Loss of p53 suppresses replication-stress-induced DNA breakage in G1/S checkpoint deficient cells

  1. Bente Benedict
  2. Tanja van Harn
  3. Marleen Dekker
  4. Simone Hermsen
  5. Asli Kucukosmanoglu
  6. Wietske Pieters
  7. Elly Delzenne-Goette
  8. Josephine C Dorsman
  9. Eva Petermann
  10. Floris Foijer
  11. Hein te Riele  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Netherlands
  2. VU University Medical Center, Netherlands
  3. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
  4. University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands

Abstract

In cancer cells, loss of G1/S control is often accompanied by p53 pathway inactivation, the latter usually rationalized as a necessity for suppressing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. However, we found an unanticipated effect of p53 loss in mouse and human G1-checkpoint-deficient cells: reduction of DNA damage. We show that abrogation of the G1/S-checkpoint allowed cells to enter S-phase under growth-restricting conditions at the expense of severe replication stress manifesting as decelerated DNA replication, reduced origin firing and accumulation of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). In this system, loss of p53 allowed mitogen-independent proliferation, not by suppressing apoptosis, but rather by restoring origin firing and reducing DNA breakage. Loss of G1/S control also caused DNA damage and activation of p53 in an in vivo retinoblastoma model. Moreover, in a teratoma model, loss of Trp53 reduced DNA breakage. Thus, loss of p53 may promote growth of incipient cancer cells by reducing replication-stress-induced DNA damage.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Bente Benedict

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Tanja van Harn

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Marleen Dekker

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Simone Hermsen

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Asli Kucukosmanoglu

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Wietske Pieters

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Elly Delzenne-Goette

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Josephine C Dorsman

    Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Eva Petermann

    School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Floris Foijer

    European Research Institute for the Biology of Ageing, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0989-3127
  11. Hein te Riele

    Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    h.t.riele@nki.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0255-4042

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding (2007-3790)

  • Tanja van Harn
  • Asli Kucukosmanoglu

European Molecular Biology Organization (194-2011)

  • Tanja van Harn

KWF Kankerbestrijding (2014-6702)

  • Bente Benedict

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments involving animals comply with local and international regulations and ethical guidelines (protocol 12026) and have been authorized by the local experimental animal ethical committee at the Netherlands Cancer Institure (DEC-NKI).

Copyright

© 2018, Benedict et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,113
    views
  • 833
    downloads
  • 34
    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. Bente Benedict
  2. Tanja van Harn
  3. Marleen Dekker
  4. Simone Hermsen
  5. Asli Kucukosmanoglu
  6. Wietske Pieters
  7. Elly Delzenne-Goette
  8. Josephine C Dorsman
  9. Eva Petermann
  10. Floris Foijer
  11. Hein te Riele
(2018)
Loss of p53 suppresses replication-stress-induced DNA breakage in G1/S checkpoint deficient cells
eLife 7:e37868.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37868

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37868

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Zijing Wang, Bihan Xia ... Jilin Yang
    Research Article

    Bestrophin isoform 4 (BEST4) is a newly identified subtype of the calcium-activated chloride channel family. Analysis of colonic epithelial cell diversity by single-cell RNA-sequencing has revealed the existence of a cluster of BEST4+ mature colonocytes in humans. However, if the role of BEST4 is involved in regulating tumour progression remains largely unknown. In this study, we demonstrate that BEST4 overexpression attenuates cell proliferation, colony formation, and mobility in colorectal cancer (CRC) in vitro, and impedes the tumour growth and the liver metastasis in vivo. BEST4 is co-expressed with hairy/enhancer of split 4 (HES4) in the nucleus of cells, and HES4 signals BEST4 by interacting with the upstream region of the BEST4 promoter. BEST4 is epistatic to HES4 and downregulates TWIST1, thereby inhibiting epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in CRC. Conversely, knockout of BEST4 using CRISPR/Cas9 in CRC cells revitalises tumour growth and induces EMT. Furthermore, the low level of the BEST4 mRNA is correlated with advanced and the worse prognosis, suggesting its potential role involving CRC progression.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Bruno Bockorny, Lakshmi Muthuswamy ... Senthil K Muthuswamy
    Tools and Resources

    Pancreatic cancer has the worst prognosis of all common tumors. Earlier cancer diagnosis could increase survival rates and better assessment of metastatic disease could improve patient care. As such, there is an urgent need to develop biomarkers to diagnose this deadly malignancy. Analyzing circulating extracellular vesicles (cEVs) using ‘liquid biopsies’ offers an attractive approach to diagnose and monitor disease status. However, it is important to differentiate EV-associated proteins enriched in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from those with benign pancreatic diseases such as chronic pancreatitis and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). To meet this need, we combined the novel EVtrap method for highly efficient isolation of EVs from plasma and conducted proteomics analysis of samples from 124 individuals, including patients with PDAC, benign pancreatic diseases and controls. On average, 912 EV proteins were identified per 100 µL of plasma. EVs containing high levels of PDCD6IP, SERPINA12, and RUVBL2 were associated with PDAC compared to the benign diseases in both discovery and validation cohorts. EVs with PSMB4, RUVBL2, and ANKAR were associated with metastasis, and those with CRP, RALB, and CD55 correlated with poor clinical prognosis. Finally, we validated a seven EV protein PDAC signature against a background of benign pancreatic diseases that yielded an 89% prediction accuracy for the diagnosis of PDAC. To our knowledge, our study represents the largest proteomics profiling of circulating EVs ever conducted in pancreatic cancer and provides a valuable open-source atlas to the scientific community with a comprehensive catalogue of novel cEVs that may assist in the development of biomarkers and improve the outcomes of patients with PDAC.