Chromosome mis-segregation and cytokinesis failure in trisomic human cells

  1. Joshua M Nicholson
  2. Joana C Macedo
  3. Aaron J Mattingly
  4. Darawalee Wangsa
  5. Jordi Camps
  6. Vera Lima
  7. Ana M Gomes
  8. Sofia Dória
  9. Thomas Ried
  10. Elsa Logarinho
  11. Daniela Cimini  Is a corresponding author
  1. Virginia Tech, United States
  2. Universidade do Porto, Portugal
  3. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  4. National Institutes of Health, United States
  5. Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Spain

Abstract

Cancer cells display aneuploid karyotypes and typically mis-segregate chromosomes at high rates, a phenotype referred to as chromosomal instability (CIN). To test the effects of aneuploidy on chromosome segregation and other mitotic phenotypes we used the colorectal cancer cell line DLD1 (2n=46) and two variants with trisomy 7 or 13 (DLD1+7 and DLD1+13), as well as euploid and trisomy 13 amniocytes (AF and AF+13). We found that trisomic cells displayed higher rates of chromosome mis-segregation compared to their euploid counterparts. Furthermore, cells with trisomy 13 displayed a distinctive cytokinesis failure phenotype. We showed that up-regulation of SPG20 expression, brought about by trisomy 13 in DLD1+13 and AF+13 cells, is both required and sufficient for the cytokinesis failure phenotype. Overall, our study shows that aneuploidy can induce chromosome mis-segregation. Moreover, we identified a trisomy 13-specific mitotic phenotype that is driven by up-regulation of a gene encoded on the aneuploid chromosome.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Joshua M Nicholson

    Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Joana C Macedo

    Aging and Aneuploidy Laboratory, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Aaron J Mattingly

    Cell and Tissue Biology, School of Dentistry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Darawalee Wangsa

    Genetics Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jordi Camps

    Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Oncology Group, Hospital Clínic, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas, Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Vera Lima

    Department of Genetics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ana M Gomes

    Aging and Aneuploidy Laboratory, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Sofia Dória

    Department of Genetics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Thomas Ried

    Genetics Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Elsa Logarinho

    Aging and Aneuploidy Laboratory, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Daniela Cimini

    Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, United States
    For correspondence
    cimini@vt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jon Pines, The Gurdon Institute, United Kingdom

Ethics

Human subjects: The study acknowledged the ethics guidelines under national rules and accordingly to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hospital de S. Jo�o-Porto (dispatch 14 Nov 2012) (approval number 237/2012). Informed consent forms with detailed information were provided to all patients. The study did not imply collection of extra material from the healthy donor females (only surplus cells/tissues were used); the study didn't bring any direct benefits to the volunteers; there were no risks or costs for the volunteers; there was no access to patient clinical data (samples were obtained in anonymous form from the Hospital Genetics Department); participation was volunteer and free to be interrupted at any moment; there are no ethical impacts predicted; there will be no commercial interests.

Version history

  1. Received: October 7, 2014
  2. Accepted: May 1, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 5, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 27, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 14,725
    views
  • 1,131
    downloads
  • 84
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Joshua M Nicholson
  2. Joana C Macedo
  3. Aaron J Mattingly
  4. Darawalee Wangsa
  5. Jordi Camps
  6. Vera Lima
  7. Ana M Gomes
  8. Sofia Dória
  9. Thomas Ried
  10. Elsa Logarinho
  11. Daniela Cimini
(2015)
Chromosome mis-segregation and cytokinesis failure in trisomic human cells
eLife 4:e05068.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05068

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05068

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Julian JA Hoving, Elizabeth Harford-Wright ... Alison C Lloyd
    Research Article Updated

    Collective cell migration is fundamental for the development of organisms and in the adult for tissue regeneration and in pathological conditions such as cancer. Migration as a coherent group requires the maintenance of cell–cell interactions, while contact inhibition of locomotion (CIL), a local repulsive force, can propel the group forward. Here we show that the cell–cell interaction molecule, N-cadherin, regulates both adhesion and repulsion processes during Schwann cell (SC) collective migration, which is required for peripheral nerve regeneration. However, distinct from its role in cell–cell adhesion, the repulsion process is independent of N-cadherin trans-homodimerisation and the associated adherens junction complex. Rather, the extracellular domain of N-cadherin is required to present the repulsive Slit2/Slit3 signal at the cell surface. Inhibiting Slit2/Slit3 signalling inhibits CIL and subsequently collective SC migration, resulting in adherent, nonmigratory cell clusters. Moreover, analysis of ex vivo explants from mice following sciatic nerve injury showed that inhibition of Slit2 decreased SC collective migration and increased clustering of SCs within the nerve bridge. These findings provide insight into how opposing signals can mediate collective cell migration and how CIL pathways are promising targets for inhibiting pathological cell migration.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Marcos Moreno-Aguilera, Alba M Neher ... Carme Gallego
    Research Article Updated

    Alternative RNA splicing is an essential and dynamic process in neuronal differentiation and synapse maturation, and dysregulation of this process has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Recent studies have revealed the importance of RNA-binding proteins in the regulation of neuronal splicing programs. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in the control of these splicing regulators are still unclear. Here, we show that KIS, a kinase upregulated in the developmental brain, imposes a genome-wide alteration in exon usage during neuronal differentiation in mice. KIS contains a protein-recognition domain common to spliceosomal components and phosphorylates PTBP2, counteracting the role of this splicing factor in exon exclusion. At the molecular level, phosphorylation of unstructured domains within PTBP2 causes its dissociation from two co-regulators, Matrin3 and hnRNPM, and hinders the RNA-binding capability of the complex. Furthermore, KIS and PTBP2 display strong and opposing functional interactions in synaptic spine emergence and maturation. Taken together, our data uncover a post-translational control of splicing regulators that link transcriptional and alternative exon usage programs in neuronal development.