Advertisement

Adaptation in replicative senescence: a risky business

  • Héloïse Coutelier
  • Zhou Xu
Mini-Review

Abstract

Cell proliferation is tightly regulated to avoid propagating DNA damage and mutations, which can lead to pathologies such as cancer. To ensure genome integrity, cells activate the DNA damage checkpoint in response to genotoxic lesions to block cell cycle progression. This surveillance mechanism provides time to repair the damage before resuming cell cycle with an intact genome. When the damage is not repaired, cells can, in some conditions, override the cell cycle arrest and proceed with proliferation, a phenomenon known as adaptation to DNA damage. A subpopulation of adapted cells might eventually survive, but only at the cost of extensive genome instability. How and in which context adaptation operates the trade-off between survival and genome stability is a fascinating question. After a brief review of the current knowledge on adaptation to DNA damage in budding yeast, we will discuss a new role of adaptation in the context of telomerase-negative cells and replicative senescence. We highlight the idea that, in all settings studied so far, survival through adaptation is a double-edged sword as it comes with increased genomic instability.

Keywords

Adaptation to DNA damage Telomere Repair Genome instability Polo kinase 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Maria Teresa Teixeira and Karine Dubrana for their critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by “Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale” (“équipe labellisée”) and the French National Research Agency (ANR) grant ANR-16-CE12-0026 to Maria Teresa Teixeira in whose lab the work was done, and ANR grant ANR-17-CE20-0002-01 to ZX. HC has been supported by a doctoral grant from the Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL) Idex program implemented by the ANR (ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bender K, Vydzhak O, Klermund J, Busch A, Grimm S, Luke B (2018) Checkpoint adaptation in repair-deficient cells drives aneuploidy and resistance to genotoxic agents. bioRxiv.  https://doi.org/10.1101/464685 Google Scholar
  2. Beyer T, Weinert T (2016) Ontogeny of unstable chromosomes generated by telomere error in budding yeast. PLoS Genet 12:e1006345.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botchkarev VV, Garabedian MV, Lemos B, Paulissen E, Haber JE (2017) The budding yeast Polo-like kinase localizes to distinct populations at centrosomes during mitosis. Mol Biol Cell 28:1011–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E16-05-0324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botchkarev VV, Haber JE (2018) Functions and regulation of the Polo-like kinase Cdc5 in the absence and presence of DNA damage. Curr Genet 64:87–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0727-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chabalier-Taste C, Brichese L, Racca C, Canitrot Y, Calsou P, Larminat F (2016) Polo-like kinase 1 mediates BRCA1 phosphorylation and recruitment at DNA double-strand breaks. Oncotarget 7:2269–2283.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.6825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Churikov D, Charifi F, Simon MN, Geli V (2014) Rad59-facilitated acquisition of Y’ elements by short telomeres delays the onset of senescence. PLoS Genet 10:e1004736.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claussin C, Chang M (2016) Multiple Rad52-mediated homology-directed repair mechanisms are required to prevent telomere attrition-induced senescence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 12:e1006176.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coutelier H et al (2018) Adaptation to DNA damage checkpoint in senescent telomerase-negative cells promotes genome instability. Genes Dev 32:1499–1513.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.318485.118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Carcer G et al (2018) Plk1 overexpression induces chromosomal instability and suppresses tumor development. Nat Commun 9:3012.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05429-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donnianni RA et al (2010) Elevated levels of the polo kinase Cdc5 override the Mec1/ATR checkpoint in budding yeast by acting at different steps of the signaling pathway. PLoS Genet 6:e1000763.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dotiwala F, Harrison JC, Jain S, Sugawara N, Haber JE (2010) Mad2 prolongs DNA damage checkpoint arrest caused by a double-strand break via a centromere-dependent mechanism. Curr Biol CB 20:328–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enomoto S, Glowczewski L, Berman J (2002) MEC3, MEC1, and DDC2 are essential components of a telomere checkpoint pathway required for cell cycle arrest during senescence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Biol Cell 13:2626–2638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallet E, Jolivet P, Soudet J, Lisby M, Gilson E, Teixeira MT (2014) Length-dependent processing of telomeres in the absence of telomerase. Nucleic Acids Res 42:3648–3665.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finn K, Lowndes NF, Grenon M (2012) Eukaryotic DNA damage checkpoint activation in response to double-strand breaks. Cell Mol Life Sci 69:1447–1473.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-011-0875-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galgoczy DJ, Toczyski DP (2001) Checkpoint adaptation precedes spontaneous and damage-induced genomic instability in yeast. Mol Cell Biol 21:1710–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallo-Fernandez M, Saugar I, Ortiz-Bazan MA, Vazquez MV, Tercero JA (2012) Cell cycle-dependent regulation of the nuclease activity of Mus81-Eme1/Mms4. Nucleic Acids Res 40:8325–8335.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garvik B, Carson M, Hartwell L (1995) Single-stranded DNA arising at telomeres in cdc13 mutants may constitute a specific signal for the RAD9 checkpoint. Mol Cell Biol 15:6128–6138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutteridge RE, Ndiaye MA, Liu X, Ahmad N (2016) Plk1 inhibitors in cancer therapy: from laboratory to clinics. Mol Cancer Ther 15:1427–1435.