Faithful transmission of genetic material is crucial for all organisms since changes in genetic information may result in genomic instability that causes developmental disorders and cancers. Thus, understanding the mechanisms that preserve genome integrity is of fundamental importance. Cohesin is a multiprotein complex whose canonical function is to hold sister chromatids together from S-phase until the onset of anaphase to ensure the equal division of chromosomes. However, recent research points to a crucial function of cohesin in the DNA damage response (DDR). In this review, we summarize recent advances in the understanding of cohesin function in DNA damage signaling and repair. First, we focus on cohesin architecture and molecular mechanisms that govern sister chromatid cohesion. Next, we briefly characterize the main DDR pathways. Finally, we describe mechanisms that determine cohesin accumulation at DNA damage sites and discuss possible roles of cohesin in DDR.

Arsenic is a well-established human carcinogen of poorly understood mechanism of genotoxicity. It is generally accepted that arsenic acts indirectly by generating oxidative DNA damage that can be converted to replication-dependent DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), as well as by interfering with DNA repair pathways and DNA methylation. Here we show that in budding yeast arsenic also causes replication and transcription-independent DSBs in all phases of the cell cycle, suggesting a direct genotoxic mode of arsenic action. This is accompanied by DNA damage checkpoint activation resulting in cell cycle delays in S and G2/M phases in wild type cells. In G1 phase, arsenic activates DNA damage response only in the absence of the Yku70–Yku80 complex which normally binds to DNA ends and inhibits resection of DSBs. This strongly indicates that DSBs are produced by arsenic in G1 but DNA ends are protected by Yku70–Yku80 and thus invisible for the checkpoint response. Arsenic-induced DSBs are processed by homologous recombination (HR), as shown by Rfa1 and Rad52 nuclear foci formation and requirement of HR proteins for cell survival during arsenic exposure. We show further that arsenic greatly sensitizes yeast to phleomycin as simultaneous treatment results in profound accumulation of DSBs. Importantly, we observed a similar response in fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, suggesting that the mechanisms of As(III) genotoxicity may be conserved in other organisms.

The aim of this study was to compare the antibacterial mode of action of silver ions (Ag+) and selected silver nanoformulations against E. coli strains (E. coli J53, Escherichia coli BW25113 and its derivatives: Δ ompA, Δ ompC, Δ ompF, Δ ompR, ompRG596AcusSG1130A, cusSG1130A). In this research we used various experimental methods and techniques such as determination of the minimal inhibitory concentration, flow cytometry, scanning electron microscopy, circular dichroism as well as computational methods of theoretical chemistry. Thanks to the processing of bacteria and silver samples (ions and nanoformulations), we were able to determine the bacterial sensitivity to silver samples, detect reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the bacterial cells, visualize the interaction of silver samples with the bacterial cells, and identify their interactions with proteins. Differences between the mode of action of silver ions and nanoformulations and the action of nanoformulations themselves were revealed. Based on the results of computational methods, we proposed an explanation of the differences in silver-outer protein interaction between silver ions and metallic silver; in general, the Ag0 complexes exhibit weaker interaction than Ag+ ones. Moreover, we identified two gutter-like areas of the inner layer of the ion channel: one more effective, with oxygen-rich side chains; and another one less effective, with nitrogen-rich side chains.

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Uls1 belongs to the Swi2–Snf2 family of DNA-dependent ATPases and a new protein family of SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligases. Here, we examine a physiological role of Uls1 and report for the first time its involvement in response to replication stress. We found that deletion of ULS1 in cells lacking RAD52 caused a synthetic growth defect accompanied by prolonged S phase and aberrant cell morphology. uls1Δ also progressed slower through S phase upon MMS treatment and took longer to resolve replication intermediates during recovery. This suggests an important function for Uls1 during replication stress. Consistently, cells lacking Uls1 and endonuclease Mus81 were more sensitive to HU, MMS and CPT than single mus81Δ. Interestingly, deletion of ULS1 attenuated replication stress-related defects in sgs1Δ, such as sensitivity to HU and MMS while increasing the level of PCNA ubiquitination and Rad53 phosphorylation. Importantly, Uls1 interactions with Mus81 and Sgs1 were dependent on its helicase domain. We propose that Uls1 directs a subset of DNA structures arising during replication into the Sgs1-dependent pathway facilitating S phase progression. Thus, in the absence of Uls1 other modes of replication fork processing and repair are employed.

Cohesin is a conserved, ring-shaped protein complex that encircles sister chromatids and ensures correct chromosome segregation during mitosis and meiosis. It also plays a crucial role in the regulation of gene expression, DNA condensation, and DNA repair through both non-homologous end joining and homologous recombination. Cohesins are spatiotemporally regulated by the Scc2-Scc4 complex which facilitates cohesin loading onto chromatin at specific chromosomal sites. Over the last few years, much attention has been paid to cohesin and cohesin loader as it became clear that even minor disruptions of these complexes may lead to developmental disorders and cancers. Here we summarize recent developments in the structure of Scc2-Scc4 complex, cohesin loading process, and mediators that determine the Scc2-Scc4 binding patterns to chromatin.