CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261DNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceDNA Repair Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Targeting BRCA1 and BRCA2 Deficiencies with G-Quadruplex-Interacting Compounds

Open access
Zimmer, Jutta, Tacconi, Eliana M.C., Folio, Cecilia, Badie, Sophie, Porru, Manuela, Klare, Kerstin, Tumiati, Manuela, Markkanen, Enni, Halder, Swagata, Ryan, Anderson, Jackson, Stephen P., Ramadan, Kristijan, Kuznetsov, Sergey G., Biroccio, Annamaria, Sale, Julian E., Tarsounas, Madalena·2016·Molecular Cell
DOI 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.004PMC PMC4747901
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

G-quadruplex (G4)-forming genomic sequences, including telomeres, represent natural replication fork barriers. Stalled replication forks can be stabilized and restarted by homologous recombination (HR), which also repairs DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) arising at collapsed forks. We have previously shown that HR facilitates telomere replication. Here, we demonstrate that the replication efficiency of guanine-rich (G-rich) telomeric repeats is decreased significantly in cells lacking HR. Treatment with the G4-stabilizing compound pyridostatin (PDS) increases telomere fragility in BRCA2-deficient cells, suggesting that G4 formation drives telomere instability. Remarkably, PDS reduces proliferation of HR-defective cells by inducing DSB accumulation, checkpoint activation, and deregulated G2/M progression and by enhancing the replication defect intrinsic to HR deficiency. PDS toxicity extends to HR-defective cells that have acquired olaparib resistance through loss of 53BP1 or REV7. Altogether, these results highlight the therapeutic potential of G4-stabilizing drugs to selectively eliminate HR-compromised cells and tumors, including those resistant to PARP inhibition.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.004

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1 RAD51C and BRCA2 Prevent Lagging-Strand Telomere Fragility (A and B) Replication efficiency of a plasmid containing (TTAGGG)7 in H1299 cells expressing doxycycline (DOX)-inducible RAD51C (A) or BRCA2 (B) shRNAs is shown relative to the replication efficiency of the empty vector (n = 3 for RAD51CshDOX; n = 4 for BRCA2shDOX; error bars, SEM). p values were calculated using a one-sample t test (∗p ≤ 0.05 and ∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001). Cell extracts prepared at the time of plasmid transfection were immunoblotted as indicated. GAPDH and SMC1 were used as loading controls. (C) CO-FISH detection of lagging (G-rich, green) and leading (C-rich, red) telomeric strands in immortalized Rad51cF/F MEFs treated with Cre (+Cre) and control (−Cre) retroviruses. Enlarged inset shows the area marked with the yellow rectangle. Arrows mark lagging-strand fragile telomeres. (D and E) Quantification of fragile telomeres in immortalized Rad51cF/F (D) and Brca2F/- (E) MEFs. Approximately 1,000 telomeres were scored per condition per replica (n = 2; error bars, SD). See also Figure S1.
Figure 1 RAD51C and BRCA2 Prevent Lagging-Strand Telomere Fragility (A and B) Replication efficiency of a plasmid containing (TTAGGG)7 in H1299 cells expressing doxycycline (DOX)-inducible RAD51C (A) or BRCA2 (B) shRNAs is shown relative to the replication efficiency of the empty vector (n = 3 for RAD51CshDOX; n = 4 for BRCA2shDOX; error bars, SEM). p values were calculated using a one-sample t test (∗p ≤ 0.05 and ∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001). Cell extracts prepared at the time of plasmid transfection were immunoblotted as indicated. GAPDH and SMC1 were used as loading controls. (C) CO-FISH detection of lagging (G-rich, green) and leading (C-rich, red) telomeric strands in immortalized Rad51cF/F MEFs treated with Cre (+Cre) and control (−Cre) retroviruses. Enlarged inset shows the area marked with the yellow rectangle. Arrows mark lagging-strand fragile telomeres. (D and E) Quantification of fragile telomeres in immortalized Rad51cF/F (D) and Brca2F/- (E) MEFs. Approximately 1,000 telomeres were scored per condition per replica (n = 2; error bars, SD). See also Figure S1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Effect of the G4-Interacting Compound PDS on Telomere Fragility and Viability of Brca-Deficient MEFs (A) Mitotic chromosome spreads of p53−/− MEFs grown in the presence (+PDS) or absence (−PDS) of 5 μM PDS for 48 hr. Preparations were fixed and stained with anti-γH2AX monoclonal antibody (green). Telomeres were visualized with a Cy3-conjugated (CCCTAA)6-PNA probe (red), using identical exposure conditions for untreated and PDS-treated cells. DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (B) Quantification of fragile telomeres visualized by FISH on metaphase chromosomes from Brca2F/- MEFs treated with Cre (+Cre) and control (−Cre) retroviruses incubated with 5 μM PDS for 40 hr (n = 2; > 1,500 long-arm telomeres were scored per condition per replica; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (C) Dose-dependent viability assays of Brca2F/- MEFs treated with Cre (+Cre) and control (−Cre) retroviruses exposed to PDS or olaparib at the indicated concentrations. (D) Dose-dependent viability assays of Brca1F/- MEFs treated as in (C). (E) Dose-dependent viability assays of immortalized (imm.) MEFs treated as in (C) with retroviruses encoding shRNA against GFP or 53BP1 (Bouwman et al., 2010). Cell extracts were immunoblotted as indicated. SMC1 was used as a loading control. See also Figures S1 and S2. Graphs shown are representative of at least two independent experiments, each performed in triplicate. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment.
Figure 2 Effect of the G4-Interacting Compound PDS on Telomere Fragility and Viability of Brca-Deficient MEFs (A) Mitotic chromosome spreads of p53−/− MEFs grown in the presence (+PDS) or absence (−PDS) of 5 μM PDS for 48 hr. Preparations were fixed and stained with anti-γH2AX monoclonal antibody (green). Telomeres were visualized with a Cy3-conjugated (CCCTAA)6-PNA probe (red), using identical exposure conditions for untreated and PDS-treated cells. DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (B) Quantification of fragile telomeres visualized by FISH on metaphase chromosomes from Brca2F/- MEFs treated with Cre (+Cre) and control (−Cre) retroviruses incubated with 5 μM PDS for 40 hr (n = 2; > 1,500 long-arm telomeres were scored per condition per replica; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (C) Dose-dependent viability assays of Brca2F/- MEFs treated with Cre (+Cre) and control (−Cre) retroviruses exposed to PDS or olaparib at the indicated concentrations. (D) Dose-dependent viability assays of Brca1F/- MEFs treated as in (C). (E) Dose-dependent viability assays of immortalized (imm.) MEFs treated as in (C) with retroviruses encoding shRNA against GFP or 53BP1 (Bouwman et al., 2010). Cell extracts were immunoblotted as indicated. SMC1 was used as a loading control. See also Figures S1 and S2. Graphs shown are representative of at least two independent experiments, each performed in triplicate. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Effect of PDS on BRCA2- or RAD51-Deficient Human Cell Viability (A and B) Dose-dependent viability assays of DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), treated with indicated concentrations of PDS (A) or olaparib (B). (C–E) Dose-dependent viability assays of HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 siRNA treated with indicated concentrations of PDS (C), olaparib (D), or PhenDC (E). Graphs shown are representative of at least two independent experiments, each performed in triplicate. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment. (F) Whole-cell extracts prepared after 4 days of treatment with 2 μM PDS or PhenDC (PhDC) were immunoblotted as indicated. Tubulin was used as a loading control. See also Figure S2.
Figure 3 Effect of PDS on BRCA2- or RAD51-Deficient Human Cell Viability (A and B) Dose-dependent viability assays of DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), treated with indicated concentrations of PDS (A) or olaparib (B). (C–E) Dose-dependent viability assays of HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 siRNA treated with indicated concentrations of PDS (C), olaparib (D), or PhenDC (E). Graphs shown are representative of at least two independent experiments, each performed in triplicate. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment. (F) Whole-cell extracts prepared after 4 days of treatment with 2 μM PDS or PhenDC (PhDC) were immunoblotted as indicated. Tubulin was used as a loading control. See also Figure S2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Elevated Levels of DNA Damage in RAD51-Deficient Human Cells Treated with PDS (A) Representative images of HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 siRNA and treated with PDS for 4 days before processing for immunofluorescence staining with anti-γH2AX antibody (green). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (B) Quantification of the frequency of cells with ≥5 γH2AX foci treated as in (A); n = 3; error bars, SD. p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗p ≤ 0.01). (C) Representative images of cells treated as in (A) processed for comet assays. Scale bar, 50 μm. (D) Quantification of tail moment using comet assays of cells treated as in (A); n = 3; error bars, SD. p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (E) Representative images of FISH analysis of metaphase chromosome spreads of cells treated as in (A) with a Cy3-conjugated telomeric probe (red). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). Arrowheads point to chromatid/chromosome breaks. (F) Quantification of mean DSB frequencies (red bars) in cells treated as in (A). Approximately 40 metaphases were analyzed for each sample. See also Figure S3.
Figure 4 Elevated Levels of DNA Damage in RAD51-Deficient Human Cells Treated with PDS (A) Representative images of HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 siRNA and treated with PDS for 4 days before processing for immunofluorescence staining with anti-γH2AX antibody (green). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (B) Quantification of the frequency of cells with ≥5 γH2AX foci treated as in (A); n = 3; error bars, SD. p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗p ≤ 0.01). (C) Representative images of cells treated as in (A) processed for comet assays. Scale bar, 50 μm. (D) Quantification of tail moment using comet assays of cells treated as in (A); n = 3; error bars, SD. p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (E) Representative images of FISH analysis of metaphase chromosome spreads of cells treated as in (A) with a Cy3-conjugated telomeric probe (red). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). Arrowheads point to chromatid/chromosome breaks. (F) Quantification of mean DSB frequencies (red bars) in cells treated as in (A). Approximately 40 metaphases were analyzed for each sample. See also Figure S3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 PDS Exacerbates the Replication Defect of RAD51- and BRCA2-Deficient Human Cells. (A) Representative images of HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 siRNA and treated with PDS for 4 days before processing for immunofluorescence staining with anti-RPA antibody (green). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (B) Quantification of the frequency of cells with ≥10 RPA foci treated as in (A); n = 3; error bars, SD. p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗p ≤ 0.01). (C) HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 esiRNA were processed for DNA fiber analysis as outlined in the inset, followed by quantification of the frequency of newly fired origins (n = 2; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (D) Quantification of the relative replication tract length (IdU/CldU) in cells treated as in (C). Middle line represents median, and the box extends from the 25th to 75th percentiles. The whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. p values were calculated using a Mann-Whitney test (n = 2; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001). (E) DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), were processed for DNA fiber analysis as outlined in the inset, followed by quantification of the frequency of newly fired origins (n = 2; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (F) Quantification of the relative replication tract length (IdU/CldU) in cells treated as in (E). Middle line represents median, and the box extends from the 25th to 75th percentiles. The whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. p values were calculated using a Mann-Whitney test (n = 2; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001). See also Figure S4.
Figure 5 PDS Exacerbates the Replication Defect of RAD51- and BRCA2-Deficient Human Cells. (A) Representative images of HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 siRNA and treated with PDS for 4 days before processing for immunofluorescence staining with anti-RPA antibody (green). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (B) Quantification of the frequency of cells with ≥10 RPA foci treated as in (A); n = 3; error bars, SD. p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗p ≤ 0.01). (C) HEK293T cells transfected with control or RAD51 esiRNA were processed for DNA fiber analysis as outlined in the inset, followed by quantification of the frequency of newly fired origins (n = 2; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (D) Quantification of the relative replication tract length (IdU/CldU) in cells treated as in (C). Middle line represents median, and the box extends from the 25th to 75th percentiles. The whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. p values were calculated using a Mann-Whitney test (n = 2; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001). (E) DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), were processed for DNA fiber analysis as outlined in the inset, followed by quantification of the frequency of newly fired origins (n = 2; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗p ≤ 0.05). (F) Quantification of the relative replication tract length (IdU/CldU) in cells treated as in (E). Middle line represents median, and the box extends from the 25th to 75th percentiles. The whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. p values were calculated using a Mann-Whitney test (n = 2; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001). See also Figure S4.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Effect of PDS on Viability of BRCA2-Deficient Cells and Tumors (A) DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), were incubated with 2 μM PDS. Whole-cell extracts (WCE) or chromatin fractions prepared at indicated time points were immunoblotted as shown. (B) Cells treated as in (A) were processed for FACS analyses of DNA content after 48 hr. Quantification of the percentage of cells in G2/M is shown (n = 3; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001; ∗∗∗∗p ≤ 0.0001). (C) Clonogenic survival assays of DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), exposed to the indicated concentrations of RHPS4 for 24 hr. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment. (D and E) Mean tumor weights in untreated and RHPS4-treated mice injected with BRCA2-proficient (+BRCA2; D) or deficient (−BRCA2; E) DLD1 cells (n = 8; error bars, SD). Tumor weight inhibition (TWI) was calculated at the time point of maximum effect. See also Figures S5 and S6.
Figure 6 Effect of PDS on Viability of BRCA2-Deficient Cells and Tumors (A) DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), were incubated with 2 μM PDS. Whole-cell extracts (WCE) or chromatin fractions prepared at indicated time points were immunoblotted as shown. (B) Cells treated as in (A) were processed for FACS analyses of DNA content after 48 hr. Quantification of the percentage of cells in G2/M is shown (n = 3; error bars, SD). p values were calculated using an unpaired two-tailed t test (∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001; ∗∗∗∗p ≤ 0.0001). (C) Clonogenic survival assays of DLD1 cells, BRCA2 proficient (+BRCA2) or deficient (−BRCA2), exposed to the indicated concentrations of RHPS4 for 24 hr. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment. (D and E) Mean tumor weights in untreated and RHPS4-treated mice injected with BRCA2-proficient (+BRCA2; D) or deficient (−BRCA2; E) DLD1 cells (n = 8; error bars, SD). Tumor weight inhibition (TWI) was calculated at the time point of maximum effect. See also Figures S5 and S6.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Olaparib-Resistant Brca1-Deleted Tumor Cells Exhibit PDS Sensitivity (A and B) Dose-dependent viability assays of mouse mammary tumor-derived cell lines deficient in REV7 (A) or 53BP1 (B) treated with indicated concentrations of PDS or olaparib. Graphs shown are representative of at least two independent experiments, each performed in triplicate. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment. (C) Representative images of cells described in (A) incubated with 0.5 μM olaparib (OLAP), PDS for 40 hr, or irradiated with 10 Gy of IR followed by 1 hr recovery and processed for immunofluorescence staining with anti-RAD51 antibody (green). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (D) Quantification of the frequency of cells with ≥5 RAD51 foci in cells treated as in (C); n = 2; error bars, SD; >200 nuclei were analyzed for each condition per replica. See also Figure S7.
Figure 7 Olaparib-Resistant Brca1-Deleted Tumor Cells Exhibit PDS Sensitivity (A and B) Dose-dependent viability assays of mouse mammary tumor-derived cell lines deficient in REV7 (A) or 53BP1 (B) treated with indicated concentrations of PDS or olaparib. Graphs shown are representative of at least two independent experiments, each performed in triplicate. Error bars represent SD of triplicate values obtained from a single experiment. (C) Representative images of cells described in (A) incubated with 0.5 μM olaparib (OLAP), PDS for 40 hr, or irradiated with 10 Gy of IR followed by 1 hr recovery and processed for immunofluorescence staining with anti-RAD51 antibody (green). DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). (D) Quantification of the frequency of cells with ≥5 RAD51 foci in cells treated as in (C); n = 2; error bars, SD; >200 nuclei were analyzed for each condition per replica. See also Figure S7.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bouwman, 2014, Molecular pathways: how can BRCA-mutated tumors become resistant to PARP inhibitors?, Clin. Cancer Res., 20, 540, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0225 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zimmer, J., Tacconi, E. M. C., Folio, C., Badie, S., Porru, M., Klare, K., Tumiati, M., Markkanen, E., Halder, S., Ryan, A., Jackson, S. P., Ramadan, K., Kuznetsov, S. G., Biroccio, A., Sale, J. E., & Tarsounas, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Instituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena (IT)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (GB)
Corresponding author
Tarsounas, Madalena
ORCID
Venue
Molecular Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
449-460
ISSN
1097-2765 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.004
PMC
PMC4747901
OpenAlex
W2207187217
Cited by
261
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 9
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Molecular Cell (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (WT092096, 092096)
  • Cancer Research UK (17201, 18796, S_3001, 11224)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (141197)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_PC_12001/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Telomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
Keywords
G-quadruplex, BRCA1, BRCA2, homologous recombination deficiency, telomere replication, telomere instability, pyridostatin, DNA damage checkpoint, G2/M transition, olaparib resistance, 53BP1, REV7, PARP inhibitor resistance, replication fork collapse
MeSH terms
Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors, Tumor Suppressor p53-Binding Protein 1, Aminoquinolines, Animals, Antineoplastic Agents, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Male, Mice, Nude, Neoplasms, Picolinic Acids, Time Factors, Transfection, Biomarkers, Tumor, Telomere, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, BRCA1 Protein, Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays, BRCA2 Protein, RNA Interference, Tumor Burden, Intracellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, Cell Proliferation, DNA Breaks, Double-Stranded, G-Quadruplexes, HEK293 Cells, Molecular Targeted Therapy, G2 Phase Cell Cycle Checkpoints, Mad2 Proteins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review