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hackett JA, Feldser DM, Greider CW (2001) Telomere dysfunction increases mutation rate and genomic instability. Cell 106:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hackett JA, Greider CW (2003) End resection initiates genomic instability in the absence of telomerase. Mol Cell Biol 23:8450–8461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harari Y, Kupiec M (2018) Do long telomeres affect cellular fitness? Curr Genet 64:173–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0746-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison JC, Haber JE (2006) Surviving the breakup: the DNA damage checkpoint. Annu Rev Genet 40:209–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartwell LH, Weinert TA (1989) Checkpoints: controls that ensure the order of cell cycle events. Science 246:629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu F, Wang Y, Liu D, Li Y, Qin J, Elledge SJ (2001) Regulation of the Bub2/Bfa1 GAP complex by Cdc5 and cell cycle checkpoints. Cell 107:655–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jain D, Cooper JP (2010) Telomeric strategies: means to an end. Annu Rev Genet 44:243–269.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-102108-134841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaye JA, Melo JA, Cheung SK, Vaze MB, Haber JE, Toczyski DP (2004) DNA breaks promote genomic instability by impeding proper chromosome segregation. Curr Biol 14:2096–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khadaroo B et al (2009) The DNA damage response at eroded telomeres and tethering to the nuclear pore complex. Nat Cell Biol 11:980–987.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klermund J, Bender K, Luke B (2014) High nutrient levels and TORC1 activity reduce cell viability following prolonged telomere dysfunction and cell cycle arrest. Cell Rep 9:324–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kubara PM, Kerneis-Golsteyn S, Studeny A, Lanser BB, Meijer L, Golsteyn RM (2012) Human cells enter mitosis with damaged DNA after treatment with pharmacological concentrations of genotoxic agents. Biochem J 446:373–381.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20120385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kupiec M (2014) Biology of telomeres: lessons from budding yeast. FEMS Microbiol Rev 38:144–171.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Le S, Moore JK, Haber JE, Greider CW (1999) RAD50 and RAD51 define two pathways that collaborate to maintain telomeres in the absence of telomerase. Genetics 152:143–152Google Scholar
  32. Lee SE, Moore JK, Holmes A, Umezu K, Kolodner RD, Haber JE (1998) Saccharomyces Ku70, mre11/rad50 and RPA proteins regulate adaptation to G2/M arrest after DNA damage. Cell 94:399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li Z, Li J, Kong Y, Yan S, Ahmad N, Liu X (2017) Plk1 phosphorylation of Mre11 antagonizes the DNA damage response. Cancer Res 77:3169–3180.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lopez V, Barinova N, Onishi M, Pobiega S, Pringle JR, Dubrana K, Marcand S (2015) Cytokinesis breaks dicentric chromosomes preferentially at pericentromeric regions and telomere fusions. Genes Dev 29:322–336.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.254664.114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lue NF, Yu EY (2017) Telomere recombination pathways: tales of several unhappy marriages. Curr Genet 63:401–409.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-016-0653-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lundblad V, Szostak JW (1989) A mutant with a defect in telomere elongation leads to senescence in yeast. Cell 57:633–643.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(89)90132-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lundblad V, Blackburn EH (1993) An alternative pathway for yeast telomere maintenance rescues est1-senescence. Cell 73:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maciejowski J, de Lange T (2017) Telomeres in cancer: tumour suppression and genome instability. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18:175–186.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2016.171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matos J, Blanco MG, Maslen S, Skehel JM, West SC (2011) Regulatory control of the resolution of DNA recombination intermediates during meiosis and mitosis. Cell 147:158–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Melo JA, Cohen J, Toczyski DP (2001) Two checkpoint complexes are independently recruited to sites of DNA damage in vivo. Genes Dev 15:2809–2821Google Scholar
  41. Mersaoui SY, Wellinger RJ (2018) Fine tuning the level of the Cdc13 telomere-capping protein for maximal chromosome stability performance. Curr Genet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-018-0871-3 Google Scholar
  42. Mersaoui SY, Gravel S, Karpov V, Wellinger RJ (2015) DNA damage checkpoint adaptation genes are required for division of cells harbouring eroded telomeres. Microbial cell 2:394–405.  https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2015.10.229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Millet C, Makovets S (2016) Aneuploidy as a mechanism of adaptation to telomerase insufficiency. Curr Genet 62:557–564.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-015-0559-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paschini M, Toro TB, Lubin JW, Braunstein-Ballew B, Morris DK, Lundblad V (2012) A naturally thermolabile activity compromises genetic analysis of telomere function in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 191:79–93.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.137869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pellicioli A, Lee SE, Lucca C, Foiani M, Haber JE (2001) Regulation of Saccharomyces Rad53 checkpoint kinase during adaptation from DNA damage-induced G2/M arrest. Mol Cell 7:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ratsima H, Ladouceur AM, Pascariu M, Sauve V, Salloum Z, Maddox PS, D’Amours D (2011) Independent modulation of the kinase and polo-box activities of Cdc5 protein unravels unique roles in the maintenance of genome stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:E914–E923.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106448108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ratsima H, Serrano D, Pascariu M, D’Amours D (2016) Centrosome-dependent bypass of the DNA damage checkpoint by the polo kinase Cdc5. Cell Rep 14:1422–1434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rawal CC, Riccardo S, Pesenti C, Ferrari M, Marini F, Pellicioli A (2016) Reduced kinase activity of polo kinase Cdc5 affects chromosome stability and DNA damage response in S. cerevisiae. Cell Cycle 15:2906–2919.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15384101.2016.1222338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rezacova M et al (2011) Accumulation of DNA damage and cell death after fractionated irradiation. Radiat Res 175:708–718.  https://doi.org/10.1667/RR2478.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sandell LL, Zakian VA (1993) Loss of a yeast telomere: arrest, recovery, and chromosome loss. Cell 75:729–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schleker T, Shimada K, Sack R, Pike BL, Gasser SM (2010) Cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation of Rad53 kinase by Cdc5 and Cdc28 modulates checkpoint adaptation. Cell Cycle 9:350–363.  https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.9.2.10448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwartz EK, Wright WD, Ehmsen KT, Evans JE, Stahlberg H, Heyer WD (2012) Mus81-Mms4 functions as a single heterodimer to cleave nicked intermediates in recombinational DNA repair. Mol Cell Biol 32:3065–3080.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00547-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Serrano D, D’Amours D (2014) When genome integrity and cell cycle decisions collide: roles of polo kinases in cellular adaptation to DNA damage. Syst Synth Biol 8:195–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-014-9151-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strebhardt K, Ullrich A (2006) Targeting polo-like kinase 1 for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 6:321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Syljuasen RG, Jensen S, Bartek J, Lukas J (2006) Adaptation to the ionizing radiation-induced G2 checkpoint occurs in human cells and depends on checkpoint kinase 1 and Polo-like kinase 1 kinases. Cancer Res 66:10253–10257.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Szakal B, Branzei D (2013) Premature Cdk1/Cdc5/Mus81 pathway activation induces aberrant replication and deleterious crossover. EMBO J 32:1155–1167.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2013.67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teixeira MT (2013) Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model to study replicative senescence triggered by telomere shortening. Front Oncol 3:101.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2013.00101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Toczyski DP, Galgoczy DJ, Hartwell LH (1997) CDC5 and CKII control adaptation to the yeast DNA damage checkpoint. Cell 90:1097–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toczyski DP (2006) Methods for studying adaptation to the DNA damage checkpoint in yeast. Methods Enzymol 409:150–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(05)09009-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Valerio-Santiago M, de Los Santos-Velazquez AI, Monje-Casas F (2013) Inhibition of the mitotic exit network in response to damaged telomeres. PLoS Genet 9:e1003859.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003859 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vasan S, Deem A, Ramakrishnan S, Argueso JL, Malkova A (2014) Cascades of genetic instability resulting from compromised break-induced replication. PLoS Genet 10:e1004119.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vidanes GM, Sweeney FD, Galicia S, Cheung S, Doyle JP, Durocher D, Toczyski DP (2010) CDC5 inhibits the hyperphosphorylation of the checkpoint kinase Rad53, leading to checkpoint adaptation. PLoS Biol 8:e1000286.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang H et al (2018) PLK1 targets CtIP to promote microhomology-mediated end joining. Nucleic Acids Res 46:10724–10739.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky810 Google Scholar
  64. Weinert TA, Hartwell LH (1988) The RAD9 gene controls the cell cycle response to DNA damage in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Science 241:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wellinger RJ, Zakian VA (2012) Everything you ever wanted to know about Saccharomyces cerevisiae telomeres: beginning to end. Genetics 191:1073–1105.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.137851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Westmoreland JW, Mihalevic MJ, Bernstein KA, Resnick MA (2018) The global role for Cdc13 and Yku70 in preventing telomere resection across the genome. DNA Repair 62:8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2017.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xu Z, Fallet E, Paoletti C, Fehrmann S, Charvin G, Teixeira MT (2015) Two routes to senescence revealed by real-time analysis of telomerase-negative single lineages. Nat Commun 6:7680.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yata K, Lloyd J, Maslen S, Bleuyard JY, Skehel M, Smerdon SJ, Esashi F (2012) Plk1 and CK2 act in concert to regulate Rad51 during DNA double strand break repair. Mol Cell 45:371–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.12.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yoo HY, Kumagai A, Shevchenko A, Shevchenko A, Dunphy WG (2004) Adaptation of a DNA replication checkpoint response depends upon inactivation of Claspin by the Polo-like kinase. Cell 117:575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang T, Nirantar S, Lim HH, Sinha I, Surana U (2009) DNA damage checkpoint maintains CDH1 in an active state to inhibit anaphase progression. Dev Cell 17:541–551.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2009.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sorbonne Université, PSL Research University, CNRS, UMR8226, Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimique, Laboratoire de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire des EucaryotesParisFrance
  2. 2.Sorbonne Université, CNRS, UMR7238, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine, Laboratory of Computational and Quantitative BiologyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations