1 umi, a novel rnf168 ubiquitin binding domain involved in the
TRANSCRIPT
1
UMI, a novel RNF168 ubiquitin binding domain involved in the DNA damage signaling 1
pathway 2
3
4
Sabrina Pinato1, Marco Gatti
1, Cristina Scandiuzzi
1, Stefano Confalonieri
2 & Lorenza 5
Penengo1*
6
7
1Department of DISCAFF and DFB Center, University of Piemonte Orientale ‘‘A. 8
Avogadro’’, 28100 Novara, Italy. 2IFOM, the FIRC Institute for Molecular Oncology 9
Foundation, 20139 Milan, Italy. 10
11
*Corresponding author. Mailing Address: Department of DISCAFF and DFB Center, 12
University of Piemonte Orientale ‘‘A. Avogadro’’, 28100 Novara, Italy. 13
Phone.: +39 321 375814, Fax.: +39 321 375821, E-mail: [email protected]
15
16
17
Character count of Materials and Methods: 5001 18
Character count of Introduction, Results and Discussion: 19999 19
20
21
Running title: A novel UBD involved in DNA damage response 22
Copyright © 2010, American Society for Microbiology and/or the Listed Authors/Institutions. All Rights Reserved.Mol. Cell. Biol. doi:10.1128/MCB.00818-10 MCB Accepts, published online ahead of print on 1 November 2010
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
2
ABSTRACT 1
2
Ubiquitination regulates important cellular processes, including the DNA damage response 3
(DDR) and DNA repair. The complexity of the ubiquitin-mediated signals is decoded by 4
ubiquitin receptors, which contain protein modules named ubiquitin binding domains 5
(UBDs). We previously identified a new ubiquitin ligase, RNF168, involved in DDR and 6
endowed with two UBDs named MIU (motif interacting with ubiquitin). Here we provide the 7
identification of a novel UBD, the UMI (UIM- and MIU-related UBD), present in RNF168, 8
and characterize the interaction surface with ubiquitin, centered on two Leu residues. We 9
demonstrate that integrity of the UMI, in addition to the MIUs, is necessary for the proper 10
localization of RNF168 and for ubiquitination of nuclear proteins, including histone H2A. 11
Finally, we show that simultaneous inactivation of UMI and MIUs prevents the recruitment to 12
DDR foci of the crucial downstream mediator 53BP1. 13
14
15
Subject categories: Genome Stability & Dynamics; Chromatin and Transcription 16
17
Keywords: ubiquitination, ubiquitin binding domains, DNA damage response, chromatin 18
remodeling 19
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
3
INTRODUCTION 1
2
The post-translational modifications are one of the most versatile and effective intracellular 3
signaling system adopted by cells to rapidly counteract environmental changes. Among them, 4
the ubiquitination has a pivotal role as a master regulator of the most important cellular 5
functions (4). 6
Ubiquitination is a multi-step process involving a ubiquitin (Ub) activating enzyme (E1) that 7
activate the C-terminus of free Ub, which in turn is passed to an E2 conjugating enzyme and 8
finally, with the help of E3 Ub ligase, targets a lysine residue (Lys) of the substrate (21). 9
Notably, since Ub comprises seven Lys (K) residues within its sequence, Ub itself can be a 10
substrate of ubiquitination, resulting in the formation of different types of polyUb chains 11
endowed with distinct signaling significance (28, 30). Indeed, while K48 polyubiquitination is 12
involved in targeting proteins to proteasomal degradation, K63 chains are known to regulate a 13
variety of cellular processes including NF-κB signaling (3), DNA repair (2, 17), endocytosis 14
and vesicle trafficking (1). The function of other types of Ub linkages have now being clarified 15
(15). 16
The reversible covalent attachment of the bulky Ub moiety physically remodels the target 17
protein, conferring new interaction interfaces that can be recognized by protein modules known 18
as Ub binding domains (UBDs; (12). UBDs have the crucial role to decode Ub-mediated 19
network, allowing ubiquitinated proteins and Ub receptors (i.e. proteins carrying UBD) to 20
communicate and to translate the Ub signals into specific cellular functions. Lately, the key role 21
of non-proteolytic ubiquitination and UBDs system is emerging in processes relevant to the 22
surveillance and maintenance of genome integrity (10). Indeed, upon the formation of DNA 23
lesions, a number of proteins were found to be ubiquitinated, including proliferating cell 24
nuclear antigen (PCNA), proteins belonging to the Fanconi pathway as well as histones H2A 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
4
and H2AX (2, 17, 19). Of particular interest, ubiquitination is assuming a prominent role in the 1
signaling pathway triggered by formation of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), known as 2
DNA damage response (DDR). It has been demonstrated that, upon formation of DSBs, two Ub 3
ligases, namely RNF8 and RNF168, ubiquitinate histones H2A and H2AX at the site of damage 4
(6, 11, 14, 16, 22, 26, 27). RNF8 and RNF168 act epistatically in the DNA damage signaling 5
cascade, allowing relaxation of the chromatin structure and recruitment of important 6
downstream effectors, such as 53BP1 and BRCA1. Noteworthy, the localization of RNF8 to 7
DDR foci is due to upstream phosphorylation events induced by the PIKKs (PI3K-related 8
kinases) like ATM, while subsequent recruitment of RNF168 follows the first ubiquitination 9
events induced by RNF8 (6, 26). Two UBDs named MIU1 and MIU2 are important for 10
RNF168 localization and hence for its activity (6, 20, 22, 26). However, the inactivation of 11
these domains dramatically reduced RNF168 recruitment without abolishing it, thus suggesting 12
the involvement of additional mechanisms. 13
UBDs are structurally heterogeneous motifs, and can recognize different types of Ub chains (5, 14
12). So far, six classes of UBDs have been involved in, although not restricted to, the regulation 15
of DDR: UIM (Ub interacting motif), MIU (motif interacting with Ub), UBA (Ub associated) 16
and UBM (Ub binding motif) present an α-helical structure, UEV (Ub conjugating enzyme 17
variant) displays the Ub conjugating (UBC) domain while UBZ (Ub binding zinc finger) is a 18
