EDITORIAL article Front. Chem., 04 December 2017Sec. Cellular Biochemistry Volume 5 - 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2017.00108

The unlimited growth potential of tumors depends on telomere maintenance and typically depends on telomerase, an RNA-dependent DNA polymerase, which reverse transcribes the telomerase RNA template, synthesizing telomere repeats at the ends of chromosomes. Studies in various model organisms genetically deleted for telomerase indicate that several recombination-based mechanisms also contribute to telomere maintenance. Understanding the molecular basis of these mechanisms is critical since some human tumors form without telomerase, yet the sequence is maintained at the telomeres. Recombination-based mechanisms also likely contribute at some frequency to telomere maintenance in tumors expressing telomerase. Preventing telomere maintenance is predicted to impact tumor growth, yet inhibiting telomerase may select for the recombination-based mechanisms. Telomere recombination mechanisms likely involve altered or unregulated pathways of DNA repair. The use of some DNA damaging agents may encourage the use of these unregulated pathways of DNA repair to be utilized and may allow some tumors to generate resistance to these agents depending on which repair pathways are altered in the tumors. This review will discuss the various telomere recombination mechanisms and will provide rationale regarding the possibility that L1 retrotransposition may contribute to telomere maintenance in tumors lacking telomerase.

Long interspersed element-1 (LINE-1 or L1) retrotransposons encode two proteins (ORF1p and ORF2p) that contain activities required for conventional retrotransposition by a mechanism termed target-site primed reverse transcription. Previous experiments in XRCC4 or DNA protein kinase catalytic subunit-deficient CHO cell lines, which are defective for the nonhomologous end-joining DNA repair pathway, revealed an alternative endonuclease-independent (ENi) pathway for L1 retrotransposition. Interestingly, some ENi retrotransposition events in DNA protein kinase catalytic subunit-deficient cells are targeted to dysfunctional telomeres. Here we used an in vitro assay to detect L1 reverse transcriptase activity to demonstrate that wild-type or endonuclease-defective L1 ribonucleoprotein particles can use oligonucleotide adapters that mimic telomeric ends as primers to initiate the reverse transcription of L1 mRNA. Importantly, these ribonucleoprotein particles also contain a nuclease activity that can process the oligonucleotide adapters before the initiation of reverse transcription. Finally, we demonstrate that ORF1p is not strictly required for ENi retrotransposition at dysfunctional telomeres. Thus, these data further highlight similarities between the mechanism of ENi L1 retrotransposition and telomerase.

Cells with unlimited growth potential such as tumors and stem cells require telomere maintenance mechanisms. Some human tumors lack telomerase and instead likely utilize recombination‐based mechanisms for telomere maintenance. Telomere maintenance in telomerase deficient yeast occurs by several distinct recombination mechanisms that allow break‐induced replication (BIR). In previous studies using (E(mu)myc+mTR−/−) mice with short telomeres, we observed frequent telomere recombination in primary bone marrow cells and tumors. These recombination events sometimes included subtelomeric regions as previously seen in yeast. To determine the role of recombination in telomere maintenance, we are measuring the frequency of subtelomere recombination in mTR+/+ and mTR−/− primary fibroblasts and B‐cell tumors lacking telomerase. We are examining genes that contribute to tumor growth, telomere length, and telomere recombination by using shRNAs targeting specific recombination genes. We found that shRNAs directed against Rad50 reduced tumor growth and the frequency of telomere recombination, implicating a role for Rad50 in tumor growth in the absence of telomerase.

Human tumors that lack telomerase maintain telomeres by alternative lengthening mechanisms. Tumors can also form in telomerase-deficient mice; however, the genetic mechanism responsible for tumor growth without telomerase is unknown. In yeast, several different recombination pathways maintain telomeres in the absence of telomerase-some result in telomere maintenance with minimal effects on telomere length. To examine non-telomerase mechanisms for telomere maintenance in mammalian cells, we used primary cells and lymphomas from telomerase-deficient mice (mTR-/- and Emumyc+mTR-/-) and CAST/EiJ mouse embryonic fibroblast cells. These cells were analyzed using pq-ratio analysis, telomere length distribution outliers, CO-FISH, Q-FISH, and multicolor FISH to detect subtelomeric recombination. Telomere length was maintained during long-term growth in vivo and in vitro. Long telomeres, characteristic of human ALT cells, were not observed in either late passage or mTR-/- tumor cells; instead, we observed only minimal changes in telomere length. Telomere length variation and subtelomeric recombination were frequent in cells with short telomeres, indicating that length maintenance is due to telomeric recombination. We also detected telomere length changes in primary mTR-/- cells that had short telomeres. Using mouse mTR+/- and human hTERT+/- primary cells with short telomeres, we found frequent length changes indicative of recombination. We conclude that telomere maintenance by non-telomerase mechanisms, including recombination, occurs in primary cells and is initiated by short telomeres, even in the presence of telomerase. Most intriguing, our data indicate that some non-telomerase telomere maintenance mechanisms occur without a significant increase in telomere length.

Long interspersed element-1 (LINE-1 or L1) elements are abundant, non-long-terminal-repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons that comprise ∼17% of human DNA1. The average human genome contains ∼80–100 retrotransposition-competent L1s (ref. 2), and they mobilize by a process that uses both the L1 endonuclease and reverse transcriptase, termed target-site primed reverse transcription3,4,5. We have previously reported an efficient, endonuclease-independent L1 retrotransposition pathway (ENi) in certain Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell lines that are defective in the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway of DNA double-strand-break repair6. Here we have characterized ENi retrotransposition events generated in V3 CHO cells, which are deficient in DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs) activity and have both dysfunctional telomeres and an NHEJ defect. Notably, ∼30% of ENi retrotransposition events insert in an orientation-specific manner adjacent to a perfect telomere repeat (5′-TTAGGG-3′). Similar insertions were not detected among ENi retrotransposition events generated in controls or in XR-1 CHO cells deficient for XRCC4, an NHEJ factor that is required for DNA ligation but has no known function in telomere maintenance. Furthermore, transient expression of a dominant-negative allele of human TRF2 (also called TERF2) in XRCC4-deficient XR-1 cells, which disrupts telomere capping, enables telomere-associated ENi retrotransposition events. These data indicate that L1s containing a disabled endonuclease can use dysfunctional telomeres as an integration substrate. The findings highlight similarities between the mechanism of ENi retrotransposition and the action of telomerase, because both processes can use a 3′ OH for priming reverse transcription at either internal DNA lesions or chromosome ends7,8. Thus, we propose that ENi retrotransposition is an ancestral mechanism of RNA-mediated DNA repair associated with non-LTR retrotransposons that may have been used before the acquisition of an endonuclease domain.

Abstract Noncoding DNA comprises a substantial fraction of the genomes of higher eukaryotes. It consists largely of introns, simple repetitive DNA sequences, and sequences derived from mobile genetic elements (i.e. transposable elements).

L1 retrotransposition is ongoing, and has dramatically affected the evolution and structure of mammalian genomes. Despite their impact on the genome, little is known about when, where or how frequently L1s retrotranspose in vivo . The establishment of a mouse model of human L1 retrotransposition is a major step toward answering these questions.

Long interspersed elements (LINE-1s) are abundant retrotransposons in mammalian genomes that probably retrotranspose by target site-primed reverse transcription (TPRT) 1 , 2 . During TPRT, the LINE-1 endonuclease cleaves genomic DNA 3 , freeing a 3′ hydroxyl that serves as a primer for reverse transcription of LINE-1 RNA by LINE-1 reverse transcriptase. The nascent LINE-1 cDNA joins to genomic DNA, generating LINE-1 structural hallmarks such as frequent 5′ truncations, a 3′ poly(A) + tail and variable-length target site duplications (TSDs) 2 . Here we describe a pathway for LINE-1 retrotransposition in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells that acts independently of endonuclease but is dependent upon reverse transcriptase. We show that endonuclease-independent LINE-1 retrotransposition occurs at near-wildtype levels in two mutant cell lines that are deficient in nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ). Analysis of the pre- and post-integration sites revealed that endonuclease-independent retrotransposition results in unusual structures because the LINE-1s integrate at atypical target sequences, are truncated predominantly at their 3′ ends and lack TSDs. Moreover, two of nine endonuclease-independent retrotranspositions contained cDNA fragments at their 3′ ends that are probably derived from the reverse transcription of endogenous mRNA. Thus, our results suggest that LINE-1s can integrate into DNA lesions, resulting in retrotransposon-mediated DNA repair in mammalian cells.

The bHLH protein eHAND plays an important role in the development of extraembryonic, mesodermal, and cardiac cell lineages, presumably through heterodimerization with other HLH proteins and DNA binding. In this study, we have identified a novel transcriptional activity of eHAND. In transient transfection assays, eHAND is a potent inhibitor of activation by some but not all bHLH proteins. eHAND can prevent E-box DNA binding by these bHLH proteins. Interestingly, eHAND can also strongly inhibit transactivation activity by a MyoD∼E47 tethered dimer, which suggests a distinct mechanism of action. eHAND also inhibits MyoD-dependent skeletal muscle cell differentiation and expression of the muscle-specific myosin heavy chain protein. In addition, we show that eHAND can repress activity of the natural p75LNGFR promoter, whose expression overlaps that of eHAND and dHAND. The inhibitory activity of eHAND may be attributed to multiple mechanisms, such as the ability to act as a corepressor, the presence of a repression domain, and its ability to sequester E proteins in an inactive complex. Based upon its inhibitory effect on bHLH proteins and cellular differentiation, we propose that eHAND may function by several mechanisms to promote placental giant cell proliferation by negatively regulating the activities of the bHLH protein MASH-2.

We have identified three new members of the olfactory receptor (OR) gene family within a large segment of DNA that is duplicated with high similarity near many human telomeres. This segment is present at 3q, 15q, and 19p in each of 45 unrelated humans sampled from various populations. Additional copies are present polymorphically at 11 other subtelomeric locations. The frequency with which the block is present at some locations varies among populations. While humans carry seven to 11 copies of the OR-containing block, it is located in chimpanzee and gorilla predominantly at a single site, which is not orthologous to any of the locations in the human genome. The observation that sequences flanking the OR-containing segment are duplicated on larger and different sets of chromosomes than the OR block itself demonstrates that the segment is part of a much larger, complex patchwork of subtelomeric duplications. The population analyses and structural results suggest the types of processes that have shaped these regions during evolution. From its sequence, one of the OR genes in this duplicated block appears to be potentially functional. Our findings raise the possibility that functional diversity in the OR family is generated in part through duplications and inter-chromosomal rearrangements of the DNA near human telomeres.