Literature DB >> 34419699

Revisiting the BRCA-pathway through the lens of replication gap suppression: "Gaps determine therapy response in BRCA mutant cancer".

Sharon B Cantor1.   

Abstract

The toxic lesion emanating from chemotherapy that targets the DNA was initially debated, but eventually the DNA double strand break (DSB) ultimately prevailed. The reasoning was in part based on the perception that repairing a fractured chromosome necessitated intricate processing or condemned the cell to death. Genetic evidence for the DSB model was also provided by the extreme sensitivity of cells that were deficient in DSB repair. In particular, sensitivity characterized cells harboring mutations in the hereditary breast/ovarian cancer genes, BRCA1 or BRCA2, that function in the repair of DSBs by homologous recombination (HR). Along with functions in HR, BRCA proteins were found to prevent DSBs by protecting stalled replication forks from nuclease degradation. Coming full-circle, BRCA mutant cancer cells that gained resistance to genotoxic chemotherapy often displayed restored DNA repair by HR and/or restored fork protection (FP) implicating that the therapy was tolerated when DSB repair was intact or DSBs were prevented. Despite this well-supported paradigm that has been the impetus for targeted cancer therapy, here we argue that the toxic DNA lesion conferring response is instead single stranded DNA (ssDNA) gaps. We discuss the evidence that persistent ssDNA gaps formed in the wake of DNA replication rather than DSBs are responsible for cell killing following treatment with genotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. We also highlight that proteins, such as BRCA1, BRCA2, and RAD51 known for canonical DSB repair also have critical roles in normal replication as well as replication gap suppression (RGS) and repair. We review the literature that supports the idea that widespread gap induction proximal to treatment triggers apoptosis in a process that does not need or stem from DSB induction. Lastly, we discuss the clinical evidence for gaps and how to exploit them to enhance genotoxic chemotherapy response.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCA-RAD51 pathway; Fork protection; Homologous recombination; Replication gap suppression; Replication stress; Single stranded DNA

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34419699      PMCID: PMC9049047          DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2021.103209

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)        ISSN: 1568-7856


  207 in total

1.  High speed of fork progression induces DNA replication stress and genomic instability.

Authors:  Apolinar Maya-Mendoza; Pavel Moudry; Joanna Maria Merchut-Maya; MyungHee Lee; Robert Strauss; Jiri Bartek
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Sensitivity and selectivity of the DNA damage sensor responsible for activating p53-dependent G1 arrest.

Authors:  L C Huang; K C Clarkin; G M Wahl
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1996-05-14       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  DNA fragmentation during apoptosis is caused by frequent single-strand cuts.

Authors:  M C Peitsch; C Müller; J Tschopp
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1993-09-11       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  EZH2 promotes degradation of stalled replication forks by recruiting MUS81 through histone H3 trimethylation.

Authors:  Beatrice Rondinelli; Ewa Gogola; Hatice Yücel; Alexandra A Duarte; Marieke van de Ven; Roxanne van der Sluijs; Panagiotis A Konstantinopoulos; Jos Jonkers; Raphaël Ceccaldi; Sven Rottenberg; Alan D D'Andrea
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 28.824

5.  A Dominant Mutation in Human RAD51 Reveals Its Function in DNA Interstrand Crosslink Repair Independent of Homologous Recombination.

Authors:  Anderson T Wang; Taeho Kim; John E Wagner; Brooke A Conti; Francis P Lach; Athena L Huang; Henrik Molina; Erica M Sanborn; Heather Zierhut; Belinda K Cornes; Avinash Abhyankar; Carrie Sougnez; Stacey B Gabriel; Arleen D Auerbach; Stephen C Kowalczykowski; Agata Smogorzewska
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 17.970

6.  DNA damage tolerance in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in mice.

Authors:  Bas Pilzecker; Olimpia Alessandra Buoninfante; Paul van den Berk; Cesare Lancini; Ji-Ying Song; Elisabetta Citterio; Heinz Jacobs
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Loss of a yeast telomere: arrest, recovery, and chromosome loss.

Authors:  L L Sandell; V A Zakian
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1993-11-19       Impact factor: 41.582

8.  Gaps and forks in DNA replication: Rediscovering old models.

Authors:  Alan R Lehmann; Robert P Fuchs
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2006-09-07

Review 9.  The DNA damage response and cancer therapy.

Authors:  Christopher J Lord; Alan Ashworth
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Replication fork reversal triggers fork degradation in BRCA2-defective cells.

Authors:  Sofija Mijic; Ralph Zellweger; Nagaraja Chappidi; Matteo Berti; Kurt Jacobs; Karun Mutreja; Sebastian Ursich; Arnab Ray Chaudhuri; Andre Nussenzweig; Pavel Janscak; Massimo Lopes
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 14.919

View more
  5 in total

1.  WRN rescues replication forks compromised by a BRCA2 deficiency: Predictions for how inhibition of a helicase that suppresses premature aging tilts the balance to fork demise and chromosomal instability in cancer.

Authors:  Arindam Datta; Robert M Brosh
Journal:  Bioessays       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 4.653

2.  A genome-wide screen identifies SCAI as a modulator of the UV-induced replicative stress response.

Authors:  Jean-François Lemay; Edlie St-Hilaire; Daryl A Ronato; Yuandi Gao; François Bélanger; Sari Gezzar-Dandashi; Aimé Boris Kimenyi Ishimwe; Christina Sawchyn; Dominique Lévesque; Mary McQuaid; François-Michel Boisvert; Frédérick A Mallette; Jean-Yves Masson; Elliot A Drobetsky; Hugo Wurtele
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 9.593

Review 3.  Exploiting replication gaps for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Ke Cong; Sharon B Cantor
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 19.328

Review 4.  DNA repair as a shared hallmark in cancer and ageing.

Authors:  Thomas L Clarke; Raul Mostoslavsky
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 7.449

Review 5.  Homologous Recombination as a Fundamental Genome Surveillance Mechanism during DNA Replication.

Authors:  Julian Spies; Hana Polasek-Sedlackova; Jiri Lukas; Kumar Somyajit
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 4.096

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.