Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23624842›Full record

ArticleCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2013

Centromere fragmentation is a common mitotic defect of S and G2 checkpoint override.

Neil Beeharry, Jerome B Rattner, Juliane P Caviston, Tim Yen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The CINs of the centromere.Biochemical Society transactions · 2013
    Review
  19. Mitotic checkpoints, MUGs and kinetochores.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Neil BeeharryCancer Biology Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Neil.Beeharry@fccc.edu
Jerome B Rattner
Juliane P Caviston
Tim Yen
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
Mechanism of Mitotic Checkpoint in Mammalian CellsR01GM086877 · NIGMS · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI YEN, TIMOTHY · 2008 to 2011
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS CA06927NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927NIGMS NIH HHS GM086877NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM086877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA damaging agents, including those used in the clinic, activate cell cycle checkpoints, which blocks entry into mitosis. Given that checkpoint override results in cell death via mitotic catastrophe, inhibitors of the DNA damage checkpoint are actively being pursued as chemosensitization agents. Here we explored the effects of gemcitabine in combination with Chk1 inhibitors in a panel of pancreatic cancer cell lines and found variable abilities to override the S phase checkpoint. In cells that were able to enter mitosis, the chromatin was extensively fragmented, as assessed by metaphase spreads and Comet assay. Notably, electron microscopy and high-resolution light microscopy showed that the kinetochores and centromeres appeared to be detached from the chromatin mass, in a manner reminiscent of mitosis with unreplicated genomes (MUGs). Cell lines that were unable to override the S phase checkpoint were able to override a G2 arrest induced by the alkylator MMS or the topoisomerase II inhibitors doxorubicin or etoposide. Interestingly, checkpoint override from the topoisomerase II inhibitors generated fragmented kinetochores (MUGs) due to unreplicated centromeres. Our studies show that kinetochore and centromere fragmentation is a defining feature of checkpoint override and suggests that loss of cell viability is due in part to acentric genomes. Furthermore, given the greater efficacy of forcing cells into premature mitosis from topoisomerase II-mediated arrest as compared with gemcitabine-mediated arrest, topoisomerase II inhibitors maybe more suitable when used in combination with checkpoint inhibitors.

Indexed as

MitosisAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsApoptosisCell Line, TumorCentromereCheckpoint Kinase 1CHO CellsComet AssayCricetinaeCricetulusDeoxycytidineDNA DamageDNA Topoisomerases, Type IIDoxorubicinEtoposide7-hydroxystaurosporineAntineoplastic AgentsCheckpoint Kinase 1CHEK1 protein, humanDeoxycytidineDNA Topoisomerases, Type IIDoxorubicinEtoposideGemcitabineProtein KinasesStaurosporineTopoisomerase II Inhibitorscell cycle checkpointscentromereDNA damagemitotic catastropheMUGs

Identifiers

PMID23624842
PMCPMC3680538
OpenAlexW2003455873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.