Review Article | Published:

Causes and consequences of replication stress

Nature Cell Biology volume 16, pages 29 (2014) | Download Citation

Abstract

Replication stress is a complex phenomenon that has serious implications for genome stability, cell survival and human disease. Generation of aberrant replication fork structures containing single-stranded DNA activates the replication stress response, primarily mediated by the kinase ATR (ATM- and Rad3-related). Along with its downstream effectors, ATR stabilizes and helps to restart stalled replication forks, avoiding the generation of DNA damage and genome instability. Understanding this response may be key to diagnosing and treating human diseases caused by defective responses to replication stress.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , , & Eukaryotic chromosome DNA replication: where, when, and how? Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79, 89–130 (2010).

  2. 2.

    et al. Excess Mcm2–7 license dormant origins of replication that can be used under conditions of replicative stress. J. Cell Biol. 173, 673–683 (2006).

  3. 3.

    , & Dormant origins licensed by excess Mcm2–7 are required for human cells to survive replicative stress. Genes Dev. 21, 3331–3341 (2007).

  4. 4.

    & Dormant origins, the licensing checkpoint, and the response to replicative stresses. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 4, a012955 (2012).

  5. 5.

    & A requirement for MCM7 and Cdc45 in chromosome unwinding during eukaryotic DNA replication. EMBO J. 23, 3667–3676 (2004).

  6. 6.

    , , , & Functional uncoupling of MCM helicase and DNA polymerase activities activates the ATR-dependent checkpoint. Genes Dev. 19, 1040–1052 (2005).

  7. 7.

    & Sensing DNA damage through ATRIP recognition of RPA-ssDNA complexes. Science 300, 1542–1548 (2003).

  8. 8.

    , , , & The structural determinants of checkpoint activation. Genes Dev. 21, 898–903 (2007).

  9. 9.

    & ATR signalling: more than meeting at the fork. Biochem. J. 436, 527–536 (2011).

  10. 10.

    & DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR Kinases. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a012716 (2013).

  11. 11.

    et al. Analysis of DNA replication profiles in budding yeast and mammalian cells using DNA combing. Methods 57, 149–157 (2012).

  12. 12.

    et al. Stepwise activation of the ATR signaling pathway upon increasing replication stress impacts fragile site integrity. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003643 (2013).

  13. 13.

    & Impediments to replication fork movement: stabilisation, reactivation and genome instability. Chromosoma 122, 33–45 (2013).

  14. 14.

    & Surviving chromosome replication: the many roles of the S-phase checkpoint pathway. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 366, 3554–3561 (2011).

  15. 15.

    & Pathways of mammalian replication fork restart. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 683–687 (2010).

  16. 16.

    , , , & UV stalled replication forks restart by re-priming in human fibroblasts. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 7049–7057 (2011).

  17. 17.

    , & Multiple mechanisms control chromosome integrity after replication fork uncoupling and restart at irreparable UV lesions. Mol. Cell 21, 15–27 (2006).

  18. 18.

    , & Regulation of PCNA-protein interactions for genome stability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 269–282 (2013).

  19. 19.

    et al. The DNA replication checkpoint response stabilizes stalled replication forks. Nature 412, 557–561 (2001).

  20. 20.

    & Regulation of DNA replication fork progression through damaged DNA by the Mec1/Rad53 checkpoint. Nature 412, 553–557 (2001).

  21. 21.

    , , , & DNA polymerase stabilization at stalled replication forks requires Mec1 and the RecQ helicase Sgs1. EMBO J. 22, 4325–4336 (2003).

  22. 22.

    et al. Replisome stability at defective DNA replication forks is independent of S phase checkpoint kinases. Mol. Cell 45, 696–704 (2012).

  23. 23.

    et al. RNF4 and PLK1 are required for replication fork collapse in ATR-deficient cells. Genes Dev. 27, 2259–2273 (2013).

  24. 24.

    et al. Analysis of protein dynamics at active, stalled, and collapsed replication forks. Genes Dev. 25, 1320–1327 (2011).

  25. 25.

    et al. The structure-specific endonuclease Mus81 contributes to replication restart by generating double-strand DNA breaks. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 1096–1104 (2007).

  26. 26.

    et al. ATR and H2AX cooperate in maintaining genome stability under replication stress. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 5994–6003 (2009).

  27. 27.

    & The DNA damage response: Making it safe to play with knives. Mol. Cell 40, 179–204 (2010).

  28. 28.

    & Separate roles for the DNA damage checkpoint protein kinases in stabilizing DNA replication forks. Genes Dev. 22, 1816–1827 (2008).

  29. 29.

    , , , & Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol. Cell 37, 492–502 (2010).

  30. 30.

    , , , & Regulatory control of the resolution of DNA recombination intermediates during meiosis and mitosis. Cell 147, 158–172 (2011).

  31. 31.

    & Safeguarding genome integrity: the checkpoint kinases ATR, CHK1 and WEE1 restrain CDK activity during normal DNA replication. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 477–486 (2012).

  32. 32.

    , & Fork reversal and ssDNA accumulation at stalled replication forks owing to checkpoint defects. Science 297, 599–602 (2002).

  33. 33.

    et al. The intra-S phase checkpoint targets Dna2 to prevent stalled replication forks from reversing. Cell 149, 1221–1232 (2012).

  34. 34.

    et al. ATR phosphorylates SMARCAL1 to prevent replication fork collapse. Genes Dev. 27, 1610–1623 (2013).

  35. 35.

    et al. Exo1 processes stalled replication forks and counteracts fork reversal in checkpoint-defective cells. Mol. Cell 17, 153–159 (2005).

  36. 36.

    et al. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell 145, 529–542 (2011).

  37. 37.

    , & A distinct replication fork protection pathway connects Fanconi anemia tumor suppressors to RAD51-BRCA1/2. Cancer Cell 22, 106–116 (2012).

  38. 38.

    et al. Topoisomerase I poisoning results in PARP-mediated replication fork reversal. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 417–423 (2012).

  39. 39.

    et al. SMARCAL1 catalyzes fork regression and Holliday junction migration to maintain genome stability during DNA replication. Genes Dev. 26, 151–162 (2012).

  40. 40.

    et al. Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell 119, 941–953 (2004).

  41. 41.

    & DNA adducts from acetaldehyde: implications for alcohol-related carcinogenesis. Alcohol 35, 187–193 (2005).

  42. 42.

    , , , & Fancd2 counteracts the toxic effects of naturally produced aldehydes in mice. Nature 475, 53–58 (2011).

  43. 43.

    , , , & Formaldehyde catabolism is essential in cells deficient for the Fanconi anemia DNA-repair pathway. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 1432–1434 (2011).

  44. 44.

    & Regulation of DNA cross-link repair by the Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway. Genes Dev. 26, 1393–1408 (2012).

  45. 45.

    Causes and consequences of ribonucleotide incorporation into nuclear DNA. Trends Genet. 28, 592–597 (2012).

  46. 46.

    et al. RNase H2-initiated ribonucleotide excision repair. Mol. Cell 47, 980–986 (2012).

  47. 47.

    et al. Enzymatic removal of ribonucleotides from DNA is essential for mammalian genome integrity and development. Cell 149, 1008–1022 (2012).

  48. 48.

    et al. RNase H and postreplication repair protect cells from ribonucleotides incorporated in DNA. Mol. Cell 45, 99–110 (2012).

  49. 49.

    et al. Genome instability due to ribonucleotide incorporation into DNA. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6, 774–781 (2010).

  50. 50.

    et al. Mutagenic processing of ribonucleotides in DNA by yeast topoisomerase I. Science 332, 1561–1564 (2011).

  51. 51.

    et al. Topoisomerase 1-mediated removal of ribonucleotides from nascent leading-strand DNA. Mol. Cell 49, 1010–1015 (2013).

  52. 52.

    Mechanisms of trinucleotide repeat instability during human development. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 786–799 (2010).

  53. 53.

    & The balancing act of DNA repeat expansions. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 23, 280–288 (2013).

  54. 54.

    et al. Pif1 family helicases suppress genome instability at G-quadruplex motifs. Nature 497, 458–462 (2013).

  55. 55.

    , & DNA secondary structures: stability and function of G-quadruplex structures. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 770–780 (2012).

  56. 56.

    , , & Transcription-replication encounters, consequences and genomic instability. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 412–418 (2013).

  57. 57.

    , & Preventing replication stress to maintain genome stability: resolving conflicts between replication and transcription. Mol. Cell 45, 710–718 (2012).

  58. 58.

    et al. Identification of early replicating fragile sites that contribute to genome instability. Cell 152, 620–632 (2013).

