The repair gene BACH1 - a potential oncogene

Male Breast Cancer With Dual BRCA2 and BRIP1 Deleterious Gene Mutations

Background: Male breast cancer remains relatively underexplored in the medical literature. At present, male patients with breast cancer follow the same treatment guidelines as female patients with breast cancer, principally because of similar outcomes with treatment. However, this practice should not preclude generating evidence for male breast cancer surveillance, diagnosis, and management. BRCA2 gene mutations are associated with an increased risk of male breast cancer, along with lesser-known gene mutations that could also increase this risk, such as mutations of the BRIP1 gene. This case report presents a male patient with dual BRCA2 and BRIP1 deleterious gene mutations. To our knowledge, this combination has not been reported in the medical literature to date. Case Report: A 53-year-old male presented with a palpable symptomatic mass underneath the right nipple-areolar complex. Biopsies confirmed a poorly differentiated, infiltrating ductal carcinoma that was estrogen and progesterone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative. The patient underwent a left modified radical mastectomy, with a right prophylactic simple mastectomy. Postoperatively, he underwent adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Conclusion: This novel case of genetically based male breast cancer with dual deleterious gene mutations provides insight into current treatment recommendations and the subtle differences between male breast cancer and female breast cancer. Engaging in discussions surrounding such rare cases not only raises awareness of male breast cancer but also indicates the need for further research aimed at establishing evidence-based management strategies for male patients with breast cancer.

BRCT Domains: Structure, Functions, and Implications in Disease-New Therapeutic Targets for Innovative Drug Discovery against Infections

The search for new therapeutic targets and their implications in drug development remains an emerging scientific topic. BRCT-bearing proteins are found in Archaea, Bacteria, Eukarya, and viruses. They are traditionally involved in DNA repair, recombination, and cell cycle control. To carry out these functions, BRCT domains are able to interact with DNA and proteins. Moreover, such domains are also implicated in several pathogenic processes and malignancies including breast, ovarian, and lung cancer. Although these domains exhibit moderately conserved folding, their sequences show very low conservation. Interestingly, sequence variations among species are considered positive traits in the search for suitable therapeutic targets, since non-specific drug interactions might be reduced. These main characteristics of BRCT, as well as its critical implications in key biological processes in the cell, have prompted the study of these domains as therapeutic targets. This review explores the possible roles of BRCT domains as therapeutic targets for drug discovery. We describe their common structural features and relevant interactions and pathways, as well as their implications in pathologic processes. Drugs commonly used to target these domains are also presented. Finally, based on their structures, we describe new drug design possibilities using modern and innovative techniques.

BRCA1 interactors, RAD50 and BRIP1, as prognostic markers for triple-negative breast cancer severity

Introduction: BRIP1 (BRCA1-interacting protein 1) is one of the major interacting partners of BRCA1, which plays an important role in repair by homologous recombination (HR). This gene is mutated in around 4% of cases of breast cancer; however, its mechanism of action is unclear. In this study, we presented the fundamental role of BRCA1 interactors BRIP1 and RAD50 in the development of differential severity in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) among various affected individuals. Methods: We have analyzed the expression of DNA repair-related genes in different BC cells using Real-time PCR and western blotting analysis and assessed changes in stemness property and proliferation through Immunophenotyping. We have performed cell cycle analysis to see the defect in checkpoints and also immunofluorescence assay to confirm the accumulation of gamma-H2AX and BRCA1 foci and subsequent incidence. We have performed a severity analysis using TCGA data sets for comparing the expression in MDA-MB-468 MDA-MB-231 and MCF7 cell line. Results: We showed that in some TNBC cell lines such as MDA-MB-231, the functioning of both BRCA1/TP53 is compromised. Furthermore, the sensing of DNA damage is affected. Due to less damage-sensing capability and low availability of BRCA1 at the damage sites, the repair by HR becomes inefficient, leading to more damage. Accumulation of damage sends a signal for over activation of NHEJ repair pathways. Over expressed NHEJ molecules with compromised HR and checkpoint conditions lead to higher proliferation and error-prone repair, which increases the mutation rate and corresponding tumour severity. The in-silico analysis of the TCGA datasets with gene expression in the deceased population showed a significant correlation of BRCA1 expression with overall survival (OS) in TNBCs (0.0272). The association of BRCA1 with OS became stronger with the addition of BRIP1 expression (0.000876**). Conclusion: The severity phenotypes were more in cells having compromised BRCA1-BRIP1 functioning. Since the OS is directly proportional to the extent of severity, the data analysis hints at the role of BRIP1 in controlling the severity of TNBC.

