Wai-Kin Yu1, Zhigang Wang2,3, Chi-Chun Fong1,2, Dandan Liu1, Tak-Chun Yip4, Siu-Kie Au4, Guangyu Zhu2,3, Mengsu Yang1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 2. Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Biochip Research, City University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen, China. 3. Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 4. Department of Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Yau Ma Tei, Hong Kong.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The persistence of lung cancer stem cells (LCSCs) has been proposed to be the main factor responsible for the recurrence of lung cancer as they are highly resistant to conventional chemotherapy. However, the underlying mechanisms are still unclear. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We examined the cellular response of a human LCSC line to treatment with cisplatin, a DNA-damaging anticancer drug that is used extensively in the clinic. We compared the response to cisplatin of LCSCs and differentiated LCSCs (dLCSCs) by determining the viability of these cells, and their ability to accumulate cisplatin and to implement genomic and transcription-coupled DNA repair. We also investigated the transcription profiles of genes related to drug transport and DNA repair. KEY RESULTS: LCSCs were found to be more stem-like, and more resistant to cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity than dLCSCs, confirming their drug resistance properties. LCSCs accumulated less cisplatin intracellularly than dLCSCs and showed less DNA damage, potentially due to their ability to down-regulate AQP2 and CTR1. The results of the transcription-coupled repair of cisplatin-DNA cross-links indicated a higher level of repair of DNA damage in LCSCs than in dLCSCs. In addition, LCSCs showed a greater ability to repair cisplatin-DNA interstrand cross-links than dLCSCs; this involved the activation of various DNA repair pathways. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results further clarify the mechanism of cisplatin resistance in LCSCs in terms of reduced cisplatin uptake and enhanced ability to implement DNA repairs. These findings may aid in the design of the next-generation of platinum-based anticancer drugs.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The persistence of lung cancer stem cells (LCSCs) has been proposed to be the main factor responsible for the recurrence of lung cancer as they are highly resistant to conventional chemotherapy. However, the underlying mechanisms are still unclear. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We examined the cellular response of a human LCSC line to treatment with cisplatin, a DNA-damaging anticancer drug that is used extensively in the clinic. We compared the response to cisplatin of LCSCs and differentiated LCSCs (dLCSCs) by determining the viability of these cells, and their ability to accumulate cisplatin and to implement genomic and transcription-coupled DNA repair. We also investigated the transcription profiles of genes related to drug transport and DNA repair. KEY RESULTS: LCSCs were found to be more stem-like, and more resistant to cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity than dLCSCs, confirming their drug resistance properties. LCSCs accumulated less cisplatin intracellularly than dLCSCs and showed less DNA damage, potentially due to their ability to down-regulate AQP2 and CTR1. The results of the transcription-coupled repair of cisplatin-DNA cross-links indicated a higher level of repair of DNA damage in LCSCs than in dLCSCs. In addition, LCSCs showed a greater ability to repair cisplatin-DNA interstrand cross-links than dLCSCs; this involved the activation of various DNA repair pathways. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results further clarify the mechanism of cisplatin resistance in LCSCs in terms of reduced cisplatin uptake and enhanced ability to implement DNA repairs. These findings may aid in the design of the next-generation of platinum-based anticancer drugs.
Authors: Michael J Curtis; Richard A Bond; Domenico Spina; Amrita Ahluwalia; Stephen P A Alexander; Mark A Giembycz; Annette Gilchrist; Daniel Hoyer; Paul A Insel; Angelo A Izzo; Andrew J Lawrence; David J MacEwan; Lawrence D F Moon; Sue Wonnacott; Arthur H Weston; John C McGrath Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: A Eramo; F Lotti; G Sette; E Pilozzi; M Biffoni; A Di Virgilio; C Conticello; L Ruco; C Peschle; R De Maria Journal: Cell Death Differ Date: 2007-11-30 Impact factor: 15.828
Authors: Carol E Schrader; Joycelyn Vardo; Erin Linehan; Michael Z Twarog; Laura J Niedernhofer; Jan H J Hoeijmakers; Janet Stavnezer Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2004-07-26 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Stefano Malvezzi; Lucas Farnung; Claudia M N Aloisi; Todor Angelov; Patrick Cramer; Shana J Sturla Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 11.205