Can Genetic Instability Be Studied at the Single Chromosome Level in Cancer Cells?

1999 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay A Pai ◽  
Mie-Chi P Cheung ◽  
Marvin M Romsdahl ◽  
Asha S Multani ◽  
Sen Pathak
Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Petronek ◽  
Douglas R. Spitz ◽  
Garry R. Buettner ◽  
Bryan G. Allen

Iron (Fe) is an essential element that plays a fundamental role in a wide range of cellular functions, including cellular proliferation, DNA synthesis, as well as DNA damage and repair. Because of these connections, iron has been strongly implicated in cancer development. Cancer cells frequently have changes in the expression of iron regulatory proteins. For example, cancer cells frequently upregulate transferrin (increasing uptake of iron) and down regulate ferroportin (decreasing efflux of intracellular iron). These changes increase the steady-state level of intracellular redox active iron, known as the labile iron pool (LIP). The LIP typically contains approximately 2% intracellular iron, which primarily exists as ferrous iron (Fe2+). The LIP can readily contribute to oxidative distress within the cell through Fe2+-dioxygen and Fenton chemistries, generating the highly reactive hydroxyl radical (HO•). Due to the reactive nature of the LIP, it can contribute to increased DNA damage. Mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer cells results in increased steady-state levels of hydrogen peroxide and superoxide along with other downstream reactive oxygen species. The increased presence of H2O2 and O2•− can increase the LIP, contributing to increased mitochondrial uptake of iron as well as genetic instability. Thus, iron metabolism and labile iron pools may play a central role connecting the genetic mutational theories of cancer to the metabolic theories of cancer.


2006 ◽  
Vol 97 (10) ◽  
pp. 984-989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Makoto Nakanishi ◽  
Midori Shimada ◽  
Hiroyuki Niida

The Prostate ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomohiko Ichikawa ◽  
Jack A. Schalken ◽  
Yayoi Ichikawa ◽  
Gary D. Steinberg ◽  
John T. Isaacs

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1317-1324 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Damia ◽  
M. D'Incalci

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 1765-1774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvan Canitrot ◽  
Jean-Sébastien Hoffmann ◽  
Patrick Calsou ◽  
Hiroshi Hayakawa ◽  
Bernard Salles ◽  
...  

NAR Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Matos-Rodrigues ◽  
Josée Guirouilh-Barbat ◽  
Emmanuelle Martini ◽  
Bernard S Lopez

Abstract Genetic instability is a hallmark of cancer cells. Homologous recombination (HR) plays key roles in genome stability and variability due to its roles in DNA double-strand break and interstrand crosslink repair, and in the protection and resumption of arrested replication forks. HR deficiency leads to genetic instability, and, as expected, many HR genes are downregulated in cancer cells. The link between HR deficiency and cancer predisposition is exemplified by familial breast and ovarian cancers and by some subgroups of Fanconi anaemia syndromes. Surprisingly, although RAD51 plays a pivotal role in HR, i.e., homology search and in strand exchange with a homologous DNA partner, almost no inactivating mutations of RAD51 have been associated with cancer predisposition; on the contrary, overexpression of RAD51 is associated with a poor prognosis in different types of tumours. Taken together, these data highlight the fact that RAD51 differs from its HR partners with regard to cancer susceptibility and expose what we call the ‘RAD51 paradox’. Here, we catalogue the dysregulations of HR genes in human pathologies, including cancer and Fanconi anaemia or congenital mirror movement syndromes, and we discuss the RAD51 paradox.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2937-2937
Author(s):  
Jingyuan Lu ◽  
Yingxing Zhou ◽  
Xiaomei Yan ◽  
Quanyi Lu

Telomeresplay a vital role in DNA repair activities and protecting chromosomes from degradation[1]. Telomeres are shortened during each cell division because of the end replication problem. After several cell division, telomeres are shortened to a critical length (< 3 kb), and eventually lead to overall genomic instability and triggering the DNA damage response[2-3], which is related to the cancerization of numerous cancers. The commonly used method to estimate telomere length isterminal restriction fragment (TRF) basedon southern blot, which requires thousands of cells and provides only a crude estimate of the average telomere length of all cells analyzed. However, it is believed that the frequency of critically short telomeres, rather than the mean telomere length, is a crucial factor for telomere dysfunction. Therefore, analysis of telomere length at the single-chromosome level is necessary to determine the frequency of critically short telomeres. Here, we describe the development of a high-throughput method for telomere length analysis at the single-chromosome level by using a laboratory-built high-sensitivity flow cytometer (HSFCM)[4] combined with targeted fluorescent peptide nucleic acid (PNA) probes. The unambiguous detection of the telomere signalsfrom a single chromosome was achieved via HSFCM analysis. The fluorescence intensity of single chromosome was converted to the probe number by a calibration curve, and was further transformed to the base pair number of the telomere. Five representative cell lines were analyzed to compare their telomere length and the ratio of critically short telomeres at the single-chromosome level. The potential of using frequency of short telomere for disease treatment monitoring is examined by analyzing the telomere length in lymphocyte of leukemia patients. The abundance of short telomeres was compared between healthy donors and patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) to see whether it can be used to predict the efficacy of therapeutics. Moreover, the quantity of short telomeres was compared among patients with acute leukemia, patients in different phases of CML and healthy donors to see whether it can be used as a marker for disease progression prediction in CML. Reference [1] Blackburn E. H., Epel E. S., Lin J., Science,2015, 350, 1193-1198. [2]Collado M., Blasco M. A., Serrano M., Cell, 2007, 130, 223-233. [3] Deng Y., Chan S. S., Chang S., Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2008, 8, 450-458. [4] Yang LL, Zhu SB, Hang W, Wu LN, Yan XM, Anal. Chem., 2009, 81, 2555-2563. Figure 1 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document