핵소체 nucleolus의 유전체 안정성 --＞ 암발생의 중요축 2018 nature!!

[문형철]

1. nature  
2. oncogene  
3. review articles  
4. article

Nucleolus as an emerging hub in maintenance of genome stability and cancer pathogenesis

Download PDF

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2018

Nucleolus as an emerging hub in maintenance of genome stability and cancer pathogenesis

• Mikael S. Lindström, 
• Deana Jurada, 
• Sladana Bursac, 
• Ines Orsolic, 
• Jiri Bartek & 
• Sinisa Volarevic 

Oncogene volume 37, pages2351–2366 (2018)Cite this article

• 23k Accesses

• 4 Altmetric

• Metricsdetails

Abstract

The nucleolus is the major site for synthesis of ribosomes, complex molecular machines that are responsible for protein synthesis. A wealth of research over the past 20 years has clearly indicated that both quantitative and qualitative alterations in ribosome biogenesis can drive the malignant phenotype via dysregulation of protein synthesis. However, numerous recent proteomic, genomic, and functional studies have implicated the nucleolus in the regulation of processes that are unrelated to ribosome biogenesis, including DNA-damage response, maintenance of genome stability and its spatial organization, epigenetic regulation, cell-cycle control, stress responses, senescence, global gene expression‎, as well as assembly or maturation of various ribonucleoprotein particles. In this review, the focus will be on features of rDNA genes, which make them highly vulnerable to DNA damage and intra- and interchromosomal recombination as well as built-in mechanisms that prevent and repair rDNA damage, and how dysregulation of this interplay affects genome-wide DNA stability, gene expression‎ and the balance between euchromatin and heterochromatin. We will also present the most recent insights into how malfunction of these cellular processes may be a central driving force of human malignancies, and propose a promising new therapeutic approach for the treatment of cancer.

초록

핵소체는 

단백질 합성에 관여하는 복잡한 분자 기계인 

리보솜의 주요 합성 장소입니다. 

지난 20년간의 연구는 

리보솜 생합성의 양적 및 질적 변화가 단백질 합성의 조절 장애를 통해 

악성 형질을 유발할 수 있음을 명확히 보여주었습니다. 

그러나 

최근의 프로테오믹스, 게노믹스, 기능적 연구들은 

핵소체가 리보솜 생성과 무관한 과정의 조절에 관여한다는 사실을 밝혀냈습니다. 

이 과정에는 

DNA 손상 반응, 

게놈 안정성 유지 및 공간적 조직화, 에피게놈 조절,

세포 주기 조절, 

스트레스 반응, 

노화, 

전사체 발현, 

다양한 리보핵단백질 입자의 조립 또는 성숙 등이 포함됩니다. 

ribosome biogenesis, including

DNA-damage response,

maintenance of genome stability and its spatial organization,

epigenetic regulation,

cell-cycle control,

stress responses,

senescence,

global gene expression‎, as well as assembly or maturation of various ribonucleoprotein particles.

이 리뷰에서는 

rDNA 유전자의 특징, 

즉 DNA 손상 및 염색체 내외 재조합에 대한 높은 취약성과 

rDNA 손상을 방지하고 복구하는 내재적 메커니즘에 초점을 맞출 것입니다. 

rDNA는 리보솜 RNA를 만드는 유전자.

리보솜은 세포 안에서 단백질을 만드는 작은 공장 같은 역할을 하는데,

rDNA는 이 공장의 부품을 만드는 설계도.

rDNA는 핵소체라는 곳에 모여 있으며, 여기서 리보솜이 만들어짐.

또한 이러한 상호작용의 조절 장애가 

전장 유전체 DNA 안정성, 

유전자 발현 및 유크로마틴과 헤테로크로마틴의 균형에 미치는 영향을 탐구할 것입니다. 

또한 이러한 세포 과정의 기능 장애가 

인간 악성 종양의 주요 원동력일 수 있다는 최신 통찰을 제시하고, 

암 치료를 위한 유망한 새로운 치료 접근법을 제안할 것입니다.

Similar content being viewed by others

p53 at the crossroad of DNA replication and ribosome biogenesis stress pathways

Article Open access20 April 2022

The nucleolus as a multiphase liquid condensate

Article 01 September 2020

RNA-interference screen for p53 regulators unveils a role of WDR75 in ribosome biogenesis

Article 05 October 2021

Introduction

The nucleolus is the most prominent nuclear substructure involved in production of ribosomes, large and complex ribonucleoprotein machines responsible for translation of mRNAs into proteins (Fig. 1a) [1]. The human 80 S ribosome is composed of a 40 S subunit consisting of 18 S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and 33 distinct ribosomal proteins (RPs), and a 60 S subunit containing 5 S, 5.8 S, and 28 S rRNAs and 47 distinct RPs [2, 3]. Nucleoli form around the nucleolar organizer regions (NORs) on acrocentric chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22 that contain clusters of ~ 300 ribosomal DNA gene repeats (rDNA) mostly arranged in a head-to-tail manner, although inverted rDNA repeats or palindromes are also present [4]. The number of rDNA repeat units varies significantly across the human population, suggesting that these loci are susceptible to intrinsic recombinational instability [5]. The rDNA clusters consist of modules of ~ 13 kb transcribed by RNA polymerase I (Pol I) into the 47 S pre-rRNA, and an intergenic spacer (IGS) of ~ 30 kb (Fig. 1b). The 47 S pre-rRNA transcript is processed into 18 S, 5.8 S, and 28 S rRNAs. The IGS contains: spacer promoters, repetitive enhancer elements, the 47 S pre-RNA promoter, origins of DNA replication, terminator elements (T) downstream and upstream of the pre-rRNA transcription unit that can bind transcription termination factor (TTF-I), replication fork barriers (RFBs), tandem repeats and non-coding RNA genes transcribed by Pol II under certain stress conditions (Fig. 1b) [6]. DNA sequences proximal and distal to rDNA arrays are highly conserved among the five acrocentric chromosomes. Whereas proximal sequences, termed proximal junctions (PJ) are segmentally duplicated and resemble the regions flanking centromeres on other chromosomes, the distal junctions (DJ) are unique to the five acrocentric chromosomes and contain a large inverted repeat and 48-bp satellite repeats (Fig. 1b) [7]. Each arm of the inverted repeat can be transcribed by Pol II into long non-coding RNAs implicated in chromatin regulation [7].

소개

핵소체는

리보솜의 생산에 관여하는 핵 내 구조물 중 가장 두드러진 구조물로,

mRNA를 단백질로 번역하는 역할을 하는 대규모 복잡한 리보핵단백질 복합체인

리보솜의 생산에 관여합니다(그림 1a) [1].

인간 80S 리보솜은

18S 리보솜 RNA(rRNA)와 33개의 서로 다른 리보솜 단백질(RP)로 구성된

40S 서브유닛과 5S, 5.8S, 28S rRNA 및 47개의 서로 다른 RP를 포함하는

60S 서브유닛으로 구성되어 있습니다[2, 3].

핵소체는

13, 14, 15, 21, 22번 염색체의 아크로센트릭 염색체에 위치한 핵소체 조직자 지역(NOR) 주변에 형성되며,

주로 머리-꼬리 방식으로 배열된 약 300개의 리보솜 DNA 유전자 반복(rDNA) 클러스터를 포함합니다.

그러나

역전된 rDNA 반복이나 팔린드롬도 존재합니다 [4].

rDNA 반복 단위의 수는 인간 인구 간에 크게 달라지며,

이는 이러한 유전자가 내재적 재조합 불안정성에 취약함을 시사합니다 [5].

rDNA 클러스터는

RNA 폴리메라제 I(Pol I)에 의해 47S 전-리보솜 RNA로 전사되는

약 13kb의 모듈과 약 30kb의 인터제닉 스페이서(IGS)로 구성됩니다(그림 1b).

47S 전-리보솜 RNA 전사물은

18S, 5.8S, 및 28S 리보솜 RNA로 가공됩니다.

IGS에는 다음과 같은 요소들이 포함됩니다:

스페이서 프로모터,

반복적 증강 요소,

47S 전-RNA 프로모터,

DNA 복제 기원,

전사 단위체 하류 및 상류에 위치한 종결 요소(T)로, 전사 종결 인자(TTF-I)와 결합할 수 있으며,

복제 포크 장벽(RFBs), tandem 반복, 특정 스트레스 조건 하에서

Pol II에 의해 전사되는 비코딩 RNA 유전자(그림 1b) [6].

rDNA 배열의 근위부와 원위부 DNA 서열은

5개의 아크로센트릭 염색체에서 고도로 보존되어 있습니다.

근위부 서열은 근위 접합부(PJ)로 불리며,

다른 염색체의 중심체 주변 지역과 유사하게 세그먼트 복제되어 있습니다.

반면 원위 접합부(DJ)는

5개의 아크로센트릭 염색체에 고유하며,

큰 역전 반복과 48bp 위성 반복을 포함합니다(그림 1b) [7].

역전된 반복의 각 팔은 Pol II에 의해 전사되어

염색질 조절과 관련된 긴 비코딩 RNA로 생성됩니다 [7].

Fig. 1

Nucleolus and rDNA genes. 

a Intranucleolar heterochromatic inactive rDNA repeats are tightly connected with perinucleolar heterochromatin, whereas euchromatic active rDNA genes are transcribed into the 47 S pre-rRNA by Pol I. The 47 S pre-rRNA is co-transcriptionally assembled into the 90 S processome with RPs and 5 S rRNA and modified by ~200 snoRNPs. Following cleavage of the pre-rRNA, the 90 S processome separates into a pre-60S subunit and a pre-40S subunit that largely follow independent maturation pathways in the nucleolus, the nucleoplasm and the cytoplasm. Modifications of rRNA are indicated with lollipops. 

b Schematic diagram of the rDNA array. Shown are coding regions for 18 S, 5.8 S, and 28 S rRNA as well as IGS with the rDNA core promoter and upstream control element (UCE), enhancers, spacer promoter, and Pol I promoter, ORIs as well as T0 that binds TTF-I and T1, T4, and T5 that act as RFBs. DJ and PJ sequences that flank the rDNA array are indicated

핵소체와 rDNA 유전자.

a 핵소체 내 이질염색질 비활성 rDNA 반복 구조는 핵소체 주변 이질염색질과 밀접하게 연결되어 있으며, 반면 유질염색질 활성 rDNA 유전자는 Pol I에 의해 47S 전-rRNA로 전사됩니다. 47S 전-rRNA는 RP와 5S rRNA와 함께 90S 프로세소메로 전사 중 조립되며, 약 200개의 snoRNP에 의해 수정됩니다. 전-rRNA의 절단 후, 90S 프로세소메는 핵소체, 핵질 및 세포질에서 주로 독립적인 성숙 경로를 따르는 전-60S 서브유닛과 전-40S 서브유닛으로 분리됩니다. rRNA의 변형은 캔디 스틱 모양으로 표시되었습니다.

b rDNA 배열의 개념도. 18S, 5.8S, 28S rRNA의 코딩 영역과 rDNA 코어 프로모터 및 상류 제어 요소(UCE), 증강자, 스페이서 프로모터, Pol I 프로모터, ORI, TTF-I에 결합하는 T0, RFB로 작용하는 T1, T4, T5가 표시되어 있습니다. rDNA 배열을 둘러싼 DJ 및 PJ 시퀀스가 표시되어 있습니다.

In proliferating cells, the nucleolus disassembles during prophase and begins to reassemble in telophase [1]. Upstream binding factor (UBF)-dependent mitotic bookmarking of NORs is responsible for the open chromatin state, visible as achromatic gaps on DAPI-stained metaphase chromosomes and the establishment of a transcriptionally active state essential for post-mitotic nucleolar formation [8]. Conversely, NORs unbound by UBF possess epigenetic features characteristic of constitutive heterochromatin; they are transcriptionally incompetent and not associated with the nucleoli (Fig. 1a) [4]. Importantly, both transcriptionally active (euchromatic) and inactive (heterochromatic) rDNA repeats are present in “active” NORs associated with the nucleoli (Fig. 1a) [4]. Transcriptionally active rDNA genes represent ~ 50% of all rDNA repeats and localize at the surface of the so-called fibrillar center where they are transcribed by Pol I into the 47 S pre-rRNA. Inactive rDNA repeats form intranucleolar heterochromatin [9]. The ratio between active and inactive rDNA genes is regulated through recruitment of either Cockayne syndrome B protein (CSB) or nucleolar remodeling complex (NoRC) to TTF-I bound to the promoter-proximal terminator T0 [10]. Whereas the CSB-loaded TTF-I recruits histone methyltransferase G9a and HP1γ, leading to the establishment and maintenance of transcriptionally active state, binding of NoRC subunit TIP5 (TTF-I-interacting protein 5) to TTF-I leads to recruitment of enzymes that induce CpG DNA methylation and heterochromatic histone modifications on rDNA. However, the molecular mechanisms responsible for the differential recruitment of CBS or NoRC to TTF-I at T0 remain unknown [10]. Intranucleolar heterochromatin containing inactive rDNA repeats is tightly connected with a shell of heterochromatin surrounding the nucleolus, known as perinucleolar heterochromatin (Fig. 1a) [9]. The establishment and maintenance of perinucleolar heterochromatin is also regulated by NoRC, suggesting functional interdependence between these two heterochromatic domains [11], partly mediated by the DJ sequences embedded in adjacent perinucleolar chromatin to anchor the NORs to nucleoli [7].

Ribosome biogenesis is the most energy consuming process in human cells [12]. rDNA genes are the most actively transcribed genes, collectively accounting for more than half of total transcription in proliferating cells [13]. The production of the 47 S pre-rRNA was thought to be exclusively controlled by changing the rate of Pol I transcription. However, recent evidence indicates that epigenetic mechanisms also regulate this process by altering the ratio of active and inactive rDNA genes in response to specific cues [6, 14, 15]. The 47 S pre-rRNA is co-transcriptionally assembled into the 90 S processome, with numerous RPs and 5 S rRNA synthesized by Pol III, where it is subjected to ribose 2′-O-methylation and pseudouridylation, folding and processing steps depending on ∼200 snoRNAs (Fig. 1a) [16, 17]. Following cleavage within the internal transcribed spacer the 90 S processomes are separated into pre-40S and pre-60S ribosomal subunits that follow largely independent maturation pathways in the nucleolus, the nucleoplasm and the cytoplasm (Fig. 1a) [18]. Most research on the nucleolus has focused on understanding ribosome biogenesis and the impact of altered ribosome biogenesis on the development of human diseases, notably ribosomopathies and cancer [19]. However, proteomic studies have identified some 4500 nucleolar proteins, mostly participating in processes unrelated to ribosome biogenesis [20]. Based on results of these and functional studies, the nucleolus has been implicated in the regulation of additional cellular processes: genome integrity maintenance, epigenetic control, cell-cycle regulation, diverse stress responses, cellular senescence, genomic organization, nuclear architecture, and maturation, assembly, and export of the signal recognition particle, telomerase RNP and processing of precursor transfer RNAs [19, 21].

Collectively these studies demonstrate that the nucleolus performs many more functions than originally appreciated.

Several features make rDNA genes highly vulnerable to DNA damage and intra- and interchromosomal recombination, including high transcription rate, challenging DNA replication, repetitive nature, and presence in clusters on five different chromosomes [4, 22]. This review will discuss rDNA damage and repair mechanisms, and how dysregulation of these processes affects genome-wide DNA stability, gene expression‎ and the balance between euchromatin and heterochromatin. We will also review the recent advances in understanding how malfunction of these processes may contribute to malignancy, and opportunities to exploit this emerging knowledge for improvements of anticancer treatments.

