The Topo2a-dependent arrest is associated with faithful segregation of sister chromatids and has been identified as dysfunctional in numerous tumour cell lines. This genome-protecting pathway is poorly understood and its characterization is of significant interest, potentially offering interventional opportunities in relation to synthetic lethal behaviours in arrest-defective tumours. Using the catalytic Topo2a inhibitor ICRF193, we have performed a genome-wide siRNA screen in arrest-competent, non-transformed cells, to identify genes essential for this arrest mechanism. In addition, we have counter-screened several DNA-damaging agents and demonstrate that the Topo2a-dependent arrest is genetically distinct from DNA damage checkpoints. We identify the components of the SMC5/6 complex, including the activity of the E3 SUMO ligase NSE2, as non-redundant players that control the timing of the Topo2a-dependent arrest in G2. We have independently verified the NSE2 requirement in fibroblasts from patients with germline mutations that cause severely reduced levels of NSE2. Through imaging Topo2a-dependent G2 arrested cells, an increased interaction between Topo2a and NSE2 is observed at PML bodies, which are known SUMOylation hotspots. We demonstrate that Topo2a is SUMOylated in an ICRF193-dependent manner by NSE2 at a novel non-canonical site (K1520) and that K1520 sumoylation is required for chromosome segregation but not the G2 arrest.

E2F7 and E2F8 act as tumor suppressors via transcriptional repression of genes involved in S‐phase entry and progression. Previously, we demonstrated that these atypical E2Fs are degraded by APC/CCdh1 during G1 phase of the cell cycle. However, the mechanism driving the downregulation of atypical E2Fs during G2 phase is unknown. Here, we show that E2F7 is targeted for degradation by the E3 ubiquitin ligase SCFcyclin F during G2. Cyclin F binds via its cyclin domain to a conserved C‐terminal CY motif on E2F7. An E2F7 mutant unable to interact with SCFcyclin F remains stable during G2. Furthermore, SCFcyclin F can also interact and induce degradation of E2F8. However, this does not require the cyclin domain of SCFcyclin F nor the CY motifs in the C‐terminus of E2F8, implying a different regulatory mechanism than for E2F7. Importantly, depletion of cyclin F causes an atypical‐E2F‐dependent delay of the G2/M transition, accompanied by reduced expression of E2F target genes involved in DNA repair. Live cell imaging of DNA damage revealed that cyclin F‐dependent regulation of atypical E2Fs is critical for efficient DNA repair and cell cycle progression.

Highlights d Individual cycling cancer cells display enhanced E2F target gene expression d E2F7/8 deletion or E2F3 overexpression overrides cell-cycle exit after DNA damage d Elevated levels of the E2F target Emi1 prevent DNA-damageinduced cell-cycle exit d The cell-cycle exit after DNA damage is transient and leads to endoreplication

E2F transcription factors control the oscillating expression pattern of multiple target genes during the cell cycle. Activator E2Fs, E2F1-3, induce an upswing of E2F targets, which is essential for the G1-to-S phase transition, whereas atypical E2Fs, E2F7 and E2F8, mediate a downswing of the same targets during late S, G2, and M phase. Expression of atypical E2Fs is induced by E2F1-3, but it is unknown how atypical E2Fs are inactivated in a timely manner. Using molecular assays, time lapse microscopy, and flow cytometry we now demonstrate that E2F7 and E2F8 are substrates of the Anaphase Promoting Cyclosome/Complex (APC/C). Removal of CDH1, or mutating the CDH1-interacting KEN boxes, stabilized E2F7/8 from anaphase onwards and during G1. Expressing KEN-mutant E2F7 during G1 severely impairs S-phase entry and eventually results in cell death. Furthermore, we show that E2F8, but not E2F7, interacts also with APC/CCdc20. Importantly, atypical E2Fs can activate the APC/CCdh1 by repressing its inhibitors Emi1, cyclin A, and cyclin E. In conclusion, we uncovered a feedback loop between atypical E2Fs and APC/CCdh1, which ensures balanced expression of cell cycle genes and normal cell cycle progression. Citation Format: Michiel Boekhout, Ruixue Yuan, Annelotte P. Wondergem, Hendrika A. Segeren, Elsbeth A. van Liere, Nesibu Awol, Imke Jansen, Rob MF Wolthuis, Alain de Bruin, Bart Westendorp. Feedback regulation between atypical E2Fs and APC/CCdh1 coordinates cell cycle progression.. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Precision Medicine Series: Cancer Cell Cycle - Tumor Progression and Therapeutic Response; Feb 28-Mar 2, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Res 2016;14(11_Suppl):Abstract nr B14.

Cancer cells often experience high basal levels of DNA replication stress (RS), for example due to hyperactivation of oncoproteins like MYC or RAS. Therefore, cancer cells are considered to be sensitive to drugs that exacerbate the level of RS or block the intra S-phase checkpoint. Consequently, RS-inducing drugs including ATR and CHK1 inhibitors are used or evaluated as anti-cancer therapies. However, drug resistance and lack of biomarkers predicting therapeutic efficacy limit efficient use. This raises the question what determines sensitivity of individual cancer cells to RS. Here, we report that oncogenic RAS does not only enhance the sensitivity to ATR/CHK1 inhibitors by directly causing RS. Instead, we observed that HRASG12V dampens the activation of the P53-dependent transcriptional response to drug-induced RS, which in turn confers sensitivity to RS. We demonstrate that inducible expression of HRASG12V sensitized cells to ATR and CHK1 inhibitors. Using RNA-sequencing of FACS-sorted cells we discovered that P53 signaling is the sole transcriptional response to RS. However, oncogenic RAS attenuates the transcription of P53 and TGF-β pathway components which consequently dampens P53 target gene expression. Accordingly, live cell imaging showed that HRASG12V exacerbates RS in S/G2-phase, which could be rescued by stabilization of P53. Thus, our results demonstrate that transcriptional control of P53 target genes is the prime determinant in the response to ATR/CHK1 inhibitors and show that hyperactivation of the MAPK pathway impedes this response. Our findings suggest that the level of oncogenic MAPK signaling could predict sensitivity to intra-S-phase checkpoint inhibition in cancers with intact P53.