Review

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +420 241 062694; Mob.: +420 724 066944;

E-mail Address: pavel.vodicka@iem.cas.cz

Department of Molecular Biology of Cancer, Institute of Experimental Medicine, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Institute of Biology & Medical Genetics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Laboratory of Cancer Treatment and Tissue Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine & Biomedical Center in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author

Sona Vodenkova

Department of Molecular Biology of Cancer, Institute of Experimental Medicine, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Institute of Biology & Medical Genetics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Department of Medical Genetics, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 2411/87, 100 00 Prague, Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author

Tomas Buchler

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6667-994X

Department of Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University & Thomayer Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author

Ludmila Vodickova

**Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: ludmila.vodickova@iem.cas.cz

Department of Molecular Biology of Cancer, Institute of Experimental Medicine, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Institute of Biology & Medical Genetics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Laboratory of Cancer Treatment and Tissue Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine & Biomedical Center in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:6 Nov 2019https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2019-0070

View article

Abstract

DNA repair, a complex biological process, ensures genomic integrity. Alterations in DNA repair, occurring in many cancers, contribute to the accumulation of mutations in the genome, resulting in genomic instability and cancer progression. DNA repair also plays a substantial role in response to chemotherapeutics: rapidly dividing colon cancer cells, vulnerable to DNA-damaging agents and overcoming DNA repair, undergo cell death. DNA repair capacity represents a complex biomarker, integrating gene variants, gene expressions, the stability of gene products, the effect of inhibitors/stimulators, lifestyle and environmental factors. Here, we discuss DNA repair capacity in sporadic colon cancer, a frequent malignancy worldwide, in relation to tumor heterogeneity, prognosis and prediction, measurements in surrogate and target tissues and suggest important tasks to be addressed.

Keywords:

