Defective DNA Strand Break Repair after DNA Damage in Prostate Cancer Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Together with cell cycle checkpoint control, DNA repair plays a pivotal role in protecting the genome from endogenous and exogenous DNA damage. Although increased genetic instability has been associated with prostate cancer progression, the relative role of DNA double-strand break repair in malignant versus normal prostate epithelial cells is not known. In this study, we determined the RNA and protein expression of a series of DNA double-strand break repair genes in both normal (PrEC-epithelial and PrSC-stromal) and malignant (LNCaP, DU-145, and PC-3) prostate cultures. Expression of genes downstream of ATM after ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage reflected the p53 status of the cell lines. In the malignant prostate cell lines, mRNA and protein levels of the Rad51, Xrcc3, Rad52, and Rad54 genes involved in homologous recombination were elevated approximately 2- to 5-fold in comparison to normal PrEC cells. The XRCC1, DNA polymerase-beta and -delta proteins were also elevated. There were no consistent differences in gene expression relating to the nonhomologous end-joining pathway. Despite increased expression of DNA repair genes, malignant prostate cancer cells had defective repair of DNA breaks, alkali-labile sites, and oxidative base damage. Furthermore, after ionizing radiation and mitomycin C treatment, chromosomal aberration assays confirmed that malignant prostate cells had defective DNA repair. This discordance between expression and function of DNA repair genes in malignant prostate cancer cells supports the hypothesis that prostate tumor progression may reflect aberrant DNA repair. Our findings support the development of novel treatment strategies designed to reinstate normal DNA repair in prostate cancer cells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".