Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Aug 22;47(14):7163-7181.
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz531.

DNA damage tolerance in stem cells, ageing, mutagenesis, disease and cancer therapy

Affiliations
Review

DNA damage tolerance in stem cells, ageing, mutagenesis, disease and cancer therapy

Bas Pilzecker et al. Nucleic Acids Res. .

Abstract

The DNA damage response network guards the stability of the genome from a plethora of exogenous and endogenous insults. An essential feature of the DNA damage response network is its capacity to tolerate DNA damage and structural impediments during DNA synthesis. This capacity, referred to as DNA damage tolerance (DDT), contributes to replication fork progression and stability in the presence of blocking structures or DNA lesions. Defective DDT can lead to a prolonged fork arrest and eventually cumulate in a fork collapse that involves the formation of DNA double strand breaks. Four principal modes of DDT have been distinguished: translesion synthesis, fork reversal, template switching and repriming. All DDT modes warrant continuation of replication through bypassing the fork stalling impediment or repriming downstream of the impediment in combination with filling of the single-stranded DNA gaps. In this way, DDT prevents secondary DNA damage and critically contributes to genome stability and cellular fitness. DDT plays a key role in mutagenesis, stem cell maintenance, ageing and the prevention of cancer. This review provides an overview of the role of DDT in these aspects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Modes of DNA damage tolerance. Upon stalling of the replication fork, several modes of DDT can be activated. TLS and fork reversal can occur at the stalled fork. Alternatively, TLS or template switching can occur after repriming event. Figure adapted from (23).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Translesion synthesis. TLS pathways are regulated by PCNA K164 ubiquitination or REV1. PCNA Ub can also interact with REV1 directly, as with other TLS polymerases. PAF15 is degraded upon fork stalling, which allows PCNA to interact with TLS polymerases. RPA recruits RAD6/RAD18 ligase that can ubiquitinate PCNA to recruit TLS polymerases. SPRTN binds PCNA Ub preventing PCNA deubiquitylation. After TLS is completed, the TLS polymerase replaced again by the replicative polymerase. In the REV1-dependent pathway, REV1 can recruit other TLS polymerases. Figure adapted from (23).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Homology-directed DNA damage tolerance. Homology-directed DDT involves template switching and fork reversal. In order to prevent use of the fork stalling entity as template, the nascent DNA of the sister chromatid is used. Template switching occurs after a priming event in a post replicative gap. After fork stalling, the replication fork can reverse. Fork reversal leads to a chicken foot intermediate structure, which allows access to the nascent DNA of the sister chromatid.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Regulation of PRIMPOL by RPA. (A) PRIMPOL is inhibited from access to single-stranded DNA by high concentration of RPA on DNA. (B) When the amount of RPA coating single-stranded DNA is low, PRIMPOL can bind single-stranded DNA and form a primer for a replicative polymerase to continue.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Translesion synthesis during interstrand crosslink repair. Interstrand crosslinks can be induced by cisplatin, mitomycin C, psoralen and abasic sites. Cisplatin and mitomycin C are repaired by the Fanconi anemia pathway (A), whereas psoralen and abasic site induced ICL are repaired through NEIL3-dependent pathway (B andC). Figure adapted from (23).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hoeijmakers J.H. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009; 361:1475–1485. - PubMed
    1. Lindahl T., Barnes D.E.. Repair of endogenous DNA damage. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2000; 65:127–133. - PubMed
    1. De Bont R., van Larebeke N.. Endogenous DNA damage in humans: a review of quantitative data. Mutagenesis. 2004; 19:169–185. - PubMed
    1. Ciccia A., Elledge S.J.. The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol. Cell. 2010; 40:179–204. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roberts J.D., Thomas D.C., Kunkel T.A.. Exonucleolytic proofreading of leading and lagging strand DNA replication errors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1991; 88:3465–3469. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types