Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Mechanistic insights into DNA damage recognition and checkpoint control in plants

Nature Plants volume 10, pages 539–550 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The plant DNA damage response (DDR) pathway safeguards genomic integrity by rapid recognition and repair of DNA lesions that, if unrepaired, may cause genome instability. Most frequently, DNA repair goes hand in hand with a transient cell cycle arrest, which allows cells to repair the DNA lesions before engaging in a mitotic event, but consequently also affects plant growth and yield. Through the identification of DDR proteins and cell cycle regulators that react to DNA double-strand breaks or replication defects, it has become clear that these proteins and regulators form highly interconnected networks. These networks operate at both the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels and include liquid–liquid phase separation and epigenetic mechanisms. Strikingly, whereas the upstream DDR sensors and signalling components are well conserved across eukaryotes, some of the more downstream effectors are diverged in plants, probably to suit unique lifestyle features. Additionally, DDR components display functional diversity across ancient plant species, dicots and monocots. The observed resistance of DDR mutants towards aluminium toxicity, phosphate limitation and seed ageing indicates that gaining knowledge about the plant DDR may offer solutions to combat the effects of climate change and the associated risk for food security.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Three-step-based activation of the DDR, leading to efficient DNA repair.
Fig. 2: Multistep formation of RAD51 nucleofilaments and the active SMC5/6 complex.
Fig. 3: The molecular mechanisms of the SOG1/WEE1-mediated DNA damage checkpoint.
Fig. 4: The roles of DREAM complexes in the DNA damage checkpoint control.
Fig. 5: The importance of a functional DDR during various environmental extremes.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pedroza-Garcia, J. A., Xiang, Y. & De Veylder, L. Cell cycle checkpoint control in response to DNA damage by environmental stresses. Plant J. 109, 490–507 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Langerak, P., Mejia-Ramirez, E., Limbo, O. & Russell, P. Release of Ku and MRN from DNA ends by Mre11 nuclease activity and Ctp1 is required for homologous recombination repair of double-strand breaks. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002271 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee, J. H. & Paull, T. T. ATM activation by DNA double-strand breaks through the Mre11–Rad50–Nbs1 complex. Science 308, 551–554 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aklilu, B. B., Soderquist, R. S. & Culligan, K. M. Genetic analysis of the Replication Protein A large subunit family in Arabidopsis reveals unique and overlapping roles in DNA repair, meiosis and DNA replication. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 3104–3118 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yates, L. A. et al. A structural and dynamic model for the assembly of Replication Protein A on single-stranded DNA. Nat. Commun. 9, 5447 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Eschbach, V. & Kobbe, D. Different replication protein A complexes of Arabidopsis thaliana have different DNA-binding properties as a function of heterotrimer composition. Plant Cell Physiol. 55, 1460–1472 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zou, L. & Elledge, S. J. Sensing DNA damage through ATRIP recognition of RPA–ssDNA complexes. Science 300, 1542–1548 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sweeney, P. R., Britt, A. B. & Culligan, K. M. The Arabidopsis ATRIP ortholog is required for a programmed response to replication inhibitors. Plant J. 60, 518–526 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cortez, D., Guntuku, S., Qin, J. & Elledge, S. J. ATR and ATRIP: partners in checkpoint signaling. Science 294, 1713–1716 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Namiki, Y. & Zou, L. ATRIP associates with replication protein A-coated ssDNA through multiple interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 580–585 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumagai, A., Lee, J., Yoo, H. Y. & Dunphy, W. G. TopBP1 activates the ATR–ATRIP complex. Cell 124, 943–955 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heitzeberg, F. et al. The Rad17 homologue of Arabidopsis is involved in the regulation of DNA damage repair and homologous recombination. Plant J. 38, 954–968 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zou, L., Liu, D. & Elledge, S. J. Replication protein A-mediated recruitment and activation of Rad17 complexes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 13827–13832 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Banin, S. et al. Enhanced phosphorylation of p53 by ATM in response to DNA damage. Science 281, 1674–1677 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Canman, C. E. et al. Activation of the ATM kinase by ionizing radiation and phosphorylation of p53. Science 281, 1677–1679 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tibbetts, R. S. et al. A role for ATR in the DNA damage-induced phosphorylation of p53. Genes Dev. 13, 152–157 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Preuss, S. B. & Britt, A. B. A DNA-damage-induced cell cycle checkpoint in Arabidopsis. Genetics 164, 323–334 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Yoshiyama, K. O., Conklin, P. A., Huefner, N. D. & Britt, A. B. Suppressor of gamma response 1 (SOG1) encodes a putative transcription factor governing multiple responses to DNA damage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12843–12848 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sjogren, C. A., Bolaris, S. C. & Larsen, P. B. Aluminum-dependent terminal differentiation of