Losada, A. Cohesin regulation: fashionable ways to wear a ring. Chromosoma 116, 321-329
Spanish National Cancer Research Center, Melchor Fernández Almagro 3, Madrid, 28029, Spain. Chromosoma
(Impact Factor: 4.6).
09/2007; 116(4):321-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00412-007-0104-x
Cohesin is a multiprotein complex, conserved from yeast to humans, that mediates sister chromatid cohesion. Its ring-shaped structure first suggested that it may perform its task by embracing the sister chromatids. The interaction of cohesin with chromatin is tightly regulated throughout the cell cycle, and several proteins contribute to cohesin loading and mobilization along DNA, establishment of cohesin-mediated cohesion, and removal of cohesin during mitosis. Recent studies suggest that distinct cohesin populations exist in different chromosomal regions and have particular requirements in their dynamic interaction with chromatin. In this review, I briefly summarize these studies and discuss their implications for current and future models of cohesin behavior.
Available from: Kirk James McManus
- "Although the exact mechanism (i.e. structure) by which cohesin tethers the sister chromatids is unclear, it is believed to form a ‘ring-like’ structure that encircles the two DNA strands . During the initial stages of mitosis (prophase to metaphase), cohesion is first lost along the length of the chromosome arms but is maintained/protected at the centromeres through a Shugoshin-dependent mechanism . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Chromosome instability manifests as an abnormal chromosome complement and is a pathogenic event in cancer. Although a correlation between abnormal chromosome numbers and cancer exist, the underlying mechanisms that cause chromosome instability are poorly understood. Recent data suggests that aberrant sister chromatid cohesion causes chromosome instability and thus contributes to the development of cancer. Cohesion normally functions by tethering nascently synthesized chromatids together to prevent premature segregation and thus chromosome instability. Although the prevalence of aberrant cohesion has been reported for some solid tumors, its prevalence within liquid tumors is unknown. Consequently, the current study was undertaken to evaluate aberrant cohesion within Hodgkin lymphoma, a lymphoid malignancy that frequently exhibits chromosome instability.
Using established cytogenetic techniques, the prevalence of chromosome instability and achniques, the prevalence of chromosome instability and aberrant cohesion was examined within mitotic spreads generated from five commonly employed Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines (L-1236, KM-H2, L-428, L-540 and HDLM-2) and a lymphocyte control. Indirect immunofluorescence and Western blot analyses were performed to evaluate the localization and expression of six critical proteins involved in the regulation of sister chromatid cohesion.
We first confirmed that all five Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines exhibited chromosome instability relative to the lymphocyte control. We then determined that each Hodgkin lymphoma cell line exhibited cohesion defects that were subsequently classified into mild, moderate or severe categories. Surprisingly, ~50% of the mitotic spreads generated from L-540 and HDLM-2 harbored cohesion defects. To gain mechanistic insight into the underlying cause of the aberrant cohesion we examined the localization and expression of six critical proteins involved in cohesion. Although all proteins produced the expected nuclear localization pattern, striking differences in RAD21 expression was observed: RAD21 expression was lowest in L-540 and highest within HDLM-2.
We conclude that aberrant cohesion is a common feature of all five Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines evaluated. We further conclude that aberrant RAD21 expression is a strong candidate to underlie aberrant cohesion, chromosome instability and contribute to the development of the disease. Our findings support a growing body of evidence suggesting that cohesion defects and aberrant RAD21 expression are pathogenic events that contribute to tumor development.
BMC Cancer 08/2013; 13(1):391. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-13-391 · 3.36 Impact Factor
Available from: Marta Jurek
- "Several topological models of sister chromatid cohesion have been proposed (for review: ). The most popular one-ring model assumes that the complex surrounds the replicated sister chromatids, with SMC1 and SMC3 creating a V-shaped heterodimer bridged by SCC1 ; . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Human SA/STAG proteins, homologues of the yeast Irr1/Scc3 cohesin, are the least studied constituents of the sister chromatid cohesion complex crucial for proper chromosome segregation. The two SA paralogues, SA1 and SA2, show some specificity towards the chromosome region they stabilize, and SA2, but not SA1, has been shown to participate in transcriptional regulation as well. The molecular basis of this functional divergence is unknown.
In silico analysis indicates numerous putative nuclear localization (NLS) and export (NES) signals in the SA proteins, suggesting the possibility of their nucleocytoplasmic shuttling. We studied the functionality of those putative signals by expressing fluorescently tagged SA1 and SA2 in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Only the N-terminal NLS turned out to be functional in SA1. In contrast, the SA2 protein has at least two functional NLS and also two functional NES. Depending on the balance between these opposing signals, SA2 resides in the nucleus or is distributed throughout the cell. Validation of the above conclusions in HeLa cells confirmed that the same N-terminal NLS of SA1 is functional in those cells. In contrast, in SA2 the principal NLS functioning in HeLa cells is different from that identified in yeast and is localized to the C-terminus.
This is the first demonstration of the possibility of non-nuclear localization of an SA protein. The reported difference in the organization between the two SA homologues may also be relevant to their partially divergent functions. The mechanisms determining subcellular localization of cohesins are only partially conserved between yeast and human cells.
PLoS ONE 06/2012; 7(6):e38740. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0038740 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Available from: Hamid Galehdari
- "Mutations in the SMC3 gene on chromosome 10 have also been reported to cause CdLS . The SMC1A and SMC3 genes encode the two mitotic cohesion subunits . Cohesin plays a role in sister chromatid cohesion during mitosis and meiosis, in DNA repair and in gene expression . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cornelia de Lange syndrome is characterized by dysmorphic facial features, hirsutism, severe growth and developmental delay. Germline mutations in the NIPBL gene with an autosomal dominant pattern and in the SMC1A gene with an X-linked pattern have been identified in Cornelia de Lange syndrome.
A two-month-old Iranian boy who showed multiple congenital anomalies was referred to the genetic center of a welfare organization in southwest Iran. He was the second child of a non-consanguineous marriage, born after full term with normal delivery. His birth weight was 3110 g, his length was 46 cm and his head circumference was 30 cm. Both parents were clinically asymptomatic, with no positive history of any deformity in their respective families.
Sequencing of the NIPBL gene from our patient revealed a single-base deletion of thymidine in exon 10 (c.516delT). This mutation presumably results in premature termination at codon 526. We did not observe this mutation in the parents of our patient with Cornelia de Lange syndrome. The results presented here enlarge the spectrum of NIPBL gene mutations associated with Cornelia de Lange syndrome by identifying a novel de novo mutation in an Iranian patient with Cornelia de Lange syndrome and further support the hypothesis that NIPBL mutations are disease-causing mutations leading to Cornelia de Lange syndrome.
Journal of Medical Case Reports 06/2011; 5:242. DOI:10.1186/1752-1947-5-242
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.