[Individual radiosensitivity and DNA repair proficiency: the value of the comet assay]

Targeting DNA damage and repair: embracing the pharmacological era for successful cancer therapy

DNA is under constant assault from genotoxic agents which creates different kinds of DNA damage. The precise replication of the genome and the continuous surveillance of its integrity are critical for survival and the avoidance of carcinogenesis. Cells have evolved an arsenal of repair pathways and cell cycle checkpoints to detect and repair DNA damage. When repair fails, typically cell cycle progression is halted and apoptosis is initiated. Here, we review the different sources and types of DNA damage including DNA replication stress and oxidative stress, the repair pathways that cells utilize to repair damaged DNA, and discuss their biological significance, especially with reference to cancer induction and cancer therapy. We also describe the main methodologies currently used for the detection of DNA damage with their strengths and limitations. We conclude with an outline as to how this information can be used to identify novel pharmacological targets for DNA repair pathways or enhancers of DNA damage to develop improved treatment strategies that will benefit cancer patients.

Assays to predict the genotoxicity of the chromosomal mutagen etoposide -- focussing on the best assay

The topoisomerase II inhibitor etoposide is used routinely to treat a variety of cancers in patients of all ages. As a result of its extensive use in the clinic and its association with secondary malignancies it has become a compound of great interest with regard to its genotoxic activity in vivo. This paper describes a series of assays that were employed to determine the in vivo genotoxicity of etoposide in a murine model system. The alkaline comet assay detected DNA damage in the bone marrow mononuclear compartment over the dose range of 10--100mg/kg and was associated with a large and dose dependent rise in the proportion of cells with severely damaged DNA. In contrast, the bone marrow micronucleus assay was found to be sensitive to genotoxic damage between the doses of 0.1--1mg/kg without any corresponding increases in cytotoxicity. An increase in the mutant frequency was undetectable at the Hprt locus at administered doses of 1 and 10mg/kg of etoposide, however, an increase in the mutant frequency was seen at the Aprt locus at these doses. We conclude that the BMMN assay is a good short-term predictor of the clastogenicity of etoposide at doses that do not result in cytotoxic activity, giving an indication of potential mutagenic effects. Moreover, the detection of mutants at the Aprt locus gives an indication of the potential of etoposide to cause chromosomal mutations that may lead to secondary malignancy.

Sources of variation in patient response to radiation treatment

PURPOSE

To investigate sources of variation in radiosensitivity displayed by cancer patients and blood donors using the leukocyte apoptosis assay.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Probes were obtained from 105 healthy blood donors, 48 cancer patients displaying normal sensitivity to radiotherapy, 12 cancer patients displaying hypersensitivity to radiotherapy, 12 Ataxia telangiectasia blood donors, and 4 additional individuals with genetic diseases of potentially modified radiosensitivity; 2 neurofibromatosis (NF) donors, a Nijmegen breakage syndrome (NBS) donor, and an Immunodeficiency, Chromosome fragility, Facial anomaly syndrome (ICF) donor. Heparinized blood was diluted in medium, irradiated, and left to incubate for 48 h. CD4 and CD8 T-lymphocyte DNA was stained with propidium iodide and the cells were analyzed by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Radiation-induced apoptosis depended on age and cell type. Cohorts of hypersensitive cancer patients, NBS and AT donors displayed compromised apoptotic response. An asymmetric apoptotic response of T-lymphocytes was observed in an ICF donor and a cryptic hypersensitivity donor. Two NF donors displayed no abnormal sensitivity to radiotherapy but compromised apoptotic T-cell response to X-rays.

CONCLUSION

Our studies reveal 4 physiologic sources of variation in radiation response-2 are genetic: cryptic hypersensitivity and hereditary disease, and 2 are epigenetic: cell type and donor age. They emphasize the important role of proteins involved in the recognition and repair of DNA double-strand breaks in determining the response of individuals to radiotherapy.

Fluorometric analysis of DNA unwinding (FADU) as a method for detecting repair-induced DNA strand breaks in UV-irradiated mammalian cells

Fluorometric analysis of DNA unwinding (FADU assay) was originally designed to detect X-ray-induced DNA damage in repair-proficient and repair-deficient mammalian cell lines. The method was modified and applied to detect DNA strand breaks in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells exposed to ionizing radiation as well as to UV light. Exposed cells were allowed to repair damaged DNA by incubation for up to 1 h after exposure under standard growth conditions in the presence and in the absence of the DNA synthesis inhibitor aphidicolin. Thereafter, cell lysates were mixed with 0.15 M sodium hydroxide, and DNA unwinding took place at pH 12.1 for 30 min at 20 degrees C. The amount of DNA remaining double-stranded after alkaline reaction was detected by binding to the Hoechst 33258 dye (bisbenzimide) and measuring the fluorescence. After exposure to X-rays DNA strand breaks were observed in all cell lines immediately after exposure with subsequent restitution of high molecular weight DNA during postexposure incubation. In contrast, after UV exposure delayed production of DNA strand break was observed only in cell lines proficient for nucleotide excision repair of DNA photoproducts. Here strand break production was enhanced when the polymerization step was inhibited by adding the repair inhibitor aphidicolin during repair incubation. These results demonstrate that the FADU approach is suitable to distinguish between different DNA lesions (strand breaks versus base alterations) preferentially induced by different environmental radiations (X-rays versus UV) and to distinguish between the different biochemical processes during damage repair (incision versus polymerization and ligation).

[Tumor and individual radiosensitivity. An introduction]

This text is intended to introduce the following articles, which correspond to the lectures given at the "Radiosensitivity" session of the 1998 SFRO Meeting. We first underline the somewhat disappointing results obtained so far for evaluating tumoral radiosensitivity. However, a few new tests could bring some hope in a not-too distant future. We then focus on individual radiosensitivity. We first list the syndromes or diseases associated with a known hyperradiosensitivity. We then concentrate on the radiosensitivity tests that are available in 1998, some of them being already used in a few centers in specific situations. However, the "optimal" test is still to be identified. After a brief chapter on the possible modulations of radiosensitivity, we conclude with a few recommendations to the clinician.