24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A genetic basis for the variation in the vulnerability of cancer to DNA damage

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Radiotherapy is not currently informed by the genetic composition of an individual patient's tumour. To identify genetic features regulating survival after DNA damage, here we conduct large-scale profiling of cellular survival after exposure to radiation in a diverse collection of 533 genetically annotated human tumour cell lines. We show that sensitivity to radiation is characterized by significant variation across and within lineages. We combine results from our platform with genomic features to identify parameters that predict radiation sensitivity. We identify somatic copy number alterations, gene mutations and the basal expression of individual genes and gene sets that correlate with the radiation survival, revealing new insights into the genetic basis of tumour cellular response to DNA damage. These results demonstrate the diversity of tumour cellular response to ionizing radiation and establish multiple lines of evidence that new genetic features regulating cellular response after DNA damage can be identified.

          Abstract

          The variability in patient response to radiation treatment is difficult to predict. Here, using more than 500 cell lines the authors measure response to radiation exposure and a large panel of compounds, and show that response can be predicted by genetic alterations of the cells.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Recent advances in neuroblastoma.

          John Maris (2010)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Molecular mechanisms of the Keap1–Nrf2 pathway in stress response and cancer evolution.

            The Keap1–Nrf2 regulatory pathway plays a central role in the protection of cells against oxidative and xenobiotic damage. Under unstressed conditions, Nrf2 is constantly ubiquitinated by the Cul3–Keap1 ubiquitin E3 ligase complex and rapidly degraded in proteasomes. Upon exposure to electrophilic and oxidative stresses, reactive cysteine residues of Keap1 become modified, leading to a decline in the E3 ligase activity, stabilization of Nrf2 and robust induction of a battery of cytoprotective genes. Biochemical and structural analyses have revealed that the intact Keap1 homodimer forms a cherry-bob structure in which one molecule of Nrf2 associates with two molecules of Keap1 by using two binding sites within the Neh2 domain of Nrf2. This two-site binding appears critical for Nrf2 ubiquitination. In many human cancers, missense mutations in KEAP1 and NRF2 genes have been identified. These mutations disrupt the Keap1–Nrf2 complex activity involved in ubiquitination and degradation of Nrf2 and result in constitutive activation of Nrf2. Elevated expression of Nrf2 target genes confers advantages in terms of stress resistance and cell proliferation in normal and cancer cells. Discovery and development of selective Nrf2 inhibitors should make a critical contribution to improved cancer therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mechanisms of change in gene copy number.

              Deletions and duplications of chromosomal segments (copy number variants, CNVs) are a major source of variation between individual humans and are an underlying factor in human evolution and in many diseases, including mental illness, developmental disorders and cancer. CNVs form at a faster rate than other types of mutation, and seem to do so by similar mechanisms in bacteria, yeast and humans. Here we review current models of the mechanisms that cause copy number variation. Non-homologous end-joining mechanisms are well known, but recent models focus on perturbation of DNA replication and replication of non-contiguous DNA segments. For example, cellular stress might induce repair of broken replication forks to switch from high-fidelity homologous recombination to non-homologous repair, thus promoting copy number change.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nat Commun
                Nat Commun
                Nature Communications
                Nature Publishing Group
                2041-1723
                25 April 2016
                2016
                : 7
                : 11428
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Translational Hematology Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic , 9500 Euclid Avenue/R40, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA
                [2 ]Department of Genetics, Case Western Reserve University , 2109 Adelbert Road/BRB, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA
                [3 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine , 101, Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul 110-774, Korea
                [4 ]Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard , 415 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA
                [5 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute , 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA
                [6 ]Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic , 9500 Euclid Avenue/J4-1, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA
                [7 ]Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Cleveland Clinic , 9500 Euclid Avenue/R40, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA
                [8 ]Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Cleveland Clinic , 9500 Euclid Avenue/M2-141, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA
                [9 ]Center for the Science of Therapeutics, Broad Institute , 415 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA
                [10 ]Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University , 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
                [11 ]Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Broad Institute , Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA
                [12 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic , 9500 Euclid Avenue/T2, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA
                Author notes
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9360-4668
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1922-7558
                Article
                ncomms11428
                10.1038/ncomms11428
                4848553
                27109210
                e0700b85-50f7-42c8-ab46-31d905505404
                Copyright © 2016, Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 16 November 2015
                : 24 March 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article