Mutational heterogeneity must be taken into account when reconstructing evolutionary histories, calibrating molecular clocks, and predicting links between genes and disease. Selective pressures and various DNA transactions have been invoked to explain the heterogeneous distribution of genetic variation between species, within populations, and in tissuespecific tumors. To examine relationships between such heterogeneity and variations in leading-and lagging-strand replication fidelity and mismatch repair, we accumulated 40,000 spontaneous mutations in eight diploid yeast strains in the absence of selective pressure. We found that replicase error rates vary by fork direction, coding state, nucleosome proximity, and sequence context. Further, error rates and DNA mismatch repair efficiency both vary by mismatch type, responsible polymerase, replication time, and replication origin proximity. Mutation patterns implicate replication infidelity as one driver of variation in somatic and germline evolution, suggest mechanisms of mutual modulation of genome stability and composition, and predict future observations in specific cancers.

Ribonucleotides are frequently incorporated into DNA during eukaryotic replication. Here we map the genome-wide distribution of these ribonucleotides as markers of replication enzymology in budding yeast, using a new 5′-DNA end-mapping method, Hydrolytic End Sequencing. HydEn-Seq of DNA from ribonucleotide excision repair-deficient strains reveals replicase- and strand-specific patterns of ribonucleotides in the nuclear genome. These patterns support the role of DNA polymerases α and δ in lagging strand replication and of DNA polymerase ε in leading strand replication. They identify replication origins, termination zones and variations in ribonucleotide incorporation frequency across the genome that exceed three orders of magnitude. HydEn-Seq also reveals strand-specific 5′-DNA ends at mitochondrial replication origins, suggesting unidirectional replication of a circular genome. Given the conservation of enzymes that incorporate and process ribonucleotides in DNA, HydEn-Seq can be used to track replication enzymology in other organisms.

To maintain genome stability, mismatch repair of nuclear DNA replication errors must be directed to the nascent strand, likely by DNA ends and PCNA. Here we show that the efficiency of mismatch repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is reduced by inactivating RNase H2, which nicks DNA containing ribonucleotides incorporated during replication. In strains encoding mutator polymerases, this reduction is preferential for repair of mismatches made by leading strand DNA polymerase ε as compared to lagging strand DNA polymerase δ. The results suggest that RNase H2-dependent processing of ribonucleotides transiently present in DNA after replication may direct mismatch repair to the continuously replicated nascent leading strand.

SUMMARY RNase H2-dependent Ribonucleotide Excision Repair (RER) removes ribonucleotides incorporated during DNA replication. When RER is defective, ribonucleotides in the nascent leading strand of the yeast genome are associated with replication stress and genome instability. Here we provide evidence that topoisomerase I (Top1) initiates an independent form of repair to remove ribonucleotides from genomic DNA. This Top1-dependent process activates the S phase checkpoint. Deleting TOP1 reverses this checkpoint activation and also relieves replication stress and genome instability in RER-defective cells. The results reveal an additional removal pathway for a very common lesion in DNA, and they imply that the “dirty” DNA ends created when Top1 incises ribonucleotides in DNA are responsible for the adverse consequences of ribonucleotides in RNase H2-defective cells.

Preface The information encoded in DNA is influenced by the presence of non-canonical nucleotides, the most frequent of which are ribonucleotides. In this review we discuss recent discoveries about ribonucleotide incorporation into DNA during replication by the three major eukaryotic replicases, DNA polymerases α, δ and ε. The presence of ribonucleotides in DNA causes short deletion mutations and may result in the generation of DNA single- and double-strand breaks, leading to genomic instability. We describe how these ribonucleotides are removed from DNA by ribonucleotide excision repair and by topoisomerase 1. We discuss the biological consequences and the physiological roles of ribonucleotides in DNA, and consider how deficiencies in their removal from DNA may be important in the etiology of disease.

The two DNA strands of the nuclear genome are replicated asymmetrically using three DNA polymerases, α, δ, and ε. Current evidence suggests that DNA polymerase ε (Pol ε) is the primary leading strand replicase, whereas Pols α and δ primarily perform lagging strand replication. The fact that these polymerases differ in fidelity and error specificity is interesting in light of the fact that the stability of the nuclear genome depends in part on the ability of mismatch repair (MMR) to correct different mismatches generated in different contexts during replication. Here we provide the first comparison, to our knowledge, of the efficiency of MMR of leading and lagging strand replication errors. We first use the strand-biased ribonucleotide incorporation propensity of a Pol ε mutator variant to confirm that Pol ε is the primary leading strand replicase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We then use polymerase-specific error signatures to show that MMR efficiency in vivo strongly depends on the polymerase, the mismatch composition, and the location of the mismatch. An extreme case of variation by location is a T-T mismatch that is refractory to MMR. This mismatch is flanked by an AT-rich triplet repeat sequence that, when interrupted, restores MMR to >95% efficiency. Thus this natural DNA sequence suppresses MMR, placing a nearby base pair at high risk of mutation due to leading strand replication infidelity. We find that, overall, MMR most efficiently corrects the most potentially deleterious errors (indels) and then the most common substitution mismatches. In combination with earlier studies, the results suggest that significant differences exist in the generation and repair of Pol α, δ, and ε replication errors, but in a generally complementary manner that results in high-fidelity replication of both DNA strands of the yeast nuclear genome.

DNA polymerases synthesize DNA in only one direction, but large genomes require RNA priming and bi-directional replication from internal origins. Here we review the physical, chemical and evolutionary constraints underlying these requirements. We then consider the roles of the major eukaryotic replicases, DNA Polymerases α, δ and ε, in replicating the nuclear genome. Pol α has long been known to extend RNA primers at origins and on Okazaki fragments that give rise to the nascent lagging strand. Taken together, more recent results of mutation and ribonucleotide incorporation mapping, electron microscopy and immunoprecipitation of nascent DNA now lead to a model wherein Pol ε and Pol δ synthesize the majority of the nascent leading and lagging strands of undamaged DNA, respectively.

To investigate nuclear DNA replication enzymology in vivo, we have studied Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains containing a pol2-16 mutation that inactivates the catalytic activities of DNA polymerase ε (Pol ε). Although pol2-16 mutants survive, they present very tiny spore colonies, increased doubling time, larger than normal cells, aberrant nuclei, and rapid acquisition of suppressor mutations. These phenotypes reveal a severe growth defect that is distinct from that of strains that lack only Pol ε proofreading (pol2-4), consistent with the idea that Pol ε is the major leading-strand polymerase used for unstressed DNA replication. Ribonucleotides are incorporated into the pol2-16 genome in patterns consistent with leading-strand replication by Pol δ when Pol ε is absent. More importantly, ribonucleotide distributions at replication origins suggest that in strains encoding all three replicases, Pol δ contributes to initiation of leading-strand replication. We describe two possible models.