Cancer Letters

Cancer Letters

Volume 230, Issue 1, 8 December 2005, Pages 6-19
Cancer Letters

Mini-review
Centrosome amplification, chromosome instability and cancer development

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2004.12.028Get rights and content

Abstract

During mitosis, two centrosomes form spindle poles and direct the formation of bipolar mitotic spindles, which is an essential event for accurate chromosome segregation into daughter cells. The presence of more than two centrosomes (centrosome amplification), severely disturbs mitotic process and cytokinesis via formation of more than two spindle poles, resulting in an increased frequency of chromosome segregation errors (chromosome instability). Destabilization of chromosomes by centrosome amplification aids acquisition of further malignant phenotypes, hence promoting tumor progression. Centrosome amplification occurs frequently in almost all types of cancer, and is considered as the major contributing factor for chromosome instability in cancer cells. Upon cytokinesis, each daughter cell receives one centrosome, and thus centrosome must duplicate once, and only once, before the next mitosis. If centrosomes duplicate more than once within a single cell cycle, centrosome amplification occurs, which is frequently seen in cells harboring mutations in some tumor suppressor proteins such as p53 and BRCA1. The recent studies have provided critical information for understanding how loss of these proteins allows multiple rounds of centrosome duplication. In this review, how centrosome amplification destabilizes chromosomes, how loss of certain tumor suppressor proteins leads to centrosome amplification, and the role of centrosome amplification in cancer development will be discussed.

Introduction

For a normal cell to transform to a fully malignant cell, a number of specific genes need to be mutated. Each mutation alone or in combination with other mutations render one or more malignant phenotypes, including immortalization, mitogen-independent growth, anchorage-independent growth, loss of tissue specificity, to name a few. Acquisition of these malignant characteristics occurs in a step-wise fashion (tumor progression), originally described by Foulds [1]. In 1976, because of frequent karyotypic alterations in cancer cells compared with normal cells, Nowell [2] hypothesized that genomic instability is the driving force behind tumor progression. Through the accumulation of knowledge on tumor progression at a molecular level, this concept was extended by Loeb to propose that cells acquire mutation(s) that increase the mutation rate (mutator phenotype) during tumor progression, enabling cells to rapidly accumulate many specific mutations required for malignant transformation [3].

Various types of genetic lesions can be found in cancer cells, including DNA sequence mutations (i.e. point mutation, insertion and deletion, recombination, etc.) and chromosome mutations [i.e. translocation, double-minute chromosomes, aneuploidy (chromosome loss and gain), etc.]. Although it is apparently meaningless to label which type of mutation is most important for carcinogenesis, it is clear that aneuploidy influences the rate of tumor progression to a great extent, since loss or gain of even a single chromosome can introduce multiple mutations required for acquisition of malignant phenotypes. Chromosome loss and gain can be in most cases equated to chromosome segregation errors due to mitotic and cytokinetic defects. In this respect, there are a number of potential mechanisms that could consequentially destabilize chromosomes, including loss of mitotic checkpoint function, defective kinetochore function, and abnormal amplification of centrosomes. Among these, much attention has recently been given to centrosome amplification, because of its prevalent occurrence in human cancer [4], [5]. In this review, I will discuss a recent progress in the study of centrosomes in the context of chromosome instability and cancer development and mechanistic aspects of centrosome amplification in association with mutations of tumor suppressor proteins.

Section snippets

Biology of centrosomes

The centrosome is a small non-membranous organelle (1–2 μm in diameter) normally localized at the periphery of nucleus. Its primary function is to nucleate (anchor) microtubules, hence often denoted as a major microtubule organizing center (MTOC). The centrosome in animal cells consists of a pair of centrioles, which are joined by fibers connecting their proximal ends, and a number of different proteins surrounding the centriole pair, which are referred to as pericentriolar material (PCM) as a

Centrosome amplification and chromosome instability

The presence of two centrosomes at mitosis is critical for the formation of bipolar mitotic spindles (Fig. 1C). Since chromosomes are pulled toward each spindle pole, the bipolarity of mitotic spindles is essential for the accurate chromosome segregation into daughter cells during cytokinesis. Thus, numeral homeostasis of centrosomes is highly controlled. Abrogation of this control results in abnormal amplification of centrosomes (presence of more than two centrosomes), which in turn increases

Loss or mutation of p53 and centrosome amplification in culture cells and in tumor tissues

Numerous studies have shown that centrosome amplification is a frequent event in almost all types of solid tumors, including those of breast [27], [28], [29], [30], bladder [31], [32], [33], brain [27], [34], bone [35], [36], liver [37], lung [27], colon [27], prostate [38], pancreas [39], ovary [40], testicle [41], cervix [42], gallbladder and bile duct [43], adrenal cortex [44], and head and neck squamous cell [28], [45]. Centrosome amplification has also been detected in certain cases of

Synergistic induction of centrosome amplification in human cells by p53 inactivation and cyclin E overexpression

In mouse cells, loss of p53 alone is sufficient to induce centrosome amplification [49], [55]. However, it is not the case for human cells. Human primary fibroblasts transfected with dominant negative mutant p53 or silenced for p53 expression by short interference RNA do not show a readily detectable degree of centrosome amplification (nor chromosome instability), even when exposed to DNA synthesis inhibitors [33], [56], [57]. One critical difference between mouse and human cells is the

DNA damage, cell cycle arrest and centrosome amplification

Another well-studied tumor suppressor protein that has been shown to result in centrosome amplification when mutated is BRCA1. BRCA1 is a product of a familial breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene [64]. Involvement of BRCA1 in numeral homeostasis of centrosomes was initially shown by the finding that embryonic fibroblasts derived from mice deficient for a full length wild-type BRCA1 contain amplified centrosomes [65]. In a similar manner, loss of BRCA2, another familial breast cancer

Centrosome amplification vs. genomic convergence in cancer

There has been a sudden increase in the number of publications on the studies examining the clinical specimens and established cancer cell lines for potential associations of mutations of genes (i.e. p53, BRCA1, etc.) vs. centrosome amplification, mutations of genes vs. chromosome instability, and centrosome amplification vs. chromosome instability. Although every finding is informative, it has come to my attention to clarify one basic caution to be taken for conducting such studies. There is a

Centrosome amplification and cancer chemotherapy

As described earlier, exposure to DNA synthesis inhibitors promotes centrosome amplification and chromosome instability in cells lacking functional p53. Considering the high frequency of p53 mutation in human cancer, it is important to address the effect of commonly used anti-cancer drugs targeting S-phase (DNA duplication) on centrosomes [88]. When p53−/− mouse cells were exposed to sub-toxic concentrations of the S-phase targeting chemotherapeutic agents (i.e. 5′-fluoruracil, arabinoside-C),

Acknowledgements

I first would like to make an apology for not being able to cite many important studies, especially of the studies of clinical specimen, due to a large number of publications related to the subjects. The preparation of this manuscript is in part supported by National Institute of Health (CA90522 and CA95925).

References (88)

  • K. Kawamura et al.

    Centrosome hyperamplification and chromosomal instability in bladder cancer

    Eur. Urol.

    (2003)
  • K. Al-Romaih et al.

    Chromosomal instability in osteosarcoma and its association with centrosome abnormalities

    Cancer Genet. Cytogenet.

    (2003)
  • D. Gisselsson et al.

    Mitotic instability associated with late genomic changes in bone and soft tissue tumours

    Cancer Lett.

    (2004)
  • T. Nakajima et al.

    Centrosome aberration accompanied with p53 mutation can induce genetic instability in hepatocellular carcinoma

    Mod. Pathol.

    (2004)
  • B. Skyldberg et al.

    Human papillomavirus infection, centrosome aberration, and genetic stability in cervical lesions

    Mod. Pathol.

    (2001)
  • X. Xu et al.

    Centrosome amplification and a defective G2–M cell cycle checkpoint induce genetic instability in BRCA1 exon 11 isoform-deficient cells

    Mol. Cell

    (1999)
  • M.E. Moynahan et al.

    Brca1 controls homology-directed DNA repair

    Mol. Cell

    (1999)
  • D.A. Bochar et al.

    BRCA1 is associated with a human SWI/SNF-related complex: linking chromatin remodeling to breast cancer

    Cell

    (2000)
  • R. Baer et al.

