Top

Published in:

01-12-2013 | Preclinical study

Single-strand selective monofunctional uracil-DNA glycosylase (SMUG1) deficiency is linked to aggressive breast cancer and predicts response to adjuvant therapy

Authors: Tarek M. A. Abdel-Fatah, Nada Albarakati, Lara Bowell, Devika Agarwal, Paul Moseley, Claire Hawkes, Graham Ball, Stephen Chan, Ian O. Ellis, Srinivasan Madhusudan

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2013

Abstract

Uracil in DNA is an important cause of mutagenesis. SMUG1 is a uracil-DNA glycosylase that removes uracil through base excision repair. SMUG1 also processes radiation-induced oxidative base damage as well as 5-fluorouracil incorporated into DNA during chemotherapy. We investigated SMUG1 mRNA expression in 249 primary breast cancers. SMUG1 protein expression was investigated in 1,165 breast tumours randomised into two cohorts [training set (n = 583) and test set (n = 582)]. SMUG1 and chemotherapy response was also investigated in a series of 315 ER-negative tumours (n = 315). For mechanistic insights, SMUG1 was correlated to biomarkers of aggressive phenotype, DNA repair, cell cycle and apoptosis. Low SMUG1 mRNA expression was associated with adverse disease specific survival (p = 0.008) and disease-free survival (p = 0.008). Low SMUG1 protein expression (25 %) was associated with high histological grade (p < 0.0001), high mitotic index (p < 0.0001), pleomorphism (p < 0.0001), glandular de-differentiation (p = 0.0001), absence of hormonal receptors (ER−/PgR−/AR) (p < 0.0001), presence of basal-like (p < 0.0001) and triple-negative phenotypes (p < 0.0001). Low SMUG1 protein expression was associated with loss of BRCA1 (p < 0.0001), ATM (p < 0.0001) and XRCC1 (p < 0.0001). Low p27 (p < 0.0001), low p21 (p = 0.023), mutant p53 (p = 0.037), low MDM2 (p < 0.0001), low MDM4 (p = 0.004), low Bcl-2 (p = 0.001), low Bax (p = 0.003) and high MIB1 (p < 0.0001) were likely in low SMUG1 tumours. Low SMUG1 protein expression was associated with poor prognosis in univariate (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). In ER+ cohort that received adjuvant endocrine therapy, low SMUG1 protein expression remains associated with poor survival (p < 0.01). In ER− cohort that received adjuvant chemotherapy, low SMUG1 protein expression is associated with improved survival (p = 0.043). Our study suggests that low SMUG1 expression may correlate to adverse clinicopathological features and predict response to adjuvant therapy in breast cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Visnes T, Doseth B, Pettersen HS, Hagen L, Sousa MM, Akbari M et al (2009) Uracil in DNA and its processing by different DNA glycosylases. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 364(1517):563–568. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0186 CrossRef

Nilsen H, Haushalter KA, Robins P, Barnes DE, Verdine GL, Lindahl T (2001) Excision of deaminated cytosine from the vertebrate genome: role of the SMUG1 uracil-DNA glycosylase. EMBO J 20(15):4278–4286PubMedCrossRef

Kemmerich K, Dingler FA, Rada C, Neuberger MS (2012) Germline ablation of SMUG1 DNA glycosylase causes loss of 5-hydroxymethyluracil- and UNG-backup uracil-excision activities and increases cancer predisposition of Ung−/−Msh2−/− mice. Nucleic Acids Res 40(13):6016–6025. doi:10.1093/nar/gks259 PubMedCrossRef

An Q, Robins P, Lindahl T, Barnes DE (2005) C → T mutagenesis and gamma-radiation sensitivity due to deficiency in the Smug1 and Ung DNA glycosylases. EMBO J 24(12):2205–2213PubMedCrossRef

Marian C, Tao M, Mason JB, Goerlitz DS, Nie J, Chanson A et al (2011) Single nucleotide polymorphisms in uracil-processing genes, intake of one-carbon nutrients and breast cancer risk. Eur J Clin Nutr 65(6):683–689. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2011.29 PubMedCrossRef

An Q, Robins P, Lindahl T, Barnes DE (2007) 5-Fluorouracil incorporated into DNA is excised by the Smug1 DNA glycosylase to reduce drug cytotoxicity. Cancer Res 67(3):940–945PubMedCrossRef

Nagaria P, Svilar D, Brown AR, Wang XH, Sobol RW, Wyatt MD (2013) SMUG1 but not UNG DNA glycosylase contributes to the cellular response to recovery from 5-fluorouracil induced replication stress. Mutat Res 743–744:26–32. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2012.12.001 PubMedCrossRef

Pettersen HS, Visnes T, Vagbo CB, Svaasand EK, Doseth B, Slupphaug G et al (2011) UNG-initiated base excision repair is the major repair route for 5-fluorouracil in DNA, but 5-fluorouracil cytotoxicity depends mainly on RNA incorporation. Nucleic Acids Res 39(19):8430–8444. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr563 PubMedCrossRef

Grogan BC, Parker JB, Guminski AF, Stivers JT (2011) Effect of the thymidylate synthase inhibitors on dUTP and TTP pool levels and the activities of DNA repair glycosylases on uracil and 5-fluorouracil in DNA. Biochemistry 50(5):618–627. doi:10.1021/bi102046h PubMedCrossRef

10.

Abbotts R, Madhusudan S (2010) Human AP endonuclease 1 (APE1): from mechanistic insights to druggable target in cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 36(5):425–435. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.12.006 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Jobert L, Skjeldam HK, Dalhus B, Galashevskaya A, Vagbo CB, Bjoras M et al (2013) The human base excision repair enzyme SMUG1 directly interacts with DKC1 and contributes to RNA quality control. Mol Cell 49(2):339–345. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2012.11.010 PubMedCrossRef

12.

Bergh J, Norberg T, Sjogren S, Lindgren A, Holmberg L (1995) Complete sequencing of the p53 gene provides prognostic information in breast cancer patients, particularly in relation to adjuvant systemic therapy and radiotherapy. Nat Med 1(10):1029–1034PubMedCrossRef

13.

Pawitan Y, Bjohle J, Amler L, Borg AL, Egyhazi S, Hall P et al (2005) Gene expression profiling spares early breast cancer patients from adjuvant therapy: derived and validated in two population-based cohorts. Breast Cancer Res 7(6):R953–R964PubMedCrossRef

14.

Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19(5):403–410PubMedCrossRef

15.

Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW (1992) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 20(6):479–489PubMedCrossRef

16.

Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO (1992) The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 22(3):207–219PubMedCrossRef

17.

McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM (2005) Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 97(16):1180–1184PubMedCrossRef

18.

Abdel-Fatah TM, Powe DG, Ball G, Lopez-Garcia MA, Habashy HO, Green AR et al (2010) Proposal for a modified grading system based on mitotic index and Bcl2 provides objective determination of clinical outcome for patients with breast cancer. J Pathol 222(4):388–399. doi:10.1002/path.2775 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Abdel-Fatah TM, Powe DG, Agboola J, Adamowicz-Brice M, Blamey RW, Lopez-Garcia MA et al (2010) The biological, clinical and prognostic implications of p53 transcriptional pathways in breast cancers. J Pathol 220(4):419–434. doi:10.1002/path.2663 PubMed

20.

Callagy GM, Pharoah PD, Pinder SE, Hsu FD, Nielsen TO, Ragaz J et al (2006) Bcl-2 is a prognostic marker in breast cancer independently of the Nottingham Prognostic Index. Clin Cancer Res 12(8):2468–2475PubMedCrossRef

21.

Tan DS, Marchio C, Jones RL, Savage K, Smith IE, Dowsett M et al (2008) Triple negative breast cancer: molecular profiling and prognostic impact in adjuvant anthracycline-treated patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111(1):27–44PubMedCrossRef

22.

Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(1):118–145PubMedCrossRef

23.

Sultana R, Abdel-Fatah T, Abbotts R, Hawkes C, Albarakati N, Seedhouse CH et al (2013) Targeting XRCC1 deficiency in breast cancer for personalized therapy. Cancer Res 73(5):1621–1634. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2929 PubMedCrossRef

24.

Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

25.

Beckman RA, Loeb LA (2006) Efficiency of carcinogenesis with and without a mutator mutation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(38):14140–14145PubMedCrossRef

26.

Loeb LA, Bielas JH, Beckman RA (2008) Cancers exhibit a mutator phenotype: clinical implications. Cancer Res 68(10):3551–3557. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5835 discussion 3557PubMedCrossRef

27.

Nagaria P, Svilar D, Brown AR, Wang XH, Sobol RW, Wyatt MD (2013) SMUG1 but not UNG DNA glycosylase contributes to the cellular response to recovery from 5-fluorouracil induced replication stress. Mutat Res 743:26–32. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2012.12.001 PubMedCrossRef

28.

Abdel-Fatah T, Arora A, Gorguc I, Abbotts R, Beebeejaun S, Storr S et al (2013) Are DNA repair factors promising biomarkers for personalized therapy in gastric cancer? Antioxid Redox Signal 18(18):2392–2398. doi:10.1089/ars.2012.4873 PubMedCrossRef

29.

Berger CE, Qian Y, Liu G, Chen H, Chen X (2012) p53, a target of estrogen receptor (ER) alpha, modulates DNA damage-induced growth suppression in ER-positive breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem 287(36):30117–30127. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.367326 PubMedCrossRef

30.

da Costa NM, Hautefeuille A, Cros MP, Melendez ME, Waters T, Swann P et al (2012) Transcriptional regulation of thymine DNA glycosylase (TDG) by the tumor suppressor protein p53. Cell Cycle 11(24):4570–4578. doi:10.4161/cc.22843 PubMedCrossRef

31.

Lu X, Bocangel D, Nannenga B, Yamaguchi H, Appella E, Donehower LA (2004) The p53-induced oncogenic phosphatase PPM1D interacts with uracil DNA glycosylase and suppresses base excision repair. Mol Cell 15(4):621–634PubMedCrossRef

32.

Zaika E, Wei J, Yin D, Andl C, Moll U, El-Rifai W et al (2011) p73 protein regulates DNA damage repair. FASEB J 25(12):4406–4414. doi:10.1096/fj.11-192815 PubMedCrossRef

33.

Elateri I, Muller-Weeks S, Caradonna S (2003) The transcription factor, NFI/CTF plays a positive regulatory role in expression of the hSMUG1 gene. DNA Repair 2(12):1371–1385PubMedCrossRef

Title: Single-strand selective monofunctional uracil-DNA glycosylase (SMUG1) deficiency is linked to aggressive breast cancer and predicts response to adjuvant therapy
Authors: Tarek M. A. Abdel-Fatah
Nada Albarakati
Lara Bowell
Devika Agarwal
Paul Moseley
Claire Hawkes
Graham Ball
Stephen Chan
Ian O. Ellis
Srinivasan Madhusudan
Publication date: 01-12-2013
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2769-6

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Risk of GWAS-identified genetic variants for breast cancer in a Chinese population: a multiple interaction analysis

Addition of bevacizumab to three docetaxel regimens as adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer

Risk-reducing surgery increases survival in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers unaffected at time of family referral

Cardiovascular disease among breast cancer survivors: the call for a clinical vascular health toolbox

A relative ordering-based predictor for tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients: multi-laboratory cohort validation

DNA from dead cancer cells induces TLR9-mediated invasion and inflammation in living cancer cells

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer