4.8 Article

Synergistic Chemosensitivity of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cell Lines to Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibition, Gemcitabine, and Cisplatin

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 70, 期 20, 页码 7970-7980

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4521

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [R01 CA108794]
  2. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  3. Susan G. Komen for the Cure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The basal-like subtype of breast cancer is characterized by a triple-negative (TN) phenotype (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2/neu negative). TN breast cancers share similar gene expression profiles and DNA repair deficiencies with BRCA1-associated breast cancers. BRCA1-mutant cells exhibit sensitivity to gemcitabine, cisplatin, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition; therefore, we hypothesized that TN cancer cells may also exhibit sensitivity to these drugs. In this study, we report that TN breast cancer cells are more sensitive to these drugs compared with non-TN breast cancer cells. Moreover, combination treatments indicated that PARP inhibition by the small-molecule inhibitor PJ34 or siRNA knockdown synergized with gemcitabine and cisplatin in TN cells but not in luminal cancer cells. TN cells exhibited reduced repair of UV-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers after PARP inhibition, suggesting that the synergistic effect of PJ34 and gemcitabine or cisplatin reflected inefficient nucleotide excision repair. Mechanistic investigations revealed that in TN cells, PJ34 reduced the levels of Delta Np63 alpha with a concurrent increase in p73 and its downstream target p21. Thus, the sensitivity to combination treatment seemed to be mediated by sustained DNA damage and inefficient DNA repair triggering p63/p73-mediated apoptosis. Our results suggest a novel therapeutic strategy to treat women with TN breast cancer, an aggressive disease that presently lacks effective treatment options. Cancer Res; 70(20); 7970-80. (C) 2010 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