Jung Wook Park1, Kwangok P Nickel2, Alexandra D Torres1, Denis Lee1, Paul F Lambert3, Randall J Kimple4. 1. McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research and Department of Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. 2. Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. 3. McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research and Department of Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. 4. Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. Electronic address: rkimple@humonc.wisc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with human papillomavirus related (HPV+) head and neck cancers (HNCs) demonstrate improved clinical outcomes compared to traditional HPV negative (HPV-) HNC patients. We have recently shown that HPV+ HNC cells are more sensitive to radiation than HPV- HNC cells. However, roles of HPV oncogenes in regulating the response of DNA damage repair remain unknown. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using immortalized normal oral epithelial cell lines, HPV+ HNC derived cell lines, and HPV16 E7-transgenic mice we assessed the repair of DNA damage using γ-H2AX foci, single and split dose clonogenic survival assays, and immunoblot. The ability of E7 to modulate expression of proteins associated with DNA repair pathways was assessed by immunoblot. RESULTS: HPV16 E7 increased retention of γ-H2AX nuclear foci and significantly decreased sublethal DNA damage repair. While phospho-ATM, phospho-ATR, Ku70, and Ku80 expressions were not altered by E7, Rad51 was induced by E7. Correspondingly, HPV+ HNC cell lines showed retention of Rad51 after γ-radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further understanding as to how HPV16 E7 manipulates cellular DNA damage responses that may underlie its oncogenic potential and influence the altered sensitivity to radiation seen in HPV+ HNC as compared to HPV- HNC.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Patients with human papillomavirus related (HPV+) head and neck cancers (HNCs) demonstrate improved clinical outcomes compared to traditional HPV negative (HPV-) HNC patients. We have recently shown that HPV+ HNC cells are more sensitive to radiation than HPV- HNC cells. However, roles of HPV oncogenes in regulating the response of DNA damage repair remain unknown. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using immortalized normal oral epithelial cell lines, HPV+ HNC derived cell lines, and HPV16 E7-transgenic mice we assessed the repair of DNA damage using γ-H2AX foci, single and split dose clonogenic survival assays, and immunoblot. The ability of E7 to modulate expression of proteins associated with DNA repair pathways was assessed by immunoblot. RESULTS:HPV16 E7 increased retention of γ-H2AX nuclear foci and significantly decreased sublethal DNA damage repair. While phospho-ATM, phospho-ATR, Ku70, and Ku80 expressions were not altered by E7, Rad51 was induced by E7. Correspondingly, HPV+ HNC cell lines showed retention of Rad51 after γ-radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further understanding as to how HPV16 E7 manipulates cellular DNA damage responses that may underlie its oncogenic potential and influence the altered sensitivity to radiation seen in HPV+ HNC as compared to HPV- HNC.
Authors: A Slupianek; C Schmutte; G Tombline; M Nieborowska-Skorska; G Hoser; M O Nowicki; A J Pierce; R Fishel; T Skorski Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: M L Gillison; W M Koch; R B Capone; M Spafford; W H Westra; L Wu; M L Zahurak; R W Daniel; M Viglione; D E Symer; K V Shah; D Sidransky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R J Slebos; M H Lee; B S Plunkett; T D Kessis; B O Williams; T Jacks; L Hedrick; M B Kastan; K R Cho Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1994-06-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Siribang-on Piboonniyom; Stefan Duensing; Nathan W Swilling; Jens Hasskarl; Philip W Hinds; Karl Münger Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: C Cleary; J E Leeman; D S Higginson; N Katabi; E Sherman; L Morris; S McBride; N Lee; N Riaz Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Frank Ziemann; Andrea Arenz; Stefanie Preising; Claus Wittekindt; Jens P Klussmann; Rita Engenhart-Cabillic; Andrea Wittig Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Tania L Slatter; Natalie Gly Hung; William M Clow; Janice A Royds; Celia J Devenish; Noelyn A Hung Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Eva-Leonne Göttgens; Christian Ostheimer; Paul N Span; Jan Bussink; Ester M Hammond Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: William H Chappell; Dipendra Gautam; Suzan T Ok; Bryan A Johnson; Daniel C Anacker; Cary A Moody Journal: J Virol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Daniel J Ma; Katharine A Price; Eric J Moore; Samir H Patel; Michael L Hinni; Joaquin J Garcia; Darlene E Graner; Nathan R Foster; Brenda Ginos; Michelle Neben-Wittich; Yolanda I Garces; Ashish V Chintakuntlawar; Daniel L Price; Kerry D Olsen; Kathryn M Van Abel; Jan L Kasperbauer; Jeffrey R Janus; Mark Waddle; Robert Miller; Satomi Shiraishi; Robert L Foote Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Campos; Wenny Peeters; Kwangok Nickel; Brian Burkel; Johan Bussink; Randall J Kimple; Albert van der Kogel; Kevin W Eliceiri; Michael W Kissick Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 2.841