Elsevier

DNA Repair

Volume 107, November 2021, 103207
DNA Repair

Processes shaping cancer genomes – From mitotic defects to chromosomal rearrangements,☆☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2021.103207Get rights and content

Abstract

Sequencing of cancer genomes revealed a rich landscape of somatic single nucleotide variants, structural changes of chromosomes, as well as chromosomal copy number alterations. These chromosome changes are highly variable, and simple translocations, deletions or duplications have been identified, as well as complex events that likely arise through activity of several interconnected processes. Comparison of the cancer genome sequencing data with our knowledge about processes important for maintenance of genome stability, namely DNA replication, repair and chromosome segregation, provides insights into the mechanisms that may give rise to complex chromosomal patterns, such as chromothripsis, a complex form of multiple focal chromosome rearrangements. In addition, observations gained from model systems that recapitulate the rearrangements patterns under defined experimental conditions suggest that mitotic errors and defective DNA replication and repair contribute to their formation. Here, we review the molecular mechanisms that contribute to formation of chromosomal aberrations observed in cancer genomes.

Introduction

It has long been recognized that acquired mutations and a loss of genomic integrity are key contributors to malignant growth of cancerous cells. Indeed, cancer development is driven by genomic changes leading to inactivation of tumor suppressors or the amplification and/or activation of oncogenes [1]. Additionally, as proposed more than a hundred years ago by David Hansemann and Theodore Boveri, and supported by recent discoveries, aberrant chromosomal numbers are frequent in cancer and contribute to tumorigenesis [2]. Recent enormous progress of sequencing techniques (Box 1) and large collaborative sequencing efforts, such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) or the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) expanded and refined the idea by revealing the complexity of cancer genomes [3]. Genomic rearrangements found in cancers are markedly variable, covering from at least 50 nucleotides to megabase-sized or even chromosome-size changes. Typically, researchers distinguish between structural and numerical aneuploidy, both being states of an abnormal chromosome set. While numerical aneuploidy defines whole chromosomal and arm-level changes, structural aneuploidy refers to subchromosomal aberrations. Individual cancer genomes often present a diverse set of genomic changes, ranging from simple translocations to highly complex structural aberrations that arise from a burst of genomic instability via numerous DNA breaks and their repair (Fig. 1) [4,5]. These aberrations often occur in a context of chromosomal instability (CIN), which is an increase in rate of gaining and losing whole chromosomes (W-CIN) or their structural fragments (S-CIN). Together, these processes affect gene copy number (CN), gene function and regulation, or may lead to a formation of oncogenic fusion-proteins [6]. The burden of somatic mutations in cancer genomes is considerable, as most tumors carry hundreds to thousands of point mutations and multiple structural and numerical chromosomal changes, depending on the tumor type [4].

The broad spectra of genomic changes raise the questions about the mechanisms responsible for chromosomal rearrangements in cancer. Experiments in model organisms from budding yeasts to human cell lines combined with advanced analysis of DNA sequence signatures provide ample evidence that exposure to genotoxic agents as well as erroneous repair of exogenous and endogenous DNA damage is the main source of genetic changes driving tumorigenesis [7]. Surprisingly, endogenous DNA damage may also result from mitotic errors, leading to massive chromosomal rearrangements [8,9]. These findings point out that structural and numerical aberrations may be more intimately linked than previously thought [10]. In this review, we will focus on mitotic errors and DNA replication and repair processes that contribute to chromosomal rearrangements in cancers, with a special focus on the formation of chromothripsis.

Section snippets

Mitotic errors contribute to chromosome copy number changes and structural rearrangements

In classical view, numerical chromosomal changes arise from mitotic errors, while structural changes are generated through DNA repair and replication processes gone wrong. However, both numerical and structural changes occur simultaneously in cancer, suggesting that numerical and structural instability might be mechanistically linked [11]. During mitosis the newly replicated sister chromatids have to be accurately segregated into two daughter cells. While non-cancerous cells execute this task

Numerical copy number changes in cancer genomes

As a consequence of mitotic errors, cells arise with abnormal chromosomal copy numbers, such as chromosome gains (e.g. trisomy, tetrasomy, polyploidy), or losses (e.g. monosomy) (Fig. 1). In somatic cells this occurs at a very low frequency (<1%) [22], which may increase up to 2–3 % in aging tissues [23]. While numerical aneuploidy is rare in somatic tissues, it is a striking hallmark of cancer [24]. Indeed, whole chromosome or chromosome arm aneuploidy was detected in ∼88 % of more than 10,000

Structural chromosomal rearrangements

Broad spectra of structural chromosomal rearrangements were identified in cancer genomes, from simple changes within one or two chromosomes, to a complex reshuffling of genomic loci among several chromosomes [4,[47], [48], [49], [50]]. Mitotic errors as well as failure in DNA replication or repair result in DNA damage and chromosome breakage that can be repaired by inaccurate, often random reassembly of chromosome fragments. As a result, balanced rearrangements including inversions and

DNA repair pathways involved in cancer genome rearrangements

A causal role of DNA repair processes in the generation of chromosomal rearrangements is implicated by several monogenetic repair disorders caused by mutation in DNA repair or damage response genes, such as Fanconi Anaemia (FA), Ataxia telangiectasia (ATM), or other disorders [53]. They predispose the individuals not only to severe developmental defects, but also to a highly increased risk of developing cancer later in their lives. One notion is that in absence of the appropriate pathways

Contribution of DNA replication to genomic rearrangements

Although DSBs are considered to be the main intermediates, alternative routes to genomic rearrangements may start from stalled replication forks at which persistent single stranded DNA may trigger recombination (Fig. 3A) [59]. This might be in fact a major source of DNA damage in cancer cells [60]. In the absence of exogenous mutagens, the majority of DSBs are believed to form during DNA replication, and features of replication stress were detected in pre-cancerous stages [61]. Replication

Chromothripsis and other catastrophes

While most rearrangements occur independently and accumulate gradually over extensive period of time during cancer evolution, some complex rearrangements may arise through a chain of consecutive events, or even as a singular incident, and usually affecting only one or a few chromosomes. These events are often described by the umbrella term chromoanagenesis [49]. At least three processes of complex rearrangements, chromoplexy, chromothripsis and chromoanasynthesis, have been described so far [49

Chromothripsis from missegregation - the imperfect life of micronuclei

While the mechanism of chromothripsis in cancer remains difficult to study, novel in vitro model systems have been established in recent years that shed light on the mechanisms that may lead to clustered chromosomal rearrangements affecting only one or a few chromosomes [9,[74], [75], [76]]. To explain their intriguing features, models have been proposed, in which chromothripsis arises in cells after MN formation through the spatial separation of the missegregated chromosomes or chromosomal

Chromothripsis and anaphase bridges

Lagging chromosomes may not be the only mitotic aberration that lead to massive chromosomal rearrangements. Formation of anaphase bridges between two chromosomes also triggers chromothripsis [9,75](Fig. 5B). Incorrect repair of DNA damage, e.g. by fusion of two chromosomes, replication intermediates as well as chromosome condensation or decatenation defects can lead to sister chromatid junctions that are not resolved before cells enter mitosis, where they manifest as anaphase bridges. The

Conclusion and outlook

The impressive development of sequencing techniques and extensive sequencing of cancer genomes revealed the richness of chromosomal changes in cancer cells. Only little is known about the exact underlying processes. In particular, complex structural rearrangements remain difficult to explain [4]. While we cannot study the processes directly during cancer development as they occur, three main sources provide information from which we can derive the molecular mechanisms. First, the precise

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by German Research Foundation, grant FOR2800 to ZS and MR. Fig. 1, 4 and 5 were created with BioRender.

References (119)

  • J.A. Lee et al.

    A DNA replication mechanism for generating nonrecurrent rearrangements associated with genomic disorders

    Cell

    (2007)
  • S.C. Baca et al.

    Punctuated evolution of prostate cancer genomes

    Cell

    (2013)
  • P. Liu et al.

    Chromosome catastrophes involve replication mechanisms generating complex genomic rearrangements

    Cell

    (2011)
  • J.O. Korbel et al.

    Criteria for inference of chromothripsis in cancer genomes

    Cell

    (2013)
  • T. Rausch et al.

    Genome sequencing of pediatric medulloblastoma links catastrophic DNA rearrangements with TP53 mutations

    Cell

    (2012)
  • G.I. Terzoudi et al.

    Stress induced by premature chromatin condensation triggers chromosome shattering and chromothripsis at DNA sites still replicating in micronuclei or multinucleate cells when primary nuclei enter mitosis

    Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen.

    (2015)
  • E.M. Hatch et al.

    Catastrophic nuclear envelope collapse in cancer cell micronuclei

    Cell

    (2013)
  • J.R. Savage

    A comment on the quantitative relationship between micronuclei and chromosomal aberrations

    Mutat. Res.

    (1988)
  • J. Song et al.