zinc finger (10). Here we have identified and characterized in RNF168 a novel UBD that shows 19
similarities with the previously described UIM (23) and MIU (20) domains, and thereby we 20
called it UMI (UIM- and MIU-related UBD). We found that isolated UMI domain binds 21
polyUb chains, with a preference for the K63 linkage, and we determined the amino acid 22
residues within the UMI sequence crucial for Ub binding. We found that simultaneous 23
inactivation of UMI, MIU1 and MIU2 almost completely abolishes RNF168-dependent 24
formation of K63-specific polyubiquitinated proteins within the nucleus and the ubiquitination 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
5
of histone H2A. Functionally, we demonstrated that this impairment has dramatic 1
consequences in the signaling cascade activated by DSBs, resulting in the inadequate 2
recruitment of 53BP1 at the DDR foci, which is a critical step for the proper activation of the 3
downstream effectors of DDR. 4
5
6
RESULTS 7
8
Identification of a novel Ub binding region in RNF168 9
We previously found that RNF168 is endowed with two UBDs named MIU (motif interacting 10
with Ub) and we demonstrated that isolated MIU1 (amino acids 168-191) and MIU2 (amino 11
acids 439-462) are able to interact with both K48 and K63 Ub chains (20). The integrity of the 12
MIU domains is required for the binding of full-length RNF168 to K48 Ub chains, for its 13
appropriate localization to the site of genomic lesions and for the correct assembly of the DDR 14
foci(6, 22, 26). Hence, due to the importance of the MIU domains in RNF168 function, we 15
further investigated its Ub binding ability. By in vitro pull-down experiments, we found that the 16
MIU1 plays a prominent role in RNF168 binding to K48 Ub chains. In fact, MIU1 inactivation 17
by point mutation (A179G, MIU1*) strongly affected K48 Ub chain binding, while inactivation 18
of MIU2 (A450G, MIU2*) resulted only in a slight reduction (Fig. 1A, left panel). This result is 19
in accordance with our previous finding revealing that MIU1 is more efficient in binding K48 20
Ub chains compared to MIU2 (20). Consistently, the double mutant affecting integrity of the 21
MIU domains (A179G, A450G, MIU1-2**) almost completely abolished Ub binding. 22
K48 ubiquitination is generally considered a signal for proteasomal degradation, while other 23
types of polyUb chains target proteins to different fates. In particular, since K63 ubiquitination 24
is a signaling device largely used in DNA damage response and repair (9, 13, 25), we asked 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
6
whether RNF168 shows the same specificity for binding to K48- and K63-linked Ub chains. 1
Surprisingly, we found that the mutant MIU1-2** still interacts with K63 Ub chains, unveiling 2
the existence of additional Ub binding region within the protein, which shows preferential 3
binding to the K63 linkage compared to the K48 (Fig. 1A, right panel). 4
Therefore, to map the region involved in binding to K63 polyUb chains, we used a panel of 5
deletion mutants encompassing the whole protein, in combination with point mutants 6
addressing MIU1 and MIU2, summarized in Fig. 1B. We found that the sequence within amino 7
acids 56 and 166, which does not contain any obvious UBD, interacts with K63 polyUb chains. 8
Secondary structure prediction of this sequence highlighted the presence of a coiled-coil motif 9
(amino acids 115-166). Within this sequence, a putative amphipathic α-helix is present (amino 10
acids 134-166), highly conserved throughout evolution (Fig. 1C). Thus, we asked whether this 11
short sequence was responsible for the binding to Ub chains. Indeed, we found that the region 12
including amino acids 134-166 retained Ub binding ability, while the adjacent region (amino 13
acids 56-134) did not (Fig. 1D). Interestingly we observed that this isolated region binds also to 14
K48 polyUb chains, although to a lesser extent (Fig. S1), suggesting that Ub-chain specificity 15
might be influenced by the surrounding sequence. 16
Our bioinformatic analysis suggested an amino acid spatial distribution that is reminiscent of 17
the amphipathic α-helix in the UIM/MIU motifs (Fig. 2A), with Y145, I146 L149 and L150 18
providing the core of the hydrophobic side, while E143, E144, Q147 and R148 make up the 19
hydrophilic side (Fig. 2A). Consistently, a single substitution of each of the two leucine 20
residues at position 149 and 150, almost abrogated the Ub binding of the domain (Fig. 2B). In 21
contrast, mutation of alanine 151 (marked with an asterisk in Fig. 2A), crucial for the function 22
of the MIU domain (20), did not exert a major effect on the interaction with Ub chains, as 23
predicted by its positioning in the hydrophilic side of the helix in our model (Fig. 2B). Due to 24
the similarity with the UIM and MIU domains, we named it UMI (UIM- and MIU-related Ub 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
7
binding domain). 1
To better evaluate the Ub-linkage specificity, we analyzed the effect of the point mutations 2
addressing UMI and MIU domains on the binding to K63 and K48 polyUb chains. Since we 3
observed that the N-terminus of the protein displayed a residual Ub binding that is currently 4
under investigation, we introduced the point mutations in a sequence deleted of this region 5
(amino acids 56-571). As expected, the mutant that is simultaneously defective of UMI, MIU1 6
and MIU2 (UMI*MIU1-2**) is unable to interact with K48 and poorly with K63 Ub chains, 7
indicating that there are no additional UBDs in this region (Fig. 2C). Oddly, we found that the 8
mutant 56-571(MIU1-2**) still interacts with K48 Ub chains, in contrast to what observed in 9
the case of full-length protein (Fig. 1A). This result, in agreement with other data obtained in 10
the lab, suggests that the region encompassing the RING finger of RNF168 might influence the 11
Ub binding specificity, by limiting the type of Ub chain that can access the UMI domain. 12
13
The proper localization of RNF168 relies on the integrity of the UMI domain 14
Localization of DDR proteins at the site of DNA damage is mandatory for the full activation of 15
the cellular response aimed at counteracting the formation of harmful DNA DSBs (7). Proper 16
subcellular localization of RNF168 largely depends on the integrity of the MIU domains, with a 17
pivotal role of MIU2 (22, 26). In fact, inactivation of MIU2 by point mutation (A450G) highly 18
impairs the accumulation of RNF168 at the DSBs upon etoposide treatment. Nevertheless, we 19
previously showed that such impairment is not complete, since a small population of MIU1-2** 20
still localizes at DDR foci (22), suggesting a possible role of other domains in RNF168 21
localization. To investigate the role of the UMI domain in RNF168 localization, we adopted 22
experimental conditions where the expression of endogenous protein is abrogated, by using 23
U2OS cells conditionally expressing RNF168-targeting shRNA (6) (see in Fig. S2A in the 24
supplemental material); here, we introduced the shRNA-resistant version of the different 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
8
RNF168 constructs (see in Fig. S2B in the supplemental material). We observed that 1
inactivation of the UMI by Leu to Ala substitution at position 149 and 150 (UMI*) partially 2
altered the localization of RNF168, resulting in a more diffuse localization compared to the 3
wild type protein (Fig. 3A). A more dramatic effect is obtained by replacing the endogenous 4
protein with the construct carrying simultaneously the UMI, MIU1 and MIU2 inactivating 5
mutations (UMI*MIU1-2**). In this case, the protein displayed a diffuse nuclear pattern and it 6
failed to localize at the DSB foci even in the presence of DNA damage (Fig. 3A). We 7
previously showed that a significant population of RNF168 still localized to DDR foci even 8
when MIUs are inactivated (22), suggesting the existence of a MIU-independent mechanism 9
for RNF168 recruitment to DDR foci. Thus, we adopted the same approach to clarify if the 10
simultaneous inactivation of the three UBDs further affects localization of the protein at the 11
sites of DNA lesion. Indeed, we found that the triple mutant (UMI*MIU1-2**) is unable to re-12
locate to the DDR foci, although it still resides in detergent-resistant chromatin structures (Fig. 13
3B, right panels). This result is quite surprisingly, since we expected the mutant UMI*MIU1-14
2** to be soluble upon detergent treatment. To investigate this point, we performed a GST pull 15
down using chromatin extracts to evaluate the ability of the mutants to interact with chromatin 16
(Fig. 3C). Consistently with the IF data, we found that all of RNF168 mutants, including the 17
UMI*MIU1-2**, retain the ability to bind histones at comparable levels, either in damaged or 18
undamaged cells. These results indicate that, in addition to the UBD-dependent binding of 19
RNF168 to ubiquitinated histone H2A upon DNA lesions (26), there are additional binding 20
sites on RNF168 to chromatin. 21
22
RNF168-induced ubiquitination is impaired in cells expressing the UMI-defective mutant 23
We and others previously demonstrated that RNF168 is a nuclear E3 Ub ligase, which induces 24
in vitro ubiquitination of histones H2A and H2AX in a RING finger-dependent manner (6, 22, 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
9
26). In addition, it has also been ascribed to the two MIU domains an important role in the in 1
vivo ubiquitination activity. Indeed, inactivation of MIU1 and MIU2 caused a 70% reduction of 2
the amount of ubiquitinated proteins at the DDR foci as compared to the wild type protein (6). 3
Thus we asked whether inactivation of the UMI domain could also impair the activity of 4
RNF168, as a consequence of the altered localization. By using the U2OS RNF168-targeting 5
shRNA cells complemented with the shRNA-resistant constructs of either the wild type 6
RNF168 or the different mutants, we found that the sole inactivation of the UMI domain 7
reduces the number of Ub-positive foci in the nucleus (UMI*), as revealed by the use of anti-8
Ub antibody (FK2) that recognized Ub only when conjugated in chains (Fig. 4A, 4B). This 9
resembles what observed with the mutant in the MIU domains (MIU1-2**). Noteworthy, 10
inactivation of the UMI domain in the context of a MIU-defective protein completely abolished 11
the formation of Ub conjugates at the DSBs (UMI*MIU1-2**; Fig. 4A, 4B). The same results 12
were recapitulated by the use of the K63-linkage specific anti-Ub antibody (Apu3.A8(18)), as 13
shown in Fig. S3 in the supplemental material. Furthermore, we addressed the ubiquitination 14
status of chromatin-bound proteins, by performing acidic extraction of nuclear components 15
derived from cells ectopically expressing wild type and different RNF168 mutants (Fig. 4C). In 16
the presence of wild type protein, anti-Ub immunoblot revealed the formation of a ladder of 17
about five bands, which differ in molecular weight, reminiscent of the multiple ubiquitinated 18
forms of histone H2A. Notably, inactivation of the three UBDs (UMI*MIU1-2**) prevented 19
the formation of these ubiquitinated proteins, similarly to what observed in cells transfected 20
with to the empty vector. The Apu3.A8 anti-Ub immunoblotting showed that expression of 21
wild type RNF168 induces formation of K63-ubiquitinated proteins with molecular weight of 22
about 30 and 38 kDa (the latter with lower intensity), compatible with the di- and tri-23
ubiquitinated forms of histone H2A. Inactivation of any single UBD (UMI*, MIU1*, MIU2*) 24
and of the double MIU mutant (MIU1-2**) still induced the formation of the 30 kDa band, but 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
10
not that of the higher molecular weight (Fig. 4C). Strikingly, the UMI*MIU1-2** mutant failed 1
to form any K63-linked ubiquitinated proteins, strongly indicating that inactivation of the sole 2
MIU domains is not enough to abolish RNF168 Ub ligase activity, but that the concurrent 3
