# Roles of G4-DNA and G4-RNA in Class Switch Recombination and Additional Regulations in B-Lymphocytes

Ophelie Deze, Brice Laffleur, Michel Cogné

► To cite this version:

Ophelie Deze, Brice Laffleur, Michel Cogné. Roles of G4-DNA and G4-RNA in Class Switch Recombination and Additional Regulations in B-Lymphocytes. Molecules, 2023, 28 (3), 10.3390/molecules28031159. [https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28031159](https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28031159)

HAL Id: hal-04059303

https://hal.science/hal-04059303

Submitted on 5 Apr 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Review

# G4-DNA, Class Switch Recombination and Potential Additional Regulations in B-Lymphocytes

Ophélie DÉZÉ¹, Brice LAFFLEUR¹, Michel COGNÉ¹, *

¹ Inserm UMR 1236, Univ Rennes 1, INSERM, EFS Bretagne, Rennes, France;

* Correspondence: michel.cogne@inserm.fr (M.C.)

**Abstract:** Mature B cells notably diversify immunoglobulin (Ig) production through class switch recombination (CSR), allowing the junction of distant "switch" (S) regions. CSR is initiated by activation-induced deaminase (AID) which targets cytosines adequately exposed within single-stranded DNA of transcribed targeted S regions, with a specific affinity for WRCY motifs. In mammals, G-rich sequences are additionally present in S regions, forming canonical G-quadruplexes (G4s) DNA structures which favor CSR. Small molecules interacting with G4-DNA (G4 ligands), proved able to regulate CSR in B lymphocytes, either positively (such as for nucleoside diphosphate kinase isoforms) or negatively (such as for RHPS4). G4-DNA is also implicated in the control of transcription, and due to their impact on both CSR and transcriptional regulation, G4-rich sequences likely play a role in the natural history of B cell malignancies. Since G4-DNA stands at multiple locations in the genome, and notably within oncogene promoters, it remains to be clarified how it can more specifically promote legitimate CSR in physiology, rather than pathogenic translocation. The specific regulatory role of G4 structures in transcribed DNA and/or in corresponding transcripts and recombination hereby appears as a major issue for understanding immune responses and lymphomagenesis.

**Keywords:** G-quadruplex DNA; G4-ligand; class switch recombination; transcriptional regulation; B lymphocytes

## 1. Introduction

G4s are non-canonical DNA structures with a four-stranded guanine-rich architecture stabilized by hydrogen bonding between a planar association of four guanines [1] found within the G4 motif: G≥3NxG≥3NxG≥3NxG≥3. The G4 structure was discovered in 1988 by X-ray diffraction [2] and was then identified throughout the genome of most species, including humans [3]. Besides G4, C-rich sequences could also adopt a quadruplex structure but without any demonstrated functional role [4]. More importantly, G4s can also be created within the secondary structures of RNA molecules, as identified by reverse transcriptase stalling (rG4-seq) on poly(A)-enriched RNAs [5,6].

G4-DNA has been extensively studied *in vitro* and is now known to form throughout genomes *in vivo*, especially in chromosomal telomeres [7] and in regulatory sequences. They are indeed abundant in some gene promoters, notably from oncogenes and from genes involved in the cell response to external stimuli, growth regulation, in cell-cell communication, and in locomotion [8–10]. Of importance for the B-cell lineage, G4s are also abundant in Ig S regions [11] and variable (V) genes [3] (Figure 1). At such locations, G4s perform physiological regulatory roles but also potentially endangers genome stability by initiating double-strand breaks (DSBs) and translocations. Several well-described experimental techniques can validate the G4-forming capacity of specific sequences, such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) [12], X-ray crystallography [13], circular dichroism spectroscopy [14–16], and methods measuring the thermal stability of quadruplexes, namely UV melting [17,18]. However, these biophysical techniques cannot scan the genome of living cells for dynamically identifying the formation of G4s genome-wide *in vivo*.
Thus, several computational (in silico) methods have been developed to detect putative G4s in DNA (and RNA) sequences [19]. G4 structures formed in chromatin *in vivo* can also be identified directly by antibody-based chromatin immunoprecipitation and high-throughput sequencing ("G4 ChIP-seq") [20]. From this technique, around 10 000 G4-rich regions were recovered from the genome of a human epidermal keratinocyte cell line (HaCaT) and more than 700 000 G4-DNA sites were identified in the human genome [21]. These data confirmed the predicted enrichment for G4s in regulatory regions such as promoters [20].

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1:** Multiple biological functions of G-quadruplexes (G4s). G4s have different conformations such as G4-DNA, G4-RNA, or G4-RNA:DNA called hybrid G4s. These structures are found at many locations in the genome and are implicated in multiple biological processes.</figcaption></figure>

G4s, whether present in DNA, RNA, or RNA:DNA hybrids [22], participate in multiple genetic regulatory processes, from the positioning of the DNA replication machinery, which is certainly crucial in actively dividing B-cells [23,24], to a role of G4s in RNA translation devoid of any direct effect on gene recombination [25] (Figure 1). Some of the general roles of G4s have already been extensively reviewed elsewhere [26–28], and this review will concentrate on those regulatory aspects which are the most pertinent to the impact of G4s on the control of CSR.

## 2. General role of G4s in DNA accessibility and gene regulations

2. a. *Unless un-winded by helicases, G4s restrict DNA accessibility to various factors, notably for replication and maintenance of telomeres*

The conserved TTAGGG DNA repeated motif which stands at telomeres forms G4 structures which maintain the integrity and stability of chromosome ends [29,30]. Telomere sequences can also adopt a two-tetrad G4 conformation in living human cells [31], since the 3' ends of telomeres are single-stranded [32,33]. Strings of G4s in the telomeric 3'-overhang participate in telomere metabolism and to its anchoring in heterochromatin [34]. G4-stabilizing ligands accordingly lead to telomere shortening [35–37]. G4-DNA notably protects telomeres from nuclease and interferes with telomerase, G-rich structures having been shown to inhibit telomerase *in vitro* [38,39]. Cancer cells use telomerase-de-
pendent (TERT) telomere maintenance or telomerase-independent *i.e.* alternative length-
ening of telomere (ALT), and stabilization of G4s and R-loops (a structure present in some
transcribed regions of the genome) cooperatively enhances ALT-activity [40,41]. ALT
could thus constitute a therapeutic target [40].

The RecQ helicases WRN and BLM (the defect of which results into Bloom's syndrome) are known to unwind G4s *in vitro*, and to localize to telomeres *in vivo* where they are required for telomere integrity, providing strong circumstantial evidence for the functional occurrence and role of G4 structures at mammalian telomeres of living cells [42-47]. A primary function of RecQ helicases likely is to restore appropriate accessibility of G4-DNA to processes such as DNA replication, notably at telomeres [48]. The WRN helicase is hence mandatory for preventing telomere loss during lagging strand replication of the G-rich strand and its absence results in chromosomal aberrations such as chromosome fusions [49]. It is important to note that the same helicases, and notably BLM, are necessary for optimal CSR and more generally for optimal B-cell differentiation. BLM deficiency can also specifically result in genomic instability in B-cells and in the development of lymphoma [50].

Mutations of other helicases and nucleases unwinding G4s illustrate a broad impli-
cation of G4s in DNA replication. These mutations increase sensitivity to DNA damage
and they are found associated with various human diseases, such as FANCJ mutations
associated with Fanconi anemia and breast or ovarian cancer [51], or DDX11 mutations
associated with Warsaw breakage syndrome [52]. The chromatin remodeling factor ATRX
(a SWI/SNF family factor facilitating H3K9 trimethylation in heterochromatin) also carries
an helicase domain and associates with the MCM helicase complex either for unwinding
G4-DNA at replication origins or for keeping G4-DNA heterochromatinized and hereby
prevent G4-induced replication stress [53]. ATRX is found mutated in X-linked a-thalas-
semia and in a number of ALT+ solid cancers [53].

Globally and beyond a role at telomeres, R-loops and G4-DNA broadly contribute to the specification of replication origins during the early S phase and mapping thousands of replication origins *in vivo* showed that origin-proximal G4s act as replication fork barriers in humans [54] as well as in drosophila [55].

2. b. *G4-DNA and regulation of transcription*

G4s can play diverse roles in transcriptional regulation : on the non-template strand, G4s can directly impede RNA polymerase activity during the transcription process [56,57]. They reduce the yield of T7 RNA polymerase transcription by more than one order of magnitude when positioned close (9 bp) to the promoter, in comparison to a distal (250 bp) location of the same sequence [58]. Transcription blockade is due to the formation of unusually stable RNA:DNA hybrids, the stability of which is further exacerbated by tri-plex formation formed by (GAA)n repeats, called homopurine-homopyrimidine mirror repeats, under the influence of negative supercoiling [59]. These RNA-DNA hybrids also stimulate transcription termination [60-62]. Another possible situation is the formation of G4s upstream of the transcription start site (TSS), which will usually inhibit transcription [63] when their formation interferes with the binding of the RNA polymerase II or of transcription factors [64]. G4s can recruit or help the binding of transcription factors such as NF-κB and Sp1 [38], either facilitating or restraining transcription [65]. G4s can promote transcription initiation by recruiting specific transcription factors [66].

G4s were recently reported to be sites for cohesin accumulation and may thereby
play a role in the 3D organization of euchromatin [67]. It has also been shown that vi-
mentin, an intermediate filament protein highly expressed within migratory cells, selec-
tively binds to G4 repeats so that soluble vimentin may contribute to the regulation of
gene expression and also potentially play a role in the high-order organization of the ex-
pressed genome [8].

2. c. *Links between transcribed G4s and DNA breaks in R-loops*
In some transcribed regions of the genome, transcription of the template DNA strand may readily result in the stabilization of an RNA:DNA hybrid while the non-template strand remains single-stranded within a structure collectively referred as an “R-loop”. An R-loop in a region containing abundant G4-DNA then potentially deserves to be considered as a “G-loop”, with the single-stranded non-template strand folded into G4-DNA interspersed with single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) (Figure 2A). G4s and G-loops were reported to favor the occurrence of DNA breaks in bacteria [68], but also in mammals G-rich regions flanking oncogenes [69], or at various positions in hypoxia conditions by exposing DNA to base oxidation [70]. Indeed, such breaks can occur during the transcription of the *c-MYC* and *BCL2* genes, two oncogenes that are common *IGH* translocation partners in B-cell lymphomas. Mechanistically this global trend towards increased DNA breakage could be due to G4-rich regions targeted for DNA deamination by AID, and then potentially initiating single-strand breaks and eventually translocations in B lymphomas [69] (see below, part 6 *Illegitimate recombination*).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2: G4s at S regions.** A) Schematic representation of R-loops and G-loops. Transcription can create RNA:DNA hybrids, also called R-loops (left). When the non-template DNA strand of R-loops is G-rich it can create G4s and these structures are then called G-loops (right). B) Representation of G4s located in the human IgH locus constant gene cluster (from Sμ to the end of the 3'RR2) on the</figcaption></figure>
coding strand (top) and the template strand (bottom). This representation has been done by pro-
cessing the IgH sequence with the G4-Hunter algorithm (https://www.g4-society.org/online-
tools).

In mature B lymphocytes, activation and differentiation strongly rely on transcrip-
tional regulation eventually followed by recombination and finely controlled with regards
to the timing of replication, i.e. directly related to the various genetic processes for which
we just mentioned the broad contribution of G4s. In this regard, the complex involvement
of G4-DNA in the control of CSR deserves thorough analysis and may occur at multiple
levels.

3. The context of CSR and its regulation

Once activated, mature B-cells can diversify their Ig production, yielding different classes of antibodies, with different constant parts but all binding the same antigen. Class switching stops the production of IgM and IgD, the only classes expressed by naïve B cells, and instead yields IgG, IgA, or IgE classes with new effector functions, either as membrane-anchored B cell receptors (BCR) in B lymphocytes or as secreted immunoglobulins in plasma cells (Figure 3). While bringing new functions to switched B cells and switched antibodies, class switching does not affect the antigen specificity, since it only reorganizes the constant gene cluster of the Ig heavy (IgH) locus. This recombination process hence associates the most upstream IgH exon, encoding the VDJ domain, to a new downstream constant Ig gene.

3. *a. The CSR machinery*

Human and mouse IgH constant genes (C<sub>H</sub>) are all preceded by S sequences (except for Cδ), themselves preceded by germline cytokine-dependent promoters (the so-called “I” promoters). The IgH locus undergoes various gene remodeling events in activated mature B cells and notably within the germinal center (GC), and to a lower extent, during extra-follicular B cell activation. Activated GC B cells notably feature high expression of AID which is the enzyme initiating somatic hypermutation and CSR [71]. However, AID by itself is not sufficient for CSR to occur, and a large part of CSR regulation involves regulated accessibility of specific targeted regions within the IgH locus. A minimal level of CSR is even detectable in an accessible IgH locus in the absence of AID, highlighting the importance of the structure and the accessibility of S regions to recombination [72]. Regulated accessibility to CSR is notably (but not only) related to transcriptional regulation of the S regions targeted for CSR [73–76]. These S regions have a unique position upstream of C<sub>H</sub> genes, where the preceding “I” promoter can yield transcription in adequately activated B cells before any CSR event (i.e. in a germline configuration). The IgH locus C<sub>H</sub> cluster thus includes a series of consecutive “I<sub>H</sub>-S<sub>H</sub>-C<sub>H</sub>” germline transcription units [77,78]. When DNA breaks simultaneously affect the S regions of the upstream I<sub>μ</sub>-S<sub>μ</sub>-C<sub>μ</sub> (donor) unit and the downstream I<sub>x</sub>-S<sub>x</sub>-C<sub>x</sub> (acceptor) unit, DNA ligation can occur between both distant broken S regions by the DNA repair machinery of non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). Such an S-S junction deletes the intervening genes and features CSR. While I<sub>H</sub>-S<sub>H</sub>-C<sub>H</sub> germline transcripts are sterile, their specific organization with the S region standing within an intron (downstream of the non-coding I exon), is mandatory for CSR to occur, as will be discussed in detail below [79,80].

3. b. S region structures

In addition to their specific intronic position, the S regions preceding the Ig C<sub>H</sub> genes
possess unique characteristics. This notably consists in the presence of highly repetitive
DNA with a specific nucleotide composition, which participates in their specific targeting
by AID for efficient CSR. To be functional, S regions need to be made up of such repetitive
DNA, but both the sequence and the number of tandem repeats vary between the various
S regions and between species, notably between mice and humans, as reviewed in Dun-
nick et al. [81]. Mouse and human S regions are respectively composed of 1-10 kilobases
(kb) [11,81] and 1-12 kb [82] of tandem repeats, with a G-rich non-template strand DNA.

When S regions are transcribed, a supercoiling relaxation occurs and the template
strand can readily form R-loops [83]. The addition of Sα transcripts in *trans*, without RNA
polymerase, did not create R-loops, suggesting that the observed R-loops are mostly tran-
scription-dependent, thereby created in *cis*. The formation of such RNA:DNA hybrids in
transcriptionally active S regions is critical for CSR [83]. Indeed, the deletion of the 10 kb
of the S<sub>γ1</sub> region, eliminating the 8kb of conserved S<sub>γ1</sub> repeats, almost abrogated IgG1 CSR
[84].

3. *c. Transcriptional regulation of CSR and the role of the IgH 3'RR*

CSR is strongly dependent upon the presence of an IgH locus 3' regulatory region (3'RR), which governs transcription within a topologically associated domain (TAD) and lies in-between the Cα gene and the 3' boundary of the IgH TAD which is itself marked by a cluster of CTCF-binding elements (CBEs). The 3'RR assembles several core enhancers according to a unique palindromic architecture which favors functional synergies and all together constitute a powerful super-enhancer [85-88]. Before the onset of CSR, the 3'RR promotes germline I<sub>H</sub>-S<sub>H</sub>-C<sub>H</sub> transcription at the positions of constant genes targeted for CSR, then contributing to the accessibility of these genes to recombination and helping to generate ssDNA on the non-template strand of the corresponding S regions [89-91,77,78]. During CSR, the 3D architecture of the locus is remodeled, the 3'RR and its 3' flanking CBEs form a large chromatin loop with the distant Eμ intronic enhancer, including all intervening constant genes [92], while S regions then dynamically align via the process of loop extrusion [93]. Recent studies revealed a crucial role of the cohesin complex in anchoring this loop extrusion mechanism upstream of CSR [93], implicating the cluster of CBEs downstream of the 3'RR as a "3' super-anchor" [94]. Such a dynamic loop forms a stable synapse between S regions. S regions accessible to CSR are in parallel transcribed and targeted by AID for initiating DSBs. This synapse facilitates deletional CSR through the ligation of distant DSBs from donor and acceptor S regions [81]. The process thus appends the upstream VDJ region to a new downstream C<sub>H</sub> gene, and switches activated B cells from the expression of IgM and IgD to IgG, IgE, or IgA (Figure 3). In rare cases, DNA breaks standing immediately upstream of Cδ, despite the absence of any classical S region and G4s at this position, can also restrict Ig production to IgD only [74,95,96]. Beside this classical loop extrusion model with *cis*-recombination, it is also noticeable that CSR can occur in *trans* and join S regions from both IgH alleles [97-99].
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3: G4s and class switch recombination.** A) The human IgH locus is represented after VDJ recombination. The recombined VDJ gene and C<sub>H</sub> genes are represented by rectangles and the S regions by ovals. S regions are preceded by promoters and I exons. The human IgH locus also includes two regulatory 3'RR (black rectangles). Before CSR, NME1 binds to the S regions and prevents CSR. B) Transcription through S regions by RNA Pol II (brown) yields non-coding RNA (purple). R-loops facilitate the formation of G4s (G-loops). Within loops, RNA:DNA hybrids restrict the accessibility of AID to only the non-template strand. The RNA exosome (orange) degrades the RNA hybridized to the template DNA strand, then also exposing to AID for DNA deamination. C) After B cell activation, NME1 is removed and AID binds G4s of targeted S regions, initiating breaks to be repaired by ligation of</figcaption></figure>
distant S regions (here, Sµ and Sα2). AID targets cytosines (C) on accessible ssDNA. CSR is modulated by natural G4s ligands, such as NME2, which bind to G4s after transcription and stimulation, and also by the ORC and the Mcm complexes D) CSR diversifies the functions of B cells and of class-switched antibodies (here IgA2). E) CSR can be inhibited by chemicals ligands of G4s, such as RHPS4, pyridostatin, and CX-5461, decreasing the frequency of B cells expressing or secreting class-switched Ig.

Positive and negative regulatory elements act synergistically control the accessibility of the IgH locus and to ensure transcriptional regulation of CSR. The multiple promoters of the locus follow a complex regulation involving several transcriptional enhancers, such as the Eµ enhancer, the 3'RR, silencer elements, and insulating elements like the 3' CBEs. In both mice and humans, the 3'RR super-enhancer encompasses a large piece of non-coding DNA including a cluster of dispersed DNase hypersensitive sites (hs) bound by transcriptional factors and corresponding to the distant core enhancers [85,91,100]. 3'RR core enhancers fall into two distinct functional modules acting in a relay race to ensure fine-tuned BCR expression in naïve B cells (at steps crucially dependent on Eµ) and antigen-dependent locus remodeling in mature stages (then with the 3'RR as the master control element) [101]. Beyond transcription in activated mature B cells, the 3'RR role is mandatory for somatic hypermutation of V regions and CSR, i.e. for all IgH remodeling events relying on the recruitment of AID [89,90,102–104]. In the hierarchy of enhancer element strength, the 3'RR also exerts some control on the transcription and the function of the Eµ enhancer [105]. The 3'RR has a unique global architecture, the mouse 3'RR notably consists into a 20kb long palindrome in which the intervening regions separating the enhancers include stretches of repetitive DNA that resemble S regions (like-switch, LS, regions), and are eventually rich into G4s [87,91,106] (Figure 2B).

### 3. d. Structure and role of germline transcripts

As an early event following B cell activation, transcription by RNA polymerase II initiates at germline promoters upstream of I exons and continues through S regions, i.e. within S introns [107,108]. Non-coding transcription also occurs in parallel within the 3'RR itself, generating enhancer-associated RNAs (eRNAs) [106]. Each C<sub>H</sub> region (except C<sub>D</sub>) includes an individual transcriptional unit that can produce non-coding germline transcripts (GLTs) upon adequate stimulation, for example, IFNγ for Cγ2a GLTs, IL4 for Cε GLTs, TGFβ for Cα GLTs, etc. [109–111]. Transcription produces a primary GLT through the intervening I-exon, intronic S region, and C<sub>H</sub> exon. Splicing creates a processed GLT and an intronic S region lariat that can undergo debranching to become a linear S region transcript [112]. GLTs transcription depends on several regulatory elements of the IgH locus, and their transcription and splicing are mandatory for CSR.

Radbruch et al showed that in mice lacking the Iγ1 exon donor splice site (DSS), no stable GLTs were detected, suggesting that the absence of a DSS prevented the stable transcription of the downstream Sγ1 region and the Cγ1 exons. In these B cells, the deletion of the Iγ1-exon DSS reduced RNA polymerase II pausing and active chromatin marks in the Sγ1 region, essential elements for the opening of the chromatin in targeted S regions, and resulted in a dramatic loss of CSR [76,113]. A recent study confirmed these findings by using antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) which targeted either the Iµ DSS upstream of the Sµ donor or the Iγ1 DSS upstream of the Sγ1 acceptor region, hereby inhibiting both splicing and CSR at these positions [114]. Thus, CSR is dependent on accurate splicing, and either I-exons or Iγ exon DSS recognition is necessary for the regulation of CSR. Further investigations in both mouse and human B cells will be necessary to check whether masking the Iµ exon DSS would decrease CSR to all isotypes. Conflicting results were indeed reported in mice lacking the constitutive Iµ DSS but with normal serum Ig levels, while B cells then produced alternative “Iµ-like” GLTs which likely preserved a contribution to CSR [115].

Transcription of the S regions promotes the occurrence of R-loops, at positions where RNA polymerase II is stalled, while stable RNA:DNA heteroduplex associations are
formed by the RNA transcript and the template DNA strand, then increasing the accessi-
bility for AID of the displaced single-stranded non-template strand [116].

To better understand the role of GLTs, several researchers modified the Cµ [117,118], Cγ1 [75,76,113], Cγ2 [79,119], Cε [109,110] and Cα [120] transcriptional control elements. These studies suggested that transcription of C<sub>H</sub> loci, and more precisely the generation of stable S transcripts, was necessary for efficient CSR. Moreover, studies of the I.29 mouse B cell lymphoma, which undergoes CSR from membrane-bound IgM to IgA, allowed to characterize transcripts from the unrearranged Cα region in IgM+ I.29 cells [107] and to show that the magnitude of Cα GLTs correlates with the efficiency of IgA CSR [108].

3. *e. Post-transcriptional regulation of GLTs and their processing by the RNA exosome*

Transcription can create RNA:DNA hybrids at multiple locations in the genome. At S regions, these RNA:DNA hybrids limit DNA accessibility to AID on the template strand. AID preferentially targets cytosines for deamination [121,122] on the accessible non-temperature ssDNA. It has been demonstrated that AID interacts with the RNA exosome, which degrades these non-coding GLTs at S regions [123], thus generating two ssDNA and allowing accessibility to the template strand for AID. Dedicated mouse models confirmed this discovery [124–126]. The RNA exosome is the predominant 3' exoribonuclease in mammalian cells and is responsible for the degradation and/or 3' end processing of a variety of non-coding RNAs [127]. This complex is composed of nine core and two catalytic subunits, it participates in the resolution of R-loops and hereby contributes to optimal CSR.

Persistence of hybridized GLTs within R-loops in the absence of the RNA exosome also perturbs the progression of the cohesin complex during the process of loop extrusion preceding the CSR, resulting in altered IgH synapsis and decreased CSR, but increased translocations [125]. This defect in cohesin scanning could also be a consequence of G4s accumulation within the long R-loops of the S regions, as G4s were recently reported to be sites for cohesin accumulation [67]. The secondary structure of G4s likely slows down or stops the cohesin progression and hereby probably contributes to genome organization. Finally, it has been shown that GLTs stability is dependent on the epitranscriptomic mark N<sup>6</sup>-methyladenosine (m6A) which is necessary to address the Sµ GLTs for degradation by the RNA exosome complex [128].

Globally, GLTs are necessary for CSR, they must be produced, modified, and finally
degraded by the RNA surveillance machinery and the RNA exosome complex for efficient
CSR and to prevent aberrant translocations.

**4. Connection between G4s and CSR**

4. *a. Role of G4-DNA at transcribed S regions and in the resolution of G4s/R-loops conflicts*

Although AID can target AT-rich S regions from amphibians during CSR, G4-DNA
is well known to abundantly form on the non-template strand of transcribed mammalian
S regions [1]. In silico analysis (for example using the G4s-hunter algorithm, either
http://bioinformatics.cruk.cam.ac.uk/G4Hunter or https://www.g4-soci-
ety.org/online-tools), notably shows that G4-DNA is abundant at mouse and human
IgH S regions [129] (Figure 2B). There are also multiple functional indications that G4s
are implicated in CSR regulation and promote gene recombination [130]. G4-DNA notably
promotes the occurrence of DNA breaks [131]. Among the seminal studies of the molecu-
lar properties of S sequences, Wells and colleagues cloned various G-rich Sα repeats into
plasmids in a search of peculiar DNA structures [132] and showed that Sα repeats adopted
a non-B DNA structure, which is characterized by supercoil-dependent endonuclease
cleavage and sensitivity to chemical probes, suggesting a potential intramolecular triple-
strand. Moreover, Sen and Gilbert showed by electrophoretic mobility shift assays that S
regions adopt the paradigmatic model of a parallel, four-stranded G4-DNA structure
[133].
R-loops and G4s can act as physical impediments to DNA and RNA polymerases during replication and transcription, where G4s stabilize R-loop structures and facilitates the local recruitment and oligomerization of AID [134]. However the detailed molecular contribution of G4s to CSR remains unclear and while their presence favors CSR, their stabilization by G4s-ligands by contrast impedes CSR [129], suggesting that the contribution of G4-DNA follows a dynamic scheme. Whether the abovementioned fragility of G4-DNA in hypoxic conditions might contribute to the process of CSR is currently unclear. While B cell activation largely happens *in vivo* in hypoxic lymphoid structures such as GCs, conflicting data have been published about the connection between hypoxia and class switching, mentioning both increased CSR breaks in B cells cultured in hypoxia conditions *in vitro*, increased CSR to the Cα gene *in vivo*, but also decreased AID expression *in vivo* and decreased CSR to IgG2 in a mouse model experimentally exposing GCs to hypoxia [135,136]. These ambiguous global effects of hypoxia might be obscured by the fact that AID expression is lowered by hypoxia, which may then counter-balance a simultaneous increase of DNA breaks in G4-rich S regions [136].

As previously mentioned, CSR occurs in transcribed G-rich S regions forming RNA:DNA hybrids on the template strand and exposing single-stranded R-loops on the non-template strand, which is then a substrate for AID [111,130]. This likely participates to the prevalence of orientation-dependent CSR, joining distant breaks both initiated on the non-template strand [84] (although orientation-independent CSR has also been experimentally reported after breaks involving short palindromic sequences instead of G-rich sequences [137]) (Figure 3B).

A pair of nucleoside diphosphate kinase (NME) isoforms, one of them binding G4s, are novel players in the CSR process. They were identified (using a reverse ChIP proteomic screen and a gel shift with single-stranded DNA) by searching proteins associated with CSR DSBs in B cell lines and mouse primary B cells. NME1 binds S regions before to the formation of G-loops and represses the initiation of CSR. When G-loops are formed upon stimulation, NME1 then dissociates from activated S regions, whereas NME2 binds G-loops and promotes CSR [138] (Figure 3A and 3C). The NME1/NME2 pair thus coordinately modulate G-loop accessibility and CSR.

In addition to the role of G4s at a DNA level, there is abundant direct and indirect evidence that G4s and/or equivalent structures forming in parallel on RNA transcripts from these regions are implicated in CSR regulation. It remains unclear to what extent AID directly targets DNA and/or requires G4-RNA intermediates, and this remains a controversial topic.

### 4. *b. Role of G4-RNA structures within S region transcripts*

In the context of mammalian S regions, the G-rich non-template single strand DNA and the corresponding nascent RNA can both form G4s motifs, the latter being called G4-RNA. G4-RNAs can be found in more than 3 000 human mRNAs [5,6]. Transcriptomic profiling of G4-RNAs is possible *via* G4-RNAs-specific precipitation (G4RP) using the G4s-specific probe, BioTASQ [139].

For the specific situation of S region GLTs, several studies showed that AID can directly bind S transcripts through G4-RNAs. As mentioned above, GLTs undergo splicing and are then liberated as processed GLTs, while the S region lariat remains annealed as part of the R-loop. Debranching and folding of the lariat into G4 secondary RNA structures likely contribute to the recruitment of AID *via* AID-RNA binding. Yewdell and Chaudhuri proposed models for RNA-dependent targeting of AID during CSR [112]. They notably postulated a role of AID-RNA complexes in *trans*. In this situation, the S region lariat is debranched to form a linear S region transcript, which can fold into a G4 secondary RNA structure. Then, either this structure is bound by AID and the following complex then binds on the complementary DNA strand, or the RNA first binds the complementary DNA strand and both are then bound by AID. In another model proposing
the targeting of AID-RNA complexes in *cis*, processed nascent GLTs would remain attached to the template DNA strand at the position of R-loops.

Whatever the model, AID binds structured substrates G4-DNA [130] and efficiently yield mutation and DSBs clusters at the positions of S regions featuring "G-loops" and this may also help to recruit CSR cofactors [140]. The situation of the IgH locus is worth comparison with other contexts, where R-loops in viral RNA (from HIV, Zika, Hepatitis B, SV40, etc.) topologically control its adenosine methylation and thus show colocalization of G4-RNAs with the epitranscriptomic mark m6A [141]. Such a role remains to be explored in B cells, where it could potentially interfere with m6A-dependent processing of GLTs by the RNA exosome [128]. The m6A mark allows RNA exosome binding for degradation of RNA:DNA hybrids, and it was recently shown that m6A modifications controlled not only G4-RNAs but also G4-DNAs formation, then regulating the biological functions of these structures [142]. Of note, RNA sequence also influences RNA binding to lipid membranes, this interaction is increased by G4-RNAs [143], and this may participate into the functional role of G4-rich RNA during biological processes by tethering some G4-RNAs.

It is noticeable that a mutation in the putative RNA-binding domain of AID impairs its recruitment to S regions, inhibiting CSR similarly to the inhibition of RNA processing [144]. Inhibition of CSR was also obtained by inhibiting a specific step of the processing of S introns: the debranching of the lariat by the DBR1 enzyme [144]. Expression of switch RNA in *trans* then rescued the CSR defect in DBR1-deficient B-cells [144]. Availability of debranched RNA copies of S regions may thus contribute to the subsequent generation of G4-RNAs that participate in guiding AID to specific DNA S regions through RNA:DNA base pairing, as a "collaboration" between G4-RNAs and G4-DNAs. In addition, by focusing on G4s present in intronic S region RNA, Ribeiro de Almeida et al. showed that the RNA helicase DDX1 unwinds G4-RNAs structures, allowing these RNAs to participate to R-loops *in vitro* and *in vivo*. So, in this model R-loops at S regions are formed post-transcriptionally *in trans* and are dependent on DDX1 and G4-RNAs. Stabilizing G4-RNAs with G4 ligands like pyridostatin, or inducing the expression of DDX1 ATPase-deficient mutant accordingly reduces CSR [145]. Moreover, alternative lariat sequences could avoid the fixation of DDX1 to G4-RNAs that participate in guiding AID to specific S regions through RNA:DNA base pairing. CSR would then rely on connections between G4-RNAs on S region transcripts and DNA at R-loops [145].

### 4. *c. Connections between CSR and DNA replication*

In addition to its connections with transcription, CSR is temporally and physically connected with the progression of DNA replication through the IgH locus and AID-dependent DNA breaks occur and are mostly repaired within the G1 phase [146]. While R-loops contribute as mentioned above to the specification of replication origins, CSR efficiency notably depends on and correlates with the activity of these origins in S regions and G4-DNA participates to CSR regulation in an indirect way in mouse B cell lines and in primary splenic B cells [147]. DNA replication across S regions also regulates CSR in an R-loop-dependent manner. Wiedemann et al. demonstrated that the origin of replication is independent of AID and of DNA breaks but indeed mostly relies on G4-DNA, so that facultative replication origins [147]. Actually, at the IgH locus as in other parts of the genome, G4-DNA impacts the binding of the origin recognition complex (ORC) and requires the replicative helicase activity of MCM [148]. In the G1 phase, IgH transcription allows R-loop formation including G4-DNAs and then triggers the activation of facultative G4-rich replication origins within S regions [147]. Since replication origins located within the same TAD tend to be physically clustered, this may favor the synthesis of S regions including such origins [147]. In this way, CSR would not only be coordinated with cell proliferation, but also physically facilitated by the mechanistic aspects of DNA replication during the G1-phase (Figure 3C).
4. *d.* *A role of G4-DNA in IgH locus high-dimensional organization*

As mentioned above, the physiology of IgH locus expression and recombination is based on programmed changes of the IgH locus 3D-organization, based on long-range interactions between promoters, enhancers, and regions targeted for recombination. These dynamic changes are notably interpreted through the loop extrusion model which allows the synapsing of distant recombination sites prior to V(D)J recombination and to class-switching [149,150]. The role of G4-DNA is these events is not currently demonstrated but it is striking to note that G4-DNA is abundantly mapped at the position of regulatory chromatin and may then play a role in the organization of TADs [20]. Presence of the G4-DNA within the IgH 3'RR might then play a role in the organization of the IgH TAD. Of note, the architectural factor YY1, known both to bind the 3'RR and to play a role in DNA looping, is another known binder of G4-DNA [151]. HP1α is also binding G4-DNA and is known for its role in the organization of separate domains of heterochromatin or of transcriptionally active euchromatin [34]. The abovementioned superimposition of G4-DNA with regions bound by cohesin [67] and by soluble vimentin [8] further argues for an architectural role of G4-DNA. All these elements are likely to be crucial for the process of CSR which strongly relies on 3D interactions between germline promoters, the 3'RR, and the targeted S regions within an active IgH TAD [152].

5. A role of G4s in the regulation of locus suicide recombination (LSR)

As mentioned above, CSR is controlled in both mice and humans by the 3'RR super-
enhancer located downstream of the Cα genes (i.e. with two copies in the human locus,
the 3'RR1 downstream of Cα1 and the 3'RR2 downstream of Cα2) [100]. As in mice and
in all mammals where IgH sequences are available, the human 3'RR enhancers are em-
bedded within a large amount of repetitive DNA with inverted repeats, direct repeats,
and LS regions resembling S regions [85,87,91,153–155]. While AID-dependent CSR gen-
erates DNA breaks between two S regions, the fate of B cells can also be altered more
dramatically by another AID-dependent process similar to CSR but joining DNA breaks
from a S region with another break from the 3'RR, then featuring "locus suicide recombi-
nation" (LSR). Unlike CSR which excises part of the IgH C<sub>H</sub> gene cluster, LSR results in
the deletion of all constant genes by joining DNA breaks between Sμ and the 3'RR, thereby
abrogating BCR expression (or precluding Ig secretion for cells engaged in plasma cell
differentiation). This atypical CSR-like event first observed in mouse B cells [106] also
abundantly occurs in human B cells [155]. Sette et al. have highlighted G4 structures *in vitro* outside S regions and notably close to the 3'RR hs1.2 enhancer [38], as shown by
analysis based on the G4-Hunter (**Figure 2B**). We currently have little information regard-
ing the LSR regulation, the study of which is more complex that for CSR since BCR loss
after LSR rapidly results into B cell death and makes the detection of LSR junctions about
100-fold less efficient than for CSR junctions [156]. By analogy to CSR, contribution of G4-
DNAs and/or G4 RNAs to the regulation of LSR is quite possible. A missing part of the
CSR/LSR puzzle currently lies into understanding what elements could preferentially tar-
get AID S regions or LS regions of the 3'RR, G4-DNA and R-loops might contribute to
such a regulation.

6. G4s and illegitimate recombination

Beside physiology, the involvement of G4s in pathological processes has been re-
ported by multiple studies. Xu et al. showed by chromatin immunoprecipitation sequenc-
ing (ChIP-seq) that AID hotspots were highly enriched for G4 structures in activated B
cells and in lymphoma cells *in vitro*. In some B cell malignancies, mutations and/or gene
amplification of the *BCL2* and *MYC* oncogenes participate to cell transformation. 97% of
the *BCL2* mutations occur at G4-rich positions which overlapped those of AID binding
[157]. So, G4 targeting by illegitimate mutations or recombination participates to the loss
of genomic integrity, a critical step in B lymphomagenesis [157]. Due to their role both in
the transcription of some oncogenes and in the process of illegitimate recombination, G4s could thus also participate to genomic instability during the progression of malignancies. Likewise, the *in vitro* transcription of the *c-MYC* and *BCL6* genes has been reported to promote R-loop formation [69,158]. As mentioned before, G4 structures formed within the ssDNA portion of the R-loop, are called G-loop and AID was observed to bind G-loop structures *in vitro* by using electron microscopy [158]. This suggests that the G4s binding property of AID may contribute to aberrant targeting and oncogenic IgH translocations.

## 7. Mutations of various nuclear factors with G4-dependence

While G4s promote the recruitment and oligomerization of AID which initiates CSR (Figure 3C), some mutations of the AID sequence can accordingly reduce CSR in a G4-dependent manner. Yewdell et al. indeed generated through CRISPR-Cas9 targeted mutagenesis a mouse strain with the same G133V mutation observed in patients with hyper-IgM syndrome [159] [160,161]. This G133V variant remains catalytically active, but is altered in its ability to bind G4s [159] (Figure 3E). The mutation hereby decreases CSR and IgA, IgG1, IgG2b/c and IgG3secretion drastically, while increasing unswitched IgM secretion. AIDG133V has genome-wide chromatin localization defects, and especially to Sμ region [159]. Of note, while CSR is principally AID-dependent (and not only G4-dependent), a recent study showed that the structure of S regions and their programmed accessibility are sufficient for preserving a basal level of CSR in AID-independent conditions [72]. Indeed, in both AID-deficient mice and AID-mutant patients, CSR junctions remain detectable at low level upon B cell activation. These AID-independent CSR events likely rely on the presence of R-loops and G4s initiating DSBs by themselves, explaining why DSBs remain focused on S regions in such conditions.

Some other enzymatic deficiencies perturb mature B cells homeostasis and are associated with accumulation of G4s and R-loop structures [162]. Enzymes of the TET family and especially TET2 and TET3 regulate enhancer activity and DNA methylation dynamics during B cell development [163,164], while TET2 mutations or defects are frequent in hematological malignancies such as diffuse large B cell lymphoma [165,166]. R-loops and G4-DNA (as detected by a G4-specific antibody or with a fluorescent G4-ligand), accumulate in TET2 and TET3-deficient B cells, together with abundant DNA DSBs in IgH S regions, and with a genome-wide increase of translocations implicating the IgH locus [162]. This suggests that G4s and R-loops could be therapeutic targets in cancers with TET loss-of-function.

## 8. Pharmacological G4 targeting and potential implications for B cells and CSR

Many of the regulations depending of G4s can also be pharmacologically modulated by G4 ligands, i.e. small molecules stabilizing these structures. In living cells, most G4 ligands have widespread effects and they have been shown to affect cell growth through multiple mechanisms, by altering telomere stability, replication, transcription, RNA metabolism and mitochondrial maintenance [167]. Since G4 ligands like pyridostatin, increase the stability of telomeric G4s, they notably have anti-proliferative activity, because the G4 structures cannot be extended by telomerase, an enzyme over-expressed in many actively proliferating cells, notably cancer cells [41,168] (Figure 3). Re-expression of the telomerase can restore telomere functions, consistent with long-term cancer cell proliferation [169]. Pyridostatin induces dysfunctional telomeres in cancer cells with the uncapping of POT1, essential for the replication of chromosome termini, resulting in DNA damage signaling activation and notably showing anti-tumoral activity against BRCA1/2-deficient tumors [170]. The less potent G4-ligand, RR110, lacks this effect [41]. Targeting G4s at oncogene promoters could also be of interest for cancer therapy, and G4 ligands binding the *c-MYC* promoter or telomeric G4s were shown to downregulate both the *c-MYC* and *hTERT* gene expression, while upregulating γ-H2AX and 53BP1 due to DNA damage, and yielding *in vivo* antitumor effect in tumor-engrafted mice [171].
Many studies are currently focusing on modular G4-ligands that interact with the loops and grooves of G4-DNAs in cancer cells. This lead to more selective compounds aiming to act as specific anti-cancer chemotherapeutic agents [172,173]. In addition, positive feedback from G4-stabilizing agents is possible. BRCA1 and BRCA2, two tumor suppressor genes that interact with G4 structures [174], participate in homologous recombination and thus allow the repair of DNA DSBs. When these proteins are mutated, in breast cancer, the G4 stabilizer CX-5461 can block replication forks and result in unrepaired DNA breaks. CX-5461 was also recently shown to decrease cell viability in ATRX-deficient glioma and BRCA1/BRCA2-deficient tumor cells [175,176]. Since the BRCA and NHEJ signaling pathways are required for the repair of DNA damage induced by CX-5461, defective repair results in cell lethality [176], which pushed CX-5461 in current phase I/II cancer clinical trials [177]. It is also possible to control G4 dissociation by the ionic environment, concentration and temperature, G4 lifetimes being longer in KCl than in NaCl and LiCl [178], but this has not yet been modulated in cancer cells.

The role of G4s in cancer could involve multiple proteins that process or bind G4s, AID being one of them. This essential enzyme of the adaptive immune system, which normally diversifies antibody generation, indeed also participate to oncogenic events, its aberrant expression being a key driver of lymphoid cancers [179–181]. Actually a clear link exists between AID and the translocation of *c-MYC* in Burkitt lymphoma and the mechanistic evidence has been shown *in vitro* by Duquette et al. [158]. MYC mandates tumor cell fate and orchestrates changes in the tumor microenvironment including the activation of angiogenesis and suppression of the host immune response. Using electron microscopy, it has been demonstrated that AID binds G-loops, so G4s that form during transcription of the *c-MYC* gene as well as IgH S region. These G-loops were mapped and overlapped to the breakpoints related to *c-MYC* translocation.

In non-malignant B cells, some G4 ligands were shown to also affect CSR [129] (Figure 3C and 3E). Since inappropriate humoral immune responses involving proinflammatory class-switched Ig can lead to immunopathology, such drugs able to directly and specifically modulate CSR might be of strong therapeutic interest. *In vitro*, in primary B cells and *in vivo* in immunized mice, treatments with RHPS4 (3,11-difluoro-6,8,13-trimethyl-8H-quino[4,3,2-kl]acridinium methosulfate), a G4-stabilizing agent, decreases CSR. By quantifying the GLTs specific for the pre-CSR stage (Iμ-Cμ and Iγ-Cγ) and the post-CSR transcripts (Iμ-Cγ), post-CSR transcripts decreased while the pre-CSR increased, and Sμ-Sγ junctions decreased by four-fold with RHPS4 [129]. This drug was indeed shown to decrease AID binding to S regions, hereby decreasing CSR and subsequent secretion of class-switched Ig. *In vitro*, RHPS4 decreased CSR in stimulated B cells without major side effects on cell growth, while in a *in vivo* mouse model it also reduced the development of airway inflammation, suggesting that G4 ligands might have a therapeutic interest in autoimmune or allergic conditions which notably involve class-switched antibodies [129]. However, given the multiple roles of G4s in gene regulation their non-specific targeting throughout in the genome is clearly not satisfactory. The current development of new strategies able to target G4 structures within a given sequence [171,182] would certainly open new opportunities, by providing therapeutic means to target a single S region and then inhibit CSR to a single Ig gene with minimal side effects.

Bossaert et al. also showed that transcription-associated topoisomerase 2α (TOP2A) activity is a major effector of the cytotoxicity induced by the clastogenic G4 ligands pyridostatin and CX-5461 in cell lines. Using an unbiased genetic approach, it was shown that these G4 ligands prevent RNA polymerase II elongation and promote the DNA cleavage by TOP2A while inhibiting repair [183]. Pyridostatin thus acts synergistically with inhibitors of DNA repair [184,185]. In human cells, upon stabilization by pyridostatin, G4 structures interact with the NELF complex, which modulates the cellular response to G4 ligands [186]. While TOP2A is almost exclusively expressed in proliferating cells and is needed for DNA replication, sister chromatid segregation and transcription, TOP2B is expressed throughout the cell cycle and releases torsional stress at sites of transcription
[187,188] (as might eventually also do TOP2A). Bruno et al. previously showed a major role for TOP2A in the induction of DNA DSBs upon CX-5461 treatment [189]. Since pyridostatin and CX-5461 inhibit the re-ligation of DNA DSBs, they would be expected to decrease the repair of S-S junctions and therefore constitute potential pharmacological modulators of CSR. NELF could also regulate CSR in a G4-ligand dependent manner [186]. As for CX-5461, which is currently in phase I/II clinical trials for cancer treatments [177], other G4-ligands are potential anti-cancer agents. Of note, the anticancer drug etoposide, which traps TOP2 in its DNA cleaving form and thereby prevents ligation, is used for treating myeloid leukemia.

