Exo1-protected DNA nicks direct crossover formation in meiosis

In most sexually reproducing organisms crossing over between chromosome homologs during meiosis is critical for the viability of haploid gametes. Most crossovers that form in meiosis in budding yeast result from the biased resolution of double Holliday Junction (dHJ) intermediates. This dHJ resolution step involves the actions Rad2/XPG family nuclease Exo1 and the Mlh1- Mlh3 mismatch repair endonuclease. At present little is known about how these factors act in meiosis at the molecular level. Here we show that Exo1 promotes meiotic crossing over by protecting DNA nicks from ligation. We found that structural elements in Exo1 required for interactions with DNA, such as bending of DNA during nick/flap recognition, are critical for its role in crossing over. Consistent with these observations, meiotic expression of the Rad2/XPG family member Rad27 partially rescued the crossover defect in exo1 null mutants, and meiotic overexpression of Cdc9 ligase specifically reduced the crossover levels of exo1 DNA binding mutants to levels approaching the exo1 null. In addition, our work identified a role for Exo1 in crossover interference that appears independent of its resection activity. Together, these studies provide experimental evidence for Exo1 protected nicks being critical for the formation of meiotic crossovers and their distribution.

Pathways and signatures of mutagenesis at targeted DNA nicks

Nicks are the most frequent form of DNA damage and a potential source of mutagenesis in human cells. By deep sequencing, we have identified factors and pathways that promote and limit mutagenic repair at a targeted nick in human cells. Mutations were distributed asymmetrically around the nick site. BRCA2 inhibited all categories of mutational events, including indels, SNVs and HDR. DNA2 and RPA promoted resection. DNA2 inhibited 1 bp deletions but contributed to longer deletions, as did REV7. POLQ stimulated SNVs. Parallel analysis of DSBs targeted to the same site identified similar roles for DNA2 and POLQ (but not REV7) in promoting deletions and for POLQ in stimulating SNVs. Insertions were infrequent at nicks, and most were 1 bp in length, as at DSBs. The translesion polymerase REV1 stimulated +1 insertions at one nick site but not another, illustrating the potential importance of sequence context in determining the outcome of mutagenic repair. These results highlight the potential for nicks to promote mutagenesis, especially in BRCA-deficient cells, and identify mutagenic signatures of DNA2, REV1, REV3, REV7 and POLQ.

Pathways and signatures of mutagenesis at targeted DNA nicks

Nicks are the most frequent form of DNA damage and a potential source of mutagenesis in human cells. By deep sequencing, we have identified factors and pathways that promote and limit mutagenic repair at targeted nicks. BRCA2 inhibits all categories of mutational events at nicks, including indels, SNVs and HDR. DNA2 and RPA promote 5' resection. Most insertions at nicks consist of a single C incorporated opposite the nick by the translesion polymerase REV1. DNA2 and REV3 inhibit these 1 bp insertions; and DNA2 also inhibits 1 bp deletions. Longer deletions are stimulated by DNA2, REV7 and POLQ. Strikingly, POLQ generates most SNVs at both nicks and double-strand breaks. These results identify mutagenic signatures of DNA2, REV1, REV3, REV7 and POLQ at nicks and highlight the potential for nicks to promote mutagenesis, especially in BRCA-deficient cells.

“Programmed Cell Death: A Process of Death for Survival” – How Far Terminology Pertinent for Cell Death in Unicellular Organisms

Programmed cell death (PCD) is genetically regulated phenomenon of selective elimination of target cells that are either under pathological conditions or unwanted for organism’s normal growth and development due to other reasons. The process although being genetically controlled is physiological in nature that renders some hallmarks like blebs in the cell membrane, lobe formation in nuclear membrane, DNA nicks resulting to DNA ladder of 200 bp, and downstream activation of caspases. Moreover, as the process refers to the death of “targeted cell”, the term is exclusively suitable for multicellular organisms. Number of reports advocate similar type of cell death process in unicellular organisms. As cell death in unicellular organisms is also reflected by the signature of PCD obtained in metazoans, such cell death has been grouped under the broad category of PCD. It is pertinent to mention that by definition a unicellular organism is made of a single cell wherein it carries out all of its life processes. Using the term “Programmed Cell Death” with a preset “survival strategy of the organism” for unicellular organisms looks misnomer. Therefore, this correspondence argues and requests recommendation committee on cell death to revisit for the nomenclature of the cell death process in the unicellular organisms.