Next Article in Journal
Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Antibodies Overcome Resistance of Ovarian Cancer Cells to Targeted Therapy and Natural Cytotoxicity
Next Article in Special Issue
Lower Salinomycin Concentration Increases Apoptotic Detachment in High-Density Cancer Cells
Previous Article in Journal
The Emerging Roles of ATP-Dependent Chromatin Remodeling Enzymes in Nucleotide Excision Repair
Previous Article in Special Issue
Damaged DNA Binding Protein 2 in Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Regulation and Premature Senescence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/ijms130911974
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Common Fragile Sites: Genomic Hotspots of DNA Damage and Carcinogenesis

by
Ke Ma
1,2,
Li Qiu
1,2,
Kristin Mrasek
3,
Jun Zhang
1,2,
Thomas Liehr
3,
Luciana Gonçalves Quintana
3 and
Zheng Li
1,2,*
1
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin 300060, China
2
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Breast Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin 300060, China
3
Institute of Human Genetics, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, D-07743 Jena, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13(9), 11974-11999; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911974
Submission received: 17 July 2012 / Revised: 9 August 2012 / Accepted: 5 September 2012 / Published: 20 September 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue DNA Damage and Repair in Degenerative Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Genomic instability, a hallmark of cancer, occurs preferentially at specific genomic regions known as common fragile sites (CFSs). CFSs are evolutionarily conserved and late replicating regions with AT-rich sequences, and CFS instability is correlated with cancer. In the last decade, much progress has been made toward understanding the mechanisms of chromosomal instability at CFSs. However, despite tremendous efforts, identifying a cancer-associated CFS gene (CACG) remains a challenge and little is known about the function of CACGs at most CFS loci. Recent studies of FATS (for Fragile-site Associated Tumor Suppressor), a new CACG at FRA10F, reveal an active role of this CACG in regulating DNA damage checkpoints and suppressing tumorigenesis. The identification of FATS may inspire more discoveries of other uncharacterized CACGs. Further elucidation of the biological functions and clinical significance of CACGs may be exploited for cancer biomarkers and therapeutic benefits.

1. Introduction

Common fragile sites (CFSs) are specific chromosomal regions that preferentially form gaps or breaks on metaphase chromosomes under replication stress. The most typical inducer of CFSs is aphidicolin, an inhibitor of DNA polymerase that induces 77 of 88 known CFSs [1–3]. Unlike rare fragile sites, which involve expansion of a repeat motif (such as CGG), and are inherited in a Mendelian manner without a direct role in cancer, CFSs are seen in all individuals and frequently correlate with cancer [1,4,5]. Intriguingly, not all CFSs form breaks or gaps at the same frequency [6], and two sites (FRA3B and FRA16D) in the human genome are most prone to form lesions. CFSs are evolutionarily conserved and late replicating regions with AT-rich sequences [7]. Genomic instability, a hallmark of cancer, occurs preferentially at CFSs. Thus, the study of CFSs can not only provide insight into carcinogenesis, but also lead to the discovery of new cancer-related genes.
Here, we will review recent advances in the field of cancer-related CFSs. We also describe the efforts in mapping FRA10F and identification of a new CFS gene, named FATS (for Fragile-site Associated Tumor Suppressor), which is involved in DNA damage response.

2. Mechanisms of CFS Instability

CFSs are part of the normal chromosomal structure, and they are normally stable in cultured cells. After partial inhibition of replication by aphidicolin, BrdU, or 5-azacytidine, CFSs are expressed at specific loci of metaphase chromosomes. Fragile sites are conserved among mammals and are also found in lower eukaryotes including yeast and fly [8]. In addition to displaying gaps and breaks, CFSs are preferably involved in sister chromatid exchange (SCE), deletions and translocations [9–12]. CFSs are also “hotspots” for gene amplification [13–15] and viral integration [16–19]. As genetic instability is a hallmark of cancer, the strong correlation between most CFSs and imbalanced loci/breakpoints in tumor genome has attracted extensive studies on the molecular basis of CFSs.
One of the features of CFS is late-replication. Sequences at FRA3B replicate very late and the treatment of aphidicolin results in a further delay in replication. Remarkably, more than 10% of FRA3B sites remain unreplicated in G2 phase after aphidicolin treatment [20,21]. Replication timing studies of FRA16D, FRA7H, FRA1H and FRA2G also indicate the late-replicating feature of these CFSs [22–24], which confers sensitivity to further delay in response to replication inhibitors. Palumbo et al. [25] analyzed the replication dynamics at FRA6E, a mid-late-replicating sequence, and observed that chromosome breakages occur preferentially at an early/late replication transition zone. Investigations of cloned CFSs reveal no sequence similarities or consensus motifs. Instead, all CFSs examined to date are comprised of AT-rich flexibility islands with the potential of forming stable secondary structures. Zlotorynski et al. [26] have shown that the flexible sequences at FRA7E are composed of interrupted runs of AT-dinucleotides and these sequences show similarity to the AT-rich minisatellite repeats that underlie the fragility of some rare fragile sites. Such sequences at CFS have the potential to form secondary structures to affect replication. Similarly, several regions with a potential unusual DNA structure, including high-flexibility, low-stability and non-B-DNA-forming sequences, were identified at FRA7H and FRA3B [20,27]. Thus, CFS regions contain clusters of flexibility peaks that are extremely AT-rich. Recent conformational studies of cytosine-rich CFS regions indicate that homo-C tracts in duplex DNA may be associated with DNA-protein interactions in vivo, predisposing certain genomic regions to chromosomal fragility [28].
A genetic assay showed that a short AT-rich region within FRA16D causes increased chromosome breakage by forming strong secondary structures that stall replication fork progression [29], supporting the argument that repeat instability is an important and unique form of mutation that is not only linked to neurodegenerative disorders caused by expansion of trinucleotide repeats at rare fragile sites [30], but also linked to CFS fragility caused by tandem repeat sequences, including AT-dinucleotide repeats. Repeat instability involved the formation of unusual DNA structures during DNA replication, repair and recombination. Based on experimental studies in the prokaryotic model system [31,32], deletions or amplifications of repeat sequences tend to occur during DNA replication in a leading/lagging strand-dependent manner. Stably transfected FRA3B sequences in HCT116 cells exhibit instability at ectopic sites [33]. More recently, Letessier et al. [34] showed that FRA3B instability in lymphocytes relies on a paucity of initiation events rather than on fork slowing or stalling, thus, confirming impaired replication dynamics at FRA3B [35]. Helmrich et al. [36] reported that long genes, such as FHIT, WWOX and IMMP2L, exhibit CFS instability only when they are transcribed. Also, regions of concomitant transcription and replication in late S phase exhibit CFS, and RNA:DNA hybrids (R-loops) form at sites of transcription/replication collisions independently of aphidicolin treatment. This report not only highlights that CFSs are hotspots of DNA damage but also suggests that functional replication machinery must be involved in the resolution of conflicts of transcription and replication machineries to ensure genomic stability [36]. Moreover, Kerem’s laboratory found that even under normal growth conditions, replication fork progression at FRA16C is slow and forks frequently stall at AT-rich sequences. Unlike in the entire genome, additional origins in FRA16C region are not activated under mild replication stress, leading ultimately to the failure of normal replication completion in the FRA16C region [37]. It is now increasingly clear that failure of origin activation is a common feature of CFSs [38,39]. Therefore, CFS fragility is caused either by perturbed fork progression at AT-dinucleotide repeats that form stable secondary structures, or by an intrinsic paucity of replicating origins along a CFS.
Interestingly, CFSs, having been mapped most often in lymphocytes, were shown to be expressed in a cell-specific or tissue-specific manner [34,40]. This points towards the necessity that CFS contribution to tumor-specific chromosomal rearrangements need to be reassessed [34], as different chromosomal regions can be involved in fragility in different cell types; this reveals a yet disregarded potential epigenetic nature of CFSs [41].

