To the Editor:
Current AML therapeutics induce DNA damage and/or modulate DNA damage response (DDR) directly or indirectly [1, 2]. Recent reports analyzed large datasets to predict the response of AML patients to the treatment [3,4,5]. The combinatorial mutational events (e.g., NRAS, TP53, TET2, IDH1 and/or NPM1) as well as single gene expression levels (e.g., PEAR1) were implicated as potential biomarkers of the clinical outcome. These genes however, except TP53, are not involved in DDR.
Here, we employed a list of 1800 DDR-related genes [6] to interrogate a cohort of 612 AML patients (612 specimens) from waves 1 to 4 of the training BEAT AML 2.0 dataset [3] to determine the correlations between DDR gene expression and therapeutic outcomes. Only 500 genes were chosen for actual analysis based on their median absolute deviation across the dataset. This was done to reduce background noise in the dataset and to only use genes with high variation across subjects. Consensus clustering separated AML subjects into 5 groups with varying DDR transcriptomic signatures (Fig. 1A). Kaplan-Meier analysis of the survival profiles of the 5 groups revealed cluster 1 displaying the best prognosis while cluster 5 with the worst (Fig. 1B). This prediction was validated by detecting higher frequency of parameters associated with poor prognosis (treatment-refractory cases, prior-MDS, prior-MPN and TP53 mutation) in cluster 5 when compared to cluster 1 (Supplementary Fig. S1). Except consensus sex (more males in cluster 5 vs cluster 1) no other distribution demographics (race, ethnicity, and age) were different in cluster 5 compared to cluster 1 (Supplementary Fig. S2).
The top 10 DDR biomarker genes with the highest expression in each cluster are indicated in Fig. 1C. Individual gene analysis revealed 4 genes in cluster 1 and cluster 5 which enhanced expression correlated with good (AIM2, SATB2, TYMP and TLR4 in cluster 1) and poor (CDC42BPA, LCN2, NF1A and HP in cluster 5) prognosis (Fig. 1D). The most significant cluster marker genes discriminating between good and poor survival were AIM2 (cluster 1 biomarker, high values denoted good prognosis) and CDC42BPA (cluster 5 biomarker, high values denoted bad prognosis).
Absent in melanoma 2 (AIM2) detects DNA in the cytosol and assembles an inflammasome, which activates caspase-1 and pro-inflammatory cytokines leading to pyroptosis, an inflammatory form of cell death [7]. Thus, AIM2 can facilitate pyroptosis in AML cells which accumulate cytosolic DNA during treatment, leading to accelerated elimination of AML cells and favorable prognosis.
CDC42 binding protein kinase alpha (CDC42BPA) also known as the myotonic dystrophy protein kinase-like alpha (MRCKα) is required for TP53-dependent autophagy [8]. Autophagy protects leukemia cells during chemotherapy by providing energy and facilitating proliferation through the supply of essential components such as amino acids and nucleotides. In addition, CDC42BPA has been also implicated in regulation the sensitivity of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma and glioblastoma cells to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and/or in tumor cell growth [9]. Thus, CDC42BPA might regulate chemotherapy resistance of AML cells and inhibitors of the kinase may have therapeutic application in a cohort of high CDC42BPA expressors [9]. Of note, while TP53 expression did not alter between high and low CDC42BPA expressors, TP53 mutations were found in 19.9% high CDC42BPA expressors, compared to only 3.7% of the low CDC42BPA expressors. Therefore, higher frequency of TP53 mutants among high CDC42BPA expressors might also contribute to worse survival.
Remarkably, combined values of the expression of AIM2 and CDC42BPA are extremely powerful predictor for survival in the training BEAT AML 2.0 database (Fig. 1E). AML patients with high values of AIM2 and low values of CDC42BPA expression displayed the best prognosis, whereas these with low values of AIM2 and high values of CDC42BPA had the worst prognosis. The discovery of biomarker values of AIM2 and CDC42BPA as predictors of survival were validated using TARGET-recurrent AML dataset from 427 patients (Fig. 1E).
AML cells accumulate high numbers of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), the most lethal of all DNA lesions resulting from altered metabolism [10, 11] and induced by therapeutic approaches [1]. DSBs are highly deleterious, with a single unrepaired DSB being sufficient to trigger cell death [12]. To repair numerous DSBs AML cells may activate the DSB repair mechanisms involving RAD51-mediated homologous recombination (HR), DNA-PK -mediated non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) and DNA polymerase theta (Polθ, encoded by POLQ gene)-dependent microhomology-mediated end-joining (TMEJ) [13] Therefore, we also tested if expression levels of DSB repair genes had a survival prognostication value.
Analysis of training BEAT AML 2.0 database revealed that upregulation of several genes involved in RAD51-mediated HR (BRCA1, RAD51, RAD54L and RAD51AP1) and Polθ-dependent TMEJ (POLQ, FEN1 and TRIP13) were associated with worse prognosis (Fig. 2A). Conversely, patients with elevated expression of NHEJ1 gene (non-homologous end-joining factor 1), a member of NHEJ displayed better prognosis. