The effects of dna double-strand breaks on mouse oocyte meiotic maturation

Cell Cycle

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1233-1241

  Ma, Jun Yu ^a,b   Ou Yang, Ying Chun ^a   Wang, Zhong Wei ^a   Wang, Zhen Bo ^a   Jiang, Zong Zhe ^a   Luo, Shi Ming ^a   Hou, Yi ^a   Liu, Zhong Hua ^b   Schatten, Heide ^c   Sun, Qing Yuan ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY   (China)

^b NORTHEAST AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Ccnb1; Double strand breaks; Meiosis; Oocyte; Polar body extrusion; Spindle assembly checkpoint

Indexed keywords

BLEOMYCIN; CYCLIN B1; DNA FRAGMENT;

ANAPHASE; ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; CELL LABELING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA BREAK; FEMALE; GERMINAL VESICLE; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE; INTERPHASE; LASER MICROBEAM MICRODISSECTION; M PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; MEIOSIS; METAPHASE; MICRONUCLEUS; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OOCYTE MATURATION; PARTHENOGENESIS; POLAR BODY; PROTEIN EXPRESSION;

EID: 84876273072     PISSN: 15384101     EISSN: 15514005     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4161/cc.24311     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. De Bont R, van Larebeke N. Endogenous DNA damage in humans: A review of quantitative data. Mutagenesis 2004; 19:169-85; PMID:15123782; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mutage/geh025
2. Soleimani R, Heytens E, Darzynkiewicz Z, Oktay K. Mechanisms of chemotherapy-induced human ovarian aging: Double strand DNA breaks and microvascular compromise. Aging (Albany NY) 2011; 3:782-93; PMID:21869459
3. Dasika GK, Lin SC, Zhao S, Sung P, Tomkinson A, Lee EY. DNA damage-induced cell cycle checkpoints and DNA strand break repair in development and tumorigenesis. Oncogene 1999; 18:7883-99; PMID:10630641; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1203283
4. Roig I, Liebe B, Egozcue J, Cabero L, Garcia M, Scherthan H. Female-specific features of recombinational double-stranded DNA repair in relation to synapsis and telomere dynamics in human oocytes. Chromosoma 2004; 113:22-33; PMID:15235794; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00412-004-0290-8
5. Grey C, Baudat F, de Massy B. Genome-wide control of the distribution of meiotic recombination. PLoS Biol 2009; 7:e35; PMID:19226188; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000035
6. Cheng EY, Hunt PA, Naluai-Cecchini TA, Fligner CL, Fujimoto VY, Pasternack TL, et al. Meiotic recombination in human oocytes. PLoS Genet 2009; 5:e1000661; PMID:19763179; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pgen.1000661
7. Ziegler-Birling C, Helmrich A, Tora L, Torres-Padilla ME. Distribution of p53 binding protein 1 (53BP1) and phosphorylated H2A.X during mouse preimplantation development in the absence of DNA damage. Int J Dev Biol 2009; 53:1003-11; PMID:19598117; http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.082707cz
8. Derijck A, van der Heijden G, Giele M, Philippens M, de Boer P. DNA double-strand break repair in parental chromatin of mouse zygotes, the first cell cycle as an origin of de novo mutation. Hum Mol Genet 2008; 17:1922-37; PMID:18353795; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddn090
9. Pandita TK, Richardson C. Chromatin remodeling finds its place in the DNA double-strand break response. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 37:1363-77; PMID:19139074; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkn1071
10. van Gent DC, Hoeijmakers JH, Kanaar R. Chromosomal stability and the DNA doublestranded break connection. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2:196-206; PMID:11256071; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35056049
11. Bohgaki T, Bohgaki M, Hakem R. DNA doublestrand break signaling and human disorders. Genome Integr 2010; 1:15; PMID:21054854; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ 2041-9414-1-15
12. Lavin MF, Delia D, Chessa L. ATM and the DNA damage response. Workshop on ataxia-telangiectasia and related syndromes. EMBO Rep 2006; 7:154-60; PMID:16439996; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400629
13. Shiloh Y. The ATM-mediated DNA-damage response: Taking shape. Trends Biochem Sci 2006; 31:402-10; PMID:16774833; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs. 2006.05.004
14. Branzei D, Foiani M. Regulation of DNA repair throughout the cell cycle. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2008; 9:297-308; PMID:18285803; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ nrm2351
15. Speed RM. Meiosis in the foetal mouse ovary. I. An analysis at the light microscope level using surface-spreading. Chromosoma 1982; 85:427-37; PMID:6180868; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00330366
16. Speed RM, Chandley AC. Meiosis in the foetal mouse ovary. II. Oocyte development and age-related aneuploidy. Does a production line exist? Chromosoma 1983; 88:184-9; PMID:6628083; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00285618
17. Marangos P, Carroll J. Oocytes progress beyond prophase in the presence of DNA damage. Curr Biol 2012; 22:989-94; PMID:22578416; http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.cub.2012.03.063
18. Yuen WS, Merriman JA, O'Bryan MK, Jones KT. DNA double strand breaks but not interstrand crosslinks prevent progress through meiosis in fully grown mouse oocytes. PLoS ONE 2012; 7:e43875; PMID:22928046; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal. pone.0043875
19. Pesin JA, Orr-Weaver TL. Regulation of APC/C activators in mitosis and meiosis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2008; 24:475-99; PMID:18598214; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.041408.115949
20. Holt JE, Jones KT. Control of homologous chromosome division in the mammalian oocyte. Mol Hum Reprod 2009; 15:139-47; PMID:19179408; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gap007
21. Botchway SW, Reynolds P, Parker AW, O'Neill P. Use of near infrared femtosecond lasers as sub-micron radiation microbeam for cell DNA damage and repair studies. Mutat Res 2010; 704:38-44; PMID:20079460; http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.mrrev.2010.01.003
22. Chen L, Chao SB, Wang ZB, Qi ST, Zhu XL, Yang SW, et al. Checkpoint kinase 1 is essential for meiotic cell cycle regulation in mouse oocytes. Cell Cycle 2012; 11:1948-55; PMID:22544319; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cc.20279
23. Goodarzi AA, Jeggo P, Lobrich M. The influence of heterochromatin on DNA double strand break repair: Getting the strong, silent type to relax. DNA Repair (Amst) 2010; 9:1273-82; PMID:21036673; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2010. 09.013
24. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, et al.; European IVFmonitoring (EIM); Consortium for European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:2571-84; PMID:22786779; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des255
25. Sebestova J, Danylevska A, Novakova L, Kubelka M, Anger M. Lack of response to unaligned chromosomes in mammalian female gametes. Cell Cycle 2012; 11:3011-8; PMID:22871737; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cc.21398
26. Sun SC, Kim NH. Spindle assembly checkpoint and its regulators in meiosis. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18:60-72; PMID:22086113; http://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/humupd/dmr044
27. Wei L, Liang XW, Zhang QH, Li M, Yuan J, Li S, et al. BubR1 is a spindle assembly checkpoint protein regulating meiotic cell cycle progression of mouse oocyte. Cell Cycle 2010; 9:1112-21; PMID:20237433; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cc. 9.6.10957
28. Homer HA. Mad2 and spindle assembly checkpoint function during meiosis I in mammalian oocytes. Histol Histopathol 2006; 21:873-86; PMID:16691540
29. Li M, Li S, Yuan J, Wang ZB, Sun SC, Schatten H, et al. Bub3 is a spindle assembly checkpoint protein regulating chromosome segregation during mouse oocyte meiosis. PLoS ONE 2009; 4:e7701; PMID:19888327; http://dx.doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0007701
30. Herbert M, Levasseur M, Homer H, Yallop K, Murdoch A, McDougall A. Homologue disjunction in mouse oocytes requires proteolysis of securin and cyclin B1. Nat Cell Biol 2003; 5:1023-5; PMID:14593421; http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/ncb1062
31. Gui L, Homer H. Spindle assembly checkpoint signalling is uncoupled from chromosomal position in mouse oocytes. Development 2012; 139:1941-6; PMID:22513372; http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/dev.078352
32. Lane SI, Yun Y, Jones KT. Timing of anaphasepromoting complex activation in mouse oocytes is predicted by microtubule-kinetochore attachment but not by bivalent alignment or tension. Development 2012; 139:1947-55; PMID:22513370; http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/dev.077040
33. De Souza CP, Osmani SA. A new level of spindle assembly checkpoint inactivation that functions without mitotic spindles. Cell Cycle 2011; 10:3805-6; PMID:22067564; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cc.10.22.18187
34. Roos WP, Kaina B. DNA damage-induced cell death by apoptosis. Trends Mol Med 2006; 12:440-50; PMID:16899408; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed. 2006.07.007