Advertisement

Recruitment, loading, and activation of the Smc5–Smc6 SUMO ligase

  • Martina Oravcová
  • Michael N. Boddy
Mini-Review

Abstract

Duplication of the genome poses one of the most significant threats to genetic integrity, cellular fitness, and organismal health. Therefore, numerous mechanisms have evolved that maintain replication fork stability in the face of DNA damage and allow faithful genome duplication. The fission yeast BRCT-domain-containing protein Brc1, and its budding yeast orthologue Rtt107, has emerged as a “hub” factor that integrates multiple replication fork protection mechanisms. Notably, the cofactors and pathways through which Brc1, Rtt107, and their human orthologue (PTIP) act have appeared largely distinct. This either represents true evolutionary functional divergence, or perhaps an incomplete genetic and biochemical analysis of each protein. In this regard, we recently showed that like Rtt107, Brc1 supports key functions of the Smc5–Smc6 complex, including its recruitment into DNA repair foci, chromatin association, and SUMO ligase activity. Furthermore, fission yeast cells lacking the Nse5–Nse6 genome stability factor were found to exhibit defects in Smc5–Smc6 function, similar to but more severe than those in cells lacking Brc1. Here, we place these findings in context with the known functions of Brc1, Rtt107, and Smc5–Smc6, present data suggesting a role for acetylation in Smc5–Smc6 chromatin loading, and discuss wider implications for genome stability.

Keywords

Brc1 Smc5 Smc6 SUMO Rad18 Nse5 Nse6 PTIP Rtt107 Replication stress 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by NIH Grants GM068608 and GM081840 awarded to M.N.B.

References

  1. Albuquerque CP, Wang G, Lee NS, Kolodner RD, Putnam CD, Zhou H (2013) Distinct SUMO ligases cooperate with Esc2 and Slx5 to suppress duplication-mediated genome rearrangements. PLoS Genet 9:e1003670.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003670 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Almedawar S, Colomina N, Bermudez-Lopez M, Pocino-Merino I, Torres-Rosell J (2012) A SUMO-dependent step during establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. Curr Biol 22:1576–1581.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews EA, Palecek J, Sergeant J, Taylor E, Lehmann AR, Watts FZ (2005) Nse2, a component of the Smc5–6 complex, is a SUMO ligase required for the response to DNA damage. Mol Cell Biol 25:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aragon L (2018) The Smc5/6 complex: new and old functions of the enigmatic long-distance relative. Annu Rev Genet 52:89–107.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-120417-031353 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bermudez-Lopez M, Aragon L (2017) Smc5/6 complex regulates Sgs1 recombination functions. Curr Genet 63:381–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-016-0648-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bermudez-Lopez M et al (2015) ATPase-dependent control of the Mms21 SUMO ligase during DNA repair. PLoS Biol 13:e1002089.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002089 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bermudez-Lopez M, Villoria MT, Esteras M, Jarmuz A, Torres-Rosell J, Clemente-Blanco A, Aragon L (2016) Sgs1’s roles in DNA end resection, HJ dissolution, and crossover suppression require a two-step SUMO regulation dependent on Smc5/6. Genes Dev 30:1339–1356.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.278275.116 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohm S, Mihalevic MJ, Casal MA, Bernstein KA (2015) Disruption of SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligases Slx5–Slx8/RNF4 alters RecQ-like helicase Sgs1/BLM localization in yeast and human cells. DNA Repair (Amst) 26:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonner JN et al (2016) Smc5/6 mediated sumoylation of the Sgs1–Top3–Rmi1 complex promotes removal of recombination intermediates. Cell Rep 16:368–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.06.015 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Bustard DE et al (2012) During replication stress, non-SMC element 5 (NSE5) is required for Smc5/6 protein complex functionality at stalled forks. J Biol Chem 287:11374–11383.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.336263 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bustard DE, Ball LG, Cobb JA (2016) Non-Smc element 5 (Nse5) of the Smc5/6 complex interacts with SUMO pathway components. Biol Open 5:777–785.  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.018440 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Chung I, Osterwald S, Deeg KI, Rippe K (2012) PML body meets telomere: the beginning of an ALTernate ending?. Nucleus 3:263–275.  https://doi.org/10.4161/nucl.20326 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dellaire G, Bazett-Jones DP (2007) Beyond repair foci: subnuclear domains and the cellular response to DNA damage. Cell Cycle 6:1864–1872.  https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.6.15.4560 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Diaz M, Pecinka A (2018) Scaffolding for repair: understanding molecular functions of the SMC5/6 complex. Genes (Basel).  https://doi.org/10.3390/genes9010036 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Duan X, Yang Y, Chen YH, Arenz J, Rangi GK, Zhao X, Ye H (2009) Architecture of the Smc5/6 complex of saccharomyces cerevisiae reveals a unique interaction between the Nse5–6 subcomplex and the hinge regions of Smc5 and Smc6. J Biol Chem 284:8507–8515.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M809139200 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hakli M, Karvonen U, Janne OA, Palvimo JJ (2005) SUMO-1 promotes association of SNURF (RNF4) with PML nuclear bodies. Exp Cell Res 304:224–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hang L, Zhao X (2016) The Rtt107 BRCT scaffold and its partner modification enzymes collaborate to promote replication. Nucleus 7:346–351.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19491034.2016.1201624 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hang LE et al (2015) Rtt107 is a multi-functional scaffold supporting replication progression with partner SUMO and ubiquitin ligases. Mol Cell 60:268–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2015.08.023 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayashi M et al (2007) Genome-wide localization of pre-RC sites and identification of replication origins in fission yeast. EMBO J 26:1327–1339.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601585 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Hazbun TR et al (2003) Assigning function to yeast proteins by integration of technologies. Mol Cell 12:1353–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horigome C, Bustard DE, Marcomini I, Delgoshaie N, Tsai-Pflugfelder M, Cobb JA, Gasser SM (2016) PolySUMOylation by Siz2 and Mms21 triggers relocation of DNA breaks to nuclear pores through the Slx5/Slx8 STUbL. Genes Dev 30:931–945.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.277665.116 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Kakui Y, Uhlmann F (2018) SMC complexes orchestrate the mitotic chromatin interaction landscape. Curr Genet 64:335–339.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0755-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanno T, Berta DG, Sjogren C (2015) The Smc5/6 complex is an ATP-dependent intermolecular DNA Linker. Cell Rep 12:1471–1482.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.07.048 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulemzina I et al (2016) A reversible association between Smc coiled coils is regulated by lysine acetylation and is required for cohesin association with the DNA. Mol Cell 63:1044–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.08.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lallemand-Breitenbach V et al (2008) Arsenic degrades PML or PML-RARalpha through a SUMO-triggered RNF4/ubiquitin-mediated pathway. Nat Cell Biol 10:547–555.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1717 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee KM, Nizza S, Hayes T, Bass KL, Irmisch A, Murray JM, O’Connell MJ (2007) Brc1-mediated rescue of Smc5/6 deficiency: requirement for multiple nucleases and a novel Rad18 function. Genetics 175:1585–1595.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.067801 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee SY, Rozenzhak S, Russell P (2013) gammaH2A-binding protein Brc1 affects centromere function in fission yeast. Mol Cell Biol 33:1410–1416.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01654-12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Leung GP, Lee L, Schmidt TI, Shirahige K, Kobor MS (2011) Rtt107 is required for recruitment of the SMC5/6 complex to DNA double strand breaks. J Biol Chem 286:26250–26257.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.235200 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Li X, Liu K, Li F, Wang J, Huang H, Wu J, Shi Y (2012) Structure of C-terminal tandem BRCT repeats of Rtt107 protein reveals critical role in interaction with phosphorylated histone H2A during DNA damage repair. J Biol Chem 287:9137–9146.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.311860 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Litwin I, Wysocki R (2018) New insights into cohesin loading. Curr Genet 64:53–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0723-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahendrawada L, Rai R, Kothiwal D, Laloraya S (2017) Interplay between Top1 and Mms21/Nse2 mediated sumoylation in stable maintenance of long chromosomes. Curr Genet 63:627–645.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-016-0665-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Manke IA, Lowery DM, Nguyen A, Yaffe MB (2003) BRCT repeats as phosphopeptide-binding modules involved in protein targeting. Science 302:636–639.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1088877 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Matityahu A, Onn I (2018) A new twist in the coil: functions of the coiled-coil domain of structural maintenance of chromosome (SMC) proteins. Curr Genet 64:109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0735-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McAleenan A et al (2012) SUMOylation of the alpha-kleisin subunit of cohesin is required for DNA damage-induced cohesion. Curr Biol 22:1564–1575.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mimitou EP, Symington LS (2011) DNA end resection–unraveling the tail. DNA Repair (Amst) 10:344–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moreno S, Klar A, Nurse P (1991) Molecular genetic analysis of fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Methods Enzymol 194:795–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagai S, Davoodi N, Gasser SM (2011) Nuclear organization in genome stability SUMO connections. Cell Res 21:474–485.  https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2011.31 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Nelson JD, Denisenko O, Bomsztyk K (2006) Protocol for the fast chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) method. Nat Protoc 1:179–185.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.27 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Nie M, Boddy MN (2016) Cooperativity of the SUMO and ubiquitin pathways in genome stability. Biomolecules 6:14.  https://doi.org/10.3390/biom6010014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Oravcova M, Gadaleta MC, Nie M, Reubens MC, Limbo O, Russell P, Boddy MN (2018) Brc1 promotes the focal accumulation and SUMO ligase activity of Smc5–Smc6 during replication stress. Mol Cell Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00271-18 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pebernard S, Wohlschlegel J, McDonald WH, Yates JR 3rd, Boddy MN (2006) The Nse5–Nse6 dimer mediates DNA repair roles of the Smc5–Smc6 complex. Mol Cell Biol 26:1617–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pebernard S, Schaffer L, Campbell D, Head SR, Boddy MN (2008) Localization of Smc5/6 to centromeres and telomeres requires heterochromatin and SUMO respectively. EMBO J 27:3011–3023.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.220 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Perry JJ, Tainer JA, Boddy MN (2008) A SIM-ultaneous role for SUMO and ubiquitin. Trends Biochem Sci 33:201–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2008.02.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pichler A, Fatouros C, Lee H, Eisenhardt N (2017) SUMO conjugation—a mechanistic view. Biomol Concepts 8:13–36.  https://doi.org/10.1515/bmc-2016-0030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Prudden J et al (2007) SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligases in genome stability. EMBO J 26:4089–4101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rai R, Laloraya S (2017) Genetic evidence for functional interaction of Smc5/6 complex and Top1 with spatial frequency of replication origins required for maintenance of chromosome stability. Curr Genet 63:765–776.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0680-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Raschle M et al (2015) DNA repair. Proteomics reveals dynamic assembly of repair complexes during bypass of DNA cross-links. Science 348:1253671.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253671 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Ray Chaudhuri A et al (2016) Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells. Nature 535:382–387.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18325 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Reubens MC, Rozenzhak S, Russell P (2017) Multi-BRCT domain protein Brc1 Links Rhp18/Rad18 and gammaH2A to maintain genome stability during S phase. Mol Cell Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00260-17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Robellet X, Vanoosthuyse V, Bernard P (2017) The loading of condensin in the context of chromatin. Curr Genet 63:577–589.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-016-0669-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanchez A, Roguev A, Krogan NJ, Russell P (2015) Genetic interaction landscape reveals critical requirements for Schizosaccharomyces pombe Brc1 in DNA damage response mutants. G3 (Bethesda) 5:953–962  https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.017251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheedy DM et al (2005) Brc1-mediated DNA repair and damage tolerance. Genetics 171:457–468.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.044966 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Tapia-Alveal C, O’Connell MJ (2011) Nse1-dependent recruitment of Smc5/6 to lesion-containing loci contributes to the repair defects of mutant complexes. Mol Biol Cell 22:4669–4682.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E11-03-0272 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Tapia-Alveal C, Outwin EA, Trempolec N, Dziadkowiec D, Murray JM, O’Connell MJ (2010) SMC complexes and topoisomerase II work together so that sister chromatids can work apart. Cell Cycle 9:2065–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tapia-Alveal C, Lin SJ, O’Connell MJ (2014) Functional interplay between cohesin and Smc5/6 complexes. Chromosoma 123:437–445.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00412-014-0474-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Tatham MH et al (2008) RNF4 is a poly-SUMO-specific E3 ubiquitin ligase required for arsenic-induced PML degradation. Nat Cell Biol 10:538–546.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1716 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Uhlmann F (2016) SMC complexes: from DNA to chromosomes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2016.30 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. van der Crabben SN et al (2016) Destabilized SMC5/6 complex leads to chromosome breakage syndrome with severe lung disease. J Clin Invest 126:2881–2892.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI82890 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Varejao N, Ibars E, Lascorz J, Colomina N, Torres-Rosell J, Reverter D (2018) DNA activates the Nse2/Mms21 SUMO E3 ligase in the Smc5/6 complex. EMBO J.  https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201798306 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Verkade HM, Bugg SJ, Lindsay HD, Carr AM, O’Connell MJ (1999) Rad18 is required for DNA repair and checkpoint responses in fission yeast. Mol Biol Cell 10:2905–2918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wani S, Maharshi N, Kothiwal D, Mahendrawada L, Kalaivani R, Laloraya S (2018) Interaction of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae RING-domain protein Nse1 with Nse3 and the Smc5/6 complex is required for chromosome replication and stability. Curr Genet 64:599–617.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0776-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Wehrkamp-Richter S, Hyppa RW, Prudden J, Smith GR, Boddy MN (2012) Meiotic DNA joint molecule resolution depends on Nse5–Nse6 of the Smc5–Smc6 holocomplex. Nucleic Acids Res 40:9633–9646.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks713 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Williams JS, Williams RS, Dovey CL, Guenther G, Tainer JA, Russell P (2010) gammaH2A binds Brc1 to maintain genome integrity during S-phase. EMBO J 29:1136–1148.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.413 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu N, Kong X, Ji Z, Zeng W, Potts PR, Yokomori K, Yu H (2012) Scc1 sumoylation by Mms21 promotes sister chromatid recombination through counteracting. Wapl Genes Dev 26:1473–1485.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.193615.112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Yan S et al (2013) Salicylic acid activates DNA damage responses to potentiate plant immunity. Mol Cell 52:602–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2013.09.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Zabrady K et al (2016) Chromatin association of the SMC5/6 complex is dependent on binding of its NSE3 subunit to DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 44:1064–1079.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhao X, Blobel G (2005) A SUMO ligase is part of a nuclear multiprotein complex that affects DNA repair and chromosomal organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4777–4782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zilio N et al (2014) A novel histone deacetylase complex in the control of transcription and genome stability. Mol Cell Biol 34:3500–3514.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00519-14 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Molecular MedicineThe Scripps Research InstituteLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations