Literature DB >> 16928813

Differential roles of checkpoint kinase 1, checkpoint kinase 2, and mitogen-activated protein kinase-activated protein kinase 2 in mediating DNA damage-induced cell cycle arrest: implications for cancer therapy.

Zhan Xiao1, John Xue, Thomas J Sowin, Haiying Zhang.   

Abstract

Mammalian cells initiate cell cycle arrest at different phases of the cell cycle in response to various forms of genotoxic stress to allow time for DNA repair, and thus preserving their genomic integrity. The protein kinases checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), checkpoint kinase 2 (Chk2), and mitogen-activated protein kinase-activated protein kinase 2 (MK2) have all been shown to be involved in cell cycle checkpoint control. Recently, cell cycle checkpoint abrogation has been proposed as one way to sensitize cancer cells to DNA-damaging agents due to the expected induction of mitotic catastrophe. Due to their overlapping substrate spectra and redundant functions, it is still not clear which kinase is mainly responsible for the cell cycle arrests conferred by clinically relevant chemotherapeutics. Thus, the issue remains about which kinase is the most therapeutically relevant target and, more importantly, whether multiple kinases might need to be targeted to achieve the best efficacy in light of recent studies showing superior efficacy for pan-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. To clarify this issue, we investigated the roles of the three kinases in response to different genotoxic stresses through small interfering RNA-mediated specific target knockdowns. Our result showed that only the down-regulation of Chk1, but not of Chk2 or MK2, abrogated camptothecin- or 5-fluorouracil-induced S-phase arrest or doxorubicin-induced G(2)-phase arrest. This was followed by mitotic catastrophe and apoptosis. Moreover, double inhibition of Chk1 and Chk2 failed to achieve better efficacy than Chk1 inhibition alone; surprisingly, inhibition of MK2, in addition to Chk1 suppression, partially reversed the checkpoint abrogation and negated mitotic catastrophe. We further showed that this is due to the fact that in MK2-deficient cells, Cdc25A protein, which is critically required for the mitotic progression following checkpoint abrogation, becomes greatly depleted. In summary, our findings show that Chk1 is the only relevant checkpoint kinase as a cancer drug target and inhibition of other checkpoint kinases in addition to Chk1 would be nonproductive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16928813     DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther        ISSN: 1535-7163            Impact factor:   6.261


  39 in total

Review 1.  Uracil in DNA: consequences for carcinogenesis and chemotherapy.

Authors:  Sondra H Berger; Douglas L Pittman; Michael D Wyatt
Journal:  Biochem Pharmacol       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 5.858

Review 2.  Cell cycle kinases as therapeutic targets for cancer.

Authors:  Silvia Lapenna; Antonio Giordano
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 84.694

3.  Targeting Chk1 in p53-deficient triple-negative breast cancer is therapeutically beneficial in human-in-mouse tumor models.

Authors:  Cynthia X Ma; Shirong Cai; Shunqiang Li; Christine E Ryan; Zhanfang Guo; W Timothy Schaiff; Li Lin; Jeremy Hoog; Reece J Goiffon; Aleix Prat; Rebecca L Aft; Matthew J Ellis; Helen Piwnica-Worms
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 14.808

4.  Poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibition synergizes with 5-fluorodeoxyuridine but not 5-fluorouracil in ovarian cancer cells.

Authors:  Amelia M Huehls; Jill M Wagner; Catherine J Huntoon; Liyi Geng; Charles Erlichman; Anand G Patel; Scott H Kaufmann; Larry M Karnitz
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  Different fates of oocytes with DNA double-strand breaks in vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  Fei Lin; Xue-Shan Ma; Zhen-Bo Wang; Zhong-Wei Wang; Yi-Bo Luo; Lin Huang; Zong-Zhe Jiang; Meng-Wen Hu; Heide Schatten; Qing-Yuan Sun
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 4.534

6.  Different responses of cell cycle between rat vascular smooth muscle cells and vascular endothelial cells to paclitaxel.

Authors:  Liang Jing; Xi Peng; Min-Jie Xie; Zhi-Yuan Yu; Wei Wang
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2014-06-18

7.  Menthol in electronic cigarettes: A contributor to respiratory disease?

Authors:  Vijayalekshmi Nair; Malcolm Tran; Rachel Z Behar; Song Zhai; Xinping Cui; Rattapol Phandthong; Yuhuan Wang; Songqin Pan; Wentai Luo; James F Pankow; David C Volz; Prue Talbot
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 4.219

8.  Identification of potential therapeutic targets in malignant mesothelioma using cell-cycle gene expression analysis.

Authors:  Solange Romagnoli; Ester Fasoli; Valentina Vaira; Monica Falleni; Caterina Pellegrini; Anna Catania; Massimo Roncalli; Antonio Marchetti; Luigi Santambrogio; Guido Coggi; Silvano Bosari
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 4.307

9.  Sodium butyrate enhances the cytotoxic effect of cisplatin by abrogating the cisplatin imposed cell cycle arrest.

Authors:  Miglena Koprinarova; Petya Markovska; Ivan Iliev; Boyka Anachkova; George Russev
Journal:  BMC Mol Biol       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 2.946

Review 10.  Structure-based design, discovery and development of checkpoint kinase inhibitors as potential anticancer therapies.

Authors:  Thomas P Matthews; Alan M Jones; Ian Collins
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Discov       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 6.098

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.