4.8 Article

Ionizing radiation induces frequent Translocations with delayed replication and condensation

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 22, 页码 8231-8238

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0879

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA56383, R01-CA97021] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Certain chromosome rearrangements display a significant delay in replication timing that is associated with a delay in mitotic chromosome condensation. Chromosomes with delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation participate in frequent secondary rearrangements, indicating that cells with delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation display chromosomal instability. In this report, we show that exposing cell lines or primary blood lymphocytes to ionizing radiation results in chromosomes with the delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation phenotype, and that the delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation phenotype occurs predominantly on chromosome translocations. In addition, exposing mice to ionizing radiation also induces cells with delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation chromosomes that persist for as long as 2 years. Cells containing delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation chromosomes frequently display hyperdiploid karyotypes, indicating that delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation is associated with aneuploidy. Finally, using a chromosome engineering strategy, we show that only a subset of chromosome translocations displays delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation. Our results indicate that specific chromosome rearrangements result in the generation of the delay in replication timing/delay in mitotic chromosome condensation phenotype and that this phenotype occurs frequently in cells exposed to ionizing radiation both in vitro and in vivo.

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

4.8
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