Managing DNA polymerases: Coordinating DNA replication, DNA repair, and DNA recombination

Two important and timely questions with respect to DNA replication, DNA recombination, and DNA repair are: (i) what controls which DNA polymerase gains access to a particular primer-terminus, and (ii) what determines whether a DNA polymerase hands off its DNA substrate to either a different DNA polymerase or to a different protein(s) for the completion of the specific biological process? These questions have taken on added importance in light of the fact that the number of known template-dependent DNA polymerases in both eukaryotes and in prokaryotes has grown tremendously in the past two years. Most notably, the current list now includes a completely new family of enzymes that are capable of replicating imperfect DNA templates. This UmuC-DinB-Rad30-Rev1 superfamily of DNA polymerases has members in all three kingdoms of life. Members of this family have recently received a great deal of attention due to the roles they play in translesion DNA synthesis (TLS), the potentially mutagenic replication over DNA lesions that act as potent blocks to continued replication catalyzed by replicative DNA polymerases. Here, we have attempted to summarize our current understanding of the regulation of action of DNA polymerases with respect to their roles in DNA replication, TLS, DNA repair, DNA recombination, and cell cycle progression. In particular, we discuss these issues in the context of the Gram-negative bacterium, Escherichia coli, that contains a DNA polymerase (Pol V) known to participate in most, if not all, of these processes.

Roles of DNA polymerases V and II in SOS-induced error-prone and error-free repair in Escherichia coli

DNA polymerase V, composed of a heterotrimer of the DNA damage-inducible UmuC and UmuD\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} \begin{equation*}{\mathrm{_{2}^{^{\prime}}}}\end{equation*}\end{document} proteins, working in conjunction with RecA, single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)-binding protein (SSB), β sliding clamp, and γ clamp loading complex, are responsible for most SOS lesion-targeted mutations in Escherichia coli, by catalyzing translesion synthesis (TLS). DNA polymerase II, the product of the damage-inducible polB (dinA ) gene plays a pivotal role in replication-restart, a process that bypasses DNA damage in an error-free manner. Replication-restart takes place almost immediately after the DNA is damaged (≈2 min post-UV irradiation), whereas TLS occurs after pol V is induced ≈50 min later. We discuss recent data for pol V-catalyzed TLS and pol II-catalyzed replication-restart. Specific roles during TLS for pol V and each of its accessory factors have been recently determined. Although the precise molecular mechanism of pol II-dependent replication-restart remains to be elucidated, it has recently been shown to operate in conjunction with RecFOR and PriA proteins.

Cellular strategies for accommodating replication-hindering adducts in DNA: control by the SOS response in Escherichia coli.

The replication of double-stranded plasmids containing a single adduct was analyzed in vivo by means of a sequence heterology that marks the two DNA strands. The single adduct was located within the sequence heterology, making it possible to distinguish trans-lesion synthesis (TLS) events from damage avoidance events in which replication did not proceed through the lesion. When the SOS system of the host bacteria is not induced, the C8-guanine adduct formed by the carcinogen N-2-acetylaminofluorene (AAF) yields less than 1% of TLS events, showing that replication does not readily proceed through the lesion. In contrast, the deacetylated adduct N-(deoxyguanosin-8-yl)-2-aminofluorene yields approximately 70% of TLS events under both SOS-induced and uninduced conditions. These results for TLS in vivo are in good agreement with the observation that AAF blocks DNA replication in vitro, whereas aminofluorene does so only weakly. Induction of the SOS response causes an increase in TLS events through the AAF adduct (approximately 13%). The increase in TLS is accompanied by a proportional increase in the frequency of AAF-induced frameshift mutations. However, the polymerase frameshift error rate per TLS event was essentially constant throughout the SOS response. In an SOS-induced delta umuD/C strain, both US events and mutagenesis are totally abolished even though there is no decrease in plasmid survival. Error-free replication evidently proceeds efficiently by means of the damage avoidance pathway. We conclude that SOS mutagenesis results from increased TLS rather than from an increased frameshift error rate of the polymerase.