Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rev7 regulates DSB repair pathway choice through binding and blocking Mre11 nuclease and Rad50 ATPase activities

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The mammalian Shieldin complex consisting of REV7 (aka MAD2L2, MAD2B) and SHLD1-3 affects pathway usage in DSB repair favoring non-homologous endjoining (NHEJ) at the expense of homologous recombination (HR) by blocking resection and/or priming fill-in DNA synthesis to maintain or generate near blunt ends suitable for NHEJ. While the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae does not have homologs to SHLD1-3, it does have Rev7, which was identified to function in conjunction with Rev3 in the translesion DNA polymerase zeta. Testing the hypothesis that Rev7 also affects DSB resection in budding yeast, the work identified a direct interaction between Rev7 and the Rad50-Mre11-Xrs2 complex by two-hybrid and direct protein interaction experiments. Deletion analysis identified that the 42 amino acid C-terminal region was necessary and sufficient for the 2-hybrid interaction. Direct biochemical analysis of the 42 aa peptide was not possible. Rev7 deficient cells were found to be sensitive to HU only in synergy with G2 tetraplex forming DNA. Importantly, the 42 aa peptide alone suppressed this phenotype. Biochemical analysis with full-length Rev7 and a C-terminal truncation lacking the 42 aa region shows G4-specific DNA binding that is abolished in the C-terminal truncation and with a substrate containing mutations to prevent G4 formation. Rev7 lacks nuclease activity but inhibits the dsDNA exonuclease activity of Mre11. The C-terminal truncation protein lacking the 42 aa region also showed some inhibition suggesting the involvement of additional binding sites besides the 42 aa region. Also, the Mre11 ssDNA endonuclease activity is inhibited by Rev7 but not the degradation of linear ssDNA. Rev7 does not affect ATP binding by Rad50 but inhibits in a concentration-dependent manner the Rad50 ATPase activity. The C-terminal truncation protein lacking the 42 aa region also showed some inhibition but significantly less than the full-length protein.

Using an established plasmid-based NHEJ assay, the authors provide strong evidence that Rev7 affects NEHJ, showing a four-fold reduction in this assay. The mutations in the other Pol zeta subunits, Rev3 and Rev1, show a significantly smaller effect (~25% reduction). A strain expressing only the Rev7 C-terminal 42 aa peptide showed no NHEJ defect, while the truncation protein lacking this region exhibited a smaller defect than the deletion of REV7. The conclusion that Rev7 supports NHEJ mainly through the 42 aa region was validated using a chromosomal NHEJ assay. The effect on HR was assessed using a plasmid:chromosome system containing G4 forming DNA. The rev7 deletion strain showed an increase in HR in this system in the presence and absence of HU. Cells expressing the 42 aa peptide were indistinguishable from the wild type as were cells expressing the Rev7 truncation lacking the 42 aa region. The authors conclude that Rev7 suppresses HR, but the context appears to be system-specific and the conclusion that Rev7 abolished HR repair of DSBs is unwarranted and overly broad.

Strength:

This is a well-written manuscript with many well-executed experiments that suggest that Rev7 inhibits MRX-mediated resection to favor NEHJ during DSB repair. This finding is novel and provides insight into the potential mechanism of how the human Shieldin complex might antagonize resection.

Weaknesses:

The nuclease experiments were conducted using manganese as a divalent cation, and it is unclear whether there is an effect with the more physiological magnesium cation. Additional controls for the ATPase and nuclease experiments to eliminate non-specific effects would be helpful. Evidence for an effect on resection in cells is lacking. The major conclusion about the role of Rev7 in regulating the choice between HR and NHEJ is not justified, as only a highly specialized assay is used that does not warrant the broad conclusion drawn. Specifically, the results that the Rev7 C-terminal truncation lacking the 42 aa region still suppresses HR is unexpected and unexplained. The effect of Rev7 on G4 metabolism is underdeveloped and distracts from the main results that Rev7 modulated MRX activity. The authors should consider removing this part and develop a more complete story on this later.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Badugu et al investigate the Rev7 roles in regulating the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 complex and in the metabolism of G4 structures. The authors also try to make a conclusion that REV7 can regulate the DSB repair choice between homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining.

The major observations of this study are:

(1) Rev7 interacts with the individual components of the MRX complex in a two-hybrid assay and in a protein-protein interaction assay (microscale thermophoresisi) in vitro.
(2) Modeling using AlphaFold-Multimier also indicated that Rev7 can interact with Mre11 and Rad50.
(3) Using a two-hybrid assay, a 42 C terminal domain in Rev7 responsible for the interaction with MRX was identified.
(4) Rev7 inhibits Mre11 nuclease and Rad50 ATPase activities in vitro.
(5) Rev 7 promotes NHEJ in plasmid cutting/relegation assay.
(6) Rev7 inhibits recombination between chromosomal ura3-1 allele and plasmid ura3 allele containing G4 structure.
(7) Using an assay developed in V. Zakian's lab, it was found that rev7 mutants grow poorly when both G4 is present in the genome and yeast are treated with HU.
(8) In vitro, purified Rev7 binds to G4-containing substrates.

In general, a lot of experiments have been conducted, but the major conclusion about the role of Rev7 in regulating the choice between HR and NHEJ is not justified.

(1) Two stories that do not overlap (regulation of MRX by Rev7 and Rev7's role in G4 metabolism) are brought under one umbrella in this work. There is no connection unless the authors demonstrate that Rev7 inhibits the cleavage of G4 structures by the MRX complex.

(2) The authors cannot conclude based on the recombination assay between G4-containing 2-micron plasmid and chromosomal ura3-1 that Rev7" completely abolishes DSB-induced HR". First of all, there is no evidence that DSBs are formed at G4. Why is there no induction of recombination when cells are treated with HU? Second, as the authors showed, Rev7 binds to G4, therefore it is not clear if the observed effects are the result of Rev7 interaction with G4 or its impact on HR. The established HO-based assays where the speed of resection can be monitored (e.g., Mimitou and Symington, 2010) have to be used to justify the conclusion that Rev7 inhibits MRX nuclease activity in vivo.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

REV7 facilitates the recruitment of Shieldin complex and thereby inhibits end resection and controls DSB repair choice in metazoan cells. Puzzlingly, Shieldin is absent in many organisms and it is unknown if and how Rev7 regulates DSB repair in these cells. The authors surmised that yeast Rev7 physically interacts with Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 (MRX), the short-range resection nuclease complex, and tested this premise using yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) and microscale thermophoresis (MST). The results convincingly showed that the individual subunits of MRX interact robustly with Rev7. AlphaFold Multimer modelling followed by Y2H confirmed that the carboxy-terminal 42 amino acid is essential for interaction with MR and G4 DNA binding by REV7. The mutant rev7 lacking the binding interface (Rev7-C1) to MR shows moderate inhibition to the nuclease and the ATPase activity of Mre11/Rad50 in biochemical assays. Deletion of REV7 also causes a mild reduction in NHEJ using both plasmid and chromosome-based assays and increases mitotic recombination between chromosomal ura3-01 and the plasmid ura3 allele interrupted by G4. The authors concluded that Rev7 facilitates NHEJ and antagonizes HR even in budding yeast, but it achieves this by blocking Mre11 nuclease and Rad50 ATPase.

Weaknesses:

There are many strengths to the studies and the broad types of well-established assays were used to deduce the conclusion. Nevertheless, I have several concerns about the validity of experimental settings due to the lack of several key controls essential to interpret the experimental results. The manuscript also needs a few additional functional assays to reach the accurate conclusions as proposed.

(1) AlphaFold model predicts that Mre11-Rev7 and Rad50-Rev7 binding interfaces overlap and Rev7 might bind only to Mre11 or Rad50 at a time. Interestingly, however, Rev7 appears dimerized (Figure 1). Since the MR complex also forms with 2M and 2R in the complex, it should still be possible if REV7 can interact with +-*both M and R in the MR complex. The author should perform MST using MR complex instead of individual MR components. The authors should also analyze if Rev7-C1 is indeed deficient in interaction with MR individually and with complex using MST assay.

(2) The nuclease and the ATPase assays require additional controls. Does Rev7 inhibit the other nuclease or ATPase non-specifically? Are these outcomes due to the non-specific or promiscuous activity of Rev7? In Figure 6, the effect of REV7 on the ATP binding of Rad50 could be hard to assess because the maximum Rad50 level (1 uM) was used in the experiments. The author should use the suboptimal level of Rad50 to check if REV7 still does not influence ATP binding by Rad50.

(3) The moderate deficiency in NHEJ using plasmid-based assay in REV7 deleted cells can be attributed to aberrant cell cycle or mating type in rev7 deleted cells. The authors should demonstrate that rev7 deleted cells retain largely normal cell cycle patterns and the mating type phenotypes. The author should also analyze the breakpoints in plasmid-based NHEJ assays in all mutants, especially from rev7 and rev7-C1 cells.

(4) It is puzzling why the authors did not analyze end resection defects in rev7 deleted cells after a DSB. The author should employ the widely used resection assay after a HO break in rev3, rev7, and mre11 rev7 cells as described previously.

(5) Is it possible that Rev7 also contributes to NHEJ as the part of TLS polymerase complex? Although NHEJ largely depends on Pol4, the authors should not rule out that the observed NHEJ defect in rev7 cells is due at least partially to its TLS defect. In fact, both rev3 or rev1 cells are partially defective in NHEJ (Figure 7). Rev7-C1 is less deficient in NHEJ than REV7 deletion. These results predict that rev7-C1 rev3 should be as defective as the rev7 deletion. Additionally, the authors should examine if Rev7-C1 might be deficient in TLS. In this regard, does rev7-C1 reduce TLS and TLS-dependent mutagenesis? Is it dominant? The authors should also check if Rev3 or Rev1 are stable in Rev7 deleted or rev7-C1 cells by immunoblot assays.

(6) Due to the G4 DNA and G4 binding activity of REV7, it is not clear which class of events the authors are measuring in plasmid-chromosome recombination assay in Figure 9. Do they measure G4 instability or the integrity of recombination or both in rev7 deleted cells? Instead, the effect of rev7 deletion or rev7-C1 on recombination should be measured directly by more standard mitotic recombination assays like mating type switch or his3 repeat recombination.