| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Division of Protein and Nucleic Acid Chemistry, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QH, United Kingdom,1 CREST Research Project, Radiation Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Kyoto University, Konoe Yoshida, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan2
Received 14 July 2006/ Returned for modification 8 August 2006/ Accepted 14 August 2006
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
RAD18 is
central to both these DNA damage tolerance pathways in yeast (reviewed
in reference 9). It is an
E3 ubiquitin ligase that, with the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme
RAD6, is responsible for the monoubiquitination of PCNA
(3,
20). This modification
facilitates the recruitment of translesion synthesis through
ubiquitin-binding motifs located in the translesion polymerases
(6) and also acts as a
platform for the formation of a noncanonical K63-linked polyubiquitin
chain by RAD5/MMS2/UBC13
(20). This latter
modification controls error-free bypass by an as-yet-unidentified
mechanism thought to be a form of template switch
(19). RAD18 is conserved
in higher eukaryotes in which it also catalyzes the monoubiquitination
of PCNA (21), although,
in chicken DT40 cells at least, it is not the sole enzyme responsible
for this modification
(33). Further, there is
evidence that RAD18 does not exert the same dominant controlling
influence over lesion bypass as does its yeast counterpart. The
available genetic evidence from DT40 suggests that RAD18 is not
epistatic, in terms of DNA damage tolerance, to at least three
components of the TLS machinery: DNA polymerase
(24), REV1
(28), and REV3
(37). However, it is
unlikely that this apparent independence is complete. The
recombination-independent mutagenic repair of DNA interstrand
cross-links in DT40 requires not only REV1 and REV3 but also the
ubiquitination of PCNA
(32). Further, studies in
human cells points to a requirement of RAD18 for the full function of
DNA polymerase
in lesion bypass
(5).
As well as sensitivity to a broad range of mutagens, a prominent feature of rad18 dysfunction in chickens, mice, and humans is an increase in spontaneous and damage-induced sister chromatid exchange (41, 43). This latter phenotype has been explained in terms of DNA lesions being channeled from disabled postreplication repair into homologous recombination. This idea is supported by the inviability of a rad18/rad54 mutant of DT40 (43), which also suggests that the rad18 mutant relies on recombination for viability.
The study presented here also makes use of DT40. In addition to being a genetically tractable vertebrate cell line (11), an added advantage for the study of DNA damage bypass and recombination is its constitutively diversifying immunoglobulin loci (10, 22, 30). Immunoglobulin diversification in DT40 is initiated by abasic sites formed by the concerted action of activation-induced deaminase (AID) and uracil DNA glycosylase (UNG): AID acts on dC to form dU, which is then removed by UNG to produce an abasic site (1, 13, 14, 17). This abasic site may initiate a recombination-based gene conversion between upstream pseudogenes and the expressed immunoglobulin variable gene. Alternatively, it can be bypassed by translesion synthesis, which may result in a point mutation. Thus, the pattern of mutations in the immunoglobulin genes can provide clues to the relative use of recombination and translesion synthesis in processing replication-stalling DNA lesions (30). Disruption of rad54, which is thought to play a relatively late role in the recombination reaction (reviewed in reference 40), results in a fivefold decrease in immunoglobulin gene conversion (4). Mutants that disrupt the early stages of the reaction by reducing the efficiency of loading RAD51 onto single-stranded DNA, for example, the RAD51 paralogues or BRCA2 (44), also result in the inhibition of immunoglobulin gene conversion (18). However, this reduction in recombination is accompanied by an increase in nontemplated point mutations (18, 31). This indicates that inhibition of recombination at a very early stage results in the initiating abasic sites being left as a substrate for translesion synthesis (30). We have previously argued that this difference may be explained by RAD54 acting beyond a point of commitment in recombination, possibly reflecting resection of the lesion, after which translesion synthesis is ineffective (34).
Translesion synthesis of abasic sites in the immunoglobulin loci of DT40 is dependent on REV1 (34). Based on the yeast paradigm, we had originally expected that it would also be dependent on RAD18. However, we have previously reported that there is substantial RAD18-independent point mutation in the immunoglobulin loci of DT40 (35), suggesting that RAD18 and REV1 have largely, but perhaps not completely, independent roles in vertebrate translesion synthesis (28, 35). While studying the role of RAD18 in immunoglobulin diversification, we noted an increase in the frequency of aberrant rearrangements, principally deletions and duplications, in the immunoglobulin light-chain variable-region gene segment (VL) of rad18 cells (35). This observation suggested to us that RAD18 might also be involved in the recombination mechanism leading to immunoglobulin gene conversion. Here we report the results of experiments that suggest that RAD18 does indeed play a role in gene conversion in addition to its well-established role in postreplication repair.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Immunoglobulin gene diversification analysis.
Immunoglobulin gene diversification
analysis has been described in detail elsewhere
(30,
31). Briefly, sequence
changes in the immunoglobulin light-chain locus of DT40 are categorized
as templated (i.e., a donor sequence of
9 bp exists in the V
pseudogene array) or nontemplated. This provides a measure of the
relative use of translesion synthesis (nontemplated point mutations)
and recombination (gene conversions) in response to AID-induced abasic
sites (30). The analysis
is shown for all sequences (see Fig.
6A) and for mutated
sequences only (Fig. 6B).
In the latter analysis (Fig.
6B), clonally related
changes are excluded by counting a gene conversion or point mutation
from a given cellular subclone only
once.
|
Immunofluorescence. For immunofluorescence staining, DT40 cells were spun onto polylysine-coated glass coverslips, fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in phosphate-buffered saline, and blocked in phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.1% Triton X-100 and 0.02% sodium dodecyl sulfate. Primary and secondary antibodies were diluted in the same buffer. The primary antibodies were anti-RAD51 (rabbit polyclonal H-92; Santa Cruz) and anti-phospho-H2AX (mouse monoclonal JBW103; Upstate). Fluorescence-labeled secondary antibodies were obtained from Molecular Probes.
Analysis of SCE. Staining metaphase chromosomes for sister chromatid exchange (SCE) was performed as previously described (34). Slides were scored by investigators blinded to the genotype or treatment. DNA damage was induced with 0.2 ng of 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide (4NQO) (Sigma)/ml.
Monitoring I-SceI-induced double-strand break repair. The RAD18 gene was disrupted in DT40 (DTDR17) cells (8) stably expressing a single copy of DR-green fluorescent protein (GFP) (from Maria Jasin) (26). Two resulting clones were complemented with hRAD18 as an N-terminal fusion with YFP. A total of 3 x 106 cells were transfected with 30 µg of pCßASce or the control vector pmaxGFP in 100 µl of Nucleofector T solution by using the Amaxa Nucleofection system and program B23. After incubation of the cells in 5 ml of medium for 48 h, GFP expression was quantified by using a MoFlo cytometer (Dako). GFP fluorescence and YFP fluorescence were separated by using a 510/20 filter for GFP detection, a 550/30 filter for YFP detection, and a 525 SP dichroic mirror (Omega Optical, Inc.). The same instrument setup and compensation settings were used for cell lines that did not express YFP.
Colony survival. The method for determining colony survival on methylcellulose-containing medium has been described previously (34). UV light (254 nm) was delivered from a benchtop lamp (UVP, Inc.) whose output had been equilibrated for 10 min and measured with a UV radiometer (UVP, Inc.). Cisplatin and methylmethane sulfonate were obtained from Sigma.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
6-fold increase in the loss of the rearranged
light-chain band accompanied by aberrant hybridization patterns
consistent with gross alterations in the structure of the locus around
VL (Fig. 1B and C). Again,
expression of human RAD18 reduced the frequency of such events to
wild-type levels (Fig.
1C). Thus, RAD18 seems to
be required for the orderly completion of immunoglobulin gene
conversion.
Immunoglobulin gene conversion tracts are shorter in the absence of RAD18.
We then looked at immunoglobulin gene
conversion tracts in rad18 cells and compared them to the wild
type, as well as to rev1 and ube2v2 mutants. It is
usually not possible to unambiguously determine the length of a gene
conversion tract, since the actual start and end of the tract are not
marked by sequence changes. To circumvent this problem, we examined a
large database of gene conversion tracts derived from multiple
subclones and from all parts of the rearranged light chain gene, taking
the maximum tract length possible. The results are presented in Fig.
2. While long tracts are seen in rad18 cells, the median tract
length is decreased from 39 bp in wild-type cells to 22 bp in
rad18, representing a highly significant (P
0.001) reduction. ube2v2 and rev1 cells showed median
tract lengths of 40 and 44 bp, respectively. In rad18 cells
reconstituted with human RAD18, the median gene conversion tract length
was restored to 41 bp. Thus, disruption of RAD18 is associated with
shorter gene conversion tracts, as well as with an increased incidence
of aberrant rearrangements.
|
|
|
|
H2AX, a
marker of double-strand breaks, before and after irradiation with UV
light. Although few foci were visible in the absence of damage, the
number of foci of both RAD51 and
H2AX was increased after
exposure to UV light. The rad18 mutation did not affect
recruitment of RAD51 to
H2AX foci, but both xrcc3 and
rad18/xrcc3 cells exhibited a reduction in the number of
H2AX foci containing RAD51. This suggests that disruption of
RAD18 does not affect the early steps of the homologous recombination
reaction, up to and including RAD51 loading. The xrcc3 disruption also allowed us to confirm that the increased deletions and duplications seen in the immunoglobulin light chain locus of rad18 cells (Fig. 1C) are associated with gene conversion rather than with other modes of processing AID-induced damage, such as translesion synthesis or excision repair. We created and diversified multiple sIg-positive subclones of the xrcc3 and rad18/xrcc3 mutants. We found that, after 4 weeks in culture, the frequency of sIg-negative loss variants, which provides a very approximate measure of immunoglobulin diversification, was two- to fourfold higher than for the wild type in both xrcc3 and rad18/xrcc3 cells (data not shown), as previously noted after disruption of XRCC3 (31). To assess the pattern of diversification, we sequenced the rearranged V gene from sIg-negative cells and examined the density of point mutations and gene conversion events in mutated sequences as previously described (34). Both the xrcc3 and rad18/xrcc3 cells exhibited a shift in their pattern of immunoglobulin diversification from predominantly gene conversion to point mutation (Fig. 5A and B), as previously observed for the xrcc3 mutant (31). The analysis of point mutations in all sequences suggests that the loss of rad18 reduces the frequency of the point mutation (Fig. 6A). However, there remains substantial RAD18-independent translesion synthesis of abasic sites in the immunoglobulin locus, and the level of mutations in mutated sequences is similar to that seen in wild-type cells (Fig. 6B). It is, however, not possible to put an accurate figure on the scale of any reduction because of the manner in which this experiment is configured. The pattern of mutation in the rad18/xrcc3 mutant (Fig. 6C) is comparable to that of the xrcc3 single mutant (31).
The xrcc3 disruption also suppressed the large-scale aberrant rearrangements seen in rad18 cells. Southern blotting of the immunoglobulin locus, performed as described above, reduced the frequency of large-scale rearrangements in the rad18/xrcc3 mutant to a level comparable to that for wild-type cells (Fig. 6D). Together, these data therefore suggest that RAD18 plays a role in immunoglobulin gene conversion that is downstream of XRCC3 and RAD51 loading.
Toxicity of RAD51-dependent recombination in the absence of RAD18. The viability of the rad18/xrcc3 mutant is surprising given the inviability of the rad18/rad54 mutant. We therefore asked what effect the xrcc3 disruption had on the sensitivity of rad18 cells to genotoxic stress. Unlike rad18 cells, the xrcc3 mutant was not sensitive to UV light (Fig. 7A), suggesting that recombination is not normally used to repair UV lesions. Surprisingly, the double mutant exhibited sensitivity intermediate to that of rad18 and xrcc3, suggesting that, in part, the hypersensitivity of the rad18 mutant to UV light is dependent on functional XRCC3. Methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) is a monofunctional DNA alkylating agent that creates replication-stalling base lesions. xrcc3 also exhibited little sensitivity to MMS, whereas rad18 was much more sensitive. Again, the sensitivity of rad18 was suppressed in the double mutant (Fig. 7B). Cisplatin results in the formation of DNA adducts and interstrand cross-links whose repair is more complex, requiring multiple overlapping pathways. Thus, as expected, both RAD18 and XRCC3 contributed significantly to the tolerance of this agent. Nevertheless, there was some suppression of the sensitivity of rad18 after disruption of XRCC3. Expression of YFP-hRAD18 completely suppressed the sensitivity of the rad18 mutant to MMS (Fig. 7D) and UV (33), whereas expression of hRAD18 in the rad18/xrcc3 mutant had little effect on MMS sensitivity, the residual sensitivity being similar to that of the xrcc3 single mutant (Fig. 7D). Together, these data suggest that the presence of functional recombination contributes to the sensitivity of rad18 cells to a range of genotoxic stresses, a point considered further in the discussion below.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Notably, the effect RAD18 disruption has on recombination is relatively modest compared to the substantial reduction in gene conversion in both the DR-GFP reporter system and the immunoglobulin loci seen in cells mutated for core recombination factors, such as the RAD51 paralogues, BRCA2 and RAD54 (4, 15, 18, 23, 26, 31). Further, although the average gene conversion tract length is reduced, the rad18 mutant is still capable of creating relatively long tracts. This suggests that the loss of RAD18 increases the chance of gene conversion tract synthesis ending early. Speculatively, the association of decreased tract length and increased duplications and deletions suggests a model in which loss of RAD18 leads to less processive D-loop extension, which may lead to abortion of the recombination reaction and the formation of a new double-strand break. This double-strand break may subsequently become a substrate for further recombinational repair. Such events may be reflected in our recent demonstration that the majority of the elevated SCEs seen in rad18 DT40 are not dependent on K164 of PCNA, suggesting that RAD18 plays a role independent of PCNA ubiquitination in suppressing SCE (33). In addition, the breaks may be captured by nonhomologous end joining. Supporting this latter conjecture, disruption of Ku70 in the rad18 mutant suppresses the accumulation of Southern blotting detectablerearrangements of the immunoglobulin light chain loci of DT40 (data not shown).
The exact mechanism by which RAD18 mediates its role in recombination is a subject of current investigation. It seems likely that it will depend on the ubiquitin ligase activity of the protein since a catalytically dead mutant of RAD18, rad18C28F, is phenotypically identical to rad18 (33). However, our preliminary data suggest that gene conversion in a pcnaK164R mutant of DT40 is essentially normal and is not associated with aberrant rearrangements. Together with the nonoverlap of SCE phenotypes of the rad18 and pcnaK164R mutants, this suggests that RAD18 may have ubiquitination targets other than PCNA.
Relationship between the role of RAD18 in PRR and HR. To date, interpretation of the phenotype of vertebrate rad18 mutants has focused on the impact of loss of RAD18 on postreplication repair, with the effects on recombination and the synthetic lethality of rad18 and rad54 mutations being explained in terms of channeling of lesions from one pathway to the other (41-43). However, we show clearly that the profound inhibition of RAD51-dependent recombination caused by xrcc3 disruption, far from causing lethality in rad18 cells, actually reduces their sensitivity to DNA damage. Coupled with our demonstration of a role for RAD18 within the recombination reaction itself, this observation suggests that the absence of RAD18 renders recombination toxic. Does this replace the idea that lesions are channeled to recombination from disabled postreplication repair in the rad18 mutant? No, it does not, at least not entirely. As discussed above, pcnaK164R cells show more damage-inducible SCEs than the wild type but less than the rad18 mutant (33), suggesting that the abolition of PCNA ubiquitination does result in some increased pressure on recombination pathways. Therefore, we believe that elevated SCE and damage sensitivity of the rad18 mutant arise from two sources: first from disabled postreplication repair and second from the the channeling of lesions to homologous recombination, which has itself also been compromised by the disruption of RAD18. We suggest that when XRCC3 is disrupted, the early block to RAD51-dependent recombination alleviates the recombination-dependent component of the sensitivity of rad18 by preventing the reaction occurring. We suggest that the inviability of the rad18/rad54 double mutant may be explained by the inability of other pathways to rescue recombination in the rad54 mutant, exacerbating the recombination and PRR defect of the rad18 mutant to the point that the cells are inviable.
A key question remaining is which pathways are used in the absence of both RAD18 and XRCC3. Existing data already point to two possibilities. In the case of double-strand breaks, RAD52-dependent single-strand annealing may be an alternative (36, 38): RAD52 is able to partially substitute for XRCC3, since although vertebrate rad52 mutants display almost no phenotype, a concurrent mutation of XRCC3 and RAD52 in DT40 is inviable (16). For single-stranded lesions, such as the abasic sites that initiate immunoglobulin gene conversion, REV1-dependent translesion synthesis is able to substitute for XRCC3-dependent recombination (31, 34). It therefore seems likely that for overall cellular survival of the rad18 mutant in response to complex DNA damage, a combination of backup pathways is used.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
D.S. was funded by the Leukemia Research Fund.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Published
ahead of print on 21 August 2006. ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Arakawa, H., D. Lodygin, and J. M. Buerstedde. 2001. Mutant loxP vectors for selectable marker recycle and conditional knockouts. BMC Biotechnol. 1:7.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. 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.
4. Bezzubova, O., A. Silbergleit, Y. Yamaguchi-Iwai, S. Takeda, and J. M. Buerstedde. 1997. Reduced X-ray resistance and homologous recombination frequencies in a RAD54/ mutant of the chicken DT40 cell line. Cell 89:185-193.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Bi,
X., L. R. Barkley, D. M. Slater, S. Tateishi, M.
Yamaizumi, H. Ohmori, and C. Vaziri. 2006. Rad18
regulates DNA polymerase
and is required for recovery from
S-phase checkpoint-mediated arrest. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26:3527-3540.
6. Bienko,
M., C. M. Green, N. Crosetto, F. Rudolf, G. Zapart, B. Coull,
P. Kannouche, G. Wider, M. Peter, A. R. Lehmann, K. Hofmann,
and I. Dikic. 2005. Ubiquitin-binding
domains in Y-family polymerases regulatetranslesion synthesis. Science
310:1821-1824.
7. Bishop,
D. K., U. Ear, A. Bhattacharyya, C. Calderone, M. Beckett,
R. R. Weichselbaum, and A. Shinohara. 1998.
Xrcc3 is required for assembly of Rad51 complexes in vivo.J. Biol. Chem.
273:21482-21488.
8. Bridge, W. L., C. J. Vandenberg, R. J. Franklin, and K. Hiom. 2005. The BRIP1 helicase functions independently of BRCA1 in the Fanconi anemia pathway for DNA crosslink repair. Nat. Genet. 37:953-957.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Broomfield, S., T. Hryciw, and W. Xiao. 2001. DNA postreplication repair and mutagenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Mutat. Res. 486:167-184.[Medline]
10. Buerstedde, J. M., C. A. Reynaud, E. H. Humphries, W. Olson, D. L. Ewert, and J. C. Weill.1990 . Light chain gene conversion continues at high rate in an ALV-induced cell line. EMBO J. 9:921-927.[Medline]
11. Buerstedde, J. M., and S. Takeda. 1991. Increased ratio of targeted to random integration after transfection of chicken B-cell lines. Cell 67:179-188.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Carlson,
L. M., W. T. McCormack, C. E. Postema,
E. H. Humphries, and C. B. Thompson.1990
. Templated insertions in the rearranged chicken IgL V
gene segment arise by intrachromosomal gene conversion. Genes
Dev.
4:536-547.
13. Di Noia, J., and M. S. Neuberger. 2002. Altering the pathway of immunoglobulin hypermutation by inhibiting uracil-DNA glycosylase. Nature 419:43-48.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Di Noia, J. M., and M. S. Neuberger.2004 . Immunoglobulin gene conversion in chicken DT40 cells largely proceeds through an abasic site intermediate generated by excision of the uracil produced by AID-mediated deoxycytidine deamination. Eur. J. Immunol. 34:504-508.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Dronkert,
M. L., H. B. Beverloo, R. D. Johnson,
J. H. Hoeijmakers, M. Jasin, and R. Kanaar.2000
. Mouse RAD54 affects DNA double-strand break repair
and sister chromatid exchange. Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:3147-3156.
16. Fujimori, A., S. Tachiiri, E. Sonoda, L. H. Thompson, P. K. Dhar, M. Hiraoka, S. Takeda, Y. Zhang, M. Reth, and M. Takata.2001 . Rad52 partially substitutes for the Rad51 paralog XRCC3 in maintaining chromosomal integrity in vertebrate cells.EMBO J. 20:5513-5520.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Harris, R. S., J. E. Sale, S. K. Petersen-Mahrt, and M. S. Neuberger. 2002. AID is essential for immunoglobulin V gene conversion in a cultured B-cell line.Curr. Biol. 12:435-438.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Hatanaka,
A., M. Yamazoe, J. E. Sale, M. Takata, K. Yamamoto, H. Kitao,
E. Sonoda, K. Kikuchi, Y. Yonetani, and S. Takeda.2005
. Similar effects of Brca2 truncation and Rad51
paralog deficiency on immunoglobulin V gene diversification in DT40
cells support an early role for Rad51 paralogs in homologous
recombination. Mol. Cell. Biol.
25:1124-1134.
19. Higgins, N. P., K. Kato, and B. Strauss. 1976. A model for replication repair in mammalian cells. J. Mol. Biol. 101:417-425.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Hoege, C., B. Pfander, G. L. Moldovan, G. Pyrowolakis, and S. Jentsch. 2002. RAD6-dependent DNA repair is linked to modification of PCNA by ubiquitin and SUMO. Nature 419:135-141.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Kannouche,
P. L., J. Wing, and A. R. Lehmann.2004
. Interaction of human DNA polymerase
with
monoubiquitinated PCNA: a possible mechanism for the polymerase switch
in response to DNA damage. Mol. Cell
14:491-500.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Kim,
S., E. H. Humphries, L. Tjoelker, L. Carlson, and
C. B. Thompson. 1990. Ongoing
diversification of the rearranged immunoglobulin light-chain gene in a
bursal lymphoma cell line. Mol. Cell. Biol.
10:3224-3231.
23. Moynahan, M. E., A. J. Pierce, and M. Jasin.2001 . BRCA2 is required for homology-directed repair of chromosomal breaks. Mol. Cell 7:263-272.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Okada,
T., E. Sonoda, Y. M. Yamashita, S. Koyoshi, S. Tateishi,
M. Yamaizumi, M. Takata, O. Ogawa, and S.
Takeda. 2002. Involvement of vertebrate
pol
in Rad18-independent postreplication repair of UV damage.J. Biol. Chem.
277:48690-48695.
25. Pages, V., and R. P. Fuchs. 2002. How DNA lesions are turned into mutations within cells? Oncogene 21:8957-8966.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Pierce,
A. J., R. D. Johnson, L. H. Thompson, and
M. Jasin. 1999. XRCC3 promotes homology-directed
repair of DNA damage in mammalian cells. Genes Dev.
13:2633-2638.
27. Prakash, S., R. E. Johnson, and L. Prakash. 2005. Eukaryotic translesion synthesis DNA polymerases: specificity of structure and function. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 74:317-353.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Ross,
A. L., L. J. Simpson, and J. E. Sale.2005
. Vertebrate DNA damage tolerance requires the C
terminus but not BRCT or transferase domains of REV1. Nucleic
Acids Res.
33:1280-1289.
29. Rupp, W. D., and P. Howard-Flanders. 1968. Discontinuities in the DNA synthesized in an excision-defective strain of Escherichia coli following ultraviolet irradiation.J. Mol. Biol. 31:291-304.[CrossRef][Medline]
30. Sale, J. E. 2004. Immunoglobulin diversification in DT40: a model for vertebrate DNA damage tolerance. DNA Repair 3:693-702.[Medline]
31. Sale, J. E., D. M. Calandrini, M. Takata, S. Takeda, and M. S. Neuberger. 2001. Ablation of XRCC2/3 transforms immunoglobulin V gene conversion into somatic hypermutation.Nature 412:921-926.[CrossRef][Medline]
32. Shen,
X., S. Jun, L. E. O'Neal, E. Sonoda, M. Bemark, J.
E. Sale, and L. Li. 2006. REV3 and REV1 play major
roles in recombination-independent repair of DNA interstrand
cross-links mediated by monoubiquitinated proliferating cell nuclear
antigen (PCNA). J. Biol. Chem.
281:13869-13872.
