An Old Key to Unlock the ERCC1 Issue

Home , DNA repair, ERCC1

Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on February 6, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-4123 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited.

The “Guardian of the genome” – an old key to unlock the ERCC1 issue

Luc Friboulet1, Jean-Charles Soria2, Ken André Olaussen1,2

1 INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif 94800, France 2 Univ Paris Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre 94270, France

Corresponding author: Ken A. Olaussen, INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif 94805, France. Tel: +33142116510, e-mail: [email protected]

Conflicts of interest: Soria is an employee and holds stock in AstraZeneca since September 2017. Over the last 5 years he has received consultancy fees from: AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen, and Takeda. He is also a shareholder in Gritstone. LF, JCS and KAO are co-inventors of a patent on ERCC1 (Patent number: 9702875).

Running title: ERCC1 and p53 explain tolerance to interstrand crosslinks

Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 26, 2021. © 2019 American Association for Cancer Research. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on February 6, 2019; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-4123 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited.

Summary: Excision Repair Cross-Complementation Group 1 (ERCC1) participates in the repair of DNA intrastrand adducts and interstrand crosslinks, but its role as a predictive biomarker has never been fully validated. It has now been revealed that p53 mutation status should be considered concomitantly with ERCC1 to predict cisplatin efficacy.

In this issue of Clinical Cancer Research, Heyza and colleagues show how p53 is essential to induce checkpoint activity and ultimately cell death in ERCC1-deficient cancer cells treated with cisplatin (1). Consequently, loss of p53 function should at least partially be considered as a confounding biomarker with ERCC1, since only ERCC1-negative/p53 wild type cancer cells would be sensitive to cisplatin treatment (Figure 1A). Platinum-based chemotherapy is a standard treatment for numerous cancer patients of the lung, head and neck, ovary, stomach, bladder or testicles. There is a strong need to identify and evaluate biomarkers that can be used to select patients who are likely to benefit from cisplatin- based drug combinations and those who will resist. Cisplatin, is a small molecule that binds covalently to DNA forming adducts either within the same strand (intrastrand adducts or ISAs) or between the two strands (interstrand crosslinks or ICLs) thereby interfering with DNA replication and transcription to induce cancer cell death. This direct deleterious effect on DNA justifies that most studied candidate biomarkers predicting cisplatin efficacy are those involved in DNA repair processes. The main DNA repair pathways thought to participate in the elimination of ISAs and ICLs are respectively nucleotide excision repair (NER) and the ICL-repair/Fanconi anemia (FA). In ICL- repair, the endonuclease heterodimer ERCC1/XPF allows the “unhooking” of platinum ICLs either in G0/G1-phase or in S-phase (FA proteins being active during S-phase only) and has recently been reviewed (2). Any default in ICL-repair would lead to secondary double strand breaks (DSBs), mainly due to “collapsing” of blocked replication forks during S-phase. DSBs are generally repaired by additional pathways such as the high fidelity homologous recombination repair (HRR) or a pathway which do not verify the genetic integrity such as nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) or other pathways that systematically introduce errors, such as microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ/alternative-NHEJ) or single-strand annealing (SSA). To date, the most advanced biomarker to predict cisplatin efficacy is ERCC1 expression. As confirmed in the work from Heyza and colleagues, modulation of ERCC1 expression alters the sensitivity of cells to cisplatin treatment in vitro. More than a decade ago, the expression of ERCC1 protein measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) lung tumor samples appeared to be a predictive marker of platinum-based chemotherapy in the International Adjuvant Lung Trial (IALT) and several prospective randomized trials emerged. However, none of these clinical studies were able to validate the interest of ERCC1 as a predictive biomarker. Several explanations have been advanced, such as the reliability of ERCC1 antibodies and the presence of non-functional ERCC1 isoforms, the ERCC1-202 isoform being the only one to show functionality (in the sense of elimination of ISAs in vitro) (3).

So, how does the work from Heyza and colleagues fit into the ERCC1 story? The introduction of a second biomarker (p53 status) to be considered in combination with ERCC1 can have a significant translational impact in order to select patients who will benefit the most from cisplatin-based chemotherapy from those who will resist. In addition, the measure of p53 status is easily determined by DNA sequencing or conventional IHC methods, which is in contrast to ERCC1 alone since its expression level is not robustly examined by a single antibody in FFPE samples. Further, using the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) provisional lung adenocarcinoma cohort and the 2017 TCGA ovarian cancer data set, Heyza and colleagues were able to stratify patients according to ERCC1 gene expression and TP53 mutational status to confirm their findings in vitro where they used a CRISPR-Cas9 and lentiviral rescue experiments in cell lines. It is important to notice that these findings are not simply correlative data on two “old” biomarkers that together predict clinical effect of cisplatin in lung adenocarcinomas and ovarian carcinomas in public databases. Indeed, their findings show that cisplatin cytotoxicity is mainly due to ICLs rather than ISAs, which has been a subject of debate. The authors also suggest that DNA repair pathways other than HRR, such as NHEJ or the systematically error-prone MMEJ do resolve secondary cisplatin-induced DNA damages (DSBs) in ERCC1-deficient cells when p53 function is simultaneously lost. Perhaps more importantly, the data give new insight into these ICL-repair events in the context of cell cycle regulation. According to the data, cisplatin-induced DNA crosslinking rapidly leads to G2/M-phase arrest, unless ERCC1 proficiency allows the cells to recover by nucleotide excision repair and ICL unhooking with subsequent cell survival. In contrast, ERCC1-deficient cells seem to accumulate DSBs and the cells slowly recover from the G2/M arrest moving to G1 phase where the p53-dependent checkpoint activity leads to cell death (Figure 1B). However, when p53 function is lost, the cells are allowed to continue into S-phase where alternate DNA repair pathways (excluding HRR) seem to allow ICL tolerance and cell survival. Overall, the data provide a mechanistic explanation for an exquisite synthetic viability relation between ERCC1 and p53 deficiencies leading to cisplatin resistance in lung, ovarian and potentially other carcinomas. From there, several points will need further attention. First, the in vitro investigations would benefit from more direct DNA repair functional tests, such as vector-based substrates of DSB repair. Such molecular tools would clarify the respective roles of NHEJ vs. MMEJ in the observed ICL tolerance. Second, the clinical data were collected from publically available databases and should be independently confirmed in existing ERCC1-dedicated studies and cohorts such as the TASTE, ET and ERCC1/RRM1 prospective clinical studies. However, that task might be challenging since the statistical power required to validate biomarkers in two-by- two subgroups is not easily achieved, as well as determining a universal ERCC1 positivity cut- off. Indeed, other reports have previously highlighted the potential of p53 expression alone to

predict efficacy of cisplatin-based chemotherapy as in the JBR10 trial, although it was not confirmed in the LACE-Bio study. The p53 biomarker alone was also studied in the IALT series showing a potential predictive interest, but was not investigated in combined sub-groups (e.g. p53 plus ERCC1). Third, combined ERCC1 and p53 effect on chemosensitivity during short term treatment in vitro might be different from the effect observed in vivo. For instance, one ERCC1-deficient/TP53-deficient K-RAS driven murine lung adenocarcinoma model was reported as a being highly sensitive to cisplatin initially, but when treated mice relapsed the tumors had acquired sensitivity to etoposide (4). Whatsoever, the context of DNA repair deficiency and its consequences on genetic instability in murine cells are somehow different compared to human cells (5). Lastly, since ERCC1-deficient/p53-deficient tumors probably harbor high mutation rates, the identification of a common genomic signature could be of interest. Such investigations would be warmly welcomed in the current era of high throughput NGS that is used to characterize individual tumor mutational loads. In conclusion, wild-type p53 expectedly favors cisplatin-induced cell death in repair-deficient (i.e. loss of ERCC1 expression) tumor cells. In contrast, loss of p53 function promotes tolerance to cisplatin-induced ICLs and DSBs through G1 checkpoint abrogation with subsequent S-phase entry that permits activation of alternative DNA repair pathways and tumor cell survival. If these data are validated in independent clinical cohorts, ERCC1 and p53 status should be considered concomitantly when selecting cancer patients for cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

References

1. Heyza JR, Lei W, Watza D, Zhang H, Chen W, Back JB, et al. Identification and characterization of synthetic viability with ERCC1 deficiency in response to interstrand crosslinks in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2019; Dec 11. pii: clincanres.3094.2018. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3094. [Epub ahead of print] 2. Faridounnia M, Folkers GE, Boelens R. Function and Interactions of ERCC1-XPF in DNA Damage Response. Molecules 2018;23:3205. 3. Friboulet L, Olaussen KA, Pignon JP, Shepherd FA, Tsao MS, Graziano S, et al. ERCC1 isoform expression and DNA repair in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1101-10. 4. Jokić M, Vlašić I, Rinneburger M, Klümper N, Spiro J, Vogel W, et al. Ercc1 Deficiency Promotes Tumorigenesis and Increases Cisplatin Sensitivity in a Tp53 Context-Specific Manner. Mol Cancer Res 2016;14:1110-1123.

5. Ghezraoui H, Piganeau M, Renouf B, Renaud JB, Sallmyr A, Ruis B, et al. Chromosomal translocations in human cells are generated by canonical nonhomologous end-joining. Mol Cell 2014;55:829-842.

Figure legend Schematic overview of ERCC1 and p53 synthetic viability relation. A. Cisplatin sensitivity subgroups according to ERCC1 and p53 tumor status. B. Proposed mechanisms of cisplatin sensitivity in ERCC1 deficient cancer cells according to cell cycle progression. Pt, cisplatin; ISA, intrastrand adducts; ICL, interstrand crosslinks; DSB, double strand breaks.

Figure 1:

A Cisplatin efficacy ERCC1 proﬁcient ERCC1 deﬁcient

p53 proﬁcient Low High

p53 deﬁcient Low Low

Alternative DNA repair p53 B S Cell survival ERCC1 deﬁciency deﬁciency ISAs DSB G2/M G1 ICLs accumulation arrest

The "Guardian of the genome" - an old key to unlock the ERCC1 issue

Luc Friboulet, Jean-Charles Soria and Ken A Olaussen

Clin Cancer Res Published OnlineFirst February 6, 2019.

Updated version Access the most recent version of this article at: doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-4123

Author Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet Manuscript been edited.

E-mail alerts Sign up to receive free email-alerts related to this article or journal.

Reprints and To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications Subscriptions Department at [email protected].

Permissions To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, use this link http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2019/02/06/1078-0432.CCR-18-4123. Click on "Request Permissions" which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC) Rightslink site.