Strand-seq: A unifying tool for studies of chromosome segregation

Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 8-9, 2013, Pages 643-652

  Falconer, Ester ^a   Lansdorp, Peter M ^a,b,c  

^a BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Asymmetric; Crick; Non random; Strand seq; Template; Watson

Indexed keywords

5 METHYLCYTOSINE; COMPLEMENTARY DNA; FLUORESCENT DYE;

ASYMMETRIC CELL DIVISION; AUTOSOME; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL FATE; CENTROMERE; CENTROSOME; CHROMATIN; CHROMOSOME 1; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; CYTOKINESIS; DAUGHTER CELL; DNA REPLICATION; DNA STRAND; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENE EXPRESSION; GENOME ANALYSIS; GERMLINE STEM CELL; HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL; INHERITANCE; INTESTINE EPITHELIUM; MITOSIS SPINDLE; NEURAL STEM CELL; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; SISTER CHROMATID; SISTER CHROMATID EXCHANGE; STEM CELL; STOCHASTIC MODEL;

ASYMMETRIC; CRICK; NON-RANDOM; STRAND-SEQ; TEMPLATE; WATSON;

ANIMALS; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; DNA; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SISTER CHROMATID EXCHANGE;

EID: 84887616270     PISSN: 10849521     EISSN: 10963634     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2013.04.005     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Lansdorp P.M. Immortal strands? Give me a break. Cell 2007, 129(7):1244-1247.
2. Cairns J. Mutation selection and the natural history of cancer. Nature 1975, 255(5505):197-200.
3. Falconer E., et al. Identification of sister chromatids by DNA template strand sequences. Nature 2010, 463(7277):93-97.
4. Falconer E., et al. DNA template strand sequencing of single-cells maps genomic rearrangements at high resolution. Nature Methods 2012.
5. Meselson M., Stahl F.W. The replication of DNA in Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1958, 44(7):671-682.
6. Jones R.M., Petermann E. Replication fork dynamics and the DNA damage response. Biochemical Journal 2012, 443(1):13-26.
7. Lansdorp P.M., et al. Epigenetic differences between sister chromatids?. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2012, 1266(1):1-6.
8. Decordier I., Cundari E., Kirsch-Volders M. Mitotic checkpoints and the maintenance of the chromosome karyotype. Mutation Research 2008, 651(1-2):3-13.
9. Rando T.A. The immortal strand hypothesis: segregation and reconstruction. Cell 2007, 129(7):1239-1243.
10. Potten C.S., et al. The segregation of DNA in epithelial stem cells. Cell 1978, 15(3):899-906.
11. Potten C.S., Owen G., Booth D. Intestinal stem cells protect their genome by selective segregation of template DNA strands. Journal of Cell Science 2002, 115(Pt 11):2381-2388.
12. Li L., Clevers H. Coexistence of quiescent and active adult stem cells in mammals. Science 2010, 327(5965):542-545.
13. Tajbakhsh S. Stem cell identity and template DNA strand segregation. Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2008, 20(6):716-722.
14. Charville G.W., Rando T.A. Stem cell ageing and non-random chromosome segregation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 2011, 366(1561):85-93.
15. Conboy M.J., Karasov A.O., Rando T.A. High incidence of non-random template strand segregation and asymmetric fate determination in dividing stem cells and their progeny. PLoS Biology 2007, 5(5):e102.
16. Shinin V., et al. Asymmetric division and cosegregation of template DNA strands in adult muscle satellite cells. Nature Cell Biology 2006, 8(7):677-687.
17. Karpowicz P., et al. Support for the immortal strand hypothesis: neural stem cells partition DNA asymmetrically in vitro. Journal of Cell Biology 2005, 170(5):721-732.
18. Kiel M.J.et al. Haematopoietic stem cells do not asymmetrically segregate chromosomes or retain BrdU. Nature 2007.
19. Sotiropoulou P.A., Candi A., Blanpain C. The majority of multipotent epidermal stem cells do not protect their genome by asymmetrical chromosome segregation. Stem Cells 2008, 26(11):2964-2973.
20. Yadlapalli S., Cheng J., Yamashita Y.M. Drosophila male germline stem cells do not asymmetrically segregate chromosome strands. Journal of Cell Science 2011, 124(Pt 6):933-939.
21. Escobar M., et al. Intestinal epithelial stem cells do not protect their genome by asymmetric chromosome segregation. Nature Communications 2011, 2:258.
22. Schepers A.G., et al. Lgr5 intestinal stem cells have high telomerase activity and randomly segregate their chromosomes. EMBO Journal 2011, 30(6):1104-1109.
23. Quyn A.J., et al. Spindle orientation bias in gut epithelial stem cell compartments is lost in precancerous tissue. Cell Stem Cell 2010, 6(2):175-181.
24. Hoeijmakers J.H. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature 2001, 411(6835):366-374.
25. Sherley J.L. A new mechanism for aging: chemical age spots in immortal DNA strands in distributed stem cells. Breast Disease 2008, 29:37-46.
26. Armakolas A., Klar A.J. Cell type regulates selective segregation of mouse chromosome 7 DNA strands in mitosis. Science 2006, 311(5764):1146-1149.
27. Klar A.J. Differentiated parental DNA strands confer developmental asymmetry on daughter cells in fission yeast. Nature 1987, 326(6112):466-470.
28. Bell C.D. Is mitotic chromatid segregation random?. Histology and Histopathology 2005, 20(4):1313-1320.
29. Jablonka E., Lamb M.J. The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1989, 139(1):69-83.
30. Huh Y.H., Sherley J.L. Molecular cloaking of H2A.Z on mortal DNA chromosomes during nonrandom segregation. Stem Cells 2011, 29(10):1620-1627.
31. Ficz G., et al. Dynamic regulation of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mouse ES cells and during differentiation. Nature 2011, 473(7347):398-402.
32. Voigt P., et al. Asymmetrically modified nucleosomes. Cell 2012, 151(1):181-193.
33. Mikkelsen T.S., et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 2007, 448(7153):553-560.
34. Ransom M., Dennehey B.K., Tyler J.K. Chaperoning histones during DNA replication and repair. Cell 2010, 140(2):183-195.
35. Bailey S.M., Goodwin E.H., Cornforth M.N. Strand-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization: the CO-FISH family. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 2004, 107(1-2):14-17.
36. Falconer E., et al. Chromosome orientation fluorescence in situ hybridization to study sister chromatid segregation in vivo. Nature Protocols 2010, 5(7):1362-1377.
37. Barker N., et al. Identification of stem cells in small intestine and colon by marker gene Lgr5. Nature 2007, 449(7165):1003-1007.
38. Rocheteau P., et al. A subpopulation of adult skeletal muscle stem cells retains all template DNA strands after cell division. Cell 2012, 148(1-2):112-125.
39. Sherley J.L. Overlooked areas need attention for sound evaluation of DNA strand inheritance patterns in Drosophila male germline stem cells. Journal of Cell Science 2011, 124(Pt 24):4137. author reply 4138-9.
40. Legraverend C., Escobar M., Jay P. The immortal DNA strand: difficult to digest?. Cell Stem Cell 2010, 6(4):298-299. author reply 299.
41. Morrison S.J., Kimble J. Asymmetric and symmetric stem-cell divisions in development and cancer. Nature 2006, 441(7097):1068-1074.
42. Wilson@@3rd D.M., Thompson L.H. Molecular mechanisms of sister-chromatid exchange. Mutation Research 2007, 616(1-2):11-23.
43. Lew D.J., Burke D.J., Dutta A. The immortal strand hypothesis: how could it work?. Cell 2008, 133(1):21-23.
44. Tajbakhsh S., Gonzalez C. Biased segregation of DNA and centrosomes: moving together or drifting apart?. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2009, 10(11):804-810.
45. Inoue A., Zhang Y. Replication-dependent loss of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mouse preimplantation embryos. Science 2011, 334(6053):194.