4.4 Article

Targeting MDC1 promotes apoptosis and sensitizes Imatinib resistance in CML cells by mainly disrupting non-homologous end-joining repair

期刊

MEDICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12032-022-01821-w

关键词

Chronic myeloid leukemia; MDC1; DNA double-strand breaks; NHEJ

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81703095]
  2. Chongqing Natural Science Foundation [cstc2021jcyj-msxmX0214]
  3. Youth Top Science and Technology Talent Fund Project of The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University [BJRC2020-04]
  4. Innovation Support Program for Overseas Students of Chongqing [cx2018142]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals the potential role of MDC1 in the treatment of CML and suggests it as an alternative option for IM drug resistance dilemma, by regulating the DNA damage repair mechanism.
The first-line drug Imatinib (IM) has achieved a curative effect in most chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients, but drug resistance remains a problem. More alternative therapeutic strategies need to explore. In recent years, targeting dysregulated DNA repair mechanisms provided promising options for cancer treatment. Here, we discovered the versatile Mediator of DNA Damage Checkpoint 1 (MDC1) interacted with gamma-H2AX and 53BP1 in the early stage of the DNA damage response of cells. MDC1 overexpressed in CML cell lines and patients' bone marrow mononuclear cells. By knocking down MDC1, non-homologous end-joining pathways were mainly inhibited, leading to an intense accumulation of unrepaired intracellular DNA damage and an apparent cell apoptosis promotion. Notably, targeting MDC1 further enhanced drug sensitivity in IM-resistant CML cells. Our work revealed that MDC1 is a prospective target for CML treatment through regulating DNA damage repair mechanism, and also an alternative option for IM resistance dilemma. This study extends the understanding of regulating dysfunctional DNA repair mechanisms for cancer treatment.

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

4.4
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