DNA damage inhibits proteolysis of the B-type cyclin Clb5 in S. cerevisiae

1997 ◽  
Vol 110 (15) ◽  
pp. 1813-1820
Author(s):  
D. Germain ◽  
J. Hendley ◽  
B. Futcher
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Tyrosine Phosphorylation ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Cycle Phase ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Ubiquitin Pathway ◽  
Cyclin Dependent Kinases ◽  
Transition Points ◽  
Checkpoint Genes

Cell cycle progression is mediated by waves of specific cyclin dependent kinases (CDKs) in all eukaryotes. Cyclins are degraded by the ubiquitin pathway of proteolysis. The recent identification of several components of the cyclin proteolysis machinery has highlighted both the importance of proteolysis at multiple transition points in the cell cycle and the involvement of other substrates degraded by the same machinery. In this study, we have investigated the effects of DNA damage on the cyclin proteolytic machinery in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We find that the half-life of the B-type cyclin Clb5 is markedly increased following DNA damage while that of G1 cyclins is not. This effect is independent of cell cycle phase. Clb5 turnover requires p34CDC28 activity. Stabilisation of Clb5 correlates with an increase in tyrosine phosphorylation of p34CDC28, but stabilisation does not require this tyrosine phosphorylation. The stabilisation is independent of the checkpoint genes Mec1 and Rad53. These observations establish a new link between the regulation of proteolysis and DNA damage.

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 Regulation of Cell Division in Bacteria by Monitoring Genome Integrity and DNA Replication Status

2019 ◽  
Vol 202 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Burby ◽  
Lyle A. Simmons
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Division ◽  
Dna Replication ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Genome Instability ◽  
Sos Response ◽  
Bacterial Cells ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Content Type

ABSTRACT All organisms regulate cell cycle progression by coordinating cell division with DNA replication status. In eukaryotes, DNA damage or problems with replication fork progression induce the DNA damage response (DDR), causing cyclin-dependent kinases to remain active, preventing further cell cycle progression until replication and repair are complete. In bacteria, cell division is coordinated with chromosome segregation, preventing cell division ring formation over the nucleoid in a process termed nucleoid occlusion. In addition to nucleoid occlusion, bacteria induce the SOS response after replication forks encounter DNA damage or impediments that slow or block their progression. During SOS induction, Escherichia coli expresses a cytoplasmic protein, SulA, that inhibits cell division by directly binding FtsZ. After the SOS response is turned off, SulA is degraded by Lon protease, allowing for cell division to resume. Recently, it has become clear that SulA is restricted to bacteria closely related to E. coli and that most bacteria enforce the DNA damage checkpoint by expressing a small integral membrane protein. Resumption of cell division is then mediated by membrane-bound proteases that cleave the cell division inhibitor. Further, many bacterial cells have mechanisms to inhibit cell division that are regulated independently from the canonical LexA-mediated SOS response. In this review, we discuss several pathways used by bacteria to prevent cell division from occurring when genome instability is detected or before the chromosome has been fully replicated and segregated.

scholarly journals STAU2 protein level is controlled by caspases and the CHK1 pathway and regulates cell cycle progression in the non-transformed hTERT-RPE1 cells

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionel Condé ◽  
Yulemi Gonzalez Quesada ◽  
Florence Bonnet-Magnaval ◽  
Rémy Beaujois ◽  
Luc DesGroseillers
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Cell Proliferation ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Posttranscriptional Regulation ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Rna Binding ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression ◽  
Cycle Progression

