Kato N , Kawasoe Y , Williams H , Coates E , Roy U , Shi Y , Beese LS , Schärer OD , Yan H , Gottesman ME , Takahashi TS , Gautier J .

P01 CA174653 NCI NIH HHS , R35 CA197606 NCI NIH HHS , P01 CA092584 NCI NIH HHS

	Graphical Abstract
	Figure 1. ICL Sensing by MutSα (MSH2–MSH6) (A) Plasmid pull-down assay of control plasmids or plasmids containing a single site-specific SJG-136 ICL lesion. Plasmids were incubated for 40 min in HSS and then purified from extracts using recombinant Bio-LacR protein coupled to streptavidin beads. Plasmid-bound proteins were analyzed by western blot (WB) using the indicated antibodies. (B) Plasmid pull-down assay and WB of SJG-136-treated plasmids. In the last lane, labeled (10×2), twice the amount of 10 μM-treated plasmids was incubated in HSS. Input was plasmid DNA run on an agarose gel. (C) MSH2–MSH6 immunodepletion. Mock- and MSH2-depleted HSS was analyzed by WB. (D) Quantification of ICL repair in mock- and MSH2-depleted HSS at 3 hr. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 7 independent experiments. (E) Quantification of ICL repair in HSS and HSS supplemented with MutSαWT at 3 hr. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 11 independent experiments.
	Figure 2. Mechanism of ICL Recognition by MutSα (MSH2–MSH6) (A) Plasmids containing a single site-specific A:C mismatch were incubated in mock-depleted, MSH2-depleted, or MSH2-depleted HSS supplemented with recombinant MutSαWT or MutSαFXE for the indicated amount of time. Mismatch repair efficiency was measured by digestion with XmnI with BamHI or XhoI restriction enzymes, for A→G repair (top) and C→T repair (bottom), respectively. Data are representative of three independent experiments. (B) Quantification of ICL repair in mock-depleted, MSH2-depleted, or MSH2-depleted HSS supplemented with recombinant MutSαWT (n = 7), MutSαFXE (n = 6), or MutSαPIP (n = 4) at 3 hr. Results represent mean ± SEM of independent experiments. (C) Plasmid pull-down assay and WB of SJG-136-treated plasmids in mock- or PCNA-depleted extract. See also Figure S2.
	Figure 3. Nucleolytic Incision of ICL Lesions by MutLα (MLH1-PMS2) (A) Schematic of nicking sites engineered into ICL pBS plasmids (see also Figure S3A). (B) Quantification of ICL repair in HSS of unnicked, 5′ or 3′ nicked plasmids at 90 min. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 6 independent experiments. (C) Plasmid pull-down assay and WB of SJG-136-treated plasmids in mock- or MSH2-depleted extract. (D) MLH1-PMS2 immunodepletion. Mock- and MLH1-depleted HSS was analyzed by WB. (E) Quantification of ICL repair in mock-depleted, MLH1-depleted, or MLH1-depleted HSS supplemented with recombinant MutLαWT (n = 12) or MutLαn.d (n = 7) at 90 min. Results represent mean ± SEM independent experiments. (F) Quantification of ICL repair in HSS with overexpression of buffer, MutLαWT, or MutLαn.d. at 90 min. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 5 independent experiments. See also Figure S3.
	Figure 4. Nucleolytic Processing of ICL Lesions by EXO1 (A) Plasmid pull-down assay and WB of SJG-136-treated plasmids in mock- or MSH2-depleted extract. (B) EXO1 immunodepletion. Mock- and EXO1-depleted HSS was analyzed by WB. (C) Quantification of ICL repair in mock-depleted, EXO1-depleted, or EXO1-depleted HSS supplemented with recombinant EXO1WT or EXO1D173A at 3 hr. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 7 independent experiments. (D) Exo1352 nuclease assay with control or SJG-treated oligonucleotides. Reaction products were run on a denaturing polyacrylamide gel and stained with SYBR Gold. See also Figure S4.
