Background
Inherited syndromes characterized by the replication defects and genomic instability emphasize that DNA replication and repair must be highly coordinated processes [
1]. Deficiencies in DNA replication and repair mechanisms become particularly detrimental at genomic sequences that present unique challenges to the replication fork progression [
2,
3]. Common fragile sites (CFS) are specific chromosomal regions, extending over large DNA sequences, which are especially prone to genomic instability under conditions of replication stress [
4,
5]. At fragile sites, under conditions of replication stress, the replicative polymerases may uncouple from the helicase, resulting in long regions of single-stranded DNA ahead of polymerase that could pose fork barriers leading to fork disassembly and DNA breaks [
5,
6]. CFS are expressed as site-specific gaps or breaks on metaphase chromosomes after partial inhibition of DNA synthesis, and exhibit sister chromatid exchange (SCE), deletions and translocations [
5]. Thus, CFS serve as genomic hot spots for DNA damage and carcinogenesis [
7].
Members of RecQ family DNA helicases, represented by five homologs (BLM, WRN, RecQ4, RecQ5β and RECQ1) in humans, are implicated in genome maintenance through repair of stalled or collapsed replication forks [
8,
9]. RecQ helicases are specifically recruited to the sites of arrested DNA replication where in addition to serving repair functions, they help stabilize stalled replication complexes and likely contribute to the S-phase checkpoints [
10‐
14]. Importantly, WRN, defective in the premature aging disease Werner syndrome, has been shown to regulate fragile site stability [
15]. WRN helicase activity and ATR-mediated checkpoint response collaborate in a common pathway to maintain CFS stability and WRN-deficiency is associated with accumulation of gaps and breaks at CFS [
13,
15]. In vitro, WRN enhances human DNA polymerase δ-dependent DNA synthesis through secondary structure forming sequences within the FRA16D fragile site [
16]. Functions of BLM, defective in the cancer predisposition disease Bloom syndrome, are especially important for cells in dealing with replication stress [
12]. WRN and BLM likely perform distinct functions in recovery from fork stalling genome-wide [
17], and collective literature points to their significant roles in maintaining genomic stability at CFS. Loss of BLM induces 53BP1 nuclear bodies that guard chromosomal fragile sites against genomic instability [
18]. Furthermore, BLM associates with the ultrafine DNA bridges that interlink sister chromatids at CFS loci and is required for their resolution [
19]. In fact, human RecQ homologs exhibit diverse catalytic activities relevant to replication restart pathways including disruption of Rad51 presynaptic filament (BLM and RecQ5β) [
20,
21], dissolution of double Holliday junctions (BLM) [
22,
23], branch migration of Holliday junctions (BLM, WRN and RECQ1) [
24‐
26] dissociation of mobile D-loops (BLM, RECQ1 and WRN) [
23,
27,
28], and annealing of complementary single strand DNA (all five) [
29‐
33]. Functions of RecQ helicases are therefore likely to be critical under replication stress; among these, the roles of WRN and BLM remain best characterized while there is only limited information available for other RecQ proteins.
RECQ1 (also known as RECQL or RECQL1), the most abundant of the five human RecQ proteins, was recently identified as an integral component of replication complex in unperturbed cells and implicated in maintaining replication fork progression after initiation [
34]. Indeed, recombinant RECQ1 binds and unwinds model replication forks and DNA structure intermediates of recombination [
33]. Most recently, RECQ1, similar to WRN, was also shown to promote strand exchange on synthetic stalled replication fork-mimicking structures in vitro [
35]. Depletion of RECQ1 reduces cell proliferation and RECQ1-deficient cells accumulate DNA damage, display heightened sensitivity to DNA damaging agents that induce stalled and collapsed replication forks, and exhibit chromosomal instability [
36‐
38]. Evidently, RECQ1-deficient cells are characterized by spontaneous Rad51 foci and elevated SCEs [
38] reminiscent of recombinogenic structures proposed to arise upon replication fork restart following collapse [
39]. To investigate a role of RECQ1 in replication fork maintenance, we employed quantitative chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) and examined in vivo chromatin interactions of RECQ1 in cycling cells following replication inhibition with hydroxyurea or aphidicolin. We report specific binding of RECQ1 to two major fragile sites, FRA3B and FRA16D, in aphidicolin treated HeLa cells. Our results provide novel evidence and complement existing biochemical data for a role of RECQ1 in genome maintenance upon replication stress.
Discussion
Here we show that conditions of replication stress, specifically aphidicolin-induced DNA polymerase α, δ and inhibition, and hydroxyurea-mediated inhibition of ribonucleotide reductase, induce a preferential accumulation of RECQ1 at the lamin B2 origin in HeLa cells. Consistent with a role in promoting fork recovery or repair, we find that RECQ1 is enriched at two major fragile sites, FRA3B and FRA16D, where replication forks have stalled following aphidicolin treatment. Moreover, RECQ1-depletion results in diminished checkpoint activation in response to replication stress, increased sensitivity to aphidicolin and chromosomal instability. These results suggest that RECQ1 is important for maintaining genomic integrity when DNA replication forks are slowed by hydroxyurea or aphidicolin and promote efficient recovery from replication stress.
Results from Thangavel et al proposed that RECQ1 is assembled at origins at the start of bidirectional replication and is subsequently lost from the origin perhaps still tracking along with the newly formed replisome following origin firing [
34]. Consistent with this, we found a significant enrichment of RECQ1 at origins when replication fork progression was inhibited by treatment with hydroxyurea or aphidicolin. Furthermore, our ChIP data show differential recruitment of RECQ1 at the lamin B2 origin in response to treatment with aphidicolin (about 30-fold) or hydroxyurea (about 11-fold). Aphidicolin has been shown to have little effect on the activation or initiation of replication origins and induces uncoupling of replication machinery [
57]; it is likely that RECQ1 recognizes the long stretch of single-stranded DNA produced due to functional uncoupling of the replicative polymerase and helicase complexes following aphidicolin treatment. Indeed, we found that endogenous RECQ1 displays preferential binding to CFS as compared to non-fragile control DNA especially after cells are treated with aphidicolin. CFS represent single-stranded unreplicated chromosomal regions caused by stalled or collapsed replication forks [
5]. This notion has been substantiated by investigation of replication timing [
58] and the evidence of involvement of checkpoint proteins ATR [
59,
60], BRCA1 [
61], SMC1 [
62] and FANCD2 [
63] in fragile site stability. Additionally, CFS sequences including FRA16D are characterized by high AT content, AT-rich mini satellite repeats and their tendency to form secondary structures [
64]. Human RecQ proteins have demonstrated ability to resolve a variety of non-B DNA secondary structures [
65]. It is yet unknown whether RECQ1, like WRN [
16], can resolve the predicted cruciform structures at FRA16D that stall replication fork progression and contribute to chromosome breakage; however, the fact that RECQ1 was also enriched at FRA3B that is devoid of mini- or microsatellite [
6] indicates that the secondary structures alone may not be a sufficient structural element for RECQ1 binding to the fragile sites. WRN functions at fragile sites are critical but it has not yet been shown whether WRN is recruited to the fragile site loci in vivo, and whether it can distinguish fragile and non-fragile regions under replication stress. RecQ proteins are known to form multi-protein complexes to execute their functions [
14,
66], and it is conceivable that yet unknown protein partners of RECQ1 recruit and/or mediate its functions at stalled and broken forks at fragile site loci and elsewhere in the genome.
Stalled replication fork activates checkpoint signaling pathways to coordinate cell cycle progression with repair of damage, ensuring the integrity of the genome [
52,
67]. ATR and Chk1-dependent checkpoints prevent excessive formation of DNA double strand breaks during replication arrest [
54]. RPA protein complex, consisting of three subunits RPA72, RPA32 and RPA14, is a first sensor of replication-associated damage and is thought to signal activation of ATR and thereby trigger an intra-S checkpoint [
68]. Depletion of RECQ1 led to spontaneous phosphorylation of RPA32 and activation of Chk1; however, RECQ1-depleted cells are defective in triggering replication stress response and exhibit sensitivity to replication blocking agents [
35]. During normal DNA replication, optimal binding of RECQ1 to the origins may ensure appropriate and accurate genome duplication during S-phase. Loss of RECQ1 leads to aberrant elongation of progressing replication forks [
34] which may lead to activate the checkpoint response. The fork promoting activity of RECQ1 could be especially important at naturally occurring DNA sequences such as fragile sites that are at increased risk for stalling the replication fork even in the absence of external replication stress. Our data implicate that RECQ1 also participates in relaying signals of fork stalling that help coordinate a faithful cell cycle and recovery from replication stress. RECQ1 may contribute to mutational avoidance in unperturbed and deliberately stalled replication.
Chromosome breaks observed upon acute depletion of RECQ1 is consistent with a recent finding that depletion of RECQ1 activates DNA damage signaling cascade and accumulates replication-induced double strand breaks [
35]. Conditions that slow replication along the entire genome, such as aphidicolin treatment, lead to double strand break formation as a result of fork stalling and collapse at fragile sites and activate the double strand break repair pathways [
69]. Homologous recombination is a major mechanism utilized to repair stalled or collapsed replication forks [
70]. Importantly, homologous recombination mechanisms triggered by replication arrest differ from those involved in repairing classical two ended DNA double strand breaks [
71]. Thus, although the repair of I-Sce induced double strand break was not significantly modulated by RECQ1-deficiency [
47], a role for RECQ1 in recombination repair of replication-induced double strand breaks remains possible. In vitro activity of RECQ1 to unwind synthetic replication fork and catalyze strand exchange indicates its potential ability to form and subsequently branch migrate Holliday junction like recombination structures generated during template switching at the stalled forks [
35,
71]. It is conceivable that in the absence of RECQ1, recombinogenic DNA structures at arrested forks are repaired via homologous recombination.
Fragile loci often coincide with chromosomal breakpoints in tumors [
5,
72]. Given the elevated proliferation status of tumor cells, proteins involved in the cellular response to replication stress are likely to act as caretakers of the genome during tumor development [
12]. A mutation in RECQ1 has not been linked to a human disease yet, but an Oncomine database search shows that RECQ1 is over-expressed in many clinical cancer samples compared to matched normal samples (Additional file
1: Figure S1). Similar trend of RECQ1 over-expression across various tumors is presented by another web database search (
http://medicalgenome.kribb.re.kr/GENT/). It is plausible that cancer cells position RECQ1 on to specific genomic loci so as to cope with increased replication-mediated DNA damage during rapid cell division; in normal cells, RECQ1 can act as a tumor suppressor by facilitating DNA repair and preventing mutations. This notion is consistent with the observation that RECQ1 is uniquely important for the proliferation of cancer cells [
37,
40,
41]. DNA breakage within CFS is thought to be a consequence of failing to complete replication and/or resolving the arrested forks prior to the end of telophase and chromosome segregation [
19]. Recent reports have also suggested that chromosomal breaks occur at fragile sites because these loci are late replicating and origin poor [
73‐
75]. Whether chromosomal breaks in RECQ1-deficient cells occur at CFS remains to be examined, but recruitment of RECQ1 at FRA3B and FRA16D suggests that RECQ1 either prevents replication fork stalling within origin poor regions or resolves replication problems at these CFS. Future experiments will examine what functional sub-modules of DNA replication are associated with RECQ1 at specific genomic loci and how it participates in dynamic response to challenges during DNA replication. Present findings together with the in vitro results indicate that impaired response to replication stress contributes to genomic instability in RECQ1-deficient cells.
Materials and methods
Cell culture, drug treatment and siRNA transfection
Human HeLa (ATCC) were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) (Invitrogen) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone Laboratories), 100 U/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (Invitrogen). Cells were grown in a humidified 5% CO2 incubator at 37°C. To induce replication stress, exponentially growing cells were treated with hydroxyurea (Sigma), aphidicolin (Calbiochem), mitomycin C (Sigma) as indicated. Depletion of RECQ1 was achieved by transfecting HeLa cells with a scrambled control siRNA or a SMARTpool of four distinct siRNA species targeting different regions of RECQ1 mRNA (siGenome SMARTpool, Dharmacon) at a final concentration of 10 nM using Lipofectamine 2000 transfection reagent as per the manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen). Knockdown specificity and efficacy of RECQ1 smartpool siRNA was evaluated by real-time PCR and Western blotting.
Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)
HeLa cells were cultured overnight at a density of 1 × 10
7 per 15 cm diameter dish and subjected to either no treatment or treatment with 0.5 μM aphidicolin for 24 h. Chromatin and proteins were cross-linked by incubating cells in 1% formaldehyde for 15 min at room temperature and the reaction was stopped by 10 min incubation with 125 mM glycine. Cells were collected and washed sequentially with solution I (10 mM HEPES [pH 7.5], 10 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM EGTA, 0.75% Triton X-100) and solution II (10 mM HEPES [pH 7.5], 200 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM EGTA). The cell pellets were resuspended in 2ml lysis buffer (25 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.5], 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% SDS, 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% deoxycholate freshly supplemented with 1X protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche)) and sonicated on ice by 10 s pulses at 30% of maximal power on a Misonix 2000 sonicator (Misonix). This sonication method consistently yielded chromatin fragments corresponding to an average DNA length of 400-1000 bp as checked on a 1.5% agarose gel. After centrifugation at 20,000X g for 15 min to remove any debris, the supernatant was pre-cleared with protein-G-sepharose/salmon sperm DNA beads (Millipore) at 4°C for 1 h. For each immunoprecipitation, 600 μl (equivalent of 3 × 10
6 cells) of the pre-cleared chromatin was incubated overnight at 4°C with 3 μg of antibodies specific for either RECQ1 (Bethyl Lab, A300-450A), γH2AX (Millipore, 05-636, clone JBW301), or ORC2 (Enzo Life Science, ADI-KAM-cc235); antibodies were confirmed for their immunoprecipitation specificity using Western blot. A reaction containing an equivalent amount of rabbit IgG was included as the background control. 10% of the pre-cleared chromatin was set aside as input control. Antibody-chromatin complexes were pulled down by adding 50 μl of protein-G-sepharose/salmon sperm DNA beads and incubated for 2 h at 4°C. The beads were washed for 10 min each with the following solutions: lysis buffer (as mentioned above), high-salt wash buffer (0.1% SDS, 1% Triton X-100, 2 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.1], 500 mM NaCl), LiCl wash buffer (250 mM LiCl, 1% NP-40, 1% deoxycholate, 1 mM EDTA, 10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0]), and TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 1 mM EDTA). Finally, DNA was eluted with elution buffer (1% SDS, 100 mM NaHCO
3). Eluates were incubated at 65°C for overnight with the addition of 5
M NaCl to a final concentration of 200 m
m to reverse the formaldehyde cross-linking and digested at 55°C for 3 h with proteinase K at a final concentration of 50 μg per ml. Following phenol/chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation, sheared DNA fragments served as template in qPCR analysis. qPCR were performed using Taq Universal SYBR Green Supermix (Bio-Rad) with technical triplicates, and threshold cycle numbers (C
t) were determined with an iQ5 thermal cycler (Bio-Rad). Fold enrichment of the targeted genomic sequences were calculated over IgG as: fold enrichment = 2
-(CtIP− CtIgG), where Ct
IP and Ct
IgG are mean threshold cycles of PCR done in triplicates on DNA samples immunoprecipitated with specific antibody and control IgG, respectively. All qPCR reactions were also checked by melt curve analyses and agarose gel electrophoresis to confirm the presence of a single specific product. The sequences of the qPCR primers are listed in Table
1.
Table 1
Primers used for quantitative real-time PCR analyses
B13 | Forward | 5′- CCCCAGGGAGTAGGTTGTGA-3′ |
Reverse | 5′- TGTTATTTGAGAAAAGCCCAA-3′ |
B48 | Forward | 5′- CTCCACCCCCAAGGAAAAAG-3′ |
Reverse | 5′-GGCAGGGTCCCATGCA-3′ |
FCR | Forward | 5′-TGTTGGAATGTTAACTCTATCCCAT-3′ |
Reverse | 5′-ATATCTCATCAAGACCGCTGCA-3′ |
FDR | Forward | 5′-CAATGGCTTAAGCAGACATGGT-3′ |
Reverse | 5′-AGTGAATGGCATGGCTGGAATG-3′ |
FRA16D | Forward | 5′-TCCTGTGGAAGGGATATTTA-3′ |
Reverse | 5′-CCCCTCATATTCTGCTTCTA-3′ |
GAPDH | Forward | 5′-CCCTCTGGTGGTGGCCCCTT-3′ |
Reverse | 5′-GGCGCCCAGACACCCAATCC-3′ |
β-actin | Forward | 5′-GACGCAGGATGGCATGGG-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-ACGCCTCTGGCCGTACCAC-3′ |
Flow cytometry
Cells were collected by trypsinization and fixed with 70% ethanol for 30 min. Cells were subsequently washed in PBS, treated with RNase in PBS, and resuspended in PBS with 4 μg/ml propidium iodide. Cells were analyzed on a FACSCalibur™ flow cytometer from BD Science using ModFit LT software.
Biochemical fractionation and Western blotting
Chromatin enriched fractions were prepared as previously described [
47] from cells that were either untreated or treated with indicated concentration of hydroxyurea or aphidicolin. To obtain total extracts, cells were lysed in RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 150 mM NaCl, 1% NP-40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS) containing cocktail of protease and phosphatase inhibitors (Roche). Equal amounts of total protein for each sample was run on 8-16% SDS-PAGE and transferred to PVDF membrane for immunoblotting with antibodies for phospho-Chk1 Ser 317 (Cell Signaling, 2344), γH2AX (Cell Signaling, 2577), RPA32 (Bethyl Lab, A300-244A), RECQ1 (Bethyl Lab, A300-450A), GAPDH (Cell Signaling, 2118), and Histone H3 (Cell Signaling, 4499); all antibodies were used at 1:1000 dilution.
Cell proliferation assay
Cells (24 h after siRNA transfection) were seeded in quadruplicate at a density of 3000 cells/well in 96-well plates and allowed to adhere for 16 h and subsequently exposed to increasing concentration of aphidicolin (0-5 μM) and allowed to grow at 37°C for 3 days in 5% CO2. Cell proliferation was determined by CellTiter 96® AQueous Non-Radioactive Cell Proliferation Assay (MTS) (Promega). Additionally, cells were transfected with the indicated siRNA, split 1:4 onto a multiwell plate, and grown in the presence or absence of aphidicolin for further 72 h. The cells in one well were counted every 24 h for the duration of the experiment.
Cells, 48 h after transfection, were grown in the presence or absence of aphidicolin (0.5 μM) for 24 h and treated with 0.5 μg/ml colchicine for 4 h at 37°C before collection. To prepare metaphase spreads, cells were resuspended in hypotonic solution (0.06 M KCl) for 15 min at room temperature, and then fixed with 3:1 (vol/vol) methanol-glacial acetic acid. Fixed cell suspension was dropped onto precleaned microscope slides and air-dried overnight. Metaphase chromosomes were visualized by Giemsa staining. Images were documented with a Nikon microscope and at least 10 metaphase chromosome spreads per treatment were scored in a blinded fashion.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
XL carried out the chromatin interaction studies, participated in the chromosome analyses, analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript in parts. SP carried out the knockdown experiments and Western blotting. TH performed and AL supervised FACS analyses. SS conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, and helped to analyze the data and draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.