DOCSLIB.ORG

Genetic Modifiers of CHEK2-Associated and Familial Breast Cancer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Genetic Modifiers of CHEK2-Associated and Familial Breast Cancer Doctoral Programme in Biomedicine (DPBM) Genetic modifiers of CHEK2-associated and familial breast cancer Taru A. Muranen Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Helsinki University Hospital Faculty of Medicine University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland Academic Dissertation To be discussed, with permission of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, in Biomedicum 1, Lecture Hall 2, Haartmaninkatu 8, Helsinki on 2 November 2018, at 12 noon. Helsinki 2018 Supervised by: Adjunct Professor Heli Nevanlinna, PhD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Finland Associate Professor Dario Greco, PhD Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences Institute of Biosciences and Medical Technology University of Tampere, Finland Reviewed by: Adjunct Professor Minna Tanner, MD, PhD Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences University of Tampere, Finland Professor Matti Nykter, PhD Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences University of Tampere, Finland Official Opponent: Associate Professor Ingrid Hedenfalk, PhD Division of Oncology and Pathology Department of Clinical Sciences Lund University, Sweden Cover image: Three versions of the same pedigree overlaid: one colored by disease status (on the bottom), one colored by genotype of a moderate penetrance mutation (middle), and one colored by polygenic risk score (on the top). Dissertationes Scholae Doctoralis Ad Sanitatem Investigandam Universitatis Helsinkiensis ISBN 978-951-51-4503-1 (Paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-4504-8 (PDF) ISSN 2342-3161 (print) ISSN 2342-317X (online) Unigrafia Helsinki 2018 2 Itseoppinut on ainoa oppinut. Muut ovat opetettuja. Erno Paasilinna Ursalle, Elselle, Eerolle ja Urholle 3 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 7 List of Original Publications .................................................................................................................... 9 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Gene and protein names......................................................................................................................... 11 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 12 2 Review of the Literature ................................................................................................................ 13 2.1 General cancer characteristics .............................................................................................. 13 2.1.1 Cancer progression ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Cancer genes .................................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Breast cancer ...................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Mammary gland ............................................................................................................. 17 2.2.2 Breast cancer risk factors ................................................................................................ 20 2.2.3 Breast cancer subtypes .................................................................................................... 20 2.2.4 Origin of breast cancer.................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Breast cancer treatment ....................................................................................................... 23 2.3.1 Adjuvant endocrine therapy ............................................................................................ 23 2.3.2 Other targeted biological therapies .................................................................................. 23 2.3.3 Adjuvant chemotherapy .................................................................................................. 24 2.4 Genetic predisposition to breast cancer ................................................................................ 25 2.4.1 Breast cancer heritability ................................................................................................ 25 2.4.2 High-risk genes .............................................................................................................. 28 2.4.3 Moderate-risk genes ....................................................................................................... 29 2.4.4 The Breast cancer pathway ............................................................................................. 29 2.4.5 Common predisposing variants ....................................................................................... 31 2.5 CHEK2............................................................................................................................... 31 2.5.1 CHEK2 protein function ................................................................................................. 31 2.5.2 CHEK2 mutations .......................................................................................................... 32 2.5.3 CHEK2 and breast cancer risk......................................................................................... 33 2.5.4 CHEK2 in breast tumors ................................................................................................. 