scholarly journals Boon and Bane of DNA Double-Strand Breaks

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 5171
Author(s):  
Ingo Schubert

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), interrupting the genetic information, are elicited by various environmental and endogenous factors. They bear the risk of cell lethality and, if mis-repaired, of deleterious mutation. This negative impact is contrasted by several evolutionary achievements for DSB processing that help maintaining stable inheritance (correct repair, meiotic cross-over) and even drive adaptation (immunoglobulin gene recombination), differentiation (chromatin elimination) and speciation by creating new genetic diversity via DSB mis-repair. Targeted DSBs play a role in genome editing for research, breeding and therapy purposes. Here, I survey possible causes, biological effects and evolutionary consequences of DSBs, mainly for students and outsiders.

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2183-2183
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Takagi ◽  
Jiuhua Piao ◽  
Takahiro Kamiya ◽  
Mitsuko Masutani ◽  
Shuki Mizutani

Abstract Background: Defects in homologous recombination repair (HRR) have long been known to contribute to genomic instability leading to tumor development. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) exerts various cell biological effects, such as maintenance of genomic stability, energy metabolism and cell death. PARP is indispensable in DNA repair machinery, especially in base excision repair (BER). PARP inhibition convert DNA double strand breaks from DNA single strand breaks induced by alkylating agents. These DNA double strand breaks can be repaired by HRR. Therefore, PARP inhibitor induces synthetic lethality in HRR defective cancer cells. Such lethality was successfully shown in BRCA1 or 2 mutated breast cancers. However, only a limited study has been performed other than breast cancers. Some tumors including hematological malignancies are defective in HRR function leading to a possibility to be sensitized to PARP inhibitor. Methods: Sensitivity to PARP inhibitor was screened using 28 leukemia cell lines. HRR activity was measured by DR-GFP HRR assay. Expression of proteins involves HRR was evaluated by cDNA microarray analysis and western blotting. Results: E2A-HLF positive leukemia showed susceptibility to PARP inhibitor. This experiment suggests that expression of E2A-HLF chimeric messenger RNA sensitize the leukemic cell to PARP inhibitor. To elucidate whether E2A-HLF genuinely sensitize the cell for PARP inhibition, E2A-HLF was transduced into PARP inhibitor resistant Burkitt cell line, Daudi, using retrovirus. Compared with mock infected Daudi cell, E2A-HLF expressed Daudi cell showed increased sensitivity to PARP inhibitor. This experiment suggests that E2A-HLF expressed cell is defective HRR pathway. To test this hypothesis, HRR assay using DR-GFP construct was employed. HRR between the two nonfunctional GFP genes to generate a functional GFP gene can be triggered by transient transfection of the I-SceI expression vector, which introduces a DNA double-strand break (DSB) in one of the two GFP genes. HRR proficiency can be determined by the number of cells expressing the GFP protein. DR-GFP HRR assay exhibited defect of HRR function in E2A-HLF expressed cell. Interestingly, expression of BRCA1 was decreased in E2A-HLF transfected cell, which presumably link with decreased HRR activity. Conclusions: Increased sensitivity to PARP inhibitor in E2A-HLF positive leukemia was caused by decreased HRR activity by E2A-HLF expression. PARP inhibitor will be a novel therapeutic approach for refractory leukemia, especially with E2A-HLF translocation. While PARP inhibitor monotherapy is an attractive proposition for treating such as HRR defective E2A-HLF expressed leukemia, combination of HRR inhibitor will be a universal strategy for various types of leukemia. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Waterman ◽  
James E. Haber ◽  
Marcus B. Smolka

Cells confront DNA damage in every cell cycle. Among the most deleterious types of DNA damage are DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), which can cause cell lethality if unrepaired or cancers if improperly repaired. In response to DNA DSBs, cells activate a complex DNA damage checkpoint (DDC) response that arrests the cell cycle, reprograms gene expression, and mobilizes DNA repair factors to prevent the inheritance of unrepaired and broken chromosomes. Here we examine the DDC, induced by DNA DSBs, in the budding yeast model system and in mammals.


2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 765-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yixi Xu ◽  
Dongyi Xu

Abstract Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is at a constant risk of damage from endogenous substances, environmental radiation, and chemical stressors. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) pose a significant threat to genomic integrity and cell survival. There are two major pathways for DSB repair: nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR). The extent of DNA end resection, which determines the length of the 3′ single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhang, is the primary factor that determines whether repair is carried out via NHEJ or HR. NHEJ, which does not require a 3′ ssDNA tail, occurs throughout the cell cycle. 53BP1 and the cofactors PTIP or RIF1-shieldin protect the broken DNA end, inhibit long-range end resection and thus promote NHEJ. In contrast, HR mainly occurs during the S/G2 phase and requires DNA end processing to create a 3′ tail that can invade a homologous region, ensuring faithful gene repair. BRCA1 and the cofactors CtIP, EXO1, BLM/DNA2, and the MRE11–RAD50–NBS1 (MRN) complex promote DNA end resection and thus HR. DNA resection is influenced by the cell cycle, the chromatin environment, and the complexity of the DNA end break. Herein, we summarize the key factors involved in repair pathway selection for DSBs and discuss recent related publications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document