Skip to main content
  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles: Therapeutics, Targets, and Development

The Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1 complex interacts with the mismatch repair system and contributes to temozolomide-induced G2 arrest and cytotoxicity

Olga K. Mirzoeva, Tomohiro Kawaguchi and Russell O. Pieper
Olga K. Mirzoeva
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tomohiro Kawaguchi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Russell O. Pieper
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0183 Published November 2006
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Time course of temozolomide-induced DNA damage in U87 cells and in mismatch repair–deficient U87 cells (stably expressing Mlh1 siRNA). Cells were treated with temozolomide (TMZ; 100 μmol/L, 3 h) and harvested at indicated time points after drug removal. DNA damage in the cells (comet cells) was detected by immunofluorescence as described in Materials and Methods. One hundred cells were scored for each data point to calculate the percentage of cells displaying comet tail. Points, mean of triplicates; bars, SD. Representative of three independent experiments.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Time course of temozolomide-induced nuclear foci formation by Mre11 (A), 53BP1 (B), and γ-H2AX (C) in U87 cells and in mismatch repair–deficient U87 cells (stably expressing Mlh1 siRNA). Cells plated on coverslips were treated with temozolomide (0 or 100 μmol/L, 3 h) and fixed at indicated time points after drug removal. Nuclear foci were detected by immunofluorescence as described in Materials and Methods. Two hundred nuclei were scored for each data point to calculate the percentage of cells displaying foci. Points, mean of triplicates; bars, SD. Representative of three independent experiments. *, first time point when number of cells displaying foci was significantly different from control (untreated cells); P < 0.05, Student's t test.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Temozolomide-induced Mre11 foci formation in MGMT-positive T98G cells in the presence or absence of MGMT inhibitor O6-benzylguanine. Cells grown on coverslips were pretreated with O6-benzylguanine (BG) 2 h before temozolomide addition and O6-benzylguanine was present in the media throughout the course of the experiment. Cells were fixed at indicated time points after temozolomide removal and processed for Mre11 immunofluorescent detection as described in Materials and Methods and in legend to Fig. 1. A, photomicrographs of T98G cells showing temozolomide-induced DNA damage Mre11 foci formation in cells pretreated with MGMT inhibitor O6-benzylguanine and the absence of such foci in MGMT-proficient cells (in the absence of O6-benzylguanine). B, time course of Mre11 foci formation in T98G cells in the presence or absence of O6-benzylguanine. Two hundred nuclei were scored for each data point to calculate the percentage of cells displaying foci. Points, mean of triplicate cultures; bars, SD.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Temozolomide treatment results in enhanced accumulation of Nbs1 and Mlh1 on chromatin (A), colocalization of Mre11 with PCNA (B), and interaction of Nbs1 with Mlh1 (C). A, Nbs1 and Mlh1 accumulated on chromatin in temozolomide-treated cells. U87 cells treated with temozolomide were trypsinized, lysed, and fractionated in soluble and chromatin-associated fractions as described in Materials and Methods. Protein levels of Nbs1, Mlh1, α-tubulin (fractionation control), and β-actin (loading control) in soluble and chromatin fractions of U87 cells were assessed by Western blot and measured by densitometry relatively to actin expression. B, colocalization of Mre11 and PCNA in DNA damage foci 24 h post temozolomide exposure. Representative pictures of cells costained with Mre11 antiserum (green) and PCNA monoclonal antibody (red). Untreated cells displayed similar PCNA-Mre11 foci colocalization in S-phase cells (∼25% of cells); in nonreplicating cells (75% of cells), PCNA staining was negative and Mre11 foci were absent (pictures not shown). C, Nbs1 associates with Mlh1 in chromatin fractions of temozolomide-treated cells. U87 cells were treated with temozolomide, harvested at time points after temozolomide exposure, lysed, and fractionated for soluble and chromatin fractions as described in Materials and Methods. Top, protein levels of Nbs1 and Mlh1 in the soluble and chromatin extracts prepared from the cells. Bottom, Nbs1 and Mlh1 proteins were immunoprecipitated from the same extracts, resolved by 8% SDS-PAGE, and immunoblotted sequentially with Nbs1 and Mlh1 antibodies. Representative immunoblots of day 4 post temozolomide exposure.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Suppression of Mre11 protein expression inhibits the ability of U87 cells to undergo temozolomide-induced G2 arrest. siRNA targeting Mre11 (SMARTpool, Dharmacon) or negative control siRNA (siControl nontargeting siRNA pool, Dharmacon) were transfected into U87 cells using Lipofectamine reagent (Invitrogen). Three days after transfection, the cells were treated with temozolomide (100 μmol/L, 3 h) and fixed at indicated time points post temozolomide treatment. A, immunoblot showing suppression of Mre11 protein level after siRNA transfection. Lanes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, cells transfected with negative control siRNA. Lanes 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, cells transfected with Mre11-targeting siRNA and harvested at indicated days post temozolomide exposure. Temozolomide was added 3 d after siRNA transfection. The level of Mre11 expression was suppressed in U87 cells by ∼90% at 3 d post siRNA transfection as determined by densitometry of Western blot. B, cell cycle profiles of siRNA-treated U87 cells 2, 3, and 4 d post temozolomide treatment as determined by fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis of 20,000 cells. The percentages of cells in G1, G2, and S phases were determined by DNA ModFit software. C, G2/G1 ratio versus time of post temozolomide exposure is plotted for U87 cells transfected with either Mre11 or negative control siRNA.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Mre11 deficiency results in increased survival of U87 cells after temozolomide exposure. U87 cells transfected with either Mre11 or negative control (nontargeting siRNA) were exposed to temozolomide (0, 12, 25, and 50 μmol/L, 3 h) 3 d after transfection. Cells were then plated at 2,000 per 10-cm culture dish in triplicate dishes and allowed to grow for 14 d. Colonies were stained with Coomassie blue and counted (containing >50 cells). Cell survival was calculated as a percentage of number of colonies grown in temozolomide-treated cultures versus number of colonies in untreated cultures. Points, mean of triplicates; bars, SD. *, P < 0.05, values differing statistically from controls (Student's t test). Each experiment was reproduced at least thrice.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Schematic representation of the role the MRN complex plays in temozolomide action. An early lesion induced by temozolomide and involving O6MG (perhaps an early O6MG DNA mismatch in the DNA) facilitates the interaction and recruitment of both the DNA mismatch repair complex and the MRN complex (along with PCNA) to chromatin. The mismatch repair/MRN complex may serve as a signaling intermediate to p53 among other proteins, which in turn may modify the G2 checkpoint that is activated by the ATM/Chk pathway in response to DSB created at later time points by the mismatch repair complex.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics: 5 (11)
November 2006
Volume 5, Issue 11
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Molecular Cancer Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1 complex interacts with the mismatch repair system and contributes to temozolomide-induced G2 arrest and cytotoxicity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1 complex interacts with the mismatch repair system and contributes to temozolomide-induced G2 arrest and cytotoxicity
Olga K. Mirzoeva, Tomohiro Kawaguchi and Russell O. Pieper
Mol Cancer Ther November 1 2006 (5) (11) 2757-2766; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0183

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1 complex interacts with the mismatch repair system and contributes to temozolomide-induced G2 arrest and cytotoxicity
Olga K. Mirzoeva, Tomohiro Kawaguchi and Russell O. Pieper
Mol Cancer Ther November 1 2006 (5) (11) 2757-2766; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0183
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Inhibition of Akt inhibits growth of glioblastoma and glioblastoma stem-like cells
  • Dasatinib-induced autophagy is enhanced in combination with temozolomide in glioma
  • Effective sensitization of temozolomide by ABT-888 is lost with development of temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma xenograft lines
Show more Research Articles: Therapeutics, Targets, and Development
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About MCT

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
eISSN: 1538-8514
ISSN: 1535-7163

Advertisement