4.7 Article

Rif1 and Exo1 regulate the genomic instability following telomere losses

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 553-562

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acel.12466

关键词

checkpoints; chromosome alterations; Exo1; PAL; Rif1; senescence; telomeres

资金

  1. BBSRC [BB/M002314/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. MRC [MR/L001284/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [1368997, BB/M002314/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Cancer Research UK [13314] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [MR/L001284/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Cancer Research UK [13314] Funding Source: Medline
  7. Medical Research Council [MR/L001284/1] Funding Source: Medline
  8. Wellcome Trust [81164] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Telomere attrition is linked to cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and aging. This is because telomere losses trigger further genomic modifications, culminating with loss of cell function and malignant transformation. However, factors regulating the transition from cells with short telomeres, to cells with profoundly altered genomes, are little understood. Here, we use budding yeast engineered to lack telomerase and other forms of telomere maintenance, to screen for such factors. We show that initially, different DNA damage checkpoint proteins act together with Exo1 and Mre11 nucleases, to inhibit proliferation of cells undergoing telomere attrition. However, this situation changes when survivors lacking telomeres emerge. Intriguingly, checkpoint pathways become tolerant to loss of telomeres in survivors, yet still alert to new DNA damage. We show that Rif1 is responsible for the checkpoint tolerance and proliferation of these survivors, and that is also important for proliferation of cells with a broken chromosome. In contrast, Exo1 drives extensive genomic modifications in survivors. Thus, the conserved proteins Rif1 and Exo1 are critical for survival and evolution of cells with lost telomeres.

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

4.7
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