증식 중인 세포에서 핵소체는

전상기 동안 분해되며,

후기 상기 단계에서 재조립을 시작합니다 [1].

상류 결합 인자(UBF)에 의존하는 NOR의 분열기 북마크 현상은

DAPI 염색된 중상기 염색체에서 무색 간격으로 관찰되는 개방형 염색질 상태를 유발하며,

분열 후 핵소체 형성에 필수적인 전사 활성 상태의 확립을 담당합니다 [8].

반면,

UBF에 결합되지 않은 NOR는

구성적 이질염색질의 특징을 가진 에피게놈적 특성을 지니며,

전사 능력이 없고 핵소체와 연관되지 않습니다(그림 1a) [4].

중요하게도,

전사 활성(유크로마틴) 및 비활성(이질염색질) rDNA 반복 서열은

핵소체와 연관된 “활성” NOR에 모두 존재합니다(그림 1a) [4].

전사 활성 rDNA 유전자는

모든 rDNA 반복의 약 50%를 차지하며,

소위 섬유질 중심부 표면에 위치하여 Pol I에 의해 47S 전-rRNA로 전사됩니다.

비활성 rDNA 반복은

핵소체 내 이질염색질(intranucleolar heterochromatin)을 형성합니다 [9].

활성 및 비활성 rDNA 유전자 간의 비율은

TTF-I가 프로모터-근접 종결자 T0에 결합된 상태에서

Cockayne 증후군 B 단백질(CSB) 또는 핵소체 재구성 복합체(NoRC)의 모집을 통해 조절됩니다 [10].

CSB가 결합한 TTF-I는 히스톤 메틸전달효소 G9a와 HP1γ를 모집하여 전사 활성 상태의 확립과 유지에 기여합니다. 반면 NoRC의 서브유닛 TIP5(TTF-I 상호작용 단백질 5)가 TTF-I에 결합하면 rDNA에 CpG DNA 메틸화 및 이질염색질 히스톤 변형을 유도하는 효소가 모집됩니다. 그러나 T0에서 CBS 또는 NoRC가 TTF-I에 차등적으로 모집되는 분자적 메커니즘은 아직 알려지지 않았습니다 [10]. 비활성 rDNA 반복 서열을 포함하는 핵소체 내 이질염색질은 핵소체를 둘러싼 이질염색질 껍질인 핵소체 주변 이질염색질(perinucleolar heterochromatin)과 밀접하게 연결되어 있습니다(그림 1a) [9]. 페리핵소체 이질염색질의 형성 및 유지 역시 NoRC에 의해 조절되며, 이는 두 이질염색질 영역 간의 기능적 상호 의존성을 시사합니다 [11], 이는 인접한 페리핵소체 염색질에 내장된 DJ 서열이 NOR를 핵소체에 고정시키는 역할을 부분적으로 매개합니다 [7].

리보솜 생성은

인간 세포에서 가장 에너지 소비가 많은 과정입니다 [12].

rDNA 유전자는

증식 중인 세포에서 전체 전사량의 절반 이상을 차지하는

가장 활발히 전사되는 유전자입니다 [13].

47S 전-rRNA의 생산은 Pol I 전사 속도의 변화에 의해 독점적으로 조절된다고 여겨져 왔습니다. 그러나 최근 연구 결과는 특정 신호에 반응하여 활성 및 비활성 rDNA 유전자의 비율을 변경함으로써 이 과정을 조절하는 에피게놈 메커니즘이 존재함을 보여줍니다 [6, 14, 15]. 47S 전-rRNA는 Pol III에 의해 합성된 수많은 RPs와 5S rRNA와 함께 90S 프로세소메에 공동 전사적으로 조립되며, 여기서 리보스 2′-O-메틸화, 가짜우리딜화, 접힘 및 가공 단계가 약 200개의 snoRNA에 의해 조절됩니다(그림 1a) [16, 17].

내부 전사 스페이서 내에서의 절단 후, 90S 프로세소메는 핵소체, 핵질 및 세포질에서 주로 독립적인 성숙 경로를 따르는 pre-40S 및 pre-60S 리보솜 서브유닛으로 분리됩니다(그림 1a) [18]. 핵소체에 대한 대부분의 연구는 리보솜 생합성 이해와 리보솜 생합성 변화가 인간 질환, 특히 리보솜병과 암에 미치는 영향에 초점을 맞추어 왔습니다 [19]. 그러나 프로테오믹스 연구는 리보솜 생합성과 무관한 과정에 참여하는 약 4,500개의 핵소체 단백질을 식별했습니다 [20]. 이러한 연구 결과와 기능적 연구를 바탕으로 핵소체는 추가적인 세포 과정의 조절에 관여한다는 것이 밝혀졌습니다:

유전체 무결성 유지,

에피게놈 조절,

세포 주기 조절,

다양한 스트레스 반응,

세포 노화,

유전체 조직화,

핵 구조,

신호 인식 입자의 성숙, 조립 및 수출,

텔로머라제 RNP 및 전구체 전사 RNA의 처리 [19, 21].

genome integrity maintenance,

epigenetic control,

cell-cycle regulation,

diverse stress responses,

cellular senescence,

genomic organization,

nuclear architecture, and maturation, assembly, and export of the signal recognition particle,

telomerase RNP and processing of precursor transfer RNAs

이러한 연구들은

핵소체가 원래 인식된 것보다 훨씬 더 많은 기능을 수행한다는 것을 보여줍니다.

rDNA 유전자는

높은 전사 속도,

어려운 DNA 복제,

반복적 특성,

5개의 서로 다른 염색체에 클러스터로 존재하는 특성 등으로 인해

DNA 손상과 염색체 내외 재조합에 매우 취약합니다 [4, 22].

Several features make rDNA genes highly vulnerable to DNA damage

and intra- and interchromosomal recombination, including high transcription rate,

challenging DNA replication,

repetitive nature, and presence in clusters on five different chromosomes

이 리뷰는

rDNA 손상 및 수리 메커니즘을 논의하며,

이러한 과정의 조절 장애가 전장 유전체 DNA 안정성,

유전자 발현 및 유크로마틴과 헤테로크로마틴의 균형에 미치는 영향을 살펴볼 것입니다.

또한 이러한 과정의 기능 장애가

악성 종양 발생에 기여하는 메커니즘에 대한 최근 연구 성과를 검토하고,

이 새로운 지식을 항암 치료 개선에 활용할 수 있는 기회를 탐구할 것입니다.

체계적인 프로테오믹스와 게노믹스 연구는 핵소체가 유전체 안정성을 촉진하는 데 관여함을 시사합니다

핵소체 프로테옴 연구와 인간 단백질 아틀라스 데이터베이스를 기반으로

Ogawa와 Baserga는 핵소체에 국한된 166개의 DNA 복구 단백질 목록을 작성했습니다 [23].

그러나 핵소체가 단순히 핵에서 작동하는 DNA 손상 반응(DDR) 단백질의 저장소인지, 아니면 실제로 특정 핵소체 기능을 수행하는지 여부는 여전히 명확하지 않습니다. DNA 손상 시 핵소체 내 구조물(INB)과 핵소체 캡 구조물에 DDR 단백질이 축적되는 현상은 이러한 구조물이 핵소체 내 rDNA 손상을 감지하고 수리하는 특정 인자의 모집 플랫폼을 제공한다는 것을 시사합니다 [24]. 또한 인간 리보솜 생합성 인자를 식별하기 위한 유전적 스크리닝 결과, 이 중 일부 인자가 DDR 단백질로 분류되었습니다 [25,26,27]. 또한, 아타시아-텔랑게이케시아 돌연변이(ATM) 및 아타시아 텔랑게이케시아와 Rad3 관련(ATR) 키나제에 의해 DNA 손상에 반응하여 인산화된 단백질을 분석한 질량 분석 결과, 700개의 표적 단백질이 확인되었으며, 이 중 98개는 리보솜 생합성, 리보솜 기능 및 rDNA 유전자의 에피제네틱 조절에 관여하는 것으로 나타났으며, 이는 핵소체가 DDR의 중요한 허브라는 가설을 더욱 뒷받침합니다 [28, 29]. 최근 효모에서의 유전적 스크린은 4,876개의 비필수 유전자 중 약 15%가 rDNA 안정성 유지에 필수적이며, 이 중 대부분은 지금까지 핵소체 기능과 연관되지 않았던 유전자임을 밝혀내어 이 과정의 예상치 못한 복잡성을 드러냈습니다. 마지막으로, HeLa 및 HT1080 세포에서 tandemly 배열된 유전자, tRNA, 고도로 반복적인 중심체, 중심체 주변, 말단체, 위성 시퀀스를 포함한 유전체 약 4%가 핵소체 주변 이질염색질에 내장되어 있습니다 [30, 31]. 핵소체와 이러한 소위 핵소체 연관 염색체 영역 간의 가까운 거리는 핵소체가 공간적 유전체 조직화에 역할을 할 수 있음을 시사합니다. 전체적으로 이러한 체계적인 접근 방식은 핵소체, DDR, 염색질 및 공간적 유전체 조직화 간의 상호작용을 규명하여 유전체 안정성과 암 예방에 기여하는 메커니즘을 밝히는 미래 연구의 강력한 기반을 제공합니다.

Systematic proteomic and genomic studies implicate the nucleolus in promoting genome stability

Based on studies of the nucleolar proteome and the human protein atlas database, Ogawa and Baserga assembled a list of 166 DNA repair proteins that localize to the nucleolus [23]. However, whether the nucleolus is just a storage depot for DNA-damage response (DDR) proteins that operate in the nucleus or they indeed play some specific nucleolar roles, remains unclear. A number of DDR proteins accumulate in the intranucleolar body (INB) and nucleolar cap structures upon DNA damage, suggesting that these structures provide a platform for recruitment of specific factors that sense and repair rDNA damage in the nucleolus [24]. Furthermore, genetic screens to identify human ribosome biogenesis factors revealed that a subset of these factors are co-classified as DDR proteins [25,26,27]. Moreover, a mass spectrometry analysis of proteins phosphorylated in response to DNA damage by ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated (ATM) and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) kinases revealed 700 target proteins, 98 of which are nucleolar proteins involved in various aspects of ribosome biogenesis, ribosome function and epigenetic regulation of rDNA genes, thus further supporting the notion that the nucleolus is an important hub of the DDR [28, 29]. A recent genetic screen in yeast revealed that almost 15% of 4876 non-essential genes, most of which have not been linked to nucleolar functions so far, are required for the maintenance of rDNA stability, revealing an unexpected complexity of this process. Lastly, in HeLa and HT1080 cells, ~ 4% of the genome, including tandemly arrayed genes, tRNAs, highly repetitive centromeric, pericentromeric, telomeric, and satellite sequences are embedded in the perinucleolar heterochromatin [30, 31]. The close proximity between the nucleolus and these so-called nucleolus-associated chromosomal domains further suggests a role for the nucleolus in spatial genome organization. Altogether, these systematic approaches provide a wealth of information that can serve as a strong foundation for future mechanistic studies to elucidate the interplay between the nucleolus, the DDR, chromatin and spatial genome organization in the maintenance of genome stability and cancer prevention.

Conflicts between replication and transcription machineries at the rDNA genes as a source of genomic instability

Mounting evidence indicates that DNA replication machinery frequently encounters obstacles, which can slow down or stall replication fork progression, leading to DNA damage and recombination. Insults causing such replication stress (RS) include: DNA secondary structures, heterochromatin, DNA lesions, torsional stress in DNA, tightly DNA-bound proteins and transcribed genes [32, 33]. The transcriptional machinery presents a particularly severe impediment to DNA replication, and clashes between these two molecular machineries represent the major source of genomic instability, an event fueling the acquisition of all cancer hallmarks [34,35,36,37]. Given that rDNA genes are the most highly transcribed genes in eukaryotes, conflicts between transcription and replication are especially frequent at rDNA gene clusters [38]. To better understand how conflicts between rDNA transcription and replication machineries occur and how they contribute to genome instability, we will first briefly describe what is known about the causes and consequences of these conflicts at the other genomic regions [39].

Head-on convergence between DNA replication forks and transcription machineries may trigger local accumulation of positive DNA supercoils, which likely block replication fork progression, leading to fork slowing and stalling [37, 40]. Such persistent fork stalling can lead to occurrence of long stretches of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) and single-strand DNA breaks (SSBs), events which trigger a checkpoint surveillance program orchestrated by the ATR-Chk1 kinase signaling module [41,42,43]. These kinases phosphorylate many factors that function to prevent genome instability by: stabilizing the replication fork, release of RNA polymerase and termination of transcription, activating dormant origins of replication around the stalled forks to facilitate the replication of affected regions, blocking late origin activation, orchestrating DNA repair with restart of stalled forks and cell-cycle inhibition [28, 32, 44]. Under persistent RS or when the ATR-dependent RS-response fails, stalled forks may collapse, leading to dissociation of replisome proteins and conversion of SSBs into double-strand breaks (DSBs), the most deleterious of DNA lesions [32]. DSBs trigger activation of the ATM kinase, which orchestrates cell-cycle arrest and DSB repair. If repair is successful, DNA replication resumes [45, 46]. However, when the ATR checkpoint is malfunctional and/or error-prone DNA repair processes are engaged, various genomic alterations may result from RS, including: point mutations, deletions or amplifications, loss of heterozygosity, gross chromosomal rearrangements, and structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations if unreplicated DNA or unresolved repair intermediates persist until mitosis [32, 47].

Recent studies suggest that genomic instability upon clashes of transcriptional and replication machineries depends on transcription-associated R-loop formation [48,49,50,51]. R-loops form owing to local negative supercoiling behind a transcription bubble, followed by opening of the DNA and formation of highly stable hybrids between nascent RNA and template DNA strands (RNA:DNA hybrid) [48, 49]. The overall load of R-loops increases under perturbed replication and fuels DNA damage and genomic instability (Fig. 2) [34, 52]. Persistent R-loops can also impede RNA Pol elongation, resulting in the pileup of Pol molecules, ultimately provoking replication fork slowing and stalling [50, 53]. The number and length of R-loops increase upon dysregulation of post-transcriptional processes, including packaging of nascent RNAs into ribonucleoprotein particles, mRNA splicing, export or degradation, explaining the association of dysregulation of these post-transcriptional processes and genomic instability [49, 54]. R-loop formation is counteracted by Topoisomerases 1 and 2 (Top1/2), which relieve positive and negative supercoils ahead of and behind transcribing RNA polymerases, respectively, DNA helicases Senataxin that unwinds RNA:DNA hybrids, and RECQ5 that counteracts replication fork stalling in RNA pol I and II transcribed genes, acting at sites of replication-transcription collisions, and RNAse H1 which cleaves the RNA component of the RNA:DNA hybrid [55,56,57,58,59]. Importantly, BRCA1 and the Fanconi anemia pathway, that stabilize stalled replication forks, also help resolve transcription-associated R-loops, thus allowing continuation of DNA replication (Fig. 2) [60, 61]. Apart from directly or indirectly impairing progression of the replication machinery and causing RS, R-loops can also enhance genomic instability by serving as substrate for transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair (NER) factors, which generate DSBs or through generation of various types of DNA lesions in the displaced non-template DNA strand by DNA-damaging agents, DNA modifying and repair enzymes [48, 62,63,64].

Fig. 2

Causes and consequences of conflicts between Pol I transcriptional and replication machineries. The indicated oncogenic signaling pathways can lead an aberrant increase in the rate of Pol I transcription. Convergence of Pol I and replication machineries in head-on orientation leads to the accumulation of positive DNA supercoiling, which slows down both machineries. Negative DNA supercoiling forming behind transcription bubble leads to opening of rDNA strands and the formation of highly stable rRNA:rDNA hybrids, leaving the displaced non-template strand. The rDNA genes are predilection sites for the formation of R- loops owing to the presence of a region of GC skewing, downstream of unmethylated CpG island rDNA promoters. Clashes of Pol I transcriptional machinery and R-loops with replication fork may cause its stalling or collapse. Perturbing replication of rDNA may further potentiate conflicts between replicating forks and Pol I transcriptional machinery as well as generation and stabilization of co-transcriptional R-loops and R-loop dependent rDNA damage. Several protective and DNA repair mechanisms are shown that preserve genome stability upon conflicts between Pol I transcriptional and replication machineries, thus preventing tumorigenesis. Asterisks indicate DNA damage

Full size image

Active rDNA genes are transcribed by >100 Pol I transcriptional complexes [65]. This, together with the fact that rDNA transcription occurs also in early S phase, suggests that the Pol I transcriptional machinery may represent a barrier for replication fork progression [1, 66,67,68]. However, recent research has suggested the spatial separation between these machineries on rDNA genes in early S phase [68, 69]. Furthermore, upon binding TTF-I and a replisome factor timeless to RFBs in the IGS regions of the rDNA loci obstruct replication fork progression and thereby prevent potential clashes of transcription and replication machineries (Figs. 1b and 2) [70]. The highest RFB activity is in early S phase when actively transcribing rDNA genes replicate [66, 70]. The rDNA region is a frequent site for R-loop formation [71], owing to an unmethylated CpG island in rDNA promoters making the non-template strand G-rich (Fig. 2). A G-rich pre-rRNA outcompetes a G-rich non-template rDNA for binding to a C-rich template DNA strand, forming a stable rRNA:rDNA hybrid. Under physiological conditions, R-loop formation at rDNA promoters prevents DNA methylation of CpG islands by DNA methyltransferase DNMT3B1, thus facilitating rDNA transcription [71]. R-loops are formed co-transcriptionally over the Pol I promoter, the 5′ external transcribed sequence and the 5′ region of the 18 S rDNA in yeast cells. Loss of Top1 and RNase H enhances this inherent formation of R-loops, which then cause severe Pol I pileups and consequent inhibition of pre-rRNA synthesis (Fig. 2) [56]. A subsequent study demonstrated that RS caused by aphidicolin, an inhibitor of replicative DNA polymerases, results in the formation of co-transcriptional R-loops at the 5′ ends of active human rDNA genes, and consequent DNA damage via R-loop-dependent mechanisms (Fig. 2) [71]. This model is further supported by experiments in which depletion of a negative regulator of rDNA transcription, the PHD finger protein 6 (PHF6), led to the formation R-loops and accumulation of R-loop-dependent rDNA damage in human nucleoli [72]. Mutations in the PHF6 gene have been associated with the X-linked mental retardation disorder Borjeson–Forssman–Lehmann syndrome as well as with acute myeloid leukemia, T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and hepatocellular carcinoma, implying that R-loop-mediated rDNA damage might contribute to the pathogenesis of these diverse diseases [73, 74]. Whether DSBs in spontaneous human cancers that frequently localize to transcriptionally active rDNA genes are generated through this mechanism remains untested [75]. Mutations in RP genes or ribosome biogenesis assembly factors can cause both inherited and sporadic human cancers [16, 76]. Given that excessive accumulation of nascent mRNAs facilitates the R-loop formation [49, 54], it is plausible that mutations impacting ribosome biogenesis impair pre-rRNA processing, leading to accumulation of unprocessed or partially processed pre-rRNA (Fig. 2). This may facilitate R-loop formation, and thereby interference with DNA replication, rDNA damage, genomic instability, and cancer.

An important question is whether oncogenes and loss of tumor suppressors contribute to cancer pathogenesis by causing rDNA damage. The rate of Pol I transcription is directly or indirectly upregulated by activation of a number of oncogenic pathways, including Myc, PI3K-Akt-mTORC1, Ras-MAPK, and cyclin E, the loss of tumor suppressors such as PTEN, pRb, p53, ARF, GSK3β, or dysregulation of factors that mediate epigenetic events at the rDNA locus (Fig. 2) [77]. It will be critical to assess whether dysregulation of different oncogenic pathways generates damage at specific sites within rDNA genes, given their differential impact on the rate of rDNA transcription, DNA replication process, ROS production and the rate of cell division (Fig. 2) [78,79,80,81,82,83]. Copies of rDNA that replicate during mid/late S phase show compact heterochromatic structure suggesting that they are difficult to replicate, particularly under conditions of RS [67]. Consistently, recent work suggests that old hematopoietic stem cells, which characteristically display RS owing to decreased expression‎ of the mini-chromosome maintenance replicative helicase, feature enhanced chromosome breakage in late-replicating, heterochromatic rDNA clusters [84]. Such aberrant replication in rDNA could lead to accumulation of unreplicated or unresolved repair intermediates in mitosis and consequently structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations, as observed elsewhere in the genome [47].

Epigenetic status of the rDNA impacts the susceptibility of rDNA to breakage upon RS caused by folate deficiency, an essential factor for nucleotide biosynthesis. Folate deficiency enhanced DNA damage in the whole-genome [85], but it was particularly prominent in several specific regions of IGSs within rDNA clusters [86]. These breaks sites correspond to histone H3K4me1 mark sites and positively correlate with increased recruitment of UBF to rDNA genes and their enhanced transcription [86]. One could speculate that DNA breakage under these conditions is the consequence of clashes between transcriptional and replication machineries [86]. Despite this recent progress, however, mechanisms leading to rDNA damage remain poorly understood.

Repair of rDNA

Repair of DSBs in rDNA shows some atypical features, reflecting a combination of the more faithful homologous recombination (HR) repair pathway and the more error-prone non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway [87]. HR repair preserves rDNA stability when the rDNA template is the sister chromatid, yet such rDNA repair can also result in rDNA copy number alterations and genomic rearrangements if it is mediated by unequal sister chromatid recombination or recombination with homologous NOR-bearing chromosomes [88]. Unequal sister chromatid recombination may reflect malfunctional mechanisms that normally restrict the movement of sister chromatids relative to each other. For example, in yeast strains harboring low-rDNA-copy number most rDNA copies are actively transcribed, and the inability of condensin to bind transcriptionally active rDNA genes interferes with cohesion between sister chromatids at the rDNA loci, resulting in unequal sister chromatid recombination and rDNA instability [89]. In contrast, sufficient numbers of heterochromatically silent rDNA repeats facilitates condensin association and proper sister chromatid cohesion [89]. It is tempting to speculate that dysregulated balance between active and inactive rDNA genes could also affect the mode of HR at the rDNA genes in human cells via a similar mechanism.

The critical importance of proper regulation of replication and repair at rDNA clusters for tumor suppression was supported by studies of two human cancer-prone syndromes: Ataxia telangiectasia (A–T) and Bloom syndrome, which show 10-fold and 100-fold elevations of the rate of spontaneous alterations in the rDNA gene cluster architecture, respectively [75, 90]. A-T is caused by mutations in the ATM gene, the kinase product of which orchestrates DSB repair by HR, whereas Bloom syndrome is caused by mutations in the BLM gene encoding a helicase critical for the dissolution of Holliday junctions and abortive HR intermediates, structures that facilitate exchange of chromosome segments between sister chromatids or homologous chromosomes [91, 92]. rDNA gene clusters are also recombinatorial hot spots in human cancers, with over 50% of lung and colorectal carcinomas showing rDNA rearrangements [75, 93]. Furthermore, genomic rearrangements involving rDNA, including insertions, amplifications, and jumping translocations occur frequently in Hodgkin’s lymphoma [94]. These observations indicate that the genomic rearrangements are positively selected for during tumor evolution and that the maintenance of rDNA stability may represent a major tumor-suppressive mechanism.

Notably, besides endogenous rDNA damage, rDNA recombination in human cancer may also reflect exogenously caused DNA damage, a notion consistent with the higher frequency of rDNA alterations in adult solid cancers compared with pediatric cancers [75]. Given that a small proportion of rDNA genes are arranged as inverted (palindromic) repeats, intermolecular recombination between such repeats on the various acrocentric chromosomes might generate dicentric chromosomal translocations linked by an rDNA cluster, somewhat reminiscent of the Robertsonian translocations [7]. It can also be hypothesized that the almost complete nucleotide sequence identity of DJ and PJ sequences surrounding rDNA clusters on acrocentric chromosomes, could predispose these regions as sites of recombination involving these chromosomes [7]. However, direct experimental evidence in support of these hypotheses is still lacking. As discussed above, illegitimate junctions of broken DNA ends during inappropriate DNA repair events may also result in rDNA copy number alterations [88, 95].

The impact of dysregulated rDNA copy number in cancer

It is plausible that more copies of rDNA genes may confer upon incipient cancer cells a competitive advantage over untransformed cells by providing an increased capacity for ribosome biogenesis and proteosynthesis [96]. Although this may occur in some tumors, recent studies identified lower rDNA copy numbers in several human cancer types compared with adjacent normal tissues [97, 98]. Interestingly, deletion of the mTORC1 negative regulator, tumor suppressor PTEN, in hematopoietic stem cells resulted in a lower rDNA copy number, which preceded their malignant transformation. Notably, these cells showed increased rates of rDNA transcription, proteosynthesis and proliferation, suggesting a compensatory increase in transcriptional activity of the remaining rDNA genes [97]. Furthermore, the finding that specific cancer types harboring lower rDNA copy number show mutational activation of mTORC1, suggests that increased mTORC1 activity might fuel rDNA damage and consequent inappropriate recombination and loss of rDNA copies, likely via mTORC1-dependent upregulation of rDNA transcription [97, 99]. Consistent with such model, hyperactivation of mTOR in Drosophila melanogaster by mutations in components of the insulin/mTOR signaling axis or excessive nutrient uptake instigated loss of rDNA copies [100]. Mutations in the TP53 gene have also been positively correlated with decreased rDNA copy numbers in several cancer types [98].

These studies provoke the question: how would cancer cells benefit from a decrease in rDNA copy number? A lower rDNA copy number could potentially decrease rDNA heterochromatin levels and alter the balance of nuclear heterochromatin/euchromatin, increase transcription of the remaining rDNA genes, dysregulate gene expression‎ genome-wide and promote illegitimate recombination between highly repetitive DNA sequences (Table 1) [89, 101, 102]. Any or all of these features may explain why the rDNA loss could be positively selected for during cancer evolution [97]. Furthermore, mutations of genes required for heterochromatin formation in Drosophila and human cells led to decreased rDNA copy numbers and promoted global genome instability [11, 103]. These studies underscore the intimate link between rDNA copy number, global heterochromatin, and regulation of genome stability, with important implications for cancer pathogenesis. An additional explanation for how would cancer cells benefit from decreased rDNA copy numbers is that the loss of heterochromatic rDNA genes, which are hard-to-replicate, may allow faster replication of the genome, thereby providing the incipient cancer cells with a growth advantage (Table 1) [67, 97].

Table 1 Inappropriate rDNA repair may lead to chromosomal rearrangements that contribute to cancer

Full size table

Ample evidence implicates dysregulated insulin/mTORC1 signaling and TP53 mutations in cancer pathogenesis [104,105,106,107,108]. Indeed, decreased rDNA copy number may contribute to tumorigenesis driven via increased insulin/mTOR signaling activity or TP53 aberrations [97, 98]. However, lower rDNA copy numbers may be necessary but not sufficient to drive cancer or they may be just a consequence of malignant transformation. These possibilities are consistent with the observation that many healthy individuals harbor low-rDNA copy number [97, 109].

DDR coordinates Pol I inhibition with rDNA repair

DDR signaling regulates multiple cellular activities, including inhibition of Pol I transcriptional activity (Fig. 3) [29], and promotion of nucleolar cap formation with recruited DNA repair factors, thereby preventing collisions with DNA repair machineries and providing an optimal environment for rDNA repair [29, 110, 111]. Two modes of DSB-induced Pol I transcriptional inhibition depend on ATM [29]. First, signaling from ionizing radiation (IR)-induced DSBs transiently represses rDNA transcription via ATM, Nijmegen breakage syndrome 1 (NBS1) and mediator of DNA-damage checkpoint protein 1 (MDC1) (Fig. 3) [112], accompanied by segregation of the nucleolar protein UBF into nucleolar caps. When DSBs were locally introduced using laser micro-irradiation in individual nucleoli, inhibition of rDNA transcription did not spread to surrounding nucleoli. Inhibition of Pol I was absent in ATM-null murine fibroblasts, NBS1- or MDC1-depleted cells upon IR [112]. Molecularly, the ATM-NBS1-MDC1 signaling interfered with Pol I initiation complex assembly followed by displacement of the elongating Pol I holoenzymes from rDNA [112]. Second, more recent studies described how inhibition of Pol I transcription occurs in response to DSBs introduced in chromatin outside the nucleoli (Fig. 3) [110, 113, 114]. This response featured ATM-dependent accumulation of NBS1 specifically in actively transcribed nucleolar regions of rDNA, temporally correlating with inhibition of rDNA transcription [114]. In this setting, inhibition of rDNA transcription occurred in all nucleoli of a cell even when DSBs were introduced outside of the nucleoli. Mechanistically, NBS1 recruitment into the nucleoli required interaction with the nucleolar protein Treacle (encoded by the TCOF1 gene), but not the usual NBS1 partner, MRE11 (Fig. 3) [114].

Fig. 3

Nucleolar response to nuclear or nucleolar DNA damage. DSBs in the nuclear chromatin cause Pol I inhibition in the nucleolus through an ATM-dependent signaling pathway, which includes NBS1, PARP, and Treacle. Pol I is also inhibited upon direct rDNA damage in an ATM-NBS1-MDC1-dependent manner. Inhibition of Pol I transcription is most likely responsible for the formation of nucleolar caps and relocalization of damaged rDNA to this structures, which are enriched in HR and NHEJ factors, thus providing an optimal environment for proper rDNA repair. Notably, cap formation was not observed upon nuclear DNA damage is several studies, in spite of Pol I inhibition. DDR and associated Pol I inhibition activate p53 through the impaired ribosome biogenesis checkpoint (IRBC), NMP1, NCL, ARF, ATM, and ATR. Upon genotoxic stress, Cdc14B is released from the nucleolus to the nucleoplasm where it promotes APC/CCdh1-dependent Plk1 degradation, triggering a G2-phase cell-cycle checkpoint. Asterisks indicate DSBs

Full size image

Pol I activity can also be inhibited upon DNA damage in DNA-PK- and PARP-1-dependent manner [115]. Finally, the proteins TopBP1 and ATR also co-operate to inhibit pre-rRNA synthesis upon DNA damage and RS [116]. Collectively, available data suggest roles for ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK kinases in downregulation of rDNA transcription following DNA damage.

Where and how are DSBs in rDNA repaired in mammalian cells? Induction of DSBs within the rDNA repeats by either CRISPR-cas9 technology or I-PpoI expression‎ resulted in nucleolar cap formation and downregulation of Pol I transcription in an ATM-dependent manner (Fig. 3) [110, 111]. Damaged rDNA moves from the nucleolar interior to the periphery where it is accessible to DNA repair factors (Fig. 3). NHEJ was the predominant mode of DSB repair [110] but DSBs within rDNA may also recruit the HR machinery throughout the cell cycle (Fig. 3) [95, 111]. DNA synthesis indicative of HR at damaged NORs was observed in G1 suggesting that damaged rDNA that cannot be re-joined by NHEJ factors is recognized and repaired by the HR machinery at the nucleolar periphery (Fig. 3) [111]. Chromosomal context may impact nuclear DSB signaling to nucleoli, as DSBs in the distal junction, a genomic sequence immediately distal to the rDNA arrays, did not inhibit rDNA transcription [111].

There are several putative nucleolar ATM targets of relevance for rDNA silencing, including Pol I subunits RPA34 and TAF1C [29]. PHF6 is another candidate ATM substrate, known to interact with UBF at the rDNA promoter region [29]. The importance of these ATM-dependent mechanisms is apparent in cells from A-T patients, which show a 10-fold increase in spontaneous rDNA alterations over normal cells [75, 90]. One can also speculate that a failure to mount these protective DDR responses in cancer cells may increase their vulnerability to genotoxic treatments.

Nucleolar stress responses triggered by DNA damage and oncogenic stress

The nucleolus responds to different types of DNA damage and oncogenic stressors by activating diverse signaling pathways that affect cell-cycle progression in both p53-dependent and -independent manners, trigger cellular senescence and promote DNA repair [117]. It is well established that upon impairment of ribosome biogenesis RPL11 (uL5) and RPL5 (uL18), trigger p53 activation [16, 118,119,120,121,122,123,124]. RPL11 and RPL5 activate p53 as constituents of the 5 S ribonucleoprotein particle that also contains 5 S rRNA [124,125,126]. This response was recently termed the Impaired Ribosome Biogenesis Checkpoint (IRBC) [127]. Mechanisticly, impairment of any step of ribosome biogenesis leads to redirection of the nascent IRBC from the assembly into pre-60S ribosomes towards inhibition of MDM2, the E3 ligase that negatively regulates p53 [124,125,126]. DDR signaling often converges on the inhibition of rDNA transcription, which may trigger activation of p53 by the IRBC-dependent mechanism (Fig. 3) [19]. In addition, oncogenic stresses also trigger the IRBC-mediated cellular senescence by enhancing rDNA transcription and delaying rRNA processing, further highlighting the complexity of the nucleolar stress signaling [128]. However, further research should uncover the role(s) of the IRBC-mediated mechanisms in cancer pathogenesis caused by DNA-damaging and oncogenic stressors.

In addition to the IRBC, DNA damage triggeres additional nucleolar signaling pathways, which may or may not co-operate with the IRBC in p53 activation (Fig. 3). For example, the protein interacting with carboxyl terminus 1 regulates the IRBC via interaction with RPL11 under impaired ribosome biogenesis [129] but also links ATM signaling to the IRBC upon DNA damage [130].

The tumor suppressor protein ARF acts as key activator of the p53 stress signaling pathway by inhibiting MDM2 in response to oncogene activation but is also involved in controlling nucleolar structure and limiting protein synthesis (Fig. 3) [131, 132]. Despite it was originally suggested that the ARF-MDM2 and IRBC-MDM2 pathways are distinct, it appears that the IRBC also sets the level of p53 activation by ARF [125].

The abundant nucleolar protein nucleophosmin (NPM1) interacts constitutively with ARF, sequestering it in the nucleolus [133]. Upon genotoxic stress, modifications of NPM1 lead to the release of ARF which then translocates to the nucleoplasm, where it inhibits MDM2. Notably, NPM1 directly binds MDM2 and p53 to regulate the MDM2-p53 pathway in an ARF-independent manner. For example, UV damage triggers NPM1 translocation from the nucleolus to the nucleoplasm where NPM1–MDM2 complexes are formed [134]. Interestingly, NPM1–ARF interaction may have an important role upon DNA damage in the absence of ATM. Active ATM phosphorylates protein phosphatase 1, which dephosphorylates NPM1 in the nucleolus, thereby weakening the binding between ARF and NPM1 [135]. This allows ARF to translocate to the nucleus where it is degraded by the ubiquitin ligase of ARF (ULF) [135]. In contrast, ATM loss promotes ARF accumulation, which may activate p53 and inhibit ribosome biogenesis, acting as a potential tumor suppressor back-up mechanism following DNA damage in cells with compromised ATM function.

Several other examples of the interplay between NPM1 and DDR mechanisms, particularly DNA repair pathways, have been identified. NPM1 is essential for embryonic development and its loss was associated with DNA damage and genome instability [136, 137]. Interestingly, NPM1 co-localizes with γH2AX following γ-irradiation (IR) and contributes to DSB repair [138]. NPM1 phosphorylated at residue Thr199 is recruited to IR-induced DSBs through K63-linked ubiquitination mediated by RNF8/RNF168 [138]. Furthermore, NPM1 is involved in DNA repair of ssDNA lesions by BER and NER repair pathways, reviewed in ref139. Similar to NPM1, another abundant nucleolar protein, nucleolin (NCL), associates with a number of DDR proteins near DSBs [140]. Reduced levels of NCL negatively affect accumulation of specific DDR proteins, DSB repair and weaken ATM-dependent cell-cycle checkpoints [140]. Analogous to NPM1, NCL interacts with MDM2, disrupting its association with p53 [141]. Furthermore, NCL binds both 5′ and 3′-UTR of p53 mRNA to repress its translation, but is outcompeted by ribosomal protein RPL26 following IR to boost p53 mRNA translation [142]. Other molecular interactions between NCL and the DDR machinery have been reviewed elsewhere [143]. Whether NPM1 and NCL are also involved in sensing and repair of potential rDNA damage and/or in sensing defective pre-rRNA processing remains to be determined.

Furthermore, dual specificity phosphatase cell division cycle 14B is also released from the nucleolus upon genotoxic stress to dephosphorylate and activate the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome/(APC/CCdh1) ubiquitin ligase in the nucleoplasm, leading to polo-like kinase degradation, and the consequent execution of a G2-phase cell-cycle checkpoint [144].

On the other hand, several signaling pathways previously linked to DNA damage are activated in cells upon specific impairments of ribosome biogenesis. The most convincing evidence so far points to activation of the ATR-Chk1-dependent G2/M cell-cycle checkpoint pathway in cells treated with low concentrations of actinomycin D, which specifically inhibits Pol I activity [145]. Additional studies showed that both the ATR-Chk1 and ATM-Chk2 signaling pathways are active in RP-deficient cells, for example in RPS19-depleted cells [146]. What could be the trigger for activation of these canonical DDR pathways under such conditions? The accumulation of pre-rRNA upon pre-rRNA processing defects may facilitate the formation of R-loops, leading to DNA RS and rDNA damage as discussed in Section 3 [147]. Moreover, the increased demand for rRNA in RP-deficient cells could lead to compensatory transcriptional activation of silent rDNA genes, with the ensuing DNA topological stress, R-loop formation and rDNA damage [147]. Finally, an imbalance in nucleotide pools owing to defects in pre-rRNA synthesis may also cause DNA RS and activation of the ATR/Chk1-signaling pathway [146].

In view of the extensive interaction between DDR and ribosome biogenesis it comes as no surprise that their functions are dysregulated in many cancer types and that the mechanism of action of many DNA-damaging chemotherapeutics used for cancer treatment involves either the inhibition of pre-rRNA synthesis or its maturation in both DDR-dependent and -independent manners [16, 19, 148]. However, the relative contribution of these ribosome biogenesis impairments to their anticancer efficacy still remains to be determined.

Role of the nucleolus in chromatin and genome organization

In addition to a decrease in rDNA copy number, disruption of the heterochromatin architecture surrounding nucleoli is seen in cells depleted of specific RPs, indicating that alterations of the fine balance between ribosome biogenesis and chromatin organization could be an unanticipated mechanism by which RP-deficiencies mediate pathological phenotypes [76, 149].

Different protein complexes, in part through association with RNA genes transcribed by RNA pol III (5 S rRNA, tRNA), and RNA species (e.g., long non-coding RNA) may be involved in the establishment and maintenance of nucleolus-chromatin domain interactions. One nucleolus-chromatin tethering candidate is CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF), a sequence-specific DNA binding protein that acts as a transcriptional repressor, and delimits juxtaposed domains of active and inactive chromatin [150]. CTCF loss in HeLa cells resulted in nucleolar fragmentation and reduced rDNA silencing [151]. Similarly, in Drosophila cells, CTCF loss resulted in nucleolar fragmentation and activation of silent rDNA [152].

Some members of the nucleoplasmin/NPM1 family of histone chaperones [153] including NPM1, NPM2, and dNLP share the nucleolar localization and various nucleolar activities. In a landmark paper, the Drosophila nucleoplasmin-like protein (dNLP), CTCF, and the nucleolar protein Modulo (homolog of mammalian NCL), proved to be essential for the positioning of centromeres near the nucleolus [154]. Centromere clustering during interphase occur in different organisms and cell types, and often around the nucleolus. dNLP and CTCF were sufficient for clustering, whereas Modulo served as the nucleolar anchor. Interestingly, in this case, unclustering of centromeres resulted in spatial destabilization of pericentric heterochromatin, partial defects in the silencing of repetitive elements, defects during chromosome segregation, and subsequent genome instability [154]. Of particular interest is that NPM1 also interacts with CTCF in mammalian cells and may function in a similar fashion [150].

Another example comes from studies on the mammalian maternal oocyte nucleolus, a structure essential for early embryonic development in mammals [155, 156]. Zygotes derived from enucleolated oocytes exhibit abnormal heterochromatin formation around parental pericentromeric DNA, causing mitotic delay and frequent chromosome mis-segregation in the first mitotic division [156]. It is well known that the mouse nucleoplasmin-like protein Npm2 accumulates in oocyte nuclei and nucleoli, and its persistence there in preimplantation embryos is critical for nucleolar formation and embryonic development [157]. Npm2-deficient oocytes lack normal nucleolar structure, not being surrounded by heterochromatin, and display chromosome segregation defects similar to those in enucleolated oocytes [156]. Remarkably, expression‎ of Npm2 alone was sufficient to reconstitute the nucleolar structure in enucleolated embryos and rescued the first mitotic division and full-term development [156].

Interestingly, the nucleolar phenotype in NPM1-depleted cells displays similarities to that observed in Npm2-deficient oocytes [158]. Moreover, cells derived from Npm1 knockout mice exhibit extensive genome instability and mitotic defects in analogy with Npm2 [158]. Chronic and acute NPM1 loss disrupts normal nucleolar morphology and triggers rearrangement of perinucleolar heterochromatin indicating a function of NPM1 in the spatial organization of nucleolus-associated heterochromatin similar to NPM2 [159].

All together, these findings further highlight the importance of the nucleolus as a platform for the organization of chromatin and regulation of genomic stability.

Conclusions

Intense research efforts over the last decade have suggested that the maintenance of rDNA stability is critical for normal structure and functions of the nucleoli but also for genome maintenance, global chromatin regulation, and genome-wide gene expression‎. It is also becoming evident that instability of rDNA gene clusters may be an early event in tumorigenesis and a driving force in human cancer. Quantification of rDNA copy number could be used in the future to gain a more precise insight into the extent of rDNA copy number variations in various cancer types [97]. Similar to yeast, the loss of rDNA copies increases the sensitivity of cancer cells to DNA-damaging agents (Table 1) [89, 97]. Thus, rDNA copy number could be a cancer patient stratification marker to guide genotoxic therapies. The observations that almost 10% of yeast genes are involved in the maintenance rDNA stability suggests that the mechanisms contributing to rDNA instability described in this review are most likely just the tip of the iceberg [160]. These genes are involved in numerous cellular processes including DNA repair, DNA metabolic processes, epigenetic regulation, transcription, amino-acid transport, protein modifications, ribosome biogenesis, protein synthesis, and regulation of cell cycle. Addressing roles of the human homologs of these genes in genome maintenance and cancer pathogenesis may be another fruitful avenue for future investigations. Given the observation that upregulation of mTOR activity by excessive nutrient uptake in D. melanogaster instigated loss of rDNA copies [100], future studies of this phenomenon are warranted in humans, particularly because the well documented links between overnutrition, obesity, high insulin levels and dyregulation of the mTORC1-signaling pathway with the pathogenesis of cancer [104,105,106,107]. Taken together, future studies on the role of the nucleolus in the regulation of genome stability could have huge implications for anticancer therapies as well as cancer prevention measures.

References

1. Pederson T. The nucleolus. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011;3:a000638.

   PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

2. Anger AM, Armache JP, Berninghausen O, Habeck M, Subklewe M, Wilson DN, et al. Structures of the human and Drosophila 80S ribosome. Nature. 2013;497:80–85.

   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

3. Budkevich TV, El’skaya AV, Nierhaus KH. Features of 80S mammalian ribosome and its subunits. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:4736–4744.

   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

4. McStay B. Nucleolar organizer regions: genomic ‘dark matter’ requiring illumination. Genes Dev. 2016;30:1598–1610.

   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

5. Stults DM, Killen MW, Pierce HH, Pierce AJ. Genomic architecture and inheritance of human ribosomal RNA gene clusters. Genome Res. 2008;18:13–18.

   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

6. Goodfellow SJ, Zomerdijk JC. Basic mechanisms in RNA polymerase I transcription of the ribosomal RNA genes. Subcell Biochem. 2013;61:211–36.

   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

7. Floutsakou I, Agrawal S, Nguyen TT, Seoighe C, Ganley AR, McStay B. The shared genomic architecture of human nucleolar organizer regions. Genome Res. 2013;23:2003–2012.

   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

8. Grob A, Colleran C, McStay B. Construction of synthetic nucleoli in human cells reveals how a major functional nuclear domain is formed and propagated through cell division. Genes Dev. 2014;28:220–230.

   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

9. Akhmanova A, Verkerk T, Langeveld A, Grosveld F, Galjart N. Characterisation of transcriptionally active and inactive chromatin domains in neurons. J Cell Sci. 2000;113:4463–4474.

   CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

10. McStay B, Grummt I. The epigenetics of rRNA genes: from molecular to chromosome biology. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2008;24:131–157.

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

11. Guetg C, Lienemann P, Sirri V, Grummt I, Hernandez-Verdun D, Hottiger MO, et al. The NoRC complex mediates the heterochromatin formation and stability of silent rRNA genes and centromeric repeats. EMBO J. 2010;29:2135–2146.

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

12. Rudra D, Warner JR. What better measure than ribosome synthesis? Genes Dev. 2004;18:2431–2436.

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

13. Lane AN, Fan TW. Regulation of mammalian nucleotide metabolism and biosynthesis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:2466–2485.

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

14. Murayama A, Ohmori K, Fujimura A, Minami H, Yasuzawa-Tanaka K, Kuroda T, et al. Epigenetic control of rDNA loci in response to intracellular energy status. Cell. 2008;133:627–39.

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

15. Xie W, Ling T, Zhou Y, Feng W, Zhu Q, Stunnenberg HG, et al. The chromatin remodeling complex NuRD establishes the poised state of rRNA genes characterized by bivalent histone modifications and altered nucleosome positions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:8161–8166.

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

16. Bursac S, Brdovcak MC, Donati G, Volarevic S. Activation of the tumor suppressor p53 upon impairment of ribosome biogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1842:817–830.

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

17. Xue S, Barna M. Specialized ribosomes: a new frontier in gene regulation and organismal biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2012;13:355–369.

    Article CAS PubMed Pu