Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Replication stress and cancer

Nature Reviews Cancer volume 15, pages 276–289 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Key Points

  • Replication is a highly regulated process that guarantees the faithful duplication of the genome once per cell cycle, and any condition that compromises it is referred to as replication stress.

  • Replication stress is a major cause of genome instability and is linked to pre-tumour and tumour cells. Several oncogenes cause alterations of replication timing and progression, leading to replication stress.

  • The DNA-damage checkpoint responds to replication stress to guarantee genome stability by protecting stalled forks and promoting replication completion through the activation of dormant replication origins.

  • DNA repair pathways such as homologous recombination restore replication upon DNA breaks that occur at stalled forks.

  • Failures in the cellular response to replication stress, such as those caused by dysfunctions of the DNA-damage checkpoint, replication fork restart or DNA repair, are tumorigenic, as seen in mouse models and human syndromes.

  • Replication stress is not a common feature of normal cells; therefore, it opens up new possibilities for cancer diagnostics and treatment.

Abstract

Genome instability is a hallmark of cancer, and DNA replication is the most vulnerable cellular process that can lead to it. Any condition leading to high levels of DNA damage will result in replication stress, which is a source of genome instability and a feature of pre-cancerous and cancerous cells. Therefore, understanding the molecular basis of replication stress is crucial to the understanding of tumorigenesis. Although a negative aspect of replication stress is its prominent role in tumorigenesis, a positive aspect is that it provides a potential target for cancer therapy. In this Review, we discuss the link between persistent replication stress and tumorigenesis, with the goal of shedding light on the mechanisms underlying the initiation of an oncogenic process, which should open up new possibilities for cancer diagnostics and treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Oncogene-induced replication stress.
Figure 2: Replication impairment activates the checkpoint.
Figure 3: Impaired replication fork progression.
Figure 4: Genomic instability resulting from replication stress.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collins, A. R. Oxidative DNA damage, antioxidants, and cancer. Bioessays 21, 238–246 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beroukhim, R. et al. The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers. Nature 463, 899–905 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hills, S. A. & Diffley, J. F. DNA replication and oncogene-induced replicative stress. Curr. Biol. 24, R435–R444 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartkova, J. et al. DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature 434, 864–870 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gorgoulis, V. G. et al. Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint and genomic instability in human precancerous lesions. Nature 434, 907–913 (2005). References 4 and 5 provide compelling evidence for the connection between DNA replication stress and carcinogenesis from its early stages, to DNA damage and intra-S checkpoint activation. These results support the idea that DNA checkpoints act as a barrier to tumorigenesis and that their constitutive activation exerts a selective pressure on p53 mutations.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bartkova, J. et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 444, 633–637 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Di Micco, R. et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is a DNA damage response triggered by DNA hyper-replication. Nature 444, 638–642 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kandoth, C. et al. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature 502, 333–339 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Durkin, S. G. et al. Replication stress induces tumor-like microdeletions in FHIT/FRA3B. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 246–251 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bilousova, G., Marusyk, A., Porter, C. C., Cardiff, R. D. & DeGregori, J. Impaired DNA replication within progenitor cell pools promotes leukemogenesis. PLoS Biol. 3, e401 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Aguilera, A. & Garcia-Muse, T. Causes of genome instability. Annu. Rev. Genet. 47, 1–32 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boos, D., Frigola, J. & Diffley, J. F. Activation of the replicative DNA helicase: breaking up is hard to do. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 24, 423–430 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blow, J. J., Ge, X. Q. & Jackson, D. A. How dormant origins promote complete genome replication. Trends Biochem. Sci. 36, 405–414 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Shechter, D., Costanzo, V. & Gautier, J. ATR and ATM regulate the timing of DNA replication origin firing. Nature Cell Biol. 6, 648–655 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zou, L. & Elledge, S. J. Sensing DNA damage through ATRIP recognition of RPA-ssDNA complexes. Science 300, 1542–1548 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jazayeri, A. et al. ATM- and cell cycle-dependent regulation of ATR in response to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature Cell Biol. 8, 37–45 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Toledo, L. I. et al. ATR prohibits replication catastrophe by preventing global exhaustion of RPA. Cell 155, 1088–1103 (2013). This study demonstrates that ATR-mediated origin inactivation in response to replicative checkpoint activation prevents nucleus-wide DNA breakage and thus the exhaustion of the nuclear pool of RPA. Importantly, RPA availability seems to considerably influence the magnitude of fork breakage.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O'Driscoll, M., Ruiz-Perez, V. L., Woods, C. G., Jeggo, P. A. & Goodship, J. A. A splicing mutation affecting expression of ataxia-telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) results in Seckel syndrome. Nature Genet. 33, 497–501 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Murga, M. et al. Exploiting oncogene-induced replicative stress for the selective killing of Myc-driven tumors. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 1331–1335 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gilad, O. et al. Combining ATR suppression with oncogenic Ras synergistically increases genomic instability, causing synthetic lethality or tumorigenesis in a dosage-dependent manner. Cancer Res. 70, 9693–9702 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Koniaras, K., Cuddihy, A. R., Christopoulos, H., Hogg, A. & O'Connell, M. J. Inhibition of Chk1-dependent G2 DNA damage checkpoint radiosensitizes p53 mutant human cells. Oncogene 20, 7453–7463 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Abdel-Fatah, T. M. et al. Untangling the ATR-CHEK1 network for prognostication, prediction and therapeutic target validation in breast cancer. Mol. Oncol. 9, 569–585 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lopez-Contreras, A. J., Gutierrez-Martinez, P., Specks, J., Rodrigo-Perez, S. & Fernandez-Capetillo, O. An extra allele of Chk1 limits oncogene-induced replicative stress and promotes transformation. J. Exp. Med. 209, 455–461 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown, E. J. & Baltimore, D. ATR disruption leads to chromosomal fragmentation and early embryonic lethality. Genes Dev. 14, 397–402 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu, Q. et al. Chk1 is an essential kinase that is regulated by Atr and required for the G(2)/M DNA damage checkpoint. Genes Dev. 14, 1448–1459 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tho, L. M., Libertini, S., Rampling, R., Sansom, O. & Gillespie, D. A. Chk1 is essential for chemical carcinogen-induced mouse skin tumorigenesis. Oncogene 31, 1366–1375 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vassileva, V., Millar, A., Briollais, L., Chapman, W. & Bapat, B. Genes involved in DNA repair are mutational targets in endometrial cancers with microsatellite instability. Cancer Res. 62, 4095–4099 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Menoyo, A. et al. Somatic mutations in the DNA damage-response genes ATR and CHK1 in sporadic stomach tumors with microsatellite instability. Cancer Res. 61, 7727–7730 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ibarra, A., Schwob, E. & Mendez, J. Excess MCM proteins protect human cells from replicative stress by licensing backup origins of replication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 8956–8961 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ge, X. Q., Jackson, D. A. & Blow, J. J. Dormant origins licensed by excess Mcm2-7 are required for human cells to survive replicative stress. Genes Dev. 21, 3331–3341 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kawabata, T. et al. Stalled fork rescue via dormant replication origins in unchallenged S phase promotes proper chromosome segregation and tumor suppression. Mol. Cell 41, 543–553 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Shima, N. et al. A viable allele of Mcm4 causes chromosome instability and mammary adenocarcinomas in mice. Nature Genet. 39, 93–98 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Letessier, A. et al. Cell-type-specific replication initiation programs set fragility of the FRA3B fragile site. Nature 470, 120–123 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ozeri-Galai, E. et al. Failure of origin activation in response to fork stalling leads to chromosomal instability at fragile sites. Mol. Cell 43, 122–131 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ekholm-Reed, S. et al. Deregulation of cyclin E in human cells interferes with prereplication complex assembly. J. Cell Biol. 165, 789–800 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Li, A. & Blow, J. J. Cdt1 downregulation by proteolysis and geminin inhibition prevents DNA re-replication in Xenopus. EMBO J. 24, 395–404 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Davidson, I. F., Li, A. & Blow, J. J. Deregulated replication licensing causes DNA fragmentation consistent with head-to-tail fork collision. Mol. Cell 24, 433–443 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Vaziri, C. et al. A p53-dependent checkpoint pathway prevents rereplication. Mol. Cell 11, 997–1008 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Melixetian, M. et al. Loss of Geminin induces rereplication in the presence of functional p53. J. Cell Biol. 165, 473–482 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Liontos, M. et al. Deregulated overexpression of hCdt1 and hCdc6 promotes malignant behavior. Cancer Res. 67, 10899–10909 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Aggarwal, P. et al. Nuclear accumulation of cyclin D1 during S phase inhibits Cul4-dependent Cdt1 proteolysis and triggers p53-dependent DNA rereplication. Genes Dev. 21, 2908–2922 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Tardat, M. et al. The histone H4 Lys 20 methyltransferase PR-Set7 regulates replication origins in mammalian cells. Nature Cell Biol. 12, 1086–1093 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Black, J. C. et al. KDM4A lysine demethylase induces site-specific copy gain and rereplication of regions amplified in tumors. Cell 154, 541–555 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dominguez-Sola, D. & Gautier, J. MYC and the control of DNA replication. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 4, a014423 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Dominguez-Sola, D. et al. Non-transcriptional control of DNA replication by c-Myc. Nature 448, 445–451 (2007). This work demonstrates that MYC physically interacts with replication factors and participates in the control of DNA replication timing. Importantly, these new functions are totally independent of transcription.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Srinivasan, S. V., Dominguez-Sola, D., Wang, L. C., Hyrien, O. & Gautier, J. Cdc45 is a critical effector of myc-dependent DNA replication stress. Cell Rep. 3, 1629–1639 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Frum, R. A. et al. The human oncoprotein MDM2 induces replication stress eliciting early intra-S-phase checkpoint response and inhibition of DNA replication origin firing. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 926–940 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Neelsen, K. J. et al. Deregulated origin licensing leads to chromosomal breaks by rereplication of a gapped DNA template. Genes Dev. 27, 2537–2542 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Bester, A. C. et al. Nucleotide deficiency promotes genomic instability in early stages of cancer development. Cell 145, 435–446 (2011). This work shows that supplying nucleosides is sufficient to rescue the replication stress and DNA damage induced by oncogene activation and considerably decreases tumorigenesis.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Xie, M. et al. Bcl2 induces DNA replication stress by inhibiting ribonucleotide reductase. Cancer Res. 74, 212–223 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bartek, J., Lukas, C. & Lukas, J. Checking on DNA damage in S phase. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 792–804 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Moldovan, G. L. & D'Andrea, A. D. How the fanconi anemia pathway guards the genome. Annu. Rev. Genet. 43, 223–249 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Gaillard, H., Herrera-Moyano, E. & Aguilera, A. Transcription-associated genome instability. Chem. Rev. 113, 8638–8661 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gottipati, P., Cassel, T. N., Savolainen, L. & Helleday, T. Transcription-associated recombination is dependent on replication in mammalian cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 154–164 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jones, R. M. et al. Increased replication initiation and conflicts with transcription underlie Cyclin E-induced replication stress. Oncogene 32, 3744–3753 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Neelsen, K. J., Zanini, I. M., Herrador, R. & Lopes, M. Oncogenes induce genotoxic stress by mitotic processing of unusual replication intermediates. J. Cell Biol. 200, 699–708 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Tuduri, S. et al. Topoisomerase I suppresses genomic instability by preventing interference between replication and transcription. Nature Cell Biol. 11, 1315–1324 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Dominguez-Sanchez, M. S., Barroso, S., Gomez-Gonzalez, B., Luna, R. & Aguilera, A. Genome instability and transcription elongation impairment in human cells depleted of THO/TREX. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002386 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Paulsen, R. D. et al. A genome-wide siRNA screen reveals diverse cellular processes and pathways that mediate genome stability. Mol. Cell 35, 228–239 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Helmrich, A., Ballarino, M. & Tora, L. Collisions between replication and transcription complexes cause common fragile site instability at the longest human genes. Mol. Cell 44, 966–977 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Herrera-Moyano, E., Mergui, X., Garcia-Rubio, M. L., Barroso, S. & Aguilera, A. The yeast and human FACT chromatin-reorganizing complexes solve R-loop-mediated transcription-replication conflicts. Genes Dev. 28, 735–748 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Bhatia, V. et al. BRCA2 prevents R-loop accumulation and associates with TREX-2 mRNA export factor PCID2. Nature 511, 362–365 (2014). This work shows that BRCA2-depleted or BRCA2-deficient cancer cells accumulate R-loops and DNA damage, and that genome instability generated in such cells is partially dependent on R-loops. This work provides a novel role for BRCA2 in preventing or helping to remove R-loops and proposes that these R-loops are a major source of replication stress in cancer cells.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Nie, Z. et al. c-Myc is a universal amplifier of expressed genes in lymphocytes and embryonic stem cells. Cell 151, 68–79 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Lin, C. Y. et al. Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc. Cell 151, 56–67 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Sabo, A. et al. Selective transcriptional regulation by Myc in cellular growth control and lymphomagenesis. Nature 511, 488–492 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Brosh, R. M. Jr. DNA helicases involved in DNA repair and their roles in cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 13, 542–558 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Thangavel, S. et al. Human RECQ1 and RECQ4 helicases play distinct roles in DNA replication initiation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 30, 1382–1396 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Popuri, V., Croteau, D. L., Brosh, R. M. Jr & Bohr, V. A. RECQ1 is required for cellular resistance to replication stress and catalyzes strand exchange on stalled replication fork structures. Cell Cycle 11, 4252–4265 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Saponaro, M. et al. RECQL5 controls transcript elongation and suppresses genome instability associated with transcription stress. Cell 157, 1037–1049 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Pichierri, P., Franchitto, A., Mosesso, P. & Palitti, F. Werner's syndrome protein is required for correct recovery after replication arrest and DNA damage induced in S-phase of cell cycle. Mol. Biol. Cell 12, 2412–2421 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Davies, S. L., North, P. S. & Hickson, I. D. Role for BLM in replication-fork restart and suppression of origin firing after replicative stress. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 677–679 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Machwe, A., Karale, R., Xu, X., Liu, Y. & Orren, D. K. The Werner and Bloom syndrome proteins help resolve replication blockage by converting (regressed) holliday junctions to functional replication forks. Biochemistry 50, 6774–6788 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Schwartz, E. K. & Heyer, W. D. Processing of joint molecule intermediates by structure-selective endonucleases during homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Chromosoma 120, 109–127 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Hanada, K. et al. The structure-specific endonuclease Mus81 contributes to replication restart by generating double-strand DNA breaks. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 1096–1104 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Fugger, K. et al. FBH1 co-operates with MUS81 in inducing DNA double-strand breaks and cell death following replication stress. Nature Commun. 4, 1–8 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Jeong, Y. T. et al. FBH1 promotes DNA double-strand breakage and apoptosis in response to DNA replication stress. J. Cell Biol. 200, 141–149 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Murfuni, I. et al. The WRN and MUS81 proteins limit cell death and genome instability following oncogene activation. Oncogene 32, 610–620 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Luebben, S. W., Kawabata, T., Johnson, C. S., O'Sullivan, M. G. & Shima, N. A concomitant loss of dormant origins and FANCC exacerbates genome instability by impairing DNA replication fork progression. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 5605–5615 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Ciccia, A., McDonald, N. & West, S. C. Structural and functional relationships of the XPF/MUS81 family of proteins. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 77, 259–287 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Garcia-Higuera, I. et al. Interaction of the Fanconi anemia proteins and BRCA1 in a common pathway. Mol. Cell 7, 249–262 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Wang, X., Andreassen, P. R. & D'Andrea, A. D. Functional interaction of monoubiquitinated FANCD2 and BRCA2/FANCD1 in chromatin. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 5850–5862 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Murina, O. et al. FANCD2 and CtIP cooperate to repair DNA interstrand crosslinks. Cell Rep. 7, 1030–1038 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Adamo, A. et al. Preventing nonhomologous end joining suppresses DNA repair defects of Fanconi anemia. Mol. Cell 39, 25–35 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Pathania, S. et al. BRCA1 is required for postreplication repair after UV-induced DNA damage. Mol. Cell 44, 235–251 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Lomonosov, M., Anand, S., Sangrithi, M., Davies, R. & Venkitaraman, A. R. Stabilization of stalled DNA replication forks by the BRCA2 breast cancer susceptibility protein. Genes Dev. 17, 3017–3022 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Petermann, E., Orta, M. L., Issaeva, N., Schultz, N. & Helleday, T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol. Cell 37, 492–502 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Willis, N. A. et al. BRCA1 controls homologous recombination at Tus/Ter-stalled mammalian replication forks. Nature 510, 556–559 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Schlacher, K. et al. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell 145, 529–542 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Schlacher, K., Wu, H. & Jasin, M. A distinct replication fork protection pathway connects Fanconi anemia tumor suppressors to RAD51-BRCA1/2. Cancer Cell 22, 106–116 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Lossaint, G. et al. FANCD2 binds MCM proteins and controls replisome function upon activation of S phase checkpoint signaling. Mol. Cell 51, 678–690 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Hakem, R. et al. The tumor suppressor gene Brca1 is required for embryonic cellular proliferation in the mouse. Cell 85, 1009–1023 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Patel, K. J. et al. Involvement of Brca2 in DNA repair. Mol. Cell 1, 347–357 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Xu, X. et al. Genetic interactions between tumor suppressors Brca1 and p53 in apoptosis, cell cycle and tumorigenesis. Nature Genet. 28, 266–271 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Jonkers, J. et al. Synergistic tumor suppressor activity of BRCA2 and p53 in a conditional mouse model for breast cancer. Nature Genet. 29, 418–425 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Houghtaling, S. et al. Heterozygosity for p53 (Trp53+/−) accelerates epithelial tumor formation in fanconi anemia complementation group D2 (Fancd2) knockout mice. Cancer Res. 65, 85–91 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hill, S. J. et al. Systematic screening reveals a role for BRCA1 in the response to transcription-associated DNA damage. Genes Dev. 28, 1957–1975 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Hatchi, E. et al. BRCA1 recruitment to transcriptional pause sites is required for R-loop-driven DNA damage repair. Mol. Cell 57, 636–647 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Klein, H. L. The consequences of Rad51 overexpression for normal and tumor cells. DNA Repair (Amst.) 7, 686–693 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Lange, S. S., Takata, K. & Wood, R. D. DNA polymerases and cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 11, 96–110 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Pan, Q., Fang, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, K. & Hu, X. Down-regulation of DNA polymerases κ, η, ι, and ζ in human lung, stomach, and colorectal cancers. Cancer Lett. 217, 139–147 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Buisson, R. et al. Breast cancer proteins PALB2 and BRCA2 stimulate polymerase η in recombination-associated DNA synthesis at blocked replication forks. Cell Rep. 6, 553–564 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. McCulloch, S. D. et al. Preferential cis-syn thymine dimer bypass by DNA polymerase η occurs with biased fidelity. Nature 428, 97–100 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Rey, L. et al. Human DNA polymerase η is required for common fragile site stability during unperturbed DNA replication. Mol. Cell. Biol. 29, 3344–3354 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Lange, S. S., Wittschieben, J. P. & Wood, R. D. DNA polymerase ζ is required for proliferation of normal mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 4473–4482 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Mailand, N., Gibbs-Seymour, I. & Bekker-Jensen, S. Regulation of PCNA-protein interactions for genome stability. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 269–282 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Lin, J. R., Zeman, M. K., Chen, J. Y., Yee, M. C. & Cimprich, K. A. SHPRH and HLTF act in a damage-specific manner to coordinate different forms of postreplication repair and prevent mutagenesis. Mol. Cell 42, 237–249 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Motegi, A. et al. Polyubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen by HLTF and SHPRH prevents genomic instability from stalled replication forks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 12411–12416 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Moinova, H. R. et al. HLTF gene silencing in human colon cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4562–4567 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Millikin, D., Meese, E., Vogelstein, B., Witkowski, C. & Trent, J. Loss of heterozygosity for loci on the long arm of chromosome 6 in human malignant melanoma. Cancer Res. 51, 5449–5453 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Bouwman, P. et al. 53BP1 loss rescues BRCA1 deficiency and is associated with triple-negative and BRCA-mutated breast cancers. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 688–695 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Bunting, S. F. et al. 53BP1 inhibits homologous recombination in Brca1-deficient cells by blocking resection of DNA breaks. Cell 141, 243–254 (2010). Together, references 110 and 111 demonstrate that loss of the NHEJ factor 53BP1 restores error-free repair by HR in BRCA1-deficient cells. These results indicate that 53BP1 and BRCA1 have crucial roles in the regulation of the choice between the NHEJ and HR repair pathways.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Thorslund, T. et al. The breast cancer tumor suppressor BRCA2 promotes the specific targeting of RAD51 to single-stranded DNA. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 1263–1265 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Saeki, H. et al. Suppression of the DNA repair defects of BRCA2-deficient cells with heterologous protein fusions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8768–8773 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Bunting, S. F. & Nussenzweig, A. End-joining, translocations and cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 13, 443–454 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Tischkowitz, M. et al. Analysis of PALB2/FANCN-associated breast cancer families. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6788–6793 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Antoniou, A. C. et al. Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 497–506 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Bolderson, E. et al. Human single-stranded DNA binding protein 1 (hSSB1/NABP2) is required for the stability and repair of stalled replication forks. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 6326–6336 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Shi, W. et al. Essential developmental, genomic stability, and tumour suppressor functions of the mouse orthologue of hSSB1/NABP2. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003298 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Wang, Y. et al. Mutation in Rpa1 results in defective DNA double-strand break repair, chromosomal instability and cancer in mice. Nature Genet. 37, 750–755 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Wechsler, T., Newman, S. & West, S. C. Aberrant chromosome morphology in human cells defective for Holliday junction resolution. Nature 471, 642–646 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Gisselsson, D. et al. Chromosomal breakage-fusion-bridge events cause genetic intratumor heterogeneity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5357–5362 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Janssen, A., van der Burg, M., Szuhai, K., Kops, G. J. & Medema, R. H. Chromosome segregation errors as a cause of DNA damage and structural chromosome aberrations. Science 333, 1895–1898 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Wilhelm, T. et al. Spontaneous slow replication fork progression elicits mitosis alterations in homologous recombination-deficient mammalian cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 763–768 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Thompson, S. L. & Compton, D. A. Chromosome missegregation in human cells arises through specific types of kinetochore-microtubule attachment errors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17974–17978 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Crasta, K. et al. DNA breaks and chromosome pulverization from errors in mitosis. Nature 482, 53–58 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Stephens, P. J. et al. Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell 144, 27–40 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Dick, F. A. & Rubin, S. M. Molecular mechanisms underlying RB protein function. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 297–306 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Manning, A. L. et al. Suppression of genome instability in pRB-deficient cells by enhancement of chromosome cohesion. Mol. Cell 53, 993–1004 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Chan, K. L., North, P. S. & Hickson, I. D. BLM is required for faithful chromosome segregation and its localization defines a class of ultrafine anaphase bridges. EMBO J. 26, 3397–3409 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Chan, K. L., Palmai-Pallag, T., Ying, S. & Hickson, I. D. Replication stress induces sister-chromatid bridging at fragile site loci in mitosis. Nature Cell Biol. 11, 753–760 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Naim, V. & Rosselli, F. The FANC pathway and BLM collaborate during mitosis to prevent micro-nucleation and chromosome abnormalities. Nature Cell Biol. 11, 761–768 (2009). References 130 and 131 provide evidence supporting the idea that unresolved replication or recombination intermediates resulting from replication stress remain interlinked through ultra-fine DNA bridges as cells go through mitosis. These studies show that the FA and Bloom pathways collaborate to avoid or resolve such situations and to promote accurate chromosome segregation.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Ying, S. et al. MUS81 promotes common fragile site expression. Nature Cell Biol. 15, 1001–1007 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Naim, V., Wilhelm, T., Debatisse, M. & Rosselli, F. ERCC1 and MUS81-EME1 promote sister chromatid separation by processing late replication intermediates at common fragile sites during mitosis. Nature Cell Biol. 15, 1008–1015 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Burrell, R. A. et al. Replication stress links structural and numerical cancer chromosomal instability. Nature 494, 492–496 (2013). In this study, analysis of colorectal cancer cells with cancer chromosomal instability revealed that they undergo replication stress and that this replication stress contributes to both structural abnormalities and chromosome missegregation.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Gad, H. et al. MTH1 inhibition eradicates cancer by preventing sanitation of the dNTP pool. Nature 508, 215–221 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Huber, K. V. et al. Stereospecific targeting of MTH1 by (S)-crizotinib as an anticancer strategy. Nature 508, 222–227 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Steckel, M. et al. Determination of synthetic lethal interactions in KRAS oncogene-dependent cancer cells reveals novel therapeutic targeting strategies. Cell Res. 22, 1227–1245 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Zimmerman, K. M., Jones, R. M., Petermann, E. & Jeggo, P. A. Diminished origin-licensing capacity specifically sensitizes tumor cells to replication stress. Mol. Cancer Res. 11, 370–380 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Zhu, W. & Depamphilis, M. L. Selective killing of cancer cells by suppression of geminin activity. Cancer Res. 69, 4870–4877 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Lin, J. J., Milhollen, M. A., Smith, P. G., Narayanan, U. & Dutta, A. NEDD8-targeting drug MLN4924 elicits DNA rereplication by stabilizing Cdt1 in S phase, triggering checkpoint activation, apoptosis, and senescence in cancer cells. Cancer Res. 70, 10310–10320 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Jackson, S. P. & Bartek, J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461, 1071–1078 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Wang, Q. et al. UCN-01: a potent abrogator of G2 checkpoint function in cancer cells with disrupted p53. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 88, 956–965 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Fishler, T. et al. Genetic instability and mammary tumor formation in mice carrying mammary-specific disruption of Chk1 and p53. Oncogene 29, 4007–4017 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Kawasumi, M. et al. Protection from UV-induced skin carcinogenesis by genetic inhibition of the ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) kinase. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13716–13721 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  145. Reaper, P. M. et al. Selective killing of ATM- or p53-deficient cancer cells through inhibition of ATR. Nature Chem. Biol. 7, 428–430 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Toledo, L. I. et al. A cell-based screen identifies ATR inhibitors with synthetic lethal properties for cancer-associated mutations. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 721–727 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Charrier, J. D. et al. Discovery of potent and selective inhibitors of ataxia telangiectasia mutated and Rad3 related (ATR) protein kinase as potential anticancer agents. J. Med. Chem. 54, 2320–2330 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Bryant, H. E. et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 434, 913–917 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Farmer, H. et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434, 917–921 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Michels, J., Vitale, I., Saparbaev, M., Castedo, M. & Kroemer, G. Predictive biomarkers for cancer therapy with PARP inhibitors. Oncogene 33, 3894–3907 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Nicolay, N. H., Helleday, T. & Sharma, R. A. Biological relevance of DNA polymerase β and translesion synthesis polymerases to cancer and its treatment. Curr. Mol. Pharmacol. 5, 54–67 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Zucca, E. et al. Silencing of human DNA polymerase λ causes replication stress and is synthetically lethal with an impaired S phase checkpoint. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 229–241 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Costantino, L. et al. Break-induced replication repair of damaged forks induces genomic duplications in human cells. Science 343, 88–91 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Masai, H., Matsumoto, S., You, Z., Yoshizawa-Sugata, N. & Oda, M. Eukaryotic chromosome DNA replication: where, when, and how? Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79, 89–130 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Durkin, S. G. & Glover, T. W. Chromosome fragile sites. Annu. Rev. Genet. 41, 169–192 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Debatisse, M., Le Tallec, B., Letessier, A., Dutrillaux, B. & Brison, O. Common fragile sites: mechanisms of instability revisited. Trends Genet. 28, 22–32 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Lahiri, M., Gustafson, T. L., Majors, E. R. & Freudenreich, C. H. Expanded CAG repeats activate the DNA damage checkpoint pathway. Mol. Cell 15, 287–293 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Casper, A. M., Nghiem, P., Arlt, M. F. & Glover, T. W. ATR regulates fragile site stability. Cell 111, 779–789 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Yunis, J. J. & Soreng, A. L. Constitutive fragile sites and cancer. Science 226, 1199–1204 (1984).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Burrow, A. A., Williams, L. E., Pierce, L. C. & Wang, Y. H. Over half of breakpoints in gene pairs involved in cancer-specific recurrent translocations are mapped to human chromosomal fragile sites. BMC Genomics http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-59 (2009).

  161. Bignell, G. R. et al. Signatures of mutation and selection in the cancer genome. Nature 463, 893–898 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Tsantoulis, P. K. et al. Oncogene-induced replication stress preferentially targets common fragile sites in preneoplastic lesions. A genome-wide study. Oncogene 27, 3256–3264 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Gandhi, M., Dillon, L. W., Pramanik, S., Nikiforov, Y. E. & Wang, Y. H. DNA breaks at fragile sites generate oncogenic RET/PTC rearrangements in human thyroid cells. Oncogene 29, 2272–2280 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Hellman, A. et al. A role for common fragile site induction in amplification of human oncogenes. Cancer Cell 1, 89–97 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Blumrich, A. et al. The FRA2C common fragile site maps to the borders of MYCN amplicons in neuroblastoma and is associated with gross chromosomal rearrangements in different cancers. Hum. Mol. Genet. 20, 1488–1501 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Ohta, M. et al. The FHIT gene, spanning the chromosome 3p14.2 fragile site and renal carcinoma-associated t(3;8) breakpoint, is abnormal in digestive tract cancers. Cell 84, 587–597 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Corbin, S. et al. Identification of unstable sequences within the common fragile site at 3p14.2: implications for the mechanism of deletions within fragile histidine triad gene/common fragile site at 3p14.2 in tumors. Cancer Res. 62, 3477–3484 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Aqeilan, R. I. et al. Targeted deletion of Wwox reveals a tumor suppressor function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3949–3954 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. Gong, Y. et al. Pan-cancer genetic analysis identifies PARK2 as a master regulator of G1/S cyclins. Nature Genet. 46, 588–594 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Le Tallec, B. et al. Molecular profiling of common fragile sites in human fibroblasts. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 1421–1423 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. Le Tallec, B. et al. Common fragile site profiling in epithelial and erythroid cells reveals that most recurrent cancer deletions lie in fragile sites hosting large genes. Cell Rep. 4, 420–428 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Barlow, J. H. et al. Identification of early replicating fragile sites that contribute to genome instability. Cell 152, 620–632 (2013). This work identifies a novel type of fragile site in B lymphocytes. These sites replicate early, in contrast to common fragile sites, and colocalize with highly expressed gene clusters. Importantly, many recurrent amplifications and deletions found in human lymphomas map to these fragile genomic sites.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  173. Ogrunc, M. et al. Oncogene-induced reactive oxygen species fuel hyperproliferation and DNA damage response activation. Cell Death Differ. 21, 998–1012 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  174. Aguilera, A. & Gaillard, H. Transcription and recombination: when RNA meets DNA. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 6, a016543 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  175. Arentson, E. et al. Oncogenic potential of the DNA replication licensing protein CDT1. Oncogene 21, 1150–1158 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Seo, J. et al. Cdt1 transgenic mice develop lymphoblastic lymphoma in the absence of p53. Oncogene 24, 8176–8186 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Pruitt, S. C., Bailey, K. J. & Freeland, A. Reduced Mcm2 expression results in severe stem/progenitor cell deficiency and cancer. Stem Cells 25, 3121–3132 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Kucherlapati, M. et al. Haploinsufficiency of Flap endonuclease (Fen1) leads to rapid tumor progression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 9924–9929 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  179. Zheng, L. et al. Fen1 mutations result in autoimmunity, chronic inflammation and cancers. Nature Med. 13, 812–819 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Larsen, E. et al. Early-onset lymphoma and extensive embryonic apoptosis in two domain-specific Fen1 mice mutants. Cancer Res. 68, 4571–4579 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Xu, X. et al. Broad overexpression of ribonucleotide reductase genes in mice specifically induces lung neoplasms. Cancer Res. 68, 2652–2660 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Rahman, L. et al. Thymidylate synthase as an oncogene: a novel role for an essential DNA synthesis enzyme. Cancer Cell 5, 341–351 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Chen, M. et al. Transgenic expression of human thymidylate synthase accelerates the development of hyperplasia and tumors in the endocrine pancreas. Oncogene 26, 4817–4824 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Fang, Y. et al. ATR functions as a gene dosage-dependent tumor suppressor on a mismatch repair-deficient background. EMBO J. 23, 3164–3174 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Barlow, C. et al. Atm-deficient mice: a paradigm of ataxia telangiectasia. Cell 86, 159–171 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Xu, Y. et al. Targeted disruption of ATM leads to growth retardation, chromosomal fragmentation during meiosis, immune defects, and thymic lymphoma. Genes Dev. 10, 2411–2422 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Elson, A. et al. Pleiotropic defects in ataxia-telangiectasia protein-deficient mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 13084–13089 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  188. Niida, H. et al. Cooperative functions of Chk1 and Chk2 reduce tumour susceptibility in vivo. EMBO J. 29, 3558–3570 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Stracker, T. H., Couto, S. S., Cordon-Cardo, C., Matos, T. & Petrini, J. H. Chk2 suppresses the oncogenic potential of DNA replication-associated DNA damage. Mol. Cell 31, 21–32 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  190. Lin, Q. et al. Increased susceptibility to UV-induced skin carcinogenesis in polymerase η-deficient mice. Cancer Res. 66, 87–94 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Wittschieben, J. P. et al. Loss of DNA polymerase ζ enhances spontaneous tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 70, 2770–2778 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. Hu, Y. et al. RECQL5/Recql5 helicase regulates homologous recombination and suppresses tumor formation via disruption of Rad51 presynaptic filaments. Genes Dev. 21, 3073–3084 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. Mann, M. B. et al. Defective sister-chromatid cohesion, aneuploidy and cancer predisposition in a mouse model of type II Rothmund-Thomson syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 14, 813–825 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Luo, G. et al. Cancer predisposition caused by elevated mitotic recombination in Bloom mice. Nature Genet. 26, 424–429 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Pamidi, A. et al. Functional interplay of p53 and Mus81 in DNA damage responses and cancer. Cancer Res. 67, 8527–8535 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Hodskinson, M. R. et al. Mouse SLX4 is a tumor suppressor that stimulates the activity of the nuclease XPF-ERCC1 in DNA crosslink repair. Mol. Cell 54, 472–484 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  197. Xu, X. et al. Conditional mutation of Brca1 in mammary epithelial cells results in blunted ductal morphogenesis and tumour formation. Nature Genet. 22, 37–43 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Ludwig, T., Fisher, P., Ganesan, S. & Efstratiadis, A. Tumorigenesis in mice carrying a truncating Brca1 mutation. Genes Dev. 15, 1188–1193 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  199. Connor, F. et al. Tumorigenesis and a DNA repair defect in mice with a truncating Brca2 mutation. Nature Genet. 17, 423–430 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Houghtaling, S. et al. Epithelial cancer in Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 (Fancd2) knockout mice. Genes Dev. 17, 2021–2035 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank O. Fernandez-Capetillo and P. Huertas for their comments on the manuscript and D. Haun for style supervision. Research in A.A.'s laboratory is funded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, the Junta de Andalucía, the European Union (FEDER), Worldwide Cancer Research and PharmaMar. The authors apologize to those whose work could not be cited owing to space limitations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro Andaluz de Biología Molecular y Medicina Regenerativa CABIMER, Universidad de Sevilla, Av. Américo Vespucio s/n, Sevilla, 41092, Spain

    Hélène Gaillard, Tatiana García-Muse & Andrés Aguilera

Authors
  1. Hélène Gaillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatiana García-Muse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrés Aguilera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrés Aguilera.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

41568_2015_BFnrc3916_MOESM256_ESM.pdf

Supplementary information S1 (table) | A selection of genes involved in replication stress-mediated tumorigenesis in mouse models. (PDF 174 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Glossary

Senescence

A sustained growth arrest in which cells are refractory to mitogen stimulation and apoptosis.

Replication fork

DNA region at which unwinding of the double helix and synthesis of the complementary strands occur.

S phase checkpoints

The quality-control mechanisms that guarantee genome integrity during DNA replication.

Replisome

A protein complex involved in DNA replication that moves along the DNA as the nascent complementary strands are synthesized.

Seckel syndrome

A rare autosomal recessive disorder, due to mutations in the ATR gene, which is characterized by intrauterine growth retardation, dwarfism, microcephaly with severe mental retardation and a bird-headed facial appearance.

Hypomorphic mice

Transgenic mice carrying a mutation that causes a partial decrease in the activity of the affected gene.

Replication intermediates

DNA structures formed transiently during the process of replication.

DNA primase

Enzyme that catalyses the synthesis of a short RNA segment called a primer that is needed by DNA polymerases to start DNA synthesis.

Replication fork collisions

Physical encounters between an advancing replication fork and another on-going process, such as transcription, taking place on the same DNA molecule.

Non-B DNA structures

Secondary DNA structures that are different from right-handed double helical B DNA structures.

Reversed forks

DNA structures that are formed when the nascent leading strand hybridizes to the corresponding lagging strand at a replication fork.

Telangiectasias

Small dilated blood vessels in the outer layer of the skin.

Homologous recombination

(HR). Error-free double-strand break repair pathway that involves identical or homologous DNA sequences as templates.

Non-homologous end joining

(NHEJ). Error-prone double-strand break repair pathway that directly ligates DNA ends.

Loss of heterozygosity

(LOH). Loss of the wild-type allele of a diploid cell by deletion, gene conversion or chromosome loss.

Nondisjunction

Lack of chromosome segregation that gives rise to daughter cells with an abnormal number of chromosomes.

Anaphase bridges

String-like DNA fibres connecting two nuclei during chromosome segregation due to unresolved recombination or replication intermediates.

Breakage–fusion–bridge

Cycles of chromosome truncation and rescue by fusion of replicated sister chromatids resulting in chromosome rearrangements.

Cleavage furrow

Infolding of the cell membrane at the equatorial plane of the cell occurring during cytokinesis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gaillard, H., García-Muse, T. & Aguilera, A. Replication stress and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 15, 276–289 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3916

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3916

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer