-
Gut Mar 2022Infection by HBV is the main risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide. HBV directly drives carcinogenesis through integrations in the human genome. This...
OBJECTIVE
Infection by HBV is the main risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide. HBV directly drives carcinogenesis through integrations in the human genome. This study aimed to precisely characterise HBV integrations, in relation with viral and host genomics and clinical features.
DESIGN
A novel pipeline was set up to perform viral capture on tumours and non-tumour liver tissues from a French cohort of 177 patients mainly of European and African origins. Clonality of each integration event was determined with the localisation, orientation and content of the integrated sequence. In three selected tumours, complex integrations were reconstructed using long-read sequencing or Bionano whole genome mapping.
RESULTS
Replicating HBV DNA was more frequently detected in non-tumour tissues and associated with a higher number of non-clonal integrations. In HCC, clonal selection of HBV integrations was related to two different mechanisms involved in carcinogenesis. First, integration of viral enhancer nearby a cancer-driver gene may lead to a strong overexpression of oncogenes. Second, we identified frequent chromosome rearrangements at HBV integration sites leading to cancer-driver genes () alterations at distance. Moreover, HBV integrations have direct clinical implications as HCC with a high number of insertions develop in young patients and have a poor prognosis.
CONCLUSION
Deep characterisation of HBV integrations in liver tissues highlights new HBV-associated driver mechanisms involved in hepatocarcinogenesis. HBV integrations have multiple direct oncogenic consequences that remain an important challenge for the follow-up of HBV-infected patients.
Topics: Carcinogenesis; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; DNA, Viral; Female; Hepatitis B virus; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Virus Integration
PubMed: 33563643
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323153 -
Microbiology Spectrum Apr 2015Sleeping Beauty (SB) is a synthetic transposon that was constructed based on sequences of transpositionally inactive elements isolated from fish genomes. SB is a... (Review)
Review
Sleeping Beauty (SB) is a synthetic transposon that was constructed based on sequences of transpositionally inactive elements isolated from fish genomes. SB is a Tc1/mariner superfamily transposon following a cut-and-paste transpositional reaction, during which the element-encoded transposase interacts with its binding sites in the terminal inverted repeats of the transposon, promotes the assembly of a synaptic complex, catalyzes excision of the element out of its donor site, and integrates the excised transposon into a new location in target DNA. SB transposition is dependent on cellular host factors. Transcriptional control of transposase expression is regulated by the HMG2L1 transcription factor. Synaptic complex assembly is promoted by the HMGB1 protein and regulated by chromatin structure. SB transposition is highly dependent on the nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway of double-strand DNA break repair that generates a transposon footprint at the excision site. Through its association with the Miz-1 transcription factor, the SB transposase downregulates cyclin D1 expression that results in a slowdown of the cell-cycle in the G1 phase, where NHEJ is preferentially active. Transposon integration occurs at TA dinucleotides in the target DNA, which are duplicated at the flanks of the integrated transposon. SB shows a random genome-wide insertion profile in mammalian cells when launched from episomal vectors and "local hopping" when launched from chromosomal donor sites. Some of the excised transposons undergo a self-destructive autointegration reaction, which can partially explain why longer elements transpose less efficiently. SB became an important molecular tool for transgenesis, insertional mutagenesis, and gene therapy.
Topics: Animals; DNA; DNA Transposable Elements; Fishes; Recombination, Genetic; Transposases
PubMed: 26104705
DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MDNA3-0042-2014 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2022The incidence of cancer is high worldwide, and biological factors such as viruses and bacteria play an important role in the occurrence of cancer. , , and other... (Review)
Review
The incidence of cancer is high worldwide, and biological factors such as viruses and bacteria play an important role in the occurrence of cancer. , , and other organisms have been identified as carcinogens. Cancer is a disease driven by the accumulation of genome changes. Viruses can directly cause cancer by changing the genetic composition of the human body, such as cervical cancer caused by DNA integration and liver cancer caused by DNA integration. Recently, bacterial DNA has been found around cancers such as pancreatic cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer, and the idea that bacterial genes can also be integrated into the human genome has become a hot topic. In the present paper, we reviewed the latest phenomenon and specific integration mechanism of bacterial DNA into the human genome. Based on these findings, we also suggest three sources of bacterial DNA in cancers: bacterial DNA around human tissues, free bacterial DNA in bacteremia or sepsis, and endogenous bacterial DNA in the human genome. Clarifying the theory that bacterial DNA integrates into the human genome can provide a new perspective for cancer prevention and treatment.
Topics: Female; Humans; DNA, Bacterial; Virus Integration; Carcinogenesis; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Genome, Human; DNA, Viral
PubMed: 36310856
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.996778 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2021species transfer DNA (T-DNA) to plant cells where it may integrate into plant chromosomes. The process of integration is thought to involve invasion and ligation of... (Review)
Review
species transfer DNA (T-DNA) to plant cells where it may integrate into plant chromosomes. The process of integration is thought to involve invasion and ligation of T-DNA, or its copying, into nicks or breaks in the host genome. Integrated T-DNA often contains, at its junctions with plant DNA, deletions of T-DNA or plant DNA, filler DNA, and/or microhomology between T-DNA and plant DNA pre-integration sites. T-DNA integration is also often associated with major plant genome rearrangements, including inversions and translocations. These characteristics are similar to those often found after repair of DNA breaks, and thus DNA repair mechanisms have frequently been invoked to explain the mechanism of T-DNA integration. However, the involvement of specific plant DNA repair proteins and proteins in integration remains controversial, with numerous contradictory results reported in the literature. In this review I discuss this literature and comment on many of these studies. I conclude that either multiple known DNA repair pathways can be used for integration, or that some yet unknown pathway must exist to facilitate T-DNA integration into the plant genome.
Topics: Agrobacterium; Chromosomes, Plant; DNA Repair; DNA, Bacterial; DNA, Plant; Plants; Transformation, Genetic
PubMed: 34445162
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22168458 -
Microbiology Spectrum Oct 2014Transposable phage Mu has played a major role in elucidating the mechanism of movement of mobile DNA elements. The high efficiency of Mu transposition has facilitated a... (Review)
Review
Transposable phage Mu has played a major role in elucidating the mechanism of movement of mobile DNA elements. The high efficiency of Mu transposition has facilitated a detailed biochemical dissection of the reaction mechanism, as well as of protein and DNA elements that regulate transpososome assembly and function. The deduced phosphotransfer mechanism involves in-line orientation of metal ion-activated hydroxyl groups for nucleophilic attack on reactive diester bonds, a mechanism that appears to be used by all transposable elements examined to date. A crystal structure of the Mu transpososome is available. Mu differs from all other transposable elements in encoding unique adaptations that promote its viral lifestyle. These adaptations include multiple DNA (enhancer, SGS) and protein (MuB, HU, IHF) elements that enable efficient Mu end synapsis, efficient target capture, low target specificity, immunity to transposition near or into itself, and efficient mechanisms for recruiting host repair and replication machineries to resolve transposition intermediates. MuB has multiple functions, including target capture and immunity. The SGS element promotes gyrase-mediated Mu end synapsis, and the enhancer, aided by HU and IHF, participates in directing a unique topological architecture of the Mu synapse. The function of these DNA and protein elements is important during both lysogenic and lytic phases. Enhancer properties have been exploited in the design of mini-Mu vectors for genetic engineering. Mu ends assembled into active transpososomes have been delivered directly into bacterial, yeast, and human genomes, where they integrate efficiently, and may prove useful for gene therapy.
Topics: Bacteriophage mu; DNA Transposable Elements; DNA, Viral; Recombination, Genetic; Viral Proteins; Virus Integration
PubMed: 26104374
DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MDNA3-0007-2014 -
Bioscience Reports Mar 2023Prokaryotes use the adaptive immunity mediated via the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR associated (CRISPR-Cas) system for protection... (Review)
Review
Prokaryotes use the adaptive immunity mediated via the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR associated (CRISPR-Cas) system for protection against invading elements such as phages and plasmids. The immunity is achieved by capturing small DNA fragments or spacers from foreign nucleic acids (protospacers) and integrating them into the host CRISPR locus. This step of CRISPR-Cas immunity called 'naïve CRISPR adaptation' requires the conserved Cas1-Cas2 complex and is often supported by variable host proteins that assist in spacer processing and integration. Bacteria that have acquired new spacers become immune to the same invading elements when reinfected. CRISPR-Cas immunity can also be updated by integrating new spacers from the same invading elements, a process called 'primed adaptation'. Only properly selected and integrated spacers are functional in the next steps of CRISPR immunity when their processed transcripts are used for RNA-guided target recognition and interference (target degradation). Capturing, trimming, and integrating new spacers in the correct orientation are universal steps of adaptation to all CRISPR-Cas systems, but some details are CRISPR-Cas type-specific and species-specific. In this review, we provide an overview of the mechanisms of CRISPR-Cas class 1 type I-E adaptation in Escherichia coli as a general model for adaptation processes (DNA capture and integration) that have been studied in detail. We focus on the role of host non-Cas proteins involved in adaptation, particularly on the role of homologous recombination.
Topics: Escherichia coli; CRISPR-Cas Systems; Plasmids; Escherichia coli Proteins; DNA
PubMed: 36809461
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20221198 -
Molecular Microbiology May 2024The site-specific recombination pathway of bacteriophage λ encompasses isoenergetic but highly directional and tightly regulated integrative and excisive reactions that... (Review)
Review
The site-specific recombination pathway of bacteriophage λ encompasses isoenergetic but highly directional and tightly regulated integrative and excisive reactions that integrate and excise the vial chromosome into and out of the bacterial chromosome. The reactions require 240 bp of phage DNA and 21 bp of bacterial DNA comprising 16 protein binding sites that are differentially used in each pathway by the phage-encoded Int and Xis proteins and the host-encoded integration host factor and factor for inversion stimulation proteins. Structures of higher-order protein-DNA complexes of the four-way Holliday junction recombination intermediates provided clarifying insights into the mechanisms, directionality, and regulation of these two pathways, which are tightly linked to the physiology of the bacterial host cell. Here we review our current understanding of the mechanisms responsible for regulating and executing λ site-specific recombination, with an emphasis on key studies completed over the last decade.
Topics: Bacteriophage lambda; Recombination, Genetic; DNA, Viral; Viral Proteins; DNA, Bacterial; Binding Sites; Integration Host Factors
PubMed: 38372210
DOI: 10.1111/mmi.15241 -
Microbiology Spectrum Apr 2015DNA transposases use a limited repertoire of structurally and mechanistically distinct nuclease domains to catalyze the DNA strand breaking and rejoining reactions that... (Review)
Review
DNA transposases use a limited repertoire of structurally and mechanistically distinct nuclease domains to catalyze the DNA strand breaking and rejoining reactions that comprise DNA transposition. Here, we review the mechanisms of the four known types of transposition reactions catalyzed by (1) RNase H-like transposases (also known as DD(E/D) enzymes); (2) HUH single-stranded DNA transposases; (3) serine transposases; and (4) tyrosine transposases. The large body of accumulated biochemical and structural data, particularly for the RNase H-like transposases, has revealed not only the distinguishing features of each transposon family, but also some emerging themes that appear conserved across all families. The more-recently characterized single-stranded DNA transposases provide insight into how an ancient HUH domain fold has been adapted for transposition to accomplish excision and then site-specific integration. The serine and tyrosine transposases are structurally and mechanistically related to their cousins, the serine and tyrosine site-specific recombinases, but have to date been less intensively studied. These types of enzymes are particularly intriguing as in the context of site-specific recombination they require strict homology between recombining sites, yet for transposition can catalyze the joining of transposon ends to form an excised circle and then integration into a genomic site with much relaxed sequence specificity.
