4.6 Article

Combined Inactivation of Pocket Proteins and APC/CCdh1 by Cdk4/6 Controls Recovery from DNA Damage in G1 Phase

期刊

CELLS
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells10030550

关键词

cell cycle; checkpoint; CDKs; DNA damage; recovery; G1; CDK4; CDK6

资金

  1. Netherlands Genomic Initiative of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (Cancer Genomics Center.nl)
  2. Top-Go ZonMw [91210065]
  3. Oncode Institute
  4. Dutch Cancer Society [NKI 2009-4478, NKI 2011-5215, NKI2014-6787]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most Cdks are redundant for normal cell division, but become essential for S-phase entry after DNA damage in G1. In damaged cells, high levels of Cdk4/6 activity are required to inactivate pocket proteins and APC/C-Cdh1 to promote the transition from G1 to S phase.
Most Cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks) are redundant for normal cell division. Here we tested whether these redundancies are maintained during cell cycle recovery after a DNA damage-induced arrest in G1. Using non-transformed RPE-1 cells, we find that while Cdk4 and Cdk6 act redundantly during normal S-phase entry, they both become essential for S-phase entry after DNA damage in G1. We show that this is due to a greater overall dependency for Cdk4/6 activity, rather than to independent functions of either kinase. In addition, we show that inactivation of pocket proteins is sufficient to overcome the inhibitory effects of complete Cdk4/6 inhibition in otherwise unperturbed cells, but that this cannot revert the effects of Cdk4/6 inhibition in DNA damaged cultures. Indeed, we could confirm that, in addition to inactivation of pocket proteins, Cdh1-dependent anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C-Cdh1) activity needs to be inhibited to promote S-phase entry in damaged cultures. Collectively, our data indicate that DNA damage in G1 creates a unique situation where high levels of Cdk4/6 activity are required to inactivate pocket proteins and APC/C-Cdh1 to promote the transition from G1 to S phase.

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