Asymmetric division events promote variability in cell cycle duration in animal cells and Escherichia coli

The Molecular Basis of Differentiation Wave Activity in Embryogenesis

As development varies greatly across the tree of life, it may seem difficult to suggest a model that proposes a single mechanism for understanding collective cell behaviors and the coordination of tissue formation. Here we propose a mechanism called differentiation waves, which unify many disparate results involving developmental systems from across the tree of life. We demonstrate how a relatively simple model of differentiation proceeds not from function-related molecular mechanisms, but from so-called differentiation waves. A phenotypic model of differentiation waves is introduced, and its relation to molecular mechanisms is proposed. These waves contribute to a differentiation tree, which is an alternate way of viewing cell lineage and local action of the molecular factors. We construct a model of differentiation wave-related molecular mechanisms (genome, epigenome, and proteome) based on bioinformatic data from the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. To validate this approach across different modes of development, we evaluate protein expression across different types of development by comparing Caenorhabditis elegans with several model organisms: fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), and mouse (Mus musculus). Inspired by gene regulatory networks, two Models of Interactive Contributions (fully-connected MICs and ordered MICs) are used to suggest potential genomic contributions to differentiation wave-related proteins. This, in turn, provides a framework for understanding differentiation and development.

The role of mitosis in generating fitness heterogeneity

Cancer cells have heterogeneous fitness, and this heterogeneity stems from genetic and epigenetic sources. Here, we sought to assess the contribution of asymmetric mitosis (AM) and time on the variability of fitness in sister cells. Around one quarter of sisters had differences in fitness, assessed as the intermitotic time (IMT), from 330 to 510 min. Phenotypes related to fitness, such as ERK activity (herein referring to ERK1 and ERK2, also known as MAPK3 and MAPK1, respectively), DNA damage and nuclear morphological phenotypes were also asymmetric at mitosis or turned asymmetric over the course of the cell cycle. The ERK activity of mother cell was found to influence the ERK activity and the IMT of the daughter cells, and cells with ERK asymmetry at mitosis produced more offspring with AMs, suggesting heritability of the AM phenotype for ERK activity. Our findings demonstrate how variabilities in sister cells can be generated, contributing to the phenotype heterogeneities in tumor cells.

Transcriptional Fluctuations Govern the Serum-Dependent Cell Cycle Duration Heterogeneities in Mammalian Cells

Mammalian cells exhibit a high degree of intercellular variability in cell cycle period and phase durations. However, the factors orchestrating the cell cycle duration heterogeneities remain unclear. Herein, by combining cell cycle network-based mathematical models with live single-cell imaging studies under varied serum conditions, we demonstrate that fluctuating transcription rates of cell cycle regulatory genes across cell lineages and during cell cycle progression in mammalian cells majorly govern the robust correlation patterns of cell cycle period and phase durations among sister, cousin, and mother-daughter lineage pairs. However, for the overall cellular population, alteration in the serum level modulates the fluctuation and correlation patterns of cell cycle period and phase durations in a correlated manner. These heterogeneities at the population level can be fine-tuned under limited serum conditions by perturbing the cell cycle network using a p38-signaling inhibitor without affecting the robust lineage-level correlations. Overall, our approach identifies transcriptional fluctuations as the key controlling factor for the cell cycle duration heterogeneities and predicts ways to reduce cell-to-cell variabilities by perturbing the cell cycle network regulations.

Interaction with TopBP1 Is Required for Human Papillomavirus 16 E2 Plasmid Segregation/Retention Function during Mitosis

Human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) E2 is a DNA-binding protein that regulates transcription, replication and potentially, segregation of the HPV16 genome during the viral life cycle. In the segregation model, E2 simultaneously binds to viral and host chromatin, acting as a bridge to ensure that viral genomes reside in daughter nuclei following cell division. The host chromatin receptor for E2 mediating this function is unknown. Recently, we demonstrated that CK2 phosphorylation of E2 on serine 23 (S23) is required for interaction with TopBP1, and that this interaction promotes E2 and TopBP1 recruitment to mitotic chromatin. Here, we demonstrate that in U2OS cells expressing wild-type E2 and a non-TopBP1-binding mutant (S23A, serine 23 mutated to alanine), interaction with TopBP1 is essential for E2 recruitment of plasmids to mitotic chromatin. Using novel quantitative segregation assays, we demonstrate that interaction with TopBP1 is required for E2 plasmid segregation function in U2OS and N/Tert-1 cells. Small interfering RNA (siRNA) knockdown of TopBP1 or CK2 enzyme components disrupts E2 segregation/retention function. The interaction of E2 with TopBP1 promotes increased levels of E2 protein during mitosis in U2OS and N/Tert-1 cells, as well as in human foreskin keratinocytes (HFK) immortalized by the HPV16 genome. Overall, our results demonstrate that E2 has plasmid segregation activity, and that the E2-TopBP1 interaction is essential for this E2 function. IMPORTANCE HPV16 causes 3% to 4% of all human cancers. It is proposed that during the viral life cycle, the viral genome is actively segregated into daughter nuclei, ensuring viral replication in the subsequent S phase. The E2 protein potentially bridges the viral and host genomes during mitosis to mediate segregation of the circular viral plasmid. Here, we demonstrate that E2 has the ability to mediate plasmid segregation, and that this function is dependent upon interaction with the host protein TopBP1. Additionally, we demonstrate that the E2-TopBP1 interaction promotes enhanced E2 expression during mitosis, which likely promotes the plasmid segregation function of E2. Overall, our results present a mechanism of how HPV16 can segregate its viral genome during an active infection, a critical aspect of the viral life cycle.