Asymmetrical recognition and processing of double-strand breaks formed during DNA replication

Asymmetrical recognition and processing of double-strand breaks formed during DNA replication | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results Asymmetrical recognition and processing of double-strand breaks formed during DNA replication Matthew J Johnson , View ORCID Profile Michael T Kimble , View ORCID Profile Seoyeon Jeong , View ORCID Profile Aakanksha Sane , View ORCID Profile Lorraine S Symington doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.03.663015 Matthew J Johnson 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University , New York, NY 10027 2 Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, NY 10032 Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Michael T Kimble 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University , New York, NY 10027 2 Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, NY 10032 Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Michael T Kimble Seoyeon Jeong 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University , New York, NY 10027 2 Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, NY 10032 Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Seoyeon Jeong Aakanksha Sane 2 Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, NY 10032 Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Aakanksha Sane Lorraine S Symington 2 Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, NY 10032 3 Department of Genetics & Development, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, NY 10032 Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Lorraine S Symington For correspondence: lss5{at}cumc.columbia.edu Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Preview PDF Abstract DNA end resection to generate 3′ ssDNA overhangs is the first step in homology-directed mechanisms of double-strand break (DSB) repair. While end resection has been extensively studied in the repair of endonuclease-induced DSBs, little is known about how resection proceeds at DSBs generated during DNA replication. We previously established a system to generate replication-dependent double-ended DSBs at the sites of nicks induced by the Cas9 D10A nickase in the budding yeast genome. Here, we suggest that these DSBs form in an asymmetric manner, with one break end being blunt or near blunt, and the other bearing a 3′ ssDNA overhang of up the size of an Okazaki fragment. We find that Mre11 preferentially binds blunt ends and is required for the removal Ku from these DSB ends. In contrast, the ends predicted to have 3′ overhangs have minimal Ku binding, and end resection at these break ends can proceed in a mostly Mre11-independent manner through either the Exo1 or Dna2-Sgs1 long-range resection pathways. These findings indicate that resection proceeds differently at replication-dependent DSBs than at canonical DSBs, and reveals that Ku selectively binds nearly blunt ends, potentially explaining why replication-dependent DSBs are poorly repaired by non-homologous end joining. Significance Statement DNA end resection is a critical early step in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks by homologous recombination. Studies using endonucleases that generate DSBs in all phases of the cell cycle have shown that end resection proceeds by the sequential action of the Mre11 complex and long-range resection nucleases, Exo1 or Dna2-Sgs1. In this study, we restricted DSB generation to S-phase and found that the genetic requirements for end resection at more physiologically relevant DSBs are different to those at endonuclease-induced DSBs. The asymmetrical recognition and processing of replication-dependent DSBs may also explain the bias toward homologous recombination mediated repair over non-homologous end joining. Introduction DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) are cytotoxic DNA lesions that must be repaired to maintain genome integrity. DSBs can be generated directly using site-specific endonucleases, such as I-SceI, HO, and AsiSI ( 1 , 2 ), or produced randomly in the genomic, for example, by ionizing radiation or use of drugs that trap Topoisomerase II cleavage complexes ( 3 , 4 ). Studies using endonucleases have provided a general framework for how DSBs are recognized and repaired ( 5 , 6 ). These studies suggest that cells initially attempt repair by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) but if the DSB ends are not compatible for ligation, and cells are in the appropriate cell cycle phase, they undergo end resection to repair by homologous recombination (HR) ( 7 – 9 ). End resection is initiated by the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2/Nbs1 (MRX in S. cerevisiae , MRN in other eukaryotes) complex with its cofactor, phosphorylated Sae2, to form short 3′ overhangs ( 10 ). Overhangs generated by MRX are then extended by the long-range resection machinery, including Exo1 and the Dna2-Sgs1-Top3-Rmi1 ensemble (referred to as Dna2-Sgs1 hereafter) ( 10 ). The resulting single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) is initially bound by RPA and then replaced by Rad51 to promote strand exchange with an intact donor sequence, followed by repair synthesis to replace sequences lost by end resection ( 9 , 11 ). While studies with site-specific endonucleases have been invaluable in deciphering DSB repair pathways ( 5 ), it is increasingly recognized that endonuclease-induced DSBs do not accurately mimic DNA damage generated during DNA replication. Given that replication-dependent DNA damage is predicted to be quite common and a driver of genome instability ( 12 , 13 ), further research is needed to fully understand DNA repair processes in the context of DNA replication. Single-stranded breaks (SSBs), also called nicks, are common intermediates in DNA metabolic processes and have the potential to be converted to DSBs by replication fork progression ( 12 , 14 ). Indeed, some cancer therapeutics act by inducing or stabilizing SSBs resulting in the formation of cytotoxic DSBs during S phase ( 15 – 17 ). An in vitro study using Xenopus egg extracts and pre-nicked plasmid templates demonstrated formation of seDSBs by replisome run off at nicks, regardless of whether the nick was on the leading or lagging-strand template. However, the end structure of the seDSB differed for leading and lagging strand collapses. Replisome run off at a nick on the leading-strand template generated an end with a 3 nucleotide (nt) 5′ overhang, referred to here as a blunt end, whereas the seDSB produced by a lagging strand collapse had a 3′ overhang of ∼70 nt. Recent work has demonstrated the utility of modified CRISPR/Cas9 enzymes for generation of strand specific nicks that can be converted to DSBs during replication ( 18 – 23 ). While Cas9 makes a DSB through cooperative action of two endonuclease domains, Cas9 D10A harbors a mutation in one of these two domains ( 24 ) rendering the enzyme able to cut only one strand the DNA duplex. In human cells, nicks generated by Cas9 D10A on the leading-strand template were shown to convert to mostly seDSBs during S phase, while nicks on the lagging-strand template resulted in double-ended DSBs (deDSBs) ( 18 ). Formation of a deDSB was shown to result from continued translocation of the CMG replicative helicase on the leading strand, bypassing the nick on the lagging-strand template ( 18 ). An Okazaki fragment initiated after replisome bypass would be predicted to terminate at the nick, yielding a deDSB (Fig S1A). In budding and fission yeasts, nicks formed by Cas9 D10A , M13 gpII nickase or a minimal HO cut site that is preferentially nicked, generate mostly deDSBs during replication, even for nicks generated on the leading strand ( 19 , 20 , 25 ). In the case of the Flp-nick system ( 26 ), there are conflicting reports on whether single end or deDSBs are formed ( 20 , 27 – 29 ). The deDSB signal detected for leading-strand template nicks is thought to be due to convergence of two opposing forks at the nick. Such a scenario might be more likely in organisms such as yeasts with a high density of active and dormant origins ( 30 ). Genetic analysis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae revealed that Cas9 D10A -induced replication-coupled DSBs are repaired by Rad51-dependent sister-chromatid recombination with no apparent contribution by NHEJ ( 19 ). This system therefore provides the opportunity to study sister-chromatid recombination in a replication context, potentially revealing mechanistic aspects of HR-mediated repair that have gone undetected in studies of canonical DSB repair using endonucleases such as HO or I-SceI. In this study, we address how the ends of replication-dependent DSBs are recognized and repaired. Since work using the Xenopus egg extract system showed different end structures for seDSBs produced at nicks on leading and lagging strand templates ( 31 ), we investigated whether the ends of a replication-dependent deDSB are asymmetrical, consisting of one blunt end and the other with a 3′ overhang. We find that resection at blunt ends is dependent on MRX mediated short-range resection. In contrast, resection at 3′ overhang ends can proceed in a mostly MRX independent manner by either Exo1 or Dna2-Sgs1-catalyzed long-range resection. We also find that the Ku complex is recruited to blunt ends of replication dependent DSBs, and that the removal of the Ku complex by MRX is required for repair of breaks. Taken together, these results paint a more nuanced picture of resection dynamics at breaks formed during replication and highlight the significance of the structural asymmetry of these breaks. Results MRX nuclease activity is dispensable for repair of replication-dependent DSBs To study breaks derived from Cas9 D10A initiated nicks, we used a set of four guides flanking ARS607 , a highly efficient, early-firing origin on chromosome VI of S. cerevisiae ( Figure 1A ) ( 19 ). Guide RNAs (gRNA) 1 and 20 generate nicks on the lagging-strand template, while gRNAs 6 and 14 generate nicks on the leading-strand template when replication originates from ARS607 (Figure S1A) ( 19 ). In previous work we found that targeting the nickase with gRNAs 1, 6, and 20 results in replication-dependent deDSBs, while targeting the nickase with gRNA14 generates a mostly seDSB signal (Figure S1A) ( 19 ). Since HR-deficient mutants were previously reported to show the highest sensitivity to gRNA1 and gRNA6 ( 19 ), we focused on these gRNAs for most assays in this study. We first verified that each member of the MRX complex is required for cell viability to nicks produced on leading and lagging strand templates ( Figure 1B , 1C, S1B). In contrast, the mre11-H125N allele, in which the MRX complex lacks nuclease activity ( 32 ), conveyed only mild sensitivity to gRNA1 and no sensitivity to gRNA6 ( Figure 1C ). We also tested the involvement of Sae2 and Tel1, which stimulate MRX resection initiation and signal the DNA damage checkpoint via MRX ( 33 ), respectively ( Figure 1B ). However, neither of these mutants displayed detectable nickase sensitivity ( Figure 1C ). These results demonstrate that MRX nuclease activity is not per se required for replication-dependent DSB repair, in agreement with past work in S. cerevisiae studying repair of DSB ends lacking covalently bound proteins ( 32 ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1. MRX nuclease activity is not required for replication-dependent DSB repair A. Chromosomal location of the main gRNAs used to generate replication-dependent DSBs in this study. gRNA1 and gRNA20 generate nicks on the lagging-strand template, while gRNA6 and gRNA14 generate leading-strand template nicks with Cas9 D10A . B. Schematic of the structure and roles of the MRX complex highlighting the ability of the complex to initiate end resection in a Sae2 dependent manner and to promote Tel1 signaling (top). Schematic for DNA end resection showing one side of a DSB (indicated by a lightning bolt). MRX, stimulated by phosphorylated Sae2 incises the 5’-terminated strand near a DSB to create the entry site for bi-directional resection using the Mre11 3’-5’ exonuclease activity and either Exo1 or Dna2-Sgs1 nucleases (bottom). C., D. Ten-fold s erial dilutions of the indicated strains expressing gRNA1 or gRNA6 were spotted on medium -/+ β-estradiol to induce Cas9 D10A expression. To further define the mechanism for resection of replication-dependent DSBs, we generated double mutants with mre11-H125N and either exo1 Δ or sgs1 Δ. Because the MRX complex is known to physically recruit Dna2-Sgs1 to DSBs in addition to facilitating short-range resection ( 34 – 36 ), we reasoned that the mre11-H125N sgs1 Δ mutant would be highly sensitive to nickase induction. We found this to be the case for breaks generated by gRNAs 1, 6, 14 and 20 ( Figure 1D and Figure S1C), while the mre11-H125N exo1 Δ mutant showed sensitivity comparable to the mre11-H125N single mutant ( Figure 1D ). Curiously, the mre11-H125N and mre11-H125N exo1Δ mutants both seem to be slightly more sensitive to nicks on the lagging strand rather than the leading-strand template ( Figure 1C , 1D, and Figure S1C). These genetic assays support a previous study reporting the requirement for Dna2-Sgs1 dependent resection in the absence of MRX nuclease activity for repair of ionizing radiation induced DSBs ( 37 ). Additionally, we verified that the single deletions of exo1Δ or sgs1Δ do not confer nickase sensitivity whereas loss of long-range end resection renders cells sensitive to nickase induction ( Figure 1D , and Figure S1B, C), as previously reported ( 19 , 38 , 39 ). Replication-dependent DSBs are likely asymmetrical We next wished to determine whether the structure of replication-dependent DSBs is changed in the absence of Mre11. We expressed Cas9 D10A with gRNA6 or gRNA20 in asynchronous populations of WT or mre11Δ cells and analyzed genomic DNA by restriction endonuclease digestion followed by Southern blot analysis ( Figure 2A ). As reported previously, these gRNAs generate a mostly deDSB signal in WT cells ( 19 ). Surprisingly, mre11Δ cells appear to generate seDSBs for both targeted sites when cut with Cas9 D10A , but with the opposite polarity ( Figure 2B ). Given that the Cas9 D10A nicks introduced with these gRNAs are only 7 nt apart on opposite strands, they should both be replicated by a unidirectional replication fork initiated from ARS607 . For both gRNAs, the end that persists in mre11Δ cells corresponds to the one predicted to be blunt. This same trend of a predominantly seDSB signal but with opposite polarity was observed when targeting Cas9 D10A with gRNA1 and gRNA1 with in mre11Δ cells (Figure S2A, B). We suggest that the observed pattern of one persistent break fragment results from resection of the other DSB end, which would prevent restriction enzyme cleavage and lead to fragment disappearance. Since the role of MRX is to generate 3′ overhang ends for Exo1 and/or Dna2-Sgs1 to further resect, the most plausible explanation for this result is that resection proceeds in an MRX-independent manner at the end predicted to have a 3′ overhang ( 14 , 19 , 31 ). As a control, we expressed Cas9 with the same gRNAs in mre11Δ cells and observed the expected persistent two-ended DSB pattern using the same restriction endonuclease digests and hybridization probes ( Figure 2C and Figure S2B), confirming that MRX is required to resect both ends of replication-independent DSBs. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2. Physical analysis of replication-dependent DSBs in WT and mre11Δ cells. A. Schematic showing the location of ARS607 , gRNAs and the sizes of DNA fragments from Eco NI digestion of genomic DNA. The 3.7 kb fragment is generated by fork collapse at the nick and 6.2 kb fragment from fork progression beyond the nick or fork convergence from a downstream origin. The 1 kb hybridization probe, indicated by the red line, was designed to hybridize equally with each break fragment. B. Southern blots of Eco NI-digested DNA before induction and at different time points following expression of Cas9 D10A with gRNA 20 or gRNA6 in WT and mre11Δ cells. The 9.9 kb fragment corresponds to uncut DNA. C. Southern blots of Eco NI-digested DNA before induction and at different time points following expression of Cas9 with gRNA 20 or gRNA6 in mre11Δ cells. MRX activity is required at nearly blunt DSB ends To directly test this hypothesis, we performed a qPCR-based resection assay measuring the ssDNA fraction in proximity to break sites (Figure S3A) ( 19 , 40 ). For both gRNA1 and gRNA6, we assessed the ssDNA fraction about 1 kb from each DSB end (labeled CEN and TEL). We strategically measured long-range resection to avoid detecting ssDNA close to the break sites that may result from replication mediated 3′ overhangs. We first verified that Cas9 D10A cutting efficiency is comparable and highly efficient 4 hours after nickase induction for all genotypes tested by using a qPCR assay with an amplicon spanning the cut site (Figure S3B, C). To validate that the measured cut fraction was mostly the result of replication-dependent DSBs and not nicks, we arrested cells in G1 and then quantified Cas9 D10A -induced nicks by their sensitivity to S1 nuclease (Figure S3D, E) ( 18 ). We found that prior to S1 nuclease treatment to convert nicks to DSBs (Figure S3D), the cut fraction was negligible 2 hours after nickase induction (Figure S3F). In contrast, treating cells with S1 nuclease resulted in 17% and 24% cleavage products for the gRNA1 and gRNA6 sites, respectively (Figure S3F). This suggests that the cut fraction in cycling cells is mostly comprised of replication-dependent breaks, since the cut fraction reached 59% at the gRNA1 locus and 86% at the gRNA6 locus following two hours after nickase induction in WT cycling cells (Figure S3B, C). As previously reported ( 18 , 19 , 39 ), rad51Δ cells display a hyper resection phenotype at replication-dependent DSBs and were therefore used as controls to detect the maximum ssDNA fraction at the tested loci. In contrast, exo1Δ sgs1Δ cells were used as a resection deficient control, as they are expected to have very minimal resection at sites roughly 1 kb distal to a DSB ( 41 ). WT cells have intermediate levels of ssDNA because resection intermediates are transient in repair-competent cells ( 18 , 19 , 39 ). We found that blunt ends are processed in a MRX and Exo1/Dna2-Sgs1 dependent manner ( Figures 3A , 3C). In contrast, mre11Δ cells displayed a much smaller resection defect compared to exo1Δ sgs1Δ cells at ends predicted to bear 3′ overhangs ( Figures 3A , 3C). While the ssDNA fraction in mre11Δ is lower than rad51Δ cells at 3′ overhangs, it is apparent that resection can proceed in a mostly MRX independent manner. Since MRX is also known to physically recruit Dna2-Sgs1 and Exo1 to DSBs ( 36 , 42 ), it is possible that the slight reduction in ssDNA in mre11Δ cells at ends with 3′ overhangs compared to rad51Δ levels is due to decreased activity of the long-range resection pathways. Taken together, these data further support the model that replication-dependent DSBs are formed asymmetrically because of replication fork dynamics and demonstrate that resection can occur in an MRX independent fashion at 3′ overhang ends of these breaks. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3. Mre11 preferentially binds to and is required for resection at blunt ends. A. Fraction of ssDNA generated at sites approximately 1 kb centromeric and telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site 4 h after Cas9 D10A induction assessed with a qPCR-based assay. B. Schematic of break orientation at the gRNA1 locus (top), enrichment of Mre11 flanking the gRNA1 locus (bottom) determined by ChIP-qPCR. Amplicons to detect Mre11 binding are located 0.1-0.3 kb centromeric or telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site. C. Fraction of ssDNA generated at sites about 1 kb centromeric and telomeric to the gRNA6 cut site 4 h after Cas9 D10A induction assessed with a qPCR-based assay. D. Schematic of break orientation at the gRNA6 locus (top), enrichment of Mre11 flanking the gRNA6 locus (bottom) determined by ChIP-qPCR. Amplicons to detect Mre11 binding are located 0.2-0.4 kb centromeric or telomeric to the gRNA6 cut site. To further study the role of MRX in initiating resection, we measured Mre11 binding at replication-dependent DSBs ChIP-qPCR in cycling cells following Cas9 D10A induction. We found Mre11 to be more strongly recruited to the ends that are predicted to be blunt than to 3′ overhang ends with gRNA1 and gRNA6 ( Figures 3B , 3D). The higher retention of Mre11 at the gRNA6 site could be due to a delay between fork collapse at the leading-strand template nick and arrival of a converging fork to convert the seDSB into a deDSB. In contrast, Mre11 is recruited equally to both sides of a Cas9-induced DSB (Figure S4A). We verified the asymmetrical binding of Mre11 at the gRNA20 locus targeting Cas9 D10A to the lagging-strand template (Figure S4B, S4C). We previously reported that a Cas9 D10A -induced nick is mostly converted to a seDSB using gRNA14 ( 19 ), and consistent with this finding we observed enrichment of Mre11 only at the end produced by fork collapse. Nonetheless, the data with the other three gRNAs that generate deDSBs support the notion MRX binding is biased to blunt ends, consistent with end resection being dependent on MRX at these ends. Exo1 and Dna2-Sgs1 can process 3′ overhangs in the absence of MRX activity Finally, we assessed resection dynamics at breaks formed by lagging and leading-strand nicks in resection deficient strains to dissect the relative role of the Exo1/Dna2-Sgs1 resection pathways. At the blunt ends of gRNA1 and gRNA6-generated breaks, resection can proceed efficiently in the mre11-H125N strain ( Figure 4A , 4B). Upon deletion of exo1Δ in the mre11-H125N background, we observed a modest reduction in resection ( Figure 4A , 4B). This suggests that the Exo1 pathway plays a minor role in the resection of these breaks, and resection is mostly dependent on Dna2-Sgs1 in the absence of MRX nuclease activity. Indeed, the mre11-H125N sgs1Δ mutant is almost as resection deficient as the mre11Δ strain ( Figure 4A , 4B). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 4. Exo1 and Dna2-Sgs1 can resect DSB ends with 3’ overhangs in the absence of MRX nuclease activity. A. Fraction of ssDNA generated at sites approximately 1kb centromeric and 1kb telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site 4 h after Cas9 D10A induction assessed by a qPCR-based assay. B. Fraction of ssDNA generated at sites approximately 1 kb centromeric and telomeric to the gRNA6 cut site 4 h after Cas9 D10A induction assessed by a qPCR-based assay. All significance values are relative to the mre11Δ condition using an unpaired T-test. ns p ≥ 0.05, *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001. Significant differences between mre11-H125N derivatives are marked with blue asterisks. In contrast to blunt ends, we observed either a slight increase in resection or an insignificant decrease in resection at 3′ overhang ends in the mre11-H125N exo1 Δ and mre11-H125N sgs1 Δ double mutants compared to the mre11Δ control ( Figure 4A , 4B). The most resection deficient mutant in these experiments was mre11-H125N exo1Δ at the gRNA6 locus, however, the ssDNA fraction in this mutant was still more than 2-fold higher than in the exo1Δ sgs1Δ mutant (16.4% vs. 7.8%). The resection profiles from the 3’ overhang ends at both guide sites indicate that in the absence of MRX nuclease activity, either the Exo1 or Dna2-Sgs1 pathway can initiate resection. In contrast, Dna2-Sgs1 is required for the processing of blunt ends in the absence of MRX nuclease activity with only a minor contribution by Exo1. MRX activity is required for removal of Ku at blunt ends of replication-dependent DSBs Previous studies have shown that removal of Ku partially suppresses the DNA damage sensitivity and end resection defect of Mre11-deficient cells in an Exo1-dependent manner ( 36 , 37 , 43 , 44 ). Furthermore, over-expression of Exo1 suppresses the DNA damage sensitivity of the mre11Δ mutant ( 45 – 47 ). To increase Exo1 expression, we used a previously constructed high-copy number plasmid with EXO1 expressed from its native promoter ( 37 ) We found that over-expressing Exo1 rescued the sensitivity of mre11Δ cells to Cas9 D10A -induced nicking with gRNA1 by ∼100-fold compared to the empty vector control ( Figure 5A ). Surprisingly, Exo1 over-expression was less effective in relieving the sensitivity mre11Δ cells to induction of Cas9 D10A with gRNA6 ( Figure 5A ). This finding suggests that leading strand collapses are processed in a distinct way from lagging strand DSBs. To confirm this finding, we also measured the viability of mre11Δ and mre11Δ cells +/-Exo1 overexpression in response to gRNA14 or gRNA20 expression with Cas9 D10A . These guides convey less of a growth defect to mre11Δ cells than gRNAs 1 and 6, however, we still found that the lagging strand DSB showed less of a dependence on MRX for repair under Exo1 overexpression conditions when compared to the leading strand collapse (Figure S6A). Similarly to Exo1 overexpression, loss of Ku showed a stronger suppression of mre11Δ sensitivity to gRNA1 than to gRNA6 ( Figure 5B ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 5. Lagging strand breaks are more accessible to Exo1. A. Fraction of mre11Δ and mre11Δ + Exo1 OE cells that survived expression of Cas9 D10A with gRNA1 (left) or gRNA6 (right). B. Serial dilutions of the indicated strains expressing gRNA1 or gRNA6 were spotted on medium -/+ β-estradiol to induce Cas9 D10A expression. C. Schematic of break orientation at the gRNA1 or gRNA6 locus (top), enrichment of Yku70 at sequences flanking the gRNA1 or gRNA6 site in WT cells at 0, 2 or 4 h post Cas9 D10A induction determined by ChIP-qPCR. D. Enrichment of Yku70 at sequences flanking the gRNA1 or gRNA6 locus in mre11Δ cells. Amplicons to detect Yku70 binding are located 0.1-0.3 kb centromeric or telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site, or 0.2-0.4 kb centromeric or telomeric to gRNA6. All significance values calculated using an unpaired t-test. ns p ≥ 0.05, *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001. Since Exo1 functions redundantly with Dna2-Sgs1 in long-range resection, we also tested whether overexpressing Dna2 could rescue the growth defect of mre11Δ cells in response to expression with gRNA1 or gRNA6. In contrast to Exo1 overexpression, we found that Dna2 expression compounded the repair defect of mre11Δ cells with both gRNAs (Figure S6B). This finding agrees with previous work demonstrating that Dna2 overexpression sensitizes cells to DNA damaging agents such as camptothecin ( 48 ). Similarly, overexpressing a nuclease dead allele of Exo1, exo1 D173A , also exacerbated the repair defect of mre11Δ cells in the gRNA2 condition (Figure S6B), likely due to the nuclease-dead protein blocking DSB ends from potential resection by endogenous Exo1 or Dna2-Sgs1. To test whether Ku prevents access to Exo1 at the leading strand collapse, we performed ChIP-qPCR for Yku70 on WT and mre11Δ cells targeted with both gRNA1 and gRNA6. We found that Ku plays a relatively minimal role at the gRNA1 locus in WT cells with a peak enrichment of 1.9-fold, while Ku is strongly enriched at the blunt end of the gRNA6 locus leading strand collapse with a peak enrichment of 4.5-fold ( Figure 5C ). Notably, we observed minimal Ku enrichment at the 3′ overhang end flanking the gRNA1 and gRNA6 breaks ( Figure 5C ). In the absence of Mre11, Ku enrichment at blunt ends increased by 10-fold at both leading and lagging strand breaks, but there was still little Ku binding at 3′ overhang ends ( Figure 5D ). We also measured Ku enrichment at a Cas9 DSB targeted with gRNA1. As expected, and in contrast to Cas9 D10A induced breaks, we found strong, symmetrical Yku70 enrichment to both DSB ends (Figure S6C). The asymmetrical binding of Ku to replication-dependent DSBs likely contributes to the failure to repair these breaks by NHEJ ( 19 ). Discussion Here we investigated resection dynamics at DSBs formed by replication fork collision with a nick on the leading or lagging-strand template. In brief, we find that the MRX complex is only required to initiate resection at deDSB ends that are predicted to be blunt, or nearly blunt, but not at ends predicted to have 3′ overhangs resulting from lagging-strand synthesis. Consistently, we observe higher Mre11 binding to blunt ends of deDSBs than to 3′ overhang ends. We suggest that Exo1 and Dna2-Sgs1 can directly resect ends with long (∼70 nt) 3′ overhangs, bypassing the need for resection initiation by MRX. Although it has been shown that resection of ends produced by ionizing radiation or endonucleases is uncoordinated in the absence of the MRX complex ( 49 , 50 ), this is likely due to the low efficiency of resection initiation at each end of a DSB, rather than to different end structures. Our findings have some parallels with telomeres, where it has been shown that resection can proceed in the absence of MRX at lagging-strand telomeres, but not at leading-strand telomeres ( 51 ). The asymmetrical recognition and processing of the ends of replication-dependent deDSBs agrees with in vitro studies showing that replication fork collapse at nicks on leading and lagging strand templates results in seDSBs with different end structures ( 31 ). The finding that resection can proceed at one end of replication-dependent deDSBs in the absence of MRX raises the question of why the mre11 Δ mutant shows such high sensitivity to nickase expression. It is possible that the 3′ overhang end can invade the sister chromatid to initiate repair synthesis but in the absence of timely second-end capture, the cells cannot complete repair. The other possible role for MRX is to maintain sister-chromatid cohesion during repair of replication-dependent DSBs. Previous studies have shown an increase in spontaneous and nick-induced inter-chromosomal recombination in the absence of the MRX complex in yeast, likely because of a sister-chromatid cohesion defect ( 19 , 52 ). Nick-induced unequal sister chromatid recombination between closely linked repeats is also less impacted by loss of Mre11 ( 27 , 38 ). How MRX achieves sister chromatid tethering is currently unknown. Several groups argue that the Rad50 subunit of MRX might tether sister chromatids at the site of a DSB through its long coiled-coil domains, analogous to cohesin, ( 52 – 56 ). Others propose that through initiating end resection, MRX assists in de novo cohesin loading which indirectly stimulates sister chromatid tethering ( 57 , 58 ). Resolving whether MRX plays a direct physical role maintaining sister chromatid tethering, or, if MRX initiated resection stimulates sister chromatid tethering would help better define how replication-dependent DSBs are repaired. Additionally, we find that Ku binds blunt ends of replication-dependent DSBs, and that MRX is required to remove Ku from these ends. This finding is consistent with studies showing delayed clearance of Ku from endonuclease-induced DSBs in the absence of MRX ( 59 ). An alternative explanation for this finding is that MRX physically competes with Ku for access to DNA ends. We did not detect Ku enrichment at 3′ overhang ends, even in the absence of MRX. Our results contrast with telomeres where Ku has been found to associate with both leading and lagging-strand telomeres ( 51 ). If the 3′ overhang ends are rapidly resected by Exo1 and/or Dna2-Sgs1 then the long tracts of ssDNA would be poor substrates for Ku binding. Furthermore, RPA bound to ends with ssDNA overhangs has been shown to prevent access to Ku ( 60 ). Since the 3′ overhang ends of replication-dependent DSBs would be bound by RPA, they would not be available for Ku to bind even prior to long-range resection. Unexpectedly, we find higher enrichment of Ku at the site of a leading strand collapse, as opposed to a nearly blunt end generated by termination of an Okazaki fragment at the site of a nick. The reason for this difference is not immediately obvious. It is possible that during Okazaki fragment termination, DNA polymerase 8 (Pol8) remains bound to the site of the DSB. In this scenario, Ku would have to compete with Pol8 for DSB binding. In contrast, leading strand synthesis is carried out by Polε, which is coupled to the CMG helicase ( 61 ). Since in vitro work demonstrates that the CMG helicase dissociates from DNA when a nick is induced on a leading-strand template ( 18 , 31 ), we propose that these ends might be less protected than nearly blunt ends resulting from lagging strand synthesis. This could result in higher Ku enrichment at a leading strand collapse than to blunt ends of lagging strand DSBs. In support of this idea, Exo1 overexpression more robustly rescues the growth defect of mre11Δ cells challenged with a lagging strand DSB compared to a leading strand collapse, suggesting that Ku plays less of an inhibitory role to resection at lagging strand DSBs. Another possibility is that the blunt ends of breaks formed by nicks on the lagging-strand template have a different structure to the end formed by CMG run off at a nick on the leading-strand template. The in vitro study mapping ends generated at pre-formed nicks on plasmid templates detected only seDSBs ( 31 ); therefore, the structure of the end produced by polymerase run off at a nick on the lagging strand template to form a deDSBs is uncharacterized. Since Exo1 preferentially degrades 5′ recessed ends, has reduced activity at blunt ends, and low activity at ends with 5′ overhangs ( 62 ), the end produced by a leading strand collapse would be a poor substrate for Exo1. The physiological relevance of Ku binding to one end of replication-dependent DSBs is unclear as these ends are not substrates for NHEJ repair ( 19 , 20 , 23 , 27 ). It is possible that Ku plays a role in synchronizing resection at replication-dependent DSBs to minimize potentially mutagenic ssDNA tracts. Consistent with this idea, work in S. pombe has demonstrated that the mutagenic break-induced replication (BIR) pathway is more active in the absence of the Ku complex ( 20 ). Finally, since the Ku protein block has been shown to stimulate MRX endonuclease activity in vitro ( 8 , 63 ), Ku may function at asymmetric DSB ends to ensure that resection proceeds in a mostly symmetric manner. One potential hazard of Ku binding to one end of replication-dependent DSBs is the possibility of joining the blunt ends of two independent replication dependent DSBs, resulting in chromosome rearrangements. In summary, this work details how resection proceeds at DSBs generated during DNA replication. While our findings are in line with some aspects of resection regulation at canonical DSBs, we also find key differences in repair factor binding and nuclease usage at each end of replication-dependent deDSBs. It is interesting to note that although BRCA1 is required for resection of endonuclease-induced DSBs in mammalian cells, it is dispensable for resection of replication-dependent DSBs ( 18 , 27 ). Since Cas9 nickases, such as Cas9 D10A , are currently being studied for their gene editing potential ( 64 , 65 ), the finding that nicks can trigger BIR ( 22 , 27 , 28 ) raise the possibility of unintended off target effects. In future work, it would be interesting to investigate mutagenic outcomes of Cas9 nickase-induced breaks, and the genetic backgrounds that might be prone to these negative outcomes. Materials and Methods Media and yeast strains Complete yeast media contained 1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, 10 µg/mL adenine, and 2% glucose (YPAD) as a carbon source. Synthetic media contained 1X yeast nitrogen base, 1X amino acid dropout mix, and 2% glucose. For β-estradiol induction of Cas9 D10A , a 10 mM stock of β-estradiol was diluted and spread on plates or added to liquid media for a final concentration of 2 µM. All yeast strains are in the RAD5 -corrected W303 background ( leu2-3 , 112 trp1-1 can1-100 ura3-1 ade2-1 his3-11,15 ) unless otherwise noted and are listed in Supplementary Table 1. Strains were constructed by standard genetic methods. Lithium acetate transformation was used to introduce plasmids or deletion cassettes containing a marker of choice and homology arms flanking the gene to be deleted. Other strains were made by genetic cross, followed by tetrad dissection and marker selection. Plasmids Cas9 and gRNA plasmids Plasmids expressing FLAG tagged Cas9 (pLS504) or Cas9 D10A (pLS503) were generated in the pRG203MX and integrated into the genome as previously described ( 19 ). For strains used for Yku70-FLAG ChIP, we derived plasmids without a FLAG tag fused to Cas9 D10A or Cas9 (pLS755 and pLS758 respectively) by amplifying the entire pLS503 or pLS504 plasmid except the 3xFLAG tag by PCR (see Table S2 for primers) and ligating the resulting linear product with T4 DNA ligase after T4 polynucleotide kinase treatment. Guide RNAs were expressed in a pRG205MX ( LEU2 ) integrating plasmid backbone (pLS505) as previously described (see Table S3) ( 19 ). Episomal centromeric plasmids were previously constructed that express both Cas9 D10A and either gRNA1, gRNA6, gRNA14, or gRNA20 (pLS627, pLS633, pLS733, and pLS735 respectively) ( 19 ). Full plasmid sequences are available upon request. Overexpression plasmids Overexpression plasmids were derived from the high copy number vector pRS426 ( URA3 ). Full plasmid sequences are available upon request. Spot assays for assessing growth sensitivity of Cas9 D10A strains For all spot assays except those testing Exo1 over-expression, Cas9 D10A and the relevant gRNA were co-expressed from a centromeric plasmid. Single colonies were used to inoculate 2 mL SC-Leu media and cultures were grown overnight at 30°C while shaking. The following day, 10-fold serial dilutions were spotted on media with or without 2 µM β-estradiol. Plates were grown for three days at 30°C, unless otherwise noted, after which plates were imaged with a desktop scanner. Survival assays for overexpression experiments All survival assays with Cas9 D10A were done in strains in which the relevant gRNA was integrated into the genome and grown on SC-URA media to maintain episomal overexpression vectors. Fresh single colonies from each strain were picked and grown for four hours in SC-URA liquid media. Cells were then diluted and plated in technical replicate on SC-URA ± β-estradiol. Colonies were allowed to grow for five days at 30°C, then counted. The survival frequency was calculated by the formula: Physical analysis of Cas9 D10A -induced breaks by Southern blotting Induction of Cas9 D10A in asynchronous cultures Strains with integrated Cas9 D10A and gRNA cassettes were used for physical analysis of replication-dependent DSBs. For Cas9 D10A induction, single colonies of relevant strains were used to inoculate 5 mL YPAD cultures that were grown overnight at 30°C. The following day, cultures were diluted to an OD 600 of 0.4 in YPAD and grown for 1 hour. 1 x 10 8 cells were collected before induction (t 0 ) and then β-estradiol was added to the remaining culture at a final concentration of 2 µM to induce Cas9 D10A . The same number of cells were collected at each timepoint, sodium azide was added to 0.1% final, cells were collected by centrifugation at 3,000 rpm for 5 min at 4°C, cell pellets were then washed with dH 2 O, centrifuged at 2,000 x g for 2 min at 4°C in a microcentrifuge and cell pellets were stored on ice prior to embedding in agarose plugs. Cells were collected at 0-, 1-, 2-, and 4-hour points and agarose plugs were prepared and processed as previously described ( 19 , 66 ), followed by Southern blotting ( 19 ). Flow cytometry Two volumes of 95% ethanol were added to cultures containing 1 x 10 7 cells, vortexed, and stored at -20°C freezer overnight. The following day, cells were collected by centrifugation at 2,000 x g for 3 min at room temperature, resuspended twice in 500 µL of 50 mM Tris-HCl pH7.5, incubated for 10 min at room temperature and collected at 2,000 x g for 3 min. 500 µL of RNAse A solution (1 mg/mL RNAse A in 50 mM Tris-HCl pH7.5, 7.5 mM NaCl) was added to each pellet, and incubated at 37°C overnight. The following day, cells were collected, resuspended in 500 µL of 1 mg/mL Proteinase K in 50 mM Tris-HCl pH7.5, and incubated at 50°C for 1 h. Cells were collected, resuspended in 500 µL of 200 mM Tris-HCl pH7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 80 mM MgCl 2 , stained with 300 nM SYTOX Green, and sonicated briefly. Fluorescence was measured using an LSR-II (Becton Dickinson) and FACSDiva (Becton Dickinson) software using a 488 nm blue laser and 525/50 nm emission filter. Data analysis was performed using FlowJo_v10 (Becton Dickinson Biosciences) software. Quantitative PCR (qPCR)-based resection assay Resection was measured using a qPCR-based assay as previously described ( 67 ) with the following modifications. ∼10 8 cycling cells were collected at the indicated time intervals after β-estradiol was added to a final concentration of 2 µM for Cas9 D10A induction. Per sample and amplicon, reactions were performed in technical triplicates containing 4.4 µL digested or undigested genomic DNA, 300 nM of each forward and reverse primer (listed in Table S4), and 1x SsoAdvanced Universal SYBR Green Supermix in a total volume of 10 μL and analyzed them on a CFX384 Real-Time System with 10 minutes initial denaturation at 95°C, followed by 40 cycles of 1 minute denaturation at 95°C and 1 minute annealing and extension at 58°C. The fraction of ssDNA, f ssDNA , at the restriction enzyme recognition site was calculated as previously described ( 19 ) with the following formula: where E RS is the primer efficiencies for the RS amplicon, ΔC q (digest-mock) is the difference between quantification cycles for the digested minus the mock-digested sample, and f DSB is the fraction of genomes where Cas9 D10A cleaved the target locus. f DSB for a locus cleaved by Cas9 D10A can be calculated as: where E nCas9cs and E ADH1 are the primer efficiencies for the Cas9 D10A -cut site and ADH1 amplicons and ΔC q (t 0 - t) is the difference between the quantification cycles at the first time point (before β-estradiol induction of Cas9 D10A ) and the evaluated time point. ChIP-qPCR to measure protein recruitment to replication-dependent DSBs Protein recruitment to replication-dependent DSBs was assessed with a ChIP-qPCR assay. 25 mL cycling cells at a density of OD 600 = 0.4 were collected at the indicated time intervals after β-estradiol was added to a final concentration of 2 µM for Cas9 D10A induction. 37% formaldehyde was added to a final concentration of 1% and incubated at RT for 15 minutes with shaking. The crosslinking reaction was quenched with 2.5 M glycine, followed by washing with HEPES buffered saline and ChIP lysis buffer (50 mM HEPES, 140 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1% IGEPAL CA-630, 0.1% Sodium deoxycholate). Cells were lysed in ChIP lysis buffer containing 1 mM PMSF using a FastPrep-24 (MP Biomedicals) protocol, run for 30 seconds at 6.5 m/s 4 times. Lysate was placed on ice between each cycle for 45 seconds. Chromatin was fragmented with a QSonica Q800R sonicator for 10 cycles with an amplitude of 65% for 30 seconds. After clearing the lysate, IP samples were incubated with the appropriate antibody pre-incubated with A/B Dynabeads in lysis buffer at a concentration of 1:20 for 3 hours. Control input DNA samples were kept on ice during immunoprecipitation of the remaining DNA. Immunoprecipitated DNA was washed and reverse crosslinked at 65°C for 16 hours. Input and IP DNA was purified using the Monarch PCR and DNA cleanup kit (NEB). qPCR reactions were performed in the same manner as described in the resection assay with the following modification to the CFX384 Real-Time System protocol. qPCR reactions were run with a 3 minute initial denaturation at 95°C, followed by 40 cycles of 15 second denaturation at 95°C and 30 second annealing and extension at 60°C. Fold enrichment is defined as 2 ΔΔCq , where ΔΔCq is defined as: Quantification and statistical analysis Quantification and statistical analysis were done using PRISM (GraphPad). ChIP-qPCR experiments were performed at least two times and statistical significance was determined by a two-tailed Student’s t test. For ChIP-qPCR and survival assays, error bars indicate standard deviation. The two-tailed Student’s t test was also used for all survival assays, with the following symbols to indicate significance thresholds: ns = not significant p > 0.05, *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S1. Cas9 D10A induced replication-dependent DSBs require end resection for repair. A. Model for generation of replication-dependent DSBs at nicks induced by Cas9 D10A on the leading or lagging strand template. B. Ten-fold serial dilutions of of the indicated strains expressing gRNA1 or gRNA6 spotted on medium -/+ β-estradiol to induce Cas9 D10A expression. C. Ten-fold serial dilutions of of the indicated strains expressing gRNA20 or gRNA14 spotted on medium -/+ β-estradiol to induce Cas9 D10A expression. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S2. Physical analysis of replication-dependent DSBs in mre11Δ cells. A. Schematic showing the location of ARS607 , gRNAs and the sizes of DNA fragments from Fsp I digestion of genomic DNA. gRNA14 produces fragments of 2.5 and 4.8 kb with Cas9, and gRNA1 produces fragments of 2.7 and 4.6 kb. Fork collapse at the nick would produce fragments of 4.8 or 4.6 kb with gRNA14 or gRNA1, respectively. A deDSB is indicated by the 2.5 or 2.7 kb fragment. B. Southern blots of Fsp I-digested DNA before induction and at different time points following expression of Cas9 D10A or Cas9 with gRNA14 or gRNA1 in mre11Δ cells. The 7.3 kb fragment corresponds to uncut DNA. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S3. Cut fractions at the gRNA1 and gRNA6 sites after nickase induction. A. Schematic showing the location of the gRNA1 or gRNA6-induced nicks and primers flanking restriction endonuclease sites for the qPCR resection assay. After replication, the nicked strand is converted to a deDSB that undergoes end resection to generate ssDNA. The cut fraction is calculated with primers flanking the cut-site, taking into account that nicking can continue in the replicated template. Unresected genomic DNA can be cleaved by restriction endonucleases preventing PCR amplification, whereas ssDNA is resistant to digestion and can be amplified. Cutting efficiency at the gRNA1 ( B ) and gRNA6 ( C ) sites at 2 and 4 hours post induction . D. Schematic demonstrating how S1 nuclease digest can convert nicks to DSBs preventing PCR amplification using primers flanking the cut site. Prior to S1 treatment, there would be one intact and one nicked strand and thus result in only a 50% decrease in the PCR product. E. Schematic showing G1 arrest and nickase induction growth regime (left). FACS plots of synchronized bar1Δ cells collected at 0, 1, and 2 hours after nickase induction. F. Cutting efficiency at the gRNA1 and gRNA6 sites at 1 and 2 hours post nickase induction in bar1Δ cells. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S4. Mre11 enrichment in other break contexts. A. Schematic of break orientation at the gRNA1 locus targeted by Cas9 (top), enrichment of Mre11 flanking the gRNA1 locus targeted by Cas9 (bottom). Amplicons to detect Mre11 binding are located 0.1-0.3 kb centromeric or telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site. B. Schematic of break orientation at the gRNA14 locus (top), enrichment of Mre11 flanking the gRNA14 locus (bottom). Amplicons to detect Mre11 binding are located 0.1-0.3 kb centromeric or telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site. C. Schematic of break orientation at the gRNA20 locus (top), enrichment of Mre11 flanking the gRNA20 locus (bottom). Amplicons to detect Mre11 binding are located 0.1-0.3 kb centromeric or telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S5. Exo1 overexpression only rescues mre11 Δ viability to lagging strand DSBs. A. Overexpression assays as in Figure 4A with Cas9 D10A targeting the gRNA14 and gRNA20 loci. B. Survival assays comparing mre11 Δ + empty vector to mre11 Δ cells with Dna2 or exo1 D173A (nuclease dead) overexpressed in Cas9 D10A /gRNA1 or gRNA6 targeting conditions. C. Yku70 enrichment flanking the gRNA1 locus cut by Cas9. Amplicons to detect Yku70 binding are located 0.1-0.3 kb centromeric or telomeric to the gRNA1 cut site. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S6. Replication-dependent DSB processing. Model of resection dynamics at both nearly blunt and 3’ overhang DSB ends in WT cells (top) and mre11 Δ cells (bottom). At ends with 3’ overhangs, Dna2-Sgs1 and Exo1 are still able to initiate long-range resection in the absence of MRX. In contrast, Ku accumulates at nearly blunt ends in the absence of MRX. View this table: View inline View popup Supplementary Table 1. Yeast strains View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Supplementary Table 2-1. ChIP-qPCR Oligonucleotides View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Supplementary Table 2-2. Resection Assay Oligonucleotides View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Supplementary Table 3. Plasmids Acknowledgements We thank all the members of the Symington lab for review of the manuscript. This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R35 GM126997 to L.S.S. and T32 CA265828 to M.J.J.). Schematics shown in the figures were generated in BioRender. Funder Information Declared National Institute of General Medical Sciences, https://ror.org/04q48ey07 , R35GM126997 Footnotes Author contributions: Conceptualization, M.J.J. and L.S.S.; Methodology, M.J.J., M.T.K., S.Y.J, A.S., and L.S.S.; Formal Analysis, M.J.J., M.T.K., S.Y.J, A.S., and L.S.S.; Investigation, M.J.J., M.T.K., S.Y.J., A.S.; Writing, M.J.J. and L.S.S.; Visualization, M.J.J. and L.S.S.; Supervision, L.S.S.; Funding Acquisition, L.S.S. Competing interests statement: The authors declare no competing interests References 1. ↵ J. S. Iacovoni et al. , High-resolution profiling of gammaH2AX around DNA double strand breaks in the mammalian genome . EMBO J 29 , 1446 – 1457 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 2. ↵ M. Jasin , J. E. Haber , The democratization of gene editing: Insights from site-specific cleavage and double-strand break repair . DNA Repair (Amst ) 44 , 6 – 16 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 3. ↵ A. Canela et al. , Topoisomerase II-Induced Chromosome Breakage and Translocation Is Determined by Chromosome Architecture and Transcriptional Activity . Mol Cell 75 , 252 – 266 e258 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 4. ↵ M. A. Resnick , P. Martin , The repair of double-strand breaks in the nuclear DNA of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its genetic control . Mol Gen Genet 143 , 119 – 129 ( 1976 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 5. ↵ A. Mehta , J. E. Haber , Sources of DNA double-strand breaks and models of recombinational DNA repair . Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 6 , a016428 ( 2014 ). 6. ↵ D. P. Waterman , J. E. Haber , M. B. Smolka , Checkpoint Responses to DNA Double-Strand Breaks . Annu Rev Biochem 89 , 103 – 133 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 7. ↵ T. T. Paull , Reconsidering pathway choice: a sequential model of mammalian DNA double-strand break pathway decisions . Curr Opin Genet Dev 71 , 55 – 62 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl PubMed 8. ↵ G. Reginato , E. Cannavo , P. Cejka , Physiological protein blocks direct the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 and Sae2 nuclease complex to initiate DNA end resection . Genes Dev 31 , 2325 – 2330 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 9. ↵ L. S. Symington , J. Gautier , Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice . Annu Rev Genet 45 , 247 – 271 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 10. ↵ P. Cejka , L. S. Symington , DNA End Resection: Mechanism and Control . Annu Rev Genet 55 , 285 – 307 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 11. ↵ L. S. Symington , R. Rothstein , M. Lisby , Mechanisms and regulation of mitotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Genetics 198 , 795 – 835 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 12. ↵ A. Tubbs , A. Nussenzweig , Endogenous DNA Damage as a Source of Genomic Instability in Cancer . Cell 168 , 644 – 656 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 13. ↵ M. Macheret , T. D. Halazonetis , DNA replication stress as a hallmark of cancer . Annu Rev Pathol 10 , 425 – 448 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 14. ↵ R. Scully , J. C. Walter , A. Nussenzweig , One-ended and two-ended breaks at nickase-broken replication forks . DNA Repair (Amst ) 144 , 103783 ( 2024 ). 15. ↵ K. W. Caldecott , Causes and consequences of DNA single-strand breaks . Trends Biochem Sc i 49 , 68 – 78 ( 2024 ). 16. Y. H. Hsiang , L. F. Liu , Identification of mammalian DNA topoisomerase I as an intracellular target of the anticancer drug camptothecin . Cancer Res 48 , 1722 – 1726 ( 1988 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 17. ↵ J. Murai et al. , Trapping of PARP1 and PARP2 by Clinical PARP Inhibitors . Cancer Res 72 , 5588 – 5599 ( 2012 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 18. ↵ R. Pavani et al. , Structure and repair of replication-coupled DNA breaks . Science 385 , eado3867 ( 2024 ). 19. ↵ M. T. Kimble et al. , Repair of replication-dependent double-strand breaks differs between the leading and lagging strands . Mol Cell 85 , 61 – 77 e66 ( 2025 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 20. ↵ Y. Xu et al. , DNA nicks in both leading and lagging strand templates can trigger break-induced replication . Mol Cell 85 , 91 – 106 e105 ( 2025 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 21. Y. L. Feng et al. , DNA nicks induce mutational signatures associated with BRCA1 deficiency . Nat Commun 13 , 4285 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl PubMed 22. ↵ S. Li et al. , PIF1 helicase promotes break-induced replication in mammalian cells . EMBO J 40 , e104509 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 23. ↵ L. E. Vriend et al. , Distinct genetic control of homologous recombination repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks, nicks and paired nicks . Nucleic Acids Res 44 , 5204 – 5217 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 24. ↵ M. Jinek et al. , A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity . Science 337 , 816 – 821 ( 2012 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 25. ↵ F. Cortes-Ledesma , A. Aguilera , Double-strand breaks arising by replication through a nick are repaired by cohesin-dependent sister-chromatid exchange . EMBO Rep 7 , 919 – 926 ( 2006 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 26. ↵ I. Nielsen et al. , A Flp-nick system to study repair of a single protein-bound nick in vivo . Nat Methods 6 , 753 – 757 ( 2009 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 27. ↵ R. Elango et al. , Two-ended recombination at a Flp-nickase-broken replication fork . Mol Cell 85 , 78 – 90 e73 ( 2025 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 28. ↵ R. Mayle et al. , DNA REPAIR. Mus81 and converging forks limit the mutagenicity of replication fork breakage . Science 349 , 742 – 747 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 29. ↵ P. Ortega , B. Gomez-Gonzalez , A. Aguilera , Rpd3L and Hda1 histone deacetylases facilitate repair of broken forks by promoting sister chromatid cohesion . Nat Commun 10 , 5178 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 30. ↵ M. Yekezare , B. Gomez-Gonzalez , J. F. Diffley , Controlling DNA replication origins in response to DNA damage - inhibit globally, activate locally . J Cell Sci 126 , 1297 – 1306 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 31. ↵ K. B. Vrtis et al. , Single-strand DNA breaks cause replisome disassembly . Mol Cell 81 , 1309 – 1318 e1306 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 32. ↵ S. Moreau , J. R. Ferguson , L. S. Symington , The nuclease activity of Mre11 is required for meiosis but not for mating type switching, end joining, or telomere maintenance . Mol Cell Biol 19 , 556 – 566 ( 1999 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 33. ↵ E. Gobbini , C. Cassani , M. Villa , D. Bonetti , M. P. Longhese , Functions and regulation of the MRX complex at DNA double-strand breaks . Microb Cell 3 , 329 – 337 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 34. ↵ P. Cejka et al. , DNA end resection by Dna2-Sgs1-RPA and its stimulation by Top3-Rmi1 and Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 . Nature 467 , 112 – 116 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 35. H. Niu et al. , Mechanism of the ATP-dependent DNA end-resection machinery from Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Nature 467 , 108 – 111 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 36. ↵ E. Y. Shim et al. , Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 and Ku proteins regulate association of Exo1 and Dna2 with DNA breaks . EMBO J 29 , 3370 – 3380 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 37. ↵ E. P. Mimitou , L. S. Symington , Ku prevents Exo1 and Sgs1-dependent resection of DNA ends in the absence of a functional MRX complex or Sae2 . EMBO J 29 , 3358 – 3369 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 38. ↵ S. Munoz-Galvan et al. , Competing roles of DNA end resection and non-homologous end joining functions in the repair of replication-born double-strand breaks by sister-chromatid recombination . Nucleic Acids Res 41 , 1669 – 1683 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 39. ↵ K. P. Jakobsen et al. , Minimal Resection Takes Place during Break-Induced Replication Repair of Collapsed Replication Forks and Is Controlled by Strand Invasion . Cell Rep 26 , 836 – 844 e833 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 40. ↵ C. Zierhut , J. F. Diffley , Break dosage, cell cycle stage and DNA replication influence DNA double strand break response . EMBO J 27 , 1875 – 1885 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 41. ↵ Z. Zhu , W. H. Chung , E. Y. Shim , S. E. Lee , G. Ira , Sgs1 helicase and two nucleases Dna2 and Exo1 resect DNA double-strand break ends . Cell 134 , 981 – 994 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 42. ↵ P. Cejka , DNA End Resection: Nucleases Team Up with the Right Partners to Initiate Homologous Recombination . J Biol Chem 290 , 22931 – 22938 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 43. ↵ R. S. Williams et al. , Mre11 dimers coordinate DNA end bridging and nuclease processing in double-strand-break repair . Cell 135 , 97 – 109 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 44. ↵ S. S. Foster , A. Balestrini , J. H. Petrini , Functional interplay of the Mre11 nuclease and Ku in the response to replication-associated DNA damage . Mol Cell Biol 31 , 4379 – 4389 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 45. ↵ L. K. Lewis , G. Karthikeyan , J. W. Westmoreland , M. A. Resnick , Differential suppression of DNA repair deficiencies of Yeast rad50, mre11 and xrs2 mutants by EXO1 and TLC1 (the RNA component of telomerase) . Genetics 160 , 49 – 62 ( 2002 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 46. S. Moreau , E. A. Morgan , L. S. Symington , Overlapping functions of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mre11, Exo1 and Rad27 nucleases in DNA metabolism . Genetics 159 , 1423 – 1433 ( 2001 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 47. ↵ H. Tsubouchi , H. Ogawa , Exo1 roles for repair of DNA double-strand breaks and meiotic crossing over in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Mol Biol Cell 11 , 2221 – 2233 ( 2000 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 48. ↵ J. S. Ang , S. Duffy , R. Segovia , P. C. Stirling , P. Hieter , Dosage Mutator Genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: A Novel Mutator Mode-of-Action of the Mph1 DNA Helicase . Genetics 204 , 975 – 986 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 49. ↵ N. Pham et al. , Mechanisms restraining break-induced replication at two-ended DNA double-strand breaks . EMBO J 40 , e104847 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 50. ↵ J. W. Westmoreland , M. A. Resnick , Coincident resection at both ends of random, gamma-induced double-strand breaks requires MRX (MRN), Sae2 (Ctp1), and Mre11-nuclease . PLoS Genet 9 , e1003420 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 51. ↵ V. Faure , S. Coulon , J. Hardy , V. Geli , Cdc13 and telomerase bind through different mechanisms at the lagging- and leading-strand telomeres . Mol Cell 38 , 842 – 852 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 52. ↵ M. Hohl et al. , The Rad50 coiled-coil domain is indispensable for Mre11 complex functions . Nat Struct Mol Biol 18 , 1124 – 1131 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 53. K. P. Hopfner et al. , The Rad50 zinc-hook is a structure joining Mre11 complexes in DNA recombination and repair . Nature 418 , 562 – 566 ( 2002 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 54. A. Seeber et al. , RPA Mediates Recruitment of MRX to Forks and Double-Strand Breaks to Hold Sister Chromatids Together . Mol Cell 64 , 951 – 966 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 55. M. Zhu , H. Zhao , O. Limbo , P. Russell , Mre11 complex links sister chromatids to promote repair of a collapsed replication fork . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115 , 8793 – 8798 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 56. ↵ M. Rotheneder et al. , Cryo-EM structure of the Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 complex reveals the molecular mechanism of scaffolding functions . Mol Cell 83 , 167 – 185 e169 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 57. ↵ A. Delamarre et al. , MRX Increases Chromatin Accessibility at Stalled Replication Forks to Promote Nascent DNA Resection and Cohesin Loading . Mol Cell 77 , 395 – 410 e393 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 58. ↵ M. Scherzer , F. Giordano , M. S. Ferran , L. Strom , Recruitment of Scc2/4 to double-strand breaks depends on gammaH2A and DNA end resection . Life Sci Alliance 5 ( 2022 ). 59. ↵ D. Wu , L. M. Topper , T. E. Wilson , Recruitment and dissociation of nonhomologous end joining proteins at a DNA double-strand break in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Genetics 178 , 1237 – 1249 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 60. ↵ D. S. Krasner , J. M. Daley , P. Sung , H. Niu , Interplay between Ku and Replication Protein A in the Restriction of Exo1-mediated DNA Break End Resection . J Biol Chem 290 , 18806 – 18816 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 61. ↵ L. D. Langston et al. , CMG helicase and DNA polymerase epsilon form a functional 15-subunit holoenzyme for eukaryotic leading-strand DNA replication . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111 , 15390 – 15395 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 62. ↵ E. Cannavo , P. Cejka , S. C. Kowalczykowski , Relationship of DNA degradation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae exonuclease 1 and its stimulation by RPA and Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 to DNA end resection . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110 , E1661 – 1668 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 63. ↵ W. Wang , J. M. Daley , Y. Kwon , D. S. Krasner , P. Sung , Plasticity of the Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2-Sae2 nuclease ensemble in the processing of DNA-bound obstacles . Genes Dev 31 , 2331 – 2336 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 64. ↵ W. H. Wu et al. , CRISPR/Cas9 (D10A) nickase-mediated Hb CS gene editing and genetically modified fibroblast identification . Bioengineered 13 , 13398 – 13406 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl PubMed 65. ↵ J. Lee et al. , Prime editing with genuine Cas9 nickases minimizes unwanted indels . Nat Commun 14 , 1786 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 66. ↵ K. P. Jakobsen , L. Bjergbaek , Using the Flp Recombinase to Induce Site-Specific Protein-DNA Nicks . Methods Enzymol 601 , 1 – 25 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 67. ↵ R. Gnugge , J. Oh , L. S. Symington , Processing of DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Yeast . Methods Enzymol 600 , 1 – 24 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted July 05, 2025. Download PDF Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Asymmetrical recognition and processing of double-strand breaks formed during DNA replication Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Asymmetrical recognition and processing of double-strand breaks formed during DNA replication Matthew J Johnson , Michael T Kimble , Seoyeon Jeong , Aakanksha Sane , Lorraine S Symington bioRxiv 2025.07.03.663015; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.03.663015 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Asymmetrical recognition and processing of double-strand breaks formed during DNA replication Matthew J Johnson , Michael T Kimble , Seoyeon Jeong , Aakanksha Sane , Lorraine S Symington bioRxiv 2025.07.03.663015; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.03.663015 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Genetics Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7619) Biochemistry (17642) Bioengineering (13865) Bioinformatics (41863) Biophysics (21410) Cancer Biology (18548) Cell Biology (25437) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13359) Ecology (19863) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24288) Genetics (15587) Genomics (22467) Immunology (17704) Microbiology (40301) Molecular Biology (17142) Neuroscience (88447) Paleontology (666) Pathology (2825) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4815) Physiology (7634) Plant Biology (15109) Scientific Communication and Education (2042) Synthetic Biology (4285) Systems Biology (9812) Zoology (2268)