This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Collins, I. Articles by Levens, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Collins, I. Articles by Levens, D.

Molecular and Cellular Biology, December 2001, p. 8437-8451, Vol. 21, No. 24
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.24.8437-8451.2001

Transcriptional Consequences of Topoisomerase Inhibition

Irene Collins, Achim Weber, and David Levens^*

Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1500

Received 14 June 2001/Returned for modification 17 July 2001/Accepted 17 September 2001

In principle, the generation, transmission, and dissipation of supercoiling forces are determined by the arrangement of the physical barriers defining topological boundaries and the disposition of enzymes creating (polymerases and helicases, etc.) or releasing (topoisomerases) torsional strain in DNA. These features are likely to be characteristic for individual genes. By using topoisomerase inhibitors to alter the balance between supercoiling forces in vivo, we monitored changes in the basal transcriptional activity and DNA conformation for several genes. Every gene examined displayed an individualized profile in response to inhibition of topoisomerase I or II. The expression changes elicited by camptothecin (topoisomerase I inhibitor) or adriamycin (topoisomerase II inhibitor) were not equivalent. Camptothecin generally caused transcription complexes to stall in the midst of transcription units, while provoking little response at promoters. Adriamycin, in contrast, caused dramatic changes at or near promoters and prevented transcription. The response to topoisomerase inhibition was also context dependent, differing between chromosomal or episomal c-myc promoters. In addition to being well-characterized DNA-damaging agents, topoisomerase inhibitors may evoke a biological response determined in part from transcriptional effects. The results have ramifications for the use of these drugs as antineoplastic agents.

---

^* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bldg. 10, Rm. 2N106, Bethesda, MD 20892-1500. Phone: (301) 496-2176. Fax: (301) 594-5227. E-mail: levens{at}helix.nih.gov.

Present address: Institute for Molecular Pathology, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.

---

Molecular and Cellular Biology, December 2001, p. 8437-8451, Vol. 21, No. 24
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.24.8437-8451.2001

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Larijani, M., Martin, A. (2007). Single-Stranded DNA Structure and Positional Context of the Target Cytidine Determine the Enzymatic Efficiency of AID. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27: 8038-8048 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bermejo, R., Doksani, Y., Capra, T., Katou, Y.-M., Tanaka, H., Shirahige, K., Foiani, M. (2007). Top1- and Top2-mediated topological transitions at replication forks ensure fork progression and stability and prevent DNA damage checkpoint activation. Genes Dev. 21: 1921-1936 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Muller, W. G., Rieder, D., Karpova, T. S., John, S., Trajanoski, Z., McNally, J. G. (2007). Organization of chromatin and histone modifications at a transcription site. J. Cell Biol. 177: 957-967 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Zlatanova, J., Seebart, C., Tomschik, M. (2007). Nap1: taking a closer look at a juggler protein of extraordinary skills. FASEB J. 21: 1294-1310 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ju, B.-G., Lunyak, V. V., Perissi, V., Garcia-Bassets, I., Rose, D. W., Glass, C. K., Rosenfeld, M. G. (2006). A topoisomerase IIbeta-mediated dsDNA break required for regulated transcription.. Science 312: 1798-1802 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gong, Y., Firestone, G. L., Bjeldanes, L. F. (2006). 3,3'-Diindolylmethane Is a Novel Topoisomerase II{alpha} Catalytic Inhibitor That Induces S-Phase Retardation and Mitotic Delay in Human Hepatoma HepG2 Cells. Mol. Pharmacol. 69: 1320-1327 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lemke, K., Wojciechowski, M., Laine, W., Bailly, C., Colson, P., Baginski, M., Larsen, A. K., Skladanowski, A. (2005). Induction of unique structural changes in guanine-rich DNA regions by the triazoloacridone C-1305, a topoisomerase II inhibitor with antitumor activities. Nucleic Acids Res 33: 6034-6047 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Zeng, L., Hu, Y., Li, B. (2005). Identification of TopBP1 as a c-Abl-interacting Protein and a Repressor for c-Abl Expression. J. Biol. Chem. 280: 29374-29380 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Weber, A., Liu, J., Collins, I., Levens, D. (2005). TFIIH Operates through an Expanded Proximal Promoter To Fine-Tune c-myc Expression. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25: 147-161 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Shen, H. M., Storb, U. (2004). Activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) can target both DNA strands when the DNA is supercoiled. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 12997-13002 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mondal, N., Zhang, Y., Jonsson, Z., Dhar, S. K., Kannapiran, M., Parvin, J. D. (2003). Elongation by RNA polymerase II on chromatin templates requires topoisomerase activity. Nucleic Acids Res 31: 5016-5024 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rapisarda, A., Uranchimeg, B., Scudiero, D. A., Selby, M., Sausville, E. A., Shoemaker, R. H., Melillo, G. (2002). Identification of Small Molecule Inhibitors of Hypoxia-inducible Factor 1 Transcriptional Activation Pathway. Cancer Res. 62: 4316-4324 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lu, R., Moore, P. A., Pitha, P. M. (2002). Stimulation of IRF-7 Gene Expression by Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha . REQUIREMENT FOR NFkappa B TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR AND GENE ACCESSIBILITY. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 16592-16598 [Abstract] [Full Text]