4.4 Article

The natural absence of RPA1N domain did not impair Leishmania amazonensis RPA-1 participation in DNA damage response and telomere protection

期刊

PARASITOLOGY
卷 140, 期 4, 页码 547-559

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182012002028

关键词

Leishmania amazonensis; DNA double-stranded break; LaRPA-1; RAD51; telomeres

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo, FAPESP [09/53336-0]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa, CNPq [474425/2010-0]
  3. CNPq (Brazil)
  4. FAPESP (Brazil)
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [09/53336-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that the subunit 1 of Leishmania amazonensis RPA (LaRPA-1) alone binds the G-rich telomeric strand and is structurally different from other RPA-1. It is analogous to telomere end-binding proteins described in model eukaryotes whose homologues were not identified in the protozoan's genome. Here we show that LaRPA-1 is involved with damage response and telomere protection although it lacks the RPA1N domain involved with the binding with multiple checkpoint proteins. We induced DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in Leishmania using phleomycin. Damage was confirmed by TUNEL-positive nuclei and triggered a G1/S cell cycle arrest that was accompanied by nuclear accumulation of LaRPA-1 and RAD51 in the S phase of hydroxyurea-synchronized parasites. DSBs also increased the levels of RAD51 in non-synchronized parasites and of LaRPA-1 and RAD51 in the S phase of synchronized cells. More LaRPA-1 appeared immunoprecipitating telomeres in vivo and associated in a complex containing RAD51, although this interaction needs more investigation. RAD51 apparently co-localized with few telomeric clusters but it did not immunoprecipitate telomeric DNA. These findings suggest that LaRPA-1 and RAD51 work together in response to DNA DSBs and at telomeres, upon damage, LaRPA-1 works probably to prevent loss of single-stranded DNA and to assume a capping function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据