The Shu complex prevents mutagenesis and cytotoxicity of single-strand specific alkylation lesions

  1. Braulio Bonilla
  2. Alexander I Brown
  3. Sarah R Hengel
  4. Kyle S Rapchak
  5. Debra Mitchell
  6. Catherine A Pressimone
  7. Adeola A Fagunloye
  8. Thong T Luong
  9. Reagan A Russell
  10. Rudri K Vyas
  11. Tony M Mertz
  12. Hani S Zaher
  13. Nima Mosammaparast
  14. Ewa P Malc
  15. Piotr A Mieczkowski
  16. Steven Roberts  Is a corresponding author
  17. Kara A Bernstein  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, United States
  2. Washington State University, United States
  3. Washington University in St Louis, United States
  4. University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, United States

Abstract

Three-methyl cytosine (3meC) are toxic DNA lesions, blocking base pairing. Bacteria and humans, express members of the AlkB enzymes family, which directly remove 3meC. However, other organisms, including budding yeast, lack this class of enzymes. It remains an unanswered evolutionary question as to how yeast repairs 3meC, particularly in single-stranded DNA. The yeast Shu complex, a conserved homologous recombination factor, aids in preventing replication-associated mutagenesis from DNA base damaging agents such as methyl methanesulfonate (MMS). We found that MMS-treated Shu complex-deficient cells, exhibit a genome-wide increase in A:T and G:C substitutions mutations. The G:C substitutions displayed transcriptional and replicational asymmetries consistent with mutations resulting from 3meC. Ectopic expression of a human AlkB homolog in Shu-deficient yeast rescues MMS-induced growth defects and increased mutagenesis. Thus, our work identifies a novel homologous recombination-based mechanism mediated by the Shu complex for coping with alkylation adducts.

Data availability

All unique mutations identified by DNA sequencing are reported in Supplemental Table 3 and all sequencing reads are reported in Supplemental Table 5. Raw sequencing reads in fastq format have been submitted to the NCBI short read archive under BioProject accession number PRJNA694993.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Braulio Bonilla

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alexander I Brown

    Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sarah R Hengel

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kyle S Rapchak

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Debra Mitchell

    Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Catherine A Pressimone

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Adeola A Fagunloye

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2383-9469
  8. Thong T Luong

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Reagan A Russell

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Rudri K Vyas

    Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Tony M Mertz

    Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Hani S Zaher

    Biology, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7424-3617
  13. Nima Mosammaparast

    Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ewa P Malc

    Genetics, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Piotr A Mieczkowski

    Genetics, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Steven Roberts

    Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    For correspondence
    steven.roberts2@wsu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Kara A Bernstein

    Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    For correspondence
    karab@pitt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2247-6459

Funding

National Institutes of Health (ES030335)

  • Kara A Bernstein

National Institutes of Health (CA218112)

  • Steven Roberts

American Cancer Society (129182-RSG-16-043-01-DMC)

  • Kara A Bernstein

American Cancer Society (133947-PF-19-132-01-DMC)

  • Sarah R Hengel

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Andrés Aguilera, CABIMER, Universidad de Sevilla, Spain

Version history

  1. Received: March 4, 2021
  2. Preprint posted: April 11, 2021 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: October 29, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: November 1, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: November 23, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Bonilla 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

  • 1,274
    views
  • 163
    downloads
  • 2
    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. Braulio Bonilla
  2. Alexander I Brown
  3. Sarah R Hengel
  4. Kyle S Rapchak
  5. Debra Mitchell
  6. Catherine A Pressimone
  7. Adeola A Fagunloye
  8. Thong T Luong
  9. Reagan A Russell
  10. Rudri K Vyas
  11. Tony M Mertz
  12. Hani S Zaher
  13. Nima Mosammaparast
  14. Ewa P Malc
  15. Piotr A Mieczkowski
  16. Steven Roberts
  17. Kara A Bernstein
(2021)
The Shu complex prevents mutagenesis and cytotoxicity of single-strand specific alkylation lesions
eLife 10:e68080.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68080

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68080

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Henning Mühlenbeck, Yuko Tsutsui ... Cyril Zipfel
    Research Article

    Transmembrane signaling by plant receptor kinases (RKs) has long been thought to involve reciprocal trans-phosphorylation of their intracellular kinase domains. The fact that many of these are pseudokinase domains, however, suggests that additional mechanisms must govern RK signaling activation. Non-catalytic signaling mechanisms of protein kinase domains have been described in metazoans, but information is scarce for plants. Recently, a non-catalytic function was reported for the leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-RK subfamily XIIa member EFR (elongation factor Tu receptor) and phosphorylation-dependent conformational changes were proposed to regulate signaling of RKs with non-RD kinase domains. Here, using EFR as a model, we describe a non-catalytic activation mechanism for LRR-RKs with non-RD kinase domains. EFR is an active kinase, but a kinase-dead variant retains the ability to enhance catalytic activity of its co-receptor kinase BAK1/SERK3 (brassinosteroid insensitive 1-associated kinase 1/somatic embryogenesis receptor kinase 3). Applying hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) analysis and designing homology-based intragenic suppressor mutations, we provide evidence that the EFR kinase domain must adopt its active conformation in order to activate BAK1 allosterically, likely by supporting αC-helix positioning in BAK1. Our results suggest a conformational toggle model for signaling, in which BAK1 first phosphorylates EFR in the activation loop to stabilize its active conformation, allowing EFR in turn to allosterically activate BAK1.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska, Utpal Das ... Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez
    Research Article

    Amyloid β (Aβ) peptides accumulating in the brain are proposed to trigger Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, molecular cascades underlying their toxicity are poorly defined. Here, we explored a novel hypothesis for Aβ42 toxicity that arises from its proven affinity for γ-secretases. We hypothesized that the reported increases in Aβ42, particularly in the endolysosomal compartment, promote the establishment of a product feedback inhibitory mechanism on γ-secretases, and thereby impair downstream signaling events. We conducted kinetic analyses of γ-secretase activity in cell-free systems in the presence of Aβ, as well as cell-based and ex vivo assays in neuronal cell lines, neurons, and brain synaptosomes to assess the impact of Aβ on γ-secretases. We show that human Aβ42 peptides, but neither murine Aβ42 nor human Aβ17–42 (p3), inhibit γ-secretases and trigger accumulation of unprocessed substrates in neurons, including C-terminal fragments (CTFs) of APP, p75, and pan-cadherin. Moreover, Aβ42 treatment dysregulated cellular homeostasis, as shown by the induction of p75-dependent neuronal death in two distinct cellular systems. Our findings raise the possibility that pathological elevations in Aβ42 contribute to cellular toxicity via the γ-secretase inhibition, and provide a novel conceptual framework to address Aβ toxicity in the context of γ-secretase-dependent homeostatic signaling.