4.5 Review

Aneuploidy and chromosomal instability: a vicious cycle driving cellular evolution and cancer genome chaos

期刊

CANCER AND METASTASIS REVIEWS
卷 32, 期 3-4, 页码 377-389

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10555-013-9436-6

关键词

Aneuploidy; Chromosomal instability; Mitotic checkpoint; Gene dosage

类别

资金

  1. NIH [RO1-GM059964]
  2. American Cancer Society [PF-12-129-01-CCG]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aneuploidy and chromosomal instability frequently co-exist, and aneuploidy is recognized as a direct outcome of chromosomal instability. However, chromosomal instability is widely viewed as a consequence of mutations in genes involved in DNA replication, chromosome segregation, and cell cycle checkpoints. Telomere attrition and presence of extra centrosomes have also been recognized as causative for errors in genomic transmission. Here, we examine recent studies suggesting that aneuploidy itself can be responsible for the procreation of chromosomal instability. Evidence from both yeast and mammalian experimental models suggests that changes in chromosome copy number can cause changes in dosage of the products of many genes located on aneuploid chromosomes. These effects on gene expression can alter the balanced stoichiometry of various protein complexes, causing perturbations of their functions. Therefore, phenotypic consequences of aneuploidy will include chromosomal instability if the balanced stoichiometry of protein machineries responsible for accurate chromosome segregation is affected enough to perturb the function. The degree of chromosomal instability will depend on specific karyotypic changes, which may be due to dosage imbalances of specific genes or lack of scaling between chromosome segregation load and the capacity of the mitotic system. We propose that the relationship between aneuploidy and chromosomal instability can be envisioned as a vicious cycle, where aneuploidy potentiates chromosomal instability leading to further karyotype diversity in the affected population.

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

4.5
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