Checkpoint inhibition of origin firing prevents inappropriate replication outside of S-phase

  1. Mark C Johnson
  2. Geylani Can
  3. Miguel Monteiro Santos
  4. Diana Alexander
  5. Philip Zegerman  Is a corresponding author
  1. Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Abstract

Checkpoints maintain the order of cell cycle events during DNA damage or incomplete replication. How the checkpoint response is tailored to different phases of the cell cycle remains poorly understood. The S-phase checkpoint for example results in the slowing of replication, which in budding yeast occurs by Rad53-dependent inhibition of the initiation factors Sld3 and Dbf4. Despite this, we show here that Rad53 phosphorylates both of these substrates throughout the cell cycle at the same sites as in S-phase, suggesting roles for this pathway beyond S-phase. Indeed, we show that Rad53-dependent inhibition of Sld3 and Dbf4 limits re-replication in G2/M, preventing gene amplification. In addition, we show that inhibition of Sld3 and Dbf4 in G1 prevents premature initiation at all origins at the G1/S transition. This study redefines the scope of the 'S-phase checkpoint' with implications for understanding checkpoint function in cancers that lack cell cycle controls.

Data availability

Sequencing data has been deposited in GEO under the accession code GSE159122 and GSE163571

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mark C Johnson

    Biochemistry, Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Geylani Can

    Biochemistry, Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1716-7830
  3. Miguel Monteiro Santos

    Biochemistry, Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5594-2682
  4. Diana Alexander

    Biochemistry, Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7785-3170
  5. Philip Zegerman

    Biochemistry, Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    paz20@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5707-1083

Funding

Worlwide Cancer Research (AICR 10-0908)

  • Mark C Johnson
  • Geylani Can
  • Miguel Monteiro Santos
  • Diana Alexander
  • Philip Zegerman

Wellcome Trust (107056/Z/15/Z)

  • Mark C Johnson
  • Geylani Can
  • Miguel Monteiro Santos
  • Diana Alexander
  • Philip Zegerman

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M011194/1)

  • Miguel Monteiro Santos

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

Copyright

© 2021, Johnson 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

  • 2,283
    views
  • 303
    downloads
  • 7
    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. Mark C Johnson
  2. Geylani Can
  3. Miguel Monteiro Santos
  4. Diana Alexander
  5. Philip Zegerman
(2021)
Checkpoint inhibition of origin firing prevents inappropriate replication outside of S-phase
eLife 10:e63589.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63589

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63589

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Linda S Rubio, Suman Mohajan, David S Gross
    Research Article

    In insects and mammals, 3D genome topology has been linked to transcriptional states yet whether this link holds for other eukaryotes is unclear. Using both ligation proximity and fluorescence microscopy assays, we show that in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Heat Shock Response (HSR) genes dispersed across multiple chromosomes and under the control of Heat Shock Factor (Hsf1) rapidly reposition in cells exposed to acute ethanol stress and engage in concerted, Hsf1-dependent intergenic interactions. Accompanying 3D genome reconfiguration is equally rapid formation of Hsf1-containing condensates. However, in contrast to the transience of Hsf1-driven intergenic interactions that peak within 10–20 min and dissipate within 1 hr in the presence of 8.5% (v/v) ethanol, transcriptional condensates are stably maintained for hours. Moreover, under the same conditions, Pol II occupancy of HSR genes, chromatin remodeling, and RNA expression are detectable only later in the response and peak much later (>1 hr). This contrasts with the coordinate response of HSR genes to thermal stress (39°C) where Pol II occupancy, transcription, histone eviction, intergenic interactions, and formation of Hsf1 condensates are all rapid yet transient (peak within 2.5–10 min and dissipate within 1 hr). Therefore, Hsf1 forms condensates, restructures the genome and transcriptionally activates HSR genes in response to both forms of proteotoxic stress but does so with strikingly different kinetics. In cells subjected to ethanol stress, Hsf1 forms condensates and repositions target genes before transcriptionally activating them.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ester Vazquez-Fernandez, Jing Yang ... David Barford
    Research Article

    The anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) is a large multi-subunit E3 ubiquitin ligase that controls progression through the cell cycle by orchestrating the timely proteolysis of mitotic cyclins and other cell cycle regulatory proteins. Although structures of multiple human APC/C complexes have been extensively studied over the past decade, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae APC/C has been less extensively investigated. Here, we describe medium resolution structures of three S. cerevisiae APC/C complexes: unphosphorylated apo-APC/C and the ternary APC/CCDH1-substrate complex, and phosphorylated apo-APC/C. Whereas the overall architectures of human and S. cerevisiae APC/C are conserved, as well as the mechanism of CDH1 inhibition by CDK-phosphorylation, specific variations exist, including striking differences in the mechanism of coactivator-mediated stimulation of E2 binding, and the activation of APC/CCDC20 by phosphorylation. In contrast to human APC/C in which coactivator induces a conformational change of the catalytic module APC2:APC11 to allow E2 binding, in S. cerevisiae apo-APC/C the catalytic module is already positioned to bind E2. Furthermore, we find no evidence of a phospho-regulatable auto-inhibitory segment of APC1, that in the unphosphorylated human APC/C, sterically blocks the CDC20C-box binding site of APC8. Thus, although the functions of APC/C are conserved from S. cerevisiae to humans, molecular details relating to their regulatory mechanisms differ.