biology of telomeres, lessons from budding yeast
TRANSCRIPT
R EV I EW AR T I C L E
Biology of telomeres: lessons from budding yeast
Martin Kupiec
Department of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
Correspondence: Martin Kupiec,
Department of Molecular Microbiology and
Biotechnology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat
Aviv 69978, Israel. Tel.: +972 3 640 9031;
fax: +972 3 640 9407;
e-mail: [email protected]
Received 17 July 2013; revised 12 November
2013; accepted 3 December 2013. Final
version published online 8 January 2014.
DOI: 10.1111/1574-6976.12054
Editor: Jure Piskur
Keywords
genome stability; aging; cancer; DNA
replication; DNA damage response.
Abstract
Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures that cap the ends of the linear eukary-
otic chromosomes and thereby protect their stability and integrity. Telomeres
play central roles in maintaining the genome’s integrity, distinguishing between
the natural chromosomal ends and unwanted double-stranded breaks. In addi-
tion, telomeres are replicated by a special reverse transcriptase called telomer-
ase, in a complex mechanism that is coordinated with the genome’s
replication. Telomeres also play an important role in tethering the chromo-
somes to the nuclear envelope, thus helping in positioning the chromosomes
within the nucleus. The special chromatin configuration of telomeres affects
the expression of nearby genes; nonetheless, telomeres are transcribed, creating
noncoding RNA molecules that hybridize to the chromosomal ends and seem
to play regulatory roles. The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, with its sophisti-
cated genetics and molecular biology, has provided many fundamental concepts
in telomere biology, which were later found to be conserved in all organisms.
Here, we present an overview of all the aspects of telomere biology investigated
in yeast, which continues to provide new insights into this complex and
important subject, which has significant medical implications, especially in the
fields of aging and cancer.
Introduction
The genome of most eukaryotic organisms is divided into
linear chromosomes. Each chromosomal end is protected
by a special nucleoprotein structure called telomere. Telo-
meres play central roles in maintaining the stability of the
genome: they differentiate the natural chromosomal ends,
which should not be repaired, from double-stranded
DNA breaks (DSBs), which occur often by accident in the
cells and need to be repaired urgently to prevent loss of
genomic information (Dewar & Lydall, 2012). Protection
of the chromosomal ends is conferred by the special fold-
ing of telomeres, as well as by specific telomeric proteins.
In addition, telomeres provide a solution to the end-
replication problem: the regular DNA replication machin-
ery is unable to fully replicate the chromosomal ends
(Olovnikov, 1971; Watson, 1972); as a consequence,
information is lost with each cell division, eventually
resulting in senescence and cell death (Hayflick, 1979;
Lundblad & Szostak, 1989; Harley et al., 1990).
Highly proliferative cells, such as mammalian embry-
onic cells and unicellular organisms, solve this problem
by expressing the specialized reverse transcriptase telo-
merase (Greider & Blackburn, 1987; de Lange, 2009),
which is able to extend the telomeres by copying telo-
meric sequences from an internal RNA template. Indeed,
it is enough to express active telomerase to overcome cel-
lular senescence in somatic cells (Bodnar et al., 1998).
Cancer cells also require functional telomeres: in about
80% of tumors, the telomerase gene is expressed
(DeMasters et al., 1997); in the rest, an alternative mech-
anism, based on homologous recombination (HR), allows
telomere length extension (ALT; reviewed in Conomos
et al., 2013). Moreover, experiments have shown that
replenishing telomeres is one of the few essential and
earliest steps that a normal mammalian fibroblast must
take to become cancerous (Hahn et al., 1999). Mutations
that affect telomere function result in human diseases,
such as dyskeratosis Congenita, idiopathic pulmonary
fibrosis, and others (Calado & Young, 2009; Armanios,
2012; Gramatges & Bertuch, 2013). Thus, our under-
standing of the biology of telomeres has significant medi-
cal implications and is especially relevant to the fields of
aging and cancer.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
MIC
ROBI
OLO
GY
REV
IEW
S
Although some differences exist between the organiza-
tion of telomeres in yeast and mammals, many basic rules
are universal. In 2009, Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol
Greider, and Jack Szostak received the Nobel Prize in
Medicine for their work on telomeres and telomerase.
Much of this work was carried out in model organisms,
including the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Several excellent reviews on various aspects of telomere
biology have been published in the last years (Palm & de
Lange, 2008; Lydall, 2009; Shore & Bianchi, 2009; Artandi
& DePinho, 2010; Giraud-Panis et al., 2010; Dewar &
Lydall, 2012; Smekalova et al., 2012; Stewart et al.,
2012a, b; Wellinger & Zakian, 2012; Churikov et al.,
2013; Conomos et al., 2013; Gramatges & Bertuch, 2013;
Lu et al., 2013; Nandakumar & Cech, 2013; Teixeira,
2013). Here, we will concentrate on what we have learnt
from the yeast S. cerevisiae, an organism that, by virtue of
its fast growth, excellent biochemistry, and superb genet-
ics, has become extensively used for the molecular genetic
dissection of many universal cellular processes.
Throughout this review, we will refer to four intercon-
nected aspects of telomere biology: (1) telomere ‘capping’,
which prevents the recognition of the natural ends as if
they were DSBs that require repair; (2) telomere replica-
tion, which is necessary to solve the end-replication prob-
lem and must be coordinated with regular DNA
polymerases; (3) telomere localization at the periphery of
the nucleus and its role in silencing of genes located nearby;
finally, (4) telomere length regulation: a typical ‘wild-type’
length is achieved by a complex homeostasis, which is
exquisitely regulated. As expected, all these aspects of
telomere biology are interconnected, interrelated, and
interdependent, and it is not always possible to separate
one from another.
Structure and sequence of telomeres
The telomeres of most organisms are composed of simple
tandem repeats, and, although telomeres vary in length
(from c. 350 bp in yeast to several kb in mammals), their
general structure and functions are conserved (Fig. 1).
The yeast telomeric sequence is not regular and can be
described as T(G1–3) (Shampay et al., 1984; McEachern &
Blackburn, 1994). These sequences are copied by the cata-
lytic subunit of telomerase from the telomerase RNA
template (TLC1 in yeast), whose template sequence is
CACACACCCACACCAC (Lin et al., 2004). Thus, the
RNA template is partially used, and only very short
stretches are copied in each round of telomerase activity
from different regions of the template (Forstemann &
Lingner, 2001). Although the heterogeneity of the telo-
meric sequence in yeast makes it difficult to know the
exact sequence present at any chromosomal end, the same
heterogeneity has been exploited to monitor recently
added telomeric DNA: Individual clones differ in the
sequences added to the pre-existing telomere; this has
been used to ask what telomeres are chosen for elonga-
tion and how this mechanism is controlled (Teixeira
et al., 2004; Arneric & Lingner, 2007; Chang et al., 2007).
The yeast telomeres, as their mammalian counterparts,
are not blunt, but exhibit a 3′ extension of the G-rich
strand (also called a ‘G-tail’ or ‘G-overhang’). This tail
varies in length during the cell cycle, remaining very short
for most of the cycle (about 12 nt; Larrivee et al., 2004),
CSTRif2Rif1 Rap1
Sir2Sir3Sir4
Cdc13Stn1Ten1
Ku70ku80
Telomerase
RPASIR KU
X 0–4 x Y’
TG repeats
TG repeats
5’3’
Rfa1Rfa2Rfa3 Telomerase
Est1Est2Est3TLC1
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 1. Structure of the yeast telomere.
(a) Schematic representation of a yeast
telomere, showing the X and Y′ sequences
and the internal and terminal TG overhangs.
(b) ‘Fold-back’ structure of the yeast telomere,
with representative proteins. Rap1 binds the
telomeric repeats; and Rif1, Rif2, and the SIR
proteins bind to Rap1. The Ku heterodimer
binds to telomeric dsDNA, and the CST
complex binds the terminal ssDNA end.
(c) Telomerase is recruited to telomeres
present in an ‘extensible’ configuration.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 145
but elongating at late S by a mechanism that involves
both elongation of the G-strand by telomerase and degra-
dation of the C-strand and is highly coordinated with
genomic DNA replication (Dionne & Wellinger, 1998;
Frank et al., 2006).
In addition to the telomeric sequences, yeast chromo-
somal ends, as most other eukaryotes, have subtelomeric
repeats. Two repeat families occur exclusively at subtelo-
meric regions: the X and Y′ elements. X units are present
in almost all telomeres, although they may slightly vary in
size and in sequence. In about half of the telomeres, and
distally to the X units (i.e. toward the chromosome’s
end), Y′ elements are present, in 1–4 tandem repeats, bor-
dered by the telomeric repeats on the distal end (Fig. 1a).
TG repeats are sometimes found between the X and the
Y′ elements, as well as between Y′ and Y′ (when more
than one Y′ repeat is present in tandem; Walmsley et al.,
1984). These are potential sources of genomic instability,
as they can recombine with telomeric sequences (Akseno-
va et al., 2013; Gazy & Kupiec, 2013). Potential origins of
replication (ARSs) are present within these elements
(Chan & Tye, 1983). Interestingly, subtelomeric repeats
appear to be extremely variable from strain to strain: for
example, the identity of the Y′-less chromosomal arms
differs among related strains (Horowitz et al., 1984;
Zakian et al., 1986); this is correlated with a high
frequency of recombination among subtelomeric regions
(Louis & Haber, 1990).
Linear chromosomes lacking telomeric TG repeats have
extremely low stability and tend to be lost (Szostak &
Blackburn, 1982; Shampay et al., 1984; Lundblad &
Szostak, 1989). However, normal chromosomal arms nat-
urally exist lacking Y′ elements, and chromosomes engi-
neered to lack both X and Y′ elements are very stable
(Sandell & Zakian, 1993). Despite this apparent dispens-
ability, subtelomeric regions, in particular Y′, are used to
maintain stable chromosomes in cells defective for telo-
merase activity (Lundblad & Blackburn, 1993; Maxwell
et al., 2004).
Telomeric proteins
A number of proteins bind the subtelomeric and telomer-
ic DNA and serve several roles in end protection, DNA
replication, and chromatin establishment and mainte-
nance. Most proteins participate in more than one aspect
of telomere biology (Fig. 1b and c).
Rap1
Rap1 is an abundant essential protein (c. 4000 molecules
per haploid cell; Buchman et al., 1988) that binds
double-stranded telomeric DNA via its two tandem myb
domains (Konig et al., 1996). In addition, Rap1 works as
a general cellular transcriptional activator that binds to
upstream promoter regions at a large number of genes
and interacts with various coactivator proteins (Tornow
et al., 1993; Lieb et al., 2001; Zhao et al., 2006).
It has been calculated that about 20 Rap1 molecules
bind each individual telomere in wt cells (Wright &
Zakian, 1995). Rap1 binds telomeres with high affinity
(Conrad et al., 1990; Lustig et al., 1990) although in a
noncooperative manner (Gilson et al., 1993; Williams
et al., 2010) and plays a central role in determining telo-
mere length: indeed, it has been proposed that a ‘count-
ing mechanism’ is able to monitor (and respond to) the
number of Rap1 molecules (and its partners Rif1 and
Rif2, see below) bound to each individual telomere
(Krauskopf & Blackburn, 1996, 1998; Marcand et al.,
1997; Levy & Blackburn, 2004; Poschke et al., 2012).
Rap1 is an essential protein; however, N-terminal dele-
tions that ablate its BRCT domain (which usually inter-
acts with phosphorylated proteins) are not lethal (Moretti
et al., 1994; Graham et al., 1999). The telomeric functions
of the protein are concentrated in its C-terminus, which
interacts with the Rif1/Rif2 proteins, as well as with the
gene silencing Sir3/Sir4 complex (Kyrion et al., 1992;
Wotton & Shore, 1997; Graham et al., 1999). Rap1 plays
several interrelated roles at the telomere: it prevents
telomere–telomere fusions (Pardo & Marcand, 2005;
Marcand et al., 2008), determines its localization to the
nuclear periphery (Gotta & Gasser, 1996; Laroche et al.,
1998), affects silencing (Hardy et al., 1992a, b; Kyrion
et al., 1993; Palladino et al., 1993), and protects the chro-
mosomal ends (Negrini et al., 2007; Vodenicharov et al.,
2010). Moreover, its dual role as a telomere component
and a general transcription regulator allows Rap1 to serve
as an effector of stress-specific expression programs. Rap1
gets relocalized from the telomeres to additional genomic
sites upon DNA damage (Tomar et al., 2008), glucose
starvation (Buck & Lieb, 2006), and interestingly, senes-
cence initiated by telomere shortening (Platt et al., 2013).
Among hundreds of genes affected by these relocatization
events, it is possible to find the core histone genes, which
are repressed by Rap1 upon senescence (Platt et al.,
2013).
Rif1 and Rif2
Using the yeast two-hybrid method, two factors were iso-
lated, Rif1 and Rif2, that bind the C-terminal region of
Rap1 (Hardy et al., 1992a, b; Wotton & Shore, 1997).
Cells defective for each of these factors exhibit long telo-
meres, indicating that the function of these proteins is to
negatively regulate the elongation of telomeres (Hardy
et al., 1992a, b; Wotton & Shore, 1997). Rif1 and Rif2
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
146 M. Kupiec
binding confers to Rap1-bound telomeric DNA, a higher
order structure by interconnecting different Rap1 units.
This structure is functionally important, although its
function remains enigmatic (Shi et al., 2013). Despite
these common structural function, Rif1 and Rif2 seem to
play several roles independently of each other. As
explained above, rif1 and rif2 mutants show elongated
telomeres. The double mutant, however, exhibits much
longer and unregulated telomeres, indicating that the two
proteins participate in alternative regulatory mechanisms
(Wotton & Shore, 1997; Romano et al., 2013).
Although telomeric DNA resembles one half of a bro-
ken chromosome, one of the main functions of telomeres
is to ‘cap’ this end to prevent its recognition by the DNA
repair machinery of the cell. Rif1 and Rif2 play an
important role in this process. They both play nonover-
lapping roles in masking a DSB flanked by a very short
array of telomeric repeats (Ribeyre & Shore, 2012). Sur-
prisingly, however, Rap1 and Rif2, but not Rif1, inhibit
the access of nucleases and the nonhomologous end-
joining (NHEJ) machinery (Marcand et al., 2008; Bonetti
et al., 2010a, b; Cornacchia et al., 2012); Rif2 also pre-
vents the association of the Tel1/MRX complex (the yeast
version of ATM/MRN) with telomeres (Hirano et al.,
2009; Chapman et al., 2013) and plays a role in recruit-
ing the histone deacetylase Rpd3L (Poschke et al., 2012).
In contrast, Rif1, but not Rif2, is essential for cell viabil-
ity when the CST activity fails (CST is a protein complex
with a role in telomere capping, see below; Addinall
et al., 2011; Anbalagan et al., 2011; Di Virgilio et al.,
2013). Rif1 seems to play an independent role in trans-
ducing environmental signals to the telomere-maintaining
machinery (Harari et al., 2013; Romano et al., 2013), a
role not shared with Rif2. Surprisingly, Rif1 seems also to
carry out checkpoint-regulating functions at the telo-
meres independently of Rap1 (Feldheim et al., 2011;
Harari et al., 2011; Xue et al., 2011; Escribano-Diaz et al.,
2013; Zimmermann et al., 2013). This finding suggests
that Rif1 may be able to bind DNA sequences by itself.
Consistently, recent work has uncovered functions carried
out by Rif1 that are independent of telomeres, but are
related to DNA transactions. Both fission yeast and mam-
malian Rif1 control the replication-timing program,
determining which regions should replicate at any given
time (Hardy et al., 1992a, b; Cornacchia et al., 2012;
Hayano et al., 2012; Yamazaki et al., 2012). The mamma-
lian ortholog of Rif1 has also recently been found to play
a central role in determining whether a DSB will be pro-
cessed by the HR or the NHEJ pathways (Chapman
et al., 2013; Di Virgilio et al., 2013; Escribano-Diaz et al.,
2013; Zimmermann et al., 2013). The exact mechanism
of these Rif1-regulated events is the current subject of
much investigation.
Yku70 and Yku80
The conserved Ku complex, composed of two proteins of
c. 70 and 85 kDa (Yku70 and Yku80 in yeast), plays
central roles in NHEJ in all eukaryotes studied to date
(Gilson et al., 1993; Palladino et al., 1993; Hirano &
Sugimoto, 2007; Vodenicharov & Wellinger, 2007; Bonetti
et al., 2010a, b). Yeast cells, however, lack the DNA-PK
activity associated with Ku in mammals (Collis et al.,
2005). As NHEJ must be avoided at telomeres, it is sur-
prising that Ku is also a natural component of telomeres.
However, Ku plays an essential role in telomere mainte-
nance (Porter et al., 1996; reviewed in Bertuch &
Lundblad, 2003; Dewar & Lydall, 2012). In yeast, the Ku
complex seems to be recruited to the telomeres in a num-
ber of ways: (1) via the interactions between Yku80 and
Sir4 [Sir4 is a member of the heterochromatin-specific
complex silent information regulator (SIR), see below]
(Martin et al., 1999; Bonetti et al., 2010a, b). (2) In a
Sir4-independent fashion, to subtelomeric X sequences
(Boulton & Jackson, 1996a, b). (3) The Ku complex is
associated with telomerase RNA (TLC1) and participates
in the import of TLC1 to the nucleus (Rathmell & Chu,
1994) and possibly in the recruitment of telomerase
(Taccioli et al., 1994; Gravel et al., 1998; Roy et al.,
2004). (4) The Ku proteins play a role in anchoring the
telomeres to the perinuclear space (Laroche et al., 1998)
by a still mysterious mechanism that involves the small
protein modifier SUMO (Marvin et al., 2009a, b).
(5) Finally, Ku activity has been shown to prevent exonu-
cleolytic activity at broken chromosomes and at telomeres
(Bonetti et al., 2010a, b; Mimitou & Symington, 2010).
Thus, Ku affects almost all aspects of telomere biology.
Interestingly, specific mutations have been found, which
separate the roles that Ku plays in NHEJ and in telomere
biology (Ribes-Zamora et al., 2007; Lopez et al., 2011).
The CST complex
A third conserved complex is composed of the Cdc13,
Stn1, and Ten1 proteins. This complex is structurally sim-
ilar to replication protein A (RPA), which binds ssDNA
during cellular DNA replication and DNA repair (Nugent
et al., 1996; Grandin et al., 1997, 2000, 2001a, b; Qi &
Zakian, 2000; Pennock et al., 2001; Petreaca et al., 2006;
Churikov et al., 2013). Indeed, domains can be swapped
between the two complexes, without losing functionality
(Gao et al., 2007; Gelinas et al., 2009).
The CST binds single-stranded telomeric repeats
through oligosaccharide/oligonucleotide/oligopeptide bind-
ing (OB) folds, a common motif in ssDNA and RNA
binding proteins (Pennock et al., 2001; Sun et al., 2009,
2011). It has been proposed that the CST outcompetes
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 147
and replaces RPA at telomeres; however, RPA can also be
detected at telomeres and is probably functional during
DNA replication (Schramke et al., 2004; Luciano et al.,
2012; Grandin & Charbonneau, 2013). Thus, both com-
plexes are able to bind the telomeric repeats, and the
division of work between them may be intricately linked
to the mechanism of replication at telomeres.
Conversely, despite high affinity of Cdc13 for single-
stranded TG repeats (Lin & Zakian, 1996; Nugent et al.,
1996), Cdc13 can in principle be recruited to broken
chromosomes (DSBs) to promote telomere addition at
nontelomeric ssDNA sequences (Mandell et al., 2011).
This process is tightly monitored by phosphorylation and
de-phosphorylation of Cdc13 at position S306 by the
checkpoint kinases and phosphatases (Zhang & Durocher,
2010). The two proteins associated with Cdc13, Stn1, and
Ten1, were isolated as genetic and physical interactors of
Cdc13 (Grandin et al., 1997, 2001a, b). Mutations that
inactivate Cdc13, such as the temperature-sensitive
cdc13-1 allele, result in telomere uncapping and cell death
(Grandin et al., 2001a, b; Maringele & Lydall, 2004a, b).
Complete lack of Cdc13 activity leads to telomeric DNA
resection, generating ssDNA that stimulates a checkpoint-
mediated cell cycle arrest (Garvik et al., 1995; Maringele
& Lydall, 2004a, b; Vodenicharov & Wellinger, 2006). At
the permissive temperature, many cdc13 strains (such as
those carrying the cdc13-1 allele), as well as stn1 and ten1
mutants, elongate their telomeres (Garvik et al., 1995; Lin
& Zakian, 1996; Grandin et al., 1997, 2000, 2001a, b;
Evans & Lundblad, 1999; Meier et al., 2001; Petreaca
et al., 2006), indicating that their normal activity prevents
telomere elongation. However, the interactions between
the three proteins are not completely understood. Stn1
and Ten1 appear to regulate the activity of Cdc13
(Churikov et al., 2013) possibly by modulating the inter-
actions with subunits of polymerase alpha (see below).
On the other hand, mutations in STN1 (Grandin et al.,
1997) or overexpression of both Stn1 and Ten1 (Petreaca
et al., 2006; Sun et al., 2009) suppresses the lethality of
cdc13-1 mutants.
The SIR complex
In many organisms, genes located close to telomeres
undergo silencing (also called telomere position effect or
TPE). This phenomenon is due to the heterochromatic
nature of subtelomeric regions, which represses promoter
activity independently of the specific promoter sequence.
The area silenced varies among strains and chromosomal
ends, but can be as long as 10–15 kb from the telomere
ends (Pryde & Louis, 1999).
The SIR complex consists of three proteins, Sir2, Sir3,
and Sir4. The SIR complex interacts with histones to
form the silencing machinery in S. cerevisiae (Rusche
et al., 2003; Liou et al., 2005; Cubizolles et al., 2006). The
complex is recruited to telomeres by interactions with
Rap1. Interestingly, although Rap1 binds to the TG
repeats at the telomere ends, bound Rap1 can also be
found by chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) at a
distance from the telomere end, several kb away (Strahl-
Bolsinger et al., 1997; Poschke et al., 2012). The SIR com-
plex is present in this subtelomeric region too, and it has
been suggested that the yeast chromosome folds back,
allowing contact between terminal and subtelomeric
regions (Fourel et al., 1999, 2001; Ferrari et al., 2004;
Poschke et al., 2012), in a way that may protect the DNA
ends, akin to the mammalian T-loop (Griffith et al.,
1999) (Fig. 1b). Transcription factors that bind to the X
regions participate in the nucleation of SIR-dependent
repression, as well as the Ku complex (Enomoto et al.,
1994; Laroche et al., 1998; Fourel et al., 1999, 2001;
Mishra & Shore, 1999; Ferrari et al., 2004; Radman-Livaja
et al., 2011).
From these nucleation sites, the SIR complex spreads
along the chromatin fiber (Hecht et al., 1996; Strahl-
Bolsinger et al., 1997). This spreading is dependent on the
deacetylation activity of Sir2 (Tanny et al., 1999; Imai
et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2000), which, interestingly, is
stimulated by its interactions with Sir4 (Ghidelli et al.,
2001; Tanny et al., 2004; Hsu et al., 2013) and generates
high-affinity nucleosomal binding sites for Sir3. The
Sir3–Sir4 dimer constitutes the structural backbone of
silent chromatin (reviewed in Moazed et al., 2004). The
SIR complex plays a still enigmatic role in tethering telo-
meres to the nuclear envelope (see below). Among other
interactions, Sir4 interacts with the Mps3 nuclear envelope
protein (Bupp et al., 2007), and this interaction may con-
tribute to organizing chromosomes within the nucleus.
Telomerase
The genetic screens carried out by Lundblad and Szostak
(1989) that identified ‘ever shorter telomere’ (est)
mutants defective in components of the telomerase holo-
enzyme (est1, est2, est3) also found a fourth complemen-
tation group that was allelic to CDC13 (Lendvay et al.,
1996). However, contrary to the defective capping pheno-
type of the cdc13-1 allele, which leads to G2/M cell cycle
arrest and massive telomeric DNA resection, the est4
allele of CDC13 (re-named cdc13-2; Nugent et al., 1996)
showed a senescent behavior, characteristic of cells unable
to support telomerase activity. This suggested that Cdc13
could function in both telomere capping and replication.
Est1, Est2, Est3, and Tlc1 form the yeast telomerase holo-
enzyme (Hughes et al., 2000). A fusion between Cdc13
and Est1 was shown to lead to telomere elongation, even
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
148 M. Kupiec
in the presence of cdc13-2 mutations or Est1 alleles
unable to interact with telomerase (Evans & Lundblad,
1999). Moreover, if Cdc13 was fused directly to the Est2
catalytic subunit, the essential Est1 subunit became dis-
pensable, demonstrating that the Cdc13-Est1 interaction
has as its goal the recruitment of telomerase.
Telomere capping
One of the main functions of the telomere is to prevent
the cell from repairing its natural chromosomal ends as if
they were DSBs. This function, called telomere capping, is
extremely important: DSBs are among the most serious
types of DNA damage a cell can undergo, and efficient
response mechanisms have evolved to cope with the pres-
ence of even a single DSB. Below, I summarize the cellu-
lar response to a broken chromosome and then compare
it to that observed when the telomeric capping function
is missing. For a more in-depth comparison, see Dewar
and Lydall (2012).
The DNA damage response
A single DSB [created by external insults (radiation,
chemical treatment) or internal cellular metabolism (reac-
tive oxygen species, errors during DNA replication)] elic-
its a robust DNA damage response (DDR, sometimes
referred to as the DNA damage checkpoint), which
includes cell cycle arrest and attempts to repair the break
(Sandell & Zakian, 1993; Aylon & Kupiec, 2003).
Depending on the cell cycle phase (Ira et al., 2004; Aylon
et al., 2004; Aylon & Kupiec, 2005), the broken arms are
then either ligated in a sequence-independent manner (by
the nonhomologous end-joining, or NHEJ, mechanism)
or processed by nucleases, to generate ssDNA that can
then engage in HR with similar sequences at other geno-
mic locations (Aylon et al., 2003).
The decision of whether to repair the break by NHEJ
or by HR falls early in the process: once the ends start to
be resected, they are committed to repair by HR (Aylon
et al., 2003). The first step in the resection process
depends on the MRX complex (Mre11–Xrs2–Rad50) and
the nuclease Sae2, which together generate a short
(50–100 nucleotide) overhang of 3′ ssDNA (Mimitou &
Symington, 2008). This first step is followed by a more
extensive resection carried out by a combination of the
exonuclease Exo1, the helicase Sgs1, and the helicase/
nuclease Dna2 (Tsubouchi & Ogawa, 2000; Gravel et al.,
2008; Mimitou & Symington, 2008; Zhu et al., 2008;
Bonetti et al., 2009). The specific functions of these
enzymes and their interactions are still being elucidated.
A triple mutant devoid of Sae2, Exo1, and Sgs1 or the
double mutants defective for Sae2 and Sgs1 or Sgs1 and
Exo1 show no resection, whereas a sae2D exo1D double
mutant still shows resection. This suggested a model in
which MRX/Sae2 acts first in combination with Sgs1 and
Dna2, and then the Sgs1/Dna2 pair allows Exo1 to extend
the resection. Apparently, Exo1 cannot initiate resection
by itself; double mutants sae2D sgs1D are inviable,
whereas sae2D exo1D cells are viable (Tsubouchi & Oga-
wa, 2000; Gravel et al., 2008; Mimitou & Symington,
2008; Zhu et al., 2008; Bonetti et al., 2009). The activity
of Exo1 is inhibited by the Ku complex (Yku70/Yku80):
in the absence of Ku, sae2D sgs1D cells become viable
(Bonetti et al., 2010a, b; Mimitou & Symington, 2010).
Also consistent with this model, the resection reaction
can be carried out in vitro by combining MRX with Sgs1
and Dna2 (Cejka et al., 2010; Niu et al., 2010) or MRX/
Sae2 and Exo1 (Nicolette et al., 2010; Nimonkar et al.,
2011). Chromatin configuration also plays a still enig-
matic role in controlling resection: the Sgs1–Dna2-depen-dent machinery requires a nucleosome-free gap adjacent
to the DSB for efficient resection, and Exo1 activity is
blocked by regular nucleosomes and may require the
incorporation of the H2A.Z for its activity (Adkins et al.,
2013).
As a result of the resection activity, ssDNA is created,
which gets rapidly covered by the ssDNA binding protein
RPA. This leads to the activation of the DDR kinases
(Zou & Elledge, 2003) through two main branches: Mec1,
the yeast ortholog of ATR, and its partner Ddc2 (ATRIP)
are recruited to the ssDNA-RPA (Paciotti et al., 2000;
Rouse & Jackson, 2000; Kondo et al., 2001; Zou & Ell-
edge, 2003). In parallel, the 9-1-1 complex (composed in
yeast by the Rad17, Ddc1, and Mec3 proteins) is also
loaded onto RPA-coated ssDNA by the Rad24 (Rad17 in
humans) clamp loader (Kondo et al., 2001; Melo et al.,
2001; Majka & Burgers, 2003). Mec1-phosphorylated his-
tone H2A at the site of DNA damage attracts the Rad9
adaptor protein (Downs et al., 2004; Naiki et al., 2004;
Toh et al., 2006; Hammet et al., 2007; Usui et al., 2009),
which also interacts with methylated H3K79 (Wysocki
et al., 2005; Lazzaro et al., 2008). In addition, Dpb11
serves as a bridging partner connecting the Mec1/Ddc2,
the 9-1-1, and the Rad9 branches (Mordes et al., 2008;
Pfander & Diffley, 2011). Rad9 undergoes phosphoryla-
tion by the single yeast cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK1),
generating a substrate for Dpb11 binding. By simulta-
neously binding Mec1 and phosphorylated Rad9, Dpb11
enforces the checkpoint signal transduction and restricts
it to the proper cell cycle phase (Pfander & Diffley, 2011).
Once all these players are in place at the DNA damage
site, Mec1 phosphorylates and activates the downstream
effector kinases Rad53 (Chk2) and Chk1 (Sun et al.,
1998; Sanchez et al., 1999; Blankley & Lydall, 2004; Usui
et al., 2009). The activity of these kinases prevents cell
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 149
cycle progression: Rad53 phosphorylates the anaphase-
promoting complex (Hu et al., 2001; Agarwal et al.,
2003), and Chk1 phosphorylates the securin Pds1 (San-
chez et al., 1999), blocking progress through anaphase. In
a parallel branch, Rad53 activates the Dun1 kinase, thus
upregulating DNA damage-responsive genes and resulting
in an increase in the cellular dNTP levels (Zhou &
Elledge, 1993; Gardner et al., 1999; Zhao & Rothstein,
2002; Andreson et al., 2010).
Importantly, a feedback mechanism seems to operate,
in which Mec1, Rad9, and Rad53 play roles in inhibiting
resection (Lydall & Weinert, 1995; Jia et al., 2004; Lazzaro
et al., 2008; Morin et al., 2008; Segurado & Diffley, 2008)
thus preventing excessive chromosomal DNA degrada-
tion.
In human cells, two major, evolutionarily related
checkpoint kinases control the response to DNA damage:
ATR and ATM. Whereas ATR responds to problems
during DNA replication by activating Chk1, the ATM
is elicited by DSBs and activates Chk2 (Cimprich &
Cortez, 2008; Shiloh & Ziv, 2013). In S. cerevisiae and
Schizosaccharomyces pombe, in contrast, the ATR ortholog
(Mec1 and Rad3) activates both Chk1 and Chk2/Rad53,
whereas Tel1, the ATM ortholog, plays a role mainly at
telomeres, or when the Mec1 pathway is dysfunctional
(Sabourin & Zakian, 2008). Tel1 is recruited to DSBs by
the Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 (MRX) complex, where it usually
plays a secondary role, helping to activate the Mec1
checkpoint pathway (Mantiero et al., 2007). However, a
large number of DSBs is able to elicit a Tel1-dependent,
Mec1-independent response (Mantiero et al., 2007). The
activity of Sae2, which initiates resection, also stimulates
the Mre11 nuclease, which helps to liberate MRX from
the DSB, committing the cells to the Mec1-dependent
response (Langerak et al., 2011; Limbo et al., 2011). In
the absence of resection or Mec1, Tel1 is recruited via
interactions with Xrs2 (Usui et al., 2001; Nakada et al.,
2003). Tel1 is then able to elicit the checkpoint response
similarly to Mec1 (Usui et al., 2001; Mantiero et al.,
2007; Limbo et al., 2011).
As we have seen, the broken DNA ends are resected in
cells with an active CDK1 to generate RPA-covered
ssDNA. With the help of several mediator proteins, the
RPA is displaced and replaced by the Rad51 protein, the
eukaryotic ortholog of bacterial RecA. This Rad51 nucleo-
filament is the main intermediate in the HR process: it
allows strand exchange and pairing between molecules
sharing sequences (reviewed in Krejci et al., 2012).
Sequence homology can be usually found in sister chro-
matids, homologs, or just similar sequences ectopically
located. A genome-wide search for homology allows the
Rad51 filament to find its recombination partner (Barzel
& Kupiec, 2008; Agmon et al., 2013). Repair by HR
results in the joining of the broken ends, sometimes
incorporating information transferred from the ‘donor
sequence’ to the originally broken molecule (called ‘gene
conversion’). If the two DNA molecules share a long
stretch of sequence identity, gene conversion can be asso-
ciated with a crossing over event that exchanges informa-
tion reciprocally between partners (Inbar et al., 2000).
Telomere uncapping
As we have seen, telomeres naturally carry a ssDNA end
covered by the RPA-like CST complex (Lin & Zakian,
1996; Grandin et al., 1997, 2001a, b; Gao et al., 2007).
The cdc13-1 allele is temperature sensitive: at the restric-
tive temperature, telomeres become uncapped (Garvik
et al., 1995), resulting in their recognition by the cell as a
DSB. A robust DDR ensues, which includes extensive
ssDNA resection and cell cycle arrest (Garvik et al., 1995;
Jia et al., 2004). A similar response is observed with other
temperature-sensitive alleles of the CST partners (Gao
et al., 2007) or even with a strain deleted for the CDC13
gene (Vodenicharov & Wellinger, 2006; see below). The
genetic control of resection differs from the one observed
at nontelomeric DSBs: the MRX complex, which usually
participates in the initiation of resection, inhibits resec-
tion at telomeres, and mutations in the MRX genes exhi-
bit increased ssDNA levels (Foster et al., 2006). An
elegant labeling experiment demonstrated that MRX
binds specifically to leading-strand telomeres, where it
could generate ssDNA for the CST to bind (Faure et al.,
2010).
When telomeres become uncapped, or in the absence
of active Tel1 and Mec1 pathways, the cells also repair
some of the exposed telomere DNA by NHEJ, creating
telomere–telomere fusions (Mieczkowski et al., 2003;
Pardo & Marcand, 2005; Marcand et al., 2008), which
contribute to the formation of gross chromosomal rear-
rangements (Myung et al., 2001). The genetic control of
fusion formation is complex, involving several alternative
pathways (Mieczkowski et al., 2003; Pardo & Marcand,
2005; Marcand et al., 2008).
Telomerase is also found at the leading-strand telo-
meres; it could play a protective role preventing resection
(Vega et al., 2007). In contrast to the relatively small
effect of mutations in EXO1 on the resection of DSBs
(Mimitou & Symington, 2008), Exo1 is the main nuclease
at uncapped telomeres, and exo1D mutants show reduced
resection levels (Maringele & Lydall, 2002; Zubko et al.,
2004). This effect is probably due to the requirement by
Exo1 for overhangs to initiate its activity: these naturally
occur at telomeres. Sgs1 is also active in the resection of
uncapped cdc13-1 telomeres (Ngo & Lydall, 2010),
and Dna2 is likely to be involved too, as its human
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
150 M. Kupiec
counterpart participates in telomere processing (Lin et al.,
2013). Surprisingly, however, extensive resection is
observed upon Cdc13 inactivation in the absence of both
Exo1 and Sgs1, suggesting the existence of an alternative
nuclease (Ngo & Lydall, 2010). The Pif1 helicase plays a
role in controlling access of this nuclease, as its inactiva-
tion abolishes all resection in an exo1D mutant (Dewar &
Lydall, 2010). Another important player at Cdc13-inacti-
vated telomeres is the 9-1-1 complex and its loader,
Rad24, which contribute to regulate resection. A similar
role has been observed in nontelomeric DSBs (Aylon &
Kupiec, 2003).
The Ku complex negatively regulates resection at both
DSBs (Mimitou & Symington, 2010) and at telomeres
(Maringele & Lydall, 2002; Bonetti et al., 2010a, b), where
it also plays a capping role. Surprisingly, however, at telo-
meres lacking Ku, Chk1, rather than Rad53, is in charge
of the cell cycle arrest (Teo & Jackson, 2001; Maringele &
Lydall, 2002). In addition, in uncapped telomeres that
lack Ku70, the 9-1-1 complex seems to play no role in
checkpoint activation, which is entirely dependent on
Exo1 (Booth et al., 2001; Maringele & Lydall, 2002;
Zubko et al., 2004).
Thorough experiments from the Wellinger laboratory
have shown (Vodenicharov & Wellinger, 2006, 2007;
Vodenicharov et al., 2010) that the Cdc13 complex is
only required for capping during late S and G2/M phases,
but not in G1. Several explanations are possible for this
cell cycle dependency: it may be related to the CDK1
activity, which is required for regulating the resection
machinery (Aylon et al., 2004; Ira et al., 2004; Aylon &
Kupiec, 2005). Alternatively, this cell cycle dependency
may be related to the timing of DNA replication: physical
interactions have been observed between CST members
and lagging-strand replication components (Nugent et al.,
1996; Qi & Zakian, 2000; Grossi et al., 2004). Interest-
ingly, mutations in Ku components promote a change in
the pattern of end-processing, allowing MRX-dependent
resection in G1 (Clerici et al., 2008; Bonetti et al.,
2010a, b; Vodenicharov et al., 2010) even in cells having
an intact CST.
Similarly to the CST and Ku complexes, the Rap1-Rif1-
Rif2 complex plays a role in telomere capping. Rap1 inac-
tivation leads to Exo1-driven resection that, surprisingly,
leads to cell cycle arrest at G1 instead of the Mec1-depen-
dent G2 arrest (Vodenicharov et al., 2010). Elimination
of the C-terminal region of Rap1 or mutations in Rif2
leads to an MRX-dependent, but Exo-independent accu-
mulation of telomeric ssDNA (Bonetti et al., 2010a, b).
These results highlight a separation of function in con-
trolling resection, with Ku inhibiting Exo1 and Rap1-Rif2
inhibiting MRX activity (Bonetti et al., 2010a, b). Rif1
and Rif2 bind the C-terminus of Rap1, but seem to have
opposite effects on telomere capping: defects caused by
inactivation of the CST complex or Ku are exacerbated
by loss of Rif1 but alleviated by loss of Rif2 (Addinall
et al., 2011; Anbalagan et al., 2011). Mutations in Rap1
result in increased levels of both NHEJ and resection at
the telomeres, suggesting that Rap1 binding is essential to
prevent any telomere processing (Pardo & Marcand,
2005; Marcand et al., 2008). Moreover, it has been shown
that Rif2, but not Rif1, prevents the association of MRX/
Tel1 to telomeres (Hirano et al., 2009; Bonetti et al.,
2010a, b).
Finally, it is possible that telomerase may have a cap-
ping function, in addition to its DNA synthesis activity.
Although no increased end degradation is observed in
cells recruiting lower levels of telomerase (e.g. in cells car-
rying mutations in the TLC1 RNA gene), combining
these mutations with cdc13-1 leads to increased tempera-
ture sensitivity, suggesting some protective role for telo-
merase (Vega et al., 2007; Addinall et al., 2011).
Finally, situations exist in which telomere capping is
attained by alternative, Cdc13-independent mechanisms.
The Tbf1 binding protein, for example, has been shown
to cap yeast telomeres carrying human telomeric repeats
(Fukunaga et al., 2012; Ribaud et al., 2012; Di Domenico
et al., 2013). Strains deleted for the CDC13 gene can be
created by inactivating the resection machinery (e.g.
Exo1) together with the Rad9 checkpoint or the Pif1 heli-
case (Zubko & Lydall, 2006; Dewar & Lydall, 2010; Ngo
& Lydall, 2010). Similarly, yeast cells without Cdc13 are
able to grow if they overexpress a truncated version of
Stn1 and Ten1 (Petreaca et al., 2006). The telomeres in
these strains are still maintained by the activity of telo-
merase. In the absence of both telomerase and HR, cells
senesce, but can be kept alive by deleting the EXO1 gene.
In these strains, large palindromic structures cap the telo-
meres and preserve viability (Maringele & Lydall,
2004a, b).
Comparison to mammals
Similar to the yeast telomeres, mammalian telomeres con-
tain specialized dsDNA and ssDNA binding proteins (‘shel-
terin’, reviewed in Palm & de Lange, 2008). However, the
specific complexes involved are slightly different, as one
would expect from cells facing different environments and
dissimilar biologic backgrounds. A Rap1 ortholog is pres-
ent and was originally described as unable of binding DNA,
although such ability has been recently shown for the
human protein (Arat & Griffith, 2012). Rap1 binds to the
TRF2 protein, which, together with TRF1, covers the telo-
meric dsDNA. The ssDNA overhang is bound by POT1,
which is linked to the TRF1-TRF2-RAP1 complex by the
TIN2 and TPP1 proteins. In addition, a CST complex is
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 151
present too; it contains orthologs of the Stn1 and Ten1
yeast proteins, but Cdc13 is replaced by CTC1 (Palm & de
Lange, 2008; Giraud-Panis et al., 2010; Sfeir & de Lange,
2012). Although its precise role is still unknown, similar to
the yeast CST, it resembles RPA and its removal results in
telomere uncapping (Bryan et al., 2013).
Experiments in which shelterin proteins were removed
in mammalian cells demonstrated that, like in yeast, cap-
ping requires the repression of the ATM and ATR
branches of the DDR, and the inhibition of both NHEJ
and HR. TRF2 seems to play a more active role than
TRF1, which is mainly involved in telomere replication
and length regulation (Ohki & Ishikawa, 2004; Sfeir et al.,
2009). In a recent tour de force, Sfeir and de Lange (2012)
removed shelterin completely in mouse cells and analyzed
the mechanisms at action in its total absence. Their
results suggest six different pathways that impinge on the
end-protection problem: the ATM (yeast Tel1) pathway
and classical NHEJ repair are repressed by the activity of
TRF2, whereas the ATR (yeast Mec1) pathway and HR
are inhibited by ssDNA-bound POT1. As a second line of
defense, Ku and 53BP1 (yeast Rad9) prevent alternative
NHEJ and hyper-resection (as well as HR; Sfeir & de
Lange, 2012). The integration of the CST complex into
this framework awaits a better characterization of its roles
in DNA replication and end-processing (Stewart et al.,
2012a, b; Wang et al., 2012). Thus, the basic mechanisms
that maintain telomere length and structure seem to be
universal, despite clear differences in protein composition
and cellular regulation.
Telomere DNA replication
A second important role played by telomeres is to solve
the end-replication problem: due to the nature of DNA
synthesis, which requires an RNA primer, information is
lost at the telomeres with each cell division (Olovnikov,
1971; Watson, 1972). However, it should be noted that
the main loss of telomere repeats with each replication
cycle is due to the leading-strand replication of the
resected telomere end (e.g. Fig. 2d). Telomere repeat
addition, carried out by the specialized reverse transcrip-
tase telomerase, brings a solution to the problem. How-
ever, telomerase activity must be coordinated with the
replication of the rest of the genome. Replication origins
located close to telomeres replicate very late in the S
Fig. 2. Replication of telomeres. (a) In G1 cells, telomeres are unavailable for elongation. Est2, the catalytic subunit of telomerase is present at
the telomeres, but inactive. Ku and the CST are present too. (b) End resection is carried out by a combination of nucleases and helicases,
controlled by the kinases Tel1 and CDK1. Resection creates ssDNA, which may bind RPA. (c) Telomerase is recruited through interactions
between Est1 and the CST. It is still unclear whether this depends, or not, on the arrival of the replication fork, and how resection is terminated.
The amount of Cdc13 at the telomeres increases (and possibly that of RPA, not shown). (d) Upon activation, telomerase elongates the TG-rich
strand. Pola-primase, recruited by the CST, completes lagging-strand replication. It is not clear whether telomerase and Pola-primase activities are
concomitant, or even whether they depend on each other. Okazaki fragments at telomeres are eventually ligated to the Okazaki fragments
created by the moving replication fork. Note that the leading-strand synthesis leaves a short, blunt-ended telomere that needs to be resected to
allow telomerase activity. Note also that the amount of resection will determine the rate of telomere attrition in the absence of telomerase
activity (the longer the resection, the shorter the leading telomere). RPA is assumed to be present at ssDNA between Okazaki fragments.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
152 M. Kupiec
phase of the cell cycle (Raghuraman et al., 2001); this
phenomenon is independent of the replication origin
sequence: any origin located near telomeres is fired late
(Ferguson & Fangman, 1992). The mechanism by which
proximity to telomeres affects origin firing is still
unknown, but it is apparently independent of telomeric
silencing, as mutations in the SIR complex do not affect
replication timing (Stevenson & Gottschling, 1999).
Whether this effect is related to perinuclear tethering has
not been investigated; mutations in Ku, which also affect
telomere tethering, cause earlier firing of origins close to
telomeres (Cosgrove et al., 2002; Lian et al., 2011). It has
been suggested that this effect is telomere-length depen-
dent and particularly Rif1 dependent (Lian et al., 2011).
Indeed, short telomeres fire earlier in S than those of nor-
mal size, implying that telomere length (or the amount of
telomeric proteins bound) plays a role in dictating repli-
cation timing (Bianchi & Shore, 2007a, b).
As expected from the obligatory coordination between
telomerase activity and genome-wide replication, muta-
tions in DNA polymerases or replication factors affect
telomere length (Carson & Hartwell, 1985; Askree et al.,
2004; Grossi et al., 2004; Gatbonton et al., 2006). How-
ever, this effect is still telomerase dependent (Adams
Martin et al., 2000; Grossi et al., 2004) implying that lack
of coordination between replication and telomerase,
rather than a direct role replacing telomerase, is responsi-
ble for the phenotypes observed. Indeed, the CST compo-
nents interact physically with subunits of DNA
polymerase alpha/primase (Qi & Zakian, 2000; Grossi
et al., 2004; Sun et al., 2011). As Cdc13 also interacts
with telomerase through its Est1 subunit (Qi & Zakian,
2000), the CST is in an excellent position to serve as
coordinator. The G-strand overhang is created postrepli-
cationally (Dionne & Wellinger, 1996, 1998) by degrada-
tion of the C-strand. Note that after removal of the
primer RNAs, the strand synthesized by the leading DNA
polymerase should have a 3′ overhang, whereas the other
end should be blunt (Fig. 2d). However, both ends
undergo C-strand degradation to generate G-rich pro-
truding overhangs (Dionne & Wellinger, 1996; Wellinger
et al., 1996). Thus, importantly, it is the extent of resec-
tion of the telomeres, rather than the length of the RNA
primer, the main factor determining the Hayflick limit
(the number of generations a cell lacking telomerase can
undergo before senescence). Importantly, the two types of
telomeres are treated differently. For example, the MRX
complex can be found at the leading telomere, but not at
the lagging one (Faure et al., 2010). As telomerase cannot
work on blunt-ended DNA, C-strand degradation is
essential for its activity. The presence of MRX at
telomeres replicated by the leading-strand polymerase
(Faure et al., 2010) suggests that these are preferentially
elongated by telomerase, as MRX is required to recruit
Tel1 and telomerase. In addition, MRX preferentially
binds short telomeres (Negrini et al., 2007; McGee et al.,
2010). The conclusion is thus that telomerase should
preferentially elongate short leading-strand telomeres.
Indeed, short telomeres have been shown to be preferen-
tially elongated, in a Tel1-dependent fashion (see below;
Teixeira et al., 2004; Chang et al., 2007).
Cell cycle dependency
As mentioned before, a fusion between Cdc13 and the
telomerase subunit Est1 can elongate telomeres, even in
the presence of cdc13-2 mutations or Est1 alleles unable
to interact with Est2, the catalytic subunit of telomerase
(Evans & Lundblad, 1999). In addition, a Cdc13–Est2fusion allows the cells to replicate telomeres in the
absence of the essential Est1 subunit. Thus, the role of
the Cdc13–Est1 interaction is to recruit telomerase (Est2).
Using either cells with an inducible DSB (Diede &
Gottschling, 1999) or with a critically short telomere
(Marcand et al., 2000), it was possible to demonstrate
that telomerase is not active in cells at the G1 phase of
the cell cycle. ChIP experiments were used to determine
the cell cycle dependency for the recruitment of the vari-
ous telomere replication factors to the telomeres (Fig. 2).
Cdc13 was found to be associated with telomeric DNA
throughout the cell cycle, but its levels increase in late S
phase, together with the appearance of the long G-over-
hangs (Taggart et al., 2002; Fig. 2a and b). Similarly, Est1
and Est3 are only observed at this cell cycle stage. Sur-
prisingly, however, Est2, which encodes the catalytic sub-
unit of telomerase, was found telomere-associated
throughout the cell cycle, although its levels also increase
in late S/G2 (Taggart et al., 2002). These results reflect
the fact that there are two different pathways of telomer-
ase recruitment (remarkably, both totally dependent on
the integrity of the TLC1 RNA): Recruitment of Est2 in
G1 requires an interaction between Yku80 and a specific
stem-loop structure in TLC1 (Fisher et al., 2004). The
recruitment in late S/G2 is Est1 and Cdc13 dependent
(Chan et al., 2008; Fig. 2c).
It is still unclear what is the significance of the presence
of Est2 at the telomeres in G1, as at this time, telomerase
cannot add nucleotides to the unprocessed telomeres.
Mutations that eliminate the interaction between Yku80
and TLC1 have only a very modest effect in the recruit-
ment of Est2 (Peterson et al., 2001; Fisher et al., 2004). It
is remarkable that Ku plays a dual role as a DNA binding
protein that recognizes the dsDNA at the end of
chromosomes, but it also functions as a specific RNA
binding protein. Recent work has shown that these
two activities are mutually exclusive, suggesting a new
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 153
recruitment model in which Ku is responsible for import-
ing telomerase into the nucleus and retaining it there via
its interactions with TLC1 (Pfingsten et al., 2012). Once
in the nucleus, Ku may be handed off from TLC1 to the
telomeric DNA, where Cdc13 interacts with Est1 to secure
telomerase to the telomere. Sir4, which binds Ku, may
also play some role in this mechanism, as it also interacts
with Cdc13, and both Est1 and Sir4 interact with the
nuclear envelope protein Mps3 (Pfingsten et al., 2012),
suggesting a role in perinuclear tethering. This model,
however, does not relate to the cell cycle phase at which
this recruitment may occur. The Cdc13 interaction with
Est1 may need activation to promote telomerase recruit-
ment and may also activate the new or extant telomerase
at late S (Evans & Lundblad, 2002; Fig. 2c).
Microscopic observation of fluorescently labeled TLC1
in single living cells (Gallardo et al., 2011) showed that
telomerase is mobile throughout the cell cycle, but its
movement decreases, and its intensity increases, at late S
phase. The surge in Est1 and Est3 at this stage of the cell
cycle suggests a model in which telomerase is assembled
in situ when all the subunits converge on the telomeric
DNA. The recruitment of Est3 to telomerase was shown
to be Est1 dependent (Tuzon et al., 2011). However,
expression of Est1 in G1, which results in Est1 and Est3
recruitment to the extant Est2-TLC1, does not allow telo-
merase activation at that phase of the cell cycle, indicating
that additional conditions must be met (Osterhage et al.,
2006). These could be CDK1-related (e.g. phosphoryla-
tion of one of the proteins by the activated CDK1 may be
a prerequisite), or the telomeric DNA may need to be in
a particular molecular configuration (e.g. C-strand
resected) for telomerase to act. Interestingly, the Rif1 and
Rif2 proteins may also restrict G1 activation (Gallardo
et al., 2011).
To summarize, the current model for telomere replica-
tion (Fig. 2) assumes that telomere elongation is coordi-
nated with chromosomal replication (Shore & Bianchi,
2009). However, precise details of the timing are lacking.
Late in S phase, the C-strand is processed, creating
G-overhangs (Dionne & Wellinger, 1996, 1998; Frank
et al., 2006; Fig. 2b). The MRX-Tel1 pathway plays a role
in this event (Ritchie & Petes, 2000; Faure et al., 2010;
Gao et al., 2010), which seems to be controlled/affected
also by the Tel1 and CDK1 kinases and the Rap1/Rif pro-
teins (Gardner et al., 1999; Craven & Petes, 2000; Frank
et al., 2006). The newly formed G-overhang is covered by
CST. This could be promoted by phosphorylation of
Cdc13 or other telomeric proteins by the Tel1 (or Mec1)
kinase (Tseng et al., 2006, but see Gao et al., 2010). The
CST in turn recruits telomerase by interactions between
Cdc13 and Est1 (Fig. 2c). Telomerase adds TG repeats to
the G-rich strand (Fig. 2d). When does the moving fork
interact with telomerase is not clear. Interaction of the
CST with the DNA polymerase alpha complex (approach-
ing the telomere with the moving fork) may bring to an
end the TG-strand extension and promote lagging-strand
synthesis of the CA-rich strand by polymerase delta
(Diede & Gottschling, 1999; Shore & Bianchi, 2009).
Alternatively, the CST may recruit polymerase alpha/
primase independently of the moving fork, and the telo-
meric Okazaki fragments may ligate to those created by
the moving lagging strand (Fig. 2d). A confounding factor
is that short telomeres seem to affect the timing of firing
of the distal origins of replication, with short telomeres
replicating earlier in S phase (Bianchi & Shore, 2007a, b).
The role of the RPA complex at telomeres is still
controversial: the CST has been defined as a ‘telomere-
specific RPA-like complex’. Although RPA has been
shown to be present at late S at telomeres (Schramke
et al., 2004), its presence could just reflect the presence of
the chromosomal lagging-strand replication machinery.
However, recent evidence supports a more direct role of
RPA in lagging-strand synthesis at telomeres (Luciano
et al., 2012). RPA binds to the two daughter telomeres
during telomere replication but depends on the MRX
complex for its binding to the leading-strand telomere.
Moreover, RPA specifically co-precipitates with Ku and
seems to associate with Cdc13 and Est1 (Luciano et al.,
2012). Another issue that has not been sufficiently
explored is the order and timing of chromatin remodel-
ing once the telomere has been replicated: the newly
replicated telomere must regain its special telomere chro-
matin composition and structure.
Telomere localization and transcription
Telomere tethering
Yeast chromosomes in the nucleus are not randomly
located: all centromeres are clustered around the spindle
pole body (yeast spindle organizer), whereas all telomeres
are embedded in the nuclear envelope (Therizols et al.,
2010). Telomeres play a central role in determining this
nuclear configuration (reviewed in Taddei & Gasser,
2012). Several microscopic techniques have demonstrated
that telomeres are found in clusters around the nuclear
periphery (Palladino et al., 1993; Gotta & Gasser, 1996).
Interestingly, the number of clusters is far lower than the
number of telomeres: the 32 telomeres of an haploid yeast
cell are usually seen in 3–6 clusters (Gotta et al., 1996).
These foci move with a constant random motion that is
more constrained than that of a nontelomeric locus
(Schober et al., 2008; Therizols et al., 2010).
Many results suggested a correlation between perinucle-
ar position and silencing in yeast. The telomeric clusters
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
154 M. Kupiec
at the nuclear envelope are enriched for SIR proteins
(Gotta et al., 1996). Mutations in Ku or SIR components
partially affect telomere position (Laroche et al., 1998;
Hediger et al., 2002). However, only a double mutant
sir4D yku70D shows completely delocalized telomeres,
demonstrating that redundant anchoring mechanisms are
at play (Hediger et al., 2002). The association of telo-
meres to the nuclear periphery requires at least two
nuclear envelope proteins, Esc1 and Mps3. Esc1 interacts
with the C-terminus of Sir4, competing with the Yku80
protein, which binds the same region (Andrulis et al.,
2002; Taddei et al., 2004). Mps3 resides in the nuclear
periphery and has an N-terminal acidic extension that
protrudes toward the nuclear interior and is also capable
of binding both Ku and Sir4; deleting this extension pre-
vents telomere tethering, although the cells remain viable
(Bupp et al., 2007). Some results suggest that the
Ku-dependent pathway tends to dominate during G1,
while the Sir4/Esc1-dependent tethering pathway is pre-
ponderant during S phase (Hediger et al., 2002). As cells
prepare to enter mitosis during G2, the telomeres lose
their peripheral localization; perinuclear positioning is
re-established in early G1 phase (Smith et al., 2003).
Interestingly, it is possible that different telomeres differ
in their dependence on these two pathways: during G1,
for example, the tethering of the telomere VI-right
depends primarily on the Ku pathway and that of the
telomere VI-left primarily on the Sir4/Esc1 pathway
(Bystricky et al., 2005).
SUMOylation of Yku80 and of Sir4 may play a regula-
tory role in telomere length maintenance and tethering,
although the details are still unclear (Ferreira et al., 2011;
Hang et al., 2011). Loss of SUMOylation abolishes tether-
ing without affecting TPE (Ferreira et al., 2011), demon-
strating that tethering and TPE are separable.
It is very likely that the Ku pathway for tethering involves
additional components. Identifying these proteins is compli-
cated by the fact that Ku plays additional roles in transcrip-
tional silencing (Gravel et al., 1998), telomerase recruitment
(Stellwagen et al., 2003), and specification of replication
timing (Cosgrove et al., 2002). In addition, Mps3 is also able
to interact directly with telomerase via its connections with
Est1 (Antoniacci et al., 2007) and is required for the tether-
ing of Yku80 and TLC1 (Schober et al., 2009).
Interestingly, a deletion of YKU80 shows increased
recombination between interstitial and telomeric regions,
suggesting that Ku80 tethering sequesters this region and
prevents recombination (Marvin et al., 2009a, b). Tethering
of telomeres to the nuclear envelope also reduces the effi-
ciency of the homology search when a DSB is created close
to a telomere (Therizols et al., 2006; Agmon et al., 2013).
Establishing a causal relationship between subnuclear
organization and transcriptional repression has been
difficult, because all the mutants that alter the position of
silent domains also affect silencing. In many cases,
peripheral localization of DNA within the yeast nucleus
has been shown to reinforce transcriptional silencing. For
example, artificial localization to the periphery enhances
transcriptional repression at a compromised silencer
(Andrulis et al., 1998). However, positioning and silenc-
ing can be separated: for example, repression can be
maintained at an intact silencer that is released from the
nuclear periphery (Gartenberg et al., 2004). In a series of
clever experiments, Taddei et al. (2004) showed that peri-
nuclear chromatin anchoring can occur prior to or inde-
pendently of transcriptional repression. Moreover, as
explained above, SUMOylation seems to be required for
tethering but not for TPE (Ferreira et al., 2011). Silencing
and anchoring, however, are carried out by the same set
of proteins (Ku and SIR) and reinforce each other:
Ku-mediated anchoring of Rap1-bound telomeres allows
Sir4 recruitment, which in turn increases the recruitment
of Sir2 and Sir3, spreading the silencing along the chro-
matin. As silent chromatin spreads, the interactions of
Sir4 to the nuclear enveloped are reinforced (Taddei
et al., 2004).
Telomere transcription: TERRA
In addition to the telomeric DNA repeats and the telo-
mere-associated proteins, it is possible to detect noncod-
ing telomeric repeat-containing RNA (TERRA) at the
telomeres (Fig. 3). TERRA is conserved from yeast to
humans; it encompasses both telomeric and subtelomeric
regions and is transcribed by the RNA polymerase II
(Luke et al., 2008; Bell et al., 2010; Schoeftner & Blasco,
2010; Arora et al., 2011; Iglesias et al., 2011). In yeast,
telomeric RNA ranges from a few hundred nucleotides to
as much as 1200 nt and is rapidly degraded by the Rat1
exonuclease, which is in charge of degrading all mRNAs
(Luke et al., 2008). The TERRA transcripts overlap the Y′elements, which are able to encode a helicase that is
expressed in cells exposed to stress or upon loss of telo-
merase activity (Yamada et al., 1998). Interestingly, a sim-
ilar protein is expressed from subtelomeric regions in
S. pombe (Hansen et al., 2006). In telomerase-negative
cells, Y′ transcripts have been shown to be amplified by a
retrotransposon-mediated mechanism (Maxwell et al.,
2004). However, the possible interactions between Y′transcripts, Y′-encoded helicases and TERRA remain
unexplored.
The role of TERRA in telomere biology remains enig-
matic. It has been proposed that TERRA levels may regu-
late telomere length; for example, increased levels of
TERRA (e.g. in rat1-1 cells grown at semi-permissive con-
ditions) lead to shorter telomere length (Luke et al.,
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 155
2008). Similarly, expression of a strong inducible pro-
moter at the subtelomeric region leads to telomere short-
ening (Sandell et al., 1994). On the other hand, there are
reports of telomere defects caused by reduced TERRA lev-
els (Azzalin et al., 2007; Deng et al., 2009). A complicat-
ing issue is that TERRA expression, and thus probably
telomere regulation, appears to be differently affected by
the subtelomeric structure of each individual chromo-
somal arm. TERRA expression in both X and XY′ typesof repeats is repressed by a Rap1-based pathway, but only
the first type is also repressed by SIR proteins (Iglesias
et al., 2011).
In humans, TERRA is tightly regulated by the non-
sense-mediated decay machinery, which degrades mRNA
molecules with mutations (Chawla & Azzalin, 2008), and
the DNA methyltransferases DNMT3b and DNMT1
methylate TERRA promoters within CpG islands and thus
downregulate its expression (Nergadze et al., 2009).
TERRA transcription is promoted by the MLL histone
methyltransferase (Caslini et al., 2009).
The potential mechanism of action of TERRA is not
yet clear: TERRA-like RNA oligonucleotides inhibit telo-
merase activity in vitro (Schoeftner & Blasco, 2008; Redon
et al., 2010), suggesting a direct regulation of telomerase,
perhaps through inhibition of the polymerization reaction
of telomerase. However, RNase H inhibits TERRA overex-
pression effect, suggesting that TERRA anneals with the
telomeric DNA (Luke et al., 2008). Recent work has
shown that in cells lacking telomerase activity, TERRA
plays also a role in delaying senescence by promoting
alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT; elongation of
telomeres by HR), whereas senescence is accelerated in
cells unable to recombine (Balk et al., 2013).
A recent publication by the Chartrand group followed
endogenous TERRA expression in single yeast cells using
RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). They
found that TERRA expression is induced by telomere
shortening, leading to the accumulation of TERRA mole-
cules into a single perinuclear focus. Simultaneous time-
lapse imaging of telomerase RNA and TERRA revealed
telomerase nucleation on TERRA foci in early S phase.
Their results suggest that the TERRA foci may act as scaf-
folds for the recruitment of telomerase molecules and
trigger the formation of telomerase clusters (which they
call T-Recs). The TERRA–telomerase cluster is subse-
quently recruited to the short telomere from which
TERRA molecules originate, suggesting that TERRA plays
a role in the recruitment of telomerase to short telomeres
(Cusanelli et al., 2013).
Regulation of telomere length
Telomere length is remarkably variable between organ-
isms, from a few hundred nucleotides in S. cerevisiae to
tens of kb in mice. Despite this variability, cells express-
ing telomerase keep telomeres at a very constant length.
Due to the ease with which it can be genetically
manipulated and its rapid growth, yeast has greatly
contributed to our understanding of telomere length
homeostasis.
CSTRif2Rif1 Rap1
Cdc13Stn1Ten1
Telomerase
RNA PolII
RAT1
LONG TELOMERE
SHORT TELOMERE
RNA PolII
?? ??
TERRA focus
Telomeraserecruitment
Fig. 3. Proposed regulation of telomere
length by TERRA. TERRA is expressed from a
telomere-located promoter. At telomeres of
normal length, Rat1 constantly degrades the
newly made RNA. At short telomeres, in
contrast, TERRA is highly expressed. The
mechanism controlling this fact remains
enigmatic. It is still unclear, for example,
whether transcription requires removal of
telomeric proteins (“??”). Recent work has
shown that TERRA forms foci together with
telomerase and are jointly recruited, by a still
unknown mechanism, to the same short
telomere that expressed TERRA.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
156 M. Kupiec
Uniform telomere length homeostasis is achieved by a
balance between shortening and elongating mechanisms
within the cell. Telomere shortening takes place naturally
by the ‘end-replication problem’ (the inability to fill-in
gaps left at the telomere ends by removal of the RNA pri-
mer) and by end resection or partial uncapping episodes.
In cells with extremely long telomeres, however, an addi-
tional mechanism exists that can shorten telomeres to the
wt length within one or just a few generations. This
mechanism was termed TRD, or telomeric rapid deletion
(Li & Lustig, 1996; Bucholc et al., 2001), and is the result
of HR between telomeric repeats, which generates chro-
mosomes with short telomeres and a telomeric DNA cir-
cle (Bucholc et al., 2001). Two elongating mechanisms
exist for telomeres: HR (also known as ALT) and telo-
merase-mediated telomere elongation. Telomerase-driven
telomere elongation must be regulated to attain the uni-
form wild-type telomere size.
Early work suggested a model in which telomerase
activity is regulated in such a way that it slows down with
telomere size (Marcand et al., 1999). Sophisticated experi-
ments carried out by the Lingner laboratory, in which
telomere elongation events could be followed in individ-
ual cells during a single cell cycle, showed that not all
telomeres are elongated in each cell cycle. Rather, telo-
meres with short TG tracts tend to be preferentially cho-
sen for elongation (Teixeira et al., 2004). However, the
extent of elongation is independent of the original TG
tract length. Moreover, if a strain with two telomerases
that differ in their RNA templates is used, it is possible to
show that multiple rounds of association and dissociation
can take place on a single telomere on a single cell cycle
(Chang et al., 2007). Tel1 (the yeast ATM orthologue, or
Mec1/ATM in its absence) plays a pivotal role in increas-
ing telomerase processivity at very short telomeres (Chang
et al., 2007), which are preferentially chosen with the help
of the kinase(s) (Arneric & Lingner, 2007). In the absence
of the Rif proteins, the frequency (but not the extent) of
elongation events is increased (Teixeira et al., 2004).
Based on these experiments, Lingner et al. proposed that
the telomere may exist in either an extendible or a nonex-
tendible state. Three models have been put forward for
molecular mechanisms of the extendible/nonextendible
states (Teixeira et al., 2004; Shore & Bianchi, 2009):
(1) The resection model: Resection of the C-strand may
be more extensive if the TG tracts are short. This
would generate a longer G-overhang to which more
CST molecules would bind, thus increasing the
chances of telomerase recruitment. Support for this
model is supplied by experiments in which a single
DSB is flanked by either short (80 bp) or a long
(250 bp) TG tract: ChIP of Cdc13 showed higher lev-
els in the short construct (Negrini et al., 2007).
(2) The activation model: Telomerase activity may
become activated by short TG tracts. Support for this
model comes from alleles of CDC13 (a member of the
CST complex) that show stable, capped, and short
telomeres, indicating that, as in tel1 mutants, telomer-
ase is able to elongate extremely short telomeres (i.e.
no Est phenotype is detected), but not those with sizes
closer to that of wt cells (Meier et al., 2001). This type
of mutants suggests that interactions with Est1 (Evans
& Lundblad, 2002; DeZwaan & Freeman, 2009) may
be present all the time but activated at the right cir-
cumstances.
(3) The recruitment model: According to this third pos-
sibility, the TG tract length regulates the association of
telomerase with the telomere end. It is not clear what
mechanism would preferentially recruit more telomer-
ase to those telomeres having short TG tracts. Direct
measurement by ChIP of protein levels at short vs
long telomeres (Bianchi & Shore, 2007a, b; Sabourin
et al., 2007) supports the last model, as Est1, Est2, and
Tel1, but not Cdc13, were present at higher levels at
short telomeres. The presence of Tel1 at short telo-
meres also suggests that phosphorylation of some of
the proteins involved may help in the recruitment.
Cdc13 is phosphorylated by both Tel1 (and Mec1 in
its absence; Tseng et al., 2006) and by CDK1 (Li et al.,
2009). In both cases, it has been reported that
phosphorylation promotes Est1 binding and thus telo-
merase recruitment. However, genetic analysis of site-
specific mutants that abolish phosphorylation argues
against this simple model (Gao et al., 2010). It has
also been proposed that phosphorylation by Mec1 is
intended to prevent telomere addition at spurious
DSBs (Zhang & Durocher, 2010).
Tel1 activity thus appears to be critical for elongating
short telomeres. In tel1D mutants, the telomeres are
extremely short, but stable (Lustig & Petes, 1986), yet
they do not bind Est1 or Est2 (Goudsouzian et al., 2006).
It has been shown that Tel1 recruitment to telomeres
takes place by interactions with the C-terminus of Xrs2
(Sabourin et al., 2007). But why would this interaction be
favored at telomeres with short TG tracts? Marcand et al.
(2008) suggested that the Rif proteins, and particularly
Rif2, may inhibit the MRX–Tel1 pathway. In short telo-
meres, this inhibition would be reduced, allowing Tel1
recruitment. Supporting information to this idea comes
from the fact that by ChIP, Rif2 levels, but not Rif1 lev-
els, are lower in strains with short telomeres and that
Tel1 no longer binds to a short telomere better than to
one of normal size in rif2D cells (McGee et al., 2010).
Additional support for this model comes from work by
Hirano et al. (2009), showing that Rif2, and to a lower
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 157
extent Rif1, blocks Tel1 (but not MRX) association at
longer TG tracts by competing for Xrs2 binding. Telo-
meres are extremely long in rif1D and rif2D mutants
(Hardy et al., 1992a, b; Wotton & Shore, 1997). The dou-
ble mutant, however, exhibits even longer telomeres (sim-
ilar in size to those seen in mutants of the RAP1 gene
lacking the C-terminal domain that interacts with both
Rif proteins; Kyrion et al., 1992; Wotton & Shore,
1997).This is consistent with two separate mechanisms
that control the activity of telomerase. It should be noted,
however, that the molecular mechanism of action of Rif1
is unknown and that Rap1-dependent, Rif-independent
mechanisms of telomere length control have been sug-
gested in the past too (Negrini et al., 2007; Marcand
et al., 2008).
Another negative regulator of telomerase is Pif1, a 5′–3′helicase that seems to work by a mechanism that is inde-
pendent of Rif1 and Rif2 (Schulz & Zakian, 1994). The
helicase motif of Pif1 is required to prevent telomerase
activity in vivo and in vitro, suggesting that Pif1 acts cata-
lytically to prevent telomere elongation (Zhou et al.,
2000; Boule & Zakian, 2006). In the absence of Pif1, Est1
levels increase at the telomeres, whereas its overexpression
reduces the association of both Est1 and Est2 with the
telomeres (Boule & Zakian, 2006). It has been thus pro-
posed that the role of Pif1 is to actively displace telomer-
ase from its substrate. However, the role of Pif1 is more
complex: The protein is cell cycle regulated, peaking at
late S/G2 and is preferentially recruited to short telomeres
by an unknown mechanism. In its absence, Est2 binds
equally well to short and normal-sized telomeres (Vega
et al., 2007), suggesting that it participates in telomere
length homeostasis. In addition, Pif1 prevents the addi-
tion of telomeres at chromosomal DSBs (Schulz &
Zakian, 1994; Myung et al., 2001) thus avoiding gross
chromosomal rearrangements and seems to be preferen-
tially located at regions of the genome with G-quadru-
plex-forming potential, where it may facilitate DNA
replication (Paeschke et al., 2013). Thus, Pif1 may have
roles in general DNA replication (e.g. helping replicate
secondary structures), as well as direct involvement in
telomere length regulation.
Life in the absence of telomerase
Yeast strains that lack telomerase activity exhibit an ‘ever
shortening telomere’ (Est) phenotype: with each genera-
tion, more and more cells stop dividing and senesce, until
no further growth is observed (Lundblad & Szostak,
1989). Senescence can occur in cells in which the average
telomere length is close to that of the wild type, indicat-
ing that a massive shortening of telomeres is not a prere-
quisite for senescence (Lundblad & Blackburn, 1993).
Indeed, it is enough to have a single short telomere that
cannot be elongated by telomerase to elicit the growth
arrest, even in telomerase-proficient cells (Abdallah et al.,
2009; Khadaroo et al., 2009).
From a population of senescing cells, rare survivors arise
by a recombination-based mechanism, also known as ALT.
Survivors are usually of two types: Type I, which amplify
internal Y′ repeats, and Type II, which have enlarged TG
repeats. Whereas Type I survivors are more common, they
grow slowly and in liquid cultures are usually overgrown
by Type II cells (Teng & Zakian, 1999; Grandin &
Charbonneau, 2007). The central recombination protein
Rad52 is essential for both classes, and usually no survivors
are observed in its absence (Lundblad & Blackburn, 1993).
Another essential protein is Pol32, a subunit of DNA poly-
merase Delta also involved in break-induced replication, a
process in which a broken chromosomal end invades a dif-
ferent chromosome and copies its content until its end
(Lydeard et al., 2007). This dependency suggests that both
types of telomere maintenance pathways occur by recom-
bination-dependent DNA replication. Interestingly, a
Rad52- and Pol32-independent mechanism can be found
at low frequency in survivors with extremely long telo-
meres (Grandin & Charbonneau, 2009; Lebel et al., 2009).
The mechanism at action in these cells is still enigmatic.
Type I survivors grow slowly and maintain short telo-
meres with normal G-overhangs. The cells show massive
amplification of their Y′ sequences in a tandem repeat
array. Extra-chromosomal Y′ arrays can also be detected;
these have been proposed to be intermediates in the
process of recombination leading to Y′ amplification
(Larrivee & Wellinger, 2006). In addition to Rad52 and
Pol32, the appearance of Type I survivors requires the
Rad51, Rad54, Rad55, and Rad57 recombination proteins
(Le et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001).
Type II survivors show an increase in the telomeric TG
repeats; the length distribution is extremely variable, with
some telomeres being very short and others extending for
more than 10 kb. In these cells, TG circles are detected,
presumably created by a rolling-circle mechanism
followed by recombination of circles into the genome
(Larrivee & Wellinger, 2006). Long telomeres in Type II
survivors progressively shorten with cell growth and
require constant recombination events to maintain cell
growth. The genetic requirements of these cells differ
from those of Type I survivors: they require the MRX
complex, the Rad52 paralog Rad59, and the yeast ortho-
log of the WRN and BLM helicases, Sgs1 (Diede &
Gottschling, 1999; Chen et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2001;
Johnson et al., 2001). The extrachromosomal telomeric
circles observed in Type II survivors could be created by
the same mechanism that generates TRD (Li & Lustig,
1996; Natarajan & McEachern, 2002).
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
158 M. Kupiec
The choice of recombination mechanism to generate
survivors is affected by the DDR: the Mec1 and 9-1-1
pathways control Type II survivor formation, by a mecha-
nism that is independent of the Rad53 and Chk1 kinases
(Grandin & Charbonneau, 2007). Interestingly, cdc13-1
cells lacking the Ku complex survive by a Type II mecha-
nism independent of the MRX and Rad59, but dependent
on Rad51 (Grandin & Charbonneau, 2003).
Systems biology of telomere biology
In the last decade, a revolution has taken place in biology,
which turned the traditional reductionist approach of
molecular biology upside down, to attempt a whole-
encompassing, gestalt view of the cell. A flurry of
genome-wide approaches were launched, in which a
systematic approach was taken to try to map all the genes
(genomics), RNA molecules (transcriptomics), proteins
(proteomics), and metabolites (metabolomics) in a given
organism. This ‘omics’ approach was driven by the
sophisticated genetics of yeast, which allowed the con-
struction of mutant collections, fusion protein collections,
and many other tools. The systems biology revolution is
still ongoing, and an effort is being made to map, for
example, all the genetic and physical interactions in the
yeast cells.
Telomere biology is benefitting from this approach,
which greatly enlarged our knowledge about the regula-
tion of telomere-related processes. The yeast genome has
close to 6000 recognized genes. A collection of 4700
mutants was constructed by systematically deleting each
individual nonessential gene in yeast (nonessential yeast
mutant collection; Winzeler et al., 1999). This collection
was later complemented by two additional libraries of
mutants of all the essential genes (yeast has c. 1300 essen-
tial genes), in which either hypomorphic (Breslow et al.,
2008) or temperature-sensitive alleles (Ben-Aroya et al.,
2008) of the genes were created. These mutant collections
allow researchers to carry out systematic mutant screens
even if the phenotype of interest is not selectable. For
example, three publications reported the systematic
screening of the mutant collections, looking for those
mutants that affect telomere length (telomere length
maintenance or tlm mutants). In this brute-force
approach, DNA was extracted from each individual yeast
strain, and telomere length was measured by Southern
blot (Askree et al., 2004; Gatbonton et al., 2006; Ungar
et al., 2009). Together, these papers identified c. 400
genes affecting telomere length. This list starkly contrasts
with the 30 or so genes known to do so at the time the
screens were carried out (Askree et al., 2004) and stresses
the central role played by telomere biology in the yeast
life cycle, as c. 7% of the genome affects telomere biology.
Moreover, it also demonstrate the complexity of the
challenge: mutation in any of the TLM genes changes the
final telomere size; as this size is determined by mecha-
nisms that elongate or shorten telomeres (mechanisms
that are positively and negatively regulated), this means
that each of the 400 genes participates in determining the
equilibrium between the two types of activity. Remark-
ably, however, in each genetic background, wt cells
exhibit always telomeres of the same size; thus, in the
tug-of-war between elongating and shortening mecha-
nisms, the equilibrium is attained at the same telomere
length. The genes uncovered in these screens, as expected,
include those affecting DNA and chromatin metabolism,
but almost all functions in the cell are also represented,
including RNA and protein synthesis, traffic and
modification, metabolic pathways, mitochondrial func-
tions, etc. The challenge ahead, of course, is to determine
how all these genes impinge on the telomere length deter-
mination.
The fact that a near-complete list of TLM genes is
available opens the door for further exploration of telo-
mere biology. Using computational approaches and the
vast amount of information about protein–protein and
genetic interactions in yeast, for example, network models
of the telomere biology have been established, allowing
their study (Rog et al., 2005; Shachar et al., 2008; Yosef
et al., 2009).
Secondary screens were also carried out on the tlm
mutant collection. In one of these, TLC1 RNA levels were
measured in all tlm mutants, and 24 were found to affect
telomere length via their effect on TLC1 levels (Mozdy
et al., 2008). These results suggest that the level of telo-
merase RNA may be limiting in telomere length mainte-
nance. A second screen explored the effect of starvation
on telomere length (Ungar et al., 2011). Starved cells, or
those exposed to the TorC1 inhibitor rapamycin, respond
by dramatically shortening their telomeres. By screening
the tlm mutants for those that do not respond to the
starvation signals, it was found that the Ku heterodimer
plays a central role in the starvation response. When cells
are starved, Ku protein levels are reduced, affecting telo-
mere length. This finding is particularly interesting in
light of studies suggesting that calorie restriction may
lengthen life span, whereas telomere attrition leads to cel-
lular senescence (Ungar et al., 2011). In another study
that followed the response of yeast telomeres to environ-
mental stimuli, it was found that exposure to ethanol
elongates telomeres, whereas caffeine and high tempera-
ture reduce telomere length (Romano et al., 2013). Again,
a systematic screen of tlm mutants revealed that the
Rap1/Rif1 pathway is necessary for the transduction of
three different environmental signals. Interestingly, rif2Dstrains and mutants of the MRX/Tel1 pathway exhibited
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 159
a stronger-than-expected response to ethanol, which
causes elongation, indicating that these pathways have a
role in preventing length-independent elongation of telo-
meres. Finally, Jin-Qiu Zhou et al. explored the tlm col-
lection looking for mutants that affect the survival
pathways in the absence of telomerase activity. The TLC1
gene was knocked out in 280 tlm mutants, and the pat-
terns of senescence and survival were monitored. New
functional roles were found for 10 genes that affect the
emerging ratio of Type I vs. Type II survivors and 22
genes that are required for Type II survivor generation.
For example, the Pif1 helicase and the INO80 chromatin
remodeling complex reduced the frequency of Type I sur-
vivors, whereas the kinase, endopeptidase, and other pro-
teins of small size (KEOPS) complex is required for Type
II recombination (Hu et al., 2013).
The KEOPS complex is a good example of a group of
proteins with a central role in telomere biology identified
in several genome-wide screens. The components of the
KEOPS complex include Kae1, a putative endopeptidase
with an unknown role which is absolutely conserved in
Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya; Bud32, a serine/threonine
kinase; Pcc1, the yeast homolog of the two human cancer
testis antigens that are specifically expressed in different
tumors but also in normal testes and ovaries (Kisseleva-
Romanova et al., 2006); Gon7 (also referred to as Pcc2),
a small protein with no known functional domains,
found only in fungi; and Cgi121, whose human homolog
binds the human Bud32, also known as the p53-related
protein kinase (Miyoshi et al., 2003). For example, Dow-
ney et al. screened the nonessential mutant collection for
mutants that partially suppress the temperature sensitivity
of cdc13-1, caused by telomere uncapping. Among other
suppressors, they identified KEOPS members and demon-
strated that this complex is required for telomere capping
and maintenance (Downey et al., 2006).
An additional genome-wide screen looked for mutants
affecting the telomere three-dimensional configuration: A
construct carrying a TATA-less galactose-inducible
upstream activating sequence downstream of the URA3
gene is able to transcribe the URA3 gene only if folded
back on itself. This is indeed the case of the construct
integrated close to a telomere. A genome-wide screen for
mutants affecting telomere fold-back identified 112 genes.
Among various biologic processes uncovered, lysine
deacetylation was found to be essential for the fold-back,
through Rif2-dependent recruitment of the Rpd3L com-
plex to telomeres. Absence of Rpd3 function generates
increased susceptibility to nucleolytic degradation and the
initiation of premature senescence, suggesting a protective
role for Rpd3 deacetylation activity (Poschke et al., 2012).
As explained, the Lydall laboratory conducted a system-
atic screen for mutants that affect growth of a cdc13-1
allele. This screen identified 369 gene deletions that could
be divided into eight different phenotypic classes. The
results included many of the checkpoint-affecting genes
expected, but also genes in a variety of unexpected catego-
ries, such as RNA metabolism, phosphate and iron homeo-
stasis, etc. In addition, the screen identified a number of
genes of previously unknown function renamed restriction
of telomere capping (RTC) or maintenance of telomere
capping (MTC; Downey et al., 2006; Addinall et al., 2008).
This screen was extended, by systematically looking for
suppressors or enhancers of the yku70D mutation and
comparing them to the results obtained for cdc13-1. By
developing a sophisticated analysis, named quantitative
fitness analysis, a detailed map of the genetic interactions
of both capping proteins could be observed. In this analy-
sis, mutations in some genes, such as those the nonsense-
mediated decay pathway, were shown to suppress cdc13-1
but to enhance the phenotype of yku70D. The response to
telomere uncapping was shown to be genetically complex,
with many genes involved in a variety of processes affect-
ing the outcome (Addinall et al., 2011).
Another genome-wide screen examined, in a systematic
fashion, the kinetics of senescence, by crossing the
est1D mutation to the nonessential mutant collection. As
expected, the vast majority of gene deletions showed no
strong effects on entry into/exit from senescence. How-
ever, c. 200 gene deletions (among them the well-charac-
terized rad52D mutant) accelerated entry into senescence,
and such cells often could not recover growth. A smaller
number of strains (among them rif1D) accelerated both
entry into senescence and subsequent recovery (Chang
et al., 2011).
A screen for enhancers of the MMS sensitivity of tel1Duncovered a small number (13) of genes. These included
Yku70, members of the 9-1-1 pathway, the CCR4-NOT
deadenylase complex, nuclear pore components, and sev-
eral histone deacetylases. Most of these mutants caused
the MMS sensitivity due to their effects on telomeres
(Piening et al., 2013).
The systems biology revolution is at its infancy; we can
summarize at this stage that the genome-wide studies
have vastly extended our view of telomere biology. The
number of cellular processes affecting various aspects of
telomere integrity, replication, length regulation, and
structure is remarkable. Most of the genes uncovered in
these screens are evolutionarily conserved and likely to
act similarly in other organisms, including humans.
A better understanding of the mechanisms regulating
telomere biology will have significant medical implica-
tions, especially in the fields of aging and cancer. The
yeast S. cerevisiae, as an easily manipulated organism that
grows fast and has superb genetics and molecular biology,
has contributed tremendously (and continues to do so)
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
160 M. Kupiec
to our understanding of the basic mechanisms of the
cells, including telomere biology.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all members of the Kupiec labora-
tory for encouragement and support and Tom Petes for
comments on the manuscript. Research in the laboratory
is supported by grants from the Israel Cancer Research
Fund, the US-Israel Bi-national Fund, the Israeli Ministry
of Science and Technology, and the Israel Science Foun-
dation. We apologize to all our colleagues whose work
was not quoted due to length constraints.
References
Abdallah P, Luciano P, Runge KW, Lisby M, Geli V, Gilson E
& Teixeira MT (2009) A two-step model for senescence
triggered by a single critically short telomere. Nat Cell Biol
11: 988–993.Adams Martin A, Dionne I, Wellinger RJ & Holm C (2000)
The function of DNA polymerase alpha at telomeric G tails
is important for telomere homeostasis. Mol Cell Biol 20:
786–796.Addinall SG, Downey M, Yu M et al. (2008) A genomewide
suppressor and enhancer analysis of cdc13-1 reveals varied
cellular processes influencing telomere capping in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 180: 2251–2266.Addinall SG, Holstein EM, Lawless C et al. (2011) Quantitative
fitness analysis shows that NMD proteins and many other
protein complexes suppress or enhance distinct telomere
cap defects. PLoS Genet 7: e1001362.
Adkins NL, Niu H, Sung P & Peterson CL (2013) Nucleosome
dynamics regulates DNA processing. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20:
836–842.Agarwal R, Tang Z, Yu H & Cohen-Fix O (2003) Two distinct
pathways for inhibiting pds1 ubiquitination in response to
DNA damage. J Biol Chem 278: 45027–45033.Agmon N, Liefshitz B, Zimmer C, Fabre E & Kupiec M (2013)
Effect of nuclear architecture on the efficiency of
double-strand break repair. Nat Cell Biol 15: 694–699.Aksenova AY, Greenwell PW, Dominska M, Shishkin AA, Kim
JC, Petes TD & Mirkin SM (2013) Genome rearrangements
caused by interstitial telomeric sequences in yeast. P Natl
Acad Sci USA 110: 19866–19871.Anbalagan S, Bonetti D, Lucchini G & Longhese MP (2011)
Rif1 supports the function of the CST complex in yeast
telomere capping. PLoS Genet 7: e1002024.
Andreson BL, Gupta A, Georgieva BP & Rothstein R (2010)
The ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor, Sml1, is sequentially
phosphorylated, ubiquitylated and degraded in response to
DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res 38: 6490–6501.Andrulis ED, Neiman AM, Zappulla DC & Sternglanz R
(1998) Perinuclear localization of chromatin facilitates
transcriptional silencing. Nature 394: 592–595.
Andrulis ED, Zappulla DC, Ansari A, Perrod S, Laiosa CV,
Gartenberg MR & Sternglanz R (2002) Esc1, a nuclear
periphery protein required for Sir4-based plasmid anchoring
and partitioning. Mol Cell Biol 22: 8292–8301.Antoniacci LM, Kenna MA & Skibbens RV (2007) The nuclear
envelope and spindle pole body-associated Mps3 protein
bind telomere regulators and function in telomere
clustering. Cell Cycle 6: 75–79.Arat NO & Griffith JD (2012) Human Rap1 interacts directly
with telomeric DNA and regulates TRF2 localization at the
telomere. J Biol Chem 287: 41583–41594.Armanios M (2012) Telomerase and idiopathic pulmonary
fibrosis. Mutat Res 730: 52–58.Arneric M & Lingner J (2007) Tel1 kinase and
subtelomere-bound Tbf1 mediate preferential elongation of
short telomeres by telomerase in yeast. EMBO Rep 8:
1080–1085.Arora R, Brun CM & Azzalin CM (2011) TERRA: long
noncoding RNA at eukaryotic telomeres. Prog Mol Subcell
Biol 51: 65–94.Artandi SE & DePinho RA (2010) Telomeres and telomerase
in cancer. Carcinogenesis 31: 9–18.Askree SH, Yehuda T, Smolikov S et al. (2004) A
genome-wide screen for Saccharomyces cerevisiae deletion
mutants that affect telomere length. P Natl Acad Sci USA
101: 8658–8663.Aylon Y & Kupiec M (2003) The checkpoint protein Rad24 of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is involved in processing
double-strand break ends and in recombination partner
choice. Mol Cell Biol 23: 6585–6596.Aylon Y & Kupiec M (2005) Cell cycle-dependent regulation
of double-strand break repair: a role for the CDK. Cell Cycle
4: 259–261.Aylon Y, Liefshitz B, Bitan-Banin G & Kupiec M (2003)
Molecular dissection of mitotic recombination in the yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 23: 1403–1417.Aylon Y, Liefshitz B & Kupiec M (2004) The CDK regulates
repair of double-strand breaks by homologous
recombination during the cell cycle. EMBO J 23:
4868–4875.Azzalin CM, Reichenbach P, Khoriauli L, Giulotto E & Lingner
J (2007) Telomeric repeat containing RNA and RNA
surveillance factors at mammalian chromosome ends.
Science 318: 798–801.Balk B, Maicher A, Dees M, Klermund J, Luke-Glaser S,
Bender K & Luke B (2013) Telomeric RNA-DNA hybrids
affect telomere-length dynamics and senescence. Nat Struct
Mol Biol 20: 1199–1205.Barzel A & Kupiec M (2008) Finding a match: how do
homologous sequences get together for recombination? Nat
Rev Genet 9: 27–37.Bell A, Wang ZJ, Arbabi-Ghahroudi M et al. (2010)
Differential tumor-targeting abilities of three single-domain
antibody formats. Cancer Lett 289: 81–90.Ben-Aroya S, Coombes C, Kwok T, O’Donnell KA, Boeke JD
& Hieter P (2008) Toward a comprehensive
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 161
temperature-sensitive mutant repository of the essential
genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell 30: 248–258.Bertuch AA & Lundblad V (2003) Which end: dissecting Ku’s
function at telomeres and double-strand breaks. Genes Dev
17: 2347–2350.Bianchi A & Shore D (2007a) Early replication of short
telomeres in budding yeast. Cell 128: 1051–1062.Bianchi A & Shore D (2007b) Increased association of
telomerase with short telomeres in yeast. Genes Dev 21:
1726–1730.Blankley RT & Lydall D (2004) A domain of Rad9 specifically
required for activation of Chk1 in budding yeast. J Cell Sci
117: 601–608.Bodnar AG, Ouellette M, Frolkis M et al. (1998) Extension of
life-span by introduction of telomerase into normal human
cells. Science 279: 349–352.Bonetti D, Martina M, Clerici M, Lucchini G & Longhese MP
(2009) Multiple pathways regulate 3′ overhang generation at
S. cerevisiae telomeres. Mol Cell 35: 70–81.Bonetti D, Clerici M, Manfrini N, Lucchini G & Longhese MP
(2010a) The MRX complex plays multiple functions in
resection of Yku- and Rif2-protected DNA ends. PLoS ONE
5: e14142.
Bonetti D, Clerici M, Anbalagan S, Martina M, Lucchini G &
Longhese MP (2010b) Shelterin-like proteins and Yku
inhibit nucleolytic processing of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
telomeres. PLoS Genet 6: e1000966.
Booth C, Griffith E, Brady G & Lydall D (2001) Quantitative
amplification of single-stranded DNA (QAOS)
demonstrates that cdc13-1 mutants generate ssDNA in a
telomere to centromere direction. Nucleic Acids Res 29:
4414–4422.Boule JB & Zakian VA (2006) Roles of Pif1-like helicases in
the maintenance of genomic stability. Nucleic Acids Res 34:
4147–4153.Boulton SJ & Jackson SP (1996a) Identification of a
Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku80 homologue: roles in DNA
double strand break rejoining and in telomeric maintenance.
Nucleic Acids Res 24: 4639–4648.Boulton SJ & Jackson SP (1996b) 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.Breslow DK, Cameron DM, Collins SR et al. (2008) A
comprehensive strategy enabling high-resolution functional
analysis of the yeast genome. Nat Methods 5: 711–718.Bryan C, Rice C, Harkisheimer M, Schultz DC & Skordalakes
E (2013) Structure of the human telomeric stn1-ten1
capping complex. PLoS ONE 8: e66756.
Buchman AR, Kimmerly WJ, Rine J & Kornberg RD (1988)
Two DNA-binding factors recognize specific sequences at
silencers, upstream activating sequences, autonomously
replicating sequences, and telomeres in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 8: 210–225.Bucholc M, Park Y & Lustig AJ (2001) Intrachromatid
excision of telomeric DNA as a mechanism for telomere size
control in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 21:
6559–6573.Buck MJ & Lieb JD (2006) A chromatin-mediated mechanism
for specification of conditional transcription factor targets.
