1. Cell Biology
  2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 41
  • Views 5,497
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e05068 doi: 10.7554/eLife.05068

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.

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jon Pines, The Gurdon Institute, United Kingdom

Publication 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

  • 5,497
    Page views
  • 767
    Downloads
  • 41
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Moran Cohen-Berkman et al.
    Research Article
    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Eduardo Javier López Soto, Diane Lipscombe
    Research Article