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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

A viable allele of Mcm4 causes chromosome instability and mammary adenocarcinomas in mice

Nature Genetics volume 39, pages 93–98 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Mcm4 (minichromosome maintenance–deficient 4 homolog) encodes a subunit of the MCM2-7 complex (also known as MCM2–MCM7), the replication licensing factor and presumptive replicative helicase. Here, we report that the mouse chromosome instability mutation Chaos3 (chromosome aberrations occurring spontaneously 3), isolated in a forward genetic screen, is a viable allele of Mcm4. Mcm4Chaos3 encodes a change in an evolutionarily invariant amino acid (F345I), producing an apparently destabilized MCM4. Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains that we engineered to contain a corresponding allele (resulting in an F391I change) showed a classical minichromosome loss phenotype. Whereas homozygosity for a disrupted Mcm4 allele (Mcm4−) caused preimplantation lethality, McmChaos3/− embryos died late in gestation, indicating that Mcm4Chaos3 is hypomorphic. Mutant embryonic fibroblasts were highly susceptible to chromosome breaks induced by the DNA replication inhibitor aphidicolin. Most notably, >80% of Mcm4Chaos3/Chaos3 females succumbed to mammary adenocarcinomas with a mean latency of 12 months. These findings suggest that hypomorphic alleles of the genes encoding the subunits of the MCM2-7 complex may increase breast cancer risk.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

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

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Figure 1: Elevated levels of micronuclei in Chaos3 mutant mice and positional cloning of an Mcm4 mutant allele.
Figure 2: Genetic and functional analyses of Chaos3 and Mcm4− mutations in budding yeast, mice and MEFs.
Figure 3: The Mcm4Chaos3 allele causes sensitivity to replication stress and reduced amounts of MCM.
Figure 4: Development of mammary tumors in Mcm4Chaos3 homozygous females.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shima, N. et al. Phenotype-based identification of mouse chromosome instability mutants. Genetics 163, 1031–1040 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fletcher, R.J. et al. The structure and function of MCM from archaeal M. thermoautotrophicum. Nat. Struct. Biol. 10, 160–167 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Keays, D.A., Clark, T.G. & Flint, J. Estimating the number of coding mutations in genotypic- and phenotypic-driven N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU) screens. Mamm. Genome 17, 230–238 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Maine, G.T., Sinha, P. & Tye, B.K. Mutants of S. cerevisiae defective in the maintenance of minichromosomes. Genetics 106, 365–385 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tye, B.K. Minichromosome maintenance as a genetic assay for defects in DNA replication. Methods 18, 329–334 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tye, B.K. MCM proteins in DNA replication. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 68, 649–686 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Forsburg, S.L. Eukaryotic MCM proteins: beyond replication initiation. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 68, 109–131 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lei, M. The MCM complex: its role in DNA replication and implications for cancer therapy. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 5, 365–380 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moyer, S.E., Lewis, P.W. & Botchan, M.R. Isolation of the Cdc45/Mcm2–7/GINS (CMG) complex, a candidate for the eukaryotic DNA replication fork helicase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10236–10241 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Labib, K., Tercero, J.A. & Diffley, J.F. Uninterrupted MCM2–7 function required for DNA replication fork progression. Science 288, 1643–1647 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rothstein, R. Targeting, disruption, replacement, and allele rescue: integrative DNA transformation in yeast. Methods Enzymol. 194, 281–301 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Glover, T.W., Arlt, M.F., Casper, A.M. & Durkin, S.G. Mechanisms of common fragile site instability. Hum. Mol. Genet. 14, R197–R205 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lei, M., Kawasaki, Y. & Tye, B.K. Physical interactions among Mcm proteins and effects of Mcm dosage on DNA replication in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 5081–5090 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Liang, D.T., Hodson, J.A. & Forsburg, S.L. Reduced dosage of a single fission yeast MCM protein causes genetic instability and S phase delay. J. Cell Sci. 112, 559–567 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Woodward, A.M. et al. Excess Mcm2–7 license dormant origins of replication that can be used under conditions of replicative stress. J. Cell Biol. 173, 673–683 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gonzalez, M.A., Tachibana, K.E., Laskey, R.A. & Coleman, N. Control of DNA replication and its potential clinical exploitation. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 135–141 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cortez, D., Glick, G. & Elledge, S.J. Minichromosome maintenance proteins are direct targets of the ATM and ATR checkpoint kinases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 10078–10083 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Snyder, M., He, W. & Zhang, J.J. The DNA replication factor MCM5 is essential for Stat1-mediated transcriptional activation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 14539–14544 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stoeber, K. et al. DNA replication licensing and human cell proliferation. J. Cell Sci. 114, 2027–2041 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shetty, A. et al. DNA replication licensing and cell cycle kinetics of normal and neoplastic breast. Br. J. Cancer 93, 1295–1300 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gorgoulis, V.G. et al. Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint and genomic instability in human precancerous lesions. Nature 434, 907–913 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Malumbres, M. & Barbacid, M. To cycle or not to cycle: a critical decision in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 1, 222–231 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sidorova, J.M. & Breeden, L.L. Precocious G1/S transitions and genomic instability: the origin connection. Mutat. Res. 532, 5–19 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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  Google Scholar 

  26. Lengronne, A. & Schwob, E. The yeast CDK inhibitor Sic1 prevents genomic instability by promoting replication origin licensing in late G(1). Mol. Cell 9, 1067–1078 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Reinholdt, L., Ashley, T., Schimenti, J. & Shima, N. Forward genetic screens for meiotic and mitotic recombination-defective mutants in mice. Methods Mol. Biol. 262, 87–107 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dertinger, S.D., Torous, D.K. & Tometsko, K.R. Simple and reliable enumeration of micronucleated reticulocytes with a single-laser flow cytometer. Mutat. Res. 371, 283–292 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Darzynkiewicz, Z. & Juan, G. Analysis of DNA Content of BrdU Incorporation (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Cardiff, R.D. et al. The mammary pathology of genetically engineered mice: the consensus report and recommendations from the Annapolis meeting. Oncogene 19, 968–988 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B.S. Collins for assistance with mouse necropsy, K. Schimenti for help with flow cytometric analysis and I. Mikaelian for initial pathological analysis. This work was supported by grant R01 GM45415 from the US National Institutes of Health to J.C.S. N.S. was a recipient of Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research fellowship DAMD 17-01-1-0277.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 55455, Minnesota, USA

    Naoko Shima, Tavanna R Buske & Catherine A Andrews

  2. Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, 14853, New York, USA

    Naoko Shima, Ana Alcaraz, Robert J Munroe, Suzanne A Hartford & John C Schimenti

  3. The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, 04609, Maine, USA

    Naoko Shima, Robert J Munroe, Suzanne A Hartford & John C Schimenti

  4. Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, 14853, New York, USA

    Ivan Liachko & Bik K Tye

Authors
  1. Naoko Shima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Alcaraz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ivan Liachko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tavanna R Buske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine A Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert J Munroe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Suzanne A Hartford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bik K Tye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. John C Schimenti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The technical design, gene identification and model characterization were conducted primarily by N.S.; A.A. performed pathology analysis; I.L. conducted the yeast analyses using a construct made by S.A.H., and both were overseen by B.K.T.; T.R.B. and C.A. conducted protein and cell cycle analyses; R.M. performed embryonic stem cell culture and microinjections and J.S. oversaw the mutant screening project and was mentor to The Jackson Laboratory/Cornell team. The paper was co-written by N.S. and J.C.S.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Naoko Shima or John C Schimenti.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1

Structure of the Mcm4 gene-trap allele. (PDF 94 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 2

Extended survival of Mcm4Chaos3/Mcm4− embryos in mixed backgrounds. (PDF 547 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Genes in the Chaos3 critical region. (PDF 83 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

Spontaneous tumors in Mcm4Chaos3 homozygous mice. (PDF 53 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

Primers used for positional cloning and genotyping. (PDF 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shima, N., Alcaraz, A., Liachko, I. et al. A viable allele of Mcm4 causes chromosome instability and mammary adenocarcinomas in mice. Nat Genet 39, 93–98 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1936

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1936

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing