Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Exploiting synthetic lethality to target BRCA1/2-deficient tumors: where we stand

Oncogene volume 40, pages 3001–3014 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The principle of synthetic lethality, which refers to the loss of viability resulting from the disruption of two genes, which, individually, do not cause lethality, has become an attractive target approach due to the development and clinical success of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi). In this review, we present the most recent findings on the use of PARPi in the clinic, which are currently approved for second-line therapy for advanced ovarian and breast cancer associated with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes. PARPi efficacy, however, appears to be limited by acquired and inherent resistance, highlighting the need for alternative and synergistic targets to eliminate these tumors. Here, we explore other identified synthetic lethal interactors of BRCA1/2, including DNA polymerase theta (POLQ), Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 (FANDC2), radiation sensitive 52 (RAD52), Flap structure-specific endonuclease 1 (FEN1), and apurinic/apyrimidinic endodeoxyribonuclease 2 (APE2), as well as other protein and nonprotein targets, for BRCA1/2-mutated cancers and their implications for future therapies. A wealth of information now exists for phenotypic and functional characterization of these novel synthetic lethal interactors of BRCA1/2, and leveraging these findings can pave the way for the development of new targeted therapies for patients suffering from these cancers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: PARP deficiency and synthetic lethality.
Fig. 2: RAD52 deficiency and synthetic lethality.
Fig. 3: POL θ deficiency and synthetic lethality.
Fig. 4: FANCD2 deficiency and synthetic lethality.
Fig. 5: FEN1 deficiency and synthetic lethality.
Fig. 6: APE2 (APEX2) deficiency and synthetic lethality.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen C-C, Feng W, Lim PX, Kass EM, Jasin M. Homology-directed repair and the role of BRCA1, BRCA2, and related proteins in genome integrity and cancer. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2018;2:313–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roy R, Chun J, Powell SN. BRCA1 and BRCA2: different roles in a common pathway of genome protection. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:68–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wei L, Lan L, Yasui A, Tanaka K, Saijo M, Matsuzawa A, et al. BRCA1 contributes to transcription-coupled repair of DNA damage through polyubiquitination and degradation of Cockayne syndrome B protein. Cancer Sci. 2011;102:1840–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1329–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen H, Wu J, Zhang Z, Tang Y, Li X, Liu S, et al. Association between BRCA status and triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:909–909.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bane AL, Beck JC, Bleiweiss I, Buys SS, Catalano E, Daly MB, et al. BRCA2 mutation-associated breast cancers exhibit a distinguishing phenotype based on morphology and molecular profiles from tissue microarrays. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31. https://journals.lww.com/ajsp/Fulltext/2007/01000/BRCA2_Mutation_associated_Breast_Cancers_Exhibit_a.15.aspx.

  7. Neff RT, Senter L, Salani R. BRCA mutation in ovarian cancer: testing, implications and treatment considerations. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2017;9:519–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Davies H, Glodzik D, Morganella S, Yates LR, Staaf J, Zou X, et al. HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures. Nat Med. 2017;23:517–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chopra N, Tovey H, Pearson A, Cutts R, Toms C, Proszek P, et al. Homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency and PARP inhibition activity in primary triple negative breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2020;11:2662.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mateo J, Carreira S, Sandhu S, Miranda S, Mossop H, Perez-Lopez R, et al. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1697–708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mersch J, Jackson MA, Park M, Nebgen D, Peterson SK, Singletary C, et al. Cancers associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations other than breast and ovarian. Cancer. 2015;121:269–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lord CJ, Ashworth A. PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science. 2017;355:1152–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Pines A, Vrouwe MG, Marteijn JA, Typas D, Luijsterburg MS, Cansoy M, et al. PARP1 promotes nucleotide excision repair through DDB2 stabilization and recruitment of ALC1. J Cell Biol. 2012;199:235–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Horton JK, Stefanick DF, Prasad R, Gassman NR, Kedar PS, Wilson SH. Base excision repair defects invoke hypersensitivity to PARP inhibition. Mol Cancer Res. 2014;12:1128.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, Tutt ANJ, Johnson DA, Richardson TB, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434:917–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, Parker KM, Flower D, Lopez E, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 2005;434:913–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang ZQ, Auer B, Stingl L, Berghammer H, Haidacher D, Schweiger M, et al. Mice lacking ADPRT and poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation develop normally but are susceptible to skin disease. Genes Dev. 1995;9:509–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pommier Y, O’Connor MJ, de Bono J. Laying a trap to kill cancer cells: PARP inhibitors and their mechanisms of action. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:362ps17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Murai J, Huang S-YN, Renaud A, Zhang Y, Ji J, Takeda S, et al. Stereospecific PARP trapping by BMN 673 and comparison with olaparib and rucaparib. Mol Cancer Ther. 2014;13:433–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Murai J, Huang SN, Das BB, Renaud A, Zhang Y, Doroshow JH, et al. Trapping of PARP1 and PARP2 by clinical PARP inhibitors. Cancer Res. 2012;72:5588–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Golan T, Hammel P, Reni M, Van Cutsem E, Macarulla T, Hall MJ, et al. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:317–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Yi M, Dong B, Qin S, Chu Q, Wu K, Luo S. Advances and perspectives of PARP inhibitors. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2019;8:29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Morales J, Li L, Fattah FJ, Dong Y, Bey EA, Patel M, et al. Review of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) mechanisms of action and rationale for targeting in cancer and other diseases. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2014;24:15–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lord CJ, Ashworth A. PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science. 2017;355:1152–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mateo J, Lord CJ, Serra V, Tutt A, Balmaña J, Castroviejo-Bermejo M, et al. A decade of clinical development of PARP inhibitors in perspective. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1437–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Mouw KW, Goldberg MS, Konstantinopoulos PA, D’Andrea AD. DNA damage and repair biomarkers of immunotherapy response. Cancer Discov. 2017;7:675.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Vikas P, Borcherding N, Chennamadhavuni A, Garje R. Therapeutic potential of combining PARP inhibitor and immunotherapy in solid tumors. Front Oncol. 2020;10:570.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Noordermeer SM, van Attikum H. PARP inhibitor resistance: a tug-of-war in BRCA-mutated cells. Trends Cell Biol. 2019;29:820–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li H, Liu Z-Y, Wu N, Chen Y-C, Cheng Q, Wang J. PARP inhibitor resistance: the underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Mol Cancer. 2020;19:107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanamshet K, Mazina OM, Mazin AV. Reappearance from obscurity: mammalian Rad52 in homologous recombination. Genes. 2016;7:63.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Lok BH, Carley AC, Tchang B, Powell SN. RAD52 inactivation is synthetically lethal with deficiencies in BRCA1 and PALB2 in addition to BRCA2 through RAD51-mediated homologous recombination. Oncogene. 2013;32:3552–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Feng Z, Scott SP, Bussen W, Sharma GG, Guo G, Pandita TK, et al. Rad52 inactivation is synthetically lethal with BRCA2 deficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:686–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ma CJ, Kwon Y, Sung P, Greene EC. Human RAD52 interactions with replication protein A and the RAD51 presynaptic complex. J Biol Chem. 2017;292:11702–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Gibb B, Ye LF, Kwon Y, Niu H, Sung P, Greene EC. Protein dynamics during presynaptic-complex assembly on individual single-stranded DNA molecules. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2014;21:893–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Jensen RB, Carreira A, Kowalczykowski SC. Purified human BRCA2 stimulates RAD51-mediated recombination. Nature. 2010;467:678–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bhargava R, Onyango DO, Stark JM. Regulation of single-strand annealing and its role in genome maintenance. Trends Genet. 2016;32:566–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Motycka TA, Bessho T, Post SM, Sung P, Tomkinson AE. Physical and functional interaction between the XPF/ERCC1 endonuclease and hRad52. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:13634–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei L, Nakajima S, Böhm S, Bernstein KA, Shen Z, Tsang M, et al. DNA damage during the G0/G1 phase triggers RNA-templated, Cockayne syndrome B-dependent homologous recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:E3495–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Malacaria E, Pugliese GM, Honda M, Marabitti V, Aiello FA, Spies M, et al. Rad52 prevents excessive replication fork reversal and protects from nascent strand degradation. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1412.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lieberman R, Xiong D, James M, Han Y, Amos CI, Wang L, et al. Functional characterization of RAD52 as a lung cancer susceptibility gene in the 12p13.33 locus. Mol Carcinog. 2016;55:953–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gossage L, Madhusudan S. Cancer pharmacogenomics: role of DNA repair genetic polymorphisms in individualizing cancer therapy. Mol Diagn Ther. 2007;11:361–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang L, Ma W, Li Y, Wu J, Shi GY. Pharmacogenetics of DNA repair gene polymorphisms in non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients on platinum-based chemotherapy. Genet Mol Res. 2014;13:228–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shi T-Y, Yang G, Tu X-Y, Yang J-M, Qian J, Wu X-H, et al. RAD52 variants predict platinum resistance and prognosis of cervical cancer. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e50461.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Hromas R, Kim H-S, Sidhu G, Williamson E, Jaiswal A, Totterdale TA, et al. The endonuclease EEPD1 mediates synthetic lethality in RAD52-depleted BRCA1 mutant breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19:122.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Huang F, Goyal N, Sullivan K, Hanamshet K, Patel M, Mazina OM, et al. Targeting BRCA1- and BRCA2-deficient cells with RAD52 small molecule inhibitors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:4189–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hengel SR, Malacaria E, Folly da Silva Constantino L, Bain FE, Diaz A, Koch BG, et al. Small-molecule inhibitors identify the RAD52-ssDNA interaction as critical for recovery from replication stress and for survival of BRCA2 deficient cells. eLife. 2016;19:5.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cramer-Morales K, Nieborowska-Skorska M, Scheibner K, Padget M, Irvine DA, Sliwinski T, et al. Personalized synthetic lethality induced by targeting RAD52 in leukemias identified by gene mutation and expression profile. Blood. 2013;122:1293–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Sullivan-Reed K, Bolton-Gillespie E, Dasgupta Y, Langer S, Siciliano M, Nieborowska-Skorska M, et al. Simultaneous targeting of PARP1 and RAD52 triggers dual synthetic lethality in BRCA-deficient tumor cells. Cell Rep. 2018;23:3127–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Wood RD, Doublié S. DNA polymerase θ (POLQ), double-strand break repair, and cancer. DNA Repair. 2016;44:22–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Yousefzadeh MJ, Wyatt DW, Takata K-I, Mu Y, Hensley SC, Tomida J, et al. Mechanism of suppression of chromosomal instability by DNA polymerase POLQ. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004654.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Thompson LH. Recognition, signaling, and repair of DNA double-strand breaks produced by ionizing radiation in mammalian cells: the molecular choreography. Mutat Res. 2012;751:158–246.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mateos-Gomez PA, Gong F, Nair N, Miller KM, Lazzerini-Denchi E, Sfeir A. Mammalian polymerase θ promotes alternative NHEJ and suppresses recombination. Nature. 2015;518:254–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Kent T, Chandramouly G, McDevitt SM, Ozdemir AY, Pomerantz RT. Mechanism of microhomology-mediated end-joining promoted by human DNA polymerase θ. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2015;22:230–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Mateos-Gomez PA, Kent T, Deng SK, McDevitt S, Kashkina E, Hoang TM, et al. The helicase domain of Polθ counteracts RPA to promote alt-NHEJ. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2017;24:1116–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Kent T, Mateos-Gomez PA, Sfeir A, Pomerantz RT. Polymerase θ is a robust terminal transferase that oscillates between three different mechanisms during end-joining. eLife. 2016;17:5.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Fernandez-Vidal A, Guitton-Sert L, Cadoret J-C, Drac M, Schwob E, Baldacci G, et al. A role for DNA polymerase θ in the timing of DNA replication. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shima N, Munroe RJ, Schimenti JC. The mouse genomic instability mutation chaos1 is an allele of Polq that exhibits genetic interaction with Atm. Mol Cell Biol. 2004;24:10381–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Goff JP, Shields DS, Seki M, Choi S, Epperly MW, Dixon T, et al. Lack of DNA polymerase theta (POLQ) radiosensitizes bone marrow stromal cells in vitro and increases reticulocyte micronuclei after total-body irradiation. Radiat Res. 2009;172:165–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Boboila C, Jankovic M, Yan CT, Wang JH, Wesemann DR, Zhang T, et al. Alternative end-joining catalyzes robust IgH locus deletions and translocations in the combined absence of ligase 4 and Ku70. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:3034–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ceccaldi R, Liu JC, Amunugama R, Hajdu I, Primack B, Petalcorin MIR, et al. Homologous-recombination-deficient tumours are dependent on Polθ-mediated repair. Nature. 2015;518:258–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Feng W, Simpson DA, Carvajal-Garcia J, Price BA, Kumar RJ, Mose LE, et al. Genetic determinants of cellular addiction to DNA polymerase theta. Nat Commun. 2019;10:4286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Nakanishi K, Cavallo F, Perrouault L, Giovannangeli C, Moynahan ME, Barchi M, et al. Homology-directed Fanconi anemia pathway cross-link repair is dependent on DNA replication. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2011;18:500–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Nalepa G, Clapp DW. Fanconi anaemia and cancer: an intricate relationship. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18:168–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Nepal M, Che R, Ma C, Zhang J, Fei P. FANCD2 and DNA damage. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:1804

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Joo W, Xu G, Persky NS, Smogorzewska A, Rudge DG, Buzovetsky O, et al. Structure of the FANCI-FANCD2 complex: insights into the Fanconi anemia DNA repair pathway. Science. 2011;333:312–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Knipscheer P, Räschle M, Smogorzewska A, Enoiu M, Ho TV, Schärer OD, et al. The Fanconi anemia pathway promotes replication-dependent DNA interstrand cross-link repair. Science. 2009;326:1698–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Renaud E, Rosselli F. FANC pathway promotes UV-induced stalled replication forks recovery by acting both upstream and downstream Polη and Rev1. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e53693.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Lossaint G, Larroque M, Ribeyre C, Bec N, Larroque C, Décaillet C, et al. FANCD2 binds MCM proteins and controls replisome function upon activation of s phase checkpoint signaling. Mol Cell. 2013;51:678–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Schlacher K, Wu H, Jasin M. A distinct replication fork protection pathway connects Fanconi anemia tumor suppressors to RAD51-BRCA1/2. Cancer Cell. 2012;22:106–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Schwab RA, Nieminuszczy J, Shah F, Langton J, Lopez Martinez D, Liang C-C, et al. The Fanconi anemia pathway maintains genome stability by coordinating replication and transcription. Mol Cell. 2015;60:351–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Yang Q, Xie H, Zhong Y, Li D, Ke X, Ying H, et al. Severe Fanconi anemia phenotypes in Fancd2 depletion mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2019;514:713–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kais Z, Rondinelli B, Holmes A, O’Leary C, Kozono D, D’Andrea AD, et al. FANCD2 maintains fork stability in BRCA1/2-deficient tumors and promotes alternative end-joining DNA repair. Cell Rep. 2016;15:2488–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Sharp MF, Murphy VJ, Twest SV, Tan W, Lui J, Simpson KJ, et al. Methodology for the identification of small molecule inhibitors of the Fanconi anaemia ubiquitin E3 ligase complex. Sci Rep. 2020;10:7959.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Grasby JA, Finger LD, Tsutakawa SE, Atack JM, Tainer JA. Unpairing and gating: sequence-independent substrate recognition by FEN superfamily nucleases. Trends Biochem Sci. 2012;37:74–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Saharia A, Teasley DC, Duxin JP, Dao B, Chiappinelli KB, Stewart SA. FEN1 ensures telomere stability by facilitating replication fork re-initiation. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:27057–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Larsen E, Gran C, Saether BE, Seeberg E, Klungland A. Proliferation failure and gamma radiation sensitivity of Fen1 null mutant mice at the blastocyst stage. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23:5346–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Singh P, Yang M, Dai H, Yu D, Huang Q, Tan W, et al. Overexpression and hypomethylation of flap endonuclease 1 gene in breast and other cancers. Mol Cancer Res. 2008;6:1710–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Nikolova T, Christmann M, Kaina B. FEN1 is overexpressed in testis, lung and brain tumors. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:2453–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. van Pel DM, Barrett IJ, Shimizu Y, Sajesh BV, Guppy BJ, Pfeifer T, et al. An evolutionarily conserved synthetic lethal interaction network identifies FEN1 as a broad-spectrum target for anticancer therapeutic development. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003254.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Abdel-Fatah TMA, Russell R, Albarakati N, Maloney DJ, Dorjsuren D, Rueda OM, et al. Genomic and protein expression analysis reveals flap endonuclease 1 (FEN1) as a key biomarker in breast and ovarian cancer. Mol Oncol. 2014;8:1326–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Zhang Y, Liu X, Liu L, Chen J, Hu Q, Shen S, et al. Upregulation of FEN1 is associated with the tumor progression and prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Dis Markers. 2020;2020:2514090.

  82. He L, Luo L, Zhu H, Yang H, Zhang Y, Wu H, et al. FEN1 promotes tumor progression and confers cisplatin resistance in non-small-cell lung cancer. Mol Oncol. 2017;11:640–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Mengwasser KE, Adeyemi RO, Leng Y, Choi MY, Clairmont C, D’Andrea AD, et al. Genetic screens reveal FEN1 and APEX2 as BRCA2 synthetic lethal targets. Mol Cell. 2019;73:e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Guo E, Ishii Y, Mueller J, Srivatsan A, Gahman T, Putnam CD, et al. FEN1 endonuclease as a therapeutic target for human cancers with defects in homologous recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117:19415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. He L, Zhang Y, Sun H, Jiang F, Yang H, Wu H, et al. Targeting DNA flap endonuclease 1 to impede breast cancer progression. EBioMedicine. 2016;14:32–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Krokan HE, Bjørås M. Base excision repair. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013;5:a012583.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Burkovics P, Szukacsov V, Unk I, Haracska L. Human Ape2 protein has a 3′−5′ exonuclease activity that acts preferentially on mismatched base pairs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:2508–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Kumar S, Talluri S, Pal J, Yuan X, Lu R, Nanjappa P, et al. Role of apurinic/apyrimidinic nucleases in the regulation of homologous recombination in myeloma: mechanisms and translational significance. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8:92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Guikema JEJ, Linehan EK, Tsuchimoto D, Nakabeppu Y, Strauss PR, Stavnezer J, et al. APE1- and APE2-dependent DNA breaks in immunoglobulin class switch recombination. J Exp Med. 2007;204:3017–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Willis J, Patel Y, Lentz BL, Yan S. APE2 is required for ATR-Chk1 checkpoint activation in response to oxidative stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:10592.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Burkovics P, Hajdú I, Szukacsov V, Unk I, Haracska L. Role of PCNA-dependent stimulation of 3′-phosphodiesterase and 3′–5′ exonuclease activities of human Ape2 in repair of oxidative DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:4247–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Jensen KA, Shi X, Yan S. Genomic alterations and abnormal expression of APE2 in multiple cancers. Sci Rep. 2020;10:3758.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Dungrawala H, Rose KL, Bhat KP, Mohni KN, Glick GG, Couch FB, et al. The replication checkpoint prevents two types of fork collapse without regulating replisome stability. Mol Cell. 2015;59:998–1010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Alvarez-Quil¢n A, Wojtaszek JL, Mathieu M-C, Patel T, Appel CD, Hustedt N, et al. Endogeous DNA 3' blocks are vulnerabilities for BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency and are reversed by the APE2 nuclease. Mol Cell. 2020;78:1152–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Zhang B, Lyu J, Yang EJ, Liu Y, Wu C, Pardeshi L, et al. Class I histone deacetylase inhibition is synthetic lethal with BRCA1 deficiency in breast cancer cells. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2020;10:615–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Kais Z, Parvin JD. Regulation of centrosomes by the BRCA1-dependent ubiquitin ligase. Cancer Biol Ther. 2008;7:1540–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Raab M, Kappel S, Krämer A, Sanhaji M, Matthess Y, Kurunci-Csacsko E, et al. Toxicity modelling of Plk1-targeted therapies in genetically engineered mice and cultured primary mammalian cells. Nat Commun. 2011;2:395.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Carbajosa S, Pansa MF, Paviolo NS, Castellaro AM, Andino DL, Nigra AD, et al. Polo-like kinase 1 inhibition as a therapeutic approach to selectively target BRCA1-deficient cancer cells by synthetic lethality induction. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:4049–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Zong D, Adam S, Wang Y, Sasanuma H, Callén E, Murga M, et al. BRCA1 haploinsufficiency is masked by RNF168-mediated chromatin ubiquitylation. Mol Cell. 2019;73:1267–81. e7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Krais JJ, Wang Y, Bernhardy AJ, Clausen E, Miller JA, Cai KQ, et al. RNF168-mediated ubiquitin signaling inhibits the viability of BRCA1-null cancers. Cancer Res. 2020;80:2848–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Patel PS, Abraham KJ, Guturi KKN, Halaby M-J, Khan Z, Palomero L, et al. RNF168 regulates R-loop resolution and genomic stability in BRCA1/2-deficient tumors. J Clin Investig. 2021;131:e140105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Blessing C, Mandemaker IK, Gonzalez-Leal C, Preisser J, Schomburg A, Ladurner AG. The oncogenic helicase ALC1 regulates PARP inhibitor potency by trapping PARP2 at DNA breaks. Mol Cell. 2020;80:862–75.e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Verma P, Zhou Y, Cao Z, Deraska PV, Deb M, Arai E, et al. ALC1 links chromatin accessibility to PARP inhibitor response in homologous recombination-deficient cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-020-00624-3.

  104. Juhász S, Smith R, Schauer T, Spekhardt D, Mamar H, Zentout S, et al. The chromatin remodeler ALC1 underlies resistance to PARP inhibitor treatment. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eabb8626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Hewitt G, Borel V, Segura-Bayona S, Takaki T, Ruis P, Bellelli R, et al. Defective ALC1 nucleosome remodeling confers PARPi sensitization and synthetic lethality with HRD. Mol Cell. 2021(81):767–83.

  106. Srinivasan G, Williamson EA, Kong K, Jaiswal AS, Huang G, Kim H-S, et al. MiR223-3p promotes synthetic lethality in BRCA1-deficient cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:17438.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Sun C. The SF3b complex: splicing and beyond. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-020-03493-z.

  108. Schlacher K, Christ N, Siaud N, Egashira A, Wu H, Jasin M. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell. 2011;145:529–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Przetocka S, Porro A, Bolck HA, Walker C, Lezaja A, Trenner A, et al. CtIP-mediated fork protection synergizes with BRCA1 to suppress genomic instability upon DNA replication stress. Mol Cell. 2018;72:568–82. e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Nieminuszczy J, Broderick R, Bellani MA, Smethurst E, Schwab RA, Cherdyntseva V, et al. EXD2 protects stressed replication forks and is required for cell viability in the absence of BRCA1/2. Mol Cell. 2019;75:605–19. e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Lim KS, Li H, Roberts EA, Gaudiano EF, Clairmont C, Sambel LA, et al. USP1 is required for replication fork protection in BRCA1-deficient tumors. Mol Cell. 2018;72:925–41. e4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Zarrizi R, Higgs MR, Voßgröne K, Rossing M, Bertelsen B, Bose M, et al. Germline RBBP8 variants associated with early-onset breast cancer compromise replication fork stability. J Clin Investig. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI127521.

  113. Bryan TM. Mechanisms of DNA replication and repair: insights from the study of G-quadruplexes. Molecules. 2019;24:3439.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Zimmer J, Tacconi EMC, Folio C, Badie S, Porru M, Klare K, et al. Targeting BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiencies with G-quadruplex-interacting compounds. Mol Cell. 2016;61:449–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Xu H, Di Antonio M, McKinney S, Mathew V, Ho B, O’Neil NJ, et al. CX-5461 is a DNA G-quadruplex stabilizer with selective lethality in BRCA1/2 deficient tumours. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M.A. Pujana for critical reading of the paper. We would also like to thank all the members of the Hakem laboratory for helpful discussions. We apologize to investigators we were unable to reference due to length limitations. RH holds the Lee K. and Margaret Lau Chair in Breast Cancer Research, which is a joint project with the University of Toronto and The Princess Margaret hospital. RH is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FDN 143214), and the Canadian Cancer Society (705367 and 706439). PSP is supported by STARS21, Terry Fox Foundation, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship, Government of Ontario. AA is supported by Canada Graduate Scholarships for Master’s program, Ontario Graduate Scholarship, and the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Parasvi S. Patel, Arash Algouneh

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Parasvi S. Patel, Arash Algouneh & Razq Hakem

  2. Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Parasvi S. Patel & Razq Hakem

  3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Arash Algouneh & Razq Hakem

Authors
  1. Parasvi S. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arash Algouneh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Razq Hakem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Razq Hakem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, P.S., Algouneh, A. & Hakem, R. Exploiting synthetic lethality to target BRCA1/2-deficient tumors: where we stand. Oncogene 40, 3001–3014 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-021-01744-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-021-01744-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links