CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,649

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The DNA damage response and cancer therapy

Lord, Christopher J., Ashworth, Alan·2012·Nature
DOI 10.1038/nature10760
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Genomic instability is one of the most pervasive characteristics of tumour cells and is probably the combined effect of DNA damage, tumour-specific DNA repair defects, and a failure to stop or stall the cell cycle before the damaged DNA is passed on to daughter cells. Although these processes drive genomic instability and ultimately the disease process, they also provide therapeutic opportunities. A better understanding of the cellular response to DNA damage will not only inform our knowledge of cancer development but also help to refine the classification as well as the treatment of the disease.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature10760

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Organisms have evolved a complex network of DNA repair mechanisms that are collectively capable of dealing with most of the damage inflicted to nuclear DNA.

    “To minimize these lesions, organisms have evolved a complex network of DNA repair mechanisms that are collectively capable of dealing with most of the damage inflicted to nuclear DNA (Lord and Ashworth, 2012).”

    From The Hallmarks of Aging (2013) · cites this paper as Lord and Ashworth, 2012

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Boveri, T. Zur Frage der Entstehung Maligner Tumoren (Gustav Fischer, 1914).
  2. Boveri, T. Concerning the origin of malignant tumours by Theodor Boveri. Translated and annotated by Henry Harris. J. Cell Sci. 121, 1–84 (2008). A translation of Boveri's original work that proposed the hypothesis that a form of genomic dysregulation characterizes tumour cells. · DOI
  3. Ciccia, A. & Elledge, S. J. The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol. Cell 40, 179–204 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Hoeijmakers, J. H. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 1475–1485 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Phillips, D. H., Hewer, A., Martin, C. N., Garner, R. C. & King, M. M. Correlation of DNA adduct levels in human lung with cigarette smoking. Nature 336, 790–792 (1988). · DOI
  6. Nakabeppu, Y. et al. Mutagenesis and carcinogenesis caused by the oxidation of nucleic acids. Biol. Chem. 387, 373–379 (2006). · DOI
  7. Moynahan, M. E. & Jasin, M. Mitotic homologous recombination maintains genomic stability and suppresses tumorigenesis. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 11, 196–207 (2010). · DOI
  8. Lieber, M. R. NHEJ and its backup pathways in chromosomal translocations. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 393–395 (2010). · DOI
  9. Jiricny, J. The multifaceted mismatch-repair system. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol 7, 335–346 (2006). · DOI
  10. Stephens, P. J. et al. Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell 144, 27–40 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bell, O., Tiwari, V. K., Thoma, N. H. & Schubeler, D. Determinants and dynamics of genome accessibility. Nature Rev. Genet. 12, 554–564 (2011). · DOI
  12. Warmerdam, D. O. & Kanaar, R. Dealing with DNA damage: relationships between checkpoint and repair pathways. Mutat. Res. 704, 2–11 (2010). · DOI
  13. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474, 609–615 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bartkova, J. et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 444, 633–637 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Halazonetis, T. D., Gorgoulis, V. G. & Bartek, J. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 319, 1352–1355 (2008). References 18 and 19 describes how oncogenes are able to induce the DDR early in oncogenesis. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Turner, N., Tutt, A. & Ashworth, A. Hallmarks of 'BRCAness' in sporadic cancers. Nature Rev. Cancer 4, 814–819 (2004). · DOI
  17. Banerjee, S., Kaye, S. B. & Ashworth, A. Making the best of PARP inhibitors inovarian cancer. Nature Rev. Clin. Oncol. 7, 508–519 (2010). · DOI
