A Boolean network model of the double-strand break repair pathway choice

被引:3
作者
Ayala-Zambrano, Cecilia [1 ,2 ]
Yuste, Mariana [3 ]
Frias, Sara [1 ,4 ]
Garcia-de-Teresa, Benilde [1 ]
Mendoza, Luis [5 ]
Azpeitia, Eugenio [3 ]
Rodriguez, Alfredo [4 ,6 ]
Torres, Leda [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Nacl Pediat, Lab Citogenet, Ciudad De Mexico 04530, Mexico
[2] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Posgrad Ciencias Biol, Ciudad De Mexico, Mexico
[3] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Ctr Ciencias Matemat, Morelia, Mexico
[4] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Dept Med Genomica & Toxicol Ambiental, Inst Invest Biomed, Apartado Postal 70228, Ciudad De Mexico 04510, Mexico
[5] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Dept Biol Mol & Biotecnol, Inst Invest Biomed, Apartado Postal 70228, Ciudad De Mexico 04510, Mexico
[6] Inst Nacl Pediat, Ciudad De Mexico 04530, Mexico
关键词
DNA damage; Mathematical modeling; Single-strand annealing; Synthetic lethality; TIP60; BONE-MARROW FAILURE; ATM KINASE-ACTIVITY; HOMOLOGOUS-RECOMBINATION; DNA-DAMAGE; HISTONE H2AX; CHROMOSOMAL TRANSLOCATIONS; ATAXIA-TELANGIECTASIA; BRCA1-DEFICIENT CELLS; SYNTHETICALLY LETHAL; RAD52; INACTIVATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jtbi.2023.111608
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Double strand break (DSB) repair is critical to maintaining the integrity of the genome. DSB repair deficiency underlies multiple pathologies, including cancer, chromosome instability syndromes, and, potentially, neurodevelopmental defects. DSB repair is mainly handled by two pathways: highly accurate homologous recombination (HR), which requires a sister chromatid for template-based repair, limited to S/G2 phases of the cell cycle, and canonical non-homologous end joining (c-NHEJ), available throughout the cell cycle in which minimum homology is sufficient for highly efficient yet error-prone repair. Some circumstances, such as cancer, require alternative highly mutagenic DSB repair pathways like microhomology-mediated end-joining (MMEJ) and single-strand annealing (SSA), which are triggered to attend to DNA damage. These non-canonical repair alternatives are emerging as prominent drivers of resistance in drug-based tumor therapies. Multiple DSB repair options require tight inter-pathway regulation to prevent unscheduled activities. In addition to this complexity, epigenetic modifications of the histones surrounding the DSB region are emerging as critical regulators of the DSB repair pathway choice. Modeling approaches to understanding DSBs repair pathway choice are advantageous to perform simulations and generate predictions on previously uncharacterized aspects of DSBs response. In this work, we present a Boolean network model of the DSB repair pathway choice that incorporates the knowledge, into a dynamic system, of the inter-pathways regulation involved in DSB repair, i.e., HR, c-NHEJ, SSA, and MMEJ. Our model recapitulates the well-characterized HR activity observed in wild-type cells in response to DSBs. It also recovers clinically relevant behaviors of BRCA1/FANCS mutants, and their corresponding drug resistance mechanisms ascribed to DNA repair gain-of-function pathogenic variants. Since epigenetic modifiers are dynamic and possible druggable targets, we incorporated them into our model to better characterize their involvement in DSB repair. Our model predicted that loss of the TIP60 complex and its corresponding histone acetylation activity leads to activation of SSA in response to DSBs. Our experimental validation showed that TIP60 effectively prevents activation of RAD52, a key SSA executor, and confirms the suitable use of Boolean network modeling for understanding DNA DSB repair.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Ubiquitylation in DNA double-strand break repair
    Tang, Mengfan
    Li, Siting
    Chen, Junjie
    DNA REPAIR, 2021, 103
  • [32] Double-Strand Break Repair Assays Determine Pathway Choice and Structure of Gene Conversion Events in Drosophila melanogaster
    Do, Anthony T.
    Brooks, Joseph T.
    Le Neveu, Margot K.
    LaRocque, Jeannine R.
    G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS, 2014, 4 (03): : 425 - 432
  • [33] Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice: a new focus on 53BP1
    Zhang, Fan
    Gong, Zihua
    JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE B, 2021, 22 (01): : 38 - 46
  • [34] DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Pathway Choice Is Directed by Distinct MRE11 Nuclease Activities
    Shibata, Atsushi
    Moiani, Davide
    Arvai, Andrew S.
    Perry, Jefferson
    Harding, Shane M.
    Genois, Marie-Michelle
    Maity, Ranjan
    van Rossum-Fikkert, Sari
    Kertokalio, Aryandi
    Romoli, Filippo
    Ismail, Amani
    Ismalaj, Ermal
    Petricci, Elena
    Neale, Matthew J.
    Bristow, Robert G.
    Masson, Jean-Yves
    Wyman, Claire
    Jeggo, Penny A.
    Tainer, John A.
    MOLECULAR CELL, 2014, 53 (01) : 7 - 18
  • [35] Regulation of pathway choice in DNA repair after double-strand breaks
    Kumari, Nitu
    Kaur, Ekjot
    Raghavan, Sathees C.
    Sengupta, Sagar
    CURRENT OPINION IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2025, 80
  • [36] A requirement for polymerized actin in DNA double-strand break repair
    Andrin, Christi
    McDonald, Darin
    Attwood, Kathleen M.
    Rodrigue, Amelie
    Ghosh, Sunita
    Mirzayans, Razmik
    Masson, Jean-Yves
    Dellaire, Graham
    Hendzel, Michael J.
    NUCLEUS, 2012, 3 (04) : 384 - 395
  • [37] DNA double-strand break repair, immunodeficiency and the RIDDLE syndrome
    Blundred, Rachel M.
    Stewart, Grant S.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2011, 7 (02) : 169 - 185
  • [38] Characterization of DNA double-strand break repair pathways in diffuse large B cell lymphoma
    Gopalakrishnan, Vidya
    Dahal, Sumedha
    Radha, Gudapureddy
    Sharma, Shivangi
    Raghavan, Sathees C.
    Choudhary, Bibha
    MOLECULAR CARCINOGENESIS, 2019, 58 (02) : 219 - 233
  • [39] Studying DNA Double-Strand Break Repair: An Ever-Growing Toolbox
    Vitor, Alexandra C.
    Huertas, Pablo
    Legube, Gaelle
    de Almeida, Sergio F.
    FRONTIERS IN MOLECULAR BIOSCIENCES, 2020, 7
  • [40] DNA double-strand break repair: All's well that ends well
    Wyman, Claire
    Kanaar, Roland
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENETICS, 2006, 40 : 363 - 383