Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways as targets for personalized therapeutic approaches

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 30, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 326-339

  Dietlein, Felix ^a,b   Thelen, Lisa ^a   Reinhardt, H Christian ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; NICOTINAMIDE ADENINE DINUCLEOTIDE ADENOSINE DIPHOSPHATE RIBOSYLTRANSFERASE INHIBITOR; PROTEIN MSH3; POLYDEOXYRIBONUCLEOTIDE SYNTHASE;

CANCER CELL; CELL CYCLE PHASE; DNA DAMAGE; DNA END JOINING REPAIR; DNA REPAIR; DNA STRUCTURE; GENE INTERACTION; GENE MUTATION; GENOMIC INSTABILITY; HUMAN; LETHALITY; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASM; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; ANTAGONISTS AND INHIBITORS; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFECTS; GENETICS; NEOPLASMS;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; DNA REPAIR; DNA REPAIR ENZYMES; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION;

EID: 84904741550     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: 13624555     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2014.06.003     Document Type: Review

References (162)

1. Reinhardt H.C., Yaffe M.B. Phospho-Ser/Thr-binding domains: navigating the cell cycle and DNA damage response. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14:563-580.
2. Jackson S.P., Bartek J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 2009, 461:1071-1078.
3. Reinhardt H.C., Schumacher B. The p53 network: cellular and systemic DNA damage responses in aging and cancer. Trends Genet. 2012, 28:128-136.
4. Harper J.W., Elledge S.J. The DNA damage response: ten years after. Mol. Cell 2007, 28:739-745.
5. Reinhardt H.C., et al. Is post-transcriptional stabilization, splicing and translation of selective mRNAs a key to the DNA damage response?. Cell Cycle 2011, 10:23-27.
6. Hoeijmakers J.H. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 361:1475-1485.
7. Ciriello G., et al. Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45:1127-1133.
8. Reinhardt H.C., et al. Exploiting synthetic lethal interactions for targeted cancer therapy. Cell Cycle 2009, 8:3112-3119.
9. Lord C.J., Ashworth A. The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature 2012, 481:287-294.
10. Loeb L.A., et al. Multiple mutations and cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100:776-781.
11. Loeb L.A., et al. Cancers exhibit a mutator phenotype: clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2008, 68:3551-3557.
12. Jiricny J. The multifaceted mismatch-repair system. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006, 7:335-346.
13. Bartkova J., et al. DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature 2005, 434:864-870.
14. Bartkova J., et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 2006, 444:633-637.
15. Di Micco R., et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is a DNA damage response triggered by DNA hyper-replication. Nature 2006, 444:638-642.
16. Gorgoulis V.G., et al. Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint and genomic instability in human precancerous lesions. Nature 2005, 434:907-913.
17. Halazonetis T.D., et al. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 2008, 319:1352-1355.
18. Negrini S., et al. Genomic instability - an evolving hallmark of cancer. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11:220-228.
19. Prakash S., et al. Eukaryotic translesion synthesis DNA polymerases: specificity of structure and function. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005, 74:317-353.
20. Hegde M.L., et al. Early steps in the DNA base excision/single-strand interruption repair pathway in mammalian cells. Cell Res. 2008, 18:27-47.
21. David S.S., et al. Base-excision repair of oxidative DNA damage. Nature 2007, 447:941-950.
22. Hoeijmakers J.H. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature 2001, 411:366-374.
23. Iyama T., Wilson D.M. DNA repair mechanisms in dividing and non-dividing cells. DNA Repair (Amst.) 2013, 12:620-636.
24. Li G.M. Mechanisms and functions of DNA mismatch repair. Cell Res. 2008, 18:85-98.
25. Kunkel T.A., Erie D.A. DNA mismatch repair. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005, 74:681-710.
26. Gerson S.L. MGMT: its role in cancer aetiology and cancer therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2004, 4:296-307.
27. Pegg A.E. Repair of O(6)-alkylguanine by alkyltransferases. Mutat. Res. 2000, 462:83-100.
28. Weller M., et al. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine?. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2010, 6:39-51.
29. Weterings E., Chen D.J. The endless tale of non-homologous end-joining. Cell Res. 2008, 18:114-124.
30. Chiruvella K.K., et al. Repair of double-strand breaks by end joining. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2013, 5:a012757.
31. Lieber M.R. The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2010, 79:181-211.
32. van Gent D.C., van der Burg M. Non-homologous end-joining, a sticky affair. Oncogene 2007, 26:7731-7740.
33. McCulloch S.D., Kunkel T.A. The fidelity of DNA synthesis by eukaryotic replicative and translesion synthesis polymerases. Cell Res. 2008, 18:148-161.
34. Andersen P.L., et al. Eukaryotic DNA damage tolerance and translesion synthesis through covalent modifications of PCNA. Cell Res. 2008, 18:162-173.
35. Kim H., D'Andrea A.D. Regulation of DNA cross-link repair by the Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway. Genes Dev. 2012, 26:1393-1408.
36. Kottemann M.C., Smogorzewska A. Fanconi anaemia and the repair of Watson and Crick DNA crosslinks. Nature 2013, 493:356-363.
37. Li X., Heyer W.D. Homologous recombination in DNA repair and DNA damage tolerance. Cell Res. 2008, 18:99-113.
38. Sung P., Klein H. Mechanism of homologous recombination: mediators and helicases take on regulatory functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006, 7:739-750.
39. Moynahan M.E., Jasin M. Mitotic homologous recombination maintains genomic stability and suppresses tumorigenesis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11:196-207.
40. Shuck S.C., et al. Eukaryotic nucleotide excision repair: from understanding mechanisms to influencing biology. Cell Res. 2008, 18:64-72.
41. Fousteri M., Mullenders L.H. Transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair in mammalian cells: molecular mechanisms and biological effects. Cell Res. 2008, 18:73-84.
42. Warren J.J., et al. Structure of the human MutSalpha DNA lesion recognition complex. Mol. Cell 2007, 26:579-592.
43. Surtees J.A., Alani E. Mismatch repair factor MSH2-MSH3 binds and alters the conformation of branched DNA structures predicted to form during genetic recombination. J. Mol. Biol. 2006, 360:523-536.
44. Pluciennik A., et al. PCNA function in the activation and strand direction of MutLalpha endonuclease in mismatch repair. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:16066-16071.
45. Kadyrov F.A., et al. Endonucleolytic function of MutLalpha in human mismatch repair. Cell 2006, 126:297-308.
46. Campalans A., et al. Distinct spatiotemporal patterns and PARP dependence of XRCC1 recruitment to single-strand break and base excision repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41:3115-3129.
47. Friedberg E.C. How nucleotide excision repair protects against cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2001, 1:22-33.
48. Cleaver J.E. Cancer in xeroderma pigmentosum and related disorders of DNA repair. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2005, 5:564-573.
49. Moser J., et al. Sealing of chromosomal DNA nicks during nucleotide excision repair requires XRCC1 and DNA ligase III alpha in a cell-cycle-specific manner. Mol. Cell 2007, 27:311-323.
50. Chapman J.R., et al. Playing the end game: DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Mol. Cell 2012, 47:497-510.
51. Lyndaker A.M., Alani E. A tale of tails: insights into the coordination of 3' end processing during homologous recombination. Bioessays 2009, 31:315-321.
52. Cimprich K.A., Cortez D. ATR: an essential regulator of genome integrity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008, 9:616-627.
53. Krejci L., et al. Homologous recombination and its regulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40:5795-5818.
54. San Filippo J., et al. Mechanism of eukaryotic homologous recombination. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2008, 77:229-257.
55. Heyer W.D., et al. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2010, 44:113-139.
56. Venkitaraman A.R. Tracing the network connecting BRCA and Fanconi anaemia proteins. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2004, 4:266-276.
57. Meindl A., et al. Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42:410-414.
58. Al-Sukhni W., et al. Germline BRCA1 mutations predispose to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Hum. Genet. 2008, 124:271-278.
59. Bartsch D.K., et al. Familial pancreatic cancer - current knowledge. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 9:445-453.
60. Greer J.B., Whitcomb D.C. Role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in pancreatic cancer. Gut 2007, 56:601-605.
61. Biankin A.V., et al. Pancreatic cancer genomes reveal aberrations in axon guidance pathway genes. Nature 2012, 491:399-405.
62. Ding L., et al. Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature 2008, 455:1069-1075.
63. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 2011, 474:609-615. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network.
64. Puente X.S., et al. Whole-genome sequencing identifies recurrent mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Nature 2011, 465:101-105.
65. Quesada V., et al. Exome sequencing identifies recurrent mutations of the splicing factor SF3B1 gene in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat. Genet. 2011, 44:47-52.
66. Hartlerode A.J., Scully R. Mechanisms of double-strand break repair in somatic mammalian cells. Biochem. J. 2009, 423:157-168.
67. Lees-Miller S.P., Meek K. Repair of DNA double strand breaks by non-homologous end joining. Biochimie 2003, 85:1161-1173.
68. McVey M., Lee S.E. MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director's cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet. 2008, 24:529-538.
69. Deriano L., Roth D.B. Modernizing the nonhomologous end-joining repertoire: alternative and classical NHEJ share the stage. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2013, 47:433-455.
70. Frit P., et al. Alternative end-joining pathway(s): Bricolage at DNA breaks. DNA Repair (Amst.) 2014, 17:81-97.
71. Boveri T. Zur frage der entstehung maligner tumoren 1914, G. Fischer.
72. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012, 490:61-70. Cancer Genome Atlas Network.
73. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 2012, 487:330-337. Cancer Genome Atlas Network.
74. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 2011, 474:609-615. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network.
75. Grasso C.S., et al. The mutational landscape of lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer. Nature 2012, 487:239-243.
76. Kandoth C., et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013, 497:67-73.
77. Puente X.S., et al. Whole-genome sequencing identifies recurrent mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Nature 2011, 475:101-105.
78. Quesada V., et al. Exome sequencing identifies recurrent mutations of the splicing factor SF3B1 gene in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44:47-52.
79. Stratton M.R., et al. The cancer genome. Nature 2009, 458:719-724.
80. Weinstein I.B. Cancer. Addiction to oncogenes - the Achilles heal of cancer. Science 2002, 297:63-64.
81. Weinstein I.B., Joe A. Oncogene addiction. Cancer Res. 2008, 68:3077-3080.
82. Weinstein I.B., Joe A.K. Mechanisms of disease: oncogene addiction - a rationale for molecular targeting in cancer therapy. Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 2006, 3:448-457.
83. Sharma S.V., et al. 'Oncogenic shock': explaining oncogene addiction through differential signal attenuation. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006, 12:4392s-4395s.
84. Druker B.J., et al. Effects of a selective inhibitor of the Abl tyrosine kinase on the growth of Bcr-Abl positive cells. Nat. Med. 1996, 2:561-566.
85. Kwak E.L., et al. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363:1693-1703.
86. Sharma S.V., et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007, 7:169-181.
87. Felsher D.W., Bishop J.M. Reversible tumorigenesis by MYC in hematopoietic lineages. Mol. Cell 1999, 4:199-207.
88. Jain M., et al. Sustained loss of a neoplastic phenotype by brief inactivation of MYC. Science 2002, 297:102-104.
89. Pelengaris S., et al. Reversible activation of c-Myc in skin: induction of a complex neoplastic phenotype by a single oncogenic lesion. Mol. Cell 1999, 3:565-577.
90. Brough R., et al. Searching for synthetic lethality in cancer. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2011, 21:34-41.
91. Kaelin W.G. The concept of synthetic lethality in the context of anticancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2005, 5:689-698.
92. Kroll E.S., et al. Establishing genetic interactions by a synthetic dosage lethality phenotype. Genetics 1996, 143:95-102.
93. Li J.J., Herskowitz I. Isolation of ORC6, a component of the yeast origin recognition complex by a one-hybrid system. Science 1993, 262:1870-1874.
94. Measday V., Hieter P. Synthetic dosage lethality. Methods Enzymol. 2002, 350:316-326.
95. Rouleau M., et al. PARP inhibition: PARP1 and beyond. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10:293-301.
96. Masson M., et al. XRCC1 is specifically associated with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and negatively regulates its activity following DNA damage. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1998, 18:3563-3571.
97. El-Khamisy S.F., et al. A requirement for PARP-1 for the assembly or stability of XRCC1 nuclear foci at sites of oxidative DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31:5526-5533.
98. Strom C.E., et al. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is not involved in base excision repair but PARP inhibition traps a single-strand intermediate. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39:3166-3175.
99. Helleday T. The underlying mechanism for the PARP and BRCA synthetic lethality: clearing up the misunderstandings. Mol. Oncol. 2011, 5:387-393.
100. 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.
101. De Vos M., et al. The diverse roles and clinical relevance of PARPs in DNA damage repair: current state of the art. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2012, 84:137-146.
102. Wang M., et al. PARP-1 and Ku compete for repair of DNA double strand breaks by distinct NHEJ pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34:6170-6182.
103. Audebert M., et al. Involvement of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 and XRCC1/DNA ligase III in an alternative route for DNA double-strand breaks rejoining. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279:55117-55126.
104. Bryant H.E., et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 2005, 434:913-917.
105. Farmer H., et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005, 434:917-921.
106. De Lorenzo S.B., et al. The elephant and the blind men: making sense of PARP inhibitors in homologous recombination deficient tumor cells. Front. Oncol. 2013, 3:228.
107. Gurley K.E., Kemp C.J. Synthetic lethality between mutation in Atm and DNA-PK(cs) during murine embryogenesis. Curr. Biol. 2001, 11:191-194.
108. Xu Y., et al. Targeted disruption of ATM leads to growth retardation, chromosomal fragmentation during meiosis, immune defects, and thymic lymphoma. Genes Dev. 1996, 10:2411-2422.
109. Gao Y., et al. A targeted DNA-PKcs-null mutation reveals DNA-PK-independent functions for KU in V(D)J recombination. Immunity 1998, 9:367-376.
110. Heyer B.S., et al. Hypersensitivity to DNA damage leads to increased apoptosis during early mouse development. Genes Dev. 2000, 14:2072-2084.
111. Snow M.H.L. Gastrulation in the mouse: growth and regionalization of the epiblast. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 1977, 42:293-303.
112. Austen B., et al. Mutation status of the residual ATM allele is an important determinant of the cellular response to chemotherapy and survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia containing an 11q deletion. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25:5448-5457.
113. Haidar M.A., et al. ATM gene deletion in patients with adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 2000, 88:1057-1062.
114. Ripolles L., et al. Genetic abnormalities and clinical outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 2006, 171:57-64.
115. Skowronska A., et al. Biallelic ATM inactivation significantly reduces survival in patients treated on the United Kingdom Leukemia Research Fund Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia 4 Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30:4525-4532.
116. Dohner H., et al. Genomic aberrations and survival in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 343:1910-1916.
117. Riabinska A., et al. Therapeutic targeting of a robust non-oncogene addiction to PRKDC in ATM-defective tumors. Sci Transl. Med. 2013, 5:189ra178.
118. Barretina J., et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 2012, 483:603-607.
119. Forbes S.A., et al. The catalogue of somatic mutations in cancer (COSMIC). Curr. Protoc. Hum. Genet. 2008, Chapter 10 Unit 10 11.
120. Garnett M.J., et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 2012, 483:570-575.
121. Dietlein F., et al. A functional cancer genomics screen identifies a druggable synthetic lethal interaction between MSH3 and PRKDC. Cancer Discov. 2014, 4:592-605.
122. Risinger J.I., et al. Mutation of MSH3 in endometrial cancer and evidence for its functional role in heteroduplex repair. Nat. Genet. 1996, 14:102-105.
123. Park J.M., et al. MSH3 mismatch repair protein regulates sensitivity to cytotoxic drugs and a histone deacetylase inhibitor in human colon carcinoma cells. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e65369.
124. Haugen A.C., et al. Genetic instability caused by loss of MutS homologue 3 in human colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2008, 68:8465-8472.
125. Plaschke J., et al. Loss of MSH3 protein expression is frequent in MLH1-deficient colorectal cancer and is associated with disease progression. Cancer Res. 2004, 64:864-870.
126. Guerrette S., et al. Interactions of human hMSH2 with hMSH3 and hMSH2 with hMSH6: examination of mutations found in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1998, 18:6616-6623.
127. Kleczkowska H.E., et al. hMSH3 and hMSH6 interact with PCNA and colocalize with it to replication foci. Genes Dev. 2001, 15:724-736.
128. Sugawara N., et al. DNA length dependence of the single-strand annealing pathway and the role of Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD59 in double-strand break repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 20:5300-5309.
129. Sugawara N., et al. Role of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2 and Msh3 repair proteins in double-strand break-induced recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1997, 94:9214-9219.
130. Zhang Y., et al. Involvement of nucleotide excision and mismatch repair mechanisms in double strand break repair. Curr. Genomics 2009, 10:250-258.
131. van Oers J.M., et al. The MutSbeta complex is a modulator of p53-driven tumorigenesis through its functions in both DNA double-strand break repair and mismatch repair. Oncogene 2013.
132. Takahashi M., et al. MSH3 mediates sensitization of colorectal cancer cells to cisplatin, oxaliplatin, and a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286:12157-12165.
133. Ivanov E.L., et al. Genetic requirements for the single-strand annealing pathway of double-strand break repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 1996, 142:693-704.
134. Evans E., et al. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Msh2 mismatch repair protein localizes to recombination intermediates in vivo. Mol. Cell 2000, 5:789-799.
135. Saparbaev M., et al. Requirement of mismatch repair genes MSH2 and MSH3 in the RAD1-RAD10 pathway of mitotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 1996, 142:727-736.
136. Kirkpatrick D.T., Petes T.D. Repair of DNA loops involves DNA-mismatch and nucleotide-excision repair proteins. Nature 1997, 387:929-931.
137. Surtees J.A., Alani E. Mismatch repair factor MSH2-MSH3 binds and alters the conformation of branched DNA structures predicted to form during genetic recombination. J. Mol. Biol. 2006, 360:523-536.
138. Gupta S., et al. Mechanism of mismatch recognition revealed by human MutSbeta bound to unpaired DNA loops. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2012, 19:72-78.
139. Wang X., et al. PTIP promotes DNA double-strand break repair through homologous recombination. Genes Cells 2010, 15:243-254.
140. Callen E., et al. 53BP1 mediates productive and mutagenic DNA repair through distinct phosphoprotein interactions. Cell 2013, 153:1266-1280.
141. Ogi T., et al. Three DNA polymerases, recruited by different mechanisms, carry out NER repair synthesis in human cells. Mol. Cell 2010, 37:714-727.
142. Almeida K.H., Sobol R.W. A unified view of base excision repair: lesion-dependent protein complexes regulated by post-translational modification. DNA Repair (Amst.) 2007, 6:695-711.
143. Stoimenov I., Helleday T. PCNA on the crossroad of cancer. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2009, 37:605-613.
144. Bunting S.F., et al. BRCA1 functions independently of homologous recombination in DNA interstrand crosslink repair. Mol. Cell 2012, 46:125-135.
145. Schlacher K., et al. A distinct replication fork protection pathway connects Fanconi anemia tumor suppressors to RAD51-BRCA1/2. Cancer Cell 2012, 22:106-116.
146. Schlacher K., et al. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell 2011, 145:529-542.
147. Scully R., Xie A. Double strand break repair functions of histone H2AX. Mutat. Res. 2013, 750:5-14.
148. Bouwman P., et al. 53BP1 loss rescues BRCA1 deficiency and is associated with triple-negative and BRCA-mutated breast cancers. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17:688-695.
149. Bunting S.F., et al. 53BP1 inhibits homologous recombination in Brca1-deficient cells by blocking resection of DNA breaks. Cell 2010, 141:243-254.
150. Cao L., et al. A selective requirement for 53BP1 in the biological response to genomic instability induced by Brca1 deficiency. Mol. Cell 2009, 35:534-541.
151. Hashimoto Y., et al. Rad51 protects nascent DNA from Mre11-dependent degradation and promotes continuous DNA synthesis. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17:1305-1311.
152. Lord C.J., Ashworth A. Targeted therapy for cancer using PARP inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2008, 8:363-369.
153. de Bono J.S., Ashworth A. Translating cancer research into targeted therapeutics. Nature 2010, 467:543-549.
154. 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.
155. Riabinska A., et al. Therapeutic targeting of a robust non-oncogene addiction to PRKDC in ATM-defective tumors. Sci. Transl. Med. 2013, 5:189ra178.
156. Srivastava M., et al. An inhibitor of nonhomologous end-joining abrogates double-strand break repair and impedes cancer progression. Cell 2012, 151:1474-1487.
157. Muggia F., Safra T. 'BRCAness' and its implications for platinum action in gynecologic cancer. Anticancer Res. 2014, 34:551-556.
158. Narod S.A. BRCA mutations in the management of breast cancer: the state of the art. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 7:702-707.
159. Edwards S.L., et al. Resistance to therapy caused by intragenic deletion in BRCA2. Nature 2008, 451:1111-1115.
160. Sakai W., et al. Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2-mutated cancers. Nature 2008, 451:1116-1120.
161. Rottenberg S., et al. High sensitivity of BRCA1-deficient mammary tumors to the PARP inhibitor AZD2281 alone and in combination with platinum drugs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:17079-17084.
162. Evers B., et al. Selective inhibition of BRCA2-deficient mammary tumor cell growth by AZD2281 and cisplatin. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008, 14:3916-3925.