Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Jan;231(1):15-24.
doi: 10.1002/jcp.25053.

Error-Prone Repair of DNA Double-Strand Breaks

Kasey Rodgers  1 , Mitch McVey  1
Affiliations
Review

Error-Prone Repair of DNA Double-Strand Breaks

Kasey Rodgers et al. J Cell Physiol. 2016 Jan.

Abstract

Preserving the integrity of the DNA double helix is crucial for the maintenance of genomic stability. Therefore, DNA double-strand breaks represent a serious threat to cells. In this review, we describe the two major strategies used to repair double strand breaks: non-homologous end joining and homologous recombination, emphasizing the mutagenic aspects of each. We focus on emerging evidence that homologous recombination, long thought to be an error-free repair process, can in fact be highly mutagenic, particularly in contexts requiring large amounts of DNA synthesis. Recent investigations have begun to illuminate the molecular mechanisms by which error-prone double-strand break repair can create major genomic changes, such as translocations and complex chromosome rearrangements. We highlight these studies and discuss proposed models that may explain some of the more extreme genetic changes observed in human cancers and congenital disorders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mutagenic potential of different double-strand break repair mechanisms
Double-strand breaks can be repaired via either non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homologous recombination (HR) mechanisms. While classical NHEJ (C-NHEJ) can result in perfect repair, small insertions/deletions are also possible. Microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) is a deletional repair mechanism, while other forms of alternative end joining (A-NHEJ) always result in changes to the DNA sequence. Homologous recombination that proceeds via double Holliday junction intermediates (DSBR) or synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) are potentially mutagenic, especially if template switching occurs, while break-induced replication (BIR) is highly mutagenic and can lead to complex chromosomal aberrations.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mechanisms and outcomes of Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)
A. Creation of a DNA double-stranded break. B. Repair via microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ). The break is resected (or ends are unwound) and exposed microhomologous sequences anneal (vertical lines). Repair is completed by flap removal, fill-in synthesis, and DNA ligation. C. Repair by classical non-homologous end joining (C-NHEJ). Binding of the Ku heterodimer to DNA ends protects the DNA from extensive resection or unwinding. If necessary, processing enzymes such as nucleases and polymerases are recruited. Completion of repair depends on DNA Ligase 4. Green hourglass represents the protein complex (Ku plus other proteins) that synapse and process the DNA ends. D. Repair by polymerase theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ). Short regions of homology are extended by Polθ. If no further processing occurs, the result is a deletion (not shown). Following synthesis, multiple rounds of unwinding, reannealing, and Polθ-dependent synthesis can lead to the addition of templated insertions resulting in simple deletions. Repair outcomes of additional small templated insertions (represented as red, dashed lines).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Opportunities for mutagenesis during homologous recombination repair of a DNA double-strand break
A. Creation of a DNA double-strand break. B. Resection of broken ends creates 3’ single-stranded DNA that can be easily damaged. C. One-ended strand invasion into a homologous template creates a displacement (D)-loop. Synthesis during D-loop extension is potentially mutagenic. Initial strand invasion can also occur at homeologous or microhomologous sequences, resulting in insertion/deletion repair products. D. During synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA), D-loop dissociation and annealing of the nascent strand with single-stranded DNA from the broken chromosome is followed by potentially mutagenic single-stranded gap filling and ligation. E. Alternatively, two-ended invasion and synthesis leads to double Holliday junction (dHJ) formation. Resolution of the dJHs can create crossover (shown) or non-crossover (not shown) products. Asterisks indicate new potential sites of mutagenesis at each step.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Opportunities for mutagenesis during break-induced replication (BIR)
A. Creation of a one-ended double-strand break. B. Resection of broken ends creates 3’ single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) that can be easily damaged. C. One-ended strand invasion into a homologous template creates a displacement (D)-loop. Synthesis during D-loop extension in BIR is highly mutagenic. D. Migration of the D-loop results in extensive accumulation of ssDNA. Unwinding of the D-loop prior to completion of synthesis and re-invasion into homeologous or microhomologous sequences can result in insertion/deletion mutations. E. Processive synthesis up to hundreds of kilobases to the end of a chromosome and accumulation of more ssDNA, which is easily damaged. F. Completion of repair via lagging strand synthesis. G. DNA damage or genetic impairment of BIR can stall repair synthesis. H. Subsequent resolution of the blocked replication fork results in a half crossover (HCO) event. I. Re-invasion of the broken template can result in subsequent rounds of BIR. Asterisks indicate new potential sites of mutagenesis at each successive step.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Anand RP, Tsaponina O, Greenwell PW, Lee CS, Du W, Petes TD, Haber JE. Chromosome rearrangements via template switching between diverged repeated sequences. Genes Dev. 2014;28(21):2394–2406. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Betermier M, Bertrand P, Lopez BS. Is non-homologous end-joining really an inherently error-prone process? PLoS Genet. 2014;10(1):e1004086.. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bizard AH, Hickson ID. The dissolution of double Holliday junctions. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014;6(7):a016477.. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boboila C, Alt FW, Schwer B. Classical and alternative end-joining pathways for repair of lymphocyte-specific and general DNA double-strand breaks. Adv Immunol. 2012;116:1–49. - PubMed
    1. Boulton SJ, Jackson SP. Identification of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku80 homologue: roles in DNA double strand break rejoining and in telomeric maintenance. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996;24(23):4639–4648. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources