Mechanism of Stimulation of Human DNA Ligase I by the Rad9-Rad1-Hus1 Checkpoint Complex
Open accessAbstract
Accumulating evidence suggests that the Rad9-Rad1-Hus1 (9-1-1) checkpoint complex, known to be a sensor of DNA damage, is also a component of DNA repair systems. Recent results show that 9-1-1 interacts with several base excision repair proteins. It binds the DNA glycosylase MutY homolog, and stimulates DNA polymerase beta, flap endonuclease 1, and DNA ligase I. 9-1-1 resembles proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), which stimulates some of these same repair enzymes, and is loaded onto DNA in a similar manner. The complex of 9-1-1 with DNA ligase I can be immunoprecipitated from human cells. Moreover, UV irradiation stimulates 9-1-1.ligase I complex formation, suggesting a role for 9-1-1 in DNA repair. Examining the nature of 9-1-1 interaction with DNA ligase I, we show that there is a similar degree of stimulation on ligation substrates with different structures, and that there is specificity for DNA ligase I. 9-1-1 improves the binding of DNA ligase I to nicked double strand DNA. Furthermore, although high concentrations of casein kinase II strongly inhibits DNA ligase I activity, it does not affect the ability of 9-1-1 to stimulate. This suggests that 9-1-1 is also an activator of DNA ligase I during DNA damage. Unlike PCNA, 9-1-1 stimulates DNA ligase I activity to the same extent on both linear and circular substrates, indicating that encirclement is not a requirement for stimulation. These data are consistent with a direct role for 9-1-1 in DNA repair, but possibly employing a different mechanism than PCNA.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The 9-1-1 complex interacts with BER proteins APE1, Pol β, FEN1, DNA ligase I, and DNA glycosylases MutY, NEIL1, and TDG, stimulating their DNA repair activities.
“As a critical component of ATR-Chk1 checkpoint pathway, the 9-1-1 complex interacts with several BER proteins: APE1, Polymerase β (Pol β), FEN1, DNA ligase I, as well as DNA glycosylases MutY, NEIL1, and TDG, thereby stimulating their DNA repair activities [177–185] (Fig. 3).”
From Functional interplay between ATM/ATR-mediated DNA damage response and DNA repair pathways in oxidative stress (2014) · cites this paper as [182]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 49
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Chen, U., Chen, S., Saha, P., and Dutta, A. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
- Helt, C. E., Staversky, R. J., Lee, Y. J., Bambara, R. A., Keng, P. C., and O'Reilly, M. A. (2004) Am. J. Physiol. 286, L506 -L513
- Zou, L., Liu, D., and Elledge, S. J. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 13827-13832
- Bermudez, V. P., Lindsey-Boltz, L. A., Cesare, A. J., Maniwa, Y., Griffith, J. D., Hurwitz, J., and Sancar, A. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 1633-1638
- Wang, W., Brandt, P., Rossi, M. L., Lindsey-Boltz, L., Podust, V., Fanning, E., Sancar, A., and Bambara, R. A. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 16762-16767
- Turchi, J. J., Huang, L., Murante, R. S., Kim, Y., and Bambara, R. A. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 9803-9807
- Lindsey-Boltz, L. A., Bermudez, V. P., Hurwitz, J., and Sancar, A. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 11236 -11241
- Levin, D. S., Bai, W., Yao, N., O'Donnell, M., and Tomkinson, A. E. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 12863-12868
- Authors
- Wang, W., Lindsey-Boltz, L. A., Sancar, A., & Bambara, R. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester Medicine (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bambara, Robert A.
- Venue
- Journal of Biological Chemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 281
- Issue
- 30
- Pages
- 20865-20872
- ISSN
- 0021-9258 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969312957
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Biological Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM 024441, GM322833, R01GM024441)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Diffusion and Search Dynamics
- Keywords
- DNA ligase I, DNA repair, DNA damage response, DNA ligation, PCNA, casein kinase 2, FEN1, DNA glycosylase, UV irradiation
- MeSH terms
- DNA Ligase ATP, Base Sequence, Catalysis, DNA, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Exonucleases, Humans, Molecular Sequence Data, DNA Ligases, Protein Binding, Cell Cycle Proteins, Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen, Schizosaccharomyces pombe Proteins, Immunoprecipitation
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.
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