Letter | Published:

H4K20me0 marks post-replicative chromatin and recruits the TONSL–MMS22L DNA repair complex

Nature volume 534, pages 714718 (30 June 2016) | Download Citation


After DNA replication, chromosomal processes including DNA repair and transcription take place in the context of sister chromatids. While cell cycle regulation can guide these processes globally, mechanisms to distinguish pre- and post-replicative states locally remain unknown. Here we reveal that new histones incorporated during DNA replication provide a signature of post-replicative chromatin, read by the human TONSL–MMS22L1,2,3,4 homologous recombination complex. We identify the TONSL ankyrin repeat domain (ARD) as a reader of histone H4 tails unmethylated at K20 (H4K20me0), which are specific to new histones incorporated during DNA replication and mark post-replicative chromatin until the G2/M phase of the cell cycle. Accordingly, TONSL–MMS22L binds new histones H3–H4 both before and after incorporation into nucleosomes, remaining on replicated chromatin until late G2/M. H4K20me0 recognition is required for TONSL–MMS22L binding to chromatin and accumulation at challenged replication forks and DNA lesions. Consequently, TONSL ARD mutants are toxic, compromising genome stability, cell viability and resistance to replication stress. Together, these data reveal a histone-reader-based mechanism for recognizing the post-replicative state, offering a new angle to understand DNA repair with the potential for targeted cancer therapy.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


Primary accessions

Protein Data Bank

Data deposits

Coordinate and structure factors have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank under accession number 5JA4.


  1. 1.

    et al. Identification of the MMS22L-TONSL complex that promotes homologous recombination. Mol. Cell 40, 632–644 (2010)

  2. 2.

    et al. The MMS22L-TONSL complex mediates recovery from replication stress and homologous recombination. Mol. Cell 40, 619–631 (2010)

  3. 3.

    et al. A genome-wide camptothecin sensitivity screen identifies a mammalian MMS22L-NFKBIL2 complex required for genomic stability. Mol. Cell 40, 645–657 (2010)

  4. 4.

    et al. RNAi-based screening identifies the Mms22L–Nfkbil2 complex as a novel regulator of DNA replication in human cells. EMBO J. 29, 4210–4222 (2010)

  5. 5.

    et al. Analysis of the histone H3.1 interactome: a suitable chaperone for the right event. Mol. Cell 60, 697–709 (2015)

  6. 6.

    et al. Regulation of replication fork progression through histone supply and demand. Science 318, 1928–1931 (2007)

  7. 7.

    et al. A unique binding mode enables MCM2 to chaperone histones H3–H4 at replication forks. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 618–626 (2015)

  8. 8.

    et al. Structural insight into how the human helicase subunit MCM2 may act as a histone chaperone together with ASF1 at the replication fork. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 1905–1917 (2015)

  9. 9.

    , , , & The role of the nucleosome acidic patch in modulating higher order chromatin structure. J. R. Soc. Interface 10, 20121022 (2013)

  10. 10.

    et al. The ankyrin repeats of G9a and GLP histone methyltransferases are mono- and dimethyllysine binding modules. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 245–250 (2008)

  11. 11.

    et al. Replication stress interferes with histone recycling and predeposition marking of new histones. Mol. Cell 37, 736–743 (2010)

  12. 12.

    et al. hMOF histone acetyltransferase is required for histone H4 lysine 16 acetylation in mammalian cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 6798–6810 (2005)

  13. 13.

    et al. Mitotic-specific methylation of histone H4 Lys 20 follows increased PR-Set7 expression and its localization to mitotic chromosomes. Genes Dev. 16, 2225–2230 (2002)

  14. 14.

    , & & Mizzen, C. A. Certain and progressive methylation of histone H4 at lysine 20 during the cell cycle. Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 468–486 (2008)

  15. 15.

    , , & PR-Set7 and H4K20me1: at the crossroads of genome integrity, cell cycle, chromosome condensation, and transcription. Genes Dev. 26, 325–337 (2012)

  16. 16.

    , & Histone H4 lysine 20 methylation: key player in epigenetic regulation of genomic integrity. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 2797–2806 (2013)

  17. 17.

    , , , & PTMs on H3 variants before chromatin assembly potentiate their final epigenetic state. Mol. Cell 24, 309–316 (2006)

  18. 18.

    et al. Two distinct modes for propagation of histone PTMs across the cell cycle. Genes Dev. 29, 585–590 (2015)

  19. 19.

    et al. Nascent chromatin capture proteomics determines chromatin dynamics during DNA replication and identifies unknown fork components. Nature Cell Biol. 16, 281–293 (2014)

  20. 20.

    , , & Dynamics of pre-replication complex proteins during the cell division cycle. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 359, 7–16 (2004)

  21. 21.

    , & Pumps, paradoxes and ploughshares: mechanism of the MCM2–7 DNA helicase. Trends Biochem. Sci. 30, 437–444 (2005)

  22. 22.

    , & Nucleosome remodelers in double-strand break repair. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 23, 174–184 (2013)

  23. 23.

    & Histone chaperones in nucleosome assembly and human disease. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 14–22 (2013)

  24. 24.

    et al. Structural basis for the methylation state-specific recognition of histone H4–K20 by 53BP1 and Crb2 in DNA repair. Cell 127, 1361–1373 (2006)

  25. 25.

    & Double-strand break repair: 53BP1 comes into focus. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 7–18 (2014)

  26. 26.

    et al. Crystal structure of the BARD1 ankyrin repeat domain and its functional consequences. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 21179–21186 (2008)

  27. 27.

    et al. Structural requirements for the BARD1 tumor suppressor in chromosomal stability and homology-directed DNA repair. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 34325–34333 (2007)

  28. 28.

    et al. Mutational analysis of BARD1 in familial breast cancer patients in Japan. Cancer Lett. 200, 1–7 (2003)

  29. 29.

    et al. High-resolution profiling of γH2AX around DNA double strand breaks in the mammalian genome. EMBO J. 29, 1446–1457 (2010)

  30. 30.

    & The full-length Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sgs1 protein is a vigorous DNA helicase that preferentially unwinds holliday junctions. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 8290–8301 (2010)

  31. 31.

    et al. Phaser crystallographic software. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 40, 658–674 (2007)

  32. 32.

    & Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D 60, 2126–2132 (2004)

  33. 33.

    et al. PHENIX: building new software for automated crystallographic structure determination. Acta Crystallogr. D 58, 1948–1954 (2002)

  34. 34.

    et al. Reconstitution of nucleosome core particles from recombinant histones and DNA. Methods Enzymol. 375, 23–44 (2004)

  35. 35.

    et al. Nucleosome-interacting proteins regulated by DNA and histone methylation. Cell 143, 470–484 (2010)

  36. 36.

    , , , & Assembly in G1 phase and long-term stability are unique intrinsic features of CENP-A nucleosomes. Mol. Biol. Cell 24, 923–932 (2013)

  37. 37.

    et al. The histone methyltransferase SET8 is required for S-phase progression. J. Cell Biol. 179, 1337–1345 (2007)

  38. 38.

    , , & The deubiquitylating enzyme USP44 counteracts the DNA double-strand break response mediated by the RNF8 and RNF168 ubiquitin ligases. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 16579–16587 (2013)

  39. 39.

    et al. Regulation of homologous recombination by RNF20-dependent H2B ubiquitination. Mol. Cell 41, 515–528 (2011)

  40. 40.

    et al. Temporal mapping of CEBPA and CEBPB binding during liver regeneration reveals dynamic occupancy and specific regulatory codes for homeostatic and cell cycle gene batteries. Genome Res. 23, 592–603 (2013)

  41. 41.

    et al. Transcriptionally active chromatin recruits homologous recombination at DNA double-strand breaks. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 366–374 (2014)

Download references


We thank the beam staff at the synchrotrons at the Argonne National Laboratory (NE-CAT) for technical assistance. We thank J. Rouse, D. Durocher, G. Legube and C. Storgaard Sørensen for reagents, G. Montoya for assistance with circular dichroism, C. B. Strømme, A. Strandsby, K. Nakamura, S.-b. Lee and M. Hödl for help with experiments, and Y. Antoku for assistance with microscopy. We thank J. Lukas for comments on the manuscript and Z. Jasencakova for illustrations. G.S. was supported by European Commission Marie Curie ITN FP7 ‘aDDRess’. D.J.P. was supported in part by grants from the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the STARR foundation. A.G. is an EMBO Young Investigator and her research is supported by the European Research Council (ERC StG, no. 281765), the Danish National Research Foundation to the Center for Epigenetics (DNRF82), the Danish Cancer Society, the Danish Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Lundbeck Foundation. A.I. is supported by the European Commission FP7 Network of Excellence EpiGeneSys (project 257082), the DFG Excellence Clusters CIPSM and SyNergy, as well as the DFG Collaborative Research Center 1064 (projects A3 and Z3). T.B. is supported by the Medical Research Council and the European Research Council (ERC StG, no. 309952).

Author information

Author notes

    • Giulia Saredi
    •  & Hongda Huang

    These authors contributed equally to this work.


  1. Biotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC) and Centre for Epigenetics, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen DK-2200, Denmark

    • Giulia Saredi
    • , Colin M. Hammond
    • , Constance Alabert
    • , Nazaret Reverón-Gómez
    •  & Anja Groth
  2. Structural Biology Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10065, USA

    • Hongda Huang
    •  & Dinshaw J. Patel
  3. The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen DK-2200, Denmark

    • Simon Bekker-Jensen
    •  & Niels Mailand
  4. Department of Molecular Biology, Biomedical Center and Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University, 80336 Munich, Germany

    • Ignasi Forne
    •  & Axel Imhof
  5. MRC Clinical Sciences Centre (CSC) and Institute of Clinical Sciences (ICS), Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK

    • Benjamin M. Foster
    •  & Till Bartke
  6. Institute of Molecular Cancer Research, University of Zurich, Zurich CH-8057, Switzerland

    • Lucie Mlejnkova
    •  & Petr Cejka


  1. Search for Giulia Saredi in:

  2. Search for Hongda Huang in:

  3. Search for Colin M. Hammond in:

  4. Search for Constance Alabert in:

  5. Search for Simon Bekker-Jensen in:

  6. Search for Ignasi Forne in:

  7. Search for Nazaret Reverón-Gómez in:

  8. Search for Benjamin M. Foster in:

  9. Search for Lucie Mlejnkova in:

  10. Search for Till Bartke in:

  11. Search for Petr Cejka in:

  12. Search for Niels Mailand in:

  13. Search for Axel Imhof in:

  14. Search for Dinshaw J. Patel in:

  15. Search for Anja Groth in:


G.S. and A.G. conceived and led the functional studies. H.H conceived and led the generation of cassette to crystallize the complex, and H.H. solved the structure and performed the ITC under the supervision of D.J.P. C.M.H. performed peptide pull-downs with ARD and recombinant nucleosomes. C.A. performed SET8 experiments and NCC. S.B.-J. and N.M. analysed recruitment to laser-induced DNA damage. N.R.-G. prepared histones for mass spectrometry and performed ChIP analysis, I.F. analysed histone modifications by mass spectrometry under the supervision of A.I. B.M.F and T.B. prepared modified recombinant nucleosomes. L.M. and P.C. prepared recombinant TONSL–MMS22L. G.S., H.H., D.J.P. and A.G. wrote the manuscript and all authors commented on the manuscript.

Competing interests

G.S., H.H., C.M.H., D.J.P. and A.G. are inventors on a filed patent application covering the discoveries presented in this manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dinshaw J. Patel or Anja Groth.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks T. Kutateladze and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Figure

    This file contains Supplementary Figure 1, the uncropped scans with size marker indications.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.