Rad52-Rad51 association is essential to protect Rad51 filaments against Srs2, but facultative for filament formation

  1. Emilie Ma
  2. Pauline Dupaigne
  3. Laurent Maloisel
  4. Raphaël Guerois
  5. Eric Le Cam
  6. Eric Coïc  Is a corresponding author
  1. CEA-Université Paris Saclay, France
  2. Institut Gustave Roussy, France

Abstract

Homology search and strand exchange mediated by Rad51 nucleoprotein filaments are key steps of the homologous recombination process. In budding yeast, Rad52 is the main mediator of Rad51 filament formation, thereby playing an essential role. The current model assumes that Rad51 filament formation requires the interaction between Rad52 and Rad51. However, we report here that Rad52 mutations that disrupt this interaction do not affect γ-ray- or HO endonuclease-induced gene conversion frequencies. In vivo and in vitro studies confirmed that Rad51 filaments formation is not affected by these mutations. Instead, we found that Rad52-Rad51 association makes Rad51 filaments toxic in Srs2-deficient cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents, independently of Rad52 role in Rad51 filament assembly. Importantly, we also demonstrated that Rad52 is essential for protecting Rad51 filaments against dissociation by the Srs2 DNA translocase. Our findings open new perspectives in the understanding of the role of Rad52 in eukaryotes.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Emilie Ma

    Institut de Biologie François Jacob, IRCM, CEA-Université Paris Saclay, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Pauline Dupaigne

    Signalisation, Noyaux et Innovation en Cancérologie, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Laurent Maloisel

    Institut de Biologie François Jacob, IRCM, CEA-Université Paris Saclay, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Raphaël Guerois

    CEA-Université Paris Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Eric Le Cam

    Signalisation, Noyaux et Innovation en Cancérologie, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Eric Coïc

    Institut de Biologie François Jacob, IRCM, CEA-Université Paris Saclay, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
    For correspondence
    eric.coic@cea.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9549-8969

Funding

Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (Recurrent funding)

  • Raphaël Guerois
  • Eric Coïc

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Recurrent funding)

  • Eric Le Cam

Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (SFI20121205689)

  • Eric Coïc

Ligue Contre le Cancer (2015-16)

  • Eric Coïc

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-15-CE11-0008-01)

  • Raphaël Guerois

Region Ile-de-France (DIM Nano-K No F13012333)

  • Eric Le Cam

Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (PJA 20141201772)

  • Eric Coïc

Ligue Contre le Cancer (2016-2017)

  • Eric Le Cam

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-13-BSV8-0022)

  • Eric Le Cam

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

Copyright

© 2018, Ma 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

  • 2,953
    views
  • 399
    downloads
  • 22
    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. Emilie Ma
  2. Pauline Dupaigne
  3. Laurent Maloisel
  4. Raphaël Guerois
  5. Eric Le Cam
  6. Eric Coïc
(2018)
Rad52-Rad51 association is essential to protect Rad51 filaments against Srs2, but facultative for filament formation
eLife 7:e32744.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32744

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32744

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Marius Landau, Sherif Elsabbagh ... Joachim E Schultz
    Research Article

    The biosynthesis of cyclic 3′,5′-adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) by mammalian membrane-bound adenylyl cyclases (mACs) is predominantly regulated by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Up to now the two hexahelical transmembrane domains of mACs were considered to fix the enzyme to membranes. Here, we show that the transmembrane domains serve in addition as signal receptors and transmitters of lipid signals that control Gsα-stimulated mAC activities. We identify aliphatic fatty acids and anandamide as receptor ligands of mAC isoforms 1–7 and 9. The ligands enhance (mAC isoforms 2, 3, 7, and 9) or attenuate (isoforms 1, 4, 5, and 6) Gsα-stimulated mAC activities in vitro and in vivo. Substitution of the stimulatory membrane receptor of mAC3 by the inhibitory receptor of mAC5 results in a ligand inhibited mAC5–mAC3 chimera. Thus, we discovered a new class of membrane receptors in which two signaling modalities are at a crossing, direct tonic lipid and indirect phasic GPCR–Gsα signaling regulating the biosynthesis of cAMP.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.