scholarly journals Constitutively high dNTP concentration inhibits cell cycle progression and the DNA damage checkpoint in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae

2007 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 1183-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Chabes ◽  
B. Stillman
Keyword(s):  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽  
Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Cycle Progression

Reoxygenation following hypoxia activates DNA-damage checkpoint signaling pathways that suppress cell-cycle progression in cultured human lymphocytes

FEBS Letters ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 581 (16) ◽  
pp. 3005-3012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byeong-Mo Kim ◽  
Jun Yeol Choi ◽  
Yang-Jee Kim ◽  
Hae-Dong Woo ◽  
Hai Won Chung
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Signaling Pathways ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Human Lymphocytes ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Checkpoint Signaling

scholarly journals DNA damage checkpoint dynamics drive cell cycle phase transitions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Xiao Chao ◽  
Cere E. Poovey ◽  
Ashley A. Privette ◽  
Gavin D. Grant ◽  
Hui Yan Chao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Phase Transitions ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Cell Cycle Phase ◽  
Cycle Phase ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoints

ABSTRACTDNA damage checkpoints are cellular mechanisms that protect the integrity of the genome during cell cycle progression. In response to genotoxic stress, these checkpoints halt cell cycle progression until the damage is repaired, allowing cells enough time to recover from damage before resuming normal proliferation. Here, we investigate the temporal dynamics of DNA damage checkpoints in individual proliferating cells by observing cell cycle phase transitions following acute DNA damage. We find that in gap phases (G1 and G2), DNA damage triggers an abrupt halt to cell cycle progression in which the duration of arrest correlates with the severity of damage. However, cells that have already progressed beyond a proposed “commitment point” within a given cell cycle phase readily transition to the next phase, revealing a relaxation of checkpoint stringency during later stages of certain cell cycle phases. In contrast to G1 and G2, cell cycle progression in S phase is significantly less sensitive to DNA damage. Instead of exhibiting a complete halt, we find that increasing DNA damage doses leads to decreased rates of S-phase progression followed by arrest in the subsequent G2. Moreover, these phase-specific differences in DNA damage checkpoint dynamics are associated with corresponding differences in the proportions of irreversibly arrested cells. Thus, the precise timing of DNA damage determines the sensitivity, rate of cell cycle progression, and functional outcomes for damaged cells. These findings should inform our understanding of cell fate decisions after treatment with common cancer therapeutics such as genotoxins or spindle poisons, which often target cells in a specific cell cycle phase.

scholarly journals Critical role of SMG7 in activation of the ATR-CHK1 axis in response to genotoxic stress

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Ho ◽  
Hongwei Luo ◽  
Wei Zhu ◽  
Yi Tang
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Dna Replication ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Genotoxic Stress ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Essential Step

AbstractCHK1 is a crucial DNA damage checkpoint kinase and its activation, which requires ATR and RAD17, leads to inhibition of DNA replication and cell cycle progression. Recently, we reported that SMG7 stabilizes and activates p53 to induce G1 arrest upon DNA damage; here we show that SMG7 plays a critical role in the activation of the ATR-CHK1 axis. Following genotoxic stress, SMG7-null cells exhibit deficient ATR signaling, indicated by the attenuated phosphorylation of CHK1 and RPA32, and importantly, unhindered DNA replication and fork progression. Through its 14-3-3 domain, SMG7 interacts directly with the Ser635-phosphorylated RAD17 and promotes chromatin retention of the 9-1-1 complex by the RAD17-RFC, an essential step to CHK1 activation. Furthermore, through maintenance of CHK1 activity, SMG7 controls G2-M transition and facilitates orderly cell cycle progression during recovery from replication stress. Taken together, our data reveals SMG7 as an indispensable signaling component in the ATR-CHK1 pathway during genotoxic stress response.

scholarly journals The G(2) DNA damage checkpoint targets both Wee1 and Cdc25

2000 ◽  
Vol 113 (10) ◽  
pp. 1727-1736 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Raleigh ◽  
M.J. O'Connell
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽  
Checkpoint Control ◽  
Down Regulation ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Cycle Arrest ◽  
Checkpoint Pathway

The onset of mitosis is controlled by the cyclin dependent kinase Cdc2p. Cdc2p activity is controlled through the balance of phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of tyrosine-15 (Y15) by the Wee1p kinase and Cdc25p phosphatase. In the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, detection of DNA damage in G(2) activates a checkpoint that prevents entry into mitosis through the maintenance of Y15 phosphorylation of Cdc2p, thus ensuring DNA repair precedes chromosome segregation. The protein kinase Chk1p is the endpoint of this checkpoint pathway. We have previously reported that overexpression of Chk1p causes a wee1(+)-dependent G(2) arrest, and this or irradiation leads to hyperphosphorylation of Wee1p. Moreover, Chk1p directly phosphorylates Wee1p in vitro. These data suggested that Wee1p is a key target of Chk1p action in checkpoint control. However, cells lacking wee1(+) are checkpoint proficient and sustained Chk1p overexpression arrests cell cycle progression independently of Wee1p. Therefore, up-regulation of Wee1p alone cannot enforce a checkpoint arrest. Chk1p can also phosphorylate Cdc25p in vitro. These phosphorylation events are thought to promote the interaction with 14–3-3 proteins the cytoplasmic retention of the 14–3-3/Cdc25p complexes. However, we show here that the G(2) DNA damage checkpoint is intact in cells that regulate mitotic entry independently of Cdc25p. Further, these cells are still sensitive to Chk1p-mediated arrest, and so down-regulation of Cdc25p is also insufficient to regulate checkpoint arrest. Conversely, inactivation of both wee1(+) and cdc25(+)abolishes checkpoint control. We also show that activation of the G(2) DNA damage checkpoint induces a transient increase in Wee1p levels. We conclude that the G(2) DNA damage checkpoint simultaneously signals via both up-regulation of Wee1p and down-regulation of Cdc25p, thus providing a double-lock mechanism to ensure cell cycle arrest and genomic stability.

scholarly journals Identification of Genes Controlling Growth Polarity in the Budding Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae: A Possible Role of N-Glycosylation and Involvement of the Exocyst Complex

Genetics ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 147 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Mondésert ◽  
D J Clarke ◽  
S I Reed
Keyword(s):  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Cell Surface ◽  
Actin Cytoskeleton ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Cellular Systems ◽  
Surface Growth ◽  
Polarized Growth ◽  
Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Cycle Progression

The regulation of secretion polarity and cell surface growth during the cell cycle is critical for proper morphogenesis and viability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A shift from isotropic cell surface growth to polarized growth is necessary for bud emergence and a repolarization of secretion to the bud neck is necessary for cell separation. Although alterations in the actin cytoskeleton have been implicated in these changes in secretion polarity, clearly other cellular systems involved in secretion are likely to be targets of cell cycle regulation. To investigate mechanisms coupling cell cycle progression to changes in secretion polarity in parallel with and downstream of regulation of actin polarization, we implemented a screen for mutants defective specifically in polarized growth but with normal actin cytoskeleton structure. These mutants fell into three classes: those partially defective in N-glycosylation, those linked to specific defects in the exocyst, and a third class neither defective in glycosylation nor linked to the exocyst. These results raise the possibility that changes in N-linked glycosylation may be involved in a signal linking cell cycle progression and secretion polarity and that the exocyst may have regulatory functions in coupling the secretory machinery to the polarized actin cytoskeleton.

scholarly journals A Role for the Replication Proteins PCNA, RF-C, Polymerase ε and Cdc45 in Transcriptional Silencing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Genetics ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 153 (3) ◽  
pp. 1171-1182
Author(s):  
Ann E Ehrenhofer-Murray ◽  
Rohinton T Kamakaka ◽  
Jasper Rine
Keyword(s):  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Origin Recognition Complex ◽  
Transcriptional Silencing ◽  
Replication Timing ◽  
Replication Proteins ◽  
Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Cycle Progression

Abstract Transcriptional silencing in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae may be linked to DNA replication and cell cycle progression. In this study, we have surveyed the effect of 41 mutations in genes with a role in replication, the cell cycle, and DNA repair on silencing at HMR. Mutations in PCNA (POL30), RF-C (CDC44), polymerase ε (POL2, DPB2, DPB11), and CDC45 were found to restore silencing at a mutant HMR silencer allele that was still a chromosomal origin of replication. Replication timing experiments indicated that the mutant HMR locus was replicated late in S-phase, at the same time as wild-type HMR. Restoration of silencing by PCNA and CDC45 mutations required the origin recognition complex binding site of the HMR-E silencer. Several models for the precise role of these replication proteins in silencing are discussed.

scholarly journals Crosstalk between Plk1, p53, cell cycle, and G2/M DNA damage checkpoint regulation in cancer: computational modeling and analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongwoon Jung ◽  
Pavel Kraikivski ◽  
Sajad Shafiekhani ◽  
Scott S. Terhune ◽  
Ranjan K. Dash
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cancer Cells ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Cancer Cell ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Cycle Arrest ◽  
Gene Perturbations

AbstractDifferent cancer cell lines can have varying responses to the same perturbations or stressful conditions. Cancer cells that have DNA damage checkpoint-related mutations are often more sensitive to gene perturbations including altered Plk1 and p53 activities than cancer cells without these mutations. The perturbations often induce a cell cycle arrest in the former cancer, whereas they only delay the cell cycle progression in the latter cancer. To study crosstalk between Plk1, p53, and G2/M DNA damage checkpoint leading to differential cell cycle regulations, we developed a computational model by extending our recently developed model of mitotic cell cycle and including these key interactions. We have used the model to analyze the cancer cell cycle progression under various gene perturbations including Plk1-depletion conditions. We also analyzed mutations and perturbations in approximately 1800 different cell lines available in the Cancer Dependency Map and grouped lines by genes that are represented in our model. Our model successfully explained phenotypes of various cancer cell lines under different gene perturbations. Several sensitivity analysis approaches were used to identify the range of key parameter values that lead to the cell cycle arrest in cancer cells. Our resulting model can be used to predict the effect of potential treatments targeting key mitotic and DNA damage checkpoint regulators on cell cycle progression of different types of cancer cells.

scholarly journals Computational Model of G2-M DNA Damage Checkpoint Regulation in Normal and p53-null Cancer Cells

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongwoon Jung ◽  
Pavel Kraikivski
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Computational Model ◽  
Cell Cycle Arrest ◽  
Cancer Cells ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Checkpoint ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Normal Cells ◽  
Cycle Arrest

AbstractCancer and normal cells can respond differently to the same stressful conditions. Their dynamic responses under normal and stressful conditions are governed by complex molecular regulatory networks. We developed a computational model of G2-M DNA damage checkpoint regulation to study normal and cancer cell cycle progression under normal and stressful conditions. Our model is successful in explaining cancer cell cycle arrest in conditions when some cell cycle and DNA damage checkpoint regulators are inhibited, whereas the same conditions only delay entry into mitosis in normal cells. We use the model to explain known phenotypes of gene deletion mutants and predict phenotypes of yet uncharacterized mutants in normal and cancer cells. We also use sensitive analyses to identify the ranges of model parameter values that lead to the cell cycle arrest in cancer cells. Our results can be used to predict the effect of a potential treatment on cell cycle progression of normal and cancer cells.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document