MCMs in Cancer: Prognostic Potential and Mechanisms

Yu, Si; Wang, Guanqun; Shi, Yue; Xu, Haifeng; Zheng, Yongchang; Chen, Yang

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3750294

Analytical Cellular Pathology

On this page

Abstract Conclusion Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Tumor Microenvironment and Early Diagnosis of Cancers

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 3750294 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3750294

MCMs in Cancer: Prognostic Potential and Mechanisms

Si Yu,¹Guanqun Wang,²Yue Shi,¹Haifeng Xu,¹Yongchang Zheng,¹and Yang Chen³

Guest Editor: Li Min

Received15 Jul 2019

Accepted25 Jan 2020

Published03 Feb 2020

Abstract

Enabling replicative immortality and uncontrolled cell cycle are hallmarks of cancer cells. Minichromosome maintenance proteins (MCMs) exhibit helicase activity in replication initiation and play vital roles in controlling replication times within a cell cycle. Overexpressed MCMs are detected in various cancerous tissues and cancer cell lines. Previous studies have proposed MCMs as promising proliferation markers in cancers, while the prognostic values remain controversial and the underlying mechanisms remain unascertained. This review provides an overview of the significant findings regarding the cellular and tumorigenic functions of the MCM family. Besides, current evidence of the prognostic roles of MCMs is retrospectively reviewed. This work also offers insight into the mechanisms of MCMs prompting carcinogenesis and adverse prognosis, providing information for future research. Finally, MCMs in liver cancer are specifically discussed, and future perspectives are provided.

1. MCM Family and Cellular Functions

Minichromosome maintenance proteins (MCMs) were first identified in Saccharomyces cerevisiae as imperative factors in the maintenance of extrachromosomal DNA [1]. In eukaryotic cells, MCM2-7 form a hetero-hexameric AAA+ ATPase. A structural and biochemical study showed that in the complex, the central AAA+ domain had helicase activity while the N-terminal domain functioned as an organizing center in trans-acting replisome [2].

MCMs play essential roles as a helicase and organizing center in DNA replication initiation (Figure 1). During the late M to G1 phase, the origin recognition complex (ORC) and Cdc6 are initially recruited on the replication origin [3]. Afterward, randomly distributed double hexamers of MCM2-7 interact with Cdt1, the MCM loader, and the two subunits engage in the formation of ORC-Cdc6-Cdt1-Mcm2-7 (OCCM) intermediate, functioning as a component of the prereplication complex (pre-RC) [4]. In the S phase, ORC1 and CDC6 are phosphorylated by activated CDK kinase and detached from the origin. Cdt1 is degraded via geminin-mediated ubiquitination. CDK and other initiation factors (DDK, Sld2, Sld3/7, Dpb11, Polε, CDC45, and GINS) facilitate the activation of helicase activity in MCM2-7. The double hexamers separate and individually associate with CDC45 and GINS to form the CDC45-MCM-GINS (CMG) complex. CMG complex triggers the unwinding of DNA at the origin and serves as the platform for complete replisome assembly [5, 6].

Figure 1

MCMs play essential roles in DNA replication initiation. During the G1 phase, ORC and Cdc6 bind to condensed chromatin in advance and recruit MCM2-7 double hexamer and Cdt1 to form OCCM intermediate. During the S phase, ORC and Cdc6 exit via Cdk-dependent phosphorylation and Cdt1 exits via geminin-dependent ubiquitination. The double hexamer separates and forms CMG complexes separately. GINS and CDC45 as well as other initiation factors interact with MCM2-7 hexamer and trigger DNA unwinding [3, 6, 7].

Particularly, MCMs are functionally related to accurate DNA replication licensing. In a dividing cell, MCM2-7 are the only proteins present in all stages of the cell cycle [3], and they are strictly regulated at the steps of elongation and termination [8]. The switch between active/inactive states would ensure that DNA only replicates once at a time. Meanwhile, MCMs also provide flexibility, redundancy, and robustness for the genome. Only a fraction of the excess MCM2-7 proteins bound to chromatin are located in ORC binding site and activated in any S phase. The displaced MCM2-7 proteins are still functional in initiation [8], providing an intrinsically flexible replication strategy, which could be crucial in proliferation regulation and replication stress response.

In the MCM family, MCM subunits have distinct functions in chromosomal DNA replication (Table 1). During initiation, MCM2/4 interact with the MCM loader Cdt1 at NTD (N-terminus domain) to stabilize the coil structure [4]. MCM2/5 form a gate for the MCM2-7 loading [13]. In the OCCM intermediate, MCM3 interacts with ORC·Cdc6 at CTD and stimulates the ATPase activity [14]. In the CMG complex, MCM2/5 and MCM3/5 correspondingly interact with Cdc45 and GINS, and the association is stabilized by MCM10; MCM10 also helps activate the helicase activity of MCM2-7 complex and stimulates elongation [12, 15, 20, 21]. During elongation, MCM4/6/7 is directly involved in the translocation of CMG complex from the origin along the single-strand DNA in the MCM2-7COMPLEX, and MCM2 can be dephosphorylated by PTEN to restrict replication fork progression [1, 11]. MCM2/4/5/6/7 correlatedly shifted and formed a tight cluster [23]. In metazoans, MCM8 can function as a helicase, and MCM10 may coordinate DNA helicase and polymerization [18, 22]. During termination, MCM7 is involved in MCM2-7 degradation in a ubiquitylation-dependent manner [16]. Beyond the process of DNA replication, MCM2 has histone-handling activity, and the MCM8-9 is demonstrated to facilitate homologous recombination at DNA damage sites by promoting RAD51 recruitment [9, 18]. Besides, the trimeric MCM4/6/7 was demonstrated to be competent to unwind DNA in vitro [24].

2. MCMs and Cancer

2.1. MCMs in Cancer Development

Unlimited DNA replication is one of the characteristics of dysplasia and malignant cells [25]. Many DNA replication proteins have been proposed to be promising cancer biomarkers. MCM proteins are suggested to be closely related to cancer development as well. Overexpression of MCMs has been detected in various cancer tissues and carcinoma cell lines including lung squamous cell carcinoma [26], renal cell carcinoma [27], prostate cancer [28], breast cancer [29], gastrointestinal tract tumors [30–32], brain tumors [33, 34], and lymphomas [35, 36]. Studies have also shown the links between critical clinicopathological characteristics and upregulated MCMs in some cancers [37, 38]. Besides, expression levels of MCM proteins are reported to be associated with different malignant differentiated degrees, clinical stages, and tumor sizes [26, 39].

