Polθ is phosphorylated by PLK1 to repair double-strand breaks in mitosis

Boveri and beyond: Chromothripsis and genomic instability from mitotic errors

Mitotic cell division is tightly monitored by checkpoints that safeguard the genome from instability. Failures in accurate chromosome segregation during mitosis can cause numerical aneuploidy, which was hypothesized by Theodor Boveri over a century ago to promote tumorigenesis. Recent interrogation of pan-cancer genomes has identified unexpected classes of chromosomal abnormalities, including complex rearrangements arising through chromothripsis. This process is driven by mitotic errors that generate abnormal nuclear structures that provoke extensive yet localized shattering of mis-segregated chromosomes. Here, we discuss emerging mechanisms underlying chromothripsis from micronuclei and chromatin bridges, as well as highlight how this mutational cascade converges on the DNA damage response. A fundamental understanding of these catastrophic processes will provide insight into how initial errors in mitosis can precipitate rapid cancer genome evolution.

CIP2A coordinates phosphosignaling, mitosis, and the DNA damage response

Human cancers share requirements for phosphorylation-dependent signaling, mitotic hyperactivity, and survival after DNA damage. The oncoprotein CIP2A (cancerous inhibitor of PP2A) can coordinate all these cancer cell characteristics. In addition to controlling cancer cell phosphoproteomes via inhibition of protein phosphatase PP2A, CIP2A directly interacts with the DNA damage protein TopBP1 (topoisomerase II-binding protein 1). Consequently, CIP2A allows DNA-damaged cells to enter mitosis and is essential for mitotic cells that are defective in homologous recombination (HR)-mediated DNA repair (e.g., BRCA mutants). The CIP2A-TopBP1 complex is also important for clustering fragmented chromosomes at mitosis. Clinically, CIP2A is a disease driver for basal-like triple-negative breast cancer (BL-TNBC) and a promising cancer therapy target across many cancer types.

The impact of chromatin on double-strand break repair: Imaging tools and discoveries

Eukaryotic nuclei are constantly being exposed to factors that break or chemically modify the DNA. Accurate repair of this DNA damage is crucial to prevent DNA mutations and maintain optimal cell function. To overcome the detrimental effects of DNA damage, a multitude of repair pathways has evolved. These pathways need to function properly within the different chromatin domains present in the nucleus. Each of these domains exhibit distinct molecular- and bio-physical characteristics that can influence the response to DNA damage. In particular, chromatin domains highly enriched for repetitive DNA sequences, such as nucleoli, centromeres and pericentromeric heterochromatin require tailored repair mechanisms to safeguard genome stability. Work from the past decades has led to the development of innovative imaging tools as well as inducible DNA damage techniques to gain new insights into the impact of these repetitive chromatin domains on the DNA repair process. Here we summarize these tools with a particular focus on Double-Strand Break (DSB) repair, and discuss the insights gained into our understanding of the influence of chromatin domains on DSB -dynamics and -repair pathway choice.

Exploiting the DNA Damage Response for Prostate Cancer Therapy

Prostate cancers that progress despite androgen deprivation develop into castration-resistant prostate cancer, a fatal disease with few treatment options. In this review, we discuss the current understanding of prostate cancer subtypes and alterations in the DNA damage response (DDR) that can predispose to the development of prostate cancer and affect its progression. We identify barriers to conventional treatments, such as radiotherapy, and discuss the development of new therapies, many of which target the DDR or take advantage of recurring genetic alterations in the DDR. We place this in the context of advances in understanding the genetic variation and immune landscape of CRPC that could help guide their use in future treatment strategies. Finally, we discuss several new and emerging agents that may advance the treatment of lethal disease, highlighting selected clinical trials.

Emerging roles of the CIP2A-TopBP1 complex in genome integrity

CIP2A is an inhibitor of the tumour suppressor protein phosphatase 2A. Recently, CIP2A was identified as a synthetic lethal interactor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and a driver of basal-like breast cancers. In addition, a joint role of TopBP1 (topoisomerase IIβ-binding protein 1) and CIP2A for maintaining genome integrity during mitosis was discovered. TopBP1 has multiple functions as it is a scaffold for proteins involved in DNA replication, transcriptional regulation, cell cycle regulation and DNA repair. Here, we briefly review details of the CIP2A-TopBP1 interaction, its role in maintaining genome integrity, its involvement in cancer and its potential as a therapeutic target.

Mechanisms of synthetic lethality between BRCA1/2 and 53BP1 deficiencies and DNA polymerase theta targeting

A synthetic lethal relationship exists between disruption of polymerase theta (Polθ), and loss of either 53BP1 or homologous recombination (HR) proteins, including BRCA1; however, the mechanistic basis of these observations are unclear. Here we reveal two distinct mechanisms of Polθ synthetic lethality, identifying dual influences of 1) whether Polθ is lost or inhibited, and 2) the underlying susceptible genotype. Firstly, we find that the sensitivity of BRCA1/2- and 53BP1-deficient cells to Polθ loss, and 53BP1-deficient cells to Polθ inhibition (ART558) requires RAD52, and appropriate reduction of RAD52 can ameliorate these phenotypes. We show that in the absence of Polθ, RAD52 accumulations suppress ssDNA gap-filling in G2/M and encourage MRE11 nuclease accumulation. In contrast, the survival of BRCA1-deficient cells treated with Polθ inhibitor are not restored by RAD52 suppression, and ssDNA gap-filling is prevented by the chemically inhibited polymerase itself. These data define an additional role for Polθ, reveal the mechanism underlying synthetic lethality between 53BP1, BRCA1/2 and Polθ loss, and indicate genotype-dependent Polθ inhibitor mechanisms.