34 3 Aims of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 35 4 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................................. 36 4 4.1 Study subjects and data sources ........................................................................................... 36 4.1.1 Breast tumors (I, II) ........................................................................................................ 36 4.1.2 Study subjects from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (II, III) ............................ 36 4.1.3 Study subjects of the Helsinki breast cancer study (IV) .................................................... 37 4.2 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 37 4.2.1 Microarray data processing and analyses (I, II) ................................................................ 37 4.2.2 Permutation analysis (I: unpublished data)....................................................................... 39 4.2.3 Survival analyses (II) ...................................................................................................... 40 4.2.4 Tumor pathology analyses (II) ........................................................................................ 40 4.2.5 The Polygenic risk score (III, IV) .................................................................................... 40 4.2.6 Risk association analyses (III, IV) ................................................................................... 40 4.2.7 Feature selection (III: unpublished data) .......................................................................... 40 4.2.8 In silico functional analysis (III: unpublished data) .......................................................... 41 4.3 Ethics statement .................................................................................................................. 41 5 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 42 5.1 c.1100delC and p.(I157T) carrier tumors (I, II) ..................................................................... 42 5.1.1 c.1100delC-associated copy number aberrations (I) ......................................................... 42 5.1.2 c.1100delC-associated differences in gene expression (I and unpublished data) ................ 42 5.1.3 Combined analysis of aCGH and GEX data (I and unpublished data) ............................... 43 5.1.4 p.(I157T)-associated gene expression (II) ........................................................................ 45 5.1.5 Clinico-pathological characteristics (II) ........................................................................... 45 5.2 p.(I157T) or c.1100delC carrier survival (II) ........................................................................ 45 5.3 Genetic modifiers of c.1100delC-associated breast cancer risk (III)....................................... 45 5.3.1 Synergistic risk effect of common variants for c.1100delC carriers (III)............................ 45 5.3.2 The sparse model (III: unpublished data) ......................................................................... 46 5.3.3 In silico functional characterization (III: unpublished data) .............................................. 46 5.4 Risk modifiers in breast cancer families (IV) ........................................................................ 47 6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SMX Makes the Cut in Genome Stability
    www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget/ Oncotarget, 2017, Vol. 8, (No. 61), pp: 102765-102766 Editorial SMX makes the cut in genome stability Haley D.M. Wyatt and Stephen C. West The faithful duplication and preservation of our SLX4 scaffold co-ordinate three different nucleases for genetic material is essential for cell survival; however, DNA cleavage? SMX was found to be a promiscuous DNA is susceptible to damage by extracellular and endonuclease that cleaves a broad range of DNA secondary intracellular agents (e.g. ultraviolet radiation, reactive structures in vitro3. Remarkably, SLX4 co-ordinates the oxygen species). DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) SLX1 and MUS81-EME1 nucleases during HJ resolution are thought to represent the most dangerous type of [3, 4] (Figure 1). The involvement of two active sites from lesion, as the failure to repair a DSB can lead to loss of different heterodimeric enzymes leads to a non-canonical genetic information, chromosomal rearrangements, and mechanism of HJ resolution. It was also shown that SLX4 cell death. Fortunately, cells contain sophisticated DNA activates MUS81-EME1 to cleave structures that resemble repair pathways to counteract the deleterious effects of stalled replication forks [3] (Figure 1). Activation involves genotoxic agents. Mutations in DNA repair genes are relaxation of MUS81-EME1’s substrate specificity, which linked to various diseases, including neurological defects, is regulated by a helix-hairpin-helix (HhH) domain in immunodeficiency, and cancer. the MUS81 N-terminus (MUS81 N-HhH). Intriguingly, Gross chromosomal rearrangements, including MUS81 N-HhH also mediates the interaction with deletions, duplications, and translocations, are a hallmark SLX4 via a C-terminal SAP domain (SLX4 SAP) [5].
