The studies reported here implicate the
rad12+ gene product as a negative regulator of the S-phase checkpoint acting via the
rad9+ gene. The cloning of the
rad12+ gene revealed that it is a member of a family of genes related to the
recQ gene of
E. coli, which includes the human
BLM and
WRN genes, and the
SGS1 gene of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (
8,
11,
37). Defects in
BLM and
WRN lead to the human diseases Bloom’s syndrome and Werner’s syndrome, respectively.
rad12+ is allelic to the recently reported
rqh1+ gene of
S. pombe (
32). This family of genes is characterized by a central RecQ-like helicase domain and various other regions of structural similarity extending both N and C terminally. However, the role of these genes in normal cell growth is unknown. Mutations in the different genes lead to somewhat different phenotypes. Bloom’s syndrome is characterized by high rates of sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) and an extremely high incidence of cancer with early onset (
12). Werner’s syndrome is a disease of premature aging, with high cancer rates but no increase in SCE (
6,
28). Loss of
SGS1 function in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae suppresses the slow-growth phenotype seen in the topoisomerase mutant
top3, and two-hybrid studies have shown that Sgs1 associates with both Top2p and Top3p (
11,
36). The mutant
rad12-502 allele was first identified as a UV-sensitive mutant, while the allelic
rqh1-h2 (
hus2-22) was identified in a screen for HU sensitivity (
9,
24). In addition, we have demonstrated here that
rad12 mutant cells are sensitive to gamma rays.
rad12+ is the only gene in this family that has been shown conclusively to be required for protection from UV light, γ radiation, or HU. Most recently, two papers have been published which implicate
SGS1 in cell aging (
29,
30). Morphologically, this is manifested as premature disintegration of the nucleolus. This implies that
SGS1 may function in a manner more analogous to
WRN than to
BLM. It will be of great interest to determine whether this is the case for
rad12+.
Our interest in
rad12+ began with a screen of radiation-sensitive mutants of
S. pombe that were defective in UVDE activity. In this screen,
rad12-502 cells had low UVDE activity (
10). We had also observed that UVDE activity is inducible by UV radiation (
7). This was based on measurements of UVDE activity in extracts prepared from wild-type cells which were irradiated with 254-nm light. Interestingly, UVDE activity is also inducible in
rad12-502, with UVDE activity increasing to levels comparable to those seen in induced wild-type extracts (
7). This observation demonstrated that
rad12+ is a positive regulator of basal UVDE activity levels. In contrast,
rad9 mutant cells (either
rad9-192 or
rad9::ura4+) were shown here to have elevated levels of UVDE when assayed in extracts prepared from untreated cells. Furthermore, UVDE activity is not induced to significantly higher levels when
rad9 mutant cells are UV irradiated. This indicates that
rad9+ is a negative regulator of basal UVDE activity levels and that the loss of
rad9+ leads to derepression of UVDE activity. These data led us to speculate that
rad9+ and
rad12+ are members of the same pathway, and the series of studies reported here is consistent with this conclusion.
UV survival data of the rad12-502 rad9::ura4+ double mutant demonstrate that these two genes share a common overlapping, but not identical, pathway (Fig. ). An increased sensitivity to UV light was observed in the double mutant at very low doses (<40 J/m2), indicative of a second function for either Rad9p or Rad12p under these conditions. To determine the order of these genes in the common pathway, we measured UVDE activity in our double mutant rad12-502 rad9::ura4+. Extracts prepared from this double mutant have elevated levels of UVDE, comparable to those of rad9 mutant cells. This result is consistent with rad12+ acting upstream of rad9+. While this is the simplest model to explain the regulation of UVDE by rad9+ and rad12+, it is not the only possible one. We cannot exclude the possibility that rad9+ and rad12+ act in different pathways with respect to UVDE regulation, with rad9+ exerting a stronger effect and rad12+ exerting a weaker effect.
A second, independent experiment supporting the ordering of rad12+ upstream of rad9+ came from studies on cell morphology in rad12 mutants. As seen in Fig. b, cycling rad12-502 cells have a subpopulation (about 20%) which are elongated, a phenotype suggesting that these cells are undergoing a cell cycle delay. There are two explanations for this result. One is that rad12 mutant cells undergo increased spontaneous DNA damage and are G2 delayed in response to the damage. The alternative explanation is that the levels of checkpoint gene products are higher in rad12 mutant cells and that this leads to spontaneous G2 arrest. This phenotype is suppressed in rad12-502 rad9::ura4+ double mutants, demonstrating that this effect is rad9+ dependent. Again, this places rad12+ upstream of rad9+ and leads us to favor the hypothesis that the elongated phenotype of rad12 mutants is due to upregulation of the S-phase checkpoint.
If rad12+ negatively regulates rad9+, then its overproduction in cells should lead to a checkpoint-deficient phenotype. To test this theory, rad12+ was cloned behind the strong adh promoter, creating rad12+ OP. Cells overproducing rad12+ were found to be sensitive to transient exposure to HU treatment (Fig. ), which is consistent with an S-phase checkpoint defect. We went on to carefully study this potential S-phase checkpoint defect in the rad12+ OP strain by FACS and fluorescence microscopy analyses. HU treatment blocks DNA replication in all cells tested, leading to arrest at the S-phase checkpoint. Despite this block in replication, checkpoint-deficient cells continue to divide and cells are seen to have a characteristic cut phenotype, in which their DNA prematurely segregates and nuclei become fragmented. As seen in Fig. b, rad9::ura4+ cells show a typical checkpoint defect following treatment with HU. At 5 h after addition of HU, rad9::ura4+ cells have not arrested cell division, despite the fact that DNA synthesis has halted, as determined by FACS analysis (Fig. a). Very similar defects are seen in the rad12+ OP strain, although the frequency of nuclear fragmentation here is lower than that observed in rad9 null mutants (20% versus >50%). This is not surprising and suggests that rad12+ is not the sole regulator of rad9+.
By contrast, rad12::ura4+ cells demonstrate quite a different checkpoint deficiency. At 5 h post-HU treatment, rad12::ura4+ cells are not dividing but continue to elongate, just as wild-type cells behave. Thus, rad12+ is not required for entry into the S-phase checkpoint. However, when rad12 null cells are now released from the HU block and replication is completed (as assayed by FACS analysis), these cells do not properly segregate their chromosomes, indicating that exiting from S phase is defective (Fig. b).
These results are consistent with the observations of Stewart et al. on
rqh1 mutant cells (
32). They reported that an
rqh1 null mutant had high recombination frequencies and increased chromosome loss, a phenotype similar to the high SCE frequencies seen in human
BLM mutant cells. In addition, they showed that while
rqh1 mutant cells arrested following HU treatment, they were defective in exiting S phase. They speculated that this defect could be attributed to the loss of its function in suppressing recombination. In their model, they envisioned that the loss of
rqh1+ leads to increased recombination and to intermediates that cannot be resolved at mitosis, leading to the cut phenotype seen in HU-treated
rqh1 mutant cells. This could be tied to its potential relationship with topoisomerases as seen in
SGS1 in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (
11,
36). If this is in fact the case, Rad12p would be physically required for completion of S phase. Taken together with the work presented here, which showed that
rad12+ regulates the S-phase checkpoint, this would implicate Rad12p as a protein which couples the physical completion of replication with the regulatory release from the S-phase checkpoint.
There are a number of issues still to be resolved with respect to comparisons between different members of this gene family. First, in
S. pombe, no connection between
rad12+ and any topoisomerase has been established. Further, it has been reported that when the helicase activity of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae SGS1 was specifically altered it did not function like the original
sgs1 mutant in restoring normal growth in
top3 mutant cells or causing slow growth in a
top1 mutant background (
20). This indicates that the helicase activity of Sgs1 is not essential for its interaction with the topoisomerase. Interestingly, we showed here that the
rad12-502 mutant, which is defective in the helicase’s ATP binding domain, is still sensitive to HU, characteristic of the observed defect in existing from the S-phase checkpoint.
The comparisons between
rad12+ and
BLM are also unclear.
rad12 mutants are clearly defective in existing from the S-phase checkpoint. However, it is unclear whether
rad12+ is involved in regulation of the G
2 checkpoint responding to DNA damage. However, this seems likely, since
rad12 mutants are sensitive to UV light and γ radiation. By contrast,
BLM mutant cells are not sensitive to DNA damage, and it is not known whether they are sensitive to inhibition of DNA synthesis. One potential downstream target of
BLM, the human homolog of
rad9+,
HRAD9, complements the HU sensitivity of
S. pombe rad9::ura4 cells efficiently, but the radiation sensitivity is complemented poorly or not at all (
19). This may suggest that
BLM is involved in regulating the S-phase checkpoint pathway only and not the G
2 checkpoint pathway monitoring DNA damage.
One conclusion that can be made from this work is that a helicase is acting in an inhibitory manner toward checkpoint control. If single-stranded DNA intermediates of repair initiate the signal which leads to checkpoint arrest (
21), one would expect helicases to act in general as positive regulators of checkpoint control. The loss of such a helicase might be expected to result in a checkpoint-defective phenotype, which is not the case for
rad12-502 (
1). Our data are more consistent with a model in which the DNA-protein complexes formed during replication or repair initiate the signal that leads to checkpoint arrest.