Literature DB >> 22575700

Disease severity in a mouse model of ataxia telangiectasia is modulated by the DNA damage checkpoint gene Hus1.

Gabriel Balmus1, Min Zhu, Sucheta Mukherjee, Amy M Lyndaker, Kelly R Hume, Jaesung Lee, Mark L Riccio, Anthony P Reeves, Nathan B Sutter, Drew M Noden, Rachel M Peters, Robert S Weiss.   

Abstract

The human genomic instability syndrome ataxia telangiectasia (A-T), caused by mutations in the gene encoding the DNA damage checkpoint kinase ATM, is characterized by multisystem defects including neurodegeneration, immunodeficiency and increased cancer predisposition. ATM is central to a pathway that responds to double-strand DNA breaks, whereas the related kinase ATR leads a parallel signaling cascade that is activated by replication stress. To dissect the physiological relationship between the ATM and ATR pathways, we generated mice defective for both. Because complete ATR pathway inactivation causes embryonic lethality, we weakened the ATR mechanism to different degrees by impairing HUS1, a member of the 911 complex that is required for efficient ATR signaling. Notably, simultaneous ATM and HUS1 defects caused synthetic lethality. Atm/Hus1 double-mutant embryos showed widespread apoptosis and died mid-gestationally. Despite the underlying DNA damage checkpoint defects, increased DNA damage signaling was observed, as evidenced by H2AX phosphorylation and p53 accumulation. A less severe Hus1 defect together with Atm loss resulted in partial embryonic lethality, with the surviving double-mutant mice showing synergistic increases in genomic instability and specific developmental defects, including dwarfism, craniofacial abnormalities and brachymesophalangy, phenotypes that are observed in several human genomic instability disorders. In addition to identifying tissue-specific consequences of checkpoint dysfunction, these data highlight a robust, cooperative configuration for the mammalian DNA damage response network and further suggest HUS1 and related genes in the ATR pathway as candidate modifiers of disease severity in A-T patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22575700      PMCID: PMC3392115          DOI: 10.1093/hmg/dds173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mol Genet        ISSN: 0964-6906            Impact factor:   6.150


  55 in total

Review 1.  Williams-Beuren syndrome: unraveling the mysteries of a microdeletion disorder.

Authors:  L R Osborne
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.797

Review 2.  Checking on DNA damage in S phase.

Authors:  Jiri Bartek; Claudia Lukas; Jiri Lukas
Journal:  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 94.444

3.  Genomic instability and aging-like phenotype in the absence of mammalian SIRT6.

Authors:  Raul Mostoslavsky; Katrin F Chua; David B Lombard; Wendy W Pang; Miriam R Fischer; Lionel Gellon; Pingfang Liu; Gustavo Mostoslavsky; Sonia Franco; Michael M Murphy; Kevin D Mills; Parin Patel; Joyce T Hsu; Andrew L Hong; Ethan Ford; Hwei-Ling Cheng; Caitlin Kennedy; Nomeli Nunez; Roderick Bronson; David Frendewey; Wojtek Auerbach; David Valenzuela; Margaret Karow; Michael O Hottiger; Stephen Hursting; J Carl Barrett; Leonard Guarente; Richard Mulligan; Bruce Demple; George D Yancopoulos; Frederick W Alt
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2006-01-27       Impact factor: 41.582

4.  DNA distress: just ring 9-1-1.

Authors:  Michael Kemp; Aziz Sancar
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Roles of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1 in mouse postnatal growth.

Authors:  F Lupu; J D Terwilliger; K Lee; G V Segre; A Efstratiadis
Journal:  Dev Biol       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 3.582

6.  Genotype-phenotype relationships in ataxia-telangiectasia and variants.

Authors:  S Gilad; L Chessa; R Khosravi; P Russell; Y Galanty; M Piane; R A Gatti; T J Jorgensen; Y Shiloh; A Bar-Shira
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Phenotype-based identification of mouse chromosome instability mutants.

Authors:  Naoko Shima; Suzanne A Hartford; Ted Duffy; Lawriston A Wilson; Kerry J Schimenti; John C Schimenti
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Targeted disruption of ATM leads to growth retardation, chromosomal fragmentation during meiosis, immune defects, and thymic lymphoma.

Authors:  Y Xu; T Ashley; E E Brainerd; R T Bronson; M S Meyn; D Baltimore
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 11.361

Review 9.  Nijmegen breakage syndrome: clinical manifestation of defective response to DNA double-strand breaks.

Authors:  Martin Digweed; Karl Sperling
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2004 Aug-Sep

Review 10.  DNA-PK: the means to justify the ends?

Authors:  Katheryn Meek; Van Dang; Susan P Lees-Miller
Journal:  Adv Immunol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.543

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR kinases.

Authors:  Alexandre Maréchal; Lee Zou
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 10.005

2.  Clamping down on mammalian meiosis.

Authors:  Amy M Lyndaker; Ana Vasileva; Debra J Wolgemuth; Robert S Weiss; Howard B Lieberman
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 4.534

3.  Oocyte Elimination Through DNA Damage Signaling from CHK1/CHK2 to p53 and p63.

Authors:  Vera D Rinaldi; Jordana C Bloom; John C Schimenti
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 4.  DNA damage response genes and the development of cancer metastasis.

Authors:  Constantinos G Broustas; Howard B Lieberman
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  ATM Modulates Nuclear Mechanics by Regulating Lamin A Levels.

Authors:  Pragya Shah; Connor W McGuigan; Svea Cheng; Claire Vanpouille-Box; Sandra Demaria; Robert S Weiss; Jan Lammerding
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2022-06-01

6.  HUS1 regulates in vivo responses to genotoxic chemotherapies.

Authors:  G Balmus; P X Lim; A Oswald; K R Hume; A Cassano; J Pierre; A Hill; W Huang; A August; T Stokol; T Southard; R S Weiss
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 9.867

7.  A high-throughput in vivo micronucleus assay for genome instability screening in mice.

Authors:  Gabriel Balmus; Natasha A Karp; Bee Ling Ng; Stephen P Jackson; David J Adams; Rebecca E McIntyre
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 13.491

8.  Role of DNA damage response pathways in preventing carcinogenesis caused by intrinsic replication stress.

Authors:  M D Wallace; T L Southard; K J Schimenti; J C Schimenti
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 9.867

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.