Abstract IA09: Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brca1- and Brca2-deficient cells have reduced capacity to repair DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) by homologous recombination (HR) and consequently are hypersensitive to DNA damaging agents including cisplatin and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Here we show that loss of the MLL3/4 complex protein PTIP protects Brca1/2-deficient cells from DNA damage and rescues the lethality of Brca2-deficient embryonic stem cells. However, PTIP deficiency does not restore HR activity at DSBs. Instead, its absence inhibits the recruitment of the MRE11 nuclease to stalled replication forks, which in turn, protects nascent DNA strands from extensive degradation. More generally, acquisition of PARPi and cisplatin resistance is associated with replication fork (RF) protection in Brca2-deficient tumor cells that do not develop Brca2-reversion mutations. Disruption of multiple proteins including PARP1 and CHD4 leads to the same end point of RF protection, highlighting the complexities by which tumor cells evade chemotherapeutic interventions and acquire drug resistance. Citation Format: Arnab Ray Chaudhuri, Elsa Callen, Xia Ding, Ewa Gogola, Alexandra A. Duarte, Ji-Eun Lee, Nancy Wong, Vanessa Lafarga, Jennifer A. Calvo, Nicholas J. Panzarino, Sam John, Amanda Day, Anna Vidal Crespo, Binghui Shen, Linda M. Starnes, Julian R. de Ruiter, Jeremy A. Daniel, Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos, David Cortez, Sharon B. Cantor, Oscar Fernandez-Capetillo, Kai Ge, Jos Jonkers, Sven Rottenberg, Shyam K. Sharan, André Nussenzweig. Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on DNA Repair: Tumor Development and Therapeutic Response; 2016 Nov 2-5; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Res 2017;15(4_Suppl):Abstract nr IA09.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".