Search

SUMMARYCell size and the cell cycle are intrinsically coupled and abnormal increases in cell size are associated with senescence. The mechanism by which overgrowth primes cells to exit the cell cycle remains unclear. We investigate this using CDK4/6 inhibitors that arrest cell cycle progression in G0/G1 and are used to treat ER+/HER2-metastatic breast cancer. We demonstrate that long-term CDK4/6 inhibition promotes cellular overgrowth during the G0/G1 arrest, causing widespread proteome remodeling and p38-p53-p21-dependent cell cycle exit. Cell cycle exit is triggered by two waves of p21 induction. First, overgrowth during a G0/G1 arrest induces an osmotic stress response, producing the first wave of p21 induction. Second, when CDK4/6 inhibitors are removed, a fraction of cells escape G0/G1 arrest and enter S-phase where overgrowth-driven replication stress results in a second wave of p21 induction that causes cell cycle withdrawal from G2, or the subsequent G1. This could explain why cellular hypertrophy is associated with senescence and why CDK4/6 inhibitors have long-lasting anti-proliferative effects in patients.

SUMMARYA long-term goal in cancer research has been to inhibit the cell cycle in tumour cells without causing toxicity in proliferative healthy tissues. The best evidence that this is achievable is provided by CDK4/6 inhibitors, which arrest the cell cycle in G1, are well-tolerated in patients, and are effective in treating ER+/HER2-breast cancer. CDK4/6 inhibitors are effective because they arrest tumour cells more efficiently than some healthy cell types and, in addition, they affect the tumour microenvironment to enhance anti-tumour immunity. We demonstrate here another reason to explain their efficacy. Tumour cells are specifically vulnerable to CDK4/6 inhibition because during the G1 arrest, oncogenic signals drive toxic cell overgrowth. This overgrowth causes permanent cell cycle withdrawal by either preventing exit from G1 or by inducing replication stress and genotoxic damage during the subsequent S-phase and mitosis. Inhibiting or reverting oncogenic signals that converge onto mTOR can rescue this excessive growth, DNA damage and cell cycle exit in cancer cells. Conversely, inducing oncogenic signals in non-transformed cells can drive these toxic phenotypes and sensitize cells to CDK4/6 inhibition. Together, this demonstrates how oncogenic signals that have evolved to stimulate constitutive tumour growth and proliferation can be driven to cause toxic cell growth and irreversible cell cycle exit when proliferation is halted in G1.

CDK4/6 inhibitors arrest the cell cycle in G1-phase. They are approved to treat breast cancer and are also undergoing clinical trials against a range of other tumour types. To facilitate these efforts, it is important to understand why a cytostatic arrest in G1 causes long-lasting effects on tumour growth. Here we demonstrate that a prolonged G1-arrest following CDK4/6 inhibition downregulates replisome components and impairs origin licencing. This causes a failure in DNA replication after release from that arrest, resulting in a p53-dependent withdrawal from the cell cycle. If p53 is absent, then cells bypass the G2-checkpoint and undergo a catastrophic mitosis resulting in excessive DNA damage. These data therefore link CDK4/6 inhibition to genotoxic stress; a phenotype that is shared by most other broad-spectrum anti-cancer drugs. This provides a rationale to predict responsive tumour types and effective combination therapies, as demonstrated by the fact that CDK4/6 inhibition induces sensitivity to chemotherapeutics that also cause replication stress.

PP2A-B56 is a serine/threonine phosphatase complex that regulates several major mitotic processes, including sister chromatid cohesion, kinetochore-microtubule attachment and the spindle assembly checkpoint. We show here that these key functions are divided between different B56 isoforms that localise to either the centromere or kinetochore. The centromeric isoforms rely on a specific interaction with Sgo2, whereas the kinetochore isoforms bind preferentially to BubR1 and other proteins containing an LxxIxE motif. In addition to these selective binding partners, Sgo1 helps to anchor PP2A-B56 at both locations: it collaborates with BubR1 to maintain B56 at the kinetochore and it helps to preserve the Sgo2/B56 complex at the centromere. A series of chimaeras were generated to map the critical region in B56 down to a small C-terminal loop that regulates the key interactions and defines B56 localisation. Together, this study describes how different PP2A-B56 complexes utilise isoform-specific interactions to control distinct processes during mitosis., eLife digest The cells in our body are a hive of activity, but that activity must be kept under control. This is never more critical than when a cell divides, because unchecked cell division can lead to cancer. Fortunately, enzymes called kinases and phosphatases exist to control the countless proteins in a cell; these enzymes help ensure that each step of cell division is complete before moving on to the next. Kinases control other proteins by adding bulky phosphate groups to them, while phosphatases remove those groups. For a long time, phosphatases were assumed to be less specific than their kinase counterparts. Yet it has now become clear that phosphatases achieve specificity by interacting with a range of regulatory subunits. A phosphatase called PP2A oversees a number of key steps in cell division by working together with its regulatory B56 subunit. In human cells, there are five separate genes that encode B56 subunits, and all of these B56 ‘isoforms’ were thought to exert the same influence on the PP2A phosphatase. The fact, however, that different isoforms are found at different locations within the cell suggested otherwise. To investigate this, Vallardi et al. focused on a particular stage of cell division when the activity of the PP2A-B56 complex is essential. Before a cell divides it duplicates its genetic material and the two copies of each chromosome are held together until the cell is ready to pull them apart. The experiments compared two representative B56 isoforms: one that concentrates at the centromere, the region where the copied chromosomes are held together; and another found at the kinetochore, a nearby structure that is involved in pulling the two chromosomes apart. By eliminating all but one isoform and measuring the ensuing activity of the PP2A-B56 complex, Vallardi et al. could differentiate between the main regulatory roles of each isoform. These experiments showed that B56 isoforms control separate processes during cell division, which mirrors their different locations within the cell. Next, Vallardi et al. looked at the receptor proteins that recruit each isoform to its position. Removing or relocating different receptors showed how they anchor select B56 isoforms in different positions while the associated PP2A enzymes get to work on different processes. Further experiments using ‘hybrid’ subunits made from parts of two different B56 isoforms then helped to reveal the site on the B56 subunits that determines which receptors they bind to. Together these findings show that slight differences between each B56 isoform ultimately dictate where they localise and what processes they control when cells divide.

PP2A-B56 is a serine/threonine phosphatase complex that regulates several major mitotic processes, including sister chromatid cohesion, kinetochore-microtubule attachment and the spindle assembly checkpoint. We show here that these key functions are divided between B56 isoforms that localise differentially to either the centromere or kinetochore. The centromeric B56 isoforms rely on a specific interaction with Sgo2, whereas the kinetochore isoforms bind preferentially to BubR1 and other proteins containing an LxxIxE motif. In addition to these selective interactions, Sgo1 also contributes to both localisations by collaborating with BubR1 to maintain B56 isoforms at the kinetochore and helping to anchor the Sgo2/B56 complex at the centromere. A series of chimaeras were used to map the critical region in B56 to a small C-terminal loop that specifies which interactions are favoured and therefore defines where B56 isoforms localise during prometaphase. Together, this study describes how different PP2A-B56 complexes utilise isoform-specific interactions to control distinct processes during mitosis.

Aquatic species are threatened by climate change but have received comparatively less attention than terrestrial species. We gleaned key strategies for scientists and managers seeking to address climate change in aquatic conservation planning from the literature and existing knowledge. We address 3 categories of conservation effort that rely on scientific analysis and have particular application under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): assessment of overall risk to a species; long-term recovery planning; and evaluation of effects of specific actions or perturbations. Fewer data are available for aquatic species to support these analyses, and climate effects on aquatic systems are poorly characterized. Thus, we recommend scientists conducting analyses supporting ESA decisions develop a conceptual model that links climate, habitat, ecosystem, and species response to changing conditions and use this model to organize analyses and future research. We recommend that current climate conditions are not appropriate for projections used in ESA analyses and that long-term projections of climate-change effects provide temporal context as a species-wide assessment provides spatial context. In these projections, climate change should not be discounted solely because the magnitude of projected change at a particular time is uncertain when directionality of climate change is clear. Identifying likely future habitat at the species scale will indicate key refuges and potential range shifts. However, the risks and benefits associated with errors in modeling future habitat are not equivalent. The ESA offers mechanisms for increasing the overall resilience and resistance of species to climate changes, including establishing recovery goals requiring increased genetic and phenotypic diversity, specifying critical habitat in areas not currently occupied but likely to become important, and using adaptive management. Incorporación de las Ciencias Climáticas en las Aplicaciones del Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro para Especies Acuáticas.

1. We explored differential population responses to climate in 18 populations of threatened spring-summer Chinook salmon Onchorynchus tshawytscha in the Salmon River basin, Idaho. 2. Using data from a long-term mark-release-recapture study of juvenile survival, we found that fall stream flow is the best predictor of average survival across all populations. 3. To determine whether all populations responded similarly to climate, we used a cluster analysis to group populations that had similar annual fluctuations in survival. The populations grouped into four clusters, and different environmental factors were important for different clusters. 4. Survival in two of the clusters was negatively correlated with summer temperature, and survival in the other two clusters was positively correlated with minimum fall stream flow, which in turn depends on snow pack from the previous winter. 5. Using classification and regression tree analysis, we identified stream width and stream temperature as key habitat factors that shape the responses of individual populations to climate. 6. Climate change will likely have different impacts on different populations within this metapopulation, and recognizing this diversity is important for accurately assessing risks.