Differential expression profile analysis of DNA damage repair genes in CD133+/CD133‑ colorectal cancer cells

Lu,Yuhong; Zhou,Xin; Zeng,Qingliang; Liu,Daishun; Yue,Changwu

doi:10.3892/ol.2017.6415

Differential expression profile analysis of DNA damage repair genes in CD133+/CD133‑ colorectal cancer cells

Authors:
- Yuhong Lu
- Xin Zhou
- Qingliang Zeng
- Daishun Liu
- Changwu Yue
View Affiliations

Affiliations: College of Basic Medicine, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou 563003, P.R. China, Deparment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou 563003, P.R. China, Zunyi Key Laboratory of Genetic Diagnosis and Targeted Drug Therapy, The First People's Hospital of Zunyi, Zunyi, Guizhou 563003, P.R. China
Published online on: June 19, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6415
Pages: 2359-2368

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study examined differential expression levels of DNA damage repair genes in COLO 205 colorectal cancer cells, with the aim of identifying novel biomarkers for the molecular diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. COLO 205‑derived cell spheres were cultured in serum‑free medium supplemented with cell factors, and CD133+/CD133‑ cells were subsequently sorted using an indirect CD133 microbead kit. In vitro differentiation and tumorigenicity assays in BABA/c nude mice were performed to determine whether the CD133+ cells also possessed stem cell characteristics, in addition to the COLO 205 and CD133‑ cells. RNA sequencing was employed for the analysis of differential gene expression levels at the mRNA level, which was determined using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The mRNA expression levels of 43 genes varied in all three types of colon cancer cells (false discovery rate ≤0.05; fold change ≥2). Of these 43 genes, 30 were differentially expressed (8 upregulated and 22 downregulated) in the COLO 205 cells, as compared with the CD133‑ cells, and 6 genes (all downregulated) were differentially expressed in the COLO 205 cells, as compared with CD133+ cells. A total of 18 genes (10 upregulated and 8 downregulated) were differentially expressed in the CD133‑ cells, as compared with the CD133+ cells. By contrast, 6 genes were downregulated and none were upregulated in the CD133+ cells compared with the COLO 205 cells. These findings suggest that CD133+ cells may possess the same DNA repair capacity as COLO 205 cells. Heterogeneity in the expression profile of DNA damage repair genes was observed in COLO 205 cells, and COLO 205‑derived CD133‑ cells and CD133+ cells may therefore provide a reference for molecular diagnosis, therapeutic target selection and determination of the treatment and prognosis for colorectal cancer.

View Figures

View References

1	Zhou BB and Elledge SJ: The DNA damage response: Putting checkpoints in perspective. Nature. 408:433–439. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Gasser S and Raulet D: The DNA damage response, immunity and cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 16:344–347. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Mallette FA and Ferbeyre G: The DNA damage signaling pathway connects oncogenic stress to cellular senescence. Cell Cycle. 6:1831–1836. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Liang Y, Lin SY, Brunicardi FC, Goss J and Li K: DNA damage response pathways in tumor suppression and cancer treatment. World J Surg. 33:661–666. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Morgan MA and Lawrence TS: Molecular pathways: Overcoming radiation resistance by targeting DNA damage response pathways. Clin Cancer Res. 21:2898–2904. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Shimizu I, Yoshida Y, Suda M and Minamino T: DNA damage response and metabolic disease. Cell Metab. 20:967–977. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Rajewsky MF, Engelbergs J, Thomale J and Schweer T: DNA repair: Counteragent in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis- accomplice in cancer therapy resistance. Mutat Res. 462:101–105. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Goldstein M and Kastan MB: The DNA damage response: Implications for tumor responses to radiation and chemotherapy. Annu Rev Med. 66:129–143. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Annovazzi L, Caldera V, Mellai M, Riganti C, Battaglia L, Chirio D, Melcarne A and Schiffer D: The DNA damage/repair cascade in glioblastoma cell lines after chemotherapeutic agent treatment. Int J Oncol. 46:2299–2308. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
10	Paull TT: Mechanisms of ATM activation. Annu Rev Biochem. 84:711–738. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Suvorova II, Kozhukharova IV, Nikol'skiĭ NN and Pospelov VA: ATM/ATR signaling pathway activation in human embryonic stem cells after DNA damage. Tsitologiia. 55:841–851. 2013.(In Russian). PubMed/NCBI
12	Kühne C, Tjörnhammar ML, Pongor S, Banks L and Simoncsits A: Repair of a minimal DNA double-strand break by NHEJ requires DNA-PKcs and is controlled by the ATM/ATR checkpoint. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:7227–7737. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Knittel G, Liedgens P and Reinhardt HC: Targeting ATM-deficient CLL through interference with DNA repair pathways. Front Genet. 6:2072015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Nakazawa K, Dashzeveg N and Yoshida K: Tumor suppressor p53 induces miR-1915 processing to inhibit Bcl-2 in the apoptotic response to DNA damage. FEBS J. 281:2937–2944. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Mlynarczyk C and Fåhraeus R: Endoplasmic reticulum stress sensitizes cells to DNA damage-induced apoptosis through p53-dependent suppression of p21 (CDKN1A). Nat Commun. 5:50672014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Yajima N, Wada R, Matsuzaki Y and Yagihashi S: DNA damage response and its clinicopathological relationship in appendiceal tumors. Int J Colorectal Dis. 29:1349–1354. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Sun T and Cui J: A plausible model for bimodal p53 switch in DNA damage response. FEBS Lett. 588:815–821. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Broustas CG and Lieberman HB: DNA damage response genes and the development of cancer metastasis. Radiat Res. 181:111–130. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Hosoya N and Miyagawa K: Targeting DNA damage response in cancer therapy. Cancer Sci. 105:370–388. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Kelley MR, Logsdon D and Fishel ML: Targeting DNA repair pathways for cancer treatment: what's new? Future Oncol. 10:1215–1237. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Khanna A: DNA damage in cancer therapeutics: A boon or a curse? Cancer Res. 75:2133–2138. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Korwek Z and Alster O: The role of the DNA damage response in apoptosis and cell senescence. Postepy Biochem. 60:248–262. 2014.(In Polish). PubMed/NCBI
23	Prakash A and Doublié S: Base excision repair in the mitochondria. J Cell Biochem. 116:1490–1499. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Tian H, Gao Z, Li H, Zhang B, Wang G, Zhang Q, Pei D and Zheng J: DNA damage response-a double-edged sword in cancer prevention and cancer therapy. Cancer Lett. 358:8–16. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Wallace NA and Galloway DA: Manipulation of cellular DNA damage repair machinery facilitates propagation of human papillomaviruses. Semin Cancer Biol. 26:30–42. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Zhou L, Wei X, Cheng L, Tian J and Jiang JJ: CD133, one of the markers of cancer stem cells in Hep-2 cell line. Laryngoscope. 117:455–460. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Gussin HA, Sharma AK and Elias S: Culture of endothelial cells isolated from maternal blood using anti-CD105 and CD133. Prenat Diagn. 24:189–193. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Yu SC, Ping YF, Yi L, Zhou ZH, Chen JH, Yao XH, Gao L, Wang JM and Bian XW: Isolation and characterization of cancer stem cells from a human glioblastoma cell line U87. Cancer Lett. 265:124–134. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Li HZ, Yi TB and Wu ZY: Suspension culture combined with chemotherapeutic agents for sorting of breast cancer stem cells. BMC Cancer. 8:1352008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Ballester M, Castelló A, Ibáñez E, Sánchez A and Folch JM: Real-time quantitative PCR-based system for determining transgene copy number in transgenic animals. Biotechniques. 37:610–613. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
31	Krokan HE and Bjørås M: Base excision repair. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 5:a0125832013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Lieber MR: The mechanism of human nonhomologous DNA end joining. J Biol Chem. 283:1–5. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Yi C and He C: DNA repair by reversal of DNA damage. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 5:a0125752013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Bowden NA: Nucleotide excision repair: Why is it not used to predict response to platinum-based chemotherapy? Cancer Lett. 346:163–171. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Deng SK, Chen H and Symington LS: Replication protein A prevents promiscuous annealing between short sequence homologies: Implications for genome integrity. Bioessays. 37:305–313. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
36	Zhu Q, Wani G, Sharma N and Wani A: Lack of CAK complex accumulation at DNA damage sites in XP-B and XP-B/CS fibroblasts reveals differential regulation of CAK anchoring to core TFIIH by XPB and XPD helicases during nucleotide excision repair. DNA Repair (Amst). 11:942–950. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	McDaniel LD and Schultz RA: XPF/ERCC4 and ERCC1: Their products and biological roles. Adv Exp Med Biol. 637:65–82. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Prakash R, Zhang Y, Feng W and Jasin M: Homologous recombination and human health: The roles of BRCA1, BRCA2, and associated proteins. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 7:a0166002015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Borde V and Cobb J: Double functions for the Mre11 complex during DNA double-strand break repair and replication. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 41:1249–1253. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Sarbajna S and West SC: Holliday junction processing enzymes as guardians of genome stability. Trends Biochem Sci. 39:409–419. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
41	Li S, Ting NS, Zheng L, Chen PL, Ziv Y, Shiloh Y, Lee EY and Lee WH: Functional link of BRCA1 and ataxia telangiectasia gene product in DNA damage response. Nature. 406:210–215. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
42	Koczorowska AM, Białkowska A, Kluzek K and Zdzienicka MZ: The role of the Fanconi anemia pathway in DNA repair and maintenance of genome stability. Postepy Hig Med Dosw (Online). 68:459–472. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
43	Radhakrishnan SK, Jette N and Lees-Miller SP: Non-homologous end joining: Emerging themes and unanswered questions. DNA Repair (Amst). 17:2–8. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
44	Fell VL and Schild-Poulter C: The Ku heterodimer: Function in DNA repair and beyond. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 763:15–29. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
45	Garre P, Briceño V, Xicola RM, Doyle BJ, de la Hoya M, Sanz J, Llovet P, Pescador P, Puente J, Díaz-Rubio E, et al: Analysis of the oxidative damage repair genes NUDT1, OGG1, and MUTYH in patients from mismatch repair proficient HNPCC families (MSS-HNPCC). Clin Cancer Res. 17:1701–1712. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
46	Mishima M, Sakai Y, Itoh N, Kamiya H, Furuichi M, Takahashi M, Yamagata Y, Iwai S, Nakabeppu Y and Shirakawa M: Structure of human MTH1, a Nudix family hydrolase that selectively degrades oxidized purine nucleoside triphosphates. J Biol Chem. 279:33806–33815. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
47	Pontarin G, Ferraro P, Håkansson P, Thelander L, Reichard P and Bianchi V: p53R2-dependent ribonucleotide reduction provides deoxyribonucleotides in quiescent human fibroblasts in the absence of induced DNA damage. J Biol Chem. 282:16820–16828. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
48	Link PA, Baer MR, James SR, Jones DA and Karpf AR: p53-inducible ribonucleotide reductase (p53R2/RRM2B) is a DNA hypomethylation-independent decitabine gene target that correlates with clinical response in myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia. Cancer Res. 68:9358–9366. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
49	Takata K, Tomida J, Reh S, Swanhart LM, Takata M, Hukriede NA and Wood RD: Conserved overlapping gene arrangement, restricted expression, and biochemical activities of DNA polymerase ν (POLN). J Biol Chem. 290:24278–24293. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
50	Zheng L and Shen B: Okazaki fragment maturation: Nucleases take centre stage. J Mol Cell Biol. 3:23–30. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
51	Mason PA and Cox LS: The role of DNA exonucleases in protecting genome stability and their impact on ageing. Age (Dordr). 34:1317–1340. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
52	Dianov GL, Meisenberg C and Parsons JL: Regulation of DNA repair by ubiquitylation. Biochemistry (Mosc). 76:69–79. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
53	Hedglin M and Benkovic SJ: Regulation of Rad6/Rad18 activity during DNA damage tolerance. Annu Rev Biophys. 44:207–228. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
54	Hishiki A, Hara K, Ikegaya Y, Yokoyama H, Shimizu T, Sato M and Hashimoto H: Structure of a novel DNA-binding domain of helicase-like transcription factor (HLTF) and its functional implication in DNA damage tolerance. J Biol Chem. 290:13215–13223. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
55	Cook PJ, Ju BG, Telese F, Wang X, Glass CK and Rosenfeld MG: Tyrosine dephosphorylation of H2AX modulates apoptosis and survival decisions. Nature. 458:591–596. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
56	Turinetto V and Giachino C: Multiple facets of histone variant H2AX: A DNA double-strand-break marker with several biological functions. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:2489–2498. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
57	Fnu S, Williamson EA, De Haro LP, Brenneman M, Wray J, Shaheen M, Radhakrishnan K, Lee SH, Nickoloff JA and Hromas R: Methylation of histone H3 lysine 36 enhances DNA repair by nonhomologous end-joining. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 108:pp. 540–545. 2011; View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
58	Frank B, Hoffmeister M, Klopp N, Illig T, Chang-Claude J and Brenner H: Colorectal cancer and polymorphisms in DNA repair genes WRN, RMI1 and BLM. Carcinogenesis. 31:442–445. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
59	Nimonkar AV, Genschel J, Kinoshita E, Polaczek P, Campbell JL, Wyman C, Modrich P and Kowalczykowski SC: BLM-DNA2-RPA-MRN and EXO1-BLM-RPA-MRN constitute two DNA end resection machineries for human DNA break repair. Genes Dev. 25:350–362. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
60	Strzyz P: DNA damage response: Cell thriving despite DNA damage. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 17:3962016. View Article : Google Scholar
61	Lord CJ and Ashworth A: The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature. 481:287–294. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI