Cargando…

The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison

The rescue of stalled DNA replication forks is essential for cell viability. Impeded but still intact forks can be rescued by atypical DNA helicases in a reaction known as fork regression. This reaction has been studied at the single-molecule level using the Escherichia coli DNA helicase RecG and, s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Bianco, Piero R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35955746
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158613
_version_ 1784766285766197248
author Bianco, Piero R.
author_facet Bianco, Piero R.
author_sort Bianco, Piero R.
collection PubMed
description The rescue of stalled DNA replication forks is essential for cell viability. Impeded but still intact forks can be rescued by atypical DNA helicases in a reaction known as fork regression. This reaction has been studied at the single-molecule level using the Escherichia coli DNA helicase RecG and, separately, using the eukaryotic SMARCAL1 enzyme. Both nanomachines possess the necessary activities to regress forks: they simultaneously couple DNA unwinding to duplex rewinding and the displacement of bound proteins. Furthermore, they can regress a fork into a Holliday junction structure, the central intermediate of many fork regression models. However, there are key differences between these two enzymes. RecG is monomeric and unidirectional, catalyzing an efficient and processive fork regression reaction and, in the process, generating a significant amount of force that is used to displace the tightly-bound E. coli SSB protein. In contrast, the inefficient SMARCAL1 is not unidirectional, displays limited processivity, and likely uses fork rewinding to facilitate RPA displacement. Like many other eukaryotic enzymes, SMARCAL1 may require additional factors and/or post-translational modifications to enhance its catalytic activity, whereas RecG can drive fork regression on its own.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9368896
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93688962022-08-12 The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison Bianco, Piero R. Int J Mol Sci Review The rescue of stalled DNA replication forks is essential for cell viability. Impeded but still intact forks can be rescued by atypical DNA helicases in a reaction known as fork regression. This reaction has been studied at the single-molecule level using the Escherichia coli DNA helicase RecG and, separately, using the eukaryotic SMARCAL1 enzyme. Both nanomachines possess the necessary activities to regress forks: they simultaneously couple DNA unwinding to duplex rewinding and the displacement of bound proteins. Furthermore, they can regress a fork into a Holliday junction structure, the central intermediate of many fork regression models. However, there are key differences between these two enzymes. RecG is monomeric and unidirectional, catalyzing an efficient and processive fork regression reaction and, in the process, generating a significant amount of force that is used to displace the tightly-bound E. coli SSB protein. In contrast, the inefficient SMARCAL1 is not unidirectional, displays limited processivity, and likely uses fork rewinding to facilitate RPA displacement. Like many other eukaryotic enzymes, SMARCAL1 may require additional factors and/or post-translational modifications to enhance its catalytic activity, whereas RecG can drive fork regression on its own. MDPI 2022-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9368896/ /pubmed/35955746 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158613 Text en © 2022 by the author. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Bianco, Piero R.
The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison
title The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison
title_full The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison
title_fullStr The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison
title_full_unstemmed The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison
title_short The Biochemical Mechanism of Fork Regression in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes—A Single Molecule Comparison
title_sort biochemical mechanism of fork regression in prokaryotes and eukaryotes—a single molecule comparison
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35955746
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158613
work_keys_str_mv AT biancopieror thebiochemicalmechanismofforkregressioninprokaryotesandeukaryotesasinglemoleculecomparison
AT biancopieror biochemicalmechanismofforkregressioninprokaryotesandeukaryotesasinglemoleculecomparison