Nat Genet 38: 1446–1451.Bupp JM, Martin AE, Stensrud ES & Jaspersen SL (2007)
Telomere anchoring at the nuclear periphery requires the
budding yeast Sad1-UNC-84 domain protein Mps3. J Cell
Biol 179: 845–854.Bystricky K, Laroche T, van Houwe G, Blaszczyk M & Gasser
SM (2005) Chromosome looping in yeast: telomere pairing
and coordinated movement reflect anchoring efficiency and
territorial organization. J Cell Biol 168: 375–387.Calado RT & Young NS (2009) Telomere diseases. N Engl J
Med 361: 2353–2365.Carson MJ & Hartwell L (1985) CDC17: an essential gene that
prevents telomere elongation in yeast. Cell 42: 249–257.Caslini C, Connelly JA, Serna A, Broccoli D & Hess JL (2009)
MLL associates with telomeres and regulates telomeric
repeat-containing RNA transcription. Mol Cell Biol 29:
4519–4526.Cejka P, Cannavo E, Polaczek P, Masuda-Sasa T, Pokharel S,
Campbell JL & Kowalczykowski SC (2010) DNA end
resection by Dna2-Sgs1-RPA and its stimulation by
Top3-Rmi1 and Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2. Nature 467: 112–116.Chan CS & Tye BK (1983) Organization of DNA sequences
and replication origins at yeast telomeres. Cell 33: 563–573.Chan A, Boule JB & Zakian VA (2008) Two pathways recruit
telomerase to Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomeres. PLoS Genet
4: e1000236.
Chang M, Arneric M & Lingner J (2007) Telomerase repeat
addition processivity is increased at critically short telomeres
in a Tel1-dependent manner in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genes Dev 21: 2485–2494.Chang HY, Lawless C, Addinall SG et al. (2011) Genome-wide
analysis to identify pathways affecting telomere-initiated
senescence in budding yeast. G3 (Bethesda) 1: 197–208.Chapman JR, Barral P, Vannier JB et al. (2013) RIF1 is
essential for 53BP1-dependent nonhomologous end joining
and suppression of DNA double-strand break resection. Mol
Cell 49: 858–871.Chawla R & Azzalin CM (2008) The telomeric transcriptome
and SMG proteins at the crossroads. Cytogenet Genome Res
122: 194–201.Chen Q, Ijpma A & Greider CW (2001) Two survivor
pathways that allow growth in the absence of telomerase are
generated by distinct telomere recombination events. Mol
Cell Biol 21: 1819–1827.Churikov D, Corda Y, Luciano P & Geli V (2013) Cdc13 at a
crossroads of telomerase action. Front Oncol 3: 39.
Cimprich KA & Cortez D (2008) ATR: an essential regulator
of genome integrity. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9: 616–627.Clerici M, Mantiero D, Guerini I, Lucchini G & Longhese MP
(2008) The Yku70-Yku80 complex contributes to regulate
double-strand break processing and checkpoint activation
during the cell cycle. EMBO Rep 9: 810–818.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
162 M. Kupiec
Collis SJ, DeWeese TL, Jeggo PA & Parker AR (2005) The life
and death of DNA-PK. Oncogene 24: 949–961.Conomos D, Pickett HA & Reddel RR (2013) Alternative
lengthening of telomeres: remodeling the telomere
architecture. Front Oncol 3: 27.
Conrad MN, Wright JH, Wolf AJ & Zakian VA (1990) RAP1
protein interacts with yeast telomeres in vivo:
overproduction alters telomere structure and decreases
chromosome stability. Cell 63: 739–750.Cornacchia D, Dileep V, Quivy JP et al. (2012) Mouse Rif1 is
a key regulator of the replication-timing programme in
mammalian cells. EMBO J 31: 3678–3690.Cosgrove AJ, Nieduszynski CA & Donaldson AD (2002) Ku
complex controls the replication time of DNA in telomere
regions. Genes Dev 16: 2485–2490.Craven RJ & Petes TD (2000) Involvement of the
checkpoint protein Mec1p in silencing of gene expression
at telomeres in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 20:
2378–2384.Cubizolles F, Martino F, Perrod S & Gasser SM (2006) A
homotrimer-heterotrimer switch in Sir2 structure
differentiates rDNA and telomeric silencing. Mol Cell 21:
825–836.Cusanelli E, Romero CA & Chartrand P (2013) Telomeric
noncoding RNA TERRA is induced by telomere shortening
to nucleate telomerase molecules at short telomeres. Mol
Cell 51: 780–791.de Lange T (2009) How telomeres solve the end-protection
problem. Science 326: 948–952.DeMasters BK, Markham N, Lillehei KO & Shroyer KR
(1997) Differential telomerase expression in human
primary intracranial tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 107:
548–554.Deng Z, Norseen J, Wiedmer A, Riethman H & Lieberman
PM (2009) TERRA RNA binding to TRF2 facilitates
heterochromatin formation and ORC recruitment at
telomeres. Mol Cell 35: 403–413.Dewar JM & Lydall D (2010) Pif1- and Exo1-dependent
nucleases coordinate checkpoint activation following
telomere uncapping. EMBO J 29: 4020–4034.Dewar JM & Lydall D (2012) Similarities and differences
between “uncapped” telomeres and DNA double-strand
breaks. Chromosoma 121: 117–130.DeZwaan DC & Freeman BC (2009) The conserved Est1
protein stimulates telomerase DNA extension activity.
P Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 17337–17342.Di Domenico EG, Mattarocci S, Cimino-Reale G et al. (2013)
Tel1 and Rad51 are involved in the maintenance of
telomeres with capping deficiency. Nucleic Acids Res 41:
6490–6500.Di Virgilio M, Callen E, Yamane A et al. (2013) Rif1 prevents
resection of DNA breaks and promotes immunoglobulin
class switching. Science 339: 711–715.Diede SJ & Gottschling DE (1999) Telomerase-mediated
telomere addition in vivo requires DNA primase and DNA
polymerases alpha and delta. Cell 99: 723–733.
Dionne I & Wellinger RJ (1996) Cell cycle-regulated
generation of single-stranded G-rich DNA in the absence of
telomerase. P Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 13902–13907.Dionne I & Wellinger RJ (1998) Processing of telomeric DNA
ends requires the passage of a replication fork. Nucleic Acids
Res 26: 5365–5371.Downey M, Houlsworth R, Maringele L et al. (2006) A
genome-wide screen identifies the evolutionarily conserved
KEOPS complex as a telomere regulator. Cell 124: 1155–1168.Downs JA, Allard S, Jobin-Robitaille O et al. (2004) Binding of
chromatin-modifying activities to phosphorylated histone
H2A at DNA damage sites. Mol Cell 16: 979–990.Enomoto S, Longtine MS & Berman J (1994) TEL + CEN
antagonism on plasmids involves telomere repeat sequences
tracts and gene products that interact with chromosomal
telomeres. Chromosoma 103: 237–250.Escribano-Diaz C, Orthwein A, Fradet-Turcotte A et al. (2013)
A cell cycle-dependent regulatory circuit composed of
53BP1-RIF1 and BRCA1-CtIP controls DNA repair pathway
choice. Mol Cell 49: 872–883.Evans SK & Lundblad V (1999) Est1 and Cdc13 as
comediators of telomerase access. Science 286: 117–120.Evans SK & Lundblad V (2002) The Est1 subunit of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomerase makes multiple
contributions to telomere length maintenance. Genetics 162:
1101–1115.Faure V, Coulon S, Hardy J & Geli V (2010) Cdc13 and
telomerase bind through different mechanisms at the
lagging- and leading-strand telomeres. Mol Cell 38: 842–852.Feldheim KA, Brown JE, Murphy DJ & Stepien CA (2011)
Microsatellite loci for dreissenid mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Dreissenidae) and relatives: markers for assessing exotic and
native populations. Mol Ecol Resour 11: 725–732.Ferguson BM & Fangman WL (1992) A position effect on the
time of replication origin activation in yeast. Cell 68:
333–339.Ferrari S, Simmen KC, Dusserre Y, Muller K, Fourel G, Gilson
E & Mermod N (2004) Chromatin domain boundaries
delimited by a histone-binding protein in yeast. J Biol Chem
279: 55520–55530.Ferreira HC, Luke B, Schober H, Kalck V, Lingner J & Gasser
SM (2011) The PIAS homologue Siz2 regulates perinuclear
telomere position and telomerase activity in budding yeast.
Nat Cell Biol 13: 867–874.Fisher TS, Taggart AK & Zakian VA (2004) Cell
cycle-dependent regulation of yeast telomerase by Ku. Nat
Struct Mol Biol 11: 1198–1205.Forstemann K & Lingner J (2001) Molecular basis for telomere
repeat divergence in budding yeast. Mol Cell Biol 21:
7277–7286.Foster SS, Zubko MK, Guillard S & Lydall D (2006) MRX
protects telomeric DNA at uncapped telomeres of budding
yeast cdc13-1 mutants. DNA Repair (Amst) 5: 840–851.Fourel G, Revardel E, Koering CE & Gilson E (1999)
Cohabitation of insulators and silencing elements in yeast
subtelomeric regions. EMBO J 18: 2522–2537.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 163
Fourel G, Boscheron C, Revardel E et al. (2001) An
activation-independent role of transcription factors in
insulator function. EMBO Rep 2: 124–132.Frank CJ, Hyde M & Greider CW (2006) Regulation of
telomere elongation by the cyclin-dependent kinase CDK1.
Mol Cell 24: 423–432.Fukunaga K, Hirano Y & Sugimoto K (2012)
Subtelomere-binding protein Tbf1 and telomere-binding
protein Rap1 collaborate to inhibit localization of the Mre11
complex to DNA ends in budding yeast. Mol Biol Cell 23:
347–359.Gallardo F, Laterreur N, Cusanelli E, Ouenzar F, Querido E,
Wellinger RJ & Chartrand P (2011) Live cell imaging of
telomerase RNA dynamics reveals cell cycle-dependent
clustering of telomerase at elongating telomeres. Mol Cell
44: 819–827.Gao H, Cervantes RB, Mandell EK, Otero JH & Lundblad V
(2007) RPA-like proteins mediate yeast telomere function.
Nat Struct Mol Biol 14: 208–214.Gao H, Toro TB, Paschini M, Braunstein-Ballew B, Cervantes
RB & Lundblad V (2010) Telomerase recruitment in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is not dependent on Tel1-mediated
phosphorylation of Cdc13. Genetics 186: 1147–1159.Gardner R, Putnam CW & Weinert T (1999) RAD53, DUN1
and PDS1 define two parallel G2/M checkpoint pathways in
budding yeast. EMBO J 18: 3173–3185.Gartenberg MR, Neumann FR, Laroche T, Blaszczyk M &
Gasser SM (2004) Sir-mediated repression can occur
independently of chromosomal and subnuclear contexts.
Cell 119: 955–967.Garvik B, Carson M & Hartwell L (1995) Single-stranded DNA
arising at telomeres in cdc13 mutants may constitute a
specific signal for the RAD9 checkpoint. Mol Cell Biol 15:
6128–6138.Gatbonton T, Imbesi M, Nelson M et al. (2006) Telomere
length as a quantitative trait: genome-wide survey and
genetic mapping of telomere length-control genes in yeast.
PLoS Genet 2: e35.
Gazy I & Kupiec M (2013) Genomic instability and repair
mediated by common repeated sequences. P Natl Acad Sci
USA 110: 19664–19665.Gelinas AD, Paschini M, Reyes FE, Heroux A, Batey RT,
Lundblad V & Wuttke DS (2009) Telomere capping
proteins are structurally related to RPA with an additional
telomere-specific domain. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106:
19298–19303.Ghidelli S, Donze D, Dhillon N & Kamakaka RT (2001) Sir2p
exists in two nucleosome-binding complexes with distinct
deacetylase activities. EMBO J 20: 4522–4535.Gilson E, Roberge M, Giraldo R, Rhodes D & Gasser SM
(1993) Distortion of the DNA double helix by RAP1 at
silencers and multiple telomeric binding sites. J Mol Biol
231: 293–310.Giraud-Panis MJ, Teixeira MT, Geli V & Gilson E (2010) CST
meets shelterin to keep telomeres in check. Mol Cell 39:
665–676.
Gotta M & Gasser SM (1996) Nuclear organization and
transcriptional silencing in yeast. Experientia 52: 1136–1147.Gotta M, Laroche T, Formenton A, Maillet L, Scherthan H &
Gasser SM (1996) The clustering of telomeres and
colocalization with Rap1, Sir3, and Sir4 proteins in
wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Cell Biol 134:
1349–1363.Goudsouzian LK, Tuzon CT & Zakian VA (2006) S. cerevisiae
Tel1p and Mre11p are required for normal levels of Est1p
and Est2p telomere association. Mol Cell 24: 603–610.Graham IR, Haw RA, Spink KG, Halden KA & Chambers A
(1999) In vivo analysis of functional regions within yeast
Rap1p. Mol Cell Biol 19: 7481–7490.Gramatges MM & Bertuch AA (2013) Short telomeres: from
dyskeratosis congenita to sporadic aplastic anemia and
malignancy. Transl Res 162: 353–363.Grandin N & Charbonneau M (2003) The Rad51 pathway of
telomerase-independent maintenance of telomeres can
amplify TG1-3 sequences in yku and cdc13 mutants of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 23: 3721–3734.Grandin N & Charbonneau M (2007) Control of the yeast
telomeric senescence survival pathways of recombination by
the Mec1 and Mec3 DNA damage sensors and RPA. Nucleic
Acids Res 35: 822–838.Grandin N & Charbonneau M (2009) Telomerase- and
Rad52-independent immortalization of budding yeast by an
inherited-long-telomere pathway of telomeric repeat
amplification. Mol Cell Biol 29: 965–985.Grandin N & Charbonneau M (2013) RPA provides
checkpoint-independent cell cycle arrest and prevents
recombination at uncapped telomeres of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. DNA Repair (Amst) 12: 212–226.Grandin N, Reed SI & Charbonneau M (1997) Stn1, a new
Saccharomyces cerevisiae protein, is implicated in telomere
size regulation in association with Cdc13. Genes Dev 11:
512–527.Grandin N, Damon C & Charbonneau M (2000) Cdc13
cooperates with the yeast Ku proteins and Stn1 to
regulate telomerase recruitment. Mol Cell Biol 20:
8397–8408.Grandin N, Damon C & Charbonneau M (2001a) Cdc13
prevents telomere uncapping and Rad50-dependent
homologous recombination. EMBO J 20: 6127–6139.Grandin N, Damon C & Charbonneau M (2001b) Ten1
functions in telomere end protection and length regulation
in association with Stn1 and Cdc13. EMBO J 20:
1173–1183.Gravel S, Larrivee M, Labrecque P & Wellinger RJ (1998)
Yeast Ku as a regulator of chromosomal DNA end
structure. Science 280: 741–744.Gravel S, Chapman JR, Magill C & Jackson SP (2008) DNA
helicases Sgs1 and BLM promote DNA double-strand break
resection. Genes Dev 22: 2767–2772.Greider CW & Blackburn EH (1987) The telomere terminal
transferase of Tetrahymena is a ribonucleoprotein enzyme
with two kinds of primer specificity. Cell 51: 887–898.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
164 M. Kupiec
Griffith JD, Comeau L, Rosenfield S, Stansel RM, Bianchi A,
Moss H & de Lange T (1999) Mammalian telomeres end in
a large duplex loop. Cell 97: 503–514.Grossi S, Puglisi A, Dmitriev PV, Lopes M & Shore D (2004)
Pol12, the B subunit of DNA polymerase alpha, functions in
both telomere capping and length regulation. Genes Dev 18:
992–1006.Hahn WC, Counter CM, Lundberg AS, Beijersbergen RL,
Brooks MW & Weinberg RA (1999) Creation of human
tumour cells with defined genetic elements. Nature 400:
464–468.Hammet A, Magill C, Heierhorst J & Jackson SP (2007) Rad9
BRCT domain interaction with phosphorylated H2AX
regulates the G1 checkpoint in budding yeast. EMBO Rep 8:
851–857.Hang LE, Liu X, Cheung I, Yang Y & Zhao X (2011)
SUMOylation regulates telomere length homeostasis by
targeting Cdc13. Nat Struct Mol Biol 18: 920–926.Hansen KR, Ibarra PT & Thon G (2006)
Evolutionary-conserved telomere-linked helicase genes of
fission yeast are repressed by silencing factors, RNAi
components and the telomere-binding protein Taz1. Nucleic
Acids Res 34: 78–88.Harari Y, Rubinstein L & Kupiec M (2011) An anti-checkpoint
activity for rif1. PLoS Genet 7: e1002421.
Harari Y, Romano GH, Ungar L & Kupiec M (2013) Nature
vs nurture: interplay between the genetic control of telomere
length and environmental factors. Cell Cycle 12: 3465–3470.Hardy CF, Sussel L & Shore D (1992a) A RAP1-interacting
protein involved in transcriptional silencing and telomere
length regulation. Genes Dev 6: 801–814.Hardy CF, Balderes D & Shore D (1992b) Dissection of a
carboxy-terminal region of the yeast regulatory protein
RAP1 with effects on both transcriptional activation and
silencing. Mol Cell Biol 12: 1209–1217.Harley CB, Futcher AB & Greider CW (1990) Telomeres
shorten during ageing of human fibroblasts. Nature 345:
458–460.Hayano M, Kanoh Y, Matsumoto S, Renard-Guillet C,
Shirahige K & Masai H (2012) Rif1 is a global regulator of
timing of replication origin firing in fission yeast. Genes Dev
26: 137–150.Hayflick L (1979) The cell biology of aging. J Invest Dermatol
73: 8–14.Hecht A, Strahl-Bolsinger S & Grunstein M (1996) Spreading
of transcriptional repressor SIR3 from telomeric
heterochromatin. Nature 383: 92–96.Hediger F, Neumann FR, Van Houwe G, Dubrana K & Gasser
SM (2002) Live imaging of telomeres: yKu and Sir proteins
define redundant telomere-anchoring pathways in yeast.
Curr Biol 12: 2076–2089.Hirano Y & Sugimoto K (2007) Cdc13 telomere capping
decreases Mec1 association but does not affect Tel1
association with DNA ends. Mol Biol Cell 18: 2026–2036.
Hirano Y, Fukunaga K & Sugimoto K (2009) Rif1 and rif2
inhibit localization of tel1 to DNA ends. Mol Cell 33:
312–322.Horowitz H, Thorburn P & Haber JE (1984) Rearrangements
of highly polymorphic regions near telomeres of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 4: 2509–2517.Hsu HC, Wang CL, Wang M, Yang N, Chen Z, Sternglanz R
& Xu RM (2013) Structural basis for allosteric stimulation
of Sir2 activity by Sir4 binding. Genes Dev 27: 64–73.Hu F, Wang Y, Liu D, Li Y, Qin J & Elledge SJ (2001)
Regulation of the Bub2/Bfa1 GAP complex by Cdc5 and cell
cycle checkpoints. Cell 107: 655–665.Hu Y, Tang HB, Liu NN et al. (2013) Telomerase-null
survivor screening identifies novel telomere recombination
regulators. PLoS Genet 9: e1003208.
Huang P, Pryde FE, Lester D, Maddison RL, Borts RH,
Hickson ID & Louis EJ (2001) SGS1 is required for
telomere elongation in the absence of telomerase. Curr Biol
11: 125–129.Hughes TR, Evans SK, Weilbaecher RG & Lundblad V (2000)
The Est3 protein is a subunit of yeast telomerase. Curr Biol
10: 809–812.Iglesias N, Redon S, Pfeiffer V, Dees M, Lingner J & Luke B
(2011) Subtelomeric repetitive elements determine TERRA
regulation by Rap1/Rif and Rap1/Sir complexes in yeast.
EMBO Rep 12: 587–593.Imai S, Armstrong CM, Kaeberlein M & Guarente L (2000)
Transcriptional silencing and longevity protein Sir2 is an
NAD-dependent histone deacetylase. Nature 403: 795–800.Inbar O, Liefshitz B, Bitan G & Kupiec M (2000) The
relationship between homology length and crossing over
during the repair of a broken chromosome. J Biol Chem
275: 30833–30838.Ira G, Pellicioli A, Balijja A et al. (2004) DNA end resection,
homologous recombination and DNA damage checkpoint
activation require CDK1. Nature 431: 1011–1017.Jia X, Weinert T & Lydall D (2004) Mec1 and Rad53 inhibit
formation of single-stranded DNA at telomeres of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae cdc13-1 mutants. Genetics 166:
753–764.Johnson FB, Marciniak RA, McVey M, Stewart SA, Hahn WC
& Guarente L (2001) The Saccharomyces cerevisiae WRN
homolog Sgs1p participates in telomere maintenance in cells
lacking telomerase. EMBO J 20: 905–913.Khadaroo B, Teixeira MT, Luciano P et al. (2009) The DNA
damage response at eroded telomeres and tethering to the
nuclear pore complex. Nat Cell Biol 11: 980–987.Kisseleva-Romanova E, Lopreiato R, Baudin-Baillieu A et al.
(2006) Yeast homolog of a cancer-testis antigen defines a
new transcription complex. EMBO J 25: 3576–3585.Kondo T, Wakayama T, Naiki T, Matsumoto K & Sugimoto K
(2001) Recruitment of Mec1 and Ddc1 checkpoint proteins
to double-strand breaks through distinct mechanisms.
Science 294: 867–870.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 165
Konig P, Giraldo R, Chapman L & Rhodes D (1996) The
crystal structure of the DNA-binding domain of yeast RAP1
in complex with telomeric DNA. Cell 85: 125–136.Krauskopf A & Blackburn EH (1996) Control of telomere
growth by interactions of RAP1 with the most distal
telomeric repeats. Nature 383: 354–357.Krauskopf A & Blackburn EH (1998) Rap1 protein regulates
telomere turnover in yeast. P Natl Acad Sci USA 95:
12486–12491.Krejci L, Altmannova V, Spirek M & Zhao X (2012)
Homologous recombination and its regulation. Nucleic Acids
Res 40: 5795–5818.Kyrion G, Boakye KA & Lustig AJ (1992) C-terminal
truncation of RAP1 results in the deregulation of telomere
size, stability, and function in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol
Cell Biol 12: 5159–5173.Kyrion G, Liu K, Liu C & Lustig AJ (1993) RAP1 and
telomere structure regulate telomere position effects in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev 7: 1146–1159.Langerak P, Mejia-Ramirez E, Limbo O & Russell P (2011)
Release of Ku and MRN from DNA ends by Mre11 nuclease
activity and Ctp1 is required for homologous recombination
repair of double-strand breaks. PLoS Genet 7: e1002271.
Laroche T, Martin SG, Gotta M, Gorham HC, Pryde FE, Louis
EJ & Gasser SM (1998) Mutation of yeast Ku genes disrupts
the subnuclear organization of telomeres. Curr Biol 8:
653–656.Larrivee M & Wellinger RJ (2006) Telomerase- and
capping-independent yeast survivors with alternate telomere
states. Nat Cell Biol 8: 741–747.Larrivee M, LeBel C & Wellinger RJ (2004) The generation of
proper constitutive G-tails on yeast telomeres is dependent
on the MRX complex. Genes Dev 18: 1391–1396.Lazzaro F, Sapountzi V, Granata M et al. (2008) Histone
methyltransferase Dot1 and Rad9 inhibit single-stranded
DNA accumulation at DSBs and uncapped telomeres.
EMBO J 27: 1502–1512.Le S, Moore JK, Haber JE & Greider CW (1999) RAD50 and
RAD51 define two pathways that collaborate to maintain
telomeres in the absence of telomerase. Genetics 152:
143–152.Lebel C, Rosonina E, Sealey DC, Pryde F, Lydall D, Maringele
L & Harrington LA (2009) Telomere maintenance and
survival in Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the absence of
telomerase and RAD52. Genetics 182: 671–684.Lendvay TS, Morris DK, Sah J, Balasubramanian B &
Lundblad V (1996) Senescence mutants of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae with a defect in telomere replication identify three
additional EST genes. Genetics 144: 1399–1412.Levy DL & Blackburn EH (2004) Counting of Rif1p and Rif2p
on Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomeres regulates telomere
length. Mol Cell Biol 24: 10857–10867.Li B & Lustig AJ (1996) A novel mechanism for telomere size
control in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev 10:
1310–1326.
Li S, Makovets S, Matsuguchi T, Blethrow JD, Shokat KM &
Blackburn EH (2009) Cdk1-dependent phosphorylation of
Cdc13 coordinates telomere elongation during cell-cycle
progression. Cell 136: 50–61.Lian HY, Robertson ED, Hiraga S et al. (2011) The effect of
Ku on telomere replication time is mediated by telomere
length but is independent of histone tail acetylation. Mol
Biol Cell 22: 1753–1765.Lieb JD, Liu X, Botstein D & Brown PO (2001)
Promoter-specific binding of Rap1 revealed by genome-wide
maps of protein-DNA association. Nat Genet 28: 327–334.Limbo O, Porter-Goff ME, Rhind N & Russell P (2011) Mre11
nuclease activity and Ctp1 regulate Chk1 activation by
Rad3ATR and Tel1ATM checkpoint kinases at
double-strand breaks. Mol Cell Biol 31: 573–583.Lin JJ & Zakian VA (1996) The Saccharomyces CDC13 protein
is a single-strand TG1-3 telomeric DNA-binding protein in
vitro that affects telomere behavior in vivo. P Natl Acad Sci
USA 93: 13760–13765.Lin J, Smith DL & Blackburn EH (2004) Mutant telomere
sequences lead to impaired chromosome separation and a
unique checkpoint response. Mol Biol Cell 15: 1623–1634.Lin W, Sampathi S, Dai H et al. (2013) Mammalian DNA2
helicase/nuclease cleaves G-quadruplex DNA and is required
for telomere integrity. EMBO J 32: 1425–1439.Liou GG, Tanny JC, Kruger RG, Walz T & Moazed D (2005)
Assembly of the SIR complex and its regulation by
O-acetyl-ADP-ribose, a product of NAD-dependent histone
deacetylation. Cell 121: 515–527.Lopez CR, Ribes-Zamora A, Indiviglio SM, Williams CL,
Haricharan S & Bertuch AA (2011) Ku must load directly
onto the chromosome end in order to mediate its telomeric
functions. PLoS Genet 7: e1002233.
Louis EJ & Haber JE (1990) Mitotic recombination among
subtelomeric Y′ repeats in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics
124: 547–559.Lu W, Zhang Y, Liu D, Songyang Z & Wan M (2013)
Telomeres-structure, function, and regulation. Exp Cell Res
319: 133–141.Luciano P, Coulon S, Faure V et al. (2012) RPA facilitates
telomerase activity at chromosome ends in budding and
fission yeasts. EMBO J 31: 2034–2046.Luke B, Panza A, Redon S, Iglesias N, Li Z & Lingner J (2008)
The Rat1p 5′ to 3′ exonuclease degrades telomeric
repeat-containing RNA and promotes telomere elongation
in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell 32: 465–477.Lundblad V & Blackburn EH (1993) An alternative pathway
for yeast telomere maintenance rescues est1- senescence. Cell
73: 347–360.Lundblad V & Szostak JW (1989) A mutant with a defect in
telomere elongation leads to senescence in yeast. Cell 57:
633–643.Lustig AJ & Petes TD (1986) Identification of yeast mutants
with altered telomere structure. P Natl Acad Sci USA 83:
1398–1402.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
166 M. Kupiec
Lustig AJ, Kurtz S & Shore D (1990) Involvement of the
silencer and UAS binding protein RAP1 in regulation of
telomere length. Science 250: 549–553.Lydall D (2009) Taming the tiger by the tail: modulation of
DNA damage responses by telomeres. EMBO J 28:
2174–2187.Lydall D & Weinert T (1995) Yeast checkpoint genes in DNA
damage processing: implications for repair and arrest.
Science 270: 1488–1491.Lydeard JR, Jain S, Yamaguchi M & Haber JE (2007)
Break-induced replication and telomerase-independent
telomere maintenance require Pol32. Nature 448: 820–823.Majka J & Burgers PM (2003) Yeast Rad17/Mec3/Ddc1: a
sliding clamp for the DNA damage checkpoint. P Natl Acad
Sci USA 100: 2249–2254.Mandell EK, Gelinas AD, Wuttke DS & Lundblad V (2011)
Sequence-specific binding to telomeric DNA is not a
conserved property of the Cdc13 DNA binding domain.
Biochemistry 50: 6289–6291.Mantiero D, Clerici M, Lucchini G & Longhese MP (2007)
Dual role for Saccharomyces cerevisiae Tel1 in the checkpoint
response to double-strand breaks. EMBO Rep 8: 380–387.Marcand S, Wotton D, Gilson E & Shore D (1997) Rap1p and
telomere length regulation in yeast. Ciba Found Symp 211:
76–93; discussion 93–103.Marcand S, Brevet V & Gilson E (1999) Progressive
cis-inhibition of telomerase upon telomere elongation.
EMBO J 18: 3509–3519.Marcand S, Brevet V, Mann C & Gilson E (2000) Cell cycle
restriction of telomere elongation. Curr Biol 10: 487–490.Marcand S, Pardo B, Gratias A, Cahun S & Callebaut I (2008)
Multiple pathways inhibit NHEJ at telomeres. Genes Dev 22:
1153–1158.Maringele L & Lydall D (2002) EXO1-dependent
single-stranded DNA at telomeres activates subsets of DNA
damage and spindle checkpoint pathways in budding yeast
yku70Delta mutants. Genes Dev 16: 1919–1933.Maringele L & Lydall D (2004a) Telomerase- and
recombination-independent immortalization of budding
yeast. Genes Dev 18: 2663–2675.Maringele L & Lydall D (2004b) EXO1 plays a role in
generating type I and type II survivors in budding yeast.
Genetics 166: 1641–1649.Martin SG, Laroche T, Suka N, Grunstein M & Gasser SM
(1999) Relocalization of telomeric Ku and SIR proteins in
response to DNA strand breaks in yeast. Cell 97: 621–633.Marvin ME, Griffin CD, Eyre DE, Barton DB & Louis EJ
(2009a) In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, yKu and subtelomeric
core X sequences repress homologous recombination near
telomeres as part of the same pathway. Genetics 183:
441–451.Marvin ME, Becker MM, Noel P, Hardy S, Bertuch AA &
Louis EJ (2009b) The association of yKu with subtelomeric
core X sequences prevents recombination involving
telomeric sequences. Genetics 183: 453–467, 451SI–413SI.
Maxwell PH, Coombes C, Kenny AE, Lawler JF, Boeke JD &
Curcio MJ (2004) Ty1 mobilizes subtelomeric Y′ elements
in telomerase-negative Saccharomyces cerevisiae survivors.
Mol Cell Biol 24: 9887–9898.McEachern MJ & Blackburn EH (1994) A conserved sequence
motif within the exceptionally diverse telomeric sequences
of budding yeasts. P Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 3453–3457.McGee JS, Phillips JA, Chan A, Sabourin M, Paeschke K &
Zakian VA (2010) Reduced Rif2 and lack of Mec1 target
short telomeres for elongation rather than double-strand
break repair. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17: 1438–1445.Meier B, Driller L, Jaklin S & Feldmann HM (2001) New
function of CDC13 in positive telomere length regulation.
Mol Cell Biol 21: 4233–4245.Melo JA, Cohen J & Toczyski DP (2001) Two checkpoint
complexes are independently recruited to sites of DNA
damage in vivo. Genes Dev 15: 2809–2821.Mieczkowski PA, Mieczkowska JO, Dominska M & Petes TD
(2003) Genetic regulation of telomere–telomere fusions in
the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100:
10854–10859.Mimitou EP & Symington LS (2008) Sae2, Exo1 and Sgs1
collaborate in DNA double-strand break processing. Nature
455: 770–774.Mimitou EP & Symington LS (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.Mishra K & Shore D (1999) Yeast Ku protein plays a direct
role in telomeric silencing and counteracts inhibition by rif
proteins. Curr Biol 9: 1123–1126.Miyoshi A, Kito K, Aramoto T, Abe Y, Kobayashi N & Ueda
N (2003) Identification of CGI-121, a novel PRPK
(p53-related protein kinase)-binding protein. Biochem
Biophys Res Commun 303: 399–405.Moazed D, Rudner AD, Huang J, Hoppe GJ & Tanny JC
(2004) A model for step-wise assembly of heterochromatin
in yeast. Novartis Found Symp 259: 48–56; discussion 56–62,163–169.
Mordes DA, Nam EA & Cortez D (2008) Dpb11 activates the
Mec1-Ddc2 complex. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105:
18730–18734.Moretti P, Freeman K, Coodly L & Shore D (1994) Evidence
that a complex of SIR proteins interacts with the silencer
and telomere-binding protein RAP1. Genes Dev 8:
2257–2269.Morin I, Ngo HP, Greenall A, Zubko MK, Morrice N & Lydall
D (2008) Checkpoint-dependent phosphorylation of Exo1
modulates the DNA damage response. EMBO J 27:
2400–2410.Mozdy AD, Podell ER & Cech TR (2008) Multiple yeast genes,
including Paf1 complex genes, affect telomere length via
telomerase RNA abundance. Mol Cell Biol 28: 4152–4161.Myung K, Chen C & Kolodner RD (2001) Multiple pathways
cooperate in the suppression of genome instability in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 411: 1073–1076.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 167
Naiki T, Wakayama T, Nakada D, Matsumoto K & Sugimoto
K (2004) Association of Rad9 with double-strand breaks
through a Mec1-dependent mechanism. Mol Cell Biol 24:
3277–3285.Nakada D, Matsumoto K & Sugimoto K (2003) ATM-related
Tel1 associates with double-strand breaks through an
Xrs2-dependent mechanism. Genes Dev 17: 1957–1962.Nandakumar J & Cech TR (2013) Finding the end:
recruitment of telomerase to telomeres. Nat Rev Mol Cell
Biol 14: 69–82.Natarajan S & McEachern MJ (2002) Recombinational
telomere elongation promoted by DNA circles. Mol Cell Biol
22: 4512–4521.Negrini S, Ribaud V, Bianchi A & Shore D (2007) DNA breaks
are masked by multiple Rap1 binding in yeast: implications
for telomere capping and telomerase regulation. Genes Dev
21: 292–302.Nergadze SG, Farnung BO, Wischnewski H et al. (2009)
CpG-island promoters drive transcription of human
telomeres. RNA 15: 2186–2194.Ngo HP & Lydall D (2010) Survival and growth of yeast
without telomere capping by Cdc13 in the absence of Sgs1,
Exo1, and Rad9. PLoS Genet 6: e1001072.
Nicolette ML, Lee K, Guo Z, Rani M, Chow JM, Lee SE &
Paull TT (2010) Mre11-Rad50-Xrs2 and Sae2 promote 5′strand resection of DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct
Mol Biol 17: 1478–1485.Nimonkar AV, Genschel J, Kinoshita E et al. (2011)
BLM-DNA2-RPA-MRN and EXO1-BLM-RPA-MRN
constitute two DNA end resection machineries for human
DNA break repair. Genes Dev 25: 350–362.Niu H, Chung WH, Zhu Z et al. (2010) Mechanism of the
ATP-dependent DNA end-resection machinery from
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 467: 108–111.Nugent CI, Hughes TR, Lue NF & Lundblad V (1996) Cdc13p:
a single-strand telomeric DNA-binding protein with a dual
role in yeast telomere maintenance. Science 274: 249–252.Ohki R & Ishikawa F (2004) Telomere-bound TRF1 and TRF2
stall the replication fork at telomeric repeats. Nucleic Acids
Res 32: 1627–1637.Olovnikov AM (1971) [Principle of marginotomy in template
synthesis of polynucleotides]. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 201:
1496–1499.Osterhage JL, Talley JM & Friedman KL (2006)
Proteasome-dependent degradation of Est1p regulates the
cell cycle-restricted assembly of telomerase in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. Nat Struct Mol Biol 13: 720–728.Paciotti V, Clerici M, Lucchini G & Longhese MP (2000) The
checkpoint protein Ddc2, functionally related to S. pombe
Rad26, interacts with Mec1 and is regulated by
Mec1-dependent phosphorylation in budding yeast. Genes
Dev 14: 2046–2059.Paeschke K, Bochman ML, Garcia PD, Cejka P, Friedman KL,
Kowalczykowski SC & Zakian VA (2013) Pif1 family
helicases suppress genome instability at G-quadruplex
motifs. Nature 497: 458–462.
Palladino F, Laroche T, Gilson E, Axelrod A, Pillus L & Gasser
SM (1993) SIR3 and SIR4 proteins are required for the
positioning and integrity of yeast telomeres. Cell 75:
543–555.Palm W & de Lange T (2008) How shelterin protects
mammalian telomeres. Annu Rev Genet 42: 301–334.Pardo B & Marcand S (2005) Rap1 prevents telomere fusions
by nonhomologous end joining. EMBO J 24: 3117–3127.Pennock E, Buckley K & Lundblad V (2001) Cdc13 delivers
separate complexes to the telomere for end protection and
replication. Cell 104: 387–396.Peterson SE, Stellwagen AE, Diede SJ et al. (2001) The
function of a stem-loop in telomerase RNA is linked to the
DNA repair protein Ku. Nat Genet 27: 64–67.Petreaca RC, Chiu HC, Eckelhoefer HA, Chuang C, Xu L &
Nugent CI (2006) Chromosome end protection plasticity
revealed by Stn1p and Ten1p bypass of Cdc13p. Nat Cell
Biol 8: 748–755.Pfander B & Diffley JF (2011) Dpb11 coordinates Mec1 kinase
activation with cell cycle-regulated Rad9 recruitment. EMBO
J 30: 4897–4907.Pfingsten JS, Goodrich KJ, Taabazuing C, Ouenzar F,
Chartrand P & Cech TR (2012) Mutually exclusive binding
of telomerase RNA and DNA by Ku alters telomerase
recruitment model. Cell 148: 922–932.Piening BD, Huang D & Paulovich AG (2013) Novel
connections between DNA replication, telomere
homeostasis, and the DNA damage response revealed by a
genome-wide screen for TEL1/ATM interactions in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 193: 1117–1133.Platt JM, Ryvkin P, Wanat JJ et al. (2013) Rap1 relocalization
contributes to the chromatin-mediated gene expression
profile and pace of cell senescence. Genes Dev 27:
1406–1420.Porter SE, Greenwell PW, Ritchie KB & Petes TD (1996) The
DNA-binding protein Hdf1p (a putative Ku homologue) is
required for maintaining normal telomere length in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res 24: 582–585.Poschke H, Dees M, Chang M, Amberkar S, Kaderali L,
Rothstein R & Luke B (2012) Rif2 promotes a telomere
fold-back structure through Rpd3L recruitment in budding
yeast. PLoS Genet 8: e1002960.
