Explore the vast range of titles available.

▪ Abstract  DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is an evolutionarily conserved process that corrects mismatches generated during DNA replication and escape proofreading. MMR proteins also participate in many other DNA transactions, such that inactivation of MMR can have wide-ranging biological consequences, which can be either beneficial or detrimental. We begin this review by briefly considering the multiple functions of MMR proteins and the consequences of impaired function. We then focus on the biochemical mechanism of MMR replication errors. Emphasis is on structure-function studies of MMR proteins, on how mismatches are recognized, on the process by which the newly replicated strand is identified, and on excision of the replication error.

Single-molecule FRET (smFRET) is a versatile technique to study the dynamics and function of biomolecules since it makes nanoscale movements detectable as fluorescence signals. The powerful ability to infer quantitative kinetic information from smFRET data is, however, complicated by experimental limitations. Diverse analysis tools have been developed to overcome these hurdles but a systematic comparison is lacking. Here, we report the results of a blind benchmark study assessing eleven analysis tools used to infer kinetic rate constants from smFRET trajectories. We test them against simulated and experimental data containing the most prominent difficulties encountered in analyzing smFRET experiments: different noise levels, varied model complexity, non-equilibrium dynamics, and kinetic heterogeneity. Our results highlight the current strengths and limitations in inferring kinetic information from smFRET trajectories. In addition, we formulate concrete recommendations and identify key targets for future developments, aimed to advance our understanding of biomolecular dynamics through quantitative experiment-derived models. The ability to infer quantitative kinetic information from single-molecule FRET (smFRET) data can be challenging. Here the authors perform a blind benchmark study assessing different analysis tools used to infer kinetic rate constants from smFRET trajectories, testing on simulated and experimental data.

DNA end resection plays a critical function in DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Resected DNA ends are refractory to end-joining mechanisms and are instead channeled to homology-directed repair. Using biochemical, genetic, and imaging methods, we show that phosphorylation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sae2 controls its capacity to promote the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 (MRX) nuclease to initiate resection of blocked DNA ends by at least two distinct mechanisms. First, DNA damage and cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation leads to Sae2 tetramerization. Second, and independently, phosphorylation of the conserved C-terminal domain of Sae2 is a prerequisite for its physical interaction with Rad50, which is also crucial to promote the MRX endonuclease. The lack of this interaction explains the phenotype of rad50S mutants defective in the processing of Spo11-bound DNA ends during meiotic recombination. Our results define how phosphorylation controls the initiation of DNA end resection and therefore the choice between the key DNA double-strand break repair mechanisms. It has previously been established that DNA end resection in yeast and in humans is under CDK control. Here the authors explain how phosphorylation regulates the capacity of Sae2 — the yeast orthologue of human CtIP — to promote DNA end resection.

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) identifies and corrects errors made during replication. In all organisms except those expressing MutH, interactions between a DNA mismatch, MutS, MutL, and the replication processivity factor (β-clamp or PCNA) activate the latent MutL endonuclease to nick the error-containing daughter strand. This nick provides an entry point for downstream repair proteins. Despite the well-established significance of strand-specific nicking in MMR, the mechanism(s) by which MutS and MutL assemble on mismatch DNA to allow the subsequent activation of MutL’s endonuclease activity by β-clamp/PCNA remains elusive. In both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, MutS homologs undergo conformational changes to a mobile clamp state that can move away from the mismatch. However, the function of this MutS mobile clamp is unknown. Furthermore, whether the interaction with MutL leads to a mobile MutS–MutL complex or a mismatch-localized complex is hotly debated. We used single molecule FRET to determine thatThermus aquaticusMutL traps MutS at a DNA mismatch after recognition but before its conversion to a sliding clamp. Rather than a clamp, a conformationally dynamic protein assembly typically containing more MutL than MutS is formed at the mismatch. This complex provides a local marker where interaction with β-clamp/PCNA could distinguish parent/daughter strand identity. Our finding that MutL fundamentally changes MutS actions following mismatch detection reframes current thinking on MMR signaling processes critical for genomic stability.

The epigenetic inheritance of DNA methylation requires UHRF1, a histone- and DNA-binding RING E3 ubiquitin ligase that recruits DNMT1 to sites of newly replicated DNA through ubiquitylation of histone H3. UHRF1 binds DNA with selectivity towards hemi-methylated CpGs (HeDNA); however, the contribution of HeDNA sensing to UHRF1 function remains elusive. Here, we reveal that the interaction of UHRF1 with HeDNA is required for DNA methylation but is dispensable for chromatin interaction, which is governed by reciprocal positive cooperativity between the UHRF1 histone- and DNA-binding domains. HeDNA recognition activates UHRF1 ubiquitylation towards multiple lysines on the H3 tail adjacent to the UHRF1 histone-binding site. Collectively, our studies are the first demonstrations of a DNA-protein interaction and an epigenetic modification directly regulating E3 ubiquitin ligase activity. They also define an orchestrated epigenetic control mechanism involving modifications both to histones and DNA that facilitate UHRF1 chromatin targeting, H3 ubiquitylation, and DNA methylation inheritance. Cells are able to regulate the activity of their genes in response to different cues. Genetic information is encoded in DNA and one way to regulate gene activity is to modify the DNA by attaching chemical “epigenetic” markers to it. When a cell divides, these epigenetic markers can be inherited by the daughter cells so that they share the same patterns of gene activity as the parent cell. When the DNA of the parent cell is copied prior to cell division, the epigenetic markers are also copied onto the new DNA. Mistakes in this process are linked to a wide range of diseases in humans, such as cancer and neurological disorders. One type of epigenetic marker is known as a methyl tag and it is added to DNA by certain enzymes in a process called DNA methylation. A protein called UHRF1 is required for human cells to inherit patterns of DNA methylation through cell division. This protein binds to newly copied DNA that lacks some methyl tags as well as to another protein associated with DNA called histone H3. UHRF1 modifies histone H3 by attaching a small protein molecule called ubiquitin to it. This helps to recruit a DNA methylation enzyme to place methyl tags on the newly copied DNA. However, it was not clear how the various properties of UHRF1 allow it to control how DNA methylation is inherited. Harrison et al. addressed this question by studying purified proteins and DNA fragments outside of living cells. The results show that UHRF1 binding to DNA and histone H3 work together to bring UHRF1 to the sites on DNA that require methylation. Further experiments revealed that the methylation pattern on newly copied DNA is able to activate the ability of UHRF1 to place ubiquitin on histone H3. The findings of Harrison et al. reveal a new mechanism by which dividing cells control how DNA methylation is inherited by their daughter cells. A future challenge will be to find out how attaching ubiquitin to histone H3 activates DNA methylation.

Transcription errors occur in all living cells; however, it is unknown how these errors affect cellular health. To answer this question, we monitor yeast cells that are genetically engineered to display error-prone transcription. We discover that these cells suffer from a profound loss in proteostasis, which sensitizes them to the expression of genes that are associated with protein-folding diseases in humans; thus, transcription errors represent a new molecular mechanism by which cells can acquire disease phenotypes. We further find that the error rate of transcription increases as cells age, suggesting that transcription errors affect proteostasis particularly in aging cells. Accordingly, transcription errors accelerate the aggregation of a peptide that is implicated in Alzheimer's disease, and shorten the lifespan of cells. These experiments reveal a previously unappreciated role for transcriptional fidelity in cellular health and aging. Transcription, like DNA replication, is an error-prone process. Vermulst et al. show that transcription errors increase with age in yeast, and find that prematurely increasing the error rate overwhelms the proteotoxic stress response, allowing aggregation-prone proteins to escape protein quality control.

At many promoters, transcription is regulated by simultaneous binding of a protein to multiple sites on DNA, but the structures and dynamics of such transcription factor-mediated DNA loops are poorly understood. We directly examined in vitro loop formation mediated by Escherichia coli lactose repressor using single-molecule structural and kinetics methods. Small ( approximately 150 bp) loops form quickly and stably, even with out-of-phase operator spacings. Unexpectedly, repeated spontaneous transitions between two distinct loop structures were observed in individual protein-DNA complexes. The results imply a dynamic equilibrium between a novel loop structure with the repressor in its crystallographic \"V\" conformation and a second structure with a more extended linear repressor conformation that substantially lessens the DNA bending strain. The ability to switch between different loop structures may help to explain how robust transcription regulation is maintained even though the mechanical work required to form a loop may change substantially with metabolic conditions.

The regulation of RNA synthesis by RNA polymerase (RNAP) is essential for proper gene expression. Crystal structures of RNAP reveal two channels: the main channel that contains the downstream DNA and a secondary channel that leads directly to the catalytic site. Although nucleoside triphosphates (NTPs) have been seen only in the catalytic site and the secondary channel in these structures, several models of transcription elongation, based on biochemical studies, propose that template-dependent binding of NTPs in the main channel regulates RNA synthesis. These models, however, remain controversial. We used transient state kinetics and a mutant of RNAP to investigate the role of the main channel in regulating nucleotide incorporation. Our data indicate that a NTP specific for the i + 2 template position can bind to a noncatalytic site and increase the rate of RNA synthesis and that the NTP bound to this site can be shuttled directly into the catalytic site. We also identify fork loop 2, which lies across from the downstream DNA, as a functional component of this site. Taken together, our data support the existence of a noncatalytic template-specific NTP binding site in the main channel that is involved in the regulation of nucleotide incorporation. NTP binding to this site could promote high-fidelity processive synthesis under a variety of environmental conditions and allow DNA sequence-mediated regulatory signals to be communicated to the active site.

DNA mismatch repair is central to the maintenance of genomic stability. It is initiated by the recognition of base-base mismatches and insertion/deletion loops by the family of MutS proteins. Subsequently, ATP induces a unique conformational change in the MutS-mismatch complex but not in the MutS-homoduplex complex that sets off the cascade of events that leads to repair. To gain insight into the mechanism by which MutS discriminates between mismatch and homoduplex DNA, we have examined the conformations of specific and nonspecific MutS-DNA complexes by using atomic force microscopy. Interestingly, MutS-DNA complexes exhibit a single population of conformations, in which the DNA is bent at homoduplex sites, but two populations of conformations, bent and unbent, at mismatch sites. These results suggest that the specific recognition complex is one in which the DNA is unbent. Combining our results with existing biochemical and crystallographic data leads us to propose that MutS: (i) binds to DNA nonspecifically and bends it in search of a mismatch; (ii) on specific recognition of a mismatch, undergoes a conformational change to an initial recognition complex in which the DNA is kinked, with interactions similar to those in the published crystal structures; and (iii) finally undergoes a further conformational change to the ultimate recognition complex in which the DNA is unbent. Our results provide a structural explanation for the long-standing question of how MutS achieves mismatch repair specificity.