33. Simpson, L. J., A. L. Ross, D. Szuts, C. A. Alviani, V. H. Oestergaard, K. J. Patel, and J. E. Sale. 2006. RAD18-independent ubiquitination of proliferating-cell nuclear antigen in the avian cell line DT40. EMBO Rep. 7:927-932.[CrossRef][Medline]
34. Simpson, L. J., and J. E. Sale. 2003. Rev1 is essential for DNA damage tolerance and non-templated immunoglobulin gene mutation in a vertebrate cell line. EMBO J. 22:1654-1664.[CrossRef][Medline]
35. Simpson, L. J., and J. E. Sale. 2005. UBE2V2 (MMS2) is not required for effective immunoglobulin gene conversion or DNA damage tolerance in DT40. DNA Repair 4:503-510.[Medline]
36. Singleton,
M. R., L. M. Wentzell, Y. Liu, S. C.
West, and D. B. Wigley. 2002. Structure of
the single-strand annealing domain of human RAD52 protein. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
99:13492-13497.
37. Sonoda,
E., T. Okada, G. Y. Zhao, S. Tateishi, K. Araki, M.
Yamaizumi, T. Yagi, N. S. Verkaik, D. C. van Gent,
M. Takata, and S. Takeda. 2003. Multiple roles of
Rev3, the catalytic subunit of pol
in maintaining genome
stability in vertebrates. EMBO J.
22:3188-3197.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Stark,
J. M., A. J. Pierce, J. Oh, A. Pastink, and M.
Jasin. 2004. Genetic steps of mammalian homologous
repair with distinct mutagenic consequences. Mol. Cell.
Biol.
24:9305-9316.
39. Takata,
M., M. S. Sasaki, S. Tachiiri, T. Fukushima, E. Sonoda, D.
Schild, L. H. Thompson, and S. Takeda. 2001.
Chromosome instability and defective recombinational repair in knockout
mutants of the five Rad51 paralogs. Mol. Cell. Biol.
21:2858-2866.
40. Tan, T. L., R. Kanaar, and C. Wyman. 2003. Rad54, a Jack of all trades in homologous recombination. DNA Repair 2:787-794.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. Tateishi,
S., H. Niwa, J. Miyazaki, S. Fujimoto, H. Inoue, and M.Yamaizumi. 2003. Enhanced genomic instability
and defective postreplication repair in RAD18 knockout mouse embryonic
stem cells. Mol. Cell. Biol.
23:474-481.
42. Tateishi,
S., Y. Sakuraba, S. Masuyama, H. Inoue, and M. Yamaizumi.2000
. Dysfunction of human Rad18 results in defective
postreplication repair and hypersensitivity to multiple mutagens.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
97:7927-7932.
43. Yamashita, Y. M., T. Okada, T. Matsusaka, E. Sonoda, G. Y. Zhao, K. Araki, S. Tateishi, M. Yamaizumi, and S. Takeda.2002 . RAD18 and RAD54 cooperatively contribute to maintenance of genomic stability in vertebrate cells. EMBO J. 21:5558-5566.[CrossRef][Medline]
44. Yang, H., Q. Li, J. Fan, W. K. Holloman, and N. P. Pavletich. 2005. The BRCA2 homologue Brh2 nucleates RAD51 filament formation at a dsDNA-ssDNA junction.Nature 433:653-657.[CrossRef][Medline]
45. Yonetani,
Y., H. Hochegger, E. Sonoda, S. Shinya, H. Yoshikawa, S. Takeda, and M.
Yamazoe. 2005. Differential and collaborative actions
of Rad51 paralog proteins in cellular response to DNA damage.Nucleic Acids Res.
33:4544-4552.
46. Zhang,
H., and C. W. Lawrence. 2005. The error-free
component of the RAD6/RAD18 DNA damage tolerance pathway of budding
yeast employs sister-strand recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA
102:15954-15959.
47. Zhang,
Y., C. Riesterer, A. M. Ayrall, F. Sablitzky, T. D.
Littlewood, and M. Reth. 1996. Inducible site-directed
recombination in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nucleic Acids
Res.
24:543-548.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J. Bacteriol. | J. Virol. | Eukaryot. Cell |
|---|
| Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. | Clin. Vaccine Immunol. | All ASM Journals |
|---|