The DNA Binding Preference of RAD52 and RAD59 Proteins
Yun Wu,Joseph S. Siino,Tomohiko Sugiyama,Stephen C. Kowalczykowski
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m608071200
IF: 5.485
2006-01-01
Journal of Biological Chemistry
Abstract:We examined the double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) binding preference of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad52 protein and its homologue, the Rad59 protein. In nuclease protection assays both proteins protected an internal sequence and the dsDNA ends equally well. Similarly, using electrophoretic mobility shift assays, we found the affinity of both Rad52 and Rad59 proteins for DNA ends to be comparable with their affinity for internal sequences. The protein-DNA complexes were also directly visualized using atomic force microscopy. Both proteins formed discrete complexes, which were primarily found (90–94%) at internal dsDNA sites. We also measured the DNA end binding behavior of human Rad52 protein and found a slight preference for dsDNA ends. Thus, these proteins have no strong preference for dsDNA ends over internal sites, which is inconsistent with their function at a step of dsDNA break repair that precedes DNA processing. Therefore, we conclude that S. cerevisiae Rad52 and Rad59 proteins and their eukaryotic counterparts function by binding to single-stranded DNA formed as intermediates of recombination rather than by binding to the unprocessed DNA double-strand break. We examined the double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) binding preference of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad52 protein and its homologue, the Rad59 protein. In nuclease protection assays both proteins protected an internal sequence and the dsDNA ends equally well. Similarly, using electrophoretic mobility shift assays, we found the affinity of both Rad52 and Rad59 proteins for DNA ends to be comparable with their affinity for internal sequences. The protein-DNA complexes were also directly visualized using atomic force microscopy. Both proteins formed discrete complexes, which were primarily found (90–94%) at internal dsDNA sites. We also measured the DNA end binding behavior of human Rad52 protein and found a slight preference for dsDNA ends. Thus, these proteins have no strong preference for dsDNA ends over internal sites, which is inconsistent with their function at a step of dsDNA break repair that precedes DNA processing. Therefore, we conclude that S. cerevisiae Rad52 and Rad59 proteins and their eukaryotic counterparts function by binding to single-stranded DNA formed as intermediates of recombination rather than by binding to the unprocessed DNA double-strand break. The repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) 3The abbreviations used are: DSB, double-strand breaks; ssDNA, single-stranded DNA; dsDNA, double-stranded DNA; hRad52, human Rad52; NHEJ, non-homologous end-joining; SSA, single-strand annealing; AFM, atomic force microscope; ExoIII, exonuclease III; MOPS, 4-morpholinepropanesulfonic acid. 3The abbreviations used are: DSB, double-strand breaks; ssDNA, single-stranded DNA; dsDNA, double-stranded DNA; hRad52, human Rad52; NHEJ, non-homologous end-joining; SSA, single-strand annealing; AFM, atomic force microscope; ExoIII, exonuclease III; MOPS, 4-morpholinepropanesulfonic acid. in cells is crucial for genomic integrity and viability. DSBs can be generated during the process of DNA replication on damaged templates or directly by exogenous DNA-damaging agents. A single unrepaired DSB can result in cell death (1Rudin N. Haber J.E. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1988; 8: 3918-3928Crossref PubMed Scopus (138) Google Scholar). In eukaryotic cells, there are two major pathways to repair DSBs, homologous recombination and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). NHEJ repairs DSBs by ligating broken DNA ends, but this process is inherently error-prone (2Gangloff S. Zou H. Rothstein R. EMBO J. 1996; 15: 1715-1725Crossref PubMed Scopus (115) Google Scholar). Homologous recombination, on the other hand, restores DSBs without the loss of genetic integrity by using a homologous sequence as template, such as a sister chromatid or homologous chromosome. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, homologous recombination is the predominant mechanism for DSB repair but, when defective, the radiation sensitivity of NHEJ mutants is evident (3Pâques F. Haber J.E. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1999; 63: 349-404Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). In S. cerevisiae, homologous recombination is mediated by proteins of the RAD52 epistasis group, including RAD50, RAD51, RAD52, RAD54, RAD55, RAD57, RAD59, MRE11, XRS2, and RFA1. A homologue of RAD54, RDH54/TID1, also plays a role in a subset of recombination-dependent DSB repair pathways (3Pâques F. Haber J.E. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1999; 63: 349-404Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 4Symington L.S. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2002; 66: 630-670Crossref PubMed Scopus (812) Google Scholar). Mutation of any of these genes confers radiation sensitivity. In particular, loss of RAD52 function leads to the most severe recombination phenotype because the Rad52 protein is required for all recombination-dependent events (Ref. 5Rattray A.J. Symington L.S. Genetics. 1994; 138: 587-595Crossref PubMed Google Scholar; for review, see Refs. 3Pâques F. Haber J.E. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1999; 63: 349-404Crossref PubMed Google Scholar and 4Symington L.S. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2002; 66: 630-670Crossref PubMed Scopus (812) Google Scholar). The Rad52 protein is conserved in most eukaryotic organisms ranging from yeast to human (6Adzuma K. Ogawa T. Ogawa H. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1984; 4: 2735-2744Crossref PubMed Scopus (90) Google Scholar, 7Bezzubova O.Y. Schmidt H. Ostermann K. Heyer W.D. Buerstedde J.M. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993; 21: 5945-5949Crossref PubMed Scopus (66) Google Scholar, 8Muris D.F.R. Bezzubova O. Buerstedde J.-M. Vreeken K. Balajee A.S. Osgood C.J. Troelstra C. Hoeijmakers J.H.J. Ostermann K. Schmidt H. Natarajan A.T. Eeken J.C.J. Lohman P.H.M. Pastink A. Mutat. Res. 1994; 315: 295-305Crossref PubMed Scopus (102) Google Scholar). In vivo it accumulates at DNA damage sites, forms discrete nuclear foci, and co-localizes with the DNA strand exchange protein, Rad51 (9Liu Y. Li M. Lee E.Y. Maizels N. Curr. Biol. 1999; 9: 975-978Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar, 10Liu Y. Maizels N. EMBO Rep. 2000; 1: 85-90Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar, 11Lisby M. Rothstein R. Mortensen U.H. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2001; 98: 8276-8282Crossref PubMed Scopus (346) Google Scholar, 12Gasior S.L. Wong A.K. Kora Y. Shinohara A. Bishop D.K. Genes Dev. 1998; 12: 2208-2221Crossref PubMed Scopus (225) Google Scholar, 13Essers J. Houtsmuller A.B. van Veelen L. Paulusma C. Nigg A.L. Pastink A. Vermeulen W. Hoeijmakers J.H. Kanaar R. EMBO J. 2002; 21: 2030-2037Crossref PubMed Scopus (212) Google Scholar). In vitro both yeast and human Rad52 proteins bind single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) and dsDNA, stimulate annealing of complementary ssDNA (14Mortensen U.H. Bendixen C. Sunjevaric I. Rothstein R. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1996; 93: 10729-10734Crossref PubMed Scopus (385) Google Scholar, 15Reddy G. Golub E.I. Radding C.M. Mutat. Res. 1997; 377: 53-59Crossref PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar, 16Shinohara A. Shinohara M. Ohta T. Matsuda S. Ogawa T. Genes Cells. 1998; 3: 145-156Crossref PubMed Scopus (235) Google Scholar, 17Sugiyama T. New J.H. Kowalczykowski S.C. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1998; 95: 6049-6054Crossref PubMed Scopus (259) Google Scholar), and facilitate Rad51 protein-ssDNA filament formation in the presence of the eukaryotic ssDNA-binding protein, replication protein A, in a species-specific fashion (18New J.H. Sugiyama T. Zaitseva E. Kowalczykowski S.C. Nature. 1998; 391: 407-410Crossref PubMed Scopus (499) Google Scholar, 19Shinohara A. Ogawa T. Nature. 1998; 391: 404-407Crossref PubMed Scopus (407) Google Scholar, 20Singleton M.R. Wentzell L.M. Liu Y. West S.C. Wigley D.B. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002; 99: 13492-13497Crossref PubMed Scopus (172) Google Scholar, 21Sung P. J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272: 28194-28197Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (449) Google Scholar). This level of functional conservation is consistent with the importance of the Rad52 protein in DNA recombination. The Rad59 protein was identified in S. cerevisiae (22Bai Y. Symington L.S. Genes Dev. 1996; 10: 2025-2037Crossref PubMed Scopus (214) Google Scholar) and Kluyveromyces lactis (23van den Bosch M. Zonneveld J.B. Lohman P.H. Pastink A. Curr. Genet. 2001; 39: 305-310Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar) as a Rad52 protein homologue. It shares sequence similarity with the conserved N-terminal domain of Rad52 protein but lacks the C-terminal Rad51-interacting domain. Genetically, RAD59 is dispensable in RAD51-dependent homologous recombination pathways but plays an important role in the RAD51-independent repair pathways (22Bai Y. Symington L.S. Genes Dev. 1996; 10: 2025-2037Crossref PubMed Scopus (214) Google Scholar), such as single-strand annealing (SSA) (24Jablonovich Z. Liefshitz B. Steinlauf R. Kupiec M. Curr. Genet. 1999; 36: 13-20Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 25Sugawara N. Ira G. Haber J.E. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000; 20: 5300-5309Crossref PubMed Scopus (213) Google Scholar), break-induced replication (BIR) (26Ira G. Haber J.E. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2002; 22: 6384-6392Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar, 27Signon L. Malkova A. Naylor M.L. Klein H. Haber J.E. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2001; 21: 2048-2056Crossref PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar), and type II survival in telomerase-deficient cells (28Tsukamoto M. Yamashita K. Miyazaki T. Shinohara M. Shinohara A. Genetics. 2003; 165: 1703-1715PubMed Google Scholar, 29Chen Q. Ijpma A. Greider C.W. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2001; 21: 1819-1827Crossref PubMed Scopus (218) Google Scholar). In vivo Rad59 interacts with Rad52 protein (30Davis A.P. Symington L.S. Genetics. 2001; 159: 515-525Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), suggesting direct participation in a subset of RAD52-dependent homologous recombination events. The Rad59 protein possesses biochemical activities that are also found in other RAD52 homologues, including the ability to bind ssDNA and dsDNA and to anneal complementary ssDNA (30Davis A.P. Symington L.S. Genetics. 2001; 159: 515-525Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 31Petukhova G. Stratton S.A. Sung P. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 33839-33842Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (66) Google Scholar, 32Wu Y. Sugiyama T. Kowalczykowski S.C. J. Biol. Chem. 2006; 281: 15441-15449Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar). Although both the homologous recombination and NHEJ pathways can repair DSBs, each functions differently in cells. NHEJ function is enhanced in haploid cells and in the G1 phase of the cell cycle (33Moore J.K. Haber J.E. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1996; 16: 2164-2173Crossref PubMed Scopus (593) Google Scholar), whereas recombination functions in the S-G2 phase (11Lisby M. Rothstein R. Mortensen U.H. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2001; 98: 8276-8282Crossref PubMed Scopus (346) Google Scholar, 34Fabre F. Boulet A. Roman H. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1984; 195: 139-143Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar) or in diploid cells (35Ivanov E.L. Korolev V.G. Fabre F. Genetics. 1992; 132: 651-664Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). It appears that pathway choice is determined by availability of a homologous sequence. However, it is unclear how and by what molecular mechanism pathway choice is regulated. Human Rad52 (hRad52) protein was reported to localize preferentially at dsDNA ends and to protect dsDNA ends from nuclease degradation (36Van Dyck E. Stasiak A.Z. Stasiak A. West S.C. Nature. 1999; 398: 728-731Crossref PubMed Scopus (254) Google Scholar). These observations led to the hypothesis that Rad52 protein serves as a “molecular switch” or a “gatekeeper” to channel DSBs into the homologous recombination repair pathway rather than into the NHEJ pathway (36Van Dyck E. Stasiak A.Z. Stasiak A. West S.C. Nature. 1999; 398: 728-731Crossref PubMed Scopus (254) Google Scholar, 37Haber J.E. Nature. 