1. CicciaA, ElledgeSJ (2010) The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol Cell 40: 179–204.
2. MarechalA, ZouL (2013) DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5.
3. PoloSE, JacksonSP (2011) Dynamics of DNA damage response proteins at DNA breaks: a focus on protein modifications. Genes Dev 25: 409–433.
4. SymingtonLS, GautierJ (2011) Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet 45: 247–271.
5. ChapmanJR, TaylorMR, BoultonSJ (2012) Playing the end game: DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Mol Cell 47: 497–510.
6. HerzbergK, BashkirovVI, RolfsmeierM, HaghnazariE, McDonaldWH, et al. (2006) Phosphorylation of Rad55 on serines 2, 8, and 14 is required for efficient homologous recombination in the recovery of stalled replication forks. Mol Cell Biol 26: 8396–8409.
7. SmolkaMB, AlbuquerqueCP, ChenSH, ZhouH (2007) Proteome-wide identification of in vivo targets of DNA damage checkpoint kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 10364–10369.
8. ChenX, NiuH, ChungWH, ZhuZ, PapushaA, et al. (2011) Cell cycle regulation of DNA double-strand break end resection by Cdk1-dependent Dna2 phosphorylation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 18: 1015–1019.
9. MatosJ, BlancoMG, MaslenS, SkehelJM, WestSC (2011) Regulatory control of the resolution of DNA recombination intermediates during meiosis and mitosis. Cell 147: 158–172.
10. CremonaCA, SarangiP, ZhaoX (2012) Sumoylation and the DNA Damage Response. Biomolecules 2: 376–388.
11. JacksonSP, DurocherD (2013) Regulation of DNA damage responses by ubiquitin and SUMO. Mol Cell 49: 795–807.
12. UlrichHD (2014) Two-way communications between ubiquitin-like modifiers and DNA. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 317–324.
13. JentschS, PsakhyeI (2013) Control of nuclear activities by substrate-selective and protein-group SUMOylation. Annu Rev Genet 47: 167–186.
14. MaedaD, SekiM, OnodaF, BranzeiD, KawabeY, et al. (2004) Ubc9 is required for damage-tolerance and damage-induced interchromosomal homologous recombination in S. cerevisiae. DNA Repair 3: 335–341.
15. MorrisJR, BoutellC, KepplerM, DenshamR, WeekesD, et al. (2009) The SUMO modification pathway is involved in the BRCA1 response to genotoxic stress. Nature 462: 886–890.
16. GalantyY, BelotserkovskayaR, CoatesJ, PoloS, MillerKM, et al. (2009) Mammalian SUMO E3-ligases PIAS1 and PIAS4 promote responses to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 462: 935–939.
17. CremonaCA, SarangiP, YangY, HangLE, RahmanS, et al. (2012) Extensive DNA damage-induced sumoylation contributes to replication and repair and acts in addition to the Mec1 checkpoint. Mol Cell 45: 422–432.
18. PsakhyeI, JentschS (2012) Protein group modification and synergy in the SUMO pathway as exemplified in DNA repair. Cell 151: 807–820.
19. PaullTT (2010) Making the best of the loose ends: Mre11/Rad50 complexes and Sae2 promote DNA double-strand break resection. DNA Repair (Amst) 9: 1283–1291.
20. MimitouEP, SymingtonLS (2011) DNA end resection–unraveling the tail. DNA Repair (Amst) 10: 344–348.
21. LengsfeldBM, RattrayAJ, BhaskaraV, GhirlandoR, PaullTT (2007) Sae2 is an endonuclease that processes hairpin DNA cooperatively with the Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 complex. Mol Cell 28: 638–651.
22. MimitouEP, SymingtonLS (2008) Sae2, Exo1 and Sgs1 collaborate in DNA double-strand break processing. Nature 455: 770–774.
23. ClericiM, MantieroD, LucchiniG, LongheseMP (2005) The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sae2 protein promotes resection and bridging of double strand break ends. J Biol Chem 280: 38631–38638.
24. ZhuZ, ChungWH, ShimEY, LeeSE, IraG (2008) Sgs1 helicase and two nucleases Dna2 and Exo1 resect DNA double-strand break ends. Cell 134: 981–994.
25. NicoletteML, LeeK, GuoZ, RaniM, ChowJM, et al. (2010) Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 and Sae2 promote 5′ strand resection of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17: 1478–1485.
26. CannavoE, CejkaP (2014) Sae2 promotes dsDNA endonuclease activity within Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 to resect DNA breaks. Nature 514: 122–125.
27. LobachevKS, GordeninDA, ResnickMA (2002) The Mre11 complex is required for repair of hairpin-capped double-strand breaks and prevention of chromosome rearrangements. Cell 108: 183–193.
28. NealeMJ, PanJ, KeeneyS (2005) Endonucleolytic processing of covalent protein-linked DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 436: 1053–1057.
29. DengC, BrownJA, YouD, BrownJM (2005) Multiple endonucleases function to repair covalent topoisomerase I complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 170: 591–600.
30. ZierhutC, DiffleyJF (2008) Break dosage, cell cycle stage and DNA replication influence DNA double strand break response. EMBO J 27: 1875–1885.
31. IraG, PellicioliA, BalijjaA, WangX, FioraniS, et al. (2004) DNA end resection, homologous recombination and DNA damage checkpoint activation require CDK1. Nature 431: 1011–1017.
32. AylonY, LiefshitzB, KupiecM (2004) The CDK regulates repair of double-strand breaks by homologous recombination during the cell cycle. EMBO J 23: 4868–4875.
33. BaroniE, ViscardiV, Cartagena-LirolaH, LucchiniG, LongheseMP (2004) The functions of budding yeast Sae2 in the DNA damage response require Mec1- and Tel1-dependent phosphorylation. Mol Cell Biol 24: 4151–4165.
34. FalckJ, FormentJV, CoatesJ, MistrikM, LukasJ, et al. (2012) CDK targeting of NBS1 promotes DNA-end resection, replication restart and homologous recombination. EMBO Rep 13: 561–568.
35. ZhangY, ShimEY, DavisM, LeeSE (2009) Regulation of repair choice: Cdk1 suppresses recruitment of end joining factors at DNA breaks. DNA Repair (Amst) 8: 1235–1241.
36. HuertasP, Cortes-LedesmaF, SartoriAA, AguileraA, JacksonSP (2008) CDK targets Sae2 to control DNA-end resection and homologous recombination. Nature 455: 689–692.
37. FuQ, ChowJ, BernsteinKA, MakharashviliN, AroraS, et al. (2014) Phosphorylation-regulated transitions in an oligomeric state control the activity of the Sae2 DNA repair enzyme. Mol Cell Biol 34: 778–793.
38. RodriguezMS, DargemontC, HayRT (2001) SUMO-1 conjugation in vivo requires both a consensus modification motif and nuclear targeting. J Biol Chem 276: 12654–12659.
39. SampsonDA, WangM, MatunisMJ (2001) The small ubiquitin-like modifier-1 (SUMO-1) consensus sequence mediates Ubc9 binding and is essential for SUMO-1 modification. J Biol Chem 276: 21664–21669.
40. DubinMJ, StokesPH, SumEY, WilliamsRS, ValovaVA, et al. (2004) Dimerization of CtIP, a BRCA1- and CtBP-interacting protein, is mediated by an N-terminal coiled-coil motif. J Biol Chem 279: 26932–26938.
41. KimHS, VijayakumarS, RegerM, HarrisonJC, HaberJE, et al. (2008) Functional interactions between Sae2 and the Mre11 complex. Genetics 178: 711–723.
42. YouZ, ShiLZ, ZhuQ, WuP, ZhangYW, et al. (2009) CtIP links DNA double-strand break sensing to resection. Mol Cell 36: 954–969.
43. LobachevKS, StengerJE, KozyrevaOG, JurkaJ, GordeninDA, et al. (2000) Inverted Alu repeats unstable in yeast are excluded from the human genome. EMBO J 19: 3822–3830.
44. FosterSS, BalestriniA, PetriniJH (2011) Functional interplay of the Mre11 nuclease and Ku in the response to replication-associated DNA damage. Mol Cell Biol 31: 4379–4389.
45. PrinzS, AmonA, KleinF (1997) Isolation of COM1, a new gene required to complete meiotic double-strand break-induced recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 146: 781–795.
46. KeeneyS, KlecknerN (1995) Covalent protein-DNA complexes at the 5′ strand termini of meiosis-specific double-strand breaks in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 11274–11278.
47. McKeeAH, KlecknerN (1997) A general method for identifying recessive diploid-specific mutations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, its application to the isolation of mutants blocked at intermediate stages of meiotic prophase and characterization of a new gene SAE2. Genetics 146: 797–816.
48. ChenH, LisbyM, SymingtonLS (2013) RPA coordinates DNA end resection and prevents formation of DNA hairpins. Mol Cell 50: 589–600.
49. LeeK, LeeSE (2007) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sae2- and Tel1-dependent single-strand DNA formation at DNA break promotes microhomology-mediated end joining. Genetics 176: 2003–2014.
50. DengSK, GibbB, de AlmeidaMJ, GreeneEC, SymingtonLS (2014) RPA antagonizes microhomology-mediated repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 405–412.
51. BoultonSJ, JacksonSP (1996) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku70 potentiates illegitimate DNA double-strand break repair and serves as a barrier to error-prone DNA repair pathways. EMBO J 15: 5093–5103.
52. AlmedawarS, ColominaN, Bermudez-LopezM, Pocino-MerinoI, Torres-RosellJ (2012) A SUMO-dependent step during establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. Curr Biol 22: 1576–1581.
53. WuD, TopperLM, WilsonTE (2008) Recruitment and dissociation of nonhomologous end joining proteins at a DNA double-strand break in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 178: 1237–1249.
54. PalmbosPL, DaleyJM, WilsonTE (2005) Mutations of the Yku80 C terminus and Xrs2 FHA domain specifically block yeast nonhomologous end joining. Mol Cell Biol 25: 10782–10790.
55. LisbyM, BarlowJH, BurgessRC, RothsteinR (2004) Choreography of the DNA damage response: spatiotemporal relationships among checkpoint and repair proteins. Cell 118: 699–713.
56. MimitouEP, SymingtonLS (2010) Ku prevents Exo1 and Sgs1-dependent resection of DNA ends in the absence of a functional MRX complex or Sae2. EMBO J 29: 3358–3369.
57. HangLE, LopezCR, LiuX, WilliamsJM, ChungI, et al. (2014) Regulation of Ku-DNA association by Yku70 C-terminal tail and SUMO modification. J Biol Chem
58. LiF, DongJ, PanX, OumJH, BoekeJD, et al. (2008) Microarray-based genetic screen defines SAW1, a gene required for Rad1/Rad10-dependent processing of recombination intermediates. Mol Cell 30: 325–335.
59. GuzderSN, SommersCH, PrakashL, PrakashS (2006) Complex formation with damage recognition protein Rad14 is essential for Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad1-Rad10 nuclease to perform its function in nucleotide excision repair in vivo. Mol Cell Biol 26: 1135–1141.
60. TohGW, SugawaraN, DongJ, TothR, LeeSE, et al. (2010) Mec1/Tel1-dependent phosphorylation of Slx4 stimulates Rad1-Rad10-dependent cleavage of non-homologous DNA tails. DNA Repair 9: 718–726.
61. ShimEY, ChungWH, NicoletteML, ZhangY, DavisM, et al. (2010) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 and Ku proteins regulate association of Exo1 and Dna2 with DNA breaks. Embo J 29: 3370–3380.
62. RobertT, VanoliF, ChioloI, ShubassiG, BernsteinKA, et al. (2011) HDACs link the DNA damage response, processing of double-strand breaks and autophagy. Nature 471: 74–79.
63. LafranchiL, de BoerHR, de VriesEG, OngSE, SartoriAA, et al. (2014) APC/CCdh1 controls CtIP stability during the cell cycle and in response to DNA damage. EMBO J
64. SteffanJS, AgrawalN, PallosJ, RockabrandE, TrotmanLC, et al. (2004) SUMO modification of Huntingtin and Huntington's disease pathology. Science 304: 100–104.
65. JanerA, WernerA, Takahashi-FujigasakiJ, DaretA, FujigasakiH, et al. (2010) SUMOylation attenuates the aggregation propensity and cellular toxicity of the polyglutamine expanded ataxin-7. Hum Mol Genet 19: 181–195.
66. KrumovaP, MeulmeesterE, GarridoM, TirardM, HsiaoHH, et al. (2011) Sumoylation inhibits alpha-synuclein aggregation and toxicity. J Cell Biol 194: 49–60.
67. Fernandez-EscamillaAM, RousseauF, SchymkowitzJ, SerranoL (2004) Prediction of sequence-dependent and mutational effects on the aggregation of peptides and proteins. Nat Biotechnol 22: 1302–1306.
