3.9 Article

Wee1 kinase alters cyclin E/Cdk2 and promotes apoptosis during the early embryonic development of Xenopus laevis

期刊

BMC DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-213X-7-119

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM59688, R01 GM059688, R01 GM076112, GM076112] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The cell cycles of the Xenopus laevis embryo undergo extensive remodeling beginning at the midblastula transition (MBT) of early development. Cell divisions 2-12 consist of rapid cleavages without gap phases or cell cycle checkpoints. Some remodeling events depend upon a critical nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio, whereas others rely on a maternal timer controlled by cyclin E/Cdk2 activity. One key event that occurs at the MBT is the degradation of maternal Wee1, a negative regulator of cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk) activity. Results: In order to assess the effect of Wee1 on embryonic cell cycle remodeling, Wee1 mRNA was injected into one-cell stage embryos. Overexpression of Wee1 caused cell cycle delay and tyrosine phosphorylation of Cdks prior to the MBT. Furthermore, overexpression of Wee1 disrupted key developmental events that normally occur at the MBT such as the degradation of Cdc25A, cyclin E, and Wee1. Overexpression of Wee1 also resulted in post-MBT apoptosis, tyrosine phosphorylation of Cdks and persistence of cyclin E/Cdk2 activity. To determine whether Cdk2 was required specifically for the survival of the embryo, the cyclin E/Cdk2 inhibitor,. 34-Xic1, was injected in embryos and also shown to induce apoptosis. Conclusion: Taken together, these data suggest that Wee1 triggers apoptosis through the disruption of the cyclin E/Cdk2 timer. In contrast to Wee1 and. 34-Xic1, altering Cdks by expression of Chk1 and Chk2 kinases blocks rather than promotes apoptosis and causes premature degradation of Cdc25A. Collectively, these data implicate Cdc25A as a key player in the developmentally regulated program of apoptosis in X. laevis embryos.

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

3.9
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