p53 suppresses mutagenic RAD52 and POLθ pathways by orchestrating DNA replication restart homeostasis

  1. Sunetra Roy
  2. Karl-Heinz Tomaszowski
  3. Jessica W Luzwick
  4. Soyoung Park
  5. Jun Li
  6. Maureen Murphy
  7. Katharina Schlacher  Is a corresponding author
  1. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States
  2. The Wistar Institute, United States

Abstract

Classically, p53 tumor suppressor acts in transcription, apoptosis, and cell cycle arrest. Yet, replication-mediated genomic instability is integral to oncogenesis, and p53 mutations promote tumor progression and drug-resistance. By delineating human and murine separation-of-function p53 alleles, we find that p53 null and gain-of-function (GOF) mutations exhibit defects in restart of stalled or damaged DNA replication forks driving genomic instability genetically separable from transcription activation. By assaying protein-DNA fork interactions in single cells, we unveil a p53-MLL3-enabled recruitment of MRE11 DNA replication restart nuclease. Importantly, p53 defects or depletion unexpectedly allow mutagenic RAD52 and POLq pathways to hijack stalled forks, which we find reflected in p53 defective breast-cancer patient COSMIC mutational signatures. These data uncover p53 as a keystone regulator of replication homeostasis within a DNA restart network. Mechanistically, this has important implications for development of resistance in cancer therapy. Combined, these results define an unexpected role for p53-mediated suppression of replication genome instability.

Data availability

The following previously published data sets were used
    1. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network
    (2016) Breast Cancer TCGA dataset (TCGA-BRCA)
    Publicly available from the NCI GDC Data Portal (https://cancergenome.nih.gov).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sunetra Roy

    Department of Cancer Biology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Karl-Heinz Tomaszowski

    Department of Cancer Biology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Jessica W Luzwick

    Department of Cancer Biology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Soyoung Park

    Department of Cancer Biology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Jun Li

    Department of Genomic Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Maureen Murphy

    Molecular and Cellular Oncogenesis Program, The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    Maureen Murphy, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7644-7296
  7. Katharina Schlacher

    Department of Cancer Biology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    KSchlacher@mdanderson.org
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7226-6391

Funding

Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (R1312)

  • Katharina Schlacher

National Cancer Institute (K22CA175262)

  • Katharina Schlacher

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2018, Roy et al.

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

Metrics

  • 4,309
    views
  • 921
    downloads
  • 70
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

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

  1. Sunetra Roy
  2. Karl-Heinz Tomaszowski
  3. Jessica W Luzwick
  4. Soyoung Park
  5. Jun Li
  6. Maureen Murphy
  7. Katharina Schlacher
(2018)
p53 suppresses mutagenic RAD52 and POLθ pathways by orchestrating DNA replication restart homeostasis
eLife 7:e31723.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31723

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31723

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Steven Henikoff, David L Levens
    Insight

    A new method for mapping torsion provides insights into the ways that the genome responds to the torsion generated by RNA polymerase II.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.