No abstract

Whether cell types exposed to a high level of environmental insults possess cell type-specific prosurvival mechanisms or enhanced DNA damage repair capacity is not well understood. BRN2 is a tissue-restricted POU domain transcription factor implicated in neural development and several cancers. In melanoma, BRN2 plays a key role in promoting invasion and regulating proliferation. Here we found, surprisingly, that rather than interacting with transcription cofactors, BRN2 is instead associated with DNA damage response proteins and directly binds PARP1 and Ku70/Ku80. Rapid PARP1-dependent BRN2 association with sites of DNA damage facilitates recruitment of Ku80 and reprograms DNA damage repair by promoting Ku-dependent nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) at the expense of homologous recombination. BRN2 also suppresses an apoptosis-associated gene expression program to protect against UVB-, chemotherapy-and vemurafenib-induced apoptosis. Remarkably, BRN2 expression also correlates with a high single-nucleotide variation prevalence in human melanomas. By promoting error-prone DNA damage repair via NHEJ and suppressing apoptosis of damaged cells, our results suggest that BRN2 contributes to the generation of melanomas with a high mutation burden. Our findings highlight a novel role for a key transcription factor in reprogramming DNA damage repair and suggest that BRN2 may impact the response to DNA-damaging agents in BRN2-expressing cancers.

Selection of the appropriate DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathway is decisive for genetic stability. It is proposed to act according to two steps: 1-canonical nonhomologous end-joining (C-NHEJ) versus resection that generates single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) stretches; 2-on ssDNA, gene conversion (GC) versus nonconservative single-strand annealing (SSA) or alternative end-joining (A-EJ). Here, we addressed the mechanisms by which RAD51 regulates this second step, preventing nonconservative repair in human cells. Silencing RAD51 or BRCA2 stimulated both SSA and A-EJ, but not C-NHEJ, validating the two-step model. Three different RAD51 dominant-negative forms (DN-RAD51s) repressed GC and stimulated SSA/A-EJ. However, a fourth DN-RAD51 repressed SSA/A-EJ, although it efficiently represses GC. In living cells, the three DN-RAD51s that stimulate SSA/A-EJ failed to load efficiently onto damaged chromatin and inhibited the binding of endogenous RAD51, while the fourth DN-RAD51, which inhibits SSA/A-EJ, efficiently loads on damaged chromatin. Therefore, the binding of RAD51 to DNA, rather than its ability to promote GC, is required for SSA/A-EJ inhibition by RAD51. We showed that RAD51 did not limit resection of endonuclease-induced DSBs, but prevented spontaneous and RAD52-induced annealing of complementary ssDNA in vitro. Therefore, RAD51 controls the selection of the DSB repair pathway, protecting genome integrity from nonconservative DSB repair through ssDNA occupancy, independently of the promotion of CG.

BackgroundThe adult mammary epithelium is composed of basal and luminal cells. The luminal lineage comprises two major cell populations, positive and negative for estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER and PR, respectively), both containing clonogenic progenitor cells. Deregulated ER/PR− luminal progenitor cells are suspected to be at the origin of basal-type triple-negative (TNBC) breast cancers, a subtype frequently associated with loss of P53 function and MET signaling hyperactivation. Using mouse models, we recently reported that p53 restricts luminal progenitor cell amplification whereas paracrine Met activation stimulates their growth and favors a luminal-to-basal switch. Here, we analyzed how these two critical pathways interact to control luminal progenitor function.MethodsWe have (i) established and analyzed the gene expression profile of luminal progenitors isolated by ICAM-1, a robust surface marker we previously identified; (ii) purified luminal progenitors from p53-deficient and p53-proficient mouse mammary epithelium to compare their functional and molecular characteristics; and (iii) analyzed their response to HGF, the major Met ligand, in three-dimensional cultures.ResultsWe found that luminal progenitors, compared to non-clonogenic luminal cells, overexpress Trp53 and numerous p53 target genes. In vivo, loss of Trp53 induced the expansion of luminal progenitors, affecting expression of several important p53 target genes including those encoding negative regulators of cell cycle progression. Consistently, p53-deficient luminal progenitors displayed increased proliferative and self-renewal activities in culture. However, they did not exhibit perturbed expression of luminal-specific markers and major regulators, such as Hey1, Elf5, and Gata3. Moreover, although expressing Met at higher level than p53-proficient luminal progenitors, p53-deficient luminal progenitors failed to acquire basal-specific features when stimulated by HGF, showing that p53 promotes the plastic behavior of luminal progenitors downstream of Met activation.ConclusionsOur study reveals a crosstalk between Met- and p53-mediated signaling pathways in the regulation of luminal progenitor function. In particular, it shows that neither p53 loss alone nor p53 loss combined with Met signaling activation caused an early detectable cell fate alteration in luminal progenitors. Conceivably, additional events are required to confer basal-specific characteristics to luminal-derived TNBCs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13058-019-1101-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.