4.7 Article

Hypoxia-induced alterations of G2 checkpoint regulators

Journal

MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages 764-773

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molonc.2015.12.015

Keywords

Hypoxia; G2 checkpoint; DNA damage; Ionizing radiation; Genome stability

Categories

Funding

  1. Norwegian Cancer Society
  2. Simon Fougner Hartmann Foundation
  3. South-Eastern Norway Health Authority

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hypoxia promotes an aggressive tumor phenotype with increased genomic instability, partially due to downregulation of DNA repair pathways. However, genome stability is also surveilled by cell cycle checkpoints. An important issue is therefore whether hypoxia also can influence the DNA damage-induced cell cycle checkpoints. Here, we show that hypoxia (24 h 0.2% O-2) alters the expression of several G2 checkpoint regulators, as examined by microarray gene expression analysis and immunoblotting of U2OS cells. While some of the changes reflected hypoxia-induced inhibition of cell cycle progression, the levels of several G2 checkpoint regulators, in particular Cyclin B, were reduced in G2 phase cells after hypoxic exposure, as shown by flow cytometric barcoding analysis of individual cells. These effects were accompanied by decreased phosphorylation of a Cyclin dependent kinase (CDK) target in G2 phase cells after hypoxia, suggesting decreased CDK activity. Furthermore, cells pre-exposed to hypoxia showed increased G2 checkpoint arrest upon treatment with ionizing radiation. Similar results were found following other hypoxic conditions (similar to 0.03% O-2 20 h and 0.2% O-2 72 h). These results demonstrate that the DNA damage-induced G2 checkpoint can be altered as a consequence of hypoxia, and we propose that such alterations may influence the genome stability of hypoxic tumors. (C) 2016 Federation of European Biochemical Societies. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available