ATM Limits Incorrect End Utilization during Non-Homologous End Joining of Multiple Chromosome Breaks

Chromosome rearrangements can form when incorrect ends are matched during end joining (EJ) repair of multiple chromosomal double-strand breaks (DSBs). We tested whether the ATM kinase limits chromosome rearrangements via suppressing incorrect end utilization during EJ repair of multiple DSBs. For this, we developed a system for monitoring EJ of two tandem DSBs that can be repaired using correct ends (Proximal-EJ) or incorrect ends (Distal-EJ, which causes loss of the DNA between the DSBs). In this system, two DSBs are induced in a chromosomal reporter by the meganuclease I-SceI. These DSBs are processed into non-cohesive ends by the exonuclease Trex2, which leads to the formation of I-SceI–resistant EJ products during both Proximal-EJ and Distal-EJ. Using this method, we find that genetic or chemical disruption of ATM causes a substantial increase in Distal-EJ, but not Proximal-EJ. We also find that the increase in Distal-EJ caused by ATM disruption is dependent on classical non-homologous end joining (c-NHEJ) factors, specifically DNA-PKcs, Xrcc4, and XLF. We present evidence that Nbs1-deficiency also causes elevated Distal-EJ, but not Proximal-EJ, to a similar degree as ATM-deficiency. In addition, to evaluate the roles of these factors on end processing, we examined Distal-EJ repair junctions. We found that ATM and Xrcc4 limit the length of deletions, whereas Nbs1 and DNA-PKcs promote short deletions. Thus, the regulation of end processing appears distinct from that of end utilization. In summary, we suggest that ATM is important to limit incorrect end utilization during c-NHEJ

Nanotechnology intervention of the microbiome for cancer therapy

The microbiome is emerging as a key player and driver of cancer. Traditional modalities to manipulate the microbiome (for example, antibiotics, probiotics and microbiota transplants) have been shown to improve efficacy of cancer therapies in some cases, but issues such as collateral damage to the commensal microbiota and consistency of these approaches motivates efforts towards developing new technologies specifically designed for the microbiome–cancer interface. Considering the success of nanotechnology in transforming cancer diagnostics and treatment, nanotechnologies capable of manipulating interactions that occur across microscopic and molecular length scales in the microbiome and the tumour microenvironment have the potential to provide innovative strategies for cancer treatment. As such, opportunities at the intersection of nanotechnology, the microbiome and cancer are massive. In this Review, we highlight key opportunistic areas for applying nanotechnologies towards manipulating the microbiome for the treatment of cancer, give an overview of seminal work and discuss future challenges and our perspective on this emerging area

Cancer immunotherapy–related adverse events: causes and challenges

Despite the success and ongoing promise of monoclonal antibody–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy of advanced malignancies, in particular, antibodies directed against CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1, the development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) remains a constraint of this type of therapy. Although rarely fatal, the occurrence of irAEs may necessitate discontinuation of immunotherapy, as well as administration of corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive therapies that may not only compromise efficacy but also predispose for development of opportunistic infection. Clearly, retention of efficacy of immune checkpoint–targeted therapies with concurrent attenuation of immune-mediated toxicity represents a formidable challenge. In this context, the current brief review examines mechanistic relationships between these events, as well as recent insights into immunopathogenesis, and strategies which may contribute to resolving this issue. These sections are preceded by brief overviews of the discovery and functions of CTLA-4 and PD-1, as well as the chronology of the development of immunotherapeutic monoclonal antibodies which target these immune checkpoint inhibitors.Fil: Blidner, Ada Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaFil: Choi, Jennifer Ailen. Northwestern University; Estados UnidosFil: Cooksley, Tim. University of Manchester; Reino UnidoFil: Dougan, Michael. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Glezerman, Ilya. Memorial Sloan-kettering Cancer Center.; Estados UnidosFil: Ginex, Pamela. Oncology Nursing Society; Estados UnidosFil: Girotra, Monica. Weill Cornell Medicine; Estados Unidos. Memorial Sloan-kettering Cancer Center.; Estados UnidosFil: Gupta, Dipti. Memorial Sloan-kettering Cancer Center.; Estados UnidosFil: Johnson, Douglas. Vanderbilt University; Estados UnidosFil: Shannon, Vickie R.. University of Texas; Estados UnidosFil: Suarez Almazor, Maria. University of Texas; Estados UnidosFil: Rapoport, Bernardo L.. University of Pretoria; Sudáfrica. Medical Oncology Centre of Rosebank; SudáfricaFil: Anderson, Ronald. University of Pretoria; Sudáfric