  59. 59.

    et al. The replication checkpoint protects fork stability by releasing transcribed genes from nuclear pores. Cell 146, 233–246 (2011).

  60. 60.

    & Cotranscriptionally formed DNA:RNA hybrids mediate transcription elongation impairment and transcription-associated recombination. Mol. Cell 12, 711–721 (2003).

  61. 61.

    & Inactivation of the SR protein splicing factor ASF/SF2 results in genomic instability. Cell 122, 365–378 (2005).

  62. 62.

    et al. A genome-wide siRNA screen reveals diverse cellular processes and pathways that mediate genome stability. Mol. Cell 35, 228–239 (2009).

  63. 63.

    , , & RNase H and multiple RNA biogenesis factors cooperate to prevent RNA:DNA hybrids from generating genome instability. Mol. Cell 44, 978–988 (2011).

  64. 64.

    et al. R-loop-mediated genome instability in mRNA cleavage and polyadenylation mutants. Genes Dev. 26, 163–175 (2012).

  65. 65.

    & R loops: from transcription byproducts to threats to genome stability. Mol. Cell 46, 115–124 (2012).

  66. 66.

    et al. Topoisomerase I suppresses genomic instability by preventing interference between replication and transcription. Nat. Cell Biol. 11, 1315–1324 (2009).

  67. 67.

    et al. Genome-organizing factors Top2 and Hmo1 prevent chromosome fragility at sites of S phase transcription. Cell 138, 870–884 (2009).

  68. 68.

    et al. Senataxin associates with replication forks to protect fork integrity across RNA-polymerase-II-transcribed genes. Cell 151, 835–846 (2012).

  69. 69.

    & Senataxin, defective in the neurodegenerative disorder ataxia with oculomotor apraxia 2, lies at the interface of transcription and the DNA damage response. Mol. Cell. Biol. 33, 406–417 (2013).

  70. 70.

    et al. dNTP pools determine fork progression and origin usage under replication stress. EMBO J. 31, 883–894 (2012).

  71. 71.

    et al. Nucleotide deficiency promotes genomic instability in early stages of cancer development. Cell 145, 435–446 (2011).

  72. 72.

    , , & Dynamics of DNA replication in mammalian somatic cells: nucleotide pool modulates origin choice and interorigin spacing. Cell 114, 385–394 (2003).

  73. 73.

    & Causes of genome instability. Annu. Rev. Genet. 47, 19–50 (2013).

  74. 74.

    et al. Initiation of genome instability and preneoplastic processes through loss of Fhit expression. PLoS Genet. 8, e1003077 (2012).

  75. 75.

    et al. Cyclin-dependent kinase suppression by WEE1 kinase protects the genome through control of replication initiation and nucleotide consumption. Mol. Cell Biol. 32, 4226–4236 (2012).

  76. 76.

    et al. A viable allele of Mcm4 causes chromosome instability and mammary adenocarcinomas in mice. Nat. Genet. 39, 93–98 (2007).

  77. 77.

    , , , & Common fragile sites: mechanisms of instability revisited. Trends Genet. 28, 22–32 (2012).

  78. 78.

    , , & ATR regulates fragile site stability. Cell 111, 779–789 (2002).

  79. 79.

    et al. Common fragile site profiling in epithelial and erythroid cells reveals that most recurrent cancer deletions lie in fragile sites hosting large genes. Cell Rep. 4, 420–428 (2013).

  80. 80.

    et al. MUS81 promotes common fragile site expression. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 1001–1007 (2013).

  81. 81.

    , , & ERCC1 and MUS81-EME1 promote sister chromatid separation by processing late replication intermediates at common fragile sites during mitosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 1008–1015 (2013).

  82. 82.

    , , , & Cdc45 is a critical effector of myc-dependent DNA replication stress. Cell Rep. 3, 1629–1639 (2013).

  83. 83.

    et al. Increased replication initiation and conflicts with transcription underlie Cyclin E-induced replication stress. Oncogene 32, 3744–3753 (2012).

  84. 84.

    , & An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 319, 1352–1355 (2008).

  85. 85.

    et al. Replication stress links structural and numerical cancer chromosomal instability. Nature 494, 492–496 (2013).

  86. 86.

    , , & Oncogenes induce genotoxic stress by mitotic processing of unusual replication intermediates. J. Cell Biol. 200, 699–708 (2013).

  87. 87.

    et al. Common fragile sites are characterized by histone hypoacetylation. Hum. Mol. Genet. 18, 4501–4512 (2009).

  88. 88.

    et al. A mouse model of ATR-Seckel shows embryonic replicative stress and accelerated aging. Nat. Genet. 41, 891–898 (2009).

  89. 89.

    et al. Identification of the first ATRIP-deficient patient and novel mutations in ATR define a clinical spectrum for ATR-ATRIP Seckel Syndrome. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002945 (2012).

  90. 90.

    & The role of the DNA damage response pathways in brain development and microcephaly: insight from human disorders. DNA Rep. 7, 1039–1050 (2008).

  91. 91.

    , , & A role for the MRN complex in ATR activation via TOPBP1 recruitment. Mol. Cell 50, 116–122 (2013).

  92. 92.

    & The Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 (MRN) complex has a specific role in the activation of Chk1 in response to stalled replication forks. Mol. Biol. Cell 24, 1343–1353 (2013).

  93. 93.

    et al. Two distinct modes of ATR activation orchestrated by Rad17 and Nbs1. Cell Rep. 3, 1651–1662 (2013).

  94. 94.

    & The MRE11 complex: starting from the ends. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 90–103 (2011).

  95. 95.

    et al. Mutations in genes encoding ribonuclease H2 subunits cause Aicardi-Goutières syndrome and mimic congenital viral brain infection. Nat. Genet. 38, 910–916 (2006).

  96. 96.

    , & Thresholds of replication stress signaling in cancer development and treatment. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 5–7 (2012).

  97. 97.

    et al. Oncogenic stress sensitizes murine cancers to hypomorphic suppression of ATR. J. Clin. Invest. 122, 241–252 (2012).

  98. 98.

    et al. Exploiting oncogene-induced replicative stress for the selective killing of Myc-driven tumors. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 1331–1335 (2011).

  99. 99.

    et al. Combining ATR suppression with oncogenic Ras synergistically increases genomic instability, causing synthetic lethality or tumorigenesis in a dosage-dependent manner. Cancer Res. 70, 9693–9702 (2010).

  100. 100.

    et al. Tissue regenerative delays and synthetic lethality in adult mice after combined deletion of Atr and Trp53. Nat. Genet. 41, 1144–1149 (2009).

  101. 101.

    , , , & An extra allele of Chk1 limits oncogene-induced replicative stress and promotes transformation. J. Exp. Med. 209, 455–461 (2012).

  102. 102.

    & ATR disruption leads to chromosomal fragmentation and early embryonic lethality. Genes Dev. 14, 397–402 (2000).

  103. 103.

    , , & Chk1 is haploinsufficient for multiple functions critical to tumor suppression. Cancer Cell 6, 45–59 (2004).

  104. 104.

    & The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461, 1071–1078 (2009).

  105. 105.

    et al. Targeting ATR in DNA damage response and cancer therapeutics. Cancer Treat. Rev. (2013).

  106. 106.

    et al. Common fragile site tumor suppressor genes and corresponding mouse models of cancer. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2011, 984505 (2011).

  107. 107.

    & Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annu. Rev. Med. 61, 437–455 (2010).

  108. 108.

    , & Replication stress and mechanisms of CNV formation. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 22, 204–210 (2012).

  109. 109.

    & Replication stress-induced genome instability: The dark side of replication maintenance by homologous recombination. J. Mol. Biol. 425, 4733–4744 (2013).

  110. 110.

    et al. Two replication fork maintenance pathways fuse inverted repeats to rearrange chromosomes. Nature 501, 569–572 (2013).

  111. 111.

    , , & Friedreich's ataxia-associated GAA repeats induce replication-fork reversal and unusual molecular junctions. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 486–494 (2013).

  112. 112.

    , & The RecQ DNA helicases in DNA repair. Annu. Rev. Genet. 44, 393–417 (2010).

  113. 113.

    et al. Pyrimidine pool imbalance induced by BLM helicase deficiency contributes to genetic instability in Bloom syndrome. Nat. Commun. 2, 368 (2011).

  114. 114.

    , & The annealing helicase HARP protects stalled replication forks. Genes Dev. 23, 2394–2399 (2009).

  115. 115.

    , , & The annealing helicase HARP is recruited to DNA repair sites via an interaction with RPA. Genes Dev. 23, 2400–2404 (2009).

  116. 116.

    et al. The SIOD disorder protein SMARCAL1 is an RPA-interacting protein involved in replication fork restart. Genes Dev. 23, 2415–2425 (2009).

  117. 117.

    , , , & The annealing helicase SMARCAL1 maintains genome integrity at stalled replication forks. Genes Dev. 23, 2405–2414 (2009).

  118. 118.

    , , & Identification of SMARCAL1 as a component of the DNA damage response. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 35951–35961 (2009).

  119. 119.

    et al. Substrate-selective repair and restart of replication forks by DNA translocases. Cell Rep. 3, 1958–1969 (2013).

  120. 120.

    et al. Penetrance of biallelic SMARCAL1 mutations is associated with environmental and genetic disturbances of gene expression. Hum. Mol. Genet. 21, 2572–2587 (2012).

  121. 121.

    , & Senataxin protects the genome: Implications for neurodegeneration and other abnormalities. Rare Diseases 1, e25230 (2013).

  122. 122.

    et al. Stalled fork rescue via dormant replication origins in unchallenged S phase promotes proper chromosome segregation and tumor suppression. Mol. Cell 41, 543–553 (2011).

  123. 123.

    & Meier-Gorlin syndrome mutations disrupt an Orc1 CDK inhibitory domain and cause centrosome reduplication. Genes Dev. 26, 1797–1810 (2012).

  124. 124.

    , , , & Meier-Gorlin syndrome and Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome: Two developmental disorders highlighting the importance of efficient DNA replication for normal development and neurogenesis. DNA Rep. 12, 637–644 (2013).

  125. 125.

    , , & Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome candidate 1 is involved in the cellular response to DNA damage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13130–13134 (2011).

  126. 126.

    et al. Characterizing the functional consequences of haploinsufficiency of NELF-A (WHSC2) and SLBP identifies novel cellular phenotypes in Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 21, 2181–2193 (2012).

  127. 127.

    et al. Codanin-1, mutated in the anaemic disease CDAI, regulates Asf1 function in S-phase histone supply. EMBO J. 31, 2013–2023 (2012).

  128. 128.

    et al. Mutations in pericentrin cause Seckel syndrome with defective ATR-dependent DNA damage signaling. Nat. Genet. 40, 232–236 (2008).

  129. 129.

    , , , & Cep164 is a mediator protein required for the maintenance of genomic stability through modulation of MDC1, RPA, and CHK1. Genes Dev. 22, 587–600 (2008).

  130. 130.

    et al. Exome capture reveals ZNF423 and CEP164 mutations, linking renal ciliopathies to DNA damage response signaling. Cell 150, 533–548 (2012).

  131. 131.

    et al. FAN1 mutations cause karyomegalic interstitial nephritis, linking chronic kidney failure to defective DNA damage repair. Nat. Genet. 44, 910–915 (2012).

  132. 132.

    et al. NEK8 links the ATR-regulated replication stress response and S phase CDK activity to renal ciliopathies. Mol. Cell 51, 423–439 (2013).

  133. 133.

    & Nurturing the genome: A-type lamins preserve genomic stability. Nucleus 1, 129–135 (2010).

  134. 134.

    , , & RAD6-RAD18-RAD5-pathway-dependent tolerance to chronic low-dose ultraviolet light. Nature 457, 612–615 (2008).

  135. 135.

    , & The preference for error-free or error-prone postreplication repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae exposed to low-dose methyl methanesulfonate is cell cycle dependent. Mol. Cell. Biol. 33, 1515–1527 (2013).

  136. 136.

    , & How unfinished business from S-phase affects mitosis and beyond. EMBO J. 32, 2661–2671 (2013).

  137. 137.

    , & Genomic instability—an evolving hallmark of cancer. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 220–228 (2010).

  138. 138.

    , & Ciliopathies. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 1533–1543 (2011).

  139. 139.

    , & Laminopathies. J. Pathol. 204, 478–488 (2004).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank E. Brown, D. Cortez and members of the Cimprich and Pasero labs for thoughtful discussions and careful reading of this manuscript. We apologize to those whose excellent work could not be cited directly due to space limitations. Work in the K.A.C. laboratory is supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Michelle K. Zeman and Karlene A. Cimprich are in the Department of Chemical and Systems Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

    • Michelle K. Zeman
    •  & Karlene A. Cimprich

Authors

  1. Search for Michelle K. Zeman in:

  2. Search for Karlene A. Cimprich in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karlene A. Cimprich.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2897

Further reading