Revisiting the BRCA-pathway Through the Lens of Replication Gap Suppression: "Gaps Determine Therapy Response in BRCA Mutant Cancer"

Overview

Journal DNA Repair (Amst)

Publisher Elsevier

Specialties Biochemistry
Molecular Biology

Date 2021 Aug 22

PMID 34419699

Citations 27

Authors

Sharon B Cantor

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Molecular pathways in reproductive cancers: a focus on prostate and ovarian cancer.

Ajayi A, Oyovwi M, Akano O, Akanbi G, Adisa F Cancer Cell Int. 2025; 25(1):33.

PMID: 39901204 PMC: 11792371. DOI: 10.1186/s12935-025-03658-5.

Phosphorylation-dependent WRN-RPA interaction promotes recovery of stalled forks at secondary DNA structure.

Noto A, Valenzisi P, Di Feo F, Fratini F, Kulikowicz T, Sommers J Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):997.

PMID: 39870632 PMC: 11772831. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-55958-z.

Next-generation sequencing uncovers crucial mutated genes and potential therapeutic targets in ovarian cancer patients.

Zhao T, Dong X, Zhao T, Han Z Am J Transl Res. 2024; 16(10):5990-6007.

PMID: 39544793 PMC: 11558429. DOI: 10.62347/XNGV7396.

CRISPR knockout genome-wide screens identify the HELQ-RAD52 axis in regulating the repair of cisplatin-induced single-stranded DNA gaps.

Pale L, Khatib J, Nusawardhana A, Straka J, Nicolae C, Moldovan G Nucleic Acids Res. 2024; 52(22):13832-13848.

PMID: 39530221 PMC: 11662931. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkae998.

Positioning loss of PARP1 activity as the central toxic event in BRCA-deficient cancer.

MacGilvary N, Cantor S DNA Repair (Amst). 2024; 144:103775.

PMID: 39461277 PMC: 11611662. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2024.103775.

References

Rondinelli B, Gogola E, Yucel H, Duarte A, van de Ven M, van der Sluijs R . EZH2 promotes degradation of stalled replication forks by recruiting MUS81 through histone H3 trimethylation. Nat Cell Biol. 2017; 19(11):1371-1378. DOI: 10.1038/ncb3626. View

Wang A, Kim T, Wagner J, Conti B, Lach F, Huang A . A Dominant Mutation in Human RAD51 Reveals Its Function in DNA Interstrand Crosslink Repair Independent of Homologous Recombination. Mol Cell. 2015; 59(3):478-90. PMC: 4529964. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.07.009. View

Huang L, Clarkin K, Wahl G . Sensitivity and selectivity of the DNA damage sensor responsible for activating p53-dependent G1 arrest. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996; 93(10):4827-32. PMC: 39364. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.93.10.4827. View

Mijic S, Zellweger R, Chappidi N, Berti M, Jacobs K, Mutreja K . Replication fork reversal triggers fork degradation in BRCA2-defective cells. Nat Commun. 2017; 8(1):859. PMC: 5643541. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-01164-5. View

Maya-Mendoza A, Moudry P, Merchut-Maya J, Lee M, Strauss R, Bartek J . High speed of fork progression induces DNA replication stress and genomic instability. Nature. 2018; 559(7713):279-284. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0261-5. View

Lehmann A, Fuchs R . Gaps and forks in DNA replication: Rediscovering old models. DNA Repair (Amst). 2006; 5(12):1495-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2006.07.002. View

Pilzecker B, Buoninfante O, van den Berk P, Lancini C, Song J, Citterio E . DNA damage tolerance in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(33):E6875-E6883. PMC: 5565453. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1706508114. View

Lord C, Ashworth A . The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature. 2012; 481(7381):287-94. DOI: 10.1038/nature10760. View

Peitsch M, Muller C, Tschopp J . DNA fragmentation during apoptosis is caused by frequent single-strand cuts. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993; 21(18):4206-9. PMC: 310051. DOI: 10.1093/nar/21.18.4206. View

10.

Sandell L, Zakian V . Loss of a yeast telomere: arrest, recovery, and chromosome loss. Cell. 1993; 75(4):729-39. DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90493-a. View

11.

Kuo W, Meyn R, HAIDLE C . Neocarzinostatin-mediated DNA damage and repair in wild-type and repair-deficient Chinese hamster ovary cells. Cancer Res. 1984; 44(5):1748-51. View

12.

Rickman K, Noonan R, Lach F, Sridhar S, Wang A, Abhyankar A . Distinct roles of BRCA2 in replication fork protection in response to hydroxyurea and DNA interstrand cross-links. Genes Dev. 2020; 34(11-12):832-846. PMC: 7263144. DOI: 10.1101/gad.336446.120. View

13.

Olive P . The role of DNA single- and double-strand breaks in cell killing by ionizing radiation. Radiat Res. 1998; 150(5 Suppl):S42-51. View

14.

Adar S, Izhar L, Hendel A, Geacintov N, Livneh Z . Repair of gaps opposite lesions by homologous recombination in mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009; 37(17):5737-48. PMC: 2761288. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkp632. View

15.

Xu X, Qiao W, Linke S, Cao L, Li W, Furth P . Genetic interactions between tumor suppressors Brca1 and p53 in apoptosis, cell cycle and tumorigenesis. Nat Genet. 2001; 28(3):266-71. DOI: 10.1038/90108. View

16.

Lukas C, Savic V, Bekker-Jensen S, Doil C, Neumann B, Pedersen R . 53BP1 nuclear bodies form around DNA lesions generated by mitotic transmission of chromosomes under replication stress. Nat Cell Biol. 2011; 13(3):243-53. DOI: 10.1038/ncb2201. View

17.

Ray Chaudhuri A, Callen E, Ding X, Gogola E, Duarte A, Lee J . Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells. Nature. 2016; 535(7612):382-7. PMC: 4959813. DOI: 10.1038/nature18325. View

18.

Norquist B, Wurz K, Pennil C, Garcia R, Gross J, Sakai W . Secondary somatic mutations restoring BRCA1/2 predict chemotherapy resistance in hereditary ovarian carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(22):3008-15. PMC: 3157963. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.2980. View

19.

Lord C, Ashworth A . PARP inhibitors: Synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science. 2017; 355(6330):1152-1158. PMC: 6175050. DOI: 10.1126/science.aam7344. View

20.

Johnstone R, Ruefli A, Lowe S . Apoptosis: a link between cancer genetics and chemotherapy. Cell. 2002; 108(2):153-64. DOI: 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00625-6. View