Landomycin a inhibits DNA synthesis and cell cycle progression

1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1663-1666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert T Crow ◽  
Betty Rosenbaum ◽  
Roger Smith ◽  
Yu Guo ◽  
Kenneth S Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Synthesis ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Landomycin A

scholarly journals Cellular Ras and Cyclin D1 Are Required during Different Cell Cycle Periods in Cycling NIH 3T3 Cells

1999 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 4623-4632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Hitomi ◽  
Dennis W. Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Synthesis ◽  
Cyclin D1 ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Time Lapse ◽  
S Phase ◽  
3T3 Cells ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Nih 3T3 ◽  
Nih 3T3 Cells

ABSTRACT Novel techniques were used to determine when in the cell cycle of proliferating NIH 3T3 cells cellular Ras and cyclin D1 are required. For comparison, in quiescent cells, all four of the inhibitors of cell cycle progression tested (anti-Ras, anti-cyclin D1, serum removal, and cycloheximide) became ineffective at essentially the same point in G1 phase, approximately 4 h prior to the beginning of DNA synthesis. To extend these studies to cycling cells, a time-lapse approach was used to determine the approximate cell cycle position of individual cells in an asynchronous culture at the time of inhibitor treatment and then to determine the effects of the inhibitor upon recipient cells. With this approach, anti-Ras antibody efficiently inhibited entry into S phase only when introduced into cells prior to the preceding mitosis, several hours before the beginning of S phase. Anti-cyclin D1, on the other hand, was an efficient inhibitor when introduced up until just before the initiation of DNA synthesis. Cycloheximide treatment, like anti-cyclin D1 microinjection, was inhibitory throughout G1 phase (which lasts a total of 4 to 5 h in these cells). Finally, serum removal blocked entry into S phase only during the first hour following mitosis. Kinetic analysis and a novel dual-labeling technique were used to confirm the differences in cell cycle requirements for Ras, cyclin D1, and cycloheximide. These studies demonstrate a fundamental difference in mitogenic signal transduction between quiescent and cycling NIH 3T3 cells and reveal a sequence of signaling events required for cell cycle progression in proliferating NIH 3T3 cells.

scholarly journals The second phase activation of protein kinase C δ at late G1 is required for DNA synthesis in serum-induced cell cycle progression

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichi Kitamura ◽  
Keiko Mizuno ◽  
Akiko Etoh ◽  
Yoshiko Akita ◽  
Akitomo Miyamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Protein Kinase C ◽  
Protein Kinase ◽  
Dna Synthesis ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Kinase C

scholarly journals Regulation of cell cycle and cyclins by 16alpha-hydroxyestrone in MCF-7 breast cancer cells

2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
JS Lewis ◽  
TJ Thomas ◽  
CM Klinge ◽  
MA Gallo ◽  
T Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Synthesis ◽  
Cancer Cells ◽  
Breast Cancer Cells ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Synchronized Cells ◽  
Mcf 7

It has been suggested that alterations in estradiol (E(2)) metabolism, resulting in increased production of 16alpha-hydroxyestrone (16alpha-OHE(1)), is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. In the present study, we examined the effects of 16alpha-OHE(1)on DNA synthesis, cell cycle progression, and the expression of cell cycle regulatory genes in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. G(1) synchronized cells were treated with 1 to 25 nM 16alpha-OHE(1) for 24 and 48 h. [(3)H]Thymidine incorporation assay showed that 16alpha-OHE(1) caused an 8-fold increase in DNA synthesis compared with that of control cells, whereas E(2) caused a 4-fold increase. Flow cytometric analysis of cell cycle progression also demonstrated the potency of 16alpha-OHE(1) in stimulating cell growth. When G(1) synchronized cells were treated with 10 nM 16alpha-OHE(1) for 24 h, 62+/-3% of cells were in S phase compared with 14+/-3% and 52+/-2% of cells in the control and E(2)-treated groups respectively. In order to explore the role of 16alpha-OHE(1) in cell cycle regulation, we examined its effects on cyclins (D1, E, A, B1), cyclin dependent kinases (Cdk4, Cdk2), and retinoblastoma protein (pRB) using Western and Northern blot analysis. Treatment of cells with 10 nM 16alpha-OHE(1) resulted in 4- and 3-fold increases in cyclin D1 and cyclin A, respectively, at the protein level. There was also a significant increase in pRB phosphorylation and Cdk2 activation. In addition, transient transfection assay using an estrogen response element-driven luciferase reporter vector showed a 15-fold increase in estrogen receptor-mediated transactivation compared with control. These results show that 16alpha-OHE(1) is a potent estrogen capable of accelerating cell cycle kinetics and stimulating the expression of cell cycle regulatory proteins.

scholarly journals The jun and fos protein families are both required for cell cycle progression in fibroblasts.

1991 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 4466-4472 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Kovary ◽  
R Bravo
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Transcription Factors ◽  
Dna Synthesis ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
S Phase ◽  
3T3 Cells ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Serum Stimulation ◽  
Fos Protein ◽  
Stimulation Of

The expression of different members of the Jun and Fos families of transcription factors is rapidly induced following serum stimulation of quiescent fibroblasts. To determine whether these proteins are required for cell cycle progression, we microinjected affinity-purified antibodies directed against c-Fos, FosB, Fra-1, c-Jun, JunB, and JunD, and antibodies that recognize either the Fos or the Jun family of proteins, into Swiss 3T3 cells and determined their effects in cell cycle progression by monitoring DNA synthesis. We found that microinjection of anti-Fos and anti-Jun family antibodies efficiently blocked the entrance to the S phase of serum-stimulated or asynchronously growing cells. However, the antibodies against single members of the Fos family only partially inhibited DNA synthesis. In contrast, all three Jun antibodies prevented DNA synthesis more effectively than did any of the anti-Fos antibodies.

scholarly journals Dilazep, a nucleoside transporter inhibitor, modulates cell cycle progression and DNA synthesis in rat mesangial cells in vitro

2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Sakumura ◽  
Z. Fujii ◽  
S. Umemoto ◽  
T. Murakami & ◽  
Y. Kawata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Synthesis ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Mesangial Cells ◽  
Nucleoside Transporter ◽  
Cycle Progression

scholarly journals Evidence that the cell cycle is a series of uncoupled, memoryless phases

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Xiao Chao ◽  
Randy I. Fakhreddin ◽  
Hristo K. Shimerov ◽  
Rashmi J. Kumar ◽  
Gaorav P. Gupta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Synthesis ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Cell Cycle Phase ◽  
Cell Cycle Checkpoints ◽  
Cycle Phase ◽  
Erlang Distribution ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Gap Phase

The cell cycle is canonically described as a series of 4 phases: G1 (gap phase 1), S (DNA synthesis), G2 (gap phase 2), and M (mitosis). Various models have been proposed to describe the durations of each phase, including a two-state model with fixed S-G2-M duration and random G1 duration1,2; a “stretched” model in which phase durations are proportional3; and an inheritance model in which sister cells show correlated phase durations2,4. A fundamental challenge is to understand the quantitative laws that govern cell-cycle progression and to reconcile the evidence supporting these different models. Here, we used time-lapse fluorescence microscopy to quantify the durations of G1, S, G2, and M phases for thousands of individual cells from three human cell lines. We found no evidence of correlation between any pair of phase durations. Instead, each phase followed an Erlang distribution with a characteristic rate and number of steps. These observations suggest that each cell cycle phase is memoryless with respect to previous phase durations. We challenged this model by perturbing the durations of specific phases through oncogene activation, inhibition of DNA synthesis, reduced temperature, and DNA damage. Phase durations remained uncoupled in individual cells despite large changes in durations in cell populations. To explain this behavior, we propose a mathematical model in which the independence of cell-cycle phase durations arises from a large number of molecular factors that each exerts a minor influence on the rate of cell-cycle progression. The model predicts that it is possible to force correlations between phases by making large perturbations to a single factor that contributes to more than one phase duration, which we confirmed experimentally by inhibiting cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2). We further report that phases can show coupling under certain dysfunctional states such as in a transformed cell line with defective cell cycle checkpoints. This quantitative model of cell cycle progression explains the paradoxical observation that phase durations are both inherited and independent and suggests how cell cycle progression may be altered in disease states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document