Cited by 587DNA Repair MechanismsCancer-related Molecular PathwaysCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Therapeutic opportunities within the DNA damage response

Open access
Pearl, Laurence H., Schierz, Amanda C., Ward, Simon E., Al-Lazikani, Bissan, Pearl, Frances M. G.·2015·Nature Reviews Cancer

Abstract

The DNA damage response (DDR) is essential for maintaining the genomic integrity of the cell, and its disruption is one of the hallmarks of cancer. Classically, defects in the DDR have been exploited therapeutically in the treatment of cancer with radiation therapies or genotoxic chemotherapies. More recently, protein components of the DDR systems have been identified as promising avenues for targeted cancer therapeutics. Here, we present an in-depth analysis of the function, role in cancer and therapeutic potential of 450 expert-curated human DDR genes. We discuss the DDR drugs that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or that are under clinical investigation. We examine large-scale genomic and expression data for 15 cancers to identify deregulated components of the DDR, and we apply systematic computational analysis to identify DDR proteins that are amenable to modulation by small molecules, highlighting potential novel therapeutic targets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrc3891

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pearl, L. H., Schierz, A. C., Ward, S. E., Al-Lazikani, B., & Pearl, F. M. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • Institute of Cancer Research (GB)
Corresponding author
Pearl, Frances M. G.
Venue
Nature Reviews Cancer
Published
2015-02-24
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
166-180
ISSN
  • 1474-175X (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1768
OpenAlex
W2065087624
Cited by
587
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 16
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (C309/A11566, 11566, C302/A14532, 14532)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
DNA damage response, synthetic lethality, targeted cancer therapy, therapeutic target, genome stability, cancer genomics
MeSH terms
DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Humans, Neoplasms

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