Key Points
-
Replication fork reversal is a complex transaction that requires the coordinated unwinding and annealing of parental and newly synthesized strands at the replication fork.
-
Replication fork reversal is a frequent transaction in mammalian cells following different types of genotoxic stress. However, it is usually disfavoured in yeast cells, where alternative events such as re-priming are particularly efficient, and key regulatory factors such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) are absent.
-
Fork reversal can be seen as a 'double-edged sword'. It contributes to genome stability by promoting DNA damage tolerance and repair, and by protecting chromosome integrity during replication; however, it can also lead to microsatellite instability and unscheduled chromosomal breakage.
-
Various factors can drive fork reversal and fork restoration in vitro, but their activity heavily depends on the molecular features of the DNA substrate and on the presence of auxiliary factors.
-
Fork reversal in vivo is dependent on the homologous recombination factor RAD51, and is regulated by PARP and ATP-dependent RNA helicase Q1 (RECQ1)-mediated fork restart, but additional — mostly unknown — factors are likely to have a role in this process.
-
Fork reversal dynamics have intriguing implications for our understanding of basic replication mechanisms and the DNA damage response. The cellular factors modulating fork remodelling are potentially attractive targets for cancer therapy.
Abstract
The remodelling of replication forks into four-way junctions following replication perturbation, known as fork reversal, was hypothesized to promote DNA damage tolerance and repair during replication. Albeit conceptually attractive, for a long time fork reversal in vivo was found only in prokaryotes and specific yeast mutants, calling its evolutionary conservation and physiological relevance into question. Based on the recent visualization of replication forks in metazoans, fork reversal has emerged as a global, reversible and regulated process, with intriguing implications for replication completion, chromosome integrity and the DNA damage response. The study of the putative in vivo roles of recently identified eukaryotic factors in fork remodelling promises to shed new light on mechanisms of genome maintenance and to provide novel attractive targets for cancer therapy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Higgins, N. P., Kato, K. & Strauss, B. A model for replication repair in mammalian cells. J. Mol. Biol. 101, 417–425 (1976).
Tatsumi, K. & Strauss, B. Production of DNA bifilarly substituted with bromodeoxyuridine in the first round of synthesis: branch migration during isolation of cellular DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 5, 331–347 (1978).
Manosas, M., Perumal, S. K., Croquette, V. & Benkovic, S. J. Direct observation of stalled fork restart via fork regression in the T4 replication system. Science 338, 1217–1220 (2012). The direct visualization of fork reversal and restart in the bacteriophage T4 system illustrated the dynamics of strand exchange and protein turnover at the replication fork.
De Septenville, A. L., Duigou, S., Boubakri, H. & Michel, B. Replication fork reversal after replication-transcription collision. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002622 (2012).
Nelson, S. W. & Benkovic, S. J. Response of the bacteriophage T4 replisome to noncoding lesions and regression of a stalled replication fork. J. Mol. Biol. 401, 743–756 (2010).
Atkinson, J. & McGlynn, P. Replication fork reversal and the maintenance of genome stability. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 3475–3492 (2009). This is an excellent overview of replication fork reversal in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.
Branzei, D. & Foiani, M. Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 208–219 (2010).
Saugar, I., Ortiz-Bazán, M. Á. & Tercero, J. A. Tolerating DNA damage during eukaryotic chromosome replication. Exp. Cell Res. 329, 170–177 (2014).
Lopes, M. et al. The DNA replication checkpoint response stabilizes stalled replication forks. Nature 412, 557–561 (2001).
Sogo, J. M., Lopes, M. & Foiani, M. Fork reversal and ssDNA accumulation at stalled replication forks owing to checkpoint defects. Science 297, 599–602 (2002). This is the first visualization of reversed replication forks in S. cerevisiae , linking fork reversal with checkpoint defects.
Bermejo, R., Lai, M. S. & Foiani, M. Preventing replication stress to maintain genome stability: resolving conflicts between replication and transcription. Mol. Cell 45, 710–718 (2012).
Bermejo, R. et al. The replication checkpoint protects fork stability by releasing transcribed genes from nuclear pores. Cell 146, 233–246 (2011).
