DNA Damage Repair Inhibitor for Breast Cancer Treatment

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-179
Author(s):  
Ahrum Min ◽  
Kyung-Hun Lee ◽  
Seock-Ah Im
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Damage Repair

scholarly journals DNA damage repair: historical perspectives, mechanistic pathways and clinical translation for targeted cancer therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruixue Huang ◽  
Ping-Kun Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Dna Damage Response ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Targeted Cancer Therapy ◽  
Baseline Drift ◽  
Damage Repair ◽  
Damage Response

AbstractGenomic instability is the hallmark of various cancers with the increasing accumulation of DNA damage. The application of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in cancer treatment is typically based on this property of cancers. However, the adverse effects including normal tissues injury are also accompanied by the radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Targeted cancer therapy has the potential to suppress cancer cells’ DNA damage response through tailoring therapy to cancer patients lacking specific DNA damage response functions. Obviously, understanding the broader role of DNA damage repair in cancers has became a basic and attractive strategy for targeted cancer therapy, in particular, raising novel hypothesis or theory in this field on the basis of previous scientists’ findings would be important for future promising druggable emerging targets. In this review, we first illustrate the timeline steps for the understanding the roles of DNA damage repair in the promotion of cancer and cancer therapy developed, then we summarize the mechanisms regarding DNA damage repair associated with targeted cancer therapy, highlighting the specific proteins behind targeting DNA damage repair that initiate functioning abnormally duo to extrinsic harm by environmental DNA damage factors, also, the DNA damage baseline drift leads to the harmful intrinsic targeted cancer therapy. In addition, clinical therapeutic drugs for DNA damage and repair including therapeutic effects, as well as the strategy and scheme of relative clinical trials were intensive discussed. Based on this background, we suggest two hypotheses, namely “environmental gear selection” to describe DNA damage repair pathway evolution, and “DNA damage baseline drift”, which may play a magnified role in mediating repair during cancer treatment. This two new hypothesis would shed new light on targeted cancer therapy, provide a much better or more comprehensive holistic view and also promote the development of new research direction and new overcoming strategies for patients.

Abstract 2521: Race specific differences in DNA damage repair dysregulation in breast cancer and association with outcome

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aloran Mazumder ◽  
Athena Jimenez ◽  
Rachel Ellsworth ◽  
Stephen Freedland ◽  
Sophia George ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Damage Repair

Deeper Insight in Metastatic Cancer progression;Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition and Genomic Instability: implications on treatment resistance

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Omabe ◽  
Sandra Uduituma ◽  
David Igwe ◽  
Maxwell Omabe
Keyword(s):  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Epithelial To Mesenchymal Transition ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Treatment Resistance ◽  
Therapy Resistance ◽  
Cellular Reprogramming ◽  
Repair System ◽  
Mesenchymal Transition ◽  
Damage Repair

: Therapy resistance remains the major obstacle to successful cancer treatment. Epithelial-to- mesenchymal transition [EMT], a cellular reprogramming process involved in embryogenesis and organ development and regulated by a number of transcriptional factors [EMT-TFs] such as ZEB1/2, is recognized for its role in tumor progression and metastasis. Recently, a growing body of evidence has implicated EMT in cancer therapy resistance but the actual mechanism that underlie this finding has remained elusive. For example, whether it is, the EMT states in itself or the EMT-TFs that modulates chemo or radio-resistance in cancer is still contentious. Here, we summarise the molecular mechanisms of EMT program and chemotherapeutic resistance in cancer with specific reference to DNA damage response [DDR]. We provide an insight into the molecular interplay that exist between EMT program and DNA repair machinery in cancer and how this interaction influences therapeutic response. We review conflicting studies linking EMT and drug resistance via the DNA damage repair axis. We draw scientific evidence demonstrating how several molecular signalling, including EMT-TFs work in operational harmony to induce EMT and confer stemness properties on the EMT-susceptible cells. We highlight the role of enhanced DNA damage repair system associated with EMT-derived stem cell-like states in promoting therapy resistance and suggest a multi-targeting modality in combating cancer treatment resistance.

scholarly journals JARID 1B expression and its function in DNA damage repair are tightly regulated by mi RNA s in breast cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 1232-1243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivano Mocavini ◽  
Simone Pippa ◽  
Valerio Licursi ◽  
Paola Paci ◽  
Daniela Trisciuoglio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Damage Repair

scholarly journals A Novel Role for Cathepsin S as a Potential Biomarker in Triple Negative Breast Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. A. Wilkinson ◽  
Roberta E. Burden ◽  
Sara H. McDowell ◽  
Darragh G. McArt ◽  
Stephen McQuaid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Expression ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Cathepsin S ◽  
Damage Repair ◽  
Potential Biomarker ◽  
Repair Pathways ◽  
Improved Outcome

Cathepsin S (CTSS) has previously been implicated in a number of cancer types, where it is associated with poor clinical features and outcome. To date, patient outcome in breast cancer has not been examined with respect to this protease. Here, we carried out immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of CTSS using a breast cancer tissue microarray in patients who received adjuvant therapy. We scored CTSS expression in the epithelial and stromal compartments and evaluated the association of CTSS expression with matched clinical outcome data. We observed differences in outcome based on CTSS expression, with stromal-derived CTSS expression correlating with a poor outcome and epithelial CTSS expression associated with an improved outcome. Further subtype characterisation revealed high epithelial CTSS expression in TNBC patients with improved outcome, which remained consistent across two independent TMA cohorts. Furtherin silicogene expression analysis, using both in-house and publicly available datasets, confirmed these observations and suggested high CTSS expression may also be beneficial to outcome in ER-/HER2+ cancer. Furthermore, high CTSS expression was associated with the BL1 Lehmann subgroup, which is characterised by defects in DNA damage repair pathways and correlates with improved outcome. Finally, analysis of matching IHC analysis reveals an increased M1 (tumour destructive) polarisation in macrophage in patients exhibiting high epithelial CTSS expression. In conclusion, our observations suggest epithelial CTSS expression may be prognostic of improved outcome in TNBC. Improved outcome observed with HER2+ at the gene expression level furthermore suggests CTSS may be prognostic of improved outcome in ER- cancers as a whole. Lastly, from the context of these patients receiving adjuvant therapy and as a result of its association with BL1 subgroup CTSS may be elevated in patients with defects in DNA damage repair pathways, indicating it may be predictive of tumour sensitivity to DNA damaging agents.

scholarly journals Changes in DNA Damage Repair Gene Expression and Cell Cycle Gene Expression Do Not Explain Radioresistance in Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie E. M. Post ◽  
Johan Bussink ◽  
Fred C. G. J. Sweep ◽  
Paul N. Span
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Expression ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Cross Resistance ◽  
Damage Repair ◽  
Breast Cancer Cohort ◽  
Tamoxifen Resistant ◽  
Repair Genes

Tamoxifen-induced radioresistance, reported in vitro, might pose a problem for patients who receive neoadjuvant tamoxifen treatment and subsequently receive radiotherapy after surgery. Previous studies suggested that DNA damage repair or cell cycle genes are involved, and could therefore be targeted to preclude the occurrence of cross-resistance. We aimed to characterize the observed cross-resistance by investigating gene expression of DNA damage repair genes and cell cycle genes in estrogen receptor-positive MCF-7 breast cancer cells that were cultured to tamoxifen resistance. RNA sequencing was performed, and expression of genes characteristic for several DNA damage repair pathways was investigated, as well as expression of genes involved in different phases of the cell cycle. The association of differentially expressed genes with outcome after radiotherapy was assessed in silico in a large breast cancer cohort. None of the DNA damage repair pathways showed differential gene expression in tamoxifen-resistant cells compared to wild-type cells. Two DNA damage repair genes were more than two times upregulated (NEIL1 and EME2), and three DNA damage repair genes were more than two times downregulated (PCNA, BRIP1, and BARD1). However, these were not associated with outcome after radiotherapy in the TCGA breast cancer cohort. Genes involved in G1, G1/S, G2, and G2/M phases were lower expressed in tamoxifen-resistant cells compared to wild-type cells. Individual genes that were more than two times upregulated (MAPK13) or downregulated (E2F2, CKS2, GINS2, PCNA, MCM5, and EIF5A2) were not associated with response to radiotherapy in the patient cohort investigated. We assessed the expression of DNA damage repair genes and cell cycle genes in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells. Though several genes in both pathways were differentially expressed, these could not explain the cross-resistance for irradiation in these cells, since no association to response to radiotherapy in the TCGA breast cancer cohort was found.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document