alexa DNA Double-Strand Breaks | Human Genome | Vector DNA Integration
ISSN: 2329-6682
Gene Technology
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Repair of Accidental DNA Double-Strand Breaks in the Human Genome and Its Relevance to Vector DNA Integration

Noritaka Adachi1,2,*, Shinta Saito1 and Aya Kurosawa1
1Graduate School of Nanobioscience, Yokohama City University, Yokohama 236-0027, Japan
2Advanced Medical Research Center, Yokohama City University, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan
Corresponding Author : Noritaka Adachi
Graduate School of Nanobioscience
Yokohama City University
Yokohama 236-0027, Japan
Tel: 81-45-787-2228
Fax: 81-45-787-2228
Received December 26, 2013; Accepted December 27, 2013; Published December 30, 2013
Citation: Adachi N, Saito S, Kurosawa A (2013) Repair of Accidental DNA Double- Strand Breaks in the Human Genome and Its Relevance to Vector DNA Integration. Gene Technology 3:e107. doi:10.4172/2329-6682.1000e107
Copyright: © 2013 Adachi N, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Gene Technology

HR and NHEJ: Two Major Pathways for Repair of Chromosomal DNA Double-Strand Breaks
Efficient repair of chromosomal DNA damage is crucial for cells to maintain genome integrity. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the most severe type of DNA lesions that can be caused by various exogenous and endogenous mechanisms, such as ionizing radiation, reactive oxygen species, topoisomerase poisons, or replication errors [1]. DSBs, if left unrepaired or mis-repaired, lead to cell death or chromosomal aberrations [2,3]. Human cells have evolved two fundamentally different mechanisms for repairing chromosomal DSBs, homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) [4]. NHEJ not only repairs accidental (non-physiological) DSBs, but is also essential for rejoining physiological DSBs that arise in the process of V(D)J recombination in B and T lymphocytes and class switch recombination in mature B cells [3].
A wide variety of proteins have been identified thus far that contribute to the HR and NHEJ machineries [5]. HR is a highly complicated process of DNA transaction, in which Rad51 protein plays an essential role in DNA strand exchange with the aid of several other proteins such as Rad54, Brca2, Rad52, and Rad51 paralogs [6,7]. For HR to occur, DSBs should be processed (i.e., end-resected) to produce a long 3'-overhang single-stranded DNA [8,9], and recent studies have identified a number of proteins involved in end resection or its regulation; among these, Mre11 and CtIP play essential roles in the initial step of end resection [9-11]. In contrast to HR, NHEJ is thought to be a rather simpler process that requires, at least biochemically, only four proteins (two protein complexes); specifically, Ku, a heterodimer of Ku70 and Ku80, initiates an NHEJ reaction by binding to the ends of a DSB, and the DNA ligase complex composed of Xrcc4 and Ligase IV (Lig4) seals the ends to complete repair [3]. In most cases, however, many other proteins do participate in NHEJ-mediated repair to trim the DSB ends, which are typically non-ligatable or non-compatible. These additional NHEJ factors involve DNA-PKcs, Artemis, XLF, and DNA polymerase μ/λ; DNA-PKcs and Artemis have evolved in higher eukaryotes and do not exist in yeasts [3,12]. In addition to the classical pathway of NHEJ, recent evidence indicates the existence of a more error-prone mechanism of NHEJ called alternative endjoining that plays a role in DSB repair [3,13]. Alternative end-joining is Ku/Lig4 independent and the precise mechanism remains largely unclear, although PARP1, Ligase III, and several factors involved in end resection (to initiate HR) have been implicated in DSB repair via alternative end-joining [14-16].
Which DSB repair pathway is beneficial for cells to preserve genome integrity? NHEJ (the classical NHEJ pathway) repairs broken DNA ends with little or no homology and is often associated with nucleotide loss, whereas HR allows for accurate repair of DSBs with the use of homologous DNA sequence, usually located on a sister chromatid [3,4,12]. Such difference in accuracy between the two pathways, however, does not mean that HR is superior to NHEJ in maintaining integrity of human genomes, which contain lots of repetitive DNA sequences [4]. For example, an HR reaction between Alu sequences in a cell would cause deleterious consequences and hence must be prohibited [17,18]. Thus, human somatic cells preferentially use NHEJ to repair accidental DSBs; in particular, in G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle, DSB repair is only performed by NHEJ, and HR is inert. Both NHEJ and HR can work, however, in S to G2 phases when DNA replication has been completed and the sister chromatid is available [19]. Thus, how and which pathway is chosen for repair of a DSB(s) has been a critical issue in the DNA repair field, and there has been a debate [4]. Recent evidence suggests that Ku-bound DSBs, where end resection does not occur, are directed to NHEJ, while end-resected DSBs, to which Ku cannot bind, are channeled to HR (or alternative end-joining) [20-24]. Thus, in addition to the end binding protein Ku, various factors that regulate end resection are involved in DSB repair pathway choice [16,25-30]. Apparently, the type of DSB is also a determinant of pathway choice [31,32]; for example, replication-associated one-ended DSBs are preferentially repaired by HR, while topoisomerase II-mediated DSBs are almost exclusively repaired by NHEJ [33,34]. Interestingly, however, it appears that cells do not always choose a proper pathway to deal with induced DSBs. In fact, absence of NHEJ gives a growth advantage to cells accumulating replication-associated DSBs [34,35], although this may simply reflect the fact that NHEJ is basically the first choice to repair any type of those DSBs that naturally allow Ku-binding [4].
Impact of DSB Repair Deficiency on Targeted and Random Integration
Gene targeting via HR provides the definitive tool in analyzing gene function. For gene targeting to be successfully achieved, the target genome sequence should be replaced with the vector DNA (i.e., targeting vector), not with the sister chromatid. The principal limitation of conventional gene-targeting technology is the extremely low efficiency of HR-mediated targeted integration, which occurs at least 2-3 orders of magnitude less frequently than random integration [36], as depicted in Figure 1A.
Random integration is a phenomenon in which a transfected DNA molecule(s) are inserted into (random sites of) the host genome via non-homologous recombination. It has been generally assumed that random integration results from the repair of spontaneous chromosomal DSBs caused by endogenous factors. Indeed, we have recently shown that DNA topoisomerase IIα and reactive oxygen species (ROS) are such endogenous factors responsible for causing DNA damage that leads to random integration of transfected DNA in human cells [37]. Transient inhibition of topoisomerase IIα significantly increases random integration [38]; conversely, siRNA-mediated knockdown of topoisomerase IIα reduces random integration [37]. Cells continuously cultured under 3% oxygen conditions after DNA transfection display reduced random-integration frequency compared to that under 21% oxygen conditions [37], although the gene-targeting efficiency was little affected by the low-oxygen culture condition (our unpublished observations).
Loss of NHEJ in lower eukaryotes results in significantly reduced or no random integration events, and thus, as high as 100% gene-targeting efficiency can be achieved by inactivating NHEJ (for example, [39]). In human somatic cells, however, suppression of NHEJ does not result in decreased random-integration frequency, although the efficiency of gene targeting can be increased [40] (Figure 1B-D). These findings clearly indicate that NHEJ is not the sole mechanism of random integration in human somatic cells, and suggest the contribution of alternative end-joining to the residual random integration events by non-homologous recombination. Intriguingly, unlike vectors with no or shorter homology arms, integration frequency of targeting vectors with long homology arms was not affected by LIG4 deficiency [40] (Figure 1B, C; data not shown). It could be that in the absence of NHEJ, homology arms of the targeting vector served to prevent marker gene loss caused by large deletion (chew-back); however, as these homology arms contain a number of Alu elements, it is more likely that homology arms serve to trigger random integration in an NHEJ-independent fashion. Earlier studies using rodent cell lines, along with the fact that alternative end-joining favors micro-homologies, strongly support this idea [13,41,42].
Elimination of the HR protein Rad54 resulted in significantly reduced gene-targeting efficiency in human cells (Figure 1D), a finding consistent with previous reports using rodent and avian cell mutants [43,44]. Intriguingly, random-integration frequency was more than fivefold higher in RAD54-null cells than in their wild-type counterparts, implying that the observed reduction of gene-targeting efficiency in the absence of Rad54 is due, at least in part, to an unexpectedly increased random-integration frequency. Similar observations were made with mutant cell lines deficient in MUS81 and/or FANCB, genes implicated in HR [45,46] (Figure 1B-D). It is also important to note that the increased random-integration frequency associated with HR deficiency was suppressed by an additional loss of NHEJ, and this suppression was less pronounced when targeting vectors were used (Figure 1B,C). These data further support the aforementioned idea that random-integration frequency is substantially influenced by homologous sequences present in the vector, and that these DNA sequences may serve to trigger NHEJindependent, homology-based random integration. Thus, effective suppression of this mechanism will be a promising approach to reduce random integration events after targeting-vector transfection.
Despite the rapid progress on artificial nucleases (i.e., ZFN, TALEN, or CRISPR-based system) and their effective applications to targeted gene inactivation in various species [47], HR-mediated gene targeting (knock-in as well as knockout) without the use of artificial nucleases still provides an indispensable technique that must be further developed in the context of human-derived cells, as artificial nucleases are capable of causing DNA lesions that lead to deleterious off-target mutations [48-50]. It is expected that deciphering the molecular mechanism of random integration in terms of vector DNA sequence and precise DSB repair mechanisms will help improve human somatic cell gene targeting, for example, by developing a targeting vector that is most suitable for reducing random integrants.

Figures at a glance

Figure 1
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

  • 3rd World Congress on Human Genetics
    August 14-15, 2017 Edinburgh, Scotland
  • 2nd International Conference and Expo on Generic Drug Market and Contract Manufacturing
    September 25-26, 2017 Frankfurt, Germany
  • 6th International Conference and Exhibition on Cell and Gene Therapy
    Mar 27-28, 2017 Madrid, Spain
  • 2nd World Congress on Human Genetics & Genetic Disorders
    November 02-03, 2017 Toronto, Canada

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11560
  • [From(publication date):
    May-2014 - Jul 26, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 7807
  • PDF downloads :3753

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version