FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1520446265> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1520446265 endingPage "2841" @default.
• W1520446265 startingPage "2834" @default.
• W1520446265 abstract "Nucleotide excision repair (NER) protects against sunlight-induced skin cancer. Defective NER is associated with photosensitivity and a high skin cancer incidence. Some clinical treatments that cause photosensitivity can also increase skin cancer risk. Among these, the immunosuppressant azathioprine and the fluoroquinolone antibiotics ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin interact with UVA radiation to generate reactive oxygen species that diminish NER capacity by causing protein damage. The replication protein A (RPA) DNA-binding protein has a pivotal role in DNA metabolism and is an essential component of NER. The relationship between protein oxidation and NER inhibition was investigated in cultured human cells expressing different levels of RPA. We show here that RPA is limiting for NER and that oxidative damage to RPA compromises NER capability. Our findings reveal that cellular RPA is surprisingly vulnerable to oxidation, and we identify oxidized forms of RPA that are associated with impaired NER. The vulnerability of NER to inhibition by oxidation provides a connection between cutaneous photosensitivity, protein damage, and increased skin cancer risk. Our findings emphasize that damage to DNA repair proteins, as well as to DNA itself, is likely to be an important contributor to skin cancer risk. Nucleotide excision repair (NER) protects against sunlight-induced skin cancer. Defective NER is associated with photosensitivity and a high skin cancer incidence. Some clinical treatments that cause photosensitivity can also increase skin cancer risk. Among these, the immunosuppressant azathioprine and the fluoroquinolone antibiotics ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin interact with UVA radiation to generate reactive oxygen species that diminish NER capacity by causing protein damage. The replication protein A (RPA) DNA-binding protein has a pivotal role in DNA metabolism and is an essential component of NER. The relationship between protein oxidation and NER inhibition was investigated in cultured human cells expressing different levels of RPA. We show here that RPA is limiting for NER and that oxidative damage to RPA compromises NER capability. Our findings reveal that cellular RPA is surprisingly vulnerable to oxidation, and we identify oxidized forms of RPA that are associated with impaired NER. The vulnerability of NER to inhibition by oxidation provides a connection between cutaneous photosensitivity, protein damage, and increased skin cancer risk. Our findings emphasize that damage to DNA repair proteins, as well as to DNA itself, is likely to be an important contributor to skin cancer risk. pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidone 6-thioguanine cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer nucleotide excision repair replication protein A Skin cancer is one of the few human cancers that are associated with a well-defined and pervasive mutagen. Non-melanoma skin cancer genomes are dominated by the mutational signatures of sunlight-induced DNA lesions (Alexandrov et al., 2013Alexandrov L.B. Nik-Zainal S. Wedge D.C. et al.Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer.Nature. 2013; 500: 415-421Crossref PubMed Scopus (6216) Google Scholar; Jayaraman et al., 2014Jayaraman S.S. Rayhan D.J. Hazany S. et al.Mutational landscape of basal cell carcinomas by whole-exome sequencing.J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134: 213-220Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar; South et al., 2014South A.P. Purdie K.J. Watt S.A. et al.NOTCH1 mutations occur early during cutaneous squamous cell carcinogenesis.J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 34: 2630-2638Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (237) Google Scholar). The nucleotide excision repair (NER) system provides an important protection against skin cancer by removing potentially mutagenic DNA cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) and pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidone (6-4Py:Py) photolesions induced by solar UVB radiation. Inefficient NER in the genetic disorder xeroderma pigmentosum is associated with photosensitivity and a hugely increased skin cancer risk (Friedberg et al., 2006Friedberg E.C. Walker G.C. Siede W. et al.DNA Repair and Mutagenesis. ASM Press, Washington2006Google Scholar). Photosensitivity and an increased susceptibility to sunlight-related malignancy are side effects of some medications. For example, patients prescribed azathioprine for inflammatory bowel disorders or to prevent organ transplant rejection are UVA photosensitive and have high rates of non-melanoma skin cancer (Euvrard et al., 2003Euvrard S. Kanitakis J. Claudy A. Skin cancers after organ transplantation.N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 1681-1691Crossref PubMed Scopus (1305) Google Scholar; Peyrin-Biroulet et al., 2011Peyrin-Biroulet L. Khosrotehrani K. Carrat F. et al.Increased risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients who receive thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease.Gastroenterology. 2011; 141: 1621-1628Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (394) Google Scholar; Ramiscal and Brewer, 2013Ramiscal J.A.B. Brewer J.D. Thiopurines and risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer in inflammatory bowel disease.JAMA Dermatol. 2013; 149: 92-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar). Azathioprine metabolism culminates in the incorporation of 6-thioguanine (6-TG) into patients’ DNA where it acts as a potent UVA photosensitizer. In cultured human cells, the combination of DNA 6-TG and UVA generates reactive oxygen species. These cause widespread DNA and protein damage that is associated with inhibition of DNA repair (Gueranger et al., 2014Gueranger Q. Li F. Peacock M. et al.Protein oxidation and DNA repair Inhibition by 6-thioguanine and UVA radiation.J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134: 1408-1417Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar). Other photosensitizing drugs include the fluoroquinolone antibiotics that are photocarcinogens in mice (Itoh et al., 2005Itoh T. Miyauchi-Hashimoto H. Sugihara A. et al.The photocarcinogenesis of antibiotic lomefloxacin and UVA radiation is enhanced in xeroderma pigmentosum group A gene-deficient mice.J Invest Dermatol. 2005; 125: 554-559Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar) and may increase skin cancer risk in patients (Traianou et al., 2012Traianou A. Ulrich M. Apalla Z. et al.Risk factors for actinic keratosis in eight European centres: a case-control study.Br J Dermatol. 2012; 167: 36-42Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar). Combinations of UVA and the fluoroquinolones ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin duplicate many of the effects of DNA 6-TG/UVA in cultured human cells. In particular, fluoroquinolone/UVA treatment causes DNA and protein damage and inhibits DNA repair, including NER (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). Effective NER requires the coordinated activities of numerous proteins to recognize and process DNA lesions. The human replication protein A (RPA) is an abundant DNA-binding protein complex that participates in almost all aspects of DNA metabolism and is essential for NER. Its high-affinity binding protects single-stranded DNA against nucleases and facilitates the correct processing of unpaired DNA regions generated during replication and repair (Binz et al., 2004Binz S.K. Sheehan A.M. Wold M.S. Replication protein A phosphorylation and the cellular response to DNA damage.DNA Repair. 2004; 3: 1015-1024Crossref PubMed Scopus (238) Google Scholar). Recruitment of specific proteins to DNA-bound RPA is important in the activation of the cellular checkpoints that maintain genome stability in the face of arrested replication (Friedel et al., 2009Friedel A.M. Pike B.L. Gasser S.M. ATR/Mec1: coordinating fork stability and repair.Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2009; 21: 237-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (120) Google Scholar). Consistent with its pivotal role in protecting DNA, genetic inactivation of murine RPA is lethal, and haploinsufficiency is associated with cancer proneness and reduced life span (Wang et al., 2005Wang Y. Putnam C.D. Kane M.F. et al.Mutation in Rpa1 results in defective DNA double-strand break repair, chromosomal instability and cancer in mice.Nat Genetics. 2005; 37: 750-755Crossref PubMed Scopus (129) Google Scholar). Reduced RPA expression in cultured human cells results in spontaneous DNA damage and activation of DNA damage–related checkpoints (Dodson et al., 2004Dodson G.E. Shi Y. Tibbetts R.S. DNA replication defects, spontaneous DNA damage, and ATM-dependent checkpoint activation in replication protein A-deficient cells.J Biol Chem. 2004; 279: 34010-34014Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar). RFA, the yeast RPA homolog, is limiting for UV protection, and hypomorphic RFA mutations confer UVC sensitivity (Umezu et al., 1998Umezu K. Sugawara N. Chen C. et al.Genetic analysis of yeast RPA1 reveals its multiple functions in DNA metabolism.Genetics. 1998; 148: 989-1005Crossref PubMed Google Scholar) and a mutator phenotype (Chen et al., 1998Chen C. Umezu K. Kolodner R.D. Chromosomal rearrangements occur in S. cerevisiae rfa1 mutator mutants due to mutagenic lesions processed by double-strand-break repair.Mol Cell. 1998; 2: 9-22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar). RPA is a heterotrimer (Wold, 1997Wold M.S. Replication protein A: a heterotrimeric, single stranded DNA-binding protein required for eukaryotic DNA metabolism.Ann Rev Biochem. 1997; 66: 61-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (1178) Google Scholar). Its subunits of 70, 32, and 14 kDa (RPA70, RPA32 & RPA14) contain several DNA- and protein-interacting domains. The most important DNA-binding motifs lie in the RPA70 subunit. Protein-interacting domains are located in the N terminus of RPA70 and the C terminus of RPA32 (Binz et al., 2004Binz S.K. Sheehan A.M. Wold M.S. Replication protein A phosphorylation and the cellular response to DNA damage.DNA Repair. 2004; 3: 1015-1024Crossref PubMed Scopus (238) Google Scholar). An N-terminal RPA32 domain also contains multiple conserved phosphorylation sites that control RPA function. RPA32 phosphorylation triggered by the presence of long single-stranded DNA tracts at arrested replication forks may serve to regulate the distribution of limiting RPA resources between replication and repair (reviewed in Binz et al., 2004Binz S.K. Sheehan A.M. Wold M.S. Replication protein A phosphorylation and the cellular response to DNA damage.DNA Repair. 2004; 3: 1015-1024Crossref PubMed Scopus (238) Google Scholar). The role of RPA14 appears to be largely to stabilize the heterotrimer. We previously showed that protein oxidation is associated with NER inhibition in human cells treated with 6-TG/UVA or fluoroquinolone/UVA (Gueranger et al., 2014Gueranger Q. Li F. Peacock M. et al.Protein oxidation and DNA repair Inhibition by 6-thioguanine and UVA radiation.J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134: 1408-1417Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar; Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). Our results suggested that RPA damage might underlie the reduced NER capability. Here we demonstrate that the vulnerability of RPA to oxidation confers a risk of suboptimal NER under oxidative stress conditions. We describe oxidative RPA lesions in cultured human cells exposed to conditions that simulate events in the sun-exposed skin of patients taking azathioprine or fluoroquinolones. Our findings emphasize the importance of protein oxidation as a determinant of DNA repair efficiency and skin cancer risk in patients taking photosensitizing drugs. Treatment of human cells with 6-TG/UVA inhibits NER (Gueranger et al., 2014Gueranger Q. Li F. Peacock M. et al.Protein oxidation and DNA repair Inhibition by 6-thioguanine and UVA radiation.J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134: 1408-1417Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar). To investigate how RPA influences NER efficiency, we compared the removal of UVC-induced 6-4 Py:Pys by U2OS and the related U2OS-RPA21 cells in which RPA is overexpressed (Toledo et al., 2013Toledo L.I. Altmeyer M. Rask M.-B. et al.ATR prohibits replication catastrophe by preventing global exhaustion of RPA.Cell. 2013; 155: 1088-1103Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (538) Google Scholar). Western blotting confirmed an approximately 2-fold RPA overexpression in U2OS-RPA21 cells (Figure 1a). Increased RPA protected NER against inhibition by 6-TG/UVA. Whereas 6-TG/UVA-treated U2OS cells excised <20% of UVC-induced 6-4 Py:Pys in 3 hours, similarly damaged U2OS-RPA21 cells removed ~60% of these photoproducts in the same period (Figure 1b). U2OS and U2OS-RPA21 cells irradiated with UVC alone removed >95% of 6-4 Py:Pys in 3 hours. Increased RPA expression also conferred resistance to the toxicity of 6-TG/UVA. MTT assays revealed a UVA dose–dependent decrease in U2OS viability at two levels of DNA 6-TG substitution. At the higher DNA 6-TG level, approximately <20% of U2OS cells survived after 20 kJ m-2 UVA. In contrast, DNA 6-TG-containing U2OS-RPA21 cells were largely insensitive to UVA, and >80% survived even at the highest UVA dose (Figure 1c). Treatment with 6-TG or UVA alone reduced viability by <10%. 6-TG is an atypical photosensitizer in that it is DNA embedded. The UVA absorbing fluoroquinolone antibiotics ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin replicate many of the photosensitizing effects of DNA 6-TG without incorporation into DNA. In particular, ciprofloxacin/UVA and ofloxacin/UVA induce oxidative stress and cause widespread protein damage that compromises NER (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). 6-4Py:Py ELISA confirmed that ciprofloxacin/UVA and ofloxacin/UVA also inhibited NER in U2OS cells. Increased RPA expression in U2OS-RPA21 protected against inhibition. Figure 1d shows that, whereas 500 μm ciprofloxacin/20 kJ m-2 UVA almost completely abolished 6-4Py:Py excision in U2OS cells, U2OS-RPA21 cells removed around 50% of these photoproducts within 3 hours under the same conditions. Higher RPA expression also protected against NER inhibition by ofloxacin/UVA (Figure 1e). 1 mm ofloxacin/20 kJ m-2 UVA that caused a significant inhibition of 6-4Py:Py removal in U2OS cells did not detectably affect excision by U2OS-RPA21 cells. Repair inhibition was the result of UVA/drug interaction, and ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, or these low UVA doses alone were without effect. Increased RPA expression also protected against fluoroquinolone/UVA toxicity. Figure 1f shows that the viability of UVA-irradiated (20 kJ m-2) U2OS cells was compromised by ciprofloxacin, and <2% survived treatment with 200 μm. In contrast, >80% of irradiated U2OS-RPA21 cells survived treatment with 200 μm ciprofloxacin. Ofloxacin/UVA was significantly less toxic to both U2OS and U2OS-RPA21 cells. More than 20% of U2OS cells remained viable following 1,000 μm/20 kJ m-2, and the effect of RPA overexpression on U2OS-RPA21 viability was correspondingly more modest (Figure 1g). 6-TG/UVA generates DNA lesions that are powerful replication blocks. UVA activation of certain fluoroquinolones induces T<>T CPDs (Lhiaubet-Vallet et al., 2009Lhiaubet-Vallet V. Bosca F. Miranda M.A. Photosensitized DNA damage: The case of fluoroquinolones.Photochem Photobiol. 2009; 85: 861-868Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar) that also arrest replication. As RPA can become sequestered at arrested replication forks and no longer available for NER, we investigated recruitment of RPA to chromatin. 6-TG/UVA or ciprofloxacin/UVA reduced recovery of RPA in U2OS cell extracts (Figure 2a and b). Consistent with RPA chromatinization and the presence of replication-arresting DNA lesions, the missing RPA was recovered by digestion of the extracts with benzonase (Supplementary Figure S2 online). RPA recovery from U2OS-RPA21 cells was less affected owing to their higher RPA levels. As expected, ofloxacin/UVA did not detectably affect RPA recovery in U2OS extracts, as it is a poor source of CPDs (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar; Figure 2b). Chromatinization of the DDB2 component of the DDB1:DDB2 (DNA Damage Binding 1:DNA Damage Binding 2) DNA damage recognition complex is another marker for the presence of NER substrates (Otrin et al., 1997Otrin V.R. McLenigan M. Takao M. et al.Translocation of a UV-damaged DNA binding protein into a tight association with chromatin after treatment of mammalian cells with UV light.J Cell Sci. 1997; 110: 1159-1168PubMed Google Scholar). Figure 2c shows that 6-TG/UVA and ciprofloxacin/UVA but not ofloxacin/UVA provoked immediate relocalization of a substantial fraction of DDB2 in U2OS. This observation provides further confirmation that 6-TG/UVA and ciprofloxacin/UVA induce DNA damage that includes potential substrates for NER. Ofloxacin/UVA is, however, a poor source of such lesions. All three photosensitizers cause protein oxidation (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). As their effects on NER and survival did not correlate with the induction of DNA lesions, we examined whether RPA itself was damaged. Western blotting of extracts from 6-TG/UVA-treated U2OS cells revealed an RPA32 species of ~100 kDa (Figure 3a) that was absent from untreated cells. Western analysis of RPA32 in U2OS-RPA21 cells was complicated by the presence of additional constitutive RPA forms generated by incomplete processing of the full-length GFP-RPA polypeptide encoded by the construct (Supplementary Figure S1 online). In addition to the three correctly processed RPA proteins, U2OS-RPA21 extracts contained low but detectable levels of polypeptides corresponding to full-length GFP/RPA14-RPA70-RPA32 (143 kDa) and RPA32-RPA70 fusion polypeptides (102 kDa; Supplementary Figure S1 online). 6-TG/UVA-treated U2OS-RPA21 extracts contained an RPA32 species, apparently identical to that induced in U2OS cells. This migrated slightly behind the incompletely processed constitutive 102 kDa RPA32-RPA70 product (Figure 3a). These extracts also contained an additional RPA32-reactive polypeptide of 70–100 kDa that was not present in extracts from untreated cells (Figure 3a). The antioxidant allopurinol suppressed the formation of both 100 and 70–100 kDa complexes, consistent with oxidation-dependent formation. Neither complex was detected after exposure to IR, UVC, or hydroxyurea, all of which inhibited DNA replication by >90% indicating that they are not generated in response to extensive DNA damage or replication arrest. Ciprofloxacin/UVA (Figure 3b) and ofloxacin/UVA (Figure 3c) generated an apparently identical 100 kDa RPA32 species. Consistent with the induction of a lower level of overall protein oxidation (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar), this complex was less prominent following ofloxacin/UVA treatment. The enrichment provided by nuclear extracts (see Supplementary Figures S3 and 4 online) confirmed its presence in ofloxacin/UVA-treated cells. Additional complexes with apparent masses between 40 and 50 kDa and 70–100 kDa were observed in extracts from ciprofloxacin/UVA-treated U2OS and U2OS-RPA21 cells, respectively. These changes in RPA32 were not restricted to U2OS osteosarcoma cells, and both ciprofloxacin/UVA and ofloxacin/UVA induced the 100 kDa and 40–50 kDa RPA species in untransformed GM8339 human fibroblasts (Supplementary Figure S3 online). The sizes of the RPA photoproducts are consistent with covalent cross-linking of RPA32 to its RPA neighbors. The 100-kDa species is a potential RPA32:RPA70 dimer. RPA32-RPA14 dimerization is consistent with the 40–50 kDa species observed in U2OS and GM8339 cells. In U2OS-RPA21 cells, the GFP protein fused to RPA14 would contribute an additional 27 kDa to an RPA32:RPA14 complex to generate the 70–100 kDa species. To address these possibilities, RPA32 immunoprecipitated from ciprofloxacin/UVA-treated U2OS-RPA21 cells was probed for the presence of RPA70 by western blotting. Consistent with the presence of a partially processed GFP-RPA polypeptide, the material immunoprecipitated from untreated cells included an antiRPA70-reactive species of ~100 kDa (Figure 4a). Ciprofloxacin/UVA increased the amount of antiRPA70 reactive material at around 100 kDa, consistent with the formation of an RPA32:70 dimer. In Figure 4a, this photoproduct is not resolved from the endogenous unprocessed material. We conclude that one of the oxidation products of these photosensitizers is a covalent complex of RPA32 and RPA70 subunits. Cysteine residues in RPA have important structural and functional roles. We therefore examined RPA cysteine thiol (-SH) oxidation to cysteine sulfenate (Cys-SOH). To do this, protein sulfenates in extracts of treated U2OS-RPA21 cells were selectively derivatized with a probe (BP-1), which comprises a sulfenate-reactive group attached to biotin (Qian et al., 2011Qian J. Klomsiri C. Wright M.W. et al.Simple synthesis of 1,3-cyclopentanedione derived probes for labeling sulfenic acid proteins.ChemComm. 2011; 47: 9203-9205Google Scholar), to enable their recovery via affinity binding to streptavidin. Western blotting confirmed that ciprofloxacin/UVA and ofloxacin/UVA induce the ~100 kDa RPA32:70 complex in U2OS-RPA21 cells (Input, Figure 4b and c). BP-1 derivatized RPA32 was present in untreated and treated U2OS-RPA21 cells, and the level was increased by both ciprofloxacin/UVA and ofloxacin/UVA (Figure 4b and c). These findings demonstrate that fluoroquinolone/UVA treatment causes RPA cysteine thiol oxidation. They also suggest that some RPA may contain Cys-SOH under normal oxic growth conditions, at least when it is overexpressed. Both intersubunit cross-linking and cysteine sulfenation are potential contributors to RPA inactivation and NER inhibition in oxidatively stressed cells. Protein damage underlies the inhibitory effects of fluoroquinolone/UVA on NER (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). Consistent with previous observations, in vitro assays revealed that extracts from ciprofloxacin/UVA- or ofloxacin/UVA-treated U2OS cells were defective in NER. Similar treatments caused a more modest reduction in NER capacity of nuclear extracts from U2OS-RPA21 cells (Figure 5). Probing the extracts for RPA32 revealed that impaired NER activity coincided with the appearance of an RPA32 species of ~100 kDa. The relationship between the 100-kDa RPA32 species and NER capacity was investigated further in extracts of CCRF-CEM cells. NER inhibition by ciprofloxacin/UVA and ofloxacin UVA in CCRF-CEM cells was demonstrated previously (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar; Supplementary Figure S4 online upper panels). In agreement with the observations with U2OS, examination of NER-negative extracts from ciprofloxacin/UVA- or ofloxacin/UVA-treated CCRF-CEM cells revealed novel RPA32 species of ~100 kDa and 40–50 kDa (Supplementary Figure S4 online lower panels). Neither RPA32 complex was observed in NER-competent extracts from untreated, UVA-irradiated, or drug-treated cells. We conclude that these fluoroquinolone/UVA combinations cause sufficient oxidative RPA damage to compromise NER. Damage includes RPA subunit cross-linking and thiol oxidation. Modest RPA overexpression provides sufficient RPA to prevent NER becoming compromised. Our observations indicate that, despite its manifest importance in DNA processing, RPA is limiting for NER under oxidative stress conditions. Oxidative RPA damage compromises NER, and modest RPA overexpression is sufficient to prevent this. RPA, and therefore NER, was shown to be surprisingly susceptible to inhibition under the oxidative stress conditions induced by photosensitizers. Diminished NER capacity was associated with readily detectable forms of damaged RPA. RPA is essential for the NER of the UV-induced photolesions that are a major cause of skin cancer. In addition, it is also recruited to the extensive regions of exposed single-stranded DNA at replication forks stalled by UV-induced lesions. Cells exposed to UV radiation therefore experience conflicting demands on a limiting RPA pool. In conditions of extreme replication stress and in the absence of a functional S phase checkpoint to prevent replicon firing, RPA levels are insufficient to protect stalled replication forks from collapse and DNA breakage ensues (Toledo et al., 2013Toledo L.I. Altmeyer M. Rask M.-B. et al.ATR prohibits replication catastrophe by preventing global exhaustion of RPA.Cell. 2013; 155: 1088-1103Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (538) Google Scholar). This observation has prompted the suggestion that NER capacity is reduced by RPA sequestration at arrested replication forks (Tsaalbi-Shtylik et al., 2014Tsaalbi-Shtylik A. Moser J. Mullenders L.H.F. et al.Persistently stalled replication forks inhibit nucleotide excision repair in trans by sequestering replication protein A.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 4406-4413Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar) even in cells with a functional checkpoint. Although this appears to be the case under conditions of extreme replication stress induced by hydroxyurea, the extent to which these events occur following replication arrest by DNA photolesions is unclear. Ciprofloxacin/UVA and 6-TG/UVA inhibit NER (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). Consistent with enhanced removal of potentially lethal DNA lesions, improved NER in RPA-overexpressing U2OS-RPA21 cells decreased their sensitivity to killing by ciprofloxacin/UVA and 6-TG/UVA. Ciprofloxacin/UVA is a source of replication-arresting T<>T CPDs that are canonical NER substrates (Lhiaubet-Vallet et al., 2009Lhiaubet-Vallet V. Bosca F. Miranda M.A. Photosensitized DNA damage: The case of fluoroquinolones.Photochem Photobiol. 2009; 85: 861-868Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar). Chromatinization of both RPA and DDB2 (Otrin et al., 1997Otrin V.R. McLenigan M. Takao M. et al.Translocation of a UV-damaged DNA binding protein into a tight association with chromatin after treatment of mammalian cells with UV light.J Cell Sci. 1997; 110: 1159-1168PubMed Google Scholar) after ciprofloxacin/UVA treatment is consistent with the presence of CPDs. 6-TG/UVA also induced RPA and DDB2 relocation, indicating that it too generates replication-blocking NER substrates. Depletion of RPA by sequestration at arrested replication forks and competition by ciprofloxacin/UVA- and 6-TG/UVA-induced photolesions for NER proteins are therefore both potential contributors to a reduced NER capacity. Several observations indicate that neither RPA sequestration nor the presence of competing substrates fully accounts for NER inhibition. First, our measure of NER activity, 6-4Py:Py removal, is largely independent of DDB2 and proceeds much more rapidly compared with T<>T CPD excision (Hwang et al., 1999Hwang B.J. Ford J.M. Hanawalt P.C. et al.Expression of the p48 xeroderma pigmentosum gene is p53-dependent and is involved in global genomic repair.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999; 19: 424-428Crossref Scopus (505) Google Scholar). DDB-recruiting lesions induced by 6-TG/UVA and ciprofloxacin/UVA-induced T<>Ts are therefore unlikely to be effective competitors of 6-4Py:Py NER. Second, RPA sequestration following replication arrest is S phase specific. In our experiments, both 6-TG/UVA and ciprofloxacin/UVA effectively abolished 6-4Py:Py excision, indicating that their inhibitory effects are not confined to S phase. Most pertinently, ofloxacin/UVA also inhibited NER, and increased RPA expression prevented this inhibition. Ofloxacin/UVA is a very weak source of T<>T CPDs (Lhiaubet-Vallet et al., 2009Lhiaubet-Vallet V. Bosca F. Miranda M.A. Photosensitized DNA damage: The case of fluoroquinolones.Photochem Photobiol. 2009; 85: 861-868Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar; Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). Under conditions of NER inhibition it is relatively non-toxic, and the induction of potentially lethal, replication-arresting DNA lesions cannot explain NER inhibition by ofloxacin/UVA. Thus, although these data do not exclude a contribution of DNA damage to NER inhibition, the effects of fluoroquinolone/UVA and 6-TG/UVA in U2OS and U2OS-RPA21 cells indicate additional or alternative events that compromise RPA function. Our findings identify oxidation of RPA itself as an important determinant of NER efficiency both in vivo and in vitro. Inhibitory 6-TG/UVA, ciprofloxacin/UVA, and ofloxacin/UVA treatments that severely compromised NER in U2OS cells induced covalent cross-linking between RPA subunits to generate RPA32:70 and most likely RPA32:14 dimers. RPA cross-linking was oxygen dependent and occurred together with RPA cysteine oxidation to Cys-SOH. Cross-linked RPA was present in all NER-negative extracts of ciprofloxacin/UVA and ofloxacin/UVA-treated U2OS, U2OS-RPA21, and CCRF-CEM cells but was not detected in NER-competent extracts. RPA is limiting for NER by cell extracts (Coverley et al., 1991Coverley D. Kenny M.K. Munn M. et al.Requirement for the replication protein SSB in human DNA excision repair.Nature. 1991; 349: 538-541Crossref PubMed Scopus (198) Google Scholar), and our findings indicate that even the modest overexpression in U2OS-RPA21 cells provides significant protection against NER inhibition. Only a small fraction of the total RPA is present in cross-linked or sulfenated forms in NER-negative extracts. Although this is consistent with a powerful dominant negative effect, it seems more likely that the altered RPA species are markers for more widespread RPA damage. RPA is redox sensitive and presents a significant target for oxidation (Park et al., 1999Park J.-S. Wang M. Park S.-J. et al.Zinc finger of replication protein A, a non-DNA binding element, regulates its DNA binding activity through redox.J Biol Chem. 1999; 274: 29075-29080Crossref PubMed Scopus (70) Google Scholar; Men et al., 2007Men L. Roginskaya M. Zou Y. et al.Redox-dependent formation of disulfide bonds in replication protein A.Rapid Commun Mass Spectrometry. 2007; 21: 2743-2749Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). Eleven of its fifteen cysteines are located in the 70-kDa subunit. Four in the C-terminal region form a zinc finger essential for DNA replication but apparently dispensable for NER (Lin et al., 1998Lin Y.-L. Shivji M.K.K. Chen C. et al.The evolutionarily conserved zinc finger motif in the largest subunit of human replication protein A is required for DNA replication and mismatch repair but not for nucleotide excision repair.J Biol Chem. 1998; 273: 1453-1461Crossref PubMed Scopus (128) Google Scholar). These two pairs of RPA70 cysteines are particularly sensitive to oxidant-induced disulfide formation (Men et al., 2007Men L. Roginskaya M. Zou Y. et al.Redox-dependent formation of disulfide bonds in replication protein A.Rapid Commun Mass Spectrometry. 2007; 21: 2743-2749Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). The remaining 11 cysteines were unaffected, and no cysteine sulfinic or sulfonic acid residues were observed. In our experiments, fluoroquinolone/UVA treatment increased the levels of RPA Cys-SOH—a reactive cysteine oxidation product and a marker for protein oxidation. Protein Cys-SOH can act as a redox switch to regulate redox homeostasis and signaling pathways (Groitl and Jakob, 2014Groitl B. Jakob U. Thiol-based redox switches.Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014; 1844: 1335-1343Crossref PubMed Scopus (143) Google Scholar). These metastable intermediates can be reduced back to cysteine or undergo further and largely irreversible oxidation to more stable cysteine sulfinic and sulfonic acids. Importantly, they can react with other protein functional groups including amino groups to form sulfenamide cross-links. The RPA32 complexes were resistant to the reducing conditions associated with western blotting, consistent with a cross-link of this nature. In addition to its two cysteines, RPA32 is rather methionine rich, and these residues are also plausible candidates for oxidation to sulfoxide (Men et al., 2007Men L. Roginskaya M. Zou Y. et al.Redox-dependent formation of disulfide bonds in replication protein A.Rapid Commun Mass Spectrometry. 2007; 21: 2743-2749Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). Any of these oxidative changes to RPA might adversely affect its structure and are potentially deleterious for its function. In summary, RPA is particularly susceptible to oxidation damage, and it is noteworthy in this regard that screens for protein carbonyls (Peacock, 2014Peacock M. UVA photosensitizers, protein oxidation and DNA repair. University College London, 2014Google Scholar) and DNA–protein cross-links (M. Guven and PK, unpublished observations) both identified cellular RPA as a potential target for oxidative damage by 6-TG/UVA. RPA is of critical importance in almost all DNA transactions. It is therefore surprising that RPA levels are limiting and that its susceptibility to oxidative stress can compromise NER. Perhaps there are constraints on RPA expression. On the basis of the oxidation sensitivity of RPA both in vitro (Men et al., 2007Men L. Roginskaya M. Zou Y. et al.Redox-dependent formation of disulfide bonds in replication protein A.Rapid Commun Mass Spectrometry. 2007; 21: 2743-2749Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar) and in vivo as described here, it is tempting to speculate that a sensitivity to oxidative damage constrains its expression level. Protein oxidation is an unavoidable consequence of aerobic metabolism, and oxidized proteins are generally detrimental to cellular fitness. If the multiple functions of RPA require it to be constructed in a way that renders it particularly vulnerable to oxidation damage, this requirement may determine its safe expression level. Limiting RPA may simply represent a trade-off between function and avoidance of unacceptable levels of protein oxidation. The photosensitizers we use are associated with clinical photosensitivity. They amplify the effects of solar UVA, which is an acknowledged generator of cellular reactive oxygen species. Our demonstration that RPA is particularly susceptible to oxidation damage and that this compromises NER serves to emphasize the importance of protecting the skin against the effects of the full spectrum of UV wavelengths in sunlight. 6-TG, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich. HeLa, U2OS, and U2OS-RPA21 cells (Toledo et al., 2013Toledo L.I. Altmeyer M. Rask M.-B. et al.ATR prohibits replication catastrophe by preventing global exhaustion of RPA.Cell. 2013; 155: 1088-1103Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (538) Google Scholar), kindly provided by Dr J. Lucas, were grown in Dulbecco’s MEM supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum. UVA irradiation was by a UVH 253 lamp (UV Light Technology Limited) with maximum emission at 365 nm. The dose rate was 0.1 kJ m-2 s-1. UVC (254 nm) was delivered by a Stratalinker UV Cross-linker (Stratagene) at a dose rate of 10 J m-2 s-1. For experiments that combined drug/UVA treatment with UVC radiation, drug/UVA treatment preceded UVC irradiation. Cell viability was determined by the formazan/tetrazolium (MTT) cell proliferation assay on triplicate samples. All experiments were repeated at least twice. For initial incorporation measurements, HeLa, U2OS, and U2OS-RPA21 cells were grown for 48 hours in a medium containing 6-TG. DNA 6-TG was measured as previously described (Zhang et al., 2007Zhang X. Jeffs G. Ren X. et al.Novel DNA lesions generated by the interaction between therapeutic thiopurines and UVA light.DNA Repair. 2007; 6: 344-354Crossref PubMed Scopus (96) Google Scholar). Initial determinations indicated that the more slowly growing U2OS-RPA21 cells incorporated two or three times less 6-TG at the same external 6-TG concentration. In subsequent experiments, 6-TG concentrations were adjusted to achieve similar 6-TG incorporation levels during 24-hour growth. DNA 6-TG values (as % DNA G) were measured in each experiment to ensure comparability. DNA extracted by the QIAamp DNA mini kit (Qiagen) from drug/UVA and UVC-treated cells was analyzed by ELISA according to the supplier’s instructions (Cosmo Bio Co). These experiments confirmed that none of the drug/UVA treatments induces detectable 6:4 Py:Pys (Peacock et al., 2014Peacock M. Brem R. Macpherson P. et al.DNA repair inhibition by UVA photoactivated fluoroquinolones and vemurafenib.Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: 13714-13722Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar), and initial values for UVC-induced 6:4 Py:Py were in agreement within 10% independently of prior drug/UVA treatment. Repair data were therefore expressed as a percentage of the initial lesions at various times after irradiation. NER by nuclear extracts of treated cells was assayed as described previously (Gueranger et al., 2014Gueranger Q. Li F. Peacock M. et al.Protein oxidation and DNA repair Inhibition by 6-thioguanine and UVA radiation.J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134: 1408-1417Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar). Each assay was performed with at least three independent extracts. Excision products were quantified by summing band intensities by GelDoc (Bio-Rad). NER efficiency was calculated relative to extracts from cells treated with drug alone. Whole-cell extracts were prepared with radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer. Proteins (20 μg) were separated on 10% polyacrylamide gels (Invitrogen). After transfer, membranes were probed with antibodies against RPA32, RPA70, DDB1, or DDB2 (Abcam). Antigen–antibody complexes were visualized using ECL blotting detection agent (GE Healthcare). Cells were lysed in non-denaturing lysis buffer. RPA32 antibody was incubated with Dynabeads ProteinG (Invitrogen) before addition of protein extract (500 μg). Treated cells were lysed with radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer containing 1 mm biotin-1,3-cyclopentanedione (BP-1) probe (KeraFAST). N-Ethylmaleimide (20 mM; Sigma) was immediately added and proteins precipitated with acetone. The dried protein pellet was dissolved in 2% SDS. Protein concentrations were determined by the BCA assay (Thermo Scientific). Solubilized proteins were mixed with M280 Streptavidin Dynabeads (Invitrogen), which were washed three times with 4 volumes of 0.1% SDS. Following rotation overnight at 4 °C beads were washed sequentially (30 minutes each) with 2 m urea, 1 m NaCl, 0.1% SDS/10 mm DTT, and PBS. BP-1-derivatized proteins were recovered by boiling and analyzed by western blotting. The authors state no conflict of interest. We are grateful to Drs L. Toledo and J. Lucas for providing U2OS and U2OS-RPA21 cells and to Professor C. Furdui for advice on BP-1 derivatization. The assistance of The Francis Crick Institute Cell Services department is gratefully acknowledged. Funding was provided by the Cancer Research UK. Supplementary material is linked to the online version of the paper at http://www.nature.com/jid Download .pdf (1.12 MB) Help with pdf files Supplementary Information" @default.
• W1520446265 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1520446265 creator A5013650072 @default.
• W1520446265 creator A5035270156 @default.
• W1520446265 creator A5037104553 @default.
• W1520446265 creator A5039297881 @default.
• W1520446265 creator A5060063715 @default.
• W1520446265 date "2015-11-01" @default.
• W1520446265 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W1520446265 title "Oxidative Damage to RPA Limits the Nucleotide Excision Repair Capacity of Human Cells" @default.
• W1520446265 cites W1484913297 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W1976072527 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W1979627083 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W1982034145 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W1984373702 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W1989210919 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2002407831 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2017379366 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2018289272 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2024763754 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2029934390 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2031357095 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2031673075 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2046469401 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2051017341 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2051402439 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2063775474 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2072173165 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2077725124 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2091113670 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2106812347 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2133408276 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2134327149 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2140118545 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2145227544 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2152061559 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2171775098 @default.
• W1520446265 cites W2185399457 @default.
• W1520446265 doi "https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2015.255" @default.
• W1520446265 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4669849" @default.
• W1520446265 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134950" @default.
• W1520446265 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1520446265 type Work @default.
• W1520446265 sameAs 1520446265 @default.
• W1520446265 citedByCount "50" @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652016 @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652017 @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652018 @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652019 @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652020 @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652021 @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652022 @default.
• W1520446265 countsByYear W15204462652023 @default.
• W1520446265 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1520446265 hasAuthorship W1520446265A5013650072 @default.
• W1520446265 hasAuthorship W1520446265A5035270156 @default.
• W1520446265 hasAuthorship W1520446265A5037104553 @default.
• W1520446265 hasAuthorship W1520446265A5039297881 @default.
• W1520446265 hasAuthorship W1520446265A5060063715 @default.
• W1520446265 hasBestOaLocation W15204462651 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C104451858 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C143425029 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C2776151105 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C3020296196 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C512185932 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C552990157 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C57600042 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C104317684 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C104451858 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C143425029 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C185592680 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C2776151105 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C3020296196 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C512185932 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C552990157 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C55493867 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C57600042 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C86803240 @default.
• W1520446265 hasConceptScore W1520446265C95444343 @default.
• W1520446265 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W1520446265 hasLocation W15204462651 @default.
• W1520446265 hasLocation W15204462652 @default.
• W1520446265 hasLocation W15204462653 @default.
• W1520446265 hasLocation W15204462654 @default.
• W1520446265 hasLocation W15204462655 @default.
• W1520446265 hasOpenAccess W1520446265 @default.
• W1520446265 hasPrimaryLocation W15204462651 @default.
• W1520446265 hasRelatedWork W1984525124 @default.
• W1520446265 hasRelatedWork W1993839684 @default.
• W1520446265 hasRelatedWork W2009479492 @default.
• W1520446265 hasRelatedWork W2067798760 @default.
• W1520446265 hasRelatedWork W2132160802 @default.
• W1520446265 hasRelatedWork W2364879993 @default.

• next