inactivation of the UMI is strictly required. Interestingly, the decreased ubiquitinating activity 4
of the mutants is not ascribable to a reduced intrinsic Ub ligase activity, since we performed an 5
in vitro ubiquitination assay showing that the activity of the RNF168 mutants is comparable to 6
that of the wild type protein (Fig. S4). 7
8
Inactivation of the UMI affects in vivo histone ubiquitination 9
Histones H2A and H2AX are the sole RNF168 substrate identified at the moment. With the 10
purpose of verifying the role of the new UBD on histone ubiquitination, we performed a 11
biochemical analysis of chromatin histones using an antibody that specifically recognizes the 12
ubiquitinated forms of histones H2A (uH2A; Fig. 4D). Anti-uH2A immunoblot revealed that 13
inactivation of the UMI, as well as of the MIU1, reduced the level of histone H2A 14
ubiquitination induced by ectopical expression of RNF168, failing to form the signal 15
corresponding to tri-ubiquitinated histone H2A present in wild type protein and markedly 16
reducing the di-ubiquitinated form. Simultaneous inactivation of the three UBDs (UMI*MIU1-17
2**) completely abolished both di- and tri-ubiquitination of H2A, with a level of ubiquitination 18
comparable to that of cells transfected with the empty vector alone (Fig. 4D). Interestingly, 19
inactivation of the sole MIU2 did not have significant effect, despite its major role in the 20
localization of RNF168 at DDR foci. We confirmed these results by immunofluorescence 21
analysis, where we used anti-uH2A antibody to detect the amount of ubiquitinated histone H2A 22
in U2OS (shRNF168) cells complemented with RNF168 mutants (Fig. 4E, 4F). 23
Overall these results clearly indicated that UMI domain has a pivotal role to ensure proper 24
localization of RNF168, which is instrumental for the execution of its full Ub ligase activity on 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
11
physiological substrates, which are histones. 1
2
Integrity of the UMI domain is required for the proper recruitment of downstream 3
signaling proteins 4
The ubiquitination events driven by RNF8/RNF168 are strictly required for the proper 5
execution of the DDR program. It has been demonstrated that the depletion of RNF168, either 6
by naturally occurring mutations (26) or by using the U2OS RNF168-targeting shRNA (6), 7
prevents the recruitment of 53BP1 to DDR foci, thereby affecting the downstream signaling 8
events. Relevantly, such effect may be reverted by reintroducing the wild type form of 9
RNF168. 10
The results obtained supporting the functional relevance of the UMI domain in the localization 11
and activity of RNF168 prompted us to test whether this domain is also required for the 12
recruitment of 53BP1 to DDR foci. To this purpose, we adopted the U2OS cell-system, 13
previously used in other experiments, to analyze the ability of the different RNF168 mutants 14
complementing the lack of endogenous protein. Accordingly to what already described in the 15
literature (26), we found that, upon DNA damage, the reintroduction of a construct carrying 16
both MIU1 and MIU2 inactivating mutations (MIU1-2**) restores 53BP1 localization only 17
partially (Fig. 5A and quantitation in Fig. 5B). Similar results were obtained upon expression of 18
the UMI* mutant. Strikingly, the simultaneous inactivation of UMI and MIUs in RNF168 19
(UMI*MIU1-2**) generates a protein that is almost completely unable to complement the 20
phenotype (Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B), with an effect comparable to that obtained in the absence of 21
the protein. 22
23
24
DISCUSSION 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
12
1
UBDs have a crucial role in Ub-mediated events by determining localization, activity and 2
interaction partners of proteins. We previously identified and characterized a new family of 3
UBDs, named MIU, present in a number of proteins with unrelated function, such as the 4
guanine nucleotide-exchange factor Rabex-5, the EGF-induced phosphoprotein Ymer, Myosin-5
6 and the RING finger protein RNF168 (20). Further we demonstrated that the two isolated 6
MIUs of RNF168 are able to interact with Ub chains, and that their inactivation by point 7
mutation impedes interaction with K48-linked Ub chains. 8
Here we report the identification of a novel UBD in RNF168, called UMI, which manifests 9
preference for binding to K63- as compared to K48-linked polyUb chains. At a sequence level, 10
the UMI shows similarity with the previously characterized UIM and MIU, being a short 11
amphipathic α-helix with adjacent glutamate-rich regions both at N- and C-terminus. 12
Interestingly, the interaction surface of the UMI with Ub is centered on two Leu residues 13
(L149, L150), which are expected, for the predicted positioning of amino acid residues on the 14
helix, to be exposed to the hydrophobic part of the helix. On the contrary the Ala residue, 15
crucial for UIM and MIU activity (20), is embedded in the hydrophilic side of the helix and 16
does not participate in Ub binding ability of the UMI. 17
The MIU domains of RNF168 bind ubiquitinated histone H2A, and this event accounts for the 18
proper localization of RNF168 at DDR foci and for the formation of RNF168-dependent 19
ubiquitinated proteins within the nucleus, including histones. In line with this, the MIU-20
defective mutant impairs 53BP1 recruitment at the site of lesions (26), without abolishing it. 21
These data indicate the existence of other mechanisms responsible for RNF168 recruitment to 22
DDR foci, in addition to the one mediated by the MIU domains. 23
Now we show that integrity of the new UMI domain is largely required for RNF168 function, 24
since the simultaneous inactivation of the three UBDs generates a protein unable to localize at 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
13
DDR foci (Fig. 3A, 3B), to induce K63-specific polyubiquitination of proteins (see in Fig. 4C 1
and in Fig. S3 in the supplemental material), including ubiquitination of histone H2A (Fig. 4D, 2
4E, 4F), and to allow the recruitment of 53BP1 (Fig. 5). 3
The need of three different UBDs for the proper activity of RNF168 can be explained in 4
different, not mutually exclusive, ways. The first invokes the “avidity-effect” (12), with the 5
three UBDs collaborating to ensure stable binding of RNF168 to chromatin at the site of DNA 6
damage, thereby allowing sustained ubiquitination of histones. The second regards the 7
functions of the three UBDs in regulating RNF168 activity that have to be considered as 8
separate. In this respect, we can envision the possibility that the UMI binds to a different, yet 9
unidentified substrate, and that the contemporary binding of RNF168 to histones H2A and to 10
this unknown substrate may be mandatory for recruitment/stability of the protein to DNA 11
damage sites. 12
The third model relies on two different data: i) inactivation of UMI and MIU1 affects in vivo 13
ubiquitination of histone H2A (Fig. 4D), while the MIU2 is mainly involved in the proper 14
localization of RNF168 at DDR foci (22, 26); ii) in cells, RNF168 self-associates to form 15
dimers/oligomers (our unpublished data). In addition, it is well established that, upon formation 16
of DSBs, a vast area surrounding the damaged chromosome undergoes massive 17
phosphorylation and ubiquitination (24). How this event occurs is still under investigation. 18
Here, we hypothesize that RNF168 MIU domains, and MIU2 in particular, might help in 19
keeping the dynamic status of RNF168-uH2A association, thereby allowing the protein “to 20
walk” along the ubiquitinated histones. In such way, RNF168 would be able to propagate the 21
damage signal by stepping from a nucleosome to the other. In this scenario, due to the 22
contiguity of UMI and MIU1 and their proximity with the RING finger domain, we 23
hypothesize that UMI and MIU1 might facilitate the local polyubiquitination of histones by 24
transiently sustaining the binding of RNF168 to the growing Ub chain appended to uH2A. 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
14
Finally, a speculative explanation takes into consideration the ubiquitination status of the 1
protein. We observed that in cells RNF168 is ubiquitinated (our unpublished data), although the 2
meaning of such modification is still elusive. It has been described that a number of UBDs, 3
including UIM and MIU, sustain the so-called “coupled mono-ubiquitination” (8, 29), a process 4
in which ubiquitination of a target protein is driven by its own UBD, through an unclear 5
mechanism. It will be of interest to investigate the role of UMI, MIU1 and MIU2 in RNF168 6
ubiquitination to verify whether the UBDs are important not only for their intrinsic Ub binding 7
ability, but also because they affect RNF168 function by regulating its own ubiquitination 8
status. 9
In conclusion, our results give new insights into the complex Ub-mediated regulation of 10
RNF168 activation. Nevertheless, much more need to be done to characterize in more detail 11
how a single UBD regulates RNF168 localization and function. This will necessary pass 12
through the identification of additional interacting partners, substrates and regulators of 13
RNF168. 14
15
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
15
MATERIALS AND METHODS 1
2
Cell culture and DNA transfection 3
293T cells were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (SIGMA) supplemented with 4
10% fetal bovine serum (GIBCO) and 2 mM L-Glutamine (SIGMA). U2OS cell lines 5
expressing the RNF168-targeting shRNA in a Doxycycline-inducible manner, kindly 6
provided by J. Lukas, were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (SIGMA) 7
supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum Tetracycline-free (EuroClone), 1 µg/ml 8
Puromycin (SIGMA), 5 µg/ml Blasticidin S (SIGMA). Etoposide (SIGMA) was used at a 9
concentration of 5 µM for one hour to induce DSBs. Depletion of endogenous RNF168 was 10
obtained treating U2OS derivative cell line with 0.1 µg/ml Doxycycline (SIGMA) for 72 11
hours (see in Fig. S2 in the supplemental material). Cells were transfected either with Calcium 12
Phosphate method for biochemical analysis (293T cells) or with FuGENE (Roche) for 13
immunofluorescence (U2OS cells). 14
15
Antibodies and construct design 16
Antibodies used in this study included mouse monoclonal anti-Ub P4D1 (Santa Cruz) and 17
FK2 (Stressgen Bioreagents), rabbit polyclonal anti-GST was home-made, mouse monoclonal 18
anti-FLAG (M2, SIGMA), rabbit polyclonal anti-FLAG (SIGMA), mouse monoclonal anti-19
ubiquityl-Histone H2A (Upstate), anti-phospho-Histone H2AX (Ser139; Upstate). The 20
linkage specific antibody directed to K63 (Apu3.A8) was from Genentec. Mouse anti-53BP1 21
was a gift from Dr T. Halazonetis. Anti-RNF168 polyclonal antibodies were raised against 22
two different GST-RNF168 constructs, comprising the following regions: amino acid 1-191 23
(RF-MIU1) and 439-571 (MIU2-C-term); rabbit immunization was performed by Yorkshire 24
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
16
Bioscience (UK), and the purified antibodies were tested as described in Supplementary Fig.s 1
S2C, S2D. 2
The cDNA of human full length RNF168 wild type and MIU mutants were obtained as 3
described previously (22). The point mutations in UMI domain were introduced by site-4
directed mutagenesis using the following nucleotides: forward 5
GAAGAATACATACAGAGGGCAGCAGCAGAGGAGGAAGAAGAG and reverse 6
CTCTTCTTCCTCCTCTGCTGCTGCCCTCTGTATGTATTCTTC. The truncated forms of 7
RNF168 constructs were generated by PCR amplification followed by cloning into pGEX6P2 8
vector. The oligonucleotide sequences are available upon request. The constructs were made 9
resistant to shRNA by site-directed mutagenesis using the following oligonucleotides: 10
forward AGACAGGCAGAAAAAAGAAGGCGAGCGATGGAAGAACAAC and reverse 11
GTTGTTCTTCCATCGCTCGCCTTCTTTTTTCTGCCTGTCT. All the constructs were 12
sequence verified. 13
14
GST pull-down assays 15
Recombinant proteins were expressed in E. Coli strain BL21 pLys with a glutathione S-16
transferase (GST) tag and purified as previously described14
. Chromatin was extracted by 17
293T cells, treated or not with etoposide (20 µM), by resuspending cells in PBS buffer with 18
inhibitors (1 mM PMSF, protease inhibitor cocktail (SIGMA), 20 mM Sodium Piruvate, 50 19
mM NaF, 1 mM Na3PO4, 20 µM NEM, 80 U/ml Benzonase), and clarified by centrifugation 20
at 3500 rpm for 5 min at 4°C. Pellet was lysed with Lysis Buffer (50mM Tris HCl pH 8.1, 10 21
mM EDTA, 1% Triton supplemented with inhibitors), incubated on ice for 10 min and 22
sonicated to shear DNA at 80% amplitude, 2 x 10 sec impulses, 20 sec pauses, on ice. The 23
shared chromatin was centrifuged at 14000 rpm in a 4°C for 30 min. For Ub chain pull down, 24
1 µM of GST fusion proteins, immobilized onto GSH beads, were incubated with 0.5 µg of 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
17
K48- or K63-linked polyUb2-7 chains for one hour at 4°C in a buffer containing 50 mM Hepes 1
pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, and 0.5% Triton X-100. Proteins were separated by 2
SDS-PAGE (15%) and transferred onto PVDF membranes (SIGMA). Membranes were 3
denaturated using a solution containing 6 M guanidine hydrochloride, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 4
7.4, 1 mM PMSF, 5 µM β-mercaptoethanol for 30 min at 4°C. After extensive washing in 5
Tris-buffered saline (TBS) buffer, membranes were blocked in TBS buffer containing BSA 6
(5%) over night and then incubated with anti-Ub P4D1 antibody (Santa Cruz) for one hour. 7
For chromatin binding, 10 µg of GST-fusion proteins immobilized onto GSH beads were 8
incubated with 1 mg of the chromatin extracts for 2 hours a 4°C. Bound proteins were 9
resolved on SDS-PAGE (15%), transferred on nitrocellulose and analyzed by immunoblotting 10
as indicated. 11
12
In vivo ubiquitination assay 13
Transfected 293T cells were collected in Phosphate Saline Buffer (PBS) containing protease 14
inhibitor cocktail (SIGMA), 1 mM PMSF and 20 µM NEM. 1/10 of the samples were 15
separately processed for protein normalization, while the remaining cell pellets were 16
subjected to acid extraction of histones as previously described(22). Samples were resolved 17
on SDS-PAGE, transferred onto PVDF membranes (SIGMA) and detected with the indicated 18
antibodies. 19
20
In vitro ubiquitination assay 21
5 µg of purified GST-RNF168 constructs were incubated with 0.1 µg human recombinant E1 22
Ub-activating enzyme (Boston Biochem), 200 ng of purified Ubc13/Mms2 complex 23
(provided by Dr E. Maspero, IFOM, Milan), 2 µg of Ub (home made) in 25 mM Tris-HCl, 24
pH7.4, 5 mM MgCl2, 100 mM NaCl, 1 µM DTT, 2 mM ATP at 30°C for 1.5 hours. The 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
18
reaction was stopped by boiling in Laemmli buffer. Ubiquitination was detected by anti-Ub 1
(P4D1) immunoblotting. 2
3
Immunofluorescence analysis 4
Twenty-four hours after transfection, U2OS cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde, 5
permeabilized with a solution of 0.5% Triton X-100 in 0.2% BSA for 7 min at room 6
temperature and blocked with PBG (PBS, 0.5% BSA, 0.2% gelatin) for one hour. Coverslips 7
were incubated for one hour with a primary antibody and, after extensive washing, incubated 8
with the appropriate secondary antibody (Alexa fluor 488 goat anti-mouse or anti-rabbit IgG, 9
Alexa fluor 546 goat anti-mouse or anti-rabbit IgG; Invitrogen) for 30 min at RT. Images 10
were acquired by confocal scanning laser microscope (Leica TCS2; Leica Lasertechnik, 11
Heidelberg, Germany). 12
13
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
19
FIGURE LEGENDS 1
2
FIG. 1. Identification of a new Ub binding region in RNF168. (A) We performed in vitro pull-3
down assay using the indicated GST-tagged RNF168 constructs. GST-fusion proteins were 4
incubated with synthetic K48- (left panel) or K63-linked (right panel) polyUb2-7 chains and 5
separated by SDS-PAGE. Immunoblot (IB) was performed with antibodies directed against 6
Ub and GST, as described in Methods. (B) Schematic representation of RNF168 deletion 7
constructs used in pull-down experiments (numbers refer to the amino acid position within the 8
sequence; RF, RING finger domain); their ability to bind K63 polyUb chains, resumed on the 9
left, is shown in the anti-Ub immunoblot of the in vitro pull-down assay (lower panels). 10
Normalization is visualized by anti-GST immunoblotting. (C) Multiple alignments of region 11
134-166 RNF168 homologues in vertebrates. Secondary structure prediction was obtained 12
using SAM-T08, an HMM-based Protein Structure Prediction software 13
(http://compbio.soe.ucsc.edu/SAM_T08/T08-query.html). (D) Mapping of the minimal 14
sequence responsible for Ub binding. In vitro pull-down assay was performed using the 15
indicated GST-tagged deletion mutants of RNF168 and incubated with K63 polyUb chains. 16
IB was performed with anti-Ub and anti-GST antibodies. 17
18
FIG. 2. Mapping of the amino acid residues required for Ub binding. (A) Comparison of the 19
UMI, UIM and MIU motifs, where residues involved in the binding to Ub are in bold; 20
underlined sequences were drawn as projected helices using the Helical Wheel Projections 21
tool (http://rzlab.ucr.edu/scripts/wheel/wheel.cgi). (B) The point mutants were generated by 22
introduction of single amino acid substitutions (A151G, L149A, L150A) or double (L149A, 23
L150A) addressing the sequence 134-166, and tested by in vitro pull-down assay as in FIG. 24
1D. (C) The indicated RNF168 point mutants were inserted in the sequence 56 amino acids 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
20
and analyzed by in vitro pull-down assay using K48 and K63 poly-Ub chains. Anti-Ub and 1
anti-GST immunoblot is shown. 2
3
FIG. 3. Inactivation of the UMI domain affects localization of RNF168. (A) The U2OS cells 4
conditionally expressing RNF168-targeting shRNA were transfected with the indicated 5
FLAG-tagged shRNA-resistant constructs. After twenty-four hours, cells were treated with 6
etoposide for one hour or left untreated (Eto + and Eto - respectively). (B) The U2OS cells, 7
treated as in a, were either fixed (TX100 -) or pre-treated with Triton X-100 before fixing 8
(TX100 +). Immunostaining of both panels was performed using anti-FLAG and anti-9
phospho-H2AX (γH2AX) antibodies. (C) Pull-down assay was performed using GST-10
RNF168 constructs and chromatin extracted from 293T cells, treated or not with etoposide. 11
H2A and H2B antibodies (upper and lower panels, respectively) revealed the presence of 12
specific bands (of about 15 kDa) in all RNF168 constructs but not in the lane of GST alone. 13
14
FIG. 4. UMI, MIU1 and MIU2 are required for the ubiquitination events mediated by 15
RNF168. (A) U2OS shRNF168 cells transfected either with the indicated FLAG-tagged 16
shRNA-resistant constructs or with the vector alone were treated with etoposide for one hour 17
before fixing and immunostained using anti-FLAG and anti-Ub (FK2) antibodies. (B) 18
Quantitation of RNF168-positive cells with a number of foci labeled with anti-FK2 higher 19
than 30. (C) Acid extraction of histones from 293T cells transfected with the indicated FLAG-20
tagged RNF168 constructs. Ubiquitinated proteins were detected by immunoblot using P4D1 21
(Ub; upper panel) and Apu3.A8 (K63; medium panel) antibodies. Cell extracts were analyzed 22
for equal expression of the different constructs (FLAG; lower panel). (D) 293T cells were 23
processed as in C and immunodecorated with antibody directed to ubiquitinated forms of 24
histone H2A (uH2A). Cell loading was normalized by FLAG immunoblot. (E) 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
21
Immunofluorescence (IF) analysis was performed with anti-FLAG and with anti-uH2A 1
antibodies. (F) Quantitation of RNF168-positive cells with a number of foci labeled with anti-2
Ub higher than 5. 3
4
FIG. 5. Inactivation of RNF168 UBDs abolishes 53BP1 recruitment to DDR foci. (A) The 5
U2OS cells conditionally expressing RNF168-targeting shRNA were transfected with the 6
indicated FLAG-tagged shRNA-resistant RNF168 constructs. Twenty-four hours after 7
transfection, cells were treated with etoposide for one hour, fixed and immunostained with 8
anti-FLAG and anti-53BP1 antibodies. (B) Quantitation of the two independent experiments 9
described in A, representing the percentage of transfected cells with 53BP1-positive foci. 10
11
12
13
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
22
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1
We wish to thank Fabrizio Condorelli for reading the manuscript and Grant Stewart for 2
discussion. We are grateful to Jiri Lukas for kindly providing U2OS cells conditionally 3
expressing RNF168-targeting shRNA and to Genentec for providing antibodies specific for 4
K63 poly-Ub chains. L.P. designed research; S.P. and M.G. performed research; C.S. 5
contributed new reagents/analytical tools; S.C. performed sequence analysis; S.P. and L.P. 6
wrote the paper. This work was supported by grants from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca 7
sul Cancro (AIRC) and Regione Piemonte RSF. M.G. is supported by Lagrange Fellowship. 8
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
23
REFERENCES 1
2
1. Acconcia, F., S. Sigismund, and S. Polo. 2009. Ubiquitin in trafficking: the network 3
at work. Exp Cell Res 315:1610-8. 4
2. Bergink, S., and S. Jentsch. 2009. Principles of ubiquitin and SUMO modifications 5
in DNA repair. Nature 458:461-7. 6
3. Bhoj, V. G., and Z. J. Chen. 2009. Ubiquitylation in innate and adaptive immunity. 7
Nature 458:430-7. 8
4. Chen, Z. J., and L. J. Sun. 2009. Nonproteolytic Functions of Ubiquitin in Cell 9
Signaling. Mol Cell 33:275-286. 10
5. Dikic, I., S. Wakatsuki, and K. J. Walters. 2009. Ubiquitin-binding domains - from 11
structures to functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10:659-71. 12
6. Doil, C., N. Mailand, S. Bekker-Jensen, P. Menard, D. H. Larsen, R. Pepperkok, 13
J. Ellenberg, S. Panier, D. Durocher, J. Bartek, J. Lukas, and C. Lukas. 2009. 14
RNF168 binds and amplifies ubiquitin conjugates on damaged chromosomes to allow 15
accumulation of repair proteins. Cell 136:435-46. 16
7. Harper, J. W., and S. J. Elledge. 2007. The DNA damage response: ten years after. 17
Mol Cell 28:739-45. 18
8. Hicke, L., H. L. Schubert, and C. P. Hill. 2005. Ubiquitin-binding domains. Nat Rev 19
Mol Cell Biol 6:610-21. 20
9. Hoege, C., B. Pfander, G. L. Moldovan, G. Pyrowolakis, and S. Jentsch. 2002. 21
RAD6-dependent DNA repair is linked to modification of PCNA by ubiquitin and 22
SUMO. Nature 419:135-41. 23
10. Hofmann, K. 2009. Ubiquitin-binding domains and their role in the DNA damage 24
response. DNA Repair (Amst) 8:544-56. 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
24
11. Huen, M. S., R. Grant, I. Manke, K. Minn, X. Yu, M. B. Yaffe, and J. Chen. 2007. 1
RNF8 Transduces the DNA-Damage Signal via Histone Ubiquitylation and 2
Checkpoint Protein Assembly. Cell 131:901-14. 3
12. Hurley, J. H., S. Lee, and G. Prag. 2006. Ubiquitin-binding domains. Biochem J 4
399:361-72. 5
13. Kim, H., J. Chen, and X. Yu. 2007. Ubiquitin-binding protein RAP80 mediates 6
BRCA1-dependent DNA damage response. Science 316:1202-5. 7
14. Kolas, N. K., J. R. Chapman, S. Nakada, J. Ylanko, R. Chahwan, F. D. Sweeney, 8
S. Panier, M. Mendez, J. Wildenhain, T. M. Thomson, L. Pelletier, S. P. Jackson, 9
and D. Durocher. 2007. Orchestration of the DNA-damage response by the RNF8 10
ubiquitin ligase. Science 318:1637-40. 11
15. Komander, D. 2009. The emerging complexity of protein ubiquitination. Biochem 12
Soc Trans 37:937-53. 13
16. Mailand, N., S. Bekker-Jensen, H. Faustrup, F. Melander, J. Bartek, C. Lukas, 14
and J. Lukas. 2007. RNF8 Ubiquitylates Histones at DNA Double-Strand Breaks and 15
Promotes Assembly of Repair Proteins. Cell 131:887-900. 16
17. Messick, T. E., and R. A. Greenberg. 2009. The ubiquitin landscape at DNA double-17
strand breaks. J Cell Biol 187:319-26. 18
18. Newton, K., M. L. Matsumoto, I. E. Wertz, D. S. Kirkpatrick, J. R. Lill, J. Tan, 19
D. Dugger, N. Gordon, S. S. Sidhu, F. A. Fellouse, L. Komuves, D. M. French, R. 20
E. Ferrando, C. Lam, D. Compaan, C. Yu, I. Bosanac, S. G. Hymowitz, R. F. 21
Kelley, and V. M. Dixit. 2008. Ubiquitin chain editing revealed by polyubiquitin 22
linkage-specific antibodies. Cell 134:668-78. 23
19. Panier, S., and D. Durocher. 2009. Regulatory ubiquitylation in response to DNA 24
double-strand breaks. DNA Repair (Amst) 8:436-43. 25
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
25
20. Penengo, L., M. Mapelli, A. G. Murachelli, S. Confalonieri, L. Magri, A. 1
Musacchio, P. P. Di Fiore, S. Polo, and T. R. Schneider. 2006. Crystal structure of 2
the ubiquitin binding domains of rabex-5 reveals two modes of interaction with 3
ubiquitin. Cell 124:1183-95. 4
21. Pickart, C. M. 2001. Mechanisms underlying ubiquitination. Annu Rev Biochem 5
70:503-33. 6
22. Pinato, S., C. Scandiuzzi, N. Arnaudo, E. Citterio, G. Gaudino, and L. Penengo. 7
2009. RNF168, a new RING finger, MIU-containing protein that modifies chromatin 8
by ubiquitination of histones H2A and H2AX. BMC Mol Biol 10:55. 9
23. Polo, S., S. Sigismund, M. Faretta, M. Guidi, M. R. Capua, G. Bossi, H. Chen, P. 10
De Camilli, and P. P. Di Fiore. 2002. A single motif responsible for ubiquitin 11
recognition and monoubiquitination in endocytic proteins. Nature 416:451-5. 12
24. Rogakou, E. P., C. Boon, C. Redon, and W. M. Bonner. 1999. Megabase chromatin 13
domains involved in DNA double-strand breaks in vivo. J Cell Biol 146:905-16. 14
25. Sobhian, B., G. Shao, D. R. Lilli, A. C. Culhane, L. A. Moreau, B. Xia, D. M. 15
Livingston, and R. A. Greenberg. 2007. RAP80 targets BRCA1 to specific ubiquitin 16
structures at DNA damage sites. Science 316:1198-202. 17
26. Stewart, G. S., S. Panier, K. Townsend, A. K. Al-Hakim, N. K. Kolas, E. S. 18
Miller, S. Nakada, J. Ylanko, S. Olivarius, M. Mendez, C. Oldreive, J. 19
Wildenhain, A. Tagliaferro, L. Pelletier, N. Taubenheim, A. Durandy, P. J. Byrd, 20
T. Stankovic, A. M. Taylor, and D. Durocher. 2009. The RIDDLE syndrome 21
protein mediates a ubiquitin-dependent signaling cascade at sites of DNA damage. 22
Cell 136:420-34. 23
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
26
27. Wang, B., and S. J. Elledge. 2007. Ubc13/Rnf8 ubiquitin ligases control foci 1
formation of the Rap80/Abraxas/Brca1/Brcc36 complex in response to DNA damage. 2
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:20759-63. 3
28. Winget, J. M., and T. Mayor. The Diversity of Ubiquitin Recognition: Hot Spots and 4
Varied Specificity. Mol Cell 38:627-635. 5
29. Woelk, T., B. Oldrini, E. Maspero, S. Confalonieri, E. Cavallaro, P. P. Di Fiore, 6
and S. Polo. 2006. Molecular mechanisms of coupled monoubiquitination. Nat Cell 7
Biol 8:1246-54. 8
30. Woelk, T., S. Sigismund, L. Penengo, and S. Polo. 2007. The ubiquitination code: a 9
signalling problem. Cell Div 2:11. 10
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
INPUT K
48
GST
RNF16
8
MIU
1*
MIU
2*
MIU
1-2*
*
INPUT K
63
GST
RNF16
8
MIU
1*
MIU
2*
MIU
1-2*
*
INPUT K
63
GST
56-1
66
56-1
34
134-
166
A
C
D
17
26
55
72
17
26
55
72
17
26
55
72
B
Ub
GST
IB
Ub
GST
IB
Ub
GST
IB
MIU1 MIU2RFK63
+
+
+
+
/+
+
-
1-571
1-166
56-166
168-462
168-462MIU1-2**
439-571
439-571MIU2*
Hs_RNF168
Pt_RNF168
Cj_RNF168
Bt_RNF168
Ec_RNF168
Cf_RNF168
Mm_RNF168
Rn_RNF168
Gg_RNF168
Xt_RNF168
Xl_RNF168
Dr_RNF168
134
134
134
134
134
134
136
134
134
136
136
143
166
166
166
166
166
166
168
166
165
168
168
172
SEEEENKASEEYIQRLLAEEEEEEKRQAEKRRR
SEEEENKASEEYIQRLLAEEEEEEKRQAEKRRR
TEEEENKASEEYIQRLLAEEEEEDRRQAEKRRR
CEEEENKASEEYIQKLLAEEEEEEKRQAEKRHR
NEEEENKASEEYIQRLLAEEEEEEKRQAEKRQR
SEEEENKASEECIQRLLAEEEEEEKRQAEKRRR
SKEEENKASEEYIQRLLAEEEEEEKRQREKRRS
SKEEENKASEEYIQRLLAEEEEEEKRRTERRRS
HEQEENKASEEYIQKLLAEEEEEH-RLAEERRK
QEEAERKASEDYIQKLLAEEEAEENLHAEASQR
QEEAERKASEDYIQKLLAEEAAQDRLHSEAVQR
LEEAERRASEEYIQRLLAEEEE---RLEEERRR
SAM-T08 pred.
Figure 1
-
-
192-439
1-57
1
1-16
6
56-1
66
168-
462
168-
462M
IU1-
2**
439-
571
439-
571M
IU2*
192-
439
GST
INPUT
K63
Ub
GST
IB
17
26
55
72
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
INPUT K
63
GST
134-
166
134-
166 A15
1G
134-
166 L1
49A
134-
166 L1
50A
134-
166 L1
49A, L
150A
A B
17
26
5572
IB
Ub
GST
E
Q
A
E
R
L
I
L
Y E
Q
E
A
E
L
I
L
A
D L
W
E
R
E
R
Q
A
L
LE
UMI_RNF168
UIM_EPS15
MIU_RABEX
141
877
48
156
892
63
ASEEYIQRLLAEEEEE
QEQEDLELAIALSKSE
QIQEDWELAERLQREE
*
RNF168 UMI EPS15 UIM RABEX MIU
*
Figure 2
INPUT K
48
GST
RNF16
8
UM
I*
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IU1-
2**
17
26
55
72
INPUT K
63
GST
RNF16
8
UM
I*
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IU1-
2**
C
17
26
55
72
IB
Ub
GST
IB
Ub
GST
56-571 56-571
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
RNF168
EtoTX100
- + ++--
FLAG
γH2AX
merge
MIU1-2** UMI*MIU1-2**
- + ++--
- + ++--
- + ++--
UMI*
EtoTX100
FLAG
γH2AX
merge
Figure 3
FLAG
γH2AX
merge
RNF168
- +
UMI*
- +
MIU1-2**
- +
UMI*MIU1-2**
- +
A
B
C
Eto
Eto - Eto +
IB
H2A
H2B
GST
TCL
GST
RNF16
8
UM
I*
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IU1-
2**
TCL
GST
RNF16
8
UM
I*
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IU1-
2**
IB
H2A
H2B
GST
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
vector
RNF16
8
UM
I*
MIU
1*
MIU
2*
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IU1-
2**
Ub
K63
FLAG
vector
RNF16
8
UM
I*
MIU
1*
MIU
2*
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IU1-
2**
uH2A
FLAG
A
C
E
vecto
rR
NF
168
UM
I*M
IU1-2
**U
MI*
MIU
1-2
**
FLAG FK2 merge
vecto
rR
NF
168
UM
I*M
IU1-2
**U
MI*
MIU
1-2
**
FLAG uH2A merge
26
34
55
26
34
55
26
72
72
IB
IB
******
******
F
*****
% c
ells
with
uH
2A
foci (>
10)
vector
UM
I*
RNF16
8
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IUs*
*
D
100
20
80
60
40
0
Figure 4
B
% c
ells
with F
K2 foci (>
30)
vector
UM
I*
RNF16
8
MIU
1-2*
*
UM
I*M
IUs*
*
100
20
80
60
40
0
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from
AB
vectorRNF168UMI*MIU1-2**UMI*MIU1-2**
FLA
G53B
P1
merg
e
% cells with 53BP1 foci (>10)
vector
RNF168
UM
I*
MIU
1-2**
UM
I*MIU
s**
10
0
20
80
60
400
Fig
ure
5
on January 31, 2018 by guesthttp://m
cb.asm.org/
Dow
nloaded from