414[CrossRef][Medline].
5. Cai, J., E. Gibbs, F. Uhlmann, B. Phillips, N. Yano, M. O'Donnell, and J. Hurwitz. 1997. A complex consisting of human replication factor C, p40, p37, and p36 subunits is a DNA-dependent ATPase and an intermediate in the assembly of the holoenzyme. J. Biol. Chem. 272:18974-18981[Abstract/Free Full Text].
6. Canella, K. A., and M. M. Seidman. 2000. Mutation spectra in supF: approaches to elucidating sequence context effects. Mutat. Res. 450:61-73[Medline].
7. Creighton, S., L. B. Bloom, and M. F. Goodman. 1995. Gel fidelity assay measuring nucleotide misinsertion, exonucleolytic proofreading, and lesion bypass efficiencies. Methods Enzymol. 262:232-256[Medline].
8. Creighton, S., and M. F. Goodman. 1995. Gel kinetic analysis of DNA polymerase fidelity in the presence of proofreading using bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase. J. Biol. Chem. 270:4759-4774[Abstract/Free Full Text].
9. Echols, H., and M. F. Goodman. 1991. Fidelity mechanisms in DNA replication. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 60:477-511[CrossRef][Medline].
10. Gibbs, E., Z. Kelman, J. M. Gulbis, M. O'Donnell, J. Kuriyan, P. M. Burgers, and J. Hurwitz. 1997. The influence of the proliferating cell nuclear antigen-interacting domain of p21 (CIP1) on DNA synthesis catalyzed by the human and Saccharomyces cerevisiae polymerase delta holoenzymes. J. Biol. Chem. 272:2373-2381[Abstract/Free Full Text].
11. Goodman, M. F., S. Creighton, L. B. Bloom, and J. Petruska. 1993. Biochemical basis of DNA replication fidelity. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 28:83-126[Medline].
12. Haracska, L., C. M. Kondratick, I. Unk, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 2001. Interaction with PCNA is essential for yeast DNA polymerase eta  function. Mol. Cell 8:407-415[CrossRef][Medline].
13. Haracska, L., S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 2000. Replication past O6-methylguanine by yeast and human DNA polymerase eta . Mol. Cell. Biol. 20:8001-8007[Abstract/Free Full Text].
14. Haracska, L., M. T. Washington, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 2001. Inefficient bypass of an abasic site by DNA polymerase eta . J. Biol. Chem. 276:6861-6866[Abstract/Free Full Text].
15. Haracska, L., S.-L. Yu, R. E. Johnson, L. Prakash, and S. Prakash. 2000. Efficient and accurate replication in the presence of 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine by DNA polymerase eta . Nat. Genet. 25:458-461[CrossRef][Medline].
16. Johnson, R. E., L. Haracska, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 2001. Role of DNA polymerase eta  in the bypass of a (6-4) TT photoproduct. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21:3558-3563[Abstract/Free Full Text].
17. Johnson, R. E., C. M. Kondratick, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 1999. hRAD30 mutations in the variant form of xeroderma pigmentosum. Science 285:263-265[Abstract/Free Full Text].
18. Johnson, R. E., S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 1999. Efficient bypass of a thymine-thymine dimer by yeast DNA polymerase, Poleta . Science 283:1001-1004[Abstract/Free Full Text].
19. Johnson, R. E., S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 1999. Requirement of DNA polymerase activity of yeast Rad30 protein for its biological function. J. Biol. Chem. 274:15975-15977[Abstract/Free Full Text].
20. Johnson, R. E., M. T. Washington, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 1999. Bridging the gap: a family of novel DNA polymerases that replicate faulty DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:12224-12226[Free Full Text].
21. Johnson, R. E., M. T. Washington, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 2000. Fidelity of human DNA polymerase eta . J. Biol. Chem. 275:7447-7450[Abstract/Free Full Text].
22. Kelman, Z., and J. Hurwitz. 1998. Protein-PCNA interactions: a DNA-scanning mechanism? Trends Biol. Sci. 23:236-238.
23. Kelman, Z., N. Yao, and M. O'Donnell. 1995. Escherichia coli expression vectors containing a protein kinase recognition motif, His6-tag and hemagglutinin epitope. Gene 166:177-178[CrossRef][Medline].
24. Lee, S. H., T. Eki, and J. Hurwitz. 1989. Synthesis of DNA containing the simian virus 40 origin of replication by the combined action of DNA polymerases alpha and delta. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86:7361-7365[Abstract/Free Full Text].
