Browsing by Author "Zhou, Daohong"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    EEPD1 Rescues Stressed Replication Forks and Maintains Genome Stability by Promoting End Resection and Homologous Recombination Repair
    (Public Library of Science (PloS), 2015-12) Wu, Yuehan; Lee, Suk-Hee; Williamson, Elizabeth A.; Reinert, Brian L.; Cho, Ju Hwan; Xia, Fen; Jaiswal, Aruna Shanker; Srinivasan, Gayathri; Patel, Bhavita; Brantley, Alexis; Zhou, Daohong; Shao, Lijian; Pathak, Rupak; Hauer-Jensen, Martin; Singh, Sudha; Kong, Kimi; Wu, Xaiohua; Kim, Hyun-Suk; Beissbarth, Timothy; Gaedcke, Jochen; Burma, Sandeep; Nickoloff, Jac A.; Hromas, Robert A.; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, IU School of Medicine
    Replication fork stalling and collapse is a major source of genome instability leading to neoplastic transformation or cell death. Such stressed replication forks can be conservatively repaired and restarted using homologous recombination (HR) or non-conservatively repaired using micro-homology mediated end joining (MMEJ). HR repair of stressed forks is initiated by 5' end resection near the fork junction, which permits 3' single strand invasion of a homologous template for fork restart. This 5' end resection also prevents classical non-homologous end-joining (cNHEJ), a competing pathway for DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair. Unopposed NHEJ can cause genome instability during replication stress by abnormally fusing free double strand ends that occur as unstable replication fork repair intermediates. We show here that the previously uncharacterized Exonuclease/Endonuclease/Phosphatase Domain-1 (EEPD1) protein is required for initiating repair and restart of stalled forks. EEPD1 is recruited to stalled forks, enhances 5' DNA end resection, and promotes restart of stalled forks. Interestingly, EEPD1 directs DSB repair away from cNHEJ, and also away from MMEJ, which requires limited end resection for initiation. EEPD1 is also required for proper ATR and CHK1 phosphorylation, and formation of gamma-H2AX, RAD51 and phospho-RPA32 foci. Consistent with a direct role in stalled replication fork cleavage, EEPD1 is a 5' overhang nuclease in an obligate complex with the end resection nuclease Exo1 and BLM. EEPD1 depletion causes nuclear and cytogenetic defects, which are made worse by replication stress. Depleting 53BP1, which slows cNHEJ, fully rescues the nuclear and cytogenetic abnormalities seen with EEPD1 depletion. These data demonstrate that genome stability during replication stress is maintained by EEPD1, which initiates HR and inhibits cNHEJ and MMEJ.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Further Characterization of Multi-Organ DEARE and Protection by 16,16 Dimethyl Prostaglandin E2 in a Mouse Model of the Hematopoietic Acute Radiation Syndrome
    (BioOne, 2023) Wu, Tong; Pelus, Louis M.; Plett, P. Artur; Sampson, Carol H.; Chua, Hui Lin; Fisher, Alexa; Feng, Hailin; Liu, Liqiong; Li, Hongge; Ortiz, Miguel; Chittajallu, Supriya; Luo, Qianyi; Bhatwadekar, Ashay D.; Meyer, Timothy B.; Zhang, Xin; Zhou, Daohong; Fischer, Kathryn D.; McKinzie, David L.; Miller, Steven J.; Orschell, Christie M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Survivors of acute radiation exposure suffer from the delayed effects of acute radiation exposure (DEARE), a chronic condition affecting multiple organs, including lung, kidney, heart, gastrointestinal tract, eyes, and brain, and often causing cancer. While effective medical countermeasures (MCM) for the hematopoietic-acute radiation syndrome (H-ARS) have been identified and approved by the FDA, development of MCM for DEARE has not yet been successful. We previously documented residual bone marrow damage (RBMD) and progressive renal and cardiovascular DEARE in murine survivors of H-ARS, and significant survival efficacy of 16,16-dimethyl prostaglandin E2 (dmPGE2) given as a radioprotectant or radiomitigator for H-ARS. We now describe additional DEARE (physiological and neural function, progressive fur graying, ocular inflammation, and malignancy) developing after sub-threshold doses in our H-ARS model, and detailed analysis of the effects of dmPGE2 administered before (PGE-pre) or after (PGE-post) lethal total-body irradiation (TBI) on these DEARE. Administration of PGE-pre normalized the twofold reduction of white blood cells (WBC) and lymphocytes seen in vehicle-treated survivors (Veh), and increased the number of bone marrow (BM) cells, splenocytes, thymocytes, and phenotypically defined hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) and hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) to levels equivalent to those in non-irradiated age-matched controls. PGE-pre significantly protected HPC colony formation ex vivo by >twofold, long term-HSC in vivo engraftment potential up to ninefold, and significantly blunted TBI-induced myeloid skewing. Secondary transplantation documented continued production of LT-HSC with normal lineage differentiation. PGE-pre reduced development of DEARE cardiovascular pathologies and renal damage; prevented coronary artery rarefication, blunted progressive loss of coronary artery endothelia, reduced inflammation and coronary early senescence, and blunted radiation-induced increase in blood urea nitrogen (BUN). Ocular monocytes were significantly lower in PGE-pre mice, as was TBI-induced fur graying. Increased body weight and decreased frailty in male mice, and reduced incidence of thymic lymphoma were documented in PGE-pre mice. In assays measuring behavioral and cognitive functions, PGE-pre reduced anxiety in females, significantly blunted shock flinch response, and increased exploratory behavior in males. No effect of TBI was observed on memory in any group. PGE-post, despite significantly increasing 30-day survival in H-ARS and WBC and hematopoietic recovery, was not effective in reducing TBI-induced RBMD or any other DEARE. In summary, dmPGE2 administered as an H-ARS MCM before lethal TBI significantly increased 30-day survival and ameliorated RBMD and multi-organ and cognitive/behavioral DEARE to at least 12 months after TBI, whereas given after TBI, dmPGE2 enhances survival from H-ARS but has little impact on RBMD or other DEARE.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Therapy-Induced Senescence: Opportunities to Improve Anticancer Therapy
    (Oxford, 2021-10) Prasanna, Pataje G.; Citrin, Deborah E.; Hildesheim, Jeffrey; Ahmed, Mansoor M.; Venkatachalam, Sundar; Riscuta, Gabriela; Xi, Dan; Zheng, Guangrong; van Deursen, Jan; Goronzy, Jorg; Kron, Stephen J.; Anscher, Mitchell S.; Sharpless, Norman E.; Campisi, Judith; Brown, Stephen L.; Niedernhofer, Laura J.; O’Loghlen, Ana; Georgakilas, Alexandros G.; Paris, Francois; Gius, David; Gewirtz, David A.; Schmitt, Clemens A.; Abazeed, Mohamed E.; Kirkland, James L.; Richmond, Ann; Romesser, Paul B.; Lowe, Scott W.; Gil, Jesus; Mendonca, Marc S.; Burma, Sandeep; Zhou, Daohong; Coleman, C. Norman; Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine
    Cellular senescence is an essential tumor suppressive mechanism that prevents the propagation of oncogenically activated, genetically unstable, and/or damaged cells. Induction of tumor cell senescence is also one of the underlying mechanisms by which cancer therapies exert antitumor activity. However, an increasing body of evidence from preclinical studies demonstrates that radiation and chemotherapy cause accumulation of senescent cells (SnCs) both in tumor and normal tissue. SnCs in tumors can, paradoxically, promote tumor relapse, metastasis, and resistance to therapy, in part, through expression of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype. In addition, SnCs in normal tissue can contribute to certain radiation- and chemotherapy-induced side effects. Because of its multiple roles, cellular senescence could serve as an important target in the fight against cancer. This commentary provides a summary of the discussion at the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Radiation, Senescence, and Cancer (August 10-11, 2020, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD) regarding the current status of senescence research, heterogeneity of therapy-induced senescence, current status of senotherapeutics and molecular biomarkers, a concept of “one-two punch” cancer therapy (consisting of therapeutics to induce tumor cell senescence followed by selective clearance of SnCs), and its integration with personalized adaptive tumor therapy. It also identifies key knowledge gaps and outlines future directions in this emerging field to improve treatment outcomes for cancer patients.