Literature DB >> 28468908

A Slowed Cell Cycle Stabilizes the Budding Yeast Genome.

Peter J Vinton1, Ted Weinert2.   

Abstract

During cell division, aberrant DNA structures are detected by regulators called checkpoints that slow division to allow error correction. In addition to checkpoint-induced delay, it is widely assumed, though rarely shown, that merely slowing the cell cycle might allow more time for error detection and correction, thus resulting in a more stable genome. Fidelity by a slowed cell cycle might be independent of checkpoints. Here we tested the hypothesis that a slowed cell cycle stabilizes the genome, independent of checkpoints, in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae We were led to this hypothesis when we identified a gene (ERV14, an ER cargo membrane protein) that when mutated, unexpectedly stabilized the genome, as measured by three different chromosome assays. After extensive studies of pathways rendered dysfunctional in erv14 mutant cells, we are led to the inference that no particular pathway is involved in stabilization, but rather the slowed cell cycle induced by erv14 stabilized the genome. We then demonstrated that, in genetic mutations and chemical treatments unrelated to ERV14, a slowed cell cycle indeed correlates with a more stable genome, even in checkpoint-proficient cells. Data suggest a delay in G2/M may commonly stabilize the genome. We conclude that chromosome errors are more rarely made or are more readily corrected when the cell cycle is slowed (even ∼15 min longer in an ∼100-min cell cycle). And, some chromosome errors may not signal checkpoint-mediated responses, or do not sufficiently signal to allow correction, and their correction benefits from this "time checkpoint."
Copyright © 2017 by the Genetics Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy; chromosome instability; delayed cell cycle; erv14; speed

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28468908      PMCID: PMC5499188          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.116.197590

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  37 in total

1.  Response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to severe osmotic stress: evidence for a novel activation mechanism of the HOG MAP kinase pathway.

Authors:  O Van Wuytswinkel; V Reiser; M Siderius; M C Kelders; G Ammerer; H Ruis; W H Mager
Journal:  Mol Microbiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.501

2.  Targeting, disruption, replacement, and allele rescue: integrative DNA transformation in yeast.

Authors:  R Rothstein
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.600

3.  Feedback control of mitosis in budding yeast.

Authors:  R Li; A W Murray
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1991-08-09       Impact factor: 41.582

4.  Fusion of nearby inverted repeats by a replication-based mechanism leads to formation of dicentric and acentric chromosomes that cause genome instability in budding yeast.

Authors:  Andrew L Paek; Salma Kaochar; Hope Jones; Aly Elezaby; Lisa Shanks; Ted Weinert
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 11.361

5.  Controlling the growth rate of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells using the glucose analogue D-glucosamine.

Authors:  E M McGoldrick; A E Wheals
Journal:  J Gen Microbiol       Date:  1989-09

6.  Characterization of RAD9 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and evidence that its function acts posttranslationally in cell cycle arrest after DNA damage.

Authors:  T A Weinert; L H Hartwell
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 4.272

7.  CDC17: an essential gene that prevents telomere elongation in yeast.

Authors:  M J Carson; L Hartwell
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 41.582

8.  Fission yeast chk1 protein kinase links the rad checkpoint pathway to cdc2.

Authors:  N Walworth; S Davey; D Beach
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1993-05-27       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Cdc28 activates exit from mitosis in budding yeast.

Authors:  A D Rudner; K G Hardwick; A W Murray
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2000-06-26       Impact factor: 10.539

10.  Specific pathways prevent duplication-mediated genome rearrangements.

Authors:  Christopher D Putnam; Tikvah K Hayes; Richard D Kolodner
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-07-29       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  5 in total

1.  Exonuclease domain mutants of yeast DIS3 display genome instability.

Authors:  Karissa L Milbury; Biplab Paul; Azra Lari; Claire Fowler; Ben Montpetit; Peter C Stirling
Journal:  Nucleus       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.197

2.  Budding yeast complete DNA synthesis after chromosome segregation begins.

Authors:  Tsvetomira Ivanova; Michael Maier; Alsu Missarova; Céline Ziegler-Birling; Monica Dam; Mercè Gomar-Alba; Lucas B Carey; Manuel Mendoza
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 14.919

3.  Genetic landscape of T cells identifies synthetic lethality for T-ALL.

Authors:  Connor P O'Meara; Lucia Guerri; Divine-Fondzenyuy Lawir; Fernando Mateos; Mary Iconomou; Norimasa Iwanami; Cristian Soza-Ried; Katarzyna Sikora; Iliana Siamishi; Orlando Giorgetti; Sarah Peter; Michael Schorpp; Thomas Boehm
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-10-20

4.  Repression of essential cell cycle genes increases cellular fitness.

Authors:  Michelle M Conti; Julie M Ghizzoni; Ana Gil-Bona; Wen Wang; Michael Costanzo; Rui Li; Mackenzie J Flynn; Lihua Julie Zhu; Chad L Myers; Charles Boone; Brenda J Andrews; Jennifer A Benanti
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 6.020

5.  Loss of Cdc13 causes genome instability by a deficiency in replication-dependent telomere capping.

Authors:  Rachel E Langston; Dominic Palazzola; Erin Bonnell; Raymund J Wellinger; Ted Weinert
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 5.917

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.