1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
  2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Download icon

DNA Repair: Clamping down on mismatches

  1. Guo-Min Li  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, United States
  • Cited 0
  • Views 888
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e18365 doi: 10.7554/eLife.18365


A sliding clamp complex may help correct DNA replication errors by keeping track of which DNA strand is new and which is the template.

Main text

Errors made when DNA is replicated can lead to cancer and genetic disorders, so cells rely on a system called mismatch repair (MMR) to remove many of the errors from newly synthesized DNA (Hombauer et al., 2011Kunkel and Erie, 2015; Simmons et al., 2008). These errors include mismatches that occur when the wrong DNA base is added into the new DNA strand (i.e. a base that does not match the one in the template strand). MMR must deal with these mistakes before the DNA is repackaged into nucleosomes, which would block the repair mechanisms. As such, a long-standing question in this field is how the MMR system discriminates the new strand (which contains the errors) from the template (which is error-free) both quickly and accurately.

Now, in eLife, Tatsuro Takahashi and colleagues at Osaka University and Kyushu University report a new twist in this story (Kawasoe et al., 2016). Newly synthesized strands of DNA have small gaps or nicks (Kunkel and Erie, 2015), and such signals can be used to direct MMR to a specific DNA strand in cell-free experiments (Holmes et al., 1990). However, Takahashi and colleagues – who include Yoshitaka Kawasoe as first author – found, via experiments with Xenopus cell extracts, that MMR can still correctly identify the new DNA strand even after any gaps or nicks had been filled in. This unexpectedly implied that there must be a second signal that allows MMR in eukaryotes to distinguish the new DNA strand from the template.

So, what is this second signal? PCNA is a ring-shaped complex that acts as a “sliding clamp” to coordinate DNA replication by traveling along the DNA template. Eukaryotes use PCNA and a mismatch recognition complex called MutSα to start MMR (Kadyrov et al., 2006Kunkel and Erie, 2015; Umar et al., 1996), and these two complexes interact directly at the site of a mismatch (Clark et al., 1999; Flores-Rozas et al., 2000; Kleczkowska et al., 2001). Kawasoe et al. now reveal that the PCNA complex provides the secondary signal that allows the cell to “remember” which strand of DNA is which (Figure 1A,B).

PCNA binds to DNA in an asymmetric way.

Base-base mismatches (dashed circle) result when a base is added into a newly synthesized DNA strand (red) that does not match the corresponding base in the template strand (blue). (A) Newly synthesized strands of DNA often have small gaps that are filled in and ligated later, and the ring-shaped complex PCNA forms non-identical complexes with 5’-gapped (top) or 3’-gapped (bottom) heteroduplex DNA. Note that one side of the complex (green) always faces towards the 5’ end of the new DNA strand, while the other (yellow) faces towards the 3’-end. (B) The asymmetry of the PCNA-DNA complexes is conserved after the DNA gaps are filled in and ligated; this could allow DNA mismatch repair to distinguish the error-containing new strand from the error-free template. (C) Kawasoe et al. show that PCNA spends little time on DNA containing a mismatch in the absence of the mismatch recognition complex MutSα (top). PCNA spends much longer on the DNA when MutSα is present (middle), but not quite so long if MutSα’s PCNA interacting protein (PIP) motif is removed (MutSα∆PIP; bottom). Times given in figure are the half-lives of the PCNA-DNA complexes (t1/2).

The PCNA clamp loads onto DNA ends in an asymmetric way (Pluciennik et al., 2010). This means that one side of the ring complex always faces towards the 5’-end of the newly synthesized DNA, while the other faces towards its 3’-end. Kawasoe et al. propose that this inbuilt asymmetry is used to direct the enzymes that correct mismatches towards the new strand and not the template strand.

Kawasoe et al. also found that MutSα strongly encourages the PCNA clamp to remain loaded on the DNA. They showed that this effect was much weaker if MutSα lacked the domain that it uses to interact with PCNA (Figure 1C). These findings further suggest that the interaction between MutSα and PCNA might act in favor of MMR, rather than DNA replication. If, as Kawasoe et al. suggest, the asymmetric PCNA-DNA complex forms a biological “memory” of which DNA strand is which, then the interaction between MutSα and PCNA appears to make that memory more stable over time, similar to converting short-term memories to long-term ones.

However, several questions remain to be answered. For example, the PCNA asymmetry and its interaction with MutSα may create a long-term “memory” for strand-specific MMR, but why do cells delay the packing of DNA into nucleosomes? Also, do the various modifications that are made to PCNA (such as ubiquitination and phosphorylation; Ortega et al., 2015) alter its role in strand-discrimination in MMR? Finally, does MMR in bacteria also use β clamp (the bacterial counterpart of PCNA) in the same way (Simmons et al., 2008)? Additional studies are now needed to answer these important questions.


Article and author information

Author details

  1. Guo-Min Li

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    The author declares that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9842-4578

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: July 12, 2016 (version 1)


© 2016, Li

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.


  • 888
    Page views
  • 128
  • 0

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Palur V Raghuvamsi et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The spike (S) protein is the main handle for SARS-CoV-2 to enter host cells via surface angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors. How ACE2 binding activates proteolysis of S protein is unknown. Here, using amide hydrogen–deuterium exchange mass spectrometry and molecular dynamics simulations, we have mapped the S:ACE2 interaction interface and uncovered long-range allosteric propagation of ACE2 binding to sites necessary for host-mediated proteolysis of S protein, critical for viral host entry. Unexpectedly, ACE2 binding enhances dynamics at a distal S1/S2 cleavage site and flanking protease docking site ~27 Å away while dampening dynamics of the stalk hinge (central helix and heptad repeat [HR]) regions ~130 Å away. This highlights that the stalk and proteolysis sites of the S protein are dynamic hotspots in the prefusion state. Our findings provide a dynamics map of the S:ACE2 interface in solution and also offer mechanistic insights into how ACE2 binding is allosterically coupled to distal proteolytic processing sites and viral–host membrane fusion. Thus, protease docking sites flanking the S1/S2 cleavage site represent alternate allosteric hotspot targets for potential therapeutic development.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Ricardo M Santos, Anton Sirota
    Research Article Updated

    Cholinergic fast time-scale modulation of cortical physiology is critical for cognition, but direct local measurement of neuromodulators in vivo is challenging. Choline oxidase (ChOx)-based electrochemical biosensors have been used to capture fast cholinergic signals in behaving animals. However, these transients might be biased by local field potential and O2-evoked enzymatic responses. Using a novel Tetrode-based Amperometric ChOx (TACO) sensor, we performed highly sensitive and selective simultaneous measurement of ChOx activity (COA) and O2. In vitro and in vivo experiments, supported by mathematical modeling, revealed that non-steady-state enzyme responses to O2 give rise to phasic COA dynamics. This mechanism accounts for most of COA transients in the hippocampus, including those following locomotion bouts and sharp-wave/ripples. Our results suggest that it is unfeasible to probe phasic cholinergic signals under most behavioral paradigms with current ChOx biosensors. This confound is generalizable to any oxidase-based biosensor, entailing rigorous controls and new biosensor designs.