scholarly journals Biophysical evaluation to categorize pathogenicity of cancer-predisposing mutations identified in the BARD1 BRCT domain

RSC Advances ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (59) ◽  
pp. 34056-34068
Author(s):  
Rajan Kumar Choudhary ◽  
M. Quadir Siddiqui ◽  
Nikhil Gadewal ◽  
Nachimuthu Senthil Kumar ◽  
Ekaterina S. Kuligina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Cell Cycle Checkpoint ◽  
Brct Domain ◽  
Cellular Processes ◽  
Damage Repair ◽  
Cycle Checkpoint

The BRCT domain of BARD1 (BARD1 BRCT) is involved in many cellular processes such as DNA damage repair (DDR) and cell-cycle checkpoint regulation.

scholarly journals Acceleration or Brakes: Which Is Rational for Cell Cycle-Targeting Neuroblastoma Therapy?

Biomolecules ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 750
Author(s):  
Kiyohiro Ando ◽  
Akira Nakagawara
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Cell Cycle Checkpoint ◽  
Mitotic Catastrophe ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Checkpoint Kinases ◽  
Molecular Features ◽  
Cycle Checkpoint

Unrestrained proliferation is a common feature of malignant neoplasms. Targeting the cell cycle is a therapeutic strategy to prevent unlimited cell division. Recently developed rationales for these selective inhibitors can be subdivided into two categories with antithetical functionality. One applies a “brake” to the cell cycle to halt cell proliferation, such as with inhibitors of cell cycle kinases. The other “accelerates” the cell cycle to initiate replication/mitotic catastrophe, such as with inhibitors of cell cycle checkpoint kinases. The fate of cell cycle progression or arrest is tightly regulated by the presence of tolerable or excessive DNA damage, respectively. This suggests that there is compatibility between inhibitors of DNA repair kinases, such as PARP inhibitors, and inhibitors of cell cycle checkpoint kinases. In the present review, we explore alterations to the cell cycle that are concomitant with altered DNA damage repair machinery in unfavorable neuroblastomas, with respect to their unique genomic and molecular features. We highlight the vulnerabilities of these alterations that are attributable to the features of each. Based on the assessment, we offer possible therapeutic approaches for personalized medicine, which are seemingly antithetical, but both are promising strategies for targeting the altered cell cycle in unfavorable neuroblastomas.

scholarly journals PEA15 Regulates the DNA Damage-Induced Cell Cycle Checkpoint and Oncogene-Directed Transformation

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 2264-2282 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Nagarajan ◽  
S. K. Dogra ◽  
A. Y. Liu ◽  
M. R. Green ◽  
N. Wajapeyee
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Cycle Checkpoint ◽  
Cycle Checkpoint ◽  
Directed Transformation

scholarly journals Human POLD1 modulates cell cycle progression and DNA damage repair

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Song ◽  
Ping Hong ◽  
Chengeng Liu ◽  
Yueqi Zhang ◽  
Jinling Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Damage Repair

DNA damage checkpoint kinases in cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah L. Smith ◽  
Harriet Southgate ◽  
Deborah A. Tweddle ◽  
Nicola J. Curtin
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Environmental Dna ◽  
Cell Cycle Checkpoint ◽  
Checkpoint Control ◽  
Integrated Network ◽  
Checkpoint Kinases ◽  
G1 Checkpoint ◽  
Cycle Checkpoint ◽  
High Level

Abstract DNA damage response (DDR) pathway prevents high level endogenous and environmental DNA damage being replicated and passed on to the next generation of cells via an orchestrated and integrated network of cell cycle checkpoint signalling and DNA repair pathways. Depending on the type of damage, and where in the cell cycle it occurs different pathways are involved, with the ATM-CHK2-p53 pathway controlling the G1 checkpoint or ATR-CHK1-Wee1 pathway controlling the S and G2/M checkpoints. Loss of G1 checkpoint control is common in cancer through TP53, ATM mutations, Rb loss or cyclin E overexpression, providing a stronger rationale for targeting the S/G2 checkpoints. This review will focus on the ATM-CHK2-p53-p21 pathway and the ATR-CHK1-WEE1 pathway and ongoing efforts to target these pathways for patient benefit.

scholarly journals Changes in DNA Damage Repair Gene Expression and Cell Cycle Gene Expression Do Not Explain Radioresistance in Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie E. M. Post ◽  
Johan Bussink ◽  
Fred C. G. J. Sweep ◽  
Paul N. Span
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Expression ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Dna Damage ◽  
Dna Damage Repair ◽  
Cross Resistance ◽  
Damage Repair ◽  
Breast Cancer Cohort ◽  
Tamoxifen Resistant ◽  
Repair Genes

Tamoxifen-induced radioresistance, reported in vitro, might pose a problem for patients who receive neoadjuvant tamoxifen treatment and subsequently receive radiotherapy after surgery. Previous studies suggested that DNA damage repair or cell cycle genes are involved, and could therefore be targeted to preclude the occurrence of cross-resistance. We aimed to characterize the observed cross-resistance by investigating gene expression of DNA damage repair genes and cell cycle genes in estrogen receptor-positive MCF-7 breast cancer cells that were cultured to tamoxifen resistance. RNA sequencing was performed, and expression of genes characteristic for several DNA damage repair pathways was investigated, as well as expression of genes involved in different phases of the cell cycle. The association of differentially expressed genes with outcome after radiotherapy was assessed in silico in a large breast cancer cohort. None of the DNA damage repair pathways showed differential gene expression in tamoxifen-resistant cells compared to wild-type cells. Two DNA damage repair genes were more than two times upregulated (NEIL1 and EME2), and three DNA damage repair genes were more than two times downregulated (PCNA, BRIP1, and BARD1). However, these were not associated with outcome after radiotherapy in the TCGA breast cancer cohort. Genes involved in G1, G1/S, G2, and G2/M phases were lower expressed in tamoxifen-resistant cells compared to wild-type cells. Individual genes that were more than two times upregulated (MAPK13) or downregulated (E2F2, CKS2, GINS2, PCNA, MCM5, and EIF5A2) were not associated with response to radiotherapy in the patient cohort investigated. We assessed the expression of DNA damage repair genes and cell cycle genes in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells. Though several genes in both pathways were differentially expressed, these could not explain the cross-resistance for irradiation in these cells, since no association to response to radiotherapy in the TCGA breast cancer cohort was found.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document