Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticleReviewR

Cell-cycle Checkpoints and Aneuploidy on the Path to Cancer

ELIZABETH S. WENZEL and AMARESHWAR T. K. SINGH
In Vivo January 2018, 32 (1) 1-5;
ELIZABETH S. WENZEL
Department of Biology, Division of Natural and Social Sciences, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AMARESHWAR T. K. SINGH
Department of Biology, Division of Natural and Social Sciences, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: asingh1{at}carthage.edu
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The cell cycle is a complex sequence of events through which a cell duplicates its contents and divides, and involves many regulatory proteins for proper cellular reproduction, including cyclin proteins and cyclin-dependent kinases, oncogenes and tumor-suppressor genes, and mitotic checkpoint proteins. Mutations of any of these regulatory mechanisms can lead to reproduction of cells carrying genetic mutations or abnormal numbers of chromosomes, resulting in genomic instability. Chromosomal instability, contributing to genomic instability, refers to abnormalities in the number of chromosomes, and leads to aneuploidy. The role of aneuploidy in cancer cell development is often disputed, as conflicting hypotheses and research make it unclear as to whether aneuploidy is a cause or consequence of cancer. Here, we present an overview of the importance of cell-cycle checkpoint regulation and chromosomal instability in the development of cancer, and discuss evidence for conflicting arguments for the role of aneuploidy in cancer, leading us to conclude that further investigation of this role would benefit our understanding of cancer development.

  • Cell-cycle checkpoints
  • cancer
  • regulation
  • cyclins
  • cyclin-dependent kinases
  • aneuploidy
  • review

The cell cycle is a complex sequence of events through which a cell duplicates its contents and divides, resulting in two genetically identical daughter cells. This cycle, and its regulation, is essential to cell growth and reproduction, and involves many regulatory proteins such as cyclin proteins and cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs), oncogenes and tumor-suppressor genes in interphase, and mitotic checkpoint proteins that allow stages of the cell cycle to proceed, or inhibit this procession. Mutations and deficiencies in regulation throughout the cell cycle, however, can lead to serious diseases such as cancer. This review compares the cell cycle in normal cells to that in cancer cells, with a focus on the regulatory proteins involved, and the role of deficiencies in these proteins in the development of cancer.

The Cell Cycle in Normal Cells

The cell cycle comprises of interphase, which consists of the G1, S, and G2 phases, and the mitotic (M) phase (1). During interphase, a cell prepares for division by means of growth and DNA replication. The G1 phase is the gap between the end of cytokinesis of a previous division and the beginning of S phase, and is the phase in which the cell grows in preparation for DNA replication, as well as the phase in which it is decided whether a cell will divide again or enter G0, a resting phase. A removal of growth factors in early G1 will send the cell into G0, but their removal later on in G1, after the restriction checkpoint, will allow the cell to continue into S phase (2). During S phase, DNA replication occurs and each chromosome is duplicated, becoming two sister chromatids. G2 marks the gap between the end of S phase and the start of mitosis. Here, the cell synthesizes materials needed for mitosis, such as RNA and proteins (3).

The M phase begins with mitosis, which is subdivided into five phases, namely prophase, prometaphase, metaphase, anaphase and telophase, and ends in cytokinesis (1). Reproduction through the cell cycle results in genetically identical daughter cells.

Regulation of the Cell Cycle

Throughout these phases of the cell cycle, regulation is essential in the proper production of daughter cells. The fundamental aspect of regulation lies in cyclin proteins and cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs), which form complexes and catalyze progression through the cell cycle when activated (2). As a result of the systematic synthesis and destruction of cyclin throughout the cycle, CDKs are only activated at certain times within the cell cycle, a key factor in cell-cycle regulation (4). Once activated by cyclins, CDKs phosphorylate specific substrates that drive events of the cell cycle and cell division.

These regulatory roles of cyclin–CDK complexes allow for ‘checkpoints’ during the cell cycle. Cell-cycle checkpoints are responsible for ensuring that each earlier process has been completed before the cell moves on to the next phase of the cycle. Activation of a checkpoint, meaning a possible error has been detected, arrests the cell cycle in its current phase through changes in CDK levels and activation, preventing improper cellular reproduction. Regulatory checkpoints include the G1/S or restriction checkpoint, the G2/M or DNA replication checkpoint, and the metaphase/anaphase or spindle apparatus checkpoint. The restriction checkpoint is influenced primarily by growth factors, cell size, cell nutrition, and DNA damage (2, 5). The DNA replication checkpoint is primarily influenced by improper DNA replication and damage, and the metaphase/ anaphase checkpoint is influenced by chromosome attachment to the mitotic spindle (1). Should any processes be found incomplete, or damage be evident at these checkpoints, cyclin–CDK regulatory activity is blocked, preventing the cell from progressing through the cycle until these issues are resolved and the cell is prepared for the next phase (1, 6).

Specifically, three CDKs are involved in regulation during interphase (CDK2, CDK4, and CDK6), regulating exit from and entrance into sub-phases (7). Detection of DNA damage signals the inhibition of these CDKs, inducing cell-cycle arrest. CDK4 and CDK6 activation influences the progression of G1 early on, binding with cyclin-D to phosphorylate pRb, the retinoblastoma protein, preventing it from binding and inhibiting the E2F transcription factor, which transcribes the necessary proteins for the G1/S transition and promotes the cell to the next phases of the cycle. pRb is responsible for inactivating E2F during phases such as G0 and M. When CDK4 and CDK6 are inhibited at the detection of DNA damage, therefore, they do not inactivate pRb, allowing it to bind to and inhibit E2F and preventing the transcription of necessary proteins, a process that resumes when the checkpoint deems the cell to be properly prepared (7). CDK2 is also involved in the inactivation of pRb, and also plays a role in DNA repair and replication, phosphorylating substrates necessary for DNA replication (8, 9).

Cell-cycle Regulation and Cancer Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressors

Oncogenes and tumor-suppressor genes play a large role in regulation of the cell cycle, particularly those of the p53 and pRb pathways, which are involved in the restriction checkpoint.

p53, a tumor-suppressor protein, responds to DNA damage during G1 such as mismatches and single-stranded DNA, initiating transcription of p21, a CDK-interacting protein that inhibits activation of the necessary CDKs of G1 to phosphorylate pRb, and therefore preventing progression to DNA synthesis (11). p53 is also highly involved in apoptosis in cases of irreparable damage (12). Mutations in p53 are extremely common in human cancer, and result in lack of p21 transcription and therefore dysfunctional or lack of arrest of G1 in the presence of DNA damage, allowing this damage to continue on in the cycle without repair (13). Evidence of this p53 dependence during G1 has been shown through studies of p53-null transgenic mice, and failure of their cells to arrest during G1 when faced with DNA damage (14). As a result, the mutation or damage becomes permanent in the genome (2). Studies of mutations in p53, which are often accompanied by conformational changes of the protein that allow for detection of these mutations (11), in mice have shown mutant p53 to result in susceptibility to tumors such as lung adenocarcinomas, osteosarcomas, and lymphomas (15).

Related to the p53 tumor suppressor, the murine double minute-2 (MDM2) oncogene is also involved in the DNA damage checkpoint. MDM2 proteins abrogate the checkpoint by binding to mutated, wild-type p53 and inhibiting its function through these interactions (16, 17).

pRb, discussed previously, is another tumor suppressor, and a target of CDKs (CDK2, CDK 4, and CDK6) involved in G1 and the restriction checkpoint (5, 18). Defective pRb function results in a lack of binding to E2F, which then is allowed to transcribe such proteins without regulation and promote the cell through the cycle (19).

Cyclin D1 has been shown to be amplified in cancer such as breast cancer (20). Cyclin D1 affects the function of pRb through bonding with CDK 4 and CDK6, which phosphorylate pRb.

Aneuploidy and Cancer

Another source of development of cancer and tumorigenesis lies in defective regulation during mitosis. Aneuploidy involves the presence of an abnormal number of chromosomes in a cell, and is an extremely common characteristic of tumor cells involving chromosomal instability (21, 22). Chromosomal instability refers to an increased rate in chromosomal abnormalities, such as deletions or duplications, leading to an unequal distribution of DNA in daughter cells. High rates of chromosomal instability can lead to aneuploidy, which is often observed in cancer. For example, whole chromosome gains, such as the gain of chromosome 8, have been found as a common error in karyotype in acute myeloid leukemia (23).

One hypothesis as to why this abnormal segregation of chromosomes may lead to tumor development is that should a cell be missing parts of or whole chromosomes, they also lose regulatory genes included in those parts, such as tumor-suppressor genes (24). These abnormal numbers may also result in aberrant gene expression and varying levels of genomic instability (25).

Studies suggest that a normal cell, such as one from the RPE-1 or HCT116 cell line, missegregates a chromosome once in every one hundred rounds of division (26). These missegregations are thought to be caused by errors surrounding the spindle checkpoint, such as abnormal centrosome numbers and incorrect kinetochore-microtubule attachments. For example, merotelic attachments, in which one single kinetochore of a sister chromatid pair is attached to microtubules from both poles of the cell, may arise from an excess number of centrosomes (27). Ganem et al. suggested through generation and imaging of cells that differed in centrosome numbers that extra chromosomes result in high frequencies of merotelic attachments and missegregation leading up to anaphase (27). It is especially important to look into the mechanisms surrounding the spindle checkpoint, as the cell cycle is reliant upon this checkpoint to ensure proper segregation of chromosomes prior to division.

Before anaphase and chromosomal segregation begins, sister chromatids are held together by cohesin, a protein complex (28). The proteolysis of sister chromatid cohesion 1 (SCC1), a cohesin subunit, by separase, a protease, triggers anaphase and chromosomal segregation. Once proper attachment of chromosomes to the spindle fibers is confirmed, a separase inhibitor called securin is ubiquitinated by the anaphase-promoting complex or cyclosome APC/C. Without securin to inhibit separase, it is activated, proteolysis of SCC1 occurs, and anaphase begins (28). Upon detection of improper connection of chromosomes to the spindle apparatus at kinetochores, it is thought that these kinetochores send out a checkpoint signal to arrest the cell cycle, signaling the inhibition of APC/C, and therefore inhibiting segregation (29, 30). Studies involving laser ablation of one unattached kinetochore showed that a cell could proceed on through mitosis when ablation occurred, suggesting that unattachment is the source of the inhibitory signal (29).

While complete failure at this spindle checkpoint leads to cell death (31), impairments in, but not failure of, the checkpoint resulting from defects surrounding the proteins involved in this process have been found in tumor cells. These proteins, after detection of incorrect attachment of chromosomes to the spindle apparatus, inhibit the procession of steps surrounding APC/C, therefore preventing the initiation and promotion of segregation and anaphase. The ubiquination abilities of APC/C are dependent on the binding of the cell division cycle protein 20 (CDC20), which recruits substrates to APC/C and activates the process (32). Other proteins involved in a functioning spindle checkpoint include the mitotic arrest deficient protein 2 (MAD2) and the budding uninhibited by benzimidazole-related protein 1 (BUBR1). MAD2 binds to CDC20, inhibiting the protein and preventing the ubiquination of securin by APC/C (33). BUBR1 also inhibits the APC/C and CDC20 complex, independently of MAD2 (33). Alterations in the expression of these checkpoint proteins can result in incorrect segregation of chromosomes due to failure to arrest before corrections can be made, leading to aneuploidy. These aberrant chromosome numbers are often seen in cancer, evidenced by the commonality of spindle checkpoint deficiency in tumor cells (22).

Mutations in checkpoint proteins have often been found in association with colorectal cancer, tumor cells of which have commonly been found to show evidence of aneuploidy due to chromosomal instability (22, 31, 34). Additionally, Li and Benezra reported that a breast cancer cell line with reduced MAD2 level (T47D) failed to arrest at the spindle checkpoint in response to inhibitory effects on the spindle apparatus (35). Mutations or dysregulation of other checkpoint proteins such as budding uninhibited by benzimidazole protein 1 (BUB1) and BUBR1 have also been observed in colorectal and lung cancer, as well as in leukemia and lymphoma (36-38). Gemma et al. screened the DNA sequences of human lung cancer cell lines for mutations in the BUB1 gene, and found various alterations to this gene in some of these cell lines (36). Ohshima et al. found mutations or deletions in the BUB1 and BUBR1 genes in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (37). Shichiri et al. found irregularities in the expression of BUB1 and BUBR1 in colorectal cancer, and concluded that the abnormal expression of these checkpoint genes may lead to aneuploidy and tumor metastasis (38).

The Role of Aneuploidy in Cancer Development

While more and more is being discovered regarding these protein irregularities resulting in improper spindle checkpoint function, the question still persists of whether aneuploidy is a cause or a consequence of cancer and tumor development. An argument for aneuploidy as a consequence, rather than a cause, of cancer lies in the knowledge that the commonly found mutations in regulatory pathways such as the p53 and pRb pathways lead to genomic and chromosomal instability, and that the frequent aneuploidy in cancer cells is a result of this chromosomal instability (39). Manning et al. showed that depletion of pRb, which as discussed above can cause errors at the restriction checkpoint, also results in errors in the structure of centromeres, leading to higher frequencies of merotelic attachment and therefore higher rates of improper chromosomal segregation. This ultimately can lead to abnormalities involving whole-chromosome losses/gains (40). In these cases, aneuploidy results from alternative forms of instability, and, although it affects the development of these cells, it is a consequence of other causes.

On the other hand, studies involving the observation of chromosome numbers in cancer cell lines, such as trisomy of certain chromosomes, show a resultant duplication of mutated alleles, connecting aneuploidy to tumorigenesis (41, 42). Beghini et al. suggested that trisomy of chromosome 4 leads to the duplication of the mutant tyrosine kinase receptor (KIT) allele observed in acute myeloid leukemia (41), and Zhuang et al. observed duplication of another mutated tyrosine kinase receptor (MET) allele resulting from trisomy of chromosome 7 in papillary renal carcinoma (42).

In general, the particular role that aneuploidy plays in cancer development is still unclear, and as is whether it contributes to the causes of cancer or is a result of other causes. Future investigations of these phenomena should improve our understanding of cell-cycle regulation in cancer cells, and may point to newer approaches to treating cancer.

Conclusions and Future Directions

There are varying underlying mechanisms by which cell division and reproduction is regulated. Dysregulation of these mechanisms can have detrimental and even lethal effects on a cell and on the body. Uncorrected mistakes in the cell cycle, including DNA damage and mutations or improper chromosomal segregation and aneuploidy, result in genomic instability, a distinct characteristic of cancer. Knowledge of the means by which tumorigenesis occurs is important in exploring treatments of, and eventually cure of, cancer. Discussion of the role of aneuploidy in cancer development points to an area for which more research is encouraged, and also to an area which may offer an important piece in completing the puzzle to explain cancer development.

Acknowledgements

The Authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Department of Biology, Division of Natural and Social Sciences, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI 53140 towards conducting the research.

Footnotes

  • This article is freely accessible online.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Received September 21, 2017.
  • Revision received October 19, 2017.
  • Accepted October 25, 2017.
  • Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Morris J,
    2. Hartl D,
    3. Knoll A,
    4. Lue R,
    5. Berry A,
    6. Biewener A,
    7. Farrell B,
    8. Holbrook N,
    9. Pierce N,
    10. Viel A
    : Biology: How Life Works. New York: Macmillan Higher Education, 2013.
  2. ↵
    1. Schafer KA
    : The cell cycle: a review. Vet Path 35: 461-478, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Baserga R
    : A study of nucleic acid synthesis in ascites tumor cells by two-emulsion autoradiography. J Cell Biol 12: 633-637, 1962.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Darzynkiewicz A,
    2. Gong J,
    3. Juan G,
    4. Ardelt B,
    5. Traganos F
    : Cytometry of cyclin proteins. Cytometry Pt A 25(1): 1-13, 1996.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Zetterberg A,
    2. Larsson O,
    3. Wiman KG
    : What is the restriction point? Curr Opin in Cell Biol 7(6): 835-842, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Pines J
    : Cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases: theme and variations. Adv Cancer Res 66: 181-212, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Malumbres M,
    2. Barbacid M
    : Cell cycle, CDKs and cancer: a changing paradigm. Nat Rev Cancer 9: 153, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Satyanarayana A,
    2. Berthet C,
    3. Lopez-Molina J,
    4. Coppola V,
    5. Tessarollo L,
    6. Kaldis P
    : Genetic substitution of Cdk1 by Cdk2 leads to embryonic lethality and loss of meiotic function of Cdk2. Development 135: 3389-3400, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Sherr CJ,
    2. Roberts JM
    : CDK inhibitors: positive and negative regulators of G1-phase progression. Genes Dev 13: 1501-1512, 1999.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Kastan MB,
    2. Bartek J
    : Cell-cycle checkpoints and cancer. Nature 432: 316-323, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Nataraj AJ,
    2. T JC II.,
    3. Ananthaswamy HN
    : p53 gene mutations and photocarcinogenesis. Photochem Photobiol 62(2): 218-230, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Clarke AR,
    2. Gledhill S,
    3. Hooper ML,
    4. Bird CC,
    5. Wyllie AH
    : p53 dependence of early apopototis and proliferative responses within the mouse intestinal epithelium following gamma-irradiation. Oncogene 9(6): 1767-1773, 1994.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Greenblatt MS,
    2. Bennett WP,
    3. Hollstein M,
    4. Harris CC
    : Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: clues to cancer etiology and molecular pathogenesis. Cancer Res 54: 4855-4878, 1994.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Yao SL,
    2. Akhtar AJ,
    3. Mckenna KA,
    4. Bedi GC,
    5. Sidransky D,
    6. Mabry M,
    7. Ravi R,
    8. Collector M,
    9. Jones R,
    10. Sharkis S,
    11. Fuchs E,
    12. Bedi A
    : Selective radiosensitization of p53-deficient cells by caffeine-mediated activation of p34cdc2 kinase. Nat Med 2: 1140-1143, 1996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Lavigueur AS,
    2. Maltby W,
    3. Mock D,
    4. Rossant J,
    5. Pawson T,
    6. Bernstein A
    : High incidence of lung, bone, and lymphoid tumors in transgenic mice overexpressing mutant alleles of the p53 oncogene. Mol Cell Biol 9: 3982-3991, 1989.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Finlay CA
    : The mdm-2 oncogene can overcome wild-type p53 suppression of transformed cell growth. Mol Cell Biol 13: 301-306, 1993.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Haines DS,
    2. Landers JE,
    3. Engle LJ,
    4. George DL
    : Physical and functional interaction between wild-type p53 and mdm2 proteins. Mol Cell Biol 14: 1171-1178, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Malumbres M,
    2. Barbacid M
    : To cycle or not to cycle: a critical decision in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 1: 222-231, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Arroyo M,
    2. Raychaudhuri P
    : Retinoblastoma-repression of E2F-dependent transcription depends on the ability of the retinoblastoma protein to interact with E2F and is abrogated by the adenovirus E1A oncoprotein. Nucleic Acids Res 20: 5947-5954, 1992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Zhang SY,
    2. Caamano J,
    3. Cooper F,
    4. Guo W,
    5. Klein-Szanto AJ
    : Immunohistochemistry of cyclin D1 in human breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 102: 695-698, 1994.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Jallepalli PV,
    2. Lengauer C
    : Chromosome segregation and cancer: cutting through the mystery. Nat Rev Cancer 1: 109, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Weaver BA,
    2. Cleveland DW
    : Does aneuploidy cause cancer? Curr Opin Cell Biol 18: 658-667, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Paulsson K,
    2. Johansson B
    : Trisomy 8 as the sole chromosomal aberration in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Pathol Biol 55: 37-48, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Thiagalingam S,
    2. Laken S,
    3. Willson JK,
    4. Markowitz SD,
    5. Kinzler KW,
    6. Vogelstein B,
    7. Lengauer C
    : Mechanisms underlying losses of heterozygosity in human colorectal cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 2698-2702, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Duesberg P,
    2. Rausch C,
    3. Rasnick D,
    4. Hehlmann R
    : Genetic instability of cancer cells is proportional to their degree of aneuploidy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 13692-13697, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Thompson SL,
    2. Compton DA
    : Examining the link between chromosomal instability and aneuploidy in human cells. J Cell Biol 180: 665-672, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Ganem NJ,
    2. Godinho SA,
    3. Pellman D
    : A mechanism linking extra centrosomes to chromosomal instability. Nature 460(7252): 278-282, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Nasmyth K,
    2. Peters JM,
    3. Uhlmann F
    : Splitting the chromosome: cutting the ties that bind sister chromatids. Science 288: 1379-1384, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Rieder CL,
    2. Cole RW,
    3. Khodjakov A,
    4. Sluder G
    : The checkpoint delaying anaphase in response to chromosome monoorientation is mediated by an inhibitory signal produced by unattached kinetochores. J Cell Biol 130: 941-948, 1995.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Shah JV,
    2. Cleveland DW
    : Waiting for anaphase: Mad2 and the spindle assembly checkpoint. Cell 103: 997-1000, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Cahill DP,
    2. Lengauer C,
    3. Yu J,
    4. Riggins GJ,
    5. Willson JK,
    6. Markowitz SD,
    7. Kinzler KW,
    8. Vogelstein B
    : Mutations of the mitotic checkpoint genes in human cancers. Nature 392: 300-303, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Fang G,
    2. Yu H,
    3. Kirschner MW
    : Direct binding of CDC20 protein family members activates the anaphase-promoting complex in mitosis and G1. Mol Cell 2: 163-171, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Bharadwaj R,
    2. Yu H
    : The spindle checkpoint, aneuploidy, and cancer. Oncogene 23: 2016-2027, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Lengauer C,
    2. Kinzler KW,
    3. Vogelstein B
    : Genetic instability in colorectal cancers. Nature 386: 623-627, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Benezra R
    : Identification of a human mitotic checkpoint gene: hsMAD2. Science 247: 246-248, 1996.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Gemma A,
    2. Seike Y,
    3. Uematsu K,
    4. Hibino S,
    5. Kurimoto F,
    6. Yoshimura A,
    7. Shibuya M,
    8. Harris C,
    9. Kudoh S
    : Somatic mutation of the hBUB1 mitotic checkpoint gene in primary lung cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 29: 213-218, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Ohshima K,
    2. Haraoka S,
    3. Yoshioka S,
    4. Hamasaki M,
    5. Fujiki T,
    6. Suzumiya J,
    7. Kawasaki C,
    8. Kanda M,
    9. Kikuchi M
    : Mutation analysis of mitotic checkpoint genes (hBUB1 and hBUBR1) and microsatellite instability in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. Cancer Lett 158: 141-150, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Shichiri M,
    2. Yoshinago K,
    3. Hisatomi H,
    4. Sugihara K,
    5. Hirata Y
    : Genetic and epigenetic inactivation of mitotic checkpoint genes hBUB1 and hBUBR1 and their relationship to survival. Cancer Res 62: 13-17, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Gordon DJ,
    2. Resio B,
    3. Pellman D
    : Causes and consequences of aneuploidy in cancer. Nat Rev Genet 13: 189, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Manning AL,
    2. Longworth MS,
    3. Dyson NJ
    : Loss of pRB causes centromere dysfunction and chromosomal instability. Genes Dev 24: 1364-1376, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Beghini A,
    2. Ripamonti CB,
    3. Castorina P,
    4. Pezzetti L,
    5. Doneda L,
    6. Cairoli R,
    7. Morra E,
    8. Larizza L
    : Trisomy 4 leading to duplication of a mutated KIT allele in acute myeloid leukemia with mast cell involvement. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 119: 26-31, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Zhuang Z,
    2. Park WS,
    3. Pack S,
    4. Schmidt L,
    5. Vortmeyer AO,
    6. Pak E,
    7. Pham T,
    8. Weil R,
    9. Sonja C,
    10. Lubensky I,
    11. Linehan W,
    12. Zbar B,
    13. Weirich G
    : Trisomy 7-harbouring non-random duplication of the mutant MET allele in hereditary papillary renal carcinomas. Nat Genet 20: 66-69, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo
Vol. 32, Issue 1
January-February 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cell-cycle Checkpoints and Aneuploidy on the Path to Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Cell-cycle Checkpoints and Aneuploidy on the Path to Cancer
ELIZABETH S. WENZEL, AMARESHWAR T. K. SINGH
In Vivo Jan 2018, 32 (1) 1-5;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Cell-cycle Checkpoints and Aneuploidy on the Path to Cancer
ELIZABETH S. WENZEL, AMARESHWAR T. K. SINGH
In Vivo Jan 2018, 32 (1) 1-5;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • The Cell Cycle in Normal Cells
    • Regulation of the Cell Cycle
    • Cell-cycle Regulation and Cancer Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressors
    • Aneuploidy and Cancer
    • The Role of Aneuploidy in Cancer Development
    • Conclusions and Future Directions
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Estrogen receptor alpha (ER{alpha}) driven trans-regulation of mitotic checkpoint complex (MCC) components affects the clinical outcome of breast cancer
  • The hexokinase "HKDC1" interaction with the mitochondria is essential for hepatocellular carcinoma progression
  • Raspberry Extract With Potential Antitumor Activity Against Cervical Cancer
  • CMTM family proteins 1-8: roles in cancer biological processes and potential clinical value
  • Effect of Methylsulfonylmethane on Proliferation and Apoptosis of A549 Lung Cancer Cells Through G2/M Cell-cycle Arrest and Intrinsic Cell Death Pathway
  • Carcinogenic Pesticide Control via Hijacking Endosymbiosis; The Paradigm of DSB-A from Wolbachia pipientis for the Management of Otiorhynchus singularis
  • ILK Expression in Colorectal Cancer Is Associated with EMT, Cancer Stem Cell Markers and Chemoresistance
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Lymphocytes and their Involvement in the Foreign Body Response to Biomaterials and Tissue Repair
  • Pain in Children With ADHD: Mechanisms, Clinical Presentation, and Implications for Assessment and Management
  • The Role of Irisin and Physical Activity in Breast Cancer
Show more Review

Keywords

  • Cell-cycle checkpoints
  • cancer
  • regulation
  • cyclins
  • cyclin-dependent kinases
  • aneuploidy
  • review
In Vivo

© 2026 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire