Physical interactions between specifically regulated subpopulations of the MCM and RNR complexes prevent genetic instability

RESEARCH ARTICLE Physical interactions between specifically regulated subpopulations of the MCM and RNR complexes prevent genetic instability Aurora Ya ´ñez-VilchesID 1 , Antonia M. RomeroID 1 , Marta Barrientos-MorenoID 1 , Esther Cruz 1 , Roma ´n Gonza ´lez-Prieto 1,2 , Sushma SharmaID 3 , Alfred C. O. Vertegaal 2 , Fe ´lix PradoID 1 * 1Centro Andaluz de Biologı ´a Molecular y Medicina Regenerativa–CABIMER, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı ´ficas, Universidad de Sevilla, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, 2Department of Cell and Chemical Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, 3Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, UmeåUniversity, Umeå, Sweden *[email protected] Abstract The helicase MCM and the ribonucleotide reductase RNR are the complexes that provide the substrates (ssDNA templates and dNTPs, respectively) for DNA replication. Here, we demonstrate that MCM interacts physically with RNR and some of its regulators, including the kinase Dun1. These physical interactions encompass small subpopulations of MCM and RNR, are independent of the major subcellular locations of these two complexes, augment in response to DNA damage and, in the case of the Rnr2 and Rnr4 subunits of RNR, depend on Dun1. Partial disruption of the MCM/RNR interactions impairs the release of Rad52 –but not RPA–from the DNA repair centers despite the lesions are repaired, a phenotype that is associated with hypermutagenesis but not with alterations in the levels of dNTPs. These results suggest that a specifically regulated pool of MCM and RNR complexes plays noncanonical roles in genetic stability preventing persistent Rad52 centers and hypermutagenesis. Author summary Cells have to accurately replicate their genomes to avoid loss of genetic information during cell divisions. This is achieved by coordinating the advance of the replication machinery with different mechanisms that prevent and/or repair errors during DNA synthesis. However, different DNA lesions accumulate during DNA replication that are repaired at DNA repair centers by error-free homologous recombination and error-prone translesion synthesis mechanisms. Here, we show that the replicative helicase and the ribonucleotide reductase complexes that provide the substrates (ssDNA templates and dNTPs, respectively) for DNA replication interact with each other in a DNA damage-regulated manner. Furthermore, we observe that these interactions facilitate the dynamics of a key recombination protein (Rad52) at the repair centers and prevent genetic instability by translesion synthesis through mechanisms that are not associated with the canonical functions of the PLOS GENETICS PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 1 / 27 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Ya ´ñez-Vilches A, Romero AM, Barrientos- Moreno M, Cruz E, Gonza ´lez-Prieto R, Sharma S, et al. (2024) Physical interactions between specifically regulated subpopulations of the MCM and RNR complexes prevent genetic instability. PLoS Genet 20(5): e1011148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pgen.1011148 Editor: Dmitry A. Gordenin, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, UNITED STATES Received: January 19, 2024 Accepted: May 8, 2024 Published: May 22, 2024 Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 Copyright: ©2024 Ya ´ñez-Vilches et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Raw data are shown in S9 Fig replicative helicase and the ribonucleotide reductase complexes. We propose that these two essential complexes play non-replicative roles in preventing genetic instability in response to DNA damage by genetically regulated physical interactions. Introduction Complete and accurate genome duplication relies on an exquisite spatio-temporal control of DNA synthesis. An essential and conserved factor during this process is the ring-shaped helicase MCM, which unwinds the DNA molecule to provide the template for deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs) incorporation during DNA synthesis. To ensure that replication occurs just once per cell cycle, MCM is loaded at replication origins in late mitosis and G1 as part of an inactive pre-replicative complex (preRC) and activated during S phase by the coordinated phosphorylation activities of the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) and the Dbf4-dependent kinase (DDK) [1–3]. In addition, CDK prevents re-replication through several overlapping mechanisms including destruction or inhibition of pre-RC components and nuclear exclusion of non-loaded MCM complexes during S and G2/M [4–8]. Another essential factor for DNA replication is the ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) complex, which catalyzes the rate-limiting step in dNTP synthesis by reducing ribonucleotides to deoxyribonucleotides. High levels of dNTPs are also induced in response to DNA damage or replication stress, likely to facilitate repair by promoting the activity of translesion synthesis (TLS) polymerases. In eukaryotic cells RNR is formed by two nonidentical dimeric subunits, which contain the catalytic and allosteric binding sites that control substrate preference and total activity (R1; α 2 ), and a stable diferric tyrosyl radical cofactor essential for RNR activity (R2; β 2 or ββ’) [9–11]. Although the minimal quaternary state of an active RNR is a tetramer (α 2 β 2 or α 2 ββ’), the binding of the allosteric effectors ATP and dATP leads to the formation of different αoligomeric states that can modulate the reductase activity [12]. The budding yeast contains an RNR complex with some unique features. First, the R2 subunit is formed by an heterodimer consisting of Rnr2 and Rnr4, having Rnr4 an structural role [13–15]. Second, in addition to the essential R1 subunit Rnr1, yeast cells express a second non-essential R1 subunit–Rnr3 –in response to DNA damage and non-fermentable carbon sources [16,17]. Allosteric and oligomeric mechanisms are not the only ones that control RNR activity. Eukaryotic cells regulate RNR transcription along the cell cycle and in response to DNA damage [9]. In addition, yeast cells employ small proteins to control the activity and location of RNR components. For instance, in Sacharomyces cerevisiae Sml1 binds to and inhibits R1 [18,19], whereas Dif1 binds to and promotes the nuclear import of R2. Since R1 is constitutively cytoplasmic, R2 nuclear shuttling by Dif1 inhibits dNTPs synthesis [20,21]. Many of these regulatory mechanisms are up-regulated by the checkpoint kinases ATR/ATM-Chk1 in mammals and Mec1-Rad53 in yeast. Specifically, Mec1-Rad53 activates the kinase Dun1 by phosphorylation; then, Dun1 phosphorylates several substrates to promote either their inhibition (the RNR2/3/4 transcriptional repressor Crt1) or their degradation (Sml1 and Dif1) [20,22,23]. This pathway ensures a rapid increase in the dNTP pools in response to DNA damage and replication stress, but also upon entry into S phase, when it is activated by the low dNTP levels [24]. On the contrary, mammalian cells hardly increase the pool of dNTPs in response to DNA damage, recruiting instead the RNR complex at sites of DNA damage to supply dNTPs during DNA repair [25]. Despite multiple mechanisms operating to get an accurate duplication of the genome, different DNA lesions accumulate during DNA replication that need to be repaired as faithfully PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 2 / 27 and S3 Table. The mass spectrometry data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the data set identifier PXD045914. Funding: This work was supported by grants PGC2018-099182-B-100 and PID2021-127486NB- 100, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033 and “ERDF A way of making Europe” (to FP) and ERC 310913, funded by the European Research Council (to ACOV). AY-V, AM. R and SS were recipients of a pre-doctoral (BES- 2016-078388, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033 and “ESF investing in your future”), a post-doctoral fellowship (CIAPOS/2021/117, funded by VALi+d programs from GVA and “ESF investing in your future”), and a post-doctoral fellowship from Wenner-Gren Foundations, respectively. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. as possible to avoid the loss of genetic information. A major mechanism dealing with DNA lesions during replication is homologous recombination (HR), which in contrast to TLS is mostly error-free. An important feature of HR is that occurs at DNA repair centers that can be detected as foci by labelling with fluorescent markers DNA repair and checkpoint factors [26– 28]. Interestingly, some HR proteins like Rad52 plays non-recombinogenic roles in TLS that can be visualized by an accumulation of Rad52 foci in TLS mutants, genetically colocalizing both repair processes at the DNA repair centers [29]. Recent microscopy analyses of DNA repair centers suggest the existence of a liquid droplet around the damaged DNA where most Rad52 diffuses freely by the entire compartment. In contrast, the ssDNA binding complex RPA follows the diffusion pattern of the DNA lesion, suggesting that it is mostly bound to DNA [30,31]. We have recently shown that the MCM complex plays a non-canonical function in response to replicative stress that is mediated by physical interactions with the HR proteins Rad51 and Rad52. These interactions are established in G1 at a nuclease-insoluble nucleoprotein scaffold outside of the replication origins and maintained in the S phase by DDK to assist stressed replication forks through non-recombinogenic functions [32]. To get a deeper insight into the role of MCM in response to replicative DNA damage, we have searched for MCM interactors in the absence and presence of the alkylating agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS). Our results show that a small subpopulation of the MCM and RNR complexes interact with each other in a DNA damage and Dun1-regulated manner, migrating from the nucleus in G1 to the cytoplasm in S phase. These physical interactions 1) facilitate the release of Rad52 – but not RPA–from DNA repair centers once the lesions are repaired and 2) prevent hypermutagenesis and hyperrecombination. Importantly, these functions are not associated with the canonical ones of MCM and RNR in DNA replication and dNTP synthesis. These results uncover novel roles for MCM in the maintenance of genome integrity through physical interactions with RNR components. Results DNA damage and Dun1 regulate physical interactions between the helicase MCM and the RNR complex To obtain a deeper insight into the roles of the MCM complex in DNA damage repair, we searched for interacting partners of Mcm4 under unperturbed conditions and MMS-induced replicative stress. For this, Mcm4-GFP was immunoprecipitated with GFP-trap beads under native conditions from asynchronous cultures treated or not with 0.025% MMS for 2 hours. Next, Mcm4-GFP interacting partners were identified by mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis. Statistical analysis revealed known and novel Mcm4 interactors (Fig 1A). As expected, Mcm4 interacted with multiple components of the replisome regardless of the presence of DNA damage. In response to MMS, as previously shown for hydroxyurea (HU), Mcm4 interacted with Rad53 (Fig 1A) [33]. In addition, we observed MMS-specific interactions of Mcm4 with Dun1 and, with low statistical significance but high fold-increase relative to the untagged control, Rnr3. Indeed, the novel Mcm4 interactors included several factors involved in the expression and regulation of the RNR complex (the Ccr4/Not complex and Crt10) [34,35]. We decided to analyze some of these interactions by co-immunoprecipitation (CoIP) and western blot analyses. In addition to Dun1 and Rnr3, we focused on Ccr4, since it is required for MMS and HU resistance (S1 Fig) [34]. Confirming the mass spectrometry data, the Mcm4/ Ccr4 interaction was detected under unperturbed and replicative stress conditions, whereas the Mcm4/Dun1 interaction was weakly detected under unperturbed conditions and induced by DNA damage (Fig 1B and 1C). Rnr3 expression is induced in response to DNA damage PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 3 / 27 Fig 1. DNA damage and Dun1 regulate physical interactions between the helicase MCM and the RNR complex. (A) Volcano plots depicting statistical differences between Mcm4-GFP and non-tagged Control co-immunoprecipitated proteins in the absence (left) and presence of 0.025% MMS (right) after mass spectrometry-based proteomics analysis. Proteins with an enrichment in the Mcm4-GFP samples higher than 1 (log2) and a p-value lower than 0.05 (t-test) are considered positive hits (red). Each dot represents a protein. Replisome and RNR network factors are labelled in yellow and green, respectively. Data were obtained from four independent biological repeats. (B-E) Analyses by CoIP and western blot of the interaction of Mcm4 with Ccr4 (B), Dun1 (C), Rnr1, Rnr3 (D), Rnr2 and Rnr4 (E) in the presence and absence of DNA damage. (F) Rnr4 is not required for the interaction of Mcm4 with Rnr1 and Rnr2, as determined by CoIP and western blot in rnr4Δand wild-type cells. (G-H) Dun1 is required for Rnr2 and Rnr4, but not Rnr1 to interact with Mcm4 in the absence and presence of MMS, as determined by CoIP and western blot in dun1Δand wild-type cells. (B-H) Co-IPs were performed in asynchronous cultures treated or not with 0.025% MMS for 2 hours. All CoIP analyses were performed at least twice with similar results. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148.g001 PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 4 / 27 [36], and accordingly, the Mcm4/Rnr3 interaction was detected only upon MMS treatment (Fig 1D). These results prompted us to test by CoIP if Mcm4 interacted with the other subunits of the RNR complex, which might be missing from the proteomic analysis by technical reasons. As previously shown for Dun1, Mcm4 interacted weakly with Rnr1, Rnr2 and Rnr4 under unperturbed conditions and these interactions were increased by MMS (Fig 1D and 1E). This increase was also observed in response to HU (S2A Fig), discarding the possibility that the MCM/RNR interactions were induced by the proteotoxic effect of MMS. It is worth noting that the DNA damage-induced expression might explain totally or partially the increase in the interaction with MCM of Rnr1 and Rnr4, respectively, but not of Rnr2 (Figs 1D,1E, and S2A). Furthermore, the MCM/Rnr1 interaction was also observed with an antibody against Mcm7 (S2B Fig), suggesting that it involves the MCM complex. Finally, we tested the interaction between MCM and RNR in the absence of Rnr4, the only non-essential subunit of the constitutive RNR complex. The amount of Rnr1 and, above all, Rnr2, increased in the rnr4Δ background, and proportionally the interaction with Mcm4 (Fig 1F). Dun1 stimulates the synthesis of dNTPs by the RNR complex during DNA replication and DNA damage [37–39]. Thus, we tested if Dun1 was required for the MMS-induced MCM/ RNR interactions. The absence of Dun1 did not affect the Mcm4/Rnr1 interaction, whereas it was required for Mcm4 to interact with Rnr2 and Rnr4 (Rnr3 is not expressed in the absence of Dun1) (Fig 1G and 1H). Altogether, these results uncover a novel set of physical interactions between the MCM and RNR complexes that are modulated by DNA damage and Dun1. The MCM/RNR interactions encompass a small and differentially regulated subpopulation of the MCM and RNR complexes To obtain a deeper insight into the regulation of the MCM/RNR interaction, we explored the effect of perturbing the location of the MCM and R2 pools with two different strategies. The accumulation of the R2 complex in the nucleus requires the importing activity of Dif1 and the nuclear anchoring activity of Wtm1 [20,40]; accordingly, R2 accumulates in the cytoplasm during the whole cell cycle in a dif1Δwtm1Δdouble mutant, as can be determined by counting the percentage of cells that display a predominant accumulation of a Rnr4-Cherry chimera in the nucleus along the cell cycle in the absence and presence of MMS (Fig 2A and 2B, top panel) [20]. Additional expression of Mcm4-GFP allowed us to follow the localization of the MCM complex in dif1Δwtm1Δcells, which did not change as compared to wild-type cells (Fig 2A and 2B, bottom panel). Likewise, we forced the accumulation of the MCM complex in the nucleus by tagging the Mcm4-GFP chimera with a strong nuclear localization signal (Fig 2A and 2C, top panel; Mcm4-GFP-NLS). As control, we used a strain expressing a mutant nuclear localization signal (Mcm4-GFP-nls3A2). This tagged Mcm4 protein exited from the nucleus with a slight delay as compared to the wild-type Mcm4 protein (Fig 2A and 2C, top panel). Constitutive accumulation of the MCM complex in the nucleus in MCM4-GFP-NLS cells did not affect the dynamics of Rnr4-Cherry along the cell cycle (Fig 2A and 2C, bottom panel). These results suggest that the interaction between MCM and R2 encompasses a small subpopulation of each complex. We took advantage of this strategy to address how the location of MCM and RNR affected the MCM/RNR interactions. We observed that retaining MCM into the nucleus in the Mcm4-GFP-NLS strain did not affect the interactions of MCM with all RNR components both in the presence and absence of MMS (Fig 2D), despite Rnr1 and Rnr3 localize at the cytoplasm [21]. Actually, MCM/RNR interactions were also detected in G1-arrested cells that physiologically accumulate MCM in the nucleus (Fig 2E). Furthermore, the interactions of MCM with Rnr2 and Rnr4 were not altered when the Rnr2/Rnr4 heterodimer was forced to remain at the PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 5 / 27 Fig 2. The MCM/RNR interaction is independent of the subcellular location of MCM and RNR. (A-C) The interaction between MCM and Rnr2/Rnr4 encompasses a small fraction of each complex. Mcm4-GFP and Rnr4-Cherry subcellular distribution in dif1Δwtm1Δ(A-B) and Mcm4-GFP-NLS (A, C) cells synchronized in G1 and released into fresh medium in the absence and presence of 0.025% MMS. Mcm4-GFP- nls3A2 and wild-type cells were included as control. Cell cycle progression was followed by cell sorting analysis. The number of cells with a signal intensity in the nucleus higher than in the cytoplasm was counted directly on the processed samples. The mean and SEM of three (error PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 6 / 27 cytoplasm in the dif1Δwtm1Δdouble mutant (Fig 2F), even in G1-arrested dif1Δwtm1Δcells in which MCM and Rnr2/Rnr4 accumulate at different cellular compartments (Fig 2E). Therefore, the integrity of the MCM/RNR interactions is independent of the subcellular location of the major MCM and RNR pools. Altogether, these results suggest that the MCM/RNR interactions encompass a small and differentially regulated subpopulation of the MCM and RNR complexes. Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN interactions accumulate in the nucleus in G1 and migrate to the cytoplasm during S/G2 independently of the MCM and Rnr2/Rnr4 complexes To study the MCM/RNR interactions in live cells, we used bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC). In this assay, potential interacting partners are endogenously tagged with the N-terminal (VN) and C-terminal (VC) domain of the fluorescent protein Venus. Physical interaction between the partners can reconstitute a fluorescent signal that allows to detect the cellular location and quantify the strength of the interaction [41]. Since we could only construct Mcm4-VC, we tagged Dun1, Ccr4 and the subunits of the RNR complex with the VN domain. Only Rnr4-VN generated a fluorescent signal specific of the presence of Mcm4-VC (S3A Fig). We used the BiFC assay to study the location of the Mcm4/Rnr4 interaction during the cell cycle. The Venus signal was followed by fluorescence microscopy in cells synchronized in G1 and released into fresh medium. Cells were grouped according to the bud-to-mother size ratio to compare similar stages of DNA replication with and without DNA damage (S3B Fig). Since the signal was spread homogeneously both in the nucleus and the cytoplasm (S3A Fig), the concentration of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN complex in the nucleus relative to the cytoplasm along the cell cycle was calculated as the ratio between the Venus signal in an area of the nucleus and the Venus signal in an equivalent area of the cytoplasm. The fluorescent signal accumulated in the nucleus in G1, and changed gradually to the cytoplasm as cells progressed into S and G2/M phases under unperturbed conditions (Fig 3A, left panels). This behavior was similar to that previously reported for both the MCM complex and the R2 subunit [6,7,20,21], although with a different kinetics: it migrated faster than Rnr4 and slower than Mcm4 (Fig 3A, compare left with middle and right panels, respectively). When cells were released from G1 into S phase in the presence of MMS, the accumulation of the R2 subunit in the cytoplasm is accelerated to augment the pool of dNTPs required for efficient DNA repair (Fig 3A, middle panels) [21]. In the case of MCM, the kinetics from the nucleus to the cytoplasm was delayed in the presence of MMS (Fig 3A, right panels), which is consistent with the maintenance of MCM at chromatin when cells replicate in the presence of MMS [32]. On the contrary, the kinetics of nucleus-to-cytoplasm transfer of the Mcm4-VC/ Rnr4-VN complex was unaffected by the presence of MMS (Fig 3A, left panels). Therefore, the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN complex and the individual MCM and R2 complexes display different kinetics of mobilization from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, which may reflect different regulation or susceptibility to the same regulatory mechanism. The Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN fluorescence signal was apparently similar in the absence and presence of MMS, in contrast to our biochemical analyses with Mcm4-GFP and Rnr4 (Fig 1E). bars) or two independent experiments are shown, with a total number of approximately 100 cells analyzed at each time and experiment. (D-F) The subcellular location of the MCM and RNR complexes does not affect the MCM/RNR interactions. Analyses by CoIP and western blot of the interaction of Mcm4 with RNR components in Mcm4-GFP-NLS,Mcm4-GFP-nls3A2 (D) and dif1Δwtm1Δ(E-F) cells. Co-IPs were performed in asynchronous (D-F) or G1-arrested (E) cultures treated or not with 0.025% MMS for 2 hours. All CoIP analyses were performed at least twice with similar results. Note that CoIPs with and without MMS in (D) were independent experiments and cannot be compared with each other. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148.g002 PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 7 / 27 Fig 3. Characterization of the intensity and location of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN interaction. (A) The Mcm4-VC/ Rnr4-VN interaction accumulates in the nucleus in G1 and migrates to the cytoplasm in S/G2 independently of the MCM and Rnr2/Rnr4 complexes. BiFC analysis of the location of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN interaction during the cell cycle in cells synchronized in G1 and released into fresh medium in the absence and presence of 0.025% MMS (left panel). Cells were grouped according to the bud-to-mother size ratio to compare similar stages of DNA replication with and without DNA damage. The concentration of Mcm4/Rnr4 complex in the nucleus relative to the cytoplasm along the cell cycle was calculated as the ratio between the Venus signal in an area of the nucleus and the Venus signal in an equivalent area of the cytoplasm. The subcellular location of the Rnr2/Rnr4 (middle panel) and MCM (right panel) complexes in cells synchronized in G1 and released into fresh medium in the absence and presence of 0.025% MMS was followed by the signal of Rnr4-Cherry and Mcm4-GFP, respectively. SuperPlots show the mean and SEM from three independent experiment (represented by color dots). Representative images of cells in G1 and S phase (with and without MMS) are shown for each strain. (B) Physical interactions between Mcm4-VC and Rnr4-VN, as determined by CoIP and western blot in asynchronous cultures treated or nor with 0.025% MMS for 2 hours. Wild-type and Mcm4-VC-expressing cells were included as controls. Asterisks indicate unspecific bands. Rnr4-VN*indicates a slow-migrating Rnr4-VN form. CoIP analyses were performed at twice with similar results. IP samples were run in different gels due to space limitations but treated in parallel, and therefore the signals are comparable. An over-exposition (OE) of the Rnr4/Rnr4-VN IP signals is shown in the bottom panels. (C) The Mcm4-VC/ Rnr4-VN interaction is independent of the subcellular location of the MCM and RNR complexes. The Venus signal (plot) PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 8 / 27 This was confirmed by quantifying the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN fluorescence signal by cell sorting analysis in cells synchronized in G1 and released into fresh medium in the absence and presence of MMS. Actually, the Venus signal hardly changed along the cell cycle, despite the amount of Rnr4 augmented in response to MMS during S phase (S3C Fig). These results suggest that the Mcm4/Rnr4 interaction is either stabilized or blind to MMS in the presence of Mcm4-VC and/or Rnr4-VN. To distinguish between these possibilities, we compared by CoIP and western blot the Mcm4/Rnr4 and Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN interactions with and without MMS using antibodies against Mcm4 and Rnr4 that allow to detect untagged and tagged proteins. This analysis showed two findings: First, most Rnr4-VN migrates with an apparently higher molecular weight (Rnr4-VN*) in the PAGE gel (Fig 3B, input); second, this potentially post-translationally modified Rnr4-VN*chimera has a MMS-independent strong affinity for Mcm4-VC (Fig 3B, IP panels). However, unmodified Rnr4-VN also interacted with Mcm4-VC in a MMS-independent manner despite was hardly detected in the input (Fig 3B, over-exposed Rnr4/Rnr-VN signals in the IP panels), suggesting that the strong interaction with Mcm4 is associated with the Rnr4-VN chimera that for unknown reasons becomes modified. These results prompted us to ask if the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN signal was a reliable readout of the Mcm4/Rnr4 interaction. Since our previous analysis showed that the Mcm4/Rnr4 interaction is independent of the cellular location of the major MCM and RNR pools (Fig 2D–2F), we determined the intensity and location of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN signal in wild-type and dif1Δwtm1Δcells synchronized in G1 and released into S phase. The signal was hardly affected in dif1Δwtm1Δcells (Fig 3C), despite most of the MCM and R2 complexes become spatially separated in G1 in this mutant. Interestingly, the location of the Venus signal was located at the nucleus in both strains (Fig 3C), suggesting that it is determined by the MCM location. Therefore, although artefactually augmented, the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN signal provides an in vivo evidence for the nucleus-to-cytoplasm migration of the MCM/R2 complex. In addition, it further supports an independent regulation of the MCM/RNR interactions from the individual MCM and RNR pools. The MCM/RNR interactions are partially disrupted by the Mcm4-VC chimera The analysis of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN interaction by CoIP and western blot revealed a partial loss of interaction in cells expressing only Mcm4-VC (Figs 3B and S2B). We extended this biochemical analysis to the rest of RNR subunits in the presence of MMS (Fig 4). This analysis showed that Mcm4-VC was partially defective in interacting with all RNR components (Fig 4). In addition, it revealed that the Rnr4-VN forms bind strongly not only to Mcm4-VC but also to Mcm4, and stimulates to a similar extent the interaction of Rnr2 with Mcm4 and Mcm4-VC. Thus, the massive recruitment of Rnr4-VN by Mcm4-VC can be partially but not completely explained by a stabilization of the interaction through the VC and VN domains. Rnr4-VN also reduced the interaction of Mcm4 with Rnr1 and Rnr3, may be due to the binding of multiple Rnr2/Rnr4-VN heterodimers. These results open the possibility of using the MCM4-VC strain to study the effect of partially disrupting the MCM/R2 interactions. Importantly, to confirm that a defect induced by Mcm4-VC is due to a loss of interactions with RNR and the subcellular location (images) of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN interaction were determined in dif1Δwtm1Δand wild-type cells synchronized in G1 and released into fresh medium for 60 minutes (S phase). The mean and SEM of three independent experiments are shown. (A, C) Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences according to an unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (one, two and three asterisks represent P-values <0.05, <0.01 and <0.001, respectively). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148.g003 PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 9 / 27 encompass a small and differentially regulated subpopulation of MCM and RNR complexes. Using a MCM4-VC allele that partially disrupts the MCM/RNR interactions, we genetically demonstrate that these interactions facilitate the release of Rad52 from DNA repair centers once the lesions are repaired and prevent hypermutagenesis through mechanisms that are not associated with alterations in the levels of dNTPs (Fig 6G). By mass spectrometry and western blot analyses from Mcm4-GFP immunoprecipitated samples we have uncovered a network of physical interactions of the MCM complex with the RNR complex and several of its regulators. They include Ccr4/Not, Crt10, and importantly, the checkpoint kinases Rad53 and Dun1, which are master regulators of RNR controlling its expression, location and activity [20,22,23,47]. Except for the Ccr4/Not complex, the rest of interactors augmented their interactions with MCM in response to DNA damage and, in the case of R2, this increase depended on Dun1. Therefore, MCM seems to act as a hub to recruit (directly or mediated by bridging proteins) RNR components and regulators that is reinforced by DNA damage. We cannot, though, discard the possibility that the interactions take place between some subcomplexes or non-canonical forms of the MCM and RNR complexes. Importantly, these MCM/RNR interactions encompass a small and differentially regulated fraction of MCM and RNR complexes, as evidenced by the fact that their integrity and location is not affected by forcing the location of the major pools of MCM and RNR at different subcellular compartments. A simple explanation for the functionality of these interactions would be that they modulated the RNR activity in response to DNA damage, and actually the MCM4-VC mutant displays a slight increase in the pool of dNTPs that seems to be associated with a partial loss of the MCM/R2 interactions. However, this increase was not observed in response to 0.05% MMS, which causes more DNA damage and checkpoint activation than the expression of the Mcm4-VC protein. Therefore, at this point, we cannot conclude that the MCM/RNR interactions have a role in controlling the levels of dNTPs. DNA repair occurs at membrane-less compartments that accumulate DNA repair and checkpoint proteins [28]. Because these centers are formed in response to DNA damage and are disassembled once the lesions are repaired, they have been routinely used to measure the kinetics and efficiency of DNA repair. Unexpectedly, we show that the recombination protein Rad52 persists at the DNA repair centers in cells displaying a partial disruption of the MCM/ R2 interactions, despite the lesions that triggered the formation of the foci were efficiently repaired. This behaviour is not general, as the ssDNA binding factor RPA was efficiently released under similar experimental conditions. A major difference between Rad52 and RPA in yeast is that the motion of Rad52 at the foci follows a liquid-phase model where the protein explores the entire droplet, whereas RPA follows the diffusion pattern of the damaged chromatin consistent with most RPA bound to ssDNA [30,31]. Remarkably, Rad52 molecules are retained at the foci by an attractive potential, suggesting that DNA is dispensable to maintain the phase separation once a critical concentration is reached [31]. Supporting this model, Rad52 is retained at the foci in the MCM4-VC mutant despite the DNA lesions are repaired and there is not ssDNA to bind. These results suggest that the MCM/R2 interactions might be required to maintain the attractive potential that retains Rad52 at the droplet. At this point we do not have any clue about how this is achieved, except that is not mediated by alterations in the pool of dNTPs. Some examples have been reported in which RNR components impact cellular functions independently of dNTPs, like a non-yet defined mitochondrial function of Rnr3 in yeast or a nuclear non-proliferative activity of an hexameric state of RNR-αinteracting to and inhibiting the translocase ZRANB3 in mammal [17,48]. The MCM/R2 interactions are unlikely regulating Rad52 persistence through direct interactions, because the Rad52 foci are nuclear structures that appear only during the S/G2/M phases [26] in which the MCM/R2 interactions PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 16 / 27 accumulate in the cytoplasm. Actually, this cytoplasmic location rules out the possibility that the MCM/RNR interactions were related to the ones occurring at the nuclease-insoluble nucleoprotein scaffold where MCM interacts with Rad51 and Rad52 [32]. Alternatively, the MCM/ RNR interactions might trigger a signaling cascade to regulate Rad52 dynamics at foci, or might affect Rad52 persistence more indirectly. MCM is required for the maintenance of stress granules, which also contain RNR components [49]. MCM/RNR interactions in these or similar membrane-less organelles might regulate the availability of mRNAs and/or proteins required for controlling the integrity of DNA repair centers. Further studies will be required to unveil the regulation and mechanisms of action of the MCM/RNR interactions in genome integrity. Rad52 persistence at foci in the MCM4-VC mutant is associated with genetic instability, despite HR and TLS are proficient. First, it causes Rev1-mediated hypermutagenesis. Apart from its major role in HR, Rad52 cooperates with the TLS machinery through non-recombi- nogenic functions, including the recruitment to damaged chromatin of the Rad6/Rad18 complex to promote PCNA ubiquitylation and further binding of TLS polymerases [29]. In this context, excessive Rad52 might lead to an unscheduled accumulation of TLS polymerases. However, the frequency of HR should be reduced if the filling of the ssDNA fragments is channeled to TLS. Alternatively, excessive Rad52 at the DNA repair centers might promote Rev1-mediated mutagenic HR. In vitro D-loop extension by the replicative polymerase Pol δis highly stimulated by the replication processivity factor PCNA. However, TLS polymerases extend the D-loop more efficiently than Pol δin the absence of the processivity factor, a situation stimulated by Rad51 inhibition of PCNA loading [50]. Since Rad52 promotes the formation of the Rad51/ssDNA nucleofilament [51,52], excessive Rad52 at the DNA repair centers might hamper PCNA loading and facilitate mutagenic recombination. In apparent contrast with this possibility, MMS-induced HR in the MCM4-VC mutant is independent of Rev1 (S8 Fig). However, it is likely that in this background Pol δgets back its function. Unfortunately, we cannot determine the dependency on HR of the hypermutagenic phenotype of the MCM4-VC mutant because the absence of HR causes a strong increase in Rev1-mediated mutagenesis [29,53,54]. In addition to hypermutagenesis, the choice of the template used to repair the lesion by HR seems to be slightly affected (Fig 5E), which might explain the HU- induced increase in uSCE in the MCM4-VC mutant (Fig 6D). Altogether, these results suggest that excessive Rad52 at the DNA repair centers alters the output of the repair processes leading to genetic instability, may be by altering the correct binding of DNA repair proteins at DNA lesions. Alternatively, Rad52 accumulation at DNA repair centers might affect its function at other compartments, like its interactions with MCM at the nucleoprotein scaffold. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the defect in Rad52 release from the repair centers and the increase in genetic instability were independent of each other. In summary, our work reveals a network of physical interactions between specifically regulated subpopulations of the MCM and RNR complexes with non-canonical roles in the maintenance of genome integrity. Considering the conservation of these complexes, it will be worth to address in future studies if these interactions are conserved and what impact they have in the genome integrity of higher eukaryotes. Source data Raw data are shown in S9 Fig and S3 Table. The mass spectrometry data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium [55] via the PRIDE partner repository with the data set identifier PXD045914. PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 17 / 27 Materials and methods Yeast strains, plasmids and growth conditions All Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains used are haploid derived from W303. Yeast strains used in this study are listed in S1 Table. Most strains were generated by genetic crosses. Tagged and deletion strains were constructed by a PCR-based strategy [56]. The original uSCE strains [57,58] were backcrossed at least four times into the W303 background. pWJ1344 is a centromeric plasmid expressing RAD52-YFP [59]. pGAL-HO is a multicopy plasmid expressing the endonuclease HO from the GAL1 promoter [60]. p314RNR4 and p316MCM4 are centromeric plasmids expressing RNR4 and MCM4 from their own promoters, respectively (this study). pFA6A-3HA- HIS3MX6 [56], pKT209 [61], pFA6Am- Cherry-NatMX6 [62], pFA6A-VC- HIS3, pFA6A-VN- KanMX6 [41], pFA6AKanMX6- NLSsv40 and pFA6AKanMX6-svnls32 (this study) are plasmids for protein tagging with HA, eGFP, mCherry, the C- and N-terminal halves of Venus, the nuclear localization signal of SV40 (NLSsv40) and a non-functional NLSsv40 [6], respectively. pFA6AKanMX4 [63], pAG32 [64] are plasmids for gene disruption with kanamycin and hygromycin, respectively. p314RNR4 and p316MCM4 were constructed by inserting a 1.8 kb (RNR4) or a 3.6 kb (MCM4) PCR fragment at the ClaI-BamHI site or the HindIII-XhoI site of pRS314 and pRS316, respectively [65]. pFA6AKanMX6-NLSsv40 and pFA6AKanMX6-svnls32 were constructed by inserting the nls sequences generated as gBlocks DNA fragments (IDT) (see S2 Table for sequences) at the NdeI-BamHI site of pFA6AKanMX6. Oligonucleotide sequences are shown in S2 Table. Cells were grown at 30˚C in supplemented minimal medium (SMM) with glucose, galactose or raffinose as carbon source, except in Figs 2A–2C,3A,3C and S3 where cells were grown in rich medium (YPAD). The mediums were supplemented with adenine (x3) to reduce cell autofluorescence in fluorescence microscopy experiments. For G1 synchronization, cells were grown to mid-log phase and α-factor was added twice at 60 min intervals at either 2 (BAR1 strains) or 0.25 μg/ml (bar1Δstrains). Then, cells were washed three times and released into fresh medium with 50 μg/ml pronase in the absence or presence of HU or MMS at the indicated concentrations. The drug was eliminated by washing cells three times before being released into fresh medium, and in the case of MMS, cells were treated with 2.5% sodium thiosulfate for 2–3 minutes to inactivate it before washing. Petite formation analysis Strains were first streaked on YPGlycerol (3%) plates to start with wild-type cells and then on YPAD plates to allow the accumulation of petite cells. The frequency of petites was determined by fluctuation tests from six independent colonies of similar size. They were plated with the appropriate dilutions onto YPAD (total cells) and then replicated to YPGlycerol. The frequency of petites was calculated using the median of the six colonies. To have a more accurate value, the mean and SEM of 3 independent fluctuation tests are given. Cell cycle analysis Cell cycle was followed by DNA content analysis, which was performed by flow cytometry as reported previously [66]. Cells were fixed with 70% ethanol, washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), incubated with 1 mg of RNaseA/ ml PBS, and stained with 5 μg/ml propidium iodide. Samples were sonicated to separate single cells and analyzed in a FACSCalibur flow cytometer. PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 18 / 27 DNA damage sensitivity MMS and HU sensitivities were determined by spotting ten-fold serial dilutions of the same number of mid-log growing cells onto medium with or without the drug. Genetic recombination and mutagenesis analyses HR was determined by measuring the frequency of His+ recombinants generated by uSCE in chromosomal-integrated systems [57], whereas mutagenesis was determined by measuring the frequency of forward mutagenesis at the CAN1 locus (selected as canavanine-resistant cells). Recombination and mutagenesis frequencies were determined by fluctuation tests as previously reported [29]. Cells from six independent colonies of similar size and isolated on medium with either +/- MMS/HU were plated with the appropriate dilutions onto SMM without histidine, SMM without arginine but containing 60 μg/ml canavanine and SMM to calculate recombinants, mutants and total viable cells (as colony-forming units), respectively. For each test, the frequency of HR and mutation was calculated using the median of recombinants/mutants and the mean of total cells. To have a more accurate value, the mean and SEM of at least 3 independent fluctuation tests are given. DSB repair analysis The kinetics of HO-induced DSB repair at the MAT locus was followed by southern blot. Briefly, total DNA from 10 ml samples was extracted using a zymolyase-SDS standard protocol, digested with StyI and run into 0.8% TAE 1x agarose gels. Gels were blotted onto Hybond- XL membranes and hybridized with specific 32 P-labeled probes for the MAT locus and the ACT1 gene amplified by PCR from genomic DNA (see S2 Table for oligonucleotides). Signals were acquired in a Fuji FLA5100 and quantified with the ImageGauge analysis program. DNA repair foci analysis The percentage of cells with RPA, Rad52 and Rad54 foci was determined as described previously [29]. Cells expressing Rfa1-YFP or transformed with plasmid pWJ1344 (expressing Rad52-YFP) were grown in liquid culture under the indicated conditions, fixed with 2.5% formaldehyde in 0.1M potassium phosphate pH 6.4 for 10 minutes, washed twice with 0.1M potassium phosphate pH 6.6 and resuspended in 0.1M potassium phosphate pH 7.4. Finally, cells were fixed with 80% ethanol for 10 minutes, resuspended in H 2 O and visualized with a Leica CTR6000 fluorescence microscope. The percentage of cells with foci was counted directly on the processed samples under the microscope. A total number of approximately 100 cells were analyzed for each time point and experiment. Mcm4-GFP, Rnr4-Cherry and the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN analysis The subcellular location and quantification of Mcm4-GFP, Rnr4-Cherry and the Mcm4-VC/ Rnr4-VN interaction was determined by fluorescence microscopy. DAPI-stained cells were fixed as indicated for the DNA repair foci analysis and visualized with a Leica CTR6000 fluorescence microscope. The florescent signal at the selected areas was quantified on acquired images using the ImageJ software. The total fluorescent signal of cells expressing Mcm4-GFP, Rnr4-Cherry and Mcm4-VC plus Rnr4-VN was quantified by flow cytometry. For this, cells were fixed with 2.5% formaldehyde in PBS for 10 minutes, washed (twice) and resuspended in PBS, and analyzed in a FACSCalibur flow cytometer. PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 19 / 27 dNTPs analysis Cells from mid-log phase cultures (O.D. ~0.5) treated or not with 0.05% MMS were harvested on nitrocellulose filters (Millipore, AAWP02500), resuspended immediately in an ice-cold lysis solution (12%TCA, 15mM MgCl 2 ), mix in a vortex for 15 min at 4˚C and then centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 1 min at 4˚C. The supernatant was neutralized with a dichloromethane-trioctylamine mix and analyzed as described previously [67]. Coimmunoprecipitation analysis CoIP was performed with 100 ml samples from mid-log phase cultures (O.D. ~0.45) lysed with a Multi Beads Shocker (Yasui Kikai) at 4˚C in 0.5 ml NP40 lysis buffer (50mM Tris pH 7.5, 150mM NaCl, 1% NP40) with protease inhibitors (1mM PMSF, 2mM DTT and Roche Complete EDTA free) and 1 volume of glass beads. Lysates were cleared by two consecutive centrifugation steps for 5 min at 1000g at 4˚C and mixed with MNaseI (15mM Tris, 50mM NaCl, 1.4mM CaCl 2 , 0.2mM EDTA, 0.2mM EGTA pH 8.0) or benzonase buffer (50mM Tris pH 8.0, 1mM MgCl 2 ) and either 2.5 u MNaseI or 25 u benzonase and incubated for 20 min at 37˚C. Samples were centrifuged for 15 min at 13000 g at 4˚C and the total amount of protein at the supernatant was quantified by a Bradford assay. Similar amount of proteins (~12–16 mg) were used for CoIPs. For GFP-based CoIPs, samples were incubated overnight at 4˚C with 20 μl of GFP trap magnetic beads (Chromotek) in NP40 lysis buffer, and washed extensively (5 times) with NP40 lysis buffer. For Mcm4 and Mcm7 CoIPs, samples were first pre-cleared during 2h at 4˚C with 20 μl protein G dynabeads (10004D, Invitrogen). Then, samples were incubated first with 3 μg/ml of antibody at 4˚C overnight, then with 20 μl protein G dynabeads 2h at 4˚C, and finally washed extensively with NP40 lysis buffer. Immunoprecipitated samples were eluted with Laemmli buffer and analyzed by western blot with the corresponding antibodies. Mass spectrometry Mcm4-GFP immunoprecipitated samples (see coimmunoprecipitation analysis) were additionally washed five times with 50mM Tris pH 7.5, 150mM NaCl and three times with ammonium bicarbonate 50 mM, and then treated with 250ng trypsine (Promega) overnight at 30˚C. The supernatant was separated from the beads by centrifugation through 0.45μM filters (Millipore, UFC30HV00), and transferred to Epperdorf LoBind 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes. Then, samples were acidified with 2% Trifluoroacetic acid (Sigma) and desalted with C-18 stage tips as previously described [68]. Mass spectrometry data acquisition The resulting peptides were analysed by nanoscale LC-MS/MS using an EASY-nLC 1000 system (Proxeon, Odense, Denmark) connected to a Q-Exactive Orbitrap (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) through a nano-electrospray ion source. The Q-Exactive was coupled to a 15 cm analytical column with an inner-diameter of 75 μm, in-house packed with 1.9 μm C18-AQ beads (Reprospher-DE, Pur, Dr. Manish, Ammerbuch-Entringen, Germany). The liquid chromatography gradients was from 2% to 30% acetonitrile in 0.1% formic acid with a length of 95 min followed by column re-equilibration at a flow rate of 200 nL/min. The mass spectrometer was operated in a Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA) mode with a Top-7 method and a scan range of 400–2000 m/z. Full-scan MS spectra were acquired at a target value of 3 ×10 6 and a resolution of 70,000, and the Higher-Collisional Dissociation (HCD) tandem mass spectra (MS/MS) were recorded at a target value of 1 ×10 5 and with a resolution of 35,000, and isolation window of 2.2 m/z, and a normalized collision energy (NCE) of 25%. The minimum AGC PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 20 / 27 target was 1x10 3 . The maximum MS1 and MS2 injection times were 20 and 120 ms, respectively. The precursor ion masses of scanned ions were dynamically excluded (DE) from MS/ MS analysis for 60 s. Ions with charge 1, and >6, were excluded from triggering MS2 analysis. Mass spectromertry data analysis Mass spectrometry Raw data were analysed using MaxQuant Software version 1.5.3.30 using default settings from [69] with the following modifications. We performed the search against an in silico digested UniProt reference proteome for Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288c (24 th March 2017) including canonical and isoform sequences. Digestion with Trypsin/P was used allowing 4 missed cleavages. Oxidation (M), Acetyl (Protein N-term) and Phospho (STY) were allowed as variable modifications with a maximum number of 5. Carbamidomethyl (C) was disabled as a fixed modification. Label-Free Quantification was enabled, not allowing Fast LFQ. Match between runs was performed with 0.7 min match time window and 20 min alignment time window. All peptides were used for protein quantification. All tables were written. Maxquant out was subsequently analyzed with the Perseus computational platform (v 1.5.5.3) [70]. LFQ intensity values were log2 transformed and potential contaminants and proteins identified by site only or reverse peptide were removed. Samples were grouped in experimental categories and proteins not identified in 4 out of 4 replicates in at least one group were also removed. Missing values were imputed using normally distributed values with a 1.8 downshift (log2) and a randomized 0.3 width (log2) considering whole matrix values. Statistical comparisons between groups were performed using two-tailed t-tests. Western blot Protein samples were resolved by 10% (CoIP analyses) or 8% (Rad53 phosphorylation and Rnr3 quantification) SDS-PAGE, probed with antibodies against GFP (632381, Clontech), Mcm4 (sc-166036, Santa Cruz), Mcm7 (sc-6688, Santa Cruz), Rnr1, Rnr2, Rnr3, Rnr4 (Nguyen 1999), Pgk1 (22C5D8, Invitrogen), Rad53 (Abcam, ab104232) or Sml1 [47], and detected with fluorophore conjugate secondary (Rnr3 quantification) or peroxidase-conjugate antibodies (rest). Yeast protein extracts to analyse Rad53 phosphorylation and Rnr3 levels were prepared using the TCA protocol as described [71]. The immunoluminescent signal was generated with either the WesternBright ECL (Advansta) or the Clarity Western ECL Substrate (BioRad) kit, acquired in a ChemiDoc MP image system and quantified with the Image Lab software (Biorad). The fluorescent signal was visualized and quantified using the Odyssey infrared Imaging System (Licor). Supporting information S1 Fig. Ccr4 and Rnr4 help to tolerate MMS and HU sensitivity. The absence of Ccr4 and Rnr4 causes MMS and HU sensitivity as determined by ten-fold serial dilutions at the indicated concentrations. The experiment was repeated twice with similar results. (TIFF) S2 Fig. Characterization of the MCM/RNR interactions. (A) HU promotes MCM/RNR interactions, as determined by CoIP and western blot in asynchronous cultures treated with 0.2M HU for 2 hours. Untreated and treated cells with 0.025% MMS for 2 hours were included as control. (B) Mcm7 interacts with Rnr1, as determined by CoIP and western blot in asynchronous cultures of wild-type cells. This interaction is lost in the MCM-VC mutant. Asterisks represent unspecific bands. (TIFF) PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 21 / 27 S3 Fig. Subcellular location and intensity of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN interaction. (A-C) BiFC analysis of the subcellular location and intensity of the Mcm4VC/Rnr4-VN interaction during the cell cycle in cells synchronized in G1 and released into fresh medium in the absence and presence of 0.025% MMS. (A) Representative images of dividing cells expressing Mcm4-VC and/or Rnr4-VN. (B) Intensity of the Mcm4VC/Rnr4-VN fluorescence signal in the nucleus and cytoplasm of cells grouped according to the bud-to-mother size ratio to compare similar stages of DNA replication with and without DNA damage. The Venus signal was calculated in equivalent areas of the nucleus and the cytoplasm. The SuperPlot shows the mean and SEM from three independent experiment (represented by color dots). (C) Intensity of the Mcm4-VC/Rnr4-VN fluorescence signal as determined by cell sorting analysis. Cells were grouped in G1, early and late S phase (eS and lS) and G2/M according to the presence and size of the bud. The amount of the MCM and Rnr2/Rnr4 complexes was followed by quantifying the GFP signal in cells expressing Mcm4-GFP and Rnr4-GFP under the same experimental conditions. The mean and SEM of 4–7 fluctuations tests are shown. (TIFF) S4 Fig. Supplementary information related to Fig 4. (A) The expression of Mcm4-VC or Rnr4-VN causes HU and MMS sensitivity as determined by ten-fold serial dilutions at the indicated concentrations (top panels). The MCM4-VC allele is recessive for HU and MMS sensitivity, as determined in cells transformed with a centromeric plasmid expressing Mcm4 from its own promoter (p316MCM4) or an empty vector (pRS316) (bottom panels). The experiments were repeated twice with similar results. (B) Levels of dNTPs in RNR4-VN and wildtype cells transformed or not with plasmid p314RNR4. The mean and SEM of four independent experiments are shown. (C-D) Frequency of petite formation in the indicated strains. The mean and SEM of 3 fluctuations tests are shown. (E) The HU sensitivity of the RNR4-VN mutant can be complemented with a Rnr4 expressing plasmid as determined by ten-fold serial dilutions at the indicated concentrations. The experiments were repeated twice with similar results. (F-G) Analysis of the MCM/RNR interactions in cells expressing Mcm4-VC and/or Rnr4-VN transformed with plasmid p314RNR4. Effect of tagging Mcm4 and Rnr4 with VC and VN, respectively, on the physical interactions between the MCM and RNR complexes in cells transformed with plasmid p314RNR4, as determined by CoIP and western blot in asynchronous cultures treated (F) or not (G) with 0.025% MMS for 2 hours. Asterisks indicate unspecific bands. Rnr4-VN*indicates a slow-migrating Rnr4-VN form. An over-exposition (OE) of the Rnr4 IP signals is shown in the bottom panel. CoIP analyses were performed twice with similar results. (TIFF) S5 Fig. The Mcm4-VC chimera leads to DNA damage accumulation. (A-B) Rad53 phosphorylation (A) and Sml1 levels (B) at asynchronous cultures of the indicated strains transformed with plasmid p314RNR4 in the absence of genotoxic agents. A wild-type culture incubated with 0.025% MMS for 1 hour was included as positive control. (C) Spontaneous accumulation of Rad52 foci at asynchronous cultures of the indicated strains transformed with plasmid p314RNR4. (D) Cell cycle progression of MCM-VC and wild-type strains synchronized in G1 and released into S phase, as determined by cell sorting analysis. (E) The MCM4-VC allele is recessive for the accumulation of spontaneous and HO-induced Rad52 foci, as determined in cells transformed with a centromeric plasmid expressing Mcm4 from its own promoter (p316MCM4) or an empty vector (pRS316). The kinetics of HO-induced Rad52 foci formation and resolution was performed as indicated in Fig 5B. (C, E) The mean and SEM of three independent experiments are shown. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences according to an unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (three asterisks represent PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 22 / 27 aP-values <0.001). (TIFF) S6 Fig. Characterization of checkpoint and mutagenesis in MCM4-VC cells. (A) Checkpoint activation is proficient in MCM4-VC mutants. Checkpoint activation in MCM4-VC and RNR4-VN mutants, as determined by western blot against Rad53 in asynchronous cultures treated with 0.2M HU for 60 minutes. Cell cycle progression was determined by cell sorting analysis. The P-Rad53/Rad53 ratio was determined by dividing the upper bands signal (Rad53-P) by the lower band signal (Rad53). Experiments were performed with cells transformed with plasmid p314RNR4. (B) The MCM4-VC allele is recessive for hypermutagenesis, as determined in MCM4-VC and wild-type cells transformed with a centromeric plasmid expressing Mcm4 from its own promoter (p316MCM4) or an empty vector (pRS316). The frequency of mutagenesis was determined from colonies grown with 0.0075% MMS or 50mM HU. The mean and SEM of three independent experiments are shown. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences according to an unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (three asterisks represent a P-values <0.001). (TIFF) S7 Fig. dNTP levels in MCM4-VC and RNR4-VN mutants. (A) Levels of dNTPs in MCM4-VC and RNR4-VN mutants in the absence and presence of 0.05% MMS, as determined in mid-log phase asynchronous cultures of the indicated strains transformed with plasmid p314RNR4. The mean and SEM of four independent experiments are shown. Asterisks (relative to the wild type) and dots (between the indicated values) show statistically significant differences according to an unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (one, two and three asterisks represent P-values <0.05, <0.01 and <0.001, respectively). (B) The amount of Rnr3 is increased in MCM4-VC cells, as determined by western blot analysis from asynchronous cultures of MCM4-VC and wild-type cells. The amount of Rnr3 was normalized to the amount of Pgk1. The mean and SEM of three independent experiments are shown. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences according to an unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (two asterisks represent a P-values <0.01). (TIFF) S8 Fig. MMS-induced uSCE in the MCM4-VC mutant is independent of Rev1. The frequency of HR was determined from colonies grown in the presence of 0.0075% MMS. The mean and SEM of 4 fluctuations tests are shown. (TIFF) S9 Fig. Raw data for Figure panels. Original blots for the indicated figure panels are shown. (PDF) S1 Table. Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains used in this study. Strains, genotypes, references and Figures panels where they have been used are indicated. (DOCX) S2 Table. Oligonucleotydes used in this study. DNA sequences and Figures panels where they have been used are indicated. (DOCX) S3 Table. Raw data for Figure plots. Raw values to build graphs in the indicated Figure panels are shown. (XLSX) PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 23 / 27 Acknowledgments We thank JoAnne Sttube and Michael Lisby for various strains and reagents, Cristina Gonza ´lez Garrido for the construction of p316MCM4 and Andrei Chabes and Andre ´s Clemente Blanco for critical reading of the manuscript. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Fe ´lix Prado. Data curation: Aurora Ya ´ñez-Vilches, Antonia M. Romero, Marta Barrientos-Moreno, Roma ´n Gonza ´lez-Prieto, Sushma Sharma. Formal analysis: Aurora Ya ´ñez-Vilches, Antonia M. Romero, Marta Barrientos-Moreno, Roma ´n Gonza ´lez-Prieto, Sushma Sharma. Funding acquisition: Alfred C. O. Vertegaal, Fe ´lix Prado. Investigation: Aurora Ya ´ñez-Vilches, Antonia M. Romero, Marta Barrientos-Moreno, Esther Cruz, Roma ´n Gonza ´lez-Prieto, Sushma Sharma. Project administration: Alfred C. O. Vertegaal, Fe ´lix Prado. Resources: Aurora Ya ´ñez-Vilches, Antonia M. Romero, Marta Barrientos-Moreno. Supervision: Fe ´lix Prado. Validation: Aurora Ya ´ñez-Vilches, Antonia M. Romero, Marta Barrientos-Moreno, Esther Cruz, Roma ´n Gonza ´lez-Prieto, Sushma Sharma, Alfred C. O. Vertegaal, Fe ´lix Prado. Visualization: Aurora Ya ´ñez-Vilches, Fe ´lix Prado. Writing – original draft: Fe ´lix Prado. Writing – review & editing: Aurora Ya ´ñez-Vilches, Alfred C. O. Vertegaal, Fe ´lix Prado. References 1. Deegan TD, Diffley JFX. MCM: one ring to rule them all. Curr Op Struct Biol. 2016; 37: 145–151. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2016.01.014 PMID: 26866665 2. Labib K. How do Cdc7 and cyclin-dependent kinases trigger the initiation of chromosome replication in eukaryotic cells? Genes Dev. 2010; 24: 1208–1219. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1933010 PMID: 20551170 3. Li H, O’Donnell ME. The Eukaryotic CMG Helicase at the Replication Fork: Emerging Architecture Reveals an Unexpected Mechanism. BioEssays. 2018; 40: 1700208–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies. 201700208 PMID: 29405332 4. Nguyen VQ, Co C, Li JJ. Cyclin-dependent kinases prevent DNA re-replication through multiple mechanisms. Nature. 2001; 411: 1068–1073. https://doi.org/10.1038/35082600 PMID: 11429609 5. Mimura S, Seki T, Tanaka S, Diffley JFX. Phosphorylation-dependent binding of mitotic cyclins to Cdc6 contributes to DNA replication control. Nature. 2004; 431: 1118–1123. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature03024 PMID: 15496876 6. Nguyen VQ, Co C, Irie K, Li JJ. Clb/Cdc28 kinases promote nuclear export of the replication initiator proteins Mcm2-7. Curr Biol. 2000; 10: 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00337-7 PMID: 10704410 7. Labib K, Diffley JF, Kearsey SE. G1-phase and B-type cyclins exclude the DNA-replication factor Mcm4 from the nucleus. Nature Cell Biol. 1999; 1: 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/15649 PMID: 10559985 8. Wilmes GM, Archambault V, Austin RJ, Jacobson MD, Bell SP, Cross FR. Interaction of the S-phase cyclin Clb5 with an “RXL” docking sequence in the initiator protein Orc6 provides an origin-localized replication control switch. Genes Dev. 2004; 18: 981–991. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1202304 PMID: 15105375 PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 24 / 27 9. Nordlund P, Reichard P. Ribonucleotide Reductases. Annu Rev Biochem. 2006; 75: 681–706. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.75.103004.142443 PMID: 16756507 10. Guarino E, Salguero I, Kearsey SE. Cellular regulation of ribonucleotide reductase in eukaryotes. Seminars Cell Develop Biol. 2014; 30: 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.03.030 PMID: 24704278 11. Aye Y, Li M, Long MJC, Weiss RS. Ribonucleotide reductase and cancer: biological mechanisms and targeted therapies. Oncogene. 2019; 34: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2014.155 PMID: 24909171 12. Hofer A, Crona M, Logan DT, Sjo ¨berg B-M. DNA building blocks: keeping control of manufacture. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2012; 47: 50–63. https://doi.org/10.3109/10409238.2011.630372 PMID: 22050358 13. Huang M, Elledge SJ. Identification of RNR4, encoding a second essential small subunit of ribonucleotide reductase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol. 1997; 17: 6105–6113. 14. Wang PJ, Chabes A, Casagrande R, Tian XC, Thelander L, Huffaker TC. Rnr4p, a Novel Ribonucleotide Reductase Small-Subunit Protein. Mol Cell Biol. 1997; 17: 6114–6121. https://doi.org/10.1128/ MCB.17.10.6114 PMID: 9315671 15. Elledge SJ, Davis RW. Identification and Isolation of the Gene Encoding the Small Subunit of Ribonucleotide Reductase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae: DNA Damage-Inducible Gene Required for Mitotic Viability. Mol Cell Biol. 1987; 7: 2783–2793. https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.7.8.2783–2793.1987 PMID: 3313004 16. Domkin V, Thelander L, Chabes A. Yeast DNA damage-inducible Rnr3 has a very low catalytic activity strongly stimulated after the formation of a cross-talking Rnr1/Rnr3 complex. J Biol Chem. 2002; 277: 18574–18578. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M201553200 PMID: 11893751 17. Corcoles-Saez I, Ferat J-L, Costanzo M, Boone CM, Cha RS. Functional link between mitochondria and Rnr3, the minor catalytic subunit of yeast ribonucleotide reductase. Microbial Cell. 2019; 6: 286– 294. https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2019.06.680 PMID: 31172013 18. Zhao X, Muller EGD, Rothstein R. A Suppressor of Two Essential Checkpoint Genes Identifies a Novel Protein that Negatively Affects dNTP Pools. Mol Cell. 1998; 2: 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1097- 2765(00)80277-4 PMID: 9774971 19. Chabes A, Domkin V, Thelander L. Yeast Sml1, a Protein Inhibitor of Ribonucleotide Reductase*. J Biol Chem. 1999; 274: 36679–36683. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.274.51.36679 PMID: 10593972 20. Lee YD, Wang J, Stubbe J, Elledge SJ. Dif1 Is a DNA-Damage-Regulated Facilitator of Nuclear Import for Ribonucleotide Reductase. Mol Cell. 2008; 32: 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.08.018 PMID: 18851834 21. Yao R, Zhang Z, An X, Bucci B, Perlstein DL, Stubbe J, et al. Subcellular localization of yeast ribonucleotide reductase regulated by the DNA replication and damage checkpoint pathways. Proc Acad Sci USA. 2003; 100: 6628–6633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1131932100 PMID: 12732713 22. Huang M, Zhou Z, Elledge SJ. The DNA replication and damage checkpoint pathways induce transcription by inhibition of the Crt1 repressor. Cell. 1998; 94: 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00) 81601-3 PMID: 9741624 23. Zhao X, Chabes A, Domkin V, Thelander L, Rothstein R. The ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor Sml1 is a new target of the Mec1/Rad53 kinase cascade during growth and in response to DNA damage. EMBO J. 2001; 20: 3544–3553. https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/20.13.3544 PMID: 11432841 24. Forey R, Poveda A, Sharma S, Barthe A, Padioleau I, Renard C, et al. Mec1 Is Activated at the Onset of Normal S Phase by Low-dNTP Pools Impeding DNA Replication. Mol Cell. 2020; 1–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.02.021 PMID: 32169162 25. Niida H, Katsuno Y, Sengoku M, Shimada M, Yukawa M, Ikura M, et al. Essential role of Tip60-depen- dent recruitment of ribonucleotide reductase at DNA damage sites in DNA repair during G1 phase. Genes Dev. 2010; 24: 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1863810 PMID: 20159953 26. Lisby M, Rothstein R, Mortensen UH. Rad52 forms DNA repair and recombination centers during S phase. Proc Acad Sci USA. 2001; 98: 8276–8282. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.121006298 PMID: 11459964 27. Lisby M, Barlow JH, Burgess RC, Rothstein R. Choreography of the DNA Damage Response. Cell. 2004; 118: 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2004.08.015 PMID: 15369670 28. Lisby M, Rothstein R. DNA damage checkpoint and repair centers. Curr Op Cell Biol. 2004; 16: 328– 334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2004.03.011 PMID: 15145359 29. Cano-Linares MI, Ya ´ñez-Vilches A, Garcı ´a-Rodrı ´guez N, Barrientos-Moreno M, Gonza ´lez-Prieto R, San-Segundo P, et al. Non-recombinogenic roles for Rad52 in translesion synthesis during DNA damage tolerance. EMBO Rep. 2021; 22: e50410. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202050410 PMID: 33289333 PLOS GENETICS MCM/RNR interactions and genetic instability PLOS Genetics | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011148 May 22, 2024 25 / 27