Preserving the genome by regulating chromatin association with the nuclear envelope

Trends in Cell Biology

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 465-473

  Bermejo, Rodrigo ^a   Kumar, Amit ^a   Foiani, Marco ^a,b  

^a FIRC INSTITUTE OF MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Checkpoint; Chromatin; DNA topology; Genome integrity; Nuclear envelope

Indexed keywords

EMERIN; LAMIN A; LAMININ; LAMININ B1; LAMININ GAMMA1; MEMBRANE PROTEIN; NESPRIN 1; NESPRIN 2; NUCLEOPORIN; NUCLEOPORIN 133; NUCLEOPORIN 155; NUCLEOPORIN 214; NUCLEOPORIN 358; NUCLEOPORIN 62; NUCLEOPORIN 88; NUCLEOPORIN 98; PRELAMIN A; PROTEIN ALADIN; PROTEIN LAP2; PROTEIN MAN1; PROTEIN PRECURSOR; PROTEIN TPR; RIBOSOME DNA; TORSIN A; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL NUCLEUS MEMBRANE; CHROMATIN; CHROMATIN STRUCTURE; CHROMOSOME REPLICATION; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; DNA DAMAGE CHECKPOINT; DNA REPAIR; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA BREAK; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE LOCUS; GENOME; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; MEMBRANE STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR STABILITY; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOCYTOPLASMIC TRANSPORT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FUNCTION; REVIEW; TELOMERE;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL TRANSPORT; CHROMATIN; DNA DAMAGE; GENOME; HUMANS; NUCLEAR ENVELOPE;

EUKARYOTA;

EID: 84865576738     PISSN: 09628924     EISSN: 18793088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2012.05.007     Document Type: Review

References (137)

1. Kohler A., Hurt E. Exporting RNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2007, 8:761-773.
2. Branzei D., Foiani M. Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11:208-219.
3. Labib K., De Piccoli G. Surviving chromosome replication: the many roles of the S-phase checkpoint pathway. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2011, 366:3554-3561.
4. Kohler A., Hurt E. Gene regulation by nucleoporins and links to cancer. Mol. Cell 2010, 38:6-15.
5. Capelson M., et al. Nuclear pore complexes: guardians of the nuclear genome. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2010, 75:585-597.
6. Myung K., et al. Suppression of spontaneous chromosomal rearrangements by S phase checkpoint functions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cell 2001, 104:397-408.
7. Loeillet S., et al. Genetic network interactions among replication, repair and nuclear pore deficiencies in yeast. DNA Repair 2005, 4:459-468.
8. Nagai S., et al. Functional targeting of DNA damage to a nuclear pore-associated SUMO-dependent ubiquitin ligase. Science 2008, 322:597-602.
9. Bermejo R., et al. The replication checkpoint protects fork stability by releasing transcribed genes from nuclear pores. Cell 2011, 146:233-246.
10. Di Micco R., et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is a DNA damage response triggered by DNA hyper-replication. Nature 2006, 444:638-642.
11. Dominguez-Sola D., et al. Non-transcriptional control of DNA replication by c-Myc. Nature 2007, 448:445-451.
12. Bartkova J., et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 2006, 444:633-637.
13. Halazonetis T.D., et al. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 2008, 319:1352-1355.
14. Bartkova J., et al. DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature 2005, 434:864-870.
15. Bermejo R., et al. Preventing replication stress to maintain genome stability: resolving conflicts between replication and transcription. Mol. Cell 2012, 45:710-718.
16. Wente S.R., Rout M.P. The nuclear pore complex and nuclear transport. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010, 2:a000562.
17. Zuleger N., et al. The nuclear envelope as a chromatin organizer. Nucleus 2011, 2:339-349.
18. Kalocsay M., et al. Chromosome-wide Rad51 spreading and SUMO-H2A.Z-dependent chromosome fixation in response to a persistent DNA double-strand break. Mol. Cell 2009, 33:335-343.
19. Miné-Hattab J., Rothstein R. Increased chromosome mobility facilitates homology search during recombination. Nat. Cell Biol. 2012, 14:510-517.
20. Dion V., et al. Increased mobility of double-strand breaks requires Mec1, Rad9 and the homologous recombination machinery. Nat. Cell Biol. 2012, 14:502-509.
21. Lydall D. Taming the tiger by the tail: modulation of DNA damage responses by telomeres. EMBO J. 2009, 28:2174-2187.
22. Boulton S.J., Jackson S.P. Saccharomyces cerevisiae Ku70 potentiates illegitimate DNA double-strand break repair and serves as a barrier to error-prone DNA repair pathways. EMBO J. 1996, 15:5093-5103.
23. Gravel S., et al. Yeast Ku as a regulator of chromosomal DNA end structure. Science 1998, 280:741-744.
24. Galy V., et al. Nuclear pore complexes in the organization of silent telomeric chromatin. Nature 2000, 403:108-112.
25. Hediger F., et al. Myosin-like proteins 1 and 2 are not required for silencing or telomere anchoring, but act in the Tel1 pathway of telomere length control. J. Struct. Biol. 2002, 140:79-91.
26. Feuerbach F., et al. Nuclear architecture and spatial positioning help establish transcriptional states of telomeres in yeast. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002, 4:214-221.
27. Deng Y., et al. Telomere dysfunction and tumour suppression: the senescence connection. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008, 8:450-458.
28. Shore D., Bianchi A. Telomere length regulation: coupling DNA end processing to feedback regulation of telomerase. EMBO J. 2009, 28:2309-2322.
29. Khadaroo B., et al. The DNA damage response at eroded telomeres and tethering to the nuclear pore complex. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11:980-987.
30. Therizols P., et al. Telomere tethering at the nuclear periphery is essential for efficient DNA double strand break repair in subtelomeric region. J. Cell Biol. 2006, 172:189-199.
31. Starr D.A. KASH and SUN proteins. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21:R414-R415.
32. Oza P., et al. Mechanisms that regulate localization of a DNA double-strand break to the nuclear periphery. Genes Dev. 2009, 23:912-927.
33. Schober H., et al. Yeast telomerase and the SUN domain protein Mps3 anchor telomeres and repress subtelomeric recombination. Genes Dev. 2009, 23:928-938.
34. Robert T., et al. HDACs link the DNA damage response, processing of double-strand breaks and autophagy. Nature 2011, 471:74-79.
35. Brewer B.J., Fangman W.L. A replication fork barrier at the 3' end of yeast ribosomal RNA genes. Cell 1988, 55:637-643.
36. Kobayashi T., Horiuchi T. A yeast gene product, Fob1 protein, required for both replication fork blocking and recombinational hotspot activities. Genes Cells 1996, 1:465-474.
37. Huang J., et al. Inhibition of homologous recombination by a cohesin-associated clamp complex recruited to the rDNA recombination enhancer. Genes Dev. 2006, 20:2887-2901.
38. Mekhail K., et al. Role for perinuclear chromosome tethering in maintenance of genome stability. Nature 2008, 456:667-670.
39. Corbett K.D., et al. The monopolin complex crosslinks kinetochore components to regulate chromosome-microtubule attachments. Cell 2010, 142:556-567.
40. Chan J.N., et al. Perinuclear cohibin complexes maintain replicative life span via roles at distinct silent chromatin domains. Dev. Cell 2011, 20:867-879.
41. Park H., Sternglanz R. Identification and characterization of the genes for two topoisomerase I-interacting proteins from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 1999, 15:35-41.
42. Smolka M.B., et al. An FHA domain-mediated protein interaction network of Rad53 reveals its role in polarized cell growth. J. Cell Biol. 2006, 175:743-753.
43. Deshpande A.M., Newlon C.S. DNA replication fork pause sites dependent on transcription. Science 1996, 272:1030-1033.
44. Nguyen V.C., et al. Replication stress checkpoint signaling controls tRNA gene transcription. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17:976-981.
45. Ghavidel A., et al. Impaired tRNA nuclear export links DNA damage and cell-cycle checkpoint. Cell 2007, 131:915-926.
46. Hellmuth K., et al. Yeast Los1p has properties of an exportin-like nucleocytoplasmic transport factor for tRNA. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1998, 18:6374-6386.
47. Chabes A., et al. Survival of DNA damage in yeast directly depends on increased dNTP levels allowed by relaxed feedback inhibition of ribonucleotide reductase. Cell 2003, 112:391-401.
48. Poli J., et al. dNTP pools determine fork progression and origin usage under replication stress. EMBO J. 2011, 31:883-894.
49. Allen J.B., et al. The SAD1/RAD53 protein kinase controls multiple checkpoints and DNA damage-induced transcription in yeast. Genes Dev. 1994, 8:2401-2415.
50. Zhao X., et al. The ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor Sml1 is a new target of the Mec1/Rad53 kinase cascade during growth and in response to DNA damage. EMBO J. 2001, 20:3544-3553.
51. Lee Y.D., Elledge S.J. Control of ribonucleotide reductase localization through an anchoring mechanism involving Wtm1. Genes Dev. 2006, 20:334-344.
52. Decourty L., et al. Linking functionally related genes by sensitive and quantitative characterization of genetic interaction profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:5821-5826.
53. Cabal G.G., et al. SAGA interacting factors confine sub-diffusion of transcribed genes to the nuclear envelope. Nature 2006, 441:770-773.
54. Drubin D.A., et al. Motion as a phenotype: the use of live-cell imaging and machine visual screening to characterize transcription-dependent chromosome dynamics. BMC Cell Biol. 2006, 7:19.
55. Rougemaille M., et al. THO/Sub2p functions to coordinate 3'-end processing with gene-nuclear pore association. Cell 2008, 135:308-321.
56. Taddei A., et al. Nuclear pore association confers optimal expression levels for an inducible yeast gene. Nature 2006, 441:774-778.
57. Blobel G. Gene gating: a hypothesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1985, 82:8527-8529.
58. Tan-Wong S.M., et al. Gene loops function to maintain transcriptional memory through interaction with the nuclear pore complex. Genes Dev. 2009, 23:2610-2624.
59. Light W.H., et al. Interaction of a DNA zip code with the nuclear pore complex promotes H2A.Z incorporation and INO1 transcriptional memory. Mol. Cell 2010, 40:112-125.
60. Postow L., et al. Topological challenges to DNA replication: conformations at the fork. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2001, 98:8219-8226.
61. Wang J.C. Cellular roles of DNA topoisomerases: a molecular perspective. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2002, 3:430-440.
62. Postow L., et al. Positive torsional strain causes the formation of a four-way junction at replication forks. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276:2790-2796.
63. Bermejo R., et al. Top1- and Top2-mediated topological transitions at replication forks ensure fork progression and stability and prevent DNA damage checkpoint activation. Genes Dev. 2007, 21:1921-1936.
64. Drolet M. Growth inhibition mediated by excess negative supercoiling: the interplay between transcription elongation, R-loop formation and DNA topology. Mol. Microbiol. 2006, 59:723-730.
65. Garcia-Rubio M.L., Aguilera A. Topological constraints impair RNA polymerase II transcription and causes instability of plasmid-borne convergent genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40:1050-1064.
66. Sogo J.M., et al. Fork reversal and ssDNA accumulation at stalled replication forks owing to checkpoint defects. Science 2002, 297:599-602.
67. Casper A.M., et al. ATR regulates fragile site stability. Cell 2002, 111:779-789.
68. Cha R.S., Kleckner N. ATR homolog Mec1 promotes fork progression, thus averting breaks in replication slow zones. Science 2002, 297:602-606.
69. Gonzalez-Aguilera C., et al. The THP1-SAC3-SUS1-CDC31 complex works in transcription elongation-mRNA export preventing RNA-mediated genome instability. Mol. Biol. Cell 2008, 19:4310-4318.
70. Huertas P., Aguilera A. Cotranscriptionally formed DNA:RNA hybrids mediate transcription elongation impairment and transcription-associated recombination. Mol. Cell 2003, 12:711-721.
71. Postow L., et al. Topological domain structure of the Escherichia coli chromosome. Genes Dev. 2004, 18:1766-1779.
72. Smolka M.B., et al. Proteome-wide identification of in vivo targets of DNA damage checkpoint kinases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:10364-10369.
73. Chen S.H., et al. A proteome-wide analysis of kinase-substrate network in the DNA damage response. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285:12803-12812.
74. Kohler A., Hurt E. Gene regulation by nucleoporins and links to cancer. Mol. Cell 2010, 38:6-15.
75. Kalverda B., et al. Nucleoporins directly stimulate expression of developmental and cell-cycle genes inside the nucleoplasm. Cell 2010, 140:360-371.
76. Straub T., et al. The RNA-splicing factor PSF/p54 controls DNA-topoisomerase I activity by a direct interaction. J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273:26261-26264.
77. Tuduri S., et al. Topoisomerase I suppresses genomic instability by preventing interference between replication and transcription. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11:1315-1324.
78. Matsuoka S., et al. ATM and ATR substrate analysis reveals extensive protein networks responsive to DNA damage. Science 2007, 316:1160-1166.
79. Paulsen R.D., et al. A genome-wide siRNA screen reveals diverse cellular processes and pathways that mediate genome stability. Mol. Cell 2009, 35:228-239.
80. Worman H.J., et al. Diseases of the nuclear envelope. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010, 2:a000760.
81. Kim Y., et al. Mouse B-type lamins are required for proper organogenesis but not by embryonic stem cells. Science 2011, 334:1706-1710.
82. Hernandez L., et al. Functional coupling between the extracellular matrix and nuclear lamina by Wnt signaling in progeria. Dev. Cell 2010, 19:413-425.
83. Capelson M., Hetzer M.W. The role of nuclear pores in gene regulation, development and disease. EMBO Rep. 2009, 10:697-705.
84. Moudry P., et al. Nucleoporin NUP153 guards genome integrity by promoting nuclear import of 53BP1. Cell Death Differ. 2011, 19:798-807.
85. Blasius M., et al. A phospho-proteomic screen identifies substrates of the checkpoint kinase Chk1. Genome Biol. 2011, 12:R78.
86. Lemaitre C., et al. The nucleoporin 153, a novel factor in double-strand break repair and DNA damage response. Oncogene 2012, 12:R78.
87. Cronshaw J.M., Matunis M.J. The nuclear pore complex protein ALADIN is mislocalized in triple A syndrome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100:5823-5827.
88. Cronshaw J.M., Matunis M.J. The nuclear pore complex: disease associations and functional correlations. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2004, 15:34-39.
89. Huebner A., et al. Mice lacking the nuclear pore complex protein ALADIN show female infertility but fail to develop a phenotype resembling human triple A syndrome. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006, 26:1879-1887.
90. Hirano M., et al. ALADINI482S causes selective failure of nuclear protein import and hypersensitivity to oxidative stress in triple A syndrome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103:2298-2303.
91. Rasala B.A., et al. ELYS is a dual nucleoporin/kinetochore protein required for nuclear pore assembly and proper cell division. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103:17801-17806.
92. Gillespie P.J., et al. ELYS/MEL-28 chromatin association coordinates nuclear pore complex assembly and replication licensing. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:1657-1662.
93. Okita K., et al. Targeted disruption of the mouse ELYS gene results in embryonic death at peri-implantation development. Genes Cells 2004, 9:1083-1091.
94. Gao N., et al. The nuclear pore complex protein Elys is required for genome stability in mouse intestinal epithelial progenitor cells. Gastroenterology 2011, 140:1547-1555.
95. de Jong-Curtain T.A., et al. Abnormal nuclear pore formation triggers apoptosis in the intestinal epithelium of elys-deficient zebrafish. Gastroenterology 2009, 136:902-911.
96. Krull S., et al. Nucleoporins as components of the nuclear pore complex core structure and Tpr as the architectural element of the nuclear basket. Mol. Biol. Cell 2004, 15:4261-4277.
97. Park M., et al. Mechanism of met oncogene activation. Cell 1986, 45:895-904.
98. Lee S.H., et al. Tpr directly binds to Mad1 and Mad2 and is important for the Mad1-Mad2-mediated mitotic spindle checkpoint. Genes Dev. 2008, 22:2926-2931.
99. Bermejo R., et al. Genome-organizing factors Top2 and Hmo1 prevent chromosome fragility at sites of S phase transcription. Cell 2009, 138:870-884.
100. Astejada M.N., et al. Emerinopathy and laminopathy clinical, pathological and molecular features of muscular dystrophy with nuclear envelopathy in Japan. Acta Myol. 2007, 26:159-164.
101. Hellemans J., et al. Loss-of-function mutations in LEMD3 result in osteopoikilosis, Buschke-Ollendorff syndrome and melorheostosis. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36:1213-1218.
102. Gros-Louis F., et al. Mutations in SYNE1 lead to a newly discovered form of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia. Nat. Genet. 2007, 39:80-85.
103. Gonzalez-Alegre P., Paulson H.L. Aberrant cellular behavior of mutant torsinA implicates nuclear envelope dysfunction in DYT1 dystonia. J. Neurosci. 2004, 24:2593-2601.
104. Hoffmann K., et al. Mutations in the gene encoding the lamin B receptor produce an altered nuclear morphology in granulocytes (Pelger-Huet anomaly). Nat. Genet. 2002, 31:410-414.
105. Padiath Q.S., et al. Lamin B1 duplications cause autosomal dominant leukodystrophy. Nat. Genet. 2006, 38:1114-1123.
106. Hegele R.A., et al. Sequencing of the reannotated LMNB2 gene reveals novel mutations in patients with acquired partial lipodystrophy. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2006, 79:383-389.
107. Navarro C.L., et al. Loss of ZMPSTE24 (FACE-1) causes autosomal recessive restrictive dermopathy and accumulation of Lamin A precursors. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2005, 14:1503-1513.
108. Eriksson M., et al. Recurrent de novo point mutations in lamin A cause Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. Nature 2003, 423:293-298.
109. Chen L., et al. LMNA mutations in atypical Werner's syndrome. Lancet 2003, 362:440-445.
110. Bonne G., et al. Mutations in the gene encoding lamin A/C cause autosomal dominant Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy. Nat. Genet. 1999, 21:285-288.
111. Fatkin D., et al. Missense mutations in the rod domain of the lamin A/C gene as causes of dilated cardiomyopathy and conduction-system disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 341:1715-1724.
112. De Sandre-Giovannoli A., et al. Homozygous defects in LMNA, encoding lamin A/C nuclear-envelope proteins, cause autosomal recessive axonal neuropathy in human (Charcot-Marie-Tooth disorder type 2) and mouse. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2002, 70:726-736.
113. Shackleton S., et al. LMNA, encoding lamin A/C, is mutated in partial lipodystrophy. Nat. Genet. 2000, 24:153-156.
114. Willis N.D., et al. Lamin A/C is a risk biomarker in colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e2988.
115. Skvortsov S., et al. Proteomics profiling of microdissected low- and high-grade prostate tumors identifies Lamin A as a discriminatory biomarker. J. Proteome Res. 2011, 10:259-268.
116. Wang Y., et al. Differential protein mapping of ovarian serous adenocarcinomas: identification of potential markers for distinct tumor stage. J. Proteome Res. 2009, 8:1452-1463.
117. Belt E.J., et al. Loss of lamin A/C expression in stage II and III colon cancer is associated with disease recurrence. Eur. J. Cancer 2011, 47:1837-1845.
118. Agrelo R., et al. Inactivation of the lamin A/C gene by CpG island promoter hypermethylation in hematologic malignancies, and its association with poor survival in nodal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23:3940-3947.
119. Somech R., et al. Enhanced expression of the nuclear envelope LAP2 transcriptional repressors in normal and malignant activated lymphocytes. Ann. Hematol. 2007, 86:393-401.
120. Doherty J.A., et al. ESR1/SYNE1 polymorphism and invasive epithelial ovarian cancer risk: an Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2010, 19:245-250.
121. Sjoblom T., et al. The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 2006, 314:268-274.
122. Xu S., Powers M.A. Nuclear pore proteins and cancer. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2009, 20:620-630.
123. Neilson D.E., et al. Infection-triggered familial or recurrent cases of acute necrotizing encephalopathy caused by mutations in a component of the nuclear pore, RANBP2. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2009, 84:44-51.
124. Ma Z., et al. Fusion of ALK to the Ran-binding protein 2 (RANBP2) gene in inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003, 37:98-105.
125. Zhang X., et al. Mutation in nuclear pore component NUP155 leads to atrial fibrillation and early sudden cardiac death. Cell 2008, 135:1017-1027.
126. Nakamura T., et al. Fusion of the nucleoporin gene NUP98 to HOXA9 by the chromosome translocation t(7;11)(p15;p15) in human myeloid leukaemia. Nat. Genet. 1996, 12:154-158.
127. Lam D.H., Aplan P.D. NUP98 gene fusions in hematologic malignancies. Leukemia 2001, 15:1689-1695.
128. Lahortiga I., et al. NUP98 is fused to adducin 3 in a patient with T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and myeloid markers, with a new translocation t(10;11)(q25;p15). Cancer Res. 2003, 63:3079-3083.
129. Graux C., et al. Fusion of NUP214 to ABL1 on amplified episomes in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36:1084-1089.
130. von Lindern M., et al. Can, a putative oncogene associated with myeloid leukemogenesis, may be activated by fusion of its 3' half to different genes: characterization of the set gene. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1992, 12:3346-3355.
131. Wesierska-Gadek J., et al. Characterization of autoantibodies against components of the nuclear pore complexes: high frequency of anti-p62 nucleoporin antibodies. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2007, 1109:519-530.
132. Basel-Vanagaite L., et al. Mutated nup62 causes autosomal recessive infantile bilateral striatal necrosis. Ann. Neurol. 2006, 60:214-222.
133. Martinez N., et al. The nuclear pore complex protein Nup88 is overexpressed in tumor cells. Cancer Res. 1999, 59:5408-5411.
134. Knoess M., et al. Nucleoporin 88 expression in hepatitis B and C virus-related liver diseases. World J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 12:5870-5874.
135. Zhang Z.Y., et al. Nup88 expression in normal mucosa, adenoma, primary adenocarcinoma and lymph node metastasis in the colorectum. Tumour Biol. 2007, 28:93-99.
136. Schneider J., et al. Nup88 expression is associated with myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2010, 20:804-808.
137. Zhao Z.R., et al. Increased serum level of Nup88 protein is associated with the development of colorectal cancer. Med. Oncol. 2011, 10.1007/s12032-011-0047-1.