Homologous recombination and its regulation

doi:10.1093/nar/gks270

Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 July; 40(13): 5795–5818.

Published online 2012 March 30. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks270

PMCID: PMC3401455

Homologous recombination and its regulation

Lumir Krejci,^1,^2,³^* Veronika Altmannova,^1,^2,³ Mario Spirek,¹ and Xiaolan Zhao⁴

¹Department of Biology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, ²National Centre for Biomolecular Research, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, ³International Clinical Research Center, Center for Biomolecular and Cellular Engineering, St. Anne’s University Hospital in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic and ⁴Molecular Biology Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: Phone: +420 549493767; Fax: +420 549491327; Email: lkrejci/at/chemi.muni.cz

Received January 12, 2012; Revised March 7, 2012; Accepted March 8, 2012.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Homologous recombination (HR) is critical both for repairing DNA lesions in mitosis and for chromosomal pairing and exchange during meiosis. However, some forms of HR can also lead to undesirable DNA rearrangements. Multiple regulatory mechanisms have evolved to ensure that HR takes place at the right time, place and manner. Several of these impinge on the control of Rad51 nucleofilaments that play a central role in HR. Some factors promote the formation of these structures while others lead to their disassembly or the use of alternative repair pathways. In this article, we review these mechanisms in both mitotic and meiotic environments and in different eukaryotic taxa, with an emphasis on yeast and mammal systems. Since mutations in several proteins that regulate Rad51 nucleofilaments are associated with cancer and cancer-prone syndromes, we discuss how understanding their functions can lead to the development of better tools for cancer diagnosis and therapy.

INTRODUCTION—RAD51 NUCLEOFILAMENTS AND HOMOLOGOUS RECOMBINATION PATHWAYS

Cells are under constant genotoxic pressure from both endogenous and exogenous sources. It has been estimated that more than tens of thousands of DNA lesions occur in a single human cell every day (1). These lesions need to be repaired to avoid deleterious mutations, blockage of replication and transcription, and chromosomal breakage. The importance of DNA repair to human health is highlighted by the fact that failure to repair damaged DNA increases the likelihood of developing tumours and other diseases. In this review, we focus on homologous recombination (HR), a mechanism that repairs a variety of DNA lesions, including double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs), single-strand DNA gaps and interstrand crosslinks. Among these lesions, DSBs are highly toxic as a single unrepaired DSB can lead to aneuploidy, genetic aberrations or cell death. DSBs can be generated by a number of sources, including treatment with genotoxic chemicals and ionizing radiation, collapsed replication forks, and other endogenous DNA breaks. On the other hand, repair of DSBs is essential for the first meiotic division where it contributes to the formation of chiasmata, required for proper pairing and segregation of homologous chromosomes, and the generation of genetic diversity in most organisms (2).

A central player in HR is the strand-exchange protein, called Rad51 in eukaryotic cells (RecA in Escherichia coli). Rad51 functions in all three phases of HR: presynapsis, synapsis and post-synapsis [Figure 1A, (3)]. In the presynaptic phase, Rad51 is loaded onto single-strand DNA (ssDNA) that either is generated by degrading 5′-strands at DSBs or arises from replication perturbation. The resulting Rad51–ssDNA filament (presynaptic filament) is right-handed and comprises six Rad51 molecules and 18 nucleotides per helical turn. The ssDNA within the filament is stretched as much as half the length of B-form dsDNA (4). The stretching of the filament is essential for fast and efficient homology search (5,6). During synapsis, Rad51 facilitates the formation of a physical connection between the invading DNA substrate and homologous duplex DNA template, leading to the generation of heteroduplex DNA (D-loop). Here, Rad51–dsDNA filaments are formed by accommodating both the invading and donor ssDNA strands within the filament. Finally, during post-synapsis when DNA is synthesized using the invading 3′-end as a primer, Rad51 dissociates from dsDNA to expose the 3′-OH required for DNA synthesis.

Figure 1.

Models for the repair of DNA double-strand breaks. DNA DSBs are resected to generate 3′-protruding ends followed by formation of Rad51 filaments that invade into homologous template to form D-loop structures. (A) After priming DNA synthesis, three (more ...)

At least three different routes can be used once DNA synthesis is initiated (Figure 1B–D). First, as envisioned in the double-strand break repair model (DSBR), the second end of DSB can be engaged to stabilize the D-loop structure (second-end capture), leading to the generation of a double-Holliday Junction (dHJ) [(7), reviewed in Ref. (8); Figure 1B]. A dHJ is then resolved to produce crossover or non-crossover products (Figure 1B) or dissolved to exclusively generate non-crossover products. Second, the invading strand can be displaced from the D-loop and anneals either with its complementary strand as in gap repair or with the complementary strand associating with the other end of the DSB. This represents the synthesis-dependent strand-annealing mode of HR (SDSA) [(9), Figure 1C]. SDSA mechanism is preferred over DSBR during mitosis. During meiosis, crossovers are formed by resolution of dHJs via the DSBR mechanism, while non-crossovers are primarily produced via SDSA mechanism (10,11). In the third mode, the D-loop structure can assemble into a replication fork and copy the entire chromosome arm in a process called break-induced replication (BIR) [(12), Figure 1D]. This mechanism is evoked more often when there is only one DNA end, either due to the loss of the other end or in the process of lengthening telomeres in telomerase-deficient cells.

All the above pathways require Rad51, with the exception of some forms of BIR. However, DSBs can also be sealed by pathways independent of Rad51 (Figure 1E and F). One of these pathways is the single-strand annealing pathway (SSA). In SSA, ssDNA sequences generated during DSB processing contain regions of homology at both sides of DSB and can be annealed and ligated [(13), Figure 1E]. SSA does not require Rad51 but requires other HR proteins that mediate annealing. Another Rad51-independent pathway that operates at DSBs is non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which ligates ends of DSBs with little or no requirement for homology [reviewed in Ref. (8), Figure 1F].

THE MANY FACETS OF HR REGULATION

The presence of multiple Rad51-dependent pathways and other alternative pathways suggests the existence of regulatory mechanisms that determine the choices of pathways and manner of execution. Many important decisions need to be made to control the outcome of repair of different types of lesions. For example, whether both ends of DSBs are used for repair, how DNA synthesis is initiated and terminated, whether SSA and BIR pathways are used only when other repair attempts fail. Considering the central role of Rad51 in HR, it is only logical that much of the regulation impinges on this protein and its regulators. Here, we provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of how this multi-layered regulation affects the formation, maintenance and disassembly of Rad51 nucleofilaments. There are both positive and negative regulators of Rad51 function, some of which play a general role in both mitotic and meiotic cells, whereas others are specific to only one (Table 1). In addition, HR regulation employs protein modifications, such as phosphorylation and SUMOylation, to provide the required flexibility and dynamics.

Table 1.

The effect of post-translational modifications (PTMs) on Rad51 and its regulators

We also envision that coordination and hierarchies exist among the large number of Rad51 regulation modules. In a sense, the system of HR regulation may be considered as a ‘quality control’ scheme in which the optimal output requires specific interplay between all regulatory modules (Figure 2). An understanding of such an ‘HR quality control’ system requires better characterization of each regulation module, their relationships, and dynamics. As many facets of this regulation are best studied in the model organism budding yeast, examples in this system are often used to illustrate the principles of HR regulation. Additional regulation in mammalian cells and occasionally in other organisms is described in the later part of the text, though some are mentioned early on where they can be helpful to illustrate the point. While this review presents HR regulation from a Rad51-centric view, additional information on HR mechanisms can be found in several reviews (3,8,14–16).

Figure 2.

Rad51 filament formation and regulation. RPA can be replaced by Rad51 from ssDNA with the help of recombination mediators, including Rad52 and Rad55/57. These proteins can promote both the formation and stability of Rad51 presynaptic filaments and they (more ...)

COMPETITION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEEN RAD51 AND RPA

One level of HR regulation occurs at the interplay between Rad51 and the ssDNA-binding factor, replication protein A (RPA) complex. RPA has higher affinity for ssDNA than Rad51, and the presence of RPA on ssDNA prevents Rad51 from binding in vitro, suggesting that RPA–ssDNA formation precedes Rad51 presynaptic filament formation (17,18). In line with this, RPA was found to arrive at DSB sites prior to Rad51 based on both cytology data and Chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis (19–22). For recombination to proceed, however, it is critical that RPA is subsequently replaced by Rad51 with the help of other proteins known as mediators (Figure 2). Mutations in RPA can impair HR by slowing this replacement step. For example, the recombination-deficient RPA mutant rfa1-t11 is displaced more slowly from ssDNA by Rad51 than wild-type RPA and consequently inhibits Rad51 protein-mediated DNA strand exchange (23).

On the other hand, RPA also promotes recombination by removing secondary structures formed on ssDNA that could impede Rad51 filament formation (3). In addition, RPA can aid Rad51 by preventing the reversal reaction of Rad51-mediated D-loop formation. This is mediated by the sequestration and scavenging of free ssDNA, thereby preventing DNA from entering the second DNA-binding site of Rad51 (24,25). RPA’s contributions to HR extend beyond its interplay with Rad51. For example, it promotes DSB resection by stimulating the Sgs1 helicase, directing Dna2 nucleolytic activity towards the 5′-terminus and protecting the 3′-end from degradation (26,27). In addition, the amount of RPA–ssDNA is sensed by checkpoint kinases to elicit cell-cycle arrest allowing sufficient time for repair (28–30).

RECOMBINATION MEDIATORS: POSITIVE REGULATORS OF RAD51

The proteins that can overcome the inhibitory effect of RPA on Rad51 nucleofilament formation are referred to as recombination mediators. In yeast, these include at least two types of proteins: Rad52 and the Rad51 paralogues, Rad55 and Rad57 that share the RecA core sequences with Rad51 (Figure 2). Mediators can facilitate Rad51 loading on ssDNA, increase intrinsic stability of Rad51 presynaptic filament and protect Rad51 from removal by factors such as helicases. Their roles in mammals and other eukaryotes will be described later in the text.

Rad52

Rad52 interacts with Rad51 and can also bind RPA once the latter coats ssDNA (31,32). The Rad51–Rad52 interaction is required to recruit and nucleate Rad51 onto RPA-coated DNA (33,34). Only catalytic amounts of Rad52 are needed for presynaptic filament formation (3), suggesting that RPA is not displaced from DNA directly by Rad52, but rather as a consequence of filament extension by the polymerization of nucleated Rad51 molecules (35,36). The mediator function of Rad52 is largely attributable to its C-terminus where the Rad51 and DNA interacting domains are located. However, other Rad52 domains also contribute to recombination (31). The middle part of Rad52 interacts with RPA and is essential for the localization of Rad52 to repair centres (31,37). The N-terminal part of the protein possesses several activities, including oligomerization, DNA binding and annealing, and binding to a homologous protein Rad59 (34,38,39). The DNA annealing function of yeast Rad52 protein can promote second-end DNA capture in the DSBR pathway, as well as in SSA and possibly other forms of HR (40,41). Similar functions were found for mammalian Rad52 (more in a later section) (40,41). The importance of this function is supported by the observation that most defective rad52 mutations are found in the N-terminal part of the protein. For example, rad52-R70A is defective in DNA binding and annealing, but is proficient for mediator functions and does not affect the recruitment of Rad51 and itself to DSBs. Since rad52-R70A cells are γ-radiation sensitive, Rad52’s roles in the steps of HR that do not entail Rad51-loading play important roles in DSB repair (42,43).

The Rad55–Rad57 heterodimer

Like Rad51, the Rad55 and Rad57 heterodimer exhibits ATPase activity and binds ssDNA; but unlike Rad51, it cannot catalyse the strand-exchange reaction (44–46). It is noteworthy that while a Rad57 ATPase-deficient mutant confers little sensitivity to irradiation, the corresponding mutation in Rad55 has a much stronger effect (45), indicating that the two proteins are not equivalent. The Rad55–Rad57 heterodimer directly interacts with Rad51 and can load Rad51 onto RPA-coated ssDNA (Figure 2). It can also form co-filaments with Rad51 and the resulting nucleofilament is more resistant to Srs2 anti-recombinase activity (47). These functions are in line with previous data suggesting a role for this complex in the stabilization or protection of Rad51 nucleofilament that is required for downstream HR steps. For example, Rad51 overexpression, gain-of-function Rad51 mutations, or Srs2 removal can rescue the DSB repair defects and DNA damage sensitivity of rad57Δ or rad55Δ (48–50). However, Rad55 and Rad57 may have other roles besides being Rad51 mediators. For example, spontaneous sister chromatid recombination (SCR) is more defective in rad51Δ rad57Δ double mutant than rad51Δ and this phenotype cannot be suppressed by RAD51 overexpression or deletion of SRS2 (51). This suggests a specialized role for Rad55/Rad57 in SCR that is distinct from its role in modulating Rad51 function.

A LESS UNDERSTOOD POSITIVE REGULATOR OF RAD51—THE SHU COMPLEX

The Shu complex is composed of Shu1, Psy3, Shu2 and Csm2 proteins with Shu1 and Psy3 being Rad51 paralogues. This complex is conserved in Schizosaccharomyces pombe and likely also in humans (52,53). The precise role of the Shu complex is not well understood, but available data indicate that it functions as a positive regulator of Rad51 (Figure 2). Like rad51Δ, mutants of Shu subunits suppress the DNA damage sensitivity and defects in dissolution of recombination structures associated with mutants such as sgs1Δ and top3Δ, suggesting that the complex can facilitate Rad51 function (54,55). However, lack of this complex leads to sensitivity only to replication blocking agents and not DSB-inducing agents, indicating a specialized role in dealing with HR during replication stress, such as the facilitation of Rad51 loading onto DNA containing lesions or a function in ssDNA gap repair (54–58). Another suggestion is that the Shu complex, like Rad55 and Rad57, may promote recombination by inhibiting Srs2 since shu1Δ results in the accumulation of Srs2 foci (59).

MULTIFACETED REGULATORS OF RAD51—THE SNF2/SWI2 FAMILY MEMBERS

Two members of the Snf2/Swi2 family of DNA-dependent ATPases, Rad54 and Rdh54/Tid1, play multiple roles in regulating Rad51. They serve as positive regulators of Rad51 at early stages of recombination by stabilizing presynaptic filaments, stimulating Rad51-mediated strand invasion, and promoting migration of the branch point of D-loops/HJs, though the latter activity has not yet been demonstrated for Rdh54/Tid1 [Figure 2, reviewed in Refs (3,60)]. Furthermore, these activities promote Rad51-mediated homology search within the chromatin context (61–64). However, they both also work as negative regulators of Rad51 at later stages of recombination by preventing non-specific binding of Rad51 to dsDNA or by removing Rad51 from dsDNA to expose a free 3′-OH primer terminus for DNA synthesis (65–68) (Figure 2). Mutants lacking Rad54 or Rdh54 accumulate Rad51 foci, with rad54Δ more defective in the removal of the DNA damage-associated Rad51 foci and rdh54Δ in spontaneous ones (69). The sequential execution of positive and negative regulation by Rad54 or Rdh54 is important for efficient recombination.

More recently, another member of this family, Uls1 in budding yeast and Rfp1/2 in fission yeast, was found to genetically interact with recombination factor such as mediator proteins and Sgs1, and to be required for efficient replication of damaged genomes (70). Since mutants lacking Rad54, Rdh54 and Uls1 exhibit more severe defects in Rad51 foci accumulation, slow growth and chromosome loss than any single mutant, these homologues may partially substitute for each other in removing Rad51–DNA complexes (69). Unlike Rad54 and Rdh54, Uls1 was also proposed to be a SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligase (STUbL) (71). It will be interesting to determine how this and the ATPase functions of Uls1 contribute to HR.

NEGATIVE REGULATORS OF RAD51

There are at least three reasons to remove Rad51 from DNA or block its action. First, recombination can be harmful in certain situations such as stalled replication forks, which may be more safely restored using translesion synthesis. Also, nucleoprotein intermediates generated by the HR machinery can trigger cell-cycle arrest and even cause cell death in certain genetic backgrounds (72–74). This means that recombination events that can interfere with replication progression and DNA repair need to be prevented at an early step, such as presynaptic filament formation. Second, it is important to choose the right forms of HR in different types of cells and at specific times of the cell cycle. For example, SDSA should be preferentially used during mitosis to avoid potentially harmful events such as loss of heterozygosity. To achieve this, Rad51–ssDNA filaments need to be efficiently displaced from D-loops. Third, Rad51 needs to be removed from post-synaptic filaments to allow subsequent DNA synthesis, resolution and chromatin assembly. These three types of regulation at three different stages of HR require several helicases and translocases, each with properties attuned to a special task.

(i) Srs2, an anti-recombinase that disassembles Rad51 presynaptic filaments

The Srs2 protein belongs to the superfamily I of DNA helicases with the strongest homology to the E. coli protein UvrD. Genetic studies suggest that the Srs2 protein can counteract Rad51 function. For example, srs2Δ leads to hyper-recombination and sensitizes other helicase mutations, and these defects are suppressed by removal of recombination proteins or mutation of the active site of Rad51 [reviewed in Ref. (75)]. Direct evidence for an anti-Rad51 function came from biochemical studies showing that catalytic amounts of Srs2 efficiently dismantle Rad51 presynaptic filaments (76,77) (Figure 2). The disassembly of Rad51 presynaptic filaments by Srs2 requires both its translocase activity and interaction with Rad51, and is enhanced in the presence of RPA that prevents re-nucleation of Rad51 (76–80). The protein interaction between Srs2 and Rad51 serves two purposes, one to target Srs2 to Rad51 and the other to trigger ATP hydrolysis within the Rad51 filament, causing a weakening of the Rad51–DNA interaction, thus allowing more efficient clearing of the nucleoprotein filament by Srs2 (81). Importantly and as described above, mediator proteins can suppress the action of Srs2 anti-recombinase indicating that the relative strength of the two types of regulation determines the fate of presynaptic filaments (47,76). Although Srs2 is often referred to as an anti-recombinase due to its ability to disassemble presynaptic filaments it also plays a pro-recombination role to promote SDSA. The mechanisms underlying this latter function are not well understood, though three non-mutually exclusive possibilities can be proposed. Srs2 may remove Rad51 filaments from D-loops, prevent second-end capture, or collaborate with nucleases to cleave DNA tails or other intermediates after annealing.

Although no mammalian homologue of Srs2 has been identified, several helicases appear to have acquired a similar function. For example, RecQ5, BLM and FANCJ were reported to disrupt unstable RAD51–ssDNA filaments (82–84). In addition, the human FBH1 protein, which has both helicase and SCF ubiquitin ligase domains, can carry out a subset of the Srs2 functions in yeast, suggesting that it could represent a functional Srs2 homologue in human cells (85). Functional studies in human and S. pombe are in agreement with this prediction (86,87). Finally, another human protein, PARI, which lacks ATPase activity, can also suppress inappropriate recombination via its interaction with SUMOylated PCNA and Rad51 (88). Notably, both Srs2 and an FBH1-like protein are present in Ustilago maydis and S. pombe, and the fbh1 srs2 double mutant shows more than additive reduction in growth due to unrestrained recombination in S. pombe indicating that overlapping systems could exist in some organisms to keep recombination under control (89,90).

(ii) Translocases that unwind D-loop intermediates

Mph1 and its homologues, Fml proteins in fission yeast and FANCM in humans, are translocases. They share several activities, including disrupting Rad51-coated D-loops and catalyzing branch migration (91–94). Mph1 can also displace the extended primer in D-loop-based DNA synthesis (95) (Figure 2). These functions underlie the role of Mph1, and likely its homologues, in favouring SDSA over DSBR, thereby suppressing crossover in mitotic cells (92). The function of these helicases appears to be regulated by accessory proteins. For example, the histone-fold proteins Mhf1 and Mhf2 appear to cooperate with Mph1 in DNA damage and replication fork repair and are suggested to facilitate Mph1 activity (96).

It is likely that similar mechanisms can be used to disrupt telomere specific D-loops (also called T-loops) to facilitate telomere maintenance (97). Indeed, the human RTEL1 protein was shown to efficiently disassemble D-loops (98). Correspondingly, RTEL1-deficient cells undergo DSBR at telomeres, resulting in telomere loss, chromosomal rearrangements and formation of telomere circles (99).

(iii) Helicases that dissolve dHJs and channel D-loops into SDSA

Sgs1, a RecQ family helicase, forms a complex with Top3 and Rmi1 proteins in yeast (100,101). Sgs1 has five orthologues in humans, including the cancer syndrome-associated proteins BLM, WRN and RTS, with BLM being the functional Sgs1 homolog. Sgs1 and its homologues have several roles in regulating Rad51 nucleofilaments. Since sgs1Δ, like srs2Δ, shows hyper-recombination and Sgs1 overexpression can rescue srs2Δ recombination defects, Sgs1 may directly dismantle presynaptic filaments, an activity that has been observed for BLM (82,102,103). Additional mechanisms include elimination of aberrant invasion events and resolution of recombination intermediates. This is supported by the ability of Sgs1 to prevent the formation of multi-chromatid joint molecules (104,105). In addition, Sgs1–Top3–Rmi1 can dissolve dHJs in a non-crossover configuration; both Sgs1 and BLM promote the formation of hemicatenane structures by branch migrating two HJs between paired duplexes and this is followed by dissolution using topoisomerase III to produce non-crossover products (106,107). Finally, Sgs1 and similar proteins may also prevent the channelling of D-loop intermediates into the crossover-forming DSBR pathway (Figure 1B). For example, genetic studies in Drosophila melanogaster suggest that the BLM orthologue, MUS-309, can free the invading ssDNA tail from D-loops, thereby channelling it into the strand-annealing step of SDSA (108,109). Combination of these functions likely underlies the increased crossover levels in cells lacking Sgs1 (102,110,111). We note that Sgs1 can also indirectly promote Rad51 filament formation by generation of 3′-overhangs during end processing (102,112). For more details about Sgs1 and its homologues, see review by Ashton and Hickson (113).

(iv) Removal of Rad51 from dsDNA

Several studies suggest that removal of Rad51 from dsDNA is required to promote downstream recombination events. This may occur in multiple steps with the initial ejection of Rad51 from the 3′-end of the invading strand to promote extension of the D-loop by DNA repair synthesis (Figure 2). But complete removal of Rad51 from dsDNA may be required for the resolution of recombination intermediates and chromatin assembly. A function in Rad51 removal from dsDNA was first reported for yeast Rad54 protein as described above. Recently, Caenorhabditis elegans proteins ceHELQ-1 and ceRFS-1 were also shown to promote post-synaptic Rad51 filament disassembly from strand invasion intermediates (114). This is in agreement with the persistence of ceRad51 foci at meiotic DSBs in helq-1 and rfs-1 mutants, and the biochemical evidence that these proteins can remove ceRad51 from dsDNA but not ssDNA. The disruption activity of the ceRFS-1 peptide requires ceRad51 ATP hydrolysis, as dsDNA–ceRad51 filaments formed in the presence of nonhydrolysable analog of ATP are resistant to disruption. Since ceRFS-1 is a ceRad51 paralogue, it might integrate into and stabilize the ceRad51 filament on ssDNA, but inhibit ceRad51 binding to dsDNA (114).

REGULATING RAD51 AND ITS REGULATORS BY POST-TRANSLATIONAL MODIFICATIONS

The regulatory mechanisms governing HR involve not only the aforementioned positive and negative regulator proteins, but also an intricate network of post-translational modifications (PTMs) (Table 1). Genetic studies provided the first clues for the important roles of PTMs, particularly phosphorylation and SUMOylation, in HR regulation. For example, lack of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) and the DNA damage checkpoint severely diminishes HR in yeast and higher eukaryotic cells [reviewed in Ref. (72)]. In addition, mutating the SUMOylation or deSUMOylation enzymes in yeast leads to a range of phenotypes indicative of HR defects, such as hypersensitivity to DNA damaging agents and accumulation of recombination intermediates (115–118). Recent advances in this field provide some degree of detailed understanding of how CDK and checkpoint-mediated phosphorylation and SUMOylation affect the functions of Rad51 and its regulators.

Modifications of RPA, Rad51 and Rad55

The large subunit of RPA in both budding yeast and humans is SUMOylated upon genotoxic treatment (119,120). Genetic data in yeast suggest that RPA SUMOylation may disfavour Rad51-independent pathways, such as SSA and BIR. In human cells, DNA damage triggers the dissociation of the RPA subunit, RPA70, from the deSUMOylating enzyme SENP6, resulting in RPA modification by SUMO-2/3. SUMOylated RPA70 facilitates Rad51 foci formation, and promotes HR and DNA damage resistance (120). Depletion of PIAS1 or PIAS4, the human SUMO E3 ligases, impairs human RPA accumulation at damage sites and causes a decrease in HR levels, indicating that SUMOylation is also important for RPA recruitment to DSB sites (121,122).

RPA is phosphorylated both by checkpoint kinases, ATM/Mec1, and by cell-cycle kinases CDKs. Phosphorylation of RPA by these kinases is critical for Rad51 recruitment to DSB sites or for HR during replication stress (30,123). In vitro studies provide some mechanistic understanding of this modification. Phosphorylation of RPA increases the binding affinity of Rad52 for ssDNA, thus promoting the mediator function of Rad52 (124). In line with this idea, Rad52 recruitment is dependent upon RPA during S and G2/M phases, and CDK1 activity (20,125). The role of CDK1 in this case may be both to generate ssDNA by enabling resection and to modify RPA to facilitate Rad52 recruitment (126). Dephosphorylation of RPA is also important, as depletion of PP4C or PP4R2, components of the heterodimeric phosphatase that controls dephosphorylation of RPA, also impairs HR (127).

Rad51 was identified as a SUMO and Ubc9 interactor (128,129). In further support of the connection between Rad51 and SUMOylation is the observation that mislocalization of UBC9 or depletion of SUMO E3 ligase MMS21 disrupts RAD51 trafficking, resulting in marked inhibition of DNA damage-induced RAD51 nuclear foci formation (130). However, it is not clear whether this is mediated by a direct effect on RAD51. Rad51 was shown to be phosphorylated by several kinases (Table 1). Phosphorylation of Tyr-315 by BCR/ABL appears to be essential for enhanced DSB repair and drug resistance, and phosphorylation of Tyr-54 by c-Abl inhibits Rad51 binding to DNA and its ATP-dependent DNA strand-exchange reaction (131,132). Recent work also uncovered the phosphorylation of Ser-192 in a Mec1-dependent manner in response to DNA damage (133). This residue is required for Rad51 ATPase and DNA-binding activity in vitro, suggesting that the modification can affect Rad51 activity (133). Moreover, human RAD51 has been shown to be phosphorylated at Ser-14 by Plk1 in a cell-cycle- and DNA-damage-responsive manner. Ser-14 phosphorylation triggers phosphorylation at Tyr-13 by casein kinase (CK2) leading to direct binding to the MRN component, Nbs1. This process helps RAD51 to be recruited to DNA damage sites, thus allowing accurate HR (134). Phosphorylation also affects the formation of Rad51 nucleofilaments by modifying the mediator Rad55 (135). Rad55 is phosphorylated by DNA damage checkpoint kinases at three residues (serine 2, 8 and 14), and the unphosphorylable mutant displays increased sensitivity to genotoxic stress and replication fork stalling, indicating that this modification promotes Rad51 function (136).

Rad52 and its modifications

Rad52 proteins in fission yeast, budding yeast and human cells are all SUMOylated (137,138). In budding yeast, Rad52 SUMOylation is induced after DSB generation in meiotic cells or genotoxic treatment of S-phase cells (139,140). SUMOylation of Rad52 likely precedes Rad51 filament formation based on the observations that RPA-bound ssDNA enhances Rad52 SUMOylation and that SUMOylation inhibits Rad52 DNA binding and strand-annealing activity (141). Since rad51Δ leads to the accumulation of Rad52 foci, it is likely that Rad52 SUMOylation can be attenuated upon Rad51 filament formation. Studies using mutants affecting the three SUMOylation sites Rad52 (lysines 10, 11 and 220) suggest that the role of Rad52 SUMOylation can be diverse depending on the state of the DNA substrates. First, this modification can shelter Rad52 from proteasome-mediated degradation when recombination intermediates accumulate in sgs1Δ srs2Δ background (138). This was extrapolated to suggest that SUMOylation may serve to protect the active forms of Rad52 from degradation (138). Second, SUMOylation of Rad52 is important for damage-induced interchromosomal recombination and recombination pathway choices, with a bias towards gene conversion and against BIR and SSA (139,141). Furthermore, Rad52 SUMOylation appears to facilitate the exclusion of Rad52 foci from the rDNA locus thereby inhibiting rDNA recombination (142). It will be interesting to determine whether the different effects seen for Rad52 SUMOylation are mediated by the same or different molecular mechanisms.

In contrast to yeast Rad52, SUMOylation does not seem to affect the biochemical activities of human Rad52 nor is it induced by DNA damage. Rather, SUMOylation alters RAD52 subcellular localization (143). In addition to SUMOylation, Rad52 also undergoes phosphorylation. While phosphorylation of yeast Rad52 occurs constitutively, that of RAD52 at tyrosine 104 is mediated by c-ABL and activated upon exposure to various types of DNA damage (144,145). The phosphotyrosine analogue of Y104 of RAD52 enhances ssDNA annealing activity by attenuating dsDNA binding, suggesting that this modification can direct RAD52 to DNA repair intermediates that undergo annealing (146).

Modifications of translocases in HR regulation

The dual functions of Srs2, both as a negative regulator of HR by dismantling presynaptic filaments and as a positive regulator by processing recombination intermediates in favour of the SDSA pathway, suggest that the protein may be regulated by different modifications to serve different functional purposes. Indeed, Srs2 is regulated by both phosphorylation and SUMOylation in response to DNA damage. Cdk1-mediated phosphorylation of Srs2 appears to promote the SDSA pathway (147). A pro-SDSA function may provide an explanation for the requirement of this phosphorylation in HR-dependent recovery after chronic exposure to low doses of UV irradiation (148). Additionally, Srs2 is SUMOylated near the C-terminus of the protein [(147) and our unpublished data], a region that interacts with both SUMO and PCNA and is required to prevent unscheduled recombination events at replication forks (149,150). The function of Srs2 SUMOylation is less clear, but genetic data suggest an important role for this modification. In particular, inhibition of Srs2 phosphorylation results in the accumulation of SUMOylated Srs2. In addition, SUMOylation of Srs2 is responsible for the DSB repair defects associated with non-phosphorylable Srs2, as eliminating its SUMOylation is able to rescue the phenotype of the latter. Understanding how SUMOylation can cause toxicity to cells when Srs2 is not phosphorylated will provide important clues about the function of Srs2 SUMOylation.

Additionally, both Sgs1 and BLM proteins are SUMOylated (115,151). While SUMOylation of yeast Sgs1 appears to specifically promote recombination at telomeres, that of BLM was shown to increase its binding to RAD51 and promote HR at stalled replication forks (152,153). Cells expressing a SUMO-deficient mutant of BLM display defects in RAD51 localization to stalled replication forks and failure to induce sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs), indicating that SUMOylation of BLM controls the recruitment and/or retention of RAD51 at damaged replication forks (153). Additionally, SUMOylation of another RecQ-like helicase, WRN, was suggested to be involved in multiple processes, such as co-localization with RAD51, stabilization of stalled replication forks, and telomere maintenance (154,155). It remains to be determined whether these functions reflect a more fundamental effect of WRN SUMOylation that is manifested in different cell lines or conditions.

The function of Rad54 is also regulated by at least two types of PTMs. Its activity during the G1 phase of the cell cycle in S. pombe seems to be regulated by ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis (156). In meiosis, Rad54 undergoes Mek1-dependent phosphorylation that abrogates its interaction with Rad51, thus preventing inter-sister recombination (157). Recently, the Rad53 kinase was also shown to target Rad54 for phosphorylation at the same site, suggesting that Rad54 may also be under checkpoint control in the mitotic DNA damage response (158).

In summary, available data suggest that PTMs regulate HR at several levels. A better understanding of how these modifications affect HR proteins will require the integration of biochemical examination of the modified forms of the protein and in vivo genetic studies. In addition, it is important to understand the interplay between the different forms of modifications: when they can work in a concerted manner and when they can be antagonistic to each other. A recent work shows that many of the SUMOylation targets are different from the checkpoint substrates, though a number of proteins are subjected to both modifications, indicating both separateness and potential coordination between SUMOylation and checkpoint-mediated phosphorylation (159). Other interconnections between protein modifications likely exist. For example, given the presence of STUbL proteins such as Uls1 and the Slx5/8 complex that have been implicated in HR, it will not be surprising if the interplay between SUMOylation and ubiquitylation also contributes to HR regulation.

FUNCTIONS OF RAD51 AND ITS REGULATORS IN MAMMALIAN CELLS

The function of Rad51 appears to be largely conserved in higher eukaryotic cells, however, its regulators and their functions are more complex (Table 1). Multiple homologues of the yeast proteins have evolved to affect different aspects of DSB repair or in different tissues, or to link repair with other cellular processes such as checkpoint control and apoptosis. In addition, new mediators and regulators have also appeared. Here, we focus on the core proteins that directly interact with Rad51, including ssDNA-binding proteins, mediators and their regulators, and the Rad54 proteins. Detail information on other translocases and helicase homologues in higher eukaryotic cells can be found in several recent reviews (160–165).

RAD51 and ssDNA-binding proteins

Although the biochemical activities of RAD51 mimic those of yeast Rad51 and bacterial RecA, RAD51 in higher eukaryotic cells is essential for cell survival as demonstrated in both mouse and chicken DT40 cells (166–169). The essentiality of RAD51 in these organisms is likely due to the increased burden of repair associated with the higher number of lesions in larger genomes (166). Another intriguing aspect of RAD51 and its paralogues is that they are implicated in the oxidative stress response in mitochondria (170). Further developments on this front will help answer the long-standing question of recombination in mitochondrial genomes.

While RPA is highly conserved between yeast and humans, human cells have two other ssDNA-binding proteins, human SSB1 and SSB2 that bear a greater resemblance to bacterial SSB than RPA. SSB1 deficiency does not affect replication and S-phase progression, but results in checkpoint activation defects, increased IR sensitivity and impaired HR, implying a role in the DSB response (171). Indeed, SSB1 and SSB2 are part of the sensor ssDNA complex that binds to DSB ends and is required for ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) checkpoint signalling and efficient HR repair (172,173). An additional function was assigned to SSB1 in DSB processing, during which it can recruit and stimulate the activity of MRN complex via its interaction with the NBS1 subunit (174,175).

BRCA2—the main mediator

While the requirement for mediators is universally conserved, the specific proteins can vary between organisms. Despite the presence of human RAD52 protein, the central RAD51 mediator function in humans is carried out by another protein, BRCA2. Although BRCA2 has no homology with yeast Rad52, BRCA2 is its functional equivalent since it controls the assembly of human RAD51 into nucleoprotein filaments as demonstrated both in vivo and in vitro (15,176). In particular, the structural characterization of the C-terminal part of BRCA2 and its mediator activity was essential in this regard (177). For example, both BRCA2 and RAD52 specifically interact with the corresponding Rad51 proteins, show preferential binding affinity for ssDNA, have the ability to overcome RPA inhibition, and promote RAD51-mediated strand exchange.

As BRCA2 orthologues in various organisms appear to function as mediators, yeast may be an exception in that it uses Rad52 as the mediator. The BRCA2 orthologues differ greatly in size and domain structures, suggesting evolutionary flexibility and explaining the ability of the ssDNA-binding region from RPA or RAD52 proteins to substitute for the BRCA2 DNA-binding domain (DBD) to efficiently suppress the cellular defects of BRCA2-mutant cells (178). The understanding of the role of BRCA2 in HR benefits greatly from studies of its U. maydis homolog Brh2, which is much smaller than BRCA2 (179,180). The recent breakthrough with the purification of full-length BRCA2 confirmed previous results seen by using truncated proteins, as well as provides new insights into the biochemical functions of BRAC2, such as its possible dimerization, its capacity to bind approximately six RAD51 proteins, and its stimulation of RAD51 activities without direct interaction with RPA (181–183).

Recent studies have also provided more insight into how BRCA2 interacts with and affects RAD51 function. BRCA2 can interact with RAD51 through two types of domains. The first type includes various conserved BRC repeats that exhibit different capacities for RAD51 interaction. One category of BRC domains performs the mediator function by targeting RAD51 to ssDNA to form a nucleoprotein filament, and by stabilizing this nucleofilament in active form via down-regulation of RAD51 ATP hydrolysis. The other category of BRC domains can prevent the nucleation of RAD51 on dsDNA (184–187). Besides BRC domains, BRCA2 also interacts with RAD51 through its C-terminal part that is encoded by exon 27 of the human BRCA2 gene. Unlike BRC domains, this region can interact with RAD51 only in the nucleoprotein filament form in a cell-cycle-dependent fashion (188,189). Two recent studies suggest that this domain stabilizes RAD51 filament or replication forks. In the first study, mutations within the BRCA2 C-terminus that block its interaction with RAD51 was shown to not affect Rad51 foci formation or HR repair, but instead result in rapid foci disassembly and mitotic entry (190). In another case, the C-terminal domain of BRCA2 is essential for fork protection by stabilizing RAD51 filaments and preventing MRE11-mediated degradation (191). Altogether, the multiple RAD51 interaction domains meet the different demands for BRCA2 function as both a mediator and a scaffold protein that links HR with replication and mitosis. It is noteworthy that inside cells, the interaction between BRCA2 and RAD51 is also subject to regulation by localization, as DNA damage can induce a redistribution of soluble nucleoplasmic BRCA2 available for RAD51 binding (192). In addition, it will be interesting to understand whether the BRCA2–RAD51 interaction is critical for the newly described role of BRCA2 in preventing the degradation of newly synthesized DNA when replication is interrupted (191).

DSS1—a binding partner of BRCA2

DSS1 interacts with the C-terminal DBD of BRCA2 (177). In U. maydis, dss1Δ mutants are phenotypically similar to rad51Δ and brh2Δ. DSS1 confers allosteric regulation of the Brh2–DNA interaction and prevents the formation of Brh2 homo-oligomers, thereby maintaining it in an active state (193,194). No such effect was observed for the human protein, but rather the human DSS1 facilitates BRCA2 in RAD51–ssDNA filament formation (168). Strangely, the yeast DSS1 homologue, Sem1, is a subunit of the regulatory component of the proteasome as well as signalosome, which is involved in de-neddylation and activation of some types of ubiquitin E3s. This indicates that the Sem1/DSS1 family proteins are versatile proteins regulating the integrity and function of several protein complexes involved in diverse pathways (195). Depletion of DSS1, like BRCA2 depletion, greatly reduces HR efficiency, and this is not via a ubiquitin–proteasome system, suggesting that DSS1 regulates BRCA2 by means other than regulating protein stability (196).

PALB2 and other BRCA2 regulators

Another important regulator of BRCA2 is PALB2. PALB2 interacts with the N-terminus of BRCA2 and plays several roles in HR by regulating BRCA2 and possibly by directly affecting RAD51 function. Several germline BRCA2 mutations identified in breast cancer patients lead to loss of PALB2 binding and BRCA2 function in HR, suggesting that PALB2 is a key regulator of BRCA2’s biochemical and tumour suppression function (197). In addition, a germline mutation of PALB2 itself was also identified in breast cancer patients (198). The structure of the PALB2 C-terminus in complex with BRCA2-peptide identifies molecular determinants for the protein–protein interaction and helps to explain the effects of cancer-associated truncations of both proteins (199).

PALB2 colocalizes with BRCA2 in nuclear foci and stabilizes BRCA2 by promoting its chromatin association. In addition, PALB2 and its oligomerization promote the delivery and stabilization of RAD51 to the site of DNA damage (197,200). While this effect likely involves its regulation of BRCA2, PALB2 may also directly affect RAD51 function. PALB2 was recently shown to bind DNA, directly associate with RAD51, and promote RAD51-mediated D-loop formation. Additionally, it also binds to and cooperates with RAD51AP1 (described below) to enhance RAD51-mediated recombination activities, suggesting a role after the assembly of presynaptic filaments (201,202). Both PALB2 and BRCA2 influence cell-cycle checkpoints, as depletion of either prematurely abrogates checkpoint signalling and activates the checkpoint-recovery pathway (203). In addition, p53 interacts with multiple regions of BRCA2 and suppresses HR in a transactivation-independent fashion, whereas overexpression of BRCA2 attenuates p53-mediated apoptosis, suggesting that BRCA2 also connects HR with apoptosis (204).

MCPH1 (microcephalin) is another BRCA2-interacting partner that can reduce the levels of both BRCA2 and RAD51 at damage sites and interfere with BRCA2-dependent HR (205). Similar results were observed for the mouse homologue of microcephalin, BRIT1 (206), suggesting that these proteins provide a means to attenuate RAD51 function.

RAD52 with non-conserved functions

While human RAD52 shares structural and some biochemical similarity with yeast Rad52, it has not been shown to possess recombination mediator activity. This could explain both the minor role of RAD52 in vertebrate HR and its replacement by BRCA2 for loading RAD51 on ssDNA (207). Despite its high homology with yeast Rad52, human RAD52 is functionally more similar to the yeast Rad59 protein, which acts with Rad52 and has both a minor role in Rad51-dependent recombination and a critical role in SSA between direct repeats. Like Rad59, human RAD52 lacks the C-terminal part of the yeast Rad52 that contains Rad51- and RPA-interaction domains, as well as the region responsible for mediator activity (31). Similarly, RAD52 also possesses strand-annealing activity and acts in parallel to BRCA2, and its inactivation is lethal in BRCA2 deficient cells (208–210). However, RAD52 may be able to compensate for BRCA2 under certain circumstances as observed in U. maydis (211). RAD52 also has a function in the late stages of DSB repair at stalled or collapsed replication forks that does not appear to be shared by BRCA2 (212). These observations argue that RAD52 has a unique role in catalyzing ssDNA annealing in homology-directed DNA repair. These activities may be toxic in certain genetic backgrounds since RAD52 deletion can partially rescue T cell development and reduce T-cell lymphomas in ATM-deficient mice (213).

Rad51 paralogues and other Rad51 binding factors

The RAD51 paralogues, including RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, XRCC2 and XRCC3, share 20–30% sequence identity with RAD51. Several lines of evidence suggest that they function as mediators or promote and/or stabilize RAD51 nucleofilaments. For example, depletion of these proteins blocks IR-induced RAD51 foci formation, and the defects in each of these RAD51 paralogues are partially suppressed by overproduction of RAD51 in chicken DT40 cell lines (214–216). Two complexes can be formed by RAD51 paralogues, including the RAD51B–RAD51C–RAD51D–XRCC2 complex and the RAD51C–XRCC3 complex (217). The first complex has the highest affinity for branched DNA substrates, which is consistent with a function in formation or stabilization of RAD51 filaments during repair of damaged replication forks (218–221). In addition, this complex can stimulate homologous DNA pairing, likely due to the ability of RAD51C to promote the melting of dsDNA. The second complex likely plays a role in the later steps of recombination, as suggested by the association of RAD51C–XRCC3 complex with HJ resolution activity in human cell extracts and that RAD51C-deficient cells show phenotype associated with defects in HJ resolution activity (222,223). The RAD51 paralogues may function in parallel with BRCA2 in RAD51 loading, as RAD51C foci are not affected in BRCA2-deficient cell lines (218). While mutations in any of these paralogues in chicken or hamster cells lead to increased sensitivity to DNA damaging agents (224), disruption of RAD51B, RAD51D and XRCC2 in mice leads to embryonic lethality, indicating an increased dependency of these proteins in larger genomes (225–227). Further elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of how RAD51 paralogues function in different steps of HR will illuminate the complex regulation of RAD51.

RAD51AP1

Additional factors are also involved in regulating RAD51. Most noticeably, RAD51AP1 (Rad51-associated protein 1) represents a vertebrate-specific protein that interacts with human RAD51 (228). It enhances RAD51 recombination activity by stabilizing D-loops formed by RAD51, but plays little or no role in the assembly of DNA damage-induced RAD51 foci (229,230). This suggests that the function of RAD51AP1 is limited to the DNA strand invasion step of HR. Meiosis-specific roles of RAD51AP1 are described below.

Human Snf2/Swi2 members involved in HR

Human cells possess two Rad54 homologues, RAD54 and RAD54B, which share similar biochemical activities (231). However, in contrast to the situation in yeast, knockouts of either RAD54 or RAD54B show modest to no HR defects in vertebrates, though the RAD54 RAD54B double knockout displays stronger defects (232). One possible explanation for the different effects of lack of Rad54 in yeast and vertebrates is that yet other members of the Snf2/Swi2 family in the latter case may be able to carry out similar functions, though these factors are yet to be identified.

MEIOSIS-SPECIFIC REGULATION OF RECOMBINATION NUCLEOFILAMENTS

Recombination in meiosis shares similarities with mitotic recombination, but also exhibits many unique features. Unlike mitotic recombination, meiotic recombination is genetically programmed with DNA breaks being endogenously induced by Spo11 (233). The repair of Spo11-generated breaks is essential for homolog pairing in some organisms and for the generation of genetic diversity. Recombination also mediates crossing-over between homologues leading to the formation of chiasmata, which are required for proper segregation of homologous chromosomes at meiosis I. In addition, the process of HR in meiosis needs to be tightly integrated with other DNA–protein structures uniquely required for meiosis such as the synaptonemal complex. Finally, to allow homologous chromosomal pairing and the generation of genetic diversity, the DSBR mode of recombination is more favoured in meiosis than in mitosis by several mechanisms. These specific requirements during meiosis are fulfilled by both having a specialized strand-exchange protein and several meiosis-specific regulators.

Meiosis-specific strand-exchange proteins

Most eukaryotes contain a meiosis-specific Rad51 paralogue, Dmc1. Unlike rad51Δ, which leads to severe defects in both mitotic and meiotic recombination, dmc1Δ is deficient only in meiotic recombination (8,233,234). The essential role of Dmc1 in this process is demonstrated by the spore inviability, absence of recombination intermediates and dramatic reduction of crossover products in dmc1 mutants (235–237). A conserved role of Dmc1 is seen in mouse cells, as lack of mouse Dmc1 results in the same phenotype as that of yeast dmc1 mutants (238,239). However, several organisms such as D. melanogaster, C. elegans and Neurospora crassa lack the Dmc1 protein suggesting the use of alternative mechanisms (233).

There are several similarities and differences between Rad51 and Dmc1. In the absence of DNA, both exist as rings consisting of several protomers. In the presence of DNA, DMC1 forms a helical filament as well as stacked rings (240–243). However, only the filament similar to that formed by Rad51 shows the ability to catalyse DNA pairing and strand exchange (242,244). Several articles have described the differences in the properties of Dmc1 and Rad51. For example, Rad51 and Dmc1 proteins localize differently on meiotic chromosome (245,246). In addition, D-loops formed by DMC1 are more resistant to dissociation by branch-migration proteins such as RAD54 than the ones formed by RAD51 (247). It needs to be noted that interpretations of these observations should consider the different methodologies as well as conditions employed (243,248).

The interplay between Rad51 and Dmc1 is not yet fully understood, and several non-exclusive models have been put forward. The cooperative model suggests the formation of co-filaments composed of both proteins, whereas other models prefer the formation of asymmetric filaments or the assembly of different types of nucleofilaments leading to different HR subpathways (249). However, it does not seem that Rad51 and Dmc1 can form different filament structures with intrinsically distinct biochemical activities. This means that the different effects of the two proteins have to be also influenced by the distinct sets of specific accessory proteins that can differently interact with these proteins.

The Mei5–Sae3 complex—a meiosis-specific mediator only in budding yeast

Mei5 and Sae3 likely represent a meiosis-specific recombination mediator required for Dmc1 recruitment and loading, with no effect on Rad51 filament formation in budding yeast (250). As a typical recombination mediator, the Mei5–Sae3 heterodimer interacts with Dmc1, RPA, and both ssDNA and dsDNA, and is able to overcome the inhibitory effect of RPA on the Dmc1-mediated strand-exchange reaction (251,252). In addition, similar to other recombination mediators, such as Rad55/Rad57, mutations in the SAE3 gene result in hyper-resection of DSBs (253). Sae3–Mei5 localization is dependent on Dmc1, suggesting interdependency. This is reminiscent of the relationship between the Rad55–Rad57 complex and Rad51 (20,49,254). The roles of these proteins appear to be conserved, but may exhibit some variation regarding whether they facilitate Rad51 and/or Dmc1.

The Mei5–Sae3 complex also has roles in mitosis in other organisms. The fission yeast homologues (Swi5–Sfr1) function in both mitotic and meiotic cells, and exhibit mediator activity in both Dmc1- and Rad51-mediated strand-exchange reactions (255–258). Recently, the human and mouse homologues of the Swi5–Mei5 complex have been identified and were shown to interact with Rad51. Accordingly, their depletion leads to defects in Rad51 foci formation and increased sensitivity to DNA damaging agents (259,260). It appears that this complex functions in both mitosis and meiosis, and the budding yeast situation is the exception.

The Hop2–Mnd1 complex and its multiple roles in promoting meiotic recombination

The Hop2–Mnd1 complex is another meiosis-specific factor identified in all organisms expressing Dmc1. The absence of both proteins results in non-homologous synapses and persistence of meiotic DSBs (261). This complex likely performs two functions. First, it can stabilize Rad51- and Dmc1-presynaptic filaments (262,263). However this activity is different from a recombination mediator role, as both Rad51 and Dmc1 foci form normally in mnd1 and hop2 mutants, and unlike mediators, Mnd1 is not recruited to DSB sites (261,264,265). Second, the Hop2–Mnd1 complex facilitates strand invasion and stimulates D-loop formation by promoting the capture of dsDNA by Dmc1 or Rad51 nucleoprotein filaments (262,263). This function is suggested by the observation that mnd1 mutants exhibit normal initiation of recombination but fail to form heteroduplex DNA or dHJs (266). A likely mechanism for this function is the reversible dsDNA condensation that allows efficient capture of homologous dsDNA (265,267). This represents a mechanism distinct from Rad54 stimulated synapsis, where dsDNA capture follows ATP hydrolysis-coupled dsDNA translocation (268). Further work is needed to understand how the various biochemical functions of Hop2–Mnd1 contribute to meiotic recombination.

Rad54 and Rdh54/Tid1 and their different roles in meiosis

Rad54 and Rdh54/Tid1 are also important for recombination during meiosis. Their double mutant almost eliminates meiotic HR, whereas each single mutant results in partial defects in both sporulation and spore viability (269,270). Rdh54 seems to be more critical during meiosis than mitosis, likely due to its role in promoting Dmc1-mediated interhomologue recombination (269–271). Indeed, Dmc1 interacts with Rdh54/Tid1, but not Rad54, although Rad51 interacts with both (271–273). In addition, Rdh54 prevents the accumulation of Dmc1 on chromatin in the absence of DSBs in an ATPase-dependent manner, suggesting that Rdh54 can dissociate dead end Dmc1 complexes (274). These activities have also been demonstrated biochemically as purified SpRdh54 can both stimulate the Dmc1 reaction and remove Dmc1 from dsDNA in an ATP-dependent manner (275).

In contrast to the active role of Rdh54/Tid1 in regulating Dmc1, Rad54 fails to disassociate Dmc1-mediated D-loops (247). This may provide a better opportunity for second-end capture of Dmc1 D-loops and promote DSBR. In addition, Rad54 is regulated by Mek1-mediated phosphorylation that inhibits the Rad51–Rad54 interaction, providing another means to favour Dmc1-mediated recombination (157). However, Rad54 does contribute to meiotic progression, likely by promoting sister chromatid or interhomologue recombination (276).

Hed1—a meiotic Rad51 inhibitor

Hed1 mediates another mechanism in favour of Dmc1-mediated recombination in meiosis in budding yeast. Hed1 interacts with Rad51 in yeast two-hybrid assays and colocalizes with Rad51 at meiotic DSBs in a Rad51-dependent manner (277). Hed1 does not affect Rad51 presynaptic filament formation; rather, it interferes with the Rad51–Rad54 interaction thereby restricting Rad54 recruitment to site-specific DSBs (278). In agreement with this, overexpression of both Rad51 and Rad54 in dmc1 cells can suppress Hed1-mediated inhibition of Rad51 function (279,280). As there are no apparent Hed1 homologues in other higher eukaryotic cells, how Rad51 is inhibited in these systems remains to be elucidated.

Other meiotic recombination factors

Two mammalian Rad51-interacting proteins, RAD51AP1 and RAD51AP2, also regulate meiotic HR. hDmc1-mediated D-loop formation is enhanced by RAD51AP1 and the functional synergy of the two proteins requires their physical interaction (281). RAD51AP2 is a meiosis-specific Rad51-interacting protein as suggested by yeast two-hybrid results, but the possible regulatory role of this protein remains unclear (282).

Besides a critical role in mitotic recombination, BRCA2 is also implicated in meiosis and binds both Rad51 and Dmc1 in A. thaliana and humans (283,284). Distinct binding domains could allow coordinated interactions of the two strand-exchange proteins with BRCA2 during meiosis. Genetic data from several organisms also support a role for BRCA2 in meiosis. First, silencing of plant BRCA2 results in meiotic defects and sterility, which could also be related to its role in oocyte nuclear architecture and gametogenesis (285,286). Second, deletion of Drosophila BRCA2 leads to recombination defects and checkpoint activation during meiosis (287). Finally, BRCA2-deficient zebrafish and mice cell lines reveal a role for BRCA2 in ovarian development and in tumourigenesis of reproductive tissues and impairment of mammalian gametogenesis, respectively (288,289). Similarly, Brh2 and Dss1 proteins, together with Rad51, are required during meiotic HR in U. maydis (180).

RECOMBINATION DEFECTS IN HUMAN DISEASES

Given the important roles of RAD51 and its regulators in repairing DNA lesions and preventing inappropriate recombination, it is not surprising that mutations of these proteins can lead to predisposition to a variety of cancers (Table 2) (290,291). Among the RAD51 regulators, heterozygous mutations in BRCA2 increase susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers (292). While heterozygous mutations in several HR genes involved in Rad51 filament assembly, including BRCA2, PALB2 and RAD51C increase the risk of breast, pancreatic and ovarian cancer, homozygous mutations cause Fanconi anaemia (FA), a cancer predisposition syndrome characterized by a defect in the repair of DNA interstrand crosslinks (197,198,293–297). Mutations of other RAD51 regulators were also found in cancer cells. For example, translocation of RAD51B was found in uterine leiomyoma and several mutations of RAD54B that reduce or eliminate its activity in vitro have been found in primary colon carcinomas and lymphomas (298–300). Inappropriate HR during meiosis due to mutation of RAD51 regulators, results in abnormal numbers of homologous chromosomes, developmental abnormalities, and/or embryonic death (288,301). In addition, mutations in BLM and WRN helicases are associated with cancer-predispose syndromes, genomic instability and premature aging (160,163).

Table 2.

List of diseases linked to or associated with either recombination mediators or their interacting partners, synthetic lethality interactions are also shown (216,290,291)

Although mutations in RAD51 have not been linked to any disease, many cancer cell lines show elevated levels of the protein. It has been proposed that high levels of RAD51 may lead to uncontrolled HR and destabilization of the genome in the early events in carcinogenesis (302). Another view is that higher levels of RAD51 help to maintain the genome during tumourigenesis when it experiences some levels of instability (224). Accordingly, it was shown that p53 plays an important role in suppressing RAD51 expression and activity [for review see Ref. (303)]. In addition, constitutive activation of c-ABL due to the BCR–ABL fusion, a key event in the pathogenesis of chronic myeloid leukaemia and other myelo-proliferative diseases, results in higher expression and phosphorylation of RAD51, promoting unfaithful HR events and contributing to secondary aberrations or drug resistance (131). Another example is c-ABL activation that enhances nuclear localization of RAD52 (304), accompanied by upregulation of SSA (305). This suggests that the BCR/ABL kinase may shift the balance from error-free to mutagenic recombination. Finally, a mutation in the other strand-exchange protein, DMC1, has been associated with infertility (306).

DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPEUTIC STRATEGIES

Due to the important roles of HR proteins in tumour progression and their involvement in the resistance to some therapeutic agents, they represent potential targets for diagnosis and therapy. One main concept in devising these strategies is that HR-deficient tumours are more sensitive to killing by DNA damaging agents or by chemicals that inhibit other repair pathways or checkpoint mechanisms (208,307,308). For example, tumour cells that are mutated for the FA repair pathway show hypersensitivity to inhibitors of the main checkpoint kinase CHK1 (309). Another example is the selective killing of RAD54B-deficient colorectal cancers by down-regulation of FEN1, a nuclease involved in replication and excision repair (310). A third promising strategy uses PARP inhibitors. PARP is an enzyme involved in the repair of SSBs, and its inhibition leads to the persistence of DNA lesions normally repaired by homologous recombination. As a result, inhibition of PARP in HR-deficient cells confers strong lethality. Since PARP inhibition selectively targets HR-defective cells, they have shown good effects in cancers associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (307,311).

Diagnosis tools can also be generated based on the interplay between PARP and HR proteins. Since PARP inhibitors can result in RAD51 foci formation only in HR-proficient cells, a diagnostic tool using these inhibitors has been developed in primary cell cultures to identify HR-deficient tumours (312). Similarly, since PARP is hyperactivated in HR-defective cells including RAD54, RAD52, BLM, WRN and XRCC3 (313), a strategy can be devised which uses this feature as predictive biomarkers for PARP inhibition.

More complex therapy strategies that use multiple agents to impair HR and other repair pathways have shown some promise. For example, preclinical and preliminary clinical evidence suggest a potentially broad scope for PARP inhibitors in combination with DNA-damaging agents [for review see Refs (314,315)]. In addition, in vitro studies on BRCA2-deficient cells showed synergistic effects for combinations of olaparib with alkylating agents (316). However, as the DNA-damaging agents used to target rapidly dividing cancer cells also affect other proliferating cells, the therapeutic window of the drug cocktail needs to be regulated to minimize toxicity to healthy cells. In addition, BRCA2-deficient cells were shown to gain resistance to PARP inhibitors due to acquired mutations in BRCA2 that restore its activity (317,318). These observations have implications for understanding drug resistance in BRCA mutation carriers (317). The recently observed synthetic lethality of RAD52 and BRCA2 deficient cells could provide a treatment strategy not only in BRCA2-defective tumours, but also in BRCA2 revertants that become treatment resistant (208,317,318). It is clear that further research in this area will contribute to a better understanding of the processes underlying the maintenance of genomic integrity in eukaryotes, with implications for design of innovative treatment strategies.

FUNDING

Funding for open access charge: The Wellcome International Senior Research Fellowship [WT076476]; the Ministry of Education Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic [ME 10048, Mendel Centre for Education in Biology, Biomedicine and Bioinformatics – CZ.1.07/2.3.00/09.0186, MSMT0021622413, LC06030]; Czech Science Foundation [GACR 301/09/1917, GACR 203/09/H046 and GACR P207/12/2323], European Regional Development Fund – (Project FNUSA-ICRC) [No. CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0123]; National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) [GM080670]; and RSG-12-013-01-CCG American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grant (to X.Z.).

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Lorraine Symington, Scott Keeney, Hannah Klein, Michael Lisby, Marek Sebesta, Prabha Sarangi and Katerina Krejci for valuable comments, suggestions and critical reading of the article. We apologize to colleagues whose work was not cited because of space limitations. X.Z. acknowledges grant GM080670 from NIGMS and RSG-12-013-01-CCG American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grant.

REFERENCES

1. Jackson SP, Bartek J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature. 2009;461:1071–1078. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

2. Paques F, Haber JE. Multiple pathways of recombination induced by double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1999;63:349–404. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

3. Sung P, Krejci L, Van Komen S, Sehorn MG. Rad51 recombinase and recombination mediators. J. Biol. Chem. 2003;278:42729–42732. [PubMed]

4. Ogawa T, Yu X, Shinohara A, Egelman EH. Similarity of the yeast RAD51 filament to the bacterial RecA filament. Science. 1993;259:1896–1899. [PubMed]

5. Chen Z, Yang H, Pavletich NP. Mechanism of homologous recombination from the RecA-ssDNA/dsDNA structures. Nature. 2008;453:489–484. [PubMed]

6. Klapstein K, Chou T, Bruinsma R. Physics of RecA-mediated homologous recognition. Biophys. J. 2004;87:1466–1477. [PubMed]

7. Szostak JW, Orr-Weaver TL, Rothstein RJ, Stahl FW. The double-strand-break repair model for recombination. Cell. 1983;33:25–35. [PubMed]

8. Krogh BO, Symington LS. Recombination proteins in yeast. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2004;38:233–271. [PubMed]

9. Nassif N, Penney J, Pal S, Engels WR, Gloor GB. Efficient copying of nonhomologous sequences from ectopic sites via P-element-induced gap repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1994;14:1613–1625. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

10. Allers T, Lichten M. Differential timing and control of noncrossover and crossover recombination during meiosis. Cell. 2001;106:47–57. [PubMed]

11. Hunter N, Kleckner N. The single-end invasion: an asymmetric intermediate at the double-strand break to double-holliday junction transition of meiotic recombination. Cell. 2001;106:59–70. [PubMed]

12. Malkova A, Ivanov EL, Haber JE. Double-strand break repair in the absence of RAD51 in yeast: a possible role for break-induced DNA replication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1996;93:7131–7136. [PubMed]

13. Lin FL, Sperle K, Sternberg N. Model for homologous recombination during transfer of DNA into mouse L cells: role for DNA ends in the recombination process. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1984;4:1020–1034. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

14. Heyer WD, Ehmsen KT, Liu J. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2010;44:113–139. [PubMed]

15. San Filippo J, Sung P, Klein H. Mechanism of eukaryotic homologous recombination. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2008;77:229–257. [PubMed]

16. Sung P, Klein H. Mechanism of homologous recombination: mediators and helicases take on regulatory functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006;7:739–750. [PubMed]

17. Sugiyama T, Zaitseva EM, Kowalczykowski SC. A single-stranded DNA-binding protein is needed for efficient presynaptic complex formation by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad51 protein. J. Biol. Chem. 1997;272:7940–7945. [PubMed]

18. Sung P. Function of yeast Rad52 protein as a mediator between replication protein A and the Rad51 recombinase. J. Biol. Chem. 1997;272:28194–28197. [PubMed]

19. Gasior SL, Wong AK, Kora Y, Shinohara A, Bishop DK. Rad52 associates with RPA and functions with rad55 and rad57 to assemble meiotic recombination complexes. Genes Dev. 1998;12:2208–2221. [PubMed]

20. Lisby M, Barlow JH, Burgess RC, Rothstein R. Choreography of the DNA damage response: spatiotemporal relationships among checkpoint and repair proteins. Cell. 2004;118:699–713. [PubMed]

21. Sugawara N, Wang X, Haber JE. In vivo roles of Rad52, Rad54, and Rad55 proteins in Rad51-mediated recombination. Mol. Cell. 2003;12:209–219. [PubMed]

22. Wolner B, van Komen S, Sung P, Peterson CL. Recruitment of the recombinational repair machinery to a DNA double-strand break in yeast. Mol. Cell. 2003;12:221–232. [PubMed]

23. Kantake N, Sugiyama T, Kolodner RD, Kowalczykowski SC. The recombination-deficient mutant RPA (rfa1-t11) is displaced slowly from single-stranded DNA by Rad51 protein. J. Biol. Chem. 2003;278:23410–23417. [PubMed]

24. Eggler AL, Inman RB, Cox MM. The Rad51-dependent pairing of long DNA substrates is stabilized by replication protein A. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:39280–39288. [PubMed]

25. Van Komen S, Petukhova G, Sigurdsson S, Sung P. Functional cross-talk among Rad51, Rad54, and replication protein A in heteroduplex DNA joint formation. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:43578–43587. [PubMed]

26. Cejka P, Cannavo E, Polaczek P, Masuda-Sasa T, Pokharel S, Campbell JL, Kowalczykowski SC. DNA end resection by Dna2-Sgs1-RPA and its stimulation by Top3-Rmi1 and Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2. Nature. 2010;467:112–116. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

27. Niu H, Chung WH, Zhu Z, Kwon Y, Zhao W, Chi P, Prakash R, Seong C, Liu D, Lu L, et al. Mechanism of the ATP-dependent DNA end-resection machinery from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature. 2010;467:108–111. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

28. Ball HL, Ehrhardt MR, Mordes DA, Glick GG, Chazin WJ, Cortez D. Function of a conserved checkpoint recruitment domain in ATRIP proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007;27:3367–3377. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

29. Choi JH, Lindsey-Boltz LA, Kemp M, Mason AC, Wold MS, Sancar A. Reconstitution of RPA-covered single-stranded DNA-activated ATR-Chk1 signaling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:13660–13665. [PubMed]

30. Zou L, Elledge SJ. Sensing DNA damage through ATRIP recognition of RPA-ssDNA complexes. Science. 2003;300:1542–1548. [PubMed]

31. Seong C, Sehorn MG, Plate I, Shi I, Song B, Chi P, Mortensen U, Sung P, Krejci L. Molecular anatomy of the recombination mediator function of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad52. J. Biol. Chem. 2008;283:12166–12174. [PubMed]

32. Shinohara A, Ogawa H, Ogawa T. Rad51 protein involved in repair and recombination in S. cerevisiae is a RecA-like protein. Cell. 1992;69:457–470. [PubMed]

33. Krejci L, Song B, Bussen W, Rothstein R, Mortensen UH, Sung P. Interaction with Rad51 is indispensable for recombination mediator function of Rad52. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:40132–40141. [PubMed]

34. Shinohara A, Ogawa T. Stimulation by Rad52 of yeast Rad51-mediated recombination. Nature. 1998;391:404–407. [PubMed]

35. Song B, Sung P. Functional interactions among yeast Rad51 recombinase, Rad52 mediator, and replication protein A in DNA strand exchange. J. Biol. Chem. 2000;275:15895–15904. [PubMed]

36. Sugiyama T, New JH, Kowalczykowski SC. DNA annealing by RAD52 protein is stimulated by specific interaction with the complex of replication protein A and single-stranded DNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1998;95:6049–6054. [PubMed]

37. Plate I, Hallwyl SC, Shi I, Krejci L, Müller C, Albertsen L, Sung P, Mortensen UH. Interaction with RPA is necessary for Rad52 repair center formation and for its mediator activity. J. Biol. Chem. 2008;283:29077–29085. [PubMed]

38. Davis AP, Symington LS. The yeast recombinational repair protein Rad59 interacts with Rad52 and stimulates single-strand annealing. Genetics. 2001;159:515–525. [PubMed]

39. Mortensen UH, Bendixen C, Sunjevaric I, Rothstein R. DNA strand annealing is promoted by the yeast Rad52 protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1996;93:10729–10734. [PubMed]

40. McIlwraith MJ, West SC. DNA repair synthesis facilitates RAD52-mediated second-end capture during DSB repair. Mol. Cell. 2008;29:510–516. [PubMed]

41. Nimonkar AV, Sica RA, Kowalczykowski SC. Rad52 promotes second-end DNA capture in double-stranded break repair to form complement-stabilized joint molecules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2009;106:3077–3082. [PubMed]

42. Mortensen UH, Erdeniz N, Feng Q, Rothstein R. A molecular genetic dissection of the evolutionarily conserved N terminus of yeast Rad52. Genetics. 2002;161:549–562. [PubMed]

43. Shi I, Hallwyl SC, Seong C, Mortensen U, Rothstein R, Sung P. Role of the Rad52 amino-terminal DNA binding activity in DNA strand capture in homologous recombination. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:33275–33284. [PubMed]

44. Hays SL, Firmenich AA, Berg P. Complex formation in yeast double-strand break repair: participation of Rad51, Rad52, Rad55, and Rad57 proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1995;92:6925–6929. [PubMed]

45. Johnson RD, Symington LS. Functional differences and interactions among the putative RecA homologs Rad51, Rad55, and Rad57. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1995;15:4843–4850. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

46. Sung P. Yeast Rad55 and Rad57 proteins form a heterodimer that functions with replication protein A to promote DNA strand exchange by Rad51 recombinase. Genes Dev. 1997;11:1111–1121. [PubMed]

47. Liu J, Renault L, Veaute X, Fabre F, Stahlberg H, Heyer WD. Rad51 paralogues Rad55-Rad57 balance the antirecombinase Srs2 in Rad51 filament formation. Nature. 2011;479:245–248. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

48. Fortin GS, Symington LS. Mutations in yeast Rad51 that partially bypass the requirement for Rad55 and Rad57 in DNA repair by increasing the stability of Rad51-DNA complexes. EMBO J. 2002;21:3160–3170. [PubMed]

49. Fung CW, Mozlin AM, Symington LS. Suppression of the double-strand-break-repair defect of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae rad57 mutant. Genetics. 2009;181:1195–1206. [PubMed]

50. Malik PS, Symington LS. Rad51 gain-of-function mutants that exhibit high affinity DNA binding cause DNA damage sensitivity in the absence of Srs2. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:6504–6510. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

51. Mozlin AM, Fung CW, Symington LS. Role of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad51 paralogs in sister chromatid recombination. Genetics. 2008;178:113–126. [PubMed]

52. Braybrooke JP, Spink KG, Thacker J, Hickson ID. The RAD51 family member, RAD51L3, is a DNA-stimulated ATPase that forms a complex with XRCC2. J. Biol. Chem. 2000;275:29100–29106. [PubMed]

53. Martín V, Chahwan C, Gao H, Blais V, Wohlschlegel J, Yates JR, McGowan CH, Russell P. Sws1 is a conserved regulator of homologous recombination in eukaryotic cells. EMBO J. 2006;25:2564–2574. [PubMed]

54. Mankouri HW, Ngo HP, Hickson ID. Shu proteins promote the formation of homologous recombination intermediates that are processed by Sgs1-Rmi1-Top3. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2007;18:4062–4073. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

55. Shor E, Weinstein J, Rothstein R. A genetic screen for top3 suppressors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae identifies SHU1, SHU2, PSY3 and CSM2: four genes involved in error-free DNA repair. Genetics. 2005;169:1275–1289. [PubMed]

56. Ball LG, Zhang K, Cobb JA, Boone C, Xiao W. The yeast Shu complex couples error-free post-replication repair to homologous recombination. Mol. Microbiol. 2009;73:89–102. [PubMed]

57. Choi K, Szakal B, Chen YH, Branzei D, Zhao X. The Smc5/6 complex and Esc2 influence multiple replication-associated recombination processes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2010;21:2306–2314. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

58. Huang ME, Rio AG, Nicolas A, Kolodner RD. A genomewide screen in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for genes that suppress the accumulation of mutations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2003;100:11529–11534. [PubMed]

59. Bernstein KA, Reid RJ, Sunjevaric I, Demuth K, Burgess RC, Rothstein R. The Shu complex, which contains Rad51 paralogues, promotes DNA repair through inhibition of the Srs2 anti-recombinase. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2011;22:1599–1607. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

60. Mazin AV, Mazina OM, Bugreev DV, Rossi MJ. Rad54, the motor of homologous recombination. DNA Repair) 2010;9:286–302. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

61. Alexeev A, Mazin A, Kowalczykowski SC. Rad54 protein possesses chromatin-remodeling activity stimulated by the Rad51-ssDNA nucleoprotein filament. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2003;10:182–186. [PubMed]

62. Alexiadis V, Kadonaga JT. Strand pairing by Rad54 and Rad51 is enhanced by chromatin. Genes Dev. 2002;16:2767–2771. [PubMed]

63. Jaskelioff M, Van Komen S, Krebs JE, Sung P, Peterson CL. Rad54p is a chromatin remodeling enzyme required for heteroduplex DNA joint formation with chromatin. J. Biol. Chem. 2003;278:9212–9218. [PubMed]

64. Kwon Y, Seong C, Chi P, Greene EC, Klein H, Sung P. ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologous recombination factor Rdh54. J. Biol. Chem. 2008;283:10445–10452. [PubMed]

65. Chi P, Kwon Y, Seong C, Epshtein A, Lam I, Sung P, Klein HL. Yeast recombination factor Rdh54 functionally interacts with the Rad51 recombinase and catalyzes Rad51 removal from DNA. J. Biol. Chem. 2006;281:26268–26279. [PubMed]

66. Heyer WD, Li X, Rolfsmeier M, Zhang XP. Rad54: the Swiss Army knife of homologous recombination? Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:4115–4125. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

67. Li X, Heyer WD. RAD54 controls access to the invading 3′-OH end after RAD51-mediated DNA strand invasion in homologous recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:638–646. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

68. Solinger JA, Kiianitsa K, Heyer WD. Rad54, a Swi2/Snf2-like recombinational repair protein, disassembles Rad51:dsDNA filaments. Mol. Cell. 2002;10:1175–1188. [PubMed]

69. Shah PP, Zheng X, Epshtein A, Carey JN, Bishop DK, Klein HL. Swi2/Snf2-related translocases prevent accumulation of toxic Rad51 complexes during mitotic growth. Mol. Cell. 2010;39:862–872. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

70. Cal-Bakowska M, Litwin I, Bocer T, Wysocki R, Dziadkowiec D. The Swi2-Snf2-like protein Uls1 is involved in replication stress response. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:8765–8777. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

71. Uzunova K, Göttsche K, Miteva M, Weisshaar SR, Glanemann C, Schnellhardt M, Niessen M, Scheel H, Hofmann K, Johnson ES, et al. Ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic control of SUMO conjugates. J. Biol. Chem. 2007;282:34167–34175. [PubMed]

72. Branzei D, Foiani M. The checkpoint response to replication stress. DNA Repair. 2009;8:1038–1046. [PubMed]

73. Gangloff S, Soustelle C, Fabre F. Homologous recombination is responsible for cell death in the absence of the Sgs1 and Srs2 helicases. Nat. Genet. 2000;25:192–194. [PubMed]

74. Pellicioli A, Lee SE, Lucca C, Foiani M, Haber JE. Regulation of Saccharomyces Rad53 checkpoint kinase during adaptation from DNA damage-induced G2/M arrest. Mol. Cell. 2001;7:293–300. [PubMed]

75. Marini V, Krejci L. Srs2: the “Odd-Job Man” in DNA repair. DNA Repair. 2010;9:268–275. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

76. Krejci L, Van Komen S, Li Y, Villemain J, Reddy MS, Klein H, Ellenberger T, Sung P. DNA helicase Srs2 disrupts the Rad51 presynaptic filament. Nature. 2003;423:305–309. [PubMed]

77. Veaute X, Jeusset J, Soustelle C, Kowalczykowski SC, Le Cam E, Fabre F. The Srs2 helicase prevents recombination by disrupting Rad51 nucleoprotein filaments. Nature. 2003;423:309–312. [PubMed]

78. Colavito S, Macris-Kiss M, Seong C, Gleeson O, Greene EC, Klein HL, Krejci L, Sung P. Functional significance of the Rad51-Srs2 complex in Rad51 presynaptic filament disruption. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:6754–6764. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

79. Krejci L, Macris M, Li Y, Van Komen S, Villemain J, Ellenberger T, Klein H, Sung P. Role of ATP hydrolysis in the antirecombinase function of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Srs2 protein. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:23193–23199. [PubMed]

80. Seong C, Colavito S, Kwon Y, Sung P, Krejci L. Regulation of Rad51 recombinase presynaptic filament assembly via interactions with the Rad52 mediator and the Srs2 anti-recombinase. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:24363–24371. [PubMed]

81. Antony E, Tomko EJ, Xiao Q, Krejci L, Lohman TM, Ellenberger T. Srs2 disassembles Rad51 filaments by a protein-protein interaction triggering ATP turnover and dissociation of Rad51 from DNA. Mol. Cell. 2009;35:105–115. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

82. Bugreev DV, Yu X, Egelman EH, Mazin AV. Novel pro- and anti-recombination activities of the Bloom's syndrome helicase. Genes Dev. 2007;21:3085–3094. [PubMed]

83. Hu Y, Raynard S, Sehorn MG, Lu X, Bussen W, Zheng L, Stark JM, Barnes EL, Chi P, Janscak P, et al. RECQL5/Recql5 helicase regulates homologous recombination and suppresses tumor formation via disruption of Rad51 presynaptic filaments. Genes Dev. 2007;21:3073–3084. [PubMed]

84. Sommers JA, Rawtani N, Gupta R, Bugreev DV, Mazin AV, Cantor SB, Brosh RM. FANCJ uses its motor ATPase to destabilize protein-DNA complexes, unwind triplexes, and inhibit RAD51 strand exchange. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:7505–7517. [PubMed]

85. Chiolo I, Saponaro M, Baryshnikova A, Kim JH, Seo YS, Liberi G. The human F-Box DNA helicase FBH1 faces Saccharomyces cerevisiae Srs2 and postreplication repair pathway roles. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007;27:7439–7450. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

86. Fugger K, Mistrik M, Danielsen JR, Dinant C, Falck J, Bartek J, Lukas J, Mailand N. Human Fbh1 helicase contributes to genome maintenance via pro- and anti-recombinase activities. J. Cell. Biol. 2009;186:655–663. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

87. Lorenz A, Osman F, Folkyte V, Sofueva S, Whitby MC. Fbh1 limits Rad51-dependent recombination at blocked replication forks. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2009;29:4742–4756. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

88. Moldovan GL, Dejsuphong D, Petalcorin MI, Hofmann K, Takeda S, Boulton SJ, D'Andrea AD. Inhibition of homologous recombination by the PCNA-interacting protein PARI. Mol. Cell. 2011;45:75–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

89. Morishita T, Furukawa F, Sakaguchi C, Toda T, Carr AM, Iwasaki H, Shinagawa H. Role of the Schizosaccharomyces pombe F-Box DNA helicase in processing recombination intermediates. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005;25:8074–8083. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

90. Osman F, Dixon J, Barr AR, Whitby MC. The F-Box DNA helicase Fbh1 prevents Rhp51-dependent recombination without mediator proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005;25:8084–8096. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

91. Gari K, Decaillet C, Stasiak AZ, Stasiak A, Constantinou A. The Fanconi anemia protein FANCM can promote branch migration of Holliday junctions and replication forks. Mol. Cell. 2008;29:141–148. [PubMed]

92. Prakash R, Satory D, Dray E, Papusha A, Scheller J, Kramer W, Krejci L, Klein H, Haber JE, Sung P, et al. Yeast Mph1 helicase dissociates Rad51-made D-loops: implications for crossover control in mitotic recombination. Genes Dev. 2009;23:67–79. [PubMed]

93. Sun W, Nandi S, Osman F, Ahn JS, Jakovleska J, Lorenz A, Whitby MC. The FANCM ortholog Fml1 promotes recombination at stalled replication forks and limits crossing over during DNA double-strand break repair. Mol. Cell. 2008;32:118–128. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

94. Zheng XF, Prakash R, Saro D, Longerich S, Niu H, Sung P. Processing of DNA structures via DNA unwinding and branch migration by the S. cerevisiae Mph1 protein. DNA Repair. 2011;10:1034–1043. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

95. Sebesta M, Burkovics P, Haracska L, Krejci L. Reconstitution of DNA repair synthesis in vitro and the role of polymerase and helicase activities. DNA Repair. 2011;10:567–576. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

96. Singh TR, Saro D, Ali AM, Zheng XF, Du CH, Killen MW, Sachpatzidis A, Wahengbam K, Pierce AJ, Xiong Y, et al. MHF1-MHF2, a histone-fold-containing protein complex, participates in the Fanconi anemia pathway via FANCM. Mol. Cell. 2010;37:879–886. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

97. Wang RC, Smogorzewska A, de Lange T. Homologous recombination generates T-loop-sized deletions at human telomeres. Cell. 2004;119:355–368. [PubMed]

98. Barber LJ, Youds JL, Ward JD, McIlwraith MJ, O'Neil NJ, Petalcorin MI, Martin JS, Collis SJ, Cantor SB, Auclair M, et al. RTEL1 maintains genomic stability by suppressing homologous recombination. Cell. 2008;135:261–271. [PubMed]

99. Uringa EJ, Youds JL, Lisaingo K, Lansdorp PM, Boulton SJ. RTEL1: an essential helicase for telomere maintenance and the regulation of homologous recombination. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:1647–1655. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

100. Ahmad F, Stewart E. The N-terminal region of the Schizosaccharomyces pombe RecQ helicase, Rqh1p, physically interacts with Topoisomerase III and is required for Rqh1p function. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2005;273:102–114. [PubMed]

101. Chang M, Bellaoui M, Zhang C, Desai R, Morozov P, Delgado-Cruzata L, Rothstein R, Freyer GA, Boone C, Brown GW. RMI1/NCE4, a suppressor of genome instability, encodes a member of the RecQ helicase/Topo III complex. EMBO J. 2005;24:2024–2033. [PubMed]

102. Ira G, Malkova A, Liberi G, Foiani M, Haber JE. Srs2 and Sgs1-Top3 suppress crossovers during double-strand break repair in yeast. Cell. 2003;115:401–411. [PubMed]

103. Mankouri HW, Craig TJ, Morgan A. SGS1 is a multicopy suppressor of srs2: functional overlap between DNA helicases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30:1103–1113. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

104. Oh SD, Lao JP, Hwang PY, Taylor AF, Smith GR, Hunter N. BLM ortholog, Sgs1, prevents aberrant crossing-over by suppressing formation of multichromatid joint molecules. Cell. 2007;130:259–272. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

105. Oh SD, Lao JP, Taylor AF, Smith GR, Hunter N. RecQ helicase, Sgs1, and XPF family endonuclease, Mus81-Mms4, resolve aberrant joint molecules during meiotic recombination. Mol. Cell. 2008;31:324–336. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

106. Cejka P, Plank JL, Bachrati CZ, Hickson ID, Kowalczykowski SC. Rmi1 stimulates decatenation of double Holliday junctions during dissolution by Sgs1-Top3. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010;17:1377–1382. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

107. Wu L, Hickson ID. The Bloom's syndrome helicase suppresses crossing over during homologous recombination. Nature. 2003;426:870–874. [PubMed]

108. Adams MD, McVey M, Sekelsky JJ. Drosophila BLM in double-strand break repair by synthesis-dependent strand annealing. Science. 2003;299:265–267. [PubMed]

109. McVey M, Larocque JR, Adams MD, Sekelsky JJ. Formation of deletions during double-strand break repair in Drosophila DmBlm mutants occurs after strand invasion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2004;101:15694–15699. [PubMed]

110. Liberi G, Maffioletti G, Lucca C, Chiolo I, Baryshnikova A, Cotta-Ramusino C, Lopes M, Pellicioli A, Haber JE, Foiani M. Rad51-dependent DNA structures accumulate at damaged replication forks in sgs1 mutants defective in the yeast ortholog of BLM RecQ helicase. Genes Dev. 2005;19:339–350. [PubMed]

111. Rockmill B, Fung JC, Branda SS, Roeder GS. The Sgs1 helicase regulates chromosome synapsis and meiotic crossing over. Curr. Biol. 2003;13:1954–1962. [PubMed]

112. Mimitou EP, Symington LS. Sae2, Exo1 and Sgs1 collaborate in DNA double-strand break processing. Nature. 2008;455:770–774. [PubMed]

113. Ashton TM, Hickson ID. Yeast as a model system to study RecQ helicase function. DNA Repair. 2010;9:303–314. [PubMed]

114. Ward JD, Muzzini DM, Petalcorin MI, Martinez-Perez E, Martin JS, Plevani P, Cassata G, Marini F, Boulton SJ. Overlapping mechanisms promote postsynaptic RAD-51 filament disassembly during meiotic double-strand break repair. Mol. Cell. 2010;37:259–272. [PubMed]

115. Branzei D, Sollier J, Liberi G, Zhao X, Maeda D, Seki M, Enomoto T, Ohta K, Foiani M. Ubc9- and mms21-mediated sumoylation counteracts recombinogenic events at damaged replication forks. Cell. 2006;127:509–522. [PubMed]

116. Maeda D, Seki M, Onoda F, Branzei D, Kawabe Y, Enomoto T. Ubc9 is required for damage-tolerance and damage-induced interchromosomal homologous recombination in S. cerevisiae. DNA Repair. 2004;3:335–341. [PubMed]

117. Soustelle C, Vernis L, Fréon K, Reynaud-Angelin A, Chanet R, Fabre F, Heude M. A new Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain with a mutant Smt3-deconjugating Ulp1 protein is affected in DNA replication and requires Srs2 and homologous recombination for its viability. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004;24:5130–5143. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

118. Zhao X, Blobel G. A SUMO ligase is part of a nuclear multiprotein complex that affects DNA repair and chromosomal organization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:4777–4782. [PubMed]

119. Burgess RC, Rahman S, Lisby M, Rothstein R, Zhao X. The Slx5-Slx8 complex affects sumoylation of DNA repair proteins and negatively regulates recombination. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007;27:6153–6162. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

120. Dou H, Huang C, Singh M, Carpenter PB, Yeh ET. Regulation of DNA repair through deSUMOylation and SUMOylation of replication protein A complex. Mol. Cell. 2010;39:333–345. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

121. Galanty Y, Belotserkovskaya R, Coates J, Polo S, Miller KM, Jackson SP. Mammalian SUMO E3-ligases PIAS1 and PIAS4 promote responses to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature. 2009;462:935–939. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

122. Morris JR, Boutell C, Keppler M, Densham R, Weekes D, Alamshah A, Butler L, Galanty Y, Pangon L, Kiuchi T, et al. The SUMO modification pathway is involved in the BRCA1 response to genotoxic stress. Nature. 2009;462:886–890. [PubMed]

123. Shi W, Feng Z, Zhang J, Gonzalez-Suarez I, Vanderwaal RP, Wu X, Powell SN, Roti Roti JL, Gonzalo S. The role of RPA2 phosphorylation in homologous recombination in response to replication arrest. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:994–1002. [PubMed]

124. Deng X, Prakash A, Dhar K, Baia GS, Kolar C, Oakley GG, Borgstahl GE. Human replication protein A-Rad52-single-stranded DNA complex: stoichiometry and evidence for strand transfer regulation by phosphorylation. Biochemistry. 2009;48:6633–6643. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

125. Barlow JH, Rothstein R. Rad52 recruitment is DNA replication independent and regulated by Cdc28 and the Mec1 kinase. EMBO J. 2009;28:1121–1130. [PubMed]

126. Barlow JH, Rothstein R. Timing is everything: cell cycle control of Rad52. Cell Div. 2010;5:7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

127. Lee DH, Pan Y, Kanner S, Sung P, Borowiec JA, Chowdhury D. A PP4 phosphatase complex dephosphorylates RPA2 to facilitate DNA repair via homologous recombination. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010;17:365–372. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

128. Kovalenko OV, Plug AW, Haaf T, Gonda DK, Ashley T, Ward DC, Radding CM, Golub EI. Mammalian ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme Ubc9 interacts with Rad51 recombination protein and localizes in synaptonemal complexes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1996;93:2958–2963. [PubMed]

129. Shen Z, Pardington-Purtymun PE, Comeaux JC, Moyzis RK, Chen DJ. UBL1, a human ubiquitin-like protein associating with human RAD51/RAD52 proteins. Genomics. 1996;36:271–279. [PubMed]

130. Saitoh H, Pizzi MD, Wang J. Perturbation of SUMOlation enzyme Ubc9 by distinct domain within nucleoporin RanBP2/Nup358. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:4755–4763. [PubMed]

131. Slupianek A, Dasgupta Y, Ren SY, Gurdek E, Donlin M, Nieborowska-Skorska M, Fleury F, Skorski T. Targeting RAD51 phosphotyrosine-315 to prevent unfaithful recombination repair in BCR-ABL1 leukemia. Blood. 2011;118:1062–1068. [PubMed]

132. Yuan ZM, Huang Y, Ishiko T, Nakada S, Utsugisawa T, Kharbanda S, Wang R, Sung P, Shinohara A, Weichselbaum R, et al. Regulation of Rad51 function by c-Abl in response to DNA damage. J. Biol. Chem. 1998;273:3799–3802. [PubMed]

133. Flott S, Kwon Y, Pigli YZ, Rice PA, Sung P, Jackson SP. Regulation of Rad51 function by phosphorylation. EMBO Rep. 2011;12:833–839. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

134. Yata K, Lloyd J, Maslen S, Bleuyard JY, Skehel M, Smerdon SJ, Esashi F. Plk1 and CK2 Act in Concert to Regulate Rad51 during DNA Double Strand Break Repair. Mol. Cell. 2012;45:371–383. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

135. Bashkirov VI, King JS, Bashkirova EV, Schmuckli-Maurer J, Heyer WD. DNA repair protein Rad55 is a terminal substrate of the DNA damage checkpoints. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000;20:4393–4404. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

136. Herzberg K, Bashkirov VI, Rolfsmeier M, Haghnazari E, McDonald WH, Anderson S, Bashkirova EV, Yates JR, Heyer WD. Phosphorylation of Rad55 on serines 2, 8, and 14 is required for efficient homologous recombination in the recovery of stalled replication forks. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006;26:8396–8409. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

137. Ho JC, Warr NJ, Shimizu H, Watts FZ. SUMO modification of Rad22, the Schizosaccharomyces pombe homologue of the recombination protein Rad52. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:4179–4186. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

138. Sacher M, Pfander B, Hoege C, Jentsch S. Control of Rad52 recombination activity by double-strand break-induced SUMO modification. Nat. Cell. Biol. 2006;8:1284–1290. [PubMed]

139. Ohuchi T, Seki M, Branzei D, Maeda D, Ui A, Ogiwara H, Tada S, Enomoto T. Rad52 sumoylation and its involvement in the efficient induction of homologous recombination. DNA Repair. 2008;7:879–889. [PubMed]

140. Ohuchi T, Seki M, Kugou K, Tada S, Ohta K, Enomoto T. Accumulation of sumoylated Rad52 in checkpoint mutants perturbed in DNA replication. DNA Repair. 2009;8:690–696. [PubMed]

141. Altmannova V, Eckert-Boulet N, Arneric M, Kolesar P, Chaloupkova R, Damborsky J, Sung P, Zhao X, Lisby M, Krejci L. Rad52 SUMOylation affects the efficiency of the DNA repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:4708–4721. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

142. Torres-Rosell J, Sunjevaric I, De Piccoli G, Sacher M, Eckert-Boulet N, Reid R, Jentsch S, Rothstein R, Aragón L, Lisby M. The Smc5-Smc6 complex and SUMO modification of Rad52 regulates recombinational repair at the ribosomal gene locus. Nat. Cell. Biol. 2007;9:923–931. [PubMed]

143. Saito K, Kagawa W, Suzuki T, Suzuki H, Yokoyama S, Saitoh H, Tashiro S, Dohmae N, Kurumizaka H. The putative nuclear localization signal of the human RAD52 protein is a potential sumoylation site. J. Biochem. 2010;147:833–842. [PubMed]

144. Antúnez de Mayolo A, Lisby M, Erdeniz N, Thybo T, Mortensen UH, Rothstein R. Multiple start codons and phosphorylation result in discrete Rad52 protein species. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:2587–2597. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

145. Kitao H, Yuan ZM. Regulation of ionizing radiation-induced Rad52 nuclear foci formation by c-Abl-mediated phosphorylation. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:48944–48948. [PubMed]

146. Honda M, Okuno Y, Yoo J, Ha T, Spies M. Tyrosine phosphorylation enhances RAD52-mediated annealing by modulating its DNA binding. EMBO J. 2011;30:3368–3382. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

147. Saponaro M, Callahan D, Zheng X, Krejci L, Haber JE, Klein HL, Liberi G. Cdk1 targets Srs2 to complete synthesis-dependent strand annealing and to promote recombinational repair. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1000858. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

148. Hishida T, Hirade Y, Haruta N, Kubota Y, Iwasaki H. Srs2 plays a critical role in reversible G2 arrest upon chronic and low doses of UV irradiation via two distinct homologous recombination-dependent mechanisms in postreplication repair-deficient cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2010;30:4840–4850. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

149. Papouli E, Chen S, Davies AA, Huttner D, Krejci L, Sung P, Ulrich HD. Crosstalk between SUMO and ubiquitin on PCNA is mediated by recruitment of the helicase Srs2p. Mol. Cell. 2005;19:123–133. [PubMed]

150. Pfander B, Moldovan GL, Sacher M, Hoege C, Jentsch S. SUMO-modified PCNA recruits Srs2 to prevent recombination during S phase. Nature. 2005;436:428–433. [PubMed]

151. Eladad S, Ye TZ, Hu P, Leversha M, Beresten S, Matunis MJ, Ellis NA. Intra-nuclear trafficking of the BLM helicase to DNA damage-induced foci is regulated by SUMO modification. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2005;14:1351–1365. [PubMed]

152. Lu CY, Tsai CH, Brill SJ, Teng SC. Sumoylation of the BLM ortholog, Sgs1, promotes telomere-telomere recombination in budding yeast. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:488–498. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

153. Ouyang KJ, Woo LL, Zhu J, Huo D, Matunis MJ, Ellis NA. SUMO modification regulates BLM and RAD51 interaction at damaged replication forks. PLoS Biol. 2009;7:e1000252. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

154. Kawabe Y, Seki M, Seki T, Wang WS, Imamura O, Furuichi Y, Saitoh H, Enomoto T. Covalent modification of the Werner's syndrome gene product with the ubiquitin-related protein, SUMO-1. J. Biol. Chem. 2000;275:20963–20966. [PubMed]

155. Woods YL, Xirodimas DP, Prescott AR, Sparks A, Lane DP, Saville MK. p14 Arf promotes small ubiquitin-like modifier conjugation of Werners helicase. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:50157–50166. [PubMed]

156. Trickey M, Grimaldi M, Yamano H. The anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome controls repair and recombination by ubiquitylating Rhp54 in fission yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2008;28:3905–3916. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

157. Niu H, Wan L, Busygina V, Kwon Y, Allen JA, Li X, Kunz RC, Kubota K, Wang B, Sung P, et al. Regulation of meiotic recombination via Mek1-mediated Rad54 phosphorylation. Mol. Cell. 2009;36:393–404. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

158. Chen SH, Albuquerque CP, Liang J, Suhandynata RT, Zhou H. A proteome-wide analysis of kinase-substrate network in the DNA damage response. J. Biol. Chem. 2010;285:12803–12812. [PubMed]

159. Cremona CA, Sarangi P, Yang Y, Hang LE, Rahman S, Zhao X. Extensive DNA Damage-Induced Sumoylation Contributes to Replication and Repair and Acts in Addition to the Mec1 Checkpoint. Mol. Cell. 2012;45:422–432. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

160. Chu WK, Hickson ID. RecQ helicases: multifunctional genome caretakers. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2009;9:644–654. [PubMed]

161. Knoll A, Puchta H. The role of DNA helicases and their interaction partners in genome stability and meiotic recombination in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2011;62:1565–1579. [PubMed]

162. Lu X, Lou H, Luo G. A Blm-Recql5 partnership in replication stress response. J. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2011;3:31–38. [PubMed]

163. Rossi ML, Ghosh AK, Bohr VA. Roles of Werner syndrome protein in protection of genome integrity. DNA Repair. 2010;9:331–344. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

164. Unk I, Hajdú I, Blastyák A, Haracska L. Role of yeast Rad5 and its human orthologs, HLTF and SHPRH in DNA damage tolerance. DNA Repair. 2010;9:257–267. [PubMed]

165. Whitby MC. The FANCM family of DNA helicases/translocases. DNA Repair. 2010;9:224–236. [PubMed]

166. Dudás A, Chovanec M. DNA double-strand break repair by homologous recombination. Mutat Res. 2004;566:131–167. [PubMed]

167. Lim DS, Hasty P. A mutation in mouse rad51 results in an early embryonic lethal that is suppressed by a mutation in p53. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1996;16:7133–7143. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

168. Sonoda E, Sasaki MS, Buerstedde JM, Bezzubova O, Shinohara A, Ogawa H, Takata M, Yamaguchi-Iwai Y, Takeda S. Rad51-deficient vertebrate cells accumulate chromosomal breaks prior to cell death. EMBO J. 1998;17:598–608. [PubMed]

169. Tsuzuki T, Fujii Y, Sakumi K, Tominaga Y, Nakao K, Sekiguchi M, Matsushiro A, Yoshimura Y, Morita T. Targeted disruption of the Rad51 gene leads to lethality in embryonic mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1996;93:6236–6240. [PubMed]

170. Sage JM, Gildemeister OS, Knight KL. Discovery of a novel function for human Rad51: maintenance of the mitochondrial genome. J. Biol. Chem. 2010;285:18984–18990. [PubMed]

171. Richard DJ, Bolderson E, Cubeddu L, Wadsworth RI, Savage K, Sharma GG, Nicolette ML, Tsvetanov S, McIlwraith MJ, Pandita RK, et al. Single-stranded DNA-binding protein hSSB1 is critical for genomic stability. Nature. 2008;453:677–681. [PubMed]

172. Huang J, Gong Z, Ghosal G, Chen J. SOSS complexes participate in the maintenance of genomic stability. Mol. Cell. 2009;35:384–393. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

173. Li Y, Bolderson E, Kumar R, Muniandy PA, Xue Y, Richard DJ, Seidman M, Pandita TK, Khanna KK, Wang W. HSSB1 and hSSB2 form similar multiprotein complexes that participate in DNA damage response. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:23525–23531. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

174. Richard DJ, Cubeddu L, Urquhart AJ, Bain A, Bolderson E, Menon D, White MF, Khanna KK. hSSB1 interacts directly with the MRN complex stimulating its recruitment to DNA double-strand breaks and its endo-nuclease activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:3643–3651. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

175. Richard DJ, Savage K, Bolderson E, Cubeddu L, So S, Ghita M, Chen DJ, White MF, Richard K, Prise KM, et al. hSSB1 rapidly binds at the sites of DNA double-strand breaks and is required for the efficient recruitment of the MRN complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:1692–1702. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

176. Thorslund T, West SC. BRCA2: a universal recombinase regulator. Oncogene. 2007;26:7720–7730. [PubMed]

177. Yang H, Jeffrey PD, Miller J, Kinnucan E, Sun Y, Thoma NH, Zheng N, Chen PL, Lee WH, Pavletich NP. BRCA2 function in DNA binding and recombination from a BRCA2-DSS1-ssDNA structure. Science. 2002;297:1837–1848. [PubMed]

178. Saeki H, Siaud N, Christ N, Wiegant WW, van Buul PP, Han M, Zdzienicka MZ, Stark JM, Jasin M. Suppression of the DNA repair defects of BRCA2-deficient cells with heterologous protein fusions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:8768–8773. [PubMed]

179. Holloman WK. Unraveling the mechanism of BRCA2 in homologous recombination. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011;18:748–754. [PubMed]

180. Holloman WK, Schirawski J, Holliday R. The homologous recombination system of Ustilago maydis. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2008;45(Suppl. 1):S31–39. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

181. Jensen RB, Carreira A, Kowalczykowski SC. Purified human BRCA2 stimulates RAD51-mediated recombination. Nature. 2010;467:678–683. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

182. Liu J, Doty T, Gibson B, Heyer WD. Human BRCA2 protein promotes RAD51 filament formation on RPA-covered single-stranded DNA. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010;17:1260–1262. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

183. Thorslund T, McIlwraith MJ, Compton SA, Lekomtsev S, Petronczki M, Griffith JD, West SC. The breast cancer tumor suppressor BRCA2 promotes the specific targeting of RAD51 to single-stranded DNA. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010;17:1263–1265. [PubMed]

184. Carreira A, Hilario J, Amitani I, Baskin RJ, Shivji MK, Venkitaraman AR, Kowalczykowski SC. The BRC repeats of BRCA2 modulate the DNA-binding selectivity of RAD51. Cell. 2009;136:1032–1043. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

185. Carreira A, Kowalczykowski SC. Two classes of BRC repeats in BRCA2 promote RAD51 nucleoprotein filament function by distinct mechanisms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:10448–10453. [PubMed]

186. Pellegrini L, Yu DS, Lo T, Anand S, Lee M, Blundell TL, Venkitaraman AR. Insights into DNA recombination from the structure of a RAD51-BRCA2 complex. Nature. 2002;420:287–293. [PubMed]

187. Shivji MK, Mukund SR, Rajendra E, Chen S, Short JM, Savill J, Klenerman D, Venkitaraman AR. The BRC repeats of human BRCA2 differentially regulate RAD51 binding on single- versus double-stranded DNA to stimulate strand exchange. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2009;106:13254–13259. [PubMed]

188. Davies OR, Pellegrini L. Interaction with the BRCA2 C terminus protects RAD51-DNA filaments from disassembly by BRC repeats. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2007;14:475–483. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

189. Esashi F, Galkin VE, Yu X, Egelman EH, West SC. Stabilization of RAD51 nucleoprotein filaments by the C-terminal region of BRCA2. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2007;14:468–474. [PubMed]

190. Ayoub N, Rajendra E, Su X, Jeyasekharan AD, Mahen R, Venkitaraman AR. The carboxyl terminus of Brca2 links the disassembly of Rad51 complexes to mitotic entry. Curr. Biol. 2009;19:1075–1085. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

191. Schlacher K, Christ N, Siaud N, Egashira A, Wu H, Jasin M. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell. 2011;145:529–542. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

192. Jeyasekharan AD, Ayoub N, Mahen R, Ries J, Esposito A, Rajendra E, Hattori H, Kulkarni RP, Venkitaraman AR. DNA damage regulates the mobility of Brca2 within the nucleoplasm of living cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:21937–21942. [PubMed]

193. Zhou Q, Kojic M, Cao Z, Lisby M, Mazloum NA, Holloman WK. Dss1 interaction with Brh2 as a regulatory mechanism for recombinational repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007;27:2512–2526. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

194. Zhou Q, Mazloum N, Mao N, Kojic M, Holloman WK. Dss1 regulates interaction of Brh2 with DNA. Biochemistry. 2009;48:11929–11938. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

195. Faza MB, Kemmler S, Panse VG. Sem1: A versatile “molecular glue”? Nucleus. 2010;1:12–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

196. Kristensen CN, Bystol KM, Li B, Serrano L, Brenneman MA. Depletion of DSS1 protein disables homologous recombinational repair in human cells. Mutat. Res. 2010;694:60–64. [PubMed]

197. Xia B, Sheng Q, Nakanishi K, Ohashi A, Wu J, Christ N, Liu X, Jasin M, Couch FJ, Livingston DM. Control of BRCA2 cellular and clinical functions by a nuclear partner, PALB2. Mol. Cell. 2006;22:719–729. [PubMed]

198. Rahman N, Seal S, Thompson D, Kelly P, Renwick A, Elliott A, Reid S, Spanova K, Barfoot R, Chagtai T, et al. PALB2, which encodes a BRCA2-interacting protein, is a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Nat. Genet. 2007;39:165–167. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

199. Oliver AW, Swift S, Lord CJ, Ashworth A, Pearl LH. Structural basis for recruitment of BRCA2 by PALB2. EMBO Rep. 2009;10:990–996. [PubMed]

200. Sy SM, Huen MS, Zhu Y, Chen J. PALB2 regulates recombinational repair through chromatin association and oligomerization. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:18302–18310. [PubMed]

201. Buisson R, Dion-Cote AM, Coulombe Y, Launay H, Cai H, Stasiak AZ, Stasiak A, Xia B, Masson JY. Cooperation of breast cancer proteins PALB2 and piccolo BRCA2 in stimulating homologous recombination. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010;17:1247–1254. [PubMed]

202. Dray E, Etchin J, Wiese C, Saro D, Williams GJ, Hammel M, Yu X, Galkin VE, Liu D, Tsai MS, et al. Enhancement of RAD51 recombinase activity by the tumor suppressor PALB2. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010;17:1255–1259. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

203. Menzel T, Nahse-Kumpf V, Kousholt AN, Klein DK, Lund-Andersen C, Lees M, Johansen JV, Syljuasen RG, Sorensen CS. A genetic screen identifies BRCA2 and PALB2 as key regulators of G2 checkpoint maintenance. EMBO Rep. 2011;12:705–712. [PubMed]

204. Rajagopalan S, Andreeva A, Rutherford TJ, Fersht AR. Mapping the physical and functional interactions between the tumor suppressors p53 and BRCA2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:8587–8592. [PubMed]

205. Wu X, Mondal G, Wang X, Wu J, Yang L, Pankratz VS, Rowley M, Couch FJ. Microcephalin regulates BRCA2 and Rad51-associated DNA double-strand break repair. Cancer Res. 2009;69:5531–5536. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

206. Liang Y, Gao H, Lin SY, Peng G, Huang X, Zhang P, Goss JA, Brunicardi FC, Multani AS, Chang S, et al. BRIT1/MCPH1 is essential for mitotic and meiotic recombination DNA repair and maintaining genomic stability in mice. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1000826. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

207. Fujimori A, Tachiiri S, Sonoda E, Thompson LH, Dhar PK, Hiraoka M, Takeda S, Zhang Y, Reth M, Takata M. Rad52 partially substitutes for the Rad51 paralog XRCC3 in maintaining chromosomal integrity in vertebrate cells. EMBO J. 2001;20:5513–5520. [PubMed]

208. Feng Z, Scott SP, Bussen W, Sharma GG, Guo G, Pandita TK, Powell SN. Rad52 inactivation is synthetically lethal with BRCA2 deficiency. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:686–691. [PubMed]

209. Singleton MR, Wentzell LM, Liu Y, West SC, Wigley DB. Structure of the single-strand annealing domain of human RAD52 protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:13492–13497. [PubMed]

210. Van Dyck E, Stasiak AZ, Stasiak A, West SC. Visualization of recombination intermediates produced by RAD52-mediated single-strand annealing. EMBO Rep. 2001;2:905–909. [PubMed]

211. Kojic M, Zhou Q, Fan J, Holloman WK. Mutational analysis of Brh2 reveals requirements for compensating mediator functions. Mol. Microbiol. 2011;79:180–191. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

212. Wray J, Liu J, Nickoloff JA, Shen Z. Distinct RAD51 associations with RAD52 and BCCIP in response to DNA damage and replication stress. Cancer Res. 2008;68:2699–2707. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

213. Treuner K, Helton R, Barlow C. Loss of Rad52 partially rescues tumorigenesis and T-cell maturation in Atm-deficient mice. Oncogene. 2004;23:4655–4661. [PubMed]

214. Takata M, Sasaki MS, Sonoda E, Fukushima T, Morrison C, Albala JS, Swagemakers SM, Kanaar R, Thompson LH, Takeda S. The Rad51 paralog Rad51B promotes homologous recombinational repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000;20:6476–6482. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

215. Takata M, Sasaki MS, Tachiiri S, Fukushima T, Sonoda E, Schild D, Thompson LH, Takeda S. Chromosome instability and defective recombinational repair in knockout mutants of the five Rad51 paralogs. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2001;21:2858–2866. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

216. Thacker J. The RAD51 gene family, genetic instability and cancer. Cancer Lett. 2005;219:125–135. [PubMed]

217. Masson JY, Tarsounas MC, Stasiak AZ, Stasiak A, Shah R, McIlwraith MJ, Benson FE, West SC. Identification and purification of two distinct complexes containing the five RAD51 paralogs. Genes Dev. 2001;15:3296–3307. [PubMed]

218. Badie S, Liao C, Thanasoula M, Barber P, Hill MA, Tarsounas M. RAD51C facilitates checkpoint signaling by promoting CHK2 phosphorylation. J. Cell. Biol. 2009;185:587–600. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

219. Henry-Mowatt J, Jackson D, Masson JY, Johnson PA, Clements PM, Benson FE, Thompson LH, Takeda S, West SC, Caldecott KW. XRCC3 and Rad51 modulate replication fork progression on damaged vertebrate chromosomes. Mol. Cell. 2003;11:1109–1117. [PubMed]

220. Petermann E, Orta ML, Issaeva N, Schultz N, Helleday T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol. Cell. 2010;37:492–502. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

221. Yokoyama H, Sarai N, Kagawa W, Enomoto R, Shibata T, Kurumizaka H, Yokoyama S. Preferential binding to branched DNA strands and strand-annealing activity of the human Rad51B, Rad51C, Rad51D and Xrcc2 protein complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:2556–2565. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

222. Kuznetsov S, Pellegrini M, Shuda K, Fernandez-Capetillo O, Liu Y, Martin BK, Burkett S, Southon E, Pati D, Tessarollo L, et al. RAD51C deficiency in mice results in early prophase I arrest in males and sister chromatid separation at metaphase II in females. J. Cell. Biol. 2007;176:581–592. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

223. Liu Y, Tarsounas M, O'regan P, West SC. Role of RAD51C and XRCC3 in genetic recombination and DNA repair. J. Biol. Chem. 2007;282:1973–1979. [PubMed]

224. Schild D, Wiese C. Overexpression of RAD51 suppresses recombination defects: a possible mechanism to reverse genomic instability. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:1061–1070. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

225. Deans B, Griffin CS, O'Regan P, Jasin M, Thacker J. Homologous recombination deficiency leads to profound genetic instability in cells derived from Xrcc2-knockout mice. Cancer Res. 2003;63:8181–8187. [PubMed]

226. Pittman DL, Schimenti JC. Midgestation lethality in mice deficient for the RecA-related gene, Rad51d/Rad51l3. Genesis. 2000;26:167–173. [PubMed]

227. Shu Z, Smith S, Wang L, Rice MC, Kmiec EB. Disruption of muREC2/RAD51L1 in mice results in early embryonic lethality which can Be partially rescued in a p53(-/-) background. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1999;19:8686–8693. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

228. Kovalenko OV, Golub EI, Bray-Ward P, Ward DC, Radding CM. A novel nucleic acid-binding protein that interacts with human rad51 recombinase. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:4946–4953. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

229. Modesti M, Budzowska M, Baldeyron C, Demmers JA, Ghirlando R, Kanaar R. RAD51AP1 is a structure-specific DNA binding protein that stimulates joint molecule formation during RAD51-mediated homologous recombination. Mol. Cell. 2007;28:468–481. [PubMed]

230. Wiese C, Dray E, Groesser T, San Filippo J, Shi I, Collins DW, Tsai MS, Williams GJ, Rydberg B, Sung P, et al. Promotion of homologous recombination and genomic stability by RAD51AP1 via RAD51 recombinase enhancement. Mol. Cell. 2007;28:482–490. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

231. Ceballos SJ, Heyer WD. Functions of the Snf2/Swi2 family Rad54 motor protein in homologous recombination. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2011;1809:509–523. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

232. Wesoly J, Agarwal S, Sigurdsson S, Bussen W, Van Komen S, Qin J, van Steeg H, van Benthem J, Wassenaar E, Baarends WM, et al. Differential contributions of mammalian Rad54 paralogs to recombination, DNA damage repair, and meiosis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006;26:976–989. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

233. Neale MJ, Keeney S. Clarifying the mechanics of DNA strand exchange in meiotic recombination. Nature. 2006;442:153–158. [PubMed]

234. Hunter N. Molecular Genetics of Recombination, Topics in Current Genetics. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin; 2007. Meiotic recombination; pp. 381–441.

235. Bishop DK, Park D, Xu L, Kleckner N. DMC1: a meiosis-specific yeast homolog of E. coli recA required for recombination, synaptonemal complex formation, and cell cycle progression. Cell. 1992;69:439–456. [PubMed]

236. Rockmill B, Sym M, Scherthan H, Roeder GS. Roles for two RecA homologs in promoting meiotic chromosome synapsis. Genes Dev. 1995;9:2684–2695. [PubMed]

237. Schwacha A, Kleckner N. Interhomolog bias during meiotic recombination: meiotic functions promote a highly differentiated interhomolog-only pathway. Cell. 1997;90:1123–1135. [PubMed]

238. Pittman DL, Cobb J, Schimenti KJ, Wilson LA, Cooper DM, Brignull E, Handel MA, Schimenti JC. Meiotic prophase arrest with failure of chromosome synapsis in mice deficient for Dmc1, a germline-specific RecA homolog. Mol. Cell. 1998;1:697–705. [PubMed]

239. Yoshida K, Kondoh G, Matsuda Y, Habu T, Nishimune Y, Morita T. The mouse RecA-like gene Dmc1 is required for homologous chromosome synapsis during meiosis. Mol. Cell. 1998;1:707–718. [PubMed]

240. Benson FE, Stasiak A, West SC. Purification and characterization of the human Rad51 protein, an analogue of E. coli RecA. EMBO J. 1994;13:5764–5771. [PubMed]

241. Passy SI, Yu X, Li Z, Radding CM, Masson JY, West SC, Egelman EH. Human Dmc1 protein binds DNA as an octameric ring. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1999;96:10684–10688. [PubMed]

242. Sehorn MG, Sigurdsson S, Bussen W, Unger VM, Sung P. Human meiotic recombinase Dmc1 promotes ATP-dependent homologous DNA strand exchange. Nature. 2004;429:433–437. [PubMed]

243. Sheridan SD, Yu X, Roth R, Heuser JE, Sehorn MG, Sung P, Egelman EH, Bishop DK. A comparative analysis of Dmc1 and Rad51 nucleoprotein filaments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:4057–4066. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

244. Bugreev DV, Golub EI, Stasiak AZ, Stasiak A, Mazin AV. Activation of human meiosis-specific recombinase Dmc1 by Ca2+ J. Biol. Chem. 2005;280:26886–26895. [PubMed]

245. Sheridan S, Bishop DK. Red-Hed regulation: recombinase Rad51, though capable of playing the leading role, may be relegated to supporting Dmc1 in budding yeast meiosis. Genes Dev. 2006;20:1685–1691. [PubMed]

246. Shinohara M, Gasior SL, Bishop DK, Shinohara A. Tid1/Rdh54 promotes colocalization of rad51 and dmc1 during meiotic recombination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2000;97:10814–10819. [PubMed]

247. Bugreev DV, Pezza RJ, Mazina OM, Voloshin ON, Camerini-Otero RD, Mazin AV. The resistance of DMC1 D-loops to dissociation may account for the DMC1 requirement in meiosis. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011;18:56–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

248. Kagawa W, Kurumizaka H. From meiosis to postmeiotic events: uncovering the molecular roles of the meiosis-specific recombinase Dmc1. FEBS J. 2010;277:590–598. [PubMed]

249. Ehmsen KT, Heyer WD. Biochemistry of Meiotic Recombination: Formation, Processing, and Resolution of Recombination Intermediates. Genome. Dyn. Stab. 2008;3:91. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

250. Hayase A, Takagi M, Miyazaki T, Oshiumi H, Shinohara M, Shinohara A. A protein complex containing Mei5 and Sae3 promotes the assembly of the meiosis-specific RecA homolog Dmc1. Cell. 2004;119:927–940. [PubMed]

251. Ferrari SR, Grubb J, Bishop DK. The Mei5-Sae3 protein complex mediates Dmc1 activity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:11766–11770. [PubMed]

252. Say AF, Ledford LL, Sharma D, Singh AK, Leung WK, Sehorn HA, Tsubouchi H, Sung P, Sehorn MG. The budding yeast Mei5-Sae3 complex interacts with Rad51 and preferentially binds a DNA fork structure. DNA Repair. 2011;10:586–594. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

253. Schwacha A, Kleckner N. Interhomolog bias during meiotic recombination: meiotic functions promote a highly differentiated interhomolog-only pathway. Cell. 1997;90:1123–1135. [PubMed]

254. Tsubouchi H, Roeder GS. The budding yeast mei5 and sae3 proteins act together with dmc1 during meiotic recombination. Genetics. 2004;168:1219–1230. [PubMed]

255. Akamatsu Y, Dziadkowiec D, Ikeguchi M, Shinagawa H, Iwasaki H. Two different Swi5-containing protein complexes are involved in mating-type switching and recombination repair in fission yeast. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2003;100:15770–15775. [PubMed]

256. Akamatsu Y, Tsutsui Y, Morishita T, Siddique MS, Kurokawa Y, Ikeguchi M, Yamao F, Arcangioli B, Iwasaki H. Fission yeast Swi5/Sfr1 and Rhp55/Rhp57 differentially regulate Rhp51-dependent recombination outcomes. EMBO J. 2007;26:1352–1362. [PubMed]

257. Ellermeier C, Schmidt H, Smith GR. Swi5 acts in meiotic DNA joint molecule formation in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Genetics. 2004;168:1891–1898. [PubMed]

258. Haruta N, Kurokawa Y, Murayama Y, Akamatsu Y, Unzai S, Tsutsui Y, Iwasaki H. The Swi5-Sfr1 complex stimulates Rhp51/Rad51- and Dmc1-mediated DNA strand exchange in vitro. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2006;13:823–830. [PubMed]

259. Akamatsu Y, Jasin M. Role for the mammalian Swi5-Sfr1 complex in DNA strand break repair through homologous recombination. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1001160. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

260. Yuan J, Chen J. The role of the human SWI5-MEI5 complex in homologous recombination repair. J. Biol. Chem. 2011;286:9888–9893. [PubMed]

261. Leu JY, Chua PR, Roeder GS. The meiosis-specific Hop2 protein of S. cerevisiae ensures synapsis between homologous chromosomes. Cell. 1998;94:375–386. [PubMed]

262. Chi P, San Filippo J, Sehorn MG, Petukhova GV, Sung P. Bipartite stimulatory action of the Hop2-Mnd1 complex on the Rad51 recombinase. Genes Dev. 2007;21:1747–1757. [PubMed]

263. Pezza RJ, Voloshin ON, Vanevski F, Camerini-Otero RD. Hop2/Mnd1 acts on two critical steps in Dmc1-promoted homologous pairing. Genes Dev. 2007;21:1758–1766. [PubMed]

264. Henry JM, Camahort R, Rice DA, Florens L, Swanson SK, Washburn MP, Gerton JL. Mnd1/Hop2 facilitates Dmc1-dependent interhomolog crossover formation in meiosis of budding yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006;26:2913–2923. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

265. Zierhut C, Berlinger M, Rupp C, Shinohara A, Klein F. Mnd1 is required for meiotic interhomolog repair. Curr. Biol. 2004;14:752–762. [PubMed]

266. Gerton JL, DeRisi JL. Mnd1p: an evolutionarily conserved protein required for meiotic recombination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:6895–6900. [PubMed]

267. Pezza RJ, Camerini-Otero RD, Bianco PR. Hop2-Mnd1 condenses DNA to stimulate the synapsis phase of DNA strand exchange. Biophys. J. 2010;99:3763–3772. [PubMed]

268. Van Komen S, Petukhova G, Sigurdsson S, Stratton S, Sung P. Superhelicity-driven homologous DNA pairing by yeast recombination factors Rad51 and Rad54. Mol. Cell. 2000;6:563–572. [PubMed]

269. Klein HL. RDH54, a RAD54 homologue in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is required for mitotic diploid-specific recombination and repair and for meiosis. Genetics. 1997;147:1533–1543. [PubMed]

270. Shinohara M, Shita-Yamaguchi E, Buerstedde JM, Shinagawa H, Ogawa H, Shinohara A. Characterization of the roles of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD54 gene and a homologue of RAD54, RDH54/TID1, in mitosis and meiosis. Genetics. 1997;147:1545–1556. [PubMed]

271. Dresser ME, Ewing DJ, Conrad MN, Dominguez AM, Barstead R, Jiang H, Kodadek T. DMC1 functions in a Saccharomyces cerevisiae meiotic pathway that is largely independent of the RAD51 pathway. Genetics. 1997;147:533–544. [PubMed]

272. Clever B, Interthal H, Schmuckli-Maurer J, King J, Sigrist M, Heyer WD. Recombinational repair in yeast: functional interactions between Rad51 and Rad54 proteins. EMBO J. 1997;16:2535–2544. [PubMed]

273. Jiang H, Xie Y, Houston P, Stemke-Hale K, Mortensen UH, Rothstein R, Kodadek T. Direct association between the yeast Rad51 and Rad54 recombination proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1996;271:33181–33186. [PubMed]

274. Holzen TM, Shah PP, Olivares HA, Bishop DK. Tid1/Rdh54 promotes dissociation of Dmc1 from nonrecombinogenic sites on meiotic chromatin. Genes Dev. 2006;20:2593–2604. [PubMed]

275. Chi P, Kwon Y, Moses DN, Seong C, Sehorn MG, Singh AK, Tsubouchi H, Greene EC, Klein HL, Sung P. Functional interactions of meiotic recombination factors Rdh54 and Dmc1. DNA Repair. 2009;8:279–284. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

276. Arbel A, Zenvirth D, Simchen G. Sister chromatid-based DNA repair is mediated by RAD54, not by DMC1 or TID1. EMBO J. 1999;18:2648–2658. [PubMed]

277. Tsubouchi H, Roeder GS. Budding yeast Hed1 down-regulates the mitotic recombination machinery when meiotic recombination is impaired. Genes Dev. 2006;20:1766–1775. [PubMed]

278. Busygina V, Sehorn MG, Shi IY, Tsubouchi H, Roeder GS, Sung P. Hed1 regulates Rad51-mediated recombination via a novel mechanism. Genes Dev. 2008;22:786–795. [PubMed]

279. Shinohara M, Sakai K, Shinohara A, Bishop DK. Crossover interference in Saccharomyces cerevisiae requires a TID1/RDH54- and DMC1-dependent pathway. Genetics. 2003;163:1273–1286. [PubMed]

280. Tsubouchi H, Roeder GS. The importance of genetic recombination for fidelity of chromosome pairing in meiosis. Dev. Cell. 2003;5:915–925. [PubMed]

281. Dray E, Dunlop MH, Kauppi L, San Filippo J, Wiese C, Tsai MS, Begovic S, Schild D, Jasin M, Keeney S, et al. Molecular basis for enhancement of the meiotic DMC1 recombinase by RAD51 associated protein 1 (RAD51AP1) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:3560–3565. [PubMed]

282. Kovalenko OV, Wiese C, Schild D. RAD51AP2, a novel vertebrate- and meiotic-specific protein, shares a conserved RAD51-interacting C-terminal domain with RAD51AP1/PIR51. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:5081–5092. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

283. Dray E, Siaud N, Dubois E, Doutriaux MP. Interaction between Arabidopsis Brca2 and its partners Rad51, Dmc1, and Dss1. Plant Physiol. 2006;140:1059–1069. [PubMed]

284. Thorslund T, Esashi F, West SC. Interactions between human BRCA2 protein and the meiosis-specific recombinase DMC1. EMBO J. 2007;26:2915–2922. [PubMed]

285. Rodríguez-Marí A, Wilson C, Titus TA, Cañestro C, BreMiller RA, Yan YL, Nanda I, Johnston A, Kanki JP, Gray EM, et al. Roles of brca2 (fancd1) in oocyte nuclear architecture, gametogenesis, gonad tumors, and genome stability in zebrafish. PLoS Genet. 2011;7:e1001357. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

286. Siaud N, Dray E, Gy I, Gérard E, Takvorian N, Doutriaux MP. Brca2 is involved in meiosis in Arabidopsis thaliana as suggested by its interaction with Dmc1. EMBO J. 2004;23:1392–1401. [PubMed]

287. Klovstad M, Abdu U, Schüpbach T. Drosophila brca2 is required for mitotic and meiotic DNA repair and efficient activation of the meiotic recombination checkpoint. PLoS Genet. 2008;4:e31. [PubMed]

288. Sharan SK, Pyle A, Coppola V, Babus J, Swaminathan S, Benedict J, Swing D, Martin BK, Tessarollo L, Evans JP, et al. BRCA2 deficiency in mice leads to meiotic impairment and infertility. Development. 2004;131:131–142. [PubMed]

289. Shive HR, West RR, Embree LJ, Azuma M, Sood R, Liu P, Hickstein DD. brca2 in zebrafish ovarian development, spermatogenesis, and tumorigenesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:19350–19355. [PubMed]

290. Halazonetis TD, Gorgoulis VG, Bartek J. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science. 2008;319:1352–1355. [PubMed]

291. Spry M, Scott T, Pierce H, D'Orazio JA. DNA repair pathways and hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes. Front. Biosci. 2007;12:4191–4207. [PubMed]

292. Narod SA, Foulkes WD. BRCA1 and BRCA2: 1994 and beyond. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2004;4:665–676. [PubMed]

293. Howlett NG, Taniguchi T, Olson S, Cox B, Waisfisz Q, De Die-Smulders C, Persky N, Grompe M, Joenje H, Pals G, et al. Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in Fanconi anemia. Science. 2002;297:606–609. [PubMed]

294. Jones P, Altamura S, Boueres J, Ferrigno F, Fonsi M, Giomini C, Lamartina S, Monteagudo E, Ontoria JM, Orsale MV, et al. Discovery of 2-{4-[(3S)-piperidin-3-yl]phenyl}-2H-indazole-7-carboxamide (MK-4827): a novel oral poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor efficacious in BRCA-1 and -2 mutant tumors. J. Med. Chem. 2009;52:7170–7185. [PubMed]

295. Meindl A, Hellebrand H, Wiek C, Erven V, Wappenschmidt B, Niederacher D, Freund M, Lichtner P, Hartmann L, Schaal H, et al. Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat. Genet. 2010;42:410–414. [PubMed]

296. Reid S, Schindler D, Hanenberg H, Barker K, Hanks S, Kalb R, Neveling K, Kelly P, Seal S, Freund M, et al. Biallelic mutations in PALB2 cause Fanconi anemia subtype FA-N and predispose to childhood cancer. Nat. Genet. 2007;39:162–164. [PubMed]

297. Vaz F, Hanenberg H, Schuster B, Barker K, Wiek C, Erven V, Neveling K, Endt D, Kesterton I, Autore F, et al. Mutation of the RAD51C gene in a Fanconi anemia-like disorder. Nat. Genet. 2010;42:406–409. [PubMed]

298. Hiramoto T, Nakanishi T, Sumiyoshi T, Fukuda T, Matsuura S, Tauchi H, Komatsu K, Shibasaki Y, Inui H, Watatani M, et al. Mutations of a novel human RAD54 homologue, RAD54B, in primary cancer. Oncogene. 1999;18:3422–3426. [PubMed]

299. Schoenmakers EF, Huysmans C, Van de Ven WJ. Allelic knockout of novel splice variants of human recombination repair gene RAD51B in t(12;14) uterine leiomyomas. Cancer Res. 1999;59:19–23. [PubMed]

300. Smirnova M, Van Komen S, Sung P, Klein HL. Effects of tumor-associated mutations on Rad54 functions. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:24081–24088. [PubMed]

301. Martinez-Perez E, Colaiacovo MP. Distribution of meiotic recombination events: talking to your neighbors. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2009;19:105–112. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

302. Richardson C, Stark JM, Ommundsen M, Jasin M. Rad51 overexpression promotes alternative double-strand break repair pathways and genome instability. Oncogene. 2004;23:546–553. [PubMed]

303. Klein HL. The consequences of Rad51 overexpression for normal and tumor cells. DNA Repair. 2008;7:686–693. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

304. Cramer K, Nieborowska-Skorska M, Koptyra M, Slupianek A, Penserga ET, Eaves CJ, Aulitzky W, Skorski T. BCR/ABL and other kinases from chronic myeloproliferative disorders stimulate single-strand annealing, an unfaithful DNA double-strand break repair. Cancer Res. 2008;68:6884–6888. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

305. Fernandes MS, Reddy MM, Gonneville JR, DeRoo SC, Podar K, Griffin JD, Weinstock DM, Sattler M. BCR-ABL promotes the frequency of mutagenic single-strand annealing DNA repair. Blood. 2009;114:1813–1819. [PubMed]

306. Mandon-Pepin B, Touraine P, Kuttenn F, Derbois C, Rouxel A, Matsuda F, Nicolas A, Cotinot C, Fellous M. Genetic investigation of four meiotic genes in women with premature ovarian failure. Eur.J. Endocrinol./EFES. 2008;158:107–115. [PubMed]

307. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, Tutt AN, Johnson DA, Richardson TB, Santarosa M, Dillon KJ, Hickson I, Knights C, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434:917–921. [PubMed]

308. Kaelin WG. The concept of synthetic lethality in the context of anticancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2005;5:689–698. [PubMed]

309. Chen CC, Kennedy RD, Sidi S, Look AT, D'Andrea A. CHK1 inhibition as a strategy for targeting Fanconi Anemia (FA) DNA repair pathway deficient tumors. Mol. Cancer. 2009;8:24. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

310. McManus KJ, Barrett IJ, Nouhi Y, Hieter P. Specific synthetic lethal killing of RAD54B-deficient human colorectal cancer cells by FEN1 silencing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2009;106:3276–3281. [PubMed]

311. Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, Parker KM, Flower D, Lopez E, Kyle S, Meuth M, Curtin NJ, Helleday T. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 2005;434:913–917. [PubMed]

312. Mukhopadhyay A, Elattar A, Cerbinskaite A, Wilkinson SJ, Drew Y, Kyle S, Los G, Hostomsky Z, Edmondson RJ, Curtin NJ. Development of a functional assay for homologous recombination status in primary cultures of epithelial ovarian tumor and correlation with sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2010;16:2344–2351. [PubMed]

313. Gottipati P, Vischioni B, Schultz N, Solomons J, Bryant HE, Djureinovic T, Issaeva N, Sleeth K, Sharma RA, Helleday T. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase is hyperactivated in homologous recombination-defective cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70:5389–5398. [PubMed]

314. Banerjee S, Kaye SB, Ashworth A. Making the best of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2010;7:508–519. [PubMed]

315. Evers B, Drost R, Schut E, de Bruin M, van der Burg E, Derksen PW, Holstege H, Liu X, van Drunen E, Beverloo HB, et al. Selective inhibition of BRCA2-deficient mammary tumor cell growth by AZD2281 and cisplatin. Clin. Cancer. Res. 2008;14:3916–3925. [PubMed]

316. Evers B, Helleday T, Jonkers J. Targeting homologous recombination repair defects in cancer. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2010;31:372–380. [PubMed]

317. Edwards SL, Brough R, Lord CJ, Natrajan R, Vatcheva R, Levine DA, Boyd J, Reis-Filho JS, Ashworth A. Resistance to therapy caused by intragenic deletion in BRCA2. Nature. 2008;451:1111–1115. [PubMed]

318. Sakai W, Swisher EM, Karlan BY, Agarwal MK, Higgins J, Friedman C, Villegas E, Jacquemont C, Farrugia DJ, Couch FJ, et al. Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2-mutated cancers. Nature. 2008;451:1116–1120. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

319. Sorensen CS, Hansen LT, Dziegielewski J, Syljuasen RG, Lundin C, Bartek J, Helleday T. The cell-cycle checkpoint kinase Chk1 is required for mammalian homologous recombination repair. Nat. Cell Biol. 2005;7:195–201. [PubMed]

320. Popova M, Shimizu H, Yamamoto K, Lebechec M, Takahashi M, Fleury F. Detection of c-Abl kinase-promoted phosphorylation of Rad51 by specific antibodies reveals that Y54 phosphorylation is dependent on that of Y315. FEBS Lett. 2009;583:1867–1872. [PubMed]

321. Esashi F, Christ N, Gannon J, Liu Y, Hunt T, Jasin M, West SC. CDK-dependent phosphorylation of BRCA2 as a regulatory mechanism for recombinational repair. Nature. 2005;434:598–604. [PubMed]

322. Schoenfeld AR, Apgar S, Dolios G, Wang R, Aaronson SA. BRCA2 is ubiquitinated in vivo and interacts with USP11, a deubiquitinating enzyme that exhibits prosurvival function in the cellular response to DNA damage. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004;24:7444–7455. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

323. Matsuoka S, Ballif BA, Smogorzewska A, McDonald ER, III, Hurov KE, Luo J, Bakalarski CE, Zhao Z, Solimini N, Lerenthal Y, et al. ATM and ATR substrate analysis reveals extensive protein networks responsive to DNA damage. Science. 2007;316:1160–1166. [PubMed]

324. Kim JM, Kee Y, Gurtan A, D'Andrea AD. Cell cycle-dependent chromatin loading of the Fanconi anemia core complex by FANCM/FAAP24. Blood. 2008;111:5215–5222. [PubMed]

325. Fricke WM, Kaliraman V, Brill SJ. Mapping the DNA topoisomerase III binding domain of the Sgs1 DNA helicase. J. Biol. Chem. 2001;276:8848–8855. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

326. Rao VA, Fan AM, Meng L, Doe CF, North PS, Hickson ID, Pommier Y. Phosphorylation of BLM, dissociation from topoisomerase IIIalpha, and colocalization with gamma-H2AX after topoisomerase I-induced replication damage. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005;25:8925–8937. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

327. Leng M, Chan DW, Luo H, Zhu C, Qin J, Wang Y. MPS1-dependent mitotic BLM phosphorylation is important for chromosome stability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:11485–11490. [PubMed]

Articles from Nucleic Acids Research are provided here courtesy of
Oxford University Press