|
|
|
|
Published online before print
September 5, 2006, 10.1101/gr.5335506 Genome Res. 16:1222-1230, 2006 ©2006 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/06 $5.00
Letter Common fragile sites are conserved features of human and mouse chromosomes and relate to large active genes1Institute of Clinical Genetics, Medical Faculty "Carl Gustav Carus," University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany; 2Institute of Medical Genetics, Charité, Humboldt University, 13353 Berlin, Germany; 3Signature-Diagnostics, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
Common fragile sites (CFSs) are seen as chromosomal gaps and breaks brought about by inhibition of replication, and it is thought that they cluster with tumor breakpoints. This study presents a comprehensive analysis using conventional and molecular cytogenetic mapping of CFSs and their expression frequencies in two mouse strains, BALB/c and C57BL/6, and in human probands. Here we show that induced mouse CFSs relate to sites of spontaneous gaps and breaks and that CFS expression levels in chromosome bands are conserved between the two mouse strains and between syntenic mouse and human DNA segments. Furthermore, four additional mouse CFSs were found to be homologous to human CFSs on the molecular cytogenetic level (Fra2D-FRA2G, Fra4C2-FRA9E, Fra6A3.1-FRA7G, and Fra6B1-FRA7H), increasing the number of such CFSs already described in the literature to eight. Contrary to previous reports, DNA helix flexibility is not increased in the 15 human and eight mouse CFSs molecularly defined so far, compared to large nonfragile control regions. Our findings suggest that the mechanisms that provoke instability at CFSs are evolutionarily conserved. The role that large transcriptionally active genes may play in CFS expression is discussed.
Common fragile sites (CFSs) are chromosomal loci that become visible (expressed) as chromatid gaps or chromosome breaks in a cell-type-dependent manner (Elder and Robinson 1989
But what is the molecular mechanism that forces breakage at specific sites? The amount and composition of repetitive elements within molecularly mapped CFSs were shown to be similar to overall distributions found in mouse and human genomes (Mishmar et al. 1998
All four molecularly defined mouse CFSs and their corresponding human CFSs localize to genes that span >750 kb of genomic sequence: Grid2/GRID2 (Fra6C1/FRA4F), Wwox/WWOX (Fra8E1/FRA16D), Immp2l/IMMP2L (Fra12C1/FRA7K), and Fhit/ FHIT (Fra14A2/FRA3B). Moreover, three human CFSs span the sequences of large genes: FRA6E (PARK2) (Denison et al. 2003 In this study, we scored mouse CFSs, defined as chromosomal regions that express gaps, double-strand breaks, or exchange figures under induced replicative stress, and then used statistics to classify the different chromosomal bands as having low, middle,or high CFS expression. We mappedspontaneous gaps/breaks as well as induced CFSs in the genomes of twomouse strains (BALB/c and C57BL/6)and then compared the expression ofCFSs between the mouse and the humangenomes. Furthermore, we characterizedat the molecular level several mouseCFSs that showed synteny to humanCFSs. We also examined the DNA helixflexibility for 23 mapped human andmouse CFSs and large control regions,and searched for tissue-specific gene expression of large genes that reside withinCFSs and control regions.
Cytogenetic mapping of mouse and human CFSs We performed a comprehensive cytogenetic analysis of CFSs in lymphocytes of the two mouse strains BALB/c and C57BL/6 in comparison to human lymphocytes. In almost all of the mouse and human (K. Stout-Weider, unpubl.) chromosome bands observed at the 350400 band level, we detected aphidicolin (APC)-induced lesions with different frequencies.
CFS expression levels are conserved in mouse strains BALB/c and C57BL/6 All spontaneously occurring or APC-induced chromatid gaps, deletions, and translocations were mapped along with their frequencies to their respective chromosomal band location (Fig. 1).
Chromatid gaps (G) and double- strand breaks (DB) including deletion breakpoints and exchange figures occurred at low frequencies of 0.2 ± 0.1 (BALB/c) and 0.3 ± 0.2 (C57BL/6) (events per metaphase, mean values ±1.96 SE) in control cells not exposed to APC. CFS expression showed a clear tendency to increase, with ascending APC concentrations, to higher levels in BALB/c as compared to C57BL/6 mice (BALB/c, G: 3.8 ± 1.7 at 0.2 µM APC, DB: 2.6 ± 0.6 at 0.4 µM APC; C57BL/6, G: 1.5 ± 1.3 at 0.2 µM APC, DB: 1.6 ± 0.5 at 0.4 µM APC; P < 0.05) (Fig. 2).
Correlation analysis of CFS frequencies of BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice at 0.4 µM APC showed a significant relation of medium strength (R = 0.67, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 3), that is, a conservation of the band-specific CFS expression levels in the two strains.
Spontaneous gaps and breaks in mouse occur preferentially at chromosome bands with elevated APC-induced CFS expression A detailed overview of the genome-wide CFS expression frequencies in mouse lymphocytes is shown in Figure 4. We were interested to see whether the rare spontaneous gaps and double- strand breaks occurred preferentially in bands with high APC- induced CFS expression. Therefore, we performed a mathematical calculation to divide the total of 392 chromosome bands into groups of low, medium, and high levels of APC-induced CFS expression using a nonrandom test (see Methods and Fig. 4).
When comparing centromere and non-centromere chromo- some bands, we found that CFS expression increased after exposure to APC in non-centromeric chromosome bands (paired Wilcoxon test, P < 0.05) (data not shown), but not in centromeres (P = 0.07). Whereas spontaneous fragility in centromeric bands was relatively high (10 gaps/breaks in 21 centromeres), none of the 21 bands showed a high APC-induced fragility. On the other hand, all of the 48 spontaneous gaps/breaks that occurred in non-centromeric bands were found within the group of 316 bands with elevated CFS expression, and none were found within the group of 55 stable bands (Table 1; Fig. 4). Thus spontaneous non-centromeric gaps/breaks lie preferentially at sites with elevated APC-induced CFS expression ( 2 test, P < 0.0001).
CFS expression levels are conserved in syntenic regions of mouse and human chromosomes In order to analyze if CFS expression was conserved between mouse and human, as it was conserved between BALB/c and C57BL/6 strains (Fig. 3), we searched the Ensembl Genome Browser for large syntenic regions encompassing at least two chromosome bands. We detected 17 such conserved segments comprising a total of 77 bands (~500 Mb of mouse and human DNA, respectively). The median CFS expression frequencies of each of these 77 bands were subjected to a pairwise comparison between human and mouse. The Spearman test gave a correlation coefficient of R = 0.538 (P < 0.0001), showing a medium- strength correlation of CFS expression frequencies in homologous mouse and human bands (see also Fig. 5). This finding supports the view that CFS expression levels in syntenic regions are conserved during evolution.
Variation of CFS expression in humans is not higher than that in inbred mice To estimate variability in CFS expression between different individuals of the same species, the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for each chromosome band using CFS expression frequency data of five BALB/c and five C57BL/6 mice and two human groups with five persons each. CVs of all bands correlated between both human groups (R = 0.691) and between BALB/c and C57BL/6 (R = 0.410; P-values < 0.0001). Medians of the CV values including either all bands, all but stable bands, or only the bands expressing the highest level of CFSs (identified with the nonrandom test) were compared between the four groups. Each comparison showed lower median CV values for the groups of human probands as compared to the data obtained in mice (median CVs for all bands in human: 109 and 95; in BALB/c: 139; in C57BL/6: 158; for all but stable bands in human: 82 and 69; in BALB/c: 133; in C57BL/6: 153; for only high level CFS-expressing bands in human: 47 and 40; in BALB/c: 80; in C57BL/6: 102).
Molecular characterization of mouse and human CFSs
Four CFSs are shown to be homologous between human and mouse at the molecular level
Sites of evolutionary DNA rearrangements between the mouse and human genomes do not cluster in the 23 known CFS sequences Since CFSs appear to represent genomic sites that are prone to DNA breakage, we opted to search in the human and mouse genomes for a possible coincidence of CFSs with regions that were rearranged during chromosome evolution. Out of the 15 human and eight mouse molecularly mapped CFSs, only two human CFSs and one mouse CFS contained a synteny break (SB) between the human and mouse genomes (the positions of SBs were defined based on the Ensembl Genome Browser) (see Supplemental Table S1). The average frequency of synteny breaks was lower in the CFS regions (one SB every 22.9 Mb in human and every 28.4 Mb in mouse) than in the control regions (one SB every 11.4 Mb in human and every 18.4 Mb in mouse). The control regions comprised 10 human and 10 mouse chromosome bands with the lowest CFS expression levels based on the 10 lowest Pd-values in the nonrandom test. Also, a part of human band 7q31 centromeric to FRA7K was included, where FISH experiments on APC-treated metaphase chromosomes detected no CFS expression (Helmrich et al. 2006
DNA helix flexibility is not increased in mouse and human CFSs
Our analysis did not reveal significantly higher numbers of islands or clusters with increased helix flexibility in CFS regions compared to nonfragile regions (P
Comparing eight pairs of syntenic CFSs between human and mouse, the numbers of islands with increased flexibility were found to be conserved (Spearman R = 0.786, P = 0.021). However, the number of high flexibility clusters did not correlate (R = 0.265, P = 0.526).
CFSs preferentially colocalize with large active genes
We determined the transcriptional activity of these large genes for human lymphocytes using RNA expression data published in the GNF SymAtlas (Fig. 6). Expression values >200 are common for genes at sites with frequent CFS expression. For example, the expression value of FHIT, which lies within the most frequent human lymphocyte CFS, FRA3B, is the highest among the analyzed large genes (Fig. 6; Supplemental Table S1). CNTNAP2, the large gene within FRA7I, is the only example showing an expression value close to the background level of 100. In agreement with the low CNTNAP2 expression, FRA7I is not detectable in lymphocytes. For all large genes in control regions except one (TCBA1 in 6q22), expression values below 200 were found. Moreover, we found a strong positive correlation between the expression values of large genes and the frequency of CFS formation at these sites (R = 0.857, P = 0.014).
In this work we present a whole-genome mapping study for CFSs in lymphocytes of mouse strains BALB/c and C57BL/6. Both mouse strains expressed a similar number of CFSs in control cells that were not subjected to APC treatment during cell culture. We show here that these spontaneous aberrations occur preferentially in the same non-centromeric bands that also show elevated levels of induced CFS expression, which means that APC increases the expression of natural fragile sites and does not accumulate artifacts. Interestingly, centromeric bands showed slightly higher levels of spontaneous gaps and breaks than noncentromeric bands, but the expression of centromeric CFSs did not increase after APC treatment. Thissuggests that gaps/breaks in centromeresoccur via separate mechanisms. Following APC induction, we found an elevated overall CFS expression in BALB/ccompared to C57BL/6 mice. This mightbear a relation to the high post-irradiation breast cancer risk of BALB/canimals (Storer et al. 1988
As shown in Figure 2, differences between CFS levels in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice reached statistical significance for the number of gaps at 0.2 µM APC but not at 0.4 µM APC and for the number of DBs at 0.4 µM APC but not at 0.2 µM APC. Mechanistically, this could mean that the gaps seen at lower dose are converted to DBs at higher dose. Despite different sensitivities to APC between BALB/c and C57BL/6, we showed a high degree of conservation of CFS expression frequencies per chromosome band. A strain-overlapping conservation was furthermore affirmed in a comparison of our data to published results from APC-treated lymphocytes of ICR mice (Elder and Robinson 1989
On a molecular basis, we showed four CFSs to be conserved between the human and mouse genomes (FRA2G/Fra2D, FRA7G/ Fra6A3.1, FRA7H/Fra6B1, and FRA9E/Fra4C2). Thus, together with FRA3B, FRA4F, FRA7K, and FRA16D, which correspond to mouse Fra14A2 (Glover et al. 1998
To answer the question whether SBs might have occurred as a consequence of breakage at CFSs, we looked for SBs between mouse and human genomes in mapped fragile sequences and in low-fragility areas and found CFSs without SBs as well as control regions with SBs. The comparison of SB frequencies between CFSs and control regions revealed no elevation in CFSs. Still, the problem remains that to date we only have 15 CFS sequences to include in the analysis, representing only a small population of the total number of CFSs. Clearly, the analysis needs to be extended in the future when additional CFSs are precisely mapped on the DNA sequence level. Yet our results include some of the most frequently expressed CFSs (as FRA3B, 16D, XB, 7H, 7K, 13A), adding weight to the observation that SBs do not cluster into this group of 15 CFSs. To explain the observed result, one can speculate that mechanisms different from CFS expression are involved in the formation of evolutionary chromosomal rearrangements, for example, random breakage as proposed by Nadeau and Taylor (1984)
The characterization of 15 human and eight mouse CFS- expressing sequences and large nonfragile regions provides a powerful tool to search for further molecular features of CFSs. To date, the cellular mechanisms leading to the formation of CFSs are still largely unknown. Several recent studies showed that areas with elevated DNA helix flexibility lie within CFS sequences (Mishmar et al. 1998 The large genes located within CFSs (see Supplemental Table S1) encode very different proteins varying from neurotransmitter receptors (GRID2), mediators of cellcell interactions in the nervous system (CNTNAP2 and EXOC4), enzymes in uracil and thymidine catabolism (DPYD), or mediators of protein kinase A sub- cellular location (NBEA) to proteins involved in protein degradation (PARK2) and cell cycle control (FHIT). Some of the proteins are thought to act as tumor suppressors (FHIT, WWOX, PTPRG). However, all these genes are similar in that they are expressed in the tissue in which the CFSs are inducible. This clearly separates the large genes of the CFS regions from those in control areas.
The concept of an association of the localization of CFSs with active gene regions is furthermore supported by the expression of a CFS at Xp22.3 (a region escaping X-inactivation) in both homologous chromosomes in females, whereas the CFS at Xq22.1 is expressed only in the transcriptionally active X (Austin et al. 1992
It is known that the DNA polymerase inhibitor APC acts during S phase by reducing or stopping DNA synthesis (Pedrali-Noy et al. 1981
Metaphase chromosome preparation and induction of CFSs Mouse splenocytes from five BALB/c and five C57BL/6 mice (BALB/c: three female and two male; C57BL/6: two female and three male) were cultured for 48 h in RPMI 1640 medium plus 20% FCS and 0.0006% -mercaptoethanol. T-lymphocytes were stimulated using 6 ng/µL Concanavalin A, B-lymphocytes by 2.5 ng/µL lipopolysaccharide. CFSs were induced by adding aphidicolin (APC) at concentrations of 0.0 µM, 0.2 µM, or 0.4 µM to the cell culture medium 24 h prior to the harvest. Human T- lymphocytes were obtained from peripheral blood of 10 unrelated volunteers and cultured for 72 h in RPMI medium 1640, 20% FBS, and 3 µg/mL phytohemaglutinine (Biochrom) supplemented with 0.4 µM APC for 24 h.
Scoring of CFSs
Preparation of BACs and their use for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)
Statistical analysis Furthermore, standard statistical tests such as the Mann- Whitney U-test, the paired Wilcoxon test, and the Spearman test were applied using the software package Statistica for Windows Version 5.5 (StatSoft Inc.). Coefficient of variation (CV) values were calculated as 100 x SD/(mean value).
Use of databases Mouse sequences were allocated to their chromosome location based on gene mapping data as indicated in the NCBILocusLink. The exact boundaries of mouse G- and R-bands were determined according to gene and CpG-island densities as shown in the UCSC Genome Browser.
Evolutionary breakpoints were identified by analyzing data from http://www.ensembl.org (version July 2004). Human gene expression data were obtained from the GNF SymAtlas (http://symatlas.gnf.org/SymAtlas/, Version 1.2.4) (Su et al. 2002
Analysis of DNA helix flexibility
We regret to announce that Klaus Hermann died in November 2005. This work was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BioFuture Award 0811375 to E.S.).
4 Present address: Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, CU de Strasbourg, 67404 Illkirch, France.
E-mail anneh{at}titus.u-strasbg.fr; fax 33-3-88-65-32-01. Supplemental material is available online at www.genome.org. Article published online before print. Article and publication date are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.5335506.
Arlt, M.F., Casper, A.M., Glover, T.W. 2003. Common fragile sites. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 100: 92100. Arlt, M.F., Xu, B., Durkin, S.G., Casper, A.M., Kastan, M.B., Glover, T.W. 2004. BRCA1 is required for common-fragile-site stability via its G2/M checkpoint function. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24: 67016709. Austin, M.J., Collins, J.M., Corey, L.A., Nance, W.E., Neale, M.C., Schieken, R.M., Brown, J.A. 1992. Aphidicolin-inducible common fragile-site expression: Results from a population survey of twins. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 50: 7683.[Medline] Callahan, G., Denison, S.R., Phillips, L.A., Shridhar, V., Smith, D.I. 2003. Characterization of the common fragile site FRA9E and its potential role in ovarian cancer. Oncogene 22: 590601.[CrossRef][Medline] Casper, A.M., Nghiem, P., Arlt, M.F., Glover, T.W. 2002. ATR regulates fragile site stability. Cell 111: 779789.[CrossRef][Medline] Ciullo, M., Debily, M.A., Rozier, L., Autiero, M., Billault, A., Mayau, V., El Marhomy, S., Guardiola, J., Bernheim, A., Coullin, P. et al. 2002. Initiation of the breakage-fusion-bridge mechanism through common fragile site activation in human breast cancer cells:The model of PIP gene duplication from a break at FRA7I. Hum. Mol. Genet. 11: 28872894. Dahm, P.F., Olmsted, A.W., Greenbaum, I.F. 2002. Probability models and the applicability of statistical procedures in the identification of chromosomal fragile sites. Biometrics 58: 10281033.[CrossRef][Medline] Denison, S.R., Callahan, G., Becker, N.A., Phillips, L.A., Smith, D.I. 2003. Characterization of FRA6E and its potential role in autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism and ovarian cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 38: 4052.[CrossRef][Medline] Elder, F.F. and Robinson, T.J. 1989. Rodent common fragile sites: Are they conserved? Evidence from mouse and rat. Chromosoma 97: 459464.[CrossRef][Medline] Glover, T.W., Hoge, A.W., Miller, D.E., Ascara-Wilke, J.E., Adam, A.N., Dagenais, S.L., Wilke, C.M., Dierick, H.A., Beer, D.G. 1998. The murine Fhit gene is highly similar to its human orthologue and maps to a common fragile site region. Cancer Res. 58: 34093414. Hellman, A., Zlotorynski, E., Scherer, S.W., Cheung, J., Vincent, J.B., Smith, D.I., Trakhtenbrot, L., Kerem, B. 2002. A role for common fragile site induction in amplification of human oncogenes. Cancer Cell 1: 8997.[CrossRef][Medline] Helmrich, A., Stout-Weider, K., Matthaei, A., Hermann, K., Heiden, T., Schrock, E. 2006. Identification of the human/mouse syntenic common fragile site FRA7K/Fra12C1Relation of FRA7K and other human common fragile sites on chromosome 7 to evolutionary breakpoints. Int. J. Cancer (in press). Jensen, P.O., Larsen, J., Christiansen, J., Larsen, J.K. 1993. Flow cytometric measurement of RNA synthesis using bromouridine labeling and bromodeoxyuridine antibodies. Cytometry 14: 455458.[CrossRef][Medline] Krummel, K.A., Denison, S.R., Calhoun, E., Phillips, L.A., Smith, D.I. 2002. The common fragile site FRA16D and its associated gene WWOX are highly conserved in the mouse at Fra8E1. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 34: 154167.[CrossRef][Medline] Limongi, M.Z., Pelliccia, F., Rocchi, A. 2003. Characterization of the human common fragile site FRA2G. Genomics 81: 9397.[CrossRef][Medline] Matsuyama, A., Shiraishi, T., Trapasso, F., Kuroki, T., Alder, H., Mori, M., Huebner, K., Croce, C.M. 2003. Fragile site orthologs FHIT/FRA3B and Fhit/Fra14A2: Evolutionarily conserved but highly recombinogenic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100: 1498814993. Mishmar, D., Rahat, A., Scherer, S.W., Nyakatura, G., Hinzmann, B., Kohwi, Y., Mandel-Gutfroind, Y., Lee, J.R., Drescher, B., Sas, D.E. et al. 1998. Molecular characterization of a common fragile site(FRA7H) on human chromosome 7 by the cloning of a simian virus 40 integration site. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95: 81418146. Morelli, C., Karayianni, E., Magnanini, C., Mungall, A.J., Thorland, E., Negrini, M., Smith, D.I., Barbanti-Brodano, G. 2002. Cloning and characterization of the common fragile site FRA6F harboring a replicative senescence gene and frequently deleted in human tumors. Oncogene 21: 72667276.[CrossRef][Medline] Murano, I., Kuwano, A., Kajii, T. 1989a. Cell type-dependent difference in the distribution and frequency of aphidicolin-induced fragile sites: T and B lymphocytes and bone marrow cells. Hum. Genet. 84: 7174.[CrossRef][Medline] 1989b. Fibroblast-specific common fragile sites induced by aphidicolin. Hum. Genet. 83: 4548.[CrossRef][Medline] Nadeau, J.H. and Taylor, B.A. 1984. Lengths of chromosomal segments conserved since divergence of man and mouse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 81: 814818. Palakodeti, A., Han, Y., Jiang, Y., Le Beau, M.M. 2004. The role of late/slow replication of the FRA16D in common fragile site induction. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 39: 7176.[CrossRef][Medline] Pedrali-Noy, G., Kuenzle, C.C., Focher, F., Belvedere, M., Spadari, S. 1981. An enzymatic method for microdetermination of aphidicolin: A promising anticancer drug. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 4: 113121.[CrossRef][Medline] Ponnaiya, B., Cornforth, M.N., Ullrich, R.L. 1997. Radiation-induced chromosomal instability in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice: The difference is as clear as black and white. Radiat. Res. 147: 121125.[Medline] Ried, K., Finnis, M., Hobson, L., Mangelsdorf, M., Dayan, S., Nancarrow, J.K., Woollatt, E., Kremmidiotis, G., Gardner, A., Venter, D. et al. 2000. Common chromosomal fragile site FRA16D sequence: Identification of the FOR gene spanning FRA16D and homozygous deletions and translocation breakpoints in cancer cells. Hum. Mol. Genet. 9: 16511663. Rozier, L., El-Achkar, E., Apiou, F., Debatisse, M. 2004. Characterization of a conserved aphidicolin-sensitive common fragile site at human 4q22 and mouse 6C1: Possible association with an inherited disease and cancer. Oncogene 23: 68726880.[CrossRef][Medline] Ruiz-Herrera, A., Ponsa, M., Garcia, F., Egozcue, J., Garcia, M. 2002. Fragile sites in human and Macaca fascicularis chromosomes are breakpoints in chromosome evolution. Chromosome Res. 10: 3344.[CrossRef][Medline] Sarai, A., Mazur, J., Nussinov, R., Jernigan, R.L. 1989. Sequence dependence of DNA conformational flexibility. Biochemistry 28: 78427849.[CrossRef][Medline] Schrock, E., du Manoir, S., Veldman, T., Schoell, B., Wienberg, J., Ferguson-Smith, M.A., Ning, Y., Ledbetter, D.H., Bar-Am, I., Soenksen, D. et al. 1996. Multicolor spectral karyotyping of human chromosomes. Science 273: 494497.[Abstract] Schubeler, D., Scalzo, D., Kooperberg, C., van Steensel, B., Delrow, J., Groudine, M. 2002. Genome-wide DNA replication profile for Drosophila melanogaster:A link between transcription and replication timing. Nat. Genet. 32: 438442.[CrossRef][Medline] Shiraishi, T., Druck, T., Mimori, K., Flomenberg, J., Berk, L., Alder, H., Miller, W., Huebner, K., Croce, C.M. 2001. Sequence conservation at human and mouse orthologous common fragile regions, FRA3B/FHIT and Fra14A2/Fhit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 57225727. Simonic, I. and Gericke, G.S. 1996. The enigma of common fragile sites. Hum. Genet. 97: 524531.[Medline] Smeets, D.F. and van de Klundert, F.A. 1990. Common fragile sites in man and three closely related primate species. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 53: 814.[Medline] Storer, J.B., Mitchell, T.J., Fry, R.J. 1988. Extrapolation of the relative risk of radiogenic neoplasms across mouse strains and to man. Radiat. Res. 114: 331353.[Medline] Su, A.I., Cooke, M.P., Ching, K.A., Hakak, Y., Walker, J.R., Wiltshire, T., Orth, A.P., Vega, R.G., Sapinoso, L.M., Moqrich, A. et al. 2002. Large-scale analysis of the human and mouse transcriptomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99: 44654470. Turner, B.C., Ottey, M., Zimonjic, D.B., Potoczek, M., Hauck, W.W., Pequignot, E., Keck-Waggoner, C.L., Sevignani, C., Aldaz, C.M., McCue, P.A. et al. 2002. The fragile histidine triad/common chromosome fragile site 3B locus and repair-deficient cancers. Cancer Res. 62: 40544060. Wang, L., Darling, J., Zhang, J.S., Huang, H., Liu, W., Smith, D.I. 1999. Allele-specific late replication and fragility of the most active common fragile site, FRA3B. Hum. Mol. Genet. 8: 431437. Woodfine, K., Fiegler, H., Beare, D.M., Collins, J.E., McCann, O.T., Young, B.D., Debernardi, S., Mott, R., Dunham, I., Carter, N.P. 2004. Replication timing of the human genome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 13: 191202. Yu, Y., Okayasu, R., Weil, M.M., Silver, A., McCarthy, M., Zabriskie, R., Long, S., Cox, R., Ullrich, R.L. 2001. Elevated breast cancer risk in irradiated BALB/c mice associates with unique functional polymorphism of the Prkdc (DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit) gene. Cancer Res. 61: 18201824. Yunis, J.J. and Soreng, A.L. 1984. Constitutive fragile sites and cancer. Science 226: 11991204. Zlotorynski, E., Rahat, A., Skaug, J., Ben-Porat, N., Ozeri, E., Hershberg, R., Levi, A., Scherer, S.W., Margalit, H., Kerem, B. 2003. Molecular basis for expression of common and rare fragile sites. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23: 71437151.
Received March 24, 2006; accepted in revised format July 6, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||