Key Points
-
Tumour cells generally show enhanced replicative stress, a condition in which DNA polymerases lag behind unwinding DNA. These replication forks trigger a specific stress response.
-
Replicative stress can result from enhanced proliferative stimuli in tumour cells. It is accompanied by replication fork stalling, disassembly of the replication machinery and, ultimately, breakage of DNA.
-
Replicative stress can be further enhanced by chemotherapeutics, such as nucleoside analogues, topoisomerase inhibitors and DNA-modifying drugs.
-
Numerous signalling intermediates modulate the development of replicative stress and the cellular response to it. Many of these are established or potential drug targets to enhance replicative stress to eliminate tumour cells.
-
Anticancer therapy does not necessarily need to inhibit cell cycle progression. Rather, the general lack of growth control in cancer cells, which pushes them further through DNA replication, could be exploited to elicit a stress condition that promotes cancer cell death.
Abstract
DNA replication in cancer cells is accompanied by stalling and collapse of the replication fork and signalling in response to DNA damage and/or premature mitosis; these processes are collectively known as 'replicative stress'. Progress is being made to increase our understanding of the mechanisms that govern replicative stress, thus providing ample opportunities to enhance replicative stress for therapeutic purposes. Rather than trying to halt cell cycle progression, cancer therapeutics could aim to increase replicative stress by further loosening the checkpoints that remain available to cancer cells and ultimately inducing the catastrophic failure of proliferative machineries. In this Review, we outline current and future approaches to achieve this, emphasizing the combination of conventional chemotherapy with targeted approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Branzei, D. & Foiani, M. Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 11, 208–219 (2010).
Jackson, S. P. & Bartek, J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461, 1071–1078 (2009).
Sabatinos, S. A. Recovering a stalled replication fork. Nature Educ. 3, 31 (2010).
Zeman, M. K. & Cimprich, K. A. Causes and consequences of replication stress. Nature Cell Biol. 16, 2–9 (2014).
Matsuoka, S. et al. ATM and ATR substrate analysis reveals extensive protein networks responsive to DNA damage. Science 316, 1160–1166 (2007).
Gorgoulis, V. G. et al. Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint and genomic instability in human precancerous lesions. Nature 434, 907–913 (2005).
Bartkova, J. et al. DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature 434, 864–870 (2005).
Bartkova, J. et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 444, 633–637 (2006). References 7 and 8 show that replicative stress is specifically found in tumour cells.
Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).
Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100, 57–70 (2000).
Gorgoulis, V. G. & Halazonetis, T. D. Oncogene-induced senescence: the bright and dark side of the response. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 22, 816–827 (2010).
Negrini, S., Gorgoulis, V. G. & Halazonetis, T. D. Genomic instability — an evolving hallmark of cancer. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 11, 220–228 (2010).
Bester, A. C. et al. Nucleotide deficiency promotes genomic instability in early stages of cancer development. Cell 145, 435–446 (2011).
Tort, F. et al. Retinoblastoma pathway defects show differential ability to activate the constitutive DNA damage response in human tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 66, 10258–10263 (2006).
Vafa, O. et al. c-Myc can induce DNA damage, increase reactive oxygen species, and mitigate p53 function: a mechanism for oncogene-induced genetic instability. Mol. Cell 9, 1031–1044 (2002).
Sabharwal, S. S. & Schumacker, P. T. Mitochondrial ROS in cancer: initiators, amplifiers or an Achilles' heel? Nature Rev. Cancer 14, 709–721 (2014).
Wilson, W. R. & Hay, M. P. Targeting hypoxia in cancer therapy. Nature Rev. Cancer 11, 393–410 (2011).
Helleday, T. Cancer phenotypic lethality, exemplified by the non-essential MTH1 enzyme being required for cancer survival. Ann. Oncol. 25, 1253–1255 (2014).
Huber, K. V. et al. Stereospecific targeting of MTH1 by (S)-crizotinib as an anticancer strategy. Nature 508, 222–227 (2014).
Gad, H. et al. MTH1 inhibition eradicates cancer by preventing sanitation of the dNTP pool. Nature 508, 215–221 (2014).
Markkanen, E., Castrec, B., Villani, G. & Hubscher, U. A switch between DNA polymerases δ and λ promotes error-free bypass of 8-oxo-G lesions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 20401–20406 (2012).
Sung, J. S. & Demple, B. Roles of base excision repair subpathways in correcting oxidized abasic sites in DNA. FEBS J. 273, 1620–1629 (2006).
van Loon, B., Markkanen, E. & Hubscher, U. Oxygen as a friend and enemy: how to combat the mutational potential of 8-oxo-guanine. DNA Repair (Amst.) 9, 604–616 (2010).
Vogelstein, B. & Kinzler, K. W. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nature Med. 10, 789–799 (2004).
Roy, R., Chun, J. & Powell, S. N. BRCA1 and BRCA2: different roles in a common pathway of genome protection. Nature Rev. Cancer 12, 68–78 (2012).
Pathania, S. et al. BRCA1 is required for postreplication repair after UV-induced DNA damage. Mol. Cell 44, 235–251 (2011).
Nikkila, J. et al. Heterozygous mutations in PALB2 cause DNA replication and damage response defects. Nature Commun. 4, 2578 (2013).
Tanaka, H. et al. A ribonucleotide reductase gene involved in a p53-dependent cell-cycle checkpoint for DNA damage. Nature 404, 42–49 (2000).
Nakano, K., Balint, E., Ashcroft, M. & Vousden, K. H. A ribonucleotide reductase gene is a transcriptional target of p53 and p73. Oncogene 19, 4283–4289 (2000).
Borlado, L. R. & Mendez, J. CDC6: from DNA replication to cell cycle checkpoints and oncogenesis. Carcinogenesis 29, 237–243 (2008).
Liontos, M. et al. Deregulated overexpression of hCdt1 and hCdc6 promotes malignant behavior. Cancer Res. 67, 10899–10909 (2007).
Hoffmann, J. S. & Cazaux, C. Aberrant expression of alternative DNA polymerases: a source of mutator phenotype as well as replicative stress in cancer. Semin. Cancer Biol. 20, 312–319 (2010).
Santarius, T., Shipley, J., Brewer, D., Stratton, M. R. & Cooper, C. S. A census of amplified and overexpressed human cancer genes. Nature Rev. Cancer 10, 59–64 (2010).
Burhans, W. C. & Weinberger, M. DNA replication stress, genome instability and aging. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 7545–7556 (2007).
Fu, D., Calvo, J. A. & Samson, L. D. Balancing repair and tolerance of DNA damage caused by alkylating agents. Nature Rev. Cancer 12, 104–120 (2012).
Wang, D. & Lippard, S. J. Cellular processing of platinum anticancer drugs. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 307–320 (2005).
Henry-Mowatt, J. et al. XRCC3 and Rad51 modulate replication fork progression on damaged vertebrate chromosomes. Mol. Cell 11, 1109–1117 (2003).
Sale, J. E., Lehmann, A. R. & Woodgate, R. Y-family DNA polymerases and their role in tolerance of cellular DNA damage. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 13, 141–152 (2012).
Deans, A. J. & West, S. C. DNA interstrand crosslink repair and cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 11, 467–480 (2011).
Sedgwick, B. Repairing DNA-methylation damage. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 148–157 (2004).
Kopper, F. et al. Damage-induced DNA replication stalling relies on MAPK-activated protein kinase 2 activity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 16856–16861 (2013). This study shows that MK2 is a mediator of replicative stress in nucleoside analogue treatment.
Merrick, C. J., Jackson, D. & Diffley, J. F. Visualization of altered replication dynamics after DNA damage in human cells. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 20067–20075 (2004).
Ewald, B., Sampath, D. & Plunkett, W. Nucleoside analogs: molecular mechanisms signaling cell death. Oncogene 27, 6522–6537 (2008).
Orta, M. L. et al. 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine causes replication lesions that require Fanconi anemia-dependent homologous recombination for repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 5827–5836 (2013).
Longley, D. B., Harkin, D. P. & Johnston, P. G. 5-fluorouracil: mechanisms of action and clinical strategies. Nature Rev. Cancer 3, 330–338 (2003).
Huang, P. & Plunkett, W. Action of 9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-2-fluoroadenine on RNA metabolism. Mol. Pharmacol. 39, 449–455 (1991).
Donati, G., Peddigari, S., Mercer, C. A. & Thomas, G. 5S ribosomal RNA is an essential component of a nascent ribosomal precursor complex that regulates the Hdm2–p53 checkpoint. Cell Rep. 4, 87–98 (2013).
Pommier, Y. Drugging topoisomerases: lessons and challenges. ACS Chem. Biol. 8, 82–95 (2013).
Regairaz, M. et al. Mus81-mediated DNA cleavage resolves replication forks stalled by topoisomerase I–DNA complexes. J. Cell Biol. 195, 739–749 (2011).
Seiler, J. A., Conti, C., Syed, A., Aladjem, M. I. & Pommier, Y. The intra-S-phase checkpoint affects both DNA replication initiation and elongation: single-cell and -DNA fiber analyses. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 5806–5818 (2007).
Ray Chaudhuri, A. et al. Topoisomerase I poisoning results in PARP-mediated replication fork reversal. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 417–423 (2012).
Berti, M. et al. Human RECQ1 promotes restart of replication forks reversed by DNA topoisomerase I inhibition. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 347–354 (2013).
Rodriguez, R. & Meuth, M. Chk1 and p21 cooperate to prevent apoptosis during DNA replication fork stress. Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 402–412 (2006).
Loegering, D. et al. Rad9 protects cells from topoisomerase poison-induced cell death. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 18641–18647 (2004).
Farmer, H. et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434, 917–921 (2005).
Ledermann, J. et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 1382–1392 (2012).
Altmeyer, M. et al. The chromatin scaffold protein SAFB1 renders chromatin permissive for DNA damage signaling. Mol. Cell 52, 206–220 (2013).
Min, W. et al. Poly(ADP-ribose) binding to Chk1 at stalled replication forks is required for S-phase checkpoint activation. Nature Commun. 4, 2993 (2013).
Murai, J. et al. Rationale for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in combination therapy with camptothecins or temozolomide based on PARP trapping versus catalytic inhibition. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 349, 408–416 (2014).
Zhou, B. B. & Bartek, J. Targeting the checkpoint kinases: chemosensitization versus chemoprotection. Nature Rev. Cancer 4, 216–225 (2004).
Toledo, L. I., Murga, M. & Fernandez-Capetillo, O. Targeting ATR and Chk1 kinases for cancer treatment: a new model for new (and old) drugs. Mol. Oncol. 5, 368–373 (2011).
Syljuasen, R. G. et al. Inhibition of human CHK1 causes increased initiation of DNA replication, phosphorylation of ATR targets, and DNA breakage. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 3553–3562 (2005).
Petermann, E., Woodcock, M. & Helleday, T. Chk1 promotes replication fork progression by controlling replication initiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16090–16095 (2010).
Lee, J., Kumagai, A. & Dunphy, W. G. Claspin, a Chk1-regulatory protein, monitors DNA replication on chromatin independently of RPA, ATR, and Rad17. Mol. Cell 11, 329–340 (2003).
Kumagai, A. & Dunphy, W. G. Repeated phosphopeptide motifs in claspin mediate the regulated binding of Chk1. Nature Cell Biol. 5, 161–165 (2003).
Ma, C. X. et al. A phase II study of UCN-01 in combination with irinotecan in patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 137, 483–492 (2013).
Li, T. et al. A phase II study of cell cycle inhibitor UCN-01 in patients with metastatic melanoma: a California cancer consortium trial. Invest. New Drugs 30, 741–748 (2012).
Ma, C. X. et al. Targeting Chk1 in p53-deficient triple-negative breast cancer is therapeutically beneficial in human-in-mouse tumor models. J. Clin. Invest. 122, 1541–1552 (2012).
Sorensen, C. S. & Syljuasen, R. G. Safeguarding genome integrity: the checkpoint kinases ATR, CHK1 and WEE1 restrain CDK activity during normal DNA replication. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 477–486 (2012).
Couch, F. B. et al. ATR phosphorylates SMARCAL1 to prevent replication fork collapse. Genes Dev. 27, 1610–1623 (2013).
Reaper, P. M. et al. Selective killing of ATM- or p53-deficient cancer cells through inhibition of ATR. Nature Chem. Biol. 7, 428–430 (2011).
Aarts, M. et al. Forced mitotic entry of S-phase cells as a therapeutic strategy induced by inhibition of WEE1. Cancer Discov. 2, 524–539 (2012).
Beck, H. et al. Cyclin-dependent kinase suppression by WEE1 kinase protects the genome through control of replication initiation and nucleotide consumption. Mol. Cell. Biol. 32, 4226–4236 (2012).
Do, K., Doroshow, J. H. & Kummar, S. Wee1 kinase as a target for cancer therapy. Cell Cycle 12, 3159–3164 (2013).
Mollapour, M. et al. Swe1Wee1-dependent tyrosine phosphorylation of Hsp90 regulates distinct facets of chaperone function. Mol. Cell 37, 333–343 (2010).
Mollapour, M., Tsutsumi, S. & Neckers, L. Hsp90 phosphorylation, Wee1 and the cell cycle. Cell Cycle 9, 2310–2316 (2010).
Soucy, T. A. et al. An inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme as a new approach to treat cancer. Nature 458, 732–736 (2009).
Milhollen, M. A. et al. Inhibition of NEDD8-activating enzyme induces rereplication and apoptosis in human tumor cells consistent with deregulating CDT1 turnover. Cancer Res. 71, 3042–3051 (2011).
Lin, J. J., Milhollen, M. A., Smith, P. G., Narayanan, U. & Dutta, A. NEDD8-targeting drug MLN4924 elicits DNA rereplication by stabilizing Cdt1 in S phase, triggering checkpoint activation, apoptosis, and senescence in cancer cells. Cancer Res. 70, 10310–10320 (2010).
Tanaka, T., Nakatani, T. & Kamitani, T. Negative regulation of NEDD8 conjugation pathway by novel molecules and agents for anticancer therapy. Curr. Pharm. Des. 19, 4131–4139 (2013).
Nawrocki, S. T., Griffin, P., Kelly, K. R. & Carew, J. S. MLN4924: a novel first-in-class inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme for cancer therapy. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 21, 1563–1573 (2012).
Milhollen, M. A. et al. Treatment-emergent mutations in NAEβ confer resistance to the NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor MLN4924. Cancer Cell 21, 388–401 (2012).
Toth, J. I., Yang, L., Dahl, R. & Petroski, M. D. A gatekeeper residue for NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibition by MLN4924. Cell Rep. 1, 309–316 (2012).
Gray, D. et al. Maternal embryonic leucine zipper kinase/murine protein serine-threonine kinase 38 is a promising therapeutic target for multiple cancers. Cancer Res. 65, 9751–9761 (2005).
Hebbard, L. W. et al. Maternal embryonic leucine zipper kinase is upregulated and required in mammary tumor-initiating cells in vivo. Cancer Res. 70, 8863–8873 (2010).
Chung, S. & Nakamura, Y. MELK inhibitor, novel molecular targeted therapeutics for human cancer stem cells. Cell Cycle 12, 1655–1656 (2013).
Kig, C. et al. Maternal embryonic leucine zipper kinase (MELK) reduces replication stress in glioblastoma cells. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 24200–24212 (2013).
Chung, S. et al. Development of an orally-administrative MELK-targeting inhibitor that suppresses the growth of various types of human cancer. Oncotarget 3, 1629–1640 (2012).
Cho, Y. S., Kang, Y., Kim, K., Cha, Y. J. & Cho, H. S. The crystal structure of MPK38 in complex with OTSSP167, an orally administrative MELK selective inhibitor. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 447, 7–11 (2014).
Sheu, Y. J. & Stillman, B. The Dbf4–Cdc7 kinase promotes S phase by alleviating an inhibitory activity in Mcm4. Nature 463, 113–117 (2010).
Chuang, L. C. et al. Phosphorylation of Mcm2 by Cdc7 promotes pre-replication complex assembly during cell-cycle re-entry. Mol. Cell 35, 206–216 (2009).
Montagnoli, A. et al. A Cdc7 kinase inhibitor restricts initiation of DNA replication and has antitumor activity. Nature Chem. Biol. 4, 357–365 (2008).
Rodriguez-Acebes, S. et al. Targeting DNA replication before it starts: Cdc7 as a therapeutic target in p53-mutant breast cancers. Am. J. Pathol. 177, 2034–2045 (2010).
Montagnoli, A., Moll, J. & Colotta, F. Targeting cell division cycle 7 kinase: a new approach for cancer therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 4503–4508 (2010).
Montagnoli, A. et al. Cdc7 inhibition reveals a p53-dependent replication checkpoint that is defective in cancer cells. Cancer Res. 64, 7110–7116 (2004).
Yamada, M. et al. ATR–Chk1–APC/CCdh1-dependent stabilization of Cdc7–ASK (Dbf4) kinase is required for DNA lesion bypass under replication stress. Genes Dev. 27, 2459–2472 (2013).
Yamada, M., Masai, H. & Bartek, J. Regulation and roles of Cdc7 kinase under replication stress. Cell Cycle 13, 1859–1866 (2014).
Filippakopoulos, P. & Knapp, S. Targeting bromodomains: epigenetic readers of lysine acetylation. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 337–356 (2014).
Filippakopoulos, P. et al. Selective inhibition of BET bromodomains. Nature 468, 1067–1073 (2010).
Da Costa, D. et al. BET inhibition as a single or combined therapeutic approach in primary paediatric B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Blood Cancer J. 3, e126 (2013).
Bolden, J. E., Peart, M. J. & Johnstone, R. W. Anticancer activities of histone deacetylase inhibitors. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 769–784 (2006).
Conti, C. et al. Inhibition of histone deacetylase in cancer cells slows down replication forks, activates dormant origins, and induces DNA damage. Cancer Res. 70, 4470–4480 (2010).
Ewald, B., Sampath, D. & Plunkett, W. H2AX phosphorylation marks gemcitabine-induced stalled replication forks and their collapse upon S-phase checkpoint abrogation. Mol. Cancer Ther. 6, 1239–1248 (2007).
Prevo, R. et al. The novel ATR inhibitor VE-821 increases sensitivity of pancreatic cancer cells to radiation and chemotherapy. Cancer Biol. Ther. 13, 1072–1081 (2012).
Rajeshkumar, N. V. et al. MK-1775, a potent Wee1 inhibitor, synergizes with gemcitabine to achieve tumor regressions, selectively in p53-deficient pancreatic cancer xenografts. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 2799–2806 (2011).
Hirai, H. et al. Small-molecule inhibition of Wee1 kinase by MK-1775 selectively sensitizes p53-deficient tumor cells to DNA-damaging agents. Mol. Cancer Ther. 8, 2992–3000 (2009).
Garcia, K. et al. Nedd8-activating enzyme inhibitor MLN4924 provides synergy with mitomycin C through interactions with ATR, BRCA1/BRCA2 and chromatin dynamics pathways. Mol. Cancer Ther. 13, 1625–1635 (2014).
Sausville, E. et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of AZD7762, a checkpoint kinase inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine in US patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 73, 539–549 (2014).
Seto, T. et al. Phase I, dose-escalation study of AZD7762 alone and in combination with gemcitabine in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumours. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 72, 619–627 (2013).
Perez, R. P. et al. Modulation of cell cycle progression in human tumors: a pharmacokinetic and tumor molecular pharmacodynamic study of cisplatin plus the Chk1 inhibitor UCN-01 (NSC 638850). Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 7079–7085 (2006).
Yazlovitskaya, E. M. & Persons, D. L. Inhibition of cisplatin-induced ATR activity and enhanced sensitivity to cisplatin. Anticancer Res. 23, 2275–2279 (2003).
Sangster-Guity, N., Conrad, B. H., Papadopoulos, N. & Bunz, F. ATR mediates cisplatin resistance in a p53 genotype-specific manner. Oncogene 30, 2526–2533 (2011).
Kee, Y. et al. Inhibition of the Nedd8 system sensitizes cells to DNA interstrand cross-linking agents. Mol. Cancer Res. 10, 369–377 (2012).
Matei, D. et al. Epigenetic resensitization to platinum in ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 72, 2197–2205 (2012).
Reinhardt, H. C. & Yaffe, M. B. Kinases that control the cell cycle in response to DNA damage: Chk1, Chk2, and MK2. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 21, 245–255 (2009).
Morandell, S. et al. A reversible gene-targeting strategy identifies synthetic lethal interactions between MK2 and p53 in the DNA damage response in vivo. Cell Rep. 5, 868–877 (2013).
Reinhardt, H. C. et al. DNA damage activates a spatially distinct late cytoplasmic cell-cycle checkpoint network controlled by MK2-mediated RNA stabilization. Mol. Cell 40, 34–49 (2010).
Reinhardt, H. C., Aslanian, A. S., Lees, J. A. & Yaffe, M. B. p53-deficient cells rely on ATM- and ATR-mediated checkpoint signaling through the p38MAPK/MK2 pathway for survival after DNA damage. Cancer Cell 11, 175–189 (2007). References 116–118 show that MK2 is an inhibitor of cell death following platinum treatment.
Kopper, F., Binkowski, A. M., Bierwirth, C. & Dobbelstein, M. The MAPK-activated protein kinase 2 mediates gemcitabine sensitivity in pancreatic cancer cells. Cell Cycle 13, 884–889 (2014).
Chugh, R. et al. A preclinical evaluation of Minnelide as a therapeutic agent against pancreatic cancer. Sci. Transl Med. 4, 156ra139 (2012). This study shows that a MKP1-targeting drug is suitable for successful treatment in a cancer model.
Arlander, S. J. et al. Hsp90 inhibition depletes Chk1 and sensitizes tumor cells to replication stress. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 52572–52577 (2003).
Ha, K. et al. Hsp90 inhibitor-mediated disruption of chaperone association of ATR with Hsp90 sensitizes cancer cells to DNA damage. Mol. Cancer Ther. 10, 1194–1206 (2011).
Dobbelstein, M. & Moll, U. Targeting tumour-supportive cellular machineries in anticancer drug development. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 179–196 (2014).
Davies, K. D. et al. Chk1 inhibition and Wee1 inhibition combine synergistically to impede cellular proliferation. Cancer Biol. Ther. 12, 788–796 (2011).
Russell, M. R. et al. Combination therapy targeting the Chk1 and Wee1 kinases shows therapeutic efficacy in neuroblastoma. Cancer Res. 73, 776–784 (2013).
Guertin, A. D. et al. Unique functions of CHK1 and WEE1 underlie synergistic anti-tumor activity upon pharmacologic inhibition. Cancer Cell Int. 12, 45 (2012).
Carrassa, L. et al. Combined inhibition of Chk1 and Wee1: in vitro synergistic effect translates to tumor growth inhibition in vivo. Cell Cycle 11, 2507–2517 (2012).
Chaudhuri, L. et al. CHK1 and WEE1 inhibition combine synergistically to enhance therapeutic efficacy in acute myeloid leukemia ex vivo. Haematologica 99, 688–696 (2014).
Sorensen, C. S. et al. The cell-cycle checkpoint kinase Chk1 is required for mammalian homologous recombination repair. Nature Cell Biol. 7, 195–201 (2005). References 63 and 129 show that inhibition of the signalling kinase CHK1 enhances replicative stress.
Hu, B. et al. Fhit and CHK1 have opposing effects on homologous recombination repair. Cancer Res. 65, 8613–8616 (2005).
Anderson, V. E. et al. CCT241533 is a potent and selective inhibitor of CHK2 that potentiates the cytotoxicity of PARP inhibitors. Cancer Res. 71, 463–472 (2011).
Antoni, L., Sodha, N., Collins, I. & Garrett, M. D. CHK2 kinase: cancer susceptibility and cancer therapy — two sides of the same coin? Nature Rev. Cancer 7, 925–936 (2007).
Meek, D. W. Tumour suppression by p53: a role for the DNA damage response? Nature Rev. Cancer 9, 714–723 (2009).
Khoo, K. H., Verma, C. S. & Lane, D. P. Drugging the p53 pathway: understanding the route to clinical efficacy. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 217–236 (2014).
Polager, S. & Ginsberg, D. p53 and E2f: partners in life and death. Nature Rev. Cancer 9, 738–748 (2009).
Vassilev, L. T. et al. In vivo activation of the p53 pathway by small-molecule antagonists of MDM2. Science 303, 844–848 (2004).
Kranz, D. & Dobbelstein, M. Nongenotoxic p53 activation protects cells against S-phase-specific chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 66, 10274–10280 (2006).
Kranz, D., Dohmesen, C. & Dobbelstein, M. BRCA1 and Tip60 determine the cellular response to ultraviolet irradiation through distinct pathways. J. Cell Biol. 182, 197–213 (2008). References 137 and 138 show that p53 protects cells from replicative stress.
Carvajal, D. et al. Activation of p53 by MDM2 antagonists can protect proliferating cells from mitotic inhibitors. Cancer Res. 65, 1918–1924 (2005).
Yuan, Z. M. et al. p73 is regulated by tyrosine kinase c-Abl in the apoptotic response to DNA damage. Nature 399, 814–817 (1999).
Agami, R., Blandino, G., Oren, M. & Shaul, Y. Interaction of c-Abl and p73α and their collaboration to induce apoptosis. Nature 399, 809–813 (1999).
Gong, J. G. et al. The tyrosine kinase c-Abl regulates p73 in apoptotic response to cisplatin-induced DNA damage. Nature 399, 806–809 (1999).
Beyer, U., Moll-Rocek, J., Moll, U. M. & Dobbelstein, M. Endogenous retrovirus drives hitherto unknown proapoptotic p63 isoforms in the male germ line of humans and great apes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3624–3629 (2011).
Lapenna, S. & Giordano, A. Cell cycle kinases as therapeutic targets for cancer. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 547–566 (2009).
[No authors listed.] CDK inhibitors speed ahead. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 323 (2014).
Matranga, C. B. & Shapiro, G. I. Selective sensitization of transformed cells to flavopiridol-induced apoptosis following recruitment to S-phase. Cancer Res. 62, 1707–1717 (2002).
Ali, S., El-Rayes, B. F., Aranha, O., Sarkar, F. H. & Philip, P. A. Sequence dependent potentiation of gemcitabine by flavopiridol in human breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 90, 25–31 (2005).
Cayrol, C. & Ducommun, B. Interaction with cyclin-dependent kinases and PCNA modulates proteasome-dependent degradation of p21. Oncogene 17, 2437–2444 (1998).
Kossatz, U. et al. Skp2-dependent degradation of p27kip1 is essential for cell cycle progression. Genes Dev. 18, 2602–2607 (2004).
Nickeleit, I. et al. Argyrin a reveals a critical role for the tumor suppressor protein p27kip1 in mediating antitumor activities in response to proteasome inhibition. Cancer Cell 14, 23–35 (2008).
Fahy, B. N., Schlieman, M. G., Virudachalam, S. & Bold, R. J. Schedule-dependent molecular effects of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer. J. Surg. Res. 113, 88–95 (2003).
Pattabiraman, D. R. & Weinberg, R. A. Tackling the cancer stem cells — what challenges do they pose? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 497–512 (2014).
Wang, W. J. et al. MYC regulation of CHK1 and CHK2 promotes radioresistance in a stem cell-like population of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells. Cancer Res. 73, 1219–1231 (2013).
Hoglund, A. et al. Therapeutic implications for the induced levels of Chk1 in Myc-expressing cancer cells. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 7067–7079 (2011).
Ragland, R. L. et al. RNF4 and PLK1 are required for replication fork collapse in ATR-deficient cells. Genes Dev. 27, 2259–2273 (2013).
Helleday, T., Petermann, E., Lundin, C., Hodgson, B. & Sharma, R. A. DNA repair pathways as targets for cancer therapy. Nature Rev. Cancer 8, 193–204 (2008). This study highlights DNA repair pathways as a target for cancer therapy.
Aapro, M. S., Martin, C. & Hatty, S. Gemcitabine — a safety review. Anticancer Drugs 9, 191–201 (1998).
Chabner, B. A. & Roberts, T. G. Jr. Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 65–72 (2005).
Corey, S. J. et al. Myelodysplastic syndromes: the complexity of stem-cell diseases. Nature Rev. Cancer 7, 118–129 (2007).
Costantino, L. et al. Break-induced replication repair of damaged forks induces genomic duplications in human cells. Science 343, 88–91 (2014).
van Leeuwen, I. M., Rao, B., Sachweh, M. C. & Lain, S. An evaluation of small-molecule p53 activators as chemoprotectants ameliorating adverse effects of anticancer drugs in normal cells. Cell Cycle 11, 1851–1861 (2012).
Rao, B., Lain, S. & Thompson, A. M. p53-based cyclotherapy: exploiting the 'guardian of the genome' to protect normal cells from cytotoxic therapy. Br. J. Cancer 109, 2954–2958 (2013).
Blagosklonny, M. V. Wt p53 impairs response to chemotherapy: make lemonade to spare normal cells. Oncotarget 3, 601–607 (2012).
Ray-Coquard, I. et al. Effect of the MDM2 antagonist RG7112 on the P53 pathway in patients with MDM2-amplified, well-differentiated or dedifferentiated liposarcoma: an exploratory proof-of-mechanism study. Lancet Oncol. 13, 1133–1140 (2012).
Falck, J., Mailand, N., Syljuasen, R. G., Bartek, J. & Lukas, J. The ATM–Chk2–Cdc25A checkpoint pathway guards against radioresistant DNA synthesis. Nature 410, 842–847 (2001).
Falck, J., Petrini, J. H., Williams, B. R., Lukas, J. & Bartek, J. The DNA damage-dependent intra-S phase checkpoint is regulated by parallel pathways. Nature Genet. 30, 290–294 (2002).
Sorensen, C. S. et al. Chk1 regulates the S phase checkpoint by coupling the physiological turnover and ionizing radiation-induced accelerated proteolysis of Cdc25A. Cancer Cell 3, 247–258 (2003).
Koniaras, K., Cuddihy, A. R., Christopoulos, H., Hogg, A. & O'Connell, M. J. Inhibition of Chk1-dependent G2 DNA damage checkpoint radiosensitizes p53 mutant human cells. Oncogene 20, 7453–7463 (2001).
Hu, B. et al. The radioresistance to killing of A1–5 cells derives from activation of the Chk1 pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 17693–17698 (2001).
Fernet, M., Megnin-Chanet, F., Hall, J. & Favaudon, V. Control of the G2/M checkpoints after exposure to low doses of ionising radiation: implications for hyper-radiosensitivity. DNA Repair (Amst.) 9, 48–57 (2010).
Mir, S. E. et al. In silico analysis of kinase expression identifies WEE1 as a gatekeeper against mitotic catastrophe in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell 18, 244–257 (2010).
Groth, P. et al. Homologous recombination repairs secondary replication induced DNA double-strand breaks after ionizing radiation. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 6585–6594 (2012).
Sauer, R. et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 1731–1740 (2004).
Sauer, R. et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 randomized phase III trial after a median follow-up of 11 years. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 1926–1933 (2012).
O'Neill, L. A., Golenbock, D. & Bowie, A. G. The history of Toll-like receptors — redefining innate immunity. Nature Rev. Immunol. 13, 453–460 (2013).
Pardoll, D. M. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nature Rev. Cancer 12, 252–264 (2012).
Bracci, L., Schiavoni, G., Sistigu, A. & Belardelli, F. Immune-based mechanisms of cytotoxic chemotherapy: implications for the design of novel and rationale-based combined treatments against cancer. Cell Death Differ. 21, 15–25 (2014).
Krysko, O., Løve Aaes, T., Bachert, C., Vandenabeele, P. & Krysko, D. V. Many faces of DAMPs in cancer therapy. Cell Death Dis. 4, e631 (2013).
Collins, I. & Garrett, M. D. Targeting the cell division cycle in cancer: CDK and cell cycle checkpoint kinase inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 5, 366–373 (2005).
Giancotti, F. G. Mechanisms governing metastatic dormancy and reactivation. Cell 155, 750–764 (2013).
Banys, M. et al. Dormancy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Dove Med. Press) 4, 183–191 (2012).
Coiras, M., López-Huertas, M. R., Pérez-Olmeda, M. & Alcamí, J. Understanding HIV-1 latency provides clues for the eradication of long-term reservoirs. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 7, 798–812 (2009).
Komarov, P. G. et al. A chemical inhibitor of p53 that protects mice from the side effects of cancer therapy. Science 285, 1733–1737 (1999).
Gudkov, A. V. & Komarova, E. A. Prospective therapeutic applications of p53 inhibitors. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 331, 726–736 (2005).
Zeng, X. & King, R. W. An APC/C inhibitor stabilizes cyclin B1 by prematurely terminating ubiquitination. Nature Chem. Biol. 8, 383–392 (2012).
Felsani, A., Mileo, A. M. & Paggi, M. G. Retinoblastoma family proteins as key targets of the small DNA virus oncoproteins. Oncogene 25, 5277–5285 (2006).
Gong, Y. et al. Pan-cancer genetic analysis identifies PARK2 as a master regulator of G1/S cyclins. Nature Genet. 46, 588–594 (2014).
Nogueira, V. & Hay, N. Molecular pathways: reactive oxygen species homeostasis in cancer cells and implications for cancer therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 4309–4314 (2013).
Diehn, M. et al. Association of reactive oxygen species levels and radioresistance in cancer stem cells. Nature 458, 780–783 (2009).
Trachootham, D., Alexandre, J. & Huang, P. Targeting cancer cells by ROS-mediated mechanisms: a radical therapeutic approach? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 579–591 (2009).
Sablina, A. A. et al. The antioxidant function of the p53 tumor suppressor. Nature Med. 11, 1306–1313 (2005).
Sessa, C. et al. Phase I and clinical pharmacological evaluation of aphidicolin glycinate. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 83, 1160–1164 (1991).
Sirbu, B. M. et al. Identification of proteins at active, stalled, and collapsed replication forks using isolation of proteins on nascent DNA (iPOND) coupled with mass spectrometry. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 31458–31467 (2013).
López-Contreras, A. J. et al. A proteomic characterization of factors enriched at nascent DNA molecules. Cell Rep. 3, 1105–1116 (2013).
Alabert, C. et al. Nascent chromatin capture proteomics determines chromatin dynamics during DNA replication and identifies unknown fork components. Nature Cell Biol. 16, 281–293 (2014).
Reijns, M. A. et al. Enzymatic removal of ribonucleotides from DNA is essential for mammalian genome integrity and development. Cell 149, 1008–1022 (2012).
Lange, S. S., Takata, K. & Wood, R. D. DNA polymerases and cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 11, 96–110 (2011).
Knobel, P. A. & Marti, T. M. Translesion DNA synthesis in the context of cancer research. Cancer Cell Int. 11, 39 (2011).
Blow, J. J. & Gillespie, P. J. Replication licensing and cancer — a fatal entanglement? Nature Rev. Cancer 8, 799–806 (2008).
Helmrich, A., Ballarino, M., Nudler, E. & Tora, L. Transcription–replication encounters, consequences and genomic instability. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 412–418 (2013).
Helmrich, A., Ballarino, M. & Tora, L. Collisions between replication and transcription complexes cause common fragile site instability at the longest human genes. Mol. Cell 44, 966–977 (2011).
Barlow, J. H. et al. Identification of early replicating fragile sites that contribute to genome instability. Cell 152, 620–632 (2013).
Gilson, E. & Geli, V. How telomeres are replicated. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 825–838 (2007).
Jorgensen, S. et al. The histone methyltransferase SET8 is required for S-phase progression. J. Cell Biol. 179, 1337–1345 (2007).
Tardat, M. et al. The histone H4 Lys 20 methyltransferase PR-Set7 regulates replication origins in mammalian cells. Nature Cell Biol. 12, 1086–1093 (2010).
Jorgensen, S. et al. SET8 is degraded via PCNA-coupled CRL4(CDT2) ubiquitylation in S phase and after UV irradiation. J. Cell Biol. 192, 43–54 (2011).
Centore, R. C. et al. CRL4Cdt2-mediated destruction of the histone methyltransferase Set8 prevents premature chromatin compaction in S phase. Mol. Cell 40, 22–33 (2010).
Abbas, T. et al. CRL4Cdt2 regulates cell proliferation and histone gene expression by targeting PR-Set7/Set8 for degradation. Mol. Cell 40, 9–21 (2010).
Marechal, A. et al. PRP19 transforms into a sensor of RPA–ssDNA after DNA damage and drives ATR activation via a ubiquitin-mediated circuitry. Mol. Cell 53, 235–246 (2014).
Dupre, A. et al. A forward chemical genetic screen reveals an inhibitor of the Mre11–Rad50–Nbs1 complex. Nature Chem. Biol. 4, 119–125 (2008).
Huang, F. et al. Identification of specific inhibitors of human RAD51 recombinase using high-throughput screening. ACS Chem. Biol. 6, 628–635 (2011).
Budke, B. et al. RI-1: a chemical inhibitor of RAD51 that disrupts homologous recombination in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 7347–7357 (2012).
Helleday, T. Putting poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase and other DNA repair inhibitors into clinical practice. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 25, 609–614 (2013).
Evers, B., Helleday, T. & Jonkers, J. Targeting homologous recombination repair defects in cancer. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 31, 372–380 (2010).
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).
Beck, H. et al. Regulators of cyclin-dependent kinases are crucial for maintaining genome integrity in S phase. J. Cell Biol. 188, 629–638 (2010). References 72, 73 and 216 show that inhibition of the signalling kinase WEE1 enhances replicative stress.
Li, R., Waga, S., Hannon, G. J., Beach, D. & Stillman, B. Differential effects by the p21 CDK inhibitor on PCNA-dependent DNA replication and repair. Nature 371, 534–537 (1994).
Waga, S., Hannon, G. J., Beach, D. & Stillman, B. The p21 inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases controls DNA replication by interaction with PCNA. Nature 369, 574–578 (1994).
Waga, S., Li, R. & Stillman, B. p53-induced p21 controls DNA replication. Leukemia 11 (Suppl. 3), 321–323 (1997).
Lu, X., Nannenga, B. & Donehower, L. A. PPM1D dephosphorylates Chk1 and p53 and abrogates cell cycle checkpoints. Genes Dev. 19, 1162–1174 (2005).
Gilmartin, A. G. et al. Allosteric Wip1 phosphatase inhibition through flap-subdomain interaction. Nature Chem. Biol. 10, 181–187 (2014).
Conforti, F., Sayan, A. E., Sreekumar, R. & Sayan, B. S. Regulation of p73 activity by post-translational modifications. Cell Death Dis. 3, e285 (2012).
Cannell, I. G. et al. p38 MAPK/MK2-mediated induction of miR-34c following DNA damage prevents Myc-dependent DNA replication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5375–5380 (2010).
Damrot, J. et al. DNA replication arrest in response to genotoxic stress provokes early activation of stress-activated protein kinases (SAPK/JNK). J. Mol. Biol. 385, 1409–1421 (2009).
Karin, M., Yamamoto, Y. & Wang, Q. M. The IKK NF-κB system: a treasure trove for drug development. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 17–26 (2004).
Hennessy, B. T., Smith, D. L., Ram, P. T., Lu, Y. & Mills, G. B. Exploiting the PI3K/AKT pathway for cancer drug discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 988–1004 (2005).
Fulda, S. & Vucic, D. Targeting IAP proteins for therapeutic intervention in cancer. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 109–124 (2012).
Cragg, M. S., Harris, C., Strasser, A. & Scott, C. L. Unleashing the power of inhibitors of oncogenic kinases through BH3 mimetics. Nature Rev. Cancer 9, 321–326 (2009).
Cipolat, S. et al. Mitochondrial rhomboid PARL regulates cytochrome c release during apoptosis via OPA1-dependent cristae remodeling. Cell 126, 163–175 (2006).
Frezza, C. et al. OPA1 controls apoptotic cristae remodeling independently from mitochondrial fusion. Cell 126, 177–189 (2006).
Sato, S. et al. Marine natural product aurilide activates the OPA1-mediated apoptosis by binding to prohibitin. Chem. Biol. 18, 131–139 (2011).
Zong, W. X., Ditsworth, D., Bauer, D. E., Wang, Z. Q. & Thompson, C. B. Alkylating DNA damage stimulates a regulated form of necrotic cell death. Genes Dev. 18, 1272–1282 (2004).
Schmitt, C. A. Senescence, apoptosis and therapy — cutting the lifelines of cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 3, 286–295 (2003).
Ishikawa, F. Portrait of replication stress viewed from telomeres. Cancer Sci. 104, 790–794 (2013).
Martinez, P. et al. Increased telomere fragility and fusions resulting from TRF1 deficiency lead to degenerative pathologies and increased cancer in mice. Genes Dev. 23, 2060–2075 (2009).
McNees, C. J. et al. ATR suppresses telomere fragility and recombination but is dispensable for elongation of short telomeres by telomerase. J. Cell Biol. 188, 639–652 (2010).
Mohr, S. E., Smith, J. A., Shamu, C. E., Neumuller, R. A. & Perrimon, N. RNAi screening comes of age: improved techniques and complementary approaches. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 591–600 (2014).
Guzi, T. J. et al. Targeting the replication checkpoint using SCH 900776, a potent and functionally selective CHK1 inhibitor identified via high content screening. Mol. Cancer Ther. 10, 591–602 (2011).
Paulsen, R. D. et al. A genome-wide siRNA screen reveals diverse cellular processes and pathways that mediate genome stability. Mol. Cell 35, 228–239 (2009).
Beck, H., Menzel, T., Syljuasen, R. G. & Sorensen, C. S. High-throughput siRNA screens using γH2AX as marker uncover key regulators of genome integrity in mammalian cells. Cell Cycle 9, 2257–2258 (2010).
Fredebohm, J., Wolf, J., Hoheisel, J. D. & Boettcher, M. Depletion of RAD17 sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine. J. Cell Sci. 126, 3380–3389 (2013).
Azorsa, D. O. et al. Synthetic lethal RNAi screening identifies sensitizing targets for gemcitabine therapy in pancreatic cancer. J. Transl Med. 7, 43 (2009).
Giroux, V., Iovanna, J. & Dagorn, J. C. Probing the human kinome for kinases involved in pancreatic cancer cell survival and gemcitabine resistance. FASEB J. 20, 1982–1991 (2006).
Raman, M., Havens, C. G., Walter, J. C. & Harper, J. W. A genome-wide screen identifies p97 as an essential regulator of DNA damage-dependent CDT1 destruction. Mol. Cell 44, 72–84 (2011).
Piwko, W. et al. RNAi-based screening identifies the Mms22L–Nfkbil2 complex as a novel regulator of DNA replication in human cells. EMBO J. 29, 4210–4222 (2010).
López-Contreras, A. J., Gutierrez-Martinez, P., Specks, J., Rodrigo-Perez, S. & Fernandez-Capetillo, O. An extra allele of Chk1 limits oncogene-induced replicative stress and promotes transformation. J. Exp. Med. 209, 455–461 (2012).
Schoppy, D. W. et al. Oncogenic stress sensitizes murine cancers to hypomorphic suppression of ATR. J. Clin. Invest. 122, 241–252 (2012).
Murga, M. et al. A mouse model of ATR–Seckel shows embryonic replicative stress and accelerated aging. Nature Genet. 41, 891–898 (2009).
Murga, M. et al. Exploiting oncogene-induced replicative stress for the selective killing of Myc-driven tumors. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 1331–1335 (2011).
Forshew, T. et al. Noninvasive identification and monitoring of cancer mutations by targeted deep sequencing of plasma DNA. Sci. Transl Med. 4, 136ra68 (2012).
Vogelstein, B. et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339, 1546–1558 (2013).
Barretina, J. et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603–607 (2012).
Garnett, M. J. et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 483, 570–575 (2012).
Gonzalez de Castro, D., Clarke, P. A., Al-Lazikani, B. & Workman, P. Personalized cancer medicine: molecular diagnostics, predictive biomarkers, and drug resistance. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 93, 252–259 (2013).
Burrell, R. A. et al. Replication stress links structural and numerical cancer chromosomal instability. Nature 494, 492–496 (2013).
Tentler, J. J. et al. Patient-derived tumour xenografts as models for oncology drug development. Nature Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9, 338–350 (2012).
Tuduri, S., Tourriere, H. & Pasero, P. Defining replication origin efficiency using DNA fiber assays. Chromosome Res. 18, 91–102 (2010).
Huberman, J. A. & Riggs, A. D. Autoradiography of chromosomal DNA fibers from Chinese hamster cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 55, 599–606 (1966).
Jackson, D. A. & Pombo, A. Replicon clusters are stable units of chromosome structure: evidence that nuclear organization contributes to the efficient activation and propagation of S phase in human cells. J. Cell Biol. 140, 1285–1295 (1998).
Michalet, X. et al. Dynamic molecular combing: stretching the whole human genome for high-resolution studies. Science 277, 1518–1523 (1997).
Petermann, E. et al. Chk1 requirement for high global rates of replication fork progression during normal vertebrate S phase. Mol. Cell. Biol. 26, 3319–3326 (2006).
Leung, K. H., El Hassan, M. A. & Bremner, R. A rapid and efficient method to purify proteins at replication forks under native conditions. Biotechniques 55, 204–206 (2013).
Sirbu, B. M., Couch, F. B. & Cortez, D. Monitoring the spatiotemporal dynamics of proteins at replication forks and in assembled chromatin using isolation of proteins on nascent DNA. Nature Protoc. 7, 594–605 (2012).
Sirbu, B. M. et al. Analysis of protein dynamics at active, stalled, and collapsed replication forks. Genes Dev. 25, 1320–1327 (2011). References 193, 194, 263 and 264 identify factors that associate with replication forks and are involved in DNA replication (stressed and non-stressed).
Robison, J. G., Elliott, J., Dixon, K. & Oakley, G. G. Replication protein A and the Mre11•Rad50•Nbs1 complex co-localize and interact at sites of stalled replication forks. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 34802–34810 (2004).
Petermann, E. & Helleday, T. Pathways of mammalian replication fork restart. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 11, 683–687 (2010).
Petermann, E., Orta, M. L., Issaeva, N., Schultz, N. & Helleday, T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol. Cell 37, 492–502 (2010).
Ying, S., Hamdy, F. C. & Helleday, T. Mre11-dependent degradation of stalled DNA replication forks is prevented by BRCA2 and PARP1. Cancer Res. 72, 2814–2821 (2012).
Bryant, H. E. et al. PARP is activated at stalled forks to mediate Mre11-dependent replication restart and recombination. EMBO J. 28, 2601–2615 (2009). References 267 and 269 show that replication restarts after fork stalling.
Mouron, S. et al. Repriming of DNA synthesis at stalled replication forks by human PrimPol. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 1383–1389 (2013).
Bianchi, J. et al. PrimPol bypasses UV photoproducts during eukaryotic chromosomal DNA replication. Mol. Cell 52, 566–573 (2013).
Constantinou, A. Rescue of replication failure by Fanconi anaemia proteins. Chromosoma 121, 21–36 (2012).
Sato, K. et al. Histone chaperone activity of Fanconi anemia proteins, FANCD2 and FANCI, is required for DNA crosslink repair. EMBO J. 31, 3524–3536 (2012).
Unno, J. et al. FANCD2 binds CtIP and regulates DNA-end resection during DNA interstrand crosslink repair. Cell Rep. 7, 1039–1047 (2014).
Woodward, A. M. et al. Excess Mcm2–7 license dormant origins of replication that can be used under conditions of replicative stress. J. Cell Biol. 173, 673–683 (2006).
Ge, X. Q., Jackson, D. A. & Blow, J. J. Dormant origins licensed by excess Mcm2–7 are required for human cells to survive replicative stress. Genes Dev. 21, 3331–3341 (2007).
Blow, J. J., Ge, X. Q. & Jackson, D. A. How dormant origins promote complete genome replication. Trends Biochem. Sci. 36, 405–414 (2011).
Yekezare, M., Gómez-González, B. & Diffley, J. F. Controlling DNA replication origins in response to DNA damage — inhibit globally, activate locally. J. Cell Sci. 126, 1297–1306 (2013).
Zimmerman, K. M., Jones, R. M., Petermann, E. & Jeggo, P. A. Diminished origin-licensing capacity specifically sensitizes tumor cells to replication stress. Mol. Cancer Res. 11, 370–380 (2013).
Toledo, L. I. et al. ATR prohibits replication catastrophe by preventing global exhaustion of RPA. Cell 155, 1088–1103 (2013).
Zou, L. Single- and double-stranded DNA: building a trigger of ATR-mediated DNA damage response. Genes Dev. 21, 879–885 (2007).
Cimprich, K. A. & Cortez, D. ATR: an essential regulator of genome integrity. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 616–627 (2008).
Shiotani, B. & Zou, L. ATR signaling at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 122, 301–304 (2009).
Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 171, 737–738 (1953).
Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. Genetical implications of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid. Nature 171, 964–967 (1953).
Heidelberger, C. et al. Fluorinated pyrimidines, a new class of tumour-inhibitory compounds. Nature 179, 663–666 (1957).
Rosenberg, B., Vancamp, L. & Krigas, T. Inhibition of cell division in Escherichia coli by electrolysis products from a platinum electrode. Nature 205, 698–699 (1965).
Einhorn, L. H. & Donohue, J. Cis-diamminedichloroplatinum, vinblastine, and bleomycin combination chemotherapy in disseminated testicular cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 87, 293–298 (1977).
Heinemann, V., Hertel, L. W., Grindey, G. B. & Plunkett, W. Comparison of the cellular pharmacokinetics and toxicity of 2′,2′-difluorodeoxycytidine and 1-β-d-arabinofuranosylcytosine. Cancer Res. 48, 4024–4031 (1988).
Paulovich, A. G. & Hartwell, L. H. A checkpoint regulates the rate of progression through S phase in S. cerevisiae in response to DNA damage. Cell 82, 841–847 (1995).
Cimprich, K. A., Shin, T. B., Keith, C. T. & Schreiber, S. L. cDNA cloning and gene mapping of a candidate human cell cycle checkpoint protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 2850–2855 (1996).
Sanchez, Y. et al. Conservation of the Chk1 checkpoint pathway in mammals: linkage of DNA damage to Cdk regulation through Cdc25. Science 277, 1497–1501 (1997).
Flaggs, G. et al. Atm-dependent interactions of a mammalian Chk1 homolog with meiotic chromosomes. Curr. Biol. 7, 977–986 (1997).
Bryant, H. E. et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 434, 913–917 (2005). References 269 and 294 highlight the use of PARP inhibitors to delay replication in BRCA2-deficient tumours and enhance replicative stress.
DeVita, V. T. Jr & Chu, E. A history of cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 68, 8643–8653 (2008).
Plunkett, W., Huang, P., Searcy, C. E. & Gandhi, V. Gemcitabine: preclinical pharmacology and mechanisms of action. Semin. Oncol. 23, 3–15 (1996).
Sandhu, S. K. et al. The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib (MK4827) in BRCA mutation carriers and patients with sporadic cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 14, 882–892 (2013).
Gelmon, K. A. et al. Olaparib in patients with recurrent high-grade serous or poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 12, 852–861 (2011).
Fong, P. C. et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 123–134 (2009).
Karp, J. E. et al. Phase I and pharmacologic trial of cytosine arabinoside with the selective checkpoint 1 inhibitor Sch 900776 in refractory acute leukemias. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 6723–6731 (2012).
Fokas, E. et al. Targeting ATR in vivo using the novel inhibitor VE-822 results in selective sensitization of pancreatic tumors to radiation. Cell Death Dis. 3, e441 (2012).
Hall, A. B. et al. Potentiation of tumor responses to DNA damaging therapy by the selective ATR inhibitor VX-970. Oncotarget 5, 5674–5685 (2014).
Foote, K. M. et al. Discovery of 4-{4-[(3R)-3- methylmorpholin-4-yl]-6-[1-(methylsulfonyl)cyclopropyl]pyrimidin-2-y l}-1H-indole (AZ20): a potent and selective inhibitor of ATR protein kinase with monotherapy in vivo antitumor activity. J. Med. Chem. 56, 2125–2138 (2013).
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).
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to K. Grønbæk, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, for critically reading the manuscript and for many helpful suggestions. M.D. was supported by the Wilhelm Sander Stiftung, the German José Carreras Leukemia Foundation and the Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung to carry out studies on replicative stress. C.S.S. is supported by the Danish Cancer Society, the Danish Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Lundbeckfonden.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Related links
Glossary
- Checkpoints
-
Signalling events during the cell cycle that prevent further progression.
- Cyclin-dependent kinase
-
(CDK). A class of kinase that associates with partner proteins known as cyclins. Specific CDKs are active at various phases of the cell cycle to promote cell cycle progression.
- Replicative stress
-
The perturbation of DNA replication that interferes with timely and error-free completion of S phase.
- Nucleoside analogues
-
Compounds with similarity to nucleosides (components of DNA or RNA) that are often used as drugs to interfere with the polymerization of (deoxy)ribonucleotides.
- Checkpoint kinase
-
A protein kinase that is activated by stress signals and halts cell cycle progression.
- Platinum compounds
-
A class of chemotherapeutics that include cisplatin, oxaliplatin and carboplatin. Platinum compounds form intrastrand and interstrand crosslinks on DNA.
- Translesion synthesis
-
DNA synthesis by specific enzymes — DNA polymerase-ζ and DNA polymerase-η — to bypass small lesions in the template strand.
- Topoisomerase inhibitors
-
A class of drugs that bind to topoisomerase I (rotating DNA around a nick to relax DNA supercoiling) or topoisomerase II (passing one portion of DNA through another). These inhibitors typically associate with the topoisomerases while bound to DNA, which creates a barrier to DNA replication.
- Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase
-
(PARP). A class of enzyme that is involved in facilitating DNA repair.
- Isolation of proteins on nascent DNA
-
(iPOND). A technology that involves the labelling of newly synthesized DNA and subsequent purification of proteins that associate with this DNA.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dobbelstein, M., Sørensen, C. Exploiting replicative stress to treat cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14, 405–423 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4553
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4553
This article is cited by
-
CDC6, a key replication licensing factor, is overexpressed and confers poor prognosis in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
BMC Cancer (2023)
-
Targeting replication stress in cancer therapy
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (2023)
-
NUDT22 promotes cancer growth through pyrimidine salvage
Oncogene (2023)
-
A new wave of innovations within the DNA damage response
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (2023)
-
CDC7 inhibition induces replication stress-mediated aneuploid cells with an inflammatory phenotype sensitizing tumors to immune checkpoint blockade
Nature Communications (2023)
