scholarly journals DNA-Damage Response priming by CK2: a matter of life or cell death in root apical meristems

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Hammoudi
2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anisha Zaveri ◽  
Ruojun Wang ◽  
Laure Botella ◽  
Ritu Sharma ◽  
Linnan Zhu ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshinori Ozaki ◽  
Akira Nakagawara ◽  
Hiroki Nagase

A proper DNA damage response (DDR), which monitors and maintains the genomic integrity, has been considered to be a critical barrier against genetic alterations to prevent tumor initiation and progression. The representative tumor suppressor p53 plays an important role in the regulation of DNA damage response. When cells receive DNA damage, p53 is quickly activated and induces cell cycle arrest and/or apoptotic cell death through transactivating its target genes implicated in the promotion of cell cycle arrest and/or apoptotic cell death such asp21WAF1,BAX, andPUMA. Accumulating evidence strongly suggests that DNA damage-mediated activation as well as induction of p53 is regulated by posttranslational modifications and also by protein-protein interaction. Loss of p53 activity confers growth advantage and ensures survival in cancer cells by inhibiting apoptotic response required for tumor suppression. RUNX family, which is composed of RUNX1, RUNX2, and RUNX3, is a sequence-specific transcription factor and is closely involved in a variety of cellular processes including development, differentiation, and/or tumorigenesis. In this review, we describe a background of p53 and a functional collaboration between p53 and RUNX family in response to DNA damage.


DNA Repair ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 940-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Furukawa ◽  
M.J. Curtis ◽  
C.M. Tominey ◽  
Y.H. Duong ◽  
B.W.L. Wilcox ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (10) ◽  
pp. 1404-1410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jguirim-Souissi Imen ◽  
Ludivine Billiet ◽  
Clarisse Cuaz-Pérolin ◽  
Nadège Michaud ◽  
Mustapha Rouis

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3901-3901
Author(s):  
William G. Wierda ◽  
Kumudha Balakrishnan ◽  
Alessandra Ferrajoli ◽  
Tapan Kadia ◽  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3901 Chemoimmunotherapy (such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab) has been the most significant advance in treatment for patients with CLL, achieving the highest complete remission rates, longest progression-free and overall survival compared to chemotherapy combinations or monotherapy. Bendamustine (B) is a well-tolerated, alkylating agent that induces a DNA damage and repair response. In vitro data in 30 CLL patient (pt) samples suggested an increased DNA damage response (measured as H2AX phosphorylation), activation of p53 protein and PUMA, and cell death when fludarabine was combined with bendamustine (El-Mabhouh, A, unpublished). To translate this observation to the clinic, we are conducting a phase I/II trial of escalating doses of bendamustine at 20, 30, 40, or 50 mg/m2 on D1,2,3 with fludarabine 20 mg/m2 administered prior to bendamustine on D2&3. Rituximab 375–500 mg/m2 was given on D3. Courses were repeated each 28 days to assess the safety and tolerability, clinical efficacy, and pharmacodynamics (PD) in previously treated pts with CLL. Responses were assessed after 3 courses and end of treatment. We report results of the phase I portion of this study. For phase I, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were assessed in course 1 and were Grade (G) ≥3 treatment-related, non-hematologic adverse event (AE), and hematologic toxicity G≥3 that lasted beyond D42 of course 1. MTD was defined as the cohort with ≤1 DLT in 6 treated pts. All pts (n=19) had active CLL and were previously treated; median number of prior treatments was 2 (1–6). Pts had high-risk features, median >102<−2 microglobulin was 4 (2.4–8.7); Rai stage III-IV was 10/19; 13/15 were ZAP70+; 12/15 had unmutated IGHV; and FISH identified 2 with del17p and 7 with del11q. 19 patients were evaluable for course 1 toxicities and DLT. Course 1 toxicities were predominantly G1-2 and most common were nausea, fatigue, and hyperglycemia. One of 6 pts experienced DLT (G3 nausea/vomiting/dehydration) in the B-20 cohort; 0 of 3 pts experienced DLT in the B-30 cohort; 1 of 6 pts experienced DLT (G4 sepsis) in the B-40 cohort; and 1 of 4 pts experienced DLT (G3 neutropenia) in the B-50 cohort. Pts continued on treatment, 5 with dose reduction, (Table) for up to 6 courses. The B-50 cohort continues enrollment and treatment, all other cohorts completed treatment. Among 14 pts evaluable for response, there were 5 complete responders (3 MRD negative by 4-color flow cytometry) and 8 partial responders (2 PRs were CRi by IWCLL 2008 criteria); only 1 pt was a non-responder (Table). Considering all courses given, the most common G3-4 AEs that occurred in more than 10% of courses (n=56) were: neutropenia (30%) and thrombocytopenia (13%). All other AEs were G1-2 and resolved. There were no treatment-related deaths. More frequent AEs with higher doses of bendamustine supports selection of the 30 mg/m2 dose level to move forward in phase II. To test fludarabine triphosphate-mediated mitigation of DNA repair response induced by bendamustine, on D1, bendamustine was infused alone and on D2, the fludarabine dose was given 2 hours prior to bendamustine infusion. Circulating CLL cells from 7 pts (3 B-20 and 3 B-40, and 1 B-50) were evaluated for PD endpoints. Median intracellular fludarabine triphosphate level at the start of bendamustine infusion was 12 μM (range 5–21 μM). This was sufficient to increase by 3–5-fold the H2AX phosphorylation response. Molecular markers of DNA damage response and cell death (ATM, p53, PUMA, Mcl-1) are being evaluated. In conclusion, the FBR regimen was tolerated up to the highest bendamustine dose evaluated, with significant efficacy in previously treated patients with CLL. We are extending the clinical and PD investigations in a phase II study with B-30 dose.TableCohort*nMedian coursesTotal coursesTotal AEs per Cohort (C1)Eval for ResponsePercent RespondersG1-2G3-4nCRORB-2063 (2–6)2222465083B-3034 (3–5)1218130100B-4062.5 (1–4)164514540100B-5041.5 (1–2)**6**318–––*Bendamustine dose mg/m2 daily × 3;**Treatment continuesAEs, adverse events; G, grade; n, number; CR, complete remission; OR, overall response Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Cell Cycle ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (17) ◽  
pp. 2029-2035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiangao Sun ◽  
Youzhi Li ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
Bin Zhang ◽  
A.J. Wang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Zamora-Zaragoza ◽  
Katinka Klap ◽  
Renze Heidstra ◽  
Wenkun Zhou ◽  
Ben Scheres

Living organisms face threats to genome integrity caused by environmental challenges or metabolic errors in proliferating cells. To avoid the spread of mutations, cell division is temporarily arrested while repair mechanisms deal with DNA lesions. Afterwards, cells either resume division or respond to unsuccessful repair by withdrawing from the cell cycle and undergoing cell death. How the success rate of DNA repair connects to the execution of cell death remains incompletely known, particularly in plants. Here we provide evidence that the Arabidopsis thaliana RETINOBLASTOMA-RELATED1 (RBR) protein, shown to play structural and transcriptional functions in the DNA damage response (DDR), coordinates these processes in time by successive interactions through its B-pocket sub-domain. Upon DNA damage induction, RBR forms nuclear foci; but the N849F substitution in the B-pocket, which specifically disrupts binding to LXCXE motif-containing proteins, abolishes RBR focus formation and leads to growth arrest. After RBR focus formation, the stress-responsive gene NAC044 arrests cell division. As RBR is released from nuclear foci, it can be bound by the conserved LXCXE motif in NAC044. RBR-mediated cell survival is inhibited by the interaction with NAC044. Disruption of NAC044-RBR interaction impairs the cell death response but is less important for NAC044 mediated growth arrest. Noteworthy, unlike many RBR interactors, NAC044 binds to RBR independent of RBR phosphorylation. Our findings suggest that the availability of the RBR B-pocket to interact with LXCXE-containing proteins couples the structural DNA repair functions and the transcriptional functions of RBR in the cell death program.


Author(s):  
Elena Navarro-Carrasco ◽  
Pedro A. Lazo

BackgroundGlioblastomas treated with temozolomide frequently develop resistance to pharmacological treatments. Therefore, there is a need to find alternative drug targets to reduce treatment resistance based on tumor dependencies. A possibility is to target simultaneously two proteins from different DNA-damage repair pathways to facilitate tumor cell death. Therefore, we tested whether targeting the human chromatin kinase VRK1 by RNA interference can identify this protein as a novel molecular target to reduce the dependence on temozolomide in combination with olaparib, based on synthetic lethality.Materials and MethodsDepletion of VRK1, an enzyme that regulates chromatin dynamic reorganization and facilitates resistance to DNA damage, was performed in glioblastoma cells treated with temozolomide, an alkylating agent used for GBM treatment; and olaparib, an inhibitor of PARP-1, used as sensitizer. Two genetically different human glioblastoma cell lines, LN-18 and LN-229, were used for these experiments. The effect on the DNA-damage response was followed by determination of sequential steps in this process: H4K16ac, γH2AX, H4K20me2, and 53BP1.ResultsThe combination of temozolomide and olaparib increased DNA damage detected by labeling free DNA ends, and chromatin relaxation detected by H4K16ac. The combination of both drugs, at lower doses, resulted in an increase in the DNA damage response detected by the formation of γH2AX and 53BP1 foci. VRK1 depletion did not prevent the generation of DNA damage in TUNEL assays, but significantly impaired the DNA damage response induced by temozolomide and olaparib, and mediated by γH2AX, H4K20me2, and 53BP1. The combination of these drugs in VRK1 depleted cells resulted in an increase of glioblastoma cell death detected by annexin V and the processing of PARP-1 and caspase-3.ConclusionDepletion of the chromatin kinase VRK1 promotes tumor cell death at lower doses of a combination of temozolomide and olaparib treatments, and can be a novel alternative target for therapies based on synthetic lethality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document