Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32846370›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2020

Therapeutic vulnerabilities in the DNA damage response for the treatment of ATRX mutant neuroblastoma.

Sally L George, Federica Lorenzi, David King, Sabine Hartlieb, James Campbell, Helen Pemberton, Umut H Toprak, Karen Barker, Jennifer Tall, Barbara Martins da Costa and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Epigenetic crosstalk in neuroblastoma development and progression.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Theranostics for Neuroblastoma: Making Molecular Radiotherapy Work Better.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Sally L GeorgePaediatric Tumour Biology, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, United Kingdom; Children and Young People's Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT United Kingdom. Electronic address: Sally.George@icr.ac.uk.
Federica LorenziPaediatric Tumour Biology, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, United Kingdom.
David KingAcademic Unit of Molecular Oncology, Sheffield Institute for Nucleic Acids (SInFoNiA), Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom.
Sabine HartliebNeuroblastoma Genomics, Hopp Children`s Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) & German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
James CampbellBioinformatics Core Facility, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Helen PembertonCRUK Gene Function Laboratory and Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research London, SW3 6JB, United Kingdom.
Umut H ToprakNeuroblastoma Genomics, Hopp Children`s Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) & German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Karen BarkerPaediatric Tumour Biology, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, United Kingdom.
Jennifer TallPaediatric Tumour Biology, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, United Kingdom.
Barbara Martins da CostaPaediatric Tumour Biology, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, United Kingdom.
Marlinde L van den BoogaardPrincess Maxima Center for Pediatric Cancer, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M Emmy M DolmanPrincess Maxima Center for Pediatric Cancer, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan J MolenaarPrincess Maxima Center for Pediatric Cancer, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Helen E BryantAcademic Unit of Molecular Oncology, Sheffield Institute for Nucleic Acids (SInFoNiA), Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom.
Frank WestermannNeuroblastoma Genomics, Hopp Children`s Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) & German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Christopher J LordCRUK Gene Function Laboratory and Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research London, SW3 6JB, United Kingdom.
Louis CheslerPaediatric Tumour Biology, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, United Kingdom; Children and Young People's Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT United Kingdom.
Institute of Cancer Research · GBGerman Cancer Research Center · DEPrincess Máxima Center · NLMolecular Oncology (United States) · USRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14276Cancer Research UK 14610Cancer Research UK 24439Cancer Research UK 28370Medical Research Council MC_PC_16047Medical Research Council MC_PC_18051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn neuroblastoma, genetic alterations in ATRX, define a distinct poor outcome patient subgroup. Despite the need for new therapies, there is a lack of available models and a dearth of pre-clinical research.

methodsTo evaluate the impact of ATRX loss of function (LoF) in neuroblastoma, we utilized CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to generate neuroblastoma cell lines isogenic for ATRX. We used these and other models to identify therapeutically exploitable synthetic lethal vulnerabilities associated with ATRX LoF.

findingsIn isogenic cell lines, we found that ATRX inactivation results in increased DNA damage, homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects and impaired replication fork processivity. In keeping with this, high-throughput compound screening showed selective sensitivity in ATRX mutant cells to multiple PARP inhibitors and the ATM inhibitor KU60019. ATRX mutant cells also showed selective sensitivity to the DNA damaging agents, sapacitabine and irinotecan. HRR deficiency was also seen in the ATRX deleted CHLA-90 cell line, and significant sensitivity demonstrated to olaparib/irinotecan combination therapy in all ATRX LoF models. In-vivo sensitivity to olaparib/irinotecan was seen in ATRX mutant but not wild-type xenografts. Finally, sustained responses to olaparib/irinotecan therapy were seen in an ATRX deleted neuroblastoma patient derived xenograft.

interpretationATRX LoF results in specific DNA damage repair defects that can be therapeutically exploited. In ATRX LoF models, preclinical sensitivity is demonstrated to olaparib and irinotecan, a combination that can be rapidly translated into the clinic.

fundingThis work was supported by Christopher's Smile, Neuroblastoma UK, Cancer Research UK, and the Royal Marsden Hospital NIHR BRC.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCell Line, TumorCRISPR-Cas SystemsDisease Models, AnimalDNA DamageDNA RepairGene EditingGene Knockout TechniquesHumansImmunohistochemistryMiceNeuroblastomaPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsPrognosisXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysAntineoplastic AgentsATRX protein, humanPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsX-linked Nuclear ProteinATRXDNA damage responseNeuroblastomaPARP

Identifiers

PMID32846370
PMCPMC7452577
OpenAlexW3080704941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.