Skip to main content
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 2005 Dec 5;102(50):18069–18074. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506497102

Premature condensation induces breaks at the interface of early and late replicating chromosome bands bearing common fragile sites

Eliane El Achkar 1, Michelle Gerbault-Seureau 1,*, Martine Muleris 1,, Bernard Dutrillaux 1,*, Michelle Debatisse 1,
PMCID: PMC1312387  PMID: 16330769

Abstract

Various studies suggest a tight relationship between chromosome rearrangements driving tumor progression and breaks at loci called common fragile sites. Most of these sites are induced after perturbation of the replication dynamics, notably by aphidicolin treatment. We have mapped the majority of these sites to the interface of R and G bands, which calls into question the previous assignment of aphidicolin-sensitive sites to R bands. This observation suggests that most of them correspond to loci that ensure the transition between early and late replicating domains. We show that calyculin A, which triggers chromosome condensation at any phase of the cell cycle but does not markedly impair replication, induces damage in the chromosomes of human lymphocytes treated in G2 but not in G1 phase. We demonstrate that these lesions colocalize with those induced by aphidicolin treatment. Hence, common fragile site stability is compromised, whether aphidicolin delays replication or calyculin A advances condensation. We also show that, in cells that go through an unperturbed S phase, completion of their replication and/or replication-associated chromatin reorganization occur all along the G2 phase, which may explain their inability to condense properly after calyculin A treatment during this phase of the cell cycle.

Keywords: genome instability, DNA damage, calyculin A, aphidicolin, cell cycle


One major property of the oncogenic process is the early emergence of cells displaying genetic instability. A statistical correlation has been established between genome remodeling and DNA breaks at chromosomal sequences termed common fragile sites (1-4). Cytogenetically, these sites appear as loci displaying recurrent breaks, gaps, or constrictions (BGCs) in cells grown under specific tissue culture conditions (5), notably exposure to various mutagens and carcinogens (6). Most of these sites specifically respond to stresses that partially inhibit DNA replication, such as cell treatment with aphidicolin (Aph), an inhibitor of DNA polymerases α, δ, and ε (7, 8). Hypoxia, shown to impair S phase progression (9, 10), was also identified as a potent fragile site inducer in mammalian cells, suggesting a route by which fragile site activation might drive genome remodeling in tumors (11).

Aph-sensitive sites (AphS) are present in the chromosomes of all members of a species, although they may be expressed at different frequencies in different individuals. They appear to be evolutionarily conserved in mammalian species examined to date (12, 13). Therefore, they are considered to be integral elements of the normal chromosome structure. The consequences of their instability are now well documented. In cultured cells, they constitute hotspots for sister chromatid exchanges (14, 15) and are preferred sites for integration of exogenous DNA (16, 17). Their activation also triggers and drives intrachromosomal gene amplification (18). In tumors, with a few exceptions suggesting a relationship with inherited diseases (13, 19, 20), AphS were essentially correlated with somatic events leading to deletions, translocations (1-4), and oncogene amplification (21, 22). The physiological impact on tumor development of deletions targeting AphS was best demonstrated by FRA3B, which encompasses the FHIT gene (23). Indeed, functional assays in deficient mice show that reexpression of FHIT prevents tumor development in vivo (24, 25).

Because Aph impairs DNA replication, it long has been proposed that the drug elicits damage in regions along which elongation is unusually susceptible to perturbation. In support of this hypothesis, several reports have suggested that Aph treatment, which slows down replication in general, specifically delays replication along AphS (22, 26-29). Nucleotide sequence analysis has revealed that all cloned AphS span megabase-long AT-rich regions enriched in peaks of high flexibility (30-33). Interestingly, Zlotorynski et al. (34) recently showed that flexible regions contain interrupted runs of AT dinucleotides, which have the potential to form secondary structures and, thereby, may perturb the progression of replication forks.

New insights into the mechanism underlying fragility at AphS also came from the identification of proteins that contribute to the stability of AphS. Casper et al. (35) showed in cultured cells that the checkpoint kinase ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related (ATR), which plays a major role in the stabilization of stalled replication forks, is critical for FRA3B stability. A role for this protein was confirmed by the finding that instability at AphS occurs in vivo in cells of patients bearing a heterozygous mutation for ATR (Seckel syndrome) (36). Instability also occurs in cells deficient for BRCA1, a mediator protein involved in the intraS and G2/M checkpoints (37). In the absence of an intact Fanconi Anaemia pathway, which is supposed to monitor S-phase progression downstream of ATR, the stability at AphS is also strongly hampered (38). Finally, the cohesin SMC1, which contributes to the stability of stalled replication forks through an ATR-dependent mechanism, also participates in maintaining the stability of AphS (39). Altogether, these results suggest that AphS are regions intrinsically difficult to duplicate and particularly susceptible to treatments or mutations impairing replication fork stability.

