Recombinational DNA Repair in Bacteria: Postreplication

Abstract

Recombinational DNA repair represents the primary function for homologous DNA recombination in bacteria. Most of this repair occurs at replication forks that are stalled at sites of DNA damage.

Keywords: RecA protein; DNA damage; SOS response; reactivation of stalled replication forks

Figure 1.

Pathways for the reactivation of stalled replication forks in bacteria. The pathways diverge depending on what type of damage is encountered. If an unrepaired lesion is encountered (left path), the lesion is left in a DNA gap. A complementary strand is recruited from the other side of the replication fork, with the aid of the RecA, RecFOR, and probably other proteins. Once recombination intermediates are processed (using the RuvABC and/or RecG activities), replication is reinitiated by a specialized set of replication restart enzymes. If the fork instead encounters a DNA strand break, a double‐strand break results (right path). The major repair pathway in this case utilizes the RecBCD enzyme. Processing of recombination intermediates and replication restart ensues, as described above. Some of the recombination intermediates generated in the gap (left) repair path may be cleaved and thus funnelled into the double‐strand break repair path, as indicated by the broken red arrow.

Figure 2.

The bacterial RecA protein and DNA strand exchange. (a) A portion of a RecA filament is shown, containing 24 RecA monomers. There are approximately six monomers per turn in the helical filament, and a single monomer is highlighted in red. The DNA is bound in the filament groove. The image is based on the structural work of Randy Story and Thomas Steitz, using PDB file 1REB. (b) Typical DNA strand exchange reactions ulitized to study RecA protein function in vitro. RecA filaments will form on the single‐stranded or gapped DNA circles. DNA pairing and strand exchange will then ensue with the double‐stranded linear DNA molecule. The four‐strand exchange exhibits an absolute requirement for ATP hydrolysis. The DNA substrates are usually derived from bacteriophage or plasmid DNAs, and the reactions shown were originally chosen for ease of assay.

Figure 3.

The activity of the RuvAB complex at a Holliday junction. A tetramer of octamer of RuvA protein binds at the junction, and two RuvB hexamers then bind to it as shown. The RuvB hexamers act as DNA pumps, forcing the DNA outward and promoting migration of the branch. The drawing is based on the work of Stephen West and colleagues.

Figure 4.

If a Holliday intermediate is formed behind the replication fork via recombinational repair reactions, resolution of the crossover by RuvC or related enzymes can have two different consequences. Resolution via path A will result ultimately in a dimeric chromosome, and will later require conversion to monomers by the site‐specific recombination system XerCD.

close

References

Al Deib A, Mahdi AA and Lloyd RG (1996) Modulation of recombination and DNA repair by the RecG and PriA helicases of Escherichia coli K‐12. Journal of Bacteriology 178: 6782–6789.

Anderson DG and Kowalczykowski SC (1997) The recombination hot spot chi is a regulatory element that switches the polarity of DNA degradation by the RecBCD enzyme. Genes and Development 11: 571–581.

Bazemore LR, Foltastogniew E, Takahashi M and Radding CM (1997) RecA tests homology at both pairing and strand exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94: 11863–11868.

Churchill JJ, Anderson DG and Kowalczykowski SC (1999) The RecBC enzyme loads RecA protein onto ssDNA asymmetrically and independently of chi, resulting in constitutive recombination activation. Genes and Development 13: 901–911.

Cox MM (1998) A broadening view of recombinational DNA repair in bacteria. Genes to Cells 3: 65–78.

Grainge I and Sherratt DJ (1999) Xer site‐specific recombination. Journal of Biological Chemistry 274: 6763–6769.

Liu JI, Xu LW, Sandler SJ and Marians KJ (1999) Replication fork assembly at recombination intermediates is required for bacterial growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 3552–3555.

McGlynn P and Lloyd RG (1999) RecG helicase activity at three‐ and four‐strand DNA structures. Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3049–3056.

Parsons CA, Stasiak A, Bennett RJ and West SC (1995) Structure of a multisubunit complex that promotes DNA branch migration. Nature 374: 375–378.

Rangarajan S, Woodgate R and Goodman MF (1999) A phenotype for enigmatic DNA polymerase II: A pivotal role for pol II in replication restart in UV‐irradiated Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 9224–9229.

Shan Q, Bork JM, Webb BL, Inman RB and Cox MM (1997) RecA protein filaments: end‐dependent dissociation from ssDNA and stabilization by RecO and RecR proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology 265: 519–540.

Steiner WW and Kuempel PL (1998) Sister chromatid exchange frequencies in Escherichia coli analyzed by recombination at the dif resolvase site. Journal of Bacteriology 180: 6269–6275.

Tang MJ, Shen X, Frank EG et al. (1999) UmuD′2C is an error‐prone DNA polymerase, Escherichia coli pol V. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 8919–8924.

Umezu K and Kolodner RD (1994) Protein interactions in genetic recombination in Escherichia coli. Interactions involving RecO and RecR overcome the inhibition of RecA by single‐stranded DNA‐binding protein. Journal of Biological Chemistry 269: 30005–30013.

Webb BL, Cox MM and Inman RB (1997) Recombinational DNA repair: the RecF and RecR proteins limit the extension of RecA filaments beyond single‐strand DNA gaps. Cell 91: 347–356.

Zavitz KH and Marians KJ (1991) Dissecting the functional role of PriA protein‐catalysed primosome assembly in Escherichia coli DNA replication. Molecular Microbiology 5: 2869–2873.

Zerbib D, Mezard C, George H and West SC (1998) Coordinated actions of RuvABC in Holliday junction processing. Journal of Molecular Biology 281: 621–630.

Further Reading

Cox MM (1998) A broadening view of recombinational DNA repair in bacteria. Genes to Cells 3: 65–78.

Cox MM, Goodman MF, Kreuzer KN et al. (2000) The importance of repairing stalled replication forks. Nature 404: 37–41.

Haber JE (1999) DNA recombination: the replication connection. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 24: 271–275.

Kogoma T (1996) Recombination by replication. Cell 85: 625–627.

Kogoma T (1997) Stable DNA replication: interplay between DNA replication, homologous recombination, and transcription. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 61: 212–238.

Kuzminov A (1996) Recombinational Repair of DNA Damage. Georgetown, TX: Landes.

Kuzminov A (1999) Recombinational repair of DNA damage in Escherichia coli and bacteriophage λ. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 63: 751–813.

Marians KJ (1999) PriA: at the crossroads of DNA replication and recombination. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 63: 39–67.

Mosig G (1998) Recombination and recombination‐dependent DNA replication in bacteriophage T4. Annual Review of Genetics 32: 379–413.

Roca AI and Cox MM (1997) RecA protein: structure, function, and role in recombinational DNA repair. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 56: 129–223.

Sandler SJ and Marians KJ (2000) Role of PriA in replication fork reactivation in Escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology 182: 9–13.

Seigneur M, Bidnenko V, Ehrlich SD and Michel B (1998) RuvAB acts at arrested replication forks. Cell 95: 419–430.

Shinagawa H (1996) SOS response as an adaptive response to DNA damage in prokaryotes. EXS 77: 221–235.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Rice, Kevin P, and Cox, Michael M(Apr 2001) Recombinational DNA Repair in Bacteria: Postreplication. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0000689]