Optogenetic tripwires resolve models of how cells count DNA breaks
Marco LabagnaraiD, Vojislav GligorovskiiD, Sahand Jamal RahiiD
Abstract
DNA end resection is a critical step in DNA damage repair and activation of the DNA damage checkpoint (DDC). To date, resection has been studied primarily in bulk cell populations. However, single-cell analyses are essential for uncovering cell-to-cell variability and can powerfully support or contradict system-level models where traditional genetic perturbations face limitations. We present a single-cell method to quantify resection by integrating an optogenetic expression system at defined distances from an inducible double-strand DNA break (DSB) site in the budding yeast genome. Using this system, we test competing, unresolved models of how the DDC counts DSBs and determines when to override the checkpoint. Current models propose that the extent of DNA damage is signaled by resection, either through liberated single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) or proteins bound along the non-resected strand. Although mechanistically plausible and widely known, these models rely on inconclusive evidence from gene knockout studies. An alternative hypothesis is that the DDC counts DSBs digitally, using factors located at 3 break ends or at ss/dsDNA junctions. Here, we leverage natural cell-to-cell variability in resection rates as an intrinsic perturbation, avoiding the limitations of prior genetic approaches. Our single-cell data challenge models in which DNA damage is inferred from the extent or rate of resection or from proteins bound along resected DNA. To explore alternative mechanisms, we investigated DDC proteins localized at 3 DSB ends or ss/dsDNA boundaries. By dynamically depleting candidate proteins after checkpoint arrest, we identified ss/dsDNA boundary proteins Ddc1, Dpb11, and Rad9 as essential for DDC maintenance and promising candidates for a cascade that acts as a digital DSB counter. Our findings demonstrate that quantitative, system-level single-cell approaches, coupled with dynamic perturbations, can resolve fundamental questions in DNA repair and checkpoint signaling.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 1
- Organism
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Optimizing checkpoint strategies based on first principles predicts experimental DNA damage checkpoint override times
Ahmad Sadeghi, Roxane Dervey, … Sahand Jamal Rahi·bioRxiv·Aug 14, 2020
- DNA-PK Promotes DNA End Resection at DNA Double Strand Breaks in G0 cells
Faith C. Fowler, Bo-Ruei Chen, … Jessica K. Tyler·eLifePeer-reviewed·May 9, 2022
- Live cell monitoring of double strand breaks in S. cerevisiae
David P. Waterman, Felix Y. Zhou, … James E. Haber·PLoS GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Mar 1, 2019
- Why budding yeast overrides the DNA damage checkpoint
Roxane Oesterle, Sahand Jamal Rahi·bioRxiv·Jul 30, 2025
- Persistent DNA Repair Signaling and DNA Polymerase Theta Promote Broken Chromosome Segregation
D. E. Clay, H. S. Bretscher, … D. T. Fox·bioRxiv·Jun 18, 2021
- Systematic analysis of the molecular and biophysical properties of key DNA damage response factors
J. R. Heyza, M. Mikhova, … J. C. Schmidt·bioRxiv·Jun 9, 2022