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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Katharina Schlacher, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States

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).

Version history

  1. Received: May 1, 2018
  2. Accepted: September 28, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 16, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 7, 2018 (version 2)

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

  • 5,911
    views
  • 816
    downloads
  • 29
    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
    Julian J A Hoving, Elizabeth Harford-Wright ... Alison C Lloyd
    Research Article

    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 rat 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 Schwann cell 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 Schwann cell collective migration and increased clustering of Schwann cells 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. Cancer Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Johannes Paladini, Annalena Maier ... Stephan Grzesiek
    Research Article

    Abelson tyrosine kinase (Abl) is regulated by the arrangement of its regulatory core, consisting sequentially of the SH3, SH2, and kinase (KD) domains, where an assembled or disassembled core corresponds to low or high kinase activity, respectively. It was recently established that binding of type II ATP site inhibitors, such as imatinib, generates a force from the KD N-lobe onto the SH3 domain and in consequence disassembles the core. Here, we demonstrate that the C-terminal αI-helix exerts an additional force toward the SH2 domain, which correlates both with kinase activity and type II inhibitor-induced disassembly. The αI-helix mutation E528K, which is responsible for the ABL1 malformation syndrome, strongly activates Abl by breaking a salt bridge with the KD C-lobe and thereby increasing the force onto the SH2 domain. In contrast, the allosteric inhibitor asciminib strongly reduces Abl’s activity by fixating the αI-helix and reducing the force onto the SH2 domain. These observations are explained by a simple mechanical model of Abl activation involving forces from the KD N-lobe and the αI-helix onto the KD/SH2SH3 interface.