Ku70 and Rad51 vary in their importance for the repair of doxorubicin- versus etoposide-induced DNA damage
For DNA targeting anticancer drugs, cellular DNA repair mechanisms may cause resistance and hamper the therapeutic outcome. DNA damage induced by topoisomerase IIα inhibitors like etoposide and anthracyclines, which are a mainstay of cancer therapy, is also repaired in many cell types, but the impact and precise mechanisms of this repair are still obscure. To investigate the DNA damage response of human adenocarcinoma HT29-cells to doxorubicin and to compare the involvement of Ku70 and Rad51 in the repair of doxorubicin- versus etoposide-induced DNA damage, we assessed cell cycle distribution and cell death, DNA damage, proteins relevant for repair by homologous recombination and non-homologous end-joining, and clonogenicity following exposure to doxorubicin at clinically achievable concentrations. Also, we assessed changes in the repair kinetics after siRNA-mediated attenuation of Ku70 or Rad51 expression. We found that exposure to doxorubicin for 24 h induced a substantial amount of DNA damage that was largely repaired when doxorubicin was removed and the cells were maintained in drug-free medium. Nevertheless, a pronounced G2/M arrest occurred at times when repair was maximal. This was followed by a distinct increase in cell death and loss of clonogenicity. In this regard, responses to doxorubicin and etoposide were similar. However, distinct differences in the repair process following doxorubicin versus etoposide were seen in concentration dependency, time-course and requirement of Ku70 and Rad51 proteins. In spite of the shared molecular target of doxorubicin and etoposide, DNA lesions induced by these compounds are repaired differently.
KeywordsDoxorubicin DNA strand breaks Cell cycle arrest DNA-repair Non-homologous end-joining Homologous recombination Cell death
We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Frank Gieseler from the University Hospital Luebeck for many helpful discussions. Our work was supported by the Ernst und Elfriede Griebel’s Foerderungs- und Unterstuetzungsstiftung, Hamburg.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 12.Tapiero H, Nguyen-Ba G, Lampidis TJ (1994) Cross resistance relevance of the chemical structure of different anthracyclines in multidrug resistant cells. Pathol Biol (Paris) 42:328–337Google Scholar
- 17.Zhijian C, Xiaoxue L, Yezhen L, Shijie C, Lifen J, Jianlin L, Deqiang L, Jiliang H (2010) Impact of 1.8-GHz radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on DNA damage and repair induced by doxorubicin in human B-cell lymphoblastoid cells. Mutat Res 695:16–21. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2009.10.001 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Giaccone G, Linn S, Welink J, Catimel G, Stieltjes H, Van der Vijgh W, Eeltink C, Vermorken J, Pinedo H (1997) A dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of reversal of multidrug resistance with SDZ PSC 833 in combination with doxorubicin in patients with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 3:2005–2015PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Venkatakrishnan CD, Dunsmore K, Wong H, Roy S, Sen CK, Wani A, Zweier JL, Ilangovan G (2008) HSP27 regulates p53 transcriptional activity in doxorubicin-treated fibroblasts and cardiac H9c2 cells: p21 upregulation and G2/M phase cell cycle arrest. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 294:H1736–H1744. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.91507.2007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Binaschi M, Capranico G, De Isabella P, Mariani M, Supino R, Tinelli S, Zunino F (1990) Comparison of DNA cleavage induced by etoposide and doxorubicin in two human small-cell lung cancer lines with different sensitivities to topoisomerase II inhibitors. Int J Cancer 45:347–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar