Differential Dynamics of ATR-Mediated Checkpoint Regulators

The crosstalk between Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway with DNA damage response and oxidative stress: Implications in cancer therapy

DNA repair is essential for maintaining genomic integrity in cells. The dependence of cancer cell survival on proper DNA repair provides an opportunity to treat defective tumors by DNA damaging agents. Not only Wnt signaling has important functions in controlling gene expression, as well as cell polarity, adhesion and behavior, it also highly interacts with DNA damage response (DDR) in different levels. Furthermore, oxidative stress, which is responsible for majority of DNA lesions, affects Wnt signaling in different ways. A better understanding of the cross-talk between these pathways and events could provide strategies for treatment of cancer cells with deficient DNA repair capacity. As such, we will give a brief overview of the importance of the DNA repair machinery, signaling mechanisms of Wnt/β-catenin pathway, and DDR. We will further review the interactions between Wnt signaling and DDR, and the impact of oxidative stress on Wnt signaling. Finally, Wnt signaling is discussed as a potential treatment strategy for cancer.

DNA damage response in plants: conserved and variable response compared to animals

The genome of an organism is under constant attack from endogenous and exogenous DNA damaging factors, such as reactive radicals, radiation, and genotoxins. Therefore, DNA damage response systems to sense DNA damage, arrest cell cycle, repair DNA lesions, and/or induce programmed cell death are crucial for maintenance of genomic integrity and survival of the organism. Genome sequences revealed that, although plants possess many of the DNA damage response factors that are present in the animal systems, they are missing some of the important regulators, such as the p53 tumor suppressor. These observations suggest differences in the DNA damage response mechanisms between plants and animals. In this review the DNA damage responses in plants and animals are compared and contrasted. In addition, the function of SUPPRESSOR OF GAMMA RESPONSE 1 (SOG1), a plant-specific transcription factor that governs the robust response to DNA damage, is discussed.

Scanning fluorescence correlation spectroscopy techniques to quantify the kinetics of DNA double strand break repair proteins after γ-irradiation and bleomycin treatment

A common feature of DNA repair proteins is their mobilization in response to DNA damage. The ability to visualizing and quantifying the kinetics of proteins localizing/dissociating from DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) via immunofluorescence or live cell fluorescence microscopy have been powerful tools in allowing insight into the DNA damage response, but these tools have some limitations. For example, a number of well-established DSB repair factors, in particular those required for non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), do not form discrete foci in response to DSBs induced by ionizing radiation (IR) or radiomimetic drugs, including bleomycin, in living cells. In this report, we show that time-dependent kinetics of the NHEJ factors Ku80 and DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunits (DNA-PKcs) in response to IR and bleomycin can be quantified by Number and Brightness analysis and Raster-scan Image Correlation Spectroscopy. Fluorescent-tagged Ku80 and DNA-PKcs quickly mobilized in response to IR and bleomycin treatments consistent with prior reports using laser-generated DSBs. The response was linearly dependent on IR dose, and blocking NHEJ enhanced immobilization of both Ku80 and DNA-PKcs after DNA damage. These findings support the idea of using Number and Brightness and Raster-scan Image Correlation Spectroscopy as methods to monitor kinetics of DSB repair proteins in living cells under conditions mimicking radiation and chemotherapy treatments.

Efficient herpes simplex virus 1 replication requires cellular ATR pathway proteins

Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is a double-stranded DNA virus that replicates in the nucleus of the host cell and is known to interact with several components of the cellular DNA-damage-signaling machinery. We have previously reported that the DNA damage response kinase, ATR, is specifically inactivated in HSV-1-infected cells. On the other hand, we have also shown that ATR and its scaffolding protein, ATRIP, are recruited to viral replication compartments, where they play beneficial roles during HSV-1 replication. In order to better understand this apparent discrepancy, we tested the hypothesis that some of the components of the ATR pathway may exert an antiviral effect on infection. In fact, we learned that all 10 of the canonical ATR pathway proteins are stable in HSV-infected cells and are recruited to viral replication compartments; furthermore, short hairpin RNA (shRNA) knockdown shows that several, including ATRIP, RPA70, TopBP1, Claspin, and CINP, are required for efficient HSV-1 replication. We also determined that activation of the ATR kinase prior to infection did not affect virus yield but did result in reduced levels of recombination between coinfecting viruses. Together, these data suggest that ATR pathway proteins are not antiviral per se but that activation of ATR signaling may have negative consequences during viral replication, such as inhibiting recombination.

More forks on the road to replication stress recovery

High-fidelity replication of DNA, and its accurate segregation to daughter cells, is critical for maintaining genome stability and suppressing cancer. DNA replication forks are stalled by many DNA lesions, activating checkpoint proteins that stabilize stalled forks. Stalled forks may eventually collapse, producing a broken DNA end. Fork restart is typically mediated by proteins initially identified by their roles in homologous recombination repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). In recent years, several proteins involved in DSB repair by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) have been implicated in the replication stress response, including DNA-PKcs, Ku, DNA Ligase IV-XRCC4, Artemis, XLF and Metnase. It is currently unclear whether NHEJ proteins are involved in the replication stress response through indirect (signaling) roles, and/or direct roles involving DNA end joining. Additional complexity in the replication stress response centers around RPA, which undergoes significant post-translational modification after stress, and RAD52, a conserved HR protein whose role in DSB repair may have shifted to another protein in higher eukaryotes, such as BRCA2, but retained its role in fork restart. Most cancer therapeutic strategies create DNA replication stress. Thus, it is imperative to gain a better understanding of replication stress response proteins and pathways to improve cancer therapy.