Cellular responses to replication stress: Implications in cancer biology and therapy

DNA Repair

Volumn 49, Issue , 2017, Pages 9-20

  Hsieh, Hui Ju ^a   Peng, Guang ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Clinical trials; DNA replication; Genomic instability; Replication stress

Indexed keywords

ALTRETAMINE; BLEOMYCIN; BUSULFAN; CAPECITABINE; CARBOPLATIN; CARMUSTINE; CHLORAMBUCIL; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; CYTARABINE; DACARBAZINE; DNA; ETOPOSIDE; FLOXURIDINE; FLUDARABINE; FLUOROURACIL; GEMCITABINE; HYDROXYUREA; IFOSFAMIDE; IRINOTECAN; LOMUSTINE; MELPHALAN; MERCAPTOPURINE; METHOTREXATE; MITOXANTRONE; OXALIPLATIN; STREPTOZOCIN; TEMOZOLOMIDE; THIOTEPA; TOPOTECAN; UNINDEXED DRUG; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

CANCER THERAPY; CELL ACTIVATION; CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; CELLULAR STRESS RESPONSE; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPAIR; DNA REPLICATION; DRUG TARGETING; EUKARYOTE; GENETIC STABILITY; GENOMIC INSTABILITY; HUMAN; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASM; NONHUMAN; ONCOGENE; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; ANIMAL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); GENETICS; METABOLISM; NEOPLASMS;

ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPAIR; DNA REPLICATION; GENOMIC INSTABILITY; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 85007386257     PISSN: 15687864     EISSN: 15687856     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.11.002     Document Type: Review

References (148)

1. [1] Hanahan, D., Weinberg, R.A., Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144:5 (2011), 646–674.
2. [2] Blow, J.J., Dutta, A., Preventing re-replication of chromosomal DNA. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6:6 (2005), 476–486.
3. [3] Leonard, A.C., Mechali, M., DNA replication origins. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 5(10), 2013, a010116.
4. [4] Mueller, A.C., Keaton, M.A., Dutta, A., DNA replication: mammalian Treslin-TopBP1 interaction mirrors yeast Sld3-Dpb11. Curr. Biol. 21:16 (2011), R638–40.
5. [5] Lydeard, J.R., et al. Break-induced replication requires all essential DNA replication factors except those specific for pre-RC assembly. Genes Dev. 24:11 (2010), 1133–1144.
6. [6] Heller, R.C., et al. Eukaryotic origin-dependent DNA replication in vitro reveals sequential action of DDK and S-CDK kinases. Cell 146:1 (2011), 80–91.
7. [7] Kamada, K., The GINS complex: structure and function. Subcell. Biochem. 62 (2012), 135–156.
8. [8] Jirawatnotai, S., et al. Proteomic identification of a direct role for cyclin d1 in DNA damage repair. Cancer Res. 72:17 (2012), 4289–4293.
9. [9] Darzynkiewicz, Z., et al. Initiation and termination of DNA replication during S phase in relation to cyclins D1, E and A, p21WAF1, Cdt1 and the p12 subunit of DNA polymerase delta revealed in individual cells by cytometry. Oncotarget 6:14 (2015), 11735–11750.
10. [10] Bertoli, C., Skotheim, J.M., de Bruin, R.A., Control of cell cycle transcription during G1 and S phases. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14:8 (2013), 518–528.
11. [11] Fragkos, M., et al. DNA replication origin activation in space and time. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16:6 (2015), 360–374.
12. [12] Gaillard, H., Garcia-Muse, T., Aguilera, A., Replication stress and cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15:5 (2015), 276–289.
13. [13] Sansam, C.L., et al. A vertebrate gene, ticrr, is an essential checkpoint and replication regulator. Genes Dev. 24:2 (2010), 183–194.
14. [14] Im, J.S., et al. Assembly of the Cdc45-Mcm2-7-GINS complex in human cells requires the Ctf4/And-1, RecQL4, and Mcm10 proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106:37 (2009), 15628–15632.
15. [15] Sheu, Y.J., Stillman, B., Cdc7-Dbf4 phosphorylates MCM proteins via a docking site-mediated mechanism to promote S phase progression. Mol. Cell 24:1 (2006), 101–113.
16. [16] Francis, L.I., et al. Incorporation into the prereplicative complex activates the Mcm2-7 helicase for Cdc7-Dbf4 phosphorylation. Genes Dev. 23:5 (2009), 643–654.
17. [17] Sheu, Y.J., Stillman, B., The Dbf4-Cdc7 kinase promotes S phase by alleviating an inhibitory activity in Mcm4. Nature 463:7277 (2010), 113–117.
18. [18] Tanaka, S., Araki, H., Helicase activation and establishment of replication forks at chromosomal origins of replication. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 5(12), 2013, a010371.
19. [19] Kumagai, A., Shevchenko, A., Dunphy, W.G., Treslin collaborates with TopBP1 in triggering the initiation of DNA replication. Cell 140:3 (2010), 349–359.
20. [20] Yekezare, M., Gomez-Gonzalez, B., Diffley, J.F., Controlling DNA replication origins in response to DNA damage—inhibit globally, activate locally. J. Cell Sci. 126:Pt. 6 (2013), 1297–1306.
21. [21] Marechal, A., Zou, L., RPA-coated single-stranded DNA as a platform for post-translational modifications in the DNA damage response. Cell Res. 25:1 (2015), 9–23.
22. [22] Osborn, A.J., Elledge, S.J., Zou, L., Checking on the fork: the DNA-replication stress-response pathway. Trends Cell Biol. 12:11 (2002), 509–516.
23. [23] Bartek, J., Lukas, C., Lukas, J., Checking on DNA damage in S phase. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5:10 (2004), 792–804.
24. [24] Sorensen, C.S., et al. ATR: Claspin and the Rad9-Rad1-Hus1 complex regulate Chk1 and Cdc25A in the absence of DNA damage. Cell Cycle 3:7 (2004), 941–945.
25. [25] Warren, E.M., et al. Physical interactions between Mcm10, DNA, and DNA polymerase alpha. J. Biol. Chem. 284:36 (2009), 24662–24672.
26. [26] Zhu, W., et al. Mcm10 and And-1/CTF4 recruit DNA polymerase alpha to chromatin for initiation of DNA replication. Genes Dev. 21:18 (2007), 2288–2299.
27. [27] Maga, G., et al. DNA polymerase switching: I. Replication factor C displaces DNA polymerase alpha prior to PCNA loading. J. Mol. Biol. 295:4 (2000), 791–801.
28. [28] Pavlov, Y.I., Shcherbakova, P.V., Rogozin, I.B., Roles of DNA polymerases in replication, repair, and recombination in eukaryotes. Int. Rev. Cytol. 255 (2006), 41–132.
29. [29] Ma, H.T., Poon, R.Y., How protein kinases co-ordinate mitosis in animal cells. Biochem. J. 435:1 (2011), 17–31.
30. [30] Zitouni, S., et al. Polo-like kinases: structural variations lead to multiple functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15:7 (2014), 433–452.
31. [31] Thomas, Y., et al. Cdk1 phosphorylates SPAT-1/Bora to promote plk1 activation in C. elegans and human cells. Cell Rep. 15:3 (2016), 510–518.
32. [32] Gelot, C., Magdalou, I., Lopez, B.S., Replication stress in Mammalian cells and its consequences for mitosis. Genes (Basel) 6:2 (2015), 267–298.
33. [33] Bhatia, V., et al. BRCA2 prevents R-loop accumulation and associates with TREX-2 mRNA export factor PCID2. Nature 511:7509 (2014), 362–365.
34. [34] Skourti-Stathaki, K., Proudfoot, N.J., A double-edged sword: R loops as threats to genome integrity and powerful regulators of gene expression. Genes Dev. 28:13 (2014), 1384–1396.
35. [35] Helmrich, A., et al. Transcription-replication encounters: consequences and genomic instability. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20:4 (2013), 412–418.
36. [36] Santos-Pereira, J.M., Aguilera, A., R loops: new modulators of genome dynamics and function. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16:10 (2015), 583–597.