1999; 398: 665-667Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar). Soon afterward, a Rad52 homologue from the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the Rad22 protein, was reported to have the same ability to protect dsDNA ends from nuclease digestion and to localize to sites of DSBs in vivo (38Kim W.J. Lee S. Park M.S. Jang Y.K. Kim J.B. Park S.D. J. Biol. Chem. 2000; 275: 35607-35611Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar). However, a subsequent report used atomic force microscopy (AFM) (39Ristic D. Modesti M. Kanaar R. Wyman C. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31: 5229-5237Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar) to show that hRad52 has no preference for dsDNA ends; rather, it was shown to preferentially bind to ssDNA regions in dsDNA, regions even as small as 2 or 4 nucleotides. Because the functions of Rad52 protein are conserved among different organisms, we tested whether the S. cerevisiae Rad52 protein bound preferentially to dsDNA ends or to ssDNA. Answering this question could help address the issue of whether Rad52 regulates the channeling of DSB repair into different repair pathways in budding yeast. As an alternative, we also entertained the idea that Rad59 protein in S. cerevisiae might instead have assumed the role of gatekeeper, so we examined the dsDNA binding preference of Rad59 protein as well. We found no significant differences in dsDNA end binding versus internal binding for the yeast Rad52 and Rad59 proteins. Furthermore, we confirmed that the hRad52 had only a weak preference for dsDNA ends (39Ristic D. Modesti M. Kanaar R. Wyman C. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31: 5229-5237Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar). Therefore, for these reasons and because these proteins bind ssDNA preferentially over dsDNA, we conclude that Rad52 and Rad59 proteins act only at later stages of recombination, after the DSBs are processed into ssDNA. Proteins—Exonuclease III (ExoIII) was purchased from Promega. Restriction endonucleases and T4 polynucleotide kinase were purchased from New England Biolabs. Yeast Rad52 protein was purified as described (18New J.H. Sugiyama T. Zaitseva E. Kowalczykowski S.C. Nature. 1998; 391: 407-410Crossref PubMed Scopus (499) Google Scholar), except that the Superose-12 column was replaced with a Sephacryl-300 column. Rad59 protein was overexpressed in BLR(DE3) pLysS cells and purified as described (32Wu Y. Sugiyama T. Kowalczykowski S.C. J. Biol. Chem. 2006; 281: 15441-15449Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar). Human Rad52 protein was a generous gift from Dr. P. Sung of Yale University. In reactions where a protein was omitted, an equal amount of corresponding protein storage buffer was added instead. DNA Substrates—All DNA concentrations are expressed in nucleotides. The complementary oligonucleotides PB77 and PB78, 100 nucleotides in length, were purchased, purified, and annealed as described (40Bianco P.R. Kowalczykowski S.C. Nature. 2000; 405: 368-372Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar). Concentrations of PB77 and PB78 were determined using nucleotide extinction coefficients of 8891 and 9737 m–1 cm–1 at 260 nm, respectively. PB77 and PB78 were first annealed to each other, and the resulting PB77-78 dsDNA was labeled by T4 polynucleotide kinase at the 5′-end on both strands. Unincorporated [γ-32P]ATP was removed using a MicroSpin G25 desalting column (GE Healthcare). Plasmid pBR322 DNA was purified by conventional alkaline lysis followed by equilibrium ultracentrifugation in a CsCl-ethidium bromide gradient. Purified pBR322 was linearized with the indicated restriction endonucleases and purified by phenol extraction followed by ethanol precipitation. In all cases agarose gel electrophoresis was used to verify that the DNA was completely digested by the restriction endonuclease (data not shown). DNA concentration was determined using an extinction coefficient of 6500 m–1 cm–1 at 260 nm. Nuclease Protection Assay—The ability of Rad52 and Rad59 proteins to protect dsDNA from degradation by nucleases was assayed in nuclease protection buffer (20 mm Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 1 mm dithiothreitol) with the concentration of magnesium acetate indicated. Duplex DNA (PB77-78 that was 5′-end-labeled at both ends, 10 μm) was preincubated with the indicated amount of protein at 37 °C for 10 min before the addition of nuclease to start DNA degradation. ExoIII and HaeIII were titrated to give ∼80% degradation of the free DNA