    The BRCA1/BARD1 heterodimer, a tumor suppressor complex with ubiquitin E3 ligase activity

    Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.

    (2002)
  • R. Scully et al.

    Association of BRCA1 with Rad51 in mitotic and meiotic cells

    Cell

    (1997)
  • A.K. Wong et al.

    RAD51 interacts with the evolutionarily conserved BRC motifs in the human breast cancer susceptibility gene brca2

    J. Biol. Chem.

    (1997)
  • P. Baumann et al.

    Human Rad51 protein promotes ATP-dependent homologous pairing and strand transfer reactions in vitro

    Cell

    (1996)
  • N. Sato et al.

    adiation-induced centrosome overduplication and multiple mitotic spindles in human tumor cells

    Exp. Cell Res.

    (2000)
  • S. Chiba et al.

    Genomic convergence and suppression of centrosome hyperamplification in primary p53−/− cells in prolonged culture

    Exp. Cell Res.

    (2000)
  • L. Foulds

    The experimental study of tumor progression: a review

    Cancer Res.

    (1954)
  • P. Nowell

    The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations

    Science

    (1976)
  • L.A. Loeb

    Mutator phenotype may be required for multistage carcinogenesis

    Cancer Res.

    (1991)
  • S. Doxsey

    The centrosome—a tiny organelle with big potential

    Nat. Genet.

    (1998)
  • A.B. D'Assoro et al.

    Centrosome amplification and the development of cancer

    Oncogene

    (2002)
  • V. Dulic et al.

    Association of human cyclin E with a periodic G1–S phase protein kinase

    Science

    (1992)
  • A. Koff et al.

    Formation and activation of a cyclin E–cdk2 complex during the G1 phase of the human cell cycle

    Science

    (1992)
  • J.W. Harper

    Cyclin dependent kinase inhibitors

    Cancer Surv.

    (1997)
  • J.G. Mussman et al.

    Synergistic induction of centrosome hyperamplification by loss of p53 and cyclin E overexpression

    Oncogene

    (2000)
  • J.R. Nevins

    E2F: a link between the Rb tumor suppressor protein and viral oncoproteins

    Science

    (1992)
  • E.H. Hinchcliffe et al.

    Requirement of Cdk2–cyclin E activity for repeated centrosome reproduction in Xenopus egg extracts

    Science

    (1999)
  • K.R. Lacey et al.

    Cyclin-dependent kinase control of centrosome duplication

    Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA

    (1999)
  • P. Tarapore et al.

    A mammalian in vitro centriole duplication system: evidence for involvement of CDK2/cyclin E and nucleophosmin/B23 in centrosome duplication

    Cell Cycle

    (2002)
  • Y. Uetake et al.

    Cell cycle progression after cleavage failure: mammalian somatic cells do not possess a ‘tetraploidy checkpoint’

    J. Cell Biol.

    (2004)
  • M. Forgues et al.

    Involvement of Crm1 in hepatitis B virus X protein-induced aberrant centriole replication and abnormal mitotic spindles

    Mol. Cell. Biol.

    (2003)
  • H.M. Hut et al.

    Centrosomes split in the presence of impaired DNA integrity during mitosis

    Mol. Biol. Cell

    (2003)
  • A. Khodjakov et al.

    De novo formation of centrosomes in vertebrate cells arrested during S phase

    J. Cell Biol.

    (2002)
  • G.A. Pihan et al.

    Centrosome defects and genetic instability in malignant tumors

    Cancer Res.

    (1998)
  • P.E. Carroll et al.

    Centrosome hyperamplification in human cancer: chromosome instability induced by p53 mutation and/or Mdm2 overexpression

    Oncogene

    (1999)
  • W.L. Lingle et al.

    Centrosome amplification drives chromosomal instability in breast tumor development

    Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA

    (2002)
  • Cited by (270)

    • A look into the link between centrosome amplification and breast cancer

      2020, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      These structures are embedded in dense electron clusters of proteins called pericentriolar material (PCM). Hence, the material surrounding the centrioles forms the microtubule organizing center (MTOC) [16] (Fig. 1). The length of a microtubule is approximately 0.4 μm and the microtubule is composed of tubulin, including α/β/γ/δ/ε tubulin, centrin and tektin filaments and structural proteins connected to them.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text