Diverse system stresses: common mechanisms of chromosome fragmentation

The Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.
Cell Death & Disease (Impact Factor: 5.18). 06/2011; 2(6):e178. DOI: 10.1038/cddis.2011.60
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Chromosome fragmentation (C-Frag) is a newly identified MCD (mitotic cell death), distinct from apoptosis and MC (mitotic catastrophe). As different molecular mechanisms can induce C-Frag, we hypothesize that the general mechanism of its induction is a system response to cellular stress. A clear link between C-Frag and diverse system stresses generated from an array of molecular mechanisms is shown. Centrosome amplification, which is also linked to diverse mechanisms of stress, is shown to occur in association with C-Frag. This led to a new model showing that diverse stresses induce common, MCD. Specifically, different cellular stresses target the integral chromosomal machinery, leading to system instability and triggering of MCD by C-Frag. This model of stress-induced cell death is also applicable to other types of cell death. The current study solves the previously confusing relationship between the diverse molecular mechanisms of chromosome pulverization, suggesting that incomplete C-Frag could serve as the initial event responsible for forms of genome chaos including chromothripsis. In addition, multiple cell death types are shown to coexist with C-Frag and it is more dominant than apoptosis at lower drug concentrations. Together, this study suggests that cell death is a diverse group of highly heterogeneous events that are linked to stress-induced system instability and evolutionary potential.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Centromere Protein E (CENP-E) is a highly elongated kinesin that transports pole-proximal chromosomes during congression in prometaphase. During metaphase it facilitates kinetochore microtubule end-on attachment required to achieve and maintain chromosome alignment. In vitro CENP-E can walk processively along microtubule tracks and follow both growing and shrinking microtubule plus ends. Neither the CENP-E-dependent transport along microtubules nor its tip-tracking activity require the unusually long coiled-coil stalk of CENP-E. The biological role for the CENP-E stalk has now been identified through creation of "bonsai" CENP-E with significantly shortened stalk but wild type motor and tail domains. We demonstrate that Bonsai CENP-E fails to bind microtubules in vitro unless a cargo is contemporaneously bound via its C-terminal tail. In contrast, both Full length and Truncated CENP-E that has no stalk and tail exhibit robust motility with and without cargo binding, highlighting the importance of CENP-E stalk for its activity. Correspondingly, kinetochore attachment to microtubule ends is shown to be disrupted only in cells whose CENP-E has a shortened stalk, thereby producing chromosome misalignment in metaphase and lagging chromosomes during anaphase. Altogether, these findings establish an unexpected role of CENP-E elongated stalk in ensuring stability of kinetochore-microtubule attachments during chromosome congression and segregation.
    Molecular Biology of the Cell 08/2014; 25(15):2272-2281. DOI:10.1091/mbc.E14-01-0698 · 4.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Replication is a process which provides two copies of genetic material to a mother cell that are essential for passing complete genetic information to daughter cells. Despite the extremely precise control of this process, regulation of replication can be impaired. This may trigger e.g. re-replication which leads to an increase in the total DNA content in a cell and, depending on the intensity, may result in gene amplification, genomic instability or apoptosis. Both replication and re-replication require pre-replication complex assembly, licensing, firing and initiation of DNA synthesis. Implications of each process in a cell are very different and all such possibilities are under intensive research because in both processes the same protein apparatus is used to carry out DNA synthesis. Therefore this article is meant to show the consequences of the same mechanism underlying two different processes.
    Biochimie 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.biochi.2014.10.026 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The basis for the gene mutation theory of cancer that dominates current molecular cancer research consists of: the belief that gene-level aberrations such as mutations are the main cause of cancers, the concept that stepwise gene mutation accumulation drives cancer progression, and the hallmarks of cancer. The research community swiftly embraced the hallmarks of cancer, as such synthesis has supported the notions that common cancer genes are responsible for the majority of cancers and the complexity of cancer can be dissected into simplified molecular principles. The gene/pathway classification based on individual hallmarks provides explanation for the large number of diverse gene mutations, which is in contrast to the original estimation that only a handful of gene mutations would be discovered. Further, these hallmarks have been highly influential as they also provide the rationale and research direction for continued gene-based cancer research. While the molecular knowledge of these hallmarks is drastically increasing, the clinical implication remains limited, as cancer dynamics cannot be summarized by a few isolated/fixed molecular principles. Furthermore, the highly heterogeneous genetic signature of cancers, including massive stochastic genome alterations, challenges the utility of continuously studying each individual gene mutation under the framework of these hallmarks. It is therefore necessary to re-evaluate the concept of cancer hallmarks through the lens of cancer evolution. In this analysis, the evolutionary basis for the hallmarks of cancer will be discussed and the evolutionary mechanism of cancer suggested by the genome theory will be employed to unify the diverse molecular mechanisms of cancer. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    International Journal of Cancer 05/2015; 136(9). DOI:10.1002/ijc.29031 · 6.20 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014