4.8 Article

Mechanistic Distinctions between CHK1 and WEE1 Inhibition Guide the Scheduling of Triple Therapy with Gemcitabine

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 78, 期 11, 页码 3054-3066

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-3932

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. University of Cambridge
  2. Cancer Research UK [C14303/A17197]
  3. Hutchison Whampoa Limited
  4. Pancreatic Cancer UK
  5. Pancreatic Cancer UK Future Research Leaders Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Combination of cytotoxic therapy with emerging DNA damage response inhibitors (DDRi) has been limited by tolerability issues. However, the goal of most combination trials has been to administer DDRi with standard-of-care doses of chemotherapy. We hypothesized that mechanism-guided treatment scheduling could reduce the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and enable tolerable multitherapeutic regimens. Integrative analyses of mathematical modeling and single-cell assays distinguished the synergy kinetics of WEE1 inhibitor (WEE1i) from CHEK1 inhibitor (CHK1i) by potency, spatio-temporal perturbation, and mitotic effects when combined with gemcitabine. These divergent properties collectively supported a triple-agent strategy, whereby a pulse of gemcitabine and CHK1i followed by WEE1i durably suppressed tumor cell growth. In xeno-grafts, CHK1i exaggerated replication stress without mitotic CDK hyperactivation, enriching a geminin-positive subpopulation and intratumoral gemcitabine metabolite. Without overt toxicity, addition of WEE1i to low-dose gemcitabine and CHK1i was most effective in tumor control compared with single and double agents. Overall, our work provides quantitative insights into the mechanisms of DDRi chemosensitization, leading to the rational development of a tolerable multitherapeutic regimen. Significance: Multiple lines of mechanistic insight regarding DNA damage response inhibitors rationally guide the preclinical development of a tolerable multitherapeutic regimen. (C) 2018 AACR.

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

4.8
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