2015
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.114.134312
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deficiency of the Arabidopsis Helicase RTEL1 Triggers a SOG1-Dependent Replication Checkpoint in Response to DNA Cross-Links

Abstract: To maintain genome integrity, DNA replication is executed and regulated by a complex molecular network of numerous proteins, including helicases and cell cycle checkpoint regulators. Through a systematic screening for putative replication mutants, we identified an Arabidopsis thaliana homolog of human Regulator of Telomere Length 1 (RTEL1), which functions in DNA replication, DNA repair, and recombination. RTEL1 deficiency retards plant growth, a phenotype including a prolonged S-phase duration and decreased c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
56
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
6
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that these four factors comprise a still emerging signalling pathway that likely is activated by some unknown deleterious effect of Al on DNA conformation or integrity that negatively affects the replication fork. Such a scenario is supported by the observation that in conjunction with the increase in Al tolerance seen for these mutants, each has an increase in sensitivity to DNA crosslinking agents such as MMC and CDDP, with loss of ATR , ALT2 , or SUV2 resulting in moderate to extreme inhibition to levels of DNA crosslinkers that have little effect on Col‐0 wt (Sakamoto et al ; Nezames et al ; Hu et al ). Consequently, it could be argued that Al is perceived by this ATR‐regulated pathway in a manner that is reminiscent of covalent crosslinkers even though Al apparently does not have the extreme consequences associated with chemicals such as MMC and CDDP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…This suggests that these four factors comprise a still emerging signalling pathway that likely is activated by some unknown deleterious effect of Al on DNA conformation or integrity that negatively affects the replication fork. Such a scenario is supported by the observation that in conjunction with the increase in Al tolerance seen for these mutants, each has an increase in sensitivity to DNA crosslinking agents such as MMC and CDDP, with loss of ATR , ALT2 , or SUV2 resulting in moderate to extreme inhibition to levels of DNA crosslinkers that have little effect on Col‐0 wt (Sakamoto et al ; Nezames et al ; Hu et al ). Consequently, it could be argued that Al is perceived by this ATR‐regulated pathway in a manner that is reminiscent of covalent crosslinkers even though Al apparently does not have the extreme consequences associated with chemicals such as MMC and CDDP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Such an interaction may cause a conformational change reminiscent of covalent cross-linkers such as Mitomycin C and cisplatin since Al 3+ is expected to have high affinity for the negatively charged phosphodiester DNA backbone (Karlik et al, 1980) and would interact with this backbone differently than divalent cations (Nezames et al, 2012). Interestingly, ATR, ALT2, and SOG1 all respond to DNA cross-linking agents and are linked to Al-dependent stoppage of root growth (Rounds and Larsen, 2008;Nezames et al, 2012;Hu et al, 2015). One could predict that such an interaction would hold DNA in a conformation that negatively impacts replication fork progression, potentially through inhibition of unwinding of genomic DNA since Al 3+ may raise the T m of the double helix (Latha et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This technique was first described in mouse epithelium (Quastler and Sherman, 1959) and was the standard method of cell cycle analysis for nearly three decades (Van’t Hof, 1974; Grif et al , 2002; Francis et al , 2008, and references therein). Other methods that have been used to estimate S-phase duration in plants include double labeling (Wimber and Quastler, 1963), cell synchronization (Nagata et al , 1992; Lee et al , 1996; Cools et al , 2010), measurement of cell doubling time (Richard et al , 2001; Menges et al , 2006), kinematic analysis (Dhondt et al , 2010), and analysis of 5-ethynl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU) labeling kinetics (Hayashi et al , 2013; Hu et al , 2015). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%