Literature DB >> 20104581

DNA damage-induced degradation of Cdc25A does not lead to inhibition of Cdk2 activity in mouse embryonic stem cells.

Zuzana Koledova1, Leona Raskova Kafkova, Alwin Krämer, Vladimir Divoky.   

Abstract

Cyclin-dependent kinase two (Cdk2) is the major regulator of the G1/S transition and the target of an activated G1 checkpoint in somatic cells. In the presence of DNA damage, Cdk2 kinase activity is abrogated by a deficiency of Cdc25A phosphatase, which is marked by Chk1/Chk2 for proteasomal degradation. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) lack a G1 checkpoint response. In this study, we analyzed the G1 checkpoint pathways in mouse ESCs (mESCs) in the presence of DNA double-strand breaks evoked by ionizing radiation (IR). We show that checkpoint pathways, which operate during G1 phase in somatic cells, are activated in mESCs after IR; however, Cdk2 activity is not abolished. We demonstrate that Cdc25A is degraded in mESCs, but this degradation is not regulated by Chk1 and Chk2 kinases because they are sequestered to the centrosome. Instead, Cdc25A degradation is governed by glycogen synthase kinase-3beta kinase. We hypothesize that Cdc25A degradation does not inhibit Cdk2 activity because a considerable proportion of Cdk2 molecules localize to the cytoplasm and centrosomes in mESCs, where they may be sheltered from regulation by nuclear Cdc25A. Finally, we show that a high Cdk2 activity, which is irresponsive to DNA damage, is the driving force of the rapid escape of mESCs from G1 phase after DNA damage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20104581     DOI: 10.1002/stem.311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stem Cells        ISSN: 1066-5099            Impact factor:   6.277


  6 in total

Review 1.  Centrosomes in the DNA damage response--the hub outside the centre.

Authors:  Lisa I Mullee; Ciaran G Morrison
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.239

Review 2.  Mechanisms maintaining genomic integrity in embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells.

Authors:  Elisia D Tichy
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2011-07-18

3.  DNA repair in human pluripotent stem cells is distinct from that in non-pluripotent human cells.

Authors:  Li Z Luo; Sailesh Gopalakrishna-Pillai; Stephanie L Nay; Sang-Won Park; Steven E Bates; Xianmin Zeng; Linda E Iverson; Timothy R O'Connor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Comparison of the early response of human embryonic stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem cells to ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Wiktoria Maria Suchorska; Ewelina Augustyniak; Magdalena Łukjanow
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.952

5.  Radiation Response of Murine Embryonic Stem Cells.

Authors:  Christine E Hellweg; Vaibhav Shinde; Sureshkumar Perumal Srinivasan; Margit Henry; Tamara Rotshteyn; Christa Baumstark-Khan; Claudia Schmitz; Sebastian Feles; Luis F Spitta; Ruth Hemmersbach; Jürgen Hescheler; Agapios Sachinidis
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 6.600

6.  BRE/BRCC45 regulates CDC25A stability by recruiting USP7 in response to DNA damage.

Authors:  Kajal Biswas; Subha Philip; Aditya Yadav; Betty K Martin; Sandra Burkett; Vaibhav Singh; Anav Babbar; Susan Lynn North; Suhwan Chang; Shyam K Sharan
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 14.919

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.