Nuclear chromosome locations dictate segregation error frequencies.
Aneuploidy
CRISPR-Associated Protein 9
Cell Line
Cell Line, Tumor
Chromosome Positioning
Chromosome Segregation
/ genetics
Chromosomes
/ genetics
Chromothripsis
Growth and Development
/ genetics
Humans
Interphase
Micronuclei, Chromosome-Defective
Mitosis
Neoplasms
/ genetics
Organoids
/ cytology
Sequence Analysis, DNA
Single-Cell Analysis
Journal
Nature
ISSN: 1476-4687
Titre abrégé: Nature
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0410462
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
30
09
2021
accepted:
07
06
2022
pubmed:
14
7
2022
medline:
23
7
2022
entrez:
13
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Chromosome segregation errors during cell divisions generate aneuploidies and micronuclei, which can undergo extensive chromosomal rearrangements such as chromothripsis
Identifiants
pubmed: 35831506
doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04938-0
pii: 10.1038/s41586-022-04938-0
pmc: PMC9300461
doi:
Substances chimiques
CRISPR-Associated Protein 9
EC 3.1.-
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
604-609Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 855158
Pays : International
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
van Jaarsveld, R. H. & Kops, G. J. P. L. Difference makers: chromosomal instability versus aneuploidy in cancer. Trends Cancer 2, 561–571 (2016).
pubmed: 28741487
doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2016.09.003
Compton, D. A. Mechanisms of aneuploidy. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 23, 109–113 (2011).
pubmed: 20810265
pmcid: 2997176
doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2010.08.007
Zhang, C. Z. et al. Chromothripsis from DNA damage in micronuclei. Nature 522, 179–184 (2015).
pubmed: 26017310
pmcid: 4742237
doi: 10.1038/nature14493
Ly, P. et al. Chromosome segregation errors generate a diverse spectrum of simple and complex genomic rearrangements. Nat. Genet. 51, 705–715 (2019).
pubmed: 30833795
pmcid: 6441390
doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0360-8
Shoshani, O. et al. Chromothripsis drives the evolution of gene amplification in cancer. Nature 591, 137–141 (2021).
pubmed: 33361815
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03064-z
Davoli, T. et al. Cumulative haploinsufficiency and triplosensitivity drive aneuploidy patterns and shape the cancer genome. Cell 155, 948–962 (2013).
pubmed: 24183448
pmcid: 3891052
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.10.011
Knouse, K. A., Davoli, T., Elledge, S. J. & Amon, A. Aneuploidy in cancer: seq-ing answers to old questions. Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 1, 335–354 (2017).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-042616-072231
Bolhaqueiro, A. C. F. et al. Ongoing chromosomal instability and karyotype evolution in human colorectal cancer organoids. Nat. Genet. 51, 824–834 (2019).
pubmed: 31036964
doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0399-6
Cortés-Ciriano, I. et al. Comprehensive analysis of chromothripsis in 2,658 human cancers using whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Genet. 52, 331–341 (2020).
pubmed: 32025003
pmcid: 7058534
doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0576-7
McCoy, R. C. et al. Evidence of selection against complex mitotic-origin aneuploidy during preimplantation development. PLoS Genet. 348, 235–238 (2015).
Ben-David, U. & Amon, A. Context is everything: aneuploidy in cancer. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 44–62 (2020).
pubmed: 31548659
doi: 10.1038/s41576-019-0171-x
Nagaoka, S. I., Hassold, T. J. & Hunt, P. A. Human aneuploidy: mechanisms and new insights into an age-old problem. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 493–504 (2012).
pubmed: 22705668
pmcid: 3551553
doi: 10.1038/nrg3245
Vasudevan, A. et al. Aneuploidy as a promoter and suppressor of malignant growth. Nat. Rev. Cancer 21, 89–103 (2021).
pubmed: 33432169
doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-00321-1
Bakhoum, S. F., Genovese, G. & Compton, D. A. Deviant kinetochore microtubule dynamics underlie chromosomal instability. Curr. Biol. 19, 1937–1942 (2009).
pubmed: 19879145
pmcid: 2787757
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.055
Ertych, N. et al. Increased microtubule assembly rates influence chromosomal instability in colorectal cancer cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 779–791 (2014).
pubmed: 24976383
pmcid: 4389786
doi: 10.1038/ncb2994
Solomon, D. A. et al. Mutational inactivation of STAG2 causes aneuploidy in human cancer. Science 333, 1039–1043 (2011).
