Dataset Information

DNA molecular combing-based replication fork directionality profiling

ABSTRACT: The replication strategy of metazoan genomes is still unclear, mainly because definitive maps of replication origins are missing. High-throughput methods are based on population average and thus may exclusively identify efficient initiation sites, whereas ineffective origins go undetected. Single-molecule analyses of specific loci can detect both common and rare initiation events along the targeted regions. However, these usually concentrate on positioning individual events, which only gives an overview of the replication dynamics. Here, we computed the replication fork directionality (RFD) profiles of two large genes in different transcriptional states in chicken DT40 cells, namely untranscribed and transcribed DMD and CCSER1 expressed at WT levels or overexpressed, by aggregating hundreds of oriented replication tracks detected on individual DNA fibres stretched by molecular combing. These profiles reconstituted RFD domains composed of zones of initiation flanking a zone of termination originally observed in mammalian genomes and were highly consistent with independent population-averaging profiles generated by Okazaki fragment sequencing (OK-seq). Importantly, we demonstrate that inefficient origins do not manifest as detectable RFD shifts, explaining why dispersed initiation has remained invisible to population-based assays. Our method can both generate quantitative profiles and identify discrete events, thereby constituting a comprehensive approach to study metazoan genome replication.

ORGANISM(S): Gallus gallus

PROVIDER: GSE164252 | GEO | 2021/03/16

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Eukaryotic cells must inhibit re-initiation of DNA replication at each of the thousands of origins in their genome because re-initiation events can generate genomic alterations with extraordinary frequency. To minimize the probability of re-initiation from so many origins, cells use a battery of regulatory mechanisms that reduce the activity of replication initiation proteins. Given the global nature of these mechanisms, it has been presumed that all origins are inhibited identically. However, transiently disabling these mechanisms causes replication origins to re-initiate with diverse efficiencies, which do not correlate with known differences in the efficiency or timing of origin initiation during normal DNA replication. These observations suggest an additional local layer of replication control that can differentially influence how re-initiation is regulated at distinct origins. Principal Findings: We have identified novel genetic elements that are necessary for preferential re-initiation of two origins and sufficient to confer preferential re-initiation on heterologous origins when the control of re-initiation is partially deregulated. The elements do not enhance the S phase timing or efficiency of adjacent origins and thus are specifically acting as re-initiation promoters (RIPs). We have mapped the two RIPs to ~60bp AT rich sequences that act in a distance- and sequence-dependent manner. During the induction of re-replication, Mcm2-7 re-associates both with origins that preferentially re-initiate and origins that do not, suggesting that the RIP elements can overcome a block to re-initiation imposed after Mcm2-7 associates with origins. Conclusions/Significance: We have uncovered a local level of control in the block to re-initiation. This local control creates a complex genomic landscape of re-replication potential that is revealed when global mechanisms preventing re-replication are peeled away. Hence, if re-replication does contribute to genomic alterations, as has been speculated for cancer cells, some regions of the genome may be more susceptible to these alterations than others. 142 array CGH experiments are presented. Each experiment is done in experimental replicate. Cells grown as described in Richardson CD and Li JJ PLoS Genetics 2014. Ch1 samples taken from replicating (S phase) or re-replicating (M phase + 3/6 hour induced). Ch2 samples taken from M phase arrested DNA.