Advertisement

Medical Oncology

, 36:99 | Cite as

Can synthetic lethality approach be used with DNA repair genes for primary and secondary MDS?

  • Howard Lopes Ribeiro Junior
  • Roberta Taiane Germano de Oliveira
  • Daniela de Paula Borges
  • Marília Braga Costa
  • Izabelle Rocha Farias
  • Antônio Wesley Araújo dos Santos
  • Silvia Maria Meira Magalhães
  • Ronald Feitosa PinheiroEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways create the opportunity to employ synthetic lethality approach. Recently, GEMA (gene expression and mutation analysis) approach detected insufficient expression of BRCA or NHEJ (non-homologous end joining) to predict PARP inhibitors response. We evaluated a possible role of DNA repair pathways using gene expression of single-strand break (XPA, XPC, XPG/ERCC5, CSA/ERCC8, and CSB/ERCC6) and double-strand break (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51, XRCC5, XRCC6, LIG4) in 92 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (73 de novo, 9 therapy-related (t-MDS). Therapy-related MDS (t-MDS) demonstrated a significant downregulation of axis BRCA1-BRCA2-RAD51 comparing to normal controls (p = 0.048, p = 0.001, p = 0.001). XRCC6 showed significantly low expression in de novo MDS comparing to controls (p = 0.039) and for patients who presented chromosomal abnormalities (p = 0.047). Downregulation of LIG4 was consistently associated with poor prognostic markers in de novo MDS (hemoglobin < 8 g/dL (p = 0.040), neutrophils < 800/mm3 (p < 0.001), patients with excess of blasts (p = 0.001), very high (p = 0.002)/high IPSS-R (p = 0.043) and AML transformation (p < 0.001). We also performed an evaluation of GEPIA Database in 30 cancer types and detected a typical pattern of downregulation as here presented in primary or secondary MDS. All these results suggest synthetic lethality approach can be tested with DNA repair genes (beyond that of BRCA1/2 status) for de novo and therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome and may encourage clinical trials evaluating the use of PARP1 inhibitors in MDS.

Graphic Abstract

Keywords

Myelodysplastic syndrome Synthetic lethality DNA repair Gene expression 

Notes

Author contributions

HLRJ, RTGO, SMMM and RFP designed the study, provided patient materials and were responsible for collection and assembly of data. HLRJ, RTGO, AWAS, MBC, IRF and DPB performed the molecular procedures and analyzed the data. All drafted and edited the manuscript. All authors have approved the final version of manuscript before publication.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) (Grant Nos. #420501/2018-5 and #424542/2016-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of UFC (#1.292.509) and are in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

12032_2019_1324_MOESM1_ESM.doc (42 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 41 kb)
12032_2019_1324_MOESM2_ESM.doc (304 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 304 kb)
12032_2019_1324_MOESM3_ESM.doc (90 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 90 kb)
12032_2019_1324_MOESM4_ESM.doc (94 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOC 94 kb)
12032_2019_1324_MOESM5_ESM.docx (2.4 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 2477 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Schanz J, Cevik N, Fonatsch C, et al. Detailed analysis of clonal evolution and cytogenetic evolution patterns in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and related myeloid disorders. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(3):28.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-018-0061-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391–405.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chua CC, Fleming S, Wei AH. Clinicopathological aspects of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2019;32(1):3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beha.2019.02.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vargas-Rondón N, Villegas VE, Rondón-Lagos M. The role of chromosomal instability in cancer and therapeutic responses. Cancers (Basel). 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers10010004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoeijmakers JH. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(15):1475–85.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0804615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenberg PL. Synergistic interactions of molecular and clinical advances for characterizing the myelodysplastic syndrome. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13:829–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tomasetti C, Li L, Vogelstein B. Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention. Science. 2017;355(6331):1330–4.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ribeiro HL Jr, de Oliveira RT, Maia AR, et al. Polymorphisms of DNA repair genes are related to the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndrome. Hematol Oncol. 2015;33:220–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hon.2175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valka J, Vesela J, Votavova H, et al. Differential expression of homologous recombination DNA repair genes in the early and advanced stages of myelodysplastic syndrome. Eur J Haematol. 2017;99(4):323–31.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.12920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scharer OS. Nucleotide excision repair in eukaryotes. Department of Pharmacological Sciences and Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11974-3400. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013;5:a012609.  https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a012609.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alekseev S, Coin F. Orchestral maneuvers at the damaged sites in nucleotide excision repair. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015;72(11):2177–86.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-015-1859-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wouter LL, Nicolaas GJJ, Hoeijmakers JHJ. Molecular mechanism of nucleotide excision repair. Genes Dev. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.13.7.768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saijo M. The role of Cockayne syndrome group A (CSA) protein in transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair. Mech Ageing Dev. 2013;134:196–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2013.03.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petruseva IO, Evdokimov AN, Lavrik OI. Molecular mechanism of global genome nucleotide excision repair. Acta Nat. 2014;6(1):20.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mandal PK, Blanpain C, Rossi DJ. DNA damage response in adult stem cells: pathways and consequences. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2011;12:198–202.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meht AA, Habe RJE. Sources of DNA double-strand breaks and models of recombinational DNA repair. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a016428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhargava R, Onyango DO, Stark JM. Regulation of single-strand annealing and its role in genome maintenance. Trends Genet. 2016;32(9):566–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2016.06.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedenson B. The BRCA1/2 pathway prevents hematologic cancers in addition to breast and ovarian cancers. BMC Cancer. 2007;7(6):7–152.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-7-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Economopoulou P, Pappa V, Kontsioti F, et al. Expression analysis of proteins involved in the non homologous end joining DNA repair mechanism in the bone marrow of adult de novo myelodysplastic syndromes. Ann Hematol. 2010;89(3):233–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-009-0823-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434(7035):917–21.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinheiro RF, Chauffaille ML. Comparison of I-FISH and G-banding for the detection of chromosomal abnormalities during the evolution of myelodysplastic syndrome. Braz J MedBiol Res. 2009;42(11):1110–2.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2009001100018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGowan-Jordan J, Simons A, Schmid M. ISCN 2016: an international system for human cytogenomic nomenclature (2016). Cytogenet Genom Res. 2016;149:1–2.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real time quantitative PCR and the 2(−Delta DeltaC(T)) method. Methods. 2001;25:402–8.  https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative C(T) method. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(6):1101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang Z, et al. GEPIA: a web server for cancer and normal gene expression profiling and interactive analyses. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx247.10.1093/nar/gkx247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dietlein F, Thelen L, Reinhardt HC. Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways as targets for personalized therapeutic approaches. Trends Genet. 2014;30(8):326–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2014.06.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ying S, Hamdy FC, Helleday T. Mre11-dependent degradation of stalled DNA replication forks is prevented by BRCA2 and PARP1. Cancer Res. 2012;72(11):2814–21.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Metzger MJ, Stoddard BL, Monnat RJ. PARP mediated repair, homologous recombination, and back-up non-homologous end joining-like repair of single-strand nicks. DNA Repair. 2013;12(7):529–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2013.04.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nieborowska-Skorska M, Sullivan K, Dasgupta Y, et al. Gene expression and mutation-guided synthetic lethality eradicates proliferating and quiescent leukemia cells. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(6):2392–406.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI90825.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Faraoni I, Graziani G. Role of BRCA mutations in cancer treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10(12):487.  https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers10120487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Lopes Ribeiro Junior
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roberta Taiane Germano de Oliveira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniela de Paula Borges
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marília Braga Costa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Izabelle Rocha Farias
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antônio Wesley Araújo dos Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Silvia Maria Meira Magalhães
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ronald Feitosa Pinheiro
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Cancer Cytogenomic Laboratory, Center for Research and Drug Development (NPDM)Federal University of CearaFortalezaBrazil
  2. 2.Post-Graduate Program in Medical ScienceFederal University of CearaFortalezaBrazil
  3. 3.Post-Graduate Program of PathologyFederal University of CearaFortalezaBrazil

Personalised recommendations