Literature DB >> 17928011

Distinctive differences in DNA double-strand break repair between normal urothelial and urothelial carcinoma cells.

Frank Windhofer1, Sabine Krause, Christiane Hader, Wolfgang A Schulz, Andrea R Florl.   

Abstract

Several lines of evidence suggest that defective repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) contributes to genomic instability in human cancers, including urothelial carcinoma. In particular, extracts from urothelial cancers have been reported to repair DSBs preferentially by microhomology-mediated end-joining (MMEJ), considered as more error-prone than canonical non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) predominating in normal urothelial cell extracts. However, it is not clear whether such differences are relevant to intact cells. We therefore transfected plasmids digested with different restriction enzymes to yield incompatible ends (blunt, 5'-protruding or 3'-protruding) into urothelial carcinoma cell lines or normal urothelial cells and characterized the recovered circular plasmids. All cells competently repaired DSBs in a standard cloning vector plasmid, processing 5'- as well as 3'-protruding ends. No significant differences in the extent of processing were detected and the junctions presented short microhomologies indicative of canonical NHEJ. However, dramatic and distinctive differences between normal and cancerous urothelial cells were seen in two different experiments. First, cancer cell lines processed a significantly higher fraction of plasmids cut with a single restriction enzyme that could have been repaired by direct ligation than normal cells. Secondly, for the repair of a large plasmid with incompatible ends containing a large fragment of human genomic DNA, normal cells used almost exclusively MMEJ exploiting a microhomology with the 3'-end of the break, whereas cancer cell lines often processed DNA despite suitable microhomologies. DNA repair of the small or large plasmid was almost abolished by siRNA knockdown of Ku70. These findings strongly suggest that urothelial carcinoma cells lack control mechanisms preventing overprocessing during NHEJ repair. This may account for previous findings that urothelial cancers contain unusually large chromosomal deletions. Moreover, in contrast to prevailing interpretations, our observations suggest that MMEJ, despite its error-proneness, in some instances may act as a failsafe mechanism against overprocessing during NHEJ.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17928011     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2007.08.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  12 in total

1.  ATM regulates Mre11-dependent DNA end-degradation and microhomology-mediated end joining.

Authors:  Elias A Rahal; Leigh A Henricksen; Yuling Li; R Scott Williams; John A Tainer; Kathleen Dixon
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 4.534

2.  DNA polymerases δ and λ cooperate in repairing double-strand breaks by microhomology-mediated end-joining in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  Damon Meyer; Becky Xu Hua Fu; Wolf-Dietrich Heyer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  DNA repair by homologous recombination, but not by nonhomologous end joining, is elevated in breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Zhiyong Mao; Ying Jiang; Xiang Liu; Andrei Seluanov; Vera Gorbunova
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 5.715

4.  Ovarian Cancers Harbor Defects in Nonhomologous End Joining Resulting in Resistance to Rucaparib.

Authors:  Aiste McCormick; Peter Donoghue; Michelle Dixon; Richard O'Sullivan; Rachel L O'Donnell; James Murray; Angelika Kaufmann; Nicola J Curtin; Richard J Edmondson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Alternative end-joining catalyzes robust IgH locus deletions and translocations in the combined absence of ligase 4 and Ku70.

Authors:  Cristian Boboila; Mila Jankovic; Catherine T Yan; Jing H Wang; Duane R Wesemann; Tingting Zhang; Alex Fazeli; Lauren Feldman; Andre Nussenzweig; Michel Nussenzweig; Frederick W Alt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-01-25       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Dual roles for DNA polymerase theta in alternative end-joining repair of double-strand breaks in Drosophila.

Authors:  Sze Ham Chan; Amy Marie Yu; Mitch McVey
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 5.917

Review 7.  Mechanisms of chromosomal rearrangements in solid tumors: the model of papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Authors:  Manoj Gandhi; Viktoria Evdokimova; Yuri E Nikiforov
Journal:  Mol Cell Endocrinol       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 4.102

Review 8.  How does DNA break during chromosomal translocations?

Authors:  Mridula Nambiar; Sathees C Raghavan
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 16.971

9.  Differential requirement for SUB1 in chromosomal and plasmid double-strand DNA break repair.

Authors:  Lijian Yu; Michael R Volkert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  HTLV-I tax increases genetic instability by inducing DNA double strand breaks during DNA replication and switching repair to NHEJ.

Authors:  Hicham H Baydoun; Xue Tao Bai; Shary Shelton; Christophe Nicot
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.