Integrating Sister Chromatid Cohesion Establishment to DNA Replication

The intersection through which two fundamental processes meet provides a unique vantage point from which to view cellular regulation. On the one hand, DNA replication is at the heart of cell division, generating duplicate chromosomes that allow each daughter cell to inherit a complete copy of the parental genome. Among other factors, the PCNA (proliferating cell nuclear antigen) sliding clamp ensures processive DNA replication during S phase and is essential for cell viability. On the other hand, the process of chromosome segregation during M phase—an act that occurs long after DNA replication—is equally fundamental to a successful cell division. Eco1/Ctf7 ensures that chromosomes faithfully segregate during mitosis, but functions during DNA replication to activate cohesins and thereby establish cohesion between sister chromatids. To achieve this, Eco1 binds PCNA and numerous other DNA replication fork factors that include MCM helicase, Chl1 helicase, and the Rtt101-Mms1-Mms22 E3 ubiquitin ligase. Here, we review the multi-faceted coordination between cohesion establishment and DNA replication. SUMMARY STATEMENT: New findings provide important insights into the mechanisms through which DNA replication and the establishment of sister chromatid cohesion are coupled.

The budding yeast protein Chl1p is required for delaying progression through G1/S phase after DNA damage

Background

The budding yeast protein Chl1p is a nuclear protein required for sister-chromatid cohesion, transcriptional silencing, rDNA recombination, ageing and plays an instrumental role in chromatin remodeling. This helicase is known to preserve genome integrity and spindle length in S-phase. Here we show additional roles of Chl1p at G1/S phase of the cell cycle following DNA damage.

Results

G1 arrested cells when exposed to DNA damage are more sensitive and show bud emergence with faster kinetics in chl1 mutants compared to wild-type cells. Also, more damage to DNA is observed in chl1 cells. The viability falls synergistically in rad24chl1 cells. The regulation of Chl1p on budding kinetics in G1 phase falls in line with Rad9p/Chk1p and shows a synergistic effect with Rad24p/Rad53p. rad9chl1 and chk1chl1 shows similar bud emergence as the single mutants chl1, rad9 and chk1. Whereas rad24chl1 and rad53chl1 shows faster bud emergence compared to the single mutants rad24, rad53 and chl1. In presence of MMS induced damage, synergistic with Rad24p indicates Chl1p’s role as a checkpoint at G1/S acting parallel to damage checkpoint pathway. The faster movement of DNA content through G1/S phase and difference in phosphorylation profile of Rad53p in wild type and chl1 cells confirms the checkpoint defect in chl1 mutant cells. Further, we have also confirmed that the checkpoint defect functions in parallel to the damage checkpoint pathway of Rad24p.

Conclusion

Chl1p shows Rad53p independent bud emergence and Rad53p dependent checkpoint activity in presence of damage. This confirms its requirement in two different pathways to maintain the G1/S arrest when cells are exposed to damaging agents. The bud emergence kinetics and DNA segregation were similar to wild type when given the same damage in nocodazole treated chl1 cells which establishes the absence of any role of Chl1p at the G2/M phase. The novelty of this paper lies in revealing the versatile role of Chl1p in checkpoints as well as repair towards regulating G1/S transition. Chl1p thus regulates the G1/S phase by affecting the G1 replication checkpoint pathway and shows an additive effect with Rad24p for Rad53p activation when damaging agents perturb the DNA. Apart from checkpoint activation, it also regulates the budding kinetics as a repair gene.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13008-021-00072-x.