Chk'ing p53-deficient breast cancers

Journal of Clinical Investigation

Volumn 122, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1202-1205

  Schoppy, David W ^a   Brown, Eric J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATR PROTEIN; CHECKPOINT KINASE 1; PROTEIN P53; PROTEIN SERINE THREONINE KINASE INHIBITOR;

ACUTE GRANULOCYTIC LEUKEMIA; CANCER CELL; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER PATIENT; CELL CYCLE PROGRESSION; CELL STRESS; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPLICATION; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA BREAK; EPIGENETICS; FIBROSARCOMA; G1 PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; G2 PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; GENE ACTIVATION; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; HUMAN; LETHALITY; M PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; NONHUMAN; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; S PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; SCID MOUSE; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER; XENOGRAFT;

ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASM PROTEINS; PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITORS; PROTEIN KINASES; STAUROSPORINE; THIOPHENES; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEIN P53; UREA;

EID: 84859721971     PISSN: 00219738     EISSN: 15588238     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1172/JCI63205     Document Type: Note

References (22)

1. Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938-1948.
2. Carey L, Winer E, Viale G, Cameron D, Gianni L. Triple-negative breast cancer: disease entity or title of convenience? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(12):683-692.
3. Ma CX, et al. Targeting Chk1 in p53-deficient triple- negative breast cancer is therapeutically beneficial in human-in-mouse tumor models. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(4):1541-1552.
4. Powell SN, et al. Differential sensitivity of p53(-) and p53(+) cells to caffeine-induced radiosensitization and override of G2 delay. Cancer Res. 1995; 55(8):1643-1648.
5. Russell KJ, Wiens LW, Demers GW, Galloway DA, Plon SE, Groudine M. Abrogation of the G2 checkpoint results in differential radiosensitization of G1 checkpoint-deficient and G1 checkpoint-competent cells. Cancer Res. 1995; 55(8):1639-1642.
6. Wang Q, Fan S, Eastman A, Worland PJ, Sausville EA, O'Connor PM. UCN-01: a potent abrogator of G2 checkpoint function in cancer cells with disrupted p53. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88(14):956-965. (Pubitemid 26239383)
7. Nghiem P, Park PK, Kim Y, Vaziri C, Schreiber SL. ATR inhibition selectively sensitizes G1 checkpoint-deficient cells to lethal premature chromatin condensation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(16):9092-9097. (Pubitemid 32743874)
8. Koniaras K, Cuddihy AR, Christopoulos H, Hogg A, O'Connell MJ. Inhibition of Chk1-dependent G2 DNA damage checkpoint radiosensitizes p53 mutant human cells. Oncogene. 2001;20(51):7453-7463. (Pubitemid 33086904)
9. Zhou BB, Bartek J. Targeting the checkpoint kinases: chemosensitization versus chemoprotection. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(3):216-225. (Pubitemid 38337501)
10. Ma CX, Janetka JW, Piwnica-Worms H. Death by releasing the breaks: CHK1 inhibitors as cancer therapeutics. Trends Mol Med. 2011;17(2):88-96.
11. Fracasso PM, et al. A Phase 1 study of UCN-01 in combination with irinotecan in patients with resistant solid tumor malignancies. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;67(6):1225-1237.
12. Reinhardt HC, Aslanian AS, Lees JA, Yaffe MB. p53-deficient cells rely on ATM- and ATR-mediated checkpoint signaling through the p38MAPK/MK2 pathway for survival after DNA damage. Cancer Cell. 2007;11(2):175-189. (Pubitemid 46209849)
13. Gilad O, et al. Combining ATR suppression with oncogenic Ras synergistically increases genomic instability, causing synthetic lethality or tumorigenesis in a dosage-dependent manner. Cancer Res. 2010;70(23):9693-9702.
14. Toledo LI, et al. A cell-based screen identifies ATR inhibitors with synthetic lethal properties for cancer-associated mutations. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2011;18(6):721-727.
15. Ferrao PT, Bukczynska EP, Johnstone RW, McArthur GA. Efficacy of CHK inhibitors as single agents in MYC-driven lymphoma cells. Oncogene. 2012;31(13):1661-1672.
16. Murga M, et al. Exploiting oncogene-induced replicative stress for the selective killing of Myc-driven tumors. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2011;18(12):1331-1335.
17. Schoppy DW, et al. Oncogenic stress sensitizes murine cancers to hypomorphic suppression of ATR. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(1):241-252.
18. Bartkova J, et al. DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature. 2005;434(7035):864-870. (Pubitemid 40558993)
19. Gorgoulis VG, et al. Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint and genomic instability in human precancerous lesions. Nature. 2005;434(7035):907-913. (Pubitemid 40559004)
20. Brown EJ, Baltimore D. ATR disruption leads to chromosomal fragmentation and early embryonic lethality. Genes Dev. 2000;14(4):397-402. (Pubitemid 30131885)
21. Ruzankina Y, et al. Deletion of the developmentally essential gene ATR in adult mice leads to agerelated phenotypes and stem cell loss. Cell Stem Cell. 2007;1(1):113-126. (Pubitemid 46865802)
22. Reaper PM, et al. Selective killing of ATM- or p53- deficient cancer cells through inhibition of ATR. Nat Chem Biol. 2011;7(7):428-430.