Froget, B., Blaisonneau, J., Lambert, S. & Baldacci, G. Cleavage of stalled forks by fission yeast Mus81/Eme1 in absence of DNA replication checkpoint. Mol. Biol. Cell 19, 445–456 (2008).
Lambert, S. et al. Homologous recombination restarts blocked replication forks at the expense of genome rearrangements by template exchange. Mol. Cell 39, 346–359 (2010).
Lopes, M., Foiani, M. & Sogo, J. M. Multiple mechanisms control chromosome integrity after replication fork uncoupling and restart at irreparable UV lesions. Mol. Cell 21, 15–27 (2006).
Mojas, N., Lopes, M. & Jiricny, J. Mismatch repair-dependent processing of methylation damage gives rise to persistent single-stranded gaps in newly replicated DNA. Genes Dev. 21, 3342–3355 (2007).
Ray Chaudhuri, A. et al. Topoisomerase I poisoning results in PARP-mediated replication fork reversal. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 417–423 (2012). This paper shows that topoisomerase inhibition promotes fork reversal in yeast and higher eukaryotes, and provides the first evidence for fork reversal in metazoans.
Redon, C. et al. Yeast histone 2A serine 129 is essential for the efficient repair of checkpoint-blind DNA damage. EMBO Rep. 4, 678–684 (2003).
Hu, J. et al. The intra-S phase checkpoint targets Dna2 to prevent stalled replication forks from reversing. Cell 149, 1221–1232 (2012).
Postow, L. et al. Positive torsional strain causes the formation of a four-way junction at replication forks. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 2790–2796 (2001).
Olavarrieta, L. et al. Supercoiling, knotting and replication fork reversal in partially replicated plasmids. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 656–666 (2002).
Long, D. T. & Kreuzer, K. N. Regression supports two mechanisms of fork processing in phage T4. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6852–6857 (2008).
Fierro-Fernández, M., Hernández, P., Krimer, D. B. & Schvartzman, J. B. Replication fork reversal occurs spontaneously after digestion but is constrained in supercoiled domains. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 18190–18196 (2007).
Giannattasio, M. et al. Visualization of recombination-mediated damage bypass by template switching. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 884–892 (2014).
Fumasoni, M., Zwicky, K., Vanoli, F., Lopes, M. & Branzei, D. Error-free DNA damage tolerance and sister chromatid proximity during DNA replication rely on the Pola/primase/Ctf4 complex. Mol. Cell http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.12.038 (2015).
Pommier, Y. Topoisomerase I inhibitors: camptothecins and beyond. Nature Rev. Cancer 6, 789–802 (2006).
Ge, X. Q. & Blow, J. J. Chk1 inhibits replication factory activation but allows dormant origin firing in existing factories. J. Cell Biol. 191, 1285–1297 (2010).
O'Connell, B. C. et al. A genome-wide camptothecin sensitivity screen identifies a mammalian MMS22L–NFKBIL2 complex required for genomic stability. Mol. Cell 40, 645–657 (2010).
Berti, M. et al. Human RECQ1 promotes restart of replication forks reversed by DNA topoisomerase I inhibition. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 347–354 (2013). This paper elucidates the mechanism by which RECQ1 and PARP1 cooperatively regulate fork restart.
Zellweger, R. et al. Rad51-mediated replication fork reversal is a general response to genotoxic treatments in human cells. J. Cell Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201406099 (2015). This paper shows that RAD51-dependent replication fork reversal is a global response to a wide variety of replication perturbations.
Ray Chaudhuri, A., Ahuja, A. K., Herrador, R. & Lopes, M. Poly(ADP-ribosyl)gycohydrolase (PARG) prevents the accumulation of unusual replication structures during unperturbed S phase. Mol Cell. Biol. 35, 856–865 (2015).
Neelsen, K. J., Zanini, I. M. Y., Herrador, R. & Lopes, M. Oncogenes induce genotoxic stress by mitotic processing of unusual replication intermediates. J. Cell Biol. 200, 699–708 (2013). This paper shows that oncogenes that deregulate DNA replication cause fork reversal, and that the cleavage of reversed forks contributes to oncogene-induced genome instability.
