Since its discovery,
RAD59 has been implicated in various types of intrachromosomal mitotic recombination events involving inverted or direct repeats while exhibiting limited effects on heteroallelic recombination (Bai and Symington
1996; Jablonovich et al.
1999; Sugawara et al.
2000; Feng et al.
2007). This implicates Rad59 as a major component of SSA, but dispensable for other types of HR. Our current results confirm these findings, as Rad59 was found to be essential for efficient inter- and intrachromosomal SSA (Figs. , ), but to contribute little to other types of events (Table ; Figs. , ). The relevance of SSA to eukaryotic genome stability is clearly implied when one considers that translocation formation by recombination between repetitive elements is a major consequence of acute radiation exposure, which results in the creation of hundreds of DSBs per genome (Argueso et al.
2008), and that these processes are likely to be recapitulated in higher eukaryotes (Weinstock et al.
2006). Therefore, developing an understanding of the role of Rad59 in yeast SSA may provide greater insight into how genome stability is controlled in higher systems.
This study presents the characterization of four novel alleles of
RAD59, three of which were found to lead to partial defects in translocation formation by SSA. These alleles bear mutations that alter amino acids conserved between Rad59 and Rad52. Information regarding the roles played by these amino acids in the function of Rad52, both in vivo and in vitro, suggests ways in which changing the analogous amino acids affect the function of Rad59. The crystal structure of the first 212 amino acids of human Rad52 reveals a monomer with a putative DNA-binding groove and a protrusion consisting of a β–β–β–α-fold. Following assembly into an undecamer complex, the β–β–β–α structure forms a round “stem” base and the binding groove creates a “domed-cap” with a positively charged channel running along the upper surface to accommodate DNA (Kagawa et al.
2002). All of the
rad59 mutants created in this study fall within the region that creates the β–β–β–α motif, which is the most highly conserved region between Rad59 and both yeast and human Rad52.
Tyr92 of Rad59 lies at the very beginning of the β–β–β–α motif. In
HsRad52, the analogous Tyr81 protrudes from the monomer and fits into a hydrophobic pocket created on the neighboring monomer (Kagawa et al.
2002), indicating that this residue is important for quaternary structure. Therefore, the phenotype of the
rad59-Y92A mutant may be due to a defect in its ability to associate with other Rad59 monomers, Rad52, or perhaps other SSA factors. Experiments performed in vitro with purified
HsRad52 demonstrate that mutation of Tyr81 inhibits oligomerization of the C-terminally truncated (1–212) protein, but not the full-length
HsRad52 (Lloyd et al.
2005). This suggests that Tyr92 of Rad59, which is of similar dimensions as the C-terminally truncated
HsRad52, may play a more important role in protein–protein interactions than in full length yeast and human Rad52, and may explain why we observed a somewhat more severe recombination defect conferred by the
rad59-Y92A allele than that conferred by the analogous yeast
rad52-Y96A allele (Mortensen et al.
2002; Lettier et al.
2006).
Mutation of the Lys166 and Phe180 residues of Rad59 resulted in the largest effects in our analysis, and both of these residues lie in the α-helix of the putative β–β–β–α motif. While the impact of the analogous mutations in the C-terminally truncated
HsRad52 has not been reported, mutation of Lys152, which is also present in this helix, displays a clear defect in DNA binding (Kagawa et al.
2002; Lloyd et al.
2005), indicating that residues within the corresponding Rad59 helix, especially the positively charged Lys166, may be directly involved in physically contacting the DNA. Interestingly, mutation of Lys174 of Rad59 and Lys167 of
ScRad52, which correspond to Lys152 of
HsRad52, have not been observed to result in any effect on recombination (Figs. , ; Mortensen et al.
2002). These results suggest that either this lysine is not involved in DNA binding by the yeast proteins or that DNA binding within this region of the yeast Rad52 and Rad59 proteins is not essential for recombination in vivo. Alternatively, slight variations in the amino acid sequence between Rad52 and Rad59 could result in this residue being on a turn of the α helix that does not allow for interaction. While these data make it difficult to predict which biochemical function of Rad59 may be disrupted by the
rad59-K166A and
rad59-F180A mutations, it is important to note that the analogous mutations in the yeast
RAD52 gene,
rad52-K159A and
rad52-F173A, confer quite significant recombination defects (Mortensen et al.
2002), suggesting that these conserved residues are important for the proper function of both proteins in HR. The relatively minor effects of these mutations on the steady state levels of Rad59 (Fig. ) suggest that their effects on recombination are more likely due to defects in a conserved biochemical function than reduced levels of protein.
The Rad1–Rad10 nuclease is required to remove non-homologous DNA tails from annealed intermediates in the penultimate step of SSA (Fishman-Lobell and Haber
1992). While Rad59 demonstrates the ability to anneal complementary DNA (Petukhova et al.
1999), it has also been suggested that it participates in non-homologous tail removal (Sugawara et al.
2000; Pannunzio et al.
2008; Lyndaker and Alani
2009). Previously, we had shown that simultaneous loss of Rad1 and Rad59 resulted in levels of translocation formation by SSA that could substantially exceed those observed when either one alone was removed, suggesting that both suppress an alternative mechanism for removal of the non-homologous tails (Fig. ; Pannunzio et al.
2008). This was distinct from results measured in
rad52Δ/rad52Δ rad1Δ/rad1Δ double homozygotes, where translocation frequency remained at the level observed in the
rad1Δ/rad1Δ single homozygotes, indicating that suppression of the translocation defect conferred by
rad1Δ was specific to the
rad59Δ allele (Pannunzio et al.
2008). Therefore, by examining the epistasis relationships between the
rad59 missense alleles and
rad1Δ, we were able to further reveal a function of Rad59 that is distinct from that of Rad52.
Intriguingly, the
rad59 missense alleles had reciprocal effects on translocation formation by SSA in the presence and absence of
RAD1, which is revealed most clearly by comparing the effects of the
rad59-Y92A and
rad59-K166A alleles (Figs. , ). When
RAD1 is present, the
rad59-Y92A allele results in a translocation frequency that is substantially higher than the frequency measured when it is absent, while, conversely,
rad59-K166A confers considerably larger decreases in the presence of
RAD1 than when it is absent. The differential ability of these alleles to suppress the defect exhibited in a
rad1Δ/rad1Δ homozygote demonstrates a clear genetic interaction between
RAD1 and
RAD59 and suggests that Rad59 executes a function in support of Rad1–Rad10-mediated cleavage of non-homologous tails, perhaps in facilitating the binding of Msh2–Msh3 (Sugawara et al.
2000; Lyndaker and Alani
2009; Manthey et al.
2009). Examination of the relationship between
msh2Δ and
rad59Δ indicates that they are epistatic to one another, with respect to translocation formation by SSA (Fig. ), which suggests that Msh2–Msh3 and Rad59 work together in this process. Furthermore, our group recently found that the loss of
MSH2 suppresses the effect of losing
RAD1 on translocation formation in much the same way as the loss of
RAD59 (Manthey et al.
2009). This reinforces the notion that Rad59 and Msh2–Msh3 function together in supporting non-homologous tail cleavage by Rad1–Rad10.
With the construction of the rad59 missense alleles described in this manuscript, we have acquired a better set of tools for dissecting how Rad59 supports SSA and determines the fate of broken chromosomes. The fact that the loss of RAD59 only minimally affects the viability of the cells following acute radiation exposure (Fig. ), but clearly changes the pattern of repair following the generation of multiple DSBs (Fig. ) suggests that if a human ortholog can be identified, attenuating its expression in patients undergoing radiation therapy might be of clinical utility. Cell killing, and therefore efficacy of treatment, should be unaffected, but loss of heterozygosity events due to SSA-driven genome rearrangements should be reduced, perhaps minimizing the incidence of secondary cancers.