Cited by 203DNA Repair MechanismsGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 49 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Activation of DNA Damage Response Signaling by Condensed Chromatin

Open access

Abstract

The DNA damage response (DDR) occurs in the context of chromatin, and architectural features of chromatin have been implicated in DNA damage signaling and repair. Whereas a role of chromatin decondensation in the DDR is well established, we show here that chromatin condensation is integral to DDR signaling. We find that, in response to DNA damage chromatin regions transiently expand before undergoing extensive compaction. Using a protein-chromatin-tethering system to create defined chromatin domains, we show that interference with chromatin condensation results in failure to fully activate DDR. Conversely, forced induction of local chromatin condensation promotes ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM)- and ATR-dependent activation of upstream DDR signaling in a break-independent manner. Whereas persistent chromatin compaction enhanced upstream DDR signaling from irradiation-induced breaks, it reduced recovery and survival after damage. Our results demonstrate that chromatin condensation is sufficient for activation of DDR signaling and is an integral part of physiological DDR signaling.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper reports that chromatin compaction is not merely a consequence of DNA damage but can itself activate upstream DNA damage response signaling. Locally condensed chromatin triggers ATM/ATR-dependent γ-H2AX and 53BP1 recruitment without detectable breaks, while persistent compaction impairs downstream signaling and survival after irradiation.

Key findings

  • After localized laser damage, chromatin first expands, peaking around 1.5 min, then recompacts to baseline by 15 min and hypercondenses by 20–30 min; ASH2 overexpression dampens both the expansion and compaction phases.
  • Tethering HP1α/β/γ or SUV3-9 to LacO arrays induced γ-H2AX in about 75% (HP1) or 63% (SUV3-9) of arrays and 53BP1 in about 65%, compared with 30–35% in controls, with no TUNEL, Southern blot, or LM-PCR evidence of breaks; ATM and ATR were jointly required.
  • Expanded arrays caused by ASH2 tethering reduced detectable γ-H2AX and 53BP1 at I-SceI-induced breaks by about 35% despite roughly 3-fold more DSBs; condensed arrays did not activate downstream CHK2, SMC1, p53, or cell-cycle checkpoints.
  • Mitotic chromosomes showed about 3-fold higher γ-H2AX than interphase without TUNEL-detectable breaks; global SUV3-9 overexpression plus 5 Gy irradiation increased NBS1 phosphorylation more than 2-fold and γ-H2AX but decreased CHK2 phosphorylation about 2-fold and markedly reduced clonogenic survival.

Methods

  • Live-cell imaging in U2OS cells used photoactivatable GFP-H2A and laser microirradiation of a roughly 4.5 µm spot to track chromatin area over time; a LacO/LacR tethering system with about 10 kb arrays at two chromosomal sites created defined expanded or condensed domains, with GR-I-SceI plus dexamethasone for synchronous DSBs.
  • Readouts included immunofluorescence for γ-H2AX, 53BP1, MDC1, NBS1, phospho-ATM, and H3K9me3; ChIP; nuclease accessibility; TUNEL, Southern blot, and LM-PCR for breaks; siRNA knockdown and kinase inhibitors for ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK; cell-cycle arrest; and mitotic or premature chromosome condensation analysis.
  • Global damage and survival experiments used SUV3-9 overexpression plus 5 Gy γ-irradiation, Western analysis of NBS1 and CHK2 phosphorylation, and clonogenic survival assays.

Limitations

  • Stated: the authors note they cannot fully exclude that co-tethering activating factors might enhance clearance of DDR factors, although they consider this unlikely.
  • Evident: most evidence relies on artificial LacO tethering and overexpression in U2OS cells, so physiological relevance and behavior in other cell types are not established here.
  • Evident: condensed chromatin activated only upstream DDR components, not downstream effectors or checkpoints, so the study does not show a complete DDR or repair response from condensation alone; proposed links to TIP60/ATM acetylation are discussed but not directly tested.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.10.060

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 49 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 28 claims

  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 24
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 3
26 of 26
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The absence of detectable DNA breaks by TUNEL, Southern blot, and LM-PCR is sufficient to conclude that the DDR activation by condensed chromatin is break-independent.

    “Several lines of evidence rule out that DDR signaling upon array-localized chromatin condensation is the result of DNA breaks induced by tethering.”
    “which sensitively amplifies DSBs near the lacO integration site”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Overexpression of SUV3-9 globally compacts chromatin.

    “To this end, we globally compacted chromatin by overexpressing the SUV3-9 methyltransferase”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported γ-H2AX intensities reverse the stated comparison

    Major

    The text says the signal was weaker in ASH2-expressing cells, but reports a higher median intensity for those cells (1043) than for controls (855). This reverses the direction of a result used to support reduced DDR signaling.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 87 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 203

Metadata

Authors
Burgess, R. C., Burman, B., Kruhlak, M. J., & Misteli, T.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Misteli, Tom
Venue
Cell Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
1703-1717
ISSN
2211-1247 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031574278
Cited by
198
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 24
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
DNA damage response, chromatin condensation, chromatin structure, ATM, ATR, DNA damage signaling, DNA repair
MeSH terms
Chromatin, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Enzyme Activation, Humans, Protein Kinases, Signal Transduction, Chromatin Assembly and Disassembly, Cell Line, Tumor, Cell Cycle Checkpoints

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review