	Figure 5. ICL Structure and Repair Efficiency (A) Structures of normal B-form DNA (PDB: 1BNA) and DNA duplexes containing trimethylene 5′ GpC-ICL (PDB: 1LUH) and 5′ CpG-ICL (PDB: 2KNK) lesions. (B) Plasmids containing single trimethylene GpC or CpG-ICL were incubated in HSS, and soluble extracts were analyzed by WB. (C) Quantification of ICL repair of trimethylene GpC and CpG plasmids at the indicated time points. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 4 independent experiments. (D) Quantification of ICL repair of trimethylene GpC and CpG plasmids in mock- and MSH2-depleted HSS at 3 hr. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 4 independent experiments. (E) Quantification of ICL repair of trimethylene GpC and NM-like ICL plasmid using TaqMan qPCR reagent at the indicated time points. Results represent mean ± SEM from n = 3 independent experiments. See also Figure S5.
	Figure 6. Model for MMR-Mediated ICL Repair ICLs can be recognized and repaired in the absence of replication. The MutSα complex senses and binds ICL lesions and recruits downstream repair proteins including the MutLα endonuclease, PCNA, and EXO1 exonuclease. The ICL lesion is repaired through a multi-step excision resynthesis reaction. The latter requires Polκ and monoubiquitinated PCNA.
	Figure S1. Schematic of ICL plasmids and preparation of SJG-136 treated plasmids, Related to Figure 1 (A) SJG-136 preferentially reacts with DNA at guanine residues at 5’ purine–GATC–pyrimidine sequences to form ICLs. (B) Sequences of trimethylene and SJG-136 ICL oligos that were ligated into pBS to construct plasmids with a single site-specific ICL (left). Schematic of the resulting ICL plasmid. The binding site for Bio-LacR used for plasmid pull-down experiments, and primers used for qPCR to calculate ICL repair are illustrated (right). (C) Schematic representation of pBS treated with SJG-136. The 7 sequences corresponding to SJG-136 ICL forming sites are illustrated. The single SJG-136 reaction site that overlaps with a BamHI recognition sequence 2 is specified. The binding site for Bio-LacR and primers used for quantification of plasmids in plasmid pulldown experiments are indicated. (D) Accumulation of ICLs on SJG-136 treated plasmids assessed using BamHI digestion. Plasmids were run on ethidium-bromide agarose gel before (upper panel) or after BamHI digestion (lower panel). With increasing doses of the drug, plasmids become refractory to BamHI digestion. (E) The number of ICLs induced on plasmids treated with SJG-136 was estimated from quantification of BamHI digestion products. Results represent quantification from 3 independent experiments ± SD. (F) Representative figure of the quantification of plasmids recovered from extracts after pull-down experiments using qPCR. Results represent technical triplicate ± SD from a single representative experiment. This analysis was used as a loading control to ensure equivalent amounts of plasmids were loaded on gels for Western blot. (G) SJG-136 treated plasmids were incubated in HSS, and soluble extracts were analyzed by Western blot.
	Figure S2. MutSa and PCNA mutants cloned and purified, Related to Figure 2 (A) Schematic of X.l. MSH6. The domain structure of this protein and the locations of mutations used in the study are illustrated. (B) The sequence of the conserved FXE domain in MSH6 is illustrated for several species. The amino acid substitutions used in this study are indicated in red. (C) The sequence of the conserved PIP domain in MSH6 is illustrated for several species. The triple amino acid substitution used in this study is indicated in red. (D) Purified MutSaWT, MutSaFXE, or MutSaPIP complex stained with Coomassie blue. (E) The sequence of the conserved interdomain connector loop of PCNA is illustrated for several species. The double amino acid substitution used in this study is indicated in red. (F) Purified PCNAWT and PCNAL126A,I128A stained with Coomassie blue. (G) Co-immunoprecipitation of purified recombinant WT and mutant MSH2-MSH6 and PCNA using preimmune and purified IgG- or MSH2-specific antibodies. Immunoprecipitates were analyzed by Western blot with the indicated antibodies (left panel). The combination of MSH2-MSH6 and PCNA mutants analyzed are indicated in the table (right panel). (H) PCNA immunodepletion. Mock- and PCNA-depleted HSS was analyzed by Western blot with the indicated antibodies to demonstrate depletion of PCNA. (I) Quantification of ICL repair in Mock-, PCNA-depleted, or PCNA-depleted HSS supplemented with recombinant PCNAWT, or PCNAL126A,I128A at 3 hrs. Results represent mean ± SEM of n=4 independent experiments.
	Figure S3. Nicking sites on the ICL plasmid and purification of MutLa, Related to Figure 3 (A) Sequence surrounding the trimethylene GpC-ICL lesion, and the specific locations of near (top) and far (bottom) nicking sites used in Figure 3A,B. (B) Schematic of X.l. PMS2. The domain structure of this protein and the locations of mutations used in the study are illustrated. (C) The sequence of the conserved catalytic nuclease domain in PMS2 is illustrated for several species. The amino acid substitution used in this study is indicated in red. (D) Purified MutLaWT and MutLan.d. complex stained with Coomassie blue. (E) Plasmid pull-down assay of SJG-136 treated plasmids in MLH1-depleted extract (left), or HSS supplemented with MutLaWT and MutLan.d. (right). Plasmid-bound proteins were analyzed by Western blot.
	Figure S4. RPA is required for RIR, Related to Figure 4 (A) Schematic of X.l. EXO1. The domain structure of this protein and the locations of mutations used in the study are illustrated. (B) Control or SJG-136 ICL oligonucleotide duplexes run on a denaturing polyacrylamide gel and stained with SYBR Gold. (C) RPA immunodepletion. Mock- and RPA-depleted HSS was analyzed by Western blot to demonstrate depletion of RPA. (D) Quantification of ICL repair in Mock-, RPA-depleted, or RPA-depleted HSS supplemented with recombinant RPAWT at 3 hrs. Results represent mean ± SEM of n=4 independent experiments. (E) Purified RPAWT stained with Coomassie blue. (F) Plasmid pull-down assay of SJG-136 treated plasmids in Mock- or RPA-depleted HSS. Plasmid bound proteins were analyzed by Western blot using the indicated antibodies.
	Figure S5. Sequences of site specific trimethylene and NM-like ICL plasmids, Related to Figure 5 (A) Sequence of oligonucleotide duplexes with a single trimethylene 5’ GpC-, 5’ CpG-, or NM-like ICLs. (B) Schematic of plasmids containing single site-specific trimethylene 5’ GpC- or 5’ CpG-ICL. Plasmids were generated by ligating trimethylene oligonucleotides in (A) into pEGFP. ICL repair was measured using qPCR with X and C primers as indicated.

Barber, DNA interstrand cross-link repair in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell cycle: overlapping roles for PSO2 (SNM1) with MutS factors and EXO1 during S phase. 2005, Pubmed

Barber, DNA interstrand cross-link repair in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell cycle: overlapping roles for PSO2 (SNM1) with MutS factors and EXO1 during S phase. 2005, Pubmed
Beljanski, DNA damage-processing pathways involved in the eukaryotic cellular response to anticancer DNA cross-linking drugs. 2004, Pubmed
Ben-Yehoyada, Checkpoint signaling from a single DNA interstrand crosslink. 2009, Pubmed , Xenbase
Bowers, A mutation in the MSH6 subunit of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae MSH2-MSH6 complex disrupts mismatch recognition. 1999, Pubmed
Clark, Functional interaction of proliferating cell nuclear antigen with MSH2-MSH6 and MSH2-MSH3 complexes. 2000, Pubmed
Constantin, Human mismatch repair: reconstitution of a nick-directed bidirectional reaction. 2005, Pubmed
Deans, DNA interstrand crosslink repair and cancer. 2011, Pubmed
Dooley, NMR determination of the conformation of a trimethylene interstrand cross-link in an oligodeoxynucleotide duplex containing a 5'-d(GpC) motif. 2003, Pubmed
Dooley, Structural studies of an oligodeoxynucleotide containing a trimethylene interstrand cross-link in a 5'-(CpG) motif: model of a malondialdehyde cross-link. 2001, Pubmed
Dufner, Mismatch recognition and DNA-dependent stimulation of the ATPase activity of hMutSalpha is abolished by a single mutation in the hMSH6 subunit. 2000, Pubmed
Duxin, What is the DNA repair defect underlying Fanconi anemia? 2015, Pubmed , Xenbase
Enoiu, Repair of cisplatin-induced DNA interstrand crosslinks by a replication-independent pathway involving transcription-coupled repair and translesion synthesis. 2012, Pubmed
Flores-Rozas, Proliferating cell nuclear antigen and Msh2p-Msh6p interact to form an active mispair recognition complex. 2000, Pubmed
Fu, Balancing repair and tolerance of DNA damage caused by alkylating agents. 2012, Pubmed
Genschel, Human exonuclease I is required for 5' and 3' mismatch repair. 2002, Pubmed
Genschel, Isolation of MutSbeta from human cells and comparison of the mismatch repair specificities of MutSbeta and MutSalpha. 1998, Pubmed
Gregson, Design, synthesis, and evaluation of a novel pyrrolobenzodiazepine DNA-interactive agent with highly efficient cross-linking ability and potent cytotoxicity. 2001, Pubmed
Guainazzi, Synthesis and molecular modeling of a nitrogen mustard DNA interstrand crosslink. 2010, Pubmed
Hlavin, Cross-link structure affects replication-independent DNA interstrand cross-link repair in mammalian cells. 2010, Pubmed
Hombauer, Visualization of eukaryotic DNA mismatch repair reveals distinct recognition and repair intermediates. 2011, Pubmed
Huang, Human MutS and FANCM complexes function as redundant DNA damage sensors in the Fanconi Anemia pathway. 2011, Pubmed
Islas, Differential introduction and repair of psoralen photoadducts to DNA in specific human genes. 1991, Pubmed
Iyama, DNA repair mechanisms in dividing and non-dividing cells. 2013, Pubmed
Kawasoe, MutSα maintains the mismatch repair capability by inhibiting PCNA unloading. 2016, Pubmed , Xenbase
Kleczkowska, hMSH3 and hMSH6 interact with PCNA and colocalize with it to replication foci. 2001, Pubmed
Klein Douwel, XPF-ERCC1 acts in Unhooking DNA interstrand crosslinks in cooperation with FANCD2 and FANCP/SLX4. 2014, Pubmed , Xenbase
Knipscheer, The Fanconi anemia pathway promotes replication-dependent DNA interstrand cross-link repair. 2009, Pubmed , Xenbase
Lamers, The crystal structure of DNA mismatch repair protein MutS binding to a G x T mismatch. 2000, Pubmed
Lee, Analysis of interactions between mismatch repair initiation factors and the replication processivity factor PCNA. 2006, Pubmed
Li, The histone mark H3K36me3 regulates human DNA mismatch repair through its interaction with MutSα. 2013, Pubmed
Liao, Mechanistic analysis of Xenopus EXO1's function in 5'-strand resection at DNA double-strand breaks. 2011, Pubmed , Xenbase
Malkov, Photocross-linking of the NH2-terminal region of Taq MutS protein to the major groove of a heteroduplex DNA. 1997, Pubmed
Mazurek, Sequence context effect for hMSH2-hMSH6 mismatch-dependent activation. 2009, Pubmed
Mukherjee, Synthesis of structurally diverse major groove DNA interstrand crosslinks using three different aldehyde precursors. 2014, Pubmed
Muniandy, Repair of laser-localized DNA interstrand cross-links in G1 phase mammalian cells. 2009, Pubmed
Olivera Harris, Mismatch repair-dependent metabolism of O6-methylguanine-containing DNA in Xenopus laevis egg extracts. 2015, Pubmed , Xenbase
Pizzolato, FANCD2-associated nuclease 1, but not exonuclease 1 or flap endonuclease 1, is able to unhook DNA interstrand cross-links in vitro. 2015, Pubmed
Price, Interstrand DNA-DNA cross-link formation between adenine residues and abasic sites in duplex DNA. 2014, Pubmed
Radman, Mismatch repair earns Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 to Paul Modrich for a biochemical tour de force. 2016, Pubmed
Reyes, New insights into the mechanism of DNA mismatch repair. 2015, Pubmed
Roy, The structure and duplex context of DNA interstrand crosslinks affects the activity of DNA polymerase η. 2016, Pubmed
Räschle, Mechanism of replication-coupled DNA interstrand crosslink repair. 2008, Pubmed , Xenbase
Räschle, DNA repair. Proteomics reveals dynamic assembly of repair complexes during bypass of DNA cross-links. 2015, Pubmed , Xenbase
Sarkar, DNA interstrand crosslink repair during G1 involves nucleotide excision repair and DNA polymerase zeta. 2006, Pubmed
Schroering, The cell cycle and DNA mismatch repair. 2007, Pubmed
Semlow, Replication-Dependent Unhooking of DNA Interstrand Cross-Links by the NEIL3 Glycosylase. 2016, Pubmed , Xenbase
Shell, The N terminus of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh6 is an unstructured tether to PCNA. 2007, Pubmed
Shen, REV3 and REV1 play major roles in recombination-independent repair of DNA interstrand cross-links mediated by monoubiquitinated proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). 2006, Pubmed
Shi, Interplay of catalysis, fidelity, threading, and processivity in the exo- and endonucleolytic reactions of human exonuclease I. 2017, Pubmed
Smeaton, Distortion-dependent unhooking of interstrand cross-links in mammalian cell extracts. 2008, Pubmed
Smith, Dominant mutations in S. cerevisiae PMS1 identify the Mlh1-Pms1 endonuclease active site and an exonuclease 1-independent mismatch repair pathway. 2013, Pubmed
Thoma, Human XPC-hHR23B interacts with XPA-RPA in the recognition of triplex-directed psoralen DNA interstrand crosslinks. 2005, Pubmed
Tran, EXO1-A multi-tasking eukaryotic nuclease. 2004, Pubmed
Varlet, Mismatch repair in Xenopus egg extracts: DNA strand breaks act as signals rather than excision points. 1996, Pubmed , Xenbase
Wang, DNA repair. Mechanism of DNA interstrand cross-link processing by repair nuclease FAN1. 2014, Pubmed
Wang, Human SNM1A and XPF-ERCC1 collaborate to initiate DNA interstrand cross-link repair. 2011, Pubmed
Warren, Structure of the human MutSalpha DNA lesion recognition complex. 2007, Pubmed
Williams, Replication-independent repair of DNA interstrand crosslinks. 2012, Pubmed , Xenbase
York, Mismatch repair-dependent iterative excision at irreparable O6-methylguanine lesions in human nuclear extracts. 2006, Pubmed
Zhang, hMutSbeta is required for the recognition and uncoupling of psoralen interstrand cross-links in vitro. 2002, Pubmed
Zhao, Mismatch repair and nucleotide excision repair proteins cooperate in the recognition of DNA interstrand crosslinks. 2009, Pubmed
van Oers, PMS2 endonuclease activity has distinct biological functions and is essential for genome maintenance. 2010, Pubmed