Hubbry Logo
DNA repairDNA repairMain
Open search
DNA repair
Community hub
DNA repair
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
DNA repair
DNA repair
from Wikipedia

DNA damage resulting in multiple broken chromosomes

DNA repair is a collection of processes by which a cell identifies and corrects damage to the DNA molecules that encode its genome.[1][2] A weakened capacity for DNA repair is a risk factor for the development of cancer.[3] DNA is constantly modified in cells, by internal metabolic by-products, and by external ionizing radiation, ultraviolet light, and medicines, resulting in spontaneous DNA damage involving tens of thousands of individual molecular lesions per cell per day.[4][5] DNA modifications can also be programmed.[5]

Molecular lesions can cause structural damage to the DNA molecule, and can alter or eliminate the cell's ability for transcription and gene expression. Other lesions may induce potentially harmful mutations in the cell's genome, which affect the survival of its daughter cells following mitosis. Consequently, DNA repair as part of the DNA damage response (DDR) is constantly active. When normal repair processes fail, including apoptosis, irreparable DNA damage may occur, that may be a risk factor for cancer.[3]

The degree of DNA repair change made within a cell depends on various factors, including the cell type, the age of the cell, and the extracellular environment. A cell that has accumulated a large amount of DNA damage or can no longer effectively repair its DNA may enter one of three possible states:

  1. an irreversible state of dormancy, known as senescence
  2. apoptosis, a form of programmed cell death[6][7]
  3. unregulated division, which can lead to the formation of a tumor that is cancerous

The DNA repair ability of a cell is vital to the integrity of its genome and thus to the normal functionality of that organism. Many genes that were initially shown to influence life span have turned out to be involved in DNA damage repair and protection.[8]

Paul Modrich talks about himself and his work in DNA repair.

The 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich, and Aziz Sancar for their work on the molecular mechanisms of DNA repair processes.[9][10]

DNA damage

[edit]

DNA damage, due to environmental factors and normal metabolic processes inside the cell, occurs at a rate of 10,000 to 1,000,000 molecular lesions per cell per day.[4] While this constitutes at most only 0.03% of the human genome's approximately 3.2 billion bases, unrepaired lesions in critical genes (such as tumor suppressor genes) can impede a cell's ability to carry out its function and appreciably increase the likelihood of tumor formation and contribute to tumor heterogeneity.

The vast majority of DNA damage affects the primary structure of the double helix; that is, the bases themselves are chemically modified. These modifications can in turn disrupt the molecules' regular helical structure by introducing non-native chemical bonds or bulky adducts that do not fit in the standard double helix. Unlike proteins and RNA, DNA usually lacks tertiary structure and therefore damage or disturbance does not occur at that level. DNA is, however, supercoiled and wound around "packaging" proteins called histones (in eukaryotes), and both superstructures are vulnerable to the effects of DNA damage.

Sources

[edit]

DNA damage can be subdivided into two main types:

  1. endogenous damage such as attack by reactive oxygen species produced from normal metabolic byproducts (spontaneous mutation), especially the process of oxidative deamination
    1. also includes replication errors
  2. exogenous damage caused by external agents such as
    1. ultraviolet (UV) radiation (200–400 nm) from the sun or other artificial light sources
    2. other radiation frequencies, including x-rays and gamma rays, and particles like electrons, neutrons, or alpha particles.
    3. hydrolysis or thermal disruption
    4. certain plant toxins
    5. human-made mutagenic chemicals, especially aromatic compounds that act as DNA intercalating agents
    6. viruses[11]

The replication of damaged DNA before cell division can lead to the incorporation of wrong bases opposite damaged ones. Daughter cells that inherit these wrong bases carry mutations from which the original DNA sequence is unrecoverable (except in the rare case of a back mutation, for example, through gene conversion).

Types

[edit]

There are several types of damage to DNA due to endogenous cellular processes:

  1. oxidation of bases [e.g. 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-oxoG)] and generation of DNA strand interruptions from reactive oxygen species,
  2. alkylation of bases (usually methylation), such as formation of 7-methylguanosine, 1-methyladenine, 6-O-Methylguanine
  3. hydrolysis of bases, such as deamination, depurination, and depyrimidination.
  4. "bulky adduct formation" (e.g., benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide-dG adduct, aristolactam I-dA adduct)
  5. mismatch of bases, due to errors in DNA replication, in which the wrong DNA base is stitched into place in a newly forming DNA strand, or a DNA base is skipped over or mistakenly inserted.
  6. Monoadduct damage cause by change in single nitrogenous base of DNA
  7. Di adduct damage

Damage caused by exogenous agents comes in many forms. Some examples are:

  1. Absorption of UV light directly by DNA induces photochemical reactions, leading to the formation of pyrimidine dimers, and photoionization, provoking oxidative damage.[12][13][14][15]
  2. UV-A light creates mostly free radicals. The damage caused by free radicals is called indirect DNA damage.
  3. Ionizing radiation such as that created by radioactive decay or in cosmic rays causes breaks in DNA strands. Intermediate-level ionizing radiation may induce irreparable DNA damage (leading to replicational and transcriptional errors needed for neoplasia or may trigger viral interactions) leading to pre-mature aging and cancer.
  4. Thermal disruption at elevated temperature increases the rate of depurination (loss of purine bases from the DNA backbone) and single-strand breaks. For example, hydrolytic depurination is seen in the thermophilic bacteria, which grow in hot springs at 40–80 °C.[16][17] The rate of depurination (300 purine residues per genome per generation) is too high in these species to be repaired by normal repair machinery, hence a possibility of an adaptive response cannot be ruled out.
  5. Industrial chemicals such as vinyl chloride and hydrogen peroxide, and environmental chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in smoke, soot and tar create a huge diversity of DNA adducts- ethanoates, oxidized bases, alkylated phosphodiesters and crosslinking of DNA, just to name a few.

UV damage, alkylation/methylation, X-ray damage and oxidative damage are examples of induced damage. Spontaneous damage can include the loss of a base, deamination, sugar ring puckering and tautomeric shift. Constitutive (spontaneous) DNA damage caused by endogenous oxidants can be detected as a low level of histone H2AX phosphorylation in untreated cells.[18]

Nuclear versus mitochondrial

[edit]

In eukaryotic cells, DNA is found in two cellular locations – inside the nucleus and inside the mitochondria. Nuclear DNA (nDNA) exists as chromatin during non-replicative stages of the cell cycle and is condensed into aggregate structures known as chromosomes during cell division. In either state the DNA is highly compacted and wound up around bead-like proteins called histones. Whenever a cell needs to express the genetic information encoded in its nDNA the required chromosomal region is unraveled, genes located therein are expressed, and then the region is condensed back to its resting conformation. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is located inside mitochondria organelles, exists in multiple copies, and is also tightly associated with a number of proteins to form a complex known as the nucleoid. Inside mitochondria, reactive oxygen species (ROS), or free radicals, byproducts of the constant production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) via oxidative phosphorylation, create a highly oxidative environment that is known to damage mtDNA. A critical enzyme in counteracting the toxicity of these species is superoxide dismutase, which is present in both the mitochondria and cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells.

Senescence and apoptosis

[edit]

Senescence, an irreversible process in which the cell no longer divides, is a protective response to the shortening of the chromosome ends, called telomeres. The telomeres are long regions of repetitive noncoding DNA that cap chromosomes and undergo partial degradation each time a cell undergoes division (see Hayflick limit).[19] In contrast, quiescence is a reversible state of cellular dormancy that is unrelated to genome damage (see cell cycle). Senescence in cells may serve as a functional alternative to apoptosis in cases where the physical presence of a cell for spatial reasons is required by the organism,[20] which serves as a "last resort" mechanism to prevent a cell with damaged DNA from replicating inappropriately in the absence of pro-growth cellular signaling. Unregulated cell division can lead to the formation of a tumor (see cancer), which is potentially lethal to an organism. Therefore, the induction of senescence and apoptosis is considered to be part of a strategy of protection against cancer.[21]

Mutation

[edit]

It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damage and mutation are fundamentally different. Damage results in physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single- and double-strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damage can be recognized by enzymes, and thus can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented, and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce.

Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damage and mutation are related because DNA damage often causes errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair; these errors are a major source of mutation.

Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damage is a special problem in non-dividing or slowly-dividing cells, where unrepaired damage will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damage that does not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell's survival. Thus, in a population of cells composing a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However, infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus, DNA damage in frequently dividing cells, because it gives rise to mutations, is a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damage in infrequently-dividing cells is likely a prominent cause of aging.[22]

Mechanisms

[edit]

Cells cannot function if DNA damage corrupts the integrity and accessibility of essential information in the genome (but cells remain superficially functional when non-essential genes are missing or damaged). Depending on the type of damage inflicted on the DNA's double helical structure, a variety of repair strategies have evolved to restore lost information. If possible, cells use the unmodified complementary strand of the DNA or the sister chromatid as a template to recover the original information. Without access to a template, cells use an error-prone recovery mechanism known as translesion synthesis as a last resort.

Damage to DNA alters the spatial configuration of the helix, and such alterations can be detected by the cell. Once damage is localized, specific DNA repair molecules bind at or near the site of damage, inducing other molecules to bind and form a complex that enables the actual repair to take place.

Direct reversal

[edit]

Cells are known to eliminate three types of damage to their DNA by chemically reversing it. These mechanisms do not require a template, since the types of damage they counteract can occur in only one of the four bases. Such direct reversal mechanisms are specific to the type of damage incurred and do not involve breakage of the phosphodiester backbone.

  1. The formation of pyrimidine dimers upon irradiation with UV light results in an abnormal covalent bond between adjacent pyrimidine bases. The photoreactivation process directly reverses this damage by the action of the enzyme photolyase, whose activation is obligately dependent on energy absorbed from blue/UV light (300–500 nm wavelength) to promote catalysis.[23] Photolyase, an old enzyme present in bacteria, fungi, and most animals no longer functions in humans,[24] who instead use nucleotide excision repair to repair damage from UV irradiation.
  2. Another type of damage, methylation of guanine bases, is directly reversed by the enzyme methyl guanine methyl transferase (MGMT), the bacterial equivalent of which is called ogt. This is an expensive process because each MGMT molecule can be used only once; that is, the reaction is stoichiometric rather than catalytic.[25] A generalized response to methylating agents in bacteria is known as the adaptive response and confers a level of resistance to alkylating agents upon sustained exposure by upregulation of alkylation repair enzymes.[26]
  3. The third type of DNA damage reversed by cells is certain methylation of the bases cytosine and adenine.

Single-strand damage

[edit]
Structure of the base-excision repair enzyme uracil-DNA glycosylase excising a hydrolytically-produced uracil residue from DNA. The uracil residue is shown in yellow.

When only one of the two strands of a double helix has a defect, the other strand can be used as a template to guide the correction of the damaged strand. In order to repair damage to one of the two paired molecules of DNA, there exist a number of excision repair mechanisms that remove the damaged nucleotide and replace it with an undamaged nucleotide complementary to that found in the undamaged DNA strand.[25]

  1. Base excision repair (BER): damaged single bases or nucleotides are most commonly repaired by removing the base or the nucleotide involved and then inserting the correct base or nucleotide. In base excision repair, a glycosylase[27] enzyme removes the damaged base from the DNA by cleaving the bond between the base and the deoxyribose. These enzymes remove a single base to create an apurinic or apyrimidinic site (AP site).[27] Enzymes called AP endonucleases nick the damaged DNA backbone at the AP site. DNA polymerase then removes the damaged region using its 5' to 3' exonuclease activity and correctly synthesizes the new strand using the complementary strand as a template.[27] The gap is then sealed by enzyme DNA ligase.[28]
  2. Nucleotide excision repair (NER): bulky, helix-distorting damage, such as pyrimidine dimerization caused by UV light is usually repaired by a three-step process. First the damage is recognized, then 12-24 nucleotide-long strands of DNA are removed both upstream and downstream of the damage site by endonucleases, and the removed DNA region is then resynthesized.[29] NER is a highly evolutionarily conserved repair mechanism and is used in nearly all eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.[29] In prokaryotes, NER is mediated by Uvr proteins.[29] In eukaryotes, many more proteins are involved, although the general strategy is the same.[29]
  3. Mismatch repair systems are present in essentially all cells to correct errors that are not corrected by proofreading. These systems consist of at least two proteins. One detects the mismatch, and the other recruits an endonuclease that cleaves the newly synthesized DNA strand close to the region of damage. In E. coli , the proteins involved are the Mut class proteins: MutS, MutL, and MutH. In most Eukaryotes, the analog for MutS is MSH and the analog for MutL is MLH. MutH is only present in bacteria. This is followed by removal of damaged region by an exonuclease, resynthesis by DNA polymerase, and nick sealing by DNA ligase.[30]

Double-strand breaks

[edit]
The main double-strand break repair pathways

Double-strand breaks, in which both strands in the double helix are severed, are particularly hazardous to the cell because they can lead to genome rearrangements. In fact, when a double-strand break is accompanied by a cross-linkage joining the two strands at the same point, neither strand can be used as a template for the repair mechanisms, so that the cell will not be able to complete mitosis when it next divides, and will either die or, in rare cases, undergo a mutation.[31][32] Three mechanisms exist to repair double-strand breaks (DSBs): non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ), and homologous recombination (HR):[25][33]

DNA ligase, shown above repairing chromosomal damage, is an enzyme that joins broken nucleotides together by catalyzing the formation of an internucleotide ester bond between the phosphate backbone and the deoxyribose nucleotides.
  1. In NHEJ, DNA Ligase IV, a specialized DNA ligase that forms a complex with the cofactor XRCC4, directly joins the two ends.[34] To guide accurate repair, NHEJ relies on short homologous sequences called microhomologies present on the single-stranded tails of the DNA ends to be joined. If these overhangs are compatible, repair is usually accurate.[35][36][37][38] NHEJ can also introduce mutations during repair. Loss of damaged nucleotides at the break site can lead to deletions, and joining of nonmatching termini forms insertions or translocations. NHEJ is especially important before the cell has replicated its DNA, since there is no template available for repair by homologous recombination. There are "backup" NHEJ pathways in higher eukaryotes.[39] Besides its role as a genome caretaker, NHEJ is required for joining hairpin-capped double-strand breaks induced during V(D)J recombination, the process that generates diversity in B-cell and T-cell receptors in the vertebrate immune system.[40]
  2. MMEJ starts with short-range end resection by MRE11 nuclease on either side of a double-strand break to reveal microhomology regions.[41] In further steps,[42] Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is required and may be an early step in MMEJ. There is pairing of microhomology regions followed by recruitment of flap structure-specific endonuclease 1 (FEN1) to remove overhanging flaps. This is followed by recruitment of XRCC1LIG3 to the site for ligating the DNA ends, leading to an intact DNA. MMEJ is always accompanied by a deletion, so that MMEJ is a mutagenic pathway for DNA repair.[43]
  3. HR requires the presence of an identical or nearly identical sequence to be used as a template for repair of the break. The enzymatic machinery responsible for this repair process is nearly identical to the machinery responsible for chromosomal crossover during meiosis. This pathway allows a damaged chromosome to be repaired using a sister chromatid (available in G2 after DNA replication) or a homologous chromosome as a template. DSBs caused by the replication machinery attempting to synthesize across a single-strand break or unrepaired lesion cause collapse of the replication fork and are typically repaired by recombination.

In an in vitro system, MMEJ occurred in mammalian cells at the levels of 10–20% of HR when both HR and NHEJ mechanisms were also available.[41]

The extremophile Deinococcus radiodurans has a remarkable ability to survive DNA damage from ionizing radiation and other sources. At least two copies of the genome, with random DNA breaks, can form DNA fragments through annealing. Partially overlapping fragments are then used for synthesis of homologous regions through a moving D-loop that can continue extension until complementary partner strands are found. In the final step, there is crossover by means of RecA-dependent homologous recombination.[44]

Topoisomerases introduce both single- and double-strand breaks in the course of changing the DNA's state of supercoiling, which is especially common in regions near an open replication fork. Such breaks are not considered DNA damage because they are a natural intermediate in the topoisomerase biochemical mechanism and are immediately repaired by the enzymes that created them.

Another type of DNA double-strand breaks originates from the DNA heat-sensitive or heat-labile sites. These DNA sites are not initial DSBs. However, they convert to DSB after treating with elevated temperature. Ionizing irradiation can induces a highly complex form of DNA damage as clustered damage. It consists of different types of DNA lesions in various locations of the DNA helix. Some of these closely located lesions can probably convert to DSB by exposure to high temperatures. But the exact nature of these lesions and their interactions is not yet known.[45]

Translesion synthesis

[edit]

Translesion synthesis (TLS) is a DNA damage tolerance process that allows the DNA replication machinery to replicate past DNA lesions such as thymine dimers or AP sites.[46] It involves switching out regular DNA polymerases for specialized translesion polymerases (i.e. DNA polymerase IV or V, from the Y Polymerase family), often with larger active sites that can facilitate the insertion of bases opposite damaged nucleotides. The polymerase switching is thought to be mediated by, among other factors, the post-translational modification of the replication processivity factor PCNA. Translesion synthesis polymerases often have low fidelity (high propensity to insert wrong bases) on undamaged templates relative to regular polymerases. However, many are extremely efficient at inserting correct bases opposite specific types of damage. For example, Pol η mediates error-free bypass of lesions induced by UV irradiation, whereas Pol ι introduces mutations at these sites. Pol η is known to add the first adenine across the T^T photodimer using Watson-Crick base pairing and the second adenine will be added in its syn conformation using Hoogsteen base pairing. From a cellular perspective, risking the introduction of point mutations during translesion synthesis may be preferable to resorting to more drastic mechanisms of DNA repair, which may cause gross chromosomal aberrations or cell death. In short, the process involves specialized polymerases either bypassing or repairing lesions at locations of stalled DNA replication. For example, Human DNA polymerase eta can bypass complex DNA lesions like guanine-thymine intra-strand crosslink, G[8,5-Me]T, although it can cause targeted and semi-targeted mutations.[47] Paromita Raychaudhury and Ashis Basu[48] studied the toxicity and mutagenesis of the same lesion in Escherichia coli by replicating a G[8,5-Me]T-modified plasmid in E. coli with specific DNA polymerase knockouts. Viability was very low in a strain lacking pol II, pol IV, and pol V, the three SOS-inducible DNA polymerases, indicating that translesion synthesis is conducted primarily by these specialized DNA polymerases. A bypass platform is provided to these polymerases by Proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). Under normal circumstances, PCNA bound to polymerases replicates the DNA. At a site of lesion, PCNA is ubiquitinated, or modified, by the RAD6/RAD18 proteins to provide a platform for the specialized polymerases to bypass the lesion and resume DNA replication.[49][50] After translesion synthesis, extension is required. This extension can be carried out by a replicative polymerase if the TLS is error-free, as in the case of Pol η, yet if TLS results in a mismatch, a specialized polymerase is needed to extend it; Pol ζ. Pol ζ is unique in that it can extend terminal mismatches, whereas more processive polymerases cannot. So when a lesion is encountered, the replication fork will stall, PCNA will switch from a processive polymerase to a TLS polymerase such as Pol ι to fix the lesion, then PCNA may switch to Pol ζ to extend the mismatch, and last PCNA will switch to the processive polymerase to continue replication.

Global response to DNA damage

[edit]

Cells exposed to ionizing radiation, ultraviolet light or chemicals are prone to acquire multiple sites of bulky DNA lesions and double-strand breaks. Moreover, DNA damaging agents can damage other biomolecules such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and RNA. The accumulation of damage, to be specific, double-strand breaks or adducts stalling the replication forks, are among known stimulation signals for a global response to DNA damage.[51] The global response to damage is an act directed toward the cells' own preservation and triggers multiple pathways of macromolecular repair, lesion bypass, tolerance, or apoptosis. The common features of global response are induction of multiple genes, cell cycle arrest, and inhibition of cell division.

Initial steps

[edit]

The packaging of eukaryotic DNA into chromatin presents a barrier to all DNA-based processes that require recruitment of enzymes to their sites of action. To allow DNA repair, the chromatin must be remodeled. In eukaryotes, ATP dependent chromatin remodeling complexes and histone-modifying enzymes are two predominant factors employed to accomplish this remodeling process.[52]

Chromatin relaxation occurs rapidly at the site of a DNA damage.[53][54] In one of the earliest steps, the stress-activated protein kinase, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), phosphorylates SIRT6 on serine 10 in response to double-strand breaks or other DNA damage.[55] This post-translational modification facilitates the mobilization of SIRT6 to DNA damage sites, and is required for efficient recruitment of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) to DNA break sites and for efficient repair of DSBs.[55] PARP1 protein starts to appear at DNA damage sites in less than a second, with half maximum accumulation within 1.6 seconds after the damage occurs.[56] PARP1 synthesizes polymeric adenosine diphosphate ribose (poly (ADP-ribose) or PAR) chains on itself. Next the chromatin remodeler ALC1 quickly attaches to the product of PARP1 action, a poly-ADP ribose chain, and ALC1 completes arrival at the DNA damage within 10 seconds of the occurrence of the damage.[54] About half of the maximum chromatin relaxation, presumably due to action of ALC1, occurs by 10 seconds.[54] This then allows recruitment of the DNA repair enzyme MRE11, to initiate DNA repair, within 13 seconds.[56]

γH2AX, the phosphorylated form of H2AX is also involved in the early steps leading to chromatin decondensation after DNA double-strand breaks. The histone variant H2AX constitutes about 10% of the H2A histones in human chromatin.[57] γH2AX (H2AX phosphorylated on serine 139) can be detected as soon as 20 seconds after irradiation of cells (with DNA double-strand break formation), and half maximum accumulation of γH2AX occurs in one minute.[57] The extent of chromatin with phosphorylated γH2AX is about two million base pairs at the site of a DNA double-strand break.[57] γH2AX does not, itself, cause chromatin decondensation, but within 30 seconds of irradiation, RNF8 protein can be detected in association with γH2AX.[58] RNF8 mediates extensive chromatin decondensation, through its subsequent interaction with CHD4,[59] a component of the nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase complex NuRD.

DDB2 occurs in a heterodimeric complex with DDB1. This complex further complexes with the ubiquitin ligase protein CUL4A[60] and with PARP1.[61] This larger complex rapidly associates with UV-induced damage within chromatin, with half-maximum association completed in 40 seconds.[60] The PARP1 protein, attached to both DDB1 and DDB2, then PARylates (creates a poly-ADP ribose chain) on DDB2 that attracts the DNA remodeling protein ALC1.[61] Action of ALC1 relaxes the chromatin at the site of UV damage to DNA. This relaxation allows other proteins in the nucleotide excision repair pathway to enter the chromatin and repair UV-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer damages.

After rapid chromatin remodeling, cell cycle checkpoints are activated to allow DNA repair to occur before the cell cycle progresses. First, two kinases, ATM and ATR are activated within 5 or 6 minutes after DNA is damaged. This is followed by phosphorylation of the cell cycle checkpoint protein Chk1, initiating its function, about 10 minutes after DNA is damaged.[62]

DNA damage response

[edit]

In the DNA damage response (DDR), cell cycle checkpoints are activated. Checkpoint activation pauses the cell cycle and gives the cell time to repair the damage before continuing to divide. DNA damage checkpoints occur at the G1/S and G2/M boundaries. An intra-S checkpoint also exists. Checkpoint activation is controlled by two master kinases, ATM and ATR. ATM responds to DNA double-strand breaks and disruptions in chromatin structure,[63] whereas ATR primarily responds to stalled replication forks. These kinases phosphorylate downstream targets in a signal transduction cascade, eventually leading to cell cycle arrest. A class of checkpoint mediator proteins including BRCA1, MDC1, and 53BP1 has also been identified.[64] These proteins seem to be required for transmitting the checkpoint activation signal to downstream proteins.

DNA damage checkpoint is a signal transduction pathway that blocks cell cycle progression in G1, G2 and metaphase and slows down the rate of S phase progression when DNA is damaged. It leads to a pause in cell cycle allowing the cell time to repair the damage before continuing to divide.

Checkpoint Proteins can be separated into four groups: phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-like protein kinase, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)-like group, two serine/threonine(S/T) kinases and their adaptors. Central to all DNA damage induced checkpoints responses is a pair of large protein kinases belonging to the first group of PI3K-like protein kinases-the ATM (Ataxia telangiectasia mutated) and ATR (Ataxia- and Rad-related) kinases, whose sequence and functions have been well conserved in evolution. All DNA damage response requires either ATM or ATR because they have the ability to bind to the chromosomes at the site of DNA damage, together with accessory proteins that are platforms on which DNA damage response components and DNA repair complexes can be assembled.

An important downstream target of ATM and ATR is p53, as it is required for inducing apoptosis following DNA damage.[65] The cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21 is induced by both p53-dependent and p53-independent mechanisms and can arrest the cell cycle at the G1/S and G2/M checkpoints by deactivating cyclin/cyclin-dependent kinase complexes.[66]

The prokaryotic SOS response

[edit]

The SOS response is the changes in gene expression in Escherichia coli and other bacteria in response to extensive DNA damage. The prokaryotic SOS system is regulated by two key proteins: LexA and RecA. The LexA homodimer is a transcriptional repressor that binds to operator sequences commonly referred to as SOS boxes. In Escherichia coli it is known that LexA regulates transcription of approximately 48 genes including the lexA and recA genes.[67] The SOS response is known to be widespread in the Bacteria domain, but it is mostly absent in some bacterial phyla, like the Spirochetes.[68] The most common cellular signals activating the SOS response are regions of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), arising from stalled replication forks or double-strand breaks, which are processed by DNA helicase to separate the two DNA strands.[51] In the initiation step, RecA protein binds to ssDNA in an ATP hydrolysis driven reaction creating RecA–ssDNA filaments. RecA–ssDNA filaments activate LexA autoprotease activity, which ultimately leads to cleavage of LexA dimer and subsequent LexA degradation. The loss of LexA repressor induces transcription of the SOS genes and allows for further signal induction, inhibition of cell division and an increase in levels of proteins responsible for damage processing.

In Escherichia coli, SOS boxes are 20-nucleotide long sequences near promoters with palindromic structure and a high degree of sequence conservation. In other classes and phyla, the sequence of SOS boxes varies considerably, with different length and composition, but it is always highly conserved and one of the strongest short signals in the genome.[68] The high information content of SOS boxes permits differential binding of LexA to different promoters and allows for timing of the SOS response. The lesion repair genes are induced at the beginning of SOS response. The error-prone translesion polymerases, for example, UmuCD'2 (also called DNA polymerase V), are induced later on as a last resort.[69] Once the DNA damage is repaired or bypassed using polymerases or through recombination, the amount of single-stranded DNA in cells is decreased, lowering the amounts of RecA filaments decreases cleavage activity of LexA homodimer, which then binds to the SOS boxes near promoters and restores normal gene expression.

Eukaryotic transcriptional responses to DNA damage

[edit]

Eukaryotic cells exposed to DNA damaging agents also activate important defensive pathways by inducing multiple proteins involved in DNA repair, cell cycle checkpoint control, protein trafficking and degradation. Such genome wide transcriptional response is very complex and tightly regulated, thus allowing coordinated global response to damage. Exposure of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to DNA damaging agents results in overlapping but distinct transcriptional profiles. Similarities to environmental shock response indicates that a general global stress response pathway exist at the level of transcriptional activation. In contrast, different human cell types respond to damage differently indicating an absence of a common global response. The probable explanation for this difference between yeast and human cells may be in the heterogeneity of mammalian cells. In an animal different types of cells are distributed among different organs that have evolved different sensitivities to DNA damage.[70]

In general global response to DNA damage involves expression of multiple genes responsible for postreplication repair, homologous recombination, nucleotide excision repair, DNA damage checkpoint, global transcriptional activation, genes controlling mRNA decay, and many others. A large amount of damage to a cell leaves it with an important decision: undergo apoptosis and die, or survive at the cost of living with a modified genome. An increase in tolerance to damage can lead to an increased rate of survival that will allow a greater accumulation of mutations. Yeast Rev1 and human polymerase η are members of Y family translesion DNA polymerases present during global response to DNA damage and are responsible for enhanced mutagenesis during a global response to DNA damage in eukaryotes.[51]

Aging

[edit]

Pathological effects of poor DNA repair

[edit]
DNA repair rate is an important determinant of cell pathology.

Experimental animals with genetic deficiencies in DNA repair often show decreased life span and increased cancer incidence.[22] For example, mice deficient in the dominant NHEJ pathway and in telomere maintenance mechanisms get lymphoma and infections more often, and, as a consequence, have shorter lifespans than wild-type mice.[71] In similar manner, mice deficient in a key repair and transcription protein that unwinds DNA helices have premature onset of aging-related diseases and consequent shortening of lifespan.[72] However, not every DNA repair deficiency creates exactly the predicted effects; mice deficient in the NER pathway exhibited shortened life span without correspondingly higher rates of mutation.[73]

The maximum life spans of mice, naked mole-rats and humans are respectively ~3, ~30 and ~129 years.[74] Of these, the shortest lived species, mouse, expresses DNA repair genes, including core genes in several DNA repair pathways, at a lower level than do humans and naked mole rats.[74] Furthermore several DNA repair pathways in humans and naked mole-rats are up-regulated compared to mouse. These observations suggest that elevated DNA repair facilitates greater longevity.[74]

If the rate of DNA damage exceeds the capacity of the cell to repair it, the accumulation of errors can overwhelm the cell and result in early senescence, apoptosis, or cancer. Inherited diseases associated with faulty DNA repair functioning result in premature aging,[22] increased sensitivity to carcinogens and correspondingly increased cancer risk (see below). On the other hand, organisms with enhanced DNA repair systems, such as Deinococcus radiodurans, the most radiation-resistant known organism, exhibit remarkable resistance to the double-strand break-inducing effects of radioactivity, likely due to enhanced efficiency of DNA repair and especially NHEJ.[75]

Longevity and caloric restriction

[edit]
Most life span influencing genes affect the rate of DNA damage.

A number of individual genes have been identified as influencing variations in life span within a population of organisms. The effects of these genes is strongly dependent on the environment, in particular, on the organism's diet. Caloric restriction reproducibly results in extended lifespan in a variety of organisms, likely via nutrient sensing pathways and decreased metabolic rate. The molecular mechanisms by which such restriction results in lengthened lifespan are as yet unclear (see[76] for some discussion); however, the behavior of many genes known to be involved in DNA repair is altered under conditions of caloric restriction. Several agents reported to have anti-aging properties have been shown to attenuate constitutive level of mTOR signaling, an evidence of reduction of metabolic activity, and concurrently to reduce constitutive level of DNA damage induced by endogenously generated reactive oxygen species.[77]

For example, increasing the gene dosage of the gene SIR-2, which regulates DNA packaging in the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, can significantly extend lifespan.[78] The mammalian homolog of SIR-2 is known to induce downstream DNA repair factors involved in NHEJ, an activity that is especially promoted under conditions of caloric restriction.[79] Caloric restriction has been closely linked to the rate of base excision repair in the nuclear DNA of rodents,[80] although similar effects have not been observed in mitochondrial DNA.[81]

The C. elegans gene AGE-1, an upstream effector of DNA repair pathways, confers dramatically extended life span under free-feeding conditions but leads to a decrease in reproductive fitness under conditions of caloric restriction.[82] This observation supports the pleiotropy theory of the biological origins of aging, which suggests that genes conferring a large survival advantage early in life will be selected for even if they carry a corresponding disadvantage late in life.

Medicine and DNA repair modulation

[edit]

Hereditary DNA repair disorders

[edit]

Defects in the NER mechanism are responsible for several genetic disorders, including:

Mental retardation often accompanies the latter two disorders, suggesting increased vulnerability of developmental neurons.

Other DNA repair disorders include:

All of the above diseases are often called "segmental progerias" ("accelerated aging diseases") because those affected appear elderly and experience aging-related diseases at an abnormally young age, while not manifesting all the symptoms of old age.

Other diseases associated with reduced DNA repair function include Fanconi anemia, hereditary breast cancer and hereditary colon cancer.

Cancer

[edit]

Because of inherent limitations in the DNA repair mechanisms, if humans lived long enough, they would all eventually develop cancer.[83][84] There are at least 34 Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk. Many of these mutations cause DNA repair to be less effective than normal. In particular, Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is strongly associated with specific mutations in the DNA mismatch repair pathway. BRCA1 and BRCA2, two important genes whose mutations confer a hugely increased risk of breast cancer on carriers,[85] are both associated with a large number of DNA repair pathways, especially NHEJ and homologous recombination.

Cancer therapy procedures such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy work by overwhelming the capacity of the cell to repair DNA damage, resulting in cell death. Cells that are most rapidly dividing – most typically cancer cells – are preferentially affected. The side-effect is that other non-cancerous but rapidly dividing cells such as progenitor cells in the gut, skin, and hematopoietic system are also affected. Modern cancer treatments attempt to localize the DNA damage to cells and tissues only associated with cancer, either by physical means (concentrating the therapeutic agent in the region of the tumor) or by biochemical means (exploiting a feature unique to cancer cells in the body). In the context of therapies targeting DNA damage response genes, the latter approach has been termed 'synthetic lethality'.[86]

Perhaps the most well-known of these 'synthetic lethality' drugs is the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitor olaparib, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for the treatment in women of BRCA-defective ovarian cancer. Tumor cells with partial loss of DNA damage response (specifically, homologous recombination repair) are dependent on another mechanism – single-strand break repair – which is a mechanism consisting, in part, of the PARP1 gene product.[87] Olaparib is combined with chemotherapeutics to inhibit single-strand break repair induced by DNA damage caused by the co-administered chemotherapy. Tumor cells relying on this residual DNA repair mechanism are unable to repair the damage and hence are not able to survive and proliferate, whereas normal cells can repair the damage with the functioning homologous recombination mechanism.

Many other drugs for use against other residual DNA repair mechanisms commonly found in cancer are currently under investigation. However, synthetic lethality therapeutic approaches have been questioned due to emerging evidence of acquired resistance, achieved through rewiring of DNA damage response pathways and reversion of previously inhibited defects.[88]

DNA repair defects in cancer

[edit]

Studies have shown that the DNA damage response acts as a barrier to the malignant transformation of preneoplastic cells.[89] Early studies have shown an elevated DNA damage response in cell-culture models with oncogene activation,[90] and preneoplastic colon adenomas.[91] DNA damage response mechanisms trigger cell-cycle arrest, and attempt to repair DNA lesions or promote cell death/senescence if repair is not possible. Replication stress is observed in preneoplastic cells due to increased proliferation signals from oncogenic mutations. Replication stress is characterized by: increased replication initiation/origin firing; increased transcription and collisions of transcription-replication complexes; nucleotide deficiency; increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS).[92]

Replication stress, along with the selection for inactivating mutations in DNA damage response genes in the evolution of the tumor,[93] leads to downregulation and/or loss of some DNA damage response mechanisms, and hence loss of DNA repair and/or senescence/programmed cell death. In experimental mouse models, loss of DNA damage response-mediated cell senescence was observed after using a short hairpin RNA (shRNA) to inhibit the double-strand break response kinase ataxia telangiectasia (ATM), leading to increased tumor size and invasiveness.[91] Humans born with inherited defects in DNA repair mechanisms (for example, Li-Fraumeni syndrome) have a higher cancer risk.[94]

The prevalence of DNA damage response mutations differs across cancer types; for example, 30% of breast invasive carcinomas have mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination.[89] In cancer, downregulation is observed across all DNA damage response mechanisms (base excision repair (BER), nucleotide excision repair (NER), DNA mismatch repair (MMR), homologous recombination repair (HR), non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and translesion DNA synthesis (TLS).[95] As well as mutations to DNA damage repair genes, mutations also arise in the genes responsible for arresting the cell cycle to allow sufficient time for DNA repair to occur, and some genes are involved in both DNA damage repair and cell cycle checkpoint control, for example ATM and checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) – a tumor suppressor that is often absent or downregulated in non-small cell lung cancer.[96]

Genes involved in DNA damage response pathways and frequently mutated in cancer
HR[a] NHEJ[b] SSA[c] FA[d] BER[e] NER[f] MMR[g]
ATM Yes Yes Yes
ATR Yes Yes Yes
PAXIP Yes Yes
RPA Yes Yes Yes
BRCA1 Yes Yes
BRCA2 Yes Yes
RAD51 Yes Yes
RFC Yes Yes Yes
XRCC1 Yes Yes
PCNA Yes Yes Yes
PARP1 Yes Yes
ERCC1 Yes Yes Yes Yes
MSH3 Yes Yes Yes
  1. ^ homologous recombination
  2. ^ non-homologous end joining
  3. ^ single-strand annealing
  4. ^ fanconi anemia pathway
  5. ^ base excision repair
  6. ^ nucleotide excision repair
  7. ^ mismatch repair

Epigenetic DNA repair defects in cancer

[edit]

Classically, cancer has been viewed as a set of diseases that are driven by progressive genetic abnormalities that include mutations in tumour-suppressor genes and oncogenes, and chromosomal aberrations. However, it has become apparent that cancer is also driven by epigenetic alterations.[97]

Epigenetic alterations refer to functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of such modifications are changes in DNA methylation (hypermethylation and hypomethylation) and histone modification,[98] changes in chromosomal architecture (caused by inappropriate expression of proteins such as HMGA2 or HMGA1)[99] and changes caused by microRNAs. Each of these epigenetic alterations serves to regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes usually remain through cell divisions, last for multiple cell generations, and can be considered to be epimutations (equivalent to mutations).

While large numbers of epigenetic alterations are found in cancers, the epigenetic alterations in DNA repair genes, causing reduced expression of DNA repair proteins, appear to be particularly important. Such alterations are thought to occur early in progression to cancer and to be a likely cause of the genetic instability characteristic of cancers.[100][101][102]

Reduced expression of DNA repair genes causes deficient DNA repair. When DNA repair is deficient DNA damages remain in cells at a higher than usual level and these excess damages cause increased frequencies of mutation or epimutation. Mutation rates increase substantially in cells defective in DNA mismatch repair[103][104] or in homologous recombinational repair (HRR).[105] Chromosomal rearrangements and aneuploidy also increase in HRR defective cells.[106]

Higher levels of DNA damage not only cause increased mutation, but also cause increased epimutation. During repair of DNA double strand breaks, or repair of other DNA damages, incompletely cleared sites of repair can cause epigenetic gene silencing.[107][108]

Deficient expression of DNA repair proteins due to an inherited mutation can cause increased risk of cancer. Individuals with an inherited impairment in any of 34 DNA repair genes (see article DNA repair-deficiency disorder) have an increased risk of cancer, with some defects causing up to a 100% lifetime chance of cancer (e.g. p53 mutations).[109] However, such germline mutations (which cause highly penetrant cancer syndromes) are the cause of only about 1 percent of cancers.[110]

Frequencies of epimutations in DNA repair genes

[edit]
A chart of common DNA damaging agents, examples of lesions they cause in DNA, and pathways used to repair these lesions. Also shown are many of the genes in these pathways, an indication of which genes are epigenetically regulated to have reduced (or increased) expression in various cancers. It also shows genes in the error-prone microhomology-mediated end joining pathway with increased expression in various cancers.

Deficiencies in DNA repair enzymes are occasionally caused by a newly arising somatic mutation in a DNA repair gene, but are much more frequently caused by epigenetic alterations that reduce or silence expression of DNA repair genes. For example, when 113 colorectal cancers were examined in sequence, only four had a missense mutation in the DNA repair gene MGMT, while the majority had reduced MGMT expression due to methylation of the MGMT promoter region (an epigenetic alteration).[111] Five different studies found that between 40% and 90% of colorectal cancers have reduced MGMT expression due to methylation of the MGMT promoter region.[112][113][114][115][116]

Similarly, out of 119 cases of mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancers that lacked DNA repair gene PMS2 expression, PMS2 was deficient in 6 due to mutations in the PMS2 gene, while in 103 cases PMS2 expression was deficient because its pairing partner MLH1 was repressed due to promoter methylation (PMS2 protein is unstable in the absence of MLH1).[117] In the other 10 cases, loss of PMS2 expression was likely due to epigenetic overexpression of the microRNA, miR-155, which down-regulates MLH1.[118]

In a further example, epigenetic defects were found in various cancers (e.g. breast, ovarian, colorectal and head and neck). Two or three deficiencies in the expression of ERCC1, XPF or PMS2 occur simultaneously in the majority of 49 colon cancers evaluated by Facista et al.[119]

The chart in this section shows some frequent DNA damaging agents, examples of DNA lesions they cause, and the pathways that deal with these DNA damages. At least 169 enzymes are either directly employed in DNA repair or influence DNA repair processes.[120] Of these, 83 are directly employed in repairing the 5 types of DNA damages illustrated in the chart.[citation needed]

Some of the more well studied genes central to these repair processes are shown in the chart. The gene designations shown in red, gray or cyan indicate genes frequently epigenetically altered in various types of cancers. Wikipedia articles on each of the genes highlighted by red, gray or cyan describe the epigenetic alteration(s) and the cancer(s) in which these epimutations are found. Review articles,[121] and broad experimental survey articles[122][123] also document most of these epigenetic DNA repair deficiencies in cancers.

Red-highlighted genes are frequently reduced or silenced by epigenetic mechanisms in various cancers. When these genes have low or absent expression, DNA damages can accumulate. Replication errors past these damages (see translesion synthesis) can lead to increased mutations and, ultimately, cancer. Epigenetic repression of DNA repair genes in accurate DNA repair pathways appear to be central to carcinogenesis.

The two gray-highlighted genes RAD51 and BRCA2, are required for homologous recombinational repair. They are sometimes epigenetically over-expressed and sometimes under-expressed in certain cancers. As indicated in the Wikipedia articles on RAD51 and BRCA2, such cancers ordinarily have epigenetic deficiencies in other DNA repair genes. These repair deficiencies would likely cause increased unrepaired DNA damages. The over-expression of RAD51 and BRCA2 seen in these cancers may reflect selective pressures for compensatory RAD51 or BRCA2 over-expression and increased homologous recombinational repair to at least partially deal with such excess DNA damages. In those cases where RAD51 or BRCA2 are under-expressed, this would itself lead to increased unrepaired DNA damages. Replication errors past these damages (see translesion synthesis) could cause increased mutations and cancer, so that under-expression of RAD51 or BRCA2 would be carcinogenic in itself.

Cyan-highlighted genes are in the microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) pathway and are up-regulated in cancer. MMEJ is an additional error-prone inaccurate repair pathway for double-strand breaks. In MMEJ repair of a double-strand break, an homology of 5–25 complementary base pairs between both paired strands is sufficient to align the strands, but mismatched ends (flaps) are usually present. MMEJ removes the extra nucleotides (flaps) where strands are joined, and then ligates the strands to create an intact DNA double helix. MMEJ almost always involves at least a small deletion, so that it is a mutagenic pathway.[33] FEN1, the flap endonuclease in MMEJ, is epigenetically increased by promoter hypomethylation and is over-expressed in the majority of cancers of the breast,[124] prostate,[125] stomach,[126][127] neuroblastomas,[128] pancreas,[129] and lung.[130] PARP1 is also over-expressed when its promoter region ETS site is epigenetically hypomethylated, and this contributes to progression to endometrial cancer[131] and BRCA-mutated serous ovarian cancer.[132] Other genes in the MMEJ pathway are also over-expressed in a number of cancers (see MMEJ for summary), and are also shown in cyan.

Genome-wide distribution of DNA repair in human somatic cells

[edit]

Differential activity of DNA repair pathways across various regions of the human genome causes mutations to be very unevenly distributed within tumor genomes.[133][134] In particular, the gene-rich, early-replicating regions of the human genome exhibit lower mutation frequencies than the gene-poor, late-replicating heterochromatin. One mechanism underlying this involves the histone modification H3K36me3, which can recruit mismatch repair proteins,[135] thereby lowering mutation rates in H3K36me3-marked regions.[136] Another important mechanism concerns nucleotide excision repair, which can be recruited by the transcription machinery, lowering somatic mutation rates in active genes[134] and other open chromatin regions.[137]

Epigenetic alterations due to DNA repair

[edit]

Damage to DNA is very common and is constantly being repaired. Epigenetic alterations can accompany DNA repair of oxidative damage or double-strand breaks. In human cells, oxidative DNA damage occurs about 10,000 times a day and DNA double-strand breaks occur about 10 to 50 times a cell cycle in somatic replicating cells (see DNA damage (naturally occurring)). The selective advantage of DNA repair is to allow the cell to survive in the face of DNA damage. The selective advantage of epigenetic alterations that occur with DNA repair is not clear.[citation needed]

Repair of oxidative DNA damage can alter epigenetic markers

[edit]

In the steady state (with endogenous damages occurring and being repaired), there are about 2,400 oxidatively damaged guanines that form 8-oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) in the average mammalian cell DNA.[138] 8-OHdG constitutes about 5% of the oxidative damages commonly present in DNA.[139] The oxidized guanines do not occur randomly among all guanines in DNA. There is a sequence preference for the guanine at a methylated CpG site (a cytosine followed by guanine along its 5' → 3' direction and where the cytosine is methylated (5-mCpG)).[140] A 5-mCpG site has the lowest ionization potential for guanine oxidation.

Initiation of DNA demethylation at a CpG site. In adult somatic cells DNA methylation typically occurs in the context of CpG dinucleotides (CpG sites), forming 5-methylcytosine-pG, or 5mCpG. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) may attack guanine at the dinucleotide site, forming 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), and resulting in a 5mCp-8-OHdG dinucleotide site. The base excision repair enzyme OGG1 targets 8-OHdG and binds to the lesion without immediate excision. OGG1, present at a 5mCp-8-OHdG site recruits TET1 and TET1 oxidizes the 5mC adjacent to the 8-OHdG. This initiates demethylation of 5mC.[141]

Oxidized guanine has mispairing potential and is mutagenic.[142] Oxoguanine glycosylase (OGG1) is the primary enzyme responsible for the excision of the oxidized guanine during DNA repair. OGG1 finds and binds to an 8-OHdG within a few seconds.[143] However, OGG1 does not immediately excise 8-OHdG. In HeLa cells half maximum removal of 8-OHdG occurs in 30 minutes,[144] and in irradiated mice, the 8-OHdGs induced in the mouse liver are removed with a half-life of 11 minutes.[139]

When OGG1 is present at an oxidized guanine within a methylated CpG site it recruits TET1 to the 8-OHdG lesion (see Figure). This allows TET1 to demethylate an adjacent methylated cytosine.[145] Demethylation of cytosine is an epigenetic alteration.[146]

As an example, when human mammary epithelial cells were treated with H2O2 for six hours, 8-OHdG increased about 3.5-fold in DNA and this caused about 80% demethylation of the 5-methylcytosines in the genome.[141] Demethylation of CpGs in a gene promoter by TET enzyme activity increases transcription of the gene into messenger RNA.[147] In cells treated with H2O2, one particular gene was examined, BACE1.[141] The methylation level of the BACE1 CpG island was reduced (an epigenetic alteration) and this allowed about 6.5 fold increase of expression of BACE1 messenger RNA.[citation needed]

While six-hour incubation with H2O2 causes considerable demethylation of 5-mCpG sites, shorter times of H2O2 incubation appear to promote other epigenetic alterations. Treatment of cells with H2O2 for 30 minutes causes the mismatch repair protein heterodimer MSH2-MSH6 to recruit DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) to sites of some kinds of oxidative DNA damage.[148] This could cause increased methylation of cytosines (epigenetic alterations) at these locations.

Jiang et al.[149] treated HEK 293 cells with agents causing oxidative DNA damage, (potassium bromate (KBrO3) or potassium chromate (K2CrO4)). Base excision repair (BER) of oxidative damage occurred with the DNA repair enzyme polymerase beta localizing to oxidized guanines. Polymerase beta is the main human polymerase in short-patch BER of oxidative DNA damage. Jiang et al.[149] also found that polymerase beta recruited the DNA methyltransferase protein DNMT3b to BER repair sites. They then evaluated the methylation pattern at the single nucleotide level in a small region of DNA including the promoter region and the early transcription region of the BRCA1 gene. Oxidative DNA damage from bromate modulated the DNA methylation pattern (caused epigenetic alterations) at CpG sites within the region of DNA studied. In untreated cells, CpGs located at −189, −134, −29, −19, +16, and +19 of the BRCA1 gene had methylated cytosines (where numbering is from the messenger RNA transcription start site, and negative numbers indicate nucleotides in the upstream promoter region). Bromate treatment-induced oxidation resulted in the loss of cytosine methylation at −189, −134, +16 and +19 while also leading to the formation of new methylation at the CpGs located at −80, −55, −21 and +8 after DNA repair was allowed.[citation needed]

Homologous recombinational repair alters epigenetic markers

[edit]

At least four articles report the recruitment of DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) to sites of DNA double-strand breaks.[150][151][107][152] During homologous recombinational repair (HR) of the double-strand break, the involvement of DNMT1 causes the two repaired strands of DNA to have different levels of methylated cytosines. One strand becomes frequently methylated at about 21 CpG sites downstream of the repaired double-strand break. The other DNA strand loses methylation at about six CpG sites that were previously methylated downstream of the double-strand break, as well as losing methylation at about five CpG sites that were previously methylated upstream of the double-strand break. When the chromosome is replicated, this gives rise to one daughter chromosome that is heavily methylated downstream of the previous break site and one that is unmethylated in the region both upstream and downstream of the previous break site. With respect to the gene that was broken by the double-strand break, half of the progeny cells express that gene at a high level and in the other half of the progeny cells expression of that gene is repressed. When clones of these cells were maintained for three years, the new methylation patterns were maintained over that time period.[153]

In mice with a CRISPR-mediated homology-directed recombination insertion in their genome there were a large number of increased methylations of CpG sites within the double-strand break-associated insertion.[154]

Non-homologous end joining can cause some epigenetic marker alterations

[edit]

Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repair of a double-strand break can cause a small number of demethylations of pre-existing cytosine DNA methylations downstream of the repaired double-strand break.[151] Further work by Allen et al.[155] showed that NHEJ of a DNA double-strand break in a cell could give rise to some progeny cells having repressed expression of the gene harboring the initial double-strand break and some progeny having high expression of that gene due to epigenetic alterations associated with NHEJ repair. The frequency of epigenetic alterations causing repression of a gene after an NHEJ repair of a DNA double-strand break in that gene may be about 0.9%.[107]

Evolution

[edit]

The basic processes of DNA repair are highly conserved among both prokaryotes and eukaryotes and even among bacteriophages (viruses which infect bacteria); however, more complex organisms with more complex genomes have correspondingly more complex repair mechanisms.[156] The ability of a large number of protein structural motifs to catalyze relevant chemical reactions has played a significant role in the elaboration of repair mechanisms during evolution. For an extremely detailed review of hypotheses relating to the evolution of DNA repair, see.[157]

The fossil record indicates that single-cell life began to proliferate on the planet at some point during the Precambrian period, although exactly when recognizably modern life first emerged is unclear. Nucleic acids became the sole and universal means of encoding genetic information, requiring DNA repair mechanisms that in their basic form have been inherited by all extant life forms from their common ancestor. The emergence of Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere (known as the "oxygen catastrophe") due to photosynthetic organisms, as well as the presence of potentially damaging free radicals in the cell due to oxidative phosphorylation, necessitated the evolution of DNA repair mechanisms that act specifically to counter the types of damage induced by oxidative stress. The mechanism by which this came about, however, is unclear.[citation needed]

Rate of evolutionary change

[edit]

On some occasions, DNA damage is not repaired or is repaired by an error-prone mechanism that results in a change from the original sequence. When this occurs, mutations may propagate into the genomes of the cell's progeny. Should such an event occur in a germ line cell that will eventually produce a gamete, the mutation has the potential to be passed on to the organism's offspring. The rate of evolution in a particular species (or, in a particular gene) is a function of the rate of mutation. As a consequence, the rate and accuracy of DNA repair mechanisms have an influence over the process of evolutionary change.[158] DNA damage protection and repair does not influence the rate of adaptation by gene regulation and by recombination and selection of alleles. On the other hand, DNA damage repair and protection does influence the rate of accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code expanding, inheritable mutations, and slows down the evolutionary mechanism for expansion of the genome of organisms with new functionalities. The tension between evolvability and mutation repair and protection needs further investigation.[citation needed]

Technology

[edit]

A technology named clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (shortened to CRISPR-Cas9) was discovered in 2012. The new technology allows anyone with molecular biology training to alter the genes of any species with precision, by inducing DNA damage at a specific point and then altering DNA repair mechanisms to insert new genes.[159] It is cheaper, more efficient, and more precise than other technologies. With the help of CRISPR–Cas9, parts of a genome can be edited by scientists by removing, adding, or altering parts in a DNA sequence.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
DNA repair encompasses a suite of cellular processes that detect, signal, and correct damage to the DNA molecules encoding an organism's genome, thereby preserving genomic integrity and preventing mutations that could lead to diseases such as cancer. These mechanisms address a wide array of DNA lesions arising from both endogenous sources, including (ROS), replication errors, and spontaneous , and exogenous agents like (UV) radiation, , and chemical mutagens, with human cells encountering approximately 70,000 such damage events per day. The primary DNA repair pathways are tailored to specific types of damage and include direct reversal, which enzymatically reverses specific modifications like O⁶-methylguanine without excising ; base excision repair (BER), which removes and replaces small, non-helix-distorting base lesions such as oxidized or alkylated bases; nucleotide excision repair (NER), which excises bulky, helix-distorting adducts like those from UV light or chemicals via subpathways including transcription-coupled repair (TCR-NER) and global genome repair (GGR-NER); mismatch repair (MMR), which corrects base-base or insertion-deletion mismatches arising during to enhance fidelity; and double-strand break repair (DSBR) pathways, encompassing error-free homologous recombination (HR) using a sister chromatid template (active in S/G2 phases) and error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) that directly ligates broken ends (functional throughout the ), alongside alternative end-joining (alt-EJ). Additional strategies, such as translesion synthesis (TLS), employ specialized polymerases to bypass replication-blocking lesions, though at the risk of introducing errors. Deficiencies in these pathways underpin hereditary disorders like xeroderma pigmentosum (NER defect) and Lynch syndrome (MMR defect), as well as elevated cancer susceptibility in cases of BRCA1/2 mutations impairing HR, highlighting DNA repair's pivotal role in suppressing tumorigenesis and aging. Therapeutically, exploiting repair defects—such as through poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors targeting BER/HR—has revolutionized precision oncology, selectively killing tumor cells with compromised DDR while sparing normal ones, as exemplified by FDA-approved agents like olaparib for BRCA-mutated cancers. The foundational understanding of these mechanisms earned the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich, and Aziz Sancar, recognizing their elucidation of BER, MMR, and NER, respectively.

DNA Damage

Sources of DNA Damage

DNA damage arises from both endogenous and exogenous sources, with endogenous origins stemming from normal cellular processes and exogenous ones from environmental exposures. Endogenous damage primarily results from (ROS) generated during cellular metabolism, such as mitochondrial respiration and enzymatic reactions, which oxidize DNA bases like to form . Replication errors during can introduce mismatches or small insertions/deletions if not immediately corrected by mechanisms. Spontaneous hydrolytic of bases, such as to uracil, occurs at a rate influenced by physiological and , while endogenous arises from metabolites like S-adenosylmethionine reacting with DNA to methylate bases such as and . In cells, ROS alone are estimated to cause approximately 10,000 oxidative lesions per cell per day, underscoring the constant burden on repair systems. Exogenous sources introduce damage through physical, chemical, or biological agents that interact with DNA. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sunlight primarily induces cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers between adjacent thymine or cytosine bases, distorting the DNA helix. Ionizing radiation, such as X-rays or gamma rays, generates reactive species that cause single- and double-strand breaks as well as base modifications. Chemical mutagens, including alkylating agents like those found in industrial chemicals or chemotherapy drugs (e.g., nitrogen mustards), covalently modify DNA bases, leading to crosslinks or mismatches. Certain viruses, such as human papillomavirus or hepatitis B virus, can integrate their genetic material into the host genome, causing double-strand breaks or insertions that disrupt chromosomal integrity. A prominent example is cigarette smoke, which contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) like benzopyrene that form bulky DNA adducts, particularly at guanine sites, increasing the risk of mutations in lung epithelial cells. These sources collectively result in a diverse array of lesions, including base modifications and strand breaks, that challenge cellular homeostasis.

Types of DNA Damage

DNA damage encompasses a variety of molecular lesions that alter the structure and function of the DNA double helix, potentially leading to mutations or genomic instability if not addressed. These lesions can be categorized based on their chemical nature and impact on DNA integrity, including base modifications, strand breaks, bulky adducts, crosslinks, and mismatches or gaps. Each type disrupts the normal Watson-Crick base pairing or the phosphodiester backbone, thereby compromising replication, transcription, and overall helix stability. Base modifications involve chemical alterations to the nitrogenous bases, often resulting in subtle but critical changes to hydrogen bonding patterns. Deamination, for instance, removes an amino group from a base, converting cytosine to uracil; this lesion resembles thymine in structure but pairs preferentially with adenine instead of guanine, causing a C-to-T transition if unrepaired and minimally distorting the helix geometry. Oxidation by reactive oxygen species produces lesions such as 8-oxoguanine, where a hydroxyl group is added to the C8 position of guanine, forming a syn conformation that mispairs with adenine and induces a slight kink in the DNA helix due to altered stacking interactions. Alkylation adds small alkyl groups, like a methyl moiety at the O6 position of guanine (O6-methylguanine), which prevents proper hydrogen bonding with cytosine and protrudes into the minor groove, leading to local helix destabilization and G-to-A transitions. These modifications collectively impair base recognition without severely bending the helix but promote error-prone replication. Strand breaks represent disruptions to the sugar-phosphate backbone, with single-strand breaks (SSBs) involving cleavage of one , often at a residue, creating a that relaxes supercoiling and allows temporary helix unwinding but maintains overall continuity via the intact complementary strand. Double-strand breaks (DSBs), in contrast, sever both strands within a few base pairs, resulting in free DNA ends that completely abolish helix integrity at the site, exposing bases to further damage and posing a high risk of chromosomal rearrangements. SSBs arise from oxidative attack on the sugar, while DSBs are typically induced by agents like . Bulky adducts introduce large chemical moieties that sterically hinder the DNA . Ultraviolet radiation, for example, generates cyclobutane (CPDs) by forming a covalent cyclobutane ring between adjacent thymines or cytosines, which kinks the by about 30 degrees and widens the minor groove, obstructing progression. Similarly, 6-4 photoproducts link pyrimidines via a 6-4 bond, causing a more pronounced distortion with up to 44 degrees of bending and significant base flipping out of the . Intercalating agents like certain chemotherapeutic drugs insert between base pairs, unwinding and elongating the locally. These lesions block the DNA major groove and disrupt normal stacking. Crosslinks form covalent bridges between DNA components, severely impeding helix dynamics. Interstrand crosslinks, such as those induced by psoralen plus UVA light, tether opposing strands at their bases (e.g., between guanines), preventing strand separation and causing a rigid, twisted helix conformation that halts unwinding entirely. Intrastrand crosslinks, exemplified by platinum-based drugs like cisplatin linking adjacent guanines on the same strand, create a looped structure that bends the helix sharply (up to 60 degrees) and compresses the major groove. Both types rigidify the DNA, making it inaccessible for cellular processes. Mismatches and gaps arise primarily from replication infidelity or stalled forks. Mismatches occur when non-complementary bases pair, such as with , resulting in a wobble configuration that slightly distorts the by 2-5 degrees and weakens bonding without major steric clash. Gaps, or single-nucleotide deletions, create voids in the phosphodiester chain, leading to flexible, floppy regions in the that misalign strands and promote slippage during replication. These lesions subtly compromise fidelity but can accumulate into larger instabilities.

Nuclear versus Mitochondrial DNA Damage

The nuclear genome in human cells comprises approximately 3 billion base pairs of DNA, organized into linear chromosomes and tightly packaged with proteins into , which provides a protective barrier against various damaging agents. This packaging reduces the accessibility of DNA to (ROS) and other mutagens, contributing to a relatively low spontaneous of about 1.16 × 10^{-8} per per generation. In contrast, (mtDNA) is a compact, circular of roughly 16,569 s, lacking histones and thus more exposed to intracellular threats, particularly ROS generated by the nearby during . Cells typically harbor 100 to 10,000 copies of mtDNA in total, amplifying the potential impact of damage across multiple genomes, and mtDNA exhibits a approximately 10-fold higher than nuclear DNA, on the order of 10^{-7} per per generation. Damage patterns differ markedly between the two genomes due to their structural and locational distinctions. Mitochondrial DNA sustains higher levels of oxidative lesions, such as 8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG), with steady-state concentrations often 10- to 15-fold greater than in nuclear DNA, reflecting its proximity to ROS sources and absence of protective chromatin. For instance, in tissues like brain and heart, 8-oxoG levels in mtDNA can be 16- to 23-fold higher than in nuclear DNA. Nuclear DNA, while also susceptible to oxidative damage, experiences relatively more double-strand breaks (DSBs) from exogenous sources like ionizing radiation, as its larger size and chromatin organization influence the type and distribution of lesions from such agents. Both genomes face similar endogenous threats like replication errors and hydrolysis, but the nucleoid-associated mtDNA is particularly vulnerable to point mutations and deletions from chronic ROS exposure. Repair capacities further highlight organelle-specific vulnerabilities. The nuclear genome benefits from a comprehensive suite of repair pathways, including (NER) for bulky lesions and efficient DSB repair via and , facilitated by to expose damage sites. In mitochondria, however, NER is absent, limiting the repair of certain helix-distorting lesions, and mtDNA primarily relies on (BER) for oxidative and alkylated bases, along with limited (HR) for DSBs, often using inter-mitochondrial exchanges due to the high copy number. This restricted repertoire results in slower clearance of persistent damage in mtDNA compared to nuclear DNA, exacerbating mutation accumulation. These differences have profound implications for cellular function and . Mutations in mtDNA underlie approximately 150 distinct mitochondrial disorders, ranging from neuromuscular syndromes like MELAS and MERRF to multisystem failures, often arising from oxidative damage-induced point or deletions. A key feature is , where cells contain a of and wild-type mtDNA; manifests when the fraction exceeds a tissue-specific threshold (typically 60-90%), leading to bioenergetic deficits and variable even within families. In nuclear DNA, unrepaired damage more commonly contributes to chromosomal instability and cancer, underscoring the distinct pathological consequences of genome-specific vulnerabilities.

Consequences of Unrepaired Damage

Unrepaired DNA damage during replication or attempted repair can generate mutations that alter the genetic code. Base modifications, such as those from oxidative lesions or alkylation, lead to point mutations including transitions (purine-to-purine or pyrimidine-to-pyrimidine changes) and transversions (purine-to-pyrimidine or vice versa), potentially inactivating tumor suppressor genes or activating oncogenes. Small insertions or deletions (indels) from unrepaired gaps or flaps cause frameshift mutations, shifting the reading frame and producing truncated or aberrant proteins that disrupt cellular function. Double-strand breaks (DSBs), if unresolved, result in chromosomal aberrations such as deletions, inversions, or translocations, which rearrange large genomic segments and contribute to oncogenic transformations. When DNA lesions persist beyond repair capacity, cells activate protective fates to prevent propagation of errors. imposes a cycle arrest, primarily through the /p21 pathway: DNA damage response kinases like /ATR phosphorylate , which transcriptionally upregulates p21 (CDKN1A), inhibiting cyclin-dependent kinases and halting progression at G1 or G2 phases. This response confines irreparable damage, such as persistent DSBs or oxidative lesions, averting further genomic compromise. shortening during repeated replication acts as a cumulative form of replicative damage; upon reaching a critical length, telomeres lose protective capping, eliciting a DNA damage signal that drives via the same -dependent mechanism. Exceeding damage thresholds shifts the cellular outcome toward , a programmed death to eliminate severely compromised cells. This can occur via the intrinsic pathway, where mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization releases , activating through Bax/Bak oligomerization, or the extrinsic pathway involving death receptor ligation and activation. For DSBs, persistent unrepaired breaks, even a few, can trigger in sensitive cell types like lymphocytes or stem cells, as seen after doses such as 1–2 Gy (inducing ~20–80 total DSBs per cell, most of which are repaired), with persistent γH2AX foci signaling irreparable harm. Collectively, these fates link unrepaired damage to broader , manifesting as chromosomal translocations from erroneous end-joining, via mitotic missegregation of damaged chromosomes, and gene amplifications through breakage-fusion-bridge cycles that perpetuate structural variants.

Repair Mechanisms

Direct Reversal Repair

Direct reversal repair represents the simplest and most direct mechanism for correcting specific types of DNA damage, involving enzymatic reversal of lesions without the need for excision, DNA synthesis, or ligation, thereby ensuring error-free restoration of the original DNA sequence. This process targets discrete chemical modifications, such as those induced by ultraviolet (UV) radiation or alkylating agents, and is highly efficient for its limited substrates due to its stoichiometric, single-step nature. Unlike multi-step pathways, it avoids potential errors from template-dependent synthesis, making it advantageous for rapid, accurate repair, though its scope is restricted to particular lesions without broader applicability. A primary example is photolyase-mediated repair, which reverses UV-induced cyclobutane (CPDs) and (6-4) photoproducts through light-dependent splitting of the covalent bonds in these lesions. Photolyases, flavin-containing enzymes (approximately 50-55 kDa), bind to the damaged DNA in a light-independent manner and utilize near-UV or blue light (300-500 nm) to transfer energy and electrons, facilitating the splitting process via a six-step involving semiquinone radical intermediates. This mechanism is prevalent in prokaryotes, such as , and in , where it provides robust against solar UV damage, but it is absent in placental mammals, including humans, which rely instead on for these lesions. The high specificity for CPDs and (6-4) photoproducts, coupled with no requirement for additional cofactors beyond , underscores its precision and efficiency, though its dependence on external light limits its utility in non-photosynthetic or dark-adapted organisms. Another key direct reversal enzyme is O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase (AGT), also known as MGMT in humans, which repairs damage by transferring the from the O6 position of (or O4 of ) directly to an active-site residue in a single, irreversible step. This enzyme operates with one-to-one , inactivating itself after each repair event, and exhibits high specificity for small alkyl adducts like methyl or ethyl groups from environmental or chemotherapeutic alkylating agents, though it is less effective against bulkier lesions. AGT kinetics are rapid, with repair occurring in seconds to minutes under physiological conditions, and it functions without cofactors or DNA strand breakage, preserving genomic integrity and preventing mutagenesis or cytotoxicity. While ubiquitous across organisms, including and mammals, its limitations include depletion after multiple repairs—necessitating de novo protein synthesis—and a narrow substrate range, rendering cells vulnerable to persistent if AGT levels are low.

Single-Strand Damage Repair

Single-strand damage repair encompasses excision-based pathways that address non-bulky lesions in DNA, such as oxidative or alkylative base modifications, mismatches from replication errors, and small distortions that do not severely disrupt the structure. These mechanisms maintain genomic fidelity by removing the damaged segment and resynthesizing the correct sequence using the undamaged strand as a template, preventing mutations that could lead to diseases like cancer. The primary pathways include (BER) for spontaneous base alterations, (NER) for helix-distorting lesions, and mismatch repair (MMR) for replication-associated errors. Base Excision Repair (BER) targets small, non-helix-distorting base lesions arising from endogenous sources like or . The process begins with , such as 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase (OGG1), which recognize and excise specific damaged bases—for instance, OGG1 removes (8-oxoG), a common oxidative lesion—leaving an abasic (. AP endonuclease 1 (APE1) then cleaves the phosphodiester backbone 5' to the , generating a single-strand break with a 3'-hydroxyl end suitable for repair continuation. BER proceeds via two subpathways: short-patch repair, which replaces a single using β (Pol β) and XRCC1-ligase III for sealing, or long-patch repair, which inserts 2–10 via Pol δ/ε, flap endonuclease 1 (FEN1), and ligase I to remove the 5'-deoxyribose phosphate residue. In human cells, BER handles an estimated 10,000–20,000 lesions per day, underscoring its role in countering constant endogenous damage. Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER) removes bulky or helix-distorting single-strand lesions, such as UV-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, through two subpathways: global genome NER (GG-NER), which scans the entire genome, and transcription-coupled NER (TC-NER), which prioritizes actively transcribed strands. Damage recognition in GG-NER involves the XPC/RAD23B complex binding to the lesion-induced distortion, while TC-NER is initiated by stalled RNA polymerase II recruiting CSA/ERCC8 and CSB/ERCC6. TFIIH's helicase subunits (XPB and XPD) then unwind the DNA ~25–30 nucleotides around the lesion, verified by XPA/RPA. Incision follows, with XPG endonuclease cutting 3' to the damage and XPF/ERCC1 excising a 24–32 nucleotide oligomer from the 5' side, creating a gap. Replication protein A (RPA) coats the single-stranded gap, enabling Pol δ/ε, PCNA, and RFC to fill it, followed by ligation via ligase I or III. Defects in NER genes, such as XPC or XPG, cause xeroderma pigmentosum (XP), a recessive disorder marked by extreme UV sensitivity and a >1,000-fold increased skin cancer risk due to unrepaired photoproducts. Mismatch Repair (MMR) corrects base-base mismatches and small insertion/deletion loops (IDLs) arising during , enhancing fidelity by 100- to 1,000-fold. MutSα (MSH2/MSH6 heterodimer) recognizes base mismatches and 1–2 nt IDLs, while MutSβ (MSH2/MSH3) handles larger IDLs up to 15 nt. The mismatch-bound MutS complex recruits MutLα (MLH1/PMS2 heterodimer), whose latent endonuclease activity—activated by PCNA and RFC—introduces strand-specific nicks, directing exonuclease to degrade the error-containing strand from the nick past the mismatch. In eukaryotes, strand discrimination relies on pre-existing nicks, such as those at Okazaki fragment ends on the lagging strand or post-replicative gaps, rather than as in prokaryotes. Gap resynthesis uses Pol δ/ε, with RPA stabilization and ligase I sealing, restoring the correct sequence.

Double-Strand Break Repair

Double-strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA represent one of the most severe forms of genomic damage, often induced by or endogenous processes such as replication stress, and if unrepaired, can lead to chromosomal rearrangements or . Cells primarily repair DSBs through two conserved pathways: (NHEJ), an error-prone mechanism that directly ligates broken ends, and (HR), a high-fidelity process that uses a sister as a template. In cells, approximately 10-50 endogenous DSBs occur per , underscoring the essential role of these pathways in maintaining stability. NHEJ initiates with the rapid binding of the Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer to DSB ends, forming a ring-like structure that protects the DNA from nucleases and recruits to form the DNA-PK holoenzyme. This complex facilitates end processing by factors like for compatible ligation or polymerases for gap filling, followed by recruitment of the XRCC4/LIG4 complex, which performs the final ligation step. As an error-prone pathway, NHEJ can introduce small insertions or deletions at the junction. In contrast, HR promotes accurate repair by first resecting the 5' ends of the DSB via the MRN complex (MRE11-RAD50-NBS1) in coordination with CtIP, generating long 3' single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) tails that are further extended by EXO1 or DNA2. These tails are coated by (RPA) to prevent secondary structures, then invaded by RAD51 nucleoprotein filaments, facilitated by mediators including and , to identify and copy from a homologous donor . Repair can proceed via synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA), yielding non-crossover products, or through double formation and resolution, which may produce crossovers. Mutations in or severely impair HR by disrupting RAD51 filament assembly, leading to genomic instability and predisposition to cancers like and ovarian. When canonical NHEJ or HR are compromised, cells engage alternative end joining (Alt-EJ), a PARP1-dependent backup pathway that involves limited resection to expose microhomologies (typically 2-20 bp), annealing, and ligation primarily by LIG3/XRCC1, often resulting in larger deletions and translocations; this includes (MMEJ). Alt-EJ predominates in conditions of NHEJ or HR deficiency but operates at lower efficiency in wild-type cells. Pathway choice is tightly regulated by the : NHEJ operates throughout all phases, peaking in G1 where no template is available, while HR is restricted to S and G2 phases due to the presence of and activity that promotes resection. In S/G2, HR favors non-crossover outcomes like SDSA to preserve genomic integrity without , whereas crossover resolution in HR or error-prone joining in NHEJ/Alt-EJ can lead to structural variations if misregulated.

Translesion Synthesis

Translesion synthesis (TLS) is a damage tolerance mechanism that enables replication forks to bypass replication-blocking without directly repairing them, primarily during of the . Unlike high-fidelity replicative polymerases such as DNA polymerase δ and ε, which stall at damaged sites, TLS relies on specialized low-fidelity polymerases to insert nucleotides opposite the lesion and extend the primer. This process prioritizes cellular survival over genomic fidelity, often introducing as a . The core TLS polymerases belong to the Y-family, including DNA polymerases η (Pol η), ι (Pol ι), κ (Pol κ), and REV1, which possess flexible active sites allowing accommodation of distorted DNA templates. Pol η, for instance, accurately bypasses cyclobutane (CPDs) induced by UV light by inserting adenines opposite the lesion, minimizing in this context. However, Pol η exhibits low fidelity for other lesions, such as oxidative damage. REV1 acts as a scaffold, facilitating polymerase switching and inserting cytosines opposite abasic sites or certain adducts. Complementing the Y-family is the B-family ζ (Pol ζ), which specializes in the extension step after lesion bypass, efficiently elongating from mismatched primer termini that replicative polymerases avoid. Pol ζ shows specificity for extending past bulky adducts, including those formed by , a reactive from . TLS is initiated by monoubiquitination of (PCNA) at 164, mediated by the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating RAD6 and the E3 ligase RAD18, in response to replication fork stalling. Ubiquitinated PCNA recruits Y-family polymerases via their ubiquitin-binding domains (UBMs) or PCNA-interacting protein (PIP) motifs, displacing the replicative to allow insertion. After bypass, Pol ζ takes over for extension, restoring the replicative to complete . This polymerase-switching mechanism is tightly regulated during to limit mutagenic activity, with -type specificity dictating polymerase choice—e.g., Pol η for CPDs and Pol ζ for extension across acrolein-derived γ-hydroxy-propanodeoxyguanosine adducts. While TLS enhances survival by preventing replication fork collapse, it elevates mutation rates at lesion sites by 10³- to 10⁵-fold compared to undamaged replication, due to the error-prone nature of specialized polymerases. For example, Pol η's misincorporation frequency opposite CPDs is 10⁻² to 10⁻³, far exceeding the 10⁻⁹ to 10⁻¹⁰ error rate of replicative polymerases. This mutagenicity contributes to resistance, as TLS allows cancer cells to bypass DNA adducts formed by agents like , promoting tumor survival and recurrence. Deficiency in Pol η, as seen in variant (XPV) patients, impairs accurate CPD bypass, leading to UV hypersensitivity and elevated risk. Beyond , TLS shapes by generating polymorphisms at common fragile sites prone to replication stress. Pol η facilitates replication through these sites while introducing sequence changes, underscoring TLS's dual role in genome stability and evolution.

Cellular Responses to DNA Damage

Detection and Initial Signaling

DNA repair processes begin with the rapid detection of DNA lesions by specialized molecular s that initiate signaling cascades to coordinate cellular responses. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 () serves as a primary sensor for single-strand breaks (SSBs) and double-strand breaks (DSBs), binding directly to damaged DNA ends within seconds of lesion formation. Upon binding, PARP1 undergoes automodification through poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation, which reduces its affinity for DNA and facilitates the of downstream repair factors while preventing excessive trapping. This automodification step is crucial for signaling the presence of damage and amplifying the response without committing to full repair execution. For DSBs, the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated () kinase is activated in an MRN complex-dependent manner, where the Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 (MRN) complex first recognizes the break ends and recruits to the site. activation occurs rapidly, within seconds of DSB induction, leading to its autophosphorylation and dissociation from an inactive dimeric state into active monomers. In cases of replication stress generating RPA-coated single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), the ataxia-telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) kinase is recruited via interactions with (RPA) and accessory proteins like TopBP1 or ETAA1, enabling ATR to sense persistent ssDNA regions. These sensors collectively detect various DNA lesions, such as those arising from or stalled replication forks. Initial signaling from these sensors involves phosphorylation cascades that propagate the damage signal. and ATR kinases phosphorylate checkpoint kinases CHK2 and CHK1, respectively, which in turn activate downstream effectors to enforce . A hallmark of DSB signaling is the ATM-mediated of H2AX at serine 139, forming γ-H2AX foci that mark the lesion site and serve as a platform for recruiting additional repair proteins. Checkpoint activation includes G1/S arrest through stabilization and inhibition of phosphatases, intra-S phase slowdown to limit replication origin firing, and G2/M arrest to prevent with unrepaired damage, all mediated by CHK1/CHK2 of and targets. Cross-talk between damage detection and cellular stress pathways enhances signaling fidelity; for instance, (ROS) can oxidize apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1 (APE1), modulating its endonuclease activity and influencing recruitment at oxidative lesions. exploit this by trapping on DNA, blocking automodification and amplifying unrepaired SSBs during replication, which underscores the kinetic sensitivity of initial detection. These early events ensure timely halt of cell cycle progression and recruitment of repair machinery, prioritizing stability.

Prokaryotic SOS Response

The prokaryotic response is a coordinated, inducible genetic network in that activates in response to severe DNA damage, prioritizing cell survival through enhanced repair, replication restart, and error-prone . Primarily characterized in , this response serves as a for stress-induced adaptive , balancing with evolvability when accurate repair pathways are overwhelmed. Induction occurs when DNA lesions, such as those from UV radiation or chemicals, generate persistent single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) during replication. RecA protein binds to this ssDNA in the presence of ATP, forming an activated filament (RecA*) that acts as a coprotease, facilitating the autocleavage of the at its Ala84-Gly85 bond. This cleavage inactivates LexA, derepressing approximately 40–50 genes under its control, which share a conserved SOS box operator sequence (consensus: CTG(TA)₅CAG). Key components include RecA itself, which promotes (HR); UvrA, UvrB, and UvrC for (NER); SulA, which inhibits septum formation by binding FtsZ to block and allow repair time; and the UmuDʹC complex, which assembles into DNA polymerase V (Pol V) for translesion synthesis (TLS). The SOS response unfolds in temporal phases to optimize outcomes. Early induction (within minutes) upregulates accurate repair genes like recA, uvrA, and uvrB to excise and recombine damaged sites, while later phases (peaking around 20–40 minutes post-damage) activate mutagenesis genes such as umuDC and dinB (encoding Pol IV) when lesions persist, enabling replication bypass at the expense of accuracy. In E. coli, UV induction exemplifies this: exposure to UV light creates cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and (6-4) photoproducts, triggering SOS and elevating mutation frequencies by over 1,000-fold for specific revertants like Lac⁺, as seen in error-prone TLS across abasic sites or adducts. This mutagenic shift not only aids survival under genotoxic stress but also drives evolution, including the emergence of antibiotic resistance by increasing the rate of beneficial mutations in clinical settings. The SOS system exhibits evolutionary conservation across bacteria, with LexA/RecA orthologs in diverse phyla like Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. In , while a canonical LexA-regulated network is absent, RecA homologs (RadA/RadB) mediate HR and contribute to DNA damage tolerance, indicating shared ancestral mechanisms for ssDNA sensing and repair.

Eukaryotic DNA Damage Response

The eukaryotic DNA damage response (DDR) is an intricate signaling network that coordinates the detection of DNA lesions, activation of repair pathways, and cellular fate decisions to maintain genomic integrity. Central to this response are the apical kinases and ATR, which are activated by double-strand breaks and replication stress, respectively. These kinases phosphorylate and activate the downstream checkpoint kinases CHK1 and CHK2, which in turn propagate signals leading to the stabilization of the tumor suppressor by phosphorylating regulators such as and MDMX. Stabilized then transcriptionally activates genes involved in repair, including GADD45, which facilitates , and DDB2, which recognizes UV-induced damage. This core cascade ensures rapid transduction of damage signals to halt proliferation and initiate repair. A key feature of the eukaryotic DDR is the enforcement of that temporarily arrest the , providing time for repair, or trigger permanent outcomes like or if damage persists. In response to moderate damage, induces the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21, enforcing G1/S and G2/M checkpoints to prevent propagation of errors. For irreparable damage, upregulates pro-apoptotic factors such as BAX, promoting mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization and . These checkpoints integrate with repair processes, with persistent signaling shifting the balance toward via sustained p21 expression or through BAX-mediated pathways. The choice of repair pathway in eukaryotes is tightly regulated by phase and lesion type to optimize fidelity and efficiency. (NHEJ) predominates in for rapid ligation of double-strand breaks, while (HR) is favored in S/G2 phases when a sister chromatid template is available, minimizing errors. For interstrand crosslinks, the (FA) pathway coordinates unhooking via nucleases and subsequent repair by HR or translesion synthesis. This pathway involves at least 23 complementation groups and a core complex of eight FA proteins and associated factors that monoubiquitinate FANCD2 and FANCI to signal downstream effectors. Specific molecular integrations fine-tune these choices; for instance, promotes the ubiquitination of γ-H2AX at damage sites, facilitating the recruitment of repair factors and retention of signaling complexes. Conversely, 53BP1 antagonizes end resection to favor NHEJ over HR by shielding break ends and recruiting shieldin, thereby suppressing excessive resection in G1. The DDR proteome encompasses approximately 100 proteins that dynamically assemble into foci at damage sites, enabling coordinated signaling and repair. Defects in DDR components, such as mutations in , , or CHK2, underlie over 20% of human cancers, promoting genomic instability and tumorigenesis while rendering cells vulnerable to targeted therapies.

Transcriptional Responses in Eukaryotes

In eukaryotic cells, DNA damage triggers a transcriptional program that coordinates repair, arrest, and survival mechanisms to maintain genomic integrity. This response involves the activation of key transcription factors that upregulate genes involved in DNA repair pathways, antioxidant defense, and regulation, allowing cells to adapt to genotoxic stress. A major component of this transcriptional response is p53-dependent gene expression, where the tumor suppressor, stabilized and activated by DNA damage kinases such as and ATR, binds to promoter elements of target genes to induce their transcription. For instance, upregulates CDKN1A (encoding p21), which inhibits cyclin-dependent kinases to enforce arrest and provide time for repair. Similarly, induces GADD45, which promotes (NER) by facilitating G2/M checkpoint activation and interacting with repair proteins like XPG. Additionally, transcriptionally activates MDM2, creating a loop that limits excessive activity to prevent unwarranted . Parallel to p53 pathways, p53-independent transcriptional responses contribute to cellular adaptation. The transcription factor, activated by DNA damage through IKK signaling, upregulates anti-apoptotic genes such as BCL2 to promote cell survival and suppress . Likewise, the NRF2 pathway, triggered by oxidative DNA lesions, induces antioxidant genes including NQO1 (NAD(P)H quinone dehydrogenase 1) to neutralize and mitigate further damage. Specific DNA damaging agents elicit targeted transcriptional changes. (UV) radiation, which generates cyclobutane , induces p53-mediated upregulation of DDB2 and XPC, key initiators of (NER), enhancing the recognition and removal of UV-induced lesions. In contrast, (IR), causing double-strand breaks, promotes the expression of RAD51, a central in (HR), to facilitate accurate repair during the S/G2 phases. Epigenetic mechanisms further fine-tune these transcriptional responses by modulating accessibility at repair gene promoters. DNA damage induces acetylation, such as H3K9ac, which opens structure to facilitate binding and gene activation at loci like those for NER and HR components. Long non-coding RNAs, including NEAT1, also play a role by localizing to DNA damage response (DDR) foci, where they scaffold paraspeckle formation and stabilize repair proteins to support genome stability. The transcriptional response exhibits temporal dynamics, with early phases (0-2 hours post-damage) prioritizing survival genes like those for immediate repair and anti-oxidant defenses, while later stages (24 hours and beyond) activate the (SASP), involving pro-inflammatory cytokines that reinforce persistent arrest and influence the tissue microenvironment.

DNA Repair and Aging

Deficient Repair and Pathological Effects

Deficient DNA repair mechanisms contribute to the accumulation of somatic mutations and oxidative damage, leading to tissue dysfunction and age-related pathologies. As cells age, unrepaired DNA lesions, particularly from (ROS), persist and drive , , and organ decline. This process is exacerbated in post-mitotic tissues like neurons and in proliferative compartments such as hematopoietic stem cells, where repair deficiencies amplify loads over time. In neurodegeneration, oxidative damage in neurons plays a central role, with deficiencies in (BER) enzymes like OGG1 linked to (AD). OGG1 removes (8-oxoG), a common oxidative lesion; its deficiency leads to elevated 8-oxoG levels in neuronal genomes, promoting amyloid plaque formation and microgliosis in AD mouse models. Human AD brains show increased oxidative DNA damage and reduced OGG1 activity, correlating with neuronal loss and cognitive decline. Similarly, unrepaired oxidative lesions contribute to and synaptic dysfunction in other neurodegenerative conditions. Immunosenescence arises partly from attrition in T cells due to unrepaired DNA ends, impairing adaptive immunity. shorten progressively with each , and defects in (NHEJ) or shelterin-mediated protection fail to stabilize these ends, leading to replicative and reduced T-cell proliferation. further accelerates instability by inducing DNA damage at telomeric regions, resulting in dysfunctional T cells that exhibit exhaustion and diminished responses to antigens. This contributes to increased susceptibility and chronic in aging. Cardiovascular pathologies, such as , are driven by ROS-induced endothelial damage and BER defects. Endothelial cells exposed to accumulate unrepaired lesions like 8-oxoG, promoting , , and plaque formation. Deficient BER in vascular smooth muscle cells exacerbates this by allowing persistent DNA damage, which triggers and reduces vascular repair capacity. Studies show elevated oxidative DNA adducts in atherosclerotic lesions, linking repair impairments to arterial stiffening and ischemic events. Specific disorders highlight these effects: , caused by (NER) defects, manifests as premature aging with neurodegeneration, , and due to unrepaired transcription-blocking lesions. Mouse models with Ku80 (an NHEJ component) knockout exhibit progeroid features, including growth retardation, , and shortened lifespan from genomic instability and dysfunction. These models demonstrate how repair deficiencies accelerate aging phenotypes across tissues. The load increases with age, accumulating at rates of approximately 10–20 single nucleotide variants per cell per year in various tissues, contributing to clonal hematopoiesis. In hematopoietic stem cells, unrepaired s drive clonal expansion, leading to skewed production and , which underlies age-related hematological dysfunction. This mutation burden, estimated at over 1,000 variants per cell by late life, stems from repair errors and correlates with tissue degeneration.

Repair Efficiency and Longevity

Enhanced DNA repair capacity is strongly associated with increased lifespan across , as it mitigates the accumulation of genomic damage that drives age-related decline. Dietary interventions like caloric restriction (CR) exemplify this by reducing (ROS) production and upregulating key repair pathways, thereby extending . In genetic models, long-lived exhibit superior repair mechanisms, underscoring the of evolutionary adaptations in promoting healthy aging. Caloric restriction, typically involving a 20-40% reduction in intake, significantly extends lifespan in by enhancing DNA repair efficiency. In mice, lifelong CR postpones age-related diseases and increases median lifespan by 20-30%, partly through decreased ROS levels that lessen oxidative damage to DNA. This intervention upregulates sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) and forkhead box O (FOXO) transcription factors, which promote (BER) for oxidative lesions and (HR) for double-strand breaks. Genetic factors further illustrate the link between robust DNA repair and . The , a species with exceptional lifespan exceeding 30 years, displays more efficient (NER) and HR compared to shorter-lived like mice, contributing to its and cancer resistance. In Caenorhabditis elegans, enhanced activity in BER pathways, such as through osmotic stress-induced upregulation, confers resistance to DNA damage and extends lifespan by promoting mitochondrial function and stress adaptation. Hormesis, the adaptive response to mild stressors, bolsters DNA repair and supports by activating protective pathways. Regular exercise induces low-level ROS that trigger nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2), enhancing antioxidant defenses and DNA repair while improving and function. This mitohormetic effect reduces genomic instability and correlates with extended healthspan in various models. In humans, efficient DNA repair manifests in centenarians, who exhibit lower somatic mutation burdens and higher expression of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated () kinase, facilitating better double-strand break repair and reduced age-related genomic stress. Pharmacological agents like metformin mimic CR benefits by activating (AMPK), which enhances DNA damage response pathways and SIRT1 activity, potentially promoting without dietary changes. However, heightened DNA repair investment involves trade-offs, as resource allocation to somatic maintenance may reduce energy available for reproduction. In evolutionary terms, organisms prioritizing repair for extended lifespan often show decreased reproductive output, reflecting a balance between and . This antagonism ensures optimal fitness but limits maximal lifespan in high-reproduction contexts.

DNA Repair Disorders

Hereditary DNA Repair Deficiencies

Hereditary DNA repair deficiencies encompass a group of rare genetic disorders arising from mutations in genes critical for maintaining genomic integrity through DNA repair pathways. These conditions are typically inherited in an autosomal recessive manner, requiring biallelic pathogenic variants for manifestation, and result in heightened sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents due to impaired repair mechanisms. Affected individuals often exhibit early-onset features linked to defective repair, such as cellular to specific genotoxins, though the molecular underpinnings vary by syndrome. Xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) is caused by mutations in genes involved in (NER), primarily XPA through XPG and POLH (also known as XPV), leading to defective removal of UV-induced DNA lesions. This autosomal recessive disorder confers extreme ultraviolet (UV) hypersensitivity, with patients facing a 1,000- to 10,000-fold increased risk of due to unrepaired photoproducts. The global prevalence of XP is approximately 1 in 1,000,000 individuals, though carrier frequencies are higher in certain populations, such as approximately 1 in 100 in for the XPA founder . Ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T) results from biallelic mutations in the gene, which encodes a serine/ essential for signaling double-strand breaks (DSBs) and coordinating repair responses. Inherited in an autosomal recessive pattern, A-T disrupts DSB detection and repair initiation, contributing to progressive and variable characterized by T-cell defects. The prevalence is estimated at 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 100,000 live births, with carrier frequencies around 1% in many populations. Fanconi anemia (FA) involves mutations across at least 23 genes in the FA pathway, which facilitates repair of DNA interstrand crosslinks primarily through coordinated and other mechanisms. Predominantly autosomal recessive (with rare X-linked FANCB cases), FA leads to failure and congenital anomalies stemming from genomic instability and failed crosslink resolution. The incidence is about 1 in 100,000 to 160,000 births, with elevated carrier rates in specific ethnic groups, such as 1 in 89 among for certain FANCA variants. Bloom syndrome arises from mutations in the BLM gene, encoding a RecQ crucial for (HR) and resolution of replication-associated structures. This autosomal recessive condition impairs HR-mediated repair of stalled replication forks, resulting in growth retardation and a strong predisposition to various cancers due to elevated sister exchanges and chromosomal instability. is less than 1 in 1,000,000 worldwide, with higher carrier frequencies in founder populations like (approximately 1 in 100 for the BLM^Ash mutation).

Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis

Hereditary DNA repair deficiencies manifest through a spectrum of clinical symptoms primarily affecting the skin, , hematologic function, and cancer predisposition, often presenting in . (XP) is characterized by extreme , leading to severe sunburns and freckling (lentigines) on sun-exposed areas after minimal UV exposure, alongside a high risk of cancers such as , , and , which can appear in the first decade of life. Neurological complications in XP variants, including sensorineural , areflexia, and progressive neurodegeneration, occur in approximately 20-30% of cases, contributing to cognitive decline and . Ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T) typically begins with progressive in infancy, followed by oculocutaneous telangiectasias—dilated blood vessels in the eyes and —appearing by age 3-6 years, accompanied by leading to recurrent sinopulmonary infections and hypersensitivity to . (FA) presents with congenital malformations in about 60-75% of patients, such as thumb and radial ray anomalies, short stature, café-au-lait spots, and genitourinary defects, alongside progressive bone marrow failure manifesting as , , and by median age 7 years. Diagnosis of these disorders relies on a combination of clinical evaluation and specialized laboratory tests to confirm DNA repair deficiencies. For XP, initial assessment involves documenting UV sensitivity through patient history and examination, followed by functional assays like the , which quantifies DNA strand breaks and repair capacity in lymphocytes exposed to UV light, revealing defective . The relative risk score (RRS) for UV-induced cell survival further evaluates hypersensitivity by comparing colony-forming ability post-irradiation. Genetic confirmation uses next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels targeting XP complementation group genes (e.g., XPA-XPG). In A-T, elevated serum levels (>10-fold normal) in over 95% of cases, combined with showing cerebellar atrophy, supports diagnosis, with definitive identification via gene sequencing. FA diagnosis begins with chromosomal breakage analysis using diepoxybutane (DEB) or (MMC), where increased fragile site expression in lymphocytes confirms the defect in >90% sensitivity; NGS of the at least 23 FA genes follows for subtype identification. The also aids in assessing interstrand crosslink repair deficiencies in FA. Management of these disorders emphasizes supportive care and risk mitigation, as no curative treatments exist beyond experimental gene therapies. For XP, strict sun avoidance—through protective clothing, hats, and broad-spectrum sunscreens with —is essential to prevent skin cancers, with regular dermatologic surveillance and for premalignant lesions; neurological symptoms require multidisciplinary support including . A-T management includes prophylactic antibiotics and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for , physical and speech therapy for , and avoidance of radiation-based imaging or therapies due to heightened sensitivity. In FA, (HSCT) is the only curative option for bone marrow failure, ideally performed before age 10 with >80% success in matched sibling donors, while androgens like temporarily alleviate cytopenias; ongoing trials, including lentiviral vector-based approaches targeting FANCA, have demonstrated hematologic recovery in early-phase studies as of 2025; prenatal screening via or with DEB/MMC testing is recommended for at-risk pregnancies. Prognosis is guarded, with XP patients experiencing a survival around 40-50 years as of recent studies—significantly shorter than the general —primarily due to skin cancers and neurological decline. A-T leads to dependence by adolescence and death in the second or third decade from infections, , or pulmonary complications. FA confers a 500- to 1,000-fold increased risk of , with solid tumors emerging post-HSCT in up to 30% of survivors, underscoring the need for lifelong .

DNA Repair in Cancer

Repair Defects Promoting Cancer

Defects in DNA repair pathways, whether arising from or somatic , lead to genomic instability that promotes tumorigenesis by allowing the accumulation of in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. This instability manifests as a mutator , characterized by elevated mutation rates across the , which accelerates cancer . In particular, deficiencies in key repair mechanisms such as (HR), mismatch repair (MMR), and (NHEJ) drive the development of specific cancers through distinct patterns of genetic aberrations. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), often caused by mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, impairs the accurate repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs), resulting in chromosomal instability and heightened cancer susceptibility. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations confer a lifetime breast cancer risk of approximately 70% by age 80, with BRCA1 carriers facing up to 72% risk and BRCA2 carriers 69%. These mutations are strongly associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, where HRD leads to synthetic lethality with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, as unrepaired DSBs collapse replication forks and cause cell death in the absence of functional PARP activity. The resulting genomic scars, including loss of heterozygosity and structural variants, further underscore HRD's role in tumorigenesis. Mismatch repair (MMR) defects, exemplified by mutations in MLH1 or MSH2 genes, underlie Lynch syndrome and cause (MSI-high) tumors, which exhibit a hypermutable due to unrepaired replication errors. Individuals with MLH1 or MSH2 pathogenic variants face a 40-80% lifetime risk of , with these mutations accounting for the hereditary component of the syndrome. Approximately 15% of all s display MSI-high status, often driven by MMR deficiency, leading to frameshift mutations in genes like TGFBR2 and promoting rapid tumor progression through a mutator . Defects in NHEJ or DSB repair, such as in LIG4, disrupt the ligation of DSB ends, leading to reliance on alternative error-prone end-joining pathways that foster chromosomal translocations and contributing to leukemogenesis. LIG4 , as seen in LIG4 syndrome, impair classical NHEJ and are associated with increased risk of malignancies including and , particularly in hematopoietic cells. This deficiency results in persistent DSBs that, if misrepaired via alternative pathways, generate fusion genes and genomic rearrangements characteristic of lymphoid malignancies. A hallmark of these repair defects is kataegis, localized hypermutation clusters arising from unrepaired single-strand breaks during replication, often exacerbated by HRD or activity in and other cancers. This process amplifies the mutator , creating focal mutation showers that drive clonal and tumor heterogeneity.

Epigenetic Alterations in Repair Genes

Epigenetic alterations, including promoter hypermethylation and repressive modifications, can silence DNA repair genes, leading to genomic instability that promotes without requiring sequence . These changes often involve CpG island methylation in gene promoters, which recruits silencing complexes, and marks such as trimethylation of lysine 27 on (), which compacts and inhibits transcription. Such silencing impairs repair pathways, allowing accumulation of DNA lesions and contributing to tumor development and progression. A prominent example is the silencing of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (), a that removes alkylated guanines. In , CpG hypermethylation of the MGMT promoter occurs in 40-50% of cases, leading to reduced MGMT expression and impaired repair of damage, which fosters and tumor formation. This epigenetic silencing also results in heightened sensitivity to chemotherapy, as unrepaired lesions accumulate in the absence of functional MGMT. Similarly, hypermethylation of the mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) promoter silences this mismatch repair gene in approximately 15% of sporadic colorectal cancers, particularly those exhibiting . This somatic epigenetic event mimics the mismatch repair deficiency seen in Lynch syndrome but arises without germline mutations, promoting hypermutation and rapid tumor evolution. Histone modifications further contribute to repair gene silencing, as seen with H3K27me3 repressive marks on the BRCA1 promoter in breast cancer. This polycomb-mediated trimethylation, catalyzed by EZH2, represses BRCA1 expression, compromising homologous recombination repair and increasing susceptibility to double-strand breaks, thereby driving oncogenesis in BRCA1-proficient tumors. Mechanistically, DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 is recruited to sites of DNA damage, where it can aberrantly methylate promoters of nearby repair genes, perpetuating silencing. Additionally, loss of ten-eleven translocation (TET) enzymes diminishes 5-hydroxymethylcytosine levels, preventing active demethylation and allowing hypermethylation to stabilize on repair gene promoters. These alterations are potentially reversible; demethylating agents like 5-azacytidine inhibit DNMTs, reducing promoter and restoring expression of silenced repair genes such as , MLH1, and in cancer cells, which may sensitize tumors to therapies targeting DNA damage.

Distribution of Repair Deficiencies in Cells

DNA repair processes exhibit significant heterogeneity across the genome, with transcriptionally active regions undergoing faster repair primarily through transcription-coupled (TC-NER), which prioritizes the removal of lesions on the transcribed strand of active genes. In contrast, regions, characterized by compact chromatin structure, display slower repair rates compared to due to reduced accessibility for repair factors, as evidenced by delayed excision of cyclobutane (CPDs) in heterochromatin. Epimutations, such as promoter hypermethylation leading to silencing of DNA repair genes, occur at frequencies ranging from approximately 5-10% in various cancers, though rates vary by gene and tumor type; for instance, OGG1 silencing is observed in about 5% of cancers. Somatic loss of /2, often through mutations or structural variants, affects around 20-24% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers, contributing to deficiency. Genome-wide mapping techniques like excision repair sequencing (XR-seq) have revealed (NER) hotspots at gene promoters, where TC-NER is enriched due to bidirectional , facilitating rapid lesion removal in these regulatory elements. Similarly, (HR) activity is elevated in early-replicating genomic regions, as indicated by the preferential occurrence of HR-associated events in these domains, likely due to replication stress triggering repair during . Repair deficiencies also vary by cell type, reflecting adaptations to physiological demands. In stem cells, HR is prioritized for its high fidelity in double-strand break repair, with embryonic stem cells exhibiting preferential use of HR over error-prone to preserve genomic integrity during proliferation. Post-mitotic neurons, lacking cell division, rely predominantly on (BER) to address oxidative base lesions, as this pathway efficiently handles the high metabolic stress without requiring replication templates. Recent single-cell assays have uncovered substantial cell-to-cell variation in DNA repair efficiency, underscoring the influence of stochastic factors on genomic stability within tissues.

Epigenetic Interactions with DNA Repair

Oxidative Damage Repair and Epigenetic Changes

The (BER) pathway addresses oxidative DNA lesions, such as () and oxidized forms of (5mC), through glycosylases that initiate lesion removal. In active , DNA glycosylase (TDG) specifically excises 5-formylcytosine (5fC) and 5-carboxylcytosine (5caC), intermediates generated by ten-eleven translocation (TET) enzyme oxidation of 5mC, thereby facilitating replacement with unmodified via BER. This process is biochemically reconstituted by the TET1-TDG-BER system, where TET1 oxidizes 5mC and TDG excises the products to enable demethylation. BER intermediates, including abasic sites and single-strand breaks, recruit histone deacetylases (HDACs) to modulate structure during repair of oxidative damage. , for instance, deacetylates the glycosylase OGG1 to enhance its activity in excising 8-oxoG, thereby linking repair intermediates to epigenetic . These interactions help maintain genomic stability but can alter local acetylation patterns. The repair of oxidative lesions via BER often results in hypomethylation at CpG islands, which disrupts patterns, including activation of oncogenes in cancer contexts. For example, unrepaired or inefficiently repaired oxidized bases like 8-oxoG inhibit DNA methyltransferases, leading to passive loss of methylation and aberrant oncogene expression in colorectal tumors with compromised BER. A specific instance occurs during 8-oxoG repair, where OGG1 binds the and recruits TET1 to promote active demethylation in embryonic s. This OGG1-TET1 interaction facilitates TET1-mediated oxidation of nearby 5mC, enhancing demethylation at regulatory regions essential for pluripotency. Unrepaired oxidative DNA damage can persist for years in somatic s, as demonstrated in a 2025 study tracking s across multiple cell divisions in blood, liver, and bronchial tissues. Such long-term persistence amplifies epigenetic drift by allowing repeated interference with methylation maintenance during replication. Mitochondrial (ROS) directly oxidize 5mC to (5hmC), initiating epigenetic changes that intersect with BER-mediated repair. This oxidation by mitochondrial ROS provides an endogenous source of demethylation intermediates, linking cellular metabolism to .

Homologous Recombination and Epigenetics

(HR) repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs) involves the recruitment of chromatin remodelers that facilitate heritable . The TIP60 complex acetylates histone H2AX at 5 (H2AXK5ac). This is essential for the dynamic binding of NBS1, a component of the MRN complex, to damaged , thereby initiating HR by enabling efficient end resection. During resection, the 5' strand degradation exposes underlying epigenetic marks on the DNA, allowing their propagation to the repaired DNA via the homologous template on the sister chromatid, which helps maintain context across the repair site. Additionally, crossover events during HR can shuffle parental epigenetic marks between homologous chromosomes, redistributing histone modifications and patterns that influence in daughter cells. In , HR plays a key role in altering by reprogramming parent-of-origin-specific epigenetic marks through crossover-associated histone exchange and methylation erasure at imprinting control regions. This process ensures the reset of imprints for the next generation but can introduce variability if repair is incomplete. Recent studies from 2023 to 2025 have demonstrated that HR induction at DSBs leads to gains in activating marks specifically within repair foci, enhancing transcription recovery and local accessibility during the repair process. In cancer, deficiency (HRD) contributes to epigenetic instability by impairing the faithful restoration of marks. Compared to (NHEJ), HR demonstrates higher fidelity in preserving epigenetic marks, as its template-directed mechanism minimizes disruptive alterations, whereas NHEJ frequently induces changes in at repair junctions.

Non-Homologous End Joining and Epigenetics

Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repairs double-strand breaks (DSBs) in a template-independent manner, often involving end processing that can disrupt local epigenetic landscapes while also incorporating mechanisms to preserve them. A key player in this process is 53BP1, which accumulates at DSB sites and inhibits end resection by nucleases such as CtIP. 53BP1 binds to preexisting epigenetic marks like and H4K20me2 on surrounding nucleosomes, thereby favoring over HR. This can lead to potential loss of marks at the junction during end processing, where nucleases and polymerases trim or fill in overhangs, altering associations. The outcomes of NHEJ on epigenetics frequently include small deletions or insertions at the repair junction, which can modify CpG dinucleotides and thereby change local patterns, potentially leading to heritable alterations in . Post-repair, the Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is recruited to the site, depositing repressive marks to restore compaction and silence nearby genes, a process that supports stability but may propagate errors if the initial break occurred in . In specific biological contexts, such as V(D)J recombination during B-cell development, NHEJ assembles immunoglobulin loci while maintaining the epigenetic accessibility of the Ig heavy chain (IgH) locus through coordinated chromatin remodeling, ensuring proper allelic exclusion and antigen receptor diversity. However, erroneous NHEJ events, such as aberrant translocations, can erase or redistribute epigenetic marks at breakpoints, contributing to oncogenic dysregulation in leukemia, where disrupted H3K27me3 patterns activate proto-oncogenes. Compared to (HR), which uses a sister chromatid template to accurately propagate epigenetic marks via recycling, NHEJ is more susceptible to epigenetic inaccuracies due to its reliance on local end joining without homology-directed restoration. Recent live-cell imaging studies have visualized transient loss of the active mark H3K9ac at NHEJ junctions shortly after DSB induction, highlighting the pathway's disruptive potential before marks are re-established. Additionally, PARP1-mediated poly-ADP-ribosylation at DSBs modulates the recruitment and activity of epigenetic mark readers, such as CHD2 and demethylases, facilitating relaxation necessary for NHEJ factor access while influencing subsequent mark deposition.

Evolutionary Perspectives

Evolution of Repair Pathways

The origins of DNA repair pathways trace back to the (LUCA), a prokaryotic-like entity that likely possessed rudimentary versions of (BER) and (NER) to maintain genome integrity in an anoxic, high-temperature environment. BER, which removes damaged bases via glycosylases and apurinic/apyrimidinic endonucleases, and NER, which excises bulky lesions using helicases and nucleases, are conserved across and , indicating their presence in LUCA before the divergence of the three domains of life approximately 3.5–4 billion years ago. These pathways evolved in response to early genotoxic stresses, such as spontaneous or UV-induced damage, with core components like uracil-DNA glycosylase (Ung) and UvrABC-like proteins providing foundational repair mechanisms. In prokaryotes, these systems diversified further; for instance, and some developed SOS-like inducible responses mediated by RecA (universal) and LexA (bacterial-specific) proteins, which coordinate error-prone repair and translesion synthesis during severe DNA damage, enhancing survival under fluctuating environmental pressures. The transition to eukaryotes introduced significant innovations in repair pathways, particularly expansions in (HR) tied to the emergence of around 1–2 billion years ago. While HR machinery, including RecA/Rad51 homologs, originated in prokaryotes for general recombination and break repair, its role expanded in early eukaryotes to ensure accurate chromosome segregation during , preventing in gametes. This diversification is evident in the addition of meiosis-specific regulators like Spo11, which initiates double-strand breaks (DSBs) for crossover formation. (NHEJ), a DSB repair pathway reliant on Ku70/80 heterodimers and DNA-PKcs-like kinases, likely emerged or became prominent within the opisthokont lineage (encompassing animals and fungi) over 1 billion years ago, providing a rapid, error-prone alternative to HR in non-dividing cells. Ku homologs, present sporadically in prokaryotes, proliferated in eukaryotes, with full NHEJ complexes conserved in but absent or minimal in other eukaryotic supergroups like excavates. Key evolutionary milestones highlight pathway adaptations to complex life. For example, DNA photolyase, a light-dependent repair for cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (part of photoreactivation, akin to NER), was lost in the mammalian lineage during the Mesozoic Era, approximately 66–225 million years ago, coinciding with the shift to nocturnal lifestyles and reliance on NER for UV damage repair; this loss is absent in non-mammalian vertebrates like birds and reptiles. The Fanconi anemia (FA) pathway, specialized for interstrand crosslink repair, evolved in conjunction with multicellularity around 600–800 million years ago in early metazoans, integrating translesion polymerases, HR, and NER components to handle replication fork stalling in developing tissues; minimal FA cores appear in fungi, but full networks expanded in animals to support tissue integrity. Core enzymes exhibit deep conservation, such as the X-family β (Pol β), whose catalytic fold traces to ancient bacterial nucleotidyltransferases involved in gap-filling during BER, though eukaryotic Pol β acquired specialized dRP lyase activity for short-patch repair.

Repair and Rates of Evolution

Efficient DNA repair mechanisms play a crucial role in modulating rates, thereby influencing the pace of across . Organisms with lower repair proficiency, such as certain , exhibit elevated rates that facilitate faster adaptive , particularly in response to environmental pressures like antibiotics. In contrast, with high-fidelity repair systems, like humans, maintain lower rates, which slow evolutionary change but enhance long-term genomic stability. This variation in repair efficiency accounts for a substantial portion of the observed differences in substitution rates among , as more effective error correction reduces the persistence of replication errors into fixed . Translesion synthesis (TLS) and the response enable stress-induced , promoting rapid by increasing rates under adverse conditions, such as exposure, where they drive the emergence of resistance in bacterial populations. Conversely, (HR) supports evolutionary by accurately repairing double-strand breaks, thereby preserving advantageous alleles and maintaining genetic integrity during replication. These mechanisms balance the trade-off between generating beneficial variation and avoiding deleterious mutations, with TLS/SOS accelerating short-term in dynamic environments while HR ensures the faithful transmission of adaptive traits across generations. Notable examples illustrate how repair proficiency shapes survival and evolutionary trajectories. achieves extreme resistance to through multiple copies and redundant pathways of DNA repair genes, including RecFOR and novel proteins like DdrA/B, allowing it to reassemble a fragmented and survive doses lethal to most organisms. In multicellular contexts, loss of DNA repair proficiency accelerates within cell populations, as seen in cancer, where defects in repair pathways increase rates, enabling rapid tumor and progression. Recent 2024 research reveals that persistent DNA lesions in somatic cells can endure for years—median 1.3–1.5 years, with some lasting over three—evading repair and generating recurrent mutations during multiple replication cycles. This prolonged damage elevates mutational diversity in cell populations, enhancing evolvability by providing a sustained source of that can drive , particularly in long-lived tissues like hematopoietic stem cells. A 2025 study on Mexican (Astyanax mexicanus) revealed elevated DNA damage in short-sleeping lineages without accelerated aging, suggesting evolutionary adaptations in repair efficiency to lifestyle changes.

Technological and Therapeutic Advances

Diagnostic Tools for DNA Repair

Diagnostic tools for DNA repair encompass a range of functional and molecular assays designed to quantify DNA damage and repair efficiency in cells, facilitating both research into repair mechanisms and clinical assessment of repair deficiencies associated with diseases such as cancer. These methods detect specific types of DNA lesions, including strand breaks, and evaluate the cellular capacity to restore genomic integrity, often through direct measurement of repair kinetics or indirect markers of repair pathway activity. Functional assays provide direct insights into repair processes by assessing cellular responses to induced damage. The comet assay, also known as single-cell gel electrophoresis, is a widely used technique to detect and quantify single- and double-strand DNA breaks in individual eukaryotic cells. In this method, cells are embedded in agarose, lysed to release DNA, and subjected to alkaline or neutral electrophoresis, where damaged DNA migrates away from the nucleus, forming a "comet" tail whose length and intensity correlate with the extent of strand breaks. The assay's sensitivity allows for evaluation of repair over time by incubating cells post-damage, making it valuable for studying base excision repair and nucleotide excision repair pathways. Another key functional approach is the host cell reactivation assay, which measures the ability of intact cells to repair damage in exogenous DNA, such as a transfected plasmid containing UV-induced lesions or double-strand breaks. This transfection-based method assesses nucleotide excision repair (NER) and homologous recombination (HR) by quantifying reporter gene expression recovery, providing a readout of overall repair proficiency without requiring cell lysates. Molecular techniques offer higher resolution for visualizing or mapping repair events at the subcellular or genomic level. detection of γ-H2AX foci serves as a sensitive for double-strand breaks (DSBs), where of the variant H2AX at serine 139 forms discrete nuclear foci at DSB sites shortly after induction. This method uses confocal to count foci per cell, enabling quantification of DSB repair dynamics in response to or chemotherapeutic agents, with foci resolution indicating successful or HR. Sequencing-based approaches, such as DSB-seq, provide genome-wide mapping of DSBs at resolution by labeling and enriching break ends before next-generation sequencing. This technique captures the precise locations and frequencies of breaks, revealing repair hotspots and pathway biases across the genome, though it requires careful controls to distinguish endogenous from induced . Recent advances in have enhanced real-time monitoring of repair processes. In 2025, researchers at developed a single-molecule technique that tracks the dynamics of DSB repair in live human cells, providing the first direct visualization of repair protein recruitment and resolution at individual break sites. This method combines fluorescent tagging of repair factors with high-resolution , revealing temporal aspects of and HR that were previously inaccessible, thus advancing mechanistic studies of repair fidelity. In clinical settings, these tools inform prognosis and treatment stratification, particularly in . Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) scores, as measured by assays like Myriad myChoice CDx, integrate genomic metrics—such as , telomeric allelic imbalance, and large-scale state transitions—to identify HR-deficient tumors in patients. A positive HRD score (genomic score ≥42) predicts responsiveness to , guiding personalized therapy while assessing underlying repair defects. Similarly, assays quantifying apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1 (APE1) activity evaluate efficiency, with elevated activity levels correlating with tumor aggressiveness and poorer prognosis in various cancers due to enhanced repair of oxidative damage. These enzymatic assays, often fluorescence-based, measure APE1's incision of abasic sites, providing a functional prognostic beyond protein expression. Despite their utility, diagnostic assays for DNA repair face notable limitations that can affect interpretation. Discrepancies between and conditions often arise, as models may not fully recapitulate tissue-specific repair environments, leading to over- or underestimation of repair capacity. Additionally, many techniques, including sequencing-based methods, struggle with throughput for comprehensive genome-wide analysis, particularly in clinical samples where sample quality and quantity are constrained. These challenges underscore the need for integrated, high-fidelity approaches to bridge experimental and physiological contexts.

Therapeutic Modulation of Repair Pathways

Therapeutic modulation of DNA repair pathways represents a cornerstone of modern and management, targeting the selective vulnerability of cells with repair deficiencies to enhance treatment efficacy. By inhibiting repair mechanisms in cancer cells harboring mutations in genes like /2, or conversely enhancing repair in conditions such as (FA), these strategies exploit or restore cellular resilience. This approach has revolutionized precision medicine, particularly in cancers driven by repair (HRR) defects, where unrepaired DNA damage leads to upon therapeutic insult. PARP inhibitors exemplify targeted inhibition of repair pathways, functioning through in BRCA-deficient cancers. , a potent /2 inhibitor, traps PARP on DNA single-strand breaks, preventing repair and causing replication fork collapse, which is lethal in cells lacking functional BRCA-mediated HRR. Approved by the FDA in 2014 for with BRCA mutations, significantly improved , with median PFS of 56.0 months versus 13.8 months with in the SOLO-1 (updated analysis as of 2022). Similarly, ATR and CHK1 inhibitors address replication stress in tumors with repair impairments; for instance, berzosertib (an ATR inhibitor) sensitizes p53-mutant cancers to by blocking the ATR-CHK1 axis that stabilizes stalled forks. Enhancers of DNA repair pathways offer promise for non-oncologic applications, particularly in hereditary syndromes. In , where defective FA pathway proteins impair interstrand crosslink repair, pharmacological chaperones like small molecules that stabilize FANCA folding have restored partial pathway function in preclinical models, reducing chromosomal fragility. For (XP), characterized by (NER) deficiencies, HDAC inhibitors such as upregulate NER genes like XPA and ERCC1, enhancing UV damage repair and cell survival in patient-derived fibroblasts. These enhancers aim to mitigate hypersensitivity without oncogenic risk, though clinical translation remains in early phases. Recent advancements include small molecule inhibitors targeting WEE1 and kinases, in phase II/III trials as of 2025 for HRR-deficient solid tumors. Adavosertib (WEE1 inhibitor) combined with showed promising activity in platinum-resistant , per phase II data. ATM inhibitors like AZD1390, entering phase II/III trials in 2025, selectively kill ATM-deficient lymphomas by preventing double-strand break signaling. These developments build on olaparib's precedent, expanding modulation to checkpoint and signaling nodes in repair networks. Combination therapies leverage repair modulation to potentiate conventional treatments. Inhibiting NER with triptolide alongside enhances crosslink-induced in head and neck cancers, overcoming resistance by depleting ERCC1-XPF endonuclease activity, as demonstrated in xenograft models with 70% tumor reduction. Synergy with arises from repair defects generating neoantigens; PARP inhibition in BRCA-mutant breast cancers increases , boosting PD-1 blockade efficacy in preclinical studies, with clinical trials reporting improved response rates in combination arms. Challenges in therapeutic modulation include acquired resistance and profiles. Reversion restoring BRCA function, such as those deleting frameshifts, emerge in 20-50% of -treated patients, leading to within 2 years, necessitating serial monitoring and next-generation sequencing for detection. Off-target effects, like PARP in normal tissues, cause hematologic toxicities, with grade 3/4 in 20% of recipients, prompting dose adjustments or supportive care. Ongoing research focuses on biomarker-driven patient selection to mitigate these hurdles and broaden applicability beyond .

Emerging Research in DNA Repair

Recent studies have uncovered novel DNA repair pathways in human cells, expanding our understanding of how cells manage persistent genomic threats. In a 2025 investigation, researchers identified a previously unknown mechanism where damaged DNA migrates to the nuclear pore complex (NPC), allowing nuclear membrane proteins to directly bind and initiate repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs). This pathway, distinct from canonical nuclear repair processes, highlights the NPC's role in facilitating repair and could inform strategies to enhance anticancer therapies by targeting repair-resistant tumors. Complementing this, a 2024 study revealed that the protein APLF promotes efficient repair of interstrand crosslinks (ICLs) by facilitating fork protection and unhooking during replication, thereby contributing to resistance in cancer cells. Advancements in understanding DNA damage persistence have shown that certain lesions can evade repair for extended periods, reshaping views on . A analysis demonstrated that unrepaired DNA damage in healthy blood stem cells can persist for years, with 15-20% of resulting mutations enduring two to three years post-exposure, elevating long-term cancer risk. Similarly, researchers at the National Cancer Institute's Center for Cancer Research described a novel mechanism for local control of at lesion sites, which selectively halts replication at damaged regions without disrupting undamaged areas, enabling precise recovery and preventing genomic instability. The intersection of DNA repair deficiencies and epigenetic modifications is emerging as a driver of tumor evolution. A 2025 perspective in Nature Communications outlined how DNA repair-induced chromatin alterations create "epigenetic scars" that enhance cancer cell plasticity, allowing transitions to drug-tolerant states via regulators like EZH2 and BMI1, ultimately fueling intratumor heterogeneity and therapeutic resistance. Technological integrations are revolutionizing targeted DNA repair. Prime editing, an advanced CRISPR-Cas9 variant, enables precise corrections in base excision repair (BER) pathways by installing all 12 possible base transitions and small indels without DSBs, leveraging reverse transcriptase for high-fidelity edits in models of genetic disorders. Additionally, a 2025 Michigan State University study utilized single-molecule imaging to visualize real-time dynamics of DSB repair in living cells, revealing kinetic details of protein recruitment and chromatin remodeling that guide pathway choice. Looking ahead, artificial intelligence is poised to accelerate discovery of repair modulators, while regenerative approaches offer hope for inherited disorders. AI platforms like Lantern Pharma's RADR® now predict synergistic combinations of DNA-damaging agents with repair inhibitors, such as PARP1 and ATR blockers, based on 221 clinical trials to optimize precision oncology. In parallel, stem cell therapies are advancing for repair-deficient conditions; a 2025 Stanford trial successfully treated Fanconi anemia—characterized by impaired ICL repair—using antibody-conditioned transplants without chemotherapy, achieving full donor engraftment in pediatric patients with minimal complications.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.