25. Masutani, C., R. Kusumoto, A. Yamada, N. Dohmae, M. Yokoi, M. Yuasa, M. Araki, S. Iwai, K. Takio, and F. Hanaoka. 1999. The XPV (xeroderma pigmentosum variant) gene encodes human DNA polymerase eta . Nature 399:700-704[CrossRef][Medline].
26. McDonald, J. P., A. S. Levine, and R. Woodgate. 1997. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD30 gene, a homologue of Escherichia coli dinB and umuC, is DNA damage inducible and functions in a novel error-free postreplication repair mechanism. Genetics 147:1557-1568[Abstract].
27. Nakanishi, M., R. S. Robetorye, O. M. Pereira-Smith, and J. R. Smith. 1995. The C-terminal region of p21SD11/WAF1/CIP1 is involved in proliferating cell nuclear antigen binding but does not appear to be required for growth inhibition. J. Biol. Chem. 270:17060-17063[Abstract/Free Full Text].
28. Pham, P., J. G. Bertram, M. O'Donnell, R. Woodgate, and M. F. Goodman. 2001. A model for SOS-lesion-targeted mutations in Escherichia coli. Nature 409:366-370[CrossRef][Medline].
29. Prakash, L. 1981. Characterization of postreplication repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and effects of rad6, rad18, rev3 and rad52 mutations. Mol. Gen. Genet. 184:471-478[CrossRef][Medline].
30. Prelich, G., M. Kostura, D. R. Marshak, M. B. Matthews, and B. Stillman. 1987. The cell-cycle regulated proliferating cell nuclear antigen is required for SV40 DNA replication in vitro. Nature 326:471-475[CrossRef][Medline].
31. Reynolds, N., E. Warbrick, P. A. Fantes, and S. A. MacNeill. 2000. Essential interaction between the fission yeast DNA polymerase delta  subunit Cdc27 and Pcn1 (PCNA) mediated through a C-terminal p21Cip1-like PCNA binding motif. EMBO J. 19:1108-1118[CrossRef][Medline].
32. Tan, C. K., C. Castillo, A. G. So, and K. M. Downey. 1986. An auxiliary protein for DNA polymerase delta  from fetal calf thymus. J. Biol. Chem. 261:12310-12316[Abstract/Free Full Text].
33. Thomas, D. C., J. D. Roberts, R. D. Sabatino, T. W. Myers, C.-K. Tan, K. M. Downey, A. G. So, R. A. Bambara, and T. A. Kunkel. 1991. Fidelity of mammalian DNA replication and replicative DNA polymerases. Biochemistry 30:11751-11759[CrossRef][Medline].
34. Wang, Y.-C., V. M. Maher, D. L. Mitchell, and J. J. McCormick. 1993. Evidence from mutation spectra that the UV hypermutability of xeroderma pigmentosum variant cells reflects abnormal, error-prone replication on a template containing photoproducts. Mol. Cell. Biol. 13:4276-4283[Abstract/Free Full Text].
35. Warbrick, E. 1998. PCNA binding through a conserved motif. Bioessays 20:195-199[CrossRef][Medline].
36. Warbrick, E., D. P. Lane, D. M. Glover, and L. S. Cox. 1995. A small peptide inhibitor of DNA replication defines the site of interaction between the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21WAF1 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen. Curr. Biol. 5:275-282[CrossRef][Medline].
37. Washington, M. T., R. E. Johnson, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 2000. Accuracy of thymine-thymine dimer bypass by Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA polymerase eta . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:3094-3099[Abstract/Free Full Text].
38. Washington, M. T., R. E. Johnson, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 1999. Fidelity and processivity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA polymerase eta . J. Biol. Chem. 274:36835-36838[Abstract/Free Full Text].
39. Waters, H. L., S. Seetharam, M. M. Seidman, and K. H. Kraemer. 1993. Ultraviolet hypermutability of a shuttle vector propagated in xeroderma pigmentosum variant cells. J. Investig. Dermatol. 101:744-748[CrossRef][Medline].
40. Yu, S.-L., R. E. Johnson, S. Prakash, and L. Prakash. 2001. Requirement of DNA polymerase eta  for error-free bypass of UV-induced CC and TC photoproducts. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21:185-188[Abstract/Free Full Text].
41. Yuzhakov, A., Z. Kelman, J. Hurwitz, and M. O'Donnell. 1999. Multiple competition reactions for RPA order the assembly of the DNA polymerase delta  holoenzyme. EMBO J. 18:6189-6199[CrossRef][Medline].


Molecular and Cellular Biology, November 2001, p. 7199-7206, Vol. 21, No. 21
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.21.7199-7206.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles: