In this work, we present evidence that indicates that RuvABC proteins resolve Holliday junctions in a way that prevents dimer formation in vivo. First, although arrested replication forks are rescued by recombinational repair in cells deficient for the Rep helicase, rep mutants do not require the XerCD proteins or the dif site for viability. This shows that the recombination events at arrested replication forks are generally not accompanied by the formation of chromosome dimers. Secondly, resolution of dimers into monomers is essential in the rep ruv strain because of an increased frequency of RecFOR recombination events in the chromosome of this mutant. This suggests that, in the absence of the Ruv proteins, chromosomal recombination leads to frequent dimerization. Thirdly, dif or xerC mutations increase the UV sensitivity of ruv‐deficient cells 100‐fold, whereas they do not confer UV sensitivity to ruv+ cells. This shows that recombinational repair of UV lesions is not accompanied by dimer formation provided that the RuvABC proteins are active. The requirement for dimer resolution in ruv strains is suppressed by the expression of the RusA Holliday junction resolvase; therefore, RusA also prevents dimer formation. We conclude that the inviability arising from a high frequency of dimer formation in rep or UV‐irradiated cells is only observed in the absence of known enzymes that resolve Holliday junctions.

SummaryWe have proposed previously that, in Escherichia coli, blockage of replication forks can lead to the reversal of the fork. Annealing of the newly synthesized strands creates a double-stranded end adjacent to a Holliday junction. The junction is migrated away from the DNA end by RuvAB and can be cleaved by RuvC, while RecBCD is required for the repair of the double-stranded tail. Consequently, the rep mutant, in which replication arrests are frequent and fork reversal occurs, requires RecBCD for growth. We show here that the combination of sbcB sbcCD null mutations restores the viability to rep recBC mutants by activation of the RecF pathway of recombination. This shows that the proteins belonging to the RecF pathway are able to process the DNA ends made by the replication fork reversal into a structure that allows recombination-dependent replication restart. However, we con®rm that, unlike sbcB null mutations, sbcB15, which suppresses all other recBC mutant defects, does not restore the viability of rep recBC sbcCD strains. We also show that ruvAB inactivation suppresses the lethality and the formation of doublestranded breaks (DSBs) in a rep recBC recF strain, totally de®cient for homologous recombination, as well as in rep recBC mutants. This con®rms that RuvAB processing of arrested replication forks is independent of the presence of recombination intermediates.