37. [37] Lukas, J., Bartek, J., Tethered genes get checked during replication. Cell 146:2 (2011), 189–191.
38. [38] Bermejo, R., Lai, M.S., Foiani, M., Preventing replication stress to maintain genome stability: resolving conflicts between replication and transcription. Mol. Cell 45:6 (2012), 710–718.
39. [39] Burhans, W.C., Weinberger, M., DNA replication stress, genome instability and aging. Nucleic Acids Res. 35:22 (2007), 7545–7556.
40. [40] Mazouzi, A., Velimezi, G., Loizou, J.I., DNA replication stress: causes, resolution and disease. Exp. Cell Res. 329:1 (2014), 85–93.
41. [41] Dungrawala, H., et al. The replication checkpoint prevents two types of fork collapse without regulating replisome stability. Mol. Cell 59:6 (2015), 998–1010.
42. [42] Neelsen, K.J., Lopes, M., Replication fork reversal in eukaryotes: from dead end to dynamic response. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16:4 (2015), 207–220.
43. [43] Ciccia, A., et al. Polyubiquitinated PCNA recruits the ZRANB3 translocase to maintain genomic integrity after replication stress. Mol. Cell 47:3 (2012), 396–409.
44. [44] Mailand, N., Gibbs-Seymour, I., Bekker-Jensen, S., Regulation of PCNA-protein interactions for genome stability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14:5 (2013), 269–282.
45. [45] Moldovan, G.L., et al. Inhibition of homologous recombination by the PCNA-interacting protein PARI. Mol. Cell 45:1 (2012), 75–86.
46. [46] Bruck, I., Kaplan, D.L., Cdc45 protein-single-stranded DNA interaction is important for stalling the helicase during replication stress. J. Biol. Chem. 288:11 (2013), 7550–7563.
47. [47] Fanning, E., Klimovich, V., Nager, A.R., A dynamic model for replication protein A (RPA) function in DNA processing pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 34:15 (2006), 4126–4137.
48. [48] Shiotani, B., et al. Two distinct modes of ATR activation orchestrated by Rad17 and Nbs1. Cell Rep. 3:5 (2013), 1651–1662.
49. [49] Berti, M., Vindigni, A., Replication stress: getting back on track. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 23:2 (2016), 103–109.
50. [50] Ciccia, A., Elledge, S.J., The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol. Cell 40:2 (2010), 179–204.
51. [51] Cotta-Ramusino, C., et al. A DNA damage response screen identifies RHINO, a 9-1-1 and TopBP1 interacting protein required for ATR signaling. Science 332:6035 (2011), 1313–1317.
52. [52] Yuan, J., Ghosal, G., Chen, J., The HARP-like domain-containing protein AH2/ZRANB3 binds to PCNA and participates in cellular response to replication stress. Mol. Cell 47:3 (2012), 410–421.
53. [53] Lindsey-Boltz, L.A., et al. RHINO forms a stoichiometric complex with the 9-1-1 checkpoint clamp and mediates ATR-Chk1 signaling. Cell Cycle 14:1 (2015), 99–108.
54. [54] Liu, S., Song, N., Zou, L., The conserved C terminus of claspin interacts with Rad9 and promotes rapid activation of Chk1. Cell Cycle 11:14 (2012), 2711–2716.
55. [55] Lim, S., Kaldis, P., Cdks, cyclins and CKIs: roles beyond cell cycle regulation. Development 140:15 (2013), 3079–3093.
56. [56] Lu, X., Liu, J., Legerski, R.J., Cyclin E is stabilized in response to replication fork barriers leading to prolonged S phase arrest. J. Biol. Chem. 284:51 (2009), 35325–35337.
57. [57] Syljuasen, R.G., et al. Inhibition of human Chk1 causes increased initiation of DNA replication, phosphorylation of ATR targets, and DNA breakage. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25:9 (2005), 3553–3562.
58. [58] Kemp, M.G., et al. Tipin-replication protein A interaction mediates Chk1 phosphorylation by ATR in response to genotoxic stress. J. Biol. Chem. 285:22 (2010), 16562–16571.
59. [59] Chini, C.C., Chen, J., Claspin, a regulator of Chk1 in DNA replication stress pathway. DNA Repair (Amst.) 3:8–9 (2004), 1033–1037.
60. [60] Lopez-Contreras, A.J., Fernandez-Capetillo, O., The ATR barrier to replication-born DNA damage. DNA Repair (Amst.) 9:12 (2010), 1249–1255.
61. [61] Chastain, P.D., et al. DNA damage checkpoint responses in the S phase of synchronized diploid human fibroblasts. Photochem. Photobiol. 91:1 (2015), 109–116.
62. [62] Han, X., et al. Phosphorylation of minichromosome maintenance 3 (MCM3) by checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) negatively regulates DNA replication and checkpoint activation. J. Biol. Chem. 290:19 (2015), 12370–12378.
63. [63] Guo, C., et al. Interaction of Chk1 with Treslin negatively regulates the initiation of chromosomal DNA replication. Mol. Cell 57:3 (2015), 492–505.
64. [64] Nakanishi, M., et al. Chk1-cyclin A/Cdk1 axis regulates origin firing programs in mammals. Chromosome Res. 18:1 (2010), 103–113.
65. [65] Boos, D., et al. Regulation of DNA replication through Sld3-Dpb11 interaction is conserved from yeast to humans. Curr. Biol. 21:13 (2011), 1152–1157.
66. [66] Katsuno, Y., et al. Cyclin A-Cdk1 regulates the origin firing program in mammalian cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106:9 (2009), 3184–3189.
67. [67] Sorensen, C.S., Syljuasen, R.G., Safeguarding genome integrity: the checkpoint kinases ATR, CHK1 and WEE1 restrain CDK activity during normal DNA replication. Nucleic Acids Res. 40:2 (2012), 477–486.
68. [68] Alver, R.C., Chadha, G.S., Blow, J.J., The contribution of dormant origins to genome stability: from cell biology to human genetics. DNA Repair (Amst.) 19 (2014), 182–189.
69. [69] Toledo, L.I., et al. ATR prohibits replication catastrophe by preventing global exhaustion of RPA. Cell 155:5 (2013), 1088–1103.
70. [70] Liu, H., et al. Phosphorylation of MLL by ATR is required for execution of mammalian S-phase checkpoint. Nature 467:7313 (2010), 343–346.
71. [71] Zuazua-Villar, P., et al. DNA replication stress in CHK1-depleted tumour cells triggers premature (S-phase) mitosis through inappropriate activation of Aurora kinase B. Cell. Death. Dis., 5, 2014, e1253.
72. [72] Bertoli, C., et al. Chk1 inhibits E2F6 repressor function in response to replication stress to maintain cell-cycle transcription. Curr. Biol. 23:17 (2013), 1629–1637.
73. [73] Halazonetis, T.D., Gorgoulis, V.G., Bartek, J., An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 319:5868 (2008), 1352–1355.
74. [74] Marusyk, A., et al. p53 mediates senescence-like arrest induced by chronic replicational stress. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27:15 (2007), 5336–5351.
75. [75] Ho, C.C., et al. Stalled replication induces p53 accumulation through distinct mechanisms from DNA damage checkpoint pathways. Cancer Res. 66:4 (2006), 2233–2241.
76. [76] Niida, H., et al. Depletion of Chk1 leads to premature activation of Cdc2-cyclin B and mitotic catastrophe. J. Biol. Chem. 280:47 (2005), 39246–39252.
77. [77] Lossaint, G., et al. FANCD2 binds MCM proteins and controls replisome function upon activation of s phase checkpoint signaling. Mol. Cell 51:5 (2013), 678–690.
78. [78] Couch, F.B., et al. ATR phosphorylates SMARCAL1 to prevent replication fork collapse. Genes Dev. 27:14 (2013), 1610–1623.
79. [79] Davies, S.L., North, P.S., Hickson, I.D., Role for BLM in replication-fork restart and suppression of origin firing after replicative stress. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 14:7 (2007), 677–679.
80. [80] Singh, T.R., et al. ATR-dependent phosphorylation of FANCM at serine 1045 is essential for FANCM functions. Cancer Res. 73:14 (2013), 4300–4310.
81. [81] Schwab, R.A., Blackford, A.N., Niedzwiedz, W., ATR activation and replication fork restart are defective in FANCM-deficient cells. EMBO J. 29:4 (2010), 806–818.
82. [82] Couch, F.B., Cortez, D., Fork reversal, too much of a good thing. Cell Cycle 13:7 (2014), 1049–1050.
83. [83] Croteau, D.L., et al. Human RecQ helicases in DNA repair, recombination, and replication. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 83 (2014), 519–552.
84. [84] Lukas, C., et al. 53BP1 nuclear bodies form around DNA lesions generated by mitotic transmission of chromosomes under replication stress. Nat. Cell Biol. 13:3 (2011), 243–253.
85. [85] Thangavel, S., et al. DNA2 drives processing and restart of reversed replication forks in human cells. J. Cell Biol. 208:5 (2015), 545–562.
86. [86] Iannascoli, C., et al. The WRN exonuclease domain protects nascent strands from pathological MRE11/EXO1-dependent degradation. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:20 (2015), 9788–9803.
87. [87] Sharma, S., et al. RECQ1 plays a distinct role in cellular response to oxidative DNA damage. DNA Repair (Amst.) 11:6 (2012), 537–549.
88. [88] Berti, M., et al. Human RECQ1 promotes restart of replication forks reversed by DNA topoisomerase I inhibition. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20:3 (2013), 347–354.
89. [89] Betous, R., et al. SMARCAL1 catalyzes fork regression and Holliday junction migration to maintain genome stability during DNA replication. Genes Dev. 26:2 (2012), 151–162.
90. [90] Huang, J., et al. The DNA translocase FANCM/MHF promotes replication traverse of DNA interstrand crosslinks. Mol. Cell 52:3 (2013), 434–446.
91. [91] Rohleder, F., et al. FANCM interacts with PCNA to promote replication traverse of DNA interstrand crosslinks. Nucleic Acids Res. 44:7 (2016), 3219–3232.
92. [92] Zellweger, R., et al. Rad51-mediated replication fork reversal is a global response to genotoxic treatments in human cells. J. Cell Biol. 208:5 (2015), 563–579.
93. [93] Sarbajna, S., Davies, D., West, S.C., Roles of SLX1-SLX4, MUS81-EME1, and GEN1 in avoiding genome instability and mitotic catastrophe. Genes Dev. 28:10 (2014), 1124–1136.
94. [94] Kondratova, A., et al. Replication fork integrity and intra-S phase checkpoint suppress gene amplification. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:5 (2015), 2678–2690.
95. [95] Zinkel, S.S., et al. A role for proapoptotic BID in the DNA-damage response. Cell 122:4 (2005), 579–591.
96. [96] Tomimatsu, N., et al. Phosphorylation of EXO1 by CDKs 1 and 2 regulates DNA end resection and repair pathway choice. Nat. Commun., 5, 2014, 3561.
97. [97] Chen, X., et al. Enrichment of Cdk1-cyclins at DNA double-strand breaks stimulates Fun30 phosphorylation and DNA end resection. Nucleic Acids Res. 44:6 (2016), 2742–2753.
98. [98] Zimmermann, M., de Lange, T., 53BP1: pro choice in DNA repair. Trends Cell Biol. 24:2 (2014), 108–117.
99. [99] Huertas, P., Jackson, S.P., Human CtIP mediates cell cycle control of DNA end resection and double strand break repair. J. Biol. Chem. 284:14 (2009), 9558–9565.
100. [100] Cruz-Garcia, A., Lopez-Saavedra, A., Huertas, P., BRCA1 accelerates ctIP-mediated DNA-end resection. Cell Rep. 9:2 (2014), 451–459.
101. [101] Feng, L., et al. Cell cycle-dependent inhibition of 53BP1 signaling by BRCA1. Cell Discov., 1, 2015, 15019.
102. [102] Symington, L.S., End resection at double-strand breaks: mechanism and regulation. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 6(8), 2014.
103. [103] Nimonkar, A.V., et al. BLM-DNA2-RPA-MRN and EXO1-BLM-RPA-MRN constitute two DNA end resection machineries for human DNA break repair. Genes Dev. 25:4 (2011), 350–362.
104. [104] Jirawatnotai, S., et al. A function for cyclin D1 in DNA repair uncovered by protein interactome analyses in human cancers. Nature 474:7350 (2011), 230–234.
105. [105] Pardo, B., Aguilera, A., Complex chromosomal rearrangements mediated by break-induced replication involve structure-selective endonucleases. PLoS Genet., 8(9), 2012, e1002979.
106. [106] Costantino, L., et al. Break-induced replication repair of damaged forks induces genomic duplications in human cells. Science 343:6166 (2014), 88–91.
107. [107] Minocherhomji, S., et al. Replication stress activates DNA repair synthesis in mitosis. Nature 528:7581 (2015), 286–290.
108. [108] Sakofsky, C.J., et al. Break-induced replication is a source of mutation clusters underlying kataegis. Cell Rep. 7:5 (2014), 1640–1648.
109. [109] Watanabe, K., et al. Rad18 guides poleta to replication stalling sites through physical interaction and PCNA monoubiquitination. EMBO J. 23:19 (2004), 3886–3896.
110. [110] Dobbelstein, M., Sorensen, C.S., Exploiting replicative stress to treat cancer. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14:6 (2015), 405–423.
111. [111] Tsantoulis, P.K., et al. Oncogene-induced replication stress preferentially targets common fragile sites in preneoplastic lesions. A genome-wide study. Oncogene 27:23 (2008), 3256–3264.
112. [112] Di Micco, R., et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is a DNA damage response triggered by DNA hyper-replication. Nature 444:7119 (2006), 638–642.
113. [113] Bartkova, J., et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 444:7119 (2006), 633–637.
114. [114] Bartek, J., Mistrik, M., Bartkova, J., Thresholds of replication stress signaling in cancer development and treatment. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19:1 (2012), 5–7.
115. [115] Lam, M.H., et al. Chk1 is haploinsufficient for multiple functions critical to tumor suppression. Cancer Cell 6:1 (2004), 45–59.
116. [116] Fang, Y., et al. ATR functions as a gene dosage-dependent tumor suppressor on a mismatch repair-deficient background. EMBO J. 23:15 (2004), 3164–3174.
117. [117] Murga, M., et al. Exploiting oncogene-induced replicative stress for the selective killing of Myc-driven tumors. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18:12 (2011), 1331–1335.
118. [118] Tho, L.M., et al. Chk1 is essential for chemical carcinogen-induced mouse skin tumorigenesis. Oncogene 31:11 (2012), 1366–1375.
119. [119] Denisenko, T.V., et al. Mitotic catastrophe and cancer drug resistance: a link that must to be broken. Drug Resist. Updat. 24 (2016), 1–12.
120. [120] Abdel-Fatah, T.M., et al. Untangling the ATR-CHEK1 network for prognostication, prediction and therapeutic target validation in breast cancer. Mol. Oncol. 9:3 (2015), 569–585.
121. [121] Curtis, C., et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486:7403 (2012), 346–352.
122. [122] Josse, R., et al. ATR inhibitors VE-821 and VX-970 sensitize cancer cells to topoisomerase i inhibitors by disabling DNA replication initiation and fork elongation responses. Cancer Res. 74:23 (2014), 6968–6979.
123. [123] Hosoya, N., Miyagawa, K., Targeting DNA damage response in cancer therapy. Cancer Sci. 105:4 (2014), 370–388.
124. [124] Karp, J.E., et al. Phase I and pharmacologic trial of cytosine arabinoside with the selective checkpoint 1 inhibitor Sch 900776 in refractory acute leukemias. Clin. Cancer Res. 18:24 (2012), 6723–6731.
125. [125] Sausville, E., et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of AZD776, a checkpoint kinase inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine in US patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 73:3 (2014), 539–549.
126. [126] Seto, T., et al. Phase I, dose-escalation study of AZD7762 alone and in combination with gemcitabine in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumours. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 72:3 (2013), 619–627.
127. [127] Li, T., et al. A phase II study of cell cycle inhibitor UCN-01 in patients with metastatic melanoma: a California Cancer Consortium trial. Invest. New Drugs 30:2 (2012), 741–748.
128. [128] Ma, C.X., et al. A phase II study of UCN-01 in combination with irinotecan in patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 137:2 (2013), 483–492.
129. [129] Lin, C.C., et al. A phase I study of two dosing schedules of volasertib (BI 6727), an intravenous polo-like kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Br. J. Cancer 110:10 (2014), 2434–2440.
130. [130] Olmos, D., et al. Phase I study of GSK461364, a specific and competitive Polo-like kinase 1 inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Clin. Cancer Res. 17:10 (2011), 3420–3430.
131. [131] Frost, A., et al. Phase i study of the Plk1 inhibitor BI 2536 administered intravenously on three consecutive days in advanced solid tumours. Curr. Oncol. 19:1 (2012), e28–35.
132. [132] Mross, K., et al. A randomised phase II trial of the Polo-like kinase inhibitor BI 2536 in chemo-naive patients with unresectable exocrine adenocarcinoma of the pancreas—a study within the Central European Society Anticancer Drug Research (CESAR) collaborative network. Br. J. Cancer 107:2 (2012), 280–286.
133. [133] Morgensztern, D., et al. Molecularly targeted therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer annual update 2014. J. Thorac. Oncol. 10:1 Suppl. 1 (2015), S1–63.
134. [134] Do, K., et al. Phase I study of single-agent AZD1775 (MK-1775), a wee1 kinase inhibitor, in patients with refractory solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 33:30 (2015), 3409–3415.
135. [135] Bible, K.C., et al. A phase 2 trial of flavopiridol (Alvocidib) and cisplatin in platin-resistant ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma: MC0261. Gynecol. Oncol. 127:1 (2012), 55–62.
136. [136] Zeidner, J.F., et al. Randomized multicenter phase II study of flavopiridol (alvocidib): cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (FLAM) versus cytarabine/daunorubicin (7 + 3) in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 100:9 (2015), 1172–1179.
137. [137] Le Tourneau, C., et al. Phase I evaluation of seliciclib (R-roscovitine), a novel oral cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced malignancies. Eur. J. Cancer 46:18 (2010), 3243–3250.
138. [138] Natoni, A., et al. Mechanisms of action of a dual Cdc7/Cdk9 kinase inhibitor against quiescent and proliferating CLL cells. Mol. Cancer Ther. 10:9 (2011), 1624–1634.
139. [139] Farmer, H., et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434:7035 (2005), 917–921.
140. [140] 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 376:9737 (2010), 235–244.
141. [141] Robson, M., et al. OlympiA, Neo-Olympia and OlympiAD: randomized phase III trials of olaparib in patients (pts) with breast cancer (BC) and a germline BRCA1 /2 mutation (gBRCAm). Cancer Res., 75, 2015.
142. [142] Livraghi, L., Garber, J.E., PARP inhibitors in the management of breast cancer: current data and future prospects. BMC Med., 13, 2015, 188.
143. [143] Wagner, L.M., Profile of veliparib and its potential in the treatment of solid tumors. Onco Targets Ther. 8 (2015), 1931–1939.
144. [144] Choy, E., et al. Phase II study of olaparib in patients with refractory Ewing sarcoma following failure of standard chemotherapy. BMC Cancer, 14, 2014, 813.
145. [145] O'Shaughnessy, J., et al. Phase III study of iniparib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin versus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 32:34 (2014), 3840–3847.
146. [146] Plummer, R., et al. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of the PARP inhibitor CEP-9722 as monotherapy or in combination with temozolomide in patients with solid tumors. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 74:2 (2014), 257–265.
147. [147] Sandhu, S.K., et al. The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib (MK4827) in BRCA mutation carriers and patients with sporadic cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 14:9 (2013), 882–892.
148. [148] Sirbu, B.M., Couch, F.B., Cortez, D., Monitoring the spatiotemporal dynamics of proteins at replication forks and in assembled chromatin using isolation of proteins on nascent DNA. Nat. Protoc. 7:3 (2012), 594–605.