The maintenance of genomic integrity is crucial to embryonic stem cells (ESC) considering the potential for propagating undesirable mutations to the resulting somatic and germ cell lineages. Indeed, mouse ESC (mESC) exhibit a significantly lower mutation frequency compared to differentiated cells. This could be due to more effective elimination of genetically damaged cells via apoptosis, or especially robust, sequence-conserving DNA damage repair mechanisms such as homologous recombination (HR). We used fluorescence microscopy and 3-dimensional image analysis to compare mESC and differentiated cells, with regard to HR-mediated repair of spontaneous and X-ray-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs). Microscopic analysis of repair foci, flow cytometry, and functional assays of the major DSB repair pathways indicate that HR is greater in mESC compared to fibroblasts. Strikingly, HR appears to be the predominant pathway choice to repair induced or spontaneous DNA damage throughout the ESC cycle in contrast to fibroblasts, where it is restricted to replicated chromatin. This suggests that alternative templates, such as homologous chromosomes, are more frequently used to repair DSB in ESC. Relatively frequent HR utilizing homolog chromosome sequences preserves genome integrity in ESC and has distinctive and important genetic consequences to subsequent somatic and germ cell lineages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SzostakJW, Orr-WeaverTL, RothsteinRJet al.1983. The double-strand-break repair model for recombination. Cell, 33:25–35.
2.
PaquesF, HaberJE. 1999. Multiple pathways of recombination induced by double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 63:349–404.
3.
CervantesRB, StringerJR, ShaoCet al.2002. Embryonic stem cells and somatic cells differ in mutation frequency and type. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 99:3586–3590.
4.
HongY, CervantesRB, TichyEet al.2007. Protecting genomic integrity in somatic cells and embryonic stem cells. Mutat Res, 614:48–55.
5.
ShaoC, DengL, HenegariuOet al.1999. Mitotic recombination produces the majority of recessive fibroblast variants in heterozygous mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 96:9230–9235.
6.
GuptaPK, ShaoC, ZhuYet al.1997. Loss of heterozygosity analysis in a human fibrosarcoma cell line. Cytogenet Cell Genet, 76:214–218.
7.
GuptaPK, SahotaA, BoyadjievSAet al.1997. High frequency in vivo loss of heterozygosity is primarily a consequence of mitotic recombination. Cancer Res, 57:1188–1193.
8.
NickoloffJA. 2002. Recombination: mechanisms and roles in tumorigenesis. Encyclopedia of Cancer, 2ndBertinoJR. Elsevier Science: San Diego, 49–59.
9.
TischfieldJA. 1997. Loss of heterozygosity or: how I learned to stop worrying and love mitotic recombination. Am J Hum Genet, 61:995–999.
OriiKE, LeeY, KondoNet al.2006. Selective utilization of nonhomologous end-joining and homologous recombination DNA repair pathways during nervous system development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 103:10017–10022.
12.
GriffinC, WaardH, DeansBet al.2005. The involvement of key DNA repair pathways in the formation of chromosome rearrangements in embryonic stem cells. DNA Repair (AMST), 4:1019–1027.
13.
KanaarR, HoeijmakersJH, van GentDC. 1998. Molecular mechanisms of DNA double strand break repair. Trends Cell Biol, 8:483–489.
14.
RothkammK, KrugerI, ThompsonLHet al.2003. Pathways of DNA double-strand break repair during the mammalian cell cycle. Mol Cell Biol, 23:5706–5715.
15.
ShrivastavM, De HaroLP, NickoloffJA. 2008. Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Cell Res, 18:134–147.
16.
ShrivastavM, MillerCA, De HaroLPet al.2009. DNA-PKcs and ATM co-regulate DNA double-strand break repair. DNA Repair (AMST), 8:920–929.
17.
MaoZ, BozzellaM, SeluanovAet al.2008. DNA repair by nonhomologous end joining and homologous recombination during cell cycle in human cells. Cell Cycle, 7:2902–2906.
18.
CouedelC, MillsKD, BarchiMet al.2004. Collaboration of homologous recombination and nonhomologous end-joining factors for the survival and integrity of mice and cells. Genes Dev, 18:1293–1304.
19.
AllenC, KurimasaA, BrennemanMAet al.2002. DNA-dependent protein kinase suppresses double-strand break-induced and spontaneous homologous recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 99:3758–3763.
20.
PierceAJ, HuP, HanMet al.2001. Ku DNA end-binding protein modulates homologous repair of double-strand breaks in mammalian cells. Genes Dev, 15:3237–3242.
21.
SymingtonLS. 2002. Role of RAD52 epistasis group genes in homologous recombination and double-strand break repair. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 66:630–670table.
22.
WestSC. 2003. Molecular views of recombination proteins and their control. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 4:435–445.
23.
SungP. 1994. Catalysis of ATP-dependent homologous DNA pairing and strand exchange by yeast RAD51 protein. Science, 265:1241–1243.
24.
Bekker-JensenS, LukasC, KitagawaRet al.2006. Spatial organization of the mammalian genome surveillance machinery in response to DNA strand breaks. J Cell Biol, 173:195–206.
25.
RogakouEP, PilchDR, OrrAHet al.1998. DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139. J Biol Chem, 273:5858–5868.
26.
RaderschallE, GolubEI, HaafT. 1999. Nuclear foci of mammalian recombination proteins are located at single-stranded DNA regions formed after DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 96:1921–1926.
27.
TarsounasM, DaviesD, WestSC. 2003. BRCA2-dependent and independent formation of RAD51 nuclear foci. Oncogene, 22:1115–1123.
28.
MailandN, Bekker-JensenS, FaustrupHet al.2007. RNF8 ubiquitylates histones at DNA double-strand breaks and promotes assembly of repair proteins. Cell, 131:887–900.
29.
LisbyM, RothsteinR. 2009. Choreography of recombination proteins during the DNA damage response. DNA Repair (AMST), 8:1068–1076.
30.
RothsteinR, MichelB, GangloffS. 2000. Replication fork pausing and recombination or “gimme a break.”Genes Dev, 14:1–10.
31.
LundinC, SchultzN, ArnaudeauCet al.2003. RAD51 is involved in repair of damage associated with DNA replication in mammalian cells. J Mol Biol, 328:521–535.
32.
LiuY, StasiakAZ, MassonJYet al.2004. Conformational changes modulate the activity of human RAD51 protein. J Mol Biol, 337:817–827.
33.
KimJS, KrasievaTB, KurumizakaHet al.2005. Independent and sequential recruitment of NHEJ and HR factors to DNA damage sites in mammalian cells. J Cell Biol, 170:341–347.
34.
Frank-VaillantM, MarcandS. 2002. Transient stability of DNA ends allows nonhomologous end joining to precede homologous recombination. Mol Cell, 10:1189–1199.
35.
YingQL, NicholsJ, ChambersIet al.2003. BMP induction of Id proteins suppresses differentiation and sustains embryonic stem cell self-renewal in collaboration with STAT3. Cell, 115:281–292.
36.
ChambersI, SmithA. 2004. Self-renewal of teratocarcinoma and embryonic stem cells. Oncogene, 23:7150–7160.
37.
HongY, StambrookPJ. 2004. Restoration of an absent G1 arrest and protection from apoptosis in embryonic stem cells after ionizing radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 101:14443–14448.
38.
LiangL, MendoncaMS, DengLet al.2007. Reduced apoptosis and increased deletion mutations at Aprt locus in vivo in mice exposed to repeated ionizing radiation. Cancer Res, 67:1910–1917.
39.
RauthS, SongKY, AyaresDet al.1986. Transfection and homologous recombination involving single-stranded DNA substrates in mammalian cells and nuclear extracts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 83:5587–5591.
40.
LiangL, DengL, ChenYet al.2005. Modulation of DNA end joining by nuclear proteins. J Biol Chem, 280:31442–31449.
41.
LiangL, DengL, NguyenSCet al.2008. Human DNA ligases I and III, but not ligase IV, are required for microhomology-mediated end joining of DNA double-strand breaks. Nucleic Acids Res, 36:3297–3310.
42.
BeckerKA, GhulePN, TherrienJAet al.2006. Self-renewal of human embryonic stem cells is supported by a shortened G1 cell cycle phase. J Cell Physiol, 209:883–893.
43.
ChuykinIA, LianguzovaMS, PospelovaTVet al.2008. Activation of DNA damage response signaling in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Cycle, 7:2922–2928.
44.
MalashichevaAB, KislyakovaTV, AksenovNDet al.2000. F9 embryonal carcinoma cells fail to stop at G1/S boundary of the cell cycle after gamma-irradiation due to p21WAF1/CIP1 degradation. Oncogene, 19:3858–3865.
45.
TashiroS, WalterJ, ShinoharaAet al.2000. Rad51 accumulation at sites of DNA damage and in postreplicative chromatin. J Cell Biol, 150:283–291.
46.
GudmundsdottirK, AshworthA. 2006. The roles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and associated proteins in the maintenance of genomic stability. Oncogene, 25:5864–5874.
47.
LieberMR, MaY, PannickeUet al.2003. Mechanism and regulation of human non-homologous DNA end-joining. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 4:712–720.
JeggoPA, LobrichM. 2006. Contribution of DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoint arrest to the maintenance of genomic stability. DNA Repair (AMST), 5:1192–1198.
50.
FilionTM, QiaoM, GhulePNet al.2009. Survival responses of human embryonic stem cells to DNA damage. J Cell Physiol, 220:586–592.
51.
FriedbergEC, MeiraLB. 2006. Database of mouse strains carrying targeted mutations in genes affecting biological responses to DNA damage Version 7. DNA Repair (AMST), 5:189–209.
52.
RaderschallE, GolubEI, HaafT. 1999. Nuclear foci of mammalian recombination proteins are located at single-stranded DNA regions formed after DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 96:1921–1926.
53.
SaretzkiG, WalterT, AtkinsonSet al.2008. Downregulation of multiple stress defense mechanisms during differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells, 26:455–464.
54.
SaretzkiG, ArmstrongL, LeakeAet al.2004. Stress defense in murine embryonic stem cells is superior to that of various differentiated murine cells. Stem Cells, 22:962–971.
55.
TakataM, SasakiMS, SonodaEet al.1998. Homologous recombination and non-homologous end-joining pathways of DNA double-strand break repair have overlapping roles in the maintenance of chromosomal integrity in vertebrate cells. EMBO J, 17:5497–5508.
56.
JohnsonRD, JasinM. 2000. Sister chromatid gene conversion is a prominent double-strand break repair pathway in mammalian cells. EMBO J, 19:3398–3407.
57.
SternC. 1936. Somatic crossing over and segregation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 21:625–730.
58.
BeumerKJ, PimpinelliS, GolicKG. 1998. Induced chromosomal exchange directs the segregation of recombinant chromatids in mitosis of Drosophila. Genetics, 150:173–188.
59.
ArmakolasA, KlarAJ. 2006. Cell type regulates selective segregation of mouse chromosome 7 DNA strands in mitosis. Science, 311:1146–1149.
60.
EspositoMS. 1978. Evidence that spontaneous mitotic recombination occurs at the two-strand stage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 75:4436–4440.
61.
FabreF. 1978. Induced intragenic recombination in yeast can occur during the G1 mitotic phase. Nature, 272:795–798.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
