Advertisement

Current Genetics

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 677–683 | Cite as

Linking the organization of DNA replication with genome maintenance

  • Balveer Singh
  • Pei-Yun Jenny WuEmail author
Mini-Review

Abstract

The spatial and temporal organization of genome duplication, also referred to as the replication program, is defined by the distribution and the activities of the sites of replication initiation across the genome. Alterations to the replication profile are associated with cell fate changes during development and in pathologies, but the importance of undergoing S phase with distinct and specific programs remains largely unexplored. We have recently addressed this question, focusing on the interplay between the replication program and genome maintenance. In particular, we demonstrated that when cells encounter challenges to DNA synthesis, the organization of DNA replication drives the response to replication stress that is mediated by the ATR/Rad3 checkpoint pathway, thus shaping the pattern of genome instability along the chromosomes. In this review, we present the major findings of our study and discuss how they may bring new perspectives to our understanding of the biological importance of the replication program.

Keywords

DNA replication Replication program S phase checkpoint Genome instability Replication stress DNA damage Rad3/ATR (ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related) Fission yeast 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Damien Coudreuse for critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by funding from the Institut National du Cancer (INCA, PLBIO 15-043) and the Région Bretagne. We apologize to any authors whose work was not cited due to space restrictions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahuja AK, Jodkowska K, Teloni F et al (2016) A short G1 phase imposes constitutive replication stress and fork remodelling in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Commun 7:10660.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentley NJ, Holtzman DA, Flaggs G et al (1996) The Schizosaccharomyces pombe rad3 checkpoint gene. EMBO J 15:6641–6651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bester AC, Roniger M, Oren YS et al (2011) Nucleotide deficiency promotes genomic instability in early stages of cancer development. Cell 145:435–446.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.03.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byun TS, Pacek M, Yee M-C et al (2005) Functional uncoupling of MCM helicase and DNA polymerase activities activates the ATR-dependent checkpoint. Genes Dev 19:1040–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1301205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciccia A, Elledge SJ (2010) The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol Cell 40:179–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornacchia D, Dileep V, Quivy J-P et al (2012) Mouse Rif1 is a key regulator of the replication-timing programme in mammalian cells. EMBO J 31:3678–3690.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2012.214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desprat R, Thierry-Mieg D, Lailler N et al (2009) Predictable dynamic program of timing of DNA replication in human cells. Genome Res 19:2288–2299.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.094060.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Rienzi SC, Collingwood D, Raghuraman MK, Brewer BJ (2009) Fragile genomic sites are associated with origins of replication. Genome Biol Evol 1:350–363.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evp034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donley N, Thayer MJ (2013) DNA replication timing, genome stability and cancer: late and/or delayed DNA replication timing is associated with increased genomic instability. Semin Cancer Biol 23:80–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2013.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards RJ, Bentley NJ, Carr AM (1999) A Rad3-Rad26 complex responds to DNA damage independently of other checkpoint proteins. Nat Cell Biol 1:393–398.  https://doi.org/10.1038/15623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eykelenboom JK, Harte EC, Canavan L et al (2013) ATR activates the S-M checkpoint during unperturbed growth to ensure sufficient replication prior to mitotic onset. Cell Rep 5:1095–1107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.10.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feng W, Collingwood D, Boeck ME et al (2006) Genomic mapping of single-stranded DNA in hydroxyurea-challenged yeasts identifies origins of replication. Nat Cell Biol 8:148–155.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gómez-Escoda B, Wu P-YJ (2018) The organization of genome duplication is a critical determinant of the landscape of genome maintenance. Genome Res.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.224527.117 Google Scholar
