Sentinels of DNA integrity in stem cells: Safeguarding future generations of cells (2008)

Integrated into the somatic cell cycle are multi-faceted mechanisms to protect genomic fidelity from genotoxic threats occurring during cell division or cellular quiescence. How embryonic stem cells respond to an array of attacks on genomic integrity has been uncertain, particularly in light of embryonic-like rapid cell cycle phases versus adult cells and the lack of an effective G1/S checkpoint. Whether a DNA damage response is activated similarly to somatic cells or apoptotic pathways used to purge damaged cells are important questions, since the longevity of embryonic stem cells provides opportunities for accumulated mutations and a source for carcinogenic cells. In this issue, Chuyikin et al. investigate the timing and sensitivity of the DNA damage response pathway to double strand breaks (DSBs) in mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs), validating its responsiveness and providing a comprehensive view of key signaling events.DNA DSBs are potently mutagenic lesions incurring chromosome breaks, potential rearrangements, mutation and loss of information.1 The cellular response is immediate, sensitive and persistent, occurring within 30 seconds of damage upon detection of as little as 8 DSBs per cell. The response can be fully active in 15 minutes and persist for hours. Repair is preferred and may elicit checkpoint delays to cell cycle progression, with extreme genotoxic conditions initiating apoptotic pathways. The majority of DSB proteins are activated by PI-3 like kinases, with the primary mammalian response to DSBs occurring via the ATM kinase that is able to respond directly to DSBs. Phosphorylated downstream targets include the uncommon histone, H2AX. This histone provides a cytological platform at DSB sites for the recruitment of DSB mediator and effector proteins such as MDC1 and NBS1. To this scaffold further DSB proteins are recruited, amplifying the signal. NBS1 is part of the MRN complex that includes MRE11 and Rad50 and mediates nuclear localization of the complex to the DNA for stabilizing chromatin ends. The nucleolytic processing of DNA ends by MRE11 resection triggers a second pathway modulated by ATR, that responds to RPA coated ssDNA. Chuyikin et al., used antibodies to phosphorylated ATM and H2AX (pATM, pH2AX) as sensitive temporal markers of DNA repair foci that form at DSBs and followed these events through the cell cycle.In fast proliferating undifferentiated cells an increase in single strand DNA breaks (SSBs) is typically observed, attributed to ongoing DNA replication, and not generally considered mutagenic. Chuyikin et al. used sensitive comet assays along with pH2AX and pATM antibodies to confirm the presence of SSBs in mESCs and a low background of pH2AX positive/pATM absent poised foci. Upon γ-irradiation to induce DSBs, dramatic detection of DNA repair foci including both pH2AX and pATM occurs. FACs analysis indicated no cell cycle arrest at G1/S from γ-irradiation, although a slight delay at G2/M. Chuyikin et al. did find that mESCs have an active spindle assembly checkpoint allowing cells to be blocked at G2/M with nocodazole and then released synchronously through the cell cycle. The key to their detection of this checkpoint was a six hour treatment with drug, versus longer timepoints. Indeed Reider and Maiato2 have shown that in mammalian cells, spindle assembly checkpoint duration is variable and need not be satisfied to be overridden by adaptation, slippage or leakage, quite unlike the tight cell cycle arrest observed in fungi. Therefore longer treatments with nocodazole to arrest mESCs at this stage would be expected to simply be ineffective and promote further polyploidy by attenuating the mitotic mechanism. The authors detailed analysis of induction of DNA repair foci in all cell cycle stages revealed that all stages generate foci, including metaphase chromosomes in mitosis, although foci were most prominent in G1, G2 phases. Thus the primary response by the ATM pathway in these cells is not limited by cell cycle phase.The maintenance of genomic fidelity in ESCs may require more enhanced DNA repair3 as well as alternative mechanisms to DNA repair, such as increased apoptosis. Chuyikin et al. observed increased caspase activity triggered after γ-irradiation of mESCs, but found no significant increase in cell death. They also found that protein levels of p53, a downstream target of the ATM kinase that is important for the G1/S checkpoint as well as p53-dependent apoptosis, were comparable to fibroblast cells, however p53 lacked activating phosphorylation. Both of these observations help to explain an ineffective G1/S checkpoint and the need for p53-independent apoptosis.Additional alternate mechanisms for maintaining genomic integrity ESCs have been reported and contribute. This includes a 100X reduction in mutations versus somatic cells and resistance to oxidative stress. Asymmetry mechanisms,4 that are a commonly used means of cellular signaling and polarity from yeast to man may also apply, as in the Cairns immortal strand hypothesis. In 1975 Cairns proposed that stem cells might minimize mutations to their genomes from DNA replication by asymmetric segregation of their DNA. Retention of parental strands in the stem cell and segregation of potential mutation carrying DNAs into non-stem cell or differentiating daughters could reduce the mutation potential.4 Such asymmetric sister chromatid strand segregation is still controversial despite having been observed during mitosis in several stem cell populations. Continued elegant studies, such at that by Chuyikin et al, that define which pathways are present and examine the crosstalk in pathways used to detect, signal, repair and protect genomic integrity will continue to provide exciting new systemic views into stem cells. Our therapeutic use of stem cells in the future including understanding of cellular differentiation and cancer depends on it.ReferencesRiches LC, et al. Mutagenesis 2008; In press.Rieder CL, et al. Dev Cell 2004; 7:637-51.Maynard S, et al. Stem Cells 2008; In press. Doxsey S, et al. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2005; 21:411-34.Cairns J. Genetics 2006; 174:1069-72.Chuykin I, et al. Cell Cycle 2008; 7:In this issue.