Follonier, C., Oehler, J., Herrador, R. & Lopes, M. Friedreich's ataxia–associated GAA repeats induce replication-fork reversal and unusual molecular junctions. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 486–494 (2013).
Neelsen, K. J. et al. Deregulated origin licensing leads to chromosomal breaks by rereplication of a gapped DNA template. Genes Dev. 27, 2537–2542 (2013).
Räschle, M. et al. Mechanism of replication-coupled DNA interstrand crosslink repair. Cell 134, 969–980 (2008).
Huang, J. et al. The DNA translocase FANCM/MHF promotes replication traverse of DNA interstrand crosslinks. Mol. Cell 52, 434–446 (2013). This paper shows that ICLs in chromosomal DNA do not block replication fork progression, but are frequently 'traversed' by the fork.
McMurray, C. T. Mechanisms of trinucleotide repeat instability during human development. Nature Rev. Genet. 11, 786–799 (2010).
Mirkin, S. M. Expandable DNA repeats and human disease. Nature 447, 932–940 (2007).
Couch, F. B. et al. ATR phosphorylates SMARCAL1 to prevent replication fork collapse. Genes Dev. 27, 1610–1623 (2013).
León-Ortiz, A. M., Svendsen, J. & Boulton, S. J. Metabolism of DNA secondary structures at the eukaryotic replication fork. DNA Repair 19, 152–162 (2014).
Bester, A. C. et al. Nucleotide deficiency promotes genomic instability in early stages of cancer development. Cell 145, 435–446 (2011).
Jones, R. M. et al. Increased replication initiation and conflicts with transcription underlie cyclin E-induced replication stress. Oncogene 32, 3744–3753 (2013).
Fugger, K. et al. FBH1 catalyzes regression of stalled replication forks. Cell Rep. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.028 (2015).
Lorenz, A., Osman, F., Folkyte, V., Sofueva, S. & Whitby, M. C. Fbh1 limits Rad51-dependent recombination at blocked replication forks. Mol. Cell. Biol. 29, 4742–4756 (2009).
Chiolo, I. et al. The human F-Box DNA helicase FBH1 faces Saccharomyces cerevisiae Srs2 and postreplication repair pathway roles. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 7439–7450 (2007).
Fugger, K. et al. FBH1 co-operates with MUS81 in inducing DNA double-strand breaks and cell death following replication stress. Nature Commun. 4, 1423 (2013).
Fugger, K. et al. Human Fbh1 helicase contributes to genome maintenance via pro- and anti-recombinase activities. J. Cell Biol. 186, 655–663 (2009).
Masuda-Ozawa, T., Hoang, T., Seo, Y.-S., Chen, L.-F. & Spies, M. Single-molecule sorting reveals how ubiquitylation affects substrate recognition and activities of FBH1 helicase. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 3576–3587 (2013).
Adelman, C. A. et al. HELQ promotes RAD51 paralogue-dependent repair to avert germ cell loss and tumorigenesis. Nature 502, 381–384 (2013).
Hashimoto, Y., Ray Chaudhuri, A., Lopes, M. & Costanzo, V. Rad51 protects nascent DNA from Mre11-dependent degradation and promotes continuous DNA synthesis. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 1305–1311 (2010).
Schlacher, K. et al. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell 145, 529–542 (2011).
Schlacher, K., Wu, H. & Jasin, M. A distinct replication fork protection pathway connects Fanconi anemia tumor suppressors to RAD51-BRCA1/2. Cancer Cell 22, 106–116 (2012).
Petermann, E., Orta, M. L., Issaeva, N., Schultz, N. & Helleday, T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol. Cell 37, 492–502 (2010).
Shukla, A., Navadgi, V. M., Mallikarjuna, K. & Rao, B. J. Interaction of hRad51 and hRad52 with MCM complex: a cross-talk between recombination and replication proteins. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 329, 1240–1245 (2005).
Bailis, J. M., Luche, D. D., Hunter, T. & Forsburg, S. L. Minichromosome maintenance proteins interact with checkpoint and recombination proteins to promote s-phase genome stability. Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 1724–1738 (2008).
Kim, H. & D'Andrea, A. D. Regulation of DNA cross-link repair by the Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway. Genes Dev. 26, 1393–1408 (2012).
Popuri, V. et al. The human RecQ helicases, BLM and RECQ1, display distinct DNA substrate specificities. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 17766–17776 (2008).
LeRoy, G., Carroll, R., Kyin, S., Seki, M. & Cole, M. D. Identification of RecQL1 as a Holliday junction processing enzyme in human cell lines. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 6251–6257 (2005).
Sharma, S. et al. Biochemical analysis of the DNA unwinding and strand annealing activities catalyzed by human RECQ1. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 28072–28084 (2005).
Cotta-Ramusino, C. et al. Exo1 processes stalled replication forks and counteracts fork reversal in checkpoint-defective cells. Mol. Cell 17, 153–159 (2005).
Thangavel, S. et al. DNA2 drives processing and restart of reversed replication forks in human cells. J. Cell Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201406100 (2015).
Carr, A. M. & Lambert, S. Replication stress-induced genome instability: the dark side of replication maintenance by homologous recombination. J. Mol. Biol. 425, 4733–4744 (2013).
Hanada, K. et al. The structure-specific endonuclease Mus81 contributes to replication restart by generating double-strand DNA breaks. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 1096–1104 (2007).
Murfuni, I. et al. The WRN and MUS81 proteins limit cell death and genome instability following oncogene activation. Oncogene 32, 610–620 (2012).
Matos, J., Blanco, M. G., Maslen, S., Skehel, J. M. & West, S. C. Regulatory control of the resolution of DNA recombination intermediates during meiosis and mitosis. Cell 147, 158–172 (2011).
Matos, J., Blanco, M. G. & West, S. C. Cell-cycle kinases coordinate the resolution of recombination intermediates with chromosome segregation. Cell Rep. 4, 76–86 (2013).
Naim, V., Wilhelm, T., Debatisse, M. & Rosselli, F. ERCC1 and MUS81–EME1 promote sister chromatid separation by processing late replication intermediates at common fragile sites during mitosis. Nature Cell Biol. 15, 1–8 (2013).
Dehé, P.-M. et al. Regulation of Mus81–Eme1 Holliday junction resolvase in response to DNA damage. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 598–603 (2013).
Pepe, A. & West, S. C. MUS81-EME2 promotes replication fork restart. Cell Rep. 7, 1048–1055 (2014).
Boddy, M. N. et al. Mus81-Eme1 are essential components of a Holliday junction resolvase. Cell 107, 537–548 (2001).
Chen, X. B. et al. Human Mus81-associated endonuclease cleaves Holliday junctions in vitro. Mol. Cell 8, 1117–1127 (2001).
Whitby, M. C., Osman, F. & Dixon, J. Cleavage of model replication forks by fission yeast Mus81-Eme1 and budding yeast Mus81-Mms4. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 6928–6935 (2002).
Constantinou, A., Chen, X.-B., McGowan, C. H. & West, S. C. Holliday junction resolution in human cells: two junction endonucleases with distinct substrate specificities. EMBO J. 21, 5577–5585 (2002).
Pepe, A. & West, S. C. Substrate specificity of the MUS81-EME2 structure selective endonuclease. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 3833–3845 (2013).
Amangyeld, T., Shin, Y.-K., Lee, M., Kwon, B. & Seo, Y.-S. Human MUS81-EME2 can cleave a variety of DNA structures including intact Holliday junction and nicked duplex. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 5846–5862 (2014).
Rass, U. Resolving branched DNA intermediates with structure-specific nucleases during replication in eukaryotes. Chromosoma 122, 499–515 (2013).
Fekairi, S. et al. Human SLX4 is a Holliday junction resolvase subunit that binds multiple DNA repair/recombination endonucleases. Cell 138, 78–89 (2009).
Svendsen, J. M. et al. Mammalian BTBD12/SLX4 assembles a Holliday junction resolvase and is required for DNA repair. Cell 138, 63–77 (2009).
Larsen, N. B. & Hickson, I. D. RecQ helicases: conserved guardians of genomic integrity. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 767, 161–184 (2013).
Croteau, D. L., Popuri, V., Opresko, P. L. & Bohr, V. A. Human RecQ helicases in DNA repair, recombination, and replication. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 83, 519–552 (2014).
Ammazzalorso, F., Pirzio, L. M., Bignami, M., Franchitto, A. & Pichierri, P. ATR and ATM differently regulate WRN to prevent DSBs at stalled replication forks and promote replication fork recovery. EMBO J. 29, 3156–3169 (2010).
Rodríguez-López, A. M., Jackson, D. A., Iborra, F. & Cox, L. S. Asymmetry of DNA replication fork progression in Werner's syndrome. Aging Cell 1, 30–39 (2002).
Kanagaraj, R., Saydam, N., Garcia, P. L., Zheng, L. & Janscak, P. Human RECQ5 helicase promotes strand exchange on synthetic DNA structures resembling a stalled replication fork. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 5217–5231 (2006).
Machwe, A., Xiao, L., Groden, J. & Orren, D. K. The Werner and Bloom syndrome proteins catalyze regression of a model replication fork. Biochemistry 45, 13939–13946 (2006).
Ralf, C., Hickson, I. D. & Wu, L. The Bloom's syndrome helicase can promote the regression of a model replication fork. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 22839–22846 (2006).
Machwe, A., Karale, R., Xu, X., Liu, Y. & Orren, D. K. The Werner and Bloom syndrome proteins help resolve replication blockage by converting (regressed) holliday junctions to functional replication forks. Biochemistry 50, 6774–6788 (2011).
Machwe, A., Lozada, E., Wold, M. S., Li, G.-M. & Orren, D. K. Molecular cooperation between the Werner syndrome protein and replication protein A in relation to replication fork blockage. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 3497–3508 (2011).
Davies, S. L., North, P. S., Dart, A., Lakin, N. D. & Hickson, I. D. Phosphorylation of the Bloom's syndrome helicase and its role in recovery from S-phase arrest. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 1279–1291 (2004).
Davies, S. L., North, P. S. & Hickson, I. D. Role for BLM in replication-fork restart and suppression of origin firing after replicative stress. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 677–679 (2007).
Machwe, A., Xiao, L., Lloyd, R. G., Bolt, E. & Orren, D. K. Replication fork regression in vitro by the Werner syndrome protein (WRN): Holliday junction formation, the effect of leading arm structure and a potential role for WRN exonuclease activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 5729–5747 (2007).
Flaus, A., Martin, D. M. A., Barton, G. J. & Owen-Hughes, T. Identification of multiple distinct Snf2 subfamilies with conserved structural motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 2887–2905 (2006).
Blastyák, A. et al. Yeast rad5 protein required for postreplication repair has a DNA helicase activity specific for replication fork regression. Mol. Cell 28, 167–175 (2007). This study provides the first biochemical evidence that post-replication repair proteins catalyse fork reversal.
Unk, I. et al. Human HLTF functions as a ubiquitin ligase for proliferating cell nuclear antigen polyubiquitination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 3768–3773 (2008).
Bétous, R. et al. Substrate-selective repair and restart of replication forks by DNA translocases. Cell Rep. 3, 1958–1969 (2013). This study biochemically investigates the fork reversal activity of the annealing helicase SMARCAL1 and illustrates the importance of RPA.
Unk, I., Hajdu, I., Blastyák, A. & Haracska, L. Role of yeast Rad5 and its human orthologs, HLTF and SHPRH in DNA damage tolerance. DNA Repair 9, 257–267 (2010).
Blastyák, A., Hajdu, I., Unk, I. & Haracska, L. Role of double-stranded DNA translocase activity of human HLTF in replication of damaged DNA. Mol. Cell. Biol. 30, 684–693 (2010).
Burkovics, P., Sebesta, M., Balogh, D., Haracska, L. & Krejci, L. Strand invasion by HLTF as a mechanism for template switch in fork rescue. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 1711–1720 (2013).
Achar, Y. J., Balogh, D. & Haracska, L. Coordinated protein and DNA remodeling by human HLTF on stalled replication fork. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14073–14078 (2011).
Motegi, A. et al. Polyubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen by HLTF and SHPRH prevents genomic instability from stalled replication forks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 12411–12416 (2008).
Petukhova, G., Stratton, S. & Sung, P. Catalysis of homologous DNA pairing by yeast Rad51 and Rad54 proteins. Nature 393, 91–94 (1998).
Bugreev, D. V., Mazina, O. M. & Mazin, A. V. Rad54 protein promotes branch migration of Holliday junctions. Nature 442, 590–593 (2006). This study describes RAD51 and RAD54 as the first eukaryotic proteins involved in branch migration.
Bugreev, D. V., Rossi, M. J. & Mazin, A. V. Cooperation of RAD51 and RAD54 in regression of a model replication fork. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 2153–2164 (2011).
Gonzalez-Prieto, R., Munoz-Cabello, A. M., Cabello-Lobato, M. J. & Prado, F. Rad51 replication fork recruitment is required for DNA damage tolerance. EMBO J. 32, 1307–1321 (2013).
Yusufzai, T. & Kadonaga, J. T. HARP is an ATP-driven annealing helicase. Science 322, 748–750 (2008). This study characterizes SMARCAL1 — the first annealing helicase.
Yusufzai, T. & Kadonaga, J. T. Annealing helicase 2 (AH2), a DNA-rewinding motor with an HNH motif. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20970–20973 (2010).
Betous, R. et al. SMARCAL1 catalyzes fork regression and Holliday junction migration to maintain genome stability during DNA replication. Genes Dev. 26, 151–162 (2012).
Yusufzai, T., Kong, X., Yokomori, K. & Kadonaga, J. T. The annealing helicase HARP is recruited to DNA repair sites via an interaction with RPA. Genes Dev. 23, 2400–2404 (2009).
Yuan, J., Ghosal, G. & Chen, J. The annealing helicase HARP protects stalled replication forks. Genes Dev. 23, 2394–2399 (2009).
Bansbach, C. E., Betous, R., Lovejoy, C. A., Glick, G. G. & Cortez, D. The annealing helicase SMARCAL1 maintains genome integrity at stalled replication forks. Genes Dev. 23, 2405–2414 (2009).
Ciccia, A. et al. The SIOD disorder protein SMARCAL1 is an RPA-interacting protein involved in replication fork restart. Genes Dev. 23, 2415–2425 (2009).
Postow, L., Woo, E. M., Chait, B. T. & Funabiki, H. Identification of SMARCAL1 as a component of the DNA damage response. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 35951–35961 (2009).
Carroll, C. et al. Phosphorylation of a C-terminal auto-inhibitory domain increases SMARCAL1 activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 918–925 (2013).
Ciccia, A. et al. Polyubiquitinated PCNA recruits the ZRANB3 translocase to maintain genomic integrity after replication stress. Mol. Cell 47, 396–409 (2012).
Weston, R., Peeters, H. & Ahel, D. ZRANB3 is a structure-specific ATP-dependent endonuclease involved in replication stress response. Genes Dev. 26, 1558–1572 (2012).
Yuan, J., Ghosal, G. & Chen, J. The HARP-like domain-containing protein AH2/ZRANB3 binds to PCNA and participates in cellular response to replication stress. Mol. Cell 47, 410–421 (2012).
Whitby, M. C. The FANCM family of DNA helicases/translocases. DNA Repair 9, 224–236 (2010).
Gari, K., D., Ecaillet, C., Stasiak, A. Z., Stasiak, A. & Constantinou, A. The Fanconi anemia protein FANCM can promote branch migration of Holliday junctions and replication forks. Mol. Cell 29, 141–148 (2008). This study describes fork reversal by FANCM — the first catalytic activity attributed to a Fanconi anaemia protein.
Gari, K., D., Ecaillet, C., Delannoy, M., Wu, L. & Constantinou, A. Remodeling of DNA replication structures by the branch point translocase FANCM. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 16107–16112 (2008).
Xue, Y., Li, Y., Guo, R., Ling, C. & Wang, W. FANCM of the Fanconi anemia core complex is required for both monoubiquitination and DNA repair. Hum. Mol. Genet. 17, 1641–1652 (2008).
Fox, D. et al. The histone-fold complex MHF is remodeled by FANCM to recognize branched DNA and protect genome stability. Cell Res. 24, 560–575 (2014).
Zhao, Q. et al. The MHF complex senses branched DNA by binding a pair of crossover DNA duplexes. Nature Commun. 5, 2987 (2014).
Yan, Z. et al. A histone-fold complex and FANCM form a conserved DNA-remodeling complex to maintain genome stability. Mol. Cell 37, 865–878 (2010).
Luke-Glaser, S., Luke, B., Grossi, S. & Constantinou, A. FANCM regulates DNA chain elongation and is stabilized by S-phase checkpoint signalling. EMBO J. 29, 795–805 (2009).
Schwab, R. A., Blackford, A. N. & Niedzwiedz, W. ATR activation and replication fork restart are defective in FANCM-deficient cells. EMBO J. 29, 806–818 (2010).
Blackford, A. N. et al. The DNA translocase activity of FANCM protects stalled replication forks. Hum. Mol. Genet. 21, 2005–2016 (2012).
Collis, S. J. et al. FANCM and FAAP24 function in ATR-mediated checkpoint signaling independently of the Fanconi anemia core complex. Mol. Cell 32, 313–324 (2008).
Fachinetti, D. et al. Replication termination at eukaryotic chromosomes is mediated by Top2 and occurs at genomic loci containing pausing elements. Mol. Cell 39, 595–605 (2010).
Alver, R. C. & Bielinsky, A.-K. Termination at sTop2. Mol. Cell 39, 487–489 (2010).
Maric, M., Maculins, T., De Piccoli, G. & Labib, K. Cdc48 and a ubiquitin ligase drive disassembly of the CMG helicase at the end of DNA replication. Science 346, 1253596 (2014).
Moreno, S. P., Bailey, R., Campion, N., Herron, S. & Gambus, A. Polyubiquitylation drives replisome disassembly at the termination of DNA replication. Science 346, 477–481 (2014).
Wendel, B. M., Courcelle, C. T. & Courcelle, J. Completion of DNA replication in Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16454–16459 (2014). This study shows that replication termination in E. coli depends on DSB-processing factors and RecG, and involves over-replication of the termination sequence.
Bastia, D. & Mohanty, B. K. DNA Replication in Eukaryotic Cells 177–215 (Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, 1996).
Bussiere, D. E. & Bastia, D. Termination of DNA replication of bacterial and plasmid chromosomes. Mol. Microbiol. 31, 1611–1618 (1999).
Duggin, I. G., Wake, R. G., Bell, S. D. & Hill, T. M. The replication fork trap and termination of chromosome replication. Mol. Microbiol. 70, 1323–1333 (2008).
Longhese, M. P., Anbalagan, S., Martina, M. & Bonetti, D. The role of shelterin in maintaining telomere integrity. Front. Biosci. 17, 1715–1728 (2012).
Rouleau, M., Patel, A., Hendzel, M. J., Kaufmann, S. H. & Poirier, G. G. PARP inhibition: PARP1 and beyond. Nature Rev. Cancer 10, 293–301 (2010).
Postow, L., Crisona, N. J., Peter, B. J., Hardy, C. D. & Cozzarelli, N. R. Topological challenges to DNA replication: conformations at the fork. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 8219–8226 (2001).
Arias, E. E. & Walter, J. C. Strength in numbers: preventing rereplication via multiple mechanisms in eukaryotic cells. Genes Dev. 21, 497–518 (2007).
Alabert, C. & Groth, A. Chromatin replication and epigenome maintenance. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 153–167 (2012).
Schvartzman, J. B., Martínez-Robles, M.-L., López, V., Hernández, P. & Krimer, D. B. 2D gels and their third-dimension potential. Methods 57, 170–178 (2012).
Neelsen, K. J., Ray Chaudhuri, A., Follonier, C., Herrador, R. & Lopes, M. Visualization and interpretation of eukaryotic DNA replication intermediates in vivo by electron microscopy. Methods Mol. Biol. 1094, 177–208 (2014).
Deans, A. J. & West, S. C. DNA interstrand crosslink repair and cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 11, 467–480 (2011).
Acknowledgements
The authors apologize to all those researchers whose relevant work could not be cited owing to space limitations. The authors would like to thank M. Foiani for useful discussions, D. Branzei and K. Cimprich for critical reading of the manuscript, K. Mutreja for technical assistance, and all current and former members of the Lopes laboratory for useful discussions. K.J.N. is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow. Work in the Lopes laboratory is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Oncosuisse, the European Research Council and Promedica-UBS Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information S1 (figure)
Identification of reversed forks in vivo by psoralen crosslinking coupled to transmission electron microscopy. (PDF 1347 kb)
Supplementary information S2 (figure)
Detection of replication fork reversal by 2D gels (PDF 944 kb)
Glossary
- Post-replication repair
-
A series of repair mechanisms that allow the completion of genome replication following genotoxic stress and include the different DNA damage tolerance strategies.
- Topological constraints
-
Impediments to DNA unwinding owing to the accumulation of DNA supercoiling, which is particularly intense in proximity to active transcription and replication forks.
- Template discontinuity
-
A break in the backbone of the DNA molecule that is subjected to replication, such as single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) nicks or gaps.
- Replisome
-
The large multiprotein complex present at each replication fork that provides all of the biochemical and regulatory activities required for processive and coordinated DNA synthesis.
- Nascent strand extrusion
-
The separation of a newly synthesized strand from its template strand, which may prime annealing with the complementary newly synthesized strand.
- Template switching
-
A DNA damage tolerance mechanism during replication. It involves using the newly synthesized strand as an alternative template for DNA synthesis, instead of the damaged parental strand.
- Poly(ADP-ribose)
-
A polymer of ADP and ribose units synthesized by specialized poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) and deposited on specific protein residues, often serving as a regulatory post-translational modification.
- Strand exchange
-
The process by which a DNA strand anneals with the complementary strand by displacing a previously annealed partner strand.
- Holliday junction
-
A junction between four strands of DNA that serves as a central intermediate in most recombination mechanisms.
- DNA translocase
-
A protein using the energy released from ATP hydrolysis to move along double-stranded or single-stranded DNA.
- ssDNA bubbles
-
Biochemical substrates containing single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) that are used to assess in vitro the pairing of ssDNAs by specific annealing enzymes and activities.
- Fanconi anaemia core complex
-
A large multiprotein complex normally activated by replication perturbation induced by DNA damage; this complex is responsible for the ubiquitylation of additional factors involved in the DNA damage response. Mutations in the factors comprising this complex cause Fanconi anaemia, which is characterized mainly by haematological problems and cancer predisposition.
- Fork fusion
-
The final step of replication termination, when two forks converge from opposite directions, merge and complete DNA synthesis of the intervening sequence.
- Primary lesions
-
DNA lesions directly induced by genotoxic agents, which can potentially be converted into secondary lesions (such as double-strand breaks) by replication or repair mechanisms.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neelsen, K., Lopes, M. Replication fork reversal in eukaryotes: from dead end to dynamic response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 16, 207–220 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3935
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3935
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
UFL1 triggers replication fork degradation by MRE11 in BRCA1/2-deficient cells
Nature Chemical Biology (2024)
-
Nuclear myosin VI maintains replication fork stability
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Gene duplication and deletion caused by over-replication at a fork barrier
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Leveraging the replication stress response to optimize cancer therapy
Nature Reviews Cancer (2023)
-
The COMPASS subunit Spp1 protects nascent DNA at the Tus/Ter replication fork barrier by limiting DNA availability to nucleases
Nature Communications (2023)