Key Points
-
Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) is an essential kinase that is active in S phase, senses stressed replication forks and orchestrates a multifaceted response to DNA replication stress. This response helps ensure completion of DNA replication and maintains the integrity of the genome.
-
ATR and its binding partner, ATR-interacting protein (ATRIP), are recruited to stalled forks through direct interactions with the replication protein A–single-stranded DNA (RPA–ssDNA) complex that forms at stressed replication forks. When bound to ssDNA, the kinase activity of ATR is stimulated by the ATR-activating domains of topoisomerase II binding protein 1 (TOPBP1) or Ewing tumour-associated antigen 1 (ETAA1), which are independently recruited to junctions between ssDNA and double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) and to RPA–ssDNA, respectively.
-
ATR activity can be amplified by generating more ssDNA–dsDNA junctions at individual replication forks, through feed-forward signalling loops and by post-translational modifications of the signalling complexes.
-
When activated, ATR directs the replication stress response to arrest the cell cycle, block origin of replication firing and stabilize and repair stalled replication forks.
-
ATR and its effector, checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1), are active both during an unperturbed S phase, to prevent excessive origin firing, and in response to replication stress, to slow DNA replication. However, this negative regulation of replication initiation does not prevent the firing of dormant origins within a replication domain, which can rescue replication completion without requiring the damaged fork to restart.
-
ATR phosphorylates numerous replisome proteins and repair factors that prevent fork collapse and the formation of DNA breaks. These post-translational modifications regulate the remodelling of replication forks and subsequent nuclease-dependent cleavage and/or resection of forks. They also regulate pathways needed to repair stalled forks and restart DNA synthesis.
Abstract
One way to preserve a rare book is to lock it away from all potential sources of damage. Of course, an inaccessible book is also of little use, and the paper and ink will continue to degrade with age in any case. Like a book, the information stored in our DNA needs to be read, but it is also subject to continuous assault and therefore needs to be protected. In this Review, we examine how the replication stress response that is controlled by the kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) senses and resolves threats to DNA integrity so that the DNA remains available to read in all of our cells. We discuss the multiple data that have revealed an elegant yet increasingly complex mechanism of ATR activation. This involves a core set of components that recruit ATR to stressed replication forks, stimulate kinase activity and amplify ATR signalling. We focus on the activities of ATR in the control of cell cycle checkpoints, origin firing and replication fork stability, and on how proper regulation of these processes is crucial to ensure faithful duplication of a challenging genome.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
08 November 2017
In the original article, references 36, 68 and 110 contained mistakes. These have now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.
References
Zeman, M. K. & Cimprich, K. A. Causes and consequences of replication stress. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 2–9 (2014).
Brown, E. J. & Baltimore, D. ATR disruption leads to chromosomal fragmentation and early embryonic lethality. Genes Dev. 14, 397–402 (2000).
de Klein, A. et al. Targeted disruption of the cell-cycle checkpoint gene ATR leads to early embryonic lethality in mice. Curr. Biol. 10, 479–482 (2000). References 2 and 3 demonstrate that ATR is essential for viability in vivo.
O'Driscoll, M., Ruiz-Perez, V. L., Woods, C. G., Jeggo, P. A. & Goodship, J. A. A splicing mutation affecting expression of ataxia-telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) results in Seckel syndrome. Nat. Genet. 33, 497–501 (2003).
Cimprich, K. A., Shin, T. B., Keith, C. T. & Schreiber, S. L. cDNA cloning and gene mapping of a candidate human cell cycle checkpoint protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 2850–2855 (1996).
Bentley, N. J. et al. The Schizosaccharomyces pombe rad3 checkpoint gene. EMBO J. 15, 6641–6651 (1996).
Durocher, D. & Jackson, S. P. DNA-PK, ATM and ATR as sensors of DNA damage: Variations on a theme? Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 13, 225–231 (2001).
Sirbu, B. M. & Cortez, D. DNA damage response: Three levels of DNA repair regulation. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a012724 (2013).
Royo, H. et al. ATR acts stage specifically to regulate multiple aspects of mammalian meiotic silencing. Genes Dev. 27, 1484–1494 (2013).
Maciejowski, J. & de Lange, T. Telomeres in cancer: Tumour suppression and genome instability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 175–186 (2017).
Kumar, A. et al. ATR mediates a checkpoint at the nuclear envelope in response to mechanical stress. Cell 158, 633–646 (2014).
Cimprich, K. A. & Cortez, D. ATR: An essential regulator of genome integrity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 616–627 (2008).
Sutton, M. D., Smith, B. T., Godoy, V. G. & Walker, G. C. The SOS response: Recent insights into umuDC-dependent mutagenesis and DNA damage tolerance. Annu. Rev. Genet. 34, 479–497 (2000).
Cortez, D., Guntuku, S., Qin, J. & Elledge, S. J. ATR and ATRIP: Partners in checkpoint signaling. Science 294, 1713–1716 (2001).
Zou, L. & Elledge, S. J. Sensing DNA damage through ATRIP recognition of RPA-ssDNA complexes. Science 300, 1542–1548 (2003). References 14 and 15 identify components required for ATR recruitment to ssDNA.
MacDougall, C. A., Byun, T. S., Van, C., Yee, M.-C. & Cimprich, K. A. The structural determinants of checkpoint activation. Genes Dev. 21, 898–903 (2007). Reference 16 uses defined DNA substrates in X. laevis egg extracts to show that ssDNA and a ssDNA–dsDNA junction are sufficient to activate ATR signalling.
Mordes, D. A., Glick, G. G., Zhao, R. & Cortez, D. TopBP1 activates ATR through ATRIP and a PIKK regulatory domain. Genes Dev. 22, 1478–1489 (2008).
Kumar, S. & Burgers, P. M. Lagging strand maturation factor Dna2 is a component of the replication checkpoint initiation machinery. Genes Dev. 27, 313–321 (2013).
Mordes, D. A., Nam, E. A. & Cortez, D. Dpb11 activates the Mec1–Ddc2 complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 18730–18734 (2008).
Navadgi-Patil, V. M. & Burgers, P. M. Yeast DNA replication protein Dpb11 activates the Mec1/ATR checkpoint kinase. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 35853–35859 (2008).
Navadgi-Patil, V. M. & Burgers, P. M. The unstructured C-terminal tail of the 9-1-1 clamp subunit Ddc1 activates Mec1/ATR via two distinct mechanisms. Mol. Cell 36, 743–753 (2009).
Kumagai, A., Lee, J., Yoo, H. Y. & Dunphy, W. G. TopBP1 activates the ATR–ATRIP complex. Cell 124, 943–955 (2006). Reference 22 identifies TOPBP1 as a direct ATR activator.
Bass, T. E. et al. ETAA1 acts at stalled replication forks to maintain genome integrity. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 1185–1195 (2016).
Haahr, P. et al. Activation of the ATR kinase by the RPA-binding protein ETAA1. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 1196–1207 (2016).
Lee, Y.-C., Zhou, Q., Chen, J. & Yuan, J. RPA-binding protein ETAA1 is an ATR activator involved in DNA replication stress response. Curr. Biol. 26, 3257–3268 (2016). References 23–25 identify ETAA1 as a direct ATR activator.
Zhou, Z.-W. et al. An essential function for the ATR-activation-domain (AAD) of TopBP1 in mouse development and cellular senescence. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003702 (2013).
Garcia, V., Furuya, K. & Carr, A. M. Identification and functional analysis of TopBP1 and its homologs. DNA Repair 4, 1227–1239 (2005).
Delacroix, S., Wagner, J. M., Kobayashi, M., Yamamoto, K.-I. & Karnitz, L. M. The Rad9–Hus1–Rad1 (9-1-1) clamp activates checkpoint signaling via TopBP1. Genes Dev. 21, 1472–1477 (2007).
Lee, J., Kumagai, A. & Dunphy, W. G. The Rad9–Hus1–Rad1 checkpoint clamp regulates interaction of TopBP1 with ATR. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 28036–28044 (2007).
Bermudez, V. P. et al. Loading of the human 9-1-1 checkpoint complex onto DNA by the checkpoint clamp loader hRad17-replication factor C complex in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 1633–1638 (2003).
Zou, L., Liu, D. & Elledge, S. J. Replication protein A-mediated recruitment and activation of Rad17 complexes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 13827–13832 (2003).
Ellison, V. & Stillman, B. Biochemical characterization of DNA damage checkpoint complexes: Clamp loader and clamp complexes with specificity for 5′ recessed DNA. PLoS Biol. 1, E33 (2003).
Murakami, T. et al. Stable interaction between the human proliferating cell nuclear antigen loader complex Ctf18-replication factor C (RFC) and DNA polymerase ε is mediated by the cohesion-specific subunits, Ctf18, Dcc1, and Ctf8. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 34608–34615 (2010).
Crabbé, L. et al. Analysis of replication profiles reveals key role of RFC–Ctf18 in yeast replication stress response. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 1391–1397 (2010).
García-Rodríguez, L. J. et al. A conserved Polε binding module in Ctf18–RFC is required for S-phase checkpoint activation downstream of Mec1. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 8830–8838 (2015).
Duursma, A. M., Driscoll, R., Elias, J. E. & Cimprich, K. A. A role for the MRN complex in ATR activation via TOPBP1 recruitment. Mol. Cell 50, 116–22 (2013).
Lee, J. & Dunphy, W. G. The Mre11–Rad50–Nbs1 (MRN) complex has a specific role in the activation of Chk1 in response to stalled replication forks. Mol. Biol. Cell. 24, 1343–1353 (2013).
Cotta-Ramusino, C. et al. A DNA damage response screen identifies RHINO, a 9-1-1 and TopBP1 interacting protein required for ATR signaling. Science 332, 1313–1317 (2011). References 36–38 reveal additional components necessary for ATR activation, although their mechanisms of action are still poorly understood.
Lindsey-Boltz, L. A., Kemp, M. G., Capp, C. & Sancar, A. RHINO forms a stoichiometric complex with the 9-1-1 checkpoint clamp and mediates ATR–Chk1 signaling. Cell Cycle 14, 99–108 (2015).
Byun, T. S., Pacek, M., Yee, M.-C., Walter, J. C. & Cimprich, K. A. Functional uncoupling of MCM helicase and DNA polymerase activities activates the ATR-dependent checkpoint. Genes Dev. 19, 1040–1052 (2005). Reference 40 identifies activities that generate ssDNA to activate ATR.
Zellweger, R. et al. Rad51-mediated replication fork reversal is a global response to genotoxic treatments in human cells. J. Cell Biol. 208, 563–579 (2015).
Hashimoto, Y., Ray Chaudhuri, A., Lopes, M. & Costanzo, V. Rad51 protects nascent DNA from Mre11-dependent degradation and promotes continuous DNA synthesis. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 1305–1311 (2010).
Sogo, J. M., Lopes, M. & Foiani, M. Fork reversal and ssDNA accumulation at stalled replication forks owing to checkpoint defects. Science 297, 599–602 (2002).
Michael, W. M., Ott, R., Fanning, E. & Newport, J. Activation of the DNA replication checkpoint through RNA synthesis by primase. Science 289, 2133–2137 (2000).
Neelsen, K. J. & Lopes, M. Replication fork reversal in eukaryotes: From dead end to dynamic response. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 207–220 (2015).
Couch, F. B. & Cortez, D. Fork reversal, too much of a good thing. Cell Cycle 13, 1049–1050 (2014).
Thangavel, S. et al. DNA2 drives processing and restart of reversed replication forks in human cells. J. Cell Biol. 208, 545–562 (2015).
Bétous, R. et al. SMARCAL1 catalyzes fork regression and Holliday junction migration to maintain genome stability during DNA replication. Genes Dev. 26, 151–162 (2012).
Blastyák, A., Hajdú, I., Unk, I. & Haracska, L. Role of double-stranded DNA translocase activity of human HLTF in replication of damaged DNA. Mol. Cell. Biol. 30, 684–693 (2010).
Schwab, R. A., Blackford, A. N. & Niedzwiedz, W. ATR activation and replication fork restart are defective in FANCM-deficient cells. EMBO J. 29, 806–818 (2010).
Collis, S. J. et al. FANCM and FAAP24 function in ATR-mediated checkpoint signaling independently of the Fanconi anemia core complex. Mol. Cell 32, 313–324 (2008).
Singh, T. R. et al. ATR-dependent phosphorylation of FANCM at serine 1045 is essential for FANCM functions. Cancer Res. 73, 4300–4310 (2013).
Gong, Z., Kim, J.-E., Leung, C. C. Y., Glover, J. N. M. & Chen, J. BACH1/FANCJ acts with TopBP1 and participates early in DNA replication checkpoint control. Mol. Cell 37, 438–446 (2010).
Xie, J. et al. FANCJ/BACH1 acetylation at lysine 1249 regulates the DNA damage response. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002786 (2012).
Blackford, A. N. et al. The DNA translocase activity of FANCM protects stalled replication forks. Hum. Mol. Genet. 21, 2005–2016 (2012).
Patro, B. S., Frøhlich, R., Bohr, V. A. & Stevnsner, T. WRN helicase regulates the ATR–CHK1-induced S-phase checkpoint pathway in response to topoisomerase-I–DNA covalent complexes. J. Cell. Sci. 124, 3967–3979 (2011).
Basile, G., Leuzzi, G., Pichierri, P. & Franchitto, A. Checkpoint-dependent and independent roles of the Werner syndrome protein in preserving genome integrity in response to mild replication stress. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 12628–12639 (2014).
Wu, Y. et al. EEPD1 rescues stressed replication forks and maintains genome stability by promoting end resection and homologous recombination repair. PLoS Genet. 11, e1005675 (2015).
Jazayeri, A. et al. ATM- and cell cycle-dependent regulation of ATR in response to DNA double-strand breaks. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 37–45 (2006).
Gong, Y., Handa, N., Kowalczykowski, S. C. & de Lange, T. PHF11 promotes DSB resection, ATR signaling, and HR. Genes Dev. 31, 46–58 (2017).
Lindsey-Boltz, L. A. Bringing it all together: Coupling excision repair to the DNA damage checkpoint. Photochem. Photobiol. 93, 238–244 (2017).
Aze, A., Sannino, V., Soffientini, P., Bachi, A. & Costanzo, V. Centromeric DNA replication reconstitution reveals DNA loops and ATR checkpoint suppression. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 684–691 (2016).
Ruiz, S. et al. A Genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies CDC25A as a determinant of sensitivity to ATR inhibitors. Mol. Cell 62, 307–313 (2016).
de Oliveira, F. M. B. et al. Phosphoproteomics reveals distinct modes of Mec1/ATR signaling during DNA replication. Mol. Cell 57, 1124–1132 (2015).
Cliby, W. A. et al. Overexpression of a kinase-inactive ATR protein causes sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents and defects in cell cycle checkpoints. EMBO J. 17, 159–169 (1998).
Casper, A. M., Nghiem, P., Arlt, M. F. & Glover, T. W. ATR regulates fragile site stability. Cell 111, 779–789 (2002).
Koundrioukoff, S. et al. Stepwise activation of the ATR signaling pathway upon increasing replication stress impacts fragile site integrity. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003643 (2013).
Van, C., Yan, S., Michael, W. M., Waga, S. & Cimprich, K. A. Continued primer synthesis at stalled replication forks contributes to checkpoint activation. J. Cell Biol. 189, 233–246 (2010).
Mourón, S. et al. Repriming of DNA synthesis at stalled replication forks by human PrimPol. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 1383–1389 (2013).
Bianchi, J. et al. PrimPol bypasses UV photoproducts during eukaryotic chromosomal DNA replication. Mol. Cell 52, 566–573 (2013).
García-Gómez, S. et al. PrimPol, an archaic primase/polymerase operating in human cells. Mol. Cell 52, 541–553 (2013).
Wan, L. et al. hPrimpol1/CCDC111 is a human DNA primase-polymerase required for the maintenance of genome integrity. EMBO Rep. 14, 1104–1112 (2013).
Yan, S. & Michael, W. M. TopBP1 and DNA polymerase-α directly recruit the 9-1-1 complex to stalled DNA replication forks. J. Cell Biol. 184, 793–804 (2009).
Maréchal, A. et al. PRP19 transforms into a sensor of RPA–ssDNA after DNA damage and drives ATR activation via a ubiquitin-mediated circuitry. Mol. Cell 53, 235–246 (2014).
Wu, C. S. et al. SUMOylation of ATRIP potentiates DNA damage signaling by boosting multiple protein interactions in the ATR pathway. Genes Dev. 28, 1472–1484 (2014).
Yoo, H. Y., Kumagai, A., Shevchenko, A., Shevchenko, A. & Dunphy, W. G. Ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM)-dependent activation of ATR occurs through phosphorylation of TopBP1 by ATM. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 17501–17506 (2007).
Venere, M., Snyder, A., Zgheib, O. & Halazonetis, T. D. Phosphorylation of ATR-interacting protein on Ser239 mediates an interaction with breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility 1 and checkpoint function. Cancer Res. 67, 6100–6105 (2007).
Myers, J. S., Zhao, R., Xu, X., Ham, A.-J. L. & Cortez, D. Cyclin-dependent kinase 2 dependent phosphorylation of ATRIP regulates the G2-M checkpoint response to DNA damage. Cancer Res. 67, 6685–6690 (2007).
Zhang, H. et al. ATRIP deacetylation by SIRT2 drives ATR checkpoint activation by promoting binding to RPA–ssDNA. Cell Rep. 14, 1435–1447 (2016).
Liu, S. et al. ATR autophosphorylation as a molecular switch for checkpoint activation. Mol. Cell 43, 192–202 (2011).
Nam, E. A. et al. Thr-1989 phosphorylation is a marker of active ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related (ATR) kinase. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 28707–28714 (2011).
Bakkenist, C. J. & Kastan, M. B. DNA damage activates ATM through intermolecular autophosphorylation and dimer dissociation. Nature 421, 499–506 (2003).
Daniel, J. A. et al. Multiple autophosphorylation sites are dispensable for murine ATM activation in vivo. J. Cell Biol. 183, 777–783 (2008).
Pellegrini, M. et al. Autophosphorylation at serine 1987 is dispensable for murine Atm activation in vivo. Nature 443, 222–225 (2006).
Jarrett, S. G. et al. PKA-mediated phosphorylation of ATR promotes recruitment of XPA to UV-induced DNA damage. Mol. Cell 54, 999–1011 (2014).
Meirelles, G. V. et al. 'Stop Ne(c)king around': How interactomics contributes to functionally characterize Nek family kinases. World J. Biol. Chem. 5, 141–160 (2014).
Navadgi-Patil, V. M. & Burgers, P. M. Cell-cycle-specific activators of the Mec1/ATR checkpoint kinase. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 39, 600–605 (2011).
Kumagai, A. & Dunphy, W. G. Claspin, a novel protein required for the activation of Chk1 during a DNA replication checkpoint response in Xenopus egg extracts. Mol. Cell 6, 839–849 (2000).
Karlsson-Rosenthal, C. & Millar, J. B. A. Cdc25: Mechanisms of checkpoint inhibition and recovery. Trends Cell Biol. 16, 285–292 (2006).
Boutros, R., Dozier, C. & Ducommun, B. The when and wheres of CDC25 phosphatases. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 18, 185–191 (2006).
Mailand, N. et al. Rapid destruction of human Cdc25A in response to DNA damage. Science 288, 1425–1429 (2000).
Sørensen, C. S. et al. Chk1 regulates the S phase checkpoint by coupling the physiological turnover and ionizing radiation-induced accelerated proteolysis of Cdc25A. Cancer Cell 3, 247–258 (2003).
Peng, C. Y. et al. Mitotic and G2 checkpoint control: Regulation of 14-3-3 protein binding by phosphorylation of Cdc25C on serine-216. Science 277, 1501–1505 (1997).
Sanchez, Y. et al. Conservation of the Chk1 checkpoint pathway in mammals: Linkage of DNA damage to Cdk regulation through Cdc25. Science 277, 1497–1501 (1997).
Fragkos, M., Ganier, O., Coulombe, P. & Méchali, M. DNA replication origin activation in space and time. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 360–374 (2015).
Shechter, D., Costanzo, V. & Gautier, J. ATR and ATM regulate the timing of DNA replication origin firing. Nat. Cell Biol. 6, 648–655 (2004).
Marheineke, K. & Hyrien, O. Control of replication origin density and firing time in Xenopus egg extracts: Role of a caffeine-sensitive, ATR-dependent checkpoint. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 28071–28081 (2004).
Katsuno, Y. et al. Cyclin A–Cdk1 regulates the origin firing program in mammalian cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3184–3189 (2009).
Santocanale, C. & Diffley, J. F. A. Mec1- and Rad53-dependent checkpoint controls late-firing origins of DNA replication. Nature 395, 615–618 (1998). Reference 99 is the first study to show that the replication checkpoint regulates origin firing.
Costanzo, V. et al. An ATR- and Cdc7-dependent DNA damage checkpoint that inhibits initiation of DNA replication. Mol. Cell 11, 203–213 (2003).
Karnani, N. & Dutta, A. The effect of the intra-S-phase checkpoint on origins of replication in human cells. Genes Dev. 25, 621–633 (2011).
Yekezare, M., Gómez-González, B. & Diffley, J. F. X. Controlling DNA replication origins in response to DNA damage — inhibit globally, activate locally. J. Cell. Sci. 126, 1297–1306 (2013).
Deegan, T. D., Yeeles, J. T. & Diffley, J. F. Phosphopeptide binding by Sld3 links Dbf4-dependent kinase to MCM replicative helicase activation. EMBO J. 35, 961–973 (2016).
Heffernan, T. P. et al. Cdc7–Dbf4 and the human S checkpoint response to UVC. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 9458–9468 (2007).
Zegerman, P. & Diffley, J. F. X. Checkpoint-dependent inhibition of DNA replication initiation by Sld3 and Dbf4 phosphorylation. Nature 467, 474–478 (2010).
Zhao, H., Watkins, J. L. & Piwnica-Worms, H. Disruption of the checkpoint kinase 1/cell division cycle 25A pathway abrogates ionizing radiation-induced S and G2 checkpoints. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 14795–14800 (2002).
Liu, H. et al. Phosphorylation of MLL by ATR is required for execution of mammalian S-phase checkpoint. Nature 467, 343–346 (2010).
Lopez-Mosqueda, J. et al. Damage-induced phosphorylation of Sld3 is important to block late origin firing. Nature 467, 479–483 (2010).
Guo, C. et al. Interaction of Chk1 with Treslin negatively regulates the initiation of chromosomal DNA replication. Mol. Cell 57, 1–14 (2015). References 105 and 107–109 reveal key replication checkpoint targets and phosphorylation events for inhibiting origin firing.
Ge, X. Q. & Blow, J. J. Chk1 inhibits replication factory activation but allows dormant origin firing in existing factories. J. Cell Biol. 191, 1285–1297 (2010).
Petermann, E. et al. Chk1 requirement for high global rates of replication fork progression during normal vertebrate S phase. Mol. Cell. Biol. 26, 3319–3326 (2006).
Petermann, E. & Caldecott, K. W. Evidence that the ATR/Chk1 pathway maintains normal replication fork progression during unperturbed S phase. Cell Cycle 5, 2203–2209 (2006).
Maya-Mendoza, A., Petermann, E., Gillespie, D. A. F., Caldecott, K. W. & Jackson, D. A. Chk1 regulates the density of active replication origins during the vertebrate S phase. EMBO J. 26, 2719–2731 (2007).
Petermann, E., Woodcock, M. & Helleday, T. Chk1 promotes replication fork progression by controlling replication initiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16090–16095 (2010).
Couch, F. B. et al. ATR phosphorylates SMARCAL1 to prevent replication fork collapse. Genes Dev. 27, 1610–1623 (2013). Reference 115 demonstrates that ATR regulation of SMARCAL1 is needed to prevent excessive fork remodelling that results in SLX4-dependent fork breakage.
Técher, H. et al. Signaling from Mus81–Eme2-dependent DNA damage elicited by Chk1 deficiency modulates replication fork speed and origin usage. Cell Rep. 14, 1114–1127 (2016).
Thomson, A. M., Gillespie, P. J. & Blow, J. J. Replication factory activation can be decoupled from the replication timing program by modulating Cdk levels. Cell Biol. J. 188, 209–221 (2010).
Cortez, D., Glick, G. & Elledge, S. J. Minichromosome maintenance proteins are direct targets of the ATM and ATR checkpoint kinases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 10078–10083 (2004).
Trenz, K., Errico, A. & Costanzo, V. Plx1 is required for chromosomal DNA replication under stressful conditions. EMBO J. 27, 876–885 (2008).
Chen, Y.-H. et al. ATR-mediated phosphorylation of FANCI regulates dormant origin firing in response to replication stress. Mol. Cell 58, 323–338 (2015).
Lopes, M. et al. The DNA replication checkpoint response stabilizes stalled replication forks. Nature 412, 557–561 (2001).
Tercero, J. A. & Diffley, J. F. Regulation of DNA replication fork progression through damaged DNA by the Mec1/Rad53 checkpoint. Nature 412, 553–557 (2001). References 121 and 122 show in Saccharomyces cerevisiae that the ATR pathway regulates both fork stability and origin firing.
Chanoux, R. A. et al. ATR and H2AX cooperate in maintaining genome stability under replication stress. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 5994–6003 (2009).
Cobb, J. A., Bjergbaek, L., Shimada, K., Frei, C. & Gasser, S. M. DNA polymerase stabilization at stalled replication forks requires Mec1 and the RecQ helicase Sgs1. EMBO J. 22, 4325–4336 (2003).
De Piccoli, G. et al. Replisome stability at defective DNA replication forks is independent of S phase checkpoint kinases. Mol. Cell 45, 696–704 (2012).
Dungrawala, H. et al. The replication checkpoint prevents two types of fork collapse without regulating replisome stability. Mol. Cell 59, 998–1010 (2015). References 125 and 126 provide evidence that replisome stability is independent of the replication checkpoint.
Cotta-Ramusino, C. et al. Exo1 processes stalled replication forks and counteracts fork reversal in checkpoint-defective cells. Mol. Cell 17, 153–159 (2005).
Ragland, R. L. et al. RNF4 and PLK1 are required for replication fork collapse in ATR-deficient cells. Genes Dev. 27, 2259–2273 (2013).
Wyatt, H. D. M., Sarbajna, S., Matos, J. & West, S. C. Coordinated actions of SLX1–SLX4 and MUS81–EME1 for Holliday junction resolution in human cells. Mol. Cell 52, 234–247 (2013).
Duda, H. et al. A Mechanism for controlled breakage of under-replicated chromosomes during mitosis. Dev. Cell 39, 740–755 (2016).
Domínguez-Kelly, R. et al. Wee1 controls genomic stability during replication by regulating the Mus81–Eme1 endonuclease. J. Cell Biol. 194, 567–579 (2011).
Pepe, A. & West, S. C. MUS81-EME2 promotes replication fork restart. Cell Rep. 7, 1048–1055 (2014).
Forment, J. V., Blasius, M., Guerini, I. & Jackson, S. P. Structure-specific DNA endonuclease Mus81/Eme1 generates DNA damage caused by Chk1 inactivation. PLoS ONE 6, e23517 (2011).
Murfuni, I. et al. Survival of the replication checkpoint deficient cells requires MUS81–RAD52 function. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003910 (2013).
Hanada, K. et al. The structure-specific endonuclease Mus81 contributes to replication restart by generating double-strand DNA breaks. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 1096–1104 (2007).
Buisson, R., Boisvert, J. L., Benes, C. H. & Zou, L. Distinct but concerted roles of ATR, DNA-PK, and Chk1 in countering replication stress during S phase. Mol. Cell 59, 1011–1024 (2015).
Errico, A. & Costanzo, V. Mechanisms of replication fork protection: A safeguard for genome stability. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 47, 222–235 (2012).
Lossaint, G. et al. FANCD2 binds MCM proteins and controls replisome function upon activation of S phase checkpoint signaling. Mol. Cell 51, 678–690 (2013). Reference 138 shows that ATR signalling regulates the S phase checkpoint in part by promoting an interaction of FANCD2 with the MCM helicase.
Kumar, S. & Huberman, J. A. Checkpoint-dependent regulation of origin firing and replication fork movement in response to DNA damage in fission yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 29, 602–611 (2009).
Seiler, J. A., Conti, C., Syed, A., Aladjem, M. I. & Pommier, Y. The intra-S-phase checkpoint affects both DNA replication initiation and elongation: single-cell and -DNA fiber analyses. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 5806–5818 (2007).
Conti, C., Seiler, J. A. & Pommier, Y. The mammalian DNA replication elongation checkpoint: Implication of Chk1 and relationship with origin firing as determined by single DNA molecule and single cell analyses. Cell Cycle 6, 2760–2767 (2007).
Toledo, L. I. et al. ATR prohibits replication catastrophe by preventing global exhaustion of RPA. Cell 155, 1088–1103 (2013). Reference 142 demonstrates that, in conditions of high replicative stress, ATR is needed to prevent excessive accumulation of ssDNA, which can exhaust the availability of RPA.
Murphy, A. K. et al. Phosphorylated RPA recruits PALB2 to stalled DNA replication forks to facilitate fork recovery. J. Cell Biol. 206, 493–507 (2014).
Vassin, V. M., Anantha, R. W., Sokolova, E., Kanner, S. & Borowiec, J. A. Human RPA phosphorylation by ATR stimulates DNA synthesis and prevents ssDNA accumulation during DNA-replication stress. J. Cell. Sci. 122, 4070–4080 (2009).
Buisson, R. et al. Coupling of homologous recombination and the checkpoint by ATR. Mol. Cell 65, 336–346 (2017).
Ahlskog, J. K., Larsen, B. D., Achanta, K. & Sørensen, C. S. ATM/ATR-mediated phosphorylation of PALB2 promotes RAD51 function. EMBO Rep. 17, 671–681 (2016).
Somyajit, K., Basavaraju, S., Scully, R. & Nagaraju, G. ATM- and ATR-mediated phosphorylation of XRCC3 regulates DNA double-strand break-induced checkpoint activation and repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 33, 1830–1844 (2013).
Petermann, E., Orta, M. L., Issaeva, N., Schultz, N. & Helleday, T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol. Cell 37, 492–502 (2010).
Kolinjivadi, A. M. et al. Moonlighting at replication forks — a new life for homologous recombination proteins BRCA1, BRCA2 and RAD51. FEBS Lett. 591, 1083–1100 (2017).
Sale, J. E. Translesion DNA synthesis and mutagenesis in eukaryotes. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a012708 (2013).
Göhler, T., Sabbioneda, S., Green, C. M. & Lehmann, A. R. ATR-mediated phosphorylation of DNA polymerase η is needed for efficient recovery from UV damage. J. Cell Biol. 192, 219–227 (2011).
Davies, S. L., North, P. S., Dart, A., Lakin, N. D. & Hickson, I. D. Phosphorylation of the Bloom's syndrome helicase and its role in recovery from S-phase arrest. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 1279–1291 (2004).
Ammazzalorso, F., Pirzio, L. M., Bignami, M., Franchitto, A. & Pichierri, P. ATR and ATM differently regulate WRN to prevent DSBs at stalled replication forks and promote replication fork recovery. EMBO J. 29, 3156–3169 (2010).
Zhao, X., Muller, E. G. & Rothstein, R. A suppressor of two essential checkpoint genes identifies a novel protein that negatively affects dNTP pools. Mol. Cell 2, 329–340 (1998).
Huang, M., Zhou, Z. & Elledge, S. J. The DNA replication and damage checkpoint pathways induce transcription by inhibition of the Crt1 repressor. Cell 94, 595–605 (1998).
Sanvisens, N., de Llanos, R. & Puig, S. Function and regulation of yeast ribonucleotide reductase: Cell cycle, genotoxic stress, and iron bioavailability. Biomed J. 36, 51–58 (2013).
D'Angiolella, V. et al. Cyclin F-mediated degradation of ribonucleotide reductase M2 controls genome integrity and DNA repair. Cell 149, 1023–1034 (2012).
Lopez-Contreras, A. J. et al. Increased Rrm2 gene dosage reduces fragile site breakage and prolongs survival of ATR mutant mice. Genes Dev. 29, 690–695 (2015).
Murga, M. et al. A mouse model of ATR-Seckel shows embryonic replicative stress and accelerated aging. Nat. Genet. 41, 891–898 (2009).
Karnitz, L. M. & Zou, L. Molecular pathways: Targeting ATR in cancer therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 4780–4785 (2015).
Yeeles, J. T. P., Deegan, T. D., Janska, A., Early, A. & Diffley, J. F. Regulated eukaryotic DNA replication origin firing with purified proteins. Nature 519, 431–435 (2015).
Tuduri, S., Tourrière, H. & Pasero, P. Defining replication origin efficiency using DNA fiber assays. Chromosome Res. 18, 91–102 (2010).
Ball, H. L., Myers, J. S. & Cortez, D. ATRIP binding to replication protein A-single-stranded DNA promotes ATR–ATRIP localization but is dispensable for Chk1 phosphorylation. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 2372–2381 (2005).
Ball, H. L. & Cortez, D. ATRIP oligomerization is required for ATR-dependent checkpoint signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 31390–31396 (2005).
Ball, H. L. et al. Function of a conserved checkpoint recruitment domain in ATRIP proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 3367–3377 (2007).
Itakura, E., Sawada, I. & Matsuura, A. Dimerization of the ATRIP protein through the coiled-coil motif and its implication to the maintenance of stalled replication forks. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 5551–5562 (2005).
Sawicka, M. et al. The dimeric architecture of checkpoint kinases Mec1ATR and Tel1ATM reveal a common structural organization. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 13436–13447 (2016).
Mordes, D. A. & Cortez, D. Activation of ATR and related PIKKs. Cell Cycle 7, 2809–2812 (2008).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the American Cancer Society (PF-15-165-01 — DMC) and a Postdoctoral Enrichment Program Award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund to J.C.S., a US National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant (CA102729) to D.C., and grants from the NIH (GM100489 and ES016486) to K.A.C.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Glossary
- Replication stress
-
The slowing or stalling of replication fork progression and/or DNA synthesis.
- Hypomorphic alleles
-
Mutated genes that encode proteins with reduced function.
- Genotoxic stress
-
Any agent that damages cellular DNA.
- Topoisomerase
-
An enzyme that relieves torsional stress caused by DNA supercoiling during replication or transcription.
- SOS DNA damage response
-
A bacterial DNA damage response that arrests the cell cycle and induces error-prone DNA repair.
- Stalled replication fork
-
A replication fork that has prematurely halted DNA synthesis.
- Clamp loader
-
A protein complex that catalyses the loading of clamp complexes onto DNA.
- Replisome
-
A multiprotein complex that unwinds double-stranded DNA and catalyses both leading and lagging strand DNA synthesis.
- Nascent DNA
-
The newly synthesized strands of DNA during DNA replication.
- Origin firing
-
The initiation of DNA replication at an origin.
- Fork restart
-
The process of restarting DNA replication at a fork that had been stalled.
- Holliday junctions
-
Branched structures that contain a four-way junction of double-stranded DNA.
- DNA damage tolerance
-
A set of pathways that allow cells to replicate damaged DNA, including translesion synthesis and template switching.
- Template switching
-
The transferring of the DNA polymerase to using the newly synthesized DNA strand as a template for DNA replication when the parental template is damaged.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saldivar, J., Cortez, D. & Cimprich, K. The essential kinase ATR: ensuring faithful duplication of a challenging genome. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18, 622–636 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.67
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.67
This article is cited by
-
Targeting ATR in patients with cancer
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2024)
-
Quantity and quality of minichromosome maintenance protein complexes couple replication licensing to genome integrity
Communications Biology (2024)
-
ZNF827 is a single-stranded DNA binding protein that regulates the ATR-CHK1 DNA damage response pathway
Nature Communications (2024)
-
ATR limits Rad18-mediated PCNA monoubiquitination to preserve replication fork and telomerase-independent telomere stability
The EMBO Journal (2024)
-
Dimerization-dependent serine protease activity of FAM111A prevents replication fork stalling at topoisomerase 1 cleavage complexes
Nature Communications (2024)
