Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34316709›Full record

ArticleNAR cancer2021

Genome instability and pressure on non-homologous end joining drives chemotherapy resistance via a DNA repair crisis switch in triple negative breast cancer.

Adrian P Wiegmans, Ambber Ward, Ekaterina Ivanova, Pascal H G Duijf, Mark N Adams, Idris Mohd Najib, Romy Van Oosterhout, Martin C Sadowski, Greg Kelly, Scott W Morrical and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NAR cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Adrian P WiegmansQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4059-5988
Ambber WardSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD Australia.
Ekaterina IvanovaQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7227-4199
Pascal H G DuijfQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.
Mark N AdamsQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.
Idris Mohd NajibQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.
Romy Van OosterhoutTumor Microenvironment Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer, Herston Rd, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia.
Martin C SadowskiQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.
Greg KellyTumor Microenvironment Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer, Herston Rd, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia.
Scott W MorricalDepartment of Biochemistry, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
Ken O'ByrneQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.
Jason S LeeSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0879-934X
Derek J RichardQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Cancer and Ageing Research Program, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba QLD 4121, Australia.
Translational Research Institute · AUThe University of Queensland · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUQueensland University of Technology · AUUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemotherapy is used as a standard-of-care against cancers that display high levels of inherent genome instability. Chemotherapy induces DNA damage and intensifies pressure on the DNA repair pathways that can lead to deregulation. There is an urgent clinical need to be able to track the emergence of DNA repair driven chemotherapy resistance and tailor patient staging appropriately. There have been numerous studies into chemoresistance but to date no study has elucidated in detail the roles of the key DNA repair components in resistance associated with the frontline clinical combination of anthracyclines and taxanes together. In this study, we hypothesized that the emergence of chemotherapy resistance in triple negative breast cancer was driven by changes in functional signaling in the DNA repair pathways. We identified that consistent pressure on the non-homologous end joining pathway in the presence of genome instability causes failure of the key kinase DNA-PK, loss of p53 and compensation by p73. In-turn a switch to reliance on the homologous recombination pathway and RAD51 recombinase occurred to repair residual double strand DNA breaks. Further we demonstrate that RAD51 is an actionable target for resensitization to chemotherapy in resistant cells with a matched gene expression profile of resistance highlighted by homologous recombination in clinical samples.

Identifiers

PMID34316709
PMCPMC8210242
OpenAlexW3168812472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.