Next Article in Journal
The Release Kinetics of Eosinophil Peroxidase and Mitochondrial DNA Is Different in Association with Eosinophil Extracellular Trap Formation
Next Article in Special Issue
Adsorption of Cd to TiO2-NPs Forms Low Genotoxic Aggregates in Zebrafish Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Mapping the Metabolic Networks of Tumor Cells and Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Programmed DNA Damage and Physiological DSBs: Mapping, Biological Significance and Perturbations in Disease States
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Crosstalk between the mTOR and DNA Damage Response Pathways in Fission Yeast

1
ZEAB Therapeutic, University of East London, Stratford Campus, Water Lane, Stratford, London E15 4LZ, UK
2
School of Health, Sport and Bioscience, University of East London, Stratford Campus, Water Lane, Stratford, London E15 4LZ, UK
3
School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2021, 10(2), 305; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020305
Submission received: 9 January 2021 / Revised: 27 January 2021 / Accepted: 28 January 2021 / Published: 2 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The DNA Damage Response in Cell Physiology and Disease)

Abstract

:
Cells have developed response systems to constantly monitor environmental changes and accordingly adjust growth, differentiation, and cellular stress programs. The evolutionarily conserved, nutrient-responsive, mechanistic target of rapamycin signaling (mTOR) pathway coordinates basic anabolic and catabolic cellular processes such as gene transcription, protein translation, autophagy, and metabolism, and is directly implicated in cellular and organismal aging as well as age-related diseases. mTOR mediates these processes in response to a broad range of inputs such as oxygen, amino acids, hormones, and energy levels, as well as stresses, including DNA damage. Here, we briefly summarize data relating to the interplays of the mTOR pathway with DNA damage response pathways in fission yeast, a favorite model in cell biology, and how these interactions shape cell decisions, growth, and cell-cycle progression. We, especially, comment on the roles of caffeine-mediated DNA-damage override. Understanding the biology of nutrient response, DNA damage and related pharmacological treatments can lead to the design of interventions towards improved cellular and organismal fitness, health, and survival.

1. The Mechanistic Target of Rapamycin Pathway in Cell Growth and Metabolism

The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-related serine/threonine kinase central to a signaling network that regulates cellular metabolism in eukaryotic cells in response to various extracellular and intracellular stimuli, including nutrient and hormone signals, stress, and growth factors [1,2]. The kinase mTOR is also implicated in cellular health span through modulation of nutrient-sensitive pathways [3]. Originally identified in yeast mutants [4], mTOR is highly conserved and has now been identified in all eukaryotic cells including flies, nematodes, and mammalian cells [5,6,7,8,9]. The fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe has been widely used as a model to study eukaryotic molecular mechanisms, including the conserved mTOR pathway. S. pombe contain homologues for Rheb, a GTP-binding protein, and an upstream activator of mTOR [10], as well as the TSC1–TSC2 complex that negatively regulates Rheb [11,12,13].
In most eukaryotes, mTOR forms the central component of multiprotein complexes termed TORCs [14]. S. pombe contains two mTOR homologues, Tor1 and Tor2, and two TORC complexes, TORC1 and TORC2 (Figure 1). The TOR kinases form the catalytic subunit of the complexes, with the rapamycin sensitive TORC1 containing Tor2, while TORC2 contains Tor1. Both complexes are composed of several other proteins and are structurally and functionally distinct [15,16,17]. There are slight differences between the structure of the TORC complexes in S. pombe and the TORCs found in mammalian cells (Figure 1). While both complexes are still present, mammalian cells only contain one form of the TOR gene (MTOR). The mTOR protein comprises the catalytic subunit of both mTORC1 and mTORC2; the complexes also contain orthologues as well as different proteins to those found in S. pombe [16,18,19].
TORC1, unlike its counterpart, is inhibited by the macrolide compound rapamycin, which forms a complex with its intracellular receptor FKBP12. Inhibition of mTOR with rapamycin mimics nitrogen starvation in fission yeast. For strong inhibition of TORC1 in S. pombe, rapamycin needs to be accompanied by caffeine, which also inhibits the complex [20,21,22,23]. TORC1 is regulated upstream by numerous intracellular and extracellular stimuli, including in mammalian cells, the cell cycle regulator p53 upon DNA damage from chemical agents. In contrast to yeast, mTORC1 also activates p53 under pro-growth conditions [24]. The TORC1 complex regulates ribosomal biogenesis and protein synthesis primarily through the phosphorylation of two distinct downstream effectors, S6K activated by phosphorylation and eIF4E binding proteins (4EBP), which are inactivated upon phosphorylation [25,26]. The complex also has implications over other anabolic processes including lipid and nucleotide synthesis. Furthermore, the complex also regulates several catabolic processes including autophagy and protein degradation to balance the metabolic state of the cell [1] (Figure 1).
TORC2 is not inhibited by rapamycin, owing to the structure preventing the binding of the rapamycin/FKBP12 complex [27]. Torin1 is a known ATP competitive inhibitor of mTOR and blocks the catalytic active site, preventing downstream phosphorylation in both complexes [28]. Because of the absence of a specific TORC2 inhibitor, the complex is less studied and more remains to be elucidated when compared with its counterpart [29]. TORC2 in fission yeast is not essential for cellular proliferation, however, it is essential for sexual differentiation and entry into the stationary phase, which are two of the main starvation responses in fission yeast [17,30]. Interestingly, TORC2 has also been shown to work in tandem with TORC1 to regulate the phosphorylation of S6K in S. pombe [31]. Alongside this, the TORC2 complex is also responsible for actin dynamics, telomere integrity, and cell size [32,33,34,35]. TORC2-deficient S.pombe are sensitive to several stress conditions including osmotic and oxidative stress and, importantly, DNA damage and replicative stress [36]. Furthermore, the complex has also been implicated in the maintenance of the genome in S. pombe, elucidating a further connection between the TORC2 complex and DNA damage response pathways [37] (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

2. DNA Damage Response (DDR) Signaling: Cdc25, Wee1, and DNA Damage CheckPoint Activation

Cells continuously suffer various forms of DNA damage from both endogenous and exogenous sources. To avoid the “fixing” of mutations and/or chromosome mis-segregation during mitosis, cells must arrest cell cycle progression and delay mitosis (DNA damage checkpoints) until damaged DNA has been repaired [38]. While various forms of DNA damage (ranging from base misincorporation and additions to double strand breaks) occur, in S. pombe, Rad3 is the major regulator of the DNA damage response and a member of the PIKK family [39,40,41,42,43,44] (Figure 2). Rad3 is a homologue of the mammalian ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3 related (ATR) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) Mec1 proteins [42,43].
The timing of mitosis is regulated by the opposing actions of the Cdc25 phosphatase and Wee1 kinase on Cdc2 tyrosine 15 phosphorylation, and hence activity [45,46]. DNA damage checkpoint activation and maintenance, thus, require the dual regulation of Cdc25 and Mik1/ Wee1 activity to effectively inhibit Cdc2 [47]. Additionally, cells must be able to effectively resume cell cycle progression once DNA repair has been completed, linking DNA damage checkpoint activation and resumption of cell division [44,48]. In general, these pathways are evolutionarily conserved and follow a general pattern of DNA damage detection, signal activation, signal amplification/transmission, and execution. The Rad3 kinase and its homologues are recruited to sites of DNA damage, leading to their activation via autophosphorylation [40,49]. This facilitates the recruitment of adaptor proteins such as Crb2, which allow the cell cycle phase specific recruitment and activation of the downstream kinases Cds1 and Chk1 during the S- and G2-phases of the cell cycle, respectively [50,51,52].
During the S-phase, deleterious events such as nucleotide depletion stalled replication forks and DNA strand breaks result in the Rad3-dependent hyper-phosphorylation and activation of Cds1. Cds1 in turn directly inhibits Cdc25 by phosphorylating inhibitory serine/threonine residues, while inducing the accumulation of the Wee1-related kinase Mik1. The S-phase specific Mik1 kinase regulates Cdc2 tyrosine 15 phosphorylation in a Rad3-dependent manner [53,54,55]. Alternatively, DNA damage sustained during G2 results in Chk1 and Wee1 activation [53]. Chk1 phosphorylates Cdc25, leading to its export from the nucleus and Rad24 (a 14-3-3 family type protein)-dependent sequestration and accumulation within the cytoplasm [56,57,58]. The nuclear export of Cdc25 is, however, not required for its inhibition, suggesting direct inhibition by Cds1 and Chk1 [58,59]. Additionally, studies using Cdc25 mutants lacking Cds1/Chk1 phosphorylation sites suggest the existence of a redundant nuclear ubiquitin-dependent degradation pathway [60,61,62]. The cytoplasmic accumulation observed in S. pombe following cell cycle arrest may thus facilitate the rapid resumption of cell cycle progression following the completion of DNA repair [48,63]. Wee1 also accumulates in response to DNA damage and is itself a target of activating Chk1 phosphorylation. The dual inhibition of Cdc25 phosphatase activity and increased Wee1 activity thus results in Cdc2 tyrosine 15 phosphorylation and inhibition by a “double- lock” mechanism [47,64].
S. pombe cells also transiently arrest cell cycle progression and then rapidly progress through mitosis in response to nitrogen deprivation and various environmental stresses [65,66,67]. The environmental stress response (ESR) pathway is regulated by the Sty1 kinase (Figure 2), a homologue of the human p38MAPK kinase [68,69,70]. Sty1 activation results in srk1 induction and accumulation of the Srk1 kinase. Srk1 in turn phosphorylates Cdc25, leading to its sequestration and accumulation within the cytoplasm [65]. Interestingly, the transient activity of Srk1 appears to be dependent on the CaMKK homologue Ssp1. S. pombe mutants lacking ssp1 become elongated and arrest cell cycle progression in G2, following exposure to heat stress, osmotic stress, and glucose deprivation [71,72,73,74]. Srk1 levels are elevated in ssp1Δ mutants and the deletion of rad24 or srk1 is sufficient to restore cell cycle progression under stress conditions [73,74]. Ssp1 also activates the AMPK homologue Ssp2, which in turn inhibits TORC1 signaling [75] (Figure 2). Ssp1 may thus integrate Sty1 signalling with TORC1 activity to facilitate the resumption of cell cycle progression following exposure to environmental stresses.

