Understanding the plasticity of genomes has been greatly aided by assays for recombination, repair and mutagenesis. These assays have been developed in microbial systems that provide the advantages of genetic and molecular reporters that can readily be manipulated. Cellular assays comprise genetic, molecular, and cytological reporters. The assays are powerful tools but each comes with its particular advantages and limitations. Here the most commonly used assays are reviewed, discussed, and presented as the guidelines for future studies.

The Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 (MRN) complex plays important roles in sensing DNA damage, as well as in resecting and tethering DNA ends, and thus participates in double-strand break repair. An earlier structure of Mre11 bound to a short duplex DNA molecule suggested that each Mre11 in a dimer recognizes one DNA duplex to bridge two DNA ends at a short distance. Here, we provide an alternative DNA recognition model based on the structures of Methanococcus jannaschii Mre11 (MjMre11) bound to longer DNA molecules, which may more accurately reflect a broken chromosome. An extended stretch of B-form DNA asymmetrically runs across the whole dimer, with each end of this DNA molecule being recognized by an individual Mre11 monomer. DNA binding induces rigid-body rotation of the Mre11 dimer, which could facilitate melting of the DNA end and its juxtaposition to an active site of Mre11. The identified Mre11 interface binding DNA duplex ends is structurally conserved and shown to functionally contribute to efficient resection, non-homologous end joining, and tolerance to DNA-damaging agents when other resection enzymes are absent. Together, the structural, biochemical, and genetic findings presented here offer new insights into how Mre11 recognizes damaged DNA and facilitates DNA repair.

Break-induced replication (BIR) has been implicated in restoring eroded telomeres and collapsed replication forks via single-ended invasion and extensive DNA synthesis on the recipient chromosome. Unlike other recombination subtypes, DNA synthesis in BIR likely relies heavily on mechanisms enabling efficient fork progression such as chromatin modification. Herein we report that deletion of HST3 and HST4, two redundant de-acetylases of histone H3 Lysine 56 (H3K56), inhibits BIR, sensitizes checkpoint deficient cells to deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate pool depletion, and elevates translocation-type gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCR). The basis for deficiency in BIR and gene conversion with long gap synthesis in hst3Δ hst4Δ cells can be traced to a defect in extensive DNA synthesis. Distinct from other cellular defects associated with deletion of HST3 and HST4 including thermo-sensitivity and elevated spontaneous mutagenesis, the BIR defect in hst3Δ hst4Δ cannot be offset by the deletion of RAD17 or MMS22, but rather by the loss of RTT109 or ASF1, or in combination with the H3K56R mutation, which also restores tolerance to replication stress in mrc1 mutants. Our studies suggest that acetylation of H3K56 limits extensive repair synthesis and interferes with efficient fork progression in BIR.

Ribonucleotides (rNMPs) mis-incorporated during DNA replication are removed by RNase H2 dependent excision repair or by Topoisomerase I – catalyzed cleavage. Top1 cleavage of rNMPs produces 3’ ends harboring terminal adducts, such as 2’, 3’ cyclic phosphate or Top1 cleavage complex (Top1cc), and leads to frequent mutagenesis and DNA damage checkpoint induction. We surveyed a range of candidate enzymes from Saccharomyces cerevisiae for potential roles in Top1 dependent genomic rNMP removal. Genetic and biochemical analyses reveal that Apn2 resolves phosphotyrosine-DNA conjugates, terminal 2’, 3’ cyclic phosphates and their hydrolyzed products. APN2 also suppresses 2-bp slippage mutagenesis in RNH201 -deficient cells. Our results define additional activities of Apn2 in resolving a wide range of 3’- end blocks and identify a role of Apn2 in maintaining genome integrity during rNMP repair.

Although the process of publishing a scientific paper has gotten simpler, it is increasingly difficult to publish a paper in high profile journals. We have analyzed the publishing data in the cell biology field and found several alarming trends developing over the last two decades. There is an emerging divide between scientist-run journals and professional-run high profile journals. How did this happen? What should we do? The core issue is whether the current standard for high profile journals hurts rather than helps the scientific discovery process. In this regard, we suggest that the editors and scientists should direct their focus on the potential impact and rigor of the work instead of the “perfection” or “completeness” of the study.