Having previously found that yeast replicative DNA polymerases stably incorporate rNMPs into DNA during synthesis
in vitro
2, the goal here was to determine whether rNMPs are incorporated by a DNA polymerase
in vivo, and if so, with what consequences. To address these questions, we identified Pol ε derivatives with robust replicative capacity but altered propensity to incorporate rNMPs into DNA. Given its location, it is no surprise that replacing Met644 with other amino acids alters discrimination against rNTPs. What is novel and important is that the two replacements studied here have opposite effects, with leucine decreasing and glycine increasing rNMP incorporation. This allows two important interpretations regarding whether a DNA polymerase incorporates rNMPs into DNA
in vivo. The first derives from the fact that the greatest abundance of alkali-sensitive sites in genomic DNA occurs in the yeast strain encoding M644G Pol ε and lacking RNase H2, which correlates with the rNMP incorporation data. This strongly implies that M644G Pol ε does incorporate rNMPs into DNA
in vivo. The second interpretation is that even wild type Pol ε incorporates rNMPs into DNA. This is based on the observation that the alkali sensitivity of genomic DNA from the single
rnh201Δ mutant strain encoding wild type Pol ε is greater than the alkali sensitivity of the genomic DNA from the
pol2-M644L rnh201Δ double mutant strain ().
DNA fragments resulting from treatment with alkali span a broad range of lengths between ~500 and 10,000 nucleotides (), being shortest in the
pol2-M644G rnh201Δ double mutant strain. Thus a large number of rNMPs have accumulated in the genome. They appear to have accumulated non-randomly, because (i) the fragment distribution is very broad (), (ii) there is wide site-to-site variation in rNMP incorporation observed
in vitro (), (iii) some genomic DNA from the
pol2-M644G rnh201Δ double mutant strain remains resistant to alkali even though the average product of hydrolysis by alkali is short (), and (iv) Pol ε may primarily replicate the leading strand template
5,6, such that the rNMPs may be primarily incorporated into one DNA strand. In the future, it will be interesting to examine the distribution of rNMPs across the yeast genome in
rnh201Δ strains.
A recent review of eukaryotic RNases H
19 posed two outstanding questions about RNases H - what are their
in vivo substrates and in which processes are they involved? RNase H2 is comprised of a catalytic subunit plus two accessory subunits
24. The gene encoding the second subunit (
RNH202) contains a C-terminal PCNA interacting motif (a PIP box), and this subunit interacts with PCNA
19. The genes encoding all three subunits interact genetically with other yeast genes, including
FEN1 (see
19 and references therein), and two studies
22,25 led to the suggestion that yeast RNase H2 cooperates with FEN1 to remove RNA primers during Okazaki fragment maturation. However, a variety of ribonucleotide-containing substrates can be cleaved by yeast RNase H2 and its human homolog (reviewed in
19), including duplex DNA containing a single rNMP
16–18. This led to a second, non-exclusive hypothesis that RNase H2 cooperates with FEN1 to remove rNMPs from DNA that have been incorporated by DNA polymerases. The rNMP incorporation data () and the alkaline hydrolysis data () strongly support the latter hypothesis, i.e., that one substrate for yeast RNase H2 is a rNMP incorporated into DNA by Pol ε. This repair pathway appears to be efficient because the genomic DNA from the
pol2-M644G rnh201Δ strain is much more sensitive to alkaline hydrolysis than is genomic DNA from the
pol2-M644G strain with intact RNase H2 (). The possible involvement of FEN1 and PCNA suggests that rNMP repair may share common features with long patch BER. There may be additional pathways for rNMP removal, as is the case for many common DNA lesions.
DNA synthesis by M644G Pol ε is slightly inhibited by rGMP in a DNA template () and unrepaired rNMPs are present in the nuclear genome in
pol2-M644G rnh201Δ cells (). Despite these facts, the
pol2-M644G rnh201Δ strain has a normal colony size and growth rate (), indicating that rNMPs incorporated into DNA by M644G Pol ε are tolerated reasonably well. Nonetheless, they are not completely innocuous because the
pol2-M644G rnh201Δ double mutant strain progresses more slowly through S-phase and has elevated dNTP pools, both characteristics of replicative stress
21. A more striking consequence is mutagenesis. Our data in strains with wild type DNA polymerases () are consistent with previous reports
22,23 that
rnh201Δ strains have elevated mutation rates, with the appearance of a four base deletion being especially prevalent. In those reports, the increased mutagenesis was suggested to result from aberrant processing of the 5′ ends of Okazaki fragments. Our data demonstrate a non-exclusive mechanism, i.e., that mutagenesis results from processing of unrepaired rNMPs incorporated by a DNA polymerase. To our knowledge, the mutagenic specificity observed in the
pol2-M644G rnh201Δ strain () is unique among DNA polymerase-dependent mutational spectra. The high mutation rates for 2–5 base pair deletions (Table 2) depend on both M644G Pol ε and on loss of RNase H2. These facts and the observation that the 2–5 base pair deletions are in repetitive sequence motifs (), suggest that following M644G Pol ε incorporation of rNMPs during DNA replication, subsequent processing of unrepaired rNMPs results in DNA strand misalignments containing unpaired nucleotides stabilized by adjacent correct base pairs. Such misalignments could arise in subsequent rounds of replication, or possibly during processing of nicked or gapped intermediates generated when RNase H2 is defective.
Also of interest is the hotspot for G to A transitions at base pair 768 (). Like the 2–5 base pair deletions, these mutations also depend on
pol2-M644G and
rnh201Δ. Base substitutions were not anticipated, at least to the extent that rNMPs retain normal base pairing potential. Surprisingly, among 12 possible base substitutions, only G to A substitutions were enhanced, and only at this one position among many G-C base pairs in the
URA3 coding sequence where G to A substitutions are known to result in resistance to 5-FOA (unpublished database, available upon request). The observation that an unrepaired rNMP in DNA can promote formation of a base-base mismatch may be mechanistically linked to the deletions at imperfect repeat sequences (). For example, formation of a mismatch during rNMP bypass involving an imperfect repeat of the appropriate sequence could allow primer relocation to create a misaligned primer-template in which the terminal base pairs are now matched and contain deoxynucleotides in both strands at the primer terminus, thus facilitating extension. In support of this idea are previous studies with normal templates indicating that misinsertion followed by primer relocation can give rise to single base deletions and larger deletions between direct repeats
26–28.
This study highlights a source of genome instability that has been understudied and warrants further investigation. For example, one wonders if mismatches generated by processing of rNMPs in DNA are subject to mismatch repair (MMR), either by the MutSα pathway (e.g., for G to A at 768) or by the MutSβ pathway (e.g., for 2–5 base pair deletions). Experiments are underway to test this possibility. The fact that unrepaired rNMPs incorporated into DNA by M644G Pol ε are highly mutagenic also provides a highly sensitized genetic background to study alleles of three-subunit RNase H2, such as those lacking the PIP box or that act as surrogates for missense mutations in human RNase H2 subunits associated with Aicardi-Goutières syndrome
29.