Project description:Background: Chromatin remodeling complexes facilitate the access of enzymes that mediate transcription, replication or repair of DNA by modulating nucleosome position and/or composition. Ino80 is the DNA-dependent Snf2-like ATPase subunit of a complex whose nucleosome remodeling activity requires actin-related proteins, Arp4, Arp5 and Arp8, as well as two RuvB-like DNA helicase subunits. Budding yeast mutants deficient for Ino80 function are not only hypersensitive to reagents that induce DNA double strand breaks, but also to those that impair replication fork progression. Results: To understand why ino80 mutants are sensitive to agents that perturb DNA replication, we used chromatin immunoprecipitation to map the binding sites of the Ino80 chromatin remodeling complex on four budding yeast chromosomes. We found that Ino80 and Arp5 binding sites coincide with origins of DNA replication and tRNA genes. In addition, Ino80 was bound at 67% of the promoters of genes that are sensitive to ino80 mutation. When replication forks were arrested near origins in the presence of hydroxyurea (HU), the presence of the Ino80 complex at stalled forks and at unfired origins increased dramatically. Importantly, the resumption of DNA replication after release from a HU block was impaired in the absence of Ino80 activity. Mutant cells accumulated double-strand breaks as they attempted to restart replication. Consistently, ino80-deficient cells, although proficient for checkpoint activation, delay recovery from the checkpoint response. Conclusions: The Ino80 chromatin remodeling complex is enriched at stalled replication forks where it promotes the resumption of replication upon recovery from fork arrest. Keywords: ChIP-chip • The goal of the experiment Genome-wide localization of Ino80 on chromosome in Saccharomyces cerevisiae • Keywords DNA replication, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Genome tilling array (chromosome III, IV, V, VI) • Experimental factor Distribution of Ino80 in random culture Distribution of Ino80 in G1 phase Distribution of Ino80 in early S phase • Experimental design ChIP analyses: W303 background cells expressing Myc-tagged Ino80 were used for the ChIP using anti-Myc monoclonal antibody (9E11). ChIP-chip analyses: In all cases, hybridization data for ChIP fraction was compared with WCE (whole cell extract) fraction. Saccharomyces cerevisiae affymetrix genome tiling array (SC3456a520015F for chromosome III, IV, V, VI) was used. • Quality control steps taken Confirmation of several loci by quantitative real time PCR.
Project description:Background: Chromatin remodeling complexes facilitate the access of enzymes that mediate transcription, replication or repair of DNA by modulating nucleosome position and/or composition. Ino80 is the DNA-dependent Snf2-like ATPase subunit of a complex whose nucleosome remodeling activity requires actin-related proteins, Arp4, Arp5 and Arp8, as well as two RuvB-like DNA helicase subunits. Budding yeast mutants deficient for Ino80 function are not only hypersensitive to reagents that induce DNA double strand breaks, but also to those that impair replication fork progression. Results: To understand why ino80 mutants are sensitive to agents that perturb DNA replication, we used chromatin immunoprecipitation to map the binding sites of the Ino80 chromatin remodeling complex on four budding yeast chromosomes. We found that Ino80 and Arp5 binding sites coincide with origins of DNA replication and tRNA genes. In addition, Ino80 was bound at 67% of the promoters of genes that are sensitive to ino80 mutation. When replication forks were arrested near origins in the presence of hydroxyurea (HU), the presence of the Ino80 complex at stalled forks and at unfired origins increased dramatically. Importantly, the resumption of DNA replication after release from a HU block was impaired in the absence of Ino80 activity. Mutant cells accumulated double-strand breaks as they attempted to restart replication. Consistently, ino80-deficient cells, although proficient for checkpoint activation, delay recovery from the checkpoint response. Conclusions: The Ino80 chromatin remodeling complex is enriched at stalled replication forks where it promotes the resumption of replication upon recovery from fork arrest. Keywords: ChIP-chip • The goal of the experiment Genome-wide localization of Ino80 and Arp5 on chromosome in Saccharomyces cerevisiae • Keywords DNA replication, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Genome tilling array (chromosome III, IV, V, VI) • Experimental factor Distribution of Ino80 and Arp5 in wild type in random culture Distribution of Ino80 in G1 cells Distribution of Ino80 in early S phase cells • Experimental design ChIP analyses: W303 background cells expressing Myc tagged Ino80 were used for the ChIP using anti-Myc monoclonal antibody (9E11). ChIP analyses: W303 background cells expressing Myc tagged Ino80 were used for the ChIP using anti-Arp5 polyclonal antibody. ChIP-chip analyses: In all cases, hybridization data for ChIP fraction was compared with WCE (whole cell extract) fraction. Saccharomyces cerevisiae affymetrix genome tiling array (SC3456a520015F for chromosome III, IV, V, VI) was used. • Quality control steps taken Confirmation of several loci by quantitative real time PCR.
Project description:We previously demonstrated that inactivation of the replication checkpoint via a mec1 mutation led to chromosome breakage at replication forks initiated from virtually all origins of replication, after transient exposure to hydroxyurea (HU), an inhibitor of ribonucleotide reductase. Furthermore, we have shown that chromosomes break at replication forks that have suffered single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) formation. Here we sought to determine whether all replication forks containing ssDNA gaps have equal probability of producing double strand breaks (DSBs) when cells attempt to recover from HU exposure. We devised a new methodology, Break-Seq, that combines our previously described DSB labeling with NextGen sequencing to map chromosome breaks with improved sensitivity and resolution. We show that DSBs preferentially occur at genes transcriptionally induced by HU. Notably, different subsets of the HU-induced genes produced DSBs in MEC1 and mec1 cells as replication forks traversed greater distance in MEC1 cells than in mec1 cells during the recovery from HU. Specifically, while MEC1 cells exhibited chromosome breakage at stress-response transcription factors, mec1 cells predominantly suffered chromosome breakage at transporter genes, many of which are the substrates of the said transcription factors. We propose that HU-induced chromosome fragility arises at higher frequency near HU-induced genes as a result of destabilized replication forks encountering transcription factor binding and/or the act of transcription. Our model provides an explanation for a long-standing problem in chromosome biology: why different replication inhibitors produce different spectra of chromosome breakage? We propose that different inhibitors elicit different transcription responses as well as destabilize replication forks, and, when the two processes collide, ssDNA at the replication fork suffers further strand breakage, causing DSBs.