组蛋白乙酰化/去乙酰化与基因表达调控

组蛋白是真核生物染色质的主要成分,组蛋白修饰(如甲基化、乙酰化、磷酸化、泛素化等)在真核生物基因表达调控中发挥着重要的作用.在这些修饰中,组蛋白乙酰化/去乙酰化尤为重要.组蛋白乙酰化/去乙酰化可通过改变染色质周围电荷或参与染色质构型重建而影响基因表达;更重要的是组蛋白乙酰化/去乙酰化可形成一种特殊的“密码”,被其它蛋白质识别,影响多种蛋白质因子的活动或与其相互作用,参与到基因表达调控的整个网络中.     

Cdt1 Interactions in the Licensing Process: A Model for Dynamic Spatio-temporal Control of Licensing

Within each cell cycle, a cell must ensure that the processes of selection of replication origins (licensing) and initiation of DNA replication are well coordinated to prevent re-initiation of DNA replication from the same DNA segment during the same cell cycle. This is achieved by restricting the licensing process to G1 phase when the prereplicative complexes (preRCs) are assembled onto the origin DNA, while DNA replication is initiated only during S phase when de novo preRC assembly is blocked. Cdt1 is an important member of the preRC complex and its tight regulation through ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis and binding to its inhibitor Geminin ensure that Cdt1 will only be present in G1 phase, preventing relicensing of replication origins. We have recently reported that Cdt1 associates with chromatin in a dynamic way and recruits its inhibitor Geminin onto chromatin in vivo. Here we discuss how these dynamic Cdt1-chromatin interactions and the local recruitment of Geminin onto origins of replication by Cdt1 may provide a tight control of the licensing process in time and in space.     

组蛋白乙酰化／去乙酰化作用与真核基因转录调控

核小体组蛋白的翻译后修饰是真核基因转录调控中的关键步骤。对于组蛋白的这类修饰方式 ,近年来研究最为活跃的是组蛋白Ｎ末端区域保守的Ｌｙｓ上ε ＮＨ 3 的乙酰化作用。随着各种组蛋白乙酰化酶 /去乙酰化酶被克隆、鉴定 ,组蛋白乙酰化 /去乙酰化作用与真核基因转录调控之间的关系也开始逐步得以阐明。1 .真核转录相关的组蛋白乙酰化酶和组蛋白去乙酰化酶1 .1　组蛋白乙酰化酶 (ｈｉｓｔｏｎｅａｃｅｔｙｌｔｒａｎｓ ｆｅｒａｓｅ ,ＨＡＴ)　　核小体组蛋白中Ｎ末端区域上保守的Ｌｙｓ的乙酰化是染色质具有转录活性的标志之一。在组蛋白…     

ATR and H2AX Cooperate in Maintaining Genome Stability under Replication Stress

Chromosomal abnormalities are frequently caused by problems encountered during DNA replication. Although the ATR-Chk1 pathway has previously been implicated in preventing the collapse of stalled replication forks into double-strand breaks (DSB), the importance of the response to fork collapse in ATR-deficient cells has not been well characterized. Herein, we demonstrate that, upon stalled replication, ATR deficiency leads to the phosphorylation of H2AX by ATM and DNA-PKcs and to the focal accumulation of Rad51, a marker of homologous recombination and fork restart. Because H2AX has been shown to play a facilitative role in homologous recombination, we hypothesized that H2AX participates in Rad51-mediated suppression of DSBs generated in the absence of ATR. Consistent with this model, increased Rad51 focal accumulation in ATR-deficient cells is largely dependent on H2AX, and dual deficiencies in ATR and H2AX lead to synergistic increases in chromatid breaks and translocations. Importantly, the ATM and DNA-PK phosphorylation site on H2AX (Ser¹³⁹) is required for genome stabilization in the absence of ATR; therefore, phosphorylation of H2AX by ATM and DNA-PKcs plays a pivotal role in suppressing DSBs during DNA synthesis in instances of ATR pathway failure. These results imply that ATR-dependent fork stabilization and H2AX/ATM/DNA-PKcs-dependent restart pathways cooperatively suppress double-strand breaks as a layered response network when replication stalls.Genome maintenance prevents mutations that lead to cancer and age-related diseases. A major challenge in preserving genome integrity occurs in the simple act of DNA replication, in which failures at numerous levels can occur. Besides the mis-incorporation of nucleotides, it is during this phase of the cell cycle that the relatively stable double-stranded nature of DNA is temporarily suspended at the replication fork, a structure that is susceptible to collapse into DSBs.² Replication fork stability is maintained by a variety of mechanisms, including activation of the ATR-dependent checkpoint pathway.The ATR pathway is activated upon the generation and recognition of extended stretches of single-stranded DNA at stalled replication forks (1-4). Genome maintenance functions for ATR and orthologs in yeast were first indicated by increased chromatid breaks in ATR^-/- cultured cells (5) and by the “cut” phenotype observed in Mec1 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and Rad3 (Schizosaccharomyces pombe) mutants (6-9). Importantly, subsequent studies in S. cerevisiae demonstrated that mutation of Mec1 or the downstream checkpoint kinase Rad53 led to increased chromosome breaks at regions of the genome that are inherently difficult to replicate (10), and a decreased ability to reinitiate replication fork progression following DNA damage or deoxyribonucleotide depletion (11-14).In vertebrates, similar replication fork stabilizing functions have been demonstrated for ATR and the downstream protein kinase Chk1 (15-20). Several possible mechanisms have been put forward to explain how ATR-Chk1 and orthologous pathways in yeast maintain replication fork stability, including maintenance of replicative polymerases (α, δ, and ε) at forks (17, 21), regulation of branch migrating helicases, such as Blm (22-25), and regulation of homologous recombination, either positively or negatively (26-29).Consistent with the role of the ATR-dependent checkpoint in replication fork stability, common fragile sites, located in late-replicating regions of the genome, are significantly more unstable (5-10-fold) in the absence of ATR or Chk1 (19, 20). Because these sites are favored regions of instability in oncogene-transformed cells and preneoplastic lesions (30, 31), it is possible that the increased tumor incidence observed in ATR haploinsufficient mice (5, 32) may be related to subtle increases in genomic instability. Together, these studies indicate that maintenance of replication fork stability may contribute to tumor suppression.It is important to note that prevention of fork collapse represents an early response to problems occurring during DNA replication. In the event of fork collapse into DSBs, homologous recombination (HR) has also been demonstrated to play a key role in genome stability during S phase by catalyzing recombination between sister chromatids as a means to re-establish replication forks (33). Importantly, a facilitator of homologous recombination, H2AX, has been shown to be phosphorylated under conditions that cause replication fork collapse (18, 34).Phosphorylation of H2AX occurs predominantly upon DSB formation (34-38) and has been reported to require ATM, DNA-PKcs, or ATR, depending on the context (37-42). Although H2AX is not essential for HR, studies have demonstrated that H2AX mutation leads to deficiencies in HR (43, 44), and suppresses events associated with homologous recombination, such as the focal accumulation of Rad51, BRCA1, BRCA2, ubiquitinated-FANCD2, and Ubc13-mediated chromatin ubiquitination (43, 45-51). Therefore, through its contribution to HR, it is possible that H2AX plays an important role in replication fork stability as part of a salvage pathway to reinitiate replication following collapse.If ATR prevents the collapse of stalled replication forks into DSBs, and H2AX facilitates HR-mediated restart, the combined deficiency in ATR and H2AX would be expected to dramatically enhance the accumulation of DSBs upon replication fork stalling. Herein, we utilize both partial and complete elimination of ATR and H2AX to demonstrate that these genes work cooperatively in non-redundant pathways to suppress DSBs during S phase. As discussed, these studies imply that the various components of replication fork protection and regeneration cooperate to maintain replication fork stability. Given the large number of genes involved in each of these processes, it is possible that combined deficiencies in these pathways may be relatively frequent in humans and may synergistically influence the onset of age-related diseases and cancer.     

An Alternative Form of Replication Protein A Prevents Viral Replication in Vitro

Replication protein A (RPA), the eukaryotic single-stranded DNA-binding complex, is essential for multiple processes in cellular DNA metabolism. The “canonical” RPA is composed of three subunits (RPA1, RPA2, and RPA3); however, there is a human homolog to the RPA2 subunit, called RPA4, that can substitute for RPA2 in complex formation. We demonstrate that the resulting “alternative” RPA (aRPA) complex has solution and DNA binding properties indistinguishable from the canonical RPA complex; however, aRPA is unable to support DNA replication and inhibits canonical RPA function. Two regions of RPA4, the putative L34 loop and the C terminus, are responsible for inhibiting SV40 DNA replication. Given that aRPA inhibits canonical RPA function in vitro and is found in nonproliferative tissues, these studies indicate that RPA4 expression may prevent cellular proliferation via replication inhibition while playing a role in maintaining the viability of quiescent cells.Replication protein A (RPA)³ is a stable complex composed of three subunits (RPA1, RPA2, and RPA3) that binds single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) nonspecifically. RPA (also referred to as canonical RPA) is essential for cell viability (1), and viable missense mutations in RPA subunits can lead to defects in DNA repair pathways or show increased chromosome instability. For example, a missense change in a high affinity DNA-binding domain (DBD) was demonstrated to cause a high rate of chromosome rearrangement and lymphoid tumor development in heterozygous mice (2). RPA has also been shown to have increased expression in colon and breast cancers (3, 4). High RPA1 and RPA2 levels in cancer cells are also correlated with poor overall survival (3, 4), which is consistent with RPA having a role in efficient cell proliferation.RPA is a highly conserved complex as all eukaryotes contain homologs of each of the three RPA subunits (1). At least some plants (e.g. rice) and some protists (e.g. Cryptosporidium parvum) contain multiple genes encoding for subunits of RPA (5, 6). In rice, there is evidence for multiple RPA complexes that are thought to perform different cellular functions (5). In contrast, only a single alternative form of RPA2, called RPA4, has been identified in humans (7). RPA4 was originally identified as a protein that interacts with RPA1 in a yeast two-hybrid screen (7). The RPA4 subunit is 63% identical/similar to RPA2. Comparison of the sequences of RPA4 and RPA2 suggests that the two proteins have a similar domain organization.⁴ RPA4 appears to contain a putative core DNA-binding domain (DBD G) flanked by a putative N-terminal phosphorylation domain and a C terminus containing a putative winged-helix domain (Fig. 1A). The RPA4 gene is located on the X chromosome, intronless, and found mainly in primates.⁴ Initial characterization of RPA4 by Keshav et al. (7) indicated that either RPA2 or RPA4, but not both simultaneously, interacts with RPA1 and RPA3 to form a complex. This analysis also showed that RPA4 is expressed in placenta and colon tissue but was either not detected or expressed at low levels in most established cell lines examined (7).Open in a separate windowFIGURE 1.Properties of aRPA complex. A, schematic diagram of the structural and functional domains of the three subunits of RPA and (proposed for) RPA4: DNA-binding domains (DBD A-G), the phosphorylation domain (PD), winged-helix domain (WH), and linker regions (lines). The sequence similarity between RPA2 and RPA4 is indicated for each domain of the subunit. B, gel analysis of 2 μg of RPA4/3, RPA. or aRPA separated on 8-14% SDS-PAGE gels and visualized by Coomassie Blue staining. The position of each RPA subunit is indicated. C, hydrodynamic properties of aRPA and RPA complexes. The sedimentation coefficient and Stokes'' radius were determined as described previously by sedimentation on a 15-35% glycerol gradient and chromatography on a Superose 6 10/300 GL column (GE Healthcare), respectively (13). Mass and frictional coefficients were calculated using the method of Siegal and Monty (8). The predicted mass was based upon the amino acid sequence derived from the DNA sequence.These studies describe the purification and functional analysis of an alternative RPA (aRPA) complex containing RPA1, RPA3, and RPA4. The aRPA complex is a stable heterotrimeric complex similar in size and stability to the canonical RPA complex (RPA1, RPA3, and RPA2). aRPA interacts with ssDNA in a manner indistinguishable from canonical RPA; however, it does not support DNA replication in vitro. Mixing experiments demonstrate that aRPA also inhibits canonical RPA from functioning in DNA replication. Hybrid protein studies paired with structural modeling have allowed for the identification of two regions of RPA4 responsible for this inhibitory activity. Data presented here are consistent with recent analyses of RPA4 function in human cells,⁴ and we conclude that RPA4 has anti-proliferative properties and has the potential to play a regulatory role in human cell proliferation through the control of DNA replication.     

Licensing for DNA replication requires a strict sequential assembly of Cdc6 and Cdt1 onto chromatin in Xenopus egg extracts

Replication origins are licensed for a single initiation event by the loading of Mcm2-7 proteins during late mitosis and G1. Sequential associations of origin recognition complex, Cdc6 and Mcm2-7 are essential for completion of the licensing. Although Cdt1 also binds to the chromatin when the licensing reaction takes place, whether the binding is a requirement for Cdt1 to function is unclear. To analyze the relevance of the chromatin association of Cdt1, we carried out chromatin transfer experiments using either immunodepleted Xenopus egg extracts or purified proteins. Licensing assay and immunoblotting analyses indicated that Cdt1 could only license DNA replication and load Mcm2-7 onto DNA when it binds to chromatin that has already associated with Cdc6. These results provide evidence supporting that Cdc6 and Cdt1 must bind to chromatin in a strict order for DNA licensing to occur.     

Cleavage at Arg-1689 Influences Heavy Chain Cleavages during Thrombin-catalyzed Activation of Factor VIII

The procofactor, factor VIII, is activated by thrombin or factor Xa-catalyzed cleavage at three P1 residues: Arg-372, Arg-740, and Arg-1689. The catalytic efficiency for thrombin cleavage at Arg-740 is greater than at either Arg-1689 or Arg-372 and influences reaction rates at these sites. Because cleavage at Arg-372 appears rate-limiting and dependent upon initial cleavage at Arg-740, we investigated whether cleavage at Arg-1689 influences catalysis at this step. Recombinant B-domainless factor VIII mutants, R1689H and R1689Q were prepared and stably expressed to slow and eliminate cleavage, respectively. Specific activity values for the His and Gln mutations were ∼50 and ∼10%, respectively, that of wild type. Thrombin activation of the R1689H variant showed an ∼340-fold reduction in the rate of Arg-1689 cleavage, whereas the R1689Q variant was resistant to thrombin cleavage at this site. Examination of heavy chain cleavages showed ∼4- and 11-fold reductions in A2 subunit generation and ∼3- and 7-fold reductions in A1 subunit generation for the R1689H and R1689Q mutants, respectively. These results suggest a linkage between light chain cleavage and cleavages in heavy chain. Results obtained evaluating proteolysis of the factor VIII mutants by factor Xa revealed modest rate reductions (<5-fold) in generating A2 and A1 subunits and in cleaving light chain at Arg-1721 from either variant, suggesting little dependence upon prior cleavage at residue 1689 as compared with thrombin. Overall, these results are consistent with a competition between heavy and light chains for thrombin exosite binding and subsequent proteolysis with binding of the former chain preferred.Factor VIII, a plasma protein missing or defective in individuals with hemophilia A, is synthesized as an ∼300-kDa single chain polypeptide corresponding to 2332 amino acids. Within the protein are six domains based on internal homologies and ordered as NH₂-A1-A2-B-A3-C1-C2-COOH (1, 2). Bordering the A domains are short segments containing high concentrations of acidic residues that follow the A1 and A2 domains and precede the A3 domain and are designated a1 (residues 337–372), a2 (residues 711–740), and a3 (1649–1689). Factor VIII is processed by cleavage at the B-A3 junction to generate a divalent metal ion-dependent heterodimeric protein composed of a heavy chain (A1-a1-A2-a2-B domains) and a light chain (a3-A3-C1-C2 domains) (3).The activated form of factor VIII, factor VIIIa, functions as a cofactor for factor IXa, increasing its catalytic efficiency by several orders of magnitude in the phospholipid- and Ca²⁺-dependent conversion of factor X to factor Xa (4). The factor VIII procofactor is converted to factor VIIIa through limited proteolysis catalyzed by thrombin or factor Xa (5, 6). Thrombin is believed to act as the physiological activator of factor VIII, as association of factor VIII with von Willebrand factor impairs the capacity for the membrane-dependent factor Xa to efficiently activate the procofactor (5, 7). Activation of factor VIII occurs through proteolysis by either protease via cleavage of three P1 residues at Arg-740 (A2-B domain junction), Arg-372 (A1-A2 domain junction), and Arg-1689 (a3-A3 junction) (5). After factor VIII activation, there is a weak electrostatic interaction between the A1 and A2 domains of factor VIIIa (8, 9) and spontaneous inactivation of the cofactor occurs through A2 subunit dissociation from the A1/A3-C1-C2 dimer, consequently dampening factor Xase (3).Thrombin cleavage of factor VIII appears to be an ordered pathway, with relative rates at Arg-740 > Arg-1689 > Arg-372 and the initial proteolysis at Arg-740 facilitating proteolysis at Arg-372 as well as Arg-1689 (10). This latter observation was based upon results showing that mutations at Arg-740, impairing this cleavage, significantly reduced cleavage rates at the two other P1 sites. Thrombin-catalyzed activation of factor VIII is dependent upon interactions involving the anion binding exosites of the proteinase (11, 12). Exosite binding is believed to determine substrate affinity, whereas subsequent active site docking primarily affects V_max (13). Furthermore, the complex interactions involving multiple cleavages within a single substrate may utilize a ratcheting mechanism (14) where presentation of the scissile bond is facilitated by a prior cleavage event.Cleavage at Arg-372 is a critical step in thrombin activation of factor VIII as it exposes a cryptic functional factor IXa-interactive site in the A2 domain (15), whereas cleavage at Arg-1689 liberates factor VIII from von Willebrand factor (16) and contributes to factor VIIIa specific activity (17, 18). Although cleavage at Arg-740 represents a fast step relative to cleavages at other P1 residues in the activation of factor VIII (19), the influence of Arg-1689 cleavage on cleavages in the heavy chain remains unknown. In the present study cleavage at Arg-1689 is examined using recombinant factor VIII variants possessing single point mutations of R1689Q and R1689H. Results indicating reduced rates of A1 and A2 subunit generation, which are dependent upon the residue at position 1689, suggest that cleavage at Arg-1689 affects rates of proteolysis at Arg-740 and Arg-372. These observations are consistent with a mechanism whereby heavy chain and light chain compete for a binding thrombin exosite(s), with heavy chain preferred over light chain. In this competition mechanism, cleavage at Arg-740 is favored over Arg-1689. Subsequent cleavage at Arg-372 in heavy chain may involve a ratcheting mechanism after initial cleavage at Arg-740. On the other hand, the mechanism for factor Xa-catalyzed activation of factor VIII appears to be less dependent on cleavage at the Arg-1689 site as compared with thrombin.     

Acetylation of Dna2 Endonuclease/Helicase and Flap Endonuclease 1 by p300 Promotes DNA Stability by Creating Long Flap Intermediates

Flap endonuclease 1 (FEN1) and Dna2 endonuclease/helicase (Dna2) sequentially coordinate their nuclease activities for efficient resolution of flap structures that are created during the maturation of Okazaki fragments and repair of DNA damage. Acetylation of FEN1 by p300 inhibits its endonuclease activity, impairing flap cleavage, a seemingly undesirable effect. We now show that p300 also acetylates Dna2, stimulating its 5′–3′ endonuclease, the 5′–3′ helicase, and DNA-dependent ATPase activities. Furthermore, acetylated Dna2 binds its DNA substrates with higher affinity. Differential regulation of the activities of the two endonucleases by p300 indicates a mechanism in which the acetylase promotes formation of longer flaps in the cell at the same time as ensuring correct processing. Intentional formation of longer flaps mediated by p300 in an active chromatin environment would increase the resynthesis patch size, providing increased opportunity for incorrect nucleotide removal during DNA replication and damaged nucleotide removal during DNA repair. For example, altering the ratio between short and long flap Okazaki fragment processing would be a mechanism for better correction of the error-prone synthesis catalyzed by DNA polymerase α.