    [Show full text]
  • The Choice in Meiosis – Defining the Factors That Influence Crossover Or Non-Crossover Formation
    Commentary 501 The choice in meiosis – defining the factors that influence crossover or non-crossover formation Jillian L. Youds and Simon J. Boulton* DNA Damage Response Laboratory, Cancer Research UK, London Research Institute, Clare Hall, Blanche Lane, South Mimms EN6 3LD, UK *Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Journal of Cell Science 124, 501-513 © 2011. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd doi:10.1242/jcs.074427 Summary Meiotic crossovers are essential for ensuring correct chromosome segregation as well as for creating new combinations of alleles for natural selection to take place. During meiosis, excess meiotic double-strand breaks (DSBs) are generated; a subset of these breaks are repaired to form crossovers, whereas the remainder are repaired as non-crossovers. What determines where meiotic DSBs are created and whether a crossover or non-crossover will be formed at any particular DSB remains largely unclear. Nevertheless, several recent papers have revealed important insights into the factors that control the decision between crossover and non-crossover formation in meiosis, including DNA elements that determine the positioning of meiotic DSBs, and the generation and processing of recombination intermediates. In this review, we focus on the factors that influence DSB positioning, the proteins required for the formation of recombination intermediates and how the processing of these structures generates either a crossover or non-crossover in various organisms. A discussion of crossover interference, assurance and homeostasis, which influence crossing over on a chromosome-wide and genome-wide scale – in addition to current models for the generation of interference – is also included. This Commentary aims to highlight recent advances in our understanding of the factors that promote or prevent meiotic crossing over.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleavage Mechanism of Human Mus81–Eme1 Acting on Holliday-Junction Structures
    Cleavage mechanism of human Mus81–Eme1 acting on Holliday-junction structures Ewan R. Taylor* and Clare H. McGowan*†‡ Departments of *Molecular Biology and †Cell Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037 Edited by Stephen J. Elledge, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, and approved January 10, 2008 (received for review October 29, 2007) Recombination-mediated repair plays a central role in maintaining Results genomic integrity during DNA replication. The human Mus81–Eme1 Recombinant Human Mus81–Eme1. Truncation analysis of both endonuclease is involved in recombination repair, but the exact Mus81 and Eme1 was used to define the minimal domains structures it acts on in vivo are not known. Using kinetic and enzy- required for endonuclease function [see supplementary infor- matic analysis of highly purified recombinant enzyme, we find mation (SI) Fig. 5]. Versions of each protein containing amino that Mus81–Eme1 catalyzes coordinate bilateral cleavage of acids 260–551 for Mus81 and amino acids 244–571 for Eme1 model Holliday-junction structures. Using a self-limiting, cruciform- were expressed in Escherichia coli. The recombinant truncated containing substrate, we demonstrate that bilateral cleavage occurs complex, which we named EcME, was well expressed, largely sequentially within the lifetime of the enzyme–substrate complex. soluble, and, as detailed below, active. The complex was purified Coordinate bilateral cleavage is promoted by the highly cooperative to apparent homogeneity through affinity chromatography, ion nature of the enzyme and results in symmetrical cleavage of a exchange, and gel filtration steps (Fig. 1a). cruciform structure, thus, Mus81–Eme1 can ensure coordinate, bilat- eral cleavage of Holliday junction-like structures.
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2019/068007 Al Figure 2
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization I International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2019/068007 Al 04 April 2019 (04.04.2019) W 1P O PCT (51) International Patent Classification: (72) Inventors; and C12N 15/10 (2006.01) C07K 16/28 (2006.01) (71) Applicants: GROSS, Gideon [EVIL]; IE-1-5 Address C12N 5/10 (2006.0 1) C12Q 1/6809 (20 18.0 1) M.P. Korazim, 1292200 Moshav Almagor (IL). GIBSON, C07K 14/705 (2006.01) A61P 35/00 (2006.01) Will [US/US]; c/o ImmPACT-Bio Ltd., 2 Ilian Ramon St., C07K 14/725 (2006.01) P.O. Box 4044, 7403635 Ness Ziona (TL). DAHARY, Dvir [EilL]; c/o ImmPACT-Bio Ltd., 2 Ilian Ramon St., P.O. (21) International Application Number: Box 4044, 7403635 Ness Ziona (IL). BEIMAN, Merav PCT/US2018/053583 [EilL]; c/o ImmPACT-Bio Ltd., 2 Ilian Ramon St., P.O. (22) International Filing Date: Box 4044, 7403635 Ness Ziona (E.). 28 September 2018 (28.09.2018) (74) Agent: MACDOUGALL, Christina, A. et al; Morgan, (25) Filing Language: English Lewis & Bockius LLP, One Market, Spear Tower, SanFran- cisco, CA 94105 (US). (26) Publication Language: English (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every (30) Priority Data: kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, 62/564,454 28 September 2017 (28.09.2017) US AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, BZ, 62/649,429 28 March 2018 (28.03.2018) US CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DJ, DK, DM, DO, (71) Applicant: IMMP ACT-BIO LTD.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Mus81-Eme1 Structure-Specific Endonuclease by Eme1 SUMO-Binding and Rad3atr Kinase Is Essential in the Absence of Rqh1blm Helicase
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.29.454171; this version posted July 29, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Regulation of Mus81-Eme1 structure-specific endonuclease by Eme1 SUMO-binding and Rad3ATR kinase is essential in the absence of Rqh1BLM helicase Giaccherini C.1,#, Scaglione S. 1, Coulon S. 1, Dehé P.M.1,#,* and Gaillard P.H.L. 1* 1 Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, CRCM, Inserm, CNRS, Aix- Marseille Université, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. #The authors contributed equally *correspondence [email protected] [email protected] 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.29.454171; this version posted July 29, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Abstract The Mus81-Eme1 structure-specific endonuclease is crucial for the processing of DNA recombination and late replication intermediates. In fission yeast, stimulation of Mus81-Eme1 in response to DNA damage at the G2/M transition relies on Cdc2CDK1 and DNA damage checkpoint-dependent phosphorylation of Eme1 and is critical for chromosome stability in absence of the Rqh1BLM helicase. Here we identify Rad3ATR checkpoint kinase consensus phosphorylation sites and two SUMO interacting motifs (SIM) within a short N-terminal domain of Eme1 that is required for cell survival in absence of Rqh1BLM.
    [Show full text]
  • Breast Tumors from CHEK2 1100Delc-Mutation Carriers: Genomic Landscape and Clinical Implications
    Breast tumors from CHEK2 1100delC-mutation carriers: genomic landscape and clinical implications Muranen, Taru A.; Greco, Dario; Fagerholm, Rainer; Kilpivaara, Outi; Kampjarvi, Kati; Aittomaki, Kristiina; Blomqvist, Carl; Heikkila, Paivi; Borg, Åke; Nevanlinna, Heli Published in: Breast Cancer Research DOI: 10.1186/bcr3015 2011 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Muranen, T. A., Greco, D., Fagerholm, R., Kilpivaara, O., Kampjarvi, K., Aittomaki, K., Blomqvist, C., Heikkila, P., Borg, Å., & Nevanlinna, H. (2011). Breast tumors from CHEK2 1100delC-mutation carriers: genomic landscape and clinical implications. Breast Cancer Research, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3015 Total number of authors: 10 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Download date: 28.
    [Show full text]
  • The MUS81 Endonuclease Is Essential for Telomerase Negative Cell Proliferation Sicong Zeng Washington University School of Medicine in St
    Washington University School of Medicine Digital Commons@Becker Open Access Publications 2009 The MUS81 endonuclease is essential for telomerase negative cell proliferation Sicong Zeng Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis Qin Yang Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/open_access_pubs Recommended Citation Zeng, Sicong and Yang, Qin, ,"The UM S81 endonuclease is essential for telomerase negative cell proliferation." Cell Cycle.8,15. 2157-2160. (2009). https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/open_access_pubs/3006 This Open Access Publication is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Becker. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Becker. For more information, please contact [email protected]. [Cell Cycle 8:15, 2157-2160; 1 August 2009]; ©2009 Landes Bioscience Extra View The MUS81 endonuclease is essential for telomerase negative cell proliferation Sicong Zeng† and Qin Yang* Department of Radiation Oncology; Washington University School of Medicine; St. Louis, MO USA †Present address: Institute of Reproduction and Stem Cell Engineering; Central South University; Changsha, Hunan China Key words: ALT, APBs, MUS81, telomere recombination A substantial number of human tumors (~10%) are telomerase breaks and maintains telomere length and stability. Progressive negative, and cells in such tumors have been proposed to main- telomere shortening in normal cells during DNA replication leads tain telomere length by the alternative lengthening of telomeres eventually to a permanent halt of cell division referred to as replica- (ALT) pathway. Although details of the molecular mechanism tive senescence. This end replication problem of human telomeres of ALT are largely unknown, previous studies have shown that has received particular attention due to its implications in ageing telomere homologous recombination (HR) is implicated in the and cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of the Germline Genome of Tetrahymena Thermophila
    1 Structure of the germline genome of Tetrahymena thermophila 2 and relationship to the massively rearranged somatic genome 3 4 Eileen P. Hamiltona#, Aurélie Kapustab#, Piroska E. Huvosc, Shelby L. Bidwelld, Nikhat Zafard, 5 Haibao Tangd, Michalis Hadjithomasd, Vivek Krishnakumard, Jonathan Badgerd, Elisabet V. 6 Calerd, Carsten Russe, Qiandong Zenge, Lin Fane, Joshua Z. Levine, Terrance Sheae, Sarah K. 7 Younge, Ryan Hegartye, Riza Dazae, Sharvari Gujjae, Jennifer R. Wortmane, Bruce Birrene, 8 Chad Nusbaume, Jainy Thomasb, Clayton M. Careyb, Ellen J. Prithamb, Cédric Feschotteb, 9 Tomoko Notof, Kazufumi Mochizukif, Romeo Papazyang, Sean D. Tavernag, Paul H. Dearh, 10 Donna M. Cassidy-Hanleyi, Jie Xiongj, Wei Miaoj, Eduardo Oriasa, Robert S. Coyned* 11 12 a: Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, 13 Santa Barbara, CA, USA 14 b: Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, 15 USA 16 c: Department of Medical Biochemistry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA. 17 d: J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD, USA 18 e: Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA 19 f: Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, Vienna, Austria; current address: Institute of 20 Human Genetics - CNRS, Montpellier, France 21 g: Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University 22 School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA 1 23 h: MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK 24 i: Dept. of Microbiology and Immunology, Cornell University Veterinary Medical Center, 25 Ithaca, NY, USA 26 j: Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, People's Republic of 27 China 28 *: corresponding author.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hypothalamus As a Hub for SARS-Cov-2 Brain Infection and Pathogenesis
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.08.139329; this version posted June 19, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. The hypothalamus as a hub for SARS-CoV-2 brain infection and pathogenesis Sreekala Nampoothiri1,2#, Florent Sauve1,2#, Gaëtan Ternier1,2ƒ, Daniela Fernandois1,2 ƒ, Caio Coelho1,2, Monica ImBernon1,2, Eleonora Deligia1,2, Romain PerBet1, Vincent Florent1,2,3, Marc Baroncini1,2, Florence Pasquier1,4, François Trottein5, Claude-Alain Maurage1,2, Virginie Mattot1,2‡, Paolo GiacoBini1,2‡, S. Rasika1,2‡*, Vincent Prevot1,2‡* 1 Univ. Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, Lille Neuroscience & Cognition, DistAlz, UMR-S 1172, Lille, France 2 LaBoratorY of Development and PlasticitY of the Neuroendocrine Brain, FHU 1000 daYs for health, EGID, School of Medicine, Lille, France 3 Nutrition, Arras General Hospital, Arras, France 4 Centre mémoire ressources et recherche, CHU Lille, LiCEND, Lille, France 5 Univ. Lille, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, U1019 - UMR 8204 - CIIL - Center for Infection and ImmunitY of Lille (CIIL), Lille, France. # and ƒ These authors contriButed equallY to this work. ‡ These authors directed this work *Correspondence to: [email protected] and [email protected] Short title: Covid-19: the hypothalamic hypothesis 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.08.139329; this version posted June 19, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Roles of SLX1–SLX4, MUS81–EME1, and GEN1 in Avoiding Genome Instability and Mitotic Catastrophe
    Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on September 25, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Roles of SLX1–SLX4, MUS81–EME1, and GEN1 in avoiding genome instability and mitotic catastrophe Shriparna Sarbajna,1 Derek Davies,2 and Stephen C. West1,3 1Clare Hall Laboratories, Cancer Research UK, London Research Institute, Herts EN6 3LD, United Kingdom; 2London Research Institute, London WC2A 3PX, United Kingdom The resolution of recombination intermediates containing Holliday junctions (HJs) is critical for genome maintenance and proper chromosome segregation. Three pathways for HJ processing exist in human cells and involve the following enzymes/complexes: BLM–TopoIIIa–RMI1–RMI2 (BTR complex), SLX1–SLX4–MUS81– EME1 (SLX–MUS complex), and GEN1. Cycling cells preferentially use the BTR complex for the removal of double HJs in S phase, with SLX–MUS and GEN1 acting at temporally distinct phases of the cell cycle. Cells lacking SLX–MUS and GEN1 exhibit chromosome missegregation, micronucleus formation, and elevated levels of 53BP1-positive G1 nuclear bodies, suggesting that defects in chromosome segregation lead to the transmission of extensive DNA damage to daughter cells. In addition, however, we found that the effects of SLX4, MUS81, and GEN1 depletion extend beyond mitosis, since genome instability is observed throughout all phases of the cell cycle. This is exemplified in the form of impaired replication fork movement and S-phase progression, endogenous checkpoint activation, chromosome segmentation, and multinucleation. In contrast to SLX4, SLX1, the nuclease subunit of the SLX1–SLX4 structure-selective nuclease, plays no role in the replication-related phenotypes associated with SLX4/MUS81 and GEN1 depletion.
