Tumour-associated cell cycle defects are often mediated by alterations in cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) activity. Misregulated CDKs induce unscheduled proliferation as well as genomic and chromosomal instability. According to current models, mammalian CDKs are essential for driving each cell cycle phase, so therapeutic strategies that block CDK activity are unlikely to selectively target tumour cells. However, recent genetic evidence has revealed that, whereas CDK1 is required for the cell cycle, interphase CDKs are only essential for proliferation of specialized cells. Emerging evidence suggests that tumour cells may also require specific interphase CDKs for proliferation. Thus, selective CDK inhibition may provide therapeutic benefit against certain human neoplasias.

Cell cycle, CDKs and cancer: a changing paradigm

Importance: The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates. Objectives: To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 6036 BRCA1 and 3820 BRCA2 female carriers (5046 unaffected and 4810 with breast or ovarian cancer or both at baseline) recruited in 1997-2011 through the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study, the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, with ascertainment through family clinics (94%) and population-based studies (6%). The majority were from large national studies in the United Kingdom (EMBRACE), the Netherlands (HEBON), and France (GENEPSO). Follow-up ended December 2013; median follow-up was 5 years. Exposures: BRCA1/2 mutations, family cancer history, and mutation location. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual incidences, standardized incidence ratios, and cumulative risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer. Results: Among 3886 women (median age, 38 years; interquartile range [IQR], 30-46 years) eligible for the breast cancer analysis, 5066 women (median age, 38 years; IQR, 31-47 years) eligible for the ovarian cancer analysis, and 2213 women (median age, 47 years; IQR, 40-55 years) eligible for the contralateral breast cancer analysis, 426 were diagnosed with breast cancer, 109 with ovarian cancer, and 245 with contralateral breast cancer during follow-up. The cumulative breast cancer risk to age 80 years was 72% (95% CI, 65%-79%) for BRCA1 and 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%) for BRCA2 carriers. Breast cancer incidences increased rapidly in early adulthood until ages 30 to 40 years for BRCA1 and until ages 40 to 50 years for BRCA2 carriers, then remained at a similar, constant incidence (20-30 per 1000 person-years) until age 80 years. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk to age 80 years was 44% (95% CI, 36%-53%) for BRCA1 and 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) for BRCA2 carriers. For contralateral breast cancer, the cumulative risk 20 years after breast cancer diagnosis was 40% (95% CI, 35%-45%) for BRCA1 and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) for BRCA2 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] for comparing BRCA2 vs BRCA1, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P=.001 for difference). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing number of first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed as having breast cancer for both BRCA1 (HR for ≥2 vs 0 affected relatives, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.41-2.82; P<.001 for trend) and BRCA2 carriers (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P=.02 for trend). Breast cancer risk was higher if mutations were located outside vs within the regions bounded by positions c.2282-c.4071 in BRCA1 (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.93; P=.007) and c.2831-c.6401 in BRCA2 (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.74; P<.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide estimates of cancer risk based on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status using prospective data collection and demonstrate the potential importance of family history and mutation location in risk assessment.

/pdf/risks-of-breast-ovarian-and-contralateral-breast-cancer-for-3iej48p51h.pdf

Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Replication stress is a complex phenomenon that has serious implications for genome stability, cell survival and human disease. Generation of aberrant replication fork structures containing single-stranded DNA activates the replication stress response, primarily mediated by the kinase ATR (ATM- and Rad3-related). Along with its downstream effectors, ATR stabilizes and helps to restart stalled replication forks, avoiding the generation of DNA damage and genome instability. Understanding this response may be key to diagnosing and treating human diseases caused by defective responses to replication stress.

/pdf/causes-and-consequences-of-replication-stress-9j1su1o6oq.pdf

Causes and consequences of replication stress.

Playing the End Game: DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Pathway Choice

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are cytotoxic lesions that can result in mutagenic events or cell death if left unrepaired or repaired inappropriately. Cells use two major pathways for DSB repair: nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR). The choice between these pathways depends on the phase of the cell cycle and the nature of the DSB ends. A critical determinant of repair pathway choice is the initiation of 5′-3′ resection of DNA ends, which commits cells to homology-dependent repair, and prevents repair by classical NHEJ. Here, we review the components of the end resection machinery, the role of end structure, and the cell-cycle phase on resection and the interplay of end processing with NHEJ.

Double-Strand Break End Resection and Repair Pathway Choice

Cotranscriptionally Formed DNA:RNA Hybrids Mediate Transcription Elongation Impairment and Transcription-Associated Recombination

Human CtIP Mediates Cell Cycle Control of DNA End Resection and Double Strand Break Repair

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are repaired by two principal mechanisms: non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR). HR is the most accurate DSB repair mechanism but is generally restricted to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle, when DNA has been replicated and a sister chromatid is available as a repair template. By contrast, NHEJ operates throughout the cell cycle but assumes most importance in G1 (refs 4, 6). The choice between repair pathways is governed by cyclin-dependent protein kinases (CDKs), with a major site of control being at the level of DSB resection, an event that is necessary for HR but not NHEJ, and which takes place most effectively in S and G2 (refs 2, 5). Here we establish that cell-cycle control of DSB resection in Saccharomyces cerevisiae results from the phosphorylation by CDK of an evolutionarily conserved motif in the Sae2 protein. We show that mutating Ser 267 of Sae2 to a non-phosphorylatable residue causes phenotypes comparable to those of a sae2Delta null mutant, including hypersensitivity to camptothecin, defective sporulation, reduced hairpin-induced recombination, severely impaired DNA-end processing and faulty assembly and disassembly of HR factors. Furthermore, a Sae2 mutation that mimics constitutive Ser 267 phosphorylation complements these phenotypes and overcomes the necessity of CDK activity for DSB resection. The Sae2 mutations also cause cell-cycle-stage specific hypersensitivity to DNA damage and affect the balance between HR and NHEJ. These findings therefore provide a mechanistic basis for cell-cycle control of DSB repair and highlight the importance of regulating DSB resection.

/pdf/cdk-targets-sae2-to-control-dna-end-resection-and-homologous-38kyidfquc.pdf

CDK targets Sae2 to control DNA-end resection and homologous recombination.

DNA double-strand breaks are repaired by different mechanisms, including homologous recombination and nonhomologous end-joining. DNA-end resection, the first step in recombination, is a key step that contributes to the choice of DSB repair. Resection, an evolutionarily conserved process that generates single-stranded DNA, is linked to checkpoint activation and is critical for survival. Failure to regulate and execute this process results in defective recombination and can contribute to human disease. Here I review recent findings on the mechanisms of resection in eukaryotes, from yeast to vertebrates, provide insights into the regulatory strategies that control it, and highlight the consequences of both its impairment and its deregulation.

/pdf/dna-resection-in-eukaryotes-deciding-how-to-fix-the-break-4d670vxvch.pdf

DNA resection in eukaryotes: deciding how to fix the break

http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/123480/1/BRCA1_Accelerates_CruzGarcia.pdf

Pablo Huertas

Papers

Cotranscriptionally Formed DNA:RNA Hybrids Mediate Transcription Elongation Impairment and Transcription-Associated Recombination

Human CtIP Mediates Cell Cycle Control of DNA End Resection and Double Strand Break Repair

CDK targets Sae2 to control DNA-end resection and homologous recombination.

DNA resection in eukaryotes: deciding how to fix the break

BRCA1 Accelerates CtIP-Mediated DNA-End Resection