While replication fork collisions with DNA adducts can induce double strand breaks, less is known about the interaction between replisomes and blocking lesions. We have employed the proximity ligation assay to visualize these encounters and to characterize the consequences for replisome composition.
Considerable insight is present into the cellular response to double strand breaks (DSBs), induced by nucleases, radiation, and other DNA breakers. In part, this reflects the availability of methods for the identification of break sites, and characterization of factors recruited to DSBs at those sequences. However, DSBs also appear as intermediates during the processing of DNA adducts formed by compounds that do not directly cause breaks, and do not react at specific sequence sites. Consequently, for most of these agents, technologies that permit the analysis of binding interactions with response factors and repair proteins are unknown. For example, DNA interstrand crosslinks (ICLs) can provoke breaks following replication fork encounters. Although formed by drugs widely used as cancer chemotherapeutics, there has been no methodology for monitoring their interactions with replication proteins.
Here, we describe our strategy for following the cellular response to fork collisions with these challenging adducts. We linked a steroid antigen to psoralen, which forms photoactivation dependent ICLs in nuclei of living cells. The ICLs were visualized by immunofluorescence against the antigen tag. The tag can also be a partner in the Proximity Ligation Assay (PLA) which reports the close association of two antigens. The PLA was exploited to distinguish proteins that were closely associated with the tagged ICLs from those that were not. It was possible to define replisome proteins that were retained after encounters with ICLs and identify others that were lost. This approach is applicable to any structure or DNA adduct that can be detected immunologically.
The cellular response to double strand breaks is well documented owing to a succession of increasingly powerful methods for directing breaks to specific genomic sites1,2,3. The certainty of location enables unambiguous characterization of proteins and other factors that accumulate at the site and participate in the DNA Damage Response (DDR) thereby driving the Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) and Homologous Recombination (HR) pathways that repair breaks. Of course, many breaks are introduced by agents such as radiation and chemical species that do not attack specific sequences4. However, for these there are procedures available that can convert the ends to structures amenable for tagging and localization5,6. Breaks are also introduced by biological processes, such as immunoglobulin rearrangement, and recent technology permits their localization, as well7. The relationship between responding factors and those sites can then be determined.
Breaks also appear as an indirect consequence of adducts formed by compounds that are not inherent breakers but disrupt DNA transactions such as transcription and replication. They may be formed as a feature of the cellular response to these obstructions, perhaps during repair or because they provoke a structure that is vulnerable to nuclease attack. Typically, the physical relationship between the adduct, the break, and the association with responding factors is inferential. For example, ICLs are formed by chemotherapeutics such as cisplatin and Mitomycin C8 and as a reaction product of abasic sites9. ICLs are well known as potent blocks to replication forks10, thereby stalling forks which can be cleaved by nucleases11. The covalent linkage between strands is often relieved by pathways that have obligate breaks as intermediates12,13, necessitating homologous recombination to rebuild the replication fork14. In most experiments the investigator follows the response of factors of interest to the breaks which are formed downstream of the collision of a replication fork with an ICL. However, because there has been no technology for the localization of a provocative lesion, the proximity of the replisome, and its component parts, to the ICL can only be assumed.
We have developed a strategy to enable the analysis of protein associations with non-sequence specific covalent adducts, illustrated here by ICLs. In our system these are introduced by psoralen, a photoactive natural product used for thousands of years as a therapeutic for skin disorders15. Our approach is based on two important features of psoralens. The first is their high frequency of crosslink formation, which can exceed 90% of adducts, in contrast to the less than 10% formed by popular compounds such as cisplatin or Mitomycin C8,16. The second is the accessibility of the compound to conjugation without loss of crosslinking capacity. We have covalently linked trimethyl psoralen to Digoxigenin (Dig), a long established immunotag. This enables detection of the psoralen adducts in genomic DNA by immunostaining of the Dig tag, and visualization by conventional immunofluorescence17.
This reagent was applied, in our previous work, to the analysis of replication fork encounters with ICLs using a DNA fiber-based assay16. In that work we found that replication could continue past an intact ICL. This was dependent on the ATR kinase, which is activated by replication stress. The replication restart was unexpected given the structure of the CMG replicative helicase. This consists of the MCM hetero-hexamer (M) that forms an offset gapped ring around the template strand for leading strand synthesis which is locked by the proteins of the GINS complex (G, consisting of PSF1, 2, 3, and SLD5) and CDC45 (C)18. The proposal that replication could restart on the side of the ICL distal to the side of the replisome collision argued for a change in the structure of the replisome. To address the question of which components were in the replisome at the time of the encounter with an ICL we developed the approach described here. We exploited the Dig tag as a partner in Proximity Ligation Assays (PLA)19 to interrogate the close association of the ICL with proteins of the replisome20.
1. Cell preparation
2. Proximity ligation assay
NOTE: Perform proximity ligation assay on Day 3.
3. Imaging and quantification
4. 3D display of pMCM2: ICL interactions
PLA of Dig-TMP with replisome proteins
The structure of the Dig-TMP is shown in Figure 1. The details of the synthesis, in which trimethyl psoralen was conjugated through a glycol linker to digoxigenin, have been discussed previously17,21. Incubation of cells with the compound followed by exposure to 365 nm light (UVA) photoactivates the compound and drives the crosslinking reaction. Slightly more than 90% of adducts are ICLs16. The Dig tag can be visualized by immunofluorescence which reveals the presence of ICLs throughout the nucleus (Figure 2). Immunofluorescence of a replisome protein such as MCM2 also indicates a distribution throughout the nucleus, a distribution that is unaffected by the introduction of ICLs. These results demonstrated that the focal appearance of responding proteins, such as seen in the DNA Damage Response (DDR) to DSBs, is not a feature of replisome: ICL interactions.
In order to visualize the interaction of replisomes with ICLs in the experiment shown in Fig 2 we applied the PLA, which reports the proximity of two antigens (Figure 3a). We measured the frequency of association of MCM5 and the Dig tag 1 h after introduction of the ICLs (Figure 3b). The PLA signals demonstrated the proximity of replisomes to ICLs.
Replication stress, including that presented by ICLs, activates the ATR kinase22. Among the many substrates of ATR are MCM proteins, including MCM2 at serine 10823. A replisome encounter with the ICL would be expected to result in the phosphorylation of MCM2, among many other substrates. In accord with this expectation, the PLA between pMCM2Ser108 and the Dig tag was positive (Figure 3c). In other experiments we found that the plateau frequency was reached at 1 h20. We interpreted these results as indicating that replisomes variously located throughout the genome, and variably distant from an ICL, eventually encounter the block, triggering ATR activation, and MCM2 phosphorylation.
The PLA results in the preceding figures are presented as a compressed summation of multiple optical planes. However, the results from individual nuclei can also be presented in a three-dimensional reconstruction, as shown for the pMCM2: Dig-TMP PLA in Video 1. This analysis indicated that replisome encounters with the ICLs could be observed throughout the nucleus.
Our study of replication fork showed that ICL encounters revealed an unexpected replication restart phenomenon16. Considering the locked ring structure of a functional replisome, it was of considerable interest to ask if the composition of the replication apparatus changed on colliding with an ICL. Since less than 10% of replication forks makes contact with an ICL, simply assaying the protein composition of all replisomes would not have been productive. However, the PLA between Dig and various components allowed us to address this question. In contrast to the positive results with pMCM2, we found that the proteins of the GINS complex failed to give PLA signal with the ICLs. On the other hand, the assay with CDC45 was positive, indicating that the other locking protein was retained (Figure 4a,b). When cells were incubated with an inhibitor of ATR, the restart was completely suppressed and the GINS: Dig PLA was strongly positive (Figure 4c). Our interpretation of these results was that in the absence of ATR activity the GINS proteins were retained, the CMG helicase remained in a locked configuration, and there was no replication restart past the ICL20.
Figure 1: Structure of trimethyl psoralen linked to the digoxigenin antigen tag. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Immunofluorescence of replisome protein MCM5 and DIG TMP does not show discrete foci. Cells were treated with Dig-TMP and UVA and after 1 h immunostained for MCM5 and Dig. The white bar represents 5 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: PLA between Dig-TMP and MCM5. (a) Schematic of the Proximity Ligation Assay applied to the interaction between the MCM5 replisome protein and the Dig tag on the ICL. The scheme is simplified. In practice primary antibodies were bound by secondary antibodies covalently coupled to the oligonucleotides. (b) PLA between MCM5 and Dig-TMP. Note the discrete signals indicating sites of interaction. Dot and box plots showing signal distribution (dot plot) as well as the median (box plot red bar), the 25th and 75th percentiles (box ends) and the highest and lowest values excluding outliers (extreme lines). Wilcoxon-Rank Sum test confirmed there is a significant difference between the two conditions (p<0.001). The white bars represent 5 µm. (c) PLA between pMCM2 and Dig-TMP. These signals represent the encounter of the replisome with the ICL, which triggers an ATR dependent phosphorylation of MCM2. The PLA reports the variability of the encounter frequency in different cells. The white bar represents 5 mm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: PLA between Dig-TMP and the replisome locking proteins. (a) CDC45: Dig-TMP. The white bar represents 5 µm. (b) PSF1: Dig-TMP. The minimal signal frequency is greatly increased by treatment with an ATR inhibitor, which blocks the traverse pathway and the release of the GINS complex which includes PSF1. The white bars represent 5 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Video 1: Three-dimensional reconstruction of pMCM2: Dig PLA signals demonstrates the distribution throughout the nucleus. PCNA is stained in green, PLA in red, DAPI in blue. Please click here to download this video.
Supplementary File 1: Cellprofiler pipeline for PLA quantification. Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary File 2: IMARIS cell module batch parameters for PLA quantification. Please click here to download this file.
Although the PLA is a very powerful technique, there are technical concerns that must be solved in order to obtain clear and reproducible results. The antibodies must be of high affinity and specificity. Furthermore, it is important to reduce the non-specific background signals as much as possible. We have found that membranes and cellular debris contribute to the background, and we have removed them as much as possible. The washes with detergent containing buffers prior to fixing, and the wash with methanol after fixing help reduce the non- specific binding. The caveat is that detergent treatment prior to fixation can result in cell detachment. We find that treating the plates with a cell adhesive and prefixing with 0.1% FA before the CSK treatment alleviates this problem.
It is also helpful to identify non-S phase cells when monitoring S phase specific events. This can be done by post PLA staining with cell cycle markers such as PCNA or NPAT24,25. Not only do these markers confirm S phase phenomena but they also provide an internal biological control for non-specific interactions. Positive signals in G1 phase cells, in assays that measure events that should be exclusive to S phase, are an indication that additional effort to reduce non-specific interactions is required.
Single cell imaging strategies have advantages not available with other approaches for monitoring molecular interactions. Homogenization techniques, such as employed in immunoprecipitation experiments eliminate any connection to events in individual cells. Consequently, insight as to the influence of cell cycle status, or the variability across a cell population is lost. However, since the PLA reports event frequencies in individual cells these insights can be recovered.
A frequent limitation of the PLA is the lack of immunologic detection reagents for targets of interest. This is a concern when addressing questions regarding the cellular response to DNA perturbations introduced by agents other than direct breakers. We have overcome that limitation by use of an immunotagged DNA reactive reagent. Although we have focused our studies on interstrand crosslinks, there are many genotoxic compounds, including chemotherapy drugs, that would lend themselves to this approach. Additionally, interactions between proteins and DNA structures, such as G quadruplexes, could also be examined with this strategy.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This research was supported, in part, by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging, United States (Z01-AG000746–08). J.H. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundations of China (21708007 and 31871365).
Alexa Fluor 568, Goat anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L) Cross-Adsorbed Secondary Antibody | Invitrogen | A-10011 | 1 in 1000 |
35 mm plates with glass 1.5 coverslip | MatTek | P35-1.5-14-C | Glass Bottom Microwell Dishes 35mm Petri Dish Microwell |
Alexa Fluor 488,Goat anti-Mouse IgG (H+L) Cross-Adsorbed Secondary Antibody | Invitrogen | A-10001 | 1 in 1000 |
Bovine serum albumin (BSA) | SeraCare | 1900-0012 | Blocking solution, reagents need to be stored at 4 °C |
CDC45 antibody (rabbit) | Abcam | ab126762 | 1 in 200 |
Cell adhesive | Life Science | 354240 | for cell-TAK solution |
Confocal microscope | Nikkon | Nikon TE2000 spinning disk microscope | equiped with Volocity software |
Digoxigenin (Dig) antibody (mouse) | Abcam | ab420 | 1 in 200 |
Dig-TMP | synthesized in the Seidman Lab | ||
Duolink Amplification reagents (5×) | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO82010 | reagents need to be stored at -20 °C |
Duolink in situ detection reagents | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO92007 | reagents need to be stored at -20 °C |
Duolink in situ oligonucleotide PLA probe MINUS | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO92004 | anti-mouse MINUS, reagents need to be stored at 4 °C |
Duolink in situ oligonucleotide PLA probe PLUS | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO92002 | anti-rabbit PLUS, reagents need to be stored at 4 °C |
Duolink in situ wash buffer A | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO82046 | Duolink Wash Buffers, reagents need to be stored at 4 °C |
Duolink in situ wash buffer B | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO82048 | Duolink Wash Buffers, reagents need to be stored at 4 °C |
epifluorescent microscope | Zeiss | Axiovert 200M microscope | Equipped with the Axio Vision software packages (Zeiss, Germany) |
Formaldehyde 16% | Fisher Scientific | PI28906 | for fix solution |
Goat serum | Thermo | 31873 | Blocking solution, reagents need to be stored at 4 °C |
Image analysis software | open source | Cell profiler | works for analysis of single plane images |
Image analysis software-license required | Bitplane | Imaris | Cell Biology module needed. Can quantify PLA dots/nuclei in image stacks (3D) and do 3D reconstructions |
Ligase (1 unit/μl) | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO82029 | reagents need to be stored at -20 °C |
Ligation reagent (5×) | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO82009 | reagents need to be stored at -20 °C |
MCM2 antibody (rabbit) | Abcam | ab4461 | 1 in 200 |
MCM5 antibody (rabbit monoclonal) | Abcam | Ab75975 | 1 in 1000 |
Methanol | Lab ALLEY | A2076 | pre-cold at -20°C before use |
phosphoMCM2S108 antibody (rabbit) | Abcam | ab109271 | 1 in 200 |
Polymerase (10 unit/μl) | Sigma-Aldrich | DUO82030 | reagents need to be stored at -20 °C |
Prolong gold mounting media with DAPI | ThermoFisher Scientific | P36935 | |
PSF1 antibody (rabbit) | Abcam | ab181112 | 1 in 200 |
RNAse A 100 mg/ml | Qiagen | 19101 | reagents need to be stored at 4 °C |
Statistical analysis and data visualization software | open source | R studio | ggplot2 package for generation of dot plot and box plots |
Statistical analysis and data visualization software-license required | Systat Software | Sigmaplot V13 | |
TMP (trioxalen) | Sigma-Aldrich | T6137_1G | |
TritonX-100 | Sigma-Aldrich | T8787_250ML | |
Tween 20 | Sigma-Aldrich | P9416_100ML | |
UV box | Southern New England Ultraviolet | Discontinued. See Opsytec UV test chamber as a possible replacement | |
UV test Chamber | Opsytec | UV TEST CHAMBER BS-04 | |
VE-821 | Selleckchem | S8007 | final concentrtion is 1µM |