    [Show full text]
  • Copy Number Profiling of Brazilian Astrocytomas
    INVESTIGATION Copy Number Profiling of Brazilian Astrocytomas Lucas Tadeu Bidinotto,*,† Raul Torrieri,* Alan Mackay,‡,§ Gisele Caravina Almeida,** Marta Viana-Pereira,††,‡‡ Adriana Cruvinel-Carloni,* Maria Luisa Spina,*,† Nathalia Cristina Campanella,* Weder Pereira de Menezes,* Carlos Afonso Clara,§§ Aline Paixão Becker,* Chris Jones,‡,§ and Rui Manuel Reis*,††,‡‡,1 §§ *Molecular Oncology Research Center, **Department of Pathology, and Department of Neurosurgery, Barretos Cancer Hospital, São Paulo, 14784 400, Brazil, †Barretos School of Health Sciences, Dr. Paulo Prata – FACISB, São Paulo, 14785 § 002, Brazil, ‡Division of Molecular Pathology and Division of Cancer Therapeutics, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK, ††Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, 4704 553, Portugal, and ‡‡3B’s – PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga/Guimarães, 4704 553, Portugal ABSTRACT Copy number alterations (CNA) are one of the driving mechanisms of glioma tumorigenesis, KEYWORDS and are currently used as important biomarkers in the routine setting. Therefore, we performed CNA genomics profiling of 65 astrocytomas of distinct malignant grades (WHO grade I–IV) of Brazilian origin, using array- glioblastomas CGH and microsatellite instability analysis (MSI), and investigated their correlation with TERT and IDH1 gliomas mutational status and clinico-pathological features. Furthermore, in silico analysis using the Oncomine TERT database was performed to validate our findings and extend the findings to gene expression level. We IDH1 found that the number of genomic alterations increases in accordance with glioma grade. In glioblastomas (GBM), the most common alterations were gene amplifications (PDGFRA, KIT, KDR, EGFR, and MET) and deletions (CDKN2A and PTEN). Log-rank analysis correlated EGFR amplification and/or chr7 gain with better survival of the patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Msh4 and Msh5 Function in SC-Independent Chiasma Formation During the Streamlined Meiosis of Tetrahymena
    HIGHLIGHTED ARTICLE INVESTIGATION Msh4 and Msh5 Function in SC-Independent Chiasma Formation During the Streamlined Meiosis of Tetrahymena Anura Shodhan,* Agnieszka Lukaszewicz,* Maria Novatchkova,†,‡ and Josef Loidl*,1 *Department of Chromosome Biology and Max F. Perutz Laboratories, Center for Molecular Biology, University of Vienna, A-1030 Vienna, Austria, †Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, A-130 Vienna, Austria, and ‡Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, A-1030 Vienna, Austria ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3675-2146 (A.S.) ABSTRACT ZMM proteins have been defined in budding yeast as factors that are collectively involved in the formation of interfering crossovers (COs) and synaptonemal complexes (SCs), and they are a hallmark of the predominant meiotic recombination pathway of most organisms. In addition to this so-called class I CO pathway, a minority of crossovers are formed by a class II pathway, which involves the Mus81-Mms4 endonuclease complex. This is the only CO pathway in the SC-less meiosis of the fission yeast. ZMM proteins (including SC components) were always found to be co-occurring and hence have been regarded as functionally linked. Like the fission yeast, the protist Tetrahymena thermophila does not possess a SC, and its COs are dependent on Mus81-Mms4. Here we show that the ZMM proteins Msh4 and Msh5 are required for normal chiasma formation, and we propose that they have a pro-CO function outside a canonical class I pathway in Tetrahymena. Thus, the two-pathway model is not tenable as a general rule. EIOSIS is a specialized cell division by which the dip- half in budding yeast (Mancera et al.
    [Show full text]