Click here to close
Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly.
We suggest using a current version of Chrome,
FireFox, or Safari.
PLoS One
2010 Jul 08;57:e11760. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011760.
Show Gene links
Show Anatomy links
The effect of a DNA damaging agent on embryonic cell cycles of the cnidarian Hydractinia echinata.
Su TT
.
???displayArticle.abstract???
The onset of gastrulation at the Mid-Blastula Transition can accompany profound changes in embryonic cell cycles including the introduction of gap phases and the transition from maternal to zygotic control. Studies in Xenopus and Drosophila embryos have also found that cell cycles respond to DNA damage differently before and after MBT (or its equivalent, MZT, in Drosophila). DNA checkpoints are absent in Xenopus cleavage cycles but are acquired during MBT. Drosophila cleavage nuclei enter an abortive mitosis in the presence of DNA damage whereas post-MZT cells delay the entry into mitosis. Despite attributes that render them workhorses of embryonic cell cycle studies, Xenopus and Drosophila are hardly representative of diverse animal forms that exist. To investigate developmental changes in DNA damage responses in a distant phylum, I studied the effect of an alkylating agent, Methyl Methanesulfonate (MMS), on embryos of Hydractinia echinata. Hydractinia embryos are found to differ from Xenopus embryos in the ability to respond to a DNA damaging agent in early cleavage but are similar to Xenopus and Drosophila embryos in acquiring stronger DNA damage responses and greater resistance to killing by MMS after the onset of gastrulation. This represents the first study of DNA damage responses in the phylum Cnidaria.
???displayArticle.pubmedLink???
20668699
???displayArticle.pmcLink???PMC2909257 ???displayArticle.link???PLoS One ???displayArticle.grants???[+]
Figure 1. MMS inhibits mitosis in gastrula and cleavage stage embryos.(A, B) Gastrula stage embryos were incubated in filtered seawater (FSW) containing 0 (- MMS) or 0.1% (+ MMS) MMS for one hour before fixing and staining with antibodies to detect phospho-Histone H3 (red) and β-tubulin (green). The embryos are also stained with bisbenzamide to visualize DNA. (C) Mitotic index after 1-hour incubation in FSW containing various concentrations of MMS is quantified. The data are from 2690 cells in 11 embryos (0%), 3055 cells in 10 embryos (0.01%) and 2892 cells in 11 embryos (0.1%) in two different experiments. Error bars represent one standard deviation each. (D, E) Histograms show the percent of embryos that show nuclei number (n) per embryo as indicated when 2-cell (D) and 4-cell (E) stage embryos were incubated in 0 or 0.1% MMS in FSW for one hour, fixed and stained as in A and B. Mitotic figures from prophase to anaphase were counted as one nucleus each. Telophases (see Supplemental Figure S2) were counted as two nuclei each. Additional information on these data sets are in Table 1.
Figure 2. Chromosome segregation failure in the presence of MMS and caffeine.4-cell stage embryos were incubated for one hour in FSW containing various drugs, fixed, and stained for PH3 (red) and β-tubulin (green). Anaphase figures are shown. Arrowheads indicate the metaphase plate and arrows indicate the leading edge of segregating chromosomes. (A, B) Control (A) and 0.1% MMS-treated (B) embryos show successful chromosome separation with little or no chromosome material remaining at the metaphase plate. PH3 signal is shown magnified in A' and B' respectively. (C, C') The presence of 5 mM caffeine in addition to MMS led to chromosome segregation failure. C' shows the PH3 signal after magnification. The extent of chromosome separation is similar to that in A' (compare leading edged), but most of the PH3 signal remains at the metaphase plate (arrowheads). (D, D') 5 mM caffeine alone allows successful chromosome separation. This figure is in later stage of anaphase then the preceding ones. Scale bar = 10 µM in A-D, 4 µM in A'-D'.
Figure 3. Survival after MMS treatment of cleavage and gastrula stage embryos.(A, B, D, E) Embryos in the 4-cell stage were treated with 0% (−) or 0.1% (+) MMS for one hour. Embryos were transferred to drug-free FSW and examined after 24 hr. All of the control 4-cell stage embryos survived as indicated by their ability to reach the gastrula and planula stages (A, B). Most drug-treated 4-cell embryos did not survive as indicated by signs of disintegration (D, E). (C, F) Gastrula stage embryos at 14–16 hr after the first sign of spawning were treated with MMS and their survival examined as above. All of the control embryos and most of the MMS-treated embryos survived as indicated by their ability to reach the swimming planula stage. Development appears slower after incubation in MMS, but this issue remains to be studied rigorously. Animals in C and F were of similar size but oriented differently. Scale bar = 200 µM.
Conn,
The DNA damage checkpoint in embryonic cell cycles is dependent on the DNA-to-cytoplasmic ratio.
2004, Pubmed,
Xenbase
Conn,
The DNA damage checkpoint in embryonic cell cycles is dependent on the DNA-to-cytoplasmic ratio.
2004,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Duncan,
Embryogenesis: coordinating cell division with gastrulation.
2004,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Dunn,
Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life.
2008,
Pubmed
Epel,
Protection of DNA during early development: adaptations and evolutionary consequences.
2003,
Pubmed
Frank,
The hydroid Hydractinia: a versatile, informative cnidarian representative.
2001,
Pubmed
Gibson,
The emergence of geometric order in proliferating metazoan epithelia.
2006,
Pubmed
Jaklevic,
Relative contribution of DNA repair, cell cycle checkpoints, and cell death to survival after DNA damage in Drosophila larvae.
2004,
Pubmed
Le Bouffant,
Inhibition of translation and modification of translation factors during apoptosis induced by the DNA-damaging agent MMS in sea urchin embryos.
2008,
Pubmed
Le Bouffant,
Sea urchin embryo as a model for analysis of the signaling pathways linking DNA damage checkpoint, DNA repair and apoptosis.
2007,
Pubmed
Luciani,
Characterization of a novel ATR-dependent, Chk1-independent, intra-S-phase checkpoint that suppresses initiation of replication in Xenopus.
2004,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Moser,
Mechanism of caffeine-induced checkpoint override in fission yeast.
2000,
Pubmed
O'Farrell,
Embryonic cleavage cycles: how is a mouse like a fly?
2004,
Pubmed
Patel,
Caffeine overrides the S-phase cell cycle block in sea urchin embryos.
1997,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Peng,
DNA damage signaling in early Xenopus embryos.
2008,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Plickert,
Cell proliferation and early differentiation during embryonic development and metamorphosis of Hydractinia echinata.
1988,
Pubmed
Sarkaria,
Inhibition of ATM and ATR kinase activities by the radiosensitizing agent, caffeine.
1999,
Pubmed
Sibon,
DNA-replication checkpoint control at the Drosophila midblastula transition.
1997,
Pubmed
Sibon,
The Drosophila ATM homologue Mei-41 has an essential checkpoint function at the midblastula transition.
1999,
Pubmed
Sibon,
DNA-replication/DNA-damage-dependent centrosome inactivation in Drosophila embryos.
2000,
Pubmed
Su,
Activating the DNA damage checkpoint in a developmental context.
2000,
Pubmed
Su,
DNA damage leads to a Cyclin A-dependent delay in metaphase-anaphase transition in the Drosophila gastrula.
2001,
Pubmed
Su,
Cellular responses to DNA damage: one signal, multiple choices.
2006,
Pubmed
Takada,
Drosophila checkpoint kinase 2 couples centrosome function and spindle assembly to genomic integrity.
2003,
Pubmed
Verma,
CYTOKINESIS AND BUILDING OF THE CELL PLATE IN PLANTS.
2001,
Pubmed