These findings, and the observation that AphS are chromosomal regions that often fail to compact properly for mitosis (40), suggest that the relationships linking replication to chromatin condensation along these loci may be pivotal to their stability. Here, we study the impact of premature chromosome condensation (PCC) on AphS stability by treating human lymphocytes with calyculin A (Cal), a specific inhibitor of serine-threonine phosphatases types 1 and 2A, that triggers PCC at any stage of the cell cycle (41, 42). We took advantage of condensation occurring in G1, S, and G2 phases to study the cytogenetic status of AphS at those stages of the cell cycle. We show that Cal treatment induces chromosome breaks targeted to specific sites, the vast majority of which colocalize with AphS at the cytogenetic level. Our results also show that most AphS were incorrectly localized and suggest that they lie actually at the interface of early and late replicating bands. Moreover, our findings support the hypothesis that AphS contain incompletely duplicated sequences in cells exiting an unperturbed S phase, a feature progressively corrected before mitotic entry at each cell cycle.

Materials and Methods

Culture and Treatment of Human Lymphocytes. Whole peripheral blood was obtained by venipuncture from volunteer donors and grown for 96 h as described in ref. 43. Common fragile site activation was performed by treating the cells with 60 ng/ml Cal (Sigma) for 50 min or with 0.1 μg/ml Aph (Sigma) for 20 h before cell harvesting. High-resolution prometaphase banding was achieved according to ref. 43. Briefly, cells were blocked by overnight thymidine (350 μg/ml) treatment. Cells were then rinsed twice with Hanks solution (GIBCO) and grown for 4.5 or 7 h (for optimum banding of chromosomes 3 and X, and 16, respectively) in complete medium containing 10 μg/ml BrdUrd (Sigma). Twenty minutes before harvesting, cells were treated with 50 ng/ml of colchicine (Sigma). Slides were prepared according to standard cytogenetic procedures (43).

Preparation of R- or G-Banded Chromosomes. BGCs were observed on preparations stained by Giemsa (Prolabo) without pretreatments to obtain an homogeneous staining of the chromosomes. Preparations were then destained and treated as described in ref. 43 to reveal R- or G-banding. Preparations were restained by Giemsa, and the chromosome alterations previously detected were then located relative to the bands. Breaks were generally scored from 50 cells from each donor and each experiment.

Genomic Localization and Preparation of the Bacterial Artificial Chromosomes (BACs). BACs were selected from the human genome project RP11 library. FRA3B has been assigned to band 3p14.2 (44). This site was probed with BAC 641C17, which bears the STS markers D3S2757 and D3S1481 close to its telomeric and centromeric ends, respectively. FRA16D has been assigned to band 16q23.2 (45, 46). We selected BAC 571O6, covering markers D16S3138, D16S3125, and D16S3101 in the region of fragility. FRAXB has been assigned to band Xp22.3 (47). We chose BAC 483M24 that covers the GS1 gene and the STS marker DXS1130 at the near distal end of FRAXB. Bacterial strains containing the BACs were spread on LB agar supplemented with 12.5 mg/ml chloramphenicol and grown at 37°C overnight. Clone identity was verified by PCR with probes corresponding to known STS markers. BACs were then extracted according to the manufacturer's instructions (Qiagen). Probes were biotinylated by Nick Translation (Invitrogen) and recovered by filtration through Quick Spin columns (Roche).

Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization (FISH) and BrdUrd Detection. FISH was performed essentially as described in ref. 48 without the proteinase K step. Biotin was revealed with alternating layers of fluoresceinated avidin (FITC) (Vector Laboratories) and biotin-conjugated goat anti-avidin (Vector Laboratories). Two layers of avidin/antiavidin were applied. For BrdUrd detection, chromosomes were denatured as for FISH, and the analog was revealed with three layers of mouse anti-BrdUrd (Becton Dickinson), rabbit anti-mouse Alexa 350, and goat anti-rabbit Alexa 350 (Molecular Probes). Slides were washed three times with PBS solution (Sigma) after each layer. Chromosomes were counterstained with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) or with propidium iodide (PI, Sigma) and mounted in Vectashield (Vector Laboratories).

Results

Cal Induces Chromosome Damage. PCC was obtained by treating human lymphocyte cultures for 50 min with Cal. Chromosomes condensed in G1 phase have a spiral appearance. In S phase, they present interspersed blocks of condensed and noncondensed chromatin. In late S and G2 phases, they resemble mitotic chromosomes and display classical G- and R-banding patterns (Fig. 4, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Because they are not easily distinguishable from each other, chromosomes in late S, G2, and mitosis will be collectively referred to below as mitotic-like chromosomes. Cytogenetic analysis of mitotic-like chromosomes from lymphocyte populations of four donors revealed the presence of BGCs. Their frequency was compared to those found in metaphase chromosomes of the same donor in the absence of treatment or after Aph treatment. The mean number of BGCs per genome ranged from 0.36 to 0.88 in untreated cells (mean 0.6), from 2.5 to 11.93 in Cal-treated cells (mean 5.55), and from 1.17 to 7.48 after Aph treatments (mean 4.34). The percentage of BGCs involving a single chromatid of the chromosomes was 70% in untreated cells and reached 94% and 91%, respectively, after Cal or Aph treatment (Table 1). Hence, the chromosomal consequences of both drugs appeared quantitatively very similar.

Table 1. BGCs are induced by Cal and Aph in the chromosomes of human lymphocytes.

Donor 1
Donor 2
Donor 3
Donor 4
Treatments Cal Aph Cal Aph Cal Aph Cal Aph
Total no. of cells 42 50 42 102 30 31 47 44 43 50 30 30
Cells without breaks 28 19 15 42 6 0 32 8 11 20 0 0
Highly damaged cells 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 0
Chromatid BGCs 9 107 34 60 122 217 11 107 101 30 319 170
Chromosome BGCs 9 15 15 17 8 15 6 3 6 14 15 17
Mean BGCs per cell 0.43 2.5 1.17 0.76 5 7.48 0.36 2.75 2.49 0.88 11.93 6.23

Quantification of the number of BGCs found in mitotic chromosomes of untreated (—) and Aph-treated lymphocyte populations from four donors and in mitotic-like chromosomes obtained upon Cal treatment of the same cell populations.

Cal Induces BGCs at Specific Loci. To determine whether Cal-dependant damage is targeted to specific chromosomal sites, we analyzed BGCs with a two-step procedure that helps minimize observation biases. First, BGCs were detected on homogeneously stained mitotic-like chromosomes of lymphocytes from eight donors. After destaining, chromosomes were R-banded and 839 of these BGCs were localized with respect to the bands. Thirty-five loci displayed a minimum of eight breaks (at least 1% of recurrence) (Table 2). Almost 70% of the BGCs observed (565 of 839) were found among these 35 loci. Thirty-four of these loci had BGCs in at least two donors, and 19 loci in four or more donors, which indicates that Cal induces common fragile sites. We found that the vast majority of these sites lie outside R bands, and, thus, they were assumed to lie in G bands (data not shown).

Table 2. Localization of recurrent BGCs induced by Aph or Cal on R- and G-banded chromosomes.

R bands Cal Aph G bands Site
1p31 21/5 39/7 1p31.2 FRA1C
1p21 14/3 47/7 1p21.2 FRA1E
1q31 26/8 2/1 1q31 FRA1K
1q43 12/5 9/2 1q44.1 FRA1I
2p24 8/2 29/6 2p24.2 FRA2C
2p16 18/5 23/6 2p16.2 FRA2D
2q22 22/5 24/5 2q21.3 FRA2F
2q32.1 7/3 16/4 2q32.12 FRA2H
2q32.3 12/5 14/6 2q33 FRA2I
2q37.2-3 9/2 8/3 2q37.3 FRA2J
3p24 15/4 14/4 3p24.2 FRA3A
3p14 89/7 223/10 3p14.2 FRA3B
3q24 12/3 0 3q25 FRA3D
3q26.3 8/2 3/1
4p15.3 3/1 12/4 4p15.32 FRA4D
4q28 12/5 5/2 4q31.1 FRA4C
4q32 8/3 2/1
5p14 14/4 4/2 5p14.2 FRA5E
5q14 17/6 5/2 5q15 FRA5D
6p22 8/3 4/2 6p22.2 FRA6C
6q27 9/2 14/4 6q26 FRA6E
7p21 10/3 3/1 7p21.2 FRA7B
7p14 9/3 19/6 7p14.2 FRA7C
7q31.1 19/5 30/6 7q31.2 FRA7G
7q31.3 8/3 5/2
7q33 16/3 58/7 7q32.3 FRA7H
9p21 10/2 0
9q31 15/5 13/2 9q32 FRA9E
11p14 34/7 67/9 11p14.2 FRA11D
11q22.1 15/4 5/2 11q21 Yunis
12p12.1 9/3 0
12q21 19/5 15/5 12q21.32 FRA12B
13q13 7/2 26/5 13q13.2 FRA13A
14q23 2/1 14/4 14q23 FRA14B
16q23 26/5 147/10 16q23.2 FRA16D
22q13.2 9/1 15/4 22q13.1 Yunis
Xp22.2-31 12/4 105/9 Xp22.31 FRAXB
Xq21 14/5 46/5 Xq22.1 FRAXC
Xq28 9/3 9/3 Xq27.2 FRAXD

Eight donors were studied in the case of Cal (839 BGCs) and 10 in the case of Aph (1,231 BGCs). In Cal and Aph columns are indicated the total number of BGCs observed at a given site versus the number of individuals that presented BGCs at that site. Only the sites presenting at least 1% of recurrence with at least one of the two drugs were taken into account.

Cal-Sensitive and Aph-Sensitive Sites Comap on R-Banded Chromosomes. Surprisingly, the localization of Cal-sensitive sites was reminiscent of that of AphS, with a systematic shift toward the closest G band as compared to classical maps (4). To clarify this point, we used the two-step procedure described above to localize 1,231 BGCs on R-banded chromosomes of Aph-treated lymphocytes from 10 donors. Six of these donors were among the eight involved in the study of Cal-induced damage. Twenty-three loci displayed at least 12 BGCs (1% of recurrence), all 23 were observed in at least two donors, and 16 in five or more donors (Table 2). Damage targeted to these sites represented ≈80% of the total number of the mapped BGCs (1,006/1,231). Strikingly, of a total of 39 sites identified with the two drugs, 19 appeared to be induced by both Cal or Aph treatments. If less-stringent analysis was performed, i.e., taking into account sites that displayed at least 1% of BGCs with one agent but had a lower frequency with the second agent, 36 of 39 sites responded to both drugs.

Localization of Aph-Sensitive Sites on G- or R-Banded Chromosomes. Our localization of AphS differs significantly from the map established by Yunis et al. (6), who localized ≈95% of the aphidicolin-induced BGCs in R bands by studying G-banded chromosomes. With R banding, we found that ≈90% of AphS lie in G bands. To address the question of whether R versus G banding is responsible for this discrepancy, we localized 423 Aph-induced BGCs on G-banded chromosomes of one donor by using slides from the same series of spreading as those used for R banding. Our localization of AphS on G-banded chromosomes coincided very well with the classical map of AphS. In striking contrast, the coincidence with our own results after R banding was <5%, which indicates that the staining used for mapping introduces major observation biases. The comparison of the two maps (Table 2) shows that only 2 of 34 AphS studied here appeared to be colocalized by the two techniques (1q31 and 14q23). Fifteen were localized on each side of coalescent G and R bands, in the G band when the chromosomes were R-banded, and in the R band when they were G-banded, suggesting that they actually lie at the interface of these G and R bands. We localized 17 sites in the core of a G band, which were almost systematically assigned to a small R band nested in this G band by Yunis et al. (6). Hence, the bias affecting classical AphS maps also results from an a priori interpretation of the results.

FRA3B, FRA16D, and FRAXB Comap with Cal-Sensitive Sites at the Molecular Level. To establish, at the molecular level, whether Cal and Aph induce damage within the same sequences, we performed FISH experiments with BACs 641C17, 571O6, and 483M24, which are believed to map within FRA3B, FRA16D, and FRAXB, respectively (Fig. 5, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). We verified this point by studying the relative position of the FISH signals of the BACs to the BGCs induced in Aph-treated lymphocytes (Fig. 1). Table 3 shows that BGCs were observed close to and on both sides of the FISH signals of all three BACs. Furthermore, in all of the cases, 25-28% of these BGCs directly involved the sequence identified by the BACs (signals “split” and “in”), which confirms that the three BACs probe for the expected sites. Very similar proportions of BGCs were found proximal to, distal to, or within the FISH signal of any of the BACs in mitotic-like chromosomes of cells treated with Cal (Table 3 and Fig. 1). These results confirm, at the molecular level, the colocalization of BGCs induced on Aph or Cal treatment.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Examples of breaks at FRA16D after Aph (A) or Cal (B) treatment. The FISH signal (BAC 571O6; green) may be proximal or distal to the BGC or within it. Chromosomes are shown in reverse-DAPI.

Table 3. Aph- and Cal-induced BGCs colocalize at the molecular level.

FRA3B (BAC 641C17)
FRA16D (BAC 57106)
FRAXB (BAC 483M24)
BGC Aph Cal Aph Cal Aph Cal
Proximal 8 6 19 13 6 6
Distal 16 15 9 5 14 14
Split 3 1 9 4 7 4
In 5 3 1 0 1 1
Total BGCs 32 25 38 22 28 25

The position of the FISH signals relative to the BGCs (proximal, distal, split, or in) is indicated.

FRA3B, FRA16D, and FRAXB Lie at the Interface of R and G Bands. The difficulties encountered in mapping BGCs on banded chromosomes and the availability of BAC probes prompted us to verify the localization of FRA3B, FRA16D, and FRAXB by FISH approaches. We focused on prometaphase chromosomes displaying high resolution R-banding revealed by detection of BrdUrd incorporated during early S phase (49, 50). Because FISH signals may travel along relatively large regions at this banding resolution, we performed a statistical analysis of the position of the spots relative to the bands. We studied 60 to 74 chromosomes hybridized with each BAC and obtained results suggesting strongly that FRA3B maps at the interface of 3p14.1 and 3p14.2 (Fig. 2A) and FRA16D at the interface of bands 16q23.1 and 16q23.2 (Fig. 2B). Even though bands were poorly resolved in the chromosomal region bearing FRAXB, our results suggest that the site maps close to the interface of bands Xp22.32 and Xp22.31 (Fig. 2C). Note that Yunis et al. (6) have assigned FRA3B and FRA16D to small R bands within G bands and FRAXB to the terminal R band of Xp arm. Hence, our high-resolution mapping supports the conclusion that most AphS lie at the junction of chromosome bands, i.e., at the boundary of domains replicating at different times through S phase.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

FISH localization of BACs 641C17 (FRA3B), 571O6 (FRA16D), and 483M24 (FRAXB) on R-banded high resolution prometaphase chromosomes. (Left) Ideograms of chromosome or chromosome arms. The rightmost numbers indicate the number of observed chromosomes exhibiting the FISH signals at the indicated positions (note that only the most recurrent localizations were taken into account), and the red and blue forms refer to the situation illustrated in Right. (Right) Examples of FISH signals on R-banded chromosomes (reverse propidium iodide-FITC staining). Left, banding alone; Right, banding and FISH (green). (A) Short arm of chromosome 3 (FRA3B). (B) Chromosome 16 (FRA16D). (C) Short arm of chromosome X (FRAXB).

Cal Does Not Markedly Impair S Phase Progression. Cal has been routinely used to trigger PCC, but because it perturbs the phosphorylation status of various proteins involved in cell cycle control, the drug may also impact on S phase progression (51). To clarify this point, we treated lymphocyte populations with both Cal and BrdUrd for 1 h, or with Cal alone for 30 min followed by 30 min of incubation with both drugs. Cytogenetic analysis showed that BrdUrd was incorporated in the DNA of all S phase cells we observed, whatever the labeling protocol (Fig. 3). Moreover, the mean length of the BrdUrd fluorescent tracks roughly paralleled the length of the labeling period (Fig. 3A). These results indicate that elongation occurs in the presence of Cal and does not notably slow down during Cal treatment. As indicated by the normal patterns and intensities of labeling observed in mitotic-like, in comparison with normal mitotic chromosomes (Fig. 3 B and C), completion of S phase is not affected in the presence of Cal. This observation strongly suggests that Cal-induced damage at AphS results from PCC rather than from replication perturbation. It is generally admitted that the interspersed blocks of condensed and noncondensed chromatin observed in cells undergoing PCC reflects the inability of unreplicated sequences to condense properly in S phase. In good agreement with this view, we observed that BrdUrd labeling is associated with at least partially condensed chromosome domains (Fig. 3 A and B). Why unreplicated DNA is incompetent for condensation in S phase, and possibly in G2, while it condenses efficiently in G1, is not known.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Cal does not inhibit replication of human lymphocytes. BrdUrd is revealed in blue, and the chromosomes are counterstained with propidium iodide. Cells treated for 1 h in the presence of both BrdUrd and Cal (A1), or for 30′ with Cal alone then another 30′ with both drugs (A2) condensed in early S phase. (B1 and C1) Cells were treated as in A1. Mitotic-like chromosomes display patterns of BrdUrd incorporation typical of late (B1) or very late replicating bands (C1; only the latest bands of the late replicating X chromosome are labeled). Note that these patterns are indistinguishable from those found on metaphase chromosomes of untreated cells labeled at similar stages of S phase (B2 and C2).

Postreplicative Sensitivity of FRA3B to Cal. Because Cal treatment allowed us to observe condensed chromosomes in G1 and G2 phases, we compared the frequencies of damage induced by PCC before and after replication. The recognition of the different chromosomes by their banding pattern in G1 phase being difficult, we used a probe for band 3p14 to study FRA3B in Cal-treated lymphocytes from one donor. We examined 140 cells displaying chromosome morphology typical of G1 phase. Eight of them had BGCs in or close to the FISH signal on one homologue (5.7%), a percentage roughly similar to that found in metaphase chromosomes of untreated lymphocytes of this donor. In contrast, we found that among 193 cells displaying mitotic-like chromosomes, 76 (≈40%) had damage within or close to the signal: 58 on one homologue and 18 on both homologues (Fig. 6, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Altogether, these results reveal that Cal sensitivity is cell cycle-dependent.

