Advertisement

Plant Molecular Biology

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 833–846 | Cite as

Impact of the loss of AtMSH2 on double-strand break-induced recombination between highly diverged homeologous sequences in Arabidopsis thaliana germinal tissues

  • Jacqueline Lafleuriel
  • Fabienne Degroote
  • Annie Depeiges
  • Georges Picard
Article

Abstract

We experimented a novel reporter system to analyze intrachromosomal recombination between homeologous sequences in Arabidopsis germ cell lineages. The recombination substrates used are the BAR and PAT genes which diverge by about 13% at the nucleotide level and confer resistance to the herbicide glufosinate. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) were generated by the I-Sce1 endonuclease to induce recombination. Loss of AtMSH2 induces a 3-fold increase of the frequency of recombination events indicating that AtMSH2 is involved in the anti-recombination activity that prevents exchange between highly diverged sequences in Arabidopsis. Molecular analysis of recombined alleles indicates that in wild type plants the single strand annealing (SSA) pathway can process more efficiently homologous 3′ ends than 3′ ends generated by resection of non-homologous overhangs. The loss of AtMSH2 disturbs this process, leading to a modification of the distribution of the BAR/PAT junctions and therefore showing that the MSH2 function is also involved in determining the structure of the recombined alleles. In addition, conversion tracts were observed in some alleles. They are shorter in MSH2 deficient plants than in wild-type, suggesting that a short-patch mismatch repair, not controlled by MSH2, could exist in Arabidopsis.

Keywords

Arabidopsisthaliana Homeologous sequences Mismatch repair MSH2 Recombination Single strand annealing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Charles White for critical reading of the manuscript, Dr. Bernard Dujon and Dr. Pascual Perez (Biogemma) for kindly providing plasmids pBios-1K and pSCM525. This work was supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and by the Université Blaise-Pascal.

References

  1. Aljabani SM, Martinez I (1997) Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic Acids Res 25:4692–4693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtold N, Pelletier G (1998) In planta Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of adult Arabidopsis thaliana plants by vacuum infiltration. Methods Mol Biol 82:259–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker D (1990) Binary vectors which allow the exchange of plant selectable markers and reporter genes. Nucleic Acids Res 18:203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker D, Kemper E, Schell J, Masterson R (1992) New plant binary vectors with selectable markers located proximal to the left T-DNA border. Plant Mol Biol 20:1195–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen W, Jinks-Robertson S (1999) The role of the mismatch repair machinery in regulating mitotic and meiotic recombination between diverged sequences in yeast. Genetics 151:1299–1313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiurazzi M, Animesh R, Viret JF, Perea R, Wang XH, Lloyd AM, Signer E (1996) Enhancement of somatic intrachromosomal homologous recombination in Arabidopsis by the HO endonuclease. Plant Cell 8:2057–2066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coïc E, Gluck L, Fabre F (2000) Evidence for short-patch mismatch repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. EMBO J 19:3408–3417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Datta A, Adjiri A, New L, Crouse GF, Jinks-Robertson S (1996) Mitotic crossovers between diverged sequences are regulated by mismatch repair proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 16:1085–1093PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Datta A, Hendrix M, Lipsitch M, Jinks-Robertson S (1997) Dual roles for DNA sequence identity and the mismatch repair system in the regulation of mitotic crossing-over in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9757–9762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Depeiges A, Degroote F, Espagnol MC, Picard G (2006) Translation initiation by non-AUG codons in Arabidopsis thaliana transgenic plants. Plant Cell Rep 25:55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubest S, Gallego ME, White CI (2002) Role of the AtRad1p endonuclease in homologous recombination in plants. EMBO Rep 3:1049–4054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubest S, Gallego ME, White CI (2004) Roles of the AtErcc1 protein in recombination. Plant J 39:334–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliot B, Jasin M (2001) Repair of double-strand breaks by homologous recombination in mismatch repair-defective mammalian cells. Mol Cell Biol 21:2671–2682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emmanuel E, Yehuda E, Melamed-Bessudo C, Avivi-Ragolsky N, Levy A (2006) The role of AtMSH2 in homologous recombination in Arabidopsis thaliana. EMBO Rep 7:100–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleck O, Lehmann E, Schar P, Kohli L (1999) Involvement of nucleotide-excision repair in MSH2 PMS1-independent mismatch repair. Nat Genet 21:314–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldfarb T, Alani E, (2005) Distinct roles for the Saccharomyces cerevisiae mismatch repair proteins in heteroduplex rejection, mismatch repair and non homologous tail removal. Genetics 169:563–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorbunova V, Levy A (1999) How plants make ends meet: DNA double-strands break repair. Trends Plant Sci 4:263–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harfe BD, Jinks-Robertson S (2000) DNA mismatch repair and genetic instability. Annu Rev Genet 34:359–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffman PD, Leonard JM, Lindberg GE, Bollmann SR, Hays JB (2004) Rapid accumulation of mutations during seed-to-seed propagation of mismatch-repair-defective Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 18:2676–2685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard JM, Bollmann SR, Hays JB (2003) Reduction of stability of Arabidopsis genomic and transgenic DNA-repeat sequences (microsatellites) by inactivation of AtMSH2 mismatch-repair function. Plant Physiol 133:328–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li L, Santerre-Ayotte S, Boivin EB, Jean M, Belzile F (2004) A novel reporter for intrachromosomal homeologous recombination in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 40:1007–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li L, Jean M, Belzile F (2006) The impact of sequence divergence and DNA mismatch repair on homeologous recombination in Arabidopsis. Plant J 45:908–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muheim-Lenz R, Buterin T, Marra G, Naegeli H (2004) Short-patch correction of C-C mismatches in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res 32:6696–6705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Modrich P, Lahue R (1996) Mismatch repair in replication fidelity, genetic recombination and cancer biology. Annu Rev Biochem 65:101–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicholson A, Hendrix M, Jinks-Robertson S, Crouse GH (2000) Regulation of mitotic homeologous recombination in yeast: Functions of mismatch repair and nucleotide excision repair genes. Genetics 154:133–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Oda S, Humbert O, Fiumicino S, Bignami M, Karran P (2000) Efficient repair of A/C mismatches in mouse cells deficient in long patch mismatch repair. EMBO J 19:1711–1718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Opperman R, Emmanuel E, Levy AA (2004) The effect of sequence divergence on recombination between direct repeats in Arabidopsis. Genetics 168:2207–2215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orel N, Kyryk A, Puchta H (2003) Different pathways of homologous recombination are used for the repair of double-stand breaks within tandemly arranged sequences in the plant genome. Plant J 35:604–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pâques F, Haber JE (1997) Two pathways for removal of nonhomologous DNA ends during double-strand break repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 17:6765–6771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Puchta H (1998) Repair of genomic double-strand breaks in somatic plant cells by one-sided invasion of homologous sequences. Plant J 13:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Puchta H (2005) The repair of double-strand breaks in plants: mechanisms and consequences for genome evolution. J Exp Bot 56:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puchta H, Dujon B, Hohn B (1993) Homologous recombination in plant cells is enhanced by in vivo induction of double strand breaks into DNA by a site-specific endonuclease. Nucleic Acids Res 21:5034–5040PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Puchta H, Dujon B, Hohn B (1996) Two different but related mechanisms are used in plants for the repair of double-strand breaks by homologous recombination. Genetics 93:5055–5060Google Scholar
  34. Ray A, Langer M (2002) Homologous recombination: ends as the means. Trends Plant Sci 7:435–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rayssiguier C, Thaler DS, Radman M (1989) The barrier to recombination between Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium is disrupted in mismatch-repair mutants. Nature 342:396–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoffield MJ, Hsieh P (2003) DNA mismatch repair: molecular mechanisms and biological function. Annu Rev Microbiol 57:579–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siebert R, Puchta H (2002) Efficient repair of genomic double-strand breaks by homologous recombination between directly repeated sequences in the plant genome. Plant Cell 14:1121–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stambuk S, Radman M (1998) Mechanism and control of interspecies recombination in Escherichia coli. I. Mismatch repair, methylation, recombination and replication functions. Genetics 150:533–542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sugawara N, Pâques F, Colaiacovo M, Haber J (1997) Role of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2 and Msh3 repair proteins in double-strand break-induced recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9214–9219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sugawara N, Goldfarb T, Studamire B, Alani E, Haber J (2004) Heteroduplex rejection during single-strand annealing requires Sgs1 helicase and mismatch repair proteins Msh2 and Msh6 but not Pms1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9315–9320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thierry A, Fairhead C, Dujon B (1990) The complete sequence of the 8.2 kb segment left of MAT on chromosome III reveals five ORFs, including a gene for yeast ribokinase. Yeast 6:521–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trouiller B, Schaefer DG, Charlot F, Nogué F (2006) MSH2 is essential for the preservation of genome integrity and prevents homeologous recombination in the moss physcomitella patens. Nucleic Acids Res 34:232–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White J, Chang SHP, Bibb MJ, Bibb MJ (1990) A cassette containing the bar gene of Streptomyces hygroscopicus: a selectable marker for plant transformation. Nucleic Acids Res 18:1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Westmoreland J, Porter G, Radman M, Resnick MA (1997) Highly mismatched molecules resembling recombination intermediates efficiently transform mismatch repair proficient Escherichia coli. Genetics 145:29–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wohlleben W, Arnold W, Broer I, Hilleman D, Strauch E, Pühler A (1988) Nucleotide sequence of the phosphinithricin N-acetyltransferase gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tü494 and its expression in Nicotiana tabacum. Gene 70:25–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zahrt TC, Maloy S (1997) Barriers to recombination between closely related bacteria: MutS and RecBCD inhibit recombination between Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella typhi. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9786–9791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline Lafleuriel
    • 1
  • Fabienne Degroote
    • 1
  • Annie Depeiges
    • 1
  • Georges Picard
    • 1
  1. 1.UMR CNRS 6547 GEEM-BIOMOVEUniversité Blaise PascalAubiere CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations