4.8 Article

Cooperative functions of Chk1 and Chk2 reduce tumour susceptibility in vivo

Journal

EMBO JOURNAL
Volume 29, Issue 20, Pages 3558-3570

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/emboj.2010.218

Keywords

apoptosis; cancer; checkpoint; DNA damage; senescence

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan
  2. MEXT
  3. Mitsubishi Foundation
  4. Naito Memorial Foundation
  5. Toyoaki Foundation
  6. Takeda Foundation
  7. Uehara Foundation
  8. NIH, National Cancer Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the linkage of Chk1 and Chk2 to important cancer signalling suggests that these kinases have functions as tumour suppressors, neither Chk1(+/-) nor Chk2(-/-) mice show a predisposition to cancer under unperturbed conditions. We show here that Chk1(+/-) Chk2(-/-) and Chk1(+/-) Chk2(+/-) mice have a progressive cancer-prone phenotype. Deletion of a single Chk1 allele compromises G2/M checkpoint function that is not further affected by Chk2 depletion, whereas Chk1 and Chk2 cooperatively affect G1/S and intra-S phase checkpoints. Either or both of the kinases are required for DNA repair depending on the type of DNA damage. Mouse embryonic fibroblasts from the double-mutant mice showed a higher level of p53 with spontaneous DNA damage under unperturbed conditions, but failed to phosphorylate p53 at S23 and further induce p53 expression upon additional DNA damage. Neither Chk1 nor Chk2 is apparently essential for p53- or Rb-dependent oncogene-induced senescence. Our results suggest that the double Chk mutation leads to a high level of spontaneous DNA damage, but fails to eliminate cells with damaged DNA, which may ultimately increase cancer susceptibility independently of senescence. The EMBO Journal (2010) 29, 3558-3570. doi:10.1038/emboj.2010.218; Published online 10 September 2010Subject Categories: genome stability & dyanamics; molecular biology of disease

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available