68. PawarAP, DubayKF, ZurdoJ, ChitiF, VendruscoloM, et al. (2005) Prediction of “aggregation-prone” and “aggregation-susceptible” regions in proteins associated with neurodegenerative diseases. J Mol Biol 350: 379–392.
69. ZuoX, LiS, HallJ, MatternMR, TranH, et al. (2005) Enhanced expression and purification of membrane proteins by SUMO fusion in Escherichia coli. J Struct Funct Genomics 6: 103–111.
70. MalakhovMP, MatternMR, MalakhovaOA, DrinkerM, WeeksSD, et al. (2004) SUMO fusions and SUMO-specific protease for efficient expression and purification of proteins. J Struct Funct Genomics 5: 75–86.
71. LinDY, HuangYS, JengJC, KuoHY, ChangCC, et al. (2006) Role of SUMO-interacting motif in Daxx SUMO modification, subnuclear localization, and repression of sumoylated transcription factors. Mol Cell 24: 341–354.
72. ShenTH, LinHK, ScaglioniPP, YungTM, PandolfiPP (2006) The mechanisms of PML-nuclear body formation. Mol Cell 24: 331–339.
73. Conchillo-SoleO, de GrootNS, AvilesFX, VendrellJ, DauraX, et al. (2007) AGGRESCAN: a server for the prediction and evaluation of “hot spots” of aggregation in polypeptides. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 65.
74. SilverHR, NissleyJA, ReedSH, HouYM, JohnsonES (2011) A role for SUMO in nucleotide excision repair. DNA Repair 10: 1243–1251.
75. SarangiP, BartosovaZ, AltmannovaV, HollandC, ChavdarovaM, et al. (2014) Sumoylation of the Rad1 nuclease promotes DNA repair and regulates its DNA association. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 6393–6404.
76. SarangiP, AltmannovaV, HollandC, BartosovaZ, HaoF, et al. (2014) A Versatile Scaffold Contributes to Damage Survival via Sumoylation and Nuclease Interactions. Cell Rep 9: 143–152.
77. SacherM, PfanderB, HoegeC, JentschS (2006) Control of Rad52 recombination activity by double-strand break-induced SUMO modification. Nat Cell Biol 8: 1284–1290.
78. TomimatsuN, MukherjeeB, Catherine HardebeckM, IlchevaM, Vanessa CamachoC, et al. (2014) Phosphorylation of Exo1 by CDKs 1 and 2 regulates DNA end resection and repair pathway choice. Nat Commun 5: 3561.
79. Gallo-FernandezM, SaugarI, Ortiz-BazanMA, VazquezMV, TerceroJA (2012) Cell cycle-dependent regulation of the nuclease activity of Mus81-Eme1/Mms4. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 8325–8335.
80. MorinI, NgoHP, GreenallA, ZubkoMK, MorriceN, et al. (2008) Checkpoint-dependent phosphorylation of Exo1 modulates the DNA damage response. EMBO J 27: 2400–2410.
81. BurgessRC, RahmanS, LisbyM, RothsteinR, ZhaoX (2007) The Slx5-Slx8 complex affects sumoylation of DNA repair proteins and negatively regulates recombination. Mol Cell Biol 27: 6153–6162.
82. TsalikEL, GartenbergMR (1998) Curing Saccharomyces cerevisiae of the 2 micron plasmid by targeted DNA damage. Yeast 14: 847–852.
83. ZhaoX, BlobelG (2005) A SUMO ligase is part of a nuclear multiprotein complex that affects DNA repair and chromosomal organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 4777–4782.
84. UchimuraY, NakamuraM, SugasawaK, NakaoM, SaitohH (2004) Overproduction of eukaryotic SUMO-1- and SUMO-2-conjugated proteins in Escherichia coli. Anal Biochem 331: 204–206.
85. SartoriAA, LukasC, CoatesJ, MistrikM, FuS, et al. (2007) Human CtIP promotes DNA end resection. Nature 450: 509–514.
86. MossessovaE, LimaCD (2000) Ulp1-SUMO crystal structure and genetic analysis reveal conserved interactions and a regulatory element essential for cell growth in yeast. Mol Cell 5: 865–876.
87. MooreJK, HaberJE (1996) Cell cycle and genetic requirements of two pathways of nonhomologous end-joining repair of double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 16: 2164–2173.
88. ZhaoX, MullerEG, RothsteinR (1998) A suppressor of two essential checkpoint genes identifies a novel protein that negatively affects dNTP pools. Mol Cell 2: 329–340.