  18. Friboulet, L. et al. Molecular characteristics of ERCC1-negative versus ERCC1-positive tumors in resected NSCLC. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 5562–5572 (2011). · DOI
  19. Weller, M. et al. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine? Nature Rev. Neurol. 6, 39–51 (2010). · DOI
  20. Pommier, Y., Leo, E., Zhang, H. & Marchand, C. DNA topoisomerases and their poisoning by anticancer and antibacterial drugs. Chem. Biol. 17, 421–433 (2010). · DOI
  21. Rouleau, M., Patel, A., Hendzel, M. J., Kaufmann, S. H. & Poirier, G. G. PARP inhibition: PARP1 and beyond. Nature Rev. Cancer 10, 293–301 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Zaremba, T. & Curtin, N. J. PARP inhibitor development for systemic cancer targeting. Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 7, 515–523 (2007). · DOI
  23. Lord, C. J. & Ashworth, A. Targeted therapy for cancer using PARP inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 8, 363–369 (2008). · DOI
  24. Dobzhansky, T. Genetics of natural populations. Xiii. Recombination and variability in populations of drosophila pseudoobscura . Genetics 31, 269–290 (1946). · DOI
  25. Hartwell, L. H., Szankasi, P., Roberts, C. J., Murray, A. W. & Friend, S. H. Integrating genetic approaches into the discovery of anticancer drugs. Science 278, 1064–1068 (1997). · DOI
  26. Kaelin, W. G. Jr. Synthetic lethality: a framework for the development of wiser cancer therapeutics. Genome Med. 1, 99 (2009). · DOI
  27. Issaeva, N. et al. 6-Thioguanine selectively kills BRCA2-defective tumors and overcomes PARP inhibitor resistance. Cancer Res. 70, 6268–6276 (2010). · DOI
  28. Martin, S. A. et al. DNA polymerases as potential therapeutic targets for cancers deficient in the DNA mismatch repair proteins MSH2 or MLH1. Cancer Cell 17, 235–248 (2010). · DOI
  29. Martin, S. A., Hewish, M., Sims, D., Lord, C. J. & Ashworth, A. Parallel high-throughput RNA interference screens identify PINK1 as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of DNA mismatch repair-deficient cancers. Cancer Res. 71, 1836–1848 (2011). · DOI
  30. Martin, S. A. et al. Methotrexate induces oxidative DNA damage and is selectively lethal to tumour cells with defects in the DNA mismatch repair gene MSH2 . EMBO Mol. Med. 1, 323–337 (2009). · DOI
  31. Balmaña, J., Domchek, S. M., Tutt, A. & Garber, J. E. Stumbling blocks on the path to personalized medicine in breast cancer: the case of PARP inhibitors for BRCA1/2-associated cancers. Cancer Discov. 1, 29–34 (2011). · DOI
  32. Mendeleyev, J., Kirsten, E., Hakam, A., Buki, K. G. & Kun, E. Potential chemotherapeutic activity of 4-iodo-3-nitrobenzamide. Metabolic reduction to the 3-nitroso derivative and induction of cell death in tumor cells in culture. Biochem. Pharmacol. 50, 705–714 (1995). · DOI
  33. Liu, X. et al. Iniparib non-selectively modifies cysteine-containing proteins in tumor cells and is not a bona fide PARP inhibitor. Clin. Cancer Res. advance ahead of print http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1973 (29 November 2011). · DOI
  34. McCabe, N. et al. Deficiency in the repair of DNA damage by homologous recombination and sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition. Cancer Res. 66, 8109–8115 (2006). · DOI
  35. Peasland, A. et al. Identification and evaluation of a potent novel ATR inhibitor, NU6027, in breast and ovarian cancer cell lines. Br. J. Cancer 105, 372–381 (2011). · DOI
  36. Murai, J. et al. The USP1/UAF1 complex promotes double-strand break repair through homologous recombination. Mol. Cell. Biol. 31, 2462–2469 (2011). · DOI
  37. Moskwa, P. et al. miR-182-mediated downregulation of BRCA1 impacts DNA repair and sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. Mol. Cell 41, 210–220 (2011). · DOI
  38. Johnson, N. et al. Compromised CDK1 activity sensitizes BRCA-proficient cancers to PARP inhibition. Nature Med. 17, 875–882 (2011). · DOI
  39. Akamatsu, Y. & Jasin, M. Role for the mammalian Swi5−Sfr1 complex in DNA strand break repair through homologous recombination. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001160 (2010). · DOI
  40. Mendes-Pereira, A. M. et al. Synthetic lethal targeting of PTEN mutant cells with PARP inhibitors. EMBO Mol. Med. 1, 315–322 (2009). · DOI
  41. Brenner, J. C. et al. Mechanistic rationale for inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in ETS gene fusion-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 19, 664–678 (2011). An important paper suggesting that ETS gene fusions may confer PARP-inhibitor sensitivity in prostate cancer. · DOI
  42. Sakai, W. et al. Functional restoration of BRCA2 protein by secondary BRCA2 mutations in BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 69, 6381–6386 (2009). · DOI
  43. Swisher, E. M. et al. Secondary BRCA1 mutations in BRCA1-mutated ovarian carcinomas with platinum resistance. Cancer Res. 68, 2581–2586 (2008). · DOI
  44. Norquist, B. et al. Secondary somatic mutations restoring BRCA1/2 predict chemotherapy resistance in hereditary ovarian carcinomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3008–3015 (2011). · DOI
  45. Rottenberg, S. et al. High sensitivity of BRCA1-deficient mammary tumors to the PARP inhibitor AZD2281 alone and in combination with platinum drugs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17079–17084 (2008). · DOI
  46. Bouwman, P. et al. 53BP1 loss rescues BRCA1 deficiency and is associated with triple-negative and BRCA- mutated breast cancers. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 688–695 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  47. Bunting, S. F. et al. 53BP1 inhibits homologous recombination in Brca1-deficient cells by blocking resection of DNA breaks. Cell 141, 243–254 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  48. Jiang, H. et al. The combined status of ATM and p53 link tumor development with therapeutic response. Genes Dev. 23, 1895–1909 (2009). · DOI
  49. Galanty, Y. et al. Mammalian SUMO E3-ligases PIAS1 and PIAS4 promote responses to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 462, 935–939 (2009). · DOI
  50. Lansdorp, P. M. Immortal strands? Give me a break. Cell 129, 1244–1247 (2007). · DOI
  51. Diehn, M. et al. Association of reactive oxygen species levels and radioresistance in cancer stem cells. Nature 458, 780–783 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  52. Zhang, M., Atkinson, R. L. & Rosen, J. M. Selective targeting of radiation-resistant tumor-initiating cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 3522–3527 (2010). · DOI
  53. Singh, S. K. et al. Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature 432, 396–401 (2004). · DOI
  54. Bao, S. et al. Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response. Nature 444, 756–760 (2006). · DOI
  55. Mantoni, T. S., Lunardi, S., Al-Assar, O., Masamune, A. & Brunner, T. B. Pancreatic stellate cells radioprotect pancreatic cancer cells through beta 1-integrin signaling. Cancer Res. 71, 3453–3458 (2011). · DOI
  56. Stratton, M. R. Exploring the genomes of cancer cells: progress and promise. Science 331, 1553–1558 (2011). · DOI
  57. Stephens, P. J. et al. Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer genomes. Nature 462, 1005–1010 (2009). · DOI
  58. Barber, L. J. et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis of a BRCA2 deficient human pancreatic cancer. PLoS ONE 6, e21639 (2011). · DOI
  59. Graeser, M. et al. A marker of homologous recombination predicts pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 6159–6168 (2010). · DOI
  60. Polo, S. E. & Jackson, S. P. Dynamics of DNA damage response proteins at DNA breaks: a focus on protein modifications. Genes Dev. 25, 409–433 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  61. Liu, P. et al. Chromosome catastrophes involve replication mechanisms generating complex genomic rearrangements. Cell 146, 889–903 (2011). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lord, C. J., & Ashworth, A.
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-01
Volume
481
Issue
7381
Pages
287-294
ISSN
  • 0028-0836
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/nature10760
Cited by
1,649
References
12
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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