Identification and characterization of proteins that protect human telomeres from fragility

Difficulties to replicate telomeres - the ends of our chromosomes - can cause telomere shortening andgenome instability. These difficulties are due to the repetitive DNA sequence and distinct structures at telomeresthat challenge the semi-conservative DNA replication machinery. Among the proteins that help toovercome the obstacles to telomere replication are factors known to be mutated in genetic diseases (forinstance WRN, BLM, RTEL1, CTC1), but we suspect that there are still factors and pathways unknown.DNA replication defects at telomeres manifest as smeary or multiple telomeric fluorescence in situ hybridization(FISH) signals on metaphase chromosomes - commonly called telomere fragility. To identify proteinsthat protect human telomeres from fragility, we depleted 71 proteins (including 8 controls) from HeLa cellsusing siRNA pools and analysed their metaphase chromosomes for fragile telomeres. The majority of theseproteins had been identified by QTIP-iPOND - a proteomic analysis of chromatin near telomere replicationforks. Among the 71 proteins that were depleted in the siRNA screen, we identified 29 novel proteins thatprevent telomere fragility and are therefore crucial to maintain genome stability. The telomere fragilityscreen validated QTIP-iPOND as a technique to identify telomere replication proteins. The hits identified inour telomere fragility screen may for example have functions in regulating telomeric chromatin compositionand compaction, regulating transcription of the telomeric long non-coding RNA TERRA and its associationwith telomeric chromatin, dealing with replication stress and stalled replication forks, modulating DNAdamage signalling and repair, modulating sister chromatid cohesion, and preventing oxidative stress.One of the 29 novel proteins identified in the telomere fragility screen is chromobox 8 (CBX8) whose functionat telomeres was investigated in further detail in this study. CBX8 is a component of the canonical polycombrepressive complex 1 (PRC1), an epigenetic regulator of gene expression. However, CBX8 also hasfunctions that are independent of the PRC1 complex. We show that human CBX8 prevents telomere fragilitycaused by RNA-DNA hybrids which could stall replication forks and induce homologous recombination.CBX8 depletion or knockout did however not affect telomeric RNA-DNA hybrid levels. We hypothesize thatCBX8 may be involved in repair activities at stalled replication forks that arise when the replisome encounterspersistent RNA-DNA hybrids. Moreover, we found that CBX8 localizes to telomeric repeat-binding factor2 (TRF2)-deficient telomeres in a manner that is dependent on RNA-DNA hybrids and ATM signalling.We demonstrate that H3K27me3 (trimethylated histone 3 lysine 27) marks, which have previously beensuggested to help recruitment of CBX proteins to chromatin via the CBX chromodomain, are dispensable forCBX8 recruitment to TRF2-deficient telomeres. Furthermore, we found that CBX8 promotes non-homologousend joining (NHEJ)-mediated telomere fusions of dysfunctional telomeres. We therefore hypothesizethat CBX8 is involved in repair activities that influence the DNA repair pathway choice at TRF2-deficient telomeres.

The telomeric DNA damage response: Insights into telomere compaction and identification of novel damage signaling factors

Aleksandra Vancevska

Telomeres are dynamic nucleo-protein structures capping the ends of all eukaryotic chromosomes. Together with telomerase, they counteract replication-dependent telomere attrition. Additionally, they disguise the linear ends of the chromosome from the DNA damage response (DDR) machinery. Otherwise, the chromosome end would be recognized as a DSB and would elicit a deleterious DDR signal. Both of these functions contribute greatly to the maintenance of genome stability. Telomeres are composed of repetitive DNA sequences, protein complex dubbed shelterin and telomeric repeat-containing RNAs. In addition to the core protein complex, other proteins are important for proper telomere structure and function. Our laboratory has a longstanding interest in the discovery of novel factors that have indispensable roles in telomere biology. For that purpose, previous lab members developed a Quantitative Telomeric Chromatin Isolation protocol (QTIP) and detected binding of new proteins to long telomeres, SMCHD1 and LRIF1. Their function at telomeres is not described but they are shown to function in higher-order chromatin organization and genome-wide DDR. Understanding their role in telomere biology is important because the list of players involved in DDR at telomeres is far from complete and we know very little about how chromatin structure affects DDR activation. Thus, this thesis provides insights into the DDR at telomeres by studying the functions of SMCHD1 and LRIF1 and describes the implementation of a novel microscopy-based method to study the role of these proteins and shelterins in early steps of the DDR. Firstly, we describe crucial roles for SMCHD1 and LRIF1 in DDR activation at telomeres lacking shelterin protein TRF2. Removal of TRF2 leads to activation of the ATM kinase and elicits a DDR giving rise to persistent chromosome fusions. We show that LRIF1 and SMCHD1 removal leads to attenuation of ATM activation and subsequent DDR defect as well as impairment in non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) at unprotected telomeres. Considering that these phenotypes are rescued by removal of TPP1 and activation of the ATR kinase we propose that these proteins mainly participate in DDR signaling operating at uncapped telomeres. They are among the rare ones described to act early in the DDR cascade upon TRF2 removal. Stimulated by the discovery that SMCHD1 and LRIF1 function in X-chromosome compaction, we sought to test if they would function in remodeling telomeric chromatin. To do that, we have implemented super-resolution microscopy method (STORM) to measure sizes and shapes of normal human telomeres and ones lacking SMCHD, LRIF1, and shelterin. We have shown, by examination of thousands of telomeres, that removal of shelterin proteins leads to decompaction of only a small subset of telomeres. This decompaction is not required for efficient DDR activation, as the DDR was also efficiently elicited from compacted TRF2-depleted telomeres. Thus, we propose that DDR is triggered by changes at the molecular level in protein recruitment upon telomere deprotec-tion. In addition, transient removal of SMCHD1 and LRIF1 did not affect the compaction state of telo-meres as they do in the X-chromosome. Overall, we have described two novel factors that are important for DDR at uncapped telomeres and excluded the need for decompaction as the initial step of DDR at uncapped telomeres and excluded the need for decompaction as the initial step of DDR activation.

EPFL2018

The Interplay between Cytidine Deaminases, HIV and Domesticated Genetic Parasites

"There is more virus in us than us in us". John Coffin's famous sentence illustrates that particular nucleic acid sequences related to exogenous viruses, called retrotransposons, constitute almost half of the human genome and largely exceeds the amount of protein-coding DNA (section 1.4). At the beginning of the past century, biologists realized the size of the genomes of various eukaryotes did not correlate with the level of complexity of these species. In extreme cases, certain species such as the fish L.paradoxa had 30-times more genomic DNA than do primates. In 1980, Francis Crick and Carmen Sapienza independently postulated that part of this once-called "junk DNA" must stem from self-replicating units, categorized as "selfish DNA" to distinguish them from more "altruistic" cellular genes. Indeed, while genes amplify in a population because of the selective advantage they confer to their host, the selfish DNA amplifies without making any contribution to the host phenotype and survives rather as a not-too-deleterious parasite. In early 2000's, the accomplishment of the human genome sequencing projects gave formal credence to Crick's and Sapienza's initial hypothesis. Retrotransposons replicate in the genome of their host by a copy-and-paste mechanism. Accordingly, any new retrotransposition event causes a genetic alteration potentially detrimental to the host. On an evolutionary perspective however, accumulation of retrotransposon-derived sequences can be beneficial to the species after these once "selfish" elements become "domesticated" to deserve more physiological roles. In human or mouse for instance, retrotransposons are known to cover a large spectrum of cellular functions, from gene regulation to antiviral defense (section 1.6). In order to maintain under tight control the balance between the good and adverse effects of retroelements, eukaryotes have evolved cellular defenses aimed at inhibiting the replication of such elements (section 1.7). Gene silencing by DNA methylation is a mechanism widely used in plants, fungi or vertebrates to control the expression of self-replicating elements. For instance in mammals, specific KRAB-zinc finger proteins can target retroviral-derived sequences and mediate their transcriptional silencing (section 3). The first aim of this study was to characterize the sensitivity of retroviruses to KRAB-mediated epigenetic silencing in varied chromosomal contexts (section 5). Since some retroviruses like HIV favor integration within transcriptionally active regions, these viruses may escape blockade by integrating chromosomal area refractory to epigenetic silencing. We found that instead, KRAB-mediated repression mechanism was not dependent upon integration site of a retroviral vector, hence the emergence of viruses escaping KRAB-mediated repression would be unlikely. Mammalian cells are also able to control the replication of retrotransposons at a post-transcriptional level via the APOBEC3 family of cytidine deaminases (section 2). Since certain retrotransposons are related to exogenous retroviruses, it is perhaps not surprising that APOBEC3 proteins can also inhibit a range of such elements including HIV. While there is only one APOBEC3 gene in the mouse genome, the family considerably expanded in other species such as primates were it comprises seven members (section 2.1). Although it is tempting to postulate that the expansion of the family in primates was driven by the strong selective pressure imposed by various genetic threats growing in number and complexity, it is not understood how only a few homologous proteins can target such a disparate group of replicating elements. The second aim of this study was to understand the mechanism by which different APOBEC3 proteins can target and inactivate particular self-perpetuating elements (section 4). We launched an integrative study focused on two human APOBEC3 homologues with distinct antiviral functions. APOBEC3A, a single-domain cytidine deaminase, can block efficiently the parvovirus adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV-2) or the retrotransposon LINE-1 but cannot inhibit HIV replication. APOBEC3G is formed of two independent cytidine deaminase domains, only the C-terminal of which is catalytically active. APOBEC3G is endowed with restriction activity against HIV, but is largely ineffective against AAV-2 or LINE-1. We combined functional studies with structural modeling and phylogenetic analyses and found that restriction in each case involved similar regions at the surface of the protein and nearby the catalytic center, yet with distinct shapes and nucleic-acid interacting properties between the homologous proteins. While on APOBEC3G, the amino-acids in this region mediate intersubunit contacts between monomers and the predicted dimer interface shapes a groove that may facilitate binding to single-stranded RNA, on APOBEC3A however, it is corresponding residues on the monomer that form a DNA-binding groove important for editing. In summary, this study describes the nucleic-acid-interacting domains of APOBEC3A and APOBEC3G essential for their intrinsic restriction activities, and further suggests that structural variations in this domain may contribute to define the sets of targets inhibited by each APOBEC3 protein. APOBEC3 proteins may be considered as modular units, whose restriction function can evolve with emerging selective pressures by specific variations in their nucleic-acid binding domain, alternatively by fusion of two APOBEC3 proteins endowed with different functionalities. APOBEC3 proteins would efficiently protect the genome integrity of their host against highly variable genetic threats or "selfish DNA", in combination with other restriction factors such as the KRAB-zinc finger proteins. Contrary to epigenetic silencing however, post-transcriptional restriction as provided by APOBEC3 proteins may prohibit the deleterious effect of retrotransposition, without altering other retroelement functions putatively important for the physiology of the cell.

EPFL2010

The Interplay between Cytidine Deaminases, HIV and Domesticated Genetic Parasites

EPFL2010

The telomeric DNA damage response: Insights into telomere compaction and identification of novel damage signaling factors

Aleksandra Vancevska

EPFL2018