Restoration of an absent G1 arrest and protection from apoptosis in embryonic stem cells after ionizing radiation.
Journal: 2004/November - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 0027-8424
Abstract:
Response to DNA damage and cell-cycle regulation differ markedly between embryonic stem (ES) cells and somatic cells. ES cells require exquisitely sensitive mechanisms to maintain genomic integrity and do so, in part, by suppressing spontaneous mutation. Spontaneous mutation frequency in somatic cells is approximately 10(-4) compared with 10(-6) for ES cells. ES cells also lack a G(1) checkpoint and are hypersensitive to IR and other DNA-damaging agents. These characteristics facilitate apoptosis and the removal of cells with a mutational burden from the population, thereby keeping the population free of damaged cells. Here, we identify signaling pathways that are compromised and lead to a natural absence of aG(1) arrest in ES cells after DNA damage. The affected pathways are those mediated by p53 and p21 and by ATM, Chk2, Cdc25A, and Cdk2. In ES cells, Chk2 kinase is not intranuclear as in somatic cells but is sequestered at centrosomes and is unavailable to phosphorylate Cdc25A phosphatase and cause its degradation. Although ectopic expression of Chk2 does not rescue the p53/p21 pathway, its expression is sufficient to allow it to phosphorylate Cdc25A, activate downstream targets, restore a G(1) arrest, and protect the cell from apoptosis.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(79)
References
(28)
Chemicals
(8)
Organisms
(2)
Processes
(4)
Anatomy
(4)
Affiliates
(1)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(40): 14443-14448

Restoration of an absent G<sub>1</sub> arrest and protection from apoptosis in embryonic stem cells after ionizing radiation

Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH 45267
To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Cell Biology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 3125 Eden Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45267. E-mail: ude.cu@koorbmats.retep.
Edited by Igor B. Dawid, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and approved August 25, 2004
Edited by Igor B. Dawid, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and approved August 25, 2004
Received 2004 Mar 1

Abstract

Response to DNA damage and cell-cycle regulation differ markedly between embryonic stem (ES) cells and somatic cells. ES cells require exquisitely sensitive mechanisms to maintain genomic integrity and do so, in part, by suppressing spontaneous mutation. Spontaneous mutation frequency in somatic cells is ≈10 compared with 10 for ES cells. ES cells also lack a G1 checkpoint and are hypersensitive to IR and other DNA-damaging agents. These characteristics facilitate apoptosis and the removal of cells with a mutational burden from the population, thereby keeping the population free of damaged cells. Here, we identify signaling pathways that are compromised and lead to a natural absence of aG1 arrest in ES cells after DNA damage. The affected pathways are those mediated by p53 and p21 and by ATM, Chk2, Cdc25A, and Cdk2. In ES cells, Chk2 kinase is not intranuclear as in somatic cells but is sequestered at centrosomes and is unavailable to phosphorylate Cdc25A phosphatase and cause its degradation. Although ectopic expression of Chk2 does not rescue the p53/p21 pathway, its expression is sufficient to allow it to phosphorylate Cdc25A, activate downstream targets, restore a G1 arrest, and protect the cell from apoptosis.

Abstract

Somatic cells have genomic requirements that are very different from those of germ cells or embryonic stem (ES) cells. Somatic cells have restricted patterns of gene expression characteristic of their specific differentiated lineages. ES cells retain the potential to produce any cell type in the body. The consequences of mutation in a somatic cell are limited to that particular cell lineage and may result in somatic diseases, e.g., cancer, but will not be passed on to the progeny. In contrast, mutation in ES cells potentially can compromise multiple cell lineages and affect the well-being of subsequent generations. Thus, ES cells have mechanisms, beyond those used by somatic cells, that protect the integrity of their genomes. One mechanism involves suppression of mutation and mitotic recombination. The spontaneous mutation frequency at the endogenous mouse adenine phophoribosyltransferase (Aprt) reporter gene in somatic cells in vivo is very high, approaching 10 (1, 2). In contrast, the mutation frequency in mouse ES cells is suppressed by about two orders of magnitude (3). A complementary mechanism to maintain genomic integrity is facilitated cell death that rids cells with a mutational burden from the population. Consistent with this proposition, mouse ES cells lack a G1 checkpoint (4, 5) and are hypersensitive to DNA damage (6, 7).

Two known pathways, both of which involve inhibition of Cdk2 activity, govern the G1/S checkpoint in somatic cells (8, 9). A rapid but transient response functions through Cdc25A degradation, whereas a p53/p21-mediated pathway supports a sustained but delayed response (10). In ES cells, p53 protein appears not to be fully functional because it is predominantly cytoplasmic and inefficiently translocated to the nucleus after DNA damage (4). Also, the Cdk inhibitors p21 and p27 are undetectable (11). In somatic cells, after DNA damage by ionizing radiation (IR), the ATM-Chk2-Cdc25A checkpoint pathway is initiated by autophosphorylation and activation of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, ATM (12, 13). Activated ATM, in turn, phosphorylates Chk2, a serine/threonine kinase that phosphorylates several effector proteins such as BRCA1 and members of the Cdc25 family of phosphatases (14-16). In unperturbed cycling somatic cells, the Cdc25A phosphatase facilitates the transition from G1 to S phase by removing the inhibitory phosphates on the Cdk2/cyclin E complex (17, 18). After ionizing irradiation, the activated Chk2 phosphorylates Cdc25A on serine 123, causing its ubiquitin-mediated degradation (19). Thus, in the absence of functional Cdc25A, Cdk2 is not dephosphorylated and the cells arrest in G1. A second, but slower, response involves activation of p53 and induction of the Cdk inhibitor, p21.

This report establishes that the absence of a G1 checkpoint after IR exposure in ES cells is due to an altered intracellular localization of Chk2 kinase. In somatic cells, Chk2 is predominantly diffuse within the nucleus. Here we show that in ES cells, Chk2 localizes to centrosomes and is unavailable to phosphorylate some of its substrates. Furthermore, the data demonstrate that a G1 arrest can be restored by ectopic expression of Chk2 and that the restoration of a G1 arrest protects cells from apoptosis. We argue that natural absence of a G1 checkpoint in ES cells is beneficial to survival of the ES cell population and the species by facilitating removal of ES cells with damaged DNA and thus maintaining a pristine cell population. Conversely, acquisition of a G1 checkpoint by ES cells and protection from apoptosis would be disadvantageous.

Click here to view.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Tischfield, J. Groden, Y. Sanchez, T. Doetschman, and E. Knudsen for valuable comments; David Johnson for providing us with the murine Chk2 cDNA; Helen Piwnica-Worms for providing the Ab to Cdc25A serine 123; and Sandra Schwemberger and George Babcock for the excellent technical help with flow cytometry. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants R01-CA90934 and U01-ES11038 and Center for Environmental Genetics Grant P30-ES06096.

Acknowledgments

Notes

This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

Abbreviations: ES, embryonic stem; IR, ionizing radiation; MEF, mouse embryonic fibroblast.

Notes
This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.
Abbreviations: ES, embryonic stem; IR, ionizing radiation; MEF, mouse embryonic fibroblast.

References

  • 1. Stambrook, P. J., Shao, C., Stockelman, M., Boivin, G., Engle, S. J. &amp; Tischfield, J. A. (1996) Environ. Mol. Mutagen.28, 471-482. [[PubMed]
  • 2. Shao, C., Deng, L., Hehegariu, O., Liang, L., Stambrook, P. J. &amp; Tischfield, J. A. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA97, 7405-7410.
  • 3. Cervantes, R. B., Stringer, J. R., Shao, C., Tischfield J. A. &amp; Stambrook, P. J. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA99, 3586-3590.
  • 4. Aladjem, M., Spike, B. T., Rodewald, L. W., Hope, T. J., Klemm, M., Jaenisch, R. &amp; Wahl, G. M. M. (1998) Curr. Biol.8, 145-155. [[PubMed]
  • 5. Hirao, A., Kong, Y.-Y., Matsuoka, S., Wakeham, A., Ruland, J., Yoshida, H., Liu, D., Elledge, S. J. &amp; Mak, T. W. (2000) Science289, 1824-1827. [PubMed]
  • 6. de Waard, H., de Wit, J., Gorgels, T. G., van den Aardweg, G., Andressoo, J. O., Vermeij, M., van Steeg, H., Hoeijimakers, J. H. &amp; van der Horst, G. T. (2003) DNA Repair2, 13-25. [[PubMed]
  • 7. Van Sloun, P. P., Jansen, J. G., Weeda, G., Mullenders, L. H., van Zeeland, A. A., Lohman, P. H. &amp; Vrieling, H. (1999) Nucleic Acids Res.27, 3276-3282.
  • 8. Elledge, S. J. (1996) Science274, 1664-1672. [[PubMed]
  • 9. Weinert, T(1998) Cell94, 555-558. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 10. Bartek, J. &amp; Lukas, J. (2001) FEBS Lett.490, 117-122. [[PubMed]
  • 11. Stead, E., White, J., Fast, R., Conn, S., Goldstone, S., Rathjen, J., Dhinggra, U., Rathjen, P., Walker, D. &amp; Dalton, S. (2002) Oncogene21, 8320-8333. [[PubMed]
  • 12. Kastan, M. B. &amp; Lim, D. S. (2000) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.1, 179-186. [[PubMed]
  • 13. Bakkenist, C. J. &amp; Kastan, M. B. (2003) Nature421, 499-506. [[PubMed]
  • 14. Bartek, J., Falck, J. &amp; Lukas, J. (2001) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.2, 877-886. [[PubMed]
  • 15. Lee, J. S., Collins, K. M., Brown, A. L., Lee, C.-H. &amp; Chung, J. H. (2000) Nature404, 201-204. [[PubMed]
  • 16. Peng, C.-Y., Graves, P. R., Thoma, R. S., Wu, Z., Show, A. S. &amp; Piwnica-Worms, H. (1997) Science277, 1501-1505. [[PubMed]
  • 17. Hoffmann, I., Draetta, G. &amp; Karsenti, E. (1994) EMBO J.13, 4302-4310.
  • 18. Jinno, S., Suto, K., Nagata, A., Igarashi, M., Kanaoka, Y., Nojima, H. &amp; Okayam, H. (1994) EMBO J.13, 1549-1556.
  • 19. Falck, J., Mailand, N., Syljuasen, R. G., Bartek, J. &amp; Lukas, J. (2001) Nature410, 842-847. [[PubMed]
  • 20. Banin, S., Moyal, L., Shieh, S., Taya, Y., Anderson, C. W., Chessa, L., Smorodinsky, N. I., Prives, C., Reiss, Y., Shiloh, Y. &amp; Ziv, Y. (1998) Science281, 1674-1677. [[PubMed]
  • 21. Canman, C. E., Lim, D. S., Cimpri, K. A., Taya, Y., Tamai, K., Sakaguchi, K., Appella, E., Kastan, M. B. &amp; Siliciano, J. D. (1998) Science281, 1677-1679. [[PubMed]
  • 22. Shieh, S. Y., Ahn, J., Tamai, K. I., Taya, Y. &amp; Prives, C. (2000) Genes Dev.14, 289-300.
  • 23. Takai, H., Naka, K., Okada, Y., Watanabe, M., Harada, N., Saito, S., Anderson, CW., Appella, E., Nakanishi, M., Suzuki, H., et al. (2002) EMBO J.21, 5195-5205. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Weill, J. C. &amp; Radman, M. (2004) Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B359, 95-98.
  • 25. Cairns, J(1975) Nature255, 197-200. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 26. Potten, C. S., Owen, G. &amp; Booth, D. (2002) J. Cell Sci.115, 2381-2388. [[PubMed]
  • 27. Merok, J. R., Lansita, J. A., Tunstead, J. R. &amp; Aherley, J. L. (2002) Cancer Res.62, 6791-6795. [[PubMed]
  • 28. Takada, S., Kelkar, A. &amp; Theurkauf, W. E. (2003) Cell113, 87-99. [[PubMed]
  • 29. Tsvetkov, L., Xu, X., Li, J. &amp; Stern, D. F. (2003) J. Biol. Chem.278, 8467-8475. [[PubMed]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.