    Human ANKLE1 is a nuclease specific for branched DNA

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (2020)
  • A.J. Holland et al.

    Boveri revisited: chromosomal instability, aneuploidy and tumorigenesis

    Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.

    (2009)
  • Consortium P.C.A.W.G

    Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes

    Nature

    (2020)
  • Y. Li et al.

    Patterns of somatic structural variation in human cancer genomes

    Nature

    (2020)
  • K. Hadi et al.

    Distinct classes of complex structural variation uncovered across thousands of cancer genome graphs

    Cell

    (2020)
  • N. McGranahan et al.

    Cancer chromosomal instability: therapeutic and diagnostic challenges

    EMBO Rep.

    (2012)
  • P.A. Jeggo et al.

    DNA repair, genome stability and cancer: a historical perspective

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2016)
  • K. Crasta et al.

    DNA breaks and chromosome pulverization from errors in mitosis

    Nature

    (2012)
  • T.I. Zack et al.

    Pan-cancer patterns of somatic copy number alteration

    Nat. Genet.

    (2013)
  • A.C.F. Bolhaqueiro et al.

    Ongoing chromosomal instability and karyotype evolution in human colorectal cancer organoids

    Nat. Genet.

    (2019)
  • L. Sansregret et al.

    The role of aneuploidy in Cancer evolution

    Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med.

    (2017)
  • I.M. Cheeseman

    The kinetochore

    Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.

    (2014)
  • S.L. Thompson et al.

    Mechanisms of chromosomal instability

    Curr. Biol.

    (2010)
  • P. Lara-Gonzalez et al.

    Spindle assembly checkpoint activation and silencing at kinetochores

    Semin. Cell Dev. Biol.

    (2021)
  • N.J. Ganem et al.

    A mechanism linking extra centrosomes to chromosomal instability

    Nature

    (2009)
  • A.Y. Kuznetsova et al.

    Chromosomal instability, tolerance of mitotic errors and multidrug resistance are promoted by tetraploidization in human cells

    Cell Cycle

    (2015)
  • S.M.A. Lens et al.

    Cytokinesis defects and cancer

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2019)
  • K.A. Knouse et al.

    Single cell sequencing reveals low levels of aneuploidy across mammalian tissues

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2014)
  • J.C. Macedo et al.

    FoxM1 repression during human aging leads to mitotic decline and aneuploidy-driven full senescence

    Nat. Commun.

    (2018)
  • K.H. Stopsack et al.

    Aneuploidy drives lethal progression in prostate cancer

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

    (2019)
  • A.M. Taylor et al.

    Genomic and functional approaches to understanding Cancer aneuploidy

    Cancer Cell

    (2018)
  • B.R. Williams et al.

    Aneuploidy affects proliferation and spontaneous immortalization in mammalian cells

    Science

    (2008)
  • S. Stingele et al.

    Global analysis of genome, transcriptome and proteome reveals the response to aneuploidy in human cells

    Mol. Syst. Biol.

    (2012)
  • S.D. Rutledge et al.

    Selective advantage of trisomic human cells cultured in non-standard conditions

    Sci. Rep.

    (2016)
  • A. Vasudevan et al.

    Single-chromosomal gains can function as metastasis suppressors and promoters in colon cancer

    Dev. Cell

    (2020)
  • X.A. Su et al.

    RAD21 is a driver of chromosome 8 gain in Ewing sarcoma to mitigate replication stress

    Genes Dev.

    (2021)
  • A. Shukla et al.

    Chromosome arm aneuploidies shape tumour evolution and drug response

    Nat. Commun.

    (2020)
  • D.A. Lukow et al.

    Chromosomal instability accelerates the evolution of resistance to anti-cancer therapies

    Dev. Cell

    (2021)
  • M.R. Ippolito et al.

    Gene copy-number changes and chromosomal instability induced by aneuploidy confer resistance to chemotherapy

    Dev. Cell

    (2021)
  • T. Fujiwara et al.

    Cytokinesis failure generating tetraploids promotes tumorigenesis in p53-null cells

    Nature

    (2005)
  • S.E. Shackney et al.

    Model for the genetic evolution of human solid tumors

    Cancer Res.

    (1989)
  • H.G. Nguyen et al.

    Deregulated Aurora-B induced tetraploidy promotes tumorigenesis

    Faseb J.

    (2009)
  • This Special Issue is edited by P. A. Jeggo.

    ☆☆

    This article is part of the special issue Cutting Edge Perspectives in Genome Maintenance VIII.

    View full text