the Arabidopsis root tip is mediated through an ATR-, ALT2-, and SOG1-regulated transcriptional response. Plant Cell 27, 2501–2515 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Yoshiyama, K. O. et al. ATM-mediated phosphorylation of SOG1 is essential for the DNA damage response in Arabidopsis. EMBO Rep. 14, 817–822 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bourbousse, C., Vegesna, N. & Law, J. A. SOG1 activator and MYB3R repressors regulate a complex DNA damage network in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E12453–E12462 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ogita, N. et al. Identifying the target genes of SUPPRESSOR OF GAMMA RESPONSE 1, a master transcription factor controlling DNA damage response in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 94, 439–453 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vandepoele, K. et al. Genome-wide identification of potential plant E2F target genes. Plant Physiol. 139, 316–328 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nisa, M. et al. Distinctive and complementary roles of E2F transcription factors during plant replication stress responses. Mol. Plant 16, 1269–1282 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Waterworth, W. M. et al. Phosphoproteomic analysis reveals plant DNA damage signalling pathways with a functional role for histone H2AX phosphorylation in plant growth under genotoxic stress. Plant J. 100, 1007–1021 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Fan, T. et al. Arabidopsis γ-H2A.X-INTERACTING PROTEIN participates in DNA damage response and safeguards chromatin stability. Nat. Commun. 13, 7942 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Vladejic, J. et al. Analysis of BRCT5 domain-containing proteins reveals a new component of DNA damage repair in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 1023358 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Yu, X., Chini, C. C. S., He, M., Mer, G. & Chen, J. The BRCT domain is a phospho-protein binding domain. Science 302, 639–642 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lorković, Z. J., Klingenbrunner, M., Cho, C. H. & Berger, F. Identification of plants functional counterparts of the metazoan Mediator of DNA Damage Checkpoint 1. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.19.541430 (2023).

  30. Biedermann, S. et al. The retinoblastoma homolog RBR1 mediates localization of the repair protein RAD51 to DNA lesions in Arabidopsis. EMBO J. 36, 1279–1297 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Yu, C. et al. The multi-BRCT domain protein DDRM2 promotes the recruitment of RAD51 to DNA damage sites to facilitate homologous recombination. N. Phytol. 238, 1073–1084 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Weimer, A. K. et al. The plant-specific CDKB1–CYCB1 complex mediates homologous recombination repair in Arabidopsis. EMBO J. 35, 2068–2086 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Horvath, B. M. et al. Arabidopsis RETINOBLASTOMA RELATED directly regulates DNA damage responses through functions beyond cell cycle control. EMBO J. 36, 1261–1278 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kurzbauer, M.-T. et al. ATM controls meiotic DNA double-strand break formation and recombination and affects synaptonemal complex organization in plants. Plant Cell 33, 1633–1656 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Meschichi, A. et al. The plant-specific DDR factor SOG1 increases chromatin mobility in response to DNA damage. EMBO Rep. 23, e54736 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Yin, C., Sun, A., Guo, T., Mao, X. & Fang, Y. Arabidopsis lamin-like proteins CRWN1 and CRWN2 interact with SUPPRESSOR OF NPR1-1 INDUCIBLE 1 and RAD51D to prevent DNA damage. Plant Cell 35, 3345–3362 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Watanabe, K. et al. The STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE OF CHROMOSOMES 5/6 complex promotes sister chromatid alignment and homologous recombination after DNA damage in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 21, 2688–2699 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei, W. et al. A role for small RNAs in DNA double-strand break repair. Cell 149, 101–112 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jiang, J. et al. A diRNA–protein scaffold module mediates SMC5/6 recruitment in plant DNA repair. Plant Cell 34, 3899–3914 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lai, J. et al. The transcriptional coactivator ADA2b recruits a structural maintenance protein to double-strand breaks during DNA repair in plants. Plant Physiol. 176, 2613–2622 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jiang, J. et al. A SWI/SNF subunit regulates chromosomal dissociation of structural maintenance complex 5 during DNA repair in plant cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15288–15296 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Li, C., Guo, Y., Wang, L. & Yan, S. The SMC5/6 complex recruits the PAF1 complex to facilitate DNA double-strand break repair in Arabidopsis. EMBO J. 42, e112756 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Guo, T. et al. Photoexcited cryptochromes interact with ADA2b and SMC5 to promote the repair of DNA double-strand breaks in Arabidopsis. Nat. Plants 9, 1280–1290 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu, M. et al. IDN2 interacts with RPA and facilitates DNA double-strand break repair by homologous recombination in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 29, 589–599 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang, L. et al. The ATR–WEE1 kinase module inhibits the MAC complex to regulate replication stress response. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 1411–1425 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Dvorak Tomastikova, E. et al. SMC5/6 complex-mediated SUMOylation stimulates DNA–protein cross-link repair in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 35, 1532–1547 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Gentric, N., Genschik, P. & Noir, S. Connections between the cell cycle and the DNA damage response in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 9558 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. De Schutter, K. et al. Arabidopsis WEE1 kinase controls cell cycle arrest in response to activation of the DNA integrity checkpoint. Plant Cell 19, 211–225 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Culligan, K., Tissier, A. & Britt, A. ATR regulates a G2-phase cell-cycle checkpoint in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 16, 1091–1104 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Lundgren, K. et al. mik1 and wee1 cooperate in the inhibitory tyrosine phosphorylation of cdc2. Cell 64, 1111–1122 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Watanabe, N., Broome, M. & Hunter, T. Regulation of the human WEE1Hu CDK tyrosine 15-kinase during the cell cycle. EMBO J. 14, 1878–1891 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Dissmeyer, N. et al. Control of cell proliferation, organ growth, and DNA damage response operate independently of dephosphorylation of the Arabidopsis Cdk1 homolog CDKA;1. Plant Cell 21, 3641–3654 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim, H. J. et al. Control of plant germline proliferation by SCFFBL17 degradation of cell cycle inhibitors. Nature 455, 1134–1137 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gusti, A. et al. The Arabidopsis thaliana F-box protein FBL17 is essential for progression through the second mitosis during pollen development. PLoS ONE 4, e4780 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Pan, T. et al. A novel WEE1 pathway for replication stress responses. Nat. Plants 7, 209–218 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Pan, T., Gao, S., Cui, X., Wang, L. & Yan, S. APC/CCDC20 targets SCFFBL17 to activate replication stress responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 35, 910–923 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gentric, N. et al. The F-box-like protein FBL17 is a regulator of DNA-damage response and colocalizes with RETINOBLASTOMA RELATED1 at DNA lesion sites. Plant Physiol. 183, 1295–1305 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bao, W. et al. Protein kinase ATR inhibits E3 ubiquitin ligase CRL4PRL1 to stabilize ribonucleotide reductase in response to replication stress. Cell Rep. 42, 112685 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kalhorzadeh, P. et al. Arabidopsis thaliana RNase H2 deficiency counteracts the needs for the WEE1 checkpoint kinase but triggers genome instability. Plant Cell 26, 3680–3692 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Eekhout, T. et al. G2/M-checkpoint activation in fasciata1 rescues an aberrant S-phase checkpoint but causes genome instability. Plant Physiol. 186, 1893–1907 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Eekhout, T., Pedroza-Garcia, J. A., Kalhorzadeh, P., De Jaeger, G. & De Veylder, L. A mutation in DNA polymerase α rescues WEE1KO sensitivity to HU. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 9409 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Hu, Z., Cools, T., Kalhorzadeh, P., Heyman, J. & De Veylder, L. Deficiency of the Arabidopsis helicase RTEL1 triggers a SOG1-dependent replication checkpoint in response to DNA cross-links. Plant Cell 27, 149–161 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Wei, P. et al. Arabidopsis casein kinase 2 triggers stem cell exhaustion under Al toxicity and phosphate deficiency through activating the DNA damage response pathway. Plant Cell 33, 1361–1380 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hamasaki, H. et al. SnRK1 kinase and the NAC transcription factor SOG1 are components of a novel signaling pathway mediating the low energy response triggered by ATP depletion. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 503 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Chen, H. et al. The ATR–WEE1 kinase module promotes SUPPRESSOR OF GAMMA RESPONSE 1 translation to activate replication stress responses. Plant Cell 35, 3021–3034 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang, X. et al. A plant-specific module for homologous recombination repair. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2202970119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Cools, T. et al. The Arabidopsis thaliana checkpoint kinase WEE1 protects against premature vascular differentiation during replication stress. Plant Cell 23, 1435–1448 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Yi, D. et al. The Arabidopsis SIAMESE-RELATED cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors SMR5 and SMR7 regulate the DNA damage checkpoint in response to reactive oxygen species. Plant Cell 26, 296–309 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Takahashi, N. et al. A regulatory module controlling stress-induced cell cycle arrest in Arabidopsis. eLife 8, e43944 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Chen, P. et al. Arabidopsis R1R2R3-Myb proteins are essential for inhibiting cell division in response to DNA damage. Nat. Commun. 8, 635 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Lammens, T., Li, J., Leone, G. & De Veylder, L. Atypical E2Fs: new players in the E2F transcription factor family. Trends Cell Biol. 19, 111–118 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Lang, L. et al. The DREAM complex represses growth in response to DNA damage in Arabidopsis. Life Sci. Alliance 4, e202101141 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Zaragoza, J. Z., Klap, K., Heidstra, R., Zhou, W. & Scheres, B. The dual role of the RETINOBLASTOMA-RELATED protein in the DNA damage response is coordinated by the interaction with LXCXE-containing proteins. Plant J., https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.16665 (2024).

  74. Ning, Y.-Q. et al. DREAM complex suppresses DNA methylation maintenance genes and precludes DNA hypermethylation. Nat. Plants 6, 942–956 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Wang, Y. et al. The Arabidopsis DREAM complex antagonizes WDR5A to modulate histone H3K4me2/3 deposition for a subset of genome repression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2206075119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Wang, L., Chen, H., Wang, C., Hu, Z. & Yan, S. Negative regulator of E2F transcription factors links cell cycle checkpoint and DNA damage repair. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E3837–E3845 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Fulcher, N. & Sablowski, R. Hypersensitivity to DNA damage in plant stem cell niches. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20984–20988 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Li, G., Deng, L., Huang, N. & Sun, F. The biological roles of lncRNAs and future prospects in clinical application. Diseases 9, 8 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Wang, Z., Schwacke, R. & Kunze, R. DNA damage-induced transcription of transposable elements and long non-coding RNAs in Arabidopsis is rare and ATM-dependent. Mol. Plant 9, 1142–1155 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Durut, N. et al. Long non-coding RNAs contribute to DNA damage resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 225, iyad135 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Herbst, J., Nagy, S. H., Vercauteren, I., De Veylder, L. & Kunze, R. The long non-coding RNA LINDA restrains cellular collapse following DNA damage in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 116, 1370–1384 (2023).

  82. Mortimore, G. E., Lardeux, B. R. & Adams, C. E. Regulation of microautophagy and basal protein turnover in rat liver: effects of short-term starvation. J. Biol. Chem. 263, 2506–2512 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Juretschke, T. & Beli, P. Causes and consequences of DNA damage-induced autophagy. Matrix Biol. 100–101, 39–53 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Zhang, Y. et al. Autophagy-related proteins in genome stability: autophagy-dependent and independent actions. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 18, 5329–5344 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Chen, P. et al. KNO1-mediated autophagic degradation of the Bloom syndrome complex component RMI1 promotes homologous recombination. EMBO J. 42, e111980 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Martens, M., Horres, R., Wendeler, E. & Reiss, B. The importance of ATM and ATR in Physcomitrella patens DNA damage repair, development, and gene targeting. Genes 11, 752 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Gu, N. et al. DNA damage triggers reprogramming of differentiated cells into stem cells in Physcomitrella. Nat. Plants 6, 1098–1105 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Culligan, K. M., Robertson, C. E., Foreman, J., Doerner, P. & Britt, A. B. ATR and ATM play both distinct and additive roles in response to ionizing radiation. Plant J. 48, 947–961 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Yoshiyama, K. O. SOG1: a master regulator of the DNA damage response in plants. Genes Genet. Syst. 90, 209–216 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Yoshiyama, K. O., Kimura, S., Maki, H., Britt, A. B. & Umeda, M. The role of SOG1, a plant-specific transcriptional regulator, in the DNA damage response. Plant Signal. Behav. 9, e28889 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Goffová, I. et al. Roles of RAD51 and RTEL1 in telomere and rDNA stability in Physcomitrella patens. Plant J. 98, 1090–1105 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Sakamoto, A. N. et al. SOG1, a plant-specific master regulator of DNA damage responses, originated from nonvascular land plants. Plant Direct 5, e370 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Pedroza-Garcia, J. A. et al. Maize ATR safeguards genome stability during kernel development to prevent early endosperm endocycle onset and cell death. Plant Cell 33, 2662–2684 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Szurman-Zubrzycka, M. et al. ATR, a DNA damage signaling kinase, is involved in aluminum response in barley. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1299 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Haberer, G. et al. Structure and architecture of the maize genome. Plant Physiol. 139, 1612–1624 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Mascher, M. et al. A chromosome conformation capture ordered sequence of the barley genome. Nature 544, 427–433 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Nishizawa-Yokoi, A. et al. SUPPRESSOR OF GAMMA RESPONSE 1 plays rice-specific roles in DNA damage response and repair. Plant Physiol. 191, 1288–1304 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Tripathi, D., Oldenburg, D. J. & Bendich, A. J. Oxidative and glycation damage to mitochondrial DNA and plastid DNA during plant development. Antioxidants 12, 891 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Tripathi, D., Nam, A., Oldenburg, D. J. & Bendich, A. J. Reactive oxygen species, antioxidant agents, and DNA damage in developing maize mitochondria and plastids. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 596 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Kumar, R. A., Oldenburg, D. J. & Bendich, A. J. Changes in DNA damage, molecular integrity, and copy number for plastid DNA and mitochondrial DNA during maize development. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 6425–6439 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Maréchal, A. et al. Whirly proteins maintain plastid genome stability in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 14693–14698 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Zampini, E., Lepage, E., Tremblay-Belzile, S., Truche, S. & Brisson, N. Organelle DNA rearrangement mapping reveals U-turn-like inversions as a major source of genomic instability in Arabidopsis and humans. Genome Res. 25, 645–654 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Wang, W. et al. RNase H1C collaborates with ssDNA binding proteins WHY1/3 and recombinase RecA1 to fulfill the DNA damage repair in Arabidopsis chloroplasts. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 6771–6787 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Duan, S., Hu, L., Dong, B., Jin, H.-L. & Wang, H.-B. Signaling from plastid genome stability modulates endoreplication and cell cycle during plant development. Cell Rep. 32, 108019 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Hudik, E. et al. Chloroplast dysfunction causes multiple defects in cell cycle progression in the Arabidopsis crumpled leaf mutant. Plant Physiol. 166, 152–167 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Jin, H.-L. et al. Dual roles for CND1 in maintenance of nuclear and chloroplast genome stability in plants. Cell Rep. 42, 112268 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Han, S.-H., Park, Y.-J. & Park, C.-M. HOS1 activates DNA repair systems to enhance plant thermotolerance. Nat. Plants 6, 1439–1446 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Zhuang, K. et al. WHIRLY1 regulates HSP21.5A expression to promote thermotolerance in tomato. Plant Cell Physiol. 61, 169–177 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Babbar, R., Karpinska, B., Grover, A. & Foyer, C. H. Heat-induced oxidation of the nuclei and cytosol. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 617779 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Velichko, A. K., Petrova, N. V., Kantidze, O. L. & Razin, S. V. Dual effect of heat shock on DNA replication and genome integrity. Mol. Biol. Cell 23, 3450–3460 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Lloyd, A., Morgan, C., Franklin, F. C. H. & Bomblies, K. Plasticity of meiotic recombination rates in response to temperature in Arabidopsis. Genetics 208, 1409–1420 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Ning, Y. et al. Heat stress interferes with formation of double-strand breaks and homolog synapsis. Plant Physiol. 185, 1783–1797 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Lee, J. R. et al. Dynamic interactions of Arabidopsis TEN1: stabilizing telomeres in response to heat stress. Plant Cell 28, 2212–2224 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Belfield, E. J. et al. Thermal stress accelerates Arabidopsis thaliana mutation rate. Genome Res. 31, 40–50 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. E. & Lewis, S. C. Increasing trends in regional heatwaves. Nat. Commun. 11, 3357 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Kobbe, D., Blanck, S., Demand, K., Focke, M. & Puchta, H. AtRECQ2, a RecQ helicase homologue from Arabidopsis thaliana, is able to disrupt various recombinogenic DNA structures in vitro. Plant J. 55, 397–405 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Zhao, J. et al. ATM-mediated double-strand break repair is required for meiotic genome stability at high temperature. Plant J. 114, 403–423 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Zhao, L. et al. Transcriptional regulation of cell cycle genes in response to abiotic stresses correlates with dynamic changes in histone modifications in maize. PLoS ONE 9, e106070 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Fenollosa, E., Jene, L. & Munne-Bosch, S. A rapid and sensitive method to assess seed longevity through accelerated aging in an invasive plant species. Plant Methods 16, 64 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. De Vitis, M. et al. Seed storage: maintaining seed viability and vigor for restoration use. Restor. Ecol. 28, S249–S255 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Waterworth, W. M., Latham, R., Wang, D., Alsharif, M. & West, C. E. Seed DNA damage responses promote germination and growth in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2202172119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Li, Z. et al. ATM suppresses leaf senescence triggered by DNA double-strand break through epigenetic control of senescence-associated genes in Arabidopsis. N. Phytol. 227, 473–484 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Waterworth, W. M., Footitt, S., Bray, C. M., Finch-Savage, W. E. & West, C. E. DNA damage checkpoint kinase ATM regulates germination and maintains genome stability in seeds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 9647–9652 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Müller, J. et al. Iron-dependent callose deposition adjusts root meristem maintenance to phosphate availability. Dev. Cell 33, 216–230 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Zheng, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, X. & Liu, D. Blue light-triggered chemical reactions underlie phosphate deficiency-induced inhibition of root elongation of Arabidopsis seedlings grown in petri dishes. Mol. Plant 12, 1515–1523 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Reyt, G., Boudouf, S., Boucherez, J., Gaymard, F. & Briat, J.-F. Iron- and ferritin-dependent reactive oxygen species distribution: impact on Arabidopsis root system architecture. Mol. Plant 8, 439–453 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Latha, K. S., Anitha, S., Rao, K. S. J. & Viswamitra, M. A. Molecular understanding of aluminum-induced topological changes in CCG12 triplet repeats: relevance to neurological disorders. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 1588, 56–64 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Nezames, C. D., Sjogren, C. A., Barajas, J. F. & Larsen, P. B. The Arabidopsis cell cycle checkpoint regulators TANMEI/ALT2 and ATR mediate the active process of aluminum-dependent root growth inhibition. Plant Cell 24, 608–621 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Zhang, Y. et al. The cell cycle checkpoint regulator ATR is required for internal aluminum toxicity-mediated root growth inhibition in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 118 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Liu, D., Jiang, W., Zhang, L. & Li, L. Effects of boron ions on root growth and cell division of broadbean (Vicia faba L.). Isr. J. Plant Sci. 48, 47–51 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Reid, R. J., Hayes, J. E., Post, A., Stangoulis, J. C. R. & Graham, R. D. A critical analysis of the causes of boron toxicity in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 27, 1405–1414 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Cervilla, L. M., Blasco, B., Ríos, J. J., Romero, L. & Ruiz, J. M. Oxidative stress and antioxidants in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants subjected to boron toxicity. Ann. Bot. 100, 747–756 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Sakamoto, T. et al. Condensin II alleviates DNA damage and is essential for tolerance of boron overload stress in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 23, 3533–3546 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Sakamoto, T. et al. Proteasomal degradation of BRAHMA promotes boron tolerance in Arabidopsis. Nat. Commun. 9, 5285 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Sotta, N. et al. NAC103 mutation alleviates DNA damage in an Arabidopsis thaliana mutant sensitive to excess boron. Front. Plant Sci. 14, 1099816 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Hendrix, S. et al. Suppressor of gamma response 1 modulates the DNA damage response and oxidative stress response in leaves of cadmium-exposed Arabidopsis thaliana. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 366 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Hendrix, S. et al. Cell cycle regulation in different leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana plants grown under control and cadmium-exposed conditions. Environ. Exp. Bot. 155, 441–452 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J., Schmierer, B. & Taipale, J. CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat. Med. 24, 927–930 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Bleys, M. Dubois and J. Heyman for critical reading and editing of the manuscript. This work was supported by grants from the Research Foundation Flanders (projects G011420N and G0A6J24N).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Josephine Herbst, Qian-Qian Li.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium

    Josephine Herbst, Qian-Qian Li & Lieven De Veylder

  2. Center for Plant Systems Biology, VIB, Gent, Belgium

    Josephine Herbst, Qian-Qian Li & Lieven De Veylder

Authors
  1. Josephine Herbst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qian-Qian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lieven De Veylder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.D.V. led the project. J.H., Q.-Q.L. and L.D.V. wrote the manuscript. J.H. and Q.-Q.L. prepared the figures. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lieven De Veylder.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Plants thanks Shunping Yan, Pascal Genschik and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herbst, J., Li, QQ. & De Veylder, L. Mechanistic insights into DNA damage recognition and checkpoint control in plants. Nat. Plants 10, 539–550 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-024-01652-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-024-01652-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing