Measurement of Drug‐Stabilized Topoisomerase II Cleavage Complexes by Flow Cytometry

Marcelo de Campos Nebel1, Micaela Palmitelli1, Marcela González‐Cid1

1 Laboratorio de Mutagénesis, Instituto de Medicina Experimental (IMEX), Academia Nacional de Medicina
Publication Name:  Current Protocols in Cytometry
Unit Number:  Unit 7.48
DOI:  10.1002/cpcy.21
Online Posting Date:  July, 2017
GO TO THE FULL TEXT: PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Abstract

The poisoning of Topoisomerase II (Top2) has been found to be useful as a therapeutic strategy for the treatment of several tumors. The mechanism of Top2 poisons involves a drug‐mediated stabilization of a Top2‐DNA complex, termed Top2 cleavage complex (Top2cc), which maintains a 5′ end of DNA covalently bound to a tyrosine from Top2 through a phosphodiester group. Drug‐stabilized Top2cc leads to Top2‐linked‐DNA breaks, which are believed to mediate their cytotoxicity. Several time‐consuming or cell type‐limiting assays have been used in the past to study drug‐stabilized Top2cc. Here, we describe a flow cytometry‐based method that allows a rapid assessment of drug‐induced Top2cc, which is suitable for high throughput analysis in almost any kind of human cell. The analyses of the drug‐induced Top2cc in the cell cycle context and the possibility to track its removal are additional benefits from this methodology. © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Keywords: high‐throughput analysis; human cells; topoisomerase II cleavage complexes

     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
  • Basic Protocol 1: Detection of Stabilized Top2 Cleavage Complexes in Human Cells Following Exposure to Top2 Poisons
  • Reagents and Solutions
  • Commentary
  • Literature Cited
  • Figures
     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Materials

Basic Protocol 1: Detection of Stabilized Top2 Cleavage Complexes in Human Cells Following Exposure to Top2 Poisons

  Materials
  • HL‐60 cell line (ATCC, #CCL‐640)
  • Etoposide (Sigma, cat. no. 33419–42‐0)
  • Ice
  • 1× PHEM buffer (see recipe)
  • Phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride (PMSF; Sigma)
  • 2× Extraction buffer (see recipe)
  • 4% paraformaldehyde solution (in PBS)
  • 1× Phosphate‐buffered saline (PBS; Gibco, cat. no. 10010031)
  • Blocking buffer (see recipe)
  • Rabbit anti‐Top2α (H‐231, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) or mouse anti‐Top2β (H‐8, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) primary antibodies
  • Alexa Fluor 488‐conjugated goat anti‐rabbit (Life Technologies) or DyLight 488‐conjugated goat anti‐mouse (Thermo Scientific) secondary antibodies
  • RNase A solution
  • Propidium iodide solution
  • RPMI 1640 (with phenol red, sodium bicarbonate, and L‐glutamine)
  • Fetal bovine serum
  • Micropipettes
  • 37°C, 5% CO 2 incubator
  • 1.5‐ml tubes
  • Microcentrifuge
  • Rotating microtube mixer
  • Flow cytometer with at least a blue laser (488 nm)
  • Cell Quest software or any other analysis software
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Figures

Videos

Literature Cited

Literature Cited
  Adolphs, K. W., Cheng, S. M., Paulson, J. R., & Laemmli, U. K. (1977). Isolation of a protein scaffold from mitotic HeLa cell chromosomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 74, 4937–4941. doi: 10.1073/pnas.74.11.4937.
  Agostinho, M., Rino, J., Braga, J., Ferreira, F., Steffensen, S., & Ferreira, J. (2004). Human topoisomerase IIalpha: Targeting to subchromosomal sites of activity during interphase and mitosis. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 15, 2388–2400. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E03‐08‐0558.
  Bandele, O. J., & Osheroff, N. (2008). The efficacy of topoisomerase II‐targeted anticancer agents reflects the persistence of drug‐induced cleavage complexes in cells. Biochemistry, 47, 11900–11908. doi: 10.1021/bi800981j.
  Cowell, I. G., Tilby, M. J., & Austin, C. A. (2011). An overview of the visualisation and quantitation of low and high MW DNA adducts using the trapped in agarose DNA immunostaining (TARDIS) assay. Mutagenesis, 26, 253–260. doi: 10.1093/mutage/geq094.
  Iarovaia, O. V., Akopov, S. B., Nikolaev, L. G., Sverdlov, E. D., & Razin, S. V. (2005). Induction of transcription within chromosomal DNA loops flanked by MAR elements causes an association of loop DNA with the nuclear matrix. Nucleic Acids Research, 33, 4157–4163. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki733.
  Mirzoeva, O. K., & Petrini, J. H. (2001). DNA damage‐dependent nuclear dynamics of the Mre11 complex. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 21, 281‐288. doi: 10.1128/MCB.21.1.281--288.2001.
  Mladenov, E., Anachkova, B., & Tsaneva, I. (2006). Sub‐nuclear localization of Rad51 in response to DNA damage. Genes to Cells, 11, 513–524. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‐2443.2006.00958.x.
  Nitiss, J. L., & Beck, W. T. (1996). Antitopoisomerase drug action and resistance. European Journal of Cancer, 32A, 958–966. doi: 10.1016/0959‐8049(96)00056‐1.
  Subramanian, D., Furbee, C. S., & Muller, M. T. (2001). ICE bioassay. Isolating in vivo complexes of enzyme to DNA. Methods in Molecular Biology, 95, 137–147.
  Zellweger, R., Dalcher, D., Mutreja, K., Berti, M., Schmid, J. A., Herrador, R., … Lopes, M. (2015). Rad51‐mediated replication fork reversal is a global response to genotoxic treatments in human cells. The Journal of Cell Biology, 208, 563–579. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201406099.
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library