1.1. Induction and repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs) in the DNA
DNA encodes and transmits genetic information into the progeny of cells and organisms. As a result, processes associated with DNA replication, repair and recombination are at the center of biological research. Although the double-stranded nature of the DNA molecule is not a requirement for its replication or transcription, it is essential for the repair of practically all forms of damage that are limited to one DNA strand. Thus, in the base excision repair (BER) pathway, the damaged base is excised by the appropriate DNA glycosylase and the resulting apurinic/apyrimidinic site is recognized by the AP-endonuclease (APE1) which opens the sugar phosphate backbone and removes the sugar residue (Fig. 1A). The resulting single nucleotide gap is filled-in using information from the complementary strand with the help of DNA polymerase β (polβ) and the sugar phosphate backbone is resealed with the help of XRCC1/DNA LigaseIII (LigIII) complex (Sancar et al., 2004). In an alternative form of this repair pathway, more nucleotides are removed from the vicinity of the damaged base and are subsequently replaced by the DNA polymerase, hence the name long-patch base excision repair.
A further example of a repair pathway relying exclusively on the complementarity of the DNA strands for the faithful restoration of the DNA molecule is the nucleotide excision repair pathway (NER) (Fig. 1B). In this repair pathway gross structural distortions are recognized in the DNA rather than altered bases. Such structural alterations can be generated by pyrimidine dimers forming after exposure to UV light, as well as by several other forms of DNA lesions, including DNA crosslinks and DNA “bulky” adducts. Upon their recognition by a multi-protein complex (see Fig. 1B for details) and with the help of two independently acting 3’- and 5’- excision nucleases XPG and XPF/ERCC1 respectively, an incision is placed 6 ±3 and 20 ±5 nucleotides upstream and downstream of the pyrimidine dimer ultimately removing an approximately 24-32 nt single stranded DNA segment including the lesion. The resulting gap is filled in, again using information available on the complementary strand with the help of a polymerase. The continuity of the DNA is finally restored by ligation with DNA Ligase I (LigI) (Sancar et al., 2004).
This fundamental concept of DNA repair, i.e. the use of a complementary strand to restore sequence information in the damaged strand, fails when complex damage is generated in the DNA consisting of multiple lesions distributed on both strands of the DNA in close proximity (Fig. 1C). Such forms of DNA damage are generated after exposure of cells to ionizing radiation (IR) and are the direct consequence of the energy deposition patterns of this physical cytotoxic agent (Fig. 1C). The most widely investigated, complex form of damage is the DNA double-strand break (DSB). DSBs are highly dangerous DNA lesions that have been implicated not only in cell death but also in the induction of mutations and in carcinogenesis.
The difficulties that cell faces in its attempt to faithfully process DSBs have two distinct aspects. First, the resulting disruption of the DNA molecule (note that disruption of the DNA molecule does not occur in case of lesions processed by BER or NER) physically interrupts its continuity and destabilizes the surrounding chromatin. Second, since both DNA strands carry damage closely juxtaposed, an intact template is lacking for ensuring the faithful restoration of the sequence in the vicinity of the break. The selective pressure for evolving mechanisms for the detection and processing of DSBs would have been low had this type of lesion been extremely rare. However, in addition of IR, a number of chemical and physical cytotoxic agents generate DSBs. Most importantly, however, DSBs are also generated during the normal life cycle of the cell, particularly during DNA replication or in meiosis (Baudat & de Massy, 2007; Longhese et al., 2009), as well as during V(D)J and class switch recombination required for the differentiation of B and T cells of the hematopoietic system (Franco et al., 2006; Maizels, 2005). To cope with these multiple sources of DSBs, cells have evolved sophisticated mechanisms for detecting and repairing this form of DNA lesion. Notably, these repair mechanisms have been intimately coupled to the cell cycle, transcription and apoptosis machineries, suggesting a close coordination with the overall cellular metabolism.
Two conceptually different mechanisms can in principle remove DSBs from the genome in cells of higher eukaryotes. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) is equipped to maintain fidelity in the sequence of the DNA molecule, but because the damage affects both DNA strands it retrieves information from a homologous DNA molecule that is used as a template. There are two sources of homology in mammalian cells. The homologous chromosome that is present throughout the life cycle of the cell and the sister chromatid that is generated after DNA replication and which therefore exists only during the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle. Existing evidence supports the view that HRR requires the sister chromatid as a source of template, a requirement that automatically restricts the function of this repair pathway to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle. This requirement probably derives from the fact that in a eukaryotic cell nucleus the homologous chromosomes are accommodated in distinct and frequently distantly located domains that renders search for homology (a key step of HRR, see below) difficult, if not impossible (Cremer & Cremer, 2001; Folle, 2008).
Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), on the other hand, simply restores integrity in the DNA by joining the two ends without necessarily preserving the original sequence. As a result, it is error prone. Because a second DNA molecule is not required for the function of this repair pathway, it remains active throughout the cell cycle, but has a limited contribution to the rejoining of DNA lesions generating a single DNA terminus.
The fact that at least two genetically and conceptually distinct repair pathways are involved in the elimination of DSBs, poses questions regarding their coordination. If these pathways operate independently of each other it is possible that they compete against each other. If they collaborate, the question arises as to how their functions are coordinated. In this regard, it appears puzzling that cells of higher eukaryotes appear programmed to utilize preferentially NHEJ.
In the following sections we summarize the salient features of HRR and NHEJ and explain the concepts underlying their operation. Further, we describe a “dormant” pathway of DSB repair that unfolds its activity mostly when D-NHEJ for some reason fails and which therefore is considered to have a backup nature. Finally, we cover connections between DSB repair and cell cycle progression and discuss potential sources of errors during DSB repair that affect genomic stability and may lead to cancer development.
2. Homologous recombination repair – the only genuine repair process
DSB repair based on homology is frequently termed homologous recombination repair(HRR). A breakthrough in our understanding of the process of homologous recombination (HR) in general and of HRR in particular was the model proposed in 1964 by Robin Holliday to explain meiotic recombination. The model introduced several key concepts including a mechanism for the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes through the formation of what is now known as Holliday junction (HJ) (Liu & West, 2004) (see below for description). The Holliday model described some of the basic steps of the recombination process, but was unable to explain all sets of available genetic data. This was later achieved by a model proposed by Jack Szostak, now known as the double-strand break repair model (DSBR) (Szostak et al., 1983). Furthermore, analysis of genetic experiments in Drosophila revealed that DNA recombination may not require the formation of a Holliday junction and may instead depend on what is now known as synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) (Ferguson & Holloman, 1996; San Filippo et al., 2008). Recombination events carried out by this mechanism in mitotic cells lack crossover products (exchange of chromosome arms).
All current recombination models are formulated on the basis of genetic data and emphasize the role of HR during meiosis or mitosis. The meiotic function of HR mediates the exchanges of genetic material between the homologous chromosomes of the gamete precursor cells and ensures genetic diversity in the progeny (San Filippo et al., 2008).
Genetic and biochemical data provide strong evidence for the involvement of mitotic HR in the repair of DSBs. Moreover, HR is required for the restart of blocked or collapsed replication forks, as well as during the repair of inter-strand crosslinks (ICLs) (Ide et al., 2008; Nikolova et al., 2010; Petermann et al., 2010). The ultimate goal of HRR is to assist a DNA molecule that has suffered sequence information loss as a result of damage to both strands, to retrieve this information from an undamaged homologous DNA sequence. To this end, damaged and undamaged DNA molecules will need to directly interact, i.e. to undergo synapsis. In particular, the damaged DNA molecule will need processing to generate DNA forms capable of “reading-off” sequence information. Also the chromatin structure on both molecules will need to be modified to facilitate the search for homologous regions in neighboring DNA molecules. Once homology has been found sequence information will need to be copied by appropriately directed DNA synthesis, and finally the synapsed molecules will need to be separated.
Because DSBs are frequently generated in the genome accidently, the cell needs to be prepared for their repair by maintaining sufficient pools of repair factors. Indeed, there is evidence that in eukaryotic cells the level of the repair proteins is higher compared to the level of other proteins of the cellular metabolism (Shrivastav et al., 2008). These pools may have a cell cycle component for repair pathways such as HRR that show preferential function in certain phases of the cell cycle.
In addition to the random induction of DSBs after accidental or intentional exposure to physical or chemical agents, cells also induce DSBs in their genome in a programmed fashion as part of certain differentiation programs. The differentiation of germ cells and of the cells of the hematopoietic system is a good example along these lines. Programmed DSBs for such functions are generated through the action of specific enzymes (Spo11 during meiosis and Rag1/Rag2 during V(D)J recombination). In general, these DSB inducing nucleases interact with components of the repair pathways that are associated with the proper recognition and processing of the generated DSBs (Keeney et al., 1997; Mc Blane et al., 1995; Oettinger, 1992). Although there is evidence that HR events may be initiated by a single-strand break (Metzger et al., 2011), it is widely accepted that the ultimate initiating event of homologous recombination is the DSB. This recognition implicates the DSBR and SDSA repair models in the mechanistic foundation of DSB repair through homologous recombination (Brugmans et al., 2007; Pardo et al., 2009; Wyman & Kanaar, 2006).
To accommodate the specific requirements of DSB repair as mediated by DNA homology, HRR starts with the resection of DNA ends around the DSB, causing the formation of 3’-single stranded DNA (ssDNA) regions (West, 2003; Wyman & Kanaar, 2006). This form of DNA can invade and pair to homologous sequences present in an intact molecule and be directly extended by polymerization to copy missing sequence information (see below). Therefore, the effectiveness of HRR may be dictated by the ability of cells to execute end resection in a proper orientation, immediately after the generation of the DSB. In cells of higher eukaryotes the initial DNA end processing is orchestrated by the Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1 (MRN complex) (Fig. 2) (D'Amours & Jackson, 2002; Rupnik et al., 2010), assisted by the functions of recently identified resection promoting factor CtIP (Fig. 3) (Farah et al., 2009; Sartori et al., 2007). The MRN complex exhibits multiple activities many of which are implicated in HRR. Surprisingly, despite its nuclease activity, many reports pointed out that MRN may not be directly involved in the extensive resection of DNA ends to generate the 3’ ssDNA, suggesting that other enzymes with nuclease functions should fulfill this requirement(Longhese et al., 2010; Mimitou & Symington, 2009; Stewart et al., 2010). Thus MRN may have a regulatory role in the coordination between different DSB repair pathways (Borde & Cobb, 2009; Rupnik et al., 2010; Stracker & Petrini, 2011).
The MRN complex is one of the first proteins recruited to DSBs. It consists of the Mre11 nuclease, the Rad50 protein, an ATP-binding polypeptide with bridging functions through a coiled-coil motif and the Nbs1 protein, a polypeptide rich in protein-protein interaction domains (Fig. 2) (Stracker & Petrini, 2011).
The significance of the MRN complex in DSB repair and meiotic recombination was first shown in yeasts by genetic screening of mutants hypersensitive to DNA damaging agents (D'Amours & Jackson, 2002). After the cloning of the yeast
Ultimately, it was shown that the gene mutated in the Nijmegen breakage syndrome,
Mre11 is an 80 kDa protein that harbors three constitutive phosphoesterase N-terminal motifs and one phosphoesterase motif similar to the SbcD subunit of the SbcCD nuclease (Fig. 2). It acts as an endonucleasethat cleaves hairpin structures, as well as an exonuclease that degradeslinear double-stranded (ds) DNA molecules (Biroccio et al., 2011; Sachs et al., 2011). The Mre11 phosphoesterase motifs are folded into a nuclease domain that exhibits 3’-5’ dsDNA dependent exonuclease activity and single-stranded (ss) and dsDNA dependent endonuclease activity on a variety of DNA substrates (Paull & Gellert, 1998; Trujillo et al., 1998). Curiously, the nuclease activities of Mre11 are not appropriate for the end-resection step required during HRR and recent observations suggest that the exonuclease activity of Mre11 is not involved in extensive DSB end-processing (Llorente & Symington, 2004). Krogh
and Symington have proposed a model, explaining the MRX (MRN) role in processing of DSB ends during meiosis or mitosis (Krogh & Symington, 2004). According to this model, Mre11 can execute its function through the cooperative action of an enzyme(s) with helicase and/or exonuclease activity. Through the action of such putative helicase the initial unwinding of DNA occurs, resulting in a formation of secondary DNA structures. In addition, Mre11 can process the 5' strand using its endonuclease activity by trimming the secondary DNA structures. Another enzyme with exonuclease activity might then catalyse the extensive resection of the 5’-end resulting in the generation of 3’-overhangs.
IR breaks the DNA molecule by damaging its sugar moiety, thus generating ends that are not amenable to ligation before processing. Mre11 may participate in such initial end processing but not in the final processing of the 5’ DNA strand. In agreement with this putative function, unmodified DSB ends generated by HO nuclease are substrates for nucleolytic enzymes even in the absence of active Mre11, suggesting that the nuclease function of MRN is only needed during the initial steps of the end-resection reaction. Studies in yeast have suggested that at least two nucleases (Exo1 and Dna2) in complex with a helicase (Sgs1) are involved in the end-resection step during HRR (Mimitou & Symington, 2009; Mimitou & Symington, 2008), but the functions of their mammalian homologs are incompletely characterized. However, it has been reported that the human homologue of the yeast resection factor Exo1, is important for the recruitment of RPA and Rad51 proteins through the generation of ssDNA regions. The potential role of Exo1 in HRR was also shown in experiments with Exo1 depleted cells, which develop hypersensitivity to ionizing radiation and show increased chromosomal instability (Bolderson et al., 2010). Moreover, the localization of Exo1 to DSBs depends on CtIP and MRN and its exonuclease activity is controlled by CtIP, supporting the idea that MRN is much more involved in the mediation of end-resection rather than in the direct digestion of 5’-DNAstrand of the DSB (Eid et al., 2010).
After processing of the DNA ends, the generated single-stranded 3’-overhangs are covered by the RPA heterotrimer, the major mammalian ssDNA binding protein. During HRR, one of the functions of this protein is to protect ssDNA and to prevent the formation of secondary DNA structures (Fig. 3) (Fanning et al., 2006). However, RPA also mediates the recruitment of the ATR/ATRIP complex to the single stranded regions and initiates in this way the DDR signaling cascades, which among others inhibit cell cycle progression through activation of the corresponding checkpoints (Cimprich & Cortez, 2008; Zegerman & Diffley, 2009). Indeed, there is evidence that RPA functions as a checkpoint activator (Stephan et al., 2009), as well as a regulator of the repair process, possibly through shifts in its function by DNA damage-mediated post-translational modifications (Anantha et al., 2007; Vassin et al., 2009). RPA also facilitates indirectly Rad51 filament formation by mediating DNA-Rad52 or DNA-BRCA2 interactions (see below) (Mortensen et al., 2009; Thorslund & West, 2007). Genetic and biochemical data support the notion that HRR is driven by the proteins of
Rad51 exhibits ssDNA and dsDNA-stimulated ATPase activity, which drives the nucleation and extension of the Rad51 nucleoprotein filament. There is clear evidence that only Rad51-ssDNA nucleoprotein filament is able to catalyze DNA joint formation, supporting the assessment that Rad51 is recruited to ssDNA generated by nucleolytic processing of DNA termini (Ristic et al., 2005). Formation of Rad51 nucleoprotein filament also depends on a large number of factors controlling the effectiveness of HRR. One of the most important players mediating nucleation of Rad51 over DNA is Rad52 and BRCA2. While the Rad52 function is essential for yeast viability after IR (West, 2003), in mammalian cells BRCA2 substitutes Rad52 activity and plays more important role in the regulation of HRR than Rad52 (Davies et al., 2001; Thorslund & West, 2007; West, 2003). Nevertheless, both proteins are involved in the delivery of Rad51 monomers to the ssDNA overhangs in combination with the elimination of a negative effect of RPA on Rad51 filament formation (Thorslund & West, 2007). Notably, a BRCA2 homolog has not been identified in yeast, suggesting evolutionarily distinct requirements for HRR in yeast and in higher eukaryotes. The structural studies of BRCA2 and its orthologous proteins revealed a protein domain allowing DNA binding (Marmorstein et al., 2001; Zhou et al., 2009) and degenerative conservative motifs called the BRC repeats, physically interacting with Rad51 (Fig. 2) (Carreira et al., 2009; Carreira & Kowalczykowski, 2009; Davies et al., 2001). The structurally undisclosed TR2 motif in the extreme C-terminus of BRCA2 was found to play an important role in the regulation of Rad51 nucleoprotein filament formation and dissociation, and the binding of Rad51 to this motif is controlled by its phosphorylation at S3291 in a cell cycle dependent manner (Fig. 2) (Esashi et al., 2005; Esashi et al., 2007; Thorslund & West, 2007).
The formation of a Rad51 nucleoprotein filament marks the initiation of a pre-synaptic step of HRR, while strand invasion and the search for homology characterize the synaptic reaction (Fig. 3). After alignment of the invading DNA strand with the homologous DNA duplex, the chromatin remodeling functions of Rad54 and its homolog Rad54B operate to facilitate DNA synthesis and branch migration resulting in formation of double Holliday junctions when both processed 3’-overhangs invade the undamaged DNA molecule (Fig. 3) (Mazin et al., 2010). During the DNA repair synthesis step, sequence information is copied from the undamaged DNA molecule to the damaged one assisting thus its restoration. At the final stages of HRR the HJs are resolved by protein complexes identified as resolvases (Figure 3) (Liu et al., 2007; Mazina & Mazin, 2008; Symington & Holloman, 2008; West, 2009). While the resolution of the HJs by resolvases can lead to either gene conversion or crossing over, there is evidence that during repair of DSBs by HRR in higher eukaryotes gene conversion dominates.
3. When effectiveness is chosen over accuracy: DNA-PKcs dependent non-homologous end joining (D-NHEJ)
Perhaps surprisingly the above described high fidelity pathway of DSB repair, HRR, is utilized preferentially by prokaryotes and lower eukaryotes. Higher eukaryotes appear to preferentially utilize end joining to remove DSBs from their genome despite its error-prone nature. However, the reason for this preference remain hypothetical. Moreover, it is notable that vertebrates have extended their arsenal of end joining activities with a unique protein, the catalytic subunit of DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PKcs) (Fig. 2), which is likely to play a role in this shift from HRR to NHEJ (Chen et al., 2011; Shibata et al., 2011). For this reason and in order to discriminate this pathway of NHEJ from other pathways of NHEJ that have recently surfaced (see below), we will refer to it in the remainder of this chapter as D-NHEJ. Other designations that can be found in the literature include “classical” or “canonical” NHEJ.
In principle, rejoining of DNA ends by NHEJ can be accomplished by standard ligation reactions, when ligatable DNA ends are present (Fig. 4). As pointed out above, simple end joining is not possible for IR induced DSBs, which therefore required end processing before ligation. In general, DSB repair by NHEJ is associated with limited or extensive additions or deletions of nucleotides at the generated junction, which alters the original DNA sequence at the damaged site (Marshall, 2011; van Gent & van der Burg, 2007). As a result, NHEJ is an error-prone repair pathway, which may be considered disadvantageous for higher eukaryotes, frequently opt for this repair mechanism. It is frequently reasoned that this risk may be mitigated by the excess of non-coding DNA in these organisms, which allows flexibility in terms of nucleotide substitutions, deletions or additions.
However, since DSBs are also generated randomly throughout the genome, they will also be induced in coding regions where changes in the nucleotide sequence are bound to have serious consequences.
Notably, there are also instances where the error prone nature of NHEJ is exploited to generate a specific biological result that requires sequence modification. Thus, addition or deletion of nucleotides during NHEJ associated with V(D)J recombination, increases the diversity of the antibodies generated (Lieber et al., 2006).
The importance of D-NHEJ factors in higher eukaryotes is indicated by diseases resulting from mutations in
At the biochemical level, it is well documented that one of the most abundant cellular proteins, Ku, initiates NHEJ by binding to the ends generated at the DSBs (Lieber, 2010) (Fig. 4). Ku consists of two subunits, Ku70 and Ku86 (Ku80), which form a toroidal shaped
structure binding dsDNA with a variety of configurations at the ends. Once bound to DNA ends, Ku heterodimer changes its conformation and slides inward the DNA, thus attracting the catalytic subunit of DNA-PKcs to form an active DNA-PK holoenzyme (Meek, 2009; Meek et al., 2004). The activity of DNA-PKcs increases at least 10 fold upon interaction with the Ku-DNA complex (Lees-Miller & Meek, 2003). Therefore, D-NHEJ is greatly compromised in the absence of DNA-PKcs and, interestingly, under such conditions HRR is enhanced (Delacote et al., 2002; Shrivastav et al., 2009). However, more recent work points to inhibition of HRR in cells with altered or inhibited DNA-PKcs (Neal et al., 2011).
With its molecular weight of about 470 kDa, DNA-PKcs is by far the largest enzyme found to operate in D-NHEJ (Hill & Lee, 2010; Kirwan et al., 2011; Weterings & Chen, 2007). The enormous size of DNA-PKcs accommodates many important domains that may be involved in the regulation of its enzymatic activity and the interaction with other proteins (Fig. 2). DNA-PKcs is a serine/threonine kinase with specificity for S/TQ sites (Marshall, 2011) that regulates its activity through autophosphorylation. It targets, RPA2, WRN, Cernunnos/XLF, LigIV, and XRCC4 (Chen et al., 2000; Cruet-Hennequart et al., 2008; Otsuki et al., 2007; Soubeyrand et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2008). In addition to its catalytic function at the DSB ends, DNA-PKcs may also tether the broken DNA ends to facilitate rejoining (Meek et al., 2004). Although the DNA-PKcs kinase activity catalyzes the phosphorylation of many NHEJ related substrates, the phosphorylation of the DNA-PKcs itself is the only physiologically relevant event identified so far (Chen et al., 2000; Cruet-Hennequart et al., 2008; Otsuki et al., 2007; Soubeyrand et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2008). DNA-PKcs autophosphorylation appears to be important for DSB repair as DNA-PKcs mutated at key phosphorylation sites (T2609 and S2056 at ABCDE and PQR clusters respectively) is impaired in its function in D-NHEJ (Cui et al., 2005; Meek et al., 2007).
Elegant experiments demonstrate that DNA-PKcs autophosphorylation facilitates structural shifts, which allow other D-NHEJ end processing or ligation factors (polynucleotide kinase phosphatase, PNKP, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, TDT, DNA polymerases λ and μ, LigIV/XRCC4/XLF complex) to be recruited to DNA ends (Kirwan et al., 2011). After end processing, two locally available DNA ends are joined through the coordinated action of the LigIV/XRCC4/XLF and the DNA-PK complexes and if the two sealed DNA ends originate from one DSB the integrity of the DNA molecule is restored (Ahnesorg et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2007; Yano et al., 2009) (Fig. 4). At present, it is not known whether as of yet uncharacterized functions incorporated into the NHEJ machinery have means of ensuring rejoining of the original ends. Available evidence is compatible with efficiently D-NHEJ joining any DNA ends, irrespectively of whether they belong to the same or to different DSBs. Such DNA end-promiscuity is considered the main cause of chromosomal translocations in repair proficient cells and may also contribute to the formation of chromosome aberrations in irradiated repair proficient cells (Iliakis et al., 2007).
4. An alternative pathway of non-homologous end joining with putative backup function (B-NHEJ)
Until relatively recently, D-NHEJ and HRR were considered as the only available pathways for removing DSBs from the genome. This raised the question of their coordination and labor separation under circumstances where both were active, as well as the function of each of them when the other was chemically or genetically compromised. The rationale was that when components of the one pathway were compromised residual DSB repair activity could be attributed to the function of the remaining active pathway. However, experiments testing this hypothesis failed to yield the expected results. Thus, although cells with mutations in genes encoding proteins involved in D-NHEJ exhibit a severe DSB repair defect, substantial residual rejoining is still detectable. Intriguingly, this rejoining activity does not rely on HRR, since cells with defects in this repair pathway show normal DSB repair as assayed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and HRR defects in D-NHEJ mutants fail to exacerbate their DSB repair phenotype. We speculated, therefore, the function of an additional DSB repair pathway based on end joining and functioning as backup (Fig. 5) (Di Biase et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2001). This pathway is considered distinct and normally suppressed by D-NHEJ (Perrault et al., 2004), only coming to the fore whenever D-NHEJ is inactivated. We have proposed to term this form of end joining backup-NHEJ (B-NHEJ) in order to differentiate it from D-NHEJ and to indicate its putative backup function (Fig. 5) (Iliakis et al., 2004).
Extensive biochemical studies have provided evidence for the operation of B-NHEJ activities in
These observations placed B-NHEJ not only at the forefront of DSB repair research but also at the center of carcinogenesis and led to an avalanche of studies describing its various characteristics. Various names were also proposed by different investigators including alternative NHEJ (A-NHEJ, or alt-NHEJ), microhomology-mediated end-joining (MMEJ), KU-independent end-joining, or LigIV-independent NHEJ (Corneo et al., 2007; Haber, 2008; Iliakis, 2009; Liang et al., 2008; Ma et al., 2003). We prefer to use the term B-NHEJ to emphasize its putative backup function. We anticipate that as the characterization of B-NHEJ proceeds and mechanistic information becomes available, better terms will develop reflecting important mechanistic properties of this repair pathway rather than arbitrarily selected phenomenological manifestations of the same.
A breakthrough in the characterization of factors involved in B-NHEJ was the identification of LigIII/XRCC1 complex as a key component (Wang et al., 2001). It is interesting that LigIII is only presented in vertebrates, where it also functions in the mitochondria (Ellenberger & Tomkinson, 2008; Tomkinson et al., 2006). Recent reports demonstrate that the essential functions of LigIII derive exclusively from its role in this organelle (Gao et al., 2011; Simsek et al., 2011). However, it remains open what contribution LigI might have on B-NHEJ and what kind of hierarchy exists between LigI and LigIII regarding to their functionality. LigIII has a broad substrate specificity and could participate in B-NHEJ via enzymatic activities outlined in the recently proposed “jackknife model” (Ellenberger & Tomkinson, 2008). According to this model the Zn-finger domain and the DNA-binding domain of LigIII act in a cooperative way to facilitate the ligation of DNA substrates with discontinuities in the sugar-phosphate backbone of the DNA.
As primary function of LigIII is considered the involvement in the repair of single-strand DNA breaks and base damages, where it operates with other proteins partners, it is therefore possible that the same interacting partners contribute to B-NHEJ. Principal candidate for promoting LigIII action during B-NHEJ, together with XRCC1, is Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1). Indeed, we and others demonstrated that PARP1 operates in B-NHEJ (Audebert & Calsou, 2008; Audebert et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006). It has also been demonstrated that PARP1 binds to DNA ends in direct competition with Ku heterodimer and may serve as a loading platform and coordinator of a subsequent steps of B-NHEJ (Wang et al., 2006). It is interesting in this regard that PARP1 and PARP2 are utilized in an AID-dependent manner during CSR in D-NHEJ deficient cells, suggesting that these proteins play a role in the processing of switch regions. However, it is not clear whether this function occurs as part of B-NHEJ (Robert et al., 2009). It is also notable that only PARP1 facilitates alternative end-joining mechanisms, while PARP2 actually suppresses translocations between
Recently, histone H1 surfaced as an interesting factor involved in B-NHEJ (Rosidi et al., 2008). Although, histone H1 enhances the DNA end joining activities of both LigIV and LigIII, the enhancement of LigIII activity is significantly stronger. Further putative factors of B-NHEJ include the BCR/ABL protein. This protein is mutated in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML), which results in stimulation of cellular proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis and altered cell adhesion. BCR/ABL may down-regulate D-NHEJ allowing thus the function of B-NHEJ. The latter would explain the genomic instability of leukemic cells (Poplawski & Blasiak, 2009). Other studies report a decrease in the level of key D-NHEJ proteins, Artemis and DNA LigIV and up-regulationof LigIII and Werner’s syndrome protein (WRN) in CML cells (Sallmyr et al., 2008).
The frequent generation of non-ligatable DNA ends after IR suggests that resection might be involved in B-NHEJ. This function may be provided by end-processing factors like Mre11 and CtIP. Indeed, silencing of MRE11 in human ﬁbroblasts decreases the frequency of global end-joining (Rass et al., 2009). Also, inhibition of MRE11 by mirin in XRCC4 and KU-deficient cells compromises B-NHEJ (Rass et al., 2009). Furthermore, mice lacking the entire MRN complex in their B cells are compromised in CSR mediated by both D-NHEJ and B-NHEJ (Dinkelmann et al., 2009). Recent reports also show that depletion of CtIP decreases the frequency of chromosomal translocations (Zhang & Jasin, 2011). Despite the above insights, the molecular mechanisms underpinning B-NHEJ are not fully understood and are at present under intensive investigation. Models have been proposed invoking microhomology (McVey & Lee, 2008). However, it is likely that the presence of microhomology at DNA ends is not a prerequisite for B-NHEJ; rather microhomology use may be a random event, determined by the nucleotide distribution along the dissected ends of the DSB (Simsek & Jasin, 2010). The level of dissection achieved is also likely to play a decisive role and the mechanisms regulating this dissection step deserve intensive investigation.
The accumulated data in the field allow the conclusion that deficiencies in the error-prone D-NHEJ pathway are associated with an increase in chromosomal translocations. Thus, B-NHEJ surfaces as a major determinant of chromosomal translocation formation in mammalian cells with potential contributions to carcinogenesis (Iliakis et al., 2007). Thus, B-cells deficient in D-NHEJ show frequent translocations between
Notably, B-NHEJ appears to also be involved in telomere maintenance. Thus, depletion of TRF2, a known component of the shelterin complex, results in end-to-end chromosome fusions mediated by D-NHEJ, whereas depletion of TPP1–POT1a/b, another member of the shelterin complex, initiates robust chromosome fusions that are mediated by B-NHEJ (Rai et al., 2010).
In summary, B-NHEJ surfaces as an important pathway for the maintenance of the genome in higher eukaryotes. However, it exercises this function at the expense of fidelity. If modification of the sequence in the vicinity of the DSB is a weakness of D-NHEJ, hyper-recombination might be added as weakness of B-NHEJ.
