» Articles » PMID: 11917116

Suppression of Genome Instability by Redundant S-phase Checkpoint Pathways in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2002 Mar 28
PMID 11917116
Citations 77
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Cancer cells show increased genome rearrangements, although it is unclear what defects cause these rearrangements. Previous studies have implicated the Saccharomyces cerevisiae replication checkpoint in the suppression of spontaneous genome rearrangements. In the present study, low doses of methyl methane sulfonate that activate the intra-S checkpoint but not the G1 or G2 DNA damage checkpoints were found to cause increased accumulation of genome rearrangements in both wild-type strains and to an even greater extent in strains containing mutations causing defects in the intra-S checkpoint. The rearrangements were primarily translocations or events resulting in deletion of a portion of a chromosome arm along with the addition of a new telomere. Combinations of mutations causing individual defects in the RAD24 or SGS1 branches of the intra-S checkpoint or the replication checkpoint showed synergistic interactions with regard to the spontaneous genome instability rate. PDS1 and the RAD50-MRE11-XRS2 complex were found to be important members of all the S-phase checkpoints in suppressing genome instability, whereas RAD53 only seemed to play a role in the intra-S checkpoints. Combinations of mutations that seem to result in inactivation of the S-phase checkpoints and critical effectors resulted in as much as 12,000-14,000-fold increases in the genome instability rate. These data support the view that spontaneous genome rearrangements result from DNA replication errors and indicate that there is a high degree of redundancy among the checkpoints that act in S phase to suppress such genome instability.

Citing Articles

Signification and Application of Mutator and Antimutator Phenotype-Induced Genetic Variations in Evolutionary Adaptation and Cancer Therapeutics.

Chung W J Microbiol. 2023; 61(12):1013-1024.

PMID: 38100001 DOI: 10.1007/s12275-023-00091-z.


Flexible Attachment and Detachment of Centromeres and Telomeres to and from Chromosomes.

Kuse R, Ishii K Biomolecules. 2023; 13(6).

PMID: 37371596 PMC: 10296020. DOI: 10.3390/biom13061016.


Mec1-independent activation of the Rad53 checkpoint kinase revealed by quantitative analysis of protein localization dynamics.

Ho B, Sanford E, Loll-Krippleber R, Torres N, Smolka M, Brown G Elife. 2023; 12.

PMID: 37278514 PMC: 10259420. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.82483.


A rapidly reversible mutation generates subclonal genetic diversity and unstable drug resistance.

Dan L, Li Y, Chen S, Liu J, Wang Y, Li F Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(43).

PMID: 34675074 PMC: 8639346. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2019060118.


The Swr1 chromatin-remodeling complex prevents genome instability induced by replication fork progression defects.

Srivatsan A, Li B, Szakal B, Branzei D, Putnam C, Kolodner R Nat Commun. 2018; 9(1):3680.

PMID: 30206225 PMC: 6134005. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06131-2.


References
1.
Sun Z, Fay D, Marini F, Foiani M, Stern D . Spk1/Rad53 is regulated by Mec1-dependent protein phosphorylation in DNA replication and damage checkpoint pathways. Genes Dev. 1996; 10(4):395-406. DOI: 10.1101/gad.10.4.395. View

2.
Yamamoto A, Guacci V, Koshland D . Pds1p is required for faithful execution of anaphase in the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Cell Biol. 1996; 133(1):85-97. PMC: 2120769. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.133.1.85. View

3.
Myung K, Datta A, Chen C, Kolodner R . SGS1, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologue of BLM and WRN, suppresses genome instability and homeologous recombination. Nat Genet. 2001; 27(1):113-6. DOI: 10.1038/83673. View

4.
Khanna K, Jackson S . DNA double-strand breaks: signaling, repair and the cancer connection. Nat Genet. 2001; 27(3):247-54. DOI: 10.1038/85798. View

5.
Myung K, Datta A, Kolodner R . Suppression of spontaneous chromosomal rearrangements by S phase checkpoint functions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cell. 2001; 104(3):397-408. DOI: 10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00227-6. View