Cited by 134DNA Repair MechanismsCancer-related Molecular PathwaysLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment

Efficacy of CHK inhibitors as single agents in MYC-driven lymphoma cells

Ferrao, P T, Bukczynska, E P, Johnstone, R W, McArthur, G A·2012·Oncogene

Abstract

CHK1 and CHK2 function as effectors of cell cycle checkpoint arrest following DNA damage. Small molecule inhibitors of CHK proteins are under clinical evaluation in combination with chemotherapeutic agents known to induce DNA damage. We examined whether CHK inhibitors could be effective as single agents in malignant cells with inherent DNA damage because of deregulated expression of the oncogene c-Myc. Eμ-myc lymphoma cells showed a dramatic increase in the extent of DNA damage and DNA damage response (DDR) signalling within 1 h of treatment with CHK1 inhibitors followed by caspase-dependent apoptosis and cell death. In p53 wild-type/ARF null Eμ-myc lymphoma cells, apoptotic cell death was preceded by accumulation of DNA damage and the amount of DNA damage correlated with the extent of cell death. This effect was not observed in normal B cells indicating that DNA damage accumulation following CHK inhibition was specific to Eμ-myc lymphoma cells that exhibit inherent DNA damage because of MYC-induced replication stress. Similar results were obtained with another structurally distinct CHK-inhibitor. Eμ-myc p53 null lymphoma cells were more sensitive to a dual CHK1/CHK2 inhibitor than to a CHK1-specific inhibitor. In all cases, the level of DNA damage following treatment was the most consistent indicator of drug sensitivity. Our results suggest that CHK inhibitors would be beneficial therapeutic agents in MYC-driven cancers. We propose that inhibitors of CHK can act in a synthetically lethal manner in cancers with replication stress as a result of these cancers being reliant on CHK proteins for an effective DDR and cell survival.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/onc.2011.358

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferrao, P. T., Bukczynska, E. P., Johnstone, R. W., & McArthur, G. A.
Affiliations
  • Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Ferrao, P T
Venue
Oncogene
Published
2011-08-15
Volume
31
Issue
13
Pages
1661-1672
ISSN
  • 0950-9232 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5594
OpenAlex
W2072763778
Cited by
133
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oncogene (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
Chk1, Chk2, MYC-driven lymphoma, Eμ-Myc lymphoma, DNA damage response, replication stress, synthetic lethality, p53, caspase-dependent apoptosis, cell cycle checkpoints, monotherapy, drug sensitivity
MeSH terms
Checkpoint Kinase 1, Animals, Benzodiazepinones, DNA Damage, Humans, Lymphoma, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Transgenic, Neoplasm Transplantation, Protein Kinases, Pyrazoles, Genes, p53, Genes, myc, Apoptosis, Caspases, Cell Line, Tumor, Mice

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