5. Sharing the responsibility: coordination of DNA DSBs repair pathways and their cell cycle control and growth state dependencies
The fundamental differences between HRR and NHEJ and the error prone nature of the latter raise questions regarding their relative utilization and the principles applied to select one of them to repair a given DSB - beyond the obvious cell cycle specificity. This is because although HRR deficiency is not associated with a detectable defect in DSB repair as measured by PFGE, it is associated with increased radiosensitivity to killing, in many cases at magnitude similar to that observed with D-NHEJ mutants. This implies that HRR is a significant contributor to DSB repair. The following questions arise from the synthesis of these observations:
Why do cells opt for D-NHEJ for removing DSBs from their genome and how do they cope with induced changes in DNA sequence?
If HRR is involved in DSB repair, why is PFGE unable to detect a defect? Is it because it only processes a very small fraction (less than 10%) of the induced DSBs? Or is it because unknown factors limit its contribution to low doses? Indeed, HRR mutants show a small defect in DSB repair when analyzed by scoring γ-H2AX foci (Rothkamm et al., 2003).
A frequently formulated hypothesis in the field is that D-NHEJ and HRR compete for DSBs and that pathway choice reflects the outcome of this competition. In line with this postulate, inactivation of NHEJ through mutations in the participating factors enhances some of the functions of HRR (Shrivastav et al., 2009). However competition between two so different repair mechanisms is difficult to rationalize. Are we missing something here? Notably, a situation reflecting competition between HRR and NHEJ is not detectable when the repair of IR induced DSBs is followed in different mutants (Di Biase et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2001)
The situation is now more complicated with the identification of B-NHEJ. How is B-NHEJ fitting in this overall picture and what does it really backs-up. Aspects of regulation of pathway selection and coordination are essential for our understanding of DSB repair and further investigations are warranted.
The importance of processing of DSBs generated in a programmed or accidental manner has been clearly demonstrated. Recent evidence emphasizes the role of a less known repair pathway, mechanistically and genetically distinct from the dominant DSB repair pathways, HRR and NHEJ. This pathway is capable of substituting almost entirely for D-NHEJ, but exhibits an increased propensity in rejoining wrong ends and in causing thus chromosome translocations. The characterization of factors involved in B-NHEJ and its integration to other pathways of DSB repair, as well as with DNA damage signaling and checkpoint activation, is expected to be vigorously pursued in the coming years. The fact that the function of B-NHEJ is associated with increased genomic instability leading to carcinogenesis is certain to provoke further investigations on the mechanisms of cancer development.
Work supported by grants from the European Space Agency (ESA) (AO-08-IBER), and the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Kompetenzverbund Strahlenforschung (KVSF) (02NUK005C, 02NUK001B).
Ahnesorg P. Smith P. Jackson S. P. 2006XLF Interacts with the XRCC4-DNA Ligase IV Complex to Promote DNA Nonhomologous End-Joining. 124 2 301 313
Ajimura M. Leem S. H. Ogawa H. 1993Identification of new genes required for meiotic recombination in 133 51 66
Anantha R. W. Vassin V. M. Borowiec J. A. 2007Sequential and Synergistic Modification of Human RPA Stimulates Chromosomal DNA Repair. 282 49 35910 35923
Audebert M. Calsou P. 2008Effect of double-strand break DNA sequence on the PARP-1 NHEJ pathway. 369 982 988
Audebert M. Salles B. Weinfeld M. Calsou P. 2006Involvement of Polynucleotide Kinase in a Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase-1-dependent DNA Double-strand Breaks Rejoining Pathway. 356 257 265
Baudat F. de Massy B. 2007 Regulating double-stranded DNA break repair towards crossover or non-crossover during mammalian meiosis 15 5 565 577
Biroccio A. Porru M. Rizzo A. Salvati E. D’Angelo C. Orlandi A. Passeri D. Franceschin M. Stevens M. F. G. Gilson E. Beretta G. Zupi G. Pisano C. Zunino F. Leonetti C. 2011 DNA Damage Persistence as Determinant of Tumor Sensitivity to the Combination of Topo I Inhibitors and Telomere-Targeting Agents 17 8 2227 2236
Boboila C. Jankovic M. Yan C. T. Wang J. H. Wesemann D. R. Zhang T. Fazeli A. Feldman L. Nussenzweig A. Nussenzweig M. Alt F. W. 2010 Alternative end-joining catalyzes robust IgH locus deletions and translocations in the combined absence of ligase 4 and Ku70 107 7 3034 3039
Bolderson E. Tomimatsu N. Richard D. J. Boucher D. Kumar R. Pandita T. K. Burma S. Khanna K. K. 2010 Phosphorylation of Exo1 modulates homologous recombination repair of DNA double-strand breaks 38 6 1821 1831
Borde V. Cobb J. 2009 Double functions for the Mre11 complex during DNA double-strand break repair and replication 41 6 1249 1253
Brugmans L. Kanaar R. Essers J. 2007 Analysis of DNA double-strand break repair pathways in mice 614 1-2 95 108
Carreira A. Hilario J. Amitani I. Baskin R. J. Shivji M. K. K. Venkitaraman A. R. Kowalczykowski S. C. 2009 The BRC Repeats of BRCA2 Modulate the DNA-Binding Selectivity of RAD51 136 1032 1043
Carreira A. Kowalczykowski S. C. 2009BRCA2 Shining light on the regulation of DNA-binding selectivity by RAD51. 8 21 3445 3447
Chen L. Trujillo K. Sung P. Tomkinson A. E. 2000 Interactions of the DNA Ligase IV-XRCC4 Complex with DNA Ends and the DNA-dependent Protein Kinase. 275 34 26196 26205
Chen X. Wong J. Y. C. Wong P. Radany E. H. 2011 Low-Dose Valproic Acid Enhances Radiosensitivity of Prostate Cancer through Acetylated p53-Dependent Modulation of Mitochondrial Membrane Potential and Apoptosis 9 4 448 461
Chin G. M. Villeneuve A. M. 2001C. elegans mre-11 is required for meiotic recombination and DNA repair but is dispensable for the meiotic G(2) DNA damage checkpoint. 15 5 522 534
Chistiakov D. A. Voronova N. V. Chistiakov A. P. 2009 Ligase IV syndrome 52 6 373 378
Cimprich K. A. Cortez D. 2008 ATR: an essential regulator of genome integrity 9 8 616 627
Corneo B. Wendland R. L. Deriano L. Cui X. Klein I. A. Wong S. Y. Arnal S. Holub A. J. Weller G. R. Pancake B. A. Shah S. Brandt V. L. Meek K. Roth D. B. 2007 Rag mutations reveal robust alternative end joining. 449 483 486
Cremer T. Cremer C. 2001 Chromosome territoriesnuclear architecture and gene regulation in mammalian cells. 2 292 301
Cruet-Hennequart S. Glynn M. T. Murillo L. S. Coyne S. Carty M. P. 2008 Enhanced DNA-PK-mediated RPA2 hyperphosphorylation in DNA polymerase [eta]-deficient human cells treated with cisplatin and oxaliplatin. 7 4 582 596
Cui X. Yu Y. Gupta S. Cho Y. M. Lees-Miller S. P. Meek K. 2005 Autophosphorylation of DNA-Dependent Protein Kinase Regulates DNA End Processing and May Also Alter Double-Strand Break Repair Pathway Choice. 25 24 10842 10852
D’Amours D. Jackson S. P. 2002 The Mre11 Complex: At the Crossroads of DNA Repair and Checkpoint Signalling. 3 317 327
Davies A. A. Masson J. Y. Mc Ilwraith M. J. Stasiak A. Z. Stasiak A. Venkitaraman A. R. West S. C. 2001 Role of BRCA2 in control of the RAD51 recombination and DNA repair protein. 7 2 273 282
Delacote F. Han M. Stamato T. D. Jasin M. Lopez B. S. 2002 An xrcc4 defect or Wortmannin stimulates homologous recombination specifically induced by double-strand breaks in mammalian cells. 30 3454 3463
Di Biase S. J. Zeng Z. C. Chen R. Hyslop T. Curran W. J. Jr Iliakis G. 2000 DNA-dependent protein kinase stimulates an independently active, nonhomologous, end-joining apparatus. 60 1245 1253
Digweed M. Reis A. Sperling K. 1999 Nijmegen breakage syndrome: consequences of defective DNA double strand break repair. 21 649 656
Dinkelmann M. Spehalski E. Stoneham T. Buis J. Wu Y. Sekiguchi J. M. Ferguson D. O. 2009 Multiple functions of MRN in end-joining pathways during isotype class switching 16 8 808 813
Dolganov G. M. Maser R. S. Novikov A. Tosto L. Chong S. Bressan D. A. Petrini J. H. J. 1996 Human Rad50 Is Physically Associated with Human Mre11: Identification of a Conserved Multiprotein Complex Implicated in Recombinational DNA Repair. 16 4832 4841
Eid W. Steger M. El -Shemerly M. Ferretti L. P. Pena-Diaz J. Konig C. Valtorta E. Sartori A. A. Ferrari S. 2010 DNA end resection by CtIP and exonuclease 1 prevents genomic instability 11 12 897 984
Ellenberger T. Tomkinson A. E. 2008 Eukaryotic DNA Ligases: Structural and Functional Insights 77 313 338
Esashi F. Christ N. Gannon J. Liu Y. Hunt T. Jasin M. West S. C. 2005 CDK-dependent phosphorylation of BRCA2 as a regulatory mechanism for recombinational repair. 434 598 604
Esashi F. Galkin V. E. Yu X. Egelman E. H. West S. C. 2007 Stabilization of RAD51 nucleoprotein filaments by the C-terminal region of BRCA2. 14 6 468 474
Fanning E. Klimovich V. Nager A. R. 2006 A dynamic model for replication protein A (RPA) function in DNA processing pathways 34 15 4126 4137
Farah J. A. Cromie G. A. Smith G. R. 2009 Ctp1 and Exonuclease 1, alternative nucleases regulated by the MRN complex, are required for efficient meiotic recombination 106 23 9356 9361
Ferguson D. O. Holloman W. K. 1996 Recombinational repair of gaps in DNA is asymmetric in Ustilago maydis and can be explained by a migrating D-loop model 93 5419 5424
Folle G. A. 2008 Nuclear architecture, chromosome domains and genetic damage 658 3 172 183
Franco S. Alt F. W. Manis J. P. 2006 Pathways that suppress programmed DNA breaks from progressing to chromosomal breaks and translocations 5 9-10 1030 1041
Gao Y. Katyal S. Lee Y. Zhao J. Rehg J. E. Russell H. R. Mc Kinnon P. J. 2011 DNA ligase III is critical for mtDNA integrity but not Xrcc1-mediated nuclear DNA repair 471 7337 240 244
Girard P. M. Kysela B. Härer C. J. Doherty A. J. Jeggo P. A. 2004 Analysis of DNA ligase IV mutations found in LIG4 syndrome patients: the impact of two linked polymorphisms 13 2369 2376
Haber J. E. 2008 Alternative endings 105 2 405 406
Hendrickson E. A. Qin X. Q. Bump E. A. Schatz D. G. Oettinger M. Weaver D. T. 1991A link between double-strand break-related repair and V(D)J recombination: The mutation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 88 4061 4065
Heyer W. D. Ehmsen K. T. Liu J. 2010 Regulation of Homologous Recombination in Eukaryotes 1545 2948Electronic)
( Hill R. Lee P. W. K. 2010). The DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK). Cell Cycle, 9 17 3460 3469
Ide H. Nakano T. Salem A. M. H. Terato H. Pack S. P. Makino K. 2008 Repair of DNA-protein crosslink damage: Coordinated actions of nucleotide excision repair and homologous recombination. 52 1 57 58
Iliakis G. 2009 Backup pathways of NHEJ in cells of higher eukaryotes: Cell cycle dependence 92 310 315
Iliakis G. Wu W. Wang M. Terzoudi G. I. Pantelias G. E. 2007Backup Pathways of Nonhomologous End Joining May Have a Dominant Role in the Formation of Chromosome Aberrations. Vol. No. Issue, 67 85
Jones J. Simkus C. 2009The roles of the RAG1 and RAG2 “non-core” regions in V(D)J recombination and lymphocyte development. 57 2 105 116
Keeney S. Giroux C. N. Kleckner N. 1997 Meiosis-specific DNA double-strand breaks are catalyzed by Spo11, a member of a widely conserved protein family. 88 375 384
Kirwan M. Beswick R. Walne A. J. Hossain U. Casimir C. Vulliamy T. Dokal I. 2011 Dyskeratosis congenita and the DNA damage response. 153 5 634 643
Krogh B. O. Symington L. S. 2004 Recombination Proteins in Yeast. 38 233 271
Lee G. S. Neiditch M. B. Salus S. S. Roth D. B. 2004 RAG Proteins Shepherd Double-Strand Breaks to a Specific Pathway, Suppressing Error-Prone Repair, but RAG Nicking Initiates Homologous Recombination. 117 171 184
Lees-Miller S. P. Meek K. 2003 Repair of DNA double strand breaks by non-homologous end joining. 85 1161 1173
Liang L. Deng L. Nguyen S. C. Zhao X. Maulion C. D. Shao C. Tischfield J. A. 2008 Human DNA ligases I and III, but not ligase IV, are required for microhomology-mediated end joining of DNA double-strand breaks 36 10 3297 3310
Lieber M. R. 2010 The Mechanism of Double-Strand DNA Break Repair by the Nonhomologous DNA End-Joining Pathway 79 1
Lieber M. R. Yu K. Raghavan S. C. 2006Roles of nonhomologous DNA end joining, V(D)J recombination, and class switch recombination in chromosomal translocations. 5 9-10 1234 1245
Liu Y. Tarsounas M. O’Regan P. West S. C. 2007 Role of RAD51C and XRCC3 in Genetic Recombination and DNA Repair. 282 3 1973 1979
Liu Y. West S. C. 2004 Happy Hollidays: 40th anniversary of the Holliday junction.Molecular Cell Biology, 5 11 937 944
Llorente B. Symington L. S. 2004 The Mre11 Nuclease Is Not Required for 5’ to 3’ Resection at Multiple HO-Induced Double-Strand Breaks. 24 21 9682 9694
Longhese M. P. Bonetti D. Guerini I. Manfrini N. Clerici M. 2009 DNA double-strand breaks in meiosis: Checking their formation, processing and repair 8 9 1127 1138
Longhese M. P. Bonetti D. Manfrini N. Clerici M. 2010 Mechanisms and regulation of DNA end resection 29 17 2864 2874
Ma J. L. Kim E. M. Haber J. E. Lee S. E. 2003 Yeast Mre11 and Rad1 Proteins Define a Ku-Independent Mechanism To Repair Double-Strand Breaks Lacking Overlapping End Sequences. 23 8820 8828
Maizels N. 2005Immunoglobulin Gene Diversification. Annual Review of Genetics, 39 1 23 46
Marmorstein L. Y. Kinev A. V. Chan G. K. Bochar D. A. Beniya H. Epstein J. A. Yen T. J. Shiekhattar R. 2001 A human BRCA2 complex containing a structural DNA binding component influences cell cycle progression. 104 2 247 257
Marshall E. 2011Cancer Research and The $90 Billion Metaphor. 331 1540 1541
Matsuura S. Kobayashi J. Tauchi H. Komatsu K. 2004 Nijmegen Breakage Syndrome and DNA Double Strand Break Repair by NBS1 Complex. 38 65 80
Mazin A. V. Mazina O. M. Bugreev D. V. Rossi M. J. 2010 Rad54, the motor of homologous recombination 9 3 286 302
Mazina O. M. Mazin A. V. 2008 Human Rad54 protein stimulates human Mus81-Eme1 endonuclease 105 47 18249 18254
Mc Blane J. F. van Gent D. C. Ramsden D. A. Romeo C. Cuomo C. A. Gellert M. Oettinger M. A. 1995Cleavage at a V(D)J recombination signal requires only RAG1 and RAG2 proteins and occurs in two steps. 83 387 395
Mc Vey M. Lee S. E. 2008MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director’s cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. 24 11 529 538
Meek K. 2009New targets to translate DNA-PK signals. 8 23 3809
Meek K. Douglas P. Cui X. Ding Q. Lees-Miller S. P. 2007trans Autophosphorylation at DNA-Dependent Protein Kinase’s Two Major Autophosphorylation Site Clusters Facilitates End Processing but Not End Joining. 27 10 3881 3890
Meek K. Gupta S. Ramsden D. A. Lees-Miller S. P. 2004The DNA-dependent protein kinase: the director at the end. 200 1 132 141X
Metzger M. J. Mc Connell-Smith A. Stoddard B. L. Miller A. D. 2011Single-strand nicks induce homologous recombination with less toxicity than double-strand breaks using an AAV vector template. 39 3 426 435
Mimitou E. P. Symington L. S. 2009DNA end resection: Many nucleases make light work. 8 9 983 995
Mimitou E. P. Symington L. S. 2008Sae2, Exo1 and Sgs1 collaborate in DNA double-strand break processing. 455 7214 770 774
Morita T. Yoshimura Y. Yamamoto A. Murata K. Mori M. Yamamoto H. Matsushiro A. 1993A mouse homolog of the escherichia coli recA and saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD51 genes. 90 6577 6580
Mortensen U. H. Lisby M. Rothstein R. 2009Rad52. 19 16 R676 R677
Neal J. A. Dang V. Douglas P. Wold M. S. Lees-Miller S. P. Meek K. 2011Inhibition of Homologous Recombination by DNA-Dependent Protein Kinase Requires Kinase Activity, Is Titratable, and Is Modulated by Autophosphorylation. 31 8 1719 1733
Nikolova T. Ensminger M. Löbrich M. Kaina B. 2010Homologous recombination protects mammalian cells from replication-associated DNA double-strand breaks arising in response to methyl methanesulfonate. 9 10 1050 1063
Oettinger M. A. 1992Activation of V(D)J recombination by and RAG2. Trends in Genetics, 8 413 416
Ofir M. Hacohen D. Ginsberg D. 2011miR-15 and miR-16 Are Direct Transcriptional Targets of E2F1 that Limit E2F-Induced Proliferation by Targeting Cyclin E. 9 4 440 447
Otsuki M. Seki M. Kawabe Y.-i. Inoue E. Dong Y. P. Abe T. Kato G. Yoshimura A. Tada S. Enomoto T. 2007WRN counteracts the NHEJ pathway upon camptothecin exposure. 355 2 477 482
Pardo B. Gómez-González B. Aguilera A. 2009DNA double-strand break repair: how to fix a broken relationship. 66 6 1039 1056
Paull T. T. Gellert M. 1998The 3’ to 5’ exonuclease activity of Mre11 facilitates repair of DNA double-strand breaks. 1 969 979
Petermann E. Orta M. L. Issaeva N. Schultz N. Helleday T. 2010Hydroxyurea-Stalled Replication Forks Become Progressively Inactivated and Require Two Different RAD51-Mediated Pathways for Restart and Repair. 37 4 492 502
Poplawski T. Blasiak J. 2009BCR/ABL downregulates DNA-PKCS-dependent and upregulates backup non-homologous end joining in leukemic cells. Vol.in press, pp. doi:10.1007/s11033-009-9730-0
Raderschall E. Golub E. I. Haaf T. 1999Nuclear foci of mammalian recombination proteins are located at single-stranded DNA regions formed after DNA damage. 96 1921 1926
Rai R. Zheng H. He H. Luo Y. Multani A. Carpenter P. B. Chang S. 2010The function of classical and alternative non-homologous end-joining pathways in the fusion of dysfunctional telomeres. 29 15 2598 2610
Rass E. Grabarz A. Plo I. Gautier J. Bertrand P. Lopez B. S. 2009Role of Mre11 in chromosomal nonhomologous end joining in mammalian cells. 16 8 819 824
Ristic D. Modesti M. van der Heijden T. van Noort J. Dekker C. Kanaar R. Wyman C. 2005Human Rad51 filaments on double- and single-stranded DNA: correlating regular and irregular forms with recombination function. 33 10 3292 3302
Robert I. Dantzer F. Reina-San-Martin B. 2009Parp1 facilitates alternative NHEJ, whereas Parp2 suppresses IgH/c-myc translocations during immunoglobulin class switch recombination. 206 5 1047 1056
Rosidi B. Wang M. Wu W. Sharma A. Wang H. Iliakis G. 2008Histone H1 functions as a stimulatory factor in backup pathways of NHEJ. 36 5 1610 1623
Rothkamm K. Krüger I. Thompson L. H. Löbrich M. 2003Pathways of DNA Double-Strand Break Repair during the Mammalian Cell Cycle. 23 5706 5715
Rupnik A. Lowndes N. Grenon M. 2010MRN and the race to the break. 119 2 115 135
Sachs R. K. Johnsson K. Hahnfeldt P. Luo J. Chen A. Hlatky L. 2011A Multicellular Basis for the Origination of Blast Crisis in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. 71 8 2838 2847
Sallmyr A. Tomkinson A. E. Rassool F. V. 2008Up-regulation of WRN and DNA ligase IIIα in chronic myeloid leukemia: consequences for the repair of DNA double-strand breaks. 112 4 1413 1423
San Filippo. J. Sung P. Klein H. 2008Mechanism of Eukaryotic Homologous Recombination. 77 229 257
Sancar A. Lindsey-Boltz L. A. Ünsal-Kacmaz K. Linn S. 2004Molecular Mechanisms of Mammalian DNA Repair and the DNA Damage Checkpoints. 73 39 85
Sartori A. A. Lukas C. Coates J. Mistrik M. Fu S. Bartek J. Baer R. Lukas J. Jackson S. P. 2007Human CtIP promotes DNA end resection. 450 509 514
Schuler W. Bosma M. J. 1989Nature of the defect: a defective VDJ recombinase system. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 152 55 62
Shibata A. Conrad S. Birraux J. Geuting V. Barton O. Ismail A. Kakarougkas A. Meek K. Taucher-Scholz G. Lobrich M. Jeggo P. A. 2011Factors determining DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice in G2 phase. 30 6 1079 1092
Shinohara A. Ogawa H. Matsuda Y. Ushio N. Ikeo K. Ogawa T. 1993Cloning of human, mouse and fission yeast recombination genes homologous to RAD51 and recA. 4 239 243
Shinohara A. Ogawa H. Ogawa T. 1992Rad51 protein involved in repair and recombination in S. cerevisiae is a RecA-like protein. 69 457 470
Shrivastav M. De Haro L. P. Nickoloff J. A. 2008Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. 18 1 134 147
Shrivastav M. Miller C. A. De Haro L. P. Durant S. T. Chen B. P. C. Chen D. J. Nickoloff J. A. 2009DNA-PKcs and ATM co-regulate DNA double-strand break repair. 8 8 920 929
Simsek D. Furda A. Gao Y. Artus J. Brunet E. Hadjantonakis A. K. Van Houten B. Shuman S. Mc Kinnon P. J. Jasin M. 2011Crucial role for DNA ligase III in mitochondria but not in Xrcc1-dependent repair. 471 7337 245 248
Simsek D. Jasin M. 2010Alternative end-joining is suppressed by the canonical NHEJ component Xrcc4-ligase IV during chromosomal translocation formation. 17 4 410 416
Soubeyrand S. Pope L. De Chasseval R. Gosselin D. Dong F. de Villartay J. P. Hache R. J. G. 2006Artemis Phosphorylated by DNA-dependent Protein Kinase Associates Preferentially with Discrete Regions of Chromatin. 358 5 1200 1211
Soulas-Sprauel P. Le Guyader G. Rivera-Munoz P. Abramowski V. Olivier-Martin C. Goujet-Zalc C. Charneau P. de Villartay J. P. 2007Role for DNA repair factor XRCC4 in immunoglobulin class switch recombination. 204 7 1717 1727
Stephan H. Concannon C. Kremmer E. Carty M. P. Nasheuer H. P. 2009Ionizing radiation-dependent and independent phosphorylation of the 32-kDa subunit of replication protein A during mitosis. 37 18 6028 6041
Stewart G. S. Maser R. S. Stankovic T. Bressan D. A. Kaplan M. I. Jaspers N. G. Raams A. Byrd P. J. Petrini J. H. Taylor A. M. 1999The DNA double-strand break repair gene hMRE11 is mutated in individuals with an ataxia-telangiectasia-like disorder. 99 6 577 587
Stewart J. A. Campbell J. L. Bambara R. A. 2010Dna2 is a structure-specific nuclease, with affinity for 5’-flap intermediates. 38 3 920 930
Stracker T. H. Petrini J. H. J. 2011The MRE11 complex: starting from the ends. 12 2 90 103
Symington L. S. Holloman W. K. 2008Resolving Resolvases: The Final Act? 32 603 604
Szostak J. W. Orr-Weaver T. L. Rothstein R. J. Stahl F. W. 1983The double-strand-break repair model for recombination. 33 25 35
Tauchi H. Matsuura S. Kobayashi J. Sakamoto S. Komatsu K. 2002Nijmegen breakage syndrome gene, NBS1, and molecular links to factors for genome stability. 21 8967 8980
Thorslund T. West S. C. 2007BRCA2: a universal recombinase regulator. 26 56 7720 7730
Tomkinson A. E. Vijayakumar S. Pascal J. M. Ellenberger T. 2006DNA Ligases: Structure, Reaction Mechanism, and Function. 106 2 687 699
Trujillo K. M. Yuan S. S. Lee E. Y. H. Sung P. 1998Nuclease activities in a complex of human recombination and DNA repair factors Rad50, Mre11, and p95. 273 21447 21450
Tsuzuki T. Fujii Y. Sakumi K. Tominaga Y. Nakao K. Sekiguchi M. Matsushiro A. Yoshimura Y. Morita T. 1996Targeted disruption of the Rad51 gene leads to leathality in embryonic mice. 93 6236 6240
van der Burg M. Jspeert I. H. Verkaik N. S. Turul T. Wiegant W. W. Morotomi-Yano K. Mari P. O. Tezcan I. Chen D. J. Zdienicka M. Z. van Dongen J. J. M. van Gent D. C. 2009A DNA-PKcs mutation in a radiosensitive T-B- SCID patient inhibits Artemis activation and nonhomologous end-joining. 119 1 91 98
van Gent D. C. van der Burg M. 2007Non-homologous end-joining, a sticky affair. 26 56 7731 7740
Varon R. Vissinga C. Platzer M. Cerosaletti K. M. Chrzanowska K. H. Saar K. Beckmann G. Seemanova E. Cooper P. R. Nowak N. J. Stumm M. Weemaes C. M. R. Gatti R. A. Wilson R. K. Digweed M. Rosenthal A. Sperling K. Concannon P. Reis A. 1998Nibrin, a novel DNA double-strand break repair protein, is mutated in Nijmegen breakage syndrome. 93 467 476
Vassin V. M. Anantha R. W. Sokolova E. Kanner S. Borowiec J. A. 2009Human RPA phosphorylation by ATR stimulates DNA synthesis and prevents ssDNA accumulation during DNA-replication stress. 122 22 4070 4080
Wang H. Perrault A. R. Takeda Y. Qin W. Wang H. Iliakis G. 2003Biochemical evidence for Ku-independent backup pathways of NHEJ. 31 5377 5388
Wang H. Zeng Z. C. Bui T. A. Sonoda E. Takata M. Takeda S. Iliakis G. 2001Efficient rejoining of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks in vertebrate cells deficient in genes of the RAD52 epistasis group. 20 2212 2224
Wang H. Zhao-Chong Z. Perrault A. R. Cheng X. Qin W. Iliakis G. 2001Genetic evidence for the involvement of DNA ligase IV in the DNA-PK-dependent pathway of non-homologous end joining in mammalian cells. 29 1653 1660
Wang J. H. Gostissa M. Yan C. T. Goff P. Hickernell T. Hansen E. Difilippantonio S. Wesemann D. R. Zarrin A. A. Rajewsky K. Nussenzweig A. Alt F. W. 2009Mechanisms promoting translocations in editing and switching peripheral B cells. 460 7252 231 236
Wang M. Wu W. Wu W. Rosidi B. Zhang L. Wang H. Iliakis G. 2006PARP-1 and Ku compete for repair of DNA double strand breaks by distinct NHEJ pathways. 34 21 6170 6182
West S. C. 2003Molecular views of recombination proteins and their control. 4 1 11
West S. C. 2009The search for a human Holliday junction resolvase. 37 519 526
Weterings E. Chen D. J. 2007DNA-dependent protein kinase in nonhomologous end joining: a lock with multiple keys? 179 2 183 186
Wu P. Y. Frit P. Malivert L. Revy P. Biard D. Salles B. Calsou P. 2007Interplay between Cernunnos-XLF and Nonhomologous End-joining Proteins at DNA Ends in the Cell. 282 44 31937 31943
Wyman C. Kanaar R. 2006DNA Double-Strand Break Repair: All’s Well that Ends Well. 40 1 363 383
Yan C. T. Boboila C. Souza E. K. Franco S. Hickernell T. R. Murphy M. Gumaste S. Geyer M. Zarrin A. A. Manis J. P. Rajewsky K. Alt F. W. 2007IgH class switching and translocations use a robust non-classical end-joining pathway. 449 478 482
Yano K.-i. Morotomi-Yano K. Akiyama H. 2009Cernunnos/XLF: A new player in DNA double-strand break repair. 41 6 1237 1240
Yu Y. Mahaney B. L. Yano K. I. Ye R. Fang S. Douglas P. Chen D. J. Lees-Miller S. P. 2008DNA-PK and ATM phosphorylation sites in XLF/Cernunnos are not required for repair of DNA double strand breaks. 7 10 1680 1692
Zegerman P. Diffley J. F. X. 2009DNA replication as a target of the DNA damage checkpoint. 8 9 1077 1088
Zhang Y. Jasin M. 2011An essential role for CtIP in chromosomal translocation formation through an alternative end-joining pathway. 18 1 80 84
Zhou Q. Kojic M. Holloman W. K. 2009DNA-binding Domain within the Brh2 N Terminus Is the Primary Interaction Site for Association with DNA. 284 13 8265 8273