AbstractBackgroundStaufen2 (STAU2) is an RNA binding protein involved in the posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression. In neurons, STAU2 is required to maintain the balance between differentiation and proliferation of neural stem cells through asymmetric cell division. However, the importance of controlling STAU2 expression for cell cycle progression is not clear in non-neuronal dividing cells. We recently showed that STAU2 transcription is inhibited in response to DNA-damage due to E2F1 displacement from theSTAU2gene promoter. We now study the regulation of STAU2 steady-state levels in unstressed cells and its consequence for cell proliferation.ResultsCRISPR/Cas9-mediated and RNAi-dependent STAU2 depletion in the non-transformed hTERT-RPE1 cells both facilitate cell proliferation suggesting that STAU2 expression influences pathway(s) linked to cell cycle controls. Such effects are not observed in the CRISPR STAU2-KO cancer HCT116 cells nor in the STAU2-RNAi-depleted HeLa cells. Interestingly, a physiological decrease in the steady-state level of STAU2 is controlled by caspases. This effect of peptidases is counterbalanced by the activity of the CHK1 pathway suggesting that STAU2 partial degradation/stabilization fines tune cell cycle progression in unstressed cells. A large-scale proteomic analysis using STAU2/biotinylase fusion protein identifies known STAU2 interactors involved in RNA translation, localization, splicing, or decay confirming the role of STAU2 in the posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression. In addition, several proteins found in the nucleolus, including proteins of the ribosome biogenesis pathway and of the DNA damage response, are found in close proximity to STAU2. Strikingly, many of these proteins are linked to the kinase CHK1 pathway, reinforcing the link between STAU2 functions and the CHK1 pathway. Indeed, inhibition of the CHK1 pathway for 4 h dissociates STAU2 from proteins involved in translation and RNA metabolism.ConclusionsThese results indicate that STAU2 is involved in pathway(s) that control(s) cell proliferation, likely via mechanisms of posttranscriptional regulation, ribonucleoprotein complex assembly, genome integrity and/or checkpoint controls. The mechanism by which STAU2 regulates cell growth likely involves caspases and the kinase CHK1 pathway.

scholarly journals Regulation of DNA-damage responses and cell-cycle progression by the chromatin remodelling factor CHD4

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (18) ◽  
pp. 3130-3139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie E Polo ◽  
Abderrahmane Kaidi ◽  
Linda Baskcomb ◽  
Yaron Galanty ◽  
Stephen P Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Chromatin Remodelling ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Responses

scholarly journals Human POLD1 modulates cell cycle progression and DNA damage repair

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Song ◽  
Ping Hong ◽  
Chengeng Liu ◽  
Yueqi Zhang ◽  
Jinling Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Damage Repair

scholarly journals Murine Norovirus Replication Induces G0/G1Cell Cycle Arrest in Asynchronously Growing Cells

2015 ◽  
Vol 89 (11) ◽  
pp. 6057-6066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Davies ◽  
Chris M. Brown ◽  
Dana Westphal ◽  
Joanna M. Ward ◽  
Vernon K. Ward
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Viral Replication ◽  
Host Cell ◽  
Virus Replication ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Cycle Phase ◽  
Murine Norovirus ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Infected Cells ◽  
Favorable Conditions

ABSTRACTMany viruses replicate most efficiently in specific phases of the cell cycle, establishing or exploiting favorable conditions for viral replication, although little is known about the relationship between caliciviruses and the cell cycle. Microarray and Western blot analysis of murine norovirus 1 (MNV-1)-infected cells showed changes in cyclin transcript and protein levels indicative of a G1phase arrest. Cell cycle analysis confirmed that MNV-1 infection caused a prolonging of the G1phase and an accumulation of cells in the G0/G1phase. The accumulation in G0/G1phase was caused by a reduction in cell cycle progression through the G1/S restriction point, with MNV-1-infected cells released from a G1arrest showing reduced cell cycle progression compared to mock-infected cells. MNV-1 replication was compared in populations of cells synchronized into specific cell cycle phases and in asynchronously growing cells. Cells actively progressing through the G1phase had a 2-fold or higher increase in virus progeny and capsid protein expression over cells in other phases of the cell cycle or in unsynchronized populations. These findings suggest that MNV-1 infection leads to prolonging of the G1phase and a reduction in S phase entry in host cells, establishing favorable conditions for viral protein production and viral replication. There is limited information on the interactions between noroviruses and the cell cycle, and this observation of increased replication in the G1phase may be representative of other members of theCaliciviridae.IMPORTANCENoroviruses have proven recalcitrant to growth in cell culture, limiting our understanding of the interaction between these viruses and the infected cell. In this study, we used the cell-culturable MNV-1 to show that infection of murine macrophages affects the G1/S cell cycle phase transition, leading to an arrest in cell cycle progression and an accumulation of cells in the G0/G1phase. Furthermore, we show that MNV replication is enhanced in the G1phase compared to other stages of the cell cycle. Manipulating the cell cycle or adapting to cell cycle responses of the host cell is a mechanism to enhance virus replication. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a norovirus interacting with the host cell cycle and exploiting the favorable conditions of the G0/G1phase for RNA virus replication.

scholarly journals The tail that wags the dog: p12, the smallest subunit of DNA polymerase δ, is degraded by ubiquitin ligases in response to DNA damage and during cell cycle progression

Cell Cycle ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marietta Y.W.T. Lee ◽  
Sufang Zhang ◽  
Szu Hua Lin ◽  
Xiaoxiao Wang ◽  
Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Dna Polymerase ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Ubiquitin Ligases ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Polymerase Δ

scholarly journals Loss of MCU prevents mitochondrial fusion in G1-S phase and blocks cell cycle progression and proliferation

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (579) ◽  
pp. eaav1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olha M. Koval ◽  
Emily K. Nguyen ◽  
Velarchana Santhana ◽  
Trevor P. Fidler ◽  
Sara C. Sebag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Cell Proliferation ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Mitochondrial Fission ◽  
Mitochondrial Fusion ◽  
Cycle Phase ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Mitochondrial Fragmentation ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Regulatory Circuit

The role of the mitochondrial Ca2+uniporter (MCU) in physiologic cell proliferation remains to be defined. Here, we demonstrated that the MCU was required to match mitochondrial function to metabolic demands during the cell cycle. During the G1-S transition (the cycle phase with the highest mitochondrial ATP output), mitochondrial fusion, oxygen consumption, and Ca2+uptake increased in wild-type cells but not in cells lacking MCU. In proliferating wild-type control cells, the addition of the growth factors promoted the activation of the Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent kinase II (CaMKII) and the phosphorylation of the mitochondrial fission factor Drp1 at Ser616. The lack of the MCU was associated with baseline activation of CaMKII, mitochondrial fragmentation due to increased Drp1 phosphorylation, and impaired mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis. The mitochondrial fission/fusion ratio and proliferation in MCU-deficient cells recovered after MCU restoration or inhibition of mitochondrial fragmentation or of CaMKII in the cytosol. Our data highlight a key function for the MCU in mitochondrial adaptation to the metabolic demands during cell cycle progression. Cytosolic CaMKII and the MCU participate in a regulatory circuit, whereby mitochondrial Ca2+uptake affects cell proliferation through Drp1.

scholarly journals Babam2 Regulates Cell Cycle Progression and Pluripotency in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells as Revealed by Induced DNA Damage

Biomedicines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 397
Author(s):  
Cheuk Yiu Tenny Chung ◽  
Paulisally Hau Yi Lo ◽  
Kenneth Ka Ho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Stem Cells ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Gamma Irradiation ◽  
Cellular Senescence ◽  
Cell Cycle Regulation ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Embryonic Stem ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Cycle Regulation

BRISC and BRCA1-A complex member 2 (Babam2) plays an essential role in promoting cell cycle progression and preventing cellular senescence. Babam2-deficient fibroblasts show proliferation defect and premature senescence compared with their wild-type (WT) counterpart. Pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) are known to have unlimited cell proliferation and self-renewal capability without entering cellular senescence. Therefore, studying the role of Babam2 in ESCs would enable us to understand the mechanism of Babam2 in cellular aging, cell cycle regulation, and pluripotency in ESCs. For this study, we generated Babam2 knockout (Babam2−/−) mESCs to investigate the function of Babam2 in mESCs. We demonstrated that the loss of Babam2 in mESCs leads to abnormal G1 phase retention in response to DNA damage induced by gamma irradiation or doxorubicin treatments. Key cell cycle regulators, CDC25A and CDK2, were found to be degraded in Babam2−/− mESCs following gamma irradiation. In addition, Babam2−/− mESCs expressed p53 strongly and significantly longer than in control mESCs, where p53 inhibited Nanog expression and G1/S cell cycle progression. The combined effects significantly reduced developmental pluripotency in Babam2−/− mESCs. In summary, Babam2 maintains cell cycle regulation and pluripotency in mESCs in response to induced DNA damage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document