Human replication protein A (RPA), a heterotrimeric protein complex, was originally defined as a eukaryotic single‐stranded DNA binding (SSB) protein essential for the in vitro replication of simian virus 40 (SV40) DNA. Since then RPA has been found to be an indispensable player in almost all DNA metabolic pathways such as, but not limited to, DNA replication, DNA repair, recombination, cell cycle, and DNA damage checkpoints. Defects in these cellular reactions may lead to genome instability and, thus, the diseases with a high potential to evolve into cancer. This extensive involvement of RPA in various cellular activities implies a potential modulatory role for RPA in cellular responses to genotoxic insults. In support, RPA is hyperphosphorylated upon DNA damage or replication stress by checkpoint kinases including ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), ATR (ATM and Rad3‐related), and DNA‐dependent protein kinase (DNA‐PK). The hyperphosphorylation may change the functions of RPA and, thus, the activities of individual pathways in which it is involved. Indeed, there is growing evidence that hyperphosphorylation alters RPA–DNA and RPA–protein interactions. In addition, recent advances in understanding the molecular basis of the stress‐induced modulation of RPA functions demonstrate that RPA undergoes a subtle structural change upon hyperphosphorylation, revealing a structure‐based modulatory mechanism. Furthermore, given the crucial roles of RPA in a broad range of cellular processes, targeting RPA to inhibit its specific functions, particularly in DNA replication and repair, may serve a valuable strategy for drug development towards better cancer treatment. J. Cell. Physiol. 208: 267–273, 2006.

The genetic diseases Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) and restrictive dermopathy (RD) arise from accumulation of farnesylated prelamin A because of defects in the lamin A maturation pathway. Both of these diseases exhibit symptoms that can be viewed as accelerated aging. The mechanism by which accumulation of farnesylated prelamin A leads to these accelerated aging phenotypes is not understood. Here we present evidence that in HGPS and RD fibroblasts, DNA damage checkpoints are persistently activated because of the compromise in genomic integrity. Inactivation of checkpoint kinases Ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated (ATM) and ATR (ATM- and Rad3-related) in these patient cells can partially overcome their early replication arrest. Treatment of patient cells with a protein farnesyltransferase inhibitor (FTI) did not result in reduction of DNA double-strand breaks and damage checkpoint signaling, although the treatment significantly reversed the aberrant shape of their nuclei. This suggests that DNA damage accumulation and aberrant nuclear morphology are independent phenotypes arising from prelamin A accumulation in these progeroid syndromes. Since DNA damage accumulation is an important contributor to the symptoms of HGPS, our results call into question the possibility of treatment of HGPS with FTIs alone.

Cellular accumulation of DNA damage has been widely implicated in cellular senescence, aging, and premature aging. In Hutchinson‐Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) and restrictive dermopathy (RD), premature aging is linked to accumulation of DNA double‐strand breaks (DSBs), which results in genome instability. However, how DSBs accumulate in cells despite the presence of intact DNA repair proteins remains unknown. Here we report that the recruitment of DSB repair factors Rad50 and Rad51 to the DSB sites, as marked by γ‐H2AX, was impaired in human HGPS and Zmpste24‐deficient cells. Consistently, the progeria‐associated DSBs appeared to be unrepairable although DSBs induced by camptothecin were efficiently removed in the progeroid cells. We also found that these progeroid cells exhibited nuclear foci of xeroderma pigmentosum group A (XPA), a unique nucleotide excision repair protein. Strikingly, these XPA foci colocalized with the DSB sites in the progeroid cells. This XPA‐DSB association was further confirmed and found to be mediated by DNA, using a modified chromatin immunoprecipitation assay and coimmunoprecipitation. RNA interference (RNAi) knockdown of XPA in HGPS cells partially restored DSB repair as evidenced by Western blot analysis, immunofluorescence and comet assays. We propose that the uncharacteristic localization of XPA to or near DSBs inhibits DSB repair, thereby contributing to the premature aging phenotypes observed in progeria arising from genetic defects in prelamin A maturation.—Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Rusinol, A. E., Sinensky, M. S., Liu, J., Shell, S. M., Zou, Y. Involvement of xeroderma pigmentosum group A (XPA) in progeria arising from defective maturation of prelamin A. FASEB J. 22, 603–611 (2008)

Homologous recombination (HR) and nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) are two distinct DNA double-stranded break (DSB) repair pathways. Here, we report that DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), the core component of NHEJ, partnering with DNA-damage checkpoint kinases ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and ATM- and Rad3-related (ATR), regulates HR repair of DSBs. The regulation was accomplished through modulation of the p53 and replication protein A (RPA) interaction. We show that upon DNA damage, p53 and RPA were freed from a p53–RPA complex by simultaneous phosphorylations of RPA at the N-terminus of RPA32 subunit by DNA-PK and of p53 at Ser37 and Ser46 in a Chk1/Chk2-independent manner by ATR and ATM, respectively. Neither the phosphorylation of RPA nor of p53 alone could dissociate p53 and RPA. Furthermore, disruption of the release significantly compromised HR repair of DSBs. Our results reveal a mechanism for the crosstalk between HR repair and NHEJ through the co-regulation of p53–RPA interaction by DNA-PK, ATM and ATR.

Progeria syndromes have in common a premature aging phenotype and increased genome instability. The susceptibility to DNA damage arises from a compromised repair system, either in the repair proteins themselves or in the DNA damage response pathways. The most severe progerias stem from mutations affecting lamin A production, a filamentous protein of the nuclear lamina. Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) patients are heterozygous for a LMNA gene mutation while Restrictive Dermopathy (RD) individuals have a homozygous deficiency in the processing protease Zmpste24. These mutations generate the mutant lamin A proteins progerin and FC-lamina A, respectively, which cause nuclear deformations and chromatin perturbations. Genome instability is observed even though genome maintenance and repair genes appear normal. The unresolved question is what features of the DNA damage response pathways are deficient in HGPS and RD cells. Here we review and discuss recent findings which resolve some mechanistic details of how the accumulation of progerin/FC-lamin A proteins may disrupt DNA damage response pathways in HGPS and RD cells. As the mutant lamin proteins accumulate they sequester replication and repair factors, leading to stalled replication forks which collapse into DNA double-strand beaks (DSBs). In a reaction unique to HGPS and RD cells these accessible DSB termini bind Xeroderma pigmentosum group A (XPA) protein which excludes normal binding by DNA DSB repair proteins. The bound XPA also signals activation of ATM and ATR, arresting cell cycle progression, leading to arrested growth. In addition, the effective sequestration of XPA at these DSB damage sites makes HGPS and RD cells more sensitive to ultraviolet light and other mutagens normally repaired by the nucleotide excision repair pathway of which XPA is a necessary and specific component.

Replication protein A (RPA) is a eukaryotic single-stranded DNA-binding protein consisting of three subunits of 70-, 32-, and 14-kDa (RPA70, RPA32, RPA14, respectively). It is a protein essential for most cellular DNA metabolic pathways. Checkpoint proteins Rad9, Rad1, and Hus1 form a clamp-like complex which plays a central role in the DNA damage-induced checkpoint response. In this report, we presented the evidence that Rad9–Rad1–Hus1 (9–1–1) complex directly interacted with RPA in human cells, and this interaction was mediated by the binding of Rad9 protein to both RPA70 and RPA32 subunits. In addition, the cellular interaction of 9–1–1 with RPA or hyperphosphorylated RPA was stimulated by UV irradiation or camptothecin treatment in a dose-dependent manner. Such treatments also resulted in the colocalization of the nuclear foci formed with the two complexes. Consistently, knockdown of the RPA expression in cells by the small interference RNA (siRNA) blocked the DNA damage-dependent chromatin association of 9–1–1, and also inhibited the 9–1–1 complex formation. Taken together, our results suggest that 9–1–1 and RPA complexes collaboratively function in DNA damage responses, and that the RPA may serve as a regulator for the activity of 9–1–1 complex in the cellular checkpoint network.