Back

Multi-Pathway DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Reporters Reveal Extensive Cross-Talk Between End-Joining, Single Strand Annealing, and Homologous Recombination

van de Kooij, B.; Kruswick, A.; van Attikum, H.; Yaffe, M. B.

2021-12-22 molecular biology
10.1101/2021.12.22.473809 bioRxiv
Show abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) are repaired by multiple distinct pathways, with outcomes ranging from error-free repair to extensive mutagenesis and genomic loss. Repair pathway cross-talk and compensation within the DSB-repair network is incompletely understood, despite its importance for genomic stability, oncogenesis, and the outcome of genome editing by CRISPR/Cas9. To address this, we constructed and validated three fluorescent Cas9-based reporters, named DSB-Spectrum, that simultaneously quantify the contribution of multiple distinct pathways to repair of a DSB. These reporters distinguish between DSB-repair by error-free canonical non-homologous end-joining (c-NHEJ) versus homologous recombination (HR; reporter 1), mutagenic repair versus HR (reporter 2), and mutagenic end-joining versus single strand annealing (SSA) versus HR (reporter 3). Using these reporters, we show that inhibition of the essential c-NHEJ factor DNA-PKcs not only increases repair by HR, but also results in a substantial increase in mutagenic repair by SSA. We show that SSA-mediated repair of Cas9-generated DSBs can occur between Alu elements at endogenous genomic loci, and is enhanced by inhibition of DNA-PKcs. Finally, we demonstrate that the short-range end-resection factors CtIP and Mre11 promote both SSA and HR, whereas the long-range end-resection factors DNA2 and Exo1 promote SSA, but reduce HR, when both pathways compete for the same substrate. These new Cas9-based DSB-Spectrum reporters facilitate the rapid and comprehensive analysis of repair pathway crosstalk and DSB-repair outcome.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.