Telomere capping protects the ends of linear chromosomes from the activation of DDR. However, cell division-induced telomere shortening in human somatic cells is believed to lead to progressive loss of telomere capping, and causes chromosome ends to be recognised as DNA breaks, which consequently activate a DDR and cell cycle arrest
[4]. This telomere dysfunction-induced cell cycle arrest is thought to contribute to the establishment of replicative cellular senescence and the ageing process, and represent an important barrier to tumour formation
[2],
[38],
[39]. Thus it is important to understand the cellular response to telomere uncapping.
Budding yeast temperature sensitive
cdc13-1 mutants have been an informative model to understand the eukaryotic cell response to telomere uncapping. It was shown previously that at low rates
cdc13-1 rad9Δ exo1Δ cells (5×10
−5) or telomerase deficient survivors (8×10
−5 to 4×10
−2) were able to grow without telomere capping by Cdc13, but the nature of any other genetic or other change necessary to permit growth was unclear
[28],
[29]. Here we show that the simultaneous deletion of
SGS1,
EXO1 and
RAD9 is sufficient to make Cdc13 dispensable for cell proliferation, as most
cdc13Δ rad9Δ sgs1Δ exo1Δ cells are viable. This indicates that the essential function of telomere capping in yeast is to counteract the proliferative barrier exerted by specific components of the DDR. Our data suggests that attenuation of resection stimulating activities of Sgs1 and Exo1, together with DNA damage checkpoint inactivation is sufficient to allow yeast cells to grow in the absence of telomere capping by Cdc13. This suggests that in the absence of these proteins, either telomere capping is not required or that an alternative capping strategy can function in the absence of Cdc13. Intriguingly, the telomeres in
cdc13-1 rad9Δ sgs1Δ exo1Δ strains (at 36°C) and
cdc13Δ rad9Δ sgs1Δ exo1Δ strains look different to those in wild-type strains, as the telomeres have very weak terminal restriction fragments. Even though we showed that
cdc13-1 rad9Δ sgs1Δ exo1Δ strains do not require Rad52 to survive telomere uncapping at 36°C, we cannot rule out a role for homologous recombination proteins at telomeres in
cdc13Δ rad9Δ sgs1Δ exo1Δ strains.
Besides capping telomeres, Cdc13 is also required for the recruitment of telomerase
[35], and as expected we found that in the absence of Cdc13, telomeres eventually shorten and are then maintained by the alternative lengthening of telomere (ALT) mechanisms, usually seen in telomerase deficient cells. Our work highlights the plasticity of the telomere cap and shows how modulation of the DDR can provide an important mechanism to overcome the proliferative barrier induced by dysfunctional telomeres. As telomere uncapping-induced cellular senescence represents an important proliferative barrier to prevent cancer formation, the mechanisms described here could be relevant to understanding the malignant transformation of human cells
[2],
[3].
The RecQ helicases, including Sgs1, are a family of highly conserved protein involved in the maintenance of genome stability and suppression of cancer formation in humans
[14]. It is believed that in the absence of RecQ helicases, genome rearrangements that arise at stalled replication forks are a major cause for the increased tumorigenesis
[14]. RecQ helicases also participate in the maintenance of telomeres, for example, deletion of
SGS1 induces rapid senescence in yeast cells lacking telomerase and cells derived from WS patients show premature entry into telomere dysfunction-induced senescence
[15],
[16]. Here we report a similar role for Sgs1 in the protection of uncapped telomeres as deleting
SGS1 makes
cdc13-1 cells more temperature sensitive. However, paradoxically, we also show that Sgs1 plays a role in the resection of uncapped telomeres, an activity that is modulated by the checkpoint protein Rad9. This Sgs1-dependent resection activity leads to a critical role of Sgs1 in the inhibition of cell proliferation when telomeres uncap in the absence of Exo1 and Rad9. It is tempting to speculate that in certain genetic contexts RecQ helicase may also inhibit growth of mammalian cells with telomere capping defects, and a defect in this role could contribute to increased levels of tumorigenesis in BS, WS and RTS patients.
Previous studies have suggested that following telomere uncapping in
cdc13-1 mutants, the telomeres were resected by three somewhat redundant nuclease activities, Exo1, ExoX and ExoY
[25]. ExoX was defined as a Rad9-inhibited nuclease that was strongly dependent on Rad24
[25]. ExoY was a nuclease that acts on uncapped telomeres in the absence of Exo1 and Rad24 (ExoX). In this study, we have identified Sgs1 as a protein that shares similar properties with ExoX, because it is required for the resection of uncapped telomeres in an Exo1-independent pathway and its activity is inhibited by Rad9. Since the helicase Sgs1 acts with a nuclease Dna2 in the resection of DSBs and at shortened telomeres
[20],
[24], we speculate that Sgs1 and Dna2 might work together to regulate resection at uncapped telomeres (may contribute to ExoX). We also found that in the absence of Sgs1 and Exo1, ssDNA still accumulated at
cdc13-1 induced uncapped telomeres, consistent with the existence of another nuclease (possibly ExoY). It is interesting to note that the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 (MRX) complex and the nuclease Sae2 can resect DSBs in an Sgs1 and Exo1-independent pathway
[20],
[22]. Thus a candidate for ExoY is MRX/Sae2. However, we have previously found that the MRX complex plays a capping role at telomeres, rather than contributing to resection
[31]. Similarly, we found that Sae2 also has a protective role at uncapped telomeres. Therefore we believe that like the MRX complex, Sae2 is unlikely to be ExoY. Thus although uncapped telomeres share significant similarities with DSBs, there are also clearly significant differences. Future studies will be required to resolve the roles of the different types of nucleases and nuclease regulators at uncapped telomeres and DSBs.