Synthetic lethality and cancer: Cohesin and PARP at the replication fork

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 290-297

  O'Neil, Nigel J ^a   van Pel, Derek M ^a,b   Hieter, Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Centre for Drug Research and Development   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cancer; Cohesin; Genetic networks; PARP; Replication fork; Synthetic lethality

Indexed keywords

COHESIN; NICOTINAMIDE ADENINE DINUCLEOTIDE ADENOSINE DIPHOSPHATE RIBOSYLTRANSFERASE;

ACUTE GRANULOCYTIC LEUKEMIA; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; COLORECTAL CARCINOMA; DNA DAMAGE CHECKPOINT; DNA REPAIR; DNA REPLICATION; DNA STRAND BREAKAGE; EWING SARCOMA; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE INTERACTION; GENE MUTATION; GLIOBLASTOMA; HOMOLOGOUS RECOMBINATION; HUMAN; LETHALITY; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MELANOMA; NEOPLASM; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CARCINOMA; REVIEW; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; SISTER CHROMATID; STOMACH CARCINOMA; TELOMERE; X CHROMOSOME;

CELL CYCLE PROTEINS; CHROMOSOMAL PROTEINS, NON-HISTONE; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; DNA REPLICATION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; POLY(ADP-RIBOSE) POLYMERASES;

EID: 84876787714     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.12.004     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Hartwell L.H., et al. Integrating genetic approaches into the discovery of anticancer drugs. Science 1997, 278:1064-1068.
2. Bryant H.E., et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 2005, 434:913-917.
3. Farmer H., et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005, 434:917-921.
4. Audeh M.W., et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 2010, 376:245-251.
5. Tutt A., et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 2010, 376:235-244.
6. Tong A.H., et al. Systematic genetic analysis with ordered arrays of yeast deletion mutants. Science 2001, 294:2364-2368.
7. Dixon S.J., et al. Systematic mapping of genetic interaction networks. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009, 43:601-625.
8. Guacci V., et al. A direct link between sister chromatid cohesion and chromosome condensation revealed through the analysis of MCD1 in S. cerevisiae. Cell 1997, 91:47-57.
9. Michaelis C., et al. Cohesins: chromosomal proteins that prevent premature separation of sister chromatids. Cell 1997, 91:35-45.
10. Nasmyth K., Haering C.H. The structure and function of SMC and kleisin complexes. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005, 74:595-648.
11. Nasmyth K., Haering C.H. Cohesin: its roles and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009, 43:525-558.
12. Guillou E., et al. Cohesin organizes chromatin loops at DNA replication factories. Genes Dev. 2010, 24:2812-2822.
13. Terret M.E., et al. Cohesin acetylation speeds the replication fork. Nature 2009, 462:231-234.
14. Tittel-Elmer M., et al. Cohesin association to replication sites depends on rad50 and promotes fork restart. Mol. Cell 2012, 48:98-108.
15. Crabbe L., et al. Analysis of replication profiles reveals key role of RFC-Ctf18 in yeast replication stress response. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17:1391-1397.
16. Sjogren C., Nasmyth K. Sister chromatid cohesion is required for postreplicative double-strand break repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr. Biol. 2001, 11:991-995.
17. Hadjur S., et al. Cohesins form chromosomal cis-interactions at the developmentally regulated IFNG locus. Nature 2009, 460:410-413.
18. Mishiro T., et al. Architectural roles of multiple chromatin insulators at the human apolipoprotein gene cluster. EMBO J. 2009, 28:1234-1245.
19. Nativio R., et al. Cohesin is required for higher-order chromatin conformation at the imprinted IGF2-H19 locus. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5:e1000739.
20. Kagey M.H., et al. Mediator and cohesin connect gene expression and chromatin architecture. Nature 2010, 467:430-435.
21. Seitan V.C., et al. A role for cohesin in T-cell-receptor rearrangement and thymocyte differentiation. Nature 2011, 476:467-471.
22. Xu H., et al. Can corruption of chromosome cohesion create a conduit to cancer?. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2011, 11:199-210.
23. Xu H., et al. Enhanced RAD21 cohesin expression confers poor prognosis and resistance to chemotherapy in high grade luminal, basal and HER2 breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 2011, 13:R9.
24. van de Vijver M.J., et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 347:1999-2009.
25. Atienza J.M., et al. Suppression of RAD21 gene expression decreases cell growth and enhances cytotoxicity of etoposide and bleomycin in human breast cancer cells. Mol. Cancer. Ther. 2005, 4:361-368.
26. Yamamoto G., et al. Correlation of invasion and metastasis of cancer cells, and expression of the RAD21 gene in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2006, 448:435-441.
27. Iwaizumi M., et al. Human Sgo1 downregulation leads to chromosomal instability in colorectal cancer. Gut 2009, 58:249-260.
28. Barber T.D., et al. Chromatid cohesion defects may underlie chromosome instability in human colorectal cancers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:3443-3448.
29. Ding L., et al. Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature 2012, 481:506-510.
30. Welch J.S., et al. The origin and evolution of mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Cell 2012, 150:264-278.
31. Walter M.J., et al. Acquired copy number alterations in adult acute myeloid leukemia genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:12950-12955.
32. Gorringe K.L., et al. Are there any more ovarian tumor suppressor genes?. A new perspective using ultra high-resolution copy number and loss of heterozygosity analysis. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2009, 48:931-942.
33. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 2011, 474:609-615.
34. Solomon D.A., et al. Mutational inactivation of STAG2 causes aneuploidy in human cancer. Science 2011, 333:1039-1043.
35. Kim M.S., et al. Mutational and expressional analyses of STAG2 gene in solid cancers. Neoplasma 2012, 59:524-529.
36. Canudas S., Smith S. Differential regulation of telomere and centromere cohesion by the Scc3 homologues SA1 and SA2, respectively, in human cells. J. Cell Biol. 2009, 187:165-173.
37. Remeseiro S., et al. Cohesin-SA1 deficiency drives aneuploidy and tumourigenesis in mice due to impaired replication of telomeres. EMBO J. 2012, 31:2076-2089.
38. Stirling P.C., et al. Mutability and mutational spectrum of chromosome transmission fidelity genes. Chromosoma 2012, 121:263-275.
39. Heidinger-Pauli J.M., et al. Systematic reduction of cohesin differentially affects chromosome segregation, condensation, and DNA repair. Curr. Biol. 2010, 20:957-963.
40. Tonkin E.T., et al. NIPBL, encoding a homolog of fungal Scc2-type sister chromatid cohesion proteins and fly Nipped-B, is mutated in Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36:636-641.
41. Krantz I.D., et al. Cornelia de Lange syndrome is caused by mutations in NIPBL, the human homolog of Drosophila melanogaster Nipped-B. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36:631-635.
42. Boone C., et al. Exploring genetic interactions and networks with yeast. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007, 8:437-449.
43. McLellan J.L., et al. Synthetic lethality of cohesins with PARPs and replication fork mediators. PLoS Genet. 2012, 8:e1002574.
44. Stark C., et al. BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34:D535-D539.
45. Ray Chaudhuri A., et al. Topoisomerase I, poisoning results in PARP-mediated replication fork reversal. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2012, 19:417-423.
46. Atkinson J., McGlynn P. Replication fork reversal and the maintenance of genome stability. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37:3475-3492.
47. Postow L., et al. Positive torsional strain causes the formation of a four-way junction at replication forks. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276:2790-2796.
48. Trenz K., et al. ATM and ATR promote Mre11 dependent restart of collapsed replication forks and prevent accumulation of DNA breaks. EMBO J. 2006, 25:1764-1774.
49. Bryant H.E., et al. PARP is activated at stalled forks to mediate Mre11-dependent replication restart and recombination. EMBO J. 2009, 28:2601-2615.
50. Tittel-Elmer M., et al. The MRX complex stabilizes the replisome independently of the S phase checkpoint during replication stress. EMBO J. 2009, 28:1142-1156.
51. Sugimura K., et al. PARP-1 ensures regulation of replication fork progression by homologous recombination on damaged DNA. J. Cell Biol. 2008, 183:1203-1212.
52. Gibson B.A., Kraus W.L. New insights into the molecular and cellular functions of poly(ADP-ribose) and PARPs. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2012, 13:411-424.
53. Helleday T. The underlying mechanism for the PARP and BRCA synthetic lethality: clearing up the misunderstandings. Mol. Oncol. 2011, 5:387-393.
54. Fisher A.E., et al. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 accelerates single-strand break repair in concert with poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007, 27:5597-5605.
55. Patel A.G., et al. Nonhomologous end joining drives poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor lethality in homologous recombination-deficient cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:3406-3411.
56. Garnett M.J., et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 2012, 483:570-575.
57. Miknyoczki S.J., et al. Chemopotentiation of temozolomide, irinotecan, and cisplatin activity by CEP-6800, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. Mol. Cancer. Ther. 2003, 2:371-382.
58. Driscoll R., Cimprich K.A. HARPing on about the DNA damage response during replication. Genes Dev. 2009, 23:2359-2365.
59. Zeman M.K., Cimprich K.A. Finally, polyubiquitinated PCNA gets recognized. Mol. Cell 2012, 47:333-334.
60. Bando M., et al. Csm3, Tof1, and Mrc1 form a heterotrimeric mediator complex that associates with DNA replication forks. J. Biol. Chem. 2009, 284:34355-34365.
61. Gambus A., et al. GINS maintains association of Cdc45 with MCM in replisome progression complexes at eukaryotic DNA replication forks. Nat. Cell Biol. 2006, 8:358-366.
62. Gambus A., et al. A key role for Ctf4 in coupling the MCM2-7 helicase to DNA polymerase alpha within the eukaryotic replisome. EMBO J. 2009, 28:2992-3004.
63. Lengronne A., et al. Establishment of sister chromatid cohesion at the S. cerevisiae replication fork. Mol. Cell 2006, 23:787-799.
64. Kubota T., et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis of chromatin reveals that Ctf18 acts in the DNA replication checkpoint. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2011, 10. M110.005561.
65. Skibbens R.V. Chl1p, a DNA helicase-like protein in budding yeast, functions in sister-chromatid cohesion. Genetics 2004, 166:33-42.
66. Heidinger-Pauli J.M., et al. Distinct targets of the Eco1 acetyltransferase modulate cohesion in S phase and in response to DNA damage. Mol. Cell 2009, 34:311-321.
67. Kueng S., et al. Wapl controls the dynamic association of cohesin with chromatin. Cell 2006, 127:955-967.
68. Sutani T., et al. Budding yeast Wpl1(Rad61)-Pds5 complex counteracts sister chromatid cohesion-establishing reaction. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:492-497.
69. Ying S., et al. Mre11-dependent degradation of stalled DNA replication forks is prevented by BRCA2 and PARP1. Cancer Res. 2012, 72:2814-2821.
70. Chou D.M., et al. A chromatin localization screen reveals poly (ADP ribose)-regulated recruitment of the repressive polycomb and NuRD complexes to sites of DNA damage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:18475-18480.