Since MCMs are indispensable for DNA replication licensing and significantly downregulated when the cell exits from the cell cycle into quiescence (G0), differentiation, or senescence [40–42], high levels of MCMs are proposed as potential proliferation markers. MCM-knockdown, expression microarray, and immunohistochemical analysis are used to identify MCMs as proliferation markers in gastric tumors [43], oral squamous cell carcinoma [44], ovarian cancer [45], and salivary gland tumors [46]. MCM3, MCM4, and MCM7 have advantages over traditional cell-cycle markers like Ki67 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) because they have higher sensitivity and are less likely to be influenced by external factors like inflammatory factors [44, 47]. The presence of MCMs in all cell stage may account for the superiority, considering that expression of Ki67 and PCNA can only be observed in certain stages of replication and can be easily disturbed [48, 49].

In addition to overproliferation, upregulated MCMs are also related to cancer metastasis. Anchorage-independent cell growth, cell migration, and invasion were improved in medulloblastoma with exogenous overexpressed MCM2, MCM3, and MCM7 [50]. At the same time, MCM8 has also been reported to be involved in chromosome rearrangement [18]. Numerous rearrangements are one of the features of the aggressive cancer genome. The decreased volume of xenografted tumor in MCM8 knockdown mice testified the significant role of MCM8 in metastasis in vivo [51].

2.2. MCMs as Diagnostic Markers and Therapeutic Targets

Aside from the utility as cell proliferation markers, the diagnostic potentials of the MCM proteins have been the focus of much attention. Immunostaining results and clinical practice have confirmed that most of the MCM-positive cells are distributed at the surface of malignant and premalignant epithelial cells [52], which means that the cytological specimen is easily accessible and reproducible in clinic. Given that the MCM expression level varies during cancer development, expression microarray analysis is also a feasible approach for diagnosis. Therefore, MCMs are promising biomarkers in cancer screening and diagnosis, both practically and theoretically. Diagnostic receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that MCM2-7 proteins could serve as sensitive diagnostic markers in HCC [53]. The diagnostic values of the individual MCM subunits were identified in various cancers including MCM2 in gastric cardiac cancer and salivary gland tumor, MCM5 in esophageal cancer, MCM7 in meningiomas, and MCM10 in breast cancer [34, 46, 54–56].

As mentioned above, MCMs are a crucial replication factor acting as both a helicase and a licensing component. Moreover, MCMs may mediate DNA damage repair. Knockdown of MCM genes was reported to significantly inhibit cell proliferation [50, 57, 58]. Based on the biological and functional significance of MCMs, many MCM-targeted drugs have been developed. Anticancer therapies using the CMG complex as a target were recently reviewed by Seo and Kang [59]. Concerning the inhibition of MCM functions, two major strategies have been explored. The first strategy is to target MCM genes at transcriptional levels. It was shown that Trichostatin A, an HDAC inhibitor, and Lovastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, could downregulate MCM2 through activation of the JNK signaling pathway [60–62]. Also, Widdrol, an odorant compound, can activate DNA damage checkpoint through the signaling Chk2-p53-Cdc25A-p21-MCM4 pathway in HT29 cells [63]. Besides, Genistein, BETi, and Breviscapine were reported to, respectively, downregulate MCM2, MCM5, and MCM7 [61, 64]. The second strategy is to inhibit the helicase activity of MCMs. Ciprofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone, was reported to have an inhibitory effect on MCM2-7 helicase. Moreover, Heliquinomycin, an antibiotic compound, could inhibit both MCM2-7 and MCM4/6/7 trimeric helicase. It could effectively suppress cancer cell growth in lung adenocarcinoma, lung large cell carcinoma, and bladder cancer cells [65].

3. Prognostic Roles of MCMs

Many studies have investigated the correlation between overexpressed MCMs and adverse prognosis (Table 2). Immunostaining results of MCMs are described to be potential indicators of clinical outcomes in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma [38], small lung adenocarcinomas [66], urothelial bladder carcinomas [67], and OSCC [68]. Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and other online cancer microarray databases combined with the Kaplan-Meier Plotter have been used to identify the unfavorable roles of highly expressed MCM10 in breast cancer [56] and hepatocellular carcinoma [53, 69]. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses with Cox’s regression model present evidence for independent prognostic roles of MCM2 in LUSC prognosis [26], MCM6 in glioma [33], MCM5 in lung squamous cell carcinoma [70], and MCM8 in pancreatic cancer [31].

High expression of MCMs is reported to be negatively correlated with overall survival in many studies. However, lower expression of MCM8 is reported to be related to higher relapse rates and lower disease-free survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma [71]. In an experiment, MCM3-deficient mice were prone to hematological neoplasia [72]. Moreover, upregulated MCM2 might predict better outcome in ER-positive breast cancer [73]. The underlying mechanisms of lower and higher expression levels of MCMs in cancer prognosis could be very different.

Contrary to continuously active DNA replication caused by high-level MCMs, downregulation or defect of MCMs might induce replicative stress response (RS), which could be defined as the slowing or stalling of replication fork progression or DNA synthesis [74]. In normal cell growth, MCM2-7 is loaded at chromatin in a higher number than ORCs in the S phase, the excess MCM2-7 license DNA replication at dormant origins as a rescue strategy. When the concentration of MCM proteins decreases, the frequency of initiation at primary origins is reduced, resulting in replication fork stalling. Although initiation might be available at dormant origins, DNA damage would still accumulate because of fork progression obstacle, high frequency of chromosome recombination between nearby stalling forks, deletion of areas with tumor suppressor genes [36], and other genomic structural abnormalities [75]. The damage might lead to replication fork collapse and disrupted genomic integrity, which might cause malignant transformation in cells.

