Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (5)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Ultra-fine DNA bridges

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
14 pages, 2557 KB  
Article
MicroRNA-449a Inhibits Triple Negative Breast Cancer by Disturbing DNA Repair and Chromatid Separation
by Beate Vajen, Rahul Bhowmick, Luisa Greiwe, Vera Schäffer, Marlies Eilers, Thea Reinkens, Amelie Stalke, Gunnar Schmidt, Jan Fiedler, Thomas Thum, David S. DeLuca, Ian D. Hickson, Brigitte Schlegelberger, Thomas Illig and Britta Skawran
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(9), 5131; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23095131 - 4 May 2022
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 3597
Abstract
Chromosomal instability (CIN) can be a driver of tumorigenesis but is also a promising therapeutic target for cancer associated with poor prognosis such as triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The treatment of TNBC cells with defects in DNA repair genes with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase [...] Read more.
Chromosomal instability (CIN) can be a driver of tumorigenesis but is also a promising therapeutic target for cancer associated with poor prognosis such as triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The treatment of TNBC cells with defects in DNA repair genes with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) massively increases CIN, resulting in apoptosis. Here, we identified a previously unknown role of microRNA-449a in CIN. The transfection of TNBC cell lines HCC38, HCC1937 and HCC1395 with microRNA-449a mimics led to induced apoptosis, reduced cell proliferation, and reduced expression of genes in homology directed repair (HDR) in microarray analyses. EME1 was identified as a new target gene by immunoprecipitation and luciferase assays. The reduced expression of EME1 led to an increased frequency of ultrafine bridges, 53BP1 foci, and micronuclei. The induced expression of microRNA-449a elevated CIN beyond tolerable levels and induced apoptosis in TNBC cell lines by two different mechanisms: (I) promoting chromatid mis-segregation by targeting endonuclease EME1 and (II) inhibiting HDR by downregulating key players of the HDR network such as E2F3, BIRC5, BRCA2 and RAD51. The ectopic expression of microRNA-449a enhanced the toxic effect of PARPi in cells with pathogenic germline BRCA1 variants. The newly identified role makes microRNA-449a an interesting therapeutic target for TNBC. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Regulation by Non-coding RNAs)
Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 1992 KB  
Review
Structural Chromosome Instability: Types, Origins, Consequences, and Therapeutic Opportunities
by Sebastián Omar Siri, Julieta Martino and Vanesa Gottifredi
Cancers 2021, 13(12), 3056; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13123056 - 19 Jun 2021
Cited by 51 | Viewed by 9574
Abstract
Chromosomal instability (CIN) refers to an increased rate of acquisition of numerical and structural changes in chromosomes and is considered an enabling characteristic of tumors. Given its role as a facilitator of genomic changes, CIN is increasingly being considered as a possible therapeutic [...] Read more.
Chromosomal instability (CIN) refers to an increased rate of acquisition of numerical and structural changes in chromosomes and is considered an enabling characteristic of tumors. Given its role as a facilitator of genomic changes, CIN is increasingly being considered as a possible therapeutic target, raising the question of which variables may convert CIN into an ally instead of an enemy during cancer treatment. This review discusses the origins of structural chromosome abnormalities and the cellular mechanisms that prevent and resolve them, as well as how different CIN phenotypes relate to each other. We discuss the possible fates of cells containing structural CIN, focusing on how a few cell duplication cycles suffice to induce profound CIN-mediated genome alterations. Because such alterations can promote tumor adaptation to treatment, we discuss currently proposed strategies to either avoid CIN or enhance CIN to a level that is no longer compatible with cell survival. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue DNA Damage Response Targeting: Challenges and Opportunities)
Show Figures

Figure 1

28 pages, 868 KB  
Review
Working on Genomic Stability: From the S-Phase to Mitosis
by Sara Ovejero, Avelino Bueno and María P. Sacristán
Genes 2020, 11(2), 225; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11020225 - 20 Feb 2020
Cited by 42 | Viewed by 10243
Abstract
Fidelity in chromosome duplication and segregation is indispensable for maintaining genomic stability and the perpetuation of life. Challenges to genome integrity jeopardize cell survival and are at the root of different types of pathologies, such as cancer. The following three main sources of [...] Read more.
Fidelity in chromosome duplication and segregation is indispensable for maintaining genomic stability and the perpetuation of life. Challenges to genome integrity jeopardize cell survival and are at the root of different types of pathologies, such as cancer. The following three main sources of genomic instability exist: DNA damage, replicative stress, and chromosome segregation defects. In response to these challenges, eukaryotic cells have evolved control mechanisms, also known as checkpoint systems, which sense under-replicated or damaged DNA and activate specialized DNA repair machineries. Cells make use of these checkpoints throughout interphase to shield genome integrity before mitosis. Later on, when the cells enter into mitosis, the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) is activated and remains active until the chromosomes are properly attached to the spindle apparatus to ensure an equal segregation among daughter cells. All of these processes are tightly interconnected and under strict regulation in the context of the cell division cycle. The chromosomal instability underlying cancer pathogenesis has recently emerged as a major source for understanding the mitotic processes that helps to safeguard genome integrity. Here, we review the special interconnection between the S-phase and mitosis in the presence of under-replicated DNA regions. Furthermore, we discuss what is known about the DNA damage response activated in mitosis that preserves chromosomal integrity. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chromosome Segregation Defects in the Origin of Genomic Instability)
Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 1167 KB  
Review
Structure-Specific Endonucleases and the Resolution of Chromosome Underreplication
by Benoît Falquet and Ulrich Rass
Genes 2019, 10(3), 232; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10030232 - 19 Mar 2019
Cited by 28 | Viewed by 6892
Abstract
Complete genome duplication in every cell cycle is fundamental for genome stability and cell survival. However, chromosome replication is frequently challenged by obstacles that impede DNA replication fork (RF) progression, which subsequently causes replication stress (RS). Cells have evolved pathways of RF protection [...] Read more.
Complete genome duplication in every cell cycle is fundamental for genome stability and cell survival. However, chromosome replication is frequently challenged by obstacles that impede DNA replication fork (RF) progression, which subsequently causes replication stress (RS). Cells have evolved pathways of RF protection and restart that mitigate the consequences of RS and promote the completion of DNA synthesis prior to mitotic chromosome segregation. If there is entry into mitosis with underreplicated chromosomes, this results in sister-chromatid entanglements, chromosome breakage and rearrangements and aneuploidy in daughter cells. Here, we focus on the resolution of persistent replication intermediates by the structure-specific endonucleases (SSEs) MUS81, SLX1-SLX4 and GEN1. Their actions and a recently discovered pathway of mitotic DNA repair synthesis have emerged as important facilitators of replication completion and sister chromatid detachment in mitosis. As RS is induced by oncogene activation and is a common feature of cancer cells, any advances in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms related to chromosome underreplication have important biomedical implications. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chromosome Replication and Genome Integrity)
Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 2625 KB  
Review
The Unresolved Problem of DNA Bridging
by María Fernández-Casañas and Kok-Lung Chan
Genes 2018, 9(12), 623; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes9120623 - 12 Dec 2018
Cited by 36 | Viewed by 9344
Abstract
Accurate duplication and transmission of identical genetic information into offspring cells lies at the heart of a cell division cycle. During the last stage of cellular division, namely mitosis, the fully replicated DNA molecules are condensed into X-shaped chromosomes, followed by a chromosome [...] Read more.
Accurate duplication and transmission of identical genetic information into offspring cells lies at the heart of a cell division cycle. During the last stage of cellular division, namely mitosis, the fully replicated DNA molecules are condensed into X-shaped chromosomes, followed by a chromosome separation process called sister chromatid disjunction. This process allows for the equal partition of genetic material into two newly born daughter cells. However, emerging evidence has shown that faithful chromosome segregation is challenged by the presence of persistent DNA intertwining structures generated during DNA replication and repair, which manifest as so-called ultra-fine DNA bridges (UFBs) during anaphase. Undoubtedly, failure to disentangle DNA linkages poses a severe threat to mitosis and genome integrity. This review will summarize the possible causes of DNA bridges, particularly sister DNA inter-linkage structures, in an attempt to explain how they may be processed and how they influence faithful chromosome segregation and the maintenance of genome stability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chromosome Replication and Genome Integrity)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop