4.6 Article

Re-replication of a Centromere Induces Chromosomal Instability and Aneuploidy

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005039

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of California Cancer Research Coordinating Committee
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [RO1 GM059704]
  3. University of California Cancer Research Coordinating Committee Graduate Division Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The faithful inheritance of chromosomes during cell division requires their precise replication and segregation. Numerous mechanisms ensure that each of these fundamental cell cycle events is performed with a high degree of fidelity. The fidelity of chromosomal replication is maintained in part by re-replication controls that ensure there are no more than two copies of every genomic segment to distribute to the two daughter cells. This control is enforced by inhibiting replication initiation proteins from reinitiating replication origins within a single cell cycle. Here we show in Saccharomyces cerevisiae that re-replication control is important for the fidelity of chromosome segregation. In particular, we demonstrate that transient re-replication of centromeric DNA due to disruption of re-replication control greatly induces aneuploidy of the re-replicated chromosome. Some of this aneuploidy arises from missegregation of both sister chromatids to one daughter cell. Aneuploidy can also arise from the generation of an extra sister chromatid via homologous recombination, suggesting that centromeric re-replication can trigger breakage and repair events that expand chromosome number without causing chromosomal rearrangements. Thus, we have identified a potential new non-mitotic source of aneuploidy that can arise from a defect in re-replication control. Given the emerging connections between the deregulation of replication initiation proteins and oncogenesis, this finding may be relevant to the aneuploidy that is prevalent in cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据