3. TORC1, Caffeine and the DNA Damage Response Pathway

Given the links between the Sty1 environmental stress response (ESR) and Rad3 DNA damage response (DDR) regulated pathways, it has been proposed that these pathways may also interact with TORC1 and TORC2 signaling [24,76,77,78,79]. For instance, glucose deprivation, which inhibits TORC1 signaling, induces the accumulation of Cds1 [80]. Cds1 normally accumulates during S-phase or activation of the replication and S-phase checkpoints [50,55].
Under nitrogen-rich conditions, active TORC1 inhibits the Greatwall kinase homologue Ppk18, which prevents its activation of the endosulphine Igo1 [45,81]. Following transfer to a poor nitrogen source, Ssp2 mediated TORC1 inhibition activates Ppk18 and Igo1, leading to the inhibition of the PP2A phosphatase catalytic subunit Pab1 [33,82,83]. Under normal cell cycle conditions, PP2APab1 delays the timing of mitosis by negatively regulating Cdc25 and positively regulating Wee1 activity [67,84]. TORC1 inhibition following nitrogen deprivation or chemical inhibition advances cells into mitosis, in a manner dependent on Sty1 and Ppk18-Igo1-PP2APab1 signaling, resulting in Cdc2 activation [67,83,84]. Furthermore, pab1Δ mutants exhibit a “wee” phenotype (small-sized cells upon mitosis), confirming its role as a regulator of mitotic progression [85]. TORC1 thus indirectly delays cells’ cycle progression via the negative and positive regulation of Cdc25 and Wee1, respectively [67]. As Rad3 indirectly inhibits Cdc2 via Cdc25 inhibition and Wee1 activation, these findings suggest TORC1 activity re-enforces DNA damage checkpoint signaling by maintaining PP2APab1 activity [62,78] (Figure 2).
Caffeine is a methylxanthine and among the most widely consumed neuroactive substances in the world [86]. Early studies clearly indicated that caffeine overrides DNA damage signaling in both yeast and mammalian cells [87,88,89,90]. Rad3 and its homologues were initially reported to be inhibited by caffeine in vitro and in vivo [88,90]. These findings have proved controversial, as caffeine inhibits several members of the PIKK family. In addition, caffeine induced ATM hyperactivation and failed to inhibit the phosphorylation of its downstream targets [91]. In S. pombe, Rad3 and the Rad51/Rad54 regulated DNA pathways are required for tolerance to caffeine, suggesting it might induce low level DNA damage [92]. Caffeine also failed to inhibit Cds1 and Chk1 phosphorylation in S. pombe, in contrast to the deletion of rad3 [62]. In mammalian cells, inhibition of PP2A activity inhibits DNA repair and ATM contributes to the activation of the phosphatase [38]. Furthermore, PP2A and related phosphatases negatively regulate the DDR and are required for eventual progression towards mitosis [93]. In this regard, the ability of caffeine to override DNA damage signaling has generated much interest, but the precise underlying mechanisms remain unclear [62,78,94].
More recent studies suggest that the TORC1 complex is the target of caffeine in both yeast and mammalian cell lines [21,22,95] (Figure 2). This raises the intriguing question of if and how caffeine might override DNA damage checkpoint signaling by inhibiting TORC1 activity. The effect of caffeine on cell cycle progression in S. pombe mimics that of nitrogen deprivation, TORC1 inhibition, and other environmental stresses [62,67,76]. Indeed, inhibition of TORC1 activity with Torin1 advanced S. pombe cells into mitosis in a manner similar to nitrogen deprivation. This activity was associated with changes in the activity and/or expression of Cdc25 and Wee1 in both S. pombe and mammalian cells [67,76]. TORC1 inhibition results in the activation of Ppk18, which then activates Igo1, resulting in the inhibition of the PP2APab1 phosphatase, and increases and decreases in Cdc25 and Wee1 activity, respectively [45,81]. TORC1 activity would thus be required to enforce Rad3-mediated DNA damage checkpoint signaling to prevent the premature activation of Cdc2. Conversely, inappropriate TORC1 inhibition under genotoxic conditions would advance cells into mitosis with unrepaired DNA, leading to a loss of viability. This is indeed the case, as both caffeine and torin1 enhance DNA damage sensitivity in S. pombe [96]. Furthermore, caffeine appears to indirectly regulate the activity of both Cdc25 and Wee1. Thus, caffeine mediated-TORC1 inhibition might be sufficient to override DNA damage checkpoint signaling [62,77,78]. Under environmental stress conditions, cells undergo a temporary Sty1-mediated cell cycle arrest through Srk1-dependent Cdc25 inhibition. The cells are subsequently advanced into mitosis regardless of cell length [65]. These stresses also inhibit TORC1 signaling via the Ssp1 and Ssp2/AMP activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathways. S. pombe mutants lacking ssp1 fail to accelerate mitosis following exposure to various environmental stresses and become greatly elongated [71]. It has been demonstrated that ssp1Δ mutants express elevated levels of Srk1, suggesting enhanced Cdc25 inhibition and an inability to resume cell division. Indeed, the deletion of ssp1 is synthetically lethal in a cdc25-22 strain background [71,74]. Furthermore, both ssp1Δ and ssp2Δ mutants fail to advance mitosis under low nitrogen conditions [75]. The Ssp2-mediated inhibition of TORC1 is thus required for the downstream activation of Ppk18 and advancement into mitosis under environmental and nutrient stress conditions [82].
Previous studies in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) have identified TORC1 (Tor1) mutants that exhibit increased tolerance to caffeine. These studies suggested that, unlike rapamycin and other analogues, caffeine directly binds to Tor1 and acts as a competitive inhibitor of ATP [95]. It remains unclear if caffeine indirectly inhibits TORC1 signaling via the Ssp2/AMPK kinase pathway. Because the Sty1-regulated ESR pathway is required for tolerance to caffeine, it is possible that the drug also indirectly inhibits TORC1 signaling in S. pombe (Figure 2). It has also been noted that the inhibition of TORC1 by Torin1 differs from that of caffeine and rapamycin [62,67,97]. It also remains unclear if TORC1 regulates the timing of mitosis under normal cell cycle conditions by inhibiting Ppk18 until the unset of mitosis, or if PP2APab1 is negatively regulated by additional pathways [82]. Studies in S. pombe have demonstrated that Cdc25 and Wee1 are degraded at mitosis independently of currently identified phosphorylation pathways [84]. Further studies will be needed to dissect the precise effects of caffeine on TORC1 signaling in relation to cell division [62,78]. Despite its pleotropic effects on cellular physiology, caffeine may provide useful insights into the regulation of TORC1 and its downstream targets. Such studies could also lead to the development of therapeutic strategies to combat aging and increase the sensitivity of cancer cells to chemo- and radiotherapy.

4. Crosstalk between TORC2 and DNA Damage Response Pathways

In contrast to TORC1, the Tor1 containing TORC2 complex has been clearly implicated in mediating resistance to osmotic and nutritional stress responses as well as genotoxic agents in S. pombe [79]. Loss of Tor1 activity induced sensitivity to several genotoxic agents such as hydroxyurea (HU), Methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), UV, and camptothecin. Similarly, mutants lacking Gad8, a downstream target of Tor1, also exhibit sensitivity to genotoxic agents [32,37]. Recent studies implicating gad8 mutants show that osmotic and nutritional stress responses appear to form a separate branch from genotoxic stress responses downstream of TORC2-Gad8 [98].
Interestingly, tor1Δ mutants were checkpoint proficient, but failed to resume cell cycle progression in a manner like wild type cells. Tor1 is thus not required for Rad3 mediated DNA damage checkpoint activation. In fact, deletion of tor1 suppressed the short- term HU sensitivity of rad3 and cds1 mutants. Rather, tor1Δ mutants failed to dephosphorylate Cdc2 and failed to resume cell division [32]. Tor1 thus appears to be required for the reactivation of Cdc2 following exposure to HU and other genotoxic agents. In fact, Tor1 appears to promote mitotic progression as loss of tor1 resulted in a slight increase in average cell length. Rad3 may simultaneously inhibit TORC2 activity until DNA damage repair has been completed [32,37].
More recent findings report Chk1 activation in S. pombe mutants that lack certain components of the TORC1 protein complex. S. pombe mutants lacking the TORC1 and TORC2 complex component Wat1/Pop3 sustain DNA damage through the effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS). This results in constitutive Chk1 activation and enhanced inhibition of Cdc25 and Wee1 [99,100]. Wat1/Pop3 is a component of both complexes and is required for the oxidative stress response. Loss of Wat1/Pop3 may thus induce DNA damage, because of ROS concentrations. Additionally, wat1/pop3 mutants are unable to downregulate Chk1 activation in a manner like tor1 mutants. These findings provide further evidence for a TORC2-dependent role in maintaining genomic stability [32,99,100].

5. Prospects for mTOR as a Chemo- and Radio-Sensitisation Therapeutic Target

Caffeine initially aroused much interest owing to its ability to sensitize cancer cells to the lethal effects of genotoxic agents [86]. Clinically, this activity is important as it would increase the therapeutic window of these agents and lower the side effects of chemo- and radio-sensitization [101,102,103]. More recently, caffeine has been shown to extend chronological lifespan (CLS) in a wide range of organisms. Furthermore, caffeine has been shown to have protective effects and against cancer and can improve clinical outcomes [104]. It is now apparent that caffeine exerts its effects on cell division via TORC1 rather than Rad3/ATM inhibition, and that these effects are mimicked by selective TORC1 inhibitors such as rapamycin and Torin1 [21,22,95]. Torin1 affected Cdc25 and Wee1 stability and cell cycle progression in both S. pombe and mammalian cell lines [67].
These findings suggest that TORC1 may serve as a therapeutic target for enhancing the chemo- and radiosensitivity of cancer cells. Further studies on caffeine-mediated DNA checkpoint override in the context of TORC1 and mTOR inhibition are thus highly desirable. Importantly, it remains unclear if caffeine functions as a direct inhibitor of TORC1 or partially mediates its effects via the activation of the AMPK pathway [71,75]. Such studies will be important as the role of AMPK in tumors is context-dependent [105,106,107]. Dissecting DNA damage checkpoint override by caffeine and other TORC1 inhibitors is likely to provide a stimulating and revealing field of study in the years to come.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-P.A., L.L., C.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-P.A., L.L., C.R.; writing—review and editing, J.-P.A., L.L., C.R.; supervision, C.R.; funding acquisition, C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

L.L. is funded by a UEL PhD studentship awarded to C.R. C.R. acknowledges funding from the Royal Society Research Award [grant number RGS\R1\201348].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank members of the Rallis lab for critical reading of this manuscript. We would like to apologize to authors that their work has not been cited in this short review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Saxton, R.A.; Sabatini, D.M. MTOR Signaling in Growth, Metabolism, and Disease. Cell 2017, 169, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wullschleger, S.; Loewith, R.; Hall, M.N. TOR Signaling in Growth and Metabolism. Cell 2006, 124, 471–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Kapahi, P.; Chen, D.; Rogers, A.N.; Katewa, S.D.; Li, P.W.-L.; Thomas, E.L.; Kockel, L. With TOR, Less Is More: A Key Role for the Conserved Nutrient-Sensing TOR Pathway in Aging. Cell Metab. 2010, 11, 453–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Heitman, J.; Movva, N.R.; Hall, M.N. Targets for Cell Cycle Arrest by the Immunosuppressant Rapamycin in Yeast. Science 1991, 253, 905–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brown, E.J.; Albers, M.W.; Shin, T.B.; Ichikawa, K.; Keith, C.T.; Lane, W.S.; Schreiber, S.L. A Mammalian Protein Targeted by G1-Arresting Rapamycin-Receptor Complex. Nature 1994, 369, 756–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Oldham, S.; Montagne, J.; Radimerski, T.; Thomas, G.; Hafen, E. Genetic and Biochemical Characterization of DTOR, the Drosophila Homolog of the Target of Rapamycin. Genes Dev. 2000, 14, 2689–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Sabers, C.J.; Martin, M.M.; Brunn, G.J.; Williams, J.M.; Dumont, F.J.; Wiederrecht, G.; Abraham, R.T. Isolation of a Protein Target of the FKBP12-Rapamycin Complex in Mammalian Cells. J. Biol. Chem. 1995, 270, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Sabatini, D.M.; Erdjument-Bromage, H.; Lui, M.; Tempst, P.; Snyder, S.H. RAFT1: A Mammalian Protein That Binds to FKBP12 in a Rapamycin-Dependent Fashion and Is Homologous to Yeast TORs. Cell 1994, 78, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Long, X.; Spycher, C.; Han, Z.S.; Rose, A.M.; Müller, F.; Avruch, J. TOR Deficiency in C. Elegans Causes Developmental Arrest and Intestinal Atrophy by Inhibition of MRNA Translation. Curr. Biol. 2002, 12, 1448–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Long, X.; Lin, Y.; Ortiz-Vega, S.; Yonezawa, K.; Avruch, J. Rheb Binds and Regulates the MTOR Kinase. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15, 702–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Matsumoto, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Kwiatkowski, D.J.; Maitra, U.; Matsumoto, T. Role of the Tsc1-Tsc2 Complex in Signaling and Transport across the Cell Membrane in the Fission Yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Genetics 2002, 161, 1053–1063. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Huang, J.; Manning, B.D. The TSC1-TSC2 Complex: A Molecular Switchboard Controlling Cell Growth. Biochem. J. 2008, 412, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Yanagida, M. Cellular Quiescence: Are Controlling Genes Conserved? Trends Cell Biol. 2009, 19, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Laplante, M.; Sabatini, D.M. MTOR Signaling in Growth Control and Disease. Cell 2012, 149, 274–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Kawai, M.; Nakashima, A.; Ueno, M.; Ushimaru, T.; Aiba, K.; Doi, H.; Uritani, M. Fission Yeast Tor1 Functions in Response to Various Stresses Including Nitrogen Starvation, High Osmolarity, and High Temperature. Curr. Genet. 2001, 39, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Otsubo, Y.; Nakashima, A.; Yamamoto, M.; Yamashita, A. TORC1-Dependent Phosphorylation Targets in Fission Yeast. Biomolecules 2017, 7, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Weisman, R.; Choder, M. The Fission Yeast TOR Homolog, tor1+, Is Required for the Response to Starvation and Other Stresses via a Conserved Serine. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276, 7027–7032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Loewith, R.; Hall, M.N. Target of Rapamycin (TOR) in Nutrient Signaling and Growth Control. Genetics 2011, 189, 1177–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Guertin, D.A.; Sabatini, D.M. Defining the Role of MTOR in Cancer. Cancer Cell 2007, 12, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Rallis, C.; Bähler, J. Inhibition of TORC1 Signaling and Increased Lifespan: Gained in Translation? Aging (Albany NY) 2013, 5, 335–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Rallis, C.; Codlin, S.; Bähler, J. TORC1 Signaling Inhibition by Rapamycin and Caffeine Affect Lifespan, Global Gene Expression, and Cell Proliferation of Fission Yeast. Aging Cell 2013, 12, 563–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Wanke, V.; Cameroni, E.; Uotila, A.; Piccolis, M.; Urban, J.; Loewith, R.; De Virgilio, C. Caffeine Extends Yeast Lifespan by Targeting TORC1. Mol. Microbiol. 2008, 69, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Chung, J.; Kuo, C.J.; Crabtree, G.R.; Blenis, J. Rapamycin-FKBP Specifically Blocks Growth-Dependent Activation of and Signaling by the 70 Kd S6 Protein Kinases. Cell 1992, 69, 1227–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ma, Y.; Vassetzky, Y.; Dokudovskaya, S. MTORC1 Pathway in DNA Damage Response. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA Mol. Cell Res. 2018, 1865, 1293–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ma, X.M.; Blenis, J. Molecular Mechanisms of MTOR-Mediated Translational Control. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Nojima, H.; Tokunaga, C.; Eguchi, S.; Oshiro, N.; Hidayat, S.; Yoshino, K.; Hara, K.; Tanaka, N.; Avruch, J.; Yonezawa, K. The Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (MTOR) Partner, Raptor, Binds the MTOR Substrates P70 S6 Kinase and 4E-BP1 through Their TOR Signaling (TOS) Motif. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 15461–15464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Sarbassov, D.D.; Ali, S.M.; Kim, D.-H.; Guertin, D.A.; Latek, R.R.; Erdjument-Bromage, H.; Tempst, P.; Sabatini, D.M. Rictor, a Novel Binding Partner of MTOR, Defines a Rapamycin-Insensitive and Raptor-Independent Pathway That Regulates the Cytoskeleton. Curr. Biol. 2004, 14, 1296–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Xu, S.; Li, L.; Li, M.; Zhang, M.; Ju, M.; Chen, X.; Gu, H. Impact on Autophagy and Ultraviolet B Induced Responses of Treatment with the MTOR Inhibitors Rapamycin, Everolimus, Torin 1, and Pp242 in Human Keratinocytes. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2017, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Gaubitz, C.; Prouteau, M.; Kusmider, B.; Loewith, R. TORC2 Structure and Function. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2016, 41, 532–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Matsuo, T.; Otsubo, Y.; Urano, J.; Tamanoi, F.; Yamamoto, M. Loss of the TOR Kinase Tor2 Mimics Nitrogen Starvation and Activates the Sexual Development Pathway in Fission Yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007, 27, 3154–3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Du, W.; Halova, L.; Kirkham, S.; Atkin, J.; Petersen, J. TORC2 and the AGC Kinase Gad8 Regulate Phosphorylation of the Ribosomal Protein S6 in Fission Yeast. Biol. Open 2012, 1, 884–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Schonbrun, M.; Laor, D.; López-Maury, L.; Bähler, J.; Kupiec, M.; Weisman, R. TOR Complex 2 Controls Gene Silencing, Telomere Length Maintenance, and Survival under DNA-Damaging Conditions. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2009, 29, 4584–4594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Gonzalez, S.; Rallis, C. The TOR Signaling Pathway in Spatial and Temporal Control of Cell Size and Growth. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2017, 5, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Baker, K.; Kirkham, S.; Halova, L.; Atkin, J.; Franz-Wachtel, M.; Cobley, D.; Krug, K.; Maček, B.; Mulvihill, D.P.; Petersen, J. TOR Complex 2 Localises to the Cytokinetic Actomyosin Ring and Controls the Fidelity of Cytokinesis. J. Cell Sci. 2016, 129, 2613–2624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Ikai, N.; Nakazawa, N.; Hayashi, T.; Yanagida, M. The Reverse, but Coordinated, Roles of Tor2 (TORC1) and Tor1 (TORC2) Kinases for Growth, Cell Cycle and Separase-Mediated Mitosis in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Open Biol. 2011, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Weisman, R. Target of Rapamycin (TOR) Regulates Growth in Response to Nutritional Signals. In The Fungal Kingdom; Heitman, J., Howlett, B.J., Crous, P.W., Strukenbrock, E.H., James, T.Y., Grow, N.A.R., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Schonbrun, M.; Kolesnikov, M.; Kupiec, M.; Weisman, R. TORC2 Is Required to Maintain Genome Stability during S Phase in Fission Yeast. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 19649–19660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Shaltiel, I.A.; Krenning, L.; Bruinsma, W.; Medema, R.H. The Same, Only Different-DNA Damage Checkpoints and Their Reversal throughout the Cell Cycle. J. Cell Sci. 2015, 128, 607–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Jimenez, G.; Yucel, J.; Rowley, R.; Subramani, S. The Rad3+ Gene of Schizosaccharomyces pombe is Involved in Multiple Checkpoint Functions and in DNA Repair. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1992, 89, 4952–4956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bentley, N.J.; Holtzman, D.A.; Flaggs, G.; Keegan, K.S.; DeMaggio, A.; Ford, J.C.; Hoekstra, M.; Carr, A.M. The Schizosaccharomyces pombe Rad3 Checkpoint Gene. EMBO J. 1996, 15, 6641–6651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carr, A.M. DNA Structure Dependent Checkpoints as Regulators of DNA Repair. DNA Repair 2002, 1, 983–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Awasthi, P.; Foiani, M.; Kumar, A. ATM and ATR Signaling at a Glance. J. Cell Sci. 2015, 128, 4255–4262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Corcoles-Saez, I.; Dong, K.; Cha, R.S. Versatility of the Mec1ATM/ATR Signaling Network in Mediating Resistance to Replication, Genotoxic, and Proteotoxic Stresses. Curr. Genet. 2019, 65, 657–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Cussiol, J.R.R.; Soares, B.L.; de Oliveira, F.M.B. From Yeast to Humans: Understanding the Biology of DNA Damage Response (DDR) Kinases. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2020, 43, e20190071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Crncec, A.; Hochegger, H. Triggering Mitosis. FEBS Lett. 2019, 593, 2868–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Moseley, J.B. Wee1 and Cdc25: Tools, Pathways, Mechanisms, Questions. Cell Cycle 2017, 16, 599–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. O’Connell, M.J.; Walworth, N.C.; Carr, A.M. The G2-Phase DNA-Damage Checkpoint. Trends Cell Biol. 2000, 10, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Karlsson-Rosenthal, C.; Millar, J.B.A. Cdc25: Mechanisms of Checkpoint Inhibition and Recovery. Trends Cell Biol. 2006, 16, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Stracker, T.H.; Roig, I.; Knobel, P.A.; Marjanović, M. The ATM Signaling Network in Development and Disease. Front. Genet. 2013, 4, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Rhind, N.; Russell, P. Chk1 and Cds1: Linchpins of the DNA Damage and Replication Checkpoint Pathways. J. Cell Sci. 2000, 113 Pt 22, 3889–3896. [Google Scholar]
  51. Paparatto, D.; Fletcher, D.; Piwowar, K.; Baldino, K.; Morel, C.; Dunaway, S. The Schizosaccharomyces pombe Checkpoint Kinases Chk1 and Cds1 Are Important for Cell Survival in Response to Cisplatin. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Qu, M.; Yang, B.; Tao, L.; Yates, J.R.; Russell, P.; Dong, M.-Q.; Du, L.-L. Phosphorylation-Dependent Interactions between Crb2 and Chk1 Are Essential for DNA Damage Checkpoint. PLoS Genet. 2012, 8, e1002817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Rhind, N.; Russell, P. Mitotic DNA Damage and Replication Checkpoints in Yeast. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1998, 10, 749–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Boddy, M.N.; Furnari, B.; Mondesert, O.; Russell, P. Replication Checkpoint Enforced by Kinases Cds1 and Chk1. Science 1998, 280, 909–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Christensen, P.U.; Bentley, N.J.; Martinho, R.G.; Nielsen, O.; Carr, A.M. Mik1 Levels Accumulate in S Phase and May Mediate an Intrinsic Link between S Phase and Mitosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 2579–2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zeng, Y.; Forbes, K.C.; Wu, Z.; Moreno, S.; Piwnica-Worms, H.; Enoch, T. Replication Checkpoint Requires Phosphorylation of the Phosphatase Cdc25 by Cds1 or Chk1. Nature 1998, 395, 507–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zeng, Y.; Piwnica-Worms, H. DNA Damage and Replication Checkpoints in Fission Yeast Require Nuclear Exclusion of the Cdc25 Phosphatase via 14-3-3 Binding. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1999, 19, 7410–7419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Lopez-Girona, A.; Furnari, B.; Mondesert, O.; Russell, P. Nuclear Localization of Cdc25 Is Regulated by DNA Damage and a 14-3-3 Protein. Nature 1999, 397, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Furnari, B.; Blasina, A.; Boddy, M.N.; McGowan, C.H.; Russell, P. Cdc25 Inhibited in vivo and in vitro by Checkpoint Kinases Cds1 and Chk1. Mol. Biol. Cell 1999, 10, 833–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Frazer, C.; Young, P.G. Carboxy-Terminal Phosphorylation Sites in Cdc25 Contribute to Enforcement of the DNA Damage and Replication Checkpoints in Fission Yeast. Curr. Genet. 2012, 58, 217–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Frazer, C.; Young, P.G. Redundant Mechanisms Prevent Mitotic Entry Following Replication Arrest in the Absence of Cdc25 Hyper-Phosphorylation in Fission Yeast. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e21348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Alao, J.P.; Sjölander, J.J.; Baar, J.; Özbaki-Yagan, N.; Kakoschky, B.; Sunnerhagen, P. Caffeine Stabilizes Cdc 25 Independently of Rad 3 in Schizosaccharomyces pombe Contributing to Checkpoint Override. Mol. Microbiol. 2014, 92, 777–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kovelman, R.; Russell, P. Stockpiling of Cdc25 during a DNA Replication Checkpoint Arrest in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1996, 16, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Raleigh, J.M.; O’Connell, M.J. The G(2) DNA Damage Checkpoint Targets Both Wee1 and Cdc25. J. Cell Sci. 2000, 113 Pt 10, 1727–1736. [Google Scholar]
  65. López-Avilés, S.; Lambea, E.; Moldón, A.; Grande, M.; Fajardo, A.; Rodríguez-Gabriel, M.A.; Hidalgo, E.; Aligue, R. Activation of Srk1 by the Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Sty1/Spc1 Precedes Its Dissociation from the Kinase and Signals Its Degradation. Mol. Biol. Cell 2008, 19, 1670–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Smith, D.A.; Toone, W.M.; Chen, D.; Bähler, J.; Jones, N.; Morgan, B.A.; Quinn, J. The Srk1 Protein Kinase Is a Target for the Sty1 Stress-Activated MAPK in Fission Yeast. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 33411–33421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Atkin, J.; Halova, L.; Ferguson, J.; Hitchin, J.R.; Lichawska-Cieslar, A.; Jordan, A.M.; Pines, J.; Wellbrock, C.; Petersen, J. Torin1-Mediated TOR Kinase Inhibition Reduces Wee1 Levels and Advances Mitotic Commitment in Fission Yeast and HeLa Cells. J. Cell Sci. 2014, 127, 1346–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Shiozaki, K.; Russell, P. Cell-Cycle Control Linked to Extracellular Environment by MAP Kinase Pathway in Fission Yeast. Nature 1995, 378, 739–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Degols, G.; Russell, P. Discrete Roles of the Spc1 Kinase and the Atf1 Transcription Factor in the UV Response of Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1997, 17, 3356–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Coulthard, L.R.; White, D.E.; Jones, D.L.; McDermott, M.F.; Burchill, S.A. P38MAPK: Stress Responses from Molecular Mechanisms to Therapeutics. Trends Mol. Med. 2009, 15, 369–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Rupeš, I.; Jia, Z.; Young, P.G. Ssp1 Promotes Actin Depolymerization and Is Involved in Stress Response and New End Take-Off Control in Fission Yeast. Mol. Biol. Cell 1999, 10, 1495–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Yanagida, M.; Ikai, N.; Shimanuki, M.; Sajiki, K. Nutrient Limitations Alter Cell Division Control and Chromosome Segregation through Growth-Related Kinases and Phosphatases. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 3508–3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Freitag, S.I.; Wong, J.; Young, P.G. Genetic and Physical Interaction of Ssp1 CaMKK and Rad24 14-3-3 during Low PH and Osmotic Stress in Fission Yeast. Open Biol. 2014, 4, 130127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Gómez-Hierro, A.; Lambea, E.; Giménez-Zaragoza, D.; López-Avilés, S.; Yance-Chávez, T.; Montserrat, M.; Pujol, M.J.; Bachs, O.; Aligue, R. Ssp1 CaMKK: A Sensor of Actin Polarization That Controls Mitotic Commitment through Srk1 in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Davie, E.; Forte, G.M.A.; Petersen, J. Nitrogen Regulates AMPK to Control TORC1 Signaling. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Hartmuth, S.; Petersen, J. Fission Yeast Tor1 Functions as Part of TORC1 to Control Mitotic Entry through the Stress MAPK Pathway Following Nutrient Stress. J. Cell Sci. 2009, 122, 1737–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Alao, J.P.; Huis in ’t Veld, P.J.; Buhse, F.; Sunnerhagen, P. Hyperosmosis Enhances Radiation and Hydroxyurea Resistance of Schizosaccharomyces pombe Checkpoint Mutants through the Spindle Checkpoint and Delayed Cytokinesis. Mol. Microbiol. 2010, 77, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Alao, J.P.; Sunnerhagen, P. Caffeine as a Tool for Investigating the Integration of Cdc25 Phosphorylation, Activity and Ubiquitin-Dependent Degradation in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Cell Div. 2020, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Weisman, R.; Cohen, A.; Gasser, S.M. TORC 2—A New Player in Genome Stability. EMBO Mol. Med. 2014, 6, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Fletcher, J.; Griffiths, L.; Caspari, T. Nutrient Limitation Inactivates Mrc1-to-Cds1 Checkpoint Signalling in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Cells 2018, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Castro, A.; Lorca, T. Greatwall Kinase at a Glance. J. Cell Sci. 2018, 131, jcs222364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Pérez-Hidalgo, L.; Moreno, S. Coupling TOR to the Cell Cycle by the Greatwall–Endosulfine–PP2A-B55 Pathway. Biomolecules 2017, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Martín, R.; Lopez-Aviles, S. Express Yourself: How PP2A-B55Pab1 Helps TORC1 Talk to TORC2. Curr. Genet. 2018, 64, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lucena, R.; Alcaide-Gavilán, M.; Anastasia, S.D.; Kellogg, D.R. Wee1 and Cdc25 Are Controlled by Conserved PP2A-Dependent Mechanisms in Fission Yeast. Cell Cycle 2017, 16, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Kinoshita, K.; Nemoto, T.; Nabeshima, K.; Kondoh, H.; Niwa, H.; Yanagida, M. The Regulatory Subunits of Fission Yeast Protein Phosphatase 2A (PP2A) Affect Cell Morphogenesis, Cell Wall Synthesis and Cytokinesis. Genes Cells 1996, 1, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Bode, A.M.; Dong, Z. The Enigmatic Effects of Caffeine in Cell Cycle and Cancer. Cancer Lett. 2007, 247, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Osman, F.; McCready, S. Differential Effects of Caffeine on DNA Damage and Replication Cell Cycle Checkpoints in the Fission Yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1998, 260, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Sarkaria, J.N.; Busby, E.C.; Tibbetts, R.S.; Roos, P.; Taya, Y.; Karnitz, L.M.; Abraham, R.T. Inhibition of ATM and ATR Kinase Activities by the Radiosensitizing Agent, Caffeine. Cancer Res. 1999, 59, 4375–4382. [Google Scholar]
  89. Blasina, A.; Price, B.D.; Turenne, G.A.; McGowan, C.H. Caffeine Inhibits the Checkpoint Kinase ATM. Curr. Biol. 1999, 9, 1135–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Moser, B.A.; Brondello, J.M.; Baber-Furnari, B.; Russell, P. Mechanism of Caffeine-Induced Checkpoint Override in Fission Yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 20, 4288–4294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Cortez, D. Caffeine Inhibits Checkpoint Responses without Inhibiting the Ataxia-Telangiectasia-Mutated (ATM) and ATM- and Rad3-Related (ATR) Protein Kinases. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 37139–37145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Calvo, I.A.; Gabrielli, N.; Iglesias-Baena, I.; García-Santamarina, S.; Hoe, K.-L.; Kim, D.U.; Sansó, M.; Zuin, A.; Pérez, P.; Ayté, J.; et al. Genome-Wide Screen of Genes Required for Caffeine Tolerance in Fission Yeast. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Campos, A.; Clemente-Blanco, A. Cell Cycle and DNA Repair Regulation in the Damage Response: Protein Phosphatases Take Over the Reins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Wang, S.W.; Norbury, C.; Harris, A.L.; Toda, T. Caffeine Can Override the S-M Checkpoint in Fission Yeast. J. Cell Sci. 1999, 112 Pt 6, 927–937. [Google Scholar]
  95. Reinke, A.; Chen, J.C.-Y.; Aronova, S.; Powers, T. Caffeine Targets TOR Complex I and Provides Evidence for a Regulatory Link between the FRB and Kinase Domains of Tor1p. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 31616–31626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Alao, J.P.; Johansson-Sjölander, J.; Rallis, C.; Sunnerhagen, P. Caffeine Stabilises Fission Yeast Wee1 in a Rad24-Dependent Manner but Attenuates Its Expression in Response to DNA Damage. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Rodríguez-López, M.; Gonzalez, S.; Hillson, O.; Tunnacliffe, E.; Codlin, S.; Tallada, V.A.; Bähler, J.; Rallis, C. The GATA Transcription Factor Gaf1 Represses TRNAs, Inhibits Growth, and Extends Chronological Lifespan Downstream of Fission Yeast TORC1. Cell Rep. 2020, 30, 3240–3249.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Pataki, E.; Simhaev, L.; Engel, H.; Cohen, A.; Kupiec, M.; Weisman, R. TOR Complex 2- Independent Mutations in the Regulatory PIF Pocket of Gad8AKT1/SGK1 Define Separate Branches of the Stress Response Mechanisms in Fission Yeast. PLoS Genet. 2020, 16, e1009196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Ochotorena, I.L.; Hirata, D.; Kominami, K.; Potashkin, J.; Sahin, F.; Wentz-Hunter, K.; Gould, K.L.; Sato, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Vardy, L.; et al. Conserved Wat1/Pop3 WD-Repeat Protein of Fission Yeast Secures Genome Stability through Microtubule Integrity and May Be Involved in MRNA Maturation. J. Cell Sci. 2001, 114, 2911–2920. [Google Scholar]
  100. Verma, S.K.; Ranjan, R.; Kumar, V.; Siddiqi, M.I.; Ahmed, S. Wat1/Pop3, a Conserved WD Repeat Containing Protein Acts Synergistically with Checkpoint Kinase Chk1 to Maintain Genome Ploidy in Fission Yeast S. pombe. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tenzer, A.; Pruschy, M. Potentiation of DNA-Damage-Induced Cytotoxicity by G2 Checkpoint Abrogators. Curr. Med. Chem. Anti Cancer Agents 2003, 3, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Iliakis, G.; Wang, Y. Caffeine-Induced Radiosensitization Is Independent of Nonhomologous End Joining of DNA Double-Strand Breaks. Radiat. Res. 2003, 159, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sinn, B.; Tallen, G.; Schroeder, G.; Grassl, B.; Schulze, J.; Budach, V.; Tinhofer, I. Caffeine Confers Radiosensitization of PTEN-Deficient Malignant Glioma Cells by Enhancing Ionizing Radiation-Induced G1 Arrest and Negatively Regulating Akt Phosphorylation. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2010, 9, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. van Dam, R.M.; Hu, F.B.; Willett, W.C. Coffee, Caffeine, and Health. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Li, W.; Saud, S.M.; Young, M.R.; Chen, G.; Hua, B. Targeting AMPK for Cancer Prevention and Treatment. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 7365–7378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Umezawa, S.; Higurashi, T.; Nakajima, A. AMPK: Therapeutic Target for Diabetes and Cancer Prevention. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2017, 23, 3629–3644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Vara-Ciruelos, D.; Russell, F.M.; Hardie, D.G. The Strange Case of AMPK and Cancer: Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? Open Biol. 2019, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Schizosaccharomyces pombe and human TORC1 and TORC2 complexes. Each complex is composed by a TOR kinase (predominantly Tor2 for TORC1 and Tor1 for TORC2 fission yeast complexes) and at least four partners identified through mass spectrometry approaches. Lst8 is a common partner for both TORC1 and TORC2. However, in fission yeast, Mip1 (RAPTOR), Tco89, and Toc1 are associated with TORC1 only, while Ste20 (RICTOR), Sin1, and Bit61 are associated with TORC2. In human complexes, DEPTOR is found in both complexes, while PRAS40 is associated with TORC1 and PRR5/PRR5L with TORC2. Each complex has pivotal roles in metabolism, cell organization, growth, and survival (see main text for details). mTOR, mechanistic target of rapamycin.
Figure 1. Schizosaccharomyces pombe and human TORC1 and TORC2 complexes. Each complex is composed by a TOR kinase (predominantly Tor2 for TORC1 and Tor1 for TORC2 fission yeast complexes) and at least four partners identified through mass spectrometry approaches. Lst8 is a common partner for both TORC1 and TORC2. However, in fission yeast, Mip1 (RAPTOR), Tco89, and Toc1 are associated with TORC1 only, while Ste20 (RICTOR), Sin1, and Bit61 are associated with TORC2. In human complexes, DEPTOR is found in both complexes, while PRAS40 is associated with TORC1 and PRR5/PRR5L with TORC2. Each complex has pivotal roles in metabolism, cell organization, growth, and survival (see main text for details). mTOR, mechanistic target of rapamycin.
Cells 10 00305 g001
Figure 2. Interaction of DNA damage response (DDR), environmental stress response (ESR), and TORC1/TORC2 signaling in S. pombe. TORC1 and TORC2 play distinct roles in regulating cell growth and division as well as responses to environmental stresses and nutrient availability. Activation of Rad3 by DNA damage or replication stress leads to the activation of Chk1 and Cds1, respectively. Chk1 and Cds1 inhibit Cdc25 and activate Wee1 (or Mik1) to inhibit Cdc2 and delay cell cycle progression. Direct inhibition drives cells into mitosis via the Ppk18-Igo1-PP2APab1 pathway in the presence of DNA damage, suggesting Rad3 may maintain TORC1 activity during cell cycle arrest. Conversely, TORC2 is required for the resumption of cell cycle progression once DNA repair has been affected. Rad3 may also regulate TORC2 activity during the DDR. Caffeine may directly inhibit TORC1 as a low affinity ATP competitor. Alternatively, caffeine may indirectly inhibit TORC1 via activation of the ESR and Ssp1-Ssp2 (AMPK) pathways.
Figure 2. Interaction of DNA damage response (DDR), environmental stress response (ESR), and TORC1/TORC2 signaling in S. pombe. TORC1 and TORC2 play distinct roles in regulating cell growth and division as well as responses to environmental stresses and nutrient availability. Activation of Rad3 by DNA damage or replication stress leads to the activation of Chk1 and Cds1, respectively. Chk1 and Cds1 inhibit Cdc25 and activate Wee1 (or Mik1) to inhibit Cdc2 and delay cell cycle progression. Direct inhibition drives cells into mitosis via the Ppk18-Igo1-PP2APab1 pathway in the presence of DNA damage, suggesting Rad3 may maintain TORC1 activity during cell cycle arrest. Conversely, TORC2 is required for the resumption of cell cycle progression once DNA repair has been affected. Rad3 may also regulate TORC2 activity during the DDR. Caffeine may directly inhibit TORC1 as a low affinity ATP competitor. Alternatively, caffeine may indirectly inhibit TORC1 via activation of the ESR and Ssp1-Ssp2 (AMPK) pathways.
Cells 10 00305 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alao, J.-P.; Legon, L.; Rallis, C. Crosstalk between the mTOR and DNA Damage Response Pathways in Fission Yeast. Cells 2021, 10, 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020305

AMA Style

Alao J-P, Legon L, Rallis C. Crosstalk between the mTOR and DNA Damage Response Pathways in Fission Yeast. Cells. 2021; 10(2):305. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020305

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alao, John-Patrick, Luc Legon, and Charalampos Rallis. 2021. "Crosstalk between the mTOR and DNA Damage Response Pathways in Fission Yeast" Cells 10, no. 2: 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020305

APA Style

Alao, J. -P., Legon, L., & Rallis, C. (2021). Crosstalk between the mTOR and DNA Damage Response Pathways in Fission Yeast. Cells, 10(2), 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020305

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop