Advertisement

Methods for Assessing DNA Repair and Repeat Expansion in Huntington’s Disease

Protocol
First Online:
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1780)

Abstract

Huntington’s disease (HD) is caused by a CAG repeat expansion in the HTT gene. Repeat length can change over time, both in individual cells and between generations, and longer repeats may drive pathology. Cellular DNA repair systems have long been implicated in CAG repeat instability but recent genetic evidence from humans linking DNA repair variants to HD onset and progression has reignited interest in this area. The DNA damage response plays an essential role in maintaining genome stability, but may also license repeat expansions in the context of HD. In this chapter we summarize the methods developed to assay CAG repeat expansion/contraction in vitro and in cells, and review the DNA repair genes tested in mouse models of HD. While none of these systems is currently ideal, new technologies, such as long-read DNA sequencing, should improve the sensitivity of assays to assess the effects of DNA repair pathways in HD. Improved assays will be essential precursors to high-throughput testing of small molecules that can alter specific steps in DNA repair pathways and perhaps ameliorate expansion or enhance contraction of the HTT CAG repeat.

Keywords

Huntington’s disease Neurodegeneration Trinucleotide repeat CAG repeat Genetic modifiers DNA repair DNA damage response Mouse models Cell models Somatic expansion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Genetic Modifiers of Huntington’s Disease (GeM-HD) Consortium (2015) Identification of genetic factors that modify clinical onset of Huntington’s disease. Cell 162:516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moss DJH, Pardiñas AF, Langbehn D et al (2017) Identification of genetic variants associated with Huntington’s disease progression: a genome-wide association study. Lancet Neurol 16:701–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stone, Timothy C, Holmans PA (2018) Using genomic data to find disease-modifying loci in HD. In: Precious SV, Rosser AE, Dunnett SB (eds) Methods in molecular biology: Huntington’s disease. Humana Press, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bettencourt C, Hensman-Moss D, Flower M et al (2016) DNA repair pathways underlie a common genetic mechanism modulating onset in polyglutamine diseases. Ann Neurol 79:983–990CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones L, Houlden H, Tabrizi SJ (2017) DNA repair in the trinucleotide repeat disorders. Lancet Neurol 16:88–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ashkenazi A, Bento CF, Ricketts T et al (2017) Polyglutamine tracts regulate beclin 1-dependent autophagy. Nature 545:108–111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards A, Caskey CT (1991) Genetic marker technology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2:818–822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trang H, Stanley SY, Thorner P et al (2015) Massive CAG repeat expansion and somatic instability in maternally transmitted infantile spinocerebellar ataxia type 7. JAMA Neurol 72:219–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmidt MHM, Pearson CE (2016) Disease-associated repeat instability and mismatch repair. DNA Repair (Amst) 38:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thibodeau SN, Bren G, Schaid D (1993) Microsatellite instability in cancer of the proximal colon. Science 260:816–819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nelson DL, Orr HT, Warren ST (2013) The unstable repeats – three evolving faces of neurological disease. Neuron 77:825–843CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Mossevelde S, van der Zee J, Gijselinck I et al (2017) Clinical evidence of disease anticipation in families segregating a C9orf72 repeat expansion. JAMA Neurol 74:445–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Telenius H, Kremer B, Goldberg YP et al (1994) Somatic and gonadal mosaicism of the Huntington disease gene CAG repeat in brain and sperm. Nat Genet 6:409–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Telenius H, Almqvist E, Kremer B et al (1995) Somatic mosaicism in sperm is associated with intergenerational (CAG)n changes in Huntington disease. Hum Mol Genet 4:189–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leeflang EP, Zhang L, Tavare S et al (1995) Single sperm analysis of the trinucleotide repeats in the Huntington’s disease gene: quantification of the mutation frequency spectrum. Hum Mol Genet 4:1519–1526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Semaka A, Kay C, Doty C et al (2013) CAG size-specific risk estimates for intermediate allele repeat instability in Huntington disease. J Med Genet 50:696–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larson E, Fyfe I, Morton AJ et al (2015) Age-, tissue- and length-dependent bidirectional somatic CAG*CTG repeat instability in an allelic series of R6/2 Huntington disease mice. Neurobiol Dis 76:98–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kovtun IV, Welch G, Guthrie HD et al (2004) CAG repeat lengths in X- and Y-bearing sperm indicate that gender bias during transmission of Huntington’s disease gene is determined in the embryo. J Biol Chem 279:9389–9391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brinkmann B, Klintschar M, Neuhuber F et al (1998) Mutation rate in human microsatellites: influence of the structure and length of the tandem repeat. Am J Hum Genet 62:1408–1415CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orr HT, Zoghbi HY (2007) Trinucleotide repeat disorders. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:575–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kennedy L, Evans E, Chen C-M et al (2003) Dramatic tissue-specific mutation length increases are an early molecular event in Huntington disease pathogenesis. Hum Mol Genet 12:3359–3367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swami M, Hendricks AE, Gillis T et al (2009) Somatic expansion of the Huntington’s disease CAG repeat in the brain is associated with an earlier age of disease onset. Hum Mol Genet 18:3039–3047CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shelbourne PF, Keller-McGandy C, Bi WL et al (2007) Triplet repeat mutation length gains correlate with cell-type specific vulnerability in Huntington disease brain. Hum Mol Genet 16:1133–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iyer RR, Pluciennik A, Napierala M et al (2015) DNA triplet repeat expansion and mismatch repair. Annu Rev Biochem 84:199–226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao X-N, Usdin K (2015) The repeat expansion diseases: the dark side of DNA repair. DNA Repair (Amst) 32:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vnencak-Jones CL (2003) Fluorescence PCR and GeneScan analysis for the detection of CAG repeat expansions associated with Huntington’s disease. Methods Mol Biol 217:101–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee J-M, Zhang J, Su AI et al (2010) A novel approach to investigate tissue-specific trinucleotide repeat instability. BMC Syst Biol 4:29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Warner JP, Barron LH, Goudie D et al (1996) A general method for the detection of large CAG repeat expansions by fluorescent PCR. J Med Genet 33:1022–1026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jama M, Millson A, Miller CE et al (2013) Triplet repeat primed PCR simplifies testing for Huntington disease. J Mol Diagn 15:255–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gomes-Pereira M, Bidichandani SI, Monckton DG (2004) Analysis of unstable triplet repeats using small-pool polymerase chain reaction. Methods Mol Biol 277:61–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tomé S, Manley K, Simard JP et al (2013) MSH3 polymorphisms and protein levels affect CAG repeat instability in Huntington’s disease mice. PLoS Genet 9:e1003280CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guida M, Fenwick RG, Papp AC et al (1996) Southern transfer protocol for confirmation of Huntington disease. Clin Chem 42:1711–1712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rhoads A, Au KF (2015) PacBio sequencing and its applications. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 13:278–289CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loomis EW, Eid JS, Peluso P et al (2013) Sequencing the unsequenceable: expanded CGG-repeat alleles of the fragile X gene. Genome Res 23:121–128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doi K, Monjo T, Hoang PH et al (2014) Rapid detection of expanded short tandem repeats in personal genomics using hybrid sequencing. Bioinformatics 30:815–822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bichara M, Wagner J, Lambert IB (2006) Mechanisms of tandem repeat instability in bacteria. Mutat Res 598:144–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zahra R, Blackwood JK, Sales J et al (2007) Proofreading and secondary structure processing determine the orientation dependence of CAG x CTG trinucleotide repeat instability in Escherichia coli. Genetics 176:27–41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dixon MJ, Bhattacharyya S, Lahue RS (2004) Genetic assays for triplet repeat instability in yeast. In: Trinucleotide repeat protoc. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miret JJ, Pessoa-Brandao L, Lahue RS (1998) Orientation-dependent and sequence-specific expansions of CTG/CAG trinucleotide repeats in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:12438–12443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Williams GM, Surtees JA (2015) MSH3 promotes dynamic behavior of trinucleotide repeat tracts in vivo. Genetics 200:737–754CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim JC, Harris ST, Dinter T et al (2016) The role of break-induced replication in large-scale expansions of (CAG)n/(CTG)n repeats. Nat Struct Mol Biol 24:55–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pelletier R, Farrell BT, Miret JJ et al (2005) Mechanistic features of CAG•CTG repeat contractions in cultured cells revealed by a novel genetic assay. Nucleic Acids Res 33:5667CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Farrell BT, Lahue RS (2006) CAG*CTG repeat instability in cultured human astrocytes. Nucleic Acids Res 34:4495–4505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Claassen DA, Lahue RS (2007) Expansions of CAG.CTG repeats in immortalized human astrocytes. Hum Mol Genet 16:3088–3096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gorbunova V, Seluanov A, Dion V et al (2003) Selectable system for monitoring the instability of CTG/CAG triplet repeats in mammalian cells. Mol Cell Biol 23:4485–4493CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lin Y, Dion V, Wilson JH (2005) A novel selectable system for detecting expansion of CAG.CTG repeats in mammalian cells. Mutat Res 572:123–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lin Y, Dion V, Wilson JH (2006) Transcription promotes contraction of CAG repeat tracts in human cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol 13:179–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lin Y, Wilson JH (2007) Transcription-induced CAG repeat contraction in human cells is mediated in part by transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair. Mol Cell Biol 27:6209–6217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cinesi C, Aeschbach L, Yang B et al (2016) Contracting CAG/CTG repeats using the CRISPR-Cas9 nickase. Nat Commun 7:13272CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Santillan BA, Moye C, Mittelman D et al (2014) GFP-based fluorescence assay for CAG repeat instability in cultured human cells. PLoS One 9:e113952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stevens JR, Lahue EE, Li G-M et al (2013) Trinucleotide repeat expansions catalyzed by human cell-free extracts. Cell Res 23:565–572CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jonson I, Ougland R, Klungland A et al (2013) Oxidative stress causes DNA triplet expansion in Huntington’s disease mouse embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Res 11:1264–1271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gomes-Pereira M, Monckton DG (2004) Mouse tissue culture models of unstable triplet repeats. Methods Mol Biol 277:215–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Seriola A, Spits C, Simard JP et al (2011) Huntington’s and myotonic dystrophy hESCs: down-regulated trinucleotide repeat instability and mismatch repair machinery expression upon differentiation. Hum Mol Genet 20:176–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bates GP (2018) HD mice: genetic and knock-in models. In: Precious SV, Rosser AE, Dunnett SB (eds) Methods in molecular biology: Huntington’s disease. Humana Press, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Manley K, Shirley TL, Flaherty L et al (1999) Msh2 deficiency prevents in vivo somatic instability of the CAG repeat in Huntington disease transgenic mice. Nat Genet 23:471–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kovtun IV, McMurray CT (2001) Trinucleotide expansion in haploid germ cells by gap repair. Nat Genet 27:407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kovalenko M, Dragileva E, St Claire J et al (2012) Msh2 acts in medium-spiny striatal neurons as an enhancer of CAG instability and mutant huntingtin phenotypes in Huntington’s disease knock-in mice. PLoS One 7:e44273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wheeler VC, Lebel L-A, Vrbanac V et al (2003) Mismatch repair gene Msh2 modifies the timing of early disease in HdhQ111 striatum. Hum Mol Genet 12:273–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dragileva E, Hendricks A, Teed A et al (2009) Intergenerational and striatal CAG repeat instability in Huntington’s disease knock-in mice involve different DNA repair genes. Neurobiol Dis 33:37–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pinto RM, Dragileva E, Kirby A et al (2013) Mismatch repair genes Mlh1 and Mlh3 modify CAG instability in Huntington’s disease mice: genome-wide and candidate approaches. PLoS Genet 9:e1003930CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kovtun IV, Liu Y, Bjoras M et al (2007) OGG1 initiates age-dependent CAG trinucleotide expansion in somatic cells. Nature 447:447–452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Budworth H, Harris FR, Williams P et al (2015) Suppression of somatic expansion delays the onset of pathophysiology in a mouse model of Huntington’s disease. PLoS Genet 11:e1005267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Møllersen L, Rowe AD, Illuzzi JL et al (2012) Neil1 is a genetic modifier of somatic and germline CAG trinucleotide repeat instability in R6/1 mice. Hum Mol Genet 21:4939–4947CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Goula A-V, Berquist BR, Wilson DM et al (2009) Stoichiometry of base excision repair proteins correlates with increased somatic CAG instability in striatum over cerebellum in Huntington’s disease transgenic mice. PLoS Genet 5:e1000749CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kovtun IV, Johnson KO, McMurray CT (2011) Cockayne syndrome B protein antagonizes OGG1 in modulating CAG repeat length in vivo. Aging (Albany NY) 3:509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cardinale A, Paldino E, Giampà C et al (2015) PARP-1 inhibition is neuroprotective in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington’s disease. PLoS One 10:e0134482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Enokido Y, Tamura T, Ito H et al (2010) Mutant huntingtin impairs Ku70-mediated DNA repair. J Cell Biol 189:425–443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lu X-H, Mattis VB, Wang N et al (2014) Targeting ATM ameliorates mutant Huntingtin toxicity in cell and animal models of Huntington’s disease. Sci Transl Med 6:268ra178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    de Wind N, Dekker M, Berns A et al (1995) Inactivation of the mouse Msh2 gene results in mismatch repair deficiency, methylation tolerance, hyperrecombination, and predisposition to cancer. Cell 82:321–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lin Y, Wilson JH (2012) Nucleotide excision repair, mismatch repair, and R-loops modulate convergent transcription-induced cell death and repeat instability. PLoS One 7:e46807CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sepe S, Milanese C, Gabriels S et al (2016) Inefficient DNA repair is an aging-related modifier of Parkinson's disease. Cell Rep 15:1866–1875CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pearl LH, Schierz AC, Ward SE et al (2015) Therapeutic opportunities within the DNA damage response. Nat Rev Cancer 15:166–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and GenomicsCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite protocol

Buy options