References

1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68(6), 394–424 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Frattini M, Balestra D, Suardi S et al. Different genetic features associated with colon and rectal carcinogenesis. Clini. Cancer Res. 10(12 Pt 1), 4015–4021 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Lee GH, Malietzis G, Askari A, Bernardo D, Al-Hassi HO, Clark SK. Is right-sided colon cancer different to left-sided colorectal cancer? – a systematic review. Euro. J. Surg. Oncol. 41(3), 300–308 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Punt CJ, Koopman M, Vermeulen L. From tumour heterogeneity to advances in precision treatment of colorectal cancer. Nat. Revi. Clin. Oncol. 14(4), 235–246 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Uk CR. Cancer Research UK. Bowel Cancer Incidence Statistics (2015). www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/incidence
Google Scholar
6. Lauby-Secretan B, Vilahur N, Bianchini F, Guha N, Straif K. The IARC perspective on colorectal cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(18), 1734–1740 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology 50(1), 113–130 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487(7407), 330–337 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Guinney J, Dienstmann R, Wang X et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat. Med. 21(11), 1350–1356 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Labianca R, Nordlinger B, Beretta GD et al. Early colon cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 24(Suppl. 6), vi64–vi72 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 27(8), 1386–1422 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Longley DB, Harkin DP, Johnston PG. 5-fluorouracil: mechanisms of action and clinical strategies. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3(5), 330–338 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Marques RP, Duarte GS, Sterrantino C et al. Triplet (FOLFOXIRI) versus doublet (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) backbone chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 118, 54–62 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Roos WP, Kaina B. DNA damage-induced cell death: from specific DNA lesions to the DNA damage response and apoptosis. Cancer Lett. 332(2), 237–248 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Sakasai R, Iwabuchi K. The distinctive cellular responses to DNA strand breaks caused by a DNA topoisomerase I poison in conjunction with DNA replication and RNA transcription. Genes Genet. Syst. 90(4), 187–194 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Huang Y, Li GM. DNA mismatch repair preferentially safeguards actively transcribed genes. DNA Repair 71, 82–86 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Hammond WA, Swaika A, Mody K. Pharmacologic resistance in colorectal cancer: a review. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 8(1), 57–84 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(26), 2509–2520 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Smeby J, Sveen A, Merok MA et al. CMS-dependent prognostic impact of KRAS and BRAFV600E mutations in primary colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 29(5), 1227–1234 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Mooi JK, Wirapati P, Asher R et al. The prognostic impact of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) and its predictive effects for bevacizumab benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: molecular analysis of the AGITG MAX clinical trial. Ann. Oncol. 29(11), 2240–2246 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Okita A, Takahashi S, Ouchi K et al. Consensus molecular subtypes classification of colorectal cancer as a predictive factor for chemotherapeutic efficacy against metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 9(27), 18698–18711 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Pearl LH, Schierz AC, Ward SE, Al-Lazikani B, Pearl FM. Therapeutic opportunities within the DNA damage response. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15(3), 166–180 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Nagel ZD, Margulies CM, Chaim IA et al. Multiplexed DNA repair assays for multiple lesions and multiple doses via transcription inhibition and transcriptional mutagenesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111(18), E1823–E1832 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Hosoya N, Miyagawa K. Targeting DNA damage response in cancer therapy. Cancer Sci. 105(4), 370–388 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5), 646–674 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Curtin NJ. DNA repair dysregulation from cancer driver to therapeutic target. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12(12), 801–817 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Roos WP, Thomas AD, Kaina B. DNA damage and the balance between survival and death in cancer biology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 16(1), 20–33 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Stover EH, Konstantinopoulos PA, Matulonis UA, Swisher EM. Biomarkers of response and resistance to DNA repair targeted therapies. Clin. Cancer Res. 22(23), 5651–5660 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. O'connor MJ. Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Mol. Cell 60(4), 547–560 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Kunicka T, Prochazka P, Krus I et al. Molecular profile of 5-fluorouracil pathway genes in colorectal carcinoma. BMC Cancer 16(1), 795 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Wyatt MD, Wilson DM 3rd. Participation of DNA repair in the response to 5-fluorouracil. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 66(5), 788–799 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Sengupta T, Torgersen ML, Kassahun H, Vellai T, Simonsen A, Nilsen H. Base excision repair AP endonucleases and mismatch repair act together to induce checkpoint-mediated autophagy. Nat. Commun. 4, 2674 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Wallace SS. Base excision repair: a critical player in many games. DNA Repair 19, 14–26 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Leguisamo NM, Gloria HC, Kalil AN et al. Base excision repair imbalance in colorectal cancer has prognostic value and modulates response to chemotherapy. Oncotarget 8(33), 54199–54214 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Fischer F, Baerenfaller K, Jiricny J. 5-Fluorouracil is efficiently removed from DNA by the base excision and mismatch repair systems. Gastroenterology 133(6), 1858–1868 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Kawakami H, Zaanan A, Sinicrope FA. Microsatellite instability testing and its role in the management of colorectal cancer. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 16(7), 30 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Auclin E, Zaanan A, Vernerey D et al. Subgroups and prognostication in stage III colon cancer: future perspectives for adjuvant therapy. Ann. Oncol. 28(5), 958–968 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Begum R, Martin SA. Targeting mismatch repair defects: a novel strategy for personalized cancer treatment. DNA Repair 38, 135–139 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Shimodaira H, Yoshioka-Yamashita A, Kolodner RD, Wang JY. Interaction of mismatch repair protein PMS2 and the p53-related transcription factor p73 in apoptosis response to cisplatin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100(5), 2420–2425 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Kap EJ, Popanda O, Chang-Claude J. Nucleotide excision repair and response and survival to chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients. Pharmacogenomics 17(7), 755–794 (2016).
CASGoogle Scholar
41. Slyskova J, Cordero F, Pardini B et al. Post-treatment recovery of suboptimal DNA repair capacity and gene expression levels in colorectal cancer patients. Mol. Carcinog. 54(9), 769–778 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Tomlinson IP, Houlston RS, Montgomery GW, Sieber OM, Dunlop MG. Investigation of the effects of DNA repair gene polymorphisms on the risk of colorectal cancer. Mutagenesis 27(2), 219–223 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Nagel ZD, Chaim IA, Samson LD. Inter-individual variation in DNA repair capacity: a need for multi-pathway functional assays to promote translational DNA repair research. DNA Repair 19, 199–213 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Nagel ZD, Kitange GJ, Gupta SK et al. DNA repair capacity in multiple pathways predicts chemoresistance in glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Res. 77(1), 198–206 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Holton NW, Ebenstein Y, Gassman NR. Broad spectrum detection of DNA damage by repair assisted damage detection (RADD). DNA Repair 66–67, 42–49 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Healing E, Charlier CF, Meira LB, Elliott RM. A panel of colorimetric assays to measure enzymatic activity in the base excision DNA repair pathway. Nucleic Acids Res. doi:10.1093/nar/gkz171 (2019) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Slyskova J, Naccarati A, Polakova V et al. DNA damage and nucleotide excision repair capacity in healthy individuals. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 52(7), 511–517 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Vodenkova S, Jiraskova K, Urbanova M et al. Base excision repair capacity as a determinant of prognosis and therapy response in colon cancer patients. DNA Repair (Amst) 72, 77–85 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Herrera M, Dominguez G, Garcia JM et al. Differences in repair of DNA cross-links between lymphocytes and epithelial tumor cells from colon cancer patients measured in vitro with the comet assay. Clin. Cancer Res. 15(17), 5466–5472 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Slyskova J, Korenkova V, Collins AR et al. Functional, genetic, and epigenetic aspects of base and nucleotide excision repair in colorectal carcinomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 18(21), 5878–5887 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Kontek R, Drozda R, Sliwinski M, Grzegorczyk K. Genotoxicity of irinotecan and its modulation by vitamins A, C and E in human lymphocytes from healthy individuals and cancer patients. Toxicol. In Vitro 24(2), 417–424 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Przybylowska K, Kabzinski J, Sygut A, Dziki L, Dziki A, Majsterek I. An association selected polymorphisms of XRCC1, OGG1 and MUTYH gene and the level of efficiency oxidative DNA damage repair with a risk of colorectal cancer. Mutat. Res. 745–746, 6–15 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53. Slyskova J, Naccarati A, Pardini B et al. Differences in nucleotide excision repair capacity between newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients and healthy controls. Mutagenesis 27(4), 519–522 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Kaina B, Izzotti A, Xu J et al. Inherent and toxicant-provoked reduction in DNA repair capacity: a key mechanism for personalized risk assessment, cancer prevention and intervention, and response to therapy. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 221(7), 993–1006 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55. Slyskova J, Lorenzo Y, Karlsen A et al. Both genetic and dietary factors underlie individual differences in DNA damage levels and DNA repair capacity. DNA Repair 16, 66–73 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Collins AR, Azqueta A. DNA repair as a biomarker in human biomonitoring studies; further applications of the comet assay. Mutat. Res. 736(1–2), 122–129 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Vodicka P, Kumar R, Stetina R et al. Markers of individual susceptibility and DNA repair rate in workers exposed to xenobiotics in a tire plant. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 44(4), 283–292 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Vodicka P, Tuimala J, Stetina R et al. Cytogenetic markers, DNA single-strand breaks, urinary metabolites, and DNA repair rates in styrene-exposed lamination workers. Environ. Health Perspect. 112(8), 867–871 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Pardini B, Rosa F, Barone E et al. Variation within 3′-UTRs of base excision repair genes and response to therapy in colorectal cancer patients: a potential modulation of microRNAs binding. Clin. Cancer Res. 19(21), 6044–6056 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Minten EV, Yu DS. DNA repair: translation to the clinic. Clin. Oncol. (R. Col. Radiol.) 31(5), 303–310 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 20, No. 17

Metrics

Downloaded 137 times

History

Received 14 May 2019

Accepted 20 September 2019

Published online 6 November 2019

Published in print November 2019

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the searching of literature and writing the text.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the COST Action CA15132, ‘hCOMET’, for support.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This work was supported by GACR [18-09709S]; the AZV [15-27580A and NV18-00199]; the Charles University Research Centre program [UNCE/MED/006]; the Charles University Research Fund [Progres Q39 and Q28]. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

DNA repair capacity and response to treatment of colon cancer

Abstract

References