3. Cancer-Associated CFS Genes

Genetic damage is considered as a hallmark of most cancer cells, and the induction of genomic instability is a crucial event in carcinogenesis. Numerous studies have shown that CFSs are genomic loci of frequent deletion, amplification and rearrangement in cancer cells. Yunis et al. [42] reported that fragile sites are targets of diverse mutagens and carcinogens, and 67% of the in vitro induced fragile sites are located in cancer-specific breakpoints. For nearly thirty years, this correspondence between the locations of fragile sites and cancer-associated loci has attracted intensive investigation aimed at identifying fragile-site-associated tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes. Most CFSs have been determined by FISH mapping. However, only a few of CFSs have been molecularly mapped to date (Table 1), largely due to the difficulties in identifying cancer associated CFS genes (CACGs) by means of positional cloning. Although numerous genes may be associated with a CFS, usually less than two genes are found as CACGs.
Most studies of CFS associated genes have focused on FRA3B and FRA16D because they are the two most frequently expressed and best-characterized fragile sites. Two tumor suppressor genes, FHIT and WWOX, are associated with FRA3B and FRA16D, respectively. FRA3B frequently exhibits allelic loss or homozygous deletions in many tumor types including lung, kidney, breast, digestive tract and lymphomas [43–47]. FRA3B is relatively small in size, only 200–300 kb at 3p14.2. In contrast, FHIT locus is composed of ten exons distributed over at least 500 kb. Despite its large size, FHIT encodes only a small 1.1 kb transcript. Aberrant transcripts of the FHIT locus were found in approximately 50% of esophageal, stomach and colon carcinomas [46], and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at FHIT was found in 85% of primary effusion lymphoma [47], and 84% of gastric cancer [48]. FHIT is a diadenosine triphosphate (Ap3A) hydrolase [49], and its role as a tumor suppressor has been confirmed. FHIT-deficient mice have increased susceptibility to NMBA-induced tumorigenesis [50]. Interestingly, although FHIT overexpression suppresses tumorigenicity both in vitro and in vivo, the hydrolase “dead” FHIT mutant also suppresses tumorigenicity in vivo [51], indicating that the hydrolase activity of FHIT is not required for tumor suppression. Investigating the protein interactions with FHIT shed light on the mechanisms underlying FHIT-mediated suppression of tumorigenesis. Weiske et al. [52] showed that FHIT interacts with the C-terminus of β-catenin and negatively regulates transcription of target genes such as cyclin D1, MMP-14 and survivin. In addition, ectopic activation of FHIT in FHIT-deficient H1299 cells significantly reduced the invasive potential of tumor cells by down-regulating expression of RhoC, a potential marker of tumor cell invasion and metastases [53].
FRA16D lies within the large WWOX gene, which encodes a small 1.2 kb transcript but extends over 1 Mb. The highest normal expression of WWOX was observed in hormonally regulated tissues such as testis, ovary, and prostate [54]. Surprisingly, although FRA16D is a LOH site in breast, lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic carcinomas and lymphomas [47,54–59], WWOX mRNA is overexpressed in multiple breast cancer cell lines, including MCF-7, MDA-MB-453, SKBR3 and ZR-75-1 [54]. Watanabe et al. [60] reported that the level of WWOX protein is elevated rather than decreased in gastric and breast carcinomas, challenging the notion that WWOX is a classic tumor suppressor. The function of WWOX as a tumor suppressor was later supported by in vivo evidence that inactivation of WWOX gene accelerates tumor progression in mice and that WWOX is haploinsufficient for the initiation of tumor development [61,62]. As WWOX gene encodes four transcript variants and current studies support the role of WWOX variant 1 as a tumor suppressor [63], the controversies regarding the expression of WWOX in cancers are probably caused by variant 4, whose function remains to be elucidated. WWOX shuttles between cytoplasm and nuclei, and cytoplasmic WWOX was associated mainly with mitochondria [60]. However, the Golgi localization of WWOX has been reported [64,65]. Ludes-Meyers et al. reported that WWOX normally resides in the Golgi and that aberrantly-spliced mRNAs encode WWOX protein isoforms displaying abnormal intracellular localization to the nucleus, possibly functioning as dominant negative inhibitors of full length WWOX [65]. It seems that inducing apoptosis plays a major role in WWOX-mediated suppression of tumorigenesis. WWOX induces apoptosis synergistically with p53, and WWOX phosphorylation at Tyr33 is required for WWOX binding to p53 and the pro-apoptotic function of WWOX [66]. WWOX also interacts with c-Jun proto-oncogene and suppresses c-Jun transcriptional activity [67].
Besides FRA3B and FRA16D, to date, 17 CFSs have been molecularly cloned with reports of associated genes (Table 1): FRA2G [68], FRA2H [69], FRA4F [70], FRA6E [71], FRA6F [72], FRA7B [73], FRA7G [14,74–76], FRA7I [77], FRA7K [78], FRA8C [79,80], FRA9E [81], FRA10F [82], FRA10G [83,84], FRAXB [85] and FRAXC [86,87]. Although FRA7E and FRA7H have been cloned, there are no functional reports about the associated genes. The majority of fragile sites appear to be located either at the junction of Giemsa-negative and Giemsa-positive bands or in Giemsa-negative bands close to the junction [5]. However, few CFSs have been experimentally mapped in the post-genomics era. Usually, there are multiple genes associated with a CFS. Most of early studies focused on the cloning of a CFS, trying to identify a CACG involved in carcinogenesis or cancer development. Although identifying CFS-associated genes may be easier in the post-genomics era, validating a CACG has remained challenging until now. Several CACGs have been identified, besides FHIT and WWOX. PAPPA (at FRA9E) and PARK2 (at FRA6E) are candidate tumor suppressor genes with evidence of LOH or expression loss in cancer [71,81]. The chromosomal breakage at FRA7G is associated with amplification, deletion, and/or translocation in certain forms of cancer. The MET oncogene, a receptor kinase, is a CACG at FRA7G. The amplification of MET has been found in human gastric carcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma [14,76]. The PI3K-Akt mediates oncogenic MET-induced centrosome amplification and chromosome instability [88]. The activation of MET tyrosine kinase stimulates the survival, proliferation, and invasion of glioblastomas. Joo et al. [89] further showed that a distinct fraction of cells expressing a high level of MET in human primary glioblastomas multiforme (GBM) specimens are highly clonogenic, tumorigenic, and resistant to radiation. Inhibition of MET signaling in glioblastoma stem cells (GSC) disrupts tumor growth and invasiveness both in vitro and in vivo, suggesting that MET activation is linked to cancer stem cell phenotype. Interestingly, FRA7G is also a LOH site in breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer [74,75]. Tatarelli et al. [90] observed lack of TESTIN expression in 22% of cancer cell lines and 44% of the cell lines derived from hematological malignancies, suggesting that TESTIN may represent a candidate tumor suppressor gene at 7q31. Adenoviral transduction of TESTIN gene into T47D breast cancer cells promotes apoptosis and suppresses the tumorigenic potential of T47D cells in nude mice. However, TESTIN overexpression in MCF-7 breast cancer cells does not show pro-apoptotic effects and antitumor activity in vivo [91]. In addition, Han et al. [92] argued that TESTIN are co-amplified with the MET oncogene and overexpressed in human gastric cancer cell line GTL-16, challenging the role of TESTIN as a tumor suppressor gene at FRA7G. Wang’s laboratory reported that DNA breaks at FRA10G generate oncogenic RET/PTC rearrangements, which are frequently found in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), in human thyroid cells [83,84]. FRA8C is a preferred site of integration for human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical tumors, and MYC oncogene, which is at the boundary of FRA8C, is frequently deregulated—usually by translocation or amplification—in various tumor types [5,79,80]. It has been well established that deregulation of MYC-mediated signal transduction plays an important role in tumorigenesis. The major advances in our understanding of MYC functions have been summarized in an excellent review [93]. Differential display (DD)-PCR analysis comparing normal ovarian epithelial cultures and ovarian cancer cell lines identified pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPPA) as a CACG with frequent loss of expression in ovarian cancer cell lines. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis determined that PAPPA is localized within the distal end of FRA9E, which is one of the largest CFS extending over 9 Mb [81]. Lack of functional PAPPA compromises mouse ovarian steroidogenesis and female fertility [94]. However, the functional role of PAPPA deficiency in ovarian cancer remains obscure. The RET proto-oncogene encodes a receptor tyrosine kinase that is required for the development of the urogenital system and the nervous systems. Recently, Gandhi et al. [83,84] found that RET fusion gene is involved in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), which is a CACG at FRA10G. RET/PTC rearrangements are found in 30% to 40% of adult and 50% to 60% of pediatric PTC tumors, and the two most common subtypes are RET/PTC1 and RET/PTC3, where RET is translocated with CCDC6 and NCOA4, respectively [95–97]. Unexpectedly, RET is methylated in 27% of colon adenomas and in 63% of colorectal cancers. The aberrant methylation of RET correlates with decreased RET expression, whereas the restoration of RET in colorectal cancer cell lines results in apoptosis [98]. These results indicate that RET is a potential tumor suppressor gene in colon cancer. Interestingly, RET mutations have been found in both multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, characterized by medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC), and primary colorectal cancer [98,99], supporting its oncogenic function in thyroid carcinoma and tumor-suppressing function in colon cancer, respectively. Further understanding of the functions and physiological role of RET is essential to define the molecular mechanisms underlying RET-associated tumorigenesis. PARK2 lies within FRA6E, a large common fragile site. PARK2 deletions occur frequently in sporadic colorectal cancer and accelerate adenoma development in Apc mutant mice [100]. Somatic mutations of PARK2 in glioblastoma and other human malignancies have been reported [101]. DMD is embedded in a CFS FRAXC and exhibits reduced expression in brain tumors [86]. Array CGH analysis and nucleotide-sequence analysis reveal multiple independent rearrangements frequently occurring in both PARK2 and DMD in germ cell and cancer cell lines [87]. Notably, CFS expression varies extensively among individuals, and only two sites (FRA3B and FRA16D) were fragile in all of the tested individuals [6]. The expression frequency of some CFSs (e.g., FRA10F) is as low as 5% of the population [6]. Although CFSs are regions of genomic instability that have also been associated with deletions, translocations, and gene amplification during cancer development, recent advances in our understanding of the molecular nature of CFSs indicate that protein-coding CFS genes may not exist in all cancer-related CFSs. Brueckner et al. [69] fine-mapped the location of FRA2H using six-color FISH analysis and showed that it is one of the most active CFSs in the human genome. Surprisingly, FRA2H encompasses approximately 530 kb of a gene-poor region containing a novel large non-coding RNA gene. Using custom-designed array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), gross and submicroscopic chromosomal rearrangements involving FRA2H in a panel of 54 neuroblastoma, colon and breast cancer cell lines were detected [69]. The function of this non-coding RNA gene remains to be elucidated.
CFSs are specific genomic loci susceptible to DNA damage induced by replication stress and genotoxic agents. Consistently, CFSs are preferentially involved in sister chromatid exchange [9], an indication that some type of repair has occurred at the site. Ionizing radiation (IR) is a well-known carcinogen that is able to induce DNA damage and initiate neoplastic progression. In addition, IR-induced tumors exhibit a high frequency of localized deletion/amplification events [102]. It is therefore practical to identify evolutionarily conserved CFS genes through genome-wide dissecting allelic imbalances in IR-induced tumors. To this end, Li et al. [82] analyzed CGH profiling of IR-induced mouse lymphomas in comparison with those of spontaneous tumors (Figure 1), using the same approach as described before [102]. All the tumors had the same genetic background (p53+/−), which facilitates time-consuming collection of tumor samples [103] and high quality of CGH analysis with less interference of repetitive sequences in mouse than that in human. Using microarrays containing over 19,200 bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones with insert size in the range of 170–210 kb and maximized coverage of mouse genome [104], the results of CGH analysis reveal a deletion site close to the end of mouse chromosome 7 in IR-induced tumors. This DNA region, corresponding to the contig of RP23-35I7, was deleted in 15% of spontaneous tumors (n = 20). Remarkably, the same region was deleted in 21 out of 29 (72.4%, p < 0.001) IR-induced tumor samples, indicating that this genomic region, which likely harbors an uncharacterized candidate tumor suppressor gene D7Ertd443e (Genbank accession number: GQ499374, NM_001199941), is highly susceptible to DNA damage [82]. Its human counterpart, C10orf90, a functionally uncharacterized gene, is mapped to a CFS FRA10F at 10q26, spanning a LOH region associated with cancers [105,106]. The co-localization of this new gene with FRA10F was confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), using a BAC probe RP11-179O22 that spans 170 kb and contains all exons of C10orf90 (Table 2). Therefore, this gene, encoding an uncharacterized and evolutionarily conserved protein, is named FATS (for Fragile-site Associated Tumor Suppressor) [82]. Non-coding sequences of FATS gene are AT-rich. Interestingly, the largest exon of mouse FATS, encoding the NH2-terminal domain of FATS that is evolutionarily conserved, is surrounded by AT-rich sequences inserted with AT-dinucleotide repeats, which is a feature of CFSs instability. Unusually, additional dinucleotide repeats such as (CA)n and (TG)n, are distributed in AT-rich sequences both upstream and downstream of this coding exon, which may form a succession of stem-loop structures with a tendency to induce replication pausing and cause DNA fragility [82]. These dinucleotide repeats inserted in AT-rich sequences thus confer genetic instability to the FATS locus. Moreover, FATS expression is deficient or silent not only in mouse lymphomas and multiple human cancer cell lines [82], but also in clinical tumor samples from patients with ovarian, breast and lung cancer [107–109], demonstrating that FATS is a CFS gene at FRA10F. Fine-mapping of FRA10F by FISH using five BAC probes defines the boundary of FRA10F (Table 2), which spans 2.8 Mb at the junction of 10q26.13–26.2 (Figure 2 and 3). Although 30 genes are associated with FRA10F, only FATS is functionally validated as a CACG. The approach to FATS identification is practical for discovering some, if not all, other uncharacterized CACGs, especially when a genome-wide high-density SNP-oligonucleotide array is commercially available. Although IR does not cause gaps and breaks at CFSs in culture cells, IR-induced DNA damage, which is associated with deletion or amplification, occurs at relatively specific genomic loci in the mouse tumor genome. The FATS locus is just one of the most repetitively detected loci susceptible to DNA damage [82,102]. Although there are 30 genes associated with FRA10F spanning 2.8 Mb (Figure 2), only the FATS gene locus is highly susceptible to DNA damage-induced deletion in p53+/− tumors [82,102]. Similarly, aphidicolin-induced replication stress leads to DNA damage, and the number of CFS induced by aphidicolin can be as many as 230, dependent on the dose of aphidicolin treatment [110]. Notably, chromosomal lesions induced by chemical mutagens involve large regions of chromosomes, and changes in spontaneous tumors often involve whole chromosomes [102]. In contrast, IR-induced tumors exhibit a high frequency of localized deletion/amplification events [102], facilitating the identification of cancer-related genes using the approach illustrated in Figure 1. Because of very high numbers of recurrent gains and losses induced by IR, the cancer-related genes identified by this approach may consist of CACGs and other oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. In the post-genomics era, identifying CFS-associated genes and cloning CFSs is less important than identifying new CACGs with important physiological functions and a causal role in tumorigenesis. Given that CFS instability, at least FRA3B instability, exhibits tissue specificity [28], cancer-related CFSs and CACGs need to be reassessed in the cell type from which each tumor originates. The frequent deletion of T-cell-receptor-α (TCR-α) gene locus is both detected in both spontaneous and IR-induced tumors [102], using the approach we propose in Figure 1. In addition, microarray-based studies of mouse tumor models (Figure 1) also reveals the tumor suppressor gene CDKN2A (p16) at a frequently deleted region in tumors induced by IR (data not shown). These results demonstrated the reliability of the microarray-based approach in mouse tumor models, which led to the discovery of the FATS tumor suppressor gene. Recently, Bignell et al. [111] identified 2428 somatic homozygous deletions (HDs) in 746 cancer cell lines. Interestingly, CDKN2A (p16) exhibits more HDs than other recessive cancer genes, and TCR-α genes are located at the deepest HD in lymphoid cells in their dataset [111]. The microarray-based screening of murine tumor models (Figure 1) therefore may be helpful to discover new cancer-related genes, including some evolutionarily conserved CACGs whose gene loci are susceptible to DNA damage. After functional validation, the localization of a CACG at a CFS should be verified by FISH analysis using BAC clones spanning the whole gene locus. Similarly, Tsantoulis et al. [112] performed a genome-wide array CGH study on preneoplastic mouse models, in addition to analyzing 56 aphidicolin-type CFSs in growth-factor-induced human skin hyperplasia, showing that genomic alterations are more common within CFSs in epidermal and urothelial preneoplastic lesions as well as in cancer. Further functional study based on these microarray data may provide new insights into the molecular nature of uncharacterized CFSs, leading to identification of new CACGs.

