scholarly journals The BRCA1 and BRCA2 Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Genes — Implications for DNA Damage Response, DNA Repair and Cancer Therapy

Author(s):  
Katy S. Orr ◽  
Kienan I. Savage
Genes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1156
Author(s):  
Jiachen Xuan ◽  
Kezia Gitareja ◽  
Natalie Brajanovski ◽  
Elaine Sanij

The nucleoli are subdomains of the nucleus that form around actively transcribed ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes. They serve as the site of rRNA synthesis and processing, and ribosome assembly. There are 400–600 copies of rRNA genes (rDNA) in human cells and their highly repetitive and transcribed nature poses a challenge for DNA repair and replication machineries. It is only in the last 7 years that the DNA damage response and processes of DNA repair at the rDNA repeats have been recognized to be unique and distinct from the classic response to DNA damage in the nucleoplasm. In the last decade, the nucleolus has also emerged as a central hub for coordinating responses to stress via sequestering tumor suppressors, DNA repair and cell cycle factors until they are required for their functional role in the nucleoplasm. In this review, we focus on features of the rDNA repeats that make them highly vulnerable to DNA damage and the mechanisms by which rDNA damage is repaired. We highlight the molecular consequences of rDNA damage including activation of the nucleolar DNA damage response, which is emerging as a unique response that can be exploited in anti-cancer therapy. In this review, we focus on CX-5461, a novel inhibitor of Pol I transcription that induces the nucleolar DNA damage response and is showing increasing promise in clinical investigations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A944-A944
Author(s):  
Anand Kornepati ◽  
Clare Murray ◽  
Barbara Avalos ◽  
Cody Rogers ◽  
Kavya Ramkumar ◽  
...  

BackgroundTumor surface-expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) suppresses immunity when it engages programmed death-1 (PD-1) on anti-tumor immune cells in canonical PD-L1/PD-1.1 Non-canonical, tumour-intrinsic PD-L1 signals can mediate treatment resistance2–6 but mechanisms remain incompletely understood. Targeting non-canonical, cell-intrinsic PD-L1 signals, especially modulation of the DNA damage response (DDR), remains largely untapped.MethodsWe made PD-L1 knockout (PD-L1 KO) murine transplantable and human cell lines representing melanoma, bladder, and breast histologies. We used biochemical, genetic, and cell-biology techniques for mechanistic insights into tumor-intrinsic PD-L1 control of specific DDR and DNA repair pathways. We generated a novel inducible melanoma GEMM lacking PD-L1 only in melanocytes to corroborate DDR alterations observed in PD-L1 KO of established tumors.ResultsGenetic tumor PD-L1 depletion destabilized Chk2 and impaired ATM/Chk2, but not ATR/Chk1 DDR. PD-L1KO increased DNA damage (γH2AX) and impaired homologous recombination DNA repair (p-RPA32, BRCA1, RAD51 nuclear foci) and function (DR-GFP reporter). PD-L1 KO cells were significantly more sensitive versus controls to DDR inhibitors (DDRi) against ATR, Chk1, and PARP but not ATM in multiple human and mouse tumor models in vitro and in vivo in NSG mice. PD-1 independent, intracellular, not surface PD-L1 stabilized Chk2 protein with minimal Chek2 mRNA effect. Mechanistically, PD-L1 could directly complex with Chk2, protecting it from PIRH2-mediated polyubiquitination. PD-L1 N-terminal domains Ig-V and Ig-C but not the PD-L1 C-terminal tail co-IP’d with Chk2 and restored Chk1 inhibitor (Chk1i) treatment resistance. Tumor PD-L1 expression correlated with Chk1i sensitivity in 44 primary human small cell lung cancer cell lines, implicating tumor-intrinsic PD-L1 as a DDRi response biomarker. In WT mice, genetic PD-L1 depletion but not surface PD-L1 blockade with αPD-L1, sensitized immunotherapy-resistant, BRCA1-WT 4T1 tumors to PARP inhibitor (PARPi). PARPi effects were reduced on PD-L1 KO tumors in RAG2KO mice indicating immune-dependent DDRi efficacy. Tumor PD-L1 depletion, likely due to impaired DDR, enhanced PARPi induced tumor-intrinsic STING activation (e.g., p-TBK1, CCL5) suggesting potential to augment immunotherapies.ConclusionsWe challenge the prevailing surface PD-L1 paradigm and establish a novel mechanism for cell-intrinsic PD-L1 control of the DDR and gene product expression. We identify therapeutic vulnerabilities from tumor PD-L1 depletion utilizing small molecule DDRi currently being tested in clinical trials. Data could explain αPD-L1/DDRi treatment resistance. Intracellular PD-L1 could be a pharmacologically targetable treatment target and/or response biomarker for selective DDRi alone plus other immunotherapies.ReferencesTopalian SL, Taube JM, Anders RA, Pardoll DM. Mechanism-driven biomarkers to guide immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 16:275–287, doi:10.1038/nrc.2016.36 (2016).Clark CA, et al. Tumor-intrinsic PD-L1 signals regulate cell growth, pathogenesis and autophagy in ovarian cancer and melanoma. Canres 0258.2016 (2016).Gupta HB et al. Tumor cell-intrinsic PD-L1 promotes tumor-initiating cell generation and functions in melanoma and ovarian cancer. 1, 16030 (2016).Zhu H, et al. BET bromodomain inhibition promotes anti-tumor immunity by suppressing PD-L1 expression. Cell Rep 16:2829–2837, doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2016.08.032 (2016)Wu B, et al. Adipose PD-L1 modulates PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy efficacy in breast cancer. Oncoimmunology 7:e1500107, doi:10.1080/2162402X.2018.1500107 (2018)Liang J, et al. Verteporfin inhibits PD-L1 through autophagy and the STAT1-IRF1-TRIM28 signaling axis, exerting antitumor efficacy. Cancer Immunol Res 8:952–965, doi:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19-0159 (2020)


Author(s):  
Kerstin Felgentreff ◽  
Ulrich Baumann ◽  
Christian Klemann ◽  
Catharina Schuetz ◽  
Dorothee Viemann ◽  
...  

AbstractDNA damage is a constant event in every cell caused by exogenous factors such as ultraviolet and ionizing radiation (UVR/IR) and intercalating drugs, or endogenous metabolic and replicative stress. Proteins of the DNA damage response (DDR) network sense DNA lesions and induce cell cycle arrest, DNA repair, and apoptosis. Genetic defects of DDR or DNA repair proteins can be associated with immunodeficiency, bone marrow failure syndromes, and cancer susceptibility. Although various diagnostic tools are available to evaluate DNA damage, their quality to identify DNA repair deficiencies differs enormously and depends on affected pathways. In this study, we investigated the DDR biomarkers γH2AX (Ser139), p-ATM (Ser1981), and p-CHK2 (Thr68) using flow cytometry on peripheral blood cells obtained from patients with combined immunodeficiencies due to non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) defects and ataxia telangiectasia (AT) in response to low-dose IR. Significantly reduced induction of all three markers was observed in AT patients compared to controls. However, delayed downregulation of γH2AX was found in patients with NHEJ defects. In contrast to previous reports of DDR in cellular models, these biomarkers were not sensitive enough to identify ARTEMIS deficiency with sufficient reliability. In summary, DDR biomarkers are suitable for diagnosing NHEJ defects and AT, which can be useful in neonates with abnormal TREC levels (T cell receptor excision circles) identified by newborn screening. We conclude that DDR biomarkers have benefits and some limitations depending on the underlying DNA repair deficiency.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lulu Li ◽  
Alagamuthu Karthick Kumar ◽  
Zhigang Hu ◽  
Zhigang Guo

: DNA damage response (DDR) is a complicated interactional pathway. Defects that occur in subordinate pathways of the DDR pathway can lead to genomic instability and cancer susceptibility. Abnormal expression of some proteins in DDR, especially in the DNA repair pathway, are associated with the subsistence and resistance of cancer cells. Therefore, the development of small molecule inhibitors targeting the chief proteins in the DDR pathway is an effective strategy for cancer therapy. In this review, we summarize the development of small molecule inhibitors targeting chief proteins in the DDR pathway, particularly focusing on their implications for cancer therapy. We present the action mode of DDR molecule inhibitors in preclinical studies and clinical cancer therapy, including monotherapy and combination therapy with chemotherapeutic drugs or checkpoint suppression therapy.


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 2701-2712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Berry ◽  
Edwin S. Iversen ◽  
Daniel F. Gudbjartsson ◽  
Elaine H. Hiller ◽  
Judy E. Garber ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To compare genetic test results for deleterious mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with estimated probabilities of carrying such mutations; to assess sensitivity of genetic testing; and to assess the relevance of other susceptibility genes in familial breast and ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data analyzed were from six high-risk genetic counseling clinics and concern individuals from families for which at least one member was tested for mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2. Predictions of genetic predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer for 301 individuals were made using BRCAPRO, a statistical model and software using Mendelian genetics and Bayesian updating. Model predictions were compared with the results of genetic testing. RESULTS: Among the test individuals, 126 were Ashkenazi Jewish, three were male subjects, 243 had breast cancer, 49 had ovarian cancer, 34 were unaffected, and 139 tested positive for BRCA1 mutations and 29 for BRCA2 mutations. BRCAPRO performed well: for the 150 probands with the smallest BRCAPRO carrier probabilities (average, 29.0%), the proportion testing positive was 32.7%; for the 151 probands with the largest carrier probabilities (average, 95.2%), 78.8% tested positive. Genetic testing sensitivity was estimated to be at least 85%, with false-negatives including mutations of susceptibility genes heretofore unknown. CONCLUSION: BRCAPRO is an accurate counseling tool for determining the probability of carrying mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is highly sensitive, missing an estimated 15% of mutations. In the populations studied, breast cancer susceptibility genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 either do not exist, are rare, or are associated with low disease penetrance.


Cancers ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Koczkowska ◽  
Natalia Krawczynska ◽  
Maciej Stukan ◽  
Alina Kuzniacka ◽  
Izabela Brozek ◽  
...  

Constitutional loss-of-function pathogenic variants in the tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are widely associated with an elevated risk of ovarian cancer (OC). As only ~15% of OC individuals carry the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, the identification of other potential OC-susceptibility genes is of great clinical importance. Here, we established the prevalence and spectrum of the germline pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 and 23 other cancer-related genes in a large Polish population of 333 unselected OC cases. Approximately 21% of cases (71/333) carried the BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, with c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs*74) and c.3700_3704del (p.Val1234Glnfs*8) being the most prevalent. Additionally, ~6% of women (20/333) were carriers of the pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in other cancer-related genes, with NBN and CHEK2 reported as the most frequently mutated, accounting for 1.8% (6/333) and 1.2% (4/333) of cases, respectively. We also found ten pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in other genes: 1/333 in APC, 1/333 in ATM, 2/333 in BLM, 1/333 in BRIP1, 1/333 in MRE11A, 2/333 in PALB2, 1/333 in RAD50, and 1/333 in RAD51C, accounting for 50% of all detected variants in moderate- and low-penetrant genes. Our findings confirmed the presence of the additional OC-associated genes in the Polish population that may improve the personalized risk assessment of these individuals.


1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tammy O. Tengs ◽  
Eric P. Winer ◽  
Susan Paddock ◽  
Omar Aguilar-Chavez ◽  
Donald A. Berry

Objective. The authors developed a Markov decision model to evaluate the health implications of testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Prophylactic measures considered included various combinations of immediate and delayed bilateral mastectomy and oophorectomy or taking no action. Methods. The model incorporated the likelihood of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer, survival, and quality of life. Parameter values were taken from public data bases, the published literature, and a survey of cancer experts. Outcomes considered were additional life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results are reported for 30-year-old cancer-free women at various levels of hereditary risk. Results and conclusions. The vast majority of women will not benefit from testing because their pre-test risks are low and surgical prophylaxis is undesirable. However, women who have family histories of early breast and/or ovarian cancer may gain up to 2 QALYs by allowing genetic testing to inform their decisions. Key words: BRCA1; BRCA2; ge netic testing; breast cancer; ovarian cancer; decision analysis. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:365-375)


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 504
Author(s):  
Takayuki Saitoh ◽  
Tsukasa Oda

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable plasma cell malignancy characterized by genomic instability. MM cells present various forms of genetic instability, including chromosomal instability, microsatellite instability, and base-pair alterations, as well as changes in chromosome number. The tumor microenvironment and an abnormal DNA repair function affect genetic instability in this disease. In addition, states of the tumor microenvironment itself, such as inflammation and hypoxia, influence the DNA damage response, which includes DNA repair mechanisms, cell cycle checkpoints, and apoptotic pathways. Unrepaired DNA damage in tumor cells has been shown to exacerbate genomic instability and aberrant features that enable MM progression and drug resistance. This review provides an overview of the DNA repair pathways, with a special focus on their function in MM, and discusses the role of the tumor microenvironment in governing DNA repair mechanisms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document