  14. Gordon JL, Byrne KP, Wolfe KH (2009) Additions, losses, and rearrangements on the evolutionary route from a reconstructed ancestor to the modern Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. PLoS Genet 5:e1000485.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halazonetis TD, Gorgoulis VG, Bartek J (2008) An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 319:1352–1355.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayano M, Kanoh Y, Matsumoto S et al (2012) Rif1 is a global regulator of timing of replication origin firing in fission yeast. Genes Dev 26:137–150.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.178491.111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayashi M, Katou Y, Itoh T 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heichinger C, Penkett CJ, Bähler J, Nurse P (2006) Genome-wide characterization of fission yeast DNA replication origins. EMBO J 25:5171–5179.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hills SA, Diffley JFX (2014) DNA replication and oncogene-induced replicative stress. Curr Biol 24:R435–R444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiratani I, Ryba T, Itoh M et al (2008) Global reorganization of replication domains during embryonic stem cell differentiation. PLoS Biol 6:e245.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hiratani I, Ryba T, Itoh M et al (2010) Genome-wide dynamics of replication timing revealed by in vitro models of mouse embryogenesis. Genome Res 20:155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.099796.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyrien O, Maric C, Méchali M (1995) Transition in specification of embryonic metazoan DNA replication origins. Science 270:994–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kermi C, Furno Lo E, Maiorano D (2017) Regulation of DNA replication in early embryonic cleavages. Genes (Basel).  https://doi.org/10.3390/genes8010042 Google Scholar
  24. Koren A, Polak P, Nemesh J et al (2012) Differential relationship of DNA replication timing to different forms of human mutation and variation. Am J Hum Genet 91:1033–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kotsantis P, Petermann E, Boulton SJ (2018) Mechanisms of oncogene-induced replication stress: jigsaw falling into place. Cancer Discov 8:537–555.  https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Labib K, De Piccoli G (2011) Surviving chromosome replication: the many roles of the S-phase checkpoint pathway. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 366:3554–3561.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lang GI, Murray AW (2011) Mutation rates across budding yeast chromosome VI are correlated with replication timing. Genome Biol Evol 3:799–811.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evr054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindsay HD, Griffiths DJ, Edwards RJ et al (1998) S-phase-specific activation of Cds1 kinase defines a subpathway of the checkpoint response in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Genes Dev 12:382–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu L, De S, Michor F (2013) DNA replication timing and higher-order nuclear organization determine single-nucleotide substitution patterns in cancer genomes. Nat Commun 4:1502.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lopez-Mosqueda J, Maas NL, Jonsson ZO et al (2010) Damage-induced phosphorylation of Sld3 is important to block late origin firing. Nature 467:479–483.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lu J, Li H, Hu M et al (2014) The distribution of genomic variationsin human iPSCs is related to replication-timing reorganization during reprogramming. Cell Rep 7:70–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazouzi A, Velimezi G, Loizou JI (2014) DNA replication stress—causes, resolution and disease. Exp Cell Res 329:85–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2014.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGranahan N, Swanton C (2017) Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: past, present, and the future. Cell 168:613–628.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mickle KL, Ramanathan S, Rosebrock A et al (2007) Checkpoint independence of most DNA replication origins in fission yeast. BMC Mol Biol 8:112.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2199-8-112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mikolaskova B, Jurcik M, Cipakova I et al (2018) Maintenance of genome stability: the unifying role of interconnections between the DNA damage response and RNA-processing pathways. Curr Genet 64:971–983.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-018-0819-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Misteli T, Soutoglou E (2009) The emerging role of nuclear architecture in DNA repair and genome maintenance. Nature 10:243–254.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2651 Google Scholar
  37. Muller CA, Nieduszynski CA (2012) Conservation of replication timing reveals global and local regulation of replication origin activity. Genome Res 22:1953–1962.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.139477.112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Müller CA, Nieduszynski CA (2017) DNA replication timing influences gene expression level. J Cell Biol 216:1907–1914.  https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201701061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nagai S, Heun P, Gasser SM (2010) Roles for nuclear organization in the maintenance of genome stability. Epigenomics 2:289–305.  https://doi.org/10.2217/epi.09.49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Negrini S, Gorgoulis VG, Halazonetis TD (2010) Genomic instability—an evolving hallmark of cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11:220–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01882039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palou R, Palou G, Quintana DG (2017) A role for the spindle assembly checkpoint in the DNA damage response. Curr Genet 63:275–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-016-0634-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perrot A, Millington CL, Gómez-Escoda B et al (2018) CDK activity provides temporal and quantitative cues for organizing genome duplication. PLoS Genet 14:e1007214.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Polak P, Karlić R, Koren A et al (2015) Cell-of-origin chromatin organization shapes the mutational landscape of cancer. Nature 518:360–364.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pope BD, Hiratani I, Gilbert DM (2010) Domain-wide regulation of DNA replication timing during mammalian development. Chromosome Res 18:127–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-009-9100-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pourkarimi E, Bellush JM, Whitehouse I (2016) Spatiotemporal coupling and decoupling of gene transcription with DNA replication origins during embryogenesis in C. elegans. Elife.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21728 Google Scholar
  46. Rivera-Mulia JC, Buckley Q, Sasaki T et al (2015) Dynamic changes in replication timing and gene expression during lineage specification of human pluripotent stem cells. Genome Res 25:1091–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.187989.114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rivera-Mulia JC, Dimond A, Vera D et al (2018) Allele-specific control of replication timing and genome organization during development. Genome Res.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.232561.117 Google Scholar
  48. Rodríguez-Martínez M, Pinzón N, Ghommidh C et al (2017) The gastrula transition reorganizes replication-origin selection in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat Struct Mol Biol 24:290–299.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryba T, Hiratani I, Lu J et al (2010) Evolutionarily conserved replication timing profiles predict long-range chromatin interactions and distinguish closely related cell types. Genome Res 20:761–770.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.099655.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryba T, Hiratani I, Sasaki T et al (2011) Replication timing: a fingerprint for cell identity and pluripotency. PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1002225.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saldivar JC, Cortez D, Cimprich KA (2017) The essential kinase ATR: ensuring faithful duplication of a challenging genome. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18:622–636.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santocanale C, Diffley JF (1998) A Mec1- and Rad53-dependent checkpoint controls late-firing origins of DNA replication. Nature 395:615–618.  https://doi.org/10.1038/27001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santocanale C, Sharma K, Diffley JF (1999) Activation of dormant origins of DNA replication in budding yeast. Genes Dev 13:2360–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shirahige K, Hori Y, Shiraishi K et al (1998) Regulation of DNA-replication origins during cell-cycle progression. Nature 395:618–621.  https://doi.org/10.1038/27007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sima J, Gilbert DM (2014) Complex correlations: replication timing and mutational landscapes during cancer and genome evolution. Curr Opin Genet Dev 25:93–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2013.11.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Singh B, Wu P-YJ (2018) Regulation of the program of DNA replication by CDK: new findings and perspectives. Curr Genet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-018-0860-6 Google Scholar
  57. Tomkova M, Tomek J, Kriaucionis S, Schuster-Böckler B (2018) Mutational signature distribution varies with DNA replication timing and strand asymmetry. Genome Biol 19:129.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1509-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tubbs A, Nussenzweig A (2017) Endogenous DNA damage as a source of genomic instability in cancer. Cell 168:644–656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Villa-Hernández S, Bermejo R (2018) Cohesin dynamic association to chromatin and interfacing with replication forks in genome integrity maintenance. Curr Genet 64:1005–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-018-0824-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Willis NA, Zhou C, Elia AEH et al (2016) Identification of S-phase DNA damage-response targets in fission yeast reveals conservation of damage-response networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E3676–E3685.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525620113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wu P-YJ, Nurse P (2014) Replication origin selection regulates the distribution of meiotic recombination. Mol Cell 53:655–662.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.01.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yaffe E, Farkash-Amar S, Polten A et al (2010) Comparative analysis of DNA replication timing reveals conserved large-scale chromosomal architecture. PLoS Genet 6:e1001011.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yamazaki S, Ishii A, Kanoh Y et al (2012) Rif1 regulates the replication timing domains on the human genome. EMBO J 31:3667–3677.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2012.180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zegerman P, Diffley JFX (2010) Checkpoint-dependent inhibition of DNA replication initiation by Sld3 and Dbf4 phosphorylation. Nature 467:474–478.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zeman MK, Cimprich KA (2014) Causes and consequences of replication stress. Nat Cell Biol 16:2–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, University of Rennes, Institute of Genetics and Development of RennesRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations