4.7 Article

Synthetic lethal targeting of DNA double-strand break repair deficient cells by human apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease inhibitors

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 131, 期 10, 页码 2433-2444

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.27512

关键词

base excision repair (BER); BRCA deficiency; human apurinic; apyrimidinic endonuclease 1 (APE1); synthetic lethal targeting; DNA repair; small molecule inhibitors

类别

资金

  1. Breast Cancer Campaign, UK
  2. Intramural Research Program of NIH, National Institute on Aging, USA
  3. University of Nottingham, UK
  4. Medical Research Council, UK
  5. MRC [G1000252] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G1000252] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) site is an obligatory cytotoxic intermediate in DNA Base Excision Repair (BER) that is processed by human AP endonuclease 1 (APE1). APE1 is essential for BER and an emerging drug target in cancer. We have isolated novel small molecule inhibitors of APE1. In this study, we have investigated the ability of APE1 inhibitors to induce synthetic lethality (SL) in a panel of DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair deficient and proficient cells; i) Chinese hamster (CH) cells: BRCA2 deficient (V-C8), ATM deficient (V-E5), wild type (V79) and BRCA2 revertant [V-C8(Rev1)]. ii) Human cancer cells: BRCA1 deficient (MDA-MB-436), BRCA1 proficient (MCF-7), BRCA2 deficient (CAPAN-1 and HeLa SilenciX cells), BRCA2 proficient (PANC1 and control SilenciX cells). We also tested SL in CH ovary cells expressing a dominant-negative form of APE1 (E8 cells) using ATM inhibitors and DNA-PKcs inhibitors (DSB inhibitors). APE1 inhibitors are synthetically lethal in BRCA and ATM deficient cells. APE1 inhibition resulted in accumulation of DNA DSBs and G2/M cell cycle arrest. SL was also demonstrated in CH cells expressing a dominant-negative form of APE1 treated with ATM or DNA-PKcs inhibitors. We conclude that APE1 is a promising SL target in cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据