pubmed: 21852505
pmcid: 3374335
doi: 10.1126/science.1203619
Vázquez-Diez, C., Paim, L. M. G. & FitzHarris, G. Cell-size-independent spindle checkpoint failure underlies chromosome segregation error in mouse embryos. Curr. Biol. 29, 865–873 (2019).
pubmed: 30773364
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.12.042
Hatch, E. M., Fischer, A. H., Deerinck, T. J. & Hetzer, M. W. Catastrophic nuclear envelope collapse in cancer cell micronuclei. Cell 154, 47–60 (2013).
pubmed: 23827674
pmcid: 3749778
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.007
Muzny, D. M. et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487, 330–337 (2012).
doi: 10.1038/nature11252
Duijf, P., Schultz, N. & Benezra, R. Cancer cells preferentially lose small chromosomes. Int. J. Cancer 132, 2316–2326 (2013).
pubmed: 23124507
doi: 10.1002/ijc.27924
Taylor, A. M. et al. Genomic and functional approaches to understanding cancer aneuploidy. Cancer Cell 33, 676–689 (2018).
pubmed: 29622463
pmcid: 6028190
doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.007
Turajlic, S. et al. Tracking cancer evolution reveals constrained routes to metastases: TRACERx Renal. Cell 173, 581–594 (2018).
pubmed: 29656895
pmcid: 5938365
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.057
Li, Y. et al. Patterns of somatic structural variation in human cancer genomes. Nature 578, 112–121 (2020).
pubmed: 32025012
pmcid: 7025897
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1913-9
Gruhn, J. R. et al. Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science 1469, 1466–1469 (2019).
doi: 10.1126/science.aav7321
Drpic, D. et al. Chromosome segregation is biased by kinetochore size. Curr. Biol. 28, 1344–1356 (2018).
pubmed: 29706521
pmcid: 5954971
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.023
Worrall, J. T. et al. Non-random mis-segregation of human chromosomes. Cell Rep. 23, 3366–3380 (2018).
pubmed: 29898405
pmcid: 6019738
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.047
Dumont, M. et al. Human chromosome‐specific aneuploidy is influenced by DNA‐dependent centromeric features. EMBO J. 39, e102924 (2020).
Koch, A., Maia, A., Janssen, A. & Medema, R. H. Molecular basis underlying resistance to Mps1/TTK inhibitors. Oncogene 35, 2518–2528 (2016).
pubmed: 26364596
doi: 10.1038/onc.2015.319
Bakhoum, S. F. & Compton, D. A. Chromosomal instability and cancer: a complex relationship with therapeutic potential. J. Clin. Invest. 122, 1138–1143 (2012).
pubmed: 22466654
pmcid: 3314464
doi: 10.1172/JCI59954
Ditchfield, C. et al. Aurora B couples chromosome alignment with anaphase by targeting BubR1, Mad2, and Cenp-E to kinetochores. J. Cell Biol. 161, 267–280 (2003).
pubmed: 12719470
pmcid: 2172902
doi: 10.1083/jcb.200208091
Hauf, S. et al. The small molecule Hesperadin reveals a role for Aurora B in correcting kinetochore-microtubule attachment and in maintaining the spindle assembly checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 161, 281–294 (2003).
pubmed: 12707311
pmcid: 2172906
doi: 10.1083/jcb.200208092
Dick, A. E. & Gerlich, D. W. Kinetic framework of spindle assembly checkpoint signalling. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 1370–1377 (2013).
pubmed: 24096243
pmcid: 4067996
doi: 10.1038/ncb2842
Avlasevich, S. L., Bryce, S. M., Cairns, S. E. & Dertinger, S. D. In vitro micronucleus scoring by flow cytometry: differential staining of micronuclei versus apoptotic and necrotic chromatin enhances assay reliability. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 47, 56–66 (2006).
pubmed: 16180205
doi: 10.1002/em.20170
Bochtler, T. et al. Micronucleus formation in human cancer cells is biased by chromosome size. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 58, 392–395 (2019).
pubmed: 30411433
doi: 10.1002/gcc.22707
Bridger, J. M., Boyle, S., Kill, I. R. & Bickmore, W. A. Re-modelling of nuclear architecture in quiescent and senescent human fibroblasts. Curr. Biol. 10, 149–152 (2000).
pubmed: 10679329
doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00312-2
Croft, J. A. et al. Differences in the localization and morphology of chromosomes in the human nucleus. J. Cell Biol. 145, 1119–1131 (1999).
pubmed: 10366586
pmcid: 2133153
doi: 10.1083/jcb.145.6.1119
Bolzer, A. et al. Three-dimensional maps of all chromosomes in human male fibroblast nuclei and prometaphase rosettes. PLoS Biol. 3, 0826–0842 (2005).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030157
Lenain, C. et al. Massive reshaping of genome-nuclear lamina interactions during oncogene-induced senescence. Genome Res. 27, 1634–1644 (2017).
pubmed: 28916540
pmcid: 5630027
doi: 10.1101/gr.225763.117
Meuleman, W. et al. Constitutive nuclear lamina-genome interactions are highly conserved and associated with A/T-rich sequence. Genome Res. 23, 270–280 (2013).
pubmed: 23124521
pmcid: 3561868
doi: 10.1101/gr.141028.112
Sobecki, M. et al. MadID, a versatile approach to map protein-DNA interactions, highlights telomere-nuclear envelope contact sites in human cells. Cell Rep. 25, 2891–2903 (2018).
pubmed: 30517874
pmcid: 6293860
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.027
Chen, Y. et al. Mapping 3D genome organization relative to nuclear compartments using TSA-Seq as a cytological ruler. J. Cell Biol. 217, 4025–4048 (2018).
pubmed: 30154186
pmcid: 6219710
doi: 10.1083/jcb.201807108
Kind, J. et al. Single-cell dynamics of genome-nuclear lamina interactions. Cell 153, 178–192 (2013).
pubmed: 23523135
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.028
Stanyte, R. et al. Dynamics of sister chromatid resolution during cell cycle progression. J. Cell Biol. 217, 1985–2004 (2018).
pubmed: 29695489
pmcid: 5987726
doi: 10.1083/jcb.201801157
Finlan, L. E. et al. Recruitment to the nuclear periphery can alter expression of genes in human cells. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000039 (2008).
Barisic, M., Aguiar, P., Geley, S. & Maiato, H. Kinetochore motors drive congression of peripheral polar chromosomes by overcoming random arm-ejection forces. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 1249–1256 (2014).
pubmed: 25383660
doi: 10.1038/ncb3060
McCoy, R. C. Mosaicism in preimplantation human embryos: when chromosomal abnormalities are the norm. Trends Genet. 33, 448–463 (2017).
pubmed: 28457629
pmcid: 5484399
doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2017.04.001
Itoh, G. et al. Lateral attachment of kinetochores to microtubules is enriched in prometaphase rosette and facilitates chromosome alignment and bi-orientation establishment. Sci. Rep. 8, 3888 (2018).
Daniela, C., Lisa, A. & Cameron, E. D. S. Anaphase spindle mechanics prevent mis-segregation of merotelically oriented chromosomes. Curr. Biol. 14, 2149–2155 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.029
Vukušic, K. & Tolic, I. M. Polar chromosomes—challenges of a risky path. Cells 11, 1531 (2022).
Parada, L. A., Mcqueen, P. G. & Misteli, T. Tissue-specific spatial organization of genomes. Genome Biol. 5, R44 (2004).
Sato, T. et al. Long-term expansion of epithelial organoids from human colon, adenoma, adenocarcinoma, and Barrett’s epithelium. Gastroenterology 141, 1762–1772 (2011).
pubmed: 21889923
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.07.050
Buđa, R., Vukušić, K. & Tolić, I. M. Dissection and characterization of microtubule bundles in the mitotic spindle using femtosecond laser ablation. Methods Cell. Biol. 139, 81–101 (2017).
pubmed: 28215341
doi: 10.1016/bs.mcb.2016.11.007
Vukušić, K., Ponjavić, I., Buđa, R., Risteski, P. & Tolić, I. M. Microtubule-sliding modules based on kinesins EG5 and PRC1-dependent KIF4A drive human spindle elongation. Dev. Cell 56, 1253–1267 (2021).
pubmed: 33910056
pmcid: 8098747
doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2021.04.005
de Luca, K. L. & Kind, J. in Capturing Chromosome Conformation: Methods and Protocols(eds. Bodega, B. & Lanzuolo, C.) 159–172 (Springer US, 2021).
Kind, J. et al. Genome-wide maps of nuclear lamina interactions in single human cells. Cell 163, 134–147 (2015).
pubmed: 26365489
pmcid: 4583798
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.040