Abstract
The cohesin complex maintains sister chromatid cohesion from S phase to anaphase onset. Cohesin also plays roles in chromosome structure and DNA repair. At anaphase onset, the cohesin subunit Scc1 is cleaved to allow segregation in an orderly manner, although some residual cohesin subunits remain to maintain chromosome structure. Efficient DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair by homologous recombination (HR) with the sister chromatid also depends on cohesin. Here, we have tested whether residual cohesin is important during DSB repair in anaphase/telophase (late mitosis). Using the well-established MAT switching system, we first show that HR is molecularly functional in late mitosis, and then show that cohesin is required for its efficiency. During DSBs in late mitosis, the segregated sister loci get closer and have episodes of coalescence, which may favour repair by HR. Here, we also show that these cytological phenotypes also depend on cohesin. Finally, full-length Scc1 returns after DSBs in late mitosis, suggesting that de novo widespread cohesin complexes can support these retrograde behaviours.
Introduction
Cell survival and genome integrity depend on the faithful segregation of chromosomes in anaphase. From the S phase until the anaphase onset, the highly conserved cohesin complex plays an essential role in the structural maintenance of sister chromatids. Cohesin is a multiprotein complex composed in yeast of Smc1, Smc3, Scc1 (also known as Mcd1), Scc3 and Pds5 subunits (Hirano, 2000; Michaelis et al., 1997; Sjögren and Nasmyth, 2001). At the core of the complex, Smc1, Smc3 and Scc1 form a heterotrimeric ring that embraces and holds the replicated sister chromatids together and well-aligned until reaching G2/M (Díaz-Martínez et al., 2008; Koshland and Guacci, 2000; Laloraya et al., 2000; Michaelis et al., 1997; Strunnikov et al., 1993). Cohesin subunits are loaded onto chromosomes in G1 by the Scc2-Scc3 complex (Ciosk et al., 2000). When cells enter S phase, the acetyl-transferase Eco1 acetylates Smc3, which inhibits the ATPase activity of Smc1-Smc3 heads and prevents the opening of the Smc3-Scc1 interface (Çamdere et al., 2015; Chan et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2016; Murayama and Uhlmann, 2015; Ström et al., 2007; Unal et al., 2007). This embraces the nascent sister chromatids and establishes cohesion (Uhlmann and Nasmyth, 1998). Once sister chromatids are ready for segregation, the APCCdc20 (Anaphase Promoting Complex associated with its regulatory cofactor Cdc20) initiates anaphase by degrading securin/Pds1, so that the separase/Esp1 becomes active. Separase then cleaves the Scc1 subunit by proteolysis, releasing sister chromatids from cohesion (Cohen-Fix et al., 1996; Michaelis et al., 1997; Nasmyth and Haering, 2009; Uhlmann et al., 1999; Yamamoto et al., 1996). The fragmented Scc1 is then rapidly degraded (Rao et al., 2001), while a pool of Smc1-Smc3 dimers appears to remain through anaphase (Renshaw et al., 2010; Tanaka et al., 1999). This pool however becomes loose as Smc3 is deacetylated by Hos1 in anaphase (Chan et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2016; Murayama and Uhlmann, 2015). Interestingly, some cohesin-dependent cohesion remains at chromosome arms during anaphase, suggesting that residual cohesin is present despite separase activation (Renshaw et al., 2010).
In addition to its role in sister chromatid cohesion, cohesin has also been involved in chromosome structure and DNA repair. On the one hand, cohesin can hold two DNA segments within the same chromatin forming an extruded loop (Lazar‐Stefanita et al., 2017; Schalbetter et al., 2017). On the other hand, DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) produce the so-called damage-induced cohesion (DI-cohesion) (Kim et al., 2010). Following DNA damage, cohesin is recruited and accumulated both along 50 – 100 kb surrounding the DSB site and genome-wide (Ström et al., 2004; Ünal et al., 2004). The cohesin recruitment creates a firm anchoring of two well-aligned sister chromatids, which in turn facilitates DSB repair by homologous recombination (HR) (Hou et al., 2022; Phipps and Dubrana, 2022). In this regard, DNA damage kinases such as Mec1 and Chk1 phosphorylate Scc1 to initiate the cohesion establishment in post-replicative cells (Heidinger-Pauli et al., 2008).
HR is a DSB repair mechanism that uses a homologous template for restoring the original broken DNA. HR is highly reliable when the correct template is used, which in mitotic cells is the sister chromatid. Hence, HR is the preferred repair mechanism from S to G2/M, when the sister chromatid is available in close proximity (Langerak and Russell, 2011; Mathiasen and Lisby, 2014; Symington et al., 2014). Before DNA replication, in G1, the alternative error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) is used instead. Cells coordinate the choice of either NHEJ or HR based on the activity of cyclin dependent kinase (CDK). Low CDK keeps cells in G1 and favours NHEJ, whereas high CDK is present in S and G2/M and activates HR.
Noticeably, there is a paradox in his link between high CDK and HR. In the cell cycle window that spans from anaphase to the telophase-to-G1 transition (we will refer to this window as late mitosis), high CDK is set to favour HR despite a sister chromatid is not in proximity (Machín and Ayra‐Plasencia, 2020). In a previous study, we showed that sister loci can indeed move closer and coalesce and that HR still appears important for DSB survival in late mitosis (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019). Considering these observations, a second paradox arises, how can sister loci coalesce and HR be that important in the absence of cohesin? We have addressed such a paradox here.
Results and Discussion
The HO-mediated DSB is resected efficiently in late mitosis
In a previous report, we showed from both genetic and cytological points of view that HR was still active in late mitosis. In this work, we applied molecular methods to determine whether HR can occur in late mitosis. To this aim, we followed the DSB processing and repair of a single DSB generated by the inducible HO endonuclease, which cuts the HO cutting site (HOcs) at the MAT locus in chromosome III. The DSB was generated once cells were arrested in late mitosis (late anaphase/telophase) through the thermosensitive cdc15-2 allele. Cdc15 is a mitotic kinase that drives telophase-to-G1 transition (Machín and Ayra‐Plasencia, 2020).
We first tested whether the HO-induced DSB is efficiently resected into 3’ ssDNA tails in late mitosis. Resection is necessary to form the protruding 3’ nucleofilaments that invade the donor homologous sequence to restore the break by HR (Peng et al., 2021; Symington, 2016). To confirm and quantitate the formation of ssDNA flanking the HOcs, we used a qPCR approach whereby primers can only amplify a target DNA cut with the restriction enzyme StyI if it has been rendered single-stranded by resection (Fig 1a, b) (Gnügge et al., 2018; Zierhut and Diffley, 2008). We used a strain carrying deletions for the HML and HMR loci, the two ectopic homologous templates for HR with the MAT locus. In this manner, the normal HR flow from resection to invasion is blocked, which boosts ssDNA detection. For the controlled induction of the HO endonuclease, we ectopically introduced the encoding gene under the control of a promoter that responds to β-estradiol (Gnügge and Symington, 2020). Two different locations downstream of the HOcs were monitored to determine both the initial resection (0.7 Kb from HOcs) and the kinetics further away (5.7 Kb). In addition, cells arrested in either G2/M (Nz) or late mitosis (cdc15-2) were directly compared to each other. Cells were first arrested for 3 h, the HO was induced afterwards, and samples were taken every hour during a 4 h time course while sustaining the HO induction (Fig 1c). As expected, cells in G2/M efficiently resected the HOcs DSB. The time to reach half of the maximum possible resection (t1/2) was ∼1 h at 0.7 Kb and ∼2.5 h at 5.7 Kb from the DSB, respectively. Resection in late mitosis was only slightly delayed at 0.7 Kb (t1/2 ∼1.5 h), whereas the delay was more pronounced at 5.7 Kb (t1/2 ∼ 3.5 h). Overall, resection in late mitosis appears almost as efficient as in G2/M. The slight delay may be due to either the fact that CDK activity in late mitosis (though still high) is slightly inferior to that at G2/M, or the different conditions of arrests (Nz at 25 ºC vs. just 34 ºC). Together with the samples for the qPCR, samples for Western blot of Rad53 were taken. Rad53 is an effector kinase of the DNA Damage Checkpoint (DDC) that gets activated by hyperphosphorylation after being recruited to the 3’ ssDNA overhands (Branzei and Foiani, 2006). In agreement with the resection profile (Fig 1c), Rad53 hyperphosphorylation also occurred in late mitosis, although with ∼1 h delay (Fig 1d).
HR can still switch the MAT locus in late mitosis
Once resection begins, cells are normally committed to recombine because long ssDNA fragments do not work as efficient substrates for NHEJ. In our haploid strain, HR at the MAT locus after the HO-driven DSB implies the gene conversion from the MATa to the MATα allele, whereas repair by NHEJ results in reconstitution of the MATa allele (Fig 2a) (Yamaguchi and Haber, 2021). This gene conversion can be detected by Southern blot because of a restriction fragment length polymorphism for StyI. Cells that are in G1 can barely repair the HOcs DSB, whereas those in G2/M do so through HR (Ira et al., 2004). To check whether HR was efficient at the HOcs DSB in late mitosis, we performed an experimental setup similar to the one shown above, but with two important differences. On the one hand, the strain bears the wild type HML locus, so that HR can be completed if it is called upon; and on the other hand, a just a pulse of HO induction was applied (1 h with β-estradiol only), so that there is room for the complete repair of all generated DSBs. Samples were taken at the time of the arrest, after the pulse, and all through the repair window. We confirmed by Western blot that HO (HO tagged with the Flag epitope in this case) is produced after the pulse, and rapidly degraded afterwards (Fig 2b, HO-Flag blot). Likewise, Rad53 hyperphosphorylation confirmed that the HOcs DSB has been correctly sensed (Fig 2b, Rad53 blot). The Southern blot showed that (i) most MATa locus in the cell population has been efficiently cut after the HO pulse (Fig 2c and d; decrease of the MATa band intensity and rise of that of the HO cut); and (ii) most DSBs are repaired afterwards exclusively through HR (Fig 2c and d; drop of the HO cut band intensity and rise of that of the MATα). No signs of DSB by NHEJ were observed (the remaining MATa band stays constant throughout).
Overall, we concluded that HR is the chosen repair pathway in late mitosis. This is in agreement with predictions based on CDK activity and also fits well with the genetic and cytological data we have obtained before (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019; Machín and Ayra‐Plasencia, 2020). By contrast, this emphasizes the paradoxes of having HR in the context of mostly segregated sister chromatids and without the cohesin complex holding them together. The first paradox was at least partly solved in our previous report as we observed that sister loci can rejoin after DSBs (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019). We have now explored the second paradox further as DI-cohesion appears important for efficient DSB repair by HR (Hou et al., 2022; Phipps and Dubrana, 2022).
The MAT switching in late mitosis depends on cohesin
Smc1 and Smc3 subunits remain attached to chromatin after segregation (Garcia-Luis et al., 2022; Renshaw et al., 2010; Tanaka et al., 1999). In cells arrested in cdc15-2, the Smc1-Smc3 pool mostly resides at centromeres where it brings together adjacent regions in both chromosome arms (Garcia-Luis et al., 2022). Of note, this configuration could favour the physical interaction of the MAT and the HML loci, which may in turn promote a rapid and efficient HR-driven MAT switching. Thus, we tested whether MAT switching was dependent on this residual centromeric cohesin. To this aim, we tagged the Smc3 subunit with the auxin-mediated degron system (aid*) in the strain that expresses HO from the β-estradiol promoter.
To check that the system was functional, a serial dilution spot assay was carried out (Fig. 3a). The strain expressing Smc3-aid* was plated on YPDA and YPDA plus 8 mM of the auxin indole-acetic acid (IAA). Alongside, we also plated a derivative where we had removed the preceptive F-box protein OsTIR1, which forms the functional ubiquitin ligase responsible for targeting the aid* for degradation upon IAA addition (Morawska and Ulrich, 2013). Since cohesin is an essential complex for vegetative growth, the lack of growth in the SMC3-AID* OsTIR1 strain strongly points out that Smc3-aid* is degraded efficiently.
Next, we used this strain to degrade Smc3 after cells have been arrested in late mitosis and before the HO-mediated DSB (Fig. 3b-d). In our experimental setup, a pool of Smc3 was clearly present at the cdc15-2 arrest (Fig. 3b). This pool was acetylated at lysine residues K112 and K113, further suggesting that it is chromatin-bound (Rolef Ben-Shahar et al., 2008; Unal et al., 2008). After IAA addition, there was a clear decline in Smc3-aid* levels. After 1 h in IAA, a 1 h pulse of HO expression was triggered, which allowed us to follow both DSB generation and its subsequent repair without residual cohesin (Fig. 3c,d). More than 90% of the Smc3-aid* had disappeared by the time the HO promoter was shut down.
Contrary to what is seen in the wild type, the Smc3 absence drastically delayed gene conversion from MATa to MATα (Fig. 3c,d). Even though the cut efficiency without Smc3 is lower than in the wild type (∼50 % vs. ∼70 %, respectively), wild type cells performed HR with ∼80 % efficiency (considering the HO cut band as 100 %), whereas Smc3-depleted cells only repaired to MATα in ∼35 %. Also, the detection of DNA damage through Rad53 phosphorylation seems fainter and slightly delayed (Fig. 3b). Of note, It was previously reported that cohesin was not that important for the MAT switching in G2/M-arrested cells, despite it being essential for efficient post-replicative DSB repair (Ünal et al., 2004). One possible explanation for the discrepancy with our MAT switching results may reside in the different experimental setup, i.e. auxin-induced degradation of Smc3 versus Scc1 inactivation using a thermosensitive allele. Alternatively, the Smc1-Smc3 dimer by itself could be sufficient for cohesin-dependent DSB repair. Finally, DI-cohesion in G2/M is, perhaps, not such important for bringing the MAT and HML locus together since sister chromatids can rely on other cohesin-independent linkages, such as catenations; a scenario that might not be present in late mitosis.
Scc1 becomes stable after DSBs in late mitosis
At the anaphase onset, the separase/Esp1 cleaves Scc1, opening the cohesin ring and releasing sister chromatids from cohesion. Thereafter, Scc1 needs to be translated de novo since cleaved fragments are unstable and degraded by the proteasome (Rao et al., 2001). However, it is known that activation of Esp1 can be blocked by DDC kinases (Yam et al., 2020). In addition, DDC kinases also phosphorylate Scc1 to facilitate DI-cohesion at a post-replicative stage (Heidinger-Pauli et al., 2008). Thus, it is feasible that DSB generation in late mitosis can stabilize de novo Scc1 as well as rendering it cohesive.
To know how Scc1 behaves after DSBs in late mitosis, a strain unable to repair the HO-mediated DSB at the MAT locus (Δhml Δhmr double mutant) but bearing Scc1 tagged with three tandem copies of the myc epitope was first blocked in telophase at 34 ºC for 3 hours. Then, the culture was divided into three. The first one served as a mock control, whereas the others were used to generate a single (2 μM β-estradiol) and multiple (10 μg · mL-1 phleomycin) DSBs. Incubation of subcultures was prolonged at 34 ºC for 2 extra hours. The presence or absence of Scc1-3myc was then checked by Western blot. As expected, Scc1 band was detected for both cycling cells and those blocked in G2/M. The Scc1 signal disappeared almost entirely when cells were arrested in late mitosis and remained low in the mock control two hours later. Surprisingly, full-length Scc1 was restored after single and multiple DSBs generation (Fig. 4a). This finding suggests that the cohesin complex could be newly formed and loaded onto the breaks, promoting the DI-cohesion and easing the recombinational coalescent events.
Sister loci approximation and coalescence after DSBs in late mitosis also depend on cohesin
Considering the above results on Smc3-dependent HR and Scc1 reappearing after DSBs in late mitosis, we next studied whether cohesin was needed for the remarkable phenotypes we described before under the microscope. The most striking phenotype was the partial regression of sister chromatid segregation, which included back migration and coalescence of sister loci in a single cell body of the dividing cell (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019). To this aim, the same strain we used before for these studies was transformed to obtain Smc3-aid*. The strain carries several tetO sequences at the telomeric region of the right arm of chromosome XII (cXIIr-Tel), as well as the TetR-YFP as the fluorescent reporter for both sister telomeres. The cXIIr-Tel is the last to segregate in anaphase (Machín et al., 2005); hence, back migration and coalescence of these sister loci are bona fide signs of regressed anaphase (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019). Cells arrested in late mitosis were submitted to Smc3 degradation and subsequent generation of DSBs as above. Again, Western blot analyses showed that cells degraded ∼ 80 % of Smc3 after 1 hour in IAA, and subsequent generation of DSBs with phleomycin triggered Smc3-independent Rad53 phosphorylation at similar levels than the control without IAA, positioning any cohesin role downstream of the DDC (Fig. 4b). Cells that were not treated with IAA but were having DSBs reverted segregation of cXIIr-Tel in ∼ 13 % of the telophase-blocked cells [p<0.0001 relative to categories quantified at the arrest] (Fig. 4c). As we found before (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019), ∼ 7 % of cells showed two foci in the same cellular body (i.e. back migration), whereas ∼ 6 % had coalescence events. In contrast, cells deficient for Smc3 did not show a significant statistical difference from the mock non-DSB situation. This result supports that the cohesin complex is at least essential to promote the passing of chromosomes across the bud neck, which results in back migration and is a prerequisite for the subsequent coalescence.
Conclusions
In this work we have addressed whether HR was molecularly efficient in yeast cells arrested in late mitosis. We have used the well-established MAT switching system and found that HR is indeed working in late mitosis, complementing previous results that pointed in this direction both genetically and cytologically (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019). In addition, we have addressed that paradox of having HR in a cell mitotic stage with no sister chromatid cohesion. Our results suggest not only that residual cohesin, or at least residual Smc1-Smc3 dimers, play a role in an efficient HR at the MAT locus, but also that the partial regression of the anaphase we cytologically observed before is dependent on cohesin. The fact that Scc1, the cohesin subunit that is cleaved and degraded at the anaphase onset, returns in late mitosis after DSB generation, suggests that de novo cohesion could be established, perhaps globally. This new cohesin may favour repair by HR with the intact sister of DSBs generated in such a late cell cycle stage. Further research will be needed to confirm whether cohesion is re-established in late mitosis upon DNA damage as well as its whereabouts and consequences for late segregation after DSB repair.
Material and Methods
Strains and experimental conditions
The table 1 contains the S. cerevisiae strains used in this work. Genetic backgrounds are either W303 or YPH499. Strain construction was either performed by lithium acetate-based transformation on pre-made frozen competent cells, either by crosses and sporulation (Knop et al., 1999).
Strains were cultured overnight in the YPD medium (10 g·L−1 yeast extract, 20 g·L−1 peptone and 20 g·L−1 glucose) with moderate shaking (180 rpm). The day after, 10-100 μL of grown cells were diluted into a flask containing an appropriate YPD volume and grown overnight at 25 ºC again. Finally, the exponentially growing culture was adjusted to OD600 = 0.5 to start the experiment.
In general, cells were first arrested in late mitosis by incubating the culture at 34 ºC for 3 hours (all strains carry the cdc15-2 thermosensitive allele). Then, the culture was split in two, one subculture remained untreated (mock), and DSBs were generated in the second one. When a G2/M arrest was required, 15 µg·mL−1 nocodazole (Nz; Sigma-Aldrich, M1404) was added to the asynchronous culture, which was then incubated at 25°C for 3 h (with a 7.5 µg·mL−1 Nz shot at 2 h). To conditionally degrade the Smc3-aid* variant, 8 mM of the auxin 3-indol-acetic acid (IAA; Sigma-Aldrich, I2886) was added to the arrested cells 1 h prior to generating DSBs.
DSB generation was accomplished by incubating the culture for 1 to 3 hours with either 10 µg·mL−1 phleomycin (random DSBs) or 2 μM of β-estradiol (HO-driven DSBs). For the HOcs DSB, the corresponding strain harbours an integrative system based on a β-estradiol inducible promoter (Ottoz et al., 2014). These strains were constructed by transforming with the pRG464 plasmid (Gnügge and Symington, 2020).
qPCR for DSB resection
In the resection experiments, qPCR was performed on genomic DNA (gDNA) extracted by the glass beads/phenol method (Hoffman and Winston, 1987). Experimental details on the resection assay can be found in (Gnügge et al., 2018). Briefly, each gDNA sample was divided into two and one aliquot was digested with StyI-HF (NEB, R3500S). Then, qPCR reactions were mounted using the PowerUp™ SYBR™ Green Master Mix (Thermo Scientific, A25741) and run in a BioRad CFX384 Real-Time PCR instrument (10 µl final volume in 384-well block plates).
Resection was calculated as a normalized fraction (fresected) to that of the HOcs effectively cut by HO (f). These two parameters were calculated by their corresponding formulas (Gnügge et al., 2018).
Western blot for protein levels and phosphorylation
Western blotting was performed as reported before (Ayra-Plasencia and Machín, 2019). The trichloroacetic acid TCA method was used for protein extraction. Total protein was quantified in a Qubit 4 Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Q33227). Proteins were resolved in 7.5% SDS-PAGE gels and transferred to PVFD membranes (Pall Corporation, PVM020C099). The membrane was stained with Ponceau-S solution (PanReac AppliChem, A2935) as a loading reference. The following primary antibodies were used for immunoblotting: mouse monoclonal α-HA (1:1,000; Sigma-Aldrich, H9658); mouse monoclonal α-myc (1: 5,000; Sigma-Aldrich, M4439); mouse monoclonal α-Pgk1 (1:5,000; Thermo Fisher Scientific, 22C5D8), and mouse monoclonal α-miniaid (1:500; MBL, M214-3). The secondary antibody was a horseradish peroxidase polyclonal goat anti-mouse (from 1:5,000 to 1:10,000, depending on the primary antibody; Promega, W4021). Proteins were detected with the ECL chemiluminescence reagent (GE Healthcare, RPN2232), and visualized in a Vilber-Lourmat Fusion Solo S chamber.
Southern blot for the MAT switching assay
In this case, gDNA was extracted by digesting with 50U lyticase (Sigma-Aldrich, L4025) a cell pellet previously resuspended in 200 µl of digestion buffer (1 % SDS, 100 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris-HCl, and 10 mM EDTA). Then, the gDNA was phase separated by phenol:chloroform (PanReac AppliChem, A0944), precipitated with ethanol, resuspended in TE 1X with 10 μg·mL-1 RNase A, precipitated again, and resuspended in TE 1X. Then, the gDNA was digested with StyI-HF, the restriction fragments separated on a 1.2% low EEOO LS Agarose gel, and finally Southern blotted. Southern blot was carried out by a saline downwards transference onto a positively charged nylon membrane (Hybond-N+, Amersham-GE; RPN303B) (García-Luis and Machín, 2014). DNA probes against ACT1 and MAT loci were made using Fluorescein-12-dUTP Solution (ThermoFisher; R0101) and the Expand™ High Fidelity PCR System (Roche; 11732641001). Hybridization with fluorescein-labelled probes was performed overnight at 68°C. The following day, the membrane was incubated with an anti-fluorescein antibody coupled to alkaline phosphatase (Roche; 11426338910), and the chemiluminescent signal detected using CDP-star (Amersham; RPN3682). Blots were visualized in a Vilber-Lourmat Fusion Solo S chamber.
For band quantification, each individual band was normalized to the ACT1 signal in the lane. Then, a second normalization to the MATa band at the arrest was performed.
Data representation and statistics
Three types of graphs were used to represent the data: bar charts, marker line graphs and box plots. In box plots, the center line represents the medians, box limits represent the 25th and 75th percentile, the whiskers extend to the 5th and 95th percentiles, and the dots represent outliers. Error bars in all bar and line charts represent the standard error of the mean (sem) of three independent biological replicates. Individual values are also represented as dots in the bar charts. Graphpad Prism 9 was used for generating the charts and for statistical analysis. Differences between experimental data points were generally estimated using the Mann-Whitney U test for box plots and two-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc for bar charts.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank other members from Machín’s and Symington’s labs for enriching and fruitful discussion. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (research grants BFU2017-83954-R and PID2021-123716OB-I00 to F.M.). Both grants were co-financed with the FSE structural funds. This work was also supported by the National Institute of Health (research grant NIH R35 GM126997 to L.S.).
References
- DNA double-strand breaks in telophase lead to coalescence between segregated sister chromatid lociNat Commun 10https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10742-8
- The Rad53 signal transduction pathway: Replication fork stabilization, DNA repair, and adaptationExp Cell Res 312:2654–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2006.06.012
- The ATPases of cohesin interface with regulators to modulate cohesin-mediated DNA tetheringElife 4https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11315
- Cohesin’s DNA Exit Gate Is Distinct from Its Entrance Gate and Is Regulated by AcetylationCell 150:961–974https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.07.028
- Cohesin’s binding to chromosomes depends on a separate complex consisting of Scc2 and Scc4 proteinsMol Cell 5:243–254https://doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(00)80420-7
- Anaphase initiation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is controlled by the APC-dependent degradation of the anaphase inhibitor Pds1pGenes Dev 10:3081–93https://doi.org/10.1101/GAD.10.24.3081
- Chromosome cohesion - rings, knots, orcs and fellowshipJ Cell Sci 121:2107–14https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.029132
- Depletion or cleavage of cohesin during anaphase differentially affects chromatin structure and segregationElife 11:1–22https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80147
- Mus81-Mms4 and Yen1 resolve a novel anaphase bridge formed by noncanonical Holliday junctionsNat Commun 5https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6652
- Efficient DNA double-strand break formation at single or multiple defined sites in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genomeNucleic Acids Res 48https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa833
- Processing of DNA Double-Strand Breaks in YeastMethods Enzymol 600:1–24https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.mie.2017.11.007
- The Kleisin Subunit of Cohesin Dictates Damage-Induced CohesionMol Cell 31:47–56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.06.005
- Chromosome cohesion, condensation, and separationAnnu Rev Biochem 69:115–44https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.69.1.115
- A ten-minute DNA preparation from yeast efficiently releases autonomous plasmids for transformaion of Escherichia coliGene 57:267–272https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(87)90131-4
- Cohesin in DNA damage response and double-strand break repairCrit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 57:333–350https://doi.org/10.1080/10409238.2022.2027336
- Impairing Cohesin Smc1/3 Head Engagement Compensates for the Lack of Eco1 FunctionStructure 24:1991–1999https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2016.09.001
- DNA end resection, homologous recombination and DNA damage checkpoint activation require CDK1Nature 431:1011–7https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02964
- Genome-wide Reinforcement of Cohesin Binding at Pre-existing Cohesin Sites in Response to Ionizing Radiation in Human CellsJ Biol Chem 285:22784–22792https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.134577
- Epitope tagging of yeast genes using a PCR-based strategy: more tags and improved practical routinesYeast 15:963–72https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(199907)15:10B<963::AID-YEA399>3.0.CO;2-W
- Sister chromatid cohesion: the beginning of a long and beautiful relationshipCurr Opin Cell Biol 12:297–301https://doi.org/10.1016/s0955-0674(00)00092-2
- Chromosomal addresses of the cohesin component Mcd1pJ Cell Biol 151:1047–56https://doi.org/10.1083/JCB.151.5.1047
- Regulatory networks integrating cell cycle control with DNA damage checkpoints and double-strand break repairPhilos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:3562–71https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0070
- Cohesins and condensins orchestrate the 4D dynamics of yeast chromosomes during the cell cycleEMBO J 36:2684–2697https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201797342
- Are Anaphase Events Really Irreversible? The Endmost Stages of Cell Division and the Paradox of the DNA Double‐Strand Break RepairBioEssays 42https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000021
- Spindle-independent condensation-mediated segregation of yeast ribosomal DNA in late anaphaseJ Cell Biol 168:209–19https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200408087
- Cell cycle regulation of homologous recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeFEMS Microbiol Rev 38:172–184https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12066
- Cohesins: Chromosomal proteins that prevent premature separation of sister chromatidsCell 91:35–45https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(01)80007-6
- An expanded tool kit for the auxin-inducible degron system in budding yeastYeast 30:341–51https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.2967
- DNA Entry into and Exit out of the Cohesin Ring by an Interlocking Gate MechanismCell 163:1628–1640https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.030
- Cohesin: Its Roles and MechanismsAnnu Rev Genet 43:525–558https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-102108-134233
- Inducible, tightly regulated and growth condition-independent transcription factor in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeNucleic Acids Res 42https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku616
- Monitoring 5’-End Resection at Site-Specific Double-Strand Breaks by Southern Blot AnalysisMethods Mol Biol 2196:245–255https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0868-5_20
- DNA Repair in Space and Time: Safeguarding the Genome with the Cohesin ComplexGenes (Basel) 13https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13020198
- Degradation of a cohesin subunit by the N-end rule pathway is essential for chromosome stabilityNature 410:955–9https://doi.org/10.1038/35073627
- Condensins promote chromosome recoiling during early anaphase to complete sister chromatid separationDev Cell 19:232–44https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2010.07.013
- Eco1-dependent cohesin acetylation during establishment of sister chromatid cohesionScience 321:563–6https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157774
- SMC complexes differentially compact mitotic chromosomes according to genomic contextNat Cell Biol 19:1071–1080https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3594
- Sister chromatid cohesion is required for postreplicative double-strand break repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeCurr Biol 11:991–5https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00271-8
- Postreplicative formation of cohesion is required for repair and induced by a single DNA breakScience 317:242–5https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140649
- Postreplicative Recruitment of Cohesin to Double-Strand Breaks Is Required for DNA RepairMol Cell 16:1003–1015https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2004.11.026
- SMC1: an essential yeast gene encoding a putative head-rod-tail protein is required for nuclear division and defines a new ubiquitous protein familyJ Cell Biol 123:1635–48https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.123.6.1635
- Mechanism and regulation of DNA end resection in eukaryotesCrit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 51:195–212https://doi.org/10.3109/10409238.2016.1172552
- Mechanisms and Regulation of Mitotic Recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeGenetics 198:795–835https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.166140
- Identification of cohesin association sites at centromeres and along chromosome armsCell 98:847–858https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81518-4
- Sister-chromatid separation at anaphase onset is promoted by cleavage of the cohesin subunit Scc1Nature 400:37–42https://doi.org/10.1038/21831
- Cohesion between sister chromatids must be established during DNA replicationCurr Biol 8:1095–101https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(98)70463-4
- DNA Damage Response Pathway Uses Histone Modification to Assemble a Double-Strand Break-Specific Cohesin DomainMol Cell 16:991–1002https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2004.11.027
- A molecular determinant for the establishment of sister chromatid cohesionScience 321:566–9https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157880
- DNA double-strand breaks trigger genome-wide sister-chromatid cohesion through Eco1 (Ctf7)Science 317:245–8https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140637
- Dun1, a Chk2-related kinase, is the central regulator of securin-separase dynamics during DNA damage signalingNucleic Acids Res 48:6092–6107https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa355
- Monitoring Gene Conversion in Budding Yeast by Southern Blot AnalysisMethods Mol Biol 2153:221–238https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0644-5_16
- Pds1p is required for faithful execution of anaphase in the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiaeJ Cell Biol 133:85–97https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.133.1.85
- Break dosage, cell cycle stage and DNA replication influence DNA double strand break responseEMBO J 27:1875–85https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.111
Article and author information
Author information
Version history
- Preprint posted:
- Sent for peer review:
- Reviewed Preprint version 1:
Copyright
© 2024, Ayra-Plasencia et al.
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.
Metrics
- views
- 446
- downloads
- 30
- citations
- 0
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.