Conflicting Roles of Mismatch and Nucleotide Excision Repair in Cellular Susceptibility to Anticancer Drugs

Cisplatin induces DNA double-strand break formation in Escherichia coli dam mutants

Escherichia coli dam cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic action of cisplatin than wildtype. Dam mutS or dam mutL bacteria, however, are resistant to this agent indicating that active mismatch repair sensitizes dam cells to cisplatin toxicity. Genetic data, obtained previously, were consistent with the generation and repair of cisplatin-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs). We measured DSB formation in temperature-sensitive dam recB mutants, after exposure to cisplatin, using pulse field gel electrophoresis and observed an increase in linear 100-300 kb DNA fragments corresponding to approximately 15-45 double strand breaks per genome. The formation of these DSBs was temperature and dose-dependent and was decreased in recBC bacteria at the permissive temperature or in dam(+) or mutS control strains. There was a three-fold increase in circa 2 mb linear chromosomal fragments in dam recBC strains at the non-permissive temperature compared to recBC alone. We show that dam priA strains are not viable suggesting that DSB formation is dependent on DNA replication restart. The sensitivity of priA mutants to cisplatin is also consistent with this conclusion.

Spontaneous and cisplatin-induced recombination in Escherichia coli

To measure cisplatin (cis-diaminodichloroplatinum(II))-induced recombination, we have used a qualitative intrachromosomal assay utilizing duplicate inactive lac operons containing non-overlapping deletions and selection for Lac+ recombinants. The two operons are separated by one Mb and conversion of one of them yields the Lac+ phenotype. Lac+ formation for both spontaneous and cisplatin-induced recombination requires the products of the recA, recBC, ruvA, ruvB, ruvC, priA and polA genes. Inactivation of the recF, recO, recR and recJ genes decreased cisplatin-induced, but not spontaneous, recombination. The dependence on PriA and RecBC suggests that recombination is induced following stalling or collapse of replication forks at DNA lesions to form double strand breaks. The lack of recombination induction by trans-DDP suggests that the recombinogenic lesions for cisplatin are purine-purine intrastrand crosslinks.

MutS preferentially recognizes cisplatin- over oxaliplatin-modified DNA

Loss of mismatch repair leads to tumor resistance by desensitizing cells to specific DNA-damaging agents, including the anticancer drug cisplatin. Cisplatin analogs with a diamminocyclohexane (DACH) carrier ligand, such as oxaliplatin and Pt(DACH)Cl(2), do not elicit resistance in mismatch repair-deficient cells and therefore present promising therapeutic agents. This study compared the interactions of the purified Escherichia coli mismatch repair protein MutS with DNA modified to contain cisplatin and DACH adducts. MutS recognized the cisplatin-modified DNA with 2-fold higher affinity in comparison to the DACH-modified DNA. ADP stimulated the binding of MutS to cisplatin-modified DNA, whereas it had no effect on the MutS interaction with DNA modified by DACH or EN adducts. In parallel cytotoxicity experiments, methylation-deficient E. coli dam mutants were 2-fold more sensitive to cisplatin than DACH compounds. A panel of recombination-deficient mutants showed striking sensitivity to both compounds, indicating that both types of adducts are strong replication blocks. The differential affinity of MutS for DNA modified with the different platinum analogs could provide the molecular basis for the distinctive cellular responses to cisplatin and oxaliplatin.

Cisplatin adducts inhibit 1,N(6)-ethenoadenine repair by interacting with the human 3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase

The human 3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase (AAG) is a repair enzyme that removes a number of damaged bases from DNA, including adducts formed by some chemotherapeutic agents. Cisplatin is one of the most widely used anticancer drugs. Its success in killing tumor cells results from its ability to form DNA adducts and the cellular processes triggered by the presence of those adducts in DNA. Variations in tumor response to cisplatin may result from altered expression of cellular proteins that recognize cisplatin adducts. The present study focuses on the interaction between the cisplatin intrastrand cross-links and human AAG. Using site-specifically modified oligonucleotides containing each of the cisplatin intrastrand cross-links, we found that AAG readily recognized cisplatin adducts. The apparent dissociation constants for the 1, 2-d(GpG), the 1,2-d(ApG), and the 1,3-d(GpTpG) oligonucleotides were 115 nM, 71 nM, and 144 nM, respectively. For comparison, the apparent dissociation constant for an oligonucleotide containing a single 1,N(6)-ethenoadenine (epsilonA), which is repaired efficiently by AAG, was 26 nM. Despite the affinity of AAG for cisplatin adducts, AAG was not able to release any of these adducts from DNA. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the presence of cisplatin adducts in the reactions inhibited the excision of epsilonA by AAG. These data suggest a previously unexplored dimension to the toxicological response of cells to cisplatin. We suggest that cisplatin adducts could titrate AAG away from its natural substrates, resulting in higher mutagenesis and/or cell death because of the persistence of AAG substrates in DNA.

Spontaneous development of drug resistance: mismatch repair and p53 defects in resistance to cisplatin in human tumor cells

The contributions of defective mismatch repair and mutated p53 to cisplatin resistance of human tumor cells were analysed. Mismatch repair defects were not associated with a predictable degree of resistance among several tumor cell lines. Repair defective variants of the A2780 ovarian carcinoma cell line which were isolated by selection for a methylation tolerant phenotype and did not express the hMLH1 mismatch repair protein, were highly resistant to cisplatin. Their cisplatin resistance was not a simple consequence of the mismatch repair defect. They were members of a drug-naive subpopulation of A2780 in which a silent hMLH1 gene accompanies a mutated p53. Two complementary approaches indicated that each defect contributes to cisplatin resistance independently and to a different extent. Firstly, separate introduction of a p53 defect into A2780 cells significantly increased their cisplatin resistance; defective hMLH1 provided less extensive protection. Secondly, azadeoxycytidine reactivation of the silent hMLH1 gene or expression of a transfected hMLH1 cDNA sensitized the doubly hMLH1/p53 deficient cells only slightly to cisplatin. Both approaches indicate that defective p53 status is a major determinant of cisplatin resistance and defective mismatch repair is a minor, and independent, contributor. The data have implications for the development of intrinsic cisplatin resistance.

Multiple pathways of recombination define cellular responses to cisplatin

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin is a DNA-damaging drug used for treatment of testicular tumors. The toxicity of cisplatin probably results from its ability to form DNA adducts that inhibit polymerases. Blocked replication represents a particular challenge for tumor cells, which are committed to unremitting division. Recombination provides a mechanism by which replication can proceed despite the presence of lesions and therefore could be significant for managing cisplatin toxicity.

RESULTS

Recombination-deficient Escherichia coli mutants were strikingly sensitive to cisplatin when compared with the parental strain. Our data identified both daughter-strand gap and double-strand break recombination pathways as critical for survival following treatment with cisplatin. Although it is established that nucleotide excision repair (NER) significantly protects against cisplatin toxicity, most recombination-deficient strains were as sensitive to the drug as the NER-deficient uvrA mutant. Recombination/NER deficient double mutants were more sensitive to cisplatin than the corresponding single mutants, suggesting that recombination and NER pathways play independent roles in countering cisplatin toxicity. Cisplatin was a potent recombinogen in comparison with the trans isomer and canonical alkylating agents. Mitomycin C, which like cisplatin, forms DNA cross-links, was also recombinogenic at minimally toxic doses.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that all of the major recombination pathways are critical for E. coli survival following treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, recombination pathways act independently of NER and are of equal importance to NER as genoprotective systems against cisplatin toxicity. Taken together, these results shed new light on how cells survive and succumb to this widely used anticancer drug.