In eukaryotic organisms, genome duplication is initiated from multiple sites called replication origins, where the origin recognition complex (ORC) binds and initiates the recruitment protein machinery, including the CMG helicase, to initiate DNA replication1. The replisome machinery at each replication origin forms two replication forks that move bidirectionally2,3. The twin replication forks replicate the two parent strands of DNA through the continuous synthesis of the leading strand and discontinuous synthesis of the lagging strand. Given this asymmetric nature of each replication fork, the replication components, including the DNA polymerases on the leading and lagging strands, are different. Previous genetic analysis based on mutant DNA polymerases demonstrates that DNA Pol ε and DNA Pol δ are the major polymerases responsible for leading and lagging strand replication, respectively4,5. Several methods have been developed to detect the DNA polymerase's strand preference, including Pu-seq6,7, HydEn-seq8, and emRiboSeq or RiboSeq9,10. These genetic methods to dissect the strand specificity are limited to DNA polymerases and require introducing mutations on each protein4,5,11,12. Tracking the association of any target protein with leading and lagging strands of DNA replication forks will provide valuable insights into DNA replication. In this effort, we first developed the eSPAN technique (enrichment and sequencing of protein-associated nascent DNA, Figure 1) in yeast cells. As a proof-of-principal study, we first showed that Pol δ and Pol δ are enriched on leading and lagging strands, respectively. We also uncovered the strand preference of key DNA replication components, including the replicative DNA helicase, the single-strand DNA binding protein (replication protein A), and the proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) lamp and its loader replication factor C (RFC)13. Importantly, we and others have used this method to uncover mechanisms of parental histone transfer, a process that was intractable for over 4 decades14,15,16,17.
The eSPAN method involves two sequential steps: enrichment of the target protein by ChIP18 or CUT&Tag19 and enrichment of the nascent DNA associated with the protein by BrdU immunoprecipitation. In a standard yeast strain (W303 or S288C), extracellular BrdU or EdU cannot enter cells and incorporate into chromosomes. These strains lack an appropriate nucleoside transporter for thymidine uptake as well as the thymidine kinase required to phosphorylate thymidine into TMP, which converts BrdU (or EdU) to BrdUMP (EdUMP). Expression of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) and herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (HSV-TK) enhances thymidine uptake and the conversion of BrdU (or EdU) to BrdUMP (EdUMP)20. Therefore, to perform the eSPAN experiment in yeast, the strains had to be inserted with a BrdU-Incorporating (BrdU-Inc) structure (HSV-TK and hENT1)13,21.
Previously, we provided the eSPAN protocol for DNA replication proteins in yeast22. Recently, we integrated the CUT&Tag method into the eSPAN protocol in mammalian cells to address technically challenging steps that require optimization, such as cross-linking, chromatin shearing, and to minimize the number of starting cells17,23. Here, we provided histone eSPAN for visualization using yeast cells (Figure 2). This method is primarily used to analyze the distribution of modified forms of histones on replicating DNA strands. While we tested several histone marks, we used H3K4me3, a mark on the parental histone H3, as an example. To analyze replisome components and factors involved in DNA repair at replication forks, we recommend shearing chromatin into small fragments using sonication as described in our first publication22. For mammalian cells, we adopted the modified Cut&Tag procedures to replace the ChIP step described in yeast23. This modification reduces the amount of starting material (cells) and, most importantly, enables the generation of eSPAN libraries for sequencing without the use of single-stranded DNA preparation kits. For the yeast protocol, we opted not to use the Cut&Tag method because the amount of starting material was sufficient. More importantly, we found that the Cut&Tag procedures were not consistently effective for yeast cells in our hands.