AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Cancer Biology & Medicine Article
PDF (803.3 KB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Review | Open Access

Evolving insights: how DNA repair pathways impact cancer evolution

Jiadong Zhou1, Xiao Albert Zhou1, Ning Zhang2,3 ( ), Jiadong Wang1( )
Department of Radiation Medicine, Institute of Systems Biomedicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
Biomedical Pioneering Innovation Center (BIOPIC) and Translational Cancer Research Center, School of Life Sciences, First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Laboratory of Cancer Cell Biology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Viewing cancer as a large, evolving population of heterogeneous cells is a common perspective. Because genomic instability is one of the fundamental features of cancer, this intrinsic tendency of genomic variation leads to striking intratumor heterogeneity and functions during the process of cancer formation, development, metastasis, and relapse. With the increased mutation rate and abundant diversity of the gene pool, this heterogeneity leads to cancer evolution, which is the major obstacle in the clinical treatment of cancer. Cells rely on the integrity of DNA repair machineries to maintain genomic stability, but these machineries often do not function properly in cancer cells. The deficiency of DNA repair could contribute to the generation of cancer genomic instability, and ultimately promote cancer evolution. With the rapid advance of new technologies, such as single-cell sequencing in recent years, we have the opportunity to better understand the specific processes and mechanisms of cancer evolution, and its relationship with DNA repair. Here, we review recent findings on how DNA repair affects cancer evolution, and discuss how these mechanisms provide the basis for critical clinical challenges and therapeutic applications.

Keywords

drug resistanceDNA repaircancer evolutionintratumor heterogeneitygenomic instability

References

1

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 7-34.
Crossref Google Scholar
2

Andor N, Maley CC, Ji HP. Genomic instability in cancer: teetering on the limit of tolerance. Cancer Res. 2017; 77: 2179-85.
Crossref Google Scholar
3

Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science. 1976; 194: 23-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
4

Merlo LMF, Pepper JW, Reid BJ, Maley CC. Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006; 6: 924-35.
Crossref Google Scholar
5

Yates LR, Knappskog S, Wedge D, Farmery JHR, Gonzalez S, Martincorena I, et al. Genomic evolution of breast cancer metastasis and relapse. Cancer Cell. 2017; 32: 169-84.
Crossref Google Scholar
6

Pepper JW, Scott Findlay C, Kassen R, Spencer SL, Maley CC. Synthesis: cancer research meets evolutionary biology. Evol Appl. 2009; 2: 62-70.
Crossref Google Scholar
7

Jamal-Hanjani M, Wilson GA, McGranahan N, Birkbak NJ, Watkins TBK, Veeriah S, et al. Tracking the evolution of non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 2109-21.
Crossref Google Scholar
8

Maley CC, Galipeau PC, Li X, Sanchez CA, Paulson TG, Reid BJ. Selectively advantageous mutations and hitchhikers in neoplasms: P16 lesions are selected in Barrett’s esophagus. Cancer Res. 2004; 64: 3414-27.
Crossref Google Scholar
9

Tao Y, Ruan J, Yeh S-H, Lu X, Wang Y, Zhai W, et al. Rapid growth of a hepatocellular carcinoma and the driving mutations revealed by cell-population genetic analysis of whole-genome data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108: 12042-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
10

Bignell GR, Greenman CD, Davies H, Butler AP, Edkins S, Andrews JM, et al. Signatures of mutation and selection in the cancer genome. Nature. 2010; 463: 893-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
11

Youn A, Simon R. Identifying cancer driver genes in tumor genome sequencing studies. Bioinformatics. 2011; 27: 175-81.
Crossref Google Scholar
12

Gerlinger M, McGranahan N, Dewhurst SM, Burrell RA, Tomlinson I, Swanton C. Cancer: evolution within a lifetime. Annu Rev Genet. 2014; 48: 215-36.
Crossref Google Scholar
13

Hofmann W, Schlag PM. BRCA1 and BRCA2 – breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2000; 126: 487-96.
Crossref Google Scholar
14

Polakis P. The adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) tumor suppressor. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1997; 1332: F127-47.
Crossref Google Scholar
15

Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 883-92.
Crossref Google Scholar
16

Wood LD, Parsons DW, Jones S, Lin J, Sjöblom T, Leary RJ, et al. The genomic landscapes of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science. 2007; 318: 1108-13.
Crossref Google Scholar
17

Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, Zhou S, Diaz LA Jr, Kinzler KW. Cancer genome landscapes. Science. 2013; 339: 1546-58.
Crossref Google Scholar
18

Lewis A, Davis H, Deheragoda M, Pollard P, Nye E, Jeffery R, et al. The c-terminus of Apc does not influence intestinal adenoma development or progression. J Pathol. 2012; 226: 73-83.
Crossref Google Scholar
19

Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B, Parmigiani G. Half or more of the somatic mutations in cancers of self-renewing tissues originate prior to tumor initiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110: 1999-2004.
Crossref Google Scholar
20

Welch JS, Ley TJ, Link DC, Miller CA, Larson DE, Koboldt DC, et al. The origin and evolution of mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Cell. 2012; 150: 264-78.
Crossref Google Scholar
21

Schwartz R, Schäffer AA. The evolution of tumour phylogenetics: principles and practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2017; 18: 213-29.
Crossref Google Scholar
22

Davis A, Gao R, Navin N. Tumor evolution: linear, branching, neutral or punctuated? Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2017; 1867: 151-61.
Crossref Google Scholar
23

Gerlinger M, Horswell S, Larkin J, Rowan AJ, Salm MP, Varela I, et al. Genomic architecture and evolution of clear cell renal cell carcinomas defined by multiregion sequencing. Nat Genet. 2014; 46: 225-33.
Crossref Google Scholar
24

Kloosterman WP, Hoogstraat M, Paling O, Tavakoli-Yaraki M, Renkens I, Vermaat JS, et al. Chromothripsis is a common mechanism driving genomic rearrangements in primary and metastatic colorectal cancer. Genome Biol. 2011; 12: R103.
Crossref Google Scholar
25

Berger MF, Lawrence MS, Demichelis F, Drier Y, Cibulskis K, Sivachenko AY, et al. The genomic complexity of primary human prostate cancer. Nature. 2011; 470: 214-20.
Crossref Google Scholar
26

Ling S, Hu Z, Yang Z, Yang F, Li Y, Lin P, et al. Extremely high genetic diversity in a single tumor points to prevalence of non-Darwinian cell evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112: E6496-505.
Crossref Google Scholar
27

Fearon ER, Vogelstein B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell. 1990; 61: 759-67.
Crossref Google Scholar
28

Fialkow PJ. The origin and development of human tumors studied with cell markers. N Engl J Med. 1974; 291: 26-35.
Crossref Google Scholar
29

Noguchi S, Motomura K, Inaji H, Imaoka S, Koyama H. Clonal analysis of human breast cancer by means of the polymerase chain reaction. Cancer Res. 1992; 52: 6594-7.
Google Scholar
30

Durrett R, Foo J, Leder K, Mayberry J, Michor F. Intratumor heterogeneity in evolutionary models of tumor progression. Genetics. 2011; 188: 461-77.
Crossref Google Scholar
31

Foo J, Leder K, Michor F. Stochastic dynamics of cancer initiation. Phys Biol. 2011; 8: 015002.
Crossref Google Scholar
32

Sale JE. Translesion DNA synthesis and mutagenesis in eukaryotes. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013; 5: a012708.
Crossref Google Scholar
33

Xia J, Chiu LY, Nehring RB, Bravo Núñez MA, Mei Q, Perez M, et al. Bacteria-to-human protein networks reveal origins of endogenous DNA damage. Cell. 2019; 176: 127-43.e24.
Crossref Google Scholar
34

Guo M, Ren J, Brock MV, Herman JG, Carraway HE. Promoter methylation of hin-1 in the progression to esophageal squamous cancer. Epigenetics. 2008; 3: 336-41.
Crossref Google Scholar
35

Guo M, Ren J, House MG, Qi Y, Brock MV, Herman JG. Accumulation of promoter methylation suggests epigenetic progression in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12: 4515-22.
Crossref Google Scholar
36

Füllgrabe J, Kavanagh E, Joseph B. Histone onco-modifications. Oncogene. 2011; 30: 3391-403.
Crossref Google Scholar
37

Chervona Y, Costa M. Histone modifications and cancer: biomarkers of prognosis? Am J Cancer Res. 2012; 2: 589-97.
Google Scholar
38

Jackson SP, Bartek J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature. 2009; 461: 1071-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
39

Voskarides K, Dweep H, Chrysostomou C. Evidence that DNA repair genes, a family of tumor suppressor genes, are associated with evolution rate and size of genomes. Hum Genomics. 2019; 13: 26.
Crossref Google Scholar
40

Greenman C, Stephens P, Smith R, Dalgliesh GL, Hunter C, Bignell G, et al. Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes. Nature. 2007; 446: 153-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
41

Lee RS, Stewart C, Carter SL, Ambrogio L, Cibulskis K, Sougnez C, et al. A remarkably simple genome underlies highly malignant pediatric rhabdoid cancers. J Clin Invest. 2012; 122: 2983-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
42

Tomlinson IPM, Novelli MR, Bodmer WF. The mutation rate and cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996; 93: 14800-3.
Crossref Google Scholar
43

Ciriello G, Miller ML, Aksoy BA, Senbabaoglu Y, Schultz N, Sander C. Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers. Nat Genet. 2013; 45: 1127-33.
Crossref Google Scholar
44

Ye CJ, Stevens JB, Liu G, Bremer SW, Jaiswal AS, Ye KJ, et al. Genome based cell population heterogeneity promotes tumorigenicity: the evolutionary mechanism of cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2009; 219: 288-300.
Crossref Google Scholar
45

Andor N, Graham TA, Jansen M, Xia LC, Aktipis CA, Petritsch C, et al. Pan-cancer analysis of the extent and consequences of intratumor heterogeneity. Nat Med. 2016; 22: 105.
Crossref Google Scholar
46

Jamal-Hanjani M, A’Hern R, Birkbak NJ, Gorman P, Grönroos E, Ngang S, et al. Extreme chromosomal instability forecasts improved outcome in ER-negative breast cancer: a prospective validation cohort study from the TACT trial. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26: 1340-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
47

Schwarz RF, Ng CKY, Cooke SL, Newman S, Temple J, Piskorz AM, et al. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a phylogenetic analysis. PLoS Med. 2015; 12: e1001789.
Crossref Google Scholar
48

Vilar E, Gruber SB. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer–the stable evidence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010; 7: 153-62.
Crossref Google Scholar
49

Venkatesan S, Swanton C. Tumor evolutionary principles: how intratumor heterogeneity influences cancer treatment and outcome. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 36: e141-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
50

Birkbak NJ, Eklund AC, Li Q, McClelland SE, Endesfelder D, Tan P, et al. Paradoxical relationship between chromosomal instability and survival outcome in cancer. Cancer Res. 2011; 71: 3447-52.
Crossref Google Scholar
51

Roylance R, Endesfelder D, Gorman P, Burrell RA, Sander J, Tomlinson I, et al. Relationship of extreme chromosomal instability with long-term survival in a retrospective analysis of primary breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20: 2183-94.
Crossref Google Scholar
52

Weaver BA, Silk AD, Montagna C, Verdier-Pinard P, Cleveland DW. Aneuploidy acts both oncogenically and as a tumor suppressor. Cancer Cell. 2007; 11: 25-36.
Crossref Google Scholar
53

Duijf PHG, Nanayakkara D, Nones K, Srihari S, Kalimutho M, Khanna KK. Mechanisms of genomic instability in breast cancer. Trends Mol Med. 2019; 25: 595-611.
Crossref Google Scholar
54

Auslander N, Wolf YI, Koonin EV. Interplay between DNA damage repair and apoptosis shapes cancer evolution through aneuploidy and microsatellite instability. Nat Commun. 2020; 11: 1-11.
Crossref Google Scholar
55

Dabholkar M, Vionnet J, Bostick-Bruton F, Yu JJ, Reed E. Messenger RNA levels of XPAC and ERCC1 in ovarian cancer tissue correlate with response to platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Invest. 1994; 94: 703-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
56

Takenaka T, Yoshino I, Kouso H, Ohba T, Yohena T, Osoegawa A, et al. Combined evaluation of Rad51 and ERCC1 expressions for sensitivity to platinum agents in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2007; 121: 895-900.
Crossref Google Scholar
57

Lord RV, Brabender J, Gandara D, Alberola V, Camps C, Domine M, et al. Low ercc1 expression correlates with prolonged survival after cisplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2002; 8: 2286-91.
Google Scholar
58

Lorz A, Lorenzi T, Hochberg ME, Clairambault J, Perthame B. Populational adaptive evolution, chemotherapeutic resistance and multiple anti-cancer therapies. ESAIM: Math Model Num Anal. 2013; 47: 377-99.
Crossref Google Scholar
59

Maley CC, Galipeau PC, Finley JC, Wongsurawat VJ, Li X, Sanchez CA, et al. Genetic clonal diversity predicts progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Nat Genet. 2006; 38: 468-73.
Crossref Google Scholar
60

Merlo LMF, Shah NA, Li X, Blount PL, Vaughan TL, Reid BJ, et al. A comprehensive survey of clonal diversity measures in Barrett’s esophagus as biomarkers of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa). 2010; 3: 1388-97.
Crossref Google Scholar
61

Landau DA, Carter SL, Stojanov P, McKenna A, Stevenson K, Lawrence MS, et al. Evolution and impact of subclonal mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cell. 2013; 152: 714-26.
Crossref Google Scholar
62

Martincorena I, Campbell PJ. Somatic mutation in cancer and normal cells. Science. 2015; 349: 1483-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
63

Nik-Zainal S, Alexandrov LB, Wedge DC, Van Loo P, Greenman CD, Raine K, et al. Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers. Cell. 2012; 149: 979-93.
Crossref Google Scholar
64

Harfe BD, Jinks-Robertson S. DNA mismatch repair and genetic instability. Annu Rev Genet. 2000; 34: 359-99.
Crossref Google Scholar
65

Hombauer H, Campbell CS, Smith CE, Desai A, Kolodner RD. Visualization of eukaryotic DNA mismatch repair reveals distinct recognition and repair intermediates. Cell. 2011; 147: 1040-53.
Crossref Google Scholar
66

Pluciennik A, Dzantiev L, Iyer RR, Constantin N, Kadyrov FA, Modrich P. PCNA function in the activation and strand direction of MutLα endonuclease in mismatch repair. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107: 16066-71.
Crossref Google Scholar
67

Genschel J, Kadyrova LY, Iyer RR, Dahal BK, Kadyrov FA, Modrich P. Interaction of proliferating cell nuclear antigen with PMS2 is required for MutLα activation and function in mismatch repair. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114: 4930-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
68

Dzantiev L, Constantin N, Genschel J, Iyer RR, Burgers PM, Modrich P. A defined human system that supports bidirectional mismatch-provoked excision. Mol Cell. 2004; 15: 31-41.
Crossref Google Scholar
69

Guo S, Presnell SR, Yuan F, Zhang Y, Gu L, Li G-M. Differential requirement for proliferating cell nuclear antigen in 5' and 3' nick-directed excision in human mismatch repair. J Biol Chem. 2004; 279: 16912-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
70

Tishkoff DX, Boerger AL, Bertrand P, Filosi N, Gaida GM, Kane MF, et al. Identification and characterization of saccharomyces cerevisiae exo1, a gene encoding an exonuclease that interacts with msh2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997; 94: 7487-92.
Crossref Google Scholar
71

Nielsen FC, Jäger AC, Lützen A, Bundgaard JR, Rasmussen LJ. Characterization of human exonuclease 1 in complex with mismatch repair proteins, subcellular localization and association with PCNA. Oncogene. 2004; 23: 1457-68.
Crossref Google Scholar
72

Li G-M. Mechanisms and functions of DNA mismatch repair. Cell Res. 2008; 18: 85-98.
Crossref Google Scholar
73

Zhang Y, Yuan F, Presnell SR, Tian K, Gao Y, Tomkinson AE, et al. Reconstitution of 5'-directed human mismatch repair in a purified system. Cell. 2005; 122: 693-705.
Crossref Google Scholar
74

Longley MJ, Pierce AJ, Modrich P. DNA polymerase δ is required for human mismatch repair in vitro. J Biol Chem. 1997; 272: 10917-21.
Crossref Google Scholar
75

Li SKH, Martin A. Mismatch repair and colon cancer: mechanisms and therapies explored. Trends Mol Med. 2016; 22: 274-89.
Crossref Google Scholar
76

Gelsomino F, Barbolini M, Spallanzani A, Pugliese G, Cascinu S. The evolving role of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: a review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016; 51: 19-26.
Crossref Google Scholar
77

Lynch HT, Lynch PM, Lanspa SJ, Snyder CL, Lynch JF, Boland CR. Review of the lynch syndrome: history, molecular genetics, screening, differential diagnosis, and medicolegal ramifications. Clin Genet. 2009; 76: 1-18.
Crossref Google Scholar
78

Mackay HJ, Cameron D, Rahilly M, Mackean MJ, Paul J, Kaye SB, et al. Reduced MLH1 expression in breast tumors after primary chemotherapy predicts disease-free survival. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 87-93.
Crossref Google Scholar
79

Amaro A, Chiara S, Pfeffer U. Molecular evolution of colorectal cancer: from multistep carcinogenesis to the big bang. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2016; 35: 63-74.
Crossref Google Scholar
80

Gurin CC, Federici MG, Kang L, Boyd J. Causes and consequences of microsatellite instability in endometrial carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1999; 59: 462-6.
Google Scholar
81

Huang J, Papadopoulos N, McKinley AJ, Farrington SM, Curtis LJ, Wyllie AH, et al. Apc mutations in colorectal tumors with mismatch repair deficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996; 93: 9049-54.
Crossref Google Scholar
82

Rampino N, Yamamoto H, Ionov Y, Li Y, Sawai H, Reed JC, et al. Somatic frameshift mutations in the bax gene in colon cancers of the microsatellite mutator phenotype. Science. 1997; 275: 967-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
83

Markowitz S, Wang J, Myeroff L, Parsons R, Sun L, Lutterbaugh J, et al. Inactivation of the type Ⅱ TGF-beta receptor in colon cancer cells with microsatellite instability. Science. 1995; 268: 1336-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
84

Buermeyer AB, Deschênes SM, Baker SM, Liskay RM. Mammalian DNA mismatch repair. Annu Rev Genet. 1999; 33: 533-64.
Crossref Google Scholar
85

Giannini G, Ristori E, Cerignoli F, Rinaldi C, Zani M, Viel A, et al. Human mre11 is inactivated in mismatch repair-deficient cancers. EMBO Rep. 2002; 3: 248-54.
Crossref Google Scholar
86

Giannini G, Rinaldi C, Ristori E, Ambrosini MI, Cerignoli F, Viel A, et al. Mutations of an intronic repeat induce impaired mre11 expression in primary human cancer with microsatellite instability. Oncogene. 2004; 23: 2640-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
87

McFarland CD, Korolev KS, Kryukov GV, Sunyaev SR, Mirny LA. Impact of deleterious passenger mutations on cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110: 2910-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
88

Heldin C-H, Landström M, Moustakas A. Mechanism of TGF-β signaling to growth arrest, apoptosis, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2009; 21: 166-76.
Crossref Google Scholar
89

Shah SN, Hile SE, Eckert KA. Defective mismatch repair, microsatellite mutation bias, and variability in clinical cancer phenotypes. Cancer Res. 2010; 70: 431-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
90

Viale G, Trapani D, Curigliano G. Mismatch repair deficiency as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy efficacy. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017: 4719194.
Crossref Google Scholar
91

Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS. Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 609-18.
Crossref Google Scholar
92

Maxwell GL, Risinger JI, Alvarez AA, Barrett JC, Berchuck A. Favorable survival associated with microsatellite instability in endometrioid endometrial cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97: 417-22.
Crossref Google Scholar
93

Walther A, Houlston R, Tomlinson I. Association between chromosomal instability and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2008; 57: 941-50.
Crossref Google Scholar
94

Russo M, Crisafulli G, Sogari A, Reilly NM, Arena S, Lamba S, et al. Adaptive mutability of colorectal cancers in response to targeted therapies. Science. 2019; 366:1473-80.
Crossref Google Scholar
95

Marteijn JA, Lans H, Vermeulen W, Hoeijmakers JHJ. Understanding nucleotide excision repair and its roles in cancer and ageing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014; 15: 465-81.
Crossref Google Scholar
96

Lee Y-C, Cai Y, Mu H, Broyde S, Amin S, Chen X, et al. The relationships between XPC binding to conformationally diverse DNA adducts and their excision by the human NER system: is there a correlation? DNA Repair. 2014; 19: 55-63.
Crossref Google Scholar
97

Riedl T, Hanaoka F, Egly JM. The comings and goings of nucleotide excision repair factors on damaged DNA. EMBO J. 2003; 22: 5293-303.
Crossref Google Scholar
98

Spivak G. Nucleotide excision repair in humans. DNA Repair. 2015; 36: 13-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
99

Tsodikov OV, Ivanov D, Orelli B, Staresincic L, Shoshani I, Oberman R, et al. Structural basis for the recruitment of ERCC1-XPF to nucleotide excision repair complexes by XPA. EMBO J. 2007; 26: 4768-76.
Crossref Google Scholar
100

Orelli B, McClendon TB, Tsodikov OV, Ellenberger T, Niedernhofer LJ, Schärer OD. The XPA-binding domain of ERCC1 is required for nucleotide excision repair but not other DNA repair pathways. J Biol Chem. 2010; 285: 3705-12.
Crossref Google Scholar
101

Moser J, Kool H, Giakzidis I, Caldecott K, Mullenders LHF, Fousteri MI. Sealing of chromosomal DNA nicks during nucleotide excision repair requires xrcc1 and DNA ligase iiiα in a cell-cycle-specific manner. Mol Cell. 2007; 27: 311-23.
Crossref Google Scholar
102

Ogi T, Limsirichaikul S, Overmeer RM, Volker M, Takenaka K, Cloney R, et al. Three DNA polymerases, recruited by different mechanisms, carry out NER repair synthesis in human cells. Mol Cell. 2010; 37: 714-27.
Crossref Google Scholar
103

Friedberg EC. How nucleotide excision repair protects against cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2001; 1: 22-33.
Crossref Google Scholar
104

Hoeijmakers JHJ. Human nucleotide excision repair syndromes: molecular clues to unexpected intricacies. Eur J Cancer. 1994; 30: 1912-21.
Crossref Google Scholar
105

García-Closas M, Malats N, Real FX, Welch R, Kogevinas M, Chatterjee N, et al. Genetic variation in the nucleotide excision repair pathway and bladder cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006; 15: 536-42.
Crossref Google Scholar
106

Ge J, Liu H, Qian D, Wang X, Moorman PG, Luo S, et al. Genetic variants of genes in the NER pathway associated with risk of breast cancer: a large-scale analysis of 14 published GWAS datasets in the DRIVE study. Int J Cancer. 2019; 145: 1270-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
107

Apostolou Z, Chatzinikolaou G, Stratigi K, Garinis GA. Nucleotide excision repair and transcription-associated genome instability. Bioessays. 2019; 41: 1800201.
Crossref Google Scholar
108

Tian M, Alt FW. Transcription-induced cleavage of immunoglobulin switch regions by nucleotide excision repair nucleases in vitro. J Biol Chem. 2000; 275: 24163-72.
Crossref Google Scholar
109

Sollier J, Stork CT, García-Rubio ML, Paulsen RD, Aguilera A, Cimprich KA. Transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair factors promote R-loop-induced genome instability. Mol Cell. 2014; 56: 777-85.
Crossref Google Scholar
110

Yasuhara T, Kato R, Hagiwara Y, Shiotani B, Yamauchi M, Nakada S, et al. Human Rad52 promotes XPG-mediated R-loop processing to initiate transcription-associated homologous recombination repair. Cell. 2018; 175: 558-70.
Crossref Google Scholar
111

Crossley MP, Bocek M, Cimprich KA. R-loops as cellular regulators and genomic threats. Mol Cell. 2019; 73: 398-411.
Crossref Google Scholar
112

Theron T, Fousteri MI, Volker M, Harries LW, Botta E, Stefanini M, et al. Transcription-associated breaks in xeroderma pigmentosum group D cells from patients with combined features of xeroderma pigmentosum and Cockayne syndrome. Mol Cell Biol. 2005; 25: 8368-78.
Crossref Google Scholar
113

Manandhar M, Boulware KS, Wood RD. The ERCC1 and ERCC4 (XPF) genes and gene products. Gene. 2015; 569: 153-61.
Crossref Google Scholar
114

Melis JPM, van Steeg H, Luijten M. Oxidative DNA damage and nucleotide excision repair. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013; 18: 2409-19.
Crossref Google Scholar
115

Hoeijmakers JHJ. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 1475-85.
Crossref Google Scholar
116

Sabarinathan R, Mularoni L, Deu-Pons J, Gonzalez-Perez A, López-Bigas N. Nucleotide excision repair is impaired by binding of transcription factors to DNA. Nature. 2016; 532: 264-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
117

Dianov GL. Base excision repair targets for cancer therapy. Am J Cancer Res. 2011; 1: 845-51.
Google Scholar
118

Kiyohara C, Takayama K, Nakanishi Y. Association of genetic polymorphisms in the base excision repair pathway with lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Lung Cancer. 2006; 54: 267-83.
Crossref Google Scholar
119

Zhang Y, Newcomb PA, Egan KM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Chanock S, Welch R, et al. Genetic polymorphisms in base-excision repair pathway genes and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006; 15: 353-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
120

Starcevic D, Dalal S, Sweasy JB. Is there a link between DNA polymerase beta and cancer? Cell Cycle. 2004; 3: 998-1001.
Crossref Google Scholar
121

Mohammed MZ, Vyjayanti VN, Laughton CA, Dekker LV, Fischer PM, Wilson DM, 3rd, et al. Development and evaluation of human AP endonuclease inhibitors in melanoma and glioma cell lines. Br J Cancer. 2011; 104: 653-63.
Crossref Google Scholar
122

Sharbeen G, McCarroll J, Goldstein D, Phillips PA. Exploiting base excision repair to improve therapeutic approaches for pancreatic cancer. Front Nutr. 2015; 2: 10.
Crossref Google Scholar
123

Kalikaki A, Kanaki M, Vassalou H, Souglakos J, Voutsina A, Georgoulias V, et al. DNA repair gene polymorphisms predict favorable clinical outcome in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2009; 10: 118-23.
Crossref Google Scholar
124

Viel A, Bruselles A, Meccia E, Fornasarig M, Quaia M, Canzonieri V, et al. A specific mutational signature associated with DNA 8-oxoguanine persistence in MUTYH-defective colorectal cancer. EBioMedicine. 2017; 20: 39-49.
Crossref Google Scholar
125

Grolleman JE, Díaz-Gay M, Franch-Expósito S, Castellví-Bel S, de Voer RM. Somatic mutational signatures in polyposis and colorectal cancer. Mol Aspects Med. 2019; 69: 62-72.
Crossref Google Scholar
126

Rodgers K, McVey M. Error-prone repair of DNA double-strand breaks. J Cell Physiol. 2016; 231: 15-24.
Crossref Google Scholar
127

Scully R, Panday A, Elango R, Willis NA. DNA double-strand break repair-pathway choice in somatic mammalian cells. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2019; 20: 698-714.
Crossref Google Scholar
128

Davis AJ, Chen BPC, Chen DJ. DNA-PK: A dynamic enzyme in a versatile DSP repair pathway. DNA Repair. 2014; 17: 21-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
129

Wang J, Aroumougame A, Lobrich M, Li Y, Chen D, Chen J, et al. PTIP associates with Artemis to dictate DNA repair pathway choice. Genes Dev. 2014; 28: 2693-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
130

Gu J, Lu H, Tippin B, Shimazaki N, Goodman MF, Lieber MR. Xrcc4: DNA ligase iv can ligate incompatible DNA ends and can ligate across gaps. EMBO J. 2007; 26: 1010-23.
Crossref Google Scholar
131

Lieber MR. The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Annu Rev Biochem. 2010; 79: 181-211.
Crossref Google Scholar
132

Bunting SF, Callén E, Wong N, Chen H-T, Polato F, Gunn A, et al. 53bp1 inhibits homologous recombination in BRCA1-deficient cells by blocking resection of DNA breaks. Cell. 2010; 141: 243-54.
Crossref Google Scholar
133

Chapman JR, Sossick AJ, Boulton SJ, Jackson SP. Brca1-associated exclusion of 53bp1 from DNA damage sites underlies temporal control of DNA repair. J Cell Sci. 2012; 125: 3529-34.
Crossref Google Scholar
134

Doil C, Mailand N, Bekker-Jensen S, Menard P, Larsen DH, Pepperkok R, et al. Rnf168 binds and amplifies ubiquitin conjugates on damaged chromosomes to allow accumulation of repair proteins. Cell. 2009; 136: 435-46.
Crossref Google Scholar
135

Botuyan MV, Lee J, Ward IM, Kim J-E, Thompson JR, Chen J, et al. Structural basis for the methylation state-specific recognition of histone H4-K20 by 53BP1 and Crb2 in DNA repair. Cell. 2006; 127: 1361-73.
Crossref Google Scholar
136

Huyen Y, Zgheib O, DiTullio Jr RA, Gorgoulis VG, Zacharatos P, Petty TJ, et al. Methylated lysine 79 of histone H3 targets 53BP1 to DNA double-strand breaks. Nature. 2004; 432: 406-11.
Crossref Google Scholar
137

Fradet-Turcotte A, Canny MD, Escribano-Díaz C, Orthwein A, Leung CC, Huang H, et al. 53BP1 is a reader of the DNA-damage-induced H2A Lys 15 ubiquitin mark. Nature. 2013; 499: 50-4.
Crossref Google Scholar
138

Feng L, Fong K-W, Wang J, Wang W, Chen J. Rif1 counteracts BRCA1-mediated end resection during DNA repair. J Biol Chem. 2013; 288: 11135-43.
Crossref Google Scholar
139

Dev H, Chiang T-WW, Lescale C, de Krijger I, Martin AG, Pilger D, et al. Shieldin complex promotes DNA end-joining and counters homologous recombination in BRCA1-null cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2018; 20: 954-65.
Crossref Google Scholar
140

Gupta R, Somyajit K, Narita T, Maskey E, Stanlie A, Kremer M, et al. DNA repair network analysis reveals shieldin as a key regulator of nhej and PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Cell. 2018; 173: 972-88.
Crossref Google Scholar
141

Mirman Z, Lottersberger F, Takai H, Kibe T, Gong Y, Takai K, et al. 53bp1–rif1–shieldin counteracts dsb resection through cst-and polα-dependent fill-in. Nature. 2018; 560: 112-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
142

Noordermeer SM, Adam S, Setiaputra D, Barazas M, Pettitt SJ, Ling AK, et al. The shieldin complex mediates 53bp1-dependent DNA repair. Nature. 2018; 560: 117-21.
Crossref Google Scholar
143

Panier S, Boulton SJ. Double-strand break repair: 53bp1 comes into focus. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014; 15: 7-18.
Crossref Google Scholar
144

Cruz-García A, López-Saavedra A, Huertas P. Brca1 accelerates ctip-mediated DNA-end resection. Cell reports. 2014; 9: 451-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
145

Xia B, Sheng Q, Nakanishi K, Ohashi A, Wu J, Christ N, et al. Control of BRCA2 cellular and clinical functions by a nuclear partner, palb2. Mol Cell. 2006; 22: 719-29.
Crossref Google Scholar
146

Huen MSY, Sy SMH, Chen J. Brca1 and its toolbox for the maintenance of genome integrity. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010; 11: 138-48.
Crossref Google Scholar
147

Liu J, Doty T, Gibson B, Heyer W-D. Human BRCA2 protein promotes rad51 filament formation on rpa-covered single-stranded DNA. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2010; 17: 1260-2.
Crossref Google Scholar
148

Heyer W-D, Ehmsen KT, Liu J. Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu Rev Genet. 2010; 44: 113-39.
Crossref Google Scholar
149

Heyer W-D, Ehmsen KT, Solinger JA. Holliday junctions in the eukaryotic nucleus: Resolution in sight? Trends Biochem Sci. 2003; 28: 548-57.
Crossref Google Scholar
150

Tubbs A, Nussenzweig A. Endogenous DNA damage as a source of genomic instability in cancer. Cell. 2017; 168: 644-56.
Crossref Google Scholar
151

Aparicio T, Baer R, Gautier J. DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice and cancer. DNA Repair. 2014; 19: 169-75.
Crossref Google Scholar
152

Cao L, Xu X, Bunting SF, Liu J, Wang R-H, Cao LL, et al. A selective requirement for 53bp1 in the biological response to genomic instability induced by BRCA1 deficiency. Mol Cell. 2009; 35: 534-41.
Crossref Google Scholar
153

Bouwman P, Aly A, Escandell JM, Pieterse M, Bartkova J, Van Der Gulden H, et al. 53bp1 loss rescues BRCA1 deficiency and is associated with triple-negative and brca-mutated breast cancers. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2010; 17: 688.
Crossref Google Scholar
154

Forment JV, Kaidi A, Jackson SP. Chromothripsis and cancer: causes and consequences of chromosome shattering. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012; 12: 663-70.
Crossref Google Scholar
155

Cortés-Ciriano I, Lee JJ-K, Xi R, Jain D, Jung YL, Yang L, et al. Comprehensive analysis of chromothripsis in 2,658 human cancers using whole-genome sequencing. Nat Genet. 2020; 52: 331-41.
Crossref Google Scholar
156

Stephens PJ, Greenman CD, Fu B, Yang F, Bignell GR, Mudie LJ, et al. Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell. 2011; 144: 27-40.
Crossref Google Scholar
157

Vasan N, Baselga J, Hyman DM. A view on drug resistance in cancer. Nature. 2019; 575: 299-309.
Crossref Google Scholar
158

Zhang C-Z, Spektor A, Cornils H, Francis JM, Jackson EK, Liu S, et al. Chromothripsis from DNA damage in micronuclei. Nature. 2015; 522: 179-84.
Crossref Google Scholar
159

Ly P, Cleveland DW. Rebuilding chromosomes after catastrophe: emerging mechanisms of chromothripsis. Trends Cell Biol. 2017; 27: 917-30.
Crossref Google Scholar
160

Crasta K, Ganem NJ, Dagher R, Lantermann AB, Ivanova EV, Pan Y, et al. DNA breaks and chromosome pulverization from errors in mitosis. Nature. 2012; 482: 53-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
161

Hatch EM, Fischer AH, Deerinck TJ, Hetzer MW. Catastrophic nuclear envelope collapse in cancer cell micronuclei. Cell. 2013; 154: 47-60.
Crossref Google Scholar
162

Ly P, Teitz LS, Kim DH, Shoshani O, Skaletsky H, Fachinetti D, et al. Selective y centromere inactivation triggers chromosome shattering in micronuclei and repair by non-homologous end joining. Nat Cell Biol. 2017; 19: 68-75.
Crossref Google Scholar
163

Terradas M, Martín M, Tusell L, Genescà A. DNA lesions sequestered in micronuclei induce a local defective-damage response. DNA Repair. 2009; 8: 1225-34.
Crossref Google Scholar
164

Ceccaldi R, Sarangi P, D’Andrea AD. The Fanconi anaemia pathway: new players and new functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016; 17: 337-49.
Crossref Google Scholar
165

Zhang J, Dewar JM, Budzowska M, Motnenko A, Cohn MA, Walter JC. DNA interstrand cross-link repair requires replication-fork convergence. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2015; 22: 242-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
166

Long DT, Joukov V, Budzowska M, Walter JC. Brca1 promotes unloading of the cmg helicase from a stalled DNA replication fork. Mol Cell. 2014; 56: 174-85.
Crossref Google Scholar
167

Knipscheer P, Räschle M, Smogorzewska A, Enoiu M, Schärer OD, Elledge SJ, et al. The Fanconi anemia pathway promotes replication-dependent DNA interstrand cross-link repair. Science. 2009; 326: 1698-701.
Crossref Google Scholar
168

Liu T, Ghosal G, Yuan J, Chen J, Huang J. Fan1 acts with fanci-fancd2 to promote DNA interstrand cross-link repair. Science. 2010; 329: 693-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
169

Yamamoto KN, Kobayashi S, Tsuda M, Kurumizaka H, Takata M, Kono K, et al. Involvement of slx4 in interstrand cross-link repair is regulated by the Fanconi anemia pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108: 6492-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
170

Douwel DK, Boonen RACM, Long DT, Szypowska AA, Räschle M, Walter JC, et al. Xpf-ercc1 acts in unhooking DNA interstrand crosslinks in cooperation with fancd2 and fancp/slx4. Mol Cell. 2014; 54: 460-71.
Crossref Google Scholar
171

Sarkar S, Davies AA, Ulrich HD, McHugh PJ. DNA interstrand crosslink repair during g1 involves nucleotide excision repair and DNA polymerase ζ. EMBO J. 2006; 25: 1285-94.
Crossref Google Scholar
172

Budzowska M, Graham TGW, Sobeck A, Waga S, Walter JC. Regulation of the rev1–pol ζ complex during bypass of a DNA interstrand cross-link. EMBO J. 2015; 34: 1971-85.
Crossref Google Scholar
173

Howlett NG, Taniguchi T, Olson S, Cox B, Waisfisz Q, de Die-Smulders C, et al. Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in Fanconi anemia. Science. 2002; 297: 606-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
174

Niraj J, Färkkilä A, D’Andrea AD. The Fanconi anemia pathway in cancer. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2019; 3: 457-78.
Crossref Google Scholar
175

Schlacher K, Wu H, Jasin M. A distinct replication fork protection pathway connects Fanconi anemia tumor suppressors to rad51-BRCA1/2. Cancer Cell. 2012; 22: 106-16.
Crossref Google Scholar
176

Schlacher K, Christ N, Siaud N, Egashira A, Wu H, Jasin M. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by mre11. Cell. 2011; 145: 529-42.
Crossref Google Scholar
177

Chen Y-H, Jones MJK, Yin Y, Crist SB, Colnaghi L, Sims Iii RJ, et al. Atr-mediated phosphorylation of fanci regulates dormant origin firing in response to replication stress. Mol Cell. 2015; 58: 323-38.
Crossref Google Scholar
178

Lossaint G, Larroque M, Ribeyre C, Bec N, Larroque C, Décaillet C, et al. Fancd2 binds mcm proteins and controls replisome function upon activation of s phase checkpoint signaling. Mol Cell. 2013; 51: 678-90.
Crossref Google Scholar
179

Bunting SF, Callén E, Kozak ML, Kim JM, Wong N, López-Contreras AJ, et al. Brca1 functions independently of homologous recombination in DNA interstrand crosslink repair. Mol Cell. 2012; 46: 125-35.
Crossref Google Scholar
180

Lachaud C, Moreno A, Marchesi F, Toth R, Blow JJ, Rouse J. Ubiquitinated fancd2 recruits fan1 to stalled replication forks to prevent genome instability. Science. 2016; 351: 846-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
181

Chaudhury I, Stroik DR, Sobeck A. Fancd2-controlled chromatin access of the Fanconi-associated nuclease fan1 is crucial for the recovery of stalled replication forks. Mol Cell Biol. 2014; 34: 3939-54.
Crossref Google Scholar
182

Raghunandan M, Chaudhury I, Kelich SL, Hanenberg H, Sobeck A. FANCD2, FANCJ and BRCA2 cooperate to promote replication fork recovery independently of the Fanconi Anemia core complex. Cell Cycle. 2015; 14: 342-53.
Crossref Google Scholar
183

Oostra AB, Nieuwint AWM, Joenje H, De Winter JP. Diagnosis of Fanconi anemia: chromosomal breakage analysis. Anemia. 2012; 2012: 238731.
Crossref Google Scholar
184

Nalepa G, Enzor R, Sun Z, Marchal C, Park S-J, Yang Y, et al. Fanconi anemia signaling network regulates the spindle assembly checkpoint. J Clin Invest. 2013; 123: 3839-47.
Crossref Google Scholar
185

Godek KM, Kabeche L, Compton DA. Regulation of kinetochore–microtubule attachments through homeostatic control during mitosis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015; 16: 57-64.
Crossref Google Scholar
186

Nalepa G, Clapp DW. Fanconi anaemia and cancer: an intricate relationship. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018; 18: 168.
Crossref Google Scholar
187

Levitus M, Waisfisz Q, Godthelp BC, De Vries Y, Hussain S, Wiegant WW, et al. The DNA helicase BRIP1 is defective in Fanconi anemia complementation group. J Nat Genet. 2005; 37: 934-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
188

Levran O, Attwooll C, Henry RT, Milton KL, Neveling K, Rio P, et al. The BRCA1-interacting helicase BRIP1 is deficient in Fanconi anemia. Nat Genet. 2005; 37: 931-3.
Crossref Google Scholar
189

Easton DF, Lesueur F, Decker B, Michailidou K, Li J, Allen J, et al. No evidence that protein truncating variants in BRIP1 are associated with breast cancer risk: implications for gene panel testing. J Med Genet. 2016; 53: 298-309.
Crossref Google Scholar
190

Virts EL, Jankowska A, Mackay C, Glaas MF, Wiek C, Kelich SL, et al. Aluy-mediated germline deletion, duplication and somatic stem cell reversion in ube2t defines a new subtype of Fanconi anemia. Hum Mol Genet. 2015; 24: 5093-108.
Crossref Google Scholar
191

Kiiski JI, Pelttari LM, Khan S, Freysteinsdottir ES, Reynisdottir I, Hart SN, et al. Exome sequencing identifies FANCM as a susceptibility gene for triple-negative breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111: 15172-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
192

Shiloh Y. Atm and related protein kinases: safeguarding genome integrity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003; 3: 155-68.
Crossref Google Scholar
193

Bartkova J, Horejsí Z, Koed K, Krämer A, Tort F, Zieger K, et al. DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature. 2005; 434: 864-70.
Crossref Google Scholar
194

Gorgoulis VG, Vassiliou LV, Karakaidos P, Zacharatos P, Kotsinas A, Liloglou T, et al. Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint and genomic instability in human precancerous lesions. Nature. 2005; 434: 907-13.
Crossref Google Scholar
195

Halazonetis TD, Gorgoulis VG, Bartek J. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science. 2008; 319: 1352-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
196

Kotsantis P, Petermann E, Boulton SJ. Mechanisms of oncogene-induced replication stress: Jigsaw falling into place. Cancer Discov. 2018; 8: 537-55.
Crossref Google Scholar
197

Negrini S, Gorgoulis VG, Halazonetis TD. Genomic instability – an evolving hallmark of cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010; 11: 220-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
198

Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91: 1310-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
199

Thompson D, Easton D, Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Variation in cancer risks, by mutation position, in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Am J Hum Genet. 2001; 68: 410-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
200

Waddell N, Arnold J, Cocciardi S, Da Silva L, Marsh A, Riley J, et al. Subtypes of familial breast tumours revealed by expression and copy number profiling. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 123: 661-77.
Crossref Google Scholar
201

Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, Bégin LR, Goffin JR, Wong N, et al. Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 1482-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
202

Jönsson G, Staaf J, Vallon-Christersson J, Ringnér M, Holm K, Hegardt C, et al. Genomic subtypes of breast cancer identified by array-comparative genomic hybridization display distinct molecular and clinical characteristics. Breast Cancer Res. 2010; 12: R42.
Crossref Google Scholar
203

Peshkin BN, Alabek ML, Isaacs C. Brca1/2 mutations and triple negative breast cancers. Breast Dis. 2011; 32: 25-33.
Crossref Google Scholar
204

Semmler L, Reiter-Brennan C, Klein A. Brca1 and breast cancer: a review of the underlying mechanisms resulting in the tissue-specific tumorigenesis in mutation carriers. J Breast Cancer. 2019; 22: 1-14.
Crossref Google Scholar
205

Gorodetska I, Kozeretska I, Dubrovska A. Brca genes: the role in genome stability, cancer stemness and therapy resistance. J Cancer. 2019; 10: 2109-27.
Crossref Google Scholar
206

Molyneux G, Geyer FC, Magnay F-A, McCarthy A, Kendrick H, Natrajan R, et al. Brca1 basal-like breast cancers originate from luminal epithelial progenitors and not from basal stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2010; 7: 403-17.
Crossref Google Scholar
207

Lim E, Vaillant F, Wu D, Forrest NC, Pal B, Hart AH, et al. Aberrant luminal progenitors as the candidate target population for basal tumor development in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Nat Med. 2009; 15: 907.
Crossref Google Scholar
208

Proia TA, Keller PJ, Gupta PB, Klebba I, Jones AD, Sedic M, et al. Genetic predisposition directs breast cancer phenotype by dictating progenitor cell fate. Cell Stem Cell. 2011; 8: 149-63.
Crossref Google Scholar
209

Sedic M, Skibinski A, Brown N, Gallardo M, Mulligan P, Martinez P, et al. Haploinsufficiency for BRCA1 leads to cell-type-specific genomic instability and premature senescence. Nat Commun. 2015; 6: 7505.
Crossref Google Scholar
210

Chen C-C, Feng W, Lim PX, Kass EM, Jasin M. Homology-directed repair and the role of BRCA1, BRCA2, and related proteins in genome integrity and cancer. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2018; 2: 313-36.
Crossref Google Scholar
211

Nolan E, Vaillant F, Branstetter D, Pal B, Giner G, Whitehead L, et al. Rank ligand as a potential target for breast cancer prevention in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Nat Med. 2016; 22: 933-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
212

Sau A, Lau R, Cabrita MA, Nolan E, Crooks PA, Visvader JE, et al. Persistent activation of NF-κB in BRCA1-deficient mammary progenitors drives aberrant proliferation and accumulation of DNA damage. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 19: 52-65.
Crossref Google Scholar
213

Wang H, Xiang D, Liu B, He A, Randle HJ, Zhang KX, et al. Inadequate DNA damage repair promotes mammary transdifferentiation, leading to BRCA1 breast cancer. Cell. 2019; 178: 135-51.
Crossref Google Scholar
214

Wang H, Bierie B, Li AG, Pathania S, Toomire K, Dimitrov SD, et al. BRCA1/FANCD2/BRG1-driven DNA repair stabilizes the differentiation state of human mammary epithelial cells. Mol Cell. 2016; 63: 277-92.
Crossref Google Scholar
215

Yager JD, Davidson NE. Estrogen carcinogenesis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 270-82.
Crossref Google Scholar
216

Savage KI, Matchett KB, Barros EM, Cooper KM, Irwin GW, Gorski JJ, et al. Brca1 deficiency exacerbates estrogen-induced DNA damage and genomic instability. Cancer Res. 2014; 74: 2773-84.
Crossref Google Scholar
217

Li M, Chen Q, Yu X. Chemopreventive effects of ROS targeting in a murine model of BRCA1-deficient breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2017; 77: 448-58.
Crossref Google Scholar
218

Stork CT, Bocek M, Crossley MP, Sollier J, Sanz LA, Chedin F, et al. Co-transcriptional r-loops are the main cause of estrogen-induced DNA damage. Elife. 2016; 5: e17548.
Crossref Google Scholar
219

Kim C, Gao R, Sei E, Brandt R, Hartman J, Hatschek T, et al. Chemoresistance evolution in triple-negative breast cancer delineated by single-cell sequencing. Cell. 2018; 173: 879-93.e13.
Crossref Google Scholar
220

Eirew P, Steif A, Khattra J, Ha G, Yap D, Farahani H, et al. Dynamics of genomic clones in breast cancer patient xenografts at single-cell resolution. Nature. 2015; 518: 422-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
221

Ben-David U, Beroukhim R, Golub TR. Genomic evolution of cancer models: perils and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019; 19: 97-109.
Crossref Google Scholar
222

Hyo-eun CB, Ruddy DA, Radhakrishna VK, Caushi JX, Zhao R, Hims MM, et al. Studying clonal dynamics in response to cancer therapy using high-complexity barcoding. Nat Med. 2015; 21: 440-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
223

Hata AN, Niederst MJ, Archibald HL, Gomez-Caraballo M, Siddiqui FM, Mulvey HE, et al. Tumor cells can follow distinct evolutionary paths to become resistant to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition. Nat Med. 2016; 22: 262-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
224

Diaz Jr LA, Williams RT, Wu J, Kinde I, Hecht JR, Berlin J, et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature. 2012; 486: 537-40.
Crossref Google Scholar
225

Kemper K, Krijgsman O, Cornelissen-Steijger P, Shahrabi A, Weeber F, Song JY, et al. Intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity in a vemurafenib-resistant melanoma patient and derived xenografts. EMBO Mol Med. 2015; 7: 1104-18.
Crossref Google Scholar
226

Romanel A, Tandefelt DG, Conteduca V, Jayaram A, Casiraghi N, Wetterskog D, et al. Plasma AR and abiraterone-resistant prostate cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2015; 7: 312re10.
Crossref Google Scholar
227

Thakur MD, Salangsang F, Landman AS, Sellers WR, Pryer NK, Levesque MP, et al. Modelling vemurafenib resistance in melanoma reveals a strategy to forestall drug resistance. Nature. 2013; 494: 251-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
228

Taniguchi T, Tischkowitz M, Ameziane N, Hodgson SV, Mathew CG, Joenje H, et al. Disruption of the Fanconi anemia–brca pathway in cisplatin-sensitive ovarian tumors. Nat Med. 2003; 9: 568-74.
Crossref Google Scholar
229

Sakai W, Swisher EM, Karlan BY, Agarwal MK, Higgins J, Friedman C, et al. Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2-mutated cancers. Nature. 2008; 451: 1116-20.
Crossref Google Scholar
230

Swisher EM, Sakai W, Karlan BY, Wurz K, Urban N, Taniguchi T. Secondary BRCA1 mutations in BRCA1-mutated ovarian carcinomas with platinum resistance. Cancer Res. 2008; 68: 2581-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
231

Chang X, Monitto CL, Demokan S, Kim MS, Chang SS, Zhong X, et al. Identification of hypermethylated genes associated with cisplatin resistance in human cancers. Cancer Res. 2010; 70: 2870-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
232

Li M, Balch C, Montgomery JS, Jeong M, Chung JH, Yan P, et al. Integrated analysis of DNA methylation and gene expression reveals specific signaling pathways associated with platinum resistance in ovarian cancer. BMC Med Genomics. 2009; 2: 34.
Crossref Google Scholar
233

Gifford G, Paul J, Vasey PA, Kaye SB, Brown R. The acquisition of hMLH1 methylation in plasma DNA after chemotherapy predicts poor survival for ovarian cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2004; 10: 4420-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
234

Bouwman P, Jonkers J. The effects of deregulated DNA damage signalling on cancer chemotherapy response and resistance. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012; 12: 587-98.
Crossref Google Scholar
235

Lipinski KA, Barber LJ, Davies MN, Ashenden M, Sottoriva A, Gerlinger M. Cancer evolution and the limits of predictability in precision cancer medicine. Trends Cancer. 2016; 2: 49-63.
Crossref Google Scholar
236

Ding L, Ley TJ, Larson DE, Miller CA, Koboldt DC, Welch JS, et al. Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature. 2012; 481: 506-10.
Crossref Google Scholar
237

Johnson BE, Mazor T, Hong C, Barnes M, Aihara K, McLean CY, et al. Mutational analysis reveals the origin and therapy-driven evolution of recurrent glioma. Science. 2014; 343: 189-93.
Crossref Google Scholar
238

Hunter C, Smith R, Cahill DP, Stephens P, Stevens C, Teague J, et al. A hypermutation phenotype and somatic MSH6 mutations in recurrent human malignant gliomas after alkylator chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2006; 66: 3987-91.
Crossref Google Scholar
239

Willers H, Dahm-Daphi J, Powell SN. Repair of radiation damage to DNA. Br J Cancer. 2004; 90: 1297-301.
Crossref Google Scholar
240

Lynam-Lennon N, Reynolds JV, Pidgeon GP, Lysaght J, Marignol L, Maher SG. Alterations in DNA repair efficiency are involved in the radioresistance of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Radiat Res. 2010; 174: 703-11.
Crossref Google Scholar
241

Sherborne AL, Davidson PR, Yu K, Nakamura AO, Rashid M, Nakamura JL. Mutational analysis of ionizing radiation induced neoplasms. Cell Rep. 2015; 12: 1915-26.
Crossref Google Scholar
242

Ward JF. Radiation mutagenesis: the initial DNA lesions responsible. Radiat Res. 1995; 142: 362-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
243

Jeggo P, Lavin MF. Cellular radiosensitivity: how much better do we understand it? Int J Radiat Biol. 2009; 85: 1061-81.
Crossref Google Scholar
244

Helleday T, Petermann E, Lundin C, Hodgson B, Sharma RA. DNA repair pathways as targets for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008; 8: 193-204.
Crossref Google Scholar
245

Gogola E, Rottenberg S, Jonkers J. Resistance to PARP inhibitors: lessons from preclinical models of BRCA-associated cancer. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2019; 3: 235-54.
Crossref Google Scholar
246

Pettitt SJ, Krastev DB, Brandsma I, Dréan A, Song F, Aleksandrov R, et al. Genome-wide and high-density CRISPR-Cas9 screens identify point mutations in PARP1 causing PARP inhibitor resistance. Nat Commun. 2018; 9: 1-14.
Crossref Google Scholar
247

Barber LJ, Sandhu S, Chen L, Campbell J, Kozarewa I, Fenwick K, et al. Secondary mutations in BRCA2 associated with clinical resistance to a PARP inhibitor. J Pathol. 2013; 229: 422-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
248

Jaspers JE, Kersbergen A, Boon U, Sol W, Van Deemter L, Zander SA, et al. Loss of 53BP1 causes PARP inhibitor resistance in BRCA1-mutated mouse mammary tumors. Cancer Discov. 2013; 3: 68-81.
Crossref Google Scholar
249

Chaudhuri AR, Callen E, Ding X, Gogola E, Duarte AA, Lee J-E, et al. Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells. Nature. 2016; 535: 382-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
250

Evers B, Schut E, van der Burg E, Braumuller TM, Egan DA, Holstege H, et al. A high-throughput pharmaceutical screen identifies compounds with specific toxicity against BRCA2-deficient tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 99-108.
Crossref Google Scholar
251

Haber DA, Velculescu VE. Blood-based analyses of cancer: circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Cancer Discov. 2014; 4: 650-61.
Crossref Google Scholar
252

Murugaesu N, Chew SK, Swanton C. Adapting clinical paradigms to the challenges of cancer clonal evolution. Am J Pathol. 2013; 182: 1962-71.
Crossref Google Scholar
253

Trumpp A, Wiestler OD. Mechanisms of disease: cancer stem cells – targeting the evil twin. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008; 5: 337-47.
Crossref Google Scholar
254

Glasspool RM, Teodoridis JM, Brown R. Epigenetics as a mechanism driving polygenic clinical drug resistance. Br J Cancer. 2006; 94: 1087-92.
Crossref Google Scholar
255

Sharma SV, Lee DY, Li B, Quinlan MP, Takahashi F, Maheswaran S, et al. A chromatin-mediated reversible drug-tolerant state in cancer cell subpopulations. Cell. 2010; 141: 69-80.
Crossref Google Scholar
256

Fitzgerald DM, Hastings PJ, Rosenberg SM. Stress-induced mutagenesis: implications in cancer and drug resistance. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2017; 1: 119-40.
Crossref Google Scholar
257

Gerlinger M. Targeted drugs ramp up cancer mutability. Science. 2019; 366: 1452-3.
Crossref Google Scholar
258

Chan EM, Shibue T, McFarland JM, Gaeta B, Ghandi M, Dumont N, et al. Wrn helicase is a synthetic lethal target in microsatellite unstable cancers. Nature. 2019; 568: 551-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
259

Cipponi A, Goode DL, Bedo J, McCabe MJ, Pajic M, Croucher DR, et al. Mtor signaling orchestrates stress-induced mutagenesis, facilitating adaptive evolution in cancer. Science. 2020; 368: 1127-31.
Crossref Google Scholar
Cancer Biology & Medicine
Volume 17 Issue 4,
November 2020
Pages 805-827
DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0177
Cite this article:
Zhou J, Zhou XA, Zhang N, et al. Evolving insights: how DNA repair pathways impact cancer evolution. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 2020, 17(4): 805-827. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0177

53

Views

0

Downloads

23

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

21

Scopus

Altmetrics
Received: 16 April 2020
Accepted: 10 July 2020
Published: 15 November 2020
©2020 Cancer Biology & Medicine.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Return