Research PaperNo Access

PTEN: Sumoylation Function is the Key to the Maintenance of Genomic Stability of Cell

Ginia Ghosh

Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, West Bengal, India

Search for more papers by this author

Sandip Misra

Department of Microbiology, Bidhannagar College, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700064, West Bengal, India

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Parimal Karmakar

Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, West Bengal, India

E-mail Address: pkarmakar_28@gmail.com

E-mail Address: karmakarparimal@gmail.com

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793984422500039Cited by:0 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN), a tumor suppressor protein with dual phosphatase activity, is found to be frequently mutated in various cancers. PTEN is post-translationally modulated at various amino acid residues which are crucial for sub-cellular localization as well as its catalytic functions rendering genomic stability. Recent reports suggest that PTEN also acts as a DNA repair protein. But how post-translational modulation of PTEN affects cytological damage and aneuploidy is not studied in detail. Here, we focus on the role of sumoylation of PTEN in context with DNA damage induced cytological damage like micronucleus (MNi), nuclear bud (NB), and nuclear bridge formation. Our data suggest that wild type PTEN but not sumo-dead PTEN significantly reduces cytological damage in PTEN mutant PC3 cells. In case of sumo-dead PTEN, the cytological parameters are increased during 24h recovery time point after DNA damage. Next, we measured the effectiveness of the sumo-dead (PTEN-K254R) mutant on aneuploidy, where we found that sumoylation is essential for maintaining chromosome number. As chromosome number variation in daughter cell is due to multiple spindle pole formation, we qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the $γ$ tubulin pole formation in PTEN-K254R clone transfected cells. We found aberrant pole formation is significantly increased in PTEN-K254R transfected cells compared to wild-type PTEN. Further depletion of sumoylation activity of PTEN increases the expression of phosphorylated form of Aurora kinase A (AURKA) (T288) and PLK1 (T210) proteins with or without nocodazole, a microtubule depolymerizing agent compared to cells expressing wild-type PTEN. Thus, sumoylation of PTEN is essential for maintaining genomic stability.

Keywords:

References

1. J. Li, C. Yen, D. Liaw, K. Podsypanina, S. Bose, S. I. Wang, J. Puc, C. Miliaresis, L. Rodgers, R. McCombie, S. H. Bigner, B. C. Giovanella, M. Ittmann, B. Tycko, H. Hibshoosh, M. H. Wigler and R. Parsons, Science 275(5308), 1943 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5308.1943 Crossref, Google Scholar
2. C. Eng, Hum. Mutat. 22(3), 183 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.10257 Crossref, Google Scholar
3. P. A. Steck, M. A. Pershouse, S. A. Jasser, W. K. Yung, H. Lin, A. H. Ligon, L. A. Langford, M. L. Baumgard, T. Hattier, T. Davis, C. Frye, R. Hu, B. Swedlund, D. H. Teng and S. V. Tavtigian, Nat Genet. 15(4), 356 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0497-356 Crossref, Google Scholar
4. M. P. Myers, I. Pass, I. H. Batty, J. van der Kaay, J. P. Stolarov, B. A. Hemmings, M. H. Wigler, C. P. Downes and N. K. Tonks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(23), 13513 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.23.13513 Crossref, Google Scholar
5. V. Stambolic, A. Suzuki, J. L. de la Pompa, G. M. Brothers, C. Mirtsos, T. Sasaki, J. Ruland, J. M. Penninger, D. P. Siderovski and T. W. Mak, Cell 95(1), 29 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81780-8 Crossref, Google Scholar
6. A. Brandmaier, S. Q. Hou and W. H. Shen, J. Mol. Biol. 429(15), 2265 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2017.06.004 Crossref, Google Scholar
7. J. He, X. Kang, Y. Yin, K. S. Chao and W. H. Shen, Nat. Commun. 6, 7620 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8620 Crossref, Google Scholar
8. W. Y. Mansour, P. Tennstedt, J. Volquardsen, C. Oing, M. Kluth, C. Hube-Magg, K. Borgmann, R. Simon, C. Petersen, E. Dikomey and K. Rothkamm, Sci. Rep. 8(1), 3947 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22289-7 Crossref, Google Scholar
9. C. Bassi, J. Ho, T. Srikumar, R. J. Dowling, C. Gorrini, S. J. Miller, T. W. Mak, B. G. Neel, B. Raught and V. Stambolic, Science 341(6144) (2013) 395, doi:10.1126/science.1236188, Erratum Science 341(6150), 1064 (2013). Google Scholar
10. S. Q. Hou, M. Ouyang, A. Brandmaier, H. Hao and W. H. Shen, Bioessays 39(10), 1700082 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201700082 Crossref, Google Scholar
11. W. H. Shen, A. S. Balajee, J. Wang, H. Wu, C. Eng, P. P. Pandolfi and Y. Yin, Cell 128(1), 157 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.11.042 Crossref, Google Scholar
12. K. W. Yuen, B. Montpetit and P. Hieter, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 17(6), 576 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2005.09.012 Crossref, Google Scholar
13. J. Puc, M. Keniry, H. S. Li, T. K. Pandita, A. D. Choudhury, L. Memeo, M. Mansukhani, V. V. Murty, Z. Gaciong, S. E. Meek, H. Piwnica-Worms, H. Hibshoosh and R. Parsons, Cancer Cell 7(2), 193 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2005.01.009 Crossref, Google Scholar
14. Z. Sun, C. Huang, J. He, K. L. Lamb, X. Kang, T. Gu, W. H. Shen and Y. Yin, Cell Rep. 6(5), 844 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.01.030 Crossref, Google Scholar
15. F. Vazquez, S. R. Grossman, Y. Takahashi, M. V. Rokas, N. Nakamura and W. R. Sellers, J. Biol. Chem. 276(52), 48627 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C100556200 Crossref, Google Scholar
16. Y. Zhang, J. Park, S. J. Han, S. Y. Yang, H. J. Yoon, I. Park, H. A. Woo and S. R. Lee, Redox Biol. 34, 101553 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2020.101553 Crossref, Google Scholar
17. V. Lang, F. Aillet, E. da Silva-Ferrada, W. Xolalpa, L. Zabaleta, C. Rivas and M. S. Rodriguez, Methods 77–78, 112 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.09.001 Crossref, Google Scholar
18. Z. Meng, L. F. Jia and Y. H. Gan, Oncogene 35(18), 2333 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2015.293 Crossref, Google Scholar
19. Y. Wang, C. Wong, M. Yan, P. Or and A. M. Chan, Cancer Res. 75(15_Supplement), 2163 (2015). Google Scholar
20. B. H. Choi, M. Pagano and W. Dai, J. Biol. Chem. 289(20), 14066 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.558155 Crossref, Google Scholar
21. P. Meraldi, R. Honda and E. A. Nigg, EMBO J. 21(4), 483 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/21.4.483 Crossref, Google Scholar
22. J. Fu, M. Bian, Q. Jiang and C. Zhang, Mol. Cancer Res. 5(1), 1 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-06-0208 Crossref, Google Scholar
23. V. Joukov and A. de Nicolo, Sci. Signal. 11(543), eaar4195 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.aar4195 Crossref, Google Scholar
24. A. Mukherjee, S. Misra, N. G. Howlett and P. Karmakar, Mutat Res. 755(2), 135 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.06.009 Crossref, Google Scholar
25. S. Anand, S. Penrhyn-Lowe and A. R. Venkitaraman, Cancer Cell. 3(1), 51 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1535-6108(02)00235-0 Crossref, Google Scholar
26. M. Fenech, Mutat Res. 455(1–2), 81 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0027-5107(00)00065-8 Crossref, Google Scholar
27. R. A. El-Zein, M. Fenech, M. S. Lopez, M. R. Spitz and C. J. Etzel, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 17(5), 1111 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2827 Crossref, Google Scholar
28. J. P. Ehlers, L. Worley, M. D. Onken and J. W. Harbour, Clin. Cancer Res. 14(1), 115 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1825 Crossref, Google Scholar
29. S. M. Lens, E. E. Voest and R. H. Medema, Nat. Rev. Cancer 10(12), 825 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2964 Crossref, Google Scholar
30. M. Ming and Y. Y. He, Cancer Lett. 319(2), 125 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2012.01.003 Crossref, Google Scholar
31. M. Fenech, M. Kirsch-Volders, A. T. Natarajan, J. Surralles, J. W. Crott, J. Parry, H. Norppa, D. A. Eastmond, J. D. Tucker and P. Thomas, Mutagenesis 26(1), 125 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/geq052 Crossref, Google Scholar
32. Z. Zhang, S. Q. Hou, J. He, T. Gu, Y. Yin and W. H. Shen, Cell Cycle 15(18), 2476 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/15384101.2016.1203493 Crossref, Google Scholar
33. J. H. van Ree, H. J. Nam, K. B. Jeganathan, A. Kanakkanthara and J. M. van Deursen, Nat. Cell Biol. 18(7), 814 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3369 Crossref, Google Scholar
34. J. He, Z. Zhang, M. Ouyang, F. Yang, H. Hao, K. L. Lamb, J. Yang, Y. Yin and W. H. Shen, Nat Commun. 7, 12355 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12355 Crossref, Google Scholar
35. M. K. Leonard, N. T. Hill, P. A. Bubulya and M. P. Kadakia, Cell Cycle 12(9), 1406 (2013). https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.24516 Crossref, Google Scholar
36. F. G. Agircan, E. Schiebel and B. R. Mardin, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369(1650), 20130461 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0461 Crossref, Google Scholar
37. A. M. Fry, R. Bayliss and J. Roig, Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 5, 102 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2017.00102 Crossref, Google Scholar
38. L. Li, Y. Song, Q. Liu, X. Liu, R. Wang, C. Kang and Q. Zhang, Int. J. Mol. Med. 41(6), 3629 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3892/ijmm.2018.3544 Google Scholar