substrate for the time specified. After incubation at 37 °C for 15 min, the reactions were deproteinized with 0.7% SDS and 1 mg/ml proteinase K (Roche Applied Science) and subjected to native polyacrylamide gel (8%) electrophoresis in 1× TBE buffer (89 mm Tris borate, pH 8.3, 2 mm EDTA). DNA substrate with the electrophoretic mobility of the remaining intact dsDNA was quantified using a Storm 820 system (GE Healthcare). The average band intensity for the dsDNA from control reactions lacking nuclease in each gel (Figs. 1, 2, 3, panels A and B, lanes 1 and 10) was defined as 100% protection. A box was drawn around the position of the intact dsDNA in the same gel (lanes 1 and 10); boxes of the same size and electrophoretic position were used in the sample lanes to determine the amount of intact dsDNA remaining. The band intensity in nuclease-only control (lane 2) was defined as 0% protection. The degree of dsDNA protection was determined using the formula dsDNA protected (%) = (band intensity – 0% control)/(100% control – 0% control) ×100%.FIGURE 2Nuclease protection assays show that yeast Rad59 protein protects dsDNA ends and internal sites equally. The 5′-end-labeled 100-bp dsDNA substrate (10 μm) was preincubated with increasing amounts of Rad59 protein at 0.66 mm magnesium acetate before the addition of ExoIII (A) or HaeIII (B). Rad59 protein concentrations were 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.4, and 2.4 μm in lanes 3–10, respectively. After 15 min, the reactions were deproteinized and analyzed by gel electrophoresis. The results from reactions performed at 0.66 and 10 mm magnesium acetate (gel not shown) were quantified in panels C and D, respectively. Results are the average obtained from two independent experiments, and the error bars represent the variation.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)FIGURE 3Nuclease protection assays show that human Rad52 protein protects dsDNA ends and internal sites equally. The 5′-end-labeled 100-bp dsDNA substrate (10 μm) was preincubated with increasing amounts of hRad52 protein at 0.66 mm magnesium acetate before the addition of ExoIII (A) or HaeIII (B). The hRad52 protein concentrations were 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.4, and 2.4 μm in lanes 3–10, respectively. After 15 min the reactions were deproteinized and analyzed by gel electrophoresis. The results from reactions performed at 0.66 and 10 mm magnesium acetate (gel not shown) were quantified in panels C and D, respectively. Results are the average obtained from two independent experiments, and the error bars represent the variation.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay—The reactions contained 10 μm 5′-end-labeled dsDNA (100 bp, PB77-78) and various amounts of unlabeled competitor dsDNA in electrophoretic mobility shift buffer (30 mm K+-MOPS, pH 7.3, 1 mm dithiothreitol). Rad52 (1 μm), Rad59 (2.2 μm), or hRad52 (1.2 μm) protein was added to the dsDNA, and the reactions were incubated at 37 °C for 5 min to allow protein-DNA complex formation. The concentration of NaCl contributed by the protein storage buffer was 40, 50, and 25 mm in the Rad52-, Rad59-, and hRad52-containing reactions, respectively. Under these conditions, in the absence of unlabeled competitor DNA, the mobility of more than 90% of the DNA substrate was shifted. The reactions were analyzed by electrophoresis using 8% polyacrylamide gels in 1× TBE buffer and quantified using a Storm 820 system. AFM—EcoRV- or PstI-linearized pBR322 DNA (10 μm) was incubated with various amount of yeast Rad52 protein (0.4–350 nm) in binding buffer (30 mm K-MOPS, pH 7.3, 3 mm magnesium acetate, 20 mm NaCl) in a total reaction volume of 20 μl at 37 °C for 5 min. The sample was applied onto freshly cleaved mica; after 5 min the surface was washed with 1 ml of distilled water and dried with compressed nitrogen gas. Protein-DNA complexes were examined using a Nanoscope IIIa AFM (Digital Instruments) operated in tapping mode. Images were captured at scan sizes of 0.6–1.7 μm and processed by first-order flattening to remove sample tilt. For Rad59 protein, magnesium acetate and protein concentrations were optimized to 5 mm and 100 nm, respectively, to facilitate discrete complex formation and to minimize aggregation. Yeast Rad52 and Rad59 Proteins and hRad52 Protein Protect DNA Ends and Internal Sites Equally from Nucleolytic Degradation—We wanted to know whether the Rad52 and the Rad59 protein from budding yeast display a preference for binding to DNA ends as was reported for Rad52 homologues from human and fission yeast. Previously, this preference was demonstrated as an ability to protect DNA more effectively from exonucleolytic degradation than from endonucleolytic cleavage (36Van Dyck E. Stasiak A.Z. Stasiak A. West S.C. Nature. 1999; 398: 728-731Crossref PubMed Scopus (254) Google Scholar, 38Kim W.J. Lee S. Park M.S. Jang Y.K. Kim J.B. Park S.D. J. Biol. Chem. 2000; 275: 35607-35611Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar). We, therefore, conducted such nuclease assays in the presence of Rad52 or Rad59 protein. The DNA substrate used in the nuclease assays was a blunt-ended, 5′-end labeled-100-bp DNA duplex (labeled on both strands) that contained one HaeIII site. This substrate was chosen to ensure that limited exonuclease degradation would be detected as a change in electrophoretic mobility. The DNA substrate was preincubated with various amounts of Rad52 or Rad59 protein and was then incubated with either ExoIII or HaeIII enzyme, each of which was present at an amount that degraded ∼80% of the naked dsDNA substrate under the given reaction conditions. For both of the ExoIII or HaeIII protection assays, the percentage of label remaining at the position of the intact dsDNA was quantified because it is directly related to protection. We used two magnesium ion concentrations, 0.66 mm (low) and 10 mm (high), to permit comparison to previously published work (38Kim W.J. Lee S. Park M.S. Jang Y.K. Kim J.B. Park S.D. J. Biol. Chem. 2000; 275: 35607-35611Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar). At these two Mg2+ concentrations, the activities of ExoIII and HaeIII were the same (data not shown); therefore, the same amount of each nuclease was used at the two different assay conditions. We found that Rad52 protein protected dsDNA from degradation in a protein concentration-dependent manner in both the ExoIII- and HaeIII-containing reactions (Fig. 1, A and B). In the presence of ExoIII, the dsDNA migrated as a slightly faster and broader band due to removal of nucleotides by the exonuclease (Fig. 1A, lane 2). The addition of increasing amounts of Rad52 protein increased the fraction of dsDNA substrate that remained intact (Fig. 1A, lanes 3–9). Consistent with a previous report showing that DNA binding activity is sensitive to increased Mg2+ concentration (16Shinohara A. Shinohara M. Ohta T. Matsuda S. Ogawa T. Genes Cells. 1998; 3: 145-156Crossref PubMed Scopus (235) Google Scholar), Rad52 protein protected the dsDNA better at 0.66 mm Mg2+ (Fig. 1C) than it did at 10 mm Mg2+ (Fig. 1D). Likewise, in the HaeIII nuclease protection assay, Rad52 protein prevented dsDNA cleavage (Fig. 1B), and it did so better at 0.66 mm Mg2+ (Fig. 1C) than it did at 10 mm Mg2+ (Fig. 1D). Most importantly, when the protection patterns for ExoIII and HaeIII were compared at the same magnesium ion concentrations (Fig. 1, C and D), protection was essentially the same, within experimental error. Thus, yeast Rad52 protein shows no preference for dsDNA end binding as measured by this nuclease protection assay. The behavior of Rad59 protein was also evaluated in these assays. Similar to Rad52 protein, Rad59 protein protected the dsDNA from both exonuclease and endonuclease degradation in a protein concentration-dependent manner (Fig. 2, A and B). In agreement with the previously reported sensitivity of DNA binding to increased Mg2+ concentration (31Petukhova G. Stratton S.A. Sung P. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 33839-33842Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (66) Google Scholar), Rad59 protein protected the dsDNA to a greater extent at the lower Mg2+ concentration (Fig. 2C) than at the higher Mg2+ concentration (Fig. 2D). More importantly, Rad59 protein showed almost the same level of protection against ExoIII- and HaeIII-mediated degradation at the low Mg2+ concentration and, actually, better protection against HaeIII digestion at the high Mg2+ concentration at the highest protein concentration used. Thus, the results obtained from the nuclease assays do not demonstrate preferential DNA end binding for either Rad52 or Rad59 proteins. Finally, we tested the DNA end binding preference of human Rad52 protein using the same nuclease protection assays. Like the yeast Rad52 and Rad59 proteins, hRad52 protein protected dsDNA in a protein concentration-dependent manner (Fig. 3, A and B). The protection from HaeIII degradation was better than from ExoIII degradation at the low Mg2+ concentration (Fig. 3C) and marginally better at the high Mg2+ concentration (Fig. 3D). Unlike the yeast Rad52 and Rad59 proteins, however, the protection by hRad52 protein was only slightly reduced at the higher Mg2+ concentration (Fig. 3D), indicating the DNA binding activity of hRad52 protein is less sensitive to an increased concentration of Mg2+ than that of yeast Rad52 and Rad59 proteins. Yeast Rad52 and Rad59 Proteins and Human Rad52 Protein Bind to DNA Ends with Minimal Preference Relative to Internal Sites—To confirm the results from the nuclease protection assays, we designed a direct competition experiment to examine the dsDNA binding specificity of Rad52 and Rad59 proteins. The same 5′-end-labeled 100-bp dsDNA substrate was incubated with a fixed concentration of protein so that ∼90% of the dsDNA substrate had a resultant electrophoretic mobility that caused it to remain in the well of the gel. This protein-DNA complex was then titrated with increasing amounts of unlabeled, EcoRV- or HaeIII-digested pBR322 DNA. There is only one EcoRV site in pBR322 DNA, but there are 22 HaeIII sites; thus, the HaeIII-linearized pBR322 DNA yields 22 times more dsDNA ends than the EcoRV-linearized DNA. Therefore, if a protein has a high affinity for dsDNA ends, then the same concentration of HaeIII-linearized pBR322 DNA should be a 22-fold better competitor for protein binding than the EcoRV-linearized DNA. The results obtained with Rad52 protein are shown in Fig. 4A. The retention of labeled dsDNA in the well was inversely dependent on the concentration of the unlabeled competitor DNA. Quantification of the gel (Fig. 4B) shows that the amount of the EcoRV-digested pBR322 needed to liberate the labeled dsDNA due to competitive binding of the Rad52 protein is similar to the amount of the HaeIII-digested pBR322. This indicates that the EcoRV-digested pBR322 dsDNA, although possessing 22 times fewer dsDNA ends, competes for Rad52 protein binding as efficiently as the HaeIII-digested pBR322 DNA. Identical experiments were performed using Rad59 protein. Only the quantification is shown here (Fig. 4C) because the gels were essentially the same as those shown for Rad52 protein. Just as for Rad52 protein, the HaeIII-digested pBR322 competed equally well for Rad59 protein binding compared with the EcoRV-linearized pBR322. These results are consistent with our nuclease protection studies (Figs. 1 and 2), and they show that neither Rad52 protein nor Rad59 protein has a strong preferential affinity for dsDNA ends. When the human Rad52 protein was examined using this assay, the results were similar, although the HaeIII-linearized pBR322 DNA was found to compete for hRad52 protein binding slightly better than the EcoRV-linearized pBR322 DNA (Fig. 4D). The concentration of competitor DNA required to dissociate the hRad52 protein-dsDNA complex to free ∼50% of the labeled dsDNA was about 20 and 40 μm for the HaeIII- and EcoRV-cut DNA, respectively. Although this difference suggests that hRad52 protein has a somewhat higher affinity for dsDNA ends than for internal sites, this 2-fold difference is much less than the 22-fold difference expected. We, therefore, estimate that the hRad52 protein has at most an ∼100-fold greater affinity for dsDNA ends than internal dsDNA sites. However, the results from the nuclease protection experiments suggest little or no preferential binding. Visualization of Rad52- and Rad59-DNA Complexes—We used AFM to directly visualize yeast Rad52- and Rad59-DNA complexes on linearized plasmid dsDNA. We observed that Rad52 protein often forms discrete bead-like complexes on plasmid dsDNA and that it binds to both dsDNA ends and internal sites (Fig. 5A). In AFM, tip convolution results in measured widths that are larger than the actual widths of DNA or protein-DNA complexes. The width of naked dsDNA was measured to be 11.7 ± 1.8 nm (n = 19), which is ∼10 nm larger than expected (2 nm). Similarly, the diameter of the Rad52 protein complexes was measured to be about 28.1 ± 3.4 nm (n = 10), implying that its actual diameter is at most 18 nm. To verify that Rad52 protein did not prefer to bind dsDNA ends, we reduced the protein conce