総説・解説等

Photon and particle irradiation causes different types of DNA damage. Photons, such as X- or γ-rays, induce DNA damage with a random distribution because of low-density energy deposition. In contrast, particle radiation with high linear energy transfer deposits high-density energy, resulting in the formation of clustered DNA damage containing DNA double- and single-strand breaks as well as base damage. To date, accumulated evidence has revealed that heavy-ion radiation results in dynamic chromosomal aberration, e.g., chromosomal translocations or large deletion mutations; however, the high incidence of these mutations after heavy-ion radiation cannot be simply explained by the formation of clustered DNA damage. Here we discuss the unique characteristics of DNA damage induced by heavy-ion radiation based on our recent findings using high-resolution imaging.

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) represent an important radiation-induced lesion and impaired DSB repair provides the best available correlation with radiosensitivity. Physical techniques for monitoring DSB repair require high, non-physiological doses and cannot reliably detect subtle defects. One outcome from extensive research into the DNA damage response is the observation that H2AX, a variant form of the histone H2A, undergoes extensive phosphorylation at the DSB, creating gammaH2AX foci that can be visualized by immunofluorescence. There is a close correlation between gammaH2AX foci and DSB numbers and between the rate of foci loss and DSB repair, providing a sensitive assay to monitor DSB repair in individual cells using physiological doses. However, gammaH2AX formation can occur at single-stranded DNA regions which arise during replication or repair and thus does not solely correlate with DSB formation. Here, we present and discuss evidence that following exposure to ionizing radiation, gammaH2AX foci analysis can provide a sensitive monitor of DSB formation and repair and describe techniques to optimize the analysis. We discuss the limitations and benefits of the technique, enabling the procedure to be optimally exploited but not misused.

Substantial insight into the mechanisms responding to DNA double-strand breaks has been gained from molecular, biochemical and structural approaches. Attention is now focusing on understanding the interplay between the pathways, how they interface through the cell cycle and the communication with other DNA transactions, such as replication and transcription. Understanding these aspects will facilitate an assessment of how cancer cells have modified these processes to achieve unlimited proliferative capacity and adaptability, and pave the way to identify targets suitable for therapy. Here, we briefly overview the processes responding to double-strand breaks and discuss our current understanding of their interplay in a cellular context.

A DNA double-strand break (DSB) is considered to be a critical DNA lesion because its misrepair can cause severe mutations, such as deletions or chromosomal translocations. For the precise repair of DSBs, the repair pathway that is optimal for the particular circumstance needs to be selected. Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) functions in G1/S/G2 phase, while homologous recombination (HR) becomes active only in S/G2 phase after DNA replication. DSB end structure is another factor affecting the repair pathway. For example, one-ended DSBs in S phase are mainly repaired by HR due to the lack of a partner DSB end for NHEJ. In contrast, two-ended DSBs, which are mainly induced by ionizing radiation, are repaired by either NHEJ or HR in G2 cells. Under the current model in terms of DSB repair pathway usage in G2 phase, NHEJ repairs ∼70% of two-ended DSBs, whereas HR repairs only ∼30%. Recent studies propose that NHEJ factors can bind all the DSB ends and are then either used to progress that pathway of DSB repair, or the repair proceeds by HR. In addition, molecular regulation by BRCA1 and 53BP1 has also been proposed. At DSB sites, BRCA1 functions to alleviate the 53BP1 barrier to resection by promoting 53BP1 dephosphorylation, followed by RIF1 release and 53BP1 repositioning. This timely 53BP1 repositioning may be important for the establishment of a chromatin environment that promotes the recruitment of EXO1 for resection in HR. This review summarizes current knowledge on factors regulating DSB repair pathway choice in terms of spatiotemporal regulation by focusing on the repair events at two-ended DSBs in G2 cells.

Canonical DNA non-homologous end-joining (c-NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR), the two major DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathways, have long been depicted as competitors, fighting a race to rejoin DSBs. In human cells, Ku, an upstream component of NHEJ, is highly abundant and has exquisite end-binding capacity. Emerging evidence has suggested that Ku is the first protein binding most, if not all, DSBs, and creates a block to resection. Although most c-NHEJ proceeds without resection, recent studies have provided strong evidence for a process of resection-dependent c-NHEJ, that repairs a subset of DSBs. HR also repairs a subset of two-ended DSBs in G2 phase and processes one-ended DSBs that arise following replication fork stalling or collapse to promote replication restart. HR also necessitates end-resection. This raises the question of how end-resection takes place despite Ku’s avid end-binding capacity. Insight into this enigma has been gained from the analysis of DSBs generated by Spo11 or TOP2, which create protein-bridged DSBs. The progression of repair by HR or NHEJ requires removal of the end-blocking lesions. The MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 (MRN) complex, CtIP and EXO1 play critical roles in this process. Here, we review our current understanding of how resection arises at lesions blocked by covalently bound Spo11 or TOP2 or following Ku binding, which effectively creates a distinct resection-blocking lesion due to its avid end-binding activity and abundance. Our review reveals that Ku plays an active role in determining pathway choice and exposes similarities yet distinctions in the progression of resection that is suited to the optimal repair pathway choice.

Purpose: The International Journal of Radiation Biology (IJRB) is celebrating 60 years of publishing in 2019. IJRB has made an enormous contribution to publishing papers that have enhanced our understanding of the DNA damage response (DDR) activated following exposure to ionizing radiation (IR). The IR-induced DDR field has a rich history but many outstanding papers pass unread by young scientists overwhelmed by the current literature. We provide a historical reflection on key advances in the DDR field and interface them with current knowledge. Conclusions: DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) were identified as the major biological lesion induced by IR. But early studies on cells from IR-sensitive ataxia telangiectasia patients showed that DSB repair was not sufficient to prevent IR hypersensitivity. Subsequently, the ATM-dependent signal transduction process was revealed, with the breadth of the response being slowly unearthed. Early studies demonstrated at least two processes of DSB repair and revealed that mis-repair causes translocation formation. Recent studies, however, are unraveling more complexity in the repair process, including the specific processing of DSBs within transcriptionally active regions, and the significance of the chromatin environment. Despite the quality of these early and current studies, many questions remain to be addressed.

Radiotherapy (RT) has been applied for decades as a treatment modality in the management of various types of cancer. Ionizing radiation induces tumor cell death, which in turn can either elicit protective anti-tumor immune responses or immunosuppression in the tumor micromilieu that contributes to local tumor recurrence. Immunosuppression is frequently accompanied by the attraction of immunosuppressive cells such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), M2 tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), T regulatory cells (Tregs), N2 neutrophils, and by the release of immunosuppressive cytokines (TGF-β, IL-10) and chemokines. Immune checkpoint pathways, particularly of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis, have been determined as key regulators of cancer immune escape. While IFN-dependent upregulation of PD-L1 has been extensively investigated, up-to-date studies indicated the importance of DNA damage signaling in the regulation of PD-L1 expression following RT. DNA damage dependent PD-L1 expression is upregulated by ATM/ATR/Chk1 kinase activities and cGAS/STING-dependent pathway, proving the role of DNA damage signaling in PD-L1 induced expression. Checkpoint blockade immunotherapies (i.e., application of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies) combined with RT were shown to significantly improve the objective response rates in therapy of various primary and metastatic malignancies. Further improvements in the therapeutic potential of RT are based on combinations of RT with other immunotherapeutic approaches including vaccines, cytokines and cytokine inducers, and an adoptive immune cell transfer (DCs, NK cells, T cells). In the current review we provide immunological rationale for a combination of RT with various immunotherapies as well as analysis of the emerging preclinical evidences for these therapies.