Although links between MCM expression levels and poor cancer prognosis are revealed by many studies, conclusions about the corresponding relationships remain controversial. Furthermore, some studies report that MCM2 has no independent relevance for cancer-specific survival [50, 76–78]. The most recent meta-analysis was based on 31 studies, including 7653 cancer patients. The relationship between MCMs expression and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in various cancer patients by pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). It is shown that high expressions of MCM5 and MCM7 were significantly associated with short OS for pooled HR (, 95% -1.08, ; , 95% -3.02, , respectively) and increased MCM2 and MCM7 expressions were significantly correlated with poor OS (, 95% -4.63, ; , 95% -6.18, , respectively). The researchers concluded that high expression of MCM2, MCM5, and MCM7 might be prognostic indicators for poor outcomes in cancers [79].

Moreover, MCMs exhibit superiority as survival predictors. MCM7 is significantly associated with recurrence-free survival () and obtains higher sensitivity in the ROC curve in meningioma than traditional marker MIB-1 [34]. MCM6 and MCM2 were revealed to be more accurate and reliable markers in mantle cell lymphoma [80] and esophageal cancer [81].

4. Molecular Mechanism of MCMs in Cancer Prognosis

4.1. Genomic Instability

Cancer cells are produced by accumulated mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Genomic variations including mutation, extensive chromosome rearrangement, deletion, and excess amplification of genes are crucial in cancer prognosis. Genomic instability resulting from MCM variations has been elucidated to have an association with cancer prognosis in many studies.

Point mutations in MCM4 (F345I, G364R, and G486D) have been reported to cause dysfunction of MCM2-7 complex, unreplicated DNA in the S phase, and segregation of structurally altered genome to daughter cells, resulting in disrupted DNA replication in daughter cells, malignancy, and relapse of carcinomas. F345I mutation weakens the interaction with MCM6 [90]. G364R mutation was detected in skin cancer cells, and G486D mutation was detected in endometrial cancer cells [1].

Copy number variations (CNVs) of MCMs contribute to genomic instability and cancer progression. The gain of MCMs gene copies might explain the overexpression of MCMs in the cancer genomes. The copy number of MCM8 reached 16 copies per genome in some samples of breast and colon cancer; the MCM8 gene amplification was also detected in epithelial-mesenchymal transition, recruitment of a more substantial proportion of cells into proliferation cycle and gain of aggressive features [51]. At the same time, a deletion event can also disrupt genomic stability through induced replicative stress response as illustrated before. It is reported that cancer progression is greatly accelerated at a critical minimum threshold of between about 35% and 50% reduction in MCM concentration [91].

In addition to point mutations and copy number alteration, MCM polymorphisms or SNPs are associated with poor prognosis as well. In the intronic region of MCM7, rs999885 controlled the expression level of miRNA (miR-106b-25) to decrease the death risk in intermediate or advanced HCC ([92]), while patients with homozygote genotype (CC) of rs1534309 showed a higher survival rate in acute myeloid leukemia than the patients with other genotypes (CG and GG) [93].

4.2. Molecular Interactions

4.2.1. Cross-Talk in MCM Family

In an MCM2-7 complex, the six subunits interact in a defined order and are closely related to adjacent subunits. The interrelation in the MCM family is also discovered in the prognosis of various cancers. As indicators for HCC prognosis prediction, MCM2-7, MCM8, and MCM10 are significantly correlated with each other [86]. Survival analysis and joint effect analysis demonstrated that the combination of MCM2 and MCM6 could serve as HCC prognostic predictors [53]. A combination of two or more upregulated MCMs indicates a shorter disease-free survival time in RCC [27]. Based on public databases, strong positive coexpression was observed among MCM2-7 genes [94]. In triple-negative breast cancer, protein-protein interaction between Mcm2 and Mcm4 was verified with proximity ligation assay [95].

A study including seven independent breast cancer patient cohorts, each with more than 150 patients, was conducted by Kwok et al. [96] to investigate the synergistic effects among MCM family in cancer prognosis. The results showed that when considered individually, high-level MCM4 overexpression was only weakly associated with shorter survival in the combined breast cancer patient cohort (, hazard , 95% confidence -1.55, ). On the other side, when the researchers studied all six subunits of MCM2-7 complex, overexpression of all MCMs was found strongly associated with shorter survival in the same cohort (, hazard ; 95% confidence -2.34; ). Therefore, the MCM proteins are suggested to cooperate and function as a complex in cancer prognosis. High-level expression of the whole MCM complex might have higher robustness in indicating adverse clinical outcomes of cancer.

4.2.2. Interactions with Other Molecules

Geminin Geminin is a protector of genomic integrity that inhibits the reinitiation of DNA replication in the same cell cycle. Geminin binds to MCM loader Cdt1 protein and thus blocks the reloading of MCM2-7. The balance of geminin to Cdt1 and its impact on MCM loading may contribute to oncogenesis [97]. It is reported in breast carcinoma that geminin is only expressed from S to M phase [98]. In this case, geminin can identify the actively proliferating proportion of cells that have entered the S phase yet not exited mitosis. Therefore, geminin can be used to indicate the rate of cell-cycle progression and screen cells with malignant transformation tendency, and serve as a potential prognostic marker. Immunohistochemical analysis has demonstrated that geminins are useful prognostic predictors in colorectal cancer [99].

Both MCM-positive and geminin-positive phenotypes could be observed in cancer tissues, and as the differentiation degree elevated, the decoupling level of MCM and geminin increased correspondingly [100]. Tumor progression-free survival and multivariate analysis identified the MCM7-geminin status as an independent prognostic factor in laryngeal SCC rather than MCM7 and geminin covariates separately [88]. As an indicator of the cell cycle state, the geminin/MCM fraction was suggested to provide a better prognostic value, because the rate of tumor cell proliferation and tumor growth could be represented by the ratio [52].

GINS GINS (go-ichi-ni-san) is a tetramer comprising four small subunits (Sld5 (Cdc105), Psf1 (Cdc101), Psf2 (Cdc102), and Psf3 (Cdc103)—“go, ichi, ni, san” means “5, 1, 2, 3” in Japanese). GINS is required for the MCMs’ regular functioning. GINS interacts with MCM2-7 and Cdc45 to form the CMG complex [5]. In the CMG complex, GINS must be stably associated with MCM2-7 to facilitate the interaction between the helicase domain of MCM2-7 and key regulatory proteins in replisome progression complexes (RPCs), thus promoting the establishment of DNA replication forks. RPC proteins include the essential initiation and elongation factors, the checkpoint mediator Mrc1, the histone chaperone FACT (facilitates chromatin transcription), and Ctf4, which helps to establish sister chromatid cohesion. Some of these RPC proteins might also interact with MCM10 during the progression of DNA replication forks with the help of GINS [101]. Survival analysis showed that either the GINS subunit alone or the GINS complex as a whole could serve as a potential prognostic biomarker for HCC [69]. The coexpression and synergistic effect of GINS and MCMs in cancer merit further exploration.

Other Molecules In addition to geminin and GINS, many other molecules may work in combination with MCMs in prognostic prediction. IDH1 mutation, a classical biomarker in glioma, was reported to combinate MCM6 overexpressions to improve the prediction of the prognosis in glioblastomas [33]. MCM4 and MCM7 expressions were significantly associated with Ki-67, Bmi1, and cyclin E expression in esophageal carcinoma prognosis [47]. The proteins functioning in DNA replication licensing, including Cdc45, CDC6, Cdt1 CDK, and DDK, might have combinational effects with MCMs in cancer prognosis. Further research is required to explore the interaction model of MCMs and other molecules in prognosis.

4.2.3. Effects of MCMs in Cellular Signaling Pathways

As mentioned above, the available studies indicate that MCMs function in tumorigenesis and cancer prognosis through DNA replication initiation and replicative stress response. In recent studies, functional enrichment analysis has been used to explore the roles of MCMs in other cellular biological processes and pathways. A single-gene GSEA (gene set enrichment analysis) investigation for MCM4 implied that MCM4 might participate in multiple cellular processes including DNA replication, cell cycle, nuclear division, tumor protein p53, Notch signaling pathways, and pathways in cancer [94]. MCM2-7 were all reported to be significantly enriched in DNA replication and cell cycle [53].

Many studies have provided cytological evidence for bioinformatics analysis that MCMs are involved in the progression of cell cycle pathways (Figure 2). Knockdown of MCM2 reduced Rb, cyclinD1, cyclinA, and CDK4 expression and increased p53 and p21 expression, suggesting that by inducting the Cdk inhibitor p21cip14 and cyclin D/CDK4, downregulated MCM2 triggered the arrest of G1/S or G2/M [50, 62]. Knockdown of MCM3 caused G1 arrest as evidenced by reduced expression of cyclinA [50]. Knockdown of MCM6 was related to a delay in S/G2-phase progression with downregulation of CDK2, CDK4, CyclinA, CyclinB1, CyclinD1, and CyclinE in HCC [86]. Silencing of MCM7 reduced cyclinD1, cyclinE2, and CDK2 [58], which triggered events in the G1 or G1/S phase. Another experiment indicated that MCM8 bound to cyclin D1 to active Rb protein phosphorylation by Cdk4, and the binding allowed the entry into the S phase [51]. Besides, results of western blot analysis showed that β-catenin and cyclin D1 were downregulated in MCM10 knockdown cells, suggesting that downregulated MCM10 suppressed metastasis in breast cancer via the Wnt/β-catenin pathway [56]. The Wnt/β-catenin pathway is involved in cell proliferation and differentiation. Wnt signaling regulates the transition from G1 to S phase in mitosis; excessive Wnt signaling mediated β-catenin elicit activation of oncogenes like cyclinD1 [102]. Therefore, MCM10 may promote the G1/S transition through activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway.

MCMs are also involved in apoptosis pathways and inhibit some apoptotic proteins. In triple-negative breast cancer, MCM2-7 complex was reported to participate in a high mutant p53-chromatin-associated pathway [95]. In this research, a protein-protein interaction between overexpressed mutant p53 and MCM2/4 was directly detected. Moreover, MCM2-7 was required for synergistic mutant p53-dependent induction of apoptosis by the combination of the poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor talazoparib and the alkylating agent temozolomide, indicating a mutant p53-poly-ADP-ribose polymerase minichromosome maintenance functional axis. The antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2 was also reported to have an association with MCM expression, but it remained controversial whether the expression levels of Bcl-2 and MCMs were positively related [103, 104].

Likewise, MCMs may participate in cellular metabolism pathways. AKT is a serine/threonine kinase involved in the regulation of cell metabolism, proliferation, and survival. Silencing of MCM7 inhibited the phosphorylation of AKT1 and mTOR in both esophageal cancer cell lines, suggesting that MCM7 might promote cancer development and poor survival outcomes via activating the AKT1/mTOR signaling pathway [58]. Implicated genes and pathways in lymphoblastic lymphoma of MCM2-deficient mice include Pten, Tcfe2a, Mbd3, Setd1b, and Notch signaling pathway [36]. Broader bioinformatic, cytological, and clinical studies of MCMs in cellular signaling pathways should be performed in various carcinomas to further understand the interaction networks of MCMs.

4.3. Protein Modification

MCMs are regulated in cell cycle through protein modification. Improper modifications might be mechanisms for cancer development and adverse prognosis.

Phosphorylation MCMs undergo phosphorylation in three major cellular processes: DNA replication initiation, replicative stress response, and cell cycle checkpoint response. They are phosphorylated by Cdc7, Cdk, and ATM/ATR, respectively, in these processes. Phosphorylation activates MCM proteins and promotes the progression of the processes. Dysfunctional phosphorylation of MCMs is suggested to be associated with oncogenesis and cancer development [105].

Sumoylation Yeast MCMs undergo sumoylation that negatively regulates DNA replication initiation. MCM sumoylation levels reach the highest in G1. Subsequently, MCM sumoylation levels decrease as the phosphorylation levels increase in the S phase. MCM sumoylation suppresses MCM phosphorylation and activation through the recruitment of phosphatase. The balance between sumoylation and phosphorylation is vital for accurate and flexible control of replication initiation [106]. Restrained ubiquitylation in eukaryotic cells may expedite the uncontrolled proliferation of cancer cells.

5. MCMs in Liver Cancer

Liver cancer is the fourth deadliest cancer worldwide, while lack of prognostic indicators and poor overall survival remains problematic. MCMs have been suspected to be involved in hepatocarcinogenesis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis in previous studies. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was utilized in 105 samples (normal livers (), cirrhotic livers (), and HCC ()) and identified that MCM2-7, MCM8, and MCM10 were significantly upregulated in HCC [86]. The result is consistent with the coexpression of these genes in HCC tissue in the GSE14520 and TCGA cohort [53].

Survival analysis in GSE14520 and TCGA cohort showed that among the upregulated genes, only MCM2 and MCM6 were significantly associated with both HCC overall survival and recurrence-free survival in both cohorts [53]. It is further validated by PCR and parallel immunostaining that MCM6 has superiority in diagnosis and prognosis over MCM2 and other MCMs in HCC [86, 87]. Moreover, high-level expression of MCM6 is correlated to vascular invasion, lymph node metastasis, and tumor stage progression in HCC development, especially in AFP negative and small HCC patients [87].

Multiple evidences support the fact that MCM6 is a promising independent biomarker in HCC. However, few studies have taken a look inside the mechanism of MCM6 in HCC development and prognosis. A previous study indicated that MCM6 triggered the S/G2 phase transition [86]. Besides, GINS subunits, which interact directly with MCMs at pre-RC during initiation, may also be prognostic indicators in HCC [69]. Further research should be conducted to investigate the roles of MCMs in HCC.

6. Conclusion and Perspectives

MCMs are of great importance in double-strand DNA unwinding, DNA replication control, and DNA damage repair. Upregulated MCM genes were detected in various cancers, and cell proliferation was significantly inhibited in multiple MCM knockdown cancer cell lines. Therefore, MCMs are regarded as promising diagnostic and prognostic markers, as well as potential targets for anticancer therapy. In this review, we have discussed the functional and prognostic significance of MCMs by considering evidence from original studies and meta-analytical researches in multiple types of cancer cells. Furthermore, we have amplified the MCM-related molecular mechanisms and their relevance to tumorigenesis and adverse prognosis.

Overexpressed MCM proteins were identified as proliferation markers and diagnostic indicators in many cancers. Based on the biological functions, several MCM target drugs were designed to either decrease transcriptional levels of MCM genes or inhibit the helicase activity of MCM2-7. In the majority of types of cancers, high expression of MCMs has emerged as powerful prognostic indicators. Specifically, MCM6 is implied as the most valuable biomarker in HCC among MCM family. It is expected to be examined by larger-scale research, and the mechanisms remain to be explicated. Even though MCMs are recognized as promising prognostic factors, due to types of cancer, scoring variability, and analytical validity between research groups, precise cut-off values in different cancers are still needed to be determined in clinical settings.

MCMs may function in adverse prognosis through dysregulated initiation and uncontrolled replication licensing. They may also interfere with cancer recovery via genomic instability, molecular interactions, and protein modification. In addition to chromosome rearrangement in RS, point mutations, copy number alteration, and SNPs might all be sources of genomic instability. Interactions within the MCM family, interactions with other factors, and participation in cellular signaling pathways may all contribute to the prognostic outcomes. Current evidence shows that silence of some MCM genes is related to cell cycle arrest in different points (as discussed in review). However, behaviors and significance of the MCM family in different periods of interphase have not been systematically investigated. Comprehensive understanding of MCMs in cell cycle pathways may provide innovative means for cell cycle control and new therapeutic strategies. Besides, since phosphorylation is crucial for MCM activity regulation and dysfunctional phosphorylation of MCMs appears to correlate with the occurrence and development of cancers, Fei and Xu [105] have proposed that protein kinase inhibitors can be used therapeutically to target MCM phosphorylation in cancer. Considering the cross-talk between phosphorylation and sumoylation, as well as the proliferation-promoting effect of restrained ubiquitylation, manipulation of sumoylation and ubiquitylation may be a potential method for MCM-targeted cancer therapy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The study is supported by the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission research fund (No. Z171100000417004) and Beijing Natural Science Foundation (No. L172055).

References

Y. Ishimi, “Regulation of MCM2-7 function,” Genes & Genetic Systems, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 125–133, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Sun, Y. Shi, R. E. Georgescu et al., “The architecture of a eukaryotic replisome,” Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 976–982, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. D. Deegan and J. F. X. Diffley, “MCM: one ring to rule them all,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol. 37, pp. 145–151, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhai, N. Li, H. Jiang, X. Huang, N. Gao, and B. K. Tye, “Unique roles of the non-identical MCM subunits in DNA replication licensing,” Molecular Cell, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 168–179, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Boos, J. Frigola, and J. F. Diffley, “Activation of the replicative DNA helicase: breaking up is hard to do,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 423–430, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Sugimoto and M. Fujita, “Molecular mechanism for chromatin regulation during MCM loading in mammalian cells,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 1042, pp. 61–78, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Mughal, R. Mahadevappa, and H. F. Kwok, “DNA replication licensing proteins: saints and sinners in cancer,” Seminars in Cancer Biology, vol. 58, pp. 11–21, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Hyrien, “How MCM loading and spreading specify eukaryotic DNA replication initiation sites,” F1000Research, vol. 5, p. 2063, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Huang, C. B. Strømme, G. Saredi et al., “A unique binding mode enables MCM2 to chaperone histones H3-H4 at replication forks,” Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 618–626, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Feng, J. Liang, J. Li et al., “PTEN controls the DNA replication process through MCM2 in response to replicative stress,” Cell Reports, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1295–1303, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. J. Sheu and B. Stillman, “Cdc7-Dbf4 Phosphorylates MCM Proteins via a Docking Site-Mediated Mechanism to Promote S Phase Progression,” Molecular Cell, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 101–113, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Abid Ali, L. Renault, J. Gannon et al., “Cryo-EM structures of the eukaryotic replicative helicase bound to a translocation substrate,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, p. 10708, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Samel, A. Fernández-Cid, J. Sun et al., “A unique DNA entry gate serves for regulated loading of the eukaryotic replicative helicase MCM2-7 onto DNA,” Genes & Development, vol. 28, no. 15, pp. 1653–1666, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Frigola, D. Remus, A. Mehanna, and J. F. Diffley, “ATPase-dependent quality control of DNA replication origin licensing,” Nature, vol. 495, no. 7441, pp. 339–343, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Ilves, T. Petojevic, J. J. Pesavento, and M. R. Botchan, “Activation of the MCM2-7 helicase by association with Cdc 45 and GINS proteins,” Molecular Cell, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 247–258, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. P. Moreno, R. Bailey, N. Campion, S. Herron, and A. Gambus, “Polyubiquitylation drives replisome disassembly at the termination of DNA replication,” Science, vol. 346, no. 6208, pp. 477–481, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Maiorano, O. Cuvier, E. Danis, and M. Mechali, “MCM8 is an MCM2-7-related protein that functions as a DNA helicase during replication elongation and not initiation,” Cell, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 315–328, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Park, D. T. Long, K. Y. Lee et al., “The MCM8-MCM9 complex promotes RAD51 recruitment at DNA damage sites to facilitate homologous recombination,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1632–1644, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Hartford, Y. Luo, T. L. Southard, I. M. Min, J. T. Lis, and J. C. Schimenti, “Minichromosome maintenance helicase paralog MCM9 is dispensible for DNA replication but functions in germ-line stem cells and tumor suppression,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 43, pp. 17702–17707, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. Yeeles, T. D. Deegan, A. Janska, A. Early, and J. F. Diffley, “Regulated eukaryotic DNA replication origin firing with purified proteins,” Nature, vol. 519, no. 7544, pp. 431–435, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Looke, M. F. Maloney, and S. P. Bell, “Mcm 10 regulates DNA replication elongation by stimulating the CMG replicative helicase,” Genes & Development, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 291–305, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. M. Thu and A. K. Bielinsky, “Enigmatic roles of Mcm 10 in DNA replication,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 184–194, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Dai, T. Zhao, X. Bisteau et al., “Modulation of protein-interaction states through the cell cycle,” Cell, vol. 173, no. 6, pp. 1481–1494.e13, 2018, e13.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. E. Simon and A. Schwacha, “The Mcm2-7 replicative helicase: a promising chemotherapeutic target,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 549719, 14 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Semple and B. P. Duncker, “ORC-associated replication factors as biomarkers for cancer,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 621–631, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Wu, X. Wang, C. Shan, Y. Li, and F. Li, “Minichromosome maintenance protein 2 correlates with the malignant status and regulates proliferation and cell cycle in lung squamous cell carcinoma,” Onco Targets and Therapy, vol. 11, pp. 5025–5034, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Zhong, B. Chen, H. Neves et al., “Expression of minichromosome maintenance genes in renal cell carcinoma,” Cancer Management and Research, vol. 9, pp. 637–647, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Stewart, Z. I. Khamis, H. E. Zhau et al., “Upregulation of minichromosome maintenance complex component 3 during epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in human prostate cancer,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 24, pp. 39209–39217, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Wojnar, B. Pula, A. Piotrowska et al., “Correlation of intensity of MT-I/II expression with Ki-67 and MCM-2 proteins in invasive ductal breast carcinoma,” Anticancer Research, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 3027–3033, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Giaginis, M. Georgiadou, K. Dimakopoulou et al., “Clinical significance of MCM-2 and MCM-5 expression in colon cancer: association with clinicopathological parameters and tumor proliferative capacity,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 282–291, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. P. Peng, Y. Zhu, L. D. Yin et al., “The expression and prognostic roles of MCMs in pancreatic cancer,” PloS One, vol. 11, no. 10, p. e0164150, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Shomori, K. Nishihara, T. Tamura et al., “Geminin, Ki67, and minichromosome maintenance 2 in gastric hyperplastic polyps, adenomas, and intestinal-type carcinomas: pathobiological significance,” Gastric Cancer, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 177–185, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Q. Cai, Z. J. Cheng, H. P. Zhang et al., “Overexpression of MCM6 predicts poor survival in patients with glioma,” Human Pathology, vol. 78, pp. 182–187, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. L. Winther and S. H. Torp, “MCM7 expression is a promising predictor of recurrence in patients surgically resected for meningiomas,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 575–583, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Marnerides, T. P. Vassilakopoulos, E. Boltetsou et al., “Immunohistochemical expression and prognostic significance of CCND3, MCM2 and MCM7 in Hodgkin lymhoma,” Anticancer Research, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 3585–3594, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
M. E. Rusiniak, D. Kunnev, A. Freeland, G. K. Cady, and S. C. Pruitt, “Mcm 2 deficiency results in short deletions allowing high resolution identification of genes contributing to lymphoblastic lymphoma,” Oncogene, vol. 31, no. 36, pp. 4034–4044, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Gakiopoulou, P. Korkolopoulou, G. Levidou et al., “Minichromosome maintenance proteins 2 and 5 in non-benign epithelial ovarian tumours: relationship with cell cycle regulators and prognostic implications,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 1124–1134, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Han, M. Lian, J. Fang et al., “Minichromosome maintenance (MCM) protein 4 overexpression is a potential prognostic marker for laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma,” Journal of Buon, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1272–1277, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Guan, X. Wang, J. Yang, C. Zhou, and Y. Meng, “Minichromosome maintenance complex component 7 has an important role in the invasion of papillary urothelial neoplasia,” Oncology Letters, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 946–950, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Gonzalez, K. E. K. Tachibana, R. A. Laskey, and N. Coleman, “Control of DNA replication and its potential clinical exploitation,” Nature Reviews: Cancer, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 135–141, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. C. Obermann, K. L. Eward, A. Dogan et al., “DNA replication licensing in peripheral B-cell lymphoma,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 205, no. 3, pp. 318–328, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. H. Williams, P. Romanowski, L. Morris et al., “Improved cervical smear assessment using antibodies against proteins that regulate DNA replication,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 95, no. 25, pp. 14932–14937, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Kang, J. H. M. Tong, A. W. H. Chan, A. S. L. Cheng, J. Yu, and K. To, “MCM7 serves as a prognostic marker in diffuse-type gastric adenocarcinoma and siRNA-mediated knockdown suppresses its oncogenic function,” Oncology Reports, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 2071–2078, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. F. Valverde, R. D. de Freitas, T. A. Pereira et al., “MCM3: a novel proliferation marker in oral squamous cell carcinoma,” Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 120–125, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Kobierzycki, B. Pula, M. Skiba et al., “Comparison of minichromosome maintenance proteins (MCM-3, MCM-7) and metallothioneins (MT-I/II, MT-III) expression in relation to clinicopathological data in ovarian cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 5375–5383, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
P. A. Vargas, Y. Cheng, A. W. Barrett, G. T. Craig, and P. M. Speight, “Expression of Mcm-2, Ki-67 and geminin in benign and malignant salivary gland tumours,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 309–318, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Choy, A. LaLonde, J. Que, T. Wu, and Z. Zhou, “MCM4 and MCM7, potential novel proliferation markers, significantly correlated with Ki-67, Bmi 1, and cyclin E expression in esophageal adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and precancerous lesions,” Human Pathology, vol. 57, pp. 126–135, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Celis and A. Celis, “Cell cycle-dependent variations in the distribution of the nuclear protein cyclin proliferating cell nuclear antigen in cultured cells: subdivision of S phase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 82, no. 10, pp. 3262–3266, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Scholzen and J. Gerdes, “The Ki-67 protein: from the known and the unknown,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 182, no. 3, pp. 311–322, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Lau, Q. K. Y. Chan, J. C. S. Pang et al., “Minichromosome maintenance proteins 2, 3 and 7 in medulloblastoma: overexpression and involvement in regulation of cell migration and invasion,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 40, pp. 5475–5489, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. He, B. G. Ren, S. Liu et al., “Oncogenic activity of amplified miniature chromosome maintenance 8 in human malignancies,” Oncogene, vol. 36, no. 25, pp. 3629–3639, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. P. Jackson, R. A. Laskey, and N. Coleman, “Replication proteins and human disease,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 6, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liao, X. Liu, C. Yang et al., “Distinct diagnostic and prognostic values of minichromosome maintenance gene expression in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of Cancer, vol. 9, no. 13, pp. 2357–2373, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Liu, J. S. Li, D. P. Tian, B. Huang, S. Rosqvist, and M. Su, “MCM2 expression levels predict diagnosis and prognosis in gastric cardiac cancer,” Histology and Histopathology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 481–492, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. H. Williams, R. Swinn, A. T. Prevost et al., “Diagnosis of oesophageal cancer by detection of minichromosome maintenance 5 protein in gastric aspirates,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 714–719, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. D. Yang and L. Wang, “MCM10 facilitates the invaded/migrated potentials of breast cancer cells via Wnt/β‐catenin signaling and is positively interlinked with poor prognosis in breast carcinoma,” Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology, vol. 33, no. 7, article e22330, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. M. Li, C. N. Huang, H. L. Ke et al., “MCM10 overexpression implicates adverse prognosis in urothelial carcinoma,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 47, pp. 77777–77792, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. T. Qiu, W. J. Wang, B. Zhang, L. L. Mei, and Z. Z. Shi, “MCM7 amplification and overexpression promote cell proliferation, colony formation and migration in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by activating the AKT1/mTOR signaling pathway,” Oncology Reports, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 3590–3596, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. S. Seo and Y. H. Kang, “The human replicative helicase, the CMG complex, as a target for anti-cancer therapy,” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, vol. 5, p. 26, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. B. Liu, G. He, Y. Wang, X. G. Guan, X. L. Pang, and B. Zhang, “MCM-2 is a therapeutic target of Trichostatin A in colon cancer cells,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 221, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Majid, A. A. Dar, S. Saini, Y. Chen, V. Shahryari, and J. Liu, “Correction: Regulation of minichromosome maintenance gene family by MicroRNA-1296 and genistein in prostate cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 78, no. 13, p. 3740, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang, Y. Teng, F. Yang et al., “MCM2 is a therapeutic target of lovastatin in human non-small cell lung carcinomas,” Oncology Reports, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2599–2605, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Yun, S. K. Hyun, J. H. Park, B. W. Kim, and H. J. Kwon, “Widdrol activates DNA damage checkpoint through the signaling Chk2-p53-Cdc25A-p21-MCM4 pathway in HT29 cells,” Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 363, no. 1-2, pp. 281–289, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Mio, E. Lavarone, K. Conzatti et al., “MCM5 as a target of BET inhibitors in thyroid cancer cells,” Endocrine-Related Cancer, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 335–347, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Toyokawa, K. Masuda, Y. Daigo et al., “Minichromosome maintenance protein 7 is a potential therapeutic target in human cancer and a novel prognostic marker of non-small cell lung cancer,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 65, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Fujioka, K. Shomori, K. Nishihara et al., “Expression of minichromosome maintenance 7 (MCM7) in small lung adenocarcinomas (pT1): prognostic implication,” Lung Cancer, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 223–229, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Korkolopoulou, N. Givalos, A. Saetta et al., “Minichromosome maintenance proteins 2 and 5 expression in muscle-invasive urothelial cancer: a multivariate survival study including proliferation markers and cell cycle regulators,” Human pathology., vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 899–907, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Tamura, K. Shomori, T. Haruki et al., “Minichromosome maintenance-7 and geminin are reliable prognostic markers in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma: Immunohistochemical study,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 328–334, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. F. Lian, S. S. Li, Y. L. Huang et al., “Up-regulated and interrelated expressions of GINS subunits predict poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma,” Bioscience Reports, vol. 38, no. 6, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Z. Liu, B. S. Wang, Y. Y. Jiang et al., “MCMs expression in lung cancer: implication of prognostic significance,” Journal of Cancer, vol. 8, no. 18, pp. 3641–3647, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Khodadad, S. Karimi, Z. Esfahani-Monfared, A. Khosravi, and B. Bandarchi-Chamkhaleh, “Correlation of minichromosome maintenance protein 6 expression rate and clinical outcome in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma,” Acta Medica Iranica., vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 550–555, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Alvarez, M. Díaz, J. Flach et al., “Replication stress caused by low MCM expression limits fetal erythropoiesis and hematopoietic stem cell functionality,” Nature Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 8548, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. R. Ali, S. J. Dawson, F. M. Blows, E. Provenzano, P. D. Pharoah, and C. Caldas, “Aurora kinase A outperforms Ki67 as a prognostic marker in ER-positive breast cancer,” British Journal of Cancer., vol. 106, no. 11, pp. 1798–1806, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Zeman and K. A. Cimprich, “Causes and consequences of replication stress,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 2–9, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Munoz and J. Mendez, “DNA replication stress: from molecular mechanisms to human disease,” Chromosoma, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. May, M. Burger, W. Otto et al., “Ki-67, mini-chromosome maintenance 2 protein (MCM2) and geminin have no independent prognostic relevance for cancer-specific survival in surgically treated squamous cell carcinoma of the penis,” BJU International, vol. 112, no. 4, pp. E383–E390, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Nishihara, K. Shomori, S. Fujioka et al., “Minichromosome maintenance protein 7 in colorectal cancer: implication of prognostic significance,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 245–251, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Werynska, B. Pula, B. Muszczynska-Bernhard et al., “Correlation between expression of metallothionein and expression of Ki-67 and MCM-2 proliferation markers in non-small cell lung cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 2833–2839, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Gou, J. Liu, X. Feng, H. Li, Y. Yuan, and C. Xing, “Expression of minichromosome maintenance proteins (MCM) and cancer prognosis: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Cancer, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1518–1526, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Schrader, D. Janssen, W. Klapper et al., “Minichromosome maintenance protein 6, a proliferation marker superior to Ki-67 and independent predictor of survival in patients with mantle cell lymphoma,” British Journal of Cancer., vol. 93, no. 8, pp. 939–945, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kato, T. Miyazaki, Y. Fukai et al., “A new proliferation marker, minichromosome maintenance protein 2, is associated with tumor aggressiveness in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 24–30, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Hua, G. Zhao, Y. Li, and L. Bie, “Minichromosome maintenance (MCM) family as potential diagnostic and prognostic tumor markers for human gliomas,” BMC Cancer, vol. 14, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. V. Meng, G. D. Grossfeld, G. H. Williams et al., “Minichromosome maintenance protein 2 expression in prostate: characterization and association with outcome after therapy for cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 2712–2718, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
E. C. Obermann, P. Went, A. Zimpfer et al., “Expression of minichromosome maintenance protein 2 as a marker for proliferation and prognosis in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a tissue microarray and clinico-pathological analysis,” BMC Cancer, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Jankowska-Konsur, C. Kobierzycki, A. Reich, J. Grzegrzolka, J. Maj, and P. Dziegiel, “Expression of MCM-3 and MCM-7 in primary cutaneous t-cell lymphomas,” Anticancer Research, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 6017–6026, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Liu, J. Li, J. Chen et al., “MCM family in HCC: MCM6 indicates adverse tumor features and poor outcomes and promotes S/G2 cell cycle progression,” BMC Cancer, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 200, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Zheng, M. Chen, S. Han et al., “Plasma minichromosome maintenance complex component 6 is a novel biomarker for hepatocellular carcinoma patients,” Hepatology Research, vol. 44, no. 13, pp. 1347–1356, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Almadori, L. Lauriola, A. Coli et al., “Minichromosome maintenance protein 7 and geminin expression: prognostic value in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma in patients treated with radiotherapy and cetuximab,” Head & Neck, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 684–693, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. B. Zhao, I. Chandler, Z. M. Chen et al., “Mismatch repair, minichromosome maintenance complex component 2, cyclin a, and transforming growth factor beta receptor type II as prognostic factors for colorectal cancer: results of a 10-year prospective study using tissue microarray analysis,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 483–490, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kawabata, S. W. Luebben, S. Yamaguchi et al., “Stalled fork rescue via dormant replication origins in unchallenged S phase promotes proper chromosome segregation and tumor suppression,” Molecular Cell, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 543–553, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. Chuang, M. D. Wallace, C. Abratte, T. Southard, and J. C. Schimenti, “Incremental genetic perturbations to MCM2-7 expression and subcellular distribution reveal exquisite sensitivity of mice to DNA replication stress,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 6, no. 9, article e1001110, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Qi, M. Huang, Y. Pan et al., “A genetic variant in the promoter region of miR-106b-25 cluster predict clinical outcome of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma in Chinese,” PloS One, vol. 9, no. 1, article e85394, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Lee, H. S. Cheong, Y. Koh, K. S. Ahn, H. D. Shin, and S. S. Yoon, “MCM7 polymorphisms associated with the AML relapse and overall survival,” Annals of Hematology, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 93–98, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liao, C. Han, X. Wang et al., “Prognostic value of minichromosome maintenance mRNA expression in early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy,” Cancer management and research., vol. 10, pp. 3255–3271, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W.-G. Qiu, A. Polotskaia, G. Xiao et al., “Identification, validation, and targeting of the mutant p53-PARP-MCM chromatin axis in triple negative breast cancer,” NPJ Breast Cancer, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. F. Kwok, S. D. Zhang, C. M. McCrudden et al., “Prognostic significance of minichromosome maintenance proteins in breast cancer,” American Journal of Cancer Research, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 52–71, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
K.-e. K. Tachibana, M. A. Gonzalez, and N. Coleman, “Cell-cycle-dependent regulation of DNA replication and its relevance to cancer pathology,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 205, no. 2, pp. 123–129, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Gonzalez, K. E. Tachibana, S. F. Chin et al., “Geminin predicts adverse clinical outcome in breast cancer by reflecting cell-cycle progression,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 204, no. 2, pp. 121–130, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Nishihara, K. Shomori, T. Tamura, S. Fujioka, T. Ogawa, and H. Ito, “Immunohistochemical expression of geminin in colorectal cancer: implication of prognostic significance,” Oncology Reports, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1189–1195, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Shetty, M. Loddo, T. Fanshawe et al., “DNA replication licensing and cell cycle kinetics of normal and neoplastic breast,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 93, no. 11, pp. 1295–1300, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gambus, R. C. Jones, A. Sanchez-Diaz et al., “GINS maintains association of Cdc45 with MCM in replisome progression complexes at eukaryotic DNA replication forks,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 358–366, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kaldis and M. Pagano, “Wnt signaling in mitosis,” Developmental Cell, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 749-750, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Guzińska-Ustymowicz, A. Pryczynicz, A. Kemona, and J. Czyzewska, “Correlation between proliferation markers: PCNA, Ki-67, MCM-2 and antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2 in colorectal cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 3049–3052, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Zavrides, A. Zizi-Sermpetzoglou, I. Elemenoglou et al., “Immunohistochemical expression of bcl-2 in Dukes' stage B and C colorectal carcinoma patients: correlation with p 53 and ki-67 in evaluating prognostic significance,” Polish Journal of Pathology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 179–185, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Fei and H. Xu, “Role of MCM2-7 protein phosphorylation in human cancer cells,” Cell & Bioscience, vol. 8, p. 43, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Wei and X. Zhao, “A new MCM modification cycle regulates DNA replication initiation,” Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 209–216, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Si Yu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

3334

Downloads

2012

Citations