Replication timing analysis in polyploid cells reveals Rif1 uses multiple mechanisms to promote underreplication in Drosophila

Polyploid Cancer Cell Models in Drosophila

Cells with an abnormal number of chromosomes have been found in more than 90% of solid tumors, and among these, polyploidy accounts for about 40%. Polyploidized cells most often have duplicate centrosomes as well as genomes, and thus their mitosis tends to promote merotelic spindle attachments and chromosomal instability, which produces a variety of aneuploid daughter cells. Polyploid cells have been found highly resistant to various stress and anticancer therapies, such as radiation and mitogenic inhibitors. In other words, common cancer therapies kill proliferative diploid cells, which make up the majority of cancer tissues, while polyploid cells, which lurk in smaller numbers, may survive. The surviving polyploid cells, prompted by acute environmental changes, begin to mitose with chromosomal instability, leading to an explosion of genetic heterogeneity and a concomitant cell competition and adaptive evolution. The result is a recurrence of the cancer during which the tenacious cells that survived treatment express malignant traits. Although the presence of polyploid cells in cancer tissues has been observed for more than 150 years, the function and exact role of these cells in cancer progression has remained elusive. For this reason, there is currently no effective therapeutic treatment directed against polyploid cells. This is due in part to the lack of suitable experimental models, but recently several models have become available to study polyploid cells in vivo. We propose that the experimental models in Drosophila, for which genetic techniques are highly developed, could be very useful in deciphering mechanisms of polyploidy and its role in cancer progression.

Rif1-Dependent Control of Replication Timing

Successful duplication of the genome requires the accurate replication of billions of base pairs of DNA within a relatively short time frame. Failure to accurately replicate the genome results in genomic instability and a host of diseases. To faithfully and rapidly replicate the genome, DNA replication must be tightly regulated and coordinated with many other nuclear processes. These regulations, however, must also be flexible as replication kinetics can change through development and differentiation. Exactly how DNA replication is regulated and how this regulation changes through development is an active field of research. One aspect of genome duplication where much remains to be discovered is replication timing (RT), which dictates when each segment of the genome is replicated during S phase. All organisms display some level of RT, yet the precise mechanisms that govern RT remain are not fully understood. The study of Rif1, a protein that actively regulates RT from yeast to humans, provides a key to unlock the underlying molecular mechanisms controlling RT. The paradigm for Rif1 function is to delay helicase activation within certain regions of the genome, causing these regions to replicate late in S phase. Many questions, however, remain about the intricacies of Rif1 function. Here, we review the current models for the activity of Rif1 with the goal of trying to understand how Rif1 functions to establish the RT program.

Role of the Circadian Clock "Death-Loop" in the DNA Damage Response Underpinning Cancer Treatment Resistance

Here, we review the role of the circadian clock (CC) in the resistance of cancer cells to genotoxic treatments in relation to whole-genome duplication (WGD) and telomere-length regulation. The CC drives the normal cell cycle, tissue differentiation, and reciprocally regulates telomere elongation. However, it is deregulated in embryonic stem cells (ESCs), the early embryo, and cancer. Here, we review the DNA damage response of cancer cells and a similar impact on the cell cycle to that found in ESCs—overcoming G1/S, adapting DNA damage checkpoints, tolerating DNA damage, coupling telomere erosion to accelerated cell senescence, and favouring transition by mitotic slippage into the ploidy cycle (reversible polyploidy). Polyploidy decelerates the CC. We report an intriguing positive correlation between cancer WGD and the deregulation of the CC assessed by bioinformatics on 11 primary cancer datasets (rho = 0.83; p < 0.01). As previously shown, the cancer cells undergoing mitotic slippage cast off telomere fragments with TERT, restore the telomeres by ALT-recombination, and return their depolyploidised offspring to telomerase-dependent regulation. By reversing this polyploidy and the CC “death loop”, the mitotic cycle and Hayflick limit count are thus again renewed. Our review and proposed mechanism support a life-cycle concept of cancer and highlight the perspective of cancer treatment by differentiation.