Homologous recombination is a ubiquitous process with key functions in meiotic and vegetative cells for the repair of DNA breaks. It is initiated by the formation of single-stranded DNA on which recombination proteins bind to form a nucleoprotein filament that is active in searching for homology, in the formation of joint molecules and in the exchange of DNA strands. This process contributes to genome stability but it is also potentially dangerous to cells if intermediates are formed that cannot be processed normally and thus are toxic or generate genomic rearrangements. Cells must therefore have developed strategies to survey recombination and to prevent the occurrence of such deleterious events. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, genetic data have shown that the Srs2 helicase negatively modulates recombination, and later experiments suggested that it reverses intermediate recombination structures. Here we show that DNA strand exchange mediated in vitro by Rad51 is inhibited by Srs2, and that Srs2 disrupts Rad51 filaments formed on single-stranded DNA. These data provide an explanation for the anti-recombinogenic role of Srs2 in vivo and highlight a previously unknown mechanism for recombination control.

The adsorption of DNA molecules onto a flat mica surface is a necessary step to perform atomic force microscopy studies of DNA conformation and observe DNA-protein interactions in physiological environment. However, the phenomenon that pulls DNA molecules onto the surface is still not understood. This is a crucial issue because the DNA/surface interactions could affect the DNA biological functions. In this paper we develop a model that can explain the mechanism of the DNA adsorption onto mica. This model suggests that DNA attraction is due to the sharing of the DNA and mica counterions. The correlations between divalent counterions on both the negatively charged DNA and the mica surface can generate a net attraction force whereas the correlations between monovalent counterions are ineffective in the DNA attraction. DNA binding is then dependent on the fractional surface densities of the divalent and monovalent cations, which can compete for the mica surface and DNA neutralizations. In addition, the attraction can be enhanced when the mica has been pretreated by transition metal cations (Ni(2+), Zn(2+)). Mica pretreatment simultaneously enhances the DNA attraction and reduces the repulsive contribution due to the electrical double-layer force. We also perform end-to-end distance measurement of DNA chains to study the binding strength. The DNA binding strength appears to be constant for a fixed fractional surface density of the divalent cations at low ionic strength (I < 0.1 M) as predicted by the model. However, at higher ionic strength, the binding is weakened by the screening effect of the ions. Then, some equations were derived to describe the binding of a polyelectrolyte onto a charged surface. The electrostatic attraction due to the sharing of counterions is particularly effective if the polyelectrolyte and the surface have nearly the same surface charge density. This characteristic of the attraction force can explain the success of mica for performing single DNA molecule observation by AFM. In addition, we explain how a reversible binding of the DNA molecules can be obtained with a pretreated mica surface.

The roles of UvrD and Rep DNA helicases of Escherichia coli are not yet fully understood. In particular, the reason for rep uvrD double mutant lethality remains obscure. We reported earlier that mutations in recF, recO or recR genes suppress the lethality of uvrD rep, and proposed that an essential activity common to UvrD and Rep is either to participate in the removal of toxic recombination intermediates or to favour the proper progression of replication. Here, we show that UvrD, but not Rep, directly prevents homologous recombination in vivo. In addition to RecFOR, we provide evidence that RecA contributes to toxicity in the rep uvrD mutant. In vitro, UvrD dismantles the RecA nucleoprotein filament, while Rep has only a marginal activity. We conclude that UvrD and Rep do not share a common activity that is essential in vivo: while Rep appears to act at the replication stage, UvrD plays a role of RecA nucleoprotein filament remover. This activity of UvrD is similar to that of the yeast Srs2 helicase.