Pryde FE & Louis EJ (1999) Limitations of silencing at native
yeast telomeres. EMBO J 18: 2538–2550.Qi H & Zakian VA (2000) The Saccharomyces
telomere-binding protein Cdc13p interacts with both the
catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase alpha and the
telomerase-associated est1 protein. Genes Dev 14:
1777–1788.Radman-Livaja M, Ruben G, Weiner A, Friedman N,
Kamakaka R & Rando OJ (2011) Dynamics of Sir3
spreading in budding yeast: secondary recruitment sites and
euchromatic localization. EMBO J 30: 1012–1026.Raghuraman MK, Winzeler EA, Collingwood D et al. (2001)
Replication dynamics of the yeast genome. Science 294:
115–121.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
168 M. Kupiec
Rathmell WK & Chu G (1994) Involvement of the Ku
autoantigen in the cellular response to DNA double-strand
breaks. P Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 7623–7627.Redon S, Reichenbach P & Lingner J (2010) The non-coding
RNA TERRA is a natural ligand and direct inhibitor of
human telomerase. Nucleic Acids Res 38: 5797–5806.Ribaud V, Ribeyre C, Damay P & Shore D (2012) DNA-end
capping by the budding yeast transcription factor and
subtelomeric binding protein Tbf1. EMBO J 31: 138–149.Ribes-Zamora A, Mihalek I, Lichtarge O & Bertuch AA (2007)
Distinct faces of the Ku heterodimer mediate DNA repair
and telomeric functions. Nat Struct Mol Biol 14: 301–307.Ribeyre C & Shore D (2012) Anticheckpoint pathways at
telomeres in yeast. Nat Struct Mol Biol 19: 307–313.Ritchie KB & Petes TD (2000) The Mre11p/Rad50p/Xrs2p
complex and the Tel1p function in a single pathway for
telomere maintenance in yeast. Genetics 155: 475–479.Rog O, Smolikov S, Krauskopf A & Kupiec M (2005) The
yeast VPS genes affect telomere length regulation. Curr
Genet 47: 18–28.Romano GH, Harari Y, Yehuda T et al. (2013) Environmental
stresses disrupt telomere length homeostasis. PLoS Genet 9:
e1003721.
Rouse J & Jackson SP (2000) LCD1: an essential gene involved
in checkpoint control and regulation of the MEC1 signalling
pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. EMBO J 19: 5801–5812.Roy R, Meier B, McAinsh AD, Feldmann HM & Jackson SP
(2004) Separation-of-function mutants of yeast Ku80 reveal
a Yku80p-Sir4p interaction involved in telomeric silencing.
J Biol Chem 279: 86–94.Rusche LN, Kirchmaier AL & Rine J (2003) The establishment,
inheritance, and function of silenced chromatin in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Annu Rev Biochem 72: 481–516.Sabourin M & Zakian VA (2008) ATM-like kinases and
regulation of telomerase: lessons from yeast and mammals.
Trends Cell Biol 18: 337–346.Sabourin M, Tuzon CT & Zakian VA (2007) Telomerase and
Tel1p preferentially associate with short telomeres in
S. cerevisiae. Mol Cell 27: 550–561.Sanchez Y, Bachant J, Wang H, Hu F, Liu D, Tetzlaff M &
Elledge SJ (1999) Control of the DNA damage checkpoint
by chk1 and rad53 protein kinases through distinct
mechanisms. Science 286: 1166–1171.Sandell LL & Zakian VA (1993) Loss of a yeast telomere:
arrest, recovery, and chromosome loss. Cell 75: 729–739.Sandell LL, Gottschling DE & Zakian VA (1994) Transcription
of a yeast telomere alleviates telomere position effect
without affecting chromosome stability. P Natl Acad Sci
USA 91: 12061–12065.Schober H, Kalck V, Vega-Palas MA et al. (2008) Controlled
exchange of chromosomal arms reveals principles driving
telomere interactions in yeast. Genome Res 18: 261–271.Schober H, Ferreira H, Kalck V, Gehlen LR & Gasser SM
(2009) Yeast telomerase and the SUN domain protein Mps3
anchor telomeres and repress subtelomeric recombination.
Genes Dev 23: 928–938.
Schoeftner S & Blasco MA (2008) Developmentally regulated
transcription of mammalian telomeres by DNA-dependent
RNA polymerase II. Nat Cell Biol 10: 228–236.Schoeftner S & Blasco MA (2010) Chromatin regulation and
non-coding RNAs at mammalian telomeres. Semin Cell Dev
Biol 21: 186–193.Schramke V, Luciano P, Brevet V et al. (2004) RPA regulates
telomerase action by providing Est1p access to chromosome
ends. Nat Genet 36: 46–54.Schulz VP & Zakian VA (1994) The Saccharomyces PIF1 DNA
helicase inhibits telomere elongation and de novo telomere
formation. Cell 76: 145–155.Segurado M & Diffley JF (2008) Separate roles for the DNA
damage checkpoint protein kinases in stabilizing DNA
replication forks. Genes Dev 22: 1816–1827.Sfeir A & de Lange T (2012) Removal of shelterin reveals the
telomere end-protection problem. Science 336: 593–597.Sfeir A, Kosiyatrakul ST, Hockemeyer D, MacRae SL,
Karlseder J, Schildkraut CL & de Lange T (2009)
Mammalian telomeres resemble fragile sites and require
TRF1 for efficient replication. Cell 138: 90–103.Shachar R, Ungar L, Kupiec M, Ruppin E & Sharan R (2008)
A systems-level approach to mapping the telomere length
maintenance gene circuitry. Mol Syst Biol 4: 172.
Shampay J, Szostak JW & Blackburn EH (1984) DNA
sequences of telomeres maintained in yeast. Nature 310:
154–157.Shi T, Bunker RD, Mattarocci S et al. (2013) Rif1 and Rif2
shape telomere function and architecture through
multivalent Rap1 interactions. Cell 153: 1340–1353.Shiloh Y & Ziv Y (2013) The ATM protein kinase: regulating
the cellular response to genotoxic stress, and more. Nat Rev
Mol Cell Biol 14: 197–210.Shore D & Bianchi A (2009) Telomere length regulation:
coupling DNA end processing to feedback regulation of
telomerase. EMBO J 28: 2309–2322.Smekalova EM, Shubernetskaya OS, Zvereva MI, Gromenko
EV, Rubtsova MP & Dontsova OA (2012) Telomerase RNA
biosynthesis and processing. Biochemistry (Mosc) 77:
1120–1128.Smith JS, Brachmann CB, Celic I et al. (2000) A
phylogenetically conserved NAD+-dependent proteindeacetylase activity in the Sir2 protein family. P Natl Acad
Sci USA 97: 6658–6663.Smith CD, Smith DL, DeRisi JL & Blackburn EH (2003)
Telomeric protein distributions and remodeling through the
cell cycle in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Mol Biol Cell 14: 556–570.Stellwagen AE, Haimberger ZW, Veatch JR & Gottschling DE
(2003) Ku interacts with telomerase RNA to promote
telomere addition at native and broken chromosome ends.
Genes Dev 17: 2384–2395.Stevenson JB & Gottschling DE (1999) Telomeric chromatin
modulates replication timing near chromosome ends. Genes
Dev 13: 146–151.Stewart JA, Chaiken MF, Wang F & Price CM (2012a)
Maintaining the end: roles of telomere proteins in
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 169
end-protection, telomere replication and length regulation.
Mutat Res 730: 12–19.Stewart JA, Wang F, Chaiken MF, Kasbek C, Chastain PD II,
Wright WE & Price CM (2012b) Human CST promotes
telomere duplex replication and general replication restart
after fork stalling. EMBO J 31: 3537–3549.Strahl-Bolsinger S, Hecht A, Luo K & Grunstein M (1997)
SIR2 and SIR4 interactions differ in core and extended
telomeric heterochromatin in yeast. Genes Dev 11: 83–93.Sun Z, Hsiao J, Fay DS & Stern DF (1998) Rad53 FHA
domain associated with phosphorylated Rad9 in the DNA
damage checkpoint. Science 281: 272–274.Sun J, Yu EY, Yang Y et al. (2009) Stn1-Ten1 is an
Rpa2-Rpa3-like complex at telomeres. Genes Dev 23:
2900–2914.Sun J, Yang Y, Wan K et al. (2011) Structural bases of
dimerization of yeast telomere protein Cdc13 and its
interaction with the catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase
alpha. Cell Res 21: 258–274.Szostak JW & Blackburn EH (1982) Cloning yeast telomeres
on linear plasmid vectors. Cell 29: 245–255.Taccioli GE, Gottlieb TM, Blunt T et al. (1994) Ku80: product
of the XRCC5 gene and its role in DNA repair and V(D)J
recombination. Science 265: 1442–1445.Taddei A & Gasser SM (2012) Structure and function in the
budding yeast nucleus. Genetics 192: 107–129.Taddei A, Hediger F, Neumann FR, Bauer C & Gasser SM
(2004) Separation of silencing from perinuclear anchoring
functions in yeast Ku80, Sir4 and Esc1 proteins. EMBO J 23:
1301–1312.Taggart AK, Teng SC & Zakian VA (2002) Est1p as a cell
cycle-regulated activator of telomere-bound telomerase.
Science 297: 1023–1026.Tanny JC, Dowd GJ, Huang J, Hilz H & Moazed D (1999) An
enzymatic activity in the yeast Sir2 protein that is essential
for gene silencing. Cell 99: 735–745.Tanny JC, Kirkpatrick DS, Gerber SA, Gygi SP & Moazed D
(2004) Budding yeast silencing complexes and regulation of
Sir2 activity by protein–protein interactions. Mol Cell Biol
24: 6931–6946.Teixeira MT (2013) Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model to
study replicative senescence triggered by telomere
shortening. Front Oncol 3: 101.
Teixeira MT, Arneric M, Sperisen P & Lingner J (2004)
Telomere length homeostasis is achieved via a switch
between telomerase- extendible and -nonextendible states.
Cell 117: 323–335.Teng SC & Zakian VA (1999) Telomere–telomere
recombination is an efficient bypass pathway for telomere
maintenance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 19:
8083–8093.Teo SH & Jackson SP (2001) Telomerase subunit
overexpression suppresses telomere-specific checkpoint
activation in the yeast yku80 mutant. EMBO Rep 2: 197–202.Therizols P, Fairhead C, Cabal GG, Genovesio A, Olivo-Marin
JC, Dujon B & Fabre E (2006) Telomere tethering at the
nuclear periphery is essential for efficient DNA double
strand break repair in subtelomeric region. J Cell Biol 172:
189–199.Therizols P, Duong T, Dujon B, Zimmer C & Fabre E (2010)
Chromosome arm length and nuclear constraints determine
the dynamic relationship of yeast subtelomeres. P Natl Acad
Sci USA 107: 2025–2030.Toh GW, O’Shaughnessy AM, Jimeno S et al. (2006) Histone
H2A phosphorylation and H3 methylation are required for
a novel Rad9 DSB repair function following checkpoint
activation. DNA Repair (Amst) 5: 693–703.Tomar RS, Zheng S, Brunke-Reese D, Wolcott HN & Reese JC
(2008) Yeast Rap1 contributes to genomic integrity by
activating DNA damage repair genes. EMBO J 27: 1575–1584.Tornow J, Zeng X, Gao W & Santangelo GM (1993) GCR1, a
transcriptional activator in Saccharomyces cerevisiae,
complexes with RAP1 and can function without its DNA
binding domain. EMBO J 12: 2431–2437.Tseng SF, Lin JJ & Teng SC (2006) The
telomerase-recruitment domain of the telomere binding
protein Cdc13 is regulated by Mec1p/Tel1p-dependent
phosphorylation. Nucleic Acids Res 34: 6327–6336.Tsubouchi H & Ogawa H (2000) Exo1 roles for repair of DNA
double-strand breaks and meiotic crossing over in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Biol Cell 11: 2221–2233.Tuzon CT, Wu Y, Chan A & Zakian VA (2011) The
Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomerase subunit Est3 binds
telomeres in a cell cycle- and Est1-dependent manner and
interacts directly with Est1 in vitro. PLoS Genet 7: e1002060.
Ungar L, Yosef N, Sela Y, Sharan R, Ruppin E & Kupiec M
(2009) A genome-wide screen for essential yeast genes that
affect telomere length maintenance. Nucleic Acids Res 37:
3840–3849.Ungar L, Harari Y, Toren A & Kupiec M (2011) Tor complex
1 controls telomere length by affecting the level of Ku. Curr
Biol 21: 2115–2120.Usui T, Ogawa H & Petrini JH (2001) A DNA damage
response pathway controlled by Tel1 and the Mre11
complex. Mol Cell 7: 1255–1266.Usui T, Foster SS & Petrini JH (2009) Maintenance of the
DNA-damage checkpoint requires DNA-damage-induced
mediator protein oligomerization. Mol Cell 33: 147–159.Vega LR, Phillips JA, Thornton BR, Benanti JA, Onigbanjo
MT, Toczyski DP & Zakian VA (2007) Sensitivity of yeast
strains with long G-tails to levels of telomere-bound
telomerase. PLoS Genet 3: e105.
Vodenicharov MD & Wellinger RJ (2006) DNA degradation at
unprotected telomeres in yeast is regulated by the CDK1
(Cdc28/Clb) cell-cycle kinase. Mol Cell 24: 127–137.Vodenicharov MD & Wellinger RJ (2007) The cell division
cycle puts up with unprotected telomeres: cell cycle
regulated telomere uncapping as a means to achieve
telomere homeostasis. Cell Cycle 6: 1161–1167.Vodenicharov MD, Laterreur N & Wellinger RJ (2010)
Telomere capping in non-dividing yeast cells requires Yku
and Rap1. EMBO J 29: 3007–3019.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
170 M. Kupiec
Walmsley RW, Chan CS, Tye BK & Petes TD (1984) Unusual
DNA sequences associated with the ends of yeast
chromosomes. Nature 310: 157–160.Wang F, Stewart JA, Kasbek C, Zhao Y, Wright WE & Price
CM (2012) Human CST has independent functions during
telomere duplex replication and C-strand fill-in. Cell Rep 2:
1096–1103.Watson JD (1972) Origin of concatemeric T7 DNA. Nat New
Biol 239: 197–201.Wellinger RJ & Zakian VA (2012) Everything you ever wanted
to know about Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomeres: beginning
to end. Genetics 191: 1073–1105.Wellinger RJ, Ethier K, Labrecque P & Zakian VA (1996) Evidence
for a new step in telomere maintenance. Cell 85: 423–433.Williams TL, Levy DL, Maki-Yonekura S, Yonekura K &
Blackburn EH (2010) Characterization of the yeast telomere
nucleoprotein core: Rap1 binds independently to each
recognition site. J Biol Chem 285: 35814–35824.Winzeler EA, Shoemaker DD, Astromoff A et al. (1999)
Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by
gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 285: 901–906.Wotton D & Shore D (1997) A novel Rap1p-interacting factor,
Rif2p, cooperates with Rif1p to regulate telomere length in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev 11: 748–760.Wright JH & Zakian VA (1995) Protein-DNA interactions in
soluble telosomes from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic
Acids Res 23: 1454–1460.Wysocki R, Javaheri A, Allard S, Sha F, Cote J & Kron SJ
(2005) Role of Dot1-dependent histone H3 methylation in
G1 and S phase DNA damage checkpoint functions of Rad9.
Mol Cell Biol 25: 8430–8443.Xue Y, Rushton MD & Maringele L (2011) A novel checkpoint
and RPA inhibitory pathway regulated by Rif1. PLoS Genet
7: e1002417.
Yamada M, Hayatsu N, Matsuura A & Ishikawa F (1998) Y
′-Help1, a DNA helicase encoded by the yeast subtelomeric
Y′ element, is induced in survivors defective for telomerase.
J Biol Chem 273: 33360–33366.Yamazaki S, Ishii A, Kanoh Y, Oda M, Nishito Y & Masai H
(2012) Rif1 regulates the replication timing domains on the
human genome. EMBO J 31: 3667–3677.
Yosef N, Ungar L, Zalckvar E, Kimchi A, Kupiec M,
Ruppin E & Sharan R (2009) Toward accurate
reconstruction of functional protein networks. Mol Syst Biol
5: 248.
Zakian VA, Blanton HM & Wetzel L (1986) Distribution of
telomere-associated sequences in yeast. Basic Life Sci 40:
493–498.Zhang W & Durocher D (2010) De novo telomere
formation is suppressed by the Mec1-dependent inhibition
of Cdc13 accumulation at DNA breaks. Genes Dev 24:
502–515.Zhao X & Rothstein R (2002) The Dun1 checkpoint
kinase phosphorylates and regulates the ribonucleotide
reductase inhibitor Sml1. P Natl Acad Sci USA 99:
3746–3751.Zhao Y, McIntosh KB, Rudra D, Schawalder S, Shore D &
Warner JR (2006) Fine-structure analysis of
ribosomal protein gene transcription. Mol Cell Biol 26:
4853–4862.Zhou Z & Elledge SJ (1993) DUN1 encodes a protein kinase
that controls the DNA damage response in yeast. Cell 75:
1119–1127.Zhou J, Monson EK, Teng SC, Schulz VP & Zakian VA (2000)
Pif1p helicase, a catalytic inhibitor of telomerase in yeast.
Science 289: 771–774.Zhu Z, Chung WH, Shim EY, Lee SE & Ira G (2008) Sgs1
helicase and two nucleases Dna2 and Exo1 resect DNA
double-strand break ends. Cell 134: 981–994.Zimmermann M, Lottersberger F, Buonomo SB, Sfeir A & de
Lange T (2013) 53BP1 regulates DSB repair using Rif1 to
control 5′ end resection. Science 339: 700–704.Zou L & Elledge SJ (2003) Sensing DNA damage through
ATRIP recognition of RPA-ssDNA complexes. Science 300:
1542–1548.Zubko MK & Lydall D (2006) Linear chromosome
maintenance in the absence of essential telomere-capping
proteins. Nat Cell Biol 8: 734–740.Zubko MK, Guillard S & Lydall D (2004) Exo1 and Rad24
differentially regulate generation of ssDNA at telomeres of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae cdc13-1 mutants. Genetics 168:
103–115.
FEMS Microbiol Rev 38 (2014) 144–171 ª 2013 Federation of European Microbiological Societies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved
Yeast telomeres 171