Pharmacological targeting of the nuclear factors associated to the folding or the pro-
cessing of G4s might indeed be of therapeutic interest. Notably the TOP1 topoisomerase
also participates to CSR regulation by limiting co-transcriptional G4s formation and its
inhibition by the specific inhibitor camptothecin can inhibit CSR, while its genetic knock-
down by contrast enhances CSR [183]. Interestingly, AID itself mediates such a "physio-
logical knock-down" of TOP1 by editing a miRNA which lowers TOP1 translation [180].

**9. Conclusions**

While telomeres, with their long terminal repeats, are the largest G4 reservoir in the
genome, G4s have multiple functions in living cells beyond these sequences. G4s notably
have major roles in the B cell lineage not only related to genomic instability in lymphopro-
liferative disease but also with the physiology of CSR, as detailed along the lines of this
review. CSR can be regulated by G4 structures in various and eventually opposite ways.
On the one hand, G4 motifs promote DNA accessibility to AID and favor the occurrence
of DSBs during the humoral immune response. On the other hand, G4-DNA bound by
various natural or pharmacological ligands can inhibit CSR. The role of G4s in S regions
and S transcripts globally remains incompletely understood and deserves to be further
explored both for understanding physiology and because G4s,R-loops, and G-loops may
constitute useful therapeutic targets.

Many G4-dependent cellular processes related to cancer are indeed considered
"druggable" using molecules like RHPS4, pyridostatin and CX-5491. CSR could thus also
be considered as a "druggable" process. Actually, drugs like pyridostatin promote DNA
breaks but prevent their re-ligation. A G4-stabilizing agent such as RHPS4 decreases both
CSR and decreases Ig secretion. Such effects might be of interest in autoimmune or immuno-
noallergic conditions. They may also be pertinent to tumor immunology, given the roles
of B cells which infiltrate solid tumors, either promoting anti-tumor immunity or by con-
trast for producing immune complexes with tumor antigens which bind M2 macrophages
and lead to tumor-promoting deleterious inflammation [190-192].

In all these contexts, pharmacological control of CSR might be of interest for decreas-
ing the production of the most pro-inflammatory class-switched Ig and rather favor the
production of IgM. However, the most attractive control of humoral responses would re-
side in the ability to precisely modulate the secretion of a single Ig class for either promot-
ing or tempering inflammation, which may rely on the combination of G4-ligands with
other immunomodulatory strategies. Along the ongoing refinement of sequence-specific
G4 ligands, the design of Ig class-specific agents able to act on the accessibility of a given
S region and not on the global CSR process should also be a therapeutic grail.

**Author Contributions:** OD and MC wrote the text, OD made the figures, BL participated in re-
viewing the text and the figures.

Acknowledgments

We thank Simon Léonard for his help with the use of the G4-hunter algorithm for building Figure 2B. OD is supported by a fellowship from University Rennes 1. The team is supported by grants from Agence Nationale de la recherche to (grant AID-G4-CSR to MC), from Ligue contre le Cancer and by the ARC foundation (grant PJA2021060003753 to BL).
Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Williamson JR, Raghuraman MK, Cech TR. Monovalent cation-induced structure of telomeric DNA: The G-quartet model. Cell 1989;59:871-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(89)90610-7.

[2] Sen D, Gilbert W. Formation of parallel four-stranded complexes by guanine-rich motifs in DNA and its implications for meiosis. Nature 1988;334:364-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/334364a0.

[3] Tang C, MacCarthy T. Characterization of DNA G-Quadruplex Structures in Human Immunoglobulin Heavy Variable (IGHV) Genes. Front Immunol 2021;12:671944. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.671944.

[4] Alberti P, Ren J, Teulade-Fichou MP, Guittat L, Riou JF, Chaires J, et al. Interaction of an acridine dimer with DNA quadruplex structures. J Biomol Struct Dyn 2001;19:505-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2001.10506758.

[5] Guo JU, Bartel DP. RNA G-quadruplexes are globally unfolded in eukaryotic cells and depleted in bacteria. Science 2016;353:aaf5371. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5371.

[6] Kwok CK, Marsico G, Sahakyan AB, Chambers VS, Balasubramanian S. rG4-seq reveals widespread formation of G-quadruplex structures in the human transcriptome. Nat Methods 2016;13:841-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3965.

[7] Blackburn EH. The molecular structure of centromeres and telomeres. Annu Rev Biochem 1984;53:163-94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bi.53.070184.001115.

[8] Ceschi S, Berselli M, Cozzaglio M, Giantin M, Toppo S, Spolaore B, et al. Vimentin binds to G-quadruplex repeats found at telomeres and gene promoters. Nucleic Acids Res 2022;50:1370-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1274.

[9] Evans T, Schon E, Gora-Maslak G, Patterson J, Efstratiadis A. S1-hypersensitive sites in eukaryotic promoter regions. Nucleic Acids Res 1984;12:8043-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/12.21.8043.

[10] Kilpatrick MW, Torri A, Kang DS, Engler JA, Wells RD. Unusual DNA structures in the adenovirus genome. J Biol Chem 1986;261:11350-4.

[11] Shimizu A, Honjo T. Immunoglobulin class switching. Cell 1984;36:801-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(84)90029-1.

[12] Webba da Silva M. NMR methods for studying quadruplex nucleic acids. Methods San Diego Calif 2007;43:264-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.05.007.

[13] Campbell NH, Parkinson GN. Crystallographic studies of quadruplex nucleic acids. Methods San Diego Calif 2007;43:252-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.08.005.

[14] Paramasivan S, Rujan I, Bolton PH. Circular dichroism of quadruplex DNAs: applications to structure, cation effects and ligand binding. Methods San Diego Calif 2007;43:324-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.02.009.

[15] Fojtík P, Kejnovská I, Vorlícková M. The guanine-rich fragile X chromosome repeats are reluctant to form tetraplexes. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32:298-306. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh179.

[16] Giraldo R, Suzuki M, Chapman L, Rhodes D. Promotion of parallel DNA quadruplexes by a yeast telomere binding protein: a circular dichroism study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:7658-62. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.16.7658.

[17] Rachwal PA, Fox KR. Quadruplex melting. Methods San Diego Calif 2007;43:291-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.05.004.

[18] Mergny JL, Phan AT, Lacroix L. Following G-quartet formation by UV-spectroscopy. FEBS Lett 1998;435:74-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0014-5793(98)01043-6.

[19] Puig Lombardi E, Londoño-Vallejo A. A guide to computational methods for G-quadruplex prediction. Nucleic Acids Res 2020;48:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz1097.

[20] Hänsel-Hertsch R, Beraldi D, Lensing SV, Marsico G, Zyner K, Parry A, et al. G-quadruplex structures mark human regulatory chromatin. Nat Genet 2016;48:1267-72. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3662.

[21] Chambers VS, Marsico G, Boutell JM, Di Antonio M, Smith GP, Balasubramanian S. High-throughput sequencing of DNA G-quadruplex structures in the human genome. Nat Biotechnol 2015;33:877-81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3295.

[22] Masai H, Tanaka T. G-quadruplex DNA and RNA: Their roles in regulation of DNA replication and other biological functions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2020;531:25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.05.132.

[23] Valton A-L, Hassan-Zadeh V, Lema I, Boggetto N, Alberti P. G4 motifs affect origin positioning and efficiency in two vertebrate replicators. EMBO J 2014;33:732-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/embj.201387506.

[24] Callegaro S, Perrone R, Scalabrin M, Doria F, Palù G, Richter SN. A core extended naphtalene diimide G-quadruplex ligand potently inhibits herpes simplex virus 1 replication. Sci Rep 2017;7:2341. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02667-3.

[25] Wolfe AL, Singh K, Zhong Y, Drewe P, Rajasekhar VK, Sanghvi VR, et al. RNA G-quadruplexes cause eIF4A-dependent oncogene translation in cancer. Nature 2014;513:65-70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13485.

[26] Bryan TM. Mechanisms of DNA Replication and Repair: Insights from the Study of G-Quadruplexes. Mol Basel Switz 2019;24:E3439. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24193439.

[27] Bugaut A, Balasubramanian S. 5'-UTR RNA G-quadruplexes: translation regulation and targeting. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:4727-41. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks068.

[28] Balasubramanian S, Hurley LH, Neidle S. Targeting G-quadruplexes in gene promoters: a novel anticancer strategy? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10:261-75. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3428.

[29] Sundquist WI, Klug A. Telomeric DNA dimerizes by formation of guanine tetrads between hairpin loops. Nature 1989;342:825-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/342825a0.
[30] Lipps HJ, Gruissem W, Prescott DM. Higher order DNA structure in macronuclear chromatin of the hypotrichous ciliate Oxytricha nova. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1982;79:2495-9.

[31] Bao H-L, Liu H-S, Xu Y. Hybrid-type and two-tetrad antiparallel telomere DNA G-quadruplex structures in living human cells. Nucleic Acids Res 2019;47:4940-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz276.

[32] Wright RL, Vaughan ATM. A systematic description of MLL fusion gene formation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2014;91:283-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.03.004.

[33] Sfeir AJ, Chai W, Shay JW, Wright WE. Telomere-end processing the terminal nucleotides of human chromosomes. Mol Cell 2005;18:131-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.02.035.

[34] Roach RJ, Garavís M, González C, Jameson GB, Filichev VV, Hale TK. Heterochromatin protein 1α interacts with parallel RNA and DNA G-quadruplexes. Nucleic Acids Res 2020;48:682-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz1138.

[35] Burger AM, Dai F, Schultes CM, Reszka AP, Moore MJ, Double JA, et al. The G-quadruplex-interactive molecule BRACO-19 inhibits tumor growth, consistent with telomere targeting and interference with telomerase function. Cancer Res 2005;65:1489-96. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2910.

[36] Sun D, Thompson B, Cathers BE, Salazar M, Kerwin SM, Trent JO, et al. Inhibition of human telomerase by a G-quadruplex-interactive compound. J Med Chem 1997;40:2113-6. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm970199z.

[37] Read M, Harrison RJ, Romagnoli B, Tanious FA, Gowan SH, Reszka AP, et al. Structure-based design of selective and potent G quadruplex-mediated telomerase inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:4844-9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.081560598.

[38] Sette M, D'Addabbo P, Kelly G, Cicconi A, Micheli E, Cacchione S, et al. Evidence for a quadruplex structure in the polymorphic hs1.2 enhancer of the immunoglobulin heavy chain 3' regulatory regions and its conservation in mammals. Biopolymers 2016;105:768-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/bip.22891.

[39] Teng F-Y, Jiang Z-Z, Guo M, Tan X-Z, Chen F, Xi X-G, et al. G-quadruplex DNA: a novel target for drug design. Cell Mol Life Sci 2021;78:6557-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-021-03921-8.

[40] Yang SY, Chang EYC, Lim J, Kwan HH, Monchaud D, Yip S, et al. G-quadruplexes mark alternative lengthening of telomeres. NAR Cancer 2021;3:zcab031. https://doi.org/10.1093/narcan/zcab031.

[41] Koirala D, Dhakal S, Ashbridge B, Sannohe Y, Rodriguez R, Sugiyama H, et al. A single-molecule platform for investigation of interactions between G-quadruplexes and small-molecule ligands. Nat Chem 2011;3:782-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1126.

[42] Ding H, Schertzer M, Wu X, Gertsenstein M, Selig S, Kammori M, et al. Regulation of murine telomere length by Rtel: an essential gene encoding a helicase-like protein. Cell 2004;117:873-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2004.05.026.

[43] Lin W, Sampathi S, Dai H, Liu C, Zhou M, Hu J, et al. Mammalian DNA2 helicase/nuclease cleaves G-quadruplex DNA and is required for telomere integrity. EMBO J 2013;32:1425-39. https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2013.88.

[44] Lipps HJ, Rhodes D. G-quadruplex structures: in vivo evidence and function. Trends Cell Biol 2009;19:414-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2009.05.002.

[45] Brosh RM. DNA helicases involved in DNA repair and their roles in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2013;13:542-58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3560.

[46] Paeschke K, McDonald KR, Zakian VA. Telomeres: Structures in need of unwinding. FEBS Lett 2010;584:3760-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2010.07.007.

[47] Bochman ML, Paeschke K, Zakian VA. DNA secondary structures: stability and function of G-quadruplex structures. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:770-80. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3296.

[48] Rhodes D, Lipps HJ. G-quadruplexes and their regulatory roles in biology. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:8627-37. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv862.

[49] Crabbe L, Verdun RE, Haggblom CI, Karlseder J. Defective telomere lagging strand synthesis in cells lacking WRN helicase activity. Science 2004;306:1951-3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103619.

[50] Babbe H, McMenamin J, Hobeika E, Wang J, Rodig SJ, Reth M, et al. Genomic instability resulting from Blm deficiency compromises development, maintenance, and function of the B cell lineage. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950 2009;182:347-60. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.182.1.347.

[51] Odermatt DC, Lee WTC, Wild S, Jozwiakowski SK, Rothenberg E, Gari K. Cancer-associated mutations in the iron-sulfur domain of FANCJ affect G-quadruplex metabolism. PLoS Genet 2020;16:e1008740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008740.

[52] van Schie JJM, Faramarz A, Balk JA, Stewart GS, Cantelli E, Oostra AB, et al. Warsaw Breakage Syndrome associated DDX11 helicase resolves G-quadruplex structures to support sister chromatid cohesion. Nat Commun 2020;11:4287. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18066-8.

[53] Teng Y-C, Sundaresan A, O'Hara R, Gant VU, Li M, Martire S, et al. ATRX promotes heterochromatin formation to protect cells from G-quadruplex DNA-mediated stress. Nat Commun 2021;12:3887. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24206-5.

[54] Besnard E, Babled A, Lapasset L, Milhavet O, Parrinello H, Dantec C, et al. Unraveling cell type-specific and reprogrammable human replication origin signatures associated with G-quadruplex consensus motifs. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2012;19:837-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2339.

[55] Comoglio F, Schlumpf T, Schmid V, Rohs R, Beisel C, Paro R. High-resolution profiling of Drosophila replication start sites reveals a DNA shape and chromatin signature of metazoan origins. Cell Rep 2015;11:821-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.03.070.

[56] Broxson C, Beckett J, Tornaletti S. Transcription arrest by a G quadruplex forming-trinucleotide repeat sequence from the human c-myb gene. Biochemistry 2011;50:4162-72. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi2002136.
[57] Smestad JA, Maher LJ. Relationships between putative G-quadruplex-forming sequences, RecQ helicases, and transcription. BMC Med Genet 2015;16:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12881-015-0236-4.

[58] Belotserkovskii BP, Soo Shin JH, Hanawalt PC. Strong transcription blockage mediated by R-loop formation within a G-rich homopurine-homopyrimidine sequence localized in the vicinity of the promoter. Nucleic Acids Res 2017;45:6589-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx403.

[59] Mirkin SM. DNA structures, repeat expansions and human hereditary disorders. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006;16:351-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2006.05.004.

[60] Belotserkovskii BP, Liu R, Tornaletti S, Krasilnikova MM, Mirkin SM, Hanawalt PC. Mechanisms and implications of transcription blockage by guanine-rich DNA sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:12816-21. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007580107.

[61] Belotserkovskii BP, Neil AJ, Saleh SS, Shin JHS, Mirkin SM, Hanawalt PC. Transcription blockage by homopurine DNA sequences: role of sequence composition and single-strand breaks. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41:1817-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1333.

[62] Belotserkovskii BP, Soo Shin JH, Hanawalt PC. Strong transcription blockage mediated by R-loop formation within a G-rich homopurine-homopyrimidine sequence localized in the vicinity of the promoter. Nucleic Acids Res 2017;45:6589-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx403.

[63] Zhang J-Y, Xia Y, Hao Y-H, Tan Z. DNA:RNA hybrid G-quadruplex formation upstream of transcription start site. Sci Rep 2020;10:7429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64117-x.

[64] Szlachta K, Thys RG, Atkin ND, Pierce LCT, Bekiranov S, Wang Y-H. Alternative DNA secondary structure formation affects RNA polymerase II promoter-proximal pausing in human. Genome Biol 2018;19:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1463-8.

[65] Zhang L, Lu Z, Zhao X. Targeting Bcl-2 for cancer therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta BBA - Rev Cancer 2021;1876:188569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2021.188569.

[66] Shklover J, Weisman-Shomer P, Yafe A, Fry M. Quadruplex structures of muscle gene promoter sequences enhance in vivo MyoD-dependent gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res 2010;38:2369-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp1208.

[67] Valton A-L, Venev SV, Mair B, Khokhar E, Tong AHY, Usaj M, et al. A cohesin traffic pattern genetically linked to gene regulation 2021;2021.07.29.454218. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.29.454218.

[68] Voter AF, Qiu Y, Tippana R, Myong S, Keck JL. A guanine-flipping and sequestration mechanism for G-quadruplex unwinding by RecQ helicases. Nat Commun 2018;9:4201. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06751-8.

[69] Duquette ML, Huber MD, Maizels N. G-rich proto-oncogenes are targeted for genomic instability in B-cell lymphomas. Cancer Res 2007;67:2586-94. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2419.

[70] Clark DW, Phang T, Edwards MG, Geraci MW, Gillespie MN. Promoter G-quadruplex sequences are targets for base oxidation and strand cleavage during hypoxia-induced transcription. Free Radic Biol Med 2012;53:51-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.04.024.

[71] Conticello SG, Thomas CJF, Petersen-Mahrt SK, Neuberger MS. Evolution of the AID/APOBEC family of polynucleotide (deoxy)cytidine deaminases. Mol Biol Evol 2005;22:367-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msi026.

[72] Dalloul I, Laffleur B, Dalloul Z, Wehbi B, Jouan F, Brauge B, et al. UnAIDed Class Switching in Activated B-Cells Reveals Intrinsic Features of a Self-Cleaving IgH Locus. Front Immunol 2021;12:737427. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.737427.

[73] Wang L, Wuerffel R, Feldman S, Khamlichi AA, Kenter AL. S region sequence, RNA polymerase II, and histone modifications create chromatin accessibility during class switch recombination. J Exp Med 2009;206:1817-30. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20081678.

[74] Matthews AJ, Zheng S, DiMenna LJ, Chaudhuri J. Chapter One - Regulation of Immunoglobulin Class-Switch Recombination: Choreography of Noncoding Transcription, Targeted DNA Deamination, and Long-Range DNA Repair. In: Alt FW, editor. Adv. Immunol., vol. 122, Academic Press; 2014, p. 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800267-4.00001-8.

[75] Lorenz M, Jung S, Radbruch A. Switch transcripts in immunoglobulin class switching. Science 1995;267:1825-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7892607.

[76] Hein K, Lorenz MGO, Siebenkotten G, Petry K, Christine R, Radbruch A. Processing of Switch Transcripts Is Required for Targeting of Antibody Class Switch Recombination. J Exp Med 1998;188:2369-74.

[77] Saintamand A, Rouaud P, Saad F, Rios G, Cogné M, Denizot Y. Elucidation of IgH 3' region regulatory role during class switch recombination via germline deletion. Nat Commun 2015;6:7084. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8084.

[78] Fitz J, Neumann T, Steininger M, Wiedemann E-M, Garcia AC, Athanasiadis A, et al. Spt5-mediated enhancer transcription directly couples enhancer activation with physical promoter interaction. Nat Genet 2020;52:505-15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0605-6.

[79] Zhang J, Bottaro A, Li S, Stewart V, Alt FW. A selective defect in IgG2b switching as a result of targeted mutation of the I gamma 2b promoter and exon. EMBO J 1993;12:3529-37.

[80] Lorenz M, Jung S, Radbruch A. Switch transcripts in immunoglobulin class switching. Science 1995;267:1825-8.

[81] Dunnick W, Hertz GZ, Scappino L, Gritzmacher C. DNA sequences at immunoglobulin switch region recombination sites. Nucleic Acids Res 1993;21:365-72.

[82] Stavnezer J. Immunoglobulin class switching. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:199-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-7915(96)80058-6.
[83] Reaban ME, Griffin JA. Induction of RNA-stabilized DNA conformers by transcription of an immunoglobulin switch region. Nature 1990;348:342-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/348342a0.

[84] Shinkura R, Tian M, Smith M, Chua K, Fujiwara Y, Alt FW. The influence of transcriptional orientation on endogenous switch region function. Nat Immunol 2003;4:435-41. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni918.

[85] Chauveau C, Cogné M. Palindromic structure of the IgH 3' locus control region. Nat Genet 1996;14:15-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0996-15.

[86] Chauveau C, Pinaud E, Cogne M. Synergies between regulatory elements of the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus and its palindromic 3' locus control region. Eur J Immunol 1998;28:3048-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4141(199810)28:10#60;3048::AID-IMMU3048#62;3.0.CO;2-V.

[87] Le Noir S, Boyer F, Lecardeur S, Brousse M, Oruc Z, Cook-Moreau J, et al. Functional anatomy of the immunoglobulin heavy chain 3' super-enhancer needs not only core enhancer elements but also their unique DNA context. Nucleic Acids Res 2017;45:5829-37. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx203.

[88] Saintamand A, Vincent-Fabert C, Garot A, Rouaud P, Oruc Z, Magnone V, et al. Deciphering the importance of the palindromic architecture of the immunoglobulin heavy-chain 3' regulatory region. Nat Commun 2016;7:10730. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10730.

[89] Cogné M, Lansford R, Bottaro A, Zhang J, Gorman J, Young F, et al. A class switch control region at the 3' end of the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus. Cell 1994;77:737-47.

[90] Pinaud E, Khamlichi AA, Le Morvan C, Drouet M, Nalesso V, Le Bert M, et al. Localization of the 3' IgH locus elements that effect long-distance regulation of class switch recombination. Immunity 2001;15:187-99.

[91] Pinaud E, Marquet M, Fiancette R, Péron S, Vincent-Fabert C, Denizot Y, et al. The IgH locus 3' regulatory region: pulling the strings from behind. Adv Immunol 2011;110:27-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387663-8.00002-8.

[92] Wuerffel R, Wang L, Grigera F, Manis J, Selsing E, Perlot T, et al. S-S synapsis during class switch recombination is promoted by distantly located transcriptional elements and activation-induced deaminase. Immunity 2007;27:711-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2007.09.007.

[93] Zhang X, Zhang Y, Ba Z, Kyritsis N, Casellas R, Alt FW. Fundamental roles of chromatin loop extrusion in antibody class switching. Nature 2019;575:385-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1723-0.

[94] Vian L, Pękowska A, Rao SSP, Kieffer-Kwon K-R, Jung S, Baranello L, et al. The Energetics and Physiological Impact of Cohesin Extrusion. Cell 2018;173:1165-1178.e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.072.

[95] Xu Z, Zan H, Pone EJ, Mai T, Casali P. Immunoglobulin class-switch DNA recombination: induction, targeting and beyond. Nat Rev Immunol 2012;12:517-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3216.

[96] Gilliam AC, SHENt A, BLATTNERt FR, Mushinski JF, Tucker PW. Illegitimate recombination generates a class switch from C, to C in an IgD-secreting plasmacytoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1984:5.

[97] Reynaud S, Delpy L, Fleury L, Dougier H-L, Sirac C, Cogné M. Interspecific class switch recombination contributes significantly to class switching in mouse B cells. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950 2005;174:6176-83.

[98] Dougier H-L, Reynaud S, Pinaud E, Carrion C, Delpy L, Cogné M. Interspecific class switch recombination can reverse allelic exclusion and allow trans-complementation of an IgH locus switching defect. Eur J Immunol 2006;36:2181-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.200535529.

[99] Laffleur B, Bardet SM, Garot A, Brousse M, Baylet A, Cogné M. Immunoglobulin genes undergo legitimate repair in human B cells not only after cis- but also frequent trans-class switch recombination. Genes Immun 2014;15:341-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/gene.2014.25.

[100] Pinaud E, Aupetit C, Chauveau C, Cogné M. Identification of a homolog of the C alpha 3'/hs3 enhancer and of an allelic variant of the 3'IgH/hs1,2 enhancer downstream of the human immunoglobulin alpha 1 gene. Eur J Immunol 1997;27:2981-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.1830271134.

[101] Garot A, Marquet M, Saintamand A, Bender S, Le Noir S, Rouaud P, et al. Sequential activation and distinct functions for distal and proximal modules within the IgH 3' regulatory region. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016;113:1618-23. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514090113.

[102] Vincent-Fabert C, Fiancette R, Pinaud E, Truffinet V, Cogné N, Cogné M, et al. Genomic deletion of the whole IgH 3' regulatory region (hs3a, hs1,2, hs3b, and hs4) dramatically affects class switch recombination and Ig secretion to all isotypes. Blood 2010;116:1895-8. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-01-264689.

[103] Rouaud P, Vincent-Fabert C, Saintamand A, Fiancette R, Marquet M, Robert I, et al. The IgH 3' regulatory region controls somatic hypermutation in germinal center B cells. J Exp Med 2013;210:1501-7. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20130072.

[104] Saintamand A, Rouaud P, Saad F, Rios G, Cogné M, Denizot Y. Elucidation of IgH 3' region regulatory role during class switch recombination via germline deletion. Nat Commun 2015;6:7084. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8084.

[105] Saintamand A, Vincent-Fabert C, Marquet M, Ghazzaui N, Magnone V, Pinaud E, et al. Eμ and 3'RR IgH enhancers show hierarchic unilateral dependence in mature B-cells. Sci Rep 2017;7:442. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00575-0.

[106] Péron S, Laffleur B, Denis-Lagache N, Cook-Moreau J, Tinguely A, Delpy L, et al. AID-driven deletion causes immunoglobulin heavy chain locus suicide recombination in B cells. Science 2012;336:931-4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218692.

[107] Stavnezer-Nordgren J, Sirlin S. Specificity of immunoglobulin heavy chain switch correlates with activity of germline heavy chain genes prior to switching. EMBO J 1986;5:95-102.
[108] Stavnezer J, Radcliffe G, Lin YC, Nietupski J, Berggren L, Sitia R, et al. Immunoglobulin heavy-chain switching may be directed by prior induction of transcripts from constant-region genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1988;85:7704-8.

[109] Xu L, Gorham B, Li SC, Bottaro A, Alt FW, Rothman P. Replacement of germ-line epsilon promoter by gene targeting alters control of immunoglobulin heavy chain class switching. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993;90:3705-9.

[110] Bottaro A, Lansford R, Xu L, Zhang J, Rothman P, Alt FW. S region transcription per se promotes basal IgE class switch recombination but additional factors regulate the efficiency of the process. EMBO J 1994;13:665-74.

[111] Matthews AJ, Zheng S, DiMenna LJ, Chaudhuri J. Chapter One - Regulation of Immunoglobulin Class-Switch Recombination: Choreography of Noncoding Transcription, Targeted DNA Deamination, and Long-Range DNA Repair. In: Alt FW, editor. Adv. Immunol., vol. 122, Academic Press; 2014, p. 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800267-4.00001-8

[112] Yewdell WT, Chaudhuri J. A transcriptional serenAID: the role of noncoding RNAs in class switch recombination. Int Immunol 2017;29:183-96. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxx027.

[113] Jung S, Rajewsky K, Radbruch A. Shutdown of class switch recombination by deletion of a switch region control element. Science 1993;259:984-7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8438159.

[114] Marchalot A, Ashi MO, Lambert J-M, Carrion C, Lecardeur S, Srour N, et al. Uncoupling Splicing From Transcription Using Antisense Oligonucleotides Reveals a Dual Role for I Exon Donor Splice Sites in Antibody Class Switching. Front Immunol 2020;11:780. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00780.

[115] Kuzin II, Ugine GD, Wu D, Young F, Chen J, Bottaro A. Normal isotype switching in B cells lacking the I mu exon splice donor site: evidence for multiple I mu-like germline transcripts. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950 2000;164:1451-7. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.164.3.1451.

[116] Yu K, Lieber MR. Nucleic acid structures and enzymes in the immunoglobulin class switch recombination mechanism. DNA Repair 2003;2:1163-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2003.08.010.

[117] Bottaro A, Young F, Chen J, Serwe M, Sablitzky F, Alt FW. Deletion of the IgH intronic enhancer and associated matrix-attachment regions decreases, but does not abolish, class switching at the mu locus. Int Immunol 1998;10:799-806. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/10.6.799.

[118] Gu H, Zou YR, Rajewsky K. Independent control of immunoglobulin switch recombination at individual switch regions evidenced through Cre-loxP-mediated gene targeting. Cell 1993;73:1155-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(93)90644-6.

[119] Seidl KJ, Bottaro A, Vo A, Zhang J, Davidson L, Alt FW. An expressed neo(r) cassette provides required functions of the 1gamma2b exon for class switching. Int Immunol 1998;10:1683-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/10.11.1683.

[120] Harriman GR, Bradley A, Das S, Rogers-Fani P, Davis AC. IgA class switch in I alpha exon-deficient mice. Role of germline transcription in class switch recombination. J Clin Invest 1996;97:477-85.

[121] Chaudhuri J, Alt FW. Class-switch recombination: interplay of transcription, DNA deamination and DNA repair. Nat Rev Immunol 2004;4:541-52. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri1395.

[122] Yu K, Chedin F, Hsieh C-L, Wilson TE, Lieber MR. R-loops at immunoglobulin class switch regions in the chromosomes of stimulated B cells. Nat Immunol 2003;4:442-51. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni919.

[123] Basu U, Meng F-L, Keim C, Grinstein V, Pefanis E, Eccleston J, et al. The RNA exosome targets the AID cytidine deaminase to both strands of transcribed duplex DNA substrates. Cell 2011;144:353-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.01.001.

[124] Pefanis E, Wang J, Rothschild G, Lim J, Chao J, Rabadan R, et al. Noncoding RNA transcription targets AID to divergently transcribed loci in B cells. Nature 2014;514:389-93. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13580.

[125] Laffleur B, Lim J, Zhang W, Chen Y, Pefanis E, Bizarro J, et al. Noncoding RNA processing by DIS3 regulates chromosomal architecture and somatic hypermutation in B cells. Nat Genet 2021;53:230-42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-00772-0.

[126] Pefanis E, Wang J, Rothschild G, Lim J, Kazadi D, Sun J, et al. RNA exosome-regulated long non-coding RNA transcription controls super-enhancer activity. Cell 2015;161:774-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.034.

[127] Kilchert C, Wittmann S, Vasiljeva L. The regulation and functions of the nuclear RNA exosome complex. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2016;17:227-39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2015.15.

[128] Nair L, Zhang W, Laffleur B, Jha MK, Lim J, Lee H, et al. Mechanism of noncoding RNA-associated N6-methyladenosine recognition by an RNA processing complex during IgH DNA recombination. Mol Cell 2021;81:3949-3964.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2021.07.037.

[129] Dalloul Z, Chenuet P, Dalloul I, Boyer F, Aldigier J-C, Laffleur B, et al. G-quadruplex DNA targeting alters class-switch recombination in B cells and attenuates allergic inflammation. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2018;142:1352-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2018.06.011.

[130] Qiao Q, Wang L, Meng F-L, Hwang JK, Alt FW, Wu H. AID Recognizes Structured DNA for Class Switch Recombination. Mol Cell 2017;67:361-373.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2017.06.034.

[131] Vallur AC, Maizels N. Activities of human exonuclease 1 that promote cleavage of transcribed immunoglobulin switch regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:16508-12. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805327105.

[132] Collier DA, Griffin JA, Wells RD. Non-B right-handed DNA conformations of homopurine.homopyrimidine sequences in the murine immunoglobulin C alpha switch region. J Biol Chem 1988;263:7397-405.

[133] Sen D, Gilbert W. Formation of parallel four-stranded complexes by guanine-rich motifs in DNA and its implications for meiosis. Nature 1988;334:364-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/334364a0.

[134] Chi X, Li Y, Qiu X. V(D)J recombination, somatic hypermutation and class switch recombination of immunoglobulins: mechanism and regulation. Immunology 2020;160:233-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.13176.
[135] Abbott RK, Thayer M, Labuda J, Silva M, Philbrook P, Cain DW, et al. Germinal Center Hypoxia Potentiates Immunoglobulin Class Switch Recombination. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950 2016;197:4014-20. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1601401.

[136] Cho SH, Raybuck AL, Stengel K, Wei M, Beck TC, Volanakis E, et al. Germinal centre hypoxia and regulation of antibody qualities by a hypoxia response system. Nature 2016;537:234-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19334.

[137] Tashiro J, Kinoshita K, Honjo T. Palindromic but not G-rich sequences are targets of class switch recombination. Int Immunol 2001;13:495-505. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/13.4.495.

[138] Zheng S, Kusnadi A, Choi JE, Vuong BQ, Rhodes D, Chaudhuri J. NME proteins regulate class switch recombination. FEBS Lett 2019;593:80-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13290.

[139] Yang SY, Monchaud D, Wong JMY. Global mapping of RNA G-quadruplexes (G4-RNAs) using G4RP-seq. Nat Protoc 2022;17:870-89. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-021-00671-6.

[140] Duquette ML, Handa P, Vincent JA, Taylor AF, Maizels N. Intracellular transcription of G-rich DNAs induces formation of G-loops, novel structures containing G4 DNA. Genes Dev 2004;18:1618-29. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1200804.

[141] Fleming AM, Nguyen NLB, Burrows CJ. Colocalization of m6A and G-Quadruplex-Forming Sequences in Viral RNA (HIV, Zika, Hepatitis B, and SV40) Suggests Topological Control of Adenosine N 6-Methylation. ACS Cent Sci 2019;5:218-28. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.8b00963.

[142] Iwasaki Y, Ookuro Y, Iida K, Nagasawa K, Yoshida W. Destabilization of DNA and RNA G-quadruplex structures formed by GGA repeat due to N6-methyladenine modification. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2022;597:134-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2022.01.123.

[143] Czerniak T, Saenz JP. Lipid membranes modulate the activity of RNA through sequence-dependent interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022;119:e2119235119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119235119.

[144] Zheng S, Vuong BQ, Vaidyanathan B, Lin J-Y, Huang F-T, Chaudhuri J. Non-coding RNA Generated following Lariat Debranching Mediates Targeting of AID to DNA. Cell 2015;161:762-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.020.

[145] Ribeiro de Almeida C, Dhir S, Dhir A, Moghaddam AE, Sattentau Q, Meinhart A, et al. RNA Helicase DDX1 Converts RNA G-Quadruplex Structures into R-Loops to Promote IgH Class Switch Recombination. Mol Cell 2018;70:650-662.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2018.04.001.

[146] Schrader CE, Guikema JEJ, Linehan EK, Selsing E, Stavnezer J. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase-dependent DNA breaks in class switch recombination occur during G1 phase of the cell cycle and depend upon mismatch repair. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950 2007;179:6064-71. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.179.9.6064.

[147] Wiedemann E-M, Peycheva M, Pavri R. DNA Replication Origins in Immunoglobulin Switch Regions Regulate Class Switch Recombination in an R-Loop-Dependent Manner. Cell Rep 2016;17:2927-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.11.041.

[148] Bochman ML, Schwacha A. The Mcm complex: unwinding the mechanism of a replicative helicase. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev MMBR 2009;73:652-83. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00019-09.

[149] Zhang Y, Zhang X, Ba Z, Liang Z, Dring EW, Hu H, et al. The fundamental role of chromatin loop extrusion in physiological V(D)J recombination. Nature 2019;573:600-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1547-y.

[150] Zhang X, Zhang Y, Ba Z, Kyritsis N, Casellas R, Alt FW. Fundamental roles of chromatin loop extrusion in antibody class switching. Nature 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1723-0.

[151] Li L, Williams P, Ren W, Wang MY, Gao Z, Miao W, et al. YY1 interacts with guanine quadruplexes to regulate DNA looping and gene expression. Nat Chem Biol 2021;17:161-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-020-00695-1.

[152] Wuerffel R, Wang L, Grigera F, Manis J, Selsing E, Perlot T, et al. S-S synapsis during class switch recombination is promoted by distantly located transcriptional elements and activation-induced deaminase. Immunity 2007;27:711-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2007.09.007.

[153] Sepulveda MA, Garrett FE, Price-Whelan A, Birshtein BK. Comparative analysis of human and mouse 3' Igh regulatory regions identifies distinctive structural features. Mol Immunol 2005;42:605-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2004.09.006.

[154] Le Noir S, Laffleur B, Carrion C, Garot A, Lecardeur S, Pinaud E, et al. The IgH locus 3' cis-regulatory super-enhancer co-opts AID for allelic transvection. Oncotarget 2017. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.14585.

[155] Dalloul I, Boyer F, Dalloul Z, Pignarre A, Caron G, Fest T, et al. Locus suicide recombination actively occurs on the functionally rearranged IgH allele in B-cells from inflamed human lymphoid tissues. PLoS Genet 2019;15:e1007721. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007721.

[156] Péron S, Laffleur B, Denis-Lagache N, Cook-Moreau J, Filloux M, Cogné M. [IgH locus suicide recombination, or when B cells surrender!]. Med Sci MS 2012;28:551-4. https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2012285023.

[157] Xu Y-Z, Jenjaroenpun P, Wongsurawat T, Byrum SD, Shponka V, Tannahill D, et al. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase localizes to G-quadruplex motifs at mutation hotspots in lymphoma. NAR Cancer 2020;2:zcaa029. https://doi.org/10.1093/narcan/zcaa029.

[158] Duquette ML, Pham P, Goodman MF, Maizels N. AID binds to transcription-induced structures in c-MYC that map to regions associated with translocation and hypermutation. Oncogene 2005;24:5791-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1208746.

[159] Yewdell WT, Kim Y, Chowdhury P, Lau CM, Smolkin RM, Belcheva KT, et al. A Hyper-IgM Syndrome Mutation in Activation-Induced Cytidine Deaminase Disrupts G-Quadruplex Binding and Genome-wide Chromatin Localization. Immunity 2020;53:952-970.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.10.003.

[160] Durandy A, Peron S, Taubenheim N, Fischer A. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase: structure-function relationship as based on the study of mutants. Hum Mutat 2006;27:1185-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20414.
[161] Revy P, Muto T, Levy Y, Geissmann F, Plebani A, Sanal O, et al. Activation-Induced Cytidine Deaminase (AID) Deficiency Causes the Autosomal Recessive Form of the Hyper-IgM Syndrome (HIGM2). Cell 2000;102:565-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00079-9.

[162] Shukla V, Samaniego-Castruita D, Dong Z, González-Avalos E, Yan Q, Sarma K, et al. TET deficiency perturbs mature B cell homeostasis and promotes oncogenesis associated with accumulation of G-quadruplex and R-loop structures. Nat Immunol 2022;23:99-108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-021-01087-w.

[163] Orlanski S, Labi V, Reizel Y, Spiro A, Lichtenstein M, Levin-Klein R, et al. Tissue-specific DNA demethylation is required for proper B-cell differentiation and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016;113:5018-23. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604365113.

[164] Dominguez PM, Ghamlouch H, Rosikiewicz W, Kumar P, Béguelin W, Fontán L, et al. TET2 Deficiency Causes Germinal Center Hyperplasia, Impairs Plasma Cell Differentiation, and Promotes B-cell Lymphomagenesis. Cancer Discov 2018;8:1632-53. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0657.

[165] Reddy A, Zhang J, Davis NS, Moffitt AB, Love CL, Waldrop A, et al. Genetic and Functional Drivers of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma. Cell 2017;171:481-494.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.027.

[166] Schmitz R, Wright GW, Huang DW, Johnson CA, Phelan JD, Wang JQ, et al. Genetics and Pathogenesis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1396-407. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801445.

[167] Varshney D, Spiegel J, Zyner K, Tannahill D, Balasubramanian S. The regulation and functions of DNA and RNA G-quadruplexes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2020;21:459-74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-020-0236-x.

[168] Müller S, Kumari S, Rodriguez R, Balasubramanian S. Small-molecule-mediated G-quadruplex isolation from human cells. Nat Chem 2010;2:1095-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.842.

[169] Brunori M, Gilson E. Télomère et cancer: quoi de plus à la fin ? médecine/sciences 2005;21:37-42. https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/200521137.

[170] Groelly FJ, Porru M, Zimmer J, Benainous H, De Visser Y, Kosova AA, et al. Anti-tumoural activity of the G-quadruplex ligand pyridostatin against BRCA1/2-deficient tumours. EMBO Mol Med 2022;14:e14501. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.202114501.

[171] Long W, Zheng B-X, Li Y, Huang X-H, Lin D-M, Chen C-C, et al. Rational design of small-molecules to recognize G-quadruplexes of c-MYC promoter and telomere and the evaluation of their in vivo antitumor activity against breast cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 2022;50:1829-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac090.

[172] Debbarma S, Acharya PC. Targeting G-Quadruplex Dna For Cancer Chemotherapy. Curr Drug Discov Technol 2022. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570163819666220214115408.

[173] Long W, Zheng B-X, Li Y, Huang X-H, Lin D-M, Chen C-C, et al. Rational design of small-molecules to recognize G-quadruplexes of c-MYC promoter and telomere and the evaluation of their in vivo antitumor activity against breast cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 2022;50:1829-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac090.

[174] Zimmer J, Tacconi EMC, Folio C, Badie S, Porru M, Klare K, et al. Targeting BRCA1 and BRCA2 Deficiencies with G-Quadruplex-Interacting Compounds. Mol Cell 2016;61:449-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.004.

[175] Wang Y, Yang J, Wild AT, Wu WH, Shah R, Danussi C, et al. G-quadruplex DNA drives genomic instability and represents a targetable molecular abnormality in ATRX-deficient malignant glioma. Nat Commun 2019;10:943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08905-8.

[176] Xu H, Di Antonio M, McKinney S, Mathew V, Ho B, O'Neil NJ, et al. CX-5461 is a DNA G-quadruplex stabilizer with selective lethality in BRCA1/2 deficient tumours. Nat Commun 2017;8:14432. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14432.

[177] Khot A, Brajanovski N, Cameron DP, Hein N, Maclachlan KH, Sanij E, et al. First-in-Human RNA Polymerase I Transcription Inhibitor CX-5461 in Patients with Advanced Hematologic Cancers: Results of a Phase I Dose-Escalation Study. Cancer Discov 2019;9:1036-49. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1455.

[178] Bardin C, Leroy JL. The formation pathway of tetramolecular G-quadruplexes. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:477-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm1050.

[179] Bödör C, Bognár Á, Reiniger L, Szepesi Á, Tóth E, Kopper L, et al. Aberrant somatic hypermutation and expression of activation-induced cytidine deaminase mRNA in mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2005;129:373-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05454.x.

[180] Nagaoka H, Tran TH, Kobayashi M, Aida M, Honjo T. Preventing AID, a physiological mutator, from deleterious activation: regulation of the genomic instability that is associated with antibody diversity. Int Immunol 2010;22:227-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxq023.

[181] Takizawa M, Tolarová H, Li Z, Dubois W, Lim S, Callen E, et al. AID expression levels determine the extent of cMyc oncogenic translocations and the incidence of B cell tumor development. J Exp Med 2008;205:1949-57. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20081007.

[182] Chowdhury S, Wang J, Nuccio SP, Mao H, Di Antonio M. Short LNA-modified oligonucleotide probes as efficient disruptors of DNA G-quadruplexes. Nucleic Acids Res 2022;50:7247-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac569.

[183] Bossaert M, Pipier A, Riou J-F, Noirot C, Nguyên L-T, Serre R-F, et al. Transcription-associated topoisomerase 2α (TOP2A) activity is a major effector of cytotoxicity induced by G-quadruplex ligands. ELife 2021;10:e65184. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65184.

[184] Zyner KG, Mulhearn DS, Adhikari S, Martínez Cuesta S, Di Antonio M, Erard N, et al. Genetic interactions of G-quadruplexes in humans. ELife 2019;8:e46793. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46793.

[185] McLuckie KIE, Di Antonio M, Zecchini H, Xian J, Caldas C, Krippendorff B-F, et al. G-Quadruplex DNA as a Molecular Target for Induced Synthetic Lethality in Cancer Cells. J Am Chem Soc 2013;135:9640-3. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja404868t.
[186] Pipier A, Devaux A, Lavergne T, Adrait A, Couté Y, Britton S, et al. Constrained G4 structures unveil topology specificity of known and new G4 binding proteins. Sci Rep 2021;11:13469. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92806-8.

[187] Calderwood SK. A critical role for topoisomerase IIb and DNA double strand breaks in transcription. Transcription 2016;7:75-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/21541264.2016.1181142.

[188] Canela A, Maman Y, Jung S, Wong N, Callen E, Day A, et al. Genome Organization Drives Chromosome Fragility. Cell 2017;170:507-521.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.034.

[189] Bruno PM, Lu M, Dennis KA, Inam H, Moore CJ, Sheehe J, et al. The primary mechanism of cytotoxicity of the chemotherapeutic agent CX-5461 is topoisomerase II poisoning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020;117:4053-60. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921649117.

[190] Fridman WH, Petitprez F, Meylan M, Chen TW-W, Sun C-M, Roumenina LT, et al. B cells and cancer: To B or not to B? J Exp Med 2020;218. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20200851.

[191] Meylan M, Petitprez F, Becht E, Bougoüin A, Pupier G, Calvez A, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structures generate and propagate anti-tumor antibody-producing plasma cells in renal cell cancer. Immunity 2022;55:527-541.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2022.02.001.

[192] Fridman WH, Meylan M, Petitprez F, Sun C-M, Italiano A, Sautès-Fridman C. B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures as determinants of tumour immune contexture and clinical outcome. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2022;19:441-57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00619-z.