4. CFS Expression and Defects in Checkpoint Proteins

Progression of cell cycle is an orchestrated process, and cells have evolved checkpoint mechanisms to delay cell division in response to DNA damage to allow for DNA repair, while maintaining genomic integrity by protecting dividing cells from potentially fatal consequences of DNA damage [113]. ATM and ATR kinases are important DNA damage checkpoint proteins functioning in overlapping pathways. ATM responds primarily to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), while ATR plays a major role in responding to stalled and collapsed replication forks. Caffeine, an inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase related kinases, including ATM and ATR, significantly increases CFS breakage in conjunction with FdU and aphidicolin [5,114]. Several mutagens and carcinogens, including benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and dimethyl sulfate, can induce fragile site breakage [42]. BrdU and 5-azacytidine also induce CFS expression at distinct loci, which are different from aphidicolin-induced CFSs [1]. Consistent with the inhibitory effect of aphidicolin on DNA polymerase, reduced levels of DNA polymerase delta induced CFS instability in yeast [115]. Short hairpin RNA-mediated depletion of Polymerase eta from undamaged human cells affects cell cycle progression and results in increased spontaneous chromosome breaks and CFS expression with the activation of ATM-mediated DNA damage checkpoint signaling [116].
Casper et al. [117] found that cells deficient in ATR, but not ATM, display a significant increase in CFS breakage following treatment with aphidicolin, compared to control cells. Importantly, CFSs are observed in ATR-deficient cells without aphidicolin induction. While the loss of ATM alone does not cause increased CFS expression, it is involved in maintaining CFS stability in the absence of ATR. Cells deficient in both ATR and ATM exhibit a significant increase in CFS breakage compared to those deficient in ATR alone [118]. Wan et al. [119] reported that ATR preferentially interacts with CFS FRA3B and the binding requires its kinase activity in response to aphidicolin treatment.
Some downstream targets of ATR are also involved in maintaining CFS stability. Loss of CHK1, but not CHK2, induces breaks at CFSs [120]. Inactivation of HUS1, a member of PCNA-related 9-1-1complex that promotes CHK1 phosphorylation by ATR and is involved in DNA repair, causes increased chromosomal instability at CFSs [121]. SMC1 is necessary for sister chromatid cohesion and DNA repair. Inhibition of SMC1 expression by RNAi is sufficient to induce fragile site expression [122]. Other proteins involved in checkpoint and DNA repair processes, such as BRCA1 [123], claspin [124], and FANCD2 [125], are required for CFS stability. Fanconi anemia (FA) is a recessively inherited syndrome with an extremely elevated cancer risk. Schoder et al. [126] showed that chromosomal break-points in Fanconi anemia patients co-localize on the molecular level with fragile sites in at least 50% of cases, supporting the involvement of FANC family in regulating CFS stability. In addition, CDC25A phosphatase, an essential component of the cell cycle machinery, is overexpressed in breast carcinoma. Constitutively overexpressed CDC25A in hTERT-immortalized primary human mammary epithelial cells causes defective DNA damage response and increased fragile site breakages [127].
The aphidicolin-induced DNA damage is repaired primarily by homologous recombination (HR), and RAD51, one of the key players in HR, participates in CFS stability. The RAD51 silencing causes a broader distribution of breaks at CFS FRA16D than that observed with aphidicolin. Treatment with aphidicolin of RAD51-silenced cells further increases DNA breaks at CFSs. In contrast, the RNAi-mediated silencing of PARP-1 does not cause chromosomal breaks or affect the expression/distribution of CFS induced by aphidicolin. Another DNA repair pathway, the mismatch repair (MMR), is also involved in CFS stability, mediated by RAD51 [128]. Depletion of essential replication proteins in yeast leads to spontaneous DNA damage, genome rearrangements and breakpoints at fragile sites, which are subsequently repaired by HR [129].
Notably, proteins that are important for the resolution of DNA secondary structures, such as helicase and topoisomerase I, are capable of modulating CFS stability [130–134]. The Werner syndrome protein (WRN) is a member of the RecQ helicase family that is essential in maintaining CFS stability [130]. Murfuni et al. [133] showed that the role of WRN in response to perturbation of replication along CFS is functionally distinct from that carried out at stalled forks genome-wide. WRN modulates human DNA polymerase delta-dependent replication dynamics within the common fragile site FRA16D [134]. Topoisomerase I is a key enzyme functioning at the interface between DNA replication and mRNA transcription. Cells deficient in Topoisomerase-I accumulate stalled replication forks and chromosome breaks in S phase, and breaks occur preferentially at gene-rich regions of the genome. These defects could be mimicked by depletion of the splicing factor ASF/SF2 (alternative splicing factor/splicing factor 2), which interacts functionally with Topoisomerase I [131]. This study suggests that interference between replication and transcription causes spontaneous replication stress, leading to genomic instability during the early stages of tumorigenesis. However, there has been a debate about the role of topoisomerase-I in CFS expression. Arlt and Glover [132] reported that aphidicolin-induced breaks at CFSs are prevented when cells are co-treated with low concentrations of the topoisomerase I inhibitor, camptothecin. Furthermore, camptothecin reduces spontaneous fragile site breakage in ATR-deficient cells, even in the absence of aphidicolin. These results indicate that topoisomerase I activity is required for CFS breaks [132]. The contradictory conclusions about topoisomerase I and CFS instability imply the complexity of regulatory mechanisms underlying CFS expression. Whether camptothecin has other cellular targets, besides topoisomerase I, remains to be investigated. Although more investigation is necessary to better understand the mechanisms of CFS expression, it is clear that components of DNA damage checkpoints regulate CFS expression. Perturbed DNA synthesis and replication, in addition to interfered coupling of fork progression and transcription, causes DNA breaks preferentially occurring at CFSs.

5. An Active Role of CACGs in Maintaining Genomic Stability

A CACG, FATS, plays an active role in regulating checkpoint functions after DNA damage. Knockdown of FATS by siRNA causes more pronounced phosphorylation of Chk1, a mediator of DNA damage signaling [82]. In addition, the number of IR-induced nuclear 53BP1 foci in MEF cells is increased after FATS knockdown, indicating that FATS deficiency causes increased sensitivity to DNA damage induced by IR in normal cells. Furthermore, FATS-inhibited MEF cells exhibited significantly higher mitotic index after DNA damage [82]. For those FATS-deficient cells entering mitosis under IR-induced genotoxic stress, severe mitotic defects in nuclear division and centrosome duplication occur, confirming that FATS is required for sustaining G2/M checkpoint after DNA damage [82]. In agreement with the role of FATS as a tumor suppressor, the overexpression of FATS suppresses tumor growth both in vivo and in vitro. In an effort to determine the full length of FATS mRNA by screening the mouse testis cDNA library, the 5′-untranslated region (UTR) was validated, leading to the identification of FATS as a p53 target gene. Moreover, FATS is capable of suppressing tumor growth independently of p53 [107].
N-terminal domain of FATS (FATS-N), which consists of 363 amino-acid residues encoded by one exon that is highly susceptible to IR-induced deletion in tumors, is sufficient to induce p21 protein and inhibit cell proliferation. Interestingly, FATS does not affect the protein level of p27, another inhibitor of cell cycle progression, and FATS is capable of increasing p21 protein level in p53-null cells [82]. As p21 is an unstable protein and FATS does not possess features of a transcriptional factor, these results support a role of FATS in stabilizing p21. Indeed, the expression of FATS-N is sufficient to increase the half-life of endogenous p21 in both unstressed and stressed cells, in a p53-independent manner [82]. Li et al. further explored the mechanism by which FATS inhibited p21 turnover. Given that p21 is selectively induced by HDAC inhibitors and that HDAC1 is a major deacetylase, localized predominantly to the nucleus [135,136], a series of protein binding assays was performed to test whether FATS might interact with HDAC1. FATS (67–175) domain within FATS-N is required for protein interaction between FATS and HDAC1, which inhibits HDAC1 binding to p21 and facilitates the acetylation of p21. Li et al. first proved that acetylation of p21protein inhibits direct binding of p21 C-terminus to C8 α-subunit of 20S proteasome, suppressing subsequent ubiquitin-independent turnover of p21 [82]. In eukaryotic DNA damage signaling pathways, tumor suppressor p53 and its transcriptional target CDKN1A (p21) play an essential role in monitoring G1-S and G2-M cell-cycle checkpoints [137–139]. FATS therefore functions as a guardian to maintain genomic stability through, at least in part, regulating cellular abundance of p21 in response to DNA damage, independently of p53. More recently, there is evidence showing that FATS is a novel ubiquitin ligase that promotes p53 stabilization and activation in response to DNA damage [140] further supporting the role of FATS in regulating p53-p21 pathway to maintain genomic stability.
Ionizing radiation (IR) increases expression of FATS in cells carrying wild-type p53, which is in contrast to the response of FHIT and WWOX expression after DNA damage. Thavathiru et al. [141] reported that environmental carcinogens and ultraviolet (UV) light significantly downregulate expression of both FHIT and WWOX genes. Unexpectedly, IR does not affect expression of FHIT and WWOX genes. In contrast, aphidicolin-mediated replication stress induces tumor-like microdeletions in FHIT/FRA3B [142]. Whether FHIT and WWOX play a role in DNA damage response remains to be investigated.

6. Clinical Significance of CACGs

Several studies have investigated the clinical significance of CACG expression in cancer. Using an anti-FHIT polyclonal antibody in a standard immunohistochemical reaction, Lack of FHIT staining in a well-characterized cohort of 99 non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) was shown to be correlated with LOH at the FHIT 3p14.2 locus, and was inversely correlated with codon 12 mutations in K-ras. However, FHIT expression was not correlated overall with a variety of clinical parameters, including survival, and was not associated with abnormalities of immunohistochemical expression of p53 in the same cohort of NSCLC [143]. In an independent translational research on 58 primary and microdissected NSCLCs [144], FHIT LOH was not correlated overall with a variety of clinical parameters, including sex, smoking status, staging, lymph node metastasis and survival. There was no association between LOH at FHIT and its protein expression, suggesting the presence of complex mechanisms of FHIT inactivation. However, among 19 cases that showed LOH of FHIT detected by microsatellite marker D3S1766, a correlation between p53 overexpression and LOH at FHIT locus was observed [144], which differs from the previous conclusions [143]. The convincing conclusions about the correlation between FHIT and p53 expression may be obtained by quantitative real-time RT-PCR analysis in a large cohort. In the case of the WWOX gene, reduced WWOX expression demonstrates a significant association with clinical Stage IV (p = 0.007), negative Progesterone Receptor (PR) status (p = 0.008) and shorter overall survival (p = 0.03), by means of immunoblotting and immunohistochemistry on normal ovaries and specific human ovarian carcinoma tissue microarrays (n = 444) [145]. The expression level of FATS, determined by quantitative real-time RT-PCR, shows the clinical significance in breast cancer and NSCLC. In a cohort of 106 breast carcinomas, low expression of FATS is correlated with high nuclear grade. There is a tendency to a favorable outcome for patients with high expression of FATS (p = 0.346) in primary breast tumors. Interestingly, low expression of FATS was associated with a poor outcome of breast cancer patients with node positive (p = 0.011). Furthermore, the mRNA level of FATS showed an independent value in predicting the outcome of breast cancer patients with positive lymph nodes [108]. In addition, in a cohort of 89 NSCLC patients, a low level of FATS mRNA expression was correlated with poor overall survival in NSCLC (p = 0.030). For those NSCLC patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the overall survival was significantly longer in the FATS-high subgroup than that in the FATS-low subgroup (p = 0.038). Multivariate analysis revealed the independent value of FATS mRNA in predicting the overall survival for NSCLC patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy [109]. On the other hand, the clinical significance of oncogenic CACGs has also been shown. Met-regulated expression signature defines a subset of human hepatocellular carcinomas with poor prognosis and aggressive phenotype [146].
Although the potential value of CFS genes, such as cancer biomarkers, remains to be validated in a large cohort, CFS genes are emerging as a kind of biomarker with potential value in predicting response to chemotherapy or radiotherapy that cause DNA damage in both tumors and normal tissues. Given that CFSs are genomic “hotspots” of DNA damage, and DNA lesions at CFSs or defects in CFS gene expression are well correlated with chromosomal abnormalities in tumors, it would be interesting to evaluate whether monitoring deficiency of CFS-associated tumor suppressor genes may have a beneficial effect on optimizing the application of radiotherapy and radio-diagnosis, whose long-term side effects of carcinogenesis need to be weighed, particularly in the case of childhood [147–149].

7. Conclusions

CFSs are present in all individuals with varied frequency, representing late replicating AT-rich regions that are susceptible to DNA damage. In addition, CFSs are well conserved in mammals, and chromosome breakage and rearrangement at CFSs are early events in tumorigenesis. CFSs can be regarded as “built-in” sensors of DNA damage that link cell-cycle checkpoint to DNA repair pathways. However, only a few of CFS genes have been functionally validated. Future studies on CFS genes should enhance our understanding of tumorigenesis, leading to a more effective and personalized cancer therapy.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the grants from Ministry of Science and Technology of China 973-program concept award (2009CB526407 to Z.L.), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81272283 to Z.L.), Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Foundation (10JCZDJC18600 to Z.L.), and DAAD (L.Q.G.).
  • Conflict of InterestThe authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Schwartz, M.; Zlotorynski, E.; Kerem, B. The molecular basis of common and rare fragile sites. Cancer Lett 2006, 232, 13–26. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sutherland, G.R.; Baker, E.; Richards, R.I. Fragile sites still breaking. Trends Genet 1998, 14, 501–506. [Google Scholar]
  3. Glover, T.W.; Berger, C.; Coyle, J.; Echo, B. DNA polymerase alpha inhibition by aphidicolin induces gaps and breaks at common fragile sites in human chromosomes. Hum. Genet 1984, 67, 136–142. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kremer, E.J.; Pritchard, M.; Lynch, M.; Yu, S.; Holman, K.; Baker, E.; Warren, S.T.; Schlessinger, D.; Sutherland, G.R.; Richards, R.I. Mapping of DNA instability at the fragile X to a trinucleotide repeat sequence p(CCG)n. Science 1991, 252, 1711–1714. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yunis, J.J.; Soreng, A.L. Constitutive fragile sites and cancer. Science 1984, 226, 1199–1204. [Google Scholar]
  6. Denison, S.R.; Simper, R.K.; Greenbaum, I.F. How common are common fragile sites in humans: Interindividual variation in the distribution of aphidicolin-induced fragile sites. Cytogenet. Genome Res 2003, 101, 8–16. [Google Scholar]
  7. Durkin, S.G.; Glover, T.W. Chromosome fragile sites. Annu. Rev. Genet 2007, 41, 169–192. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hashash, N.; Johnson, A.L.; Cha, R.S. Regulation of fragile sites expression in budding yeast by MEC1, RRM3 and hydroxyurea. J. Cell Sci 2011, 124, 181–185. [Google Scholar]
  9. Glover, T.W.; Stein, C.K. Induction of sister chromatid exchanges at common fragile sites. Am. J. Hum. Genet 1987, 41, 882–890. [Google Scholar]
  10. Glover, T.W.; Stein, C.K. Chromosome breakage and recombination at fragile sites. Am. J. Hum. Genet 1988, 43, 265–273. [Google Scholar]
  11. Wang, N.D.; Testa, J.R.; Smith, D.I. Determination of the specificity of aphidicolin-induced breakage of the human 3p14.2 fragile site. Genomics 1993, 17, 341–347. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chan, K.L.; Palmai-Pallag, T.; Ying, S.; Hickson, I.D. Replication stress induces sister-chromatid bridging at fragile site loci in mitosis. Nat. Cell. Biol 2009, 11, 753–760. [Google Scholar]
  13. Coquelle, A.; Pipiras, E.; Toledo, F.; Buttin, G.; Debatisse, M. Expression of fragile sites triggers intrachromosomal mammalian gene amplification and sets boundaries to early amplicons. Cell 1997, 89, 215–225. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hellman, A.; Zlotorynski, E.; Scherer, S.W.; Cheung, J.; Vincent, J.B.; Smith, D.I.; Trakhtenbrot, L.; Kerem, B. A role for common fragile site induction in amplification of human oncogenes. Cancer Cell 2002, 1, 89–97. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bartova, E.; Galiova, G.; Legartova, S.; Stixova, L.; Jugova, A.; Kozubek, S. Genomic instability in the context of chromatin structure and fragile sites. Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Expr 2010, 20, 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilke, C.M.; Hall, B.K.; Hoge, A.; Paradee, W.; Smith, D.I.; Glover, T.W. FRA3B extends over a broad region and contains a spontaneous HPV16 integration site: Direct evidence for the coincidence of viral integration sites and fragile sites. Hum. Mol. Genet 1996, 5, 187–195. [Google Scholar]
  17. De Braekeleer, M.; Sreekantaiah, C.; Haas, O. Herpes simplex virus and human papillomavirus sites correlate with chromosomal breakpoints in human cervical carcinoma. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet 1992, 59, 135–137. [Google Scholar]
  18. Popescu, N.C.; DiPaolo, J.A. Preferential sites for viral integration on mammalian genome. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet 1989, 42, 157–137. [Google Scholar]
  19. Smith, P.P.; Friedman, C.; Bryant, E.M.; McDougall, J.K. Viral integration and fragile sites in human papillomavirus-immortalized human keratinocyte cell lines. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1992, 5, 150–157. [Google Scholar]
  20. Le Beau, M.M.; Rassool, F.V.; Neilly, M.E.; Espinosa, R.; Glover, T.W.; Smith, D.I.; McKeithan, T.W. Replication of a common fragile site, FRA3B, occurs late in S phase and is delayed further upon induction: Implications for the mechanism of fragile site induction. Hum. Mol. Genet 1998, 7, 755–761. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, L.; Darling, J.; Zhang, J.S.; Huang, H.; Liu, W.; Smith, D.I. Allele-specific late replication and fragility of the most active common fragile site, FRA3B. Hum. Mol. Genet 1999, 8, 431–437. [Google Scholar]
  22. Palakodeti, A.; Han, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Le Beau, M.M. The role of late/slow replication of the FRA16D in common fragile site induction. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2004, 39, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hellman, A.; Rahat, A.; Scherer, S.W.; Darvasi, A.; Tsui, L.C.; Kerem, B. Replication delay along FRA7H, a common fragile site on human chromosome 7, leads to chromosomal instability. Mol. Cell. Biol 2000, 20, 4420–4427. [Google Scholar]
  24. Pelliccia, F.; Bosco, N.; Curatolo, A.; Rocchi, A. Replication timing of two human common fragile sites: FRA1H and FRA2G. Cytogenet. Genome Res 2008, 121, 196–200. [Google Scholar]
  25. Palumbo, E.; Matricardi, L.; Tosoni, E.; Bensimon, A.; Russo, A. Replication dynamics at common fragile site FAR6E. Chromosoma 2010, 119, 575–587. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zlotorynski, E.; Rahat, A.; Skaug, J.; Ben-Porat, N.; Ozeri, E.; Hershberg, R.; Levi, A.; Scherer, S.W.; Margalit, H.; Kerem, B. Molecular basis for expression of common and rare fragile sites. Mol. Cell. Biol 2003, 23, 7143–7151. [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. Molecular characterization of a common fragile site (FRA7H) on human chromosome 7 by the cloning of a simian virus 40 integration site. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 8141–8146. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tsai, A.G.; Engelhart, A.E.; Hatmal, M.M.; Houston, S.I.; Hud, N.V.; Haworth, I.S.; Lieber, M.R. Conformational variants of duplex DNA correlated with cytosine-rich chromosomal fragile sites. J. Biol. Chem 2009, 284, 7157–7164. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang, H.; Freudenreich, C.H. An AT-rich sequence in human common fragile site FRA16D causes fork stalling and chromosome breakage in S. cerevisiae. Mol. Cell 2007, 27, 367–379. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pearson, C.E.; Edamura, K.N.; Cleary, J.D. Repeat instability: Mechanisms of dynamic mutations. Nat. Rev. Genet 2005, 6, 729–742. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bichara, M.; Wagner, J.; Lambert, I.B. Mechanisms of tandem repeat instability in bacteria. Mutation Res 2006, 598, 144–163. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kang, S.; Jaworski, A.; Ohshima, K.; Wells, R.D. Expansion and deletion of CTG repeats from human disease genes are determined by the direction of replication in E. coli. Nat. Genet 1995, 10, 213–218. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ragland, R.L.; Glynn, M.W.; Arlt, M.F.; Glover, T.W. Stably transfected common fragile site sequences exhibit instability at ectopic sites. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2008, 47, 860–872. [Google Scholar]
  34. Letessier, A.; Millot, G.A.; Koundrioukoff, S.; Lachagès, A.M.; Vogt, N.; Hansen, R.S.; Malfoy, B.; Brison, O.; Debatisse, M. Cell-type-specific replication initiation programs set fragility of the FRA3B fragile site. Nature 2011, 470, 120–123. [Google Scholar]
  35. Palakodeti, A.; Lucas, I.; Jiang, Y.; Young, D.J.; Fernald, A.A.; Karrison, T.; Le Beau, M.M. Impaired replication dynamics at the FRA3B common fragile site. Hum. Mol. Genet 2010, 19, 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  36. Helmrich, A.; Ballarino, M.; Tora, L. Collisions between replication and transcription complexes cause common fragile site instability at the longest human genes. Mol. Cell 2011, 44, 966–977. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ozeri-Galai, E.; Lebofsky, R.; Rahat, A.; Bester, A.C.; Bensimon, A.; Kerem, B. Failure of origin activation in response to fork stalling leads to chromosomal instability at fragile sites. Mol. Cell 2011, 43, 122–131. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ozeri-Galai, E.; Bester, A.C.; Kerem, B. The complex basis underlying common fragile site instability in cancer. Trends Genet 2012, 28, 295–302. [Google Scholar]
  39. Franchitto, A.; Pichierri, P. Understanding the molecular basis of common fragile sites instability: Role of the proteins involved in the recovery of stalled replication forks. Cell Cycle 2011, 10, 4039–4046. [Google Scholar]
  40. Le Tallec, B.; Dutrillaux, B.; Lachages, A.M.; Millot, G.A.; Brison, O.; Debatisse, M. Molecular profiling of common fragile sites in human fibroblasts. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 2011, 18, 1421–1423. [Google Scholar]
  41. Debatisse, M.; Le Tallec, B.; Letessier, A.; Dutrillaux, B.; Brison, O. Common fragile sites: Mechanisms of instability revisited. Trends Genet 2012, 28, 22–32. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yunis, J.J; Soreng, A.L.; Bowe, A.E. Fragile sites are targets of diverse mutagens and carcinogens. Oncogene 1987, 1, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
  43. Druck, T.; Hadaczek, P.; Fu, T.B.; Ohta, M.; Siprashvili, Z.; Baffa, R.; Negrini, M.; Kastury, K.; Veronese, M.L.; Rosen, D.; et al. Structure and expression of the human FHIT gene in normal and tumor cells. Cancer Res 1997, 57, 504–512. [Google Scholar]
  44. Michael, D.; Beer, D.G.; Wilke, C.W.; Miller, D.E.; Glover, T.W. Frequent deletions of FHIT and FRA3B in Barrett’s metaplasia and esophageal adenocarcinomas. Oncogene 1997, 15, 1653–1659. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mimori, K.; Druck, T.; Inoue, H.; Alder, H.; Berk, L.; Mori, M.; Huebner, K.; Croce, C.M. Cancer-specific chromosome alterations in the constitutive fragile region FRA3B. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 7456–7461. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ohta, M.; Inoue, H.; Cotticelli, M.G.; Kastury, K.; Baffa, R.; Palazzo, J.; Siprashvili, Z.; Mori, M.; McCue, P.; Druck, T.; et al. The FHIT gene, spanning the chromosome 3p14.2 fragile site and renal carcinoma-associated t(3;8) breakpoint, is abnormal in digestive tract cancers. Cell 1996, 84, 587–597. [Google Scholar]
  47. Roy, D.; Sin, S.H.; Damania, B.; Dittmer, D.P. Tumor suppressor genes FHIT and WWOX are deleted in primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) cell lines. Blood 2011, 118, e32–39. [Google Scholar]
  48. Huiping, C.; Kristjansdottir, S.; Bergthorsson, J.T.; Jonasson, J.G.; Magnusson, J.; Egilsson, V.; Ingvarsson, S. High frequency of LOH, MSI and abnormal expression of FHIT in gastric cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2002, 38, 728–735. [Google Scholar]
  49. Barnes, L.D.; Garrison, P.N.; Siprashvili, Z.; Guranowski, A.; Robinson, A.K.; Ingram, S.W.; Croce, C.M.; Ohta, M.; Huebner, K. FHIT, a putative tumor suppressor in humans, is a dinucleoside 5′,5″′-P1,P3-triphosphate hydrolase. Biochemistry 1996, 35, 11529–11535. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zanesi, N.; Fidanza, V.; Fong, L.Y.; Mancini, R.; Druck, T.; Valtieri, M.; Rüdiger, T.; McCue, P.A.; Croce, C.M.; Huebner, K. The tumor spectrum in FHIT-deficient mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 10250–10255. [Google Scholar]
  51. Siprashvili, Z.; Sozzi, G.; Barnes, L.D.; McCue, P.; Robinson, A.K.; Eryomin, V.; Sard, L.; Tagliabue, E.; Greco, A.; Fusetti, L.; et al. Replacement of FHIT in cancer cells suppresses tumorigenicity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 13771–13776. [Google Scholar]
  52. Weiske, J.; Albring, K.F.; Huber, O. The tumor suppressor FHIT acts as a repressor of β-catenin transcriptional activity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 20344–20349. [Google Scholar]
  53. Jayachandran, G.; Sazaki, J.; Nishizaki, M.; Xu, K.; Girard, L.; Minna, J.D.; Roth, J.A.; Ji, L. Fragile histidine triad-mediated tumor suppression of lung cancer by targeting multiple components of the Ras/Rho GTPase molecular switch. Cancer Res 2007, 67, 10379–10388. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bednarek, A.K.; Laflin, K.J.; Daniel, R.L.; Liao, Q.; Hawkins, K.A.; Aldaz, C.M. WWOX, a novel WW domain-containing protein mapping to human chromosome 16q23.3–24.1, a region frequently affected in breast cancer. Cancer Res 2000, 60, 2140–2145. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ried, K.; Finnis, M.; Hobson, L.; Mangelsdorf, M.; Dayan, S.; Nancarrow, J.K.; Woollatt, E.; Kremmidiotis, G.; Gardner, A.; Venter, D.; et al. Common chromosomal fragile site FRA16D sequence: Identification of the FOR gene spanning FRA16D and homozygous deletions and translocation breakpoints in cancer cells. Hum. Mol. Genet 2000, 9, 1651–1663. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kuroki, T.; Trapasso, F.; Shiraishi, T.; Alder, H.; Mimori, K.; Mori, M.; Croce, C.M. Genetic alterations of the tumor suppressor gene WWOX in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2002, 62, 2258–2260. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kuroki, T.; Yendamuri, S.; Trapasso, F.; Matsuyama, A.; Aqeilan, R.I.; Alder, H.; Rattan, S.; Cesari, R.; Nolli, M.L.; Williams, N.N.; et al. The tumor suppressor gene WWOX at FRA16D is involved in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Clin. Cancer Res 2004, 10, 2459–2465. [Google Scholar]
  58. Aqeilan, R.I.; Kuroki, T.; Pekarsky, Y.; Albagha, O.; Trapasso, F.; Baffa, R.; Huebner, K.; Edmonds, P.; Croce, C.M. Loss of WWOX expression in gastric carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res 2004, 10, 3053–3058. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yendamuri, S.; Kuroki, T.; Trapasso, F.; Henry, A.C.; Dumon, K.R.; Huebner, K.; Williams, N.N.; Kaiser, L.R.; Croce, C.M. WW domain containing oxidoreductase gene expression is altered in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 2003, 63, 878–881. [Google Scholar]
  60. Watanabe, A.; Hippo, Y.; Taniguchi, H.; Iwanari, H.; Yashiro, M.; Hirakawa, K.; Kodama, T.; Aburatani, H. An opposing view on WWOX protein function as a tumor suppressor. Cancer Res 2003, 63, 8629–8633. [Google Scholar]
  61. Aqeilan, R.I.; Hagan, J.P.; Aqeilan, H.A.; Pichiorri, F.; Fong, L.Y.; Croce, C.M. Inactivation of the WWOX gene accelerates forestomach tumor progression in vivo. Cancer Res 2007, 67, 5606–5610. [Google Scholar]
  62. Aqeilan, R.I.; Trapasso, F.; Hussain, S.; Costinean, S.; Marshall, D.; Pekarsky, Y.; Hagan, J.P.; Zanesi, N.; Kaou, M.; Stein, G.S.; et al. Targeted deletion of WWOX reveals a tumor suppressor function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 3949–3954. [Google Scholar]
  63. Gourley, C.; Paige, A.J.; Taylor, K.J.; Scott, D.; Francis, N.J.; Rush, R.; Aldaz, C.M.; Smyth, J.F.; Gabra, H. WWOX mRNA expression profile in epithelial ovarian cancer supports the role of WWOX variant 1 as a tumor suppressor, although the role of variant 4 remains unclear. Int. J. Oncol 2005, 26, 1681–1689. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bednarek, A.K.; Keck-Waggoner, C.L.; Daniel, R.L.; Laflin, K.J.; Bergsagel, P.L.; Kiguchi, K.; Brenner, A.J.; Aldaz, C.M. WWOX, the FRA16D gene, behaves as a suppressor of tumor growth. Cancer Res 2001, 61, 8068–8073. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ludes-Meyers, J.H.; Bednarek, A.K.; Popescu, N.C.; Bedford, M.; Aldaz, C.M. WWOX, the common chromosomal fragile site, FRA16D, cancer gene. Cytogenet. Genome Res 2003, 100, 101–110. [Google Scholar]
  66. Chang, N.S.; Doherty, J.; Ensign, A.; Lewis, J.; Heath, J.; Schultz, L.; Chen, S.T.; Oppermann, U. Molecular mechanisms underlying WOX1 activation during apoptotic and stress responses. Biochem. Pharmacol 2003, 66, 1347–1354. [Google Scholar]
  67. Gaudio, E.; Palamarchuk, A.; Palumbo, T.; Trapasso, F.; Pekarsky, Y.; Croce, C.M.; Aqeilan, R.I. Physical association with WWOX suppresses c-Jun transcriptional activity. Cancer Res 2006, 66, 11585–11589. [Google Scholar]
  68. Limongi, M.Z.; Pelliccia, F.; Rocchi, A. Characterization of the human common fragile site FRA2G. Genomics 2003, 81, 93–97. [Google Scholar]
  69. Brueckner, L.M.; Sagulenko, E.; Hess, E.M.; Zheglo, D.; Blumrich, A.; Schwab, M.; Savelyeva, L. Genomic rearrangements at the FRA2H common fragile site frequently involve non-homologous recombination events across LTR and L1(LINE) repeats. Hum. Genet 2012, 131, 1345–1359. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rozier, L.; El-Achkar, E.; Apiou, F.; Debatisse, M. Characterization of a conserved aphidicolin-sensitive common fragile site at human 4q22 and mouse 6C1: Possible association with an inherited disease and cancer. Oncogene 2004, 23, 6872–6880. [Google Scholar]
  71. Denison, S.R.; Callahan, G.; Becker, N.A.; Phillips, L.A.; Smith, D.I. Characterization of FRA6E and its potential role in autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism and ovarian cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003, 38, 40–52. [Google Scholar]
  72. Morelli, C.; Karayianni, E.; Magnanini, C.; Mungall, A.J.; Thorland, E.; Negrini, M.; Smith, D.I.; Barbanti-Brodano, G. Cloning and characterization of the common fragile site FRA6F harboring a replicative senescence gene and frequently deleted in human tumors. Oncogene 2002, 21, 7266–7276. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bosco, N.; Pelliccia, F.; Rocchi, A. Characterization of FRA7B, a human common fragile site mapped at the 7p chromosome terminal region. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet 2010, 202, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  74. Huang, H.; Qian, C.; Jenkins, R.B.; Smith, D.I. Fish mapping of YAC clones at human chromosomal band 7q31.2: Identification of YACS spanning FRA7G within the common region of LOH in breast and prostate cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1998, 21, 152–159. [Google Scholar]
  75. Huang, H.; Reed, C.P.; Mordi, A.; Lomberk, G.; Wang, L.; Shridhar, V.; Hartmann, L.; Jenkins, R.; Smith, D.I. Frequent deletions within FRA7G at 7q31.2 in invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1999, 24, 48–55. [Google Scholar]
  76. Miller, C.T.; Lin, L.; Casper, A.M.; Lim, J.; Thomas, D.G.; Orringer, M.B.; Chang, A.C.; Chambers, A.F.; Giordano, T.J.; Glover, T.W.; et al. Genomic amplification of MET with boundaries within fragile site FRA7G and upregulation of MET pathways in esophageal adenocarcinoma. Oncogene 2006, 25, 409–418. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ciullo, M.; Debily, M.A.; Rozier, L.; Autiero, M.; Billault, A.; Mayau, V.; El Marhomy, S.; Guardiola, J.; Bernheim, A.; Coullin, P.; et al. Initiation of the breakage-fusion-bridge mechanism through common fragile site activation in human breast cancer cells: The model of PIP gene duplication from a break at FRA7I. Hum. Mol. Genet 2002, 11, 2887–2894. [Google Scholar]
  78. Helmrich, A.; Stout-Weider, K.; Matthaei, A.; Hermann, K.; Heiden, T.; Schrock, E. Identification of the human/mouse syntenic common fragile site FRA7K/Fra12C1: Relation of FRA7K and other human common fragile sites on chromosome 7 to evolutionary breakpoints. Int. J. Cancer 2007, 120, 48–54. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ferber, M.J.; Eilers, P.; Schuuring, E.; Fenton, J.A.; Fleuren, G.J.; Kenter, G.; Szuhai, K.; Smith, D.I.; Raap, A.K.; Brink, A.A. Positioning of cervical carcinoma and Burkitt lymphoma translocation breakpoints with respect to the human papillomavirus integration cluster in FRA8C at 8q24.13. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet 2004, 154, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ferber, M.J.; Thorland, E.C.; Brink, A.A.; Rapp, A.K.; Phillips, L.A.; McGovern, R.; Gostout, B.S.; Cheung, T.H.; Chung, T.K.; Fu, W.Y.; et al. Preferential integration of human papillomavirus type 18 near the c-myc locus in cervical carcinoma. Oncogene 2003, 22, 7233–7242. [Google Scholar]
  81. Callahan, G.; Denison, S.R.; Phillips, L.A.; Shridhar, V.; Smith, D.I. Characterization of the common fragile site FRA9E and its potential role in ovarian cancer. Oncogene 2003, 22, 590–601. [Google Scholar]
  82. Li, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Mao, J.H.; Weise, A.; Mrasek, K.; Fan, X.; Zhang, X.; Liehr, T.; Lu, K.H.; Balmain, A.; et al. An HDAC1-binding domain within FATS bridges p21 turnover to radiation-induced tumorigenesis. Oncogene 2010, 29, 2659–2671. [Google Scholar]
  83. Gandhi, M.; Dillon, L.W.; Pramanik, S.; Nikiforov, Y.E.; Wang, Y.H. DNA breaks at fragile sites generate oncogenic RET/PTC rearrangements in human thyroid cells. Oncogene 2010, 29, 2272–2280. [Google Scholar]
  84. Gandhi, M.; Medvedovic, M.; Stringer, J.R.; Nikiforov, Y.E. Interphase chromosome folding determines spatial proximity of genes participating in carcinogenic RET/PTC rearrangements. Oncogene 2006, 25, 2360–2366. [Google Scholar]
  85. Arlt, M.F.; Miller, D.E.; Beer, D.G.; Glover, T.W. Molecular characterization of FRAXB and comparative common fragile site instability in cancer cells. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2002, 33, 82–92. [Google Scholar]
  86. McAvoy, S.; Ganapathiraju, S.; Perez, D.S.; James, C.D.; Smith, D.I. DMD and IL1RAPL1: Two large adjacent genes localized within a common fragile site (FRAXC) have reduced expression in cultured brain tumors. Cytogenet. Genome Res 2007, 119, 196–203. [Google Scholar]
  87. Mitsui, J.; Takahashi, Y.; Goto, J.; Tomiyama, H.; Ishikawa, S.; Yoshino, H.; Minami, N.; Smith, D.I.; Lesage, S.; Aburatani, H.; et al. Mechanisms of genomic instabilities underlying two common fragile-site-associated loci, PARK2 and DMD, in germ cell and cancer cell lines. Am. J. Hum. Genet 2010, 87, 75–89. [Google Scholar]
  88. Nam, H.J.; Chae, S.; Jang, S.H.; Cho, H.; Lee, J.H. The PI3K-Akt mediates oncogenic Met-induced centrosome amplification and chromosome instability. Carcinogenesis 2010, 31, 1531–1540. [Google Scholar]
  89. Joo, K.M.; Jin, J.; Kim, E.; Ho Kim, K.; Kim, Y.; Gu Kang, B.; Kang, Y.J.; Lathia, J.D.; Ho Cheong, K.; Song, P.H.; et al. MET signaling regulates glioblastoma stem cells. Cancer Res 2012, 72, 3828–3838. [Google Scholar]
  90. Tatarelli, C.; Linnenbach, A.; Mimori, K.; Croce, C.M. Characterization of the human TESTIN gene localized in the FRA7G region at 7q31.2. Genomics 2000, 68, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  91. Sarti, M.; Sevignani, C.; Calin, G.A.; Aqeilan, R.; Shimizu, M.; Pentimalli, F.; Picchio, M.C.; Godwin, A.; Rosenberg, A.; Drusco, A.; et al. Adenoviral transduction of TESTIN gene into breast and uterine cancer cell lines promotes apoptosis and tumor reduction in vivo. Clin. Cancer Res 2005, 11, 806–813. [Google Scholar]
  92. Han, S.Y.; Druck, T.; Huebner, K. Candidate tumor suppressor genes at FRA7G are coamplified with MET and do not suppress malignancy in a gastric cancer. Genomics 2003, 81, 105–107. [Google Scholar]
  93. Meyer, N.; Penn, L.Z. Reflecting on 25 years with MYC. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008, 8, 976–990. [Google Scholar]
  94. Nyegaard, M.; Overgaard, M.T.; Su, Y.Q.; Hamilton, A.E.; Kwintkiewicz, J.; Hsieh, M.; Nayak, N.R.; Conti, M.; Conover, C.A.; Giudice, L.C. Lack of functional pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPPA) compromises mouse ovarian steroidogenesis and female fertility. Biol. Reprod 2010, 82, 1129–1138. [Google Scholar]
  95. Santoro, M.; Melillo, R.M.; Fusco, A. RET/PTC activation in papillary thyroid carcinoma: European Journal of Endocrinology prize lecture. Eur. J. Endoc 2006, 155, 645–653. [Google Scholar]
  96. Dillon, L.W.; Lehman, C.E.; Wang, Y.H. The role of fragile sites in sporadic papillary thyroid carcinoma. J. Thyroid Res 2012, 2012, 927683. [Google Scholar]
  97. Dillon, L.W.; Burrow, A.A.; Wang, Y.H. DNA instability at chromosomal fragile sites in cancer. Curr. Genomics 2010, 11, 326–337. [Google Scholar]
  98. Luo, Y.; Tsuchiya, K.D., Il; Park, D.; Fausel, R.; Kanngurn, S.; Welcsh, P.; Dzieciatkowski, S.; Wang, J.; Grady, W.M. RET is a potential tumor suppressor gene in colorectal cancer. Oncogene 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wagner, S.M.; Zhu, S.; Nicolescu, A.C.; Mulligan, L.M. Molecular mechanisms of RET receptor-mediated oncogenesis in multiple endocrine neoplasia 2. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2012, 67, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  100. Poulogiannis, G.; McIntyre, R.E.; Dimitriadi, M.; Apps, J.R.; Wilson, C.H.; Ichimura, K.; Luo, F.; Cantley, L.C.; Wyllie, A.H.; Adams, D.J.; et al. PARK2 deletions occur frequently in sporadic colorectal cancer and accelerate adenoma development in Apc mutant mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 15145–15150. [Google Scholar]
  101. Veeriah, S.; Taylor, B.S.; Meng, S.; Fang, F.; Yilmaz, E.; Vivanco, I.; Janakiraman, M.; Schultz, N.; Hanrahan, A.J.; Pao, W.; et al. Somatic mutations of the Parkinson’s disease-associated gene PARK2 in glioblastoma and other human malignancies. Nat. Genet 2010, 42, 77–82. [Google Scholar]
  102. Mao, J.H.; Li, J.; Jiang, T.; Li, Q.; Wu, D.; Perez-Losada, J.; DelRosario, R.; Peterson, L.; Balmain, A.; Cai, W.W. Genomic instability in radiation-induced mouse lymphoma from p53 heterozygous mice. Oncogene 2005, 24, 7924–7934. [Google Scholar]
  103. Kemp, C.J.; Wheldon, T.; Balmain, A. p53-Deficient mice are extremely susceptible to radiation-induced tumorigenesis. Nat. Genet 1994, 8, 66–69. [Google Scholar]
  104. Cai, W.W.; Mao, J.H.; Chow, C.W.; Damani, S.; Balmain, A.; Bradley, A. Genome-wide detection of chromosomal imbalances in tumors using BAC microarrays. Nat. Biotechnol 2002, 20, 393–396. [Google Scholar]
  105. Maier, D.; Comparone, D.; Taylor, E.; Zhang, Z.; Gratzl, O.; van Meir, E.G.; Scott, R.J.; Merlo, A. New deletion in low-grade oligodendroglioma at the glioblastoma suppressor locus on chromosome 10q25–26. Oncogene 1997, 15, 997–1000. [Google Scholar]
  106. Nagase, S.; Yamakawa, H.; Sato, S.; Yajima, A.; Horii, A. Identification of a 790-kilobase region of common allelic loss in chromosome 10q25-q26 in human endometrial cancer. Cancer Res 1997, 57, 1630–1633. [Google Scholar]
  107. Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Qiu, L.; Yan, S.S.; Feng, J.; Sun, Y.; Huang, X.; Lu, K.H.; Li, Z. FATS is a transcriptional target of p53 and associated with antitumor activity. Mol. Cancer 2010, 9, 244. [Google Scholar]
  108. Zhang, J.; Gu, L.; Zhao, L.J.; Zhang, X.F.; Qiu, L.; Li, Z. Expression level of novel tumor suppressor gene FATS is associated with the outcome of node positive breast cancer. Chin. Med. J 2011, 124, 2894–2898. [Google Scholar]
  109. Tian, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yan, S.; Qiu, L.; Li, Z. FATS expression is associated with cisplatin sensitivity in non small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2012, 76, 416–422. [Google Scholar]
  110. Mrasek, K.; Schoder, C.; Teichmann, A.C.; Behr, K.; Franze, B.; Wilhelm, K.; Blaurock, N.; Claussen, U.; Liehr, T.; Weise, A. Global screening and extended nomenclature for 230 aphidicolin-inducible fragile sites, including 61 yet unreported ones. Int. J. Oncol 2010, 36, 929–940. [Google Scholar]
  111. Bignell, G.R.; Greenman, C.D.; Davies, H.; Butler, A.P.; Edkins, S.; Andrews, J.M.; Buck, G.; Chen, L.; Beare, D.; Latimer, C.; et al. Signatures of mutation and selection in the cancer genome. Nature 2010, 463, 893–898. [Google Scholar]
  112. Tsantoulis, P.K.; Kotsinas, A.; Sfikakis, P.P.; Evangelou, K.; Sideridou, M.; Levy, B.; Mo, L.; Kittas, C.; Wu, X.R.; Papavassiliou, A.G.; et al. Oncogene-induced replication stress preferentially targets common fragile sites in preneoplastic lesions: A genome-wide study. Oncogene 2008, 27, 3256–3264. [Google Scholar]
  113. Harrison, J.C.; Haber, J.E. Surviving the breakup: The DNA damage checkpoint. Annu. Rev. Genet 2006, 40, 209–235. [Google Scholar]
  114. Glover, T.W.; Coyle-Morris, J.; Morgan, R. Fragile sites: Overview, occurrence in acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and effects of caffeine on expression. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet 1986, 19, 141–150. [Google Scholar]
  115. Lemoine, F.J.; Degtyareva, N.P.; Kokoska, R.J.; Petes, T.D. Reduced levels of DNA polymerase delta induce chromosome fragile site instability in yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol 2008, 28, 5359–5368. [Google Scholar]
  116. Rey, L.; Sidorova, J.M.; Puget, N.; Boudsocq, F.; Biard, D.S.; Monnat, R.J., Jr; Cazaux, C.; Hoffmann, J.S. Human DNA polymerase eta is required for common fragile site stability during unperturbed DNA replication. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2009, 29, 3344–3354. [Google Scholar]
  117. Casper, A.M.; Nghiem, P.; Arlt, M.F.; Glover, T.W. ATR regulates fragile site stability. Cell 2002, 111, 779–789. [Google Scholar]
  118. Ozeri-Galai, E.; Schwartz, M.; Rahat, A.; Kerem, B. Interplay between ATM and ATR in the regulation of common fragile site stability. Oncogene 2008, 27, 2109–2117. [Google Scholar]
  119. Wan, C.; Kulkarni, A.; Wang, Y.H. ATR preferentially interacts with common fragile site FRA3B and the binding requires its kinase activity in response to aphidicolin treatment. Mutat. Res 2010, 686, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  120. Durkin, S.G.; Arlt, M.F.; Howlett, N.G.; Glover, T.W. Depletion of CHK1, but not CHK2, induces chromosomal instability and breaks at common fragile sites. Oncogene 2006, 25, 4381–4388. [Google Scholar]
  121. Zhu, M.; Weiss, R.S. Increased common fragile site expression, cell proliferation defects, and apoptosis following conditional inactivation of mouse Hus1 in primary cultured cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 2007, 18, 1044–1055. [Google Scholar]
  122. Musio, A.; Montagna, C.; Mariani, T.; Tilenni, M.; Focarelli, M.L.; Brait, L.; Indino, E.; Benedetti, P.A.; Chessa, L.; Albertini, A.; et al. SMC1 involvement in fragile site expression. Hum. Mol. Genet 2005, 14, 525–533. [Google Scholar]
  123. Arlt, M.F.; Xu, B.; Durkin, S.G.; Casper, A.M.; Kastan, M.B.; Glover, T.W. BRCA1 is required for common-fragile-site stability via its G2/M checkpoint function. Mol. Cell. Biol 2004, 24, 6701–6709. [Google Scholar]
  124. Focarelli, M.L.; Soza, S.; Mannini, L.; Paulis, M.; Montecucco, A.; Musio, A. Claspin inhibition leads to fragile site expression. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2009, 48, 1083–1090. [Google Scholar]
  125. Howlett, N.G.; Taniguchi, T.; Durkin, S.G.; D’Andrea, A.D.; Glover, T.W. The Fanconi anemia pathway is required for the DNA replication stress response and for the regulation of common fragile site stability. Hum. Mol. Genet 2005, 14, 693–701. [Google Scholar]
  126. Schoder, C.; Liehr, T.; Velleuer, E.; Wilhelm, K.; Blaurock, N.; Weise, A.; Mrasek, K. New aspects on chromosomal instability: Chromosomal break-points in Fanconi anemia patients co-localize on the molecular level with fragile sites. Int. J. Oncol 2010, 36, 307–312. [Google Scholar]
  127. Cangi, M.G.; Piccinin, S.; Pecciarini, L.; Talarico, A.; Dal Cin, E.; Grassi, S.; Grizzo, A.; Maestro, R.; Doglioni, C. Constitutive overexpression of CDC25A in primary human mammary epithelial cells results in both defective DNA damage response and chromosomal breaks at fragile sites. Int. J. Cancer 2008, 123, 1466–1471. [Google Scholar]
  128. Vernole, P.; Muzi, A.; Volpi, A.; Terrinoni, A.; Dorio, A.S.; Tentori, L.; Shah, G.M.; Graziani, G. Common fragile sites in colon cancer cell lines: Role of mismatch repair, RAD51 and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1. Mutat. Res 2011, 712, 40–48. [Google Scholar]
  129. Cheng, E.; Vaisica, J.A.; Ou, J.; Baryshnikova, A.; Lu, Y.; Roth, F.P.; Brown, G.W. Genome rearrangements caused by depletion of essential DNA replication proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 2012, 192, 147–160. [Google Scholar]
  130. Pirzio, L.M.; Pichierri, P.; Bignami, M.; Franchitto, A. Werner syndrome helicase activity is essential in maintaining fragile site stability. J. Cell Biol 2008, 180, 305–314. [Google Scholar]
  131. Tuduri, S.; Crabbé, L.; Conti, C.; Tourrière, H.; Holtgreve-Grez, H.; Jauch, A.; Pantesco, V.; De Vos, J.; Thomas, A.; Theillet, C.; et al. Topoisomerase I suppresses genomic instability by preventing interference between replication and transcription. Nat. Cell Biol 2009, 11, 1315–1324. [Google Scholar]
  132. Arlt, M.F.; Glover, T.W. Inhibition of topoisomerase I prevents chromosome breakage at common fragile sites. DNA Repair 2010, 9, 678–689. [Google Scholar]
  133. Murfuni, I.; De Santis, A.; Federico, M.; Bignami, M.; Pichierri, P.; Franchitto, A. Perturbed replication induced genome-wide or at common fragile sites is differently managed in the absence of WRN. Carcinogenesis 2012, 33, 1655–1663. [Google Scholar]
  134. Shah, S.N.; Opresko, P.L.; Meng, X.; Lee, M.Y.; Eckert, K.A. DNA structure and the Werner protein modulate human DNA polymerase delta-dependent replication dynamics within the common fragile site FRA16D. Nucleic. Acids Res 2010, 38, 1149–1162. [Google Scholar]
  135. Johnstone, R.W. Histone-deacetylase inhibitors: Novel drugs for the treatment of cancer. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov 2002, 1, 287–299. [Google Scholar]
  136. Dokmanovic, M.; Clarke, C.; Marks, P.A. Histone deacetylase inhibitors: Overview and perspectives. Mol. Cancer Res 2007, 5, 981–989. [Google Scholar]
  137. Brugarolas, J.; Chandrasekaran, C.; Gordon, J.I.; Beach, D.; Jacks, T.; Hannon, G.J. Radiation-induced cell cycle arrest compromised by p21 deficiency. Nature 1995, 377, 552–557. [Google Scholar]
  138. Bunz, F.; Dutriaux, A.; Lengauer, C.; Waldman, T.; Zhou, S.; Brown, J. P.; Sedivy, J. M.; Kinzler, K.W.; Vogelstein, B. Requirement for p53 and p21 to sustain G2 arrest after DNA damage. Science 1998, 282, 1497–1501. [Google Scholar]
  139. Deng, C.; Zhang, P.; Harper, J.W.; Elledge, S.J.; Leder, P. Mice lacking p21CIP1/WAF1 undergo normal development, but are defective in G1 checkpoint control. Cell 1995, 82, 675–684. [Google Scholar]
  140. Yan, S.; Ma, K.; Qiu, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Hao, X.; Li, Z. FATS is an E2-independent ubiquitin ligase that stabilizes p53 and promotes p53-dependent checkpoint response. To be submitted for publication.
  141. Thavathiru, E.; Ludes-Meyers, J.H.; MacLeod, M.C.; Aldaz, C.M. Expression of common chromosomal fragile site genes, WWOX/FRA16D and FHIT/FRA3B is downregulated by exposure to environmental carcinogens, UV, and BPDE but not by IR. Mol. Carcinog 2005, 44, 174–182. [Google Scholar]
  142. Durkin, S.G.; Ragland, R.L.; Arlt, M.F.; Mulle, J.G.; Warren, S.T.; Glover, T.W. Replication stress induces tumor-like microdeletions in FHIT/FRA3B. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 246–251. [Google Scholar]
  143. Geradts, J.; Fong, K.M.; Zimmerman, P.V.; Minna, J.D. Loss of FHIT expression in non-small-cell lung cancer: Correlation with molecular genetic abnormalities and clinicopathological features. Br. J. Cancer 2000, 82, 1191–1197. [Google Scholar]
  144. Lee, Y.C.; Wu, C.T.; Shih, J.Y.; Jou, Y.S.; Chang, Y.L. Frequent allelic deletion at the FHIT locus associated with p53 overexpression in squamous cell carcinoma subtype of Taiwanese non-small-cell lung cancers. Br. J. Cancer 2004, 90, 2378–2383. [Google Scholar]
  145. Nunez, M.I.; Rosen, D.G.; Ludes-Meyers, J.H.; Abba, M.C.; Kil, H.; Page, R.; Klein-Szanto, A.J.; Godwin, A.K.; Liu, J.; Mills, G.B.; et al. WWOX protein expression varies among ovarian carcinoma histotypes and correlates with less favorable outcome. BMC Cancer 2005, 5, 64. [Google Scholar]
  146. Kaposi-Novak, P.; Lee, J.S.; Gòmez-Quiroz, L.; Coulouarn, C.; Factor, V.M.; Thorgeirsson, S.S. Met-regulated expression signature defines a subset of human hepatocellular carcinomas with poor prognosis and aggressive phenotype. J. Clin. Invest 2006, 116, 1582–1595. [Google Scholar]
  147. Boice, J.D., Jr; Morin, M.M.; Glass, A.G.; Friedman, G.D.; Stovall, M.; Hoover, R.N.; Fraumeni, J.F., Jr. Diagnostic X-ray procedures and risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. JAMA 1991, 265, 1290–1294. [Google Scholar]
  148. Ron, E. Ionizing radiation and cancer risk: Evidence from epidemiology. Pediatr. Radiol 2002, 32, 232–237. [Google Scholar]
  149. Pearce, M.S.; Salotti, J.A.; Little, M.P.; McHugh, K.; Lee, C.; Kim, K.P.; Howe, N.L.; Ronckers, C.M.; Rajaraman, P.; Craft, A.W.; et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012, 380, 499–505. [Google Scholar]
Ijms 13 11974f1 1024
Figure 1. Experimental design for identification of genomic regions susceptible to DNA damage. This approach may be useful to discover evolutionarily conserved CFS genes. IR, ionizing radiation; CGH, comparative genomic hybridization; BAC, bacterial artificial chromosome; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.
Figure 1. Experimental design for identification of genomic regions susceptible to DNA damage. This approach may be useful to discover evolutionarily conserved CFS genes. IR, ionizing radiation; CGH, comparative genomic hybridization; BAC, bacterial artificial chromosome; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.
Ijms 13 11974f1
Ijms 13 11974f2 1024
Figure 2. Mapping of FRA10F by FISH. The indicated BAC DNA was labeled and subjected to FISH analysis. The associated genes including FATS (C10orf90) are shown. Lymphocyte cultures were established from 1 mL of peripheral whole blood and 9 mL of RPMI 1640 medium (GIBCO) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. After incubation at 37 °C for 48 h, aphidicolin solution was added (final concentration: 0.2 μM). Cell harvest and metaphase preparations followed routine cytogenetic techniques, and chromosomes were identified by DAPI (Sigma) staining. For each individual, chromosomal breakages/gaps were scored from 500 metaphases, captured and marked by coordinates using a metaphase finder. Images were obtained using a Zeiss Axioplan2 fluorescence microscope equipped with an IMAC CCD camera. FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Figure 2. Mapping of FRA10F by FISH. The indicated BAC DNA was labeled and subjected to FISH analysis. The associated genes including FATS (C10orf90) are shown. Lymphocyte cultures were established from 1 mL of peripheral whole blood and 9 mL of RPMI 1640 medium (GIBCO) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. After incubation at 37 °C for 48 h, aphidicolin solution was added (final concentration: 0.2 μM). Cell harvest and metaphase preparations followed routine cytogenetic techniques, and chromosomes were identified by DAPI (Sigma) staining. For each individual, chromosomal breakages/gaps were scored from 500 metaphases, captured and marked by coordinates using a metaphase finder. Images were obtained using a Zeiss Axioplan2 fluorescence microscope equipped with an IMAC CCD camera. FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Ijms 13 11974f2
Ijms 13 11974f3 1024
Figure 3. Different situations of FISH signals at a fragile site. The boundary of a fragile site was defined by FISH analysis probed with a series of labeled BAC clones. A fragile site consists of colocalized BAC DNA regions on supposed breakpoint and inside fragile site.
Figure 3. Different situations of FISH signals at a fragile site. The boundary of a fragile site was defined by FISH analysis probed with a series of labeled BAC clones. A fragile site consists of colocalized BAC DNA regions on supposed breakpoint and inside fragile site.
Ijms 13 11974f3
Table
Table 1. CACGs and molecularly mapped CFSs involved in cancer.
Table 1. CACGs and molecularly mapped CFSs involved in cancer.
Human CFSLocationFrequencyAssociated genesCACG
FRA2G2q31modestIGRP, RDHL, LRP2 and othersnot validated
FRA2H2q32modestnon-coding RNA genenot validated
FRA3B3p14.2highFHITFHIT
FRA4F4q22modestGRID2not validated
FRA6E6q26modestPARK2, PLG, LPA and othersPARK2
FRA6F6q21ModestREV3L, DIF13, FKHRL and othersnot validated
FRA7B7p22lowTHSD7A, SDK1, MAD1L1not validated
FRA7G7q31.2modestMET, TESTIN, CAV, and othersMET, TESTIN
FRA7I7q36modestPIPnot validated
FRA7K7q31modestIMMP2Lnot validated
FRA8C8q24modestMYCMYC
FRA9E9q32lowPAPPA and othersPAPPA
FRA10F10q26lowFATS and othersFATS
FRA10G10q11lowRET, NCOA4RET
FRA16D16q23.2highWWOX/FORWWOX
FRAXBXp22.3modestSTS, GS1not validated
FRAXCXq22.1modestDMD, IL1RAPL1DMD
Table
Table 2. List of 13 BAC clones used for mapping of the proximal boarder of FRA10F.
Table 2. List of 13 BAC clones used for mapping of the proximal boarder of FRA10F.
BAC cloneLocation on chromosome 10 (Mb)Proximal to FRA10FSupposed breakpointInside FRA10FDistal to FRA10F
RP11-198M6121.577.828-121.765.0531---
RP11-323P17122.469.430-122.626.3791---
RP11-105F10123.764.471-123.939.1471---
RP11-296H2123.939.148-124.083.5311---
RP11-436O19124.267.798-124.268.6441-1-
RP11-481L19124.268.654-124.444.8051---
RP11-564D11124.592.597-124.787.8911---
RP11-162A23124.799.045-124.978.9161---
RP11-391M7125.381.493-125.576.3001---
RP11-435D11125.909.463-126.009.423-1--
RP13-238F13126.009.424-126.190.394--1-
RP11-124H7127.445.890-127.599.588-6--
RP11-179O22128.076.478-128.246.854-13-
Notes: BAC clones from 10q26.13–26.2 spanning 8 Mb were selected from the UCSC database ( http://genome.ucsc.edu). The frequency of FRA10F in one individual was 4 in 500 metaphase spreads (0.8%) compared to 1 in 500 (0.2%) in the second individual. FATS-containing BAC clone RP11-179O22 was hybridized on four different metaphase spreads in FISH analysis, showing that FATS was located once at the breakpoint and three times within FRA10F. Therefore, the location of FRA10F is refined to 10q26.13–q26.2 (Figure 2).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, K.; Qiu, L.; Mrasek, K.; Zhang, J.; Liehr, T.; Quintana, L.G.; Li, Z. Common Fragile Sites: Genomic Hotspots of DNA Damage and Carcinogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 11974-11999. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911974

AMA Style

Ma K, Qiu L, Mrasek K, Zhang J, Liehr T, Quintana LG, Li Z. Common Fragile Sites: Genomic Hotspots of DNA Damage and Carcinogenesis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2012; 13(9):11974-11999. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911974

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Ke, Li Qiu, Kristin Mrasek, Jun Zhang, Thomas Liehr, Luciana Gonçalves Quintana, and Zheng Li. 2012. "Common Fragile Sites: Genomic Hotspots of DNA Damage and Carcinogenesis" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 13, no. 9: 11974-11999. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911974

APA Style

Ma, K., Qiu, L., Mrasek, K., Zhang, J., Liehr, T., Quintana, L. G., & Li, Z. (2012). Common Fragile Sites: Genomic Hotspots of DNA Damage and Carcinogenesis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 13(9), 11974-11999. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911974

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop