Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About MCB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular and Cellular Biology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About MCB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Articles

Protein Phosphatase 2A-Dependent Dephosphorylation of Replication Protein A Is Required for the Repair of DNA Breaks Induced by Replication Stress

Junjie Feng, Timothy Wakeman, Sheila Yong, Xiaohua Wu, Sally Kornbluth, Xiao-Fan Wang
Junjie Feng
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy Wakeman
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sheila Yong
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiaohua Wu
Department of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally Kornbluth
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiao-Fan Wang
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: wang0011@mc.duke.edu
DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00191-09
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Additional Files
  • FIG. 1.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 1.

    RPA32 undergoes dephosphorylation in cells recovering from HU block. (A) HeLa cells were treated with pulses of HU (0.2 mM) for 24 h, washed twice with PBS, and allowed to recover in drug-free medium. The levels of phosphorylated RPA32 were detected at the indicated recovery time points by immunoblotting. untr, untreated. (B and C) HeLa cells were released from HU block (0.2 mM, 24 h). The attenuation of RPA32 phosphorylation at T21/S33 was analyzed at 0 h or 9 h postrecovery in the absence (−) or presence (+) of MG132 (20 μM) (B) or different doses of OA (0 to 100 nM) or OA (50 nM) combined with caffeine (2 mM) (C). (D) A panel of five different cell lines (HeLa, HaCaT, HepG2, U2OS, and A549) were released from HU block (0.2 mM, 24 h) and then analyzed for RPA32 dephosphorylation at T21 at the indicated times after recovery.

  • FIG. 2.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 2.

    PP2A mediates RPA32 dephosphorylation at T21 and S33. (A) HeLa cells were transfected with a mock siRNA oligonucleotide or with oligonucleotides against the catalytic subunits of PP1, PP2A, PP4, PP5, and PP6. Twenty-four hours posttransfection, cells were pulse treated with HU (0.2 mM, 24 h), and RPA32 dephosphorylation at T21/S33 was compared at the indicated time points. (B) HeLa cells transfected with control siRNA or siRNA against PP2A/C were pulse treated with HU (0.2 mM, 24 h). At 0 to 12 h postrelease, the cells were fixed and costained with DAPI and anti-RPA32pS33 and anti-γ-H2AX antibodies. The DNA damage-inducible foci were visualized by immunofluorescence microscopy, and the percentage of phospho-RPA32 and γ-H2AX focus-positive cells was determined, normalized, and plotted. The error bars represent the standard deviations from three independent experiments. (C) Immunoprecipitation (IP) assays were performed in unperturbed cells or cells recovering from exposure to pulses of HU (0.2 mM, 24 h) at the indicated times after release using an anti-RPA32 antibody. The association of RPA32 with PP2A was detected by immunoblotting (IB) using an antibody against PP2A/C (α-PP2A/C). Binding of RPA70 was also examined as a loading control. The positions of the immunoglobulin light and heavy chains detected in the reaction are indicated by asterisks. untr, untreated; IgG, immunoglobulin G. (D) HeLa cells were mock treated (untreated [untr]) or exposed to HU (0.2 mM) for 24 h. DNA damage-inducible foci of RPA32 and PP2A were examined by immunofluorescence. (E) RPA32 was immunoprecipitated from HeLa cells exposed to HU (2 mM) for 24 h and used as substrate for the in vitro phosphatase assay in the absence (−) or presence (+) of purified PP2A catalytic subunit and different doses of OA (0 to 25 nM). Western blot analysis was performed 30 min later to determine the level of phosphorylated RPA32.

  • FIG. 3.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 3.

    RPA32 dephosphorylation at T21/S33 is dispensable for the checkpoint activation but is required for recovery from HU stress. (A) The various cell lines with substitutions in RPA32 (S) were created by stably expressing in HeLa cells the empty vector (V) or Flag-tagged RPA32 variants (WT, VA, and DD) followed by retrovirally silencing endogenous RPA32 in these overexpression cells (O). RPA32 levels in these cell lines were examined by Western blot analysis. (B) WT and DD cells were treated with HU (5 mM). At 0 to 3 h postexposure, cells were fixed and stained with anti-RPA32 antibody. The RPA32 foci were visualized by immunofluorescence, and the percentage of focus-positive cells was determined, normalized, and plotted. Error bars represent the standard deviations from three independent experiments. (C) The RPA32 substitution cells were mock treated (−) or exposed (+) to HU (5 mM), and phosphorylation of Chk1 at S345 and Rad17 at S645 was examined by Western blotting 3 h later. (D) Various cells were irradiated with 25 J/m2 UV, and 3 h later, the DNA synthesis rate was determined and normalized to that in untreated cells (Untr). (E) The RPA32 substitution cells were left untreated or irradiated with 25 J/m2 UV. Later (1.5 h later), the cells were costained with propidium iodide and anti-phospho-H3 antibodies, and the mitotic fractions were determined by fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis and normalized to that of unperturbed cells. (F) The RPA32 substitution cell lines were pulse exposed to 0 to 1.2 mM HU for 24 h and then allowed to recover in drug-free medium for 10 to 14 days. The cell viability of various lineages was analyzed by the clonogenic survival assay. All the data points in panels D, E, and F represent the means ± standard deviations (error bars) from three independent experiments, each performed in triplicate.

  • FIG. 4.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 4.

    RPA32 dephosphorylation is not required for the resumption of DNA replication or subsequent mitosis following release from HU block. (A) The RPA32 substitution cells were released from HU exposure (pulses) (0.2 mM, 24 h). At 0 to 3 h postrelease, the DNA synthesis rates were determined and normalized to the rate at 0-h time point. All samples were tested in triplicate, and consistent results were obtained among three independent experiments. (B) Various cell lineages were allowed to recover from pulse exposure to HU (0.2 mM, 24 h). Cells at the indicated time points were fixed and costained with propidium iodide (PI) and anti-phospho-H3 antibody, and the mitotic fractions were further determined by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis. (C and D) HeLa cells were treated with sublethal (0.2 mM) or lethal (2 mM) doses of HU for 24 h and then allowed to recover. At 0 to 24 h after release, cells were harvested and analyzed by immunoblotting using appropriate antibodies (C). The remaining cells underwent cell cycle profiling analysis by PI staining and FACS (D). (E) HeLa cells were pulse exposed to lethal doses of HU (2 mM, 24 h). At 6 h postrecovery, cells were pulse-labeled with BrdU for 10 min followed by immunofluorescence analysis using anti-BrdU and anti-RPA32pS33 antibodies. The cell positive for both types of staining were boxed and magnified for clearer visualization. (F) HeLa cells were allowed to recover from HU treatment (0.2 or 2 mM, 24 h) (pulses), and mitotic index analysis was performed by FACS at the indicated time points after release.

  • FIG. 5.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 5.

    RPA32 dephosphorylation is necessary for the efficient repair of DNA breaks induced by HU. (A) WT and DD cells were allowed to recover from HU exposure (0.2 mM, 24 h) (pulses). At 0 to 12 h postrecovery, cells were harvested and analyzed by alkaline comet assay. Repair of DNA breaks was evaluated by the level of the residual DNA breaks, which is calculated by the comet tail moments at various recovery time points relative to that at the 0-h time point. (B and C) HeLa cells were transfected with control siRNA or siRNA against the PP2A catalytic subunit. At 24 h posttransfection, the cells were pulse exposed to HU (0.2 mM, 24 h) and then allowed to recover. RPA32 dephosphorylation was analyzed by immunoblotting (B), and repair of DNA breaks was evaluated by alkaline comet assay (C). untr, untreated; RNAi, RNA interference. (D) WT and DD cells were allowed to recover from HU treatment (0.2 mM, 24 h) (pulses). At 0 to 12 h postrelease, cells were fixed and stained with DAPI and anti-RPA70 and anti-γ-H2AX antibodies. Immunofluorescence was carried out to visualize the DNA damage foci formed by RPA70 and γ-H2AX, and the percentages of the focus-positive cells were calculated, normalized, and plotted. All the data points in panels A, C, and D represent the means ± standard deviations (error bars) from three independent experiments.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Supplemental material

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental file 1 - Fig. S1 (RPA32 dephosphorylation in cells recovering from UV irradiation), S2 (PP2A catalytic subunit-RPA32 binding and the chromatin bridge), S3 (Viability, growth rates, and colocalization of mutant cells), S4 (DNA replication at stalled replication forks), S5 (PP2A knockdown and RPA32 dephosphorylation), S6 (HeLa cell DNA breaks after release from HU pulse stress), and S7 and S8 (Checkpoint adaptation [S7] and senescence in checkpoint adapted cells [S8] during recovery from HU pulse stress) and Table S1 (Primers for RPA32 mutagenesis).
      PDF file, 2.13 MB.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Protein Phosphatase 2A-Dependent Dephosphorylation of Replication Protein A Is Required for the Repair of DNA Breaks Induced by Replication Stress
Junjie Feng, Timothy Wakeman, Sheila Yong, Xiaohua Wu, Sally Kornbluth, Xiao-Fan Wang
Molecular and Cellular Biology Oct 2009, 29 (21) 5696-5709; DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00191-09

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Molecular and Cellular Biology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Protein Phosphatase 2A-Dependent Dephosphorylation of Replication Protein A Is Required for the Repair of DNA Breaks Induced by Replication Stress
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular and Cellular Biology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular and Cellular Biology.
Share
Protein Phosphatase 2A-Dependent Dephosphorylation of Replication Protein A Is Required for the Repair of DNA Breaks Induced by Replication Stress
Junjie Feng, Timothy Wakeman, Sheila Yong, Xiaohua Wu, Sally Kornbluth, Xiao-Fan Wang
Molecular and Cellular Biology Oct 2009, 29 (21) 5696-5709; DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00191-09
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About MCB
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #MCBJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0270-7306; Online ISSN: 1098-5549