The purpose of this Analysis article is to comprehensively overview the DNA damage response (DDR) pathways, assess current drug development activities in this area, examine the emerging understanding of how defects in genome stability mechanisms contribute to cancer and, by utilizing systematic bioinformatics and chemogenomic approaches, highlight the considerable opportunities these pathways offer as targets for new cancer treatments.
We first provide a brief review of the different types of DNA damage and the DDR pathways and mechanisms that have evolved to repair them, how defects in these systems promote cancer, how some existing therapies operate via DNA damage, and the emerging concept of pharmacological synthetic lethality that takes advantage of cancer-associated DDR defects.
We then describe our assembly of an expert-curated set of 450 proteins involved in the DDR and in closely associated processes such as chromatin remodelling and chromosome segregation. We present their assignment to specific DDR pathways and the functional interactions within and between pathways. We classify these proteins into functional classes and discuss the current knowledge of their involvement in cancer.
We then undertake a systematic bioinformatics analysis of the DDR proteins in 15 different cancers, using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. We analyse protein coding mutations, copy-number variation and overexpression and underexpression. We find that DDR processes that are commonly mutated differ markedly between different cancer types, but note that every DDR process is functionally impaired to some extent in one or more cancer type, providing many opportunities for drug therapy but with substantial challenges for optimal targeting.
We explore the concept of synthetic lethality and document current examples, including pharmacological inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) in homologous recombination-deficient cancers. We use data from whole-genome negative genetic analysis of yeast to identify further opportunities for synthetic lethal relationships with the curated DDR proteins that may be amenable to drug discovery.
Next we document the limited set of drug discovery projects that are currently targeting DDR proteins and discuss the application of druggability analysis to expand the therapeutic opportunities among these proteins.
Finally, we use a combination of approaches to identify a number of classes among the DDR proteins — particularly DNA helicases and scaffold proteins — that should have particular promise as cancer drug targets. We also highlight potentially druggable targets for each of the DDR pathways.
The DNA damage response (DDR) is essential for maintaining the genomic integrity of the cell, and its disruption is one of the hallmarks of cancer. Classically, defects in the DDR have been exploited therapeutically in the treatment of cancer with radiation therapies or genotoxic chemotherapies. More recently, protein components of the DDR systems have been identified as promising avenues for targeted cancer therapeutics. Here, we present an in-depth analysis of the function, role in cancer and therapeutic potential of 450 expert-curated human DDR genes. We discuss the DDR drugs that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or that are under clinical investigation. We examine large-scale genomic and expression data for 15 cancers to identify deregulated components of the DDR, and we apply systematic computational analysis to identify DDR proteins that are amenable to modulation by small molecules, highlighting potential novel therapeutic targets.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Friedberg, E. C. et al. DNA repair: from molecular mechanism to human disease. DNA Repair 5, 986–996 (2006).
Harper, J. W. & Elledge, S. J. The DNA damage response: ten years after. Mol. Cell 28, 739–745 (2007).
Vogelstein, B. et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339, 1546–1558 (2013). This paper describes mutational patterns in different cancer types and the 20:20 rule for discriminating between tumour suppressors and oncogenes.
Forbes, S. A. et al. COSMIC: mining complete cancer genomes in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D945–D950 (2011). This paper descibes the COSMIC database, which is a repository of publically reported somatic mutations.
Chang, K. et al. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nature Genet. 45, 1113–1120 (2013).
Barber, L. J. et al. Secondary mutations in BRCA2 associated with clinical resistance to a PARP inhibitor. J. Pathol. 229, 422–429 (2013).
Mereniuk, T. R. et al. Synthetic lethal targeting of PTEN-deficient cancer cells using selective disruption of polynucleotide kinase/phosphatase. Mol. Cancer Ther. 12, 2135–2144 (2013).
Brough, R. et al. APRIN is a cell cycle specific BRCA2-interacting protein required for genome integrity and a predictor of outcome after chemotherapy in breast cancer. EMBO J. 31, 1160–1176 (2012).
Bartkova, J. et al. Oncogene-induced senescence is part of the tumorigenesis barrier imposed by DNA damage checkpoints. Nature 444, 633–637 (2006).
Halazonetis, T. D., Gorgoulis, V. G. & Bartek, J. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 319, 1352–1355 (2008).
Burrell, R. A., McGranahan, N., Bartek, J. & Swanton, C. The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature 501, 338–345 (2013). This paper reviews how genomic instability leads to an increased mutation rate, tumour evolution and tumour heterogeneity.
Cahill, D. P., Kinzler, K. W., Vogelstein, B. & Lengauer, C. Genetic instability and darwinian selection in tumours. Trends Cell Biol. 9, M57–M60 (1999).
Lord, C. J. & Ashworth, A. The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature 481, 287–294 (2012).
Bouwman, P. & Jonkers, J. The effects of deregulated DNA damage signalling on cancer chemotherapy response and resistance. Nature Rev. Cancer 12, 587–598 (2012).
Curtin, N. J. DNA repair dysregulation from cancer driver to therapeutic target. Nature Rev. Cancer 12, 801–817 (2012).
Helleday, T., Petermann, E., Lundin, C., Hodgson, B. & Sharma, R. A. DNA repair pathways as targets for cancer therapy. Nature Rev. Cancer 8, 193–204 (2008).
Zhang, J., Stevens, M. F. & Bradshaw, T. D. Temozolomide: mechanisms of action, repair and resistance. Curr. Mol. Pharmacol. 5, 102–114 (2012).
Galluzzi, L. et al. Molecular mechanisms of cisplatin resistance. Oncogene 31, 1869–1883 (2012).
Liu, L. V. et al. Definition of the intermediates and mechanism of the anticancer drug bleomycin using nuclear resonance vibrational spectroscopy and related methods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22419–22424 (2010).
Brough, R., Frankum, J. R., Costa-Cabral, S., Lord, C. J. & Ashworth, A. Searching for synthetic lethality in cancer. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 21, 34–41 (2011).
Kaelin, W. G. Jr. The concept of synthetic lethality in the context of anticancer therapy. Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 689–698 (2005). References 20 and 21 describe the concept of synthetic lethalityand its utility in identifying novel drug targets.
TCGA. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474, 609–615 (2011).
Lord, C. J., Tutt, A. N. & Ashworth, A. Synthetic lethality and cancer therapy: lessons learned from the development of PARP inhibitors. Annu. Rev. Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-050913-022545 (2014).
Janne, P. A., Gray, N. & Settleman, J. Factors underlying sensitivity of cancers to small-molecule kinase inhibitors. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 709–723 (2009).
Futreal, P. A. et al. A census of human cancer genes. Nature Rev. Cancer 4, 177–183 (2004).
Greenman, C. et al. Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes. Nature 446, 153–158 (2007).
Kanehisa, M. et al. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D199–D205 (2014).
Croft, D. et al. Reactome: a database of reactions, pathways and biological processes. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D691–D697 (2011).
Franceschini, A. et al. STRING v9.1: protein-protein interaction networks, with increased coverage and integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D808–D815 (2013).
Ashburner, M. et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nature Genet. 25, 25–29 (2000).
Nakazawa, Y. et al. Mutations in UVSSA cause UV-sensitive syndrome and impair RNA polymerase IIo processing in transcription-coupled nucleotide-excision repair. Nature Genet. 44, 586–592 (2012).
Buisson, R. et al. Breast cancer proteins PALB2 and BRCA2 stimulate polymerase eta in recombination-associated DNA synthesis at blocked replication forks. Cell Rep. 6, 553–564 (2014).
Overington, J. P., Al-Lazikani, B. & Hopkins, A. L. How many drug targets are there? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 993–996 (2006).
Patel, M. N., Halling-Brown, M. D., Tym, J. E., Workman, P. & Al-Lazikani, B. Objective assessment of cancer genes for drug discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 35–50 (2013).
Workman, P., Al-Lazikani, B. & Clarke, P. A. Genome-based cancer therapeutics: targets, kinase drug resistance and future strategies for precision oncology. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 13, 486–496 (2013).
Antoniou, A. C. et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br. J. Cancer 98, 1457–1466 (2008).
Kanchi, K. L. et al. Integrated analysis of germline and somatic variants in ovarian cancer. Nature Commun. 5, 3156 (2014).
Bancroft, E. K. et al. Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study. Eur. Urol. 66, 489–499 (2014).
Tischkowitz, M. et al. Analysis of the gene coding for the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 in hereditary prostate cancer. Prostate 68, 675–678 (2008).
Rustgi, A. K. Familial pancreatic cancer: genetic advances. Genes Dev. 28, 1–7 (2014).
Howlett, N. G. et al. Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in Fanconi anemia. Science 297, 606–609 (2002).
McKusick, V. A. A. Catalog of Human Genes and Genetic Disorders (John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998).
Richardson, C. J. et al. MoKCa database—mutations of kinases in cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D824–D831 (2009).
Espinosa, O., Mitsopoulos, K., Hakas, J., Pearl, F. & Zvelebil, M. Deriving a mutation index of carcinogenicity using protein structure and protein interfaces. PLoS ONE 9, e84598 (2014).
Khoo, K. H., Verma, C. S. & Lane, D. P. Drugging the p53 pathway: understanding the route to clinical efficacy. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 217–236 (2014). This review describes the different therapeutic approaches for restoring function to p53.
Weinstein, J. N. et al. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nature Genet. 45, 1113–1120 (2013).
Collins, F. S. & Barker, A. D. Mapping the cancer genome. Pinpointing the genes involved in cancer will help chart a new course across the complex landscape of human malignancies. Sci. Am. 296, 50–57 (2007).
Kuhn, E. et al. Identification of molecular pathway aberrations in uterine serous carcinoma by genome-wide analyses. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104, 1503–1513 (2012).
Alexandrov, L. B. et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature 500, 415–421 (2013). This paper describes patterns of mutations termed 'mutational signatures'. The authors describe the aetiology of these signatures and how they vary between cancer type.
Pfeifer, G. P. et al. Tobacco smoke carcinogens, DNA damage and p53 mutations in smoking-associated cancers. Oncogene 21, 7435–7451 (2002).
Alexandrov, L. B. & Stratton, M. R. Mutational signatures: the patterns of somatic mutations hidden in cancer genomes. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 24, 52–60 (2014).
TCGA. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature 455, 1061–1068 (2008).
Parsons, D. W. et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science 321, 1807–1812 (2008).
Lindstrom, M. S. NPM1/B23: a multifunctional chaperone in ribosome biogenesis and chromatin remodeling. Biochem. Res. Int. 2011, 195209 (2011).
Nikolaev, S. I. et al. A single-nucleotide substitution mutator phenotype revealed by exome sequencing of human colon adenomas. Cancer Res. 72, 6279–6289 (2012).
Hoe, K. K., Verma, C. S. & Lane, D. P. Drugging the p53 pathway: understanding the route to clinical efficacy. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 217–236 (2014).
Riffell, J. L., Lord, C. J. & Ashworth, A. Tankyrase-targeted therapeutics: expanding opportunities in the PARP family. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 923–936 (2012).
Martin, S. A. et al. DNA polymerases as potential therapeutic targets for cancers deficient in the DNA mismatch repair proteins MSH2 or MLH1. Cancer Cell 17, 235–248 (2010).
van Pel, D. M., Stirling, P. C., Minaker, S. W., Sipahimalani, P. & Hieter, P. Saccharomyces cerevisiae genetics predicts candidate therapeutic genetic interactions at the mammalian replication fork. G3 (Bethesda) 3, 273–282 (2013).
Chatr-Aryamontri, A. et al. The BioGRID interaction database: 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D816–D823 (2013).
Paul, J. M., Templeton, S. D., Baharani, A., Freywald, A. & Vizeacoumar, F. J. Building high-resolution synthetic lethal networks: a 'Google map' of the cancer cell. Trends Mol. Med. 20, 704–715 (2014).
Franchitto, A. et al. The mammalian mismatch repair protein MSH2 is required for correct MRE11 and RAD51 relocalization and for efficient cell cycle arrest induced by ionizing radiation in G2 phase. Oncogene 22, 2110–2120 (2003).
Bulusu, K. C., Tym, J. E., Coker, E. A. & Schierz, A. C. & Al-Lazikani, B. CanSAR: updated cancer research and drug discovery knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D1040–D1047 (2014).
Gaulton, A. et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D1100–D1107 (2012).
Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 235–249 (2000). This paper describes the properties required for a molecule to be a good drug. It presents the rule of five.
Fauman, E. B., Rai, B. K. & Huang, E. S. Structure-based druggability assessment—identifying suitable targets for small molecule therapeutics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 15, 463–468 (2011).
Mehra, R., Serebriiskii, I. G., Burtness, B., Astsaturov, I. & Golemis, E. A. Aurora kinases in head and neck cancer. Lancet Oncol. 14, e425–e435 (2013).
Weiss, L. & Efferth, T. Polo-like kinase 1 as target for cancer therapy. Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 1, 38 (2012).
Hornbeck, P. V. et al. PhosphoSitePlus: a comprehensive resource for investigating the structure and function of experimentally determined post-translational modifications in man and mouse. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D261–D270 (2012).
Landre, V., Rotblat, B., Melino, S., Bernassola, F. & Melino, G. Screening for E3-Ubiquitin ligase inhibitors: challenges and opportunities. Oncotarget 5, 7988–8013 (2014).
Jacq, X., Kemp, M., Martin, N. M. & Jackson, S. P. Deubiquitylating enzymes and DNA damage response pathways. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 67, 25–43 (2013).
Lim, K. H. & Baek, K. H. Deubiquitinating enzymes as therapeutic targets in cancer. Curr. Pharm. Des. 19, 4039–4052 (2013).
Liang, Q. et al. A selective USP1-UAF1 inhibitor links deubiquitination to DNA damage responses. Nature Chem. Biol. 10, 298–304 (2014).
Fan, Y. H. et al. USP7 inhibitor P22077 inhibits neuroblastoma growth via inducing p53-mediated apoptosis. Cell Death Dis. 4, e867 (2013).
Nishi, R. et al. Systematic characterization of deubiquitylating enzymes for roles in maintaining genome integrity. Nature Cell Biol. 16, 1016–1026 (2014). This paper describes a systematic screen of DUBs to identify their involvement in the DDR.
Tomkinson, A. E., Howes, T. R. & Wiest, N. E. DNA ligases as therapeutic targets. Transl. Cancer Res. 2, 1219 (2013).
van Pel, D. M. et al. An evolutionarily conserved synthetic lethal interaction network identifies FEN1 as a broad-spectrum target for anticancer therapeutic development. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003254 (2013).
Panda, H. et al. Amino acid Asp181 of 5′-flap endonuclease 1 is a useful target for chemotherapeutic development. Biochemistry 48, 9952–9958 (2009).
Dorjsuren, D. et al. Complementary non- radioactive assays for investigation of human flap endonuclease 1 activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, e11 (2011).
McWhirter, C. et al. Development of a high-throughput fluorescence polarization DNA cleavage assay for the identification of FEN1 inhibitors. J. Biomol. Screen 18, 567–575 (2013).
Nguyen, G. H. et al. A small molecule inhibitor of the BLM helicase modulates chromosome stability in human cells. Chem. Biol. 20, 55–62 (2013).
Aggarwal, M., Banerjee, T., Sommers, J. A. & Brosh, R. M. Jr. Targeting an Achilles' heel of cancer with a WRN helicase inhibitor. Cell Cycle 12, 3329–3335 (2013).
D'Antonio, M. et al. Recessive cancer genes engage in negative genetic interactions with their functional paralogs. Cell Rep. 5, 1519–1526 (2013).
Turner, N. C. et al. A synthetic lethal siRNA screen identifying genes mediating sensitivity to a PARP inhibitor. EMBO J. 27, 1368–1377 (2008).
Allinson, S. L. DNA end-processing enzyme polynucleotide kinase as a potential target in the treatment of cancer. Future Oncol. 6, 1031–1042 (2010).
Oliver, A. W., Swift, S., Lord, C. J., Ashworth, A. & Pearl, L. H. Structural basis for recruitment of BRCA2 by PALB2. EMBO Rep. 10, 990–996 (2009).
Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy, M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2009).
TCGA. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487, 330–337 (2012).
TCGA. Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature 489, 519–525 (2012).
TCGA. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 490, 61–70 (2012).
TCGA. Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 2059–2074 (2013).
TCGA. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Nature 499, 43–49 (2013).
TCGA. Comprehensive molecular characterization of urothelial bladder carcinoma. Nature 507, 315–322 (2014).
Smoot, M. E., Ono, K., Ruscheinski, J., Wang, P. L. & Ideker, T. Cytoscape 2.8: new features for data integration and network visualization. Bioinformatics 27, 431–432 (2011).
Kupfer, G. M. Fanconi anemia: a signal transduction and DNA repair pathway. Yale J. Biol. Med. 86, 491–497 (2013).
Daley, J. M., Kwon, Y., Niu, H. & Sung, P. Investigations of homologous recombination pathways and their regulation. Yale J. Biol. Med. 86, 453–461 (2013).
Murray, J. M. & Carr, A. M. Smc5/6: a link between DNA repair and unidirectional replication? Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 177–182 (2008).
Pastwa, E. & Blasiak, J. Non-homologous DNA end joining. Acta Biochim. Pol. 50, 891–908 (2003).
Wang, Z., Wu, X. & Friedberg, E. C. Molecular mechanism of base excision repair of uracil-containing DNA in yeast cell-free extracts. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 24064–24071 (1997).
Eker, A. P., Quayle, C., Chaves, I. & van der Horst, G. T. DNA repair in mammalian cells: Direct DNA damage reversal: elegant solutions for nasty problems. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 66, 968–980 (2009).
Larrea, A. A., Lujan, S. A. & Kunkel, T. A. SnapShot: DNA mismatch repair. Cell 141, 730.e1 (2010).
Jaspers, N. G. & Hoeijmakers, J. H. DNA repair. Nucleotide excision-repair in the test tube. Curr. Biol. 5, 700–702 (1995).
Prakash, S., Johnson, R. E. & Prakash, L. Eukaryotic translesion synthesis DNA polymerases: specificity of structure and function. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 74, 317–353 (2005).
Chambers, A. L. & Downs, J. A. The RSC and INO80 chromatin-remodeling complexes in DNA double-strand break repair. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl. Sci. 110, 229–261 (2012).
Verdun, R. E. & Karlseder, J. Replication and protection of telomeres. Nature 447, 924–931 (2007).
Bardin, A. J. & Amon, A. Men and sin: what's the difference? Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 815–826 (2001).
Jackson, S. P. & Durocher, D. Regulation of DNA damage responses by ubiquitin and SUMO. Mol. Cell 49, 795–807 (2013).
Vogelstein, B., Lane, D. & Levine, A. J. Surfing the p53 network. Nature 408, 307–310 (2000).
Marston, A. L. Chromosome segregation in budding yeast: sister chromatid cohesion and related mechanisms. Genetics 196, 31–63 (2014).
The authors would like to thank the following principal investigators from the Sussex Genome Damage and Stability Centre for help with curating the DDR gene list and for providing deep insights into the pathways and networks that make up the DDR: A. Carr, J. Murray, J. Downs, E. Hoffmann, A. Lehmann, P. Jeggo, A. Bianchi, J. Baxter, K. Caldecott and V. Savic. The authors would also like to thank C. Richardson and J. Tym for technical assistance, A. Eyre-Walker and C. Parry-Morris for useful discussions, and A. Carr, P. Beswick and P. Workman for critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by a Daphne Jackson Fellowship funded by the Medical Research Council (F.M.G.P.); Cancer Research UK core funding to the Cancer Therapeutics Unit at the Institute of Cancer Research in London C309/A11566 (B.A.-L.); and a Cancer Research UK Programme Grant C302/A14532 (L.H.P.). Author contributions: L.H.P., S.E.W., B.A.-L. and F.M.G.P. conceived the project; F.M.G.P. and B.A.-L. designed the analysis; A.C.S., B.A.-L. and F.M.G.P. performed the data analysis and informatics; and L.H.P., B.A.-L. and F.M.G.P. wrote the paper.
B.A.-L. is an employee of The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), which has a commercial interest in inhibitors in oncology targets, and operates a 'Rewards to Inventors' scheme. L.H.P. is a director and shareholder in Domainex Limited a biotechnology company, developing novel drugs for a range of human diseases. S.E.W. is a consultant for BioCrea GmbH.
Current DDR targets with drugs or compounds in clinical trials (PDF 182 kb)
Methods (PDF 348 kb)
Hierarchical classification of DDR genes (PDF 364 kb)
(ZIP 194 kb)
Genes within the DDR implicated in genetic diseases (PDF 250 kb)
Genes predicted to be oncogenes or tumour suppressors according to the 20:20 rule (PDF 105 kb)
Mutational frequency per disease (PDF 143 kb)
Pathway disruption of the DDR in 15 TCGA cancers (PDF 271 kb)
(ZIP 27 kb)
SSL predictions (PDF 1367 kb)
Targets with small molecule modulators (PDF 121 kb)
Ligand druggability predictions (PDF 154 kb)
Structure druggability predictions (PDF 322 kb)
Network druggability predictions (PDF 315 kb)
(ZIP 182 kb)
Kinases that regulate DDR proteins (PDF 402 kb)
DDR proteins with reported ubiquitination sites (PDF 1569 kb)
E3 ligases with reported interactions with DDR proteins (PDF 287 kb)
DUBs reported to interact with DDR proteins (PDF 232 kb)
Duggability predictions for best pathway-based candidates (PDF 156 kb)
About this article
Cite this article
Pearl, L., Schierz, A., Ward, S. et al. Therapeutic opportunities within the DNA damage response. Nat Rev Cancer 15, 166–180 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3891
Nucleic Acids Research (2021)
Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Journal of the American Chemical Society (2021)
Synergistic anticancer activity of resveratrol in combination with docetaxel in prostate carcinoma cells
Nutrition Research and Practice (2021)
Cooperative Blockade of CK2 and ATM Kinases Drives Apoptosis in VHL-Deficient Renal Carcinoma Cells through ROS Overproduction