Fragile Sites Are Committed to Break in G2 Cells Exiting an Unperturbed S Phase. To determine the lifespan of the DNA features responsible for postreplicative sensitivity to Cal, cells were grown for 1 h in the presence of BrdUrd, then Cal was added for 50 min without BrdUrd removal (Fig. 7, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Because we have shown that replication proceeds normally in the presence of Cal, the labeling period lasted ≈2 h in this experiment. As expected, labeled cells displayed various patterns of BrdUrd incorporation, depending at which stage of S phase the cells were supplied with BrdUrd (Fig. 7 B and C). We also observed cells with unlabeled mitotic-like chromosomes (Fig. 7D). These cells exited S phase before BrdUrd addition, i.e., at least 1 h before the beginning of Cal treatment. Because the length of G2 phase ranges from 2 to 2.5 h in cultured lymphocytes, most of these unlabeled cells were treated with Cal during the second half of G2 and all went through a completely unperturbed S phase. As shown in Table 4, BGCs were observed in both labeled and unlabeled cells. However, we observed an increase in the number of cells devoid of BGCs and a decrease in the number of chromosome alterations per cell in unlabeled as compared to labeled cells. We conclude that specific DNA features appear at fragile sites on replication, even in cells that went through an unperturbed S phase. These features remain frequent in early G2 but are progressively repaired before M phase entry.

Table 4. PCC induces breaks in G2 despite unperturbed S phase.

BGCs (n)
Cells 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 >20 Total cells
-BrdUrd 20 56.7 5 15 3.4 60
+BrdUrd 0 6.9 17.2 37.93 37.93 58

Percentage of unlabeled (-BrdUrd) and BrdUrd-labeled (+BrdUrd) cells displaying the indicated number of BGCs (n).

Discussion

Yunis et al. (6) mapped 110 common fragile sites, all within R bands, on G-banded chromosomes of human lymphocytes. However, 10 years before, recurrent breakpoints were mapped on irradiated lymphocytes of normal donors and on untreated lymphocytes of patients affected by Fanconi anaemia. Almost systematically, when chromosomes were R-banded, breakpoints were localized within G bands, and when chromosomes were G-banded, they were localized in R bands. This result implies that the mapping of chromosome breaks is strongly biased by the type of chromosome staining used (52). Such approximation of a few megabases, which is about the DNA content of a prometaphase chromosome band, makes it impossible to correlate the position of BGCs to the replication timing of chromosome domains. Therefore, we reassessed the localization of BGCs induced by Aph by using both R- and G-banding. Our results confirm the existence of the bias described above, show that the currently accepted location of these sites must be reconsidered, and strongly suggest that the vast majority of AphS actually lie at the interface of bands with different replication timing (Table 2). This conclusion was supported by FISH localization of BACs probing for FRA3B, FRA16D, and FRAXB on prometaphase chromosomes (Fig. 2).

The mechanisms responsible for the transition between chromosomal domains replicated at different times during S phase are still unknown. It is tempting, however, to postulate that replication forks originating from early replicating bands are blocked or slowed down at specific pause sites, the replication of regions located downstream of these sites being carried out later by forks emanating from origins of the late replicating bands. This view is supported by the fact that ATR, the activation of which likely results from the accumulation of RPA-bound single-stranded DNA at stalled forks (53), controls FRA3B stability (35, 36). When activated, ATR triggers a phosphorylation cascade that, in turn, prevents collapse of stalled forks or helps collapsed forks to restart. Activation of ATR also blocks the onset of mitosis until the completion of replication. As suggested by Casper et al. (35), by delaying replication of AphS, Aph may increase fork instability or impair fork restart, a phenomenon reinforced in ATR-deficient cells. Altogether, these and our results suggest that AphS are genetically programmed pause sites that ensure the transition between some early and late replicating bands.

We observed that mitotic-like chromosomes resulting from Cal treatment display BGCs, the majority of which colocalize with known AphS at the cytogenetic level (Table 2). This finding was verified at the molecular level in the case of FRA3B, FRA16D, and FRAXB (Table 3). We also showed that Cal does not substantially impair S progression (Fig. 3), which strongly suggests that Cal-induced destabilization of AphS results from PCC. Moreover, we established that breaks do not occur at FRA3B in cells condensed in G1 (Fig. 6), showing that Cal sensitivity is a postreplicative characteristic of the site. Thus, damage does not result from an intrinsic sensitivity to condensation of the FRA3B nucleotide sequence but is rather triggered by treatments perturbing the relative timing of replication and condensation along the site. We observed that mitotic-like chromosomes of cells treated with Cal at different stages of G2 phase display BGCs at AphS (Table 4 and Fig. 7), indicating that specific features are present at this level in cells that enter G2 after an unperturbed S phase. We also showed that the mean number of BGCs per cell decreases when these cells progress through G2, a result in good agreement with the fact that damage is infrequently observed in timely condensed mitotic chromosomes of untreated cells.

The molecular nature of these features is not fully elucidated. PCC may simply allow observation of preexisting breaks. Indeed, in prokaryotes and lower eukaryotes, several reports have established that pause sites are prone to fork collapse and breakage (54, 55). However, the demonstration that loss of ataxia telangiectasia-mutated function does not impact on AphS stability (35) strongly argues against this hypothesis. The specific role of ATR is better explained whether replication and/or chromatin reorganization after replication remain incomplete in G2, rendering these loci incompetent for condensation, even in untreated normal cells. In contrast to the S phase exit, the G2/M transition being stringently controlled, ATR would delay mitotic onset until their complete duplication via its downstream target BRCA1 (37). Hence, these sites might be integral components of the G2/M checkpoint.

Supplementary Material

Supporting Figures

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer (Equipe labellisée 2004-2006). E.E.A. was supported by a doctoral scholarship from the Lebanese National Council for Scientific Research (2001-2004) and La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer (2004-2005).

Author contributions: E.E.A., B.D., and M.D. designed research; E.E.A., M.G.-S., and M.M. performed research; E.E.A., B.D., and M.D. analyzed data; and E.E.A., B.D., and M.D. wrote the paper.

Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.

This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

Abbreviations: Aph, aphidicolin; AphS, Aph-sensitive sites; ATR, ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related; BAC, bacterial artificial chromosome; BGCs, breaks, gaps, and constrictions; Cal, calyculin A; PCC, premature chromosome condensation.

References

  • 1.Yunis, J. J. & Soreng, A. L. (1984) Science 226, 1199-1204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Smith, D. I., Huang, H. & Wang, L. (1998) Int. J. Oncol. 12, 187-196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sutherland, G. R. & Baker, E. (2000) Clin. Genet. 58, 157-161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Richards, R. I. (2001) Trends Genet. 17, 339-345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sutherland, G. R. (1979) Am. J. Hum. Genet. 31, 125-135. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yunis, J. J., Soreng, A. L. & Bowe, A. E. (1987) Oncogene 1, 59-69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Glover, T. W., Berger, C., Coyle, J. & Echo, B. (1984) Hum. Genet. 67, 136-142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wright, G. E., Hubscher, U., Khan, N. N., Focher, F. & Verri, A. (1994) FEBS Lett. 341, 128-130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Goda, N., Ryan, H. E., Khadivi, B., McNulty, W., Rickert, R. C. & Johnson, R. S. (2003) Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 359-369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hammond, E. M. & Giaccia, A. J. (2004) DNA Repair (Amst.) 3, 1117-1122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Coquelle, A., Toledo, F., Stern, S., Bieth, A. & Debatisse, M. (1998) Mol. Cell 2, 259-265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Arlt, M. F., Casper, A. M. & Glover, T. W. (2003) Cytogenet. Genome Res. 100, 92-100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rozier, L., El-Achkar, E., Apiou, F. & Debatisse, M. (2004) Oncogene 23, 6872-6880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Glover, T. W. & Stein, C. K. (1987) Am. J. Hum. Genet. 41, 882-890. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wenger, S. L. (1995) Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 85, 72-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rassool, F. V., McKeithan, T. W., Neilly, M. E., van Melle, E., Espinosa, R., 3rd, & Le Beau, M. M. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88, 6657-6661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thorland, E. C., Myers, S. L., Persing, D. H., Sarkar, G., McGovern, R. M., Gostout, B. S. & Smith, D. I. (2000) Cancer Res. 60, 5916-5921. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Coquelle, A., Pipiras, E., Toledo, F., Buttin, G. & Debatisse, M. (1997) Cell 89, 215-225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jamieson, R. V., Perveen, R., Kerr, B., Carette, M., Yardley, J., Heon, E., Wirth, M. G., van Heyningen, V., Donnai, D., Munier, F. & Black, G. C. (2002) Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 33-42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Denison, S. R., Callahan, G., Becker, N. A., Phillips, L. A. & Smith, D. I. (2003) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 38, 40-52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ciullo, M., Debily, M. A., Rozier, L., Autiero, M., Billault, A., Mayau, V., El Marhomy, S., Guardiola, J., Bernheim, A., Coullin, P., et al. (2002) Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 2887-2894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hellman, A., Zlotorynski, E., Scherer, S. W., Cheung, J., Vincent, J. B., Smith, D. I., Trakhtenbrot, L. & Kerem, B. (2002) Cancer Cell 1, 89-97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pekarsky, Y., Zanesi, N., Palamarchuk, A., Huebner, K. & Croce, C. M. (2002) Lancet Oncol. 3, 748-754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Siprashvili, Z., Sozzi, G., Barnes, L. D., McCue, P., Robinson, A. K., Eryomin, V., Sard, L., Tagliabue, E., Greco, A., Fusetti, L., et al. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 13771-13776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dumon, K. R., Ishii, H., Fong, L. Y. Y., Zanesi, N., Fidanza, V., Mancini, R., Vecchione, A., Baffa, R., Trapasso, F., During, M. J., et al. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 3346-3351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Le Beau, M. M., Rassool, F. V., Neilly, M. E., Espinosa, R., 3rd, Glover, T. W., Smith, D. I. & McKeithan, T. W. (1998) Hum. Mol. Genet. 7, 755-761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wang, L., Darling, J., Zhang, J. S., Huang, H., Liu, W. & Smith, D. I. (1999) Hum. Mol. Genet. 8, 431-437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hellman, A., Rahat, A., Scherer, S. W., Darvasi, A., Tsui, L. C. & Kerem, B. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 4420-4427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Palakodeti, A., Han, Y., Jiang, Y. & Le Beau, M. M. (2004) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 39, 71-76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mishmar, D., Rahat, A., Scherer, S. W., Nyakatura, G., Hinzmann, B., Kohwi, Y., Mandel-Gutfroind, Y., Lee, J. R., Drescher, B., Sas, D. E., et al. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 8141-8146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mimori, K., Druck, T., Inoue, H., Alder, H., Berk, L., Mori, M., Huebner, K. & Croce, C. M. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 7456-7461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ried, K., Finnis, M., Hobson, L., Mangelsdorf, M., Dayan, S., Nancarrow, J. K., Woollatt, E., Kremmidiotis, G., Gardner, A., Venter, D., et al. (2000) Hum. Mol. Genet. 9, 1651-1663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Morelli, C., Karayianni, E., Magnanini, C., Mungall, A. J., Thorland, E., Negrini, M., Smith, D. I. & Barbanti-Brodano, G. (2002) Oncogene 21, 7266-7276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zlotorynski, E., Rahat, A., Skaug, J., Ben-Porat, N., Ozeri, E., Hershberg, R., Levi, A., Scherer, S. W., Margalit, H. & Kerem, B. (2003) Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 7143-7151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Casper, A. M., Nghiem, P., Arlt, M. F. & Glover, T. W. (2002) Cell 111, 779-789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Casper, A. M., Durkin, S. G., Arlt, M. F. & Glover, T. W. (2004) Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75, 654-660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Arlt, M. F., Xu, B., Durkin, S. G., Casper, A. M., Kastan, M. B. & Glover, T. W. (2004) Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 6701-6709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Howlett, N. G., Taniguchi, T., Durkin, S. G., D'Andrea, A. D. & Glover, T. W. (2005) Hum. Mol. Genet. 14, 693-701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Musio, A., Montagna, C., Mariani, T., Tilenni, M., Focarelli, M. L., Brait, L., Indino, E., Benedetti, P. A., Chessa, L., Albertini, A., et al. (2005) Hum. Mol. Genet. 14, 525-533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sutherland, G. R. (2003) Cytogenet. Genome Res. 100, 77-84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kanda, R., Eguchi-Kasai, K. & Hayata, I. (1999) Somatic Cell Mol. Genet. 25, 1-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Alsbeih, G. & Raaphorst, G. P. (1999) Anticancer Res. 19, 903-908. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ricoul, M., Lebeau, J., Sabatier, L. & Dutrillaux, B. (1998) Mutat. Res. 403, 177-183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rassool, F. V., Le Beau, M. M., Shen, M. L., Neilly, M. E., Espinosa, R., 3rd, Ong, S. T., Boldog, F., Drabkin, H., McCarroll, R. & McKeithan, T. W. (1996) Genomics 35, 109-117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Krummel, K. A., Roberts, L. R., Kawakami, M., Glover, T. W. & Smith, D. I. (2000) Genomics 69, 37-46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mangelsdorf, M., Ried, K., Woollatt, E., Dayan, S., Eyre, H., Finnis, M., Hobson, L., Nancarrow, J., Venter, D., Baker, E. & Richards, R. I. (2000) Cancer Res. 60, 1683-1689. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Arlt, M. F., Miller, D. E., Beer, D. G. & Glover, T. W. (2002) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 33, 82-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Smith, K. A., Gorman, P. A., Stark, M. B., Groves, R. P. & Stark, G. R. (1990) Cell 63, 1219-1227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dutrillaux, B., Couturier, J., Richer, C. L. & Viegas-Pequignot, E. (1976) Chromosoma 58, 51-61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Karube, T. & Watanabe, S. (1988) Cancer Res. 48, 219-222. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Someya, A., Tanaka, N. & Okuyama, A. (1993) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 196, 85-91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dutrillaux, B., Couturier, J., Viegas-Pequignot, E. & Schaison, G. (1977) Hum. Genet. 37, 65-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Shechter, D., Costanzo, V. & Gautier, J. (2004) DNA Repair (Amst.) 3, 901-908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hyrien, O. (2000) Biochimie 82, 5-17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Michel, B., Grompone, G., Flores, M.-J. & Bidnenko, V. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 12783-12788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Figures

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES