Strand-resolved mutagenicity of DNA damage and repair.
Journal
Nature
ISSN: 1476-4687
Titre abrégé: Nature
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0410462
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jun 2024
12 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
10
06
2022
accepted:
30
04
2024
medline:
13
6
2024
pubmed:
13
6
2024
entrez:
12
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
DNA base damage is a major source of oncogenic mutations
Identifiants
pubmed: 38867042
doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07490-1
pii: 10.1038/s41586-024-07490-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Investigateurs
Stuart Aitken
(S)
Claudia Arnedo-Pac
(C)
Maëlle Daunesse
(M)
Ruben M Drews
(RM)
Ailith Ewing
(A)
Christine Feig
(C)
Paul Flicek
(P)
Vera B Kaiser
(VB)
Elissavet Kentepozidou
(E)
Erika López-Arribillaga
(E)
Margus Lukk
(M)
Tim F Rayner
(TF)
Inés Sentís
(I)
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Alexandrov, L. B. et al. The repertoire of mutational signatures in human cancer. Nature 578, 94–101 (2020).
pubmed: 32025018
pmcid: 7054213
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-1943-3
Aitken, S. J. et al. Pervasive lesion segregation shapes cancer genome evolution. Nature 583, 265–270 (2020).
pubmed: 32581361
pmcid: 7116693
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2435-1
Burgers, P. M. J., Gordenin, D. & Kunkel, T. A. Who is leading the replication fork, Pol ε or Pol δ? Mol. Cell 61, 492–493 (2016).
pubmed: 26895421
pmcid: 4838066
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.01.017
Baris, Y., Taylor, M. R. G., Aria, V. & Yeeles, J. T. P. Fast and efficient DNA replication with purified human proteins. Nature 606, 204–210 (2022).
Seplyarskiy, V. B. et al. Error-prone bypass of DNA lesions during lagging-strand replication is a common source of germline and cancer mutations. Nat. Genet. 51, 36–41 (2019).
pubmed: 30510240
doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0285-7
Clausen, A. R. et al. Tracking replication enzymology in vivo by genome-wide mapping of ribonucleotide incorporation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 185–191 (2015).
pubmed: 25622295
pmcid: 4351163
doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2957
Reijns, M. A. M. et al. Lagging-strand replication shapes the mutational landscape of the genome. Nature 518, 502–506 (2015).
pubmed: 25624100
pmcid: 4374164
doi: 10.1038/nature14183
Agapov, A., Olina, A. & Kulbachinskiy, A. RNA polymerase pausing, stalling and bypass during transcription of damaged DNA: from molecular basis to functional consequences. Nucleic Acids Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac174 (2022).
Afek, A. et al. DNA mismatches reveal conformational penalties in protein–DNA recognition. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2843-2 (2020).
Pich, O. et al. Somatic and germline mutation periodicity follow the orientation of the DNA minor groove around nucleosomes. Cell 175, 1074–1087.e18 (2018).
pubmed: 30388444
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.004
Mao, P., Smerdon, M. J., Roberts, S. A. & Wyrick, J. J. Asymmetric repair of UV damage in nucleosomes imposes a DNA strand polarity on somatic mutations in skin cancer. Genome Res. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.253146.119 (2019).
Haradhvala, N. J. et al. Mutational strand asymmetries in cancer genomes reveal mechanisms of DNA damage and repair. Cell https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.050 (2016).
Tomkova, M., Tomek, J., Kriaucionis, S. & Schuster-Böckler, B. Mutational signature distribution varies with DNA replication timing and strand asymmetry. Genome Biol. 19, 129 (2018).
pubmed: 30201020
pmcid: 6130095
doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1509-y
Degasperi, A. et al. Substitution mutational signatures in whole-genome-sequenced cancers in the UK population. Science 376, abl9283 (2022).
doi: 10.1126/science.abl9283
Hu, J., Lieb, J. D., Sancar, A. & Adar, S. Cisplatin DNA damage and repair maps of the human genome at single-nucleotide resolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614430113 (2016).
Hu, J., Adebali, O., Adar, S. & Sancar, A. Dynamic maps of UV damage formation and repair for the human genome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6758–6763 (2017).
pubmed: 28607063
pmcid: 5495279
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706522114
Mao, P. et al. Genome-wide maps of alkylation damage, repair, and mutagenesis in yeast reveal mechanisms of mutational heterogeneity. Genome Res. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.225771.117 (2017).
Poetsch, A. R., Boulton, S. J. & Luscombe, N. M. Genomic landscape of oxidative DNA damage and repair reveals regioselective protection from mutagenesis. Genome Biol. 19, 215 (2018).
pubmed: 30526646
pmcid: 6284305
doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1582-2
Hu, J., Adar, S., Selby, C. P., Lieb, J. D. & Sancar, A. Genome-wide analysis of human global and transcription-coupled excision repair of UV damage at single-nucleotide resolution. Genes Dev. 29, 948–960 (2015).
pubmed: 25934506
pmcid: 4421983
doi: 10.1101/gad.261271.115
Yimit, A., Adebali, O., Sancar, A. & Jiang, Y. Differential damage and repair of DNA-adducts induced by anti-cancer drug cisplatin across mouse organs. Nat. Commun. 10, 309 (2019).
pubmed: 30659176
pmcid: 6338751
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08290-2
Verna, L., Whysner, J. & Williams, G. M. N-nitrosodiethylamine mechanistic data and risk assessment: bioactivation, DNA-adduct formation, mutagenicity, and tumor initiation. Pharmacol. Ther. 71, 57–81 (1996).
pubmed: 8910949
doi: 10.1016/0163-7258(96)00062-9
Connor, F. et al. Mutational landscape of a chemically-induced mouse model of liver cancer. J. Hepatol. 69, 840–850 (2018).
pubmed: 29958939
pmcid: 6142872
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.06.009
Singer, B. In vivo formation and persistence of modified nucleosides resulting from alkylating agents. Environ. Health Perspect. 62, 41–48 (1985).
pubmed: 4085444
pmcid: 1568687
doi: 10.1289/ehp.856241
Chen, H.-J. C., Wang, Y.-C. & Lin, W.-P. Analysis of ethylated thymidine adducts in human leukocyte DNA by stable isotope dilution nanoflow liquid chromatography–nanospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 84, 2521–2527 (2012).
pubmed: 22277066
doi: 10.1021/ac203405y
Fu, D., Calvo, J. A. & Samson, L. D. Balancing repair and tolerance of DNA damage caused by alkylating agents. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12, 104–120 (2012).
pubmed: 22237395
pmcid: 3586545
doi: 10.1038/nrc3185
Guilliam, T. A. & Yeeles, J. T. P. Reconstitution of translesion synthesis reveals a mechanism of eukaryotic DNA replication restart. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 27, 450–460 (2020).
pubmed: 32341533
pmcid: 7116498
doi: 10.1038/s41594-020-0418-4
Meneghini, R., Cordeiro-Stone, M. & Schumacher, R. I. Size and frequency of gaps in newly synthesized DNA of xeroderma pigmentosum human cells irradiated with ultraviolet light. Biophys. J. 33, 81–92 (1981).
pubmed: 6268212
pmcid: 1327398
doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(81)84873-4
Hedglin, M. & Benkovic, S. J. Eukaryotic translesion DNA synthesis on the leading and lagging strands: unique detours around the same obstacle. Chem. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00046 (2017).
Chen, Y.-H. et al. Transcription shapes DNA replication initiation and termination in human cells. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 67–77 (2019).
pubmed: 30598550
doi: 10.1038/s41594-018-0171-0
Koyanagi, E. et al. Global landscape of replicative DNA polymerase usage in the human genome. Nat. Commun. 13, 7221 (2022).
Supek, F. & Lehner, B. Differential DNA mismatch repair underlies mutation rate variation across the human genome. Nature 521, 81–84 (2015).
pubmed: 25707793
pmcid: 4425546
doi: 10.1038/nature14173
Sale, J. E. Translesion DNA synthesis and mutagenesis in eukaryotes. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a012708 (2013).
pubmed: 23457261
pmcid: 3578355
doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012708
Powers, K. T. & Washington, M. T. Eukaryotic translesion synthesis: choosing the right tool for the job. DNA Repair 71, 127–134 (2018).
pubmed: 30174299
pmcid: 6340752
doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.08.016
Lou, J. et al. Rad18 mediates specific mutational signatures and shapes the genomic landscape of carcinogen-induced tumors in vivo. NAR Cancer 3, zcaa037 (2021).
pubmed: 33447826
pmcid: 7787264
doi: 10.1093/narcan/zcaa037
Kochenova, O. V., Daee, D. L., Mertz, T. M. & Shcherbakova, P. V. DNA polymerase ζ-dependent lesion bypass in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is accompanied by error-prone copying of long stretches of adjacent DNA. PLoS Genet. 11, e1005110 (2015).
pubmed: 25826305
pmcid: 4380420
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005110
Isogawa, A., Ong, J. L., Potapov, V., Fuchs, R. P. & Fujii, S. Pol V-mediated translesion synthesis elicits localized untargeted mutagenesis during post-replicative gap repair. Cell Rep. 24, 1290–1300 (2018).
pubmed: 30067983
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.06.120
Póti, Á., Szikriszt, B., Gervai, J. Z., Chen, D. & Szüts, D. Characterisation of the spectrum and genetic dependence of collateral mutations induced by translesion DNA synthesis. PLoS Genet. 18, e1010051 (2022).
pubmed: 35130276
pmcid: 8870599
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010051
Kaiser, V. B., Taylor, M. S. & Semple, C. A. Mutational biases drive elevated rates of substitution at regulatory sites across cancer types. PLoS Genet. 12, e1006207 (2016).
pubmed: 27490693
pmcid: 4973979
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006207
Voong, L. N. et al. Insights into nucleosome organization in mouse embryonic stem cells through chemical mapping. Cell 167, 1555–1570.e15 (2016).
pubmed: 27889238
pmcid: 5135608
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.049
Matsumoto, S. et al. DNA damage detection in nucleosomes involves DNA register shifting. Nature 571, 79–84 (2019).
pubmed: 31142837
pmcid: 6611726
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1259-3
Siggers, T. & Gordân, R. Protein–DNA binding: complexities and multi-protein codes. Nucleic Acids Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1112 (2014).
Huang, J. C., Svoboda, D. L., Reardon, J. T. & Sancar, A. Human nucleotide excision nuclease removes thymine dimers from DNA by incising the 22nd phosphodiester bond 5′ and the 6th phosphodiester bond 3′ to the photodimer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89, 3664–3668 (1992).
pubmed: 1314396
pmcid: 48929
doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.8.3664
Hu, J. et al. Genome-wide mapping of nucleotide excision repair with XR-seq. Nat. Protoc. 14, 248–282 (2019).
pubmed: 30552409
pmcid: 6429938
doi: 10.1038/s41596-018-0093-7
Yeeles, J. T. P., Poli, J., Marians, K. J. & Pasero, P. Rescuing stalled or damaged replication forks. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a012815 (2013).
pubmed: 23637285
pmcid: 3632063
doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012815
Gabbai, C. B., Yeeles, J. T. P. & Marians, K. J. Replisome-mediated translesion synthesis and leading strand template lesion skipping are competing bypass mechanisms. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 32811–32823 (2014).
pubmed: 25301949
pmcid: 4239630
doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.613257
Cranford, M. T., Kaszubowski, J. D. & Trakselis, M. A. A hand-off of DNA between archaeal polymerases allows high-fidelity replication to resume at a discrete intermediate three bases past 8-oxoguanine. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 10986–10997 (2020).
pubmed: 32997110
pmcid: 7641752
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa803
Anand, J. et al. Roles of trans-lesion synthesis (TLS) DNA polymerases in tumorigenesis and cancer therapy. NAR Cancer 5, zcad005 (2023).
pubmed: 36755961
pmcid: 9900426
doi: 10.1093/narcan/zcad005
Levine, R. L. et al. Translesion DNA synthesis catalyzed by human Pol η and Pol κ across 1,N6-ethenodeoxyadenosine. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 18717–18721 (2001).
pubmed: 11376002
doi: 10.1074/jbc.M102158200
Tirman, S. et al. Temporally distinct post-replicative repair mechanisms fill PRIMPOL-dependent ssDNA gaps in human cells. Mol. Cell 81, 4026–4040.e8 (2021).
pubmed: 34624216
pmcid: 8555837
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.09.013
MacPherson, M. J. & Sadowski, P. D. The CTCF insulator protein forms an unusual DNA structure. BMC Mol. Biol. 11, 101 (2010).
pubmed: 21176138
pmcid: 3014928
doi: 10.1186/1471-2199-11-101
Pugacheva, E. M. et al. CTCF mediates chromatin looping via N-terminal domain-dependent cohesin retention. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2020–2031 (2020).
pubmed: 31937660
pmcid: 6995019
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1911708117
Carvajal-Garcia, J., Samadpour, A. N., Hernandez Viera, A. J. & Merrikh, H. Oxidative stress drives mutagenesis through transcription-coupled repair in bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2300761120 (2023).
pubmed: 37364106
pmcid: 10318952
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2300761120
Kozmin, S. G. & Jinks-Robertson, S. The mechanism of nucleotide excision repair-mediated UV-induced mutagenesis in nonproliferating cells. Genetics 193, 803–817 (2013).
pubmed: 23307894
pmcid: 3583999
doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.147421
Perera, D. et al. Differential DNA repair underlies mutation hotspots at active promoters in cancer genomes. Nature 532, 259–263 (2016).
pubmed: 27075100
doi: 10.1038/nature17437
Mao, P. et al. ETS transcription factors induce a unique UV damage signature that drives recurrent mutagenesis in melanoma. Nat. Commun. 9, 2626 (2018).
pubmed: 29980679
pmcid: 6035183
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05064-0
Sasaki, S. et al. Chromatin-associated periodicity in genetic variation downstream of transcriptional start sites. Science 323, 401–404 (2009).
pubmed: 19074313
doi: 10.1126/science.1163183
Morganella, S. et al. The topography of mutational processes in breast cancer genomes. Nat. Commun. 7, 11383 (2016).
pubmed: 27136393
pmcid: 5001788
doi: 10.1038/ncomms11383
Lilue, J. et al. Sixteen diverse laboratory mouse reference genomes define strain-specific haplotypes and novel functional loci. Nat. Genet. 50, 1574–1583 (2018).
pubmed: 30275530
pmcid: 6205630
doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0223-8
Howe, K. L. et al. Ensembl 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D884–D891 (2021).
pubmed: 33137190
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa942
Gori, K. & Baez-Ortega, A. sigfit: flexible Bayesian inference of mutational signatures. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/372896 (2020).
Li, H. et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
pubmed: 19505943
pmcid: 2723002
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352
Marchal, C. et al. Genome-wide analysis of replication timing by next-generation sequencing with E/L Repli-seq. Nat. Protoc. 13, 819–839 (2018).
pubmed: 29599440
pmcid: 6044726
doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.148
Darlington, G. J., Bernhard, H. P., Miller, R. A. & Ruddle, F. H. Expression of liver phenotypes in cultured mouse hepatoma cells. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 64, 809–819 (1980).
pubmed: 6102619
Kress, S. et al. p53 Mutations are absent from carcinogen-induced mouse liver tumors but occur in cell lines established from these tumors. Mol. Carcinog. 6, 148–158 (1992).
pubmed: 1382443
doi: 10.1002/mc.2940060210
Tubbs, A. et al. Dual roles of poly(dA:dT) tracts in replication initiation and fork collapse. Cell 174, 1127–1142.e19 (2018).
pubmed: 30078706
pmcid: 6591735
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.011
Otlu, B. et al. Topography of mutational signatures in human cancer. Cell Rep. 42, 112930 (2023).
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).
pubmed: 22388286
pmcid: 3322381
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923
Petryk, N. et al. Replication landscape of the human genome. Nat. Commun. 7, 10208 (2016).
pubmed: 26751768
pmcid: 4729899
doi: 10.1038/ncomms10208
Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. bedtools: A flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).
pubmed: 20110278
pmcid: 2832824
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033
Muggeo, V. M. R. Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stat. Med. 22, 3055–3071 (2003).
pubmed: 12973787
doi: 10.1002/sim.1545
Corces, M. R. et al. An improved ATAC-seq protocol reduces background and enables interrogation of frozen tissues. Nat. Methods 14, 959–962 (2017).
pubmed: 28846090
pmcid: 5623106
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4396
Mölder, F. et al. Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake. F1000Res. 10, 33 (2021).
pubmed: 34035898
pmcid: 8114187
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.29032.2
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200 (2011).
Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).
pubmed: 19451168
pmcid: 2705234
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324
Broad Institute. Picard Tools. Broad Institute GitHub Repository http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard (2019).
Buenrostro, J. D., Giresi, P. G., Zaba, L. C., Chang, H. Y. & Greenleaf, W. J. Transposition of native chromatin for fast and sensitive epigenomic profiling of open chromatin, DNA-binding proteins and nucleosome position. Nat. Methods 10, 1213–1218 (2013).
pubmed: 24097267
pmcid: 3959825
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2688
Zhang, Y. et al. Model-based analysis of ChIP–seq (MACS). Genome Biol. 9, R137 (2008).
pubmed: 18798982
pmcid: 2592715
doi: 10.1186/gb-2008-9-9-r137
Hinrichs, A. S. et al. The UCSC Genome Browser Database: update 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D590–D598 (2006).
pubmed: 16381938
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj144
Schmidt, D. et al. ChIP–seq: using high-throughput sequencing to discover protein–DNA interactions. Methods https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2009.03.001 (2009).
Aitken, S. J. et al. CTCF maintains regulatory homeostasis of cancer pathways. Genome Biol. 19, 106 (2018).
pubmed: 30086769
pmcid: 6081938
doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1484-3
Brown, G. GreyListChIP: grey lists — mask artefact regions based on ChIP inputs. Bioconductor www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/GreyListChIP.html (2021).
Castro-Mondragon, J. A. et al. JASPAR 2022: the 9th release of the open-access database of transcription factor binding profiles. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, D165–D173 (2022).
pubmed: 34850907
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab1113
Grant, C. E., Bailey, T. L. & Noble, W. S. FIMO: scanning for occurrences of a given motif. Bioinformatics 27, 1017–1018 (2011).
pubmed: 21330290
pmcid: 3065696
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr064
Yin, M. et al. Molecular mechanism of directional CTCF recognition of a diverse range of genomic sites. Cell Res. 27, 1365–1377 (2017).
pubmed: 29076501
pmcid: 5674162
doi: 10.1038/cr.2017.131
Hashimoto, H. et al. Structural basis for the versatile and methylation-dependent binding of CTCF to DNA. Mol. Cell 66, 711–720.e3 (2017).
pubmed: 28529057
pmcid: 5542067
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.05.004
The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, version 2.5.2 (Schrödinger, LLC, 2015).
Kayikci, M. et al. Visualization and analysis of non-covalent contacts using the Protein Contacts Atlas. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25, 185–194 (2018).
pubmed: 29335563
pmcid: 5837000
doi: 10.1038/s41594-017-0019-z
Bankhead, P. et al. QuPath: open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 16878 (2017).
pubmed: 29203879
pmcid: 5715110
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17204-5
Schmidt, U., Weigert, M., Broaddus, C. & Myers, G. in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceVol. 11071 (eds Frangi, A. Schnabel, J., Davatzikos, C., Alberola-López, C. & Fichtinger, G.) 256–273 (Springer, Cham, 2018).
Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4724125 (2015).
Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272 (2020).
pubmed: 32015543
pmcid: 7056644
doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
Dowle, M. & Srinivasan, A. data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame’. CRAN https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table (2019).