Topics: DNA; DNA Transposable Elements; Recombination, Genetic; Transposases
PubMed: 26104718
DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MDNA3-0034-2014 -
Microbiology Spectrum Apr 2015Although most of non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons are incorporated in the host genome almost randomly, some non-LTR retrotransposons are incorporated... (Review)
Review
Although most of non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons are incorporated in the host genome almost randomly, some non-LTR retrotransposons are incorporated into specific sequences within a target site. On the basis of structural and phylogenetic features, non-LTR retrotransposons are classified into two large groups, restriction enzyme-like endonuclease (RLE)-encoding elements and apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease (APE)-encoding elements. All clades of RLE-encoding non-LTR retrotransposons include site-specific elements. However, only two of more than 20 APE-encoding clades, Tx1 and R1, contain site-specific non-LTR elements. Site-specific non-LTR retrotransposons usually target within multi-copy RNA genes, such as rRNA gene (rDNA) clusters, or repetitive genomic sequences, such as telomeric repeats; this behavior may be a symbiotic strategy to reduce the damage to the host genome. Site- and sequence-specificity are variable even among closely related non-LTR elements and appeared to have changed during evolution. In the APE-encoding elements, the primary determinant of the sequence- specific integration is APE itself, which nicks one strand of the target DNA during the initiation of target primed reverse transcription (TPRT). However, other factors, such as interaction between mRNA and the target DNA, and access to the target region in the nuclei also affect the sequence-specificity. In contrast, in the RLE-encoding elements, DNA-binding motifs appear to affect their sequence-specificity, rather than the RLE domain itself. Highly specific integration properties of these site-specific non-LTR elements make them ideal alternative tools for sequence-specific gene delivery, particularly for therapeutic purposes in human diseases.
Topics: Binding Sites; DNA; Humans; Molecular Biology; Recombination, Genetic; Reverse Transcription; Short Interspersed Nucleotide Elements
PubMed: 26104700
DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MDNA3-0001-2014 -
Microbiology Spectrum Apr 2015The piggyBac transposon was originally isolated from the cabbage looper moth, Trichoplusia ni, in the 1980s. Despite its early discovery and dissimilarity to the other... (Review)
Review
The piggyBac transposon was originally isolated from the cabbage looper moth, Trichoplusia ni, in the 1980s. Despite its early discovery and dissimilarity to the other DNA transposon families, the piggyBac transposon was not recognized as a member of a large transposon superfamily for a long time. Initially, the piggyBac transposon was thought to be a rare transposon. This view, however, has now been completely revised as a number of fully sequenced genomes have revealed the presence of piggyBac-like repetitive elements. The isolation of active copies of the piggyBac-like elements from several distinct species further supported this revision. This includes the first isolation of an active mammalian DNA transposon identified in the bat genome. To date, the piggyBac transposon has been deeply characterized and it represents a number of unique characteristics. In general, all members of the piggyBac superfamily use TTAA as their integration target sites. In addition, the piggyBac transposon shows precise excision, i.e., restoring the sequence to its preintegration state, and can transpose in a variety of organisms such as yeasts, malaria parasites, insects, mammals, and even in plants. Biochemical analysis of the chemical steps of transposition revealed that piggyBac does not require DNA synthesis during the actual transposition event. The broad host range has attracted researchers from many different fields, and the piggyBac transposon is currently the most widely used transposon system for genetic manipulations.
Topics: Animals; DNA; DNA Transposable Elements; Insecta; Mammals; Models, Biological; Recombination, Genetic
PubMed: 26104701
DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MDNA3-0028-2014