Advertisement

Analyzing Homologous Recombination at a Genome-Wide Level

Protocol
  • 1.1k Downloads
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2153)

Abstract

Among the types of damage, DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) (provoked by various environmental stresses, but also during normal cell metabolic activity) are the most deleterious, as illustrated by the variety of human diseases associated with DSB repair defects. DSBs are repaired by two groups of pathways: homologous recombination (HR) and nonhomologous end joining. These pathways do not trigger the same mutational signatures, and multiple factors, such as cell cycle stage, the complexity of the lesion and also the genomic location, contribute to the choice between these repair pathways. To study the usage of the HR machinery at DSBs, we propose a genome-wide method based on the chromatin immunoprecipitation of the HR core component Rad51, followed by high-throughput sequencing.

Key words

Homologous recombination DNA double-strand break DNA repair Chromatin immunoprecipitation ChIP-seq Next generation sequencing 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Funding in G.L. laboratory is provided by grants from the European Research Council (ERC-2014-CoG 647344), Agence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR-14-CE10-0002-01), the Institut National contre le Cancer (INCA), and the Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer (LNCC). C.A salary is provided by FRM (Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale) (FRM FDT201904007941).

References

  1. 1.
    Marnef A, Cohen S, Legube G (2017) Transcription-coupled DNA double-strand break repair: active genes need special care. J Mol Biol 429:1277–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2017.03.024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sollier J, Cimprich KA (2015) Breaking bad: R-loops and genome integrity. Trends Cell Biol 25:514–522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2015.05.003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaillard H, Aguilera A (2016) Transcription as a threat to genome integrity. Annu Rev Biochem 85:291–317.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060815-014908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mladenov E, Magin S, Soni A, Iliakis G (2016) DNA double-strand-break repair in higher eukaryotes and its role in genomic instability and cancer: cell cycle and proliferation-dependent regulation. Semin Cancer Biol 37-38:51–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2016.03.003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fortuny A, Polo SE (2018) The response to DNA damage in heterochromatin domains. Chromosoma 127:291–300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00412-018-0669-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clouaire T, Legube G (2015) DNA double strand break repair pathway choice: a chromatin based decision? Nucleus 6:107–113.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19491034.2015.1010946CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aymard F, Bugler B, Schmidt CK et al (2014) Transcriptionally active chromatin recruits homologous recombination at DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21:366–374.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2796CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clouaire T, Rocher V, Lashgari A et al (2018) Comprehensive mapping of histone modifications at DNA double-strand breaks deciphers repair pathway chromatin signatures. Mol Cell 72:250–262.e6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2018.08.020CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crosetto N, Mitra A, Silva MJ et al (2013) Nucleotide-resolution DNA double-strand break mapping by next-generation sequencing. Nat Methods 10:361–365.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yan WX, Mirzazadeh R, Garnerone S et al (2017) BLISS is a versatile and quantitative method for genome-wide profiling of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Commun 8:15058.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15058CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biernacka A, Zhu Y, Skrzypczak M et al (2018) i-BLESS is an ultra-sensitive method for detection of DNA double-strand breaks. Commun Biol 1:181.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-018-0165-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lensing SV, Marsico G, Hänsel-Hertsch R et al (2016) DSBCapture: in situ capture and sequencing of DNA breaks. Nat Methods 13:855–857.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3960CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canela A, Sridharan S, Sciascia N et al (2016) DNA breaks and end resection measured genome-wide by end sequencing. Mol Cell 63:898–911.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.06.034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iacovoni JS, Caron P, Lassadi I et al (2010) High-resolution profiling of gammaH2AX around DNA double strand breaks in the mammalian genome. EMBO J 29:1446–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2010.38CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canela A, Maman Y, Huang S-YN et al (2019) Topoisomerase II-induced chromosome breakage and translocation is determined by chromosome architecture and transcriptional activity. Mol Cell.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.04.030
  16. 16.
    Gothe HJ, Bouwman BAM, Gusmao EG et al (2019) Spatial chromosome folding and active transcription drive DNA fragility and formation of oncogenic MLL translocations. Mol Cell.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.05.015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LBCMCP, Centre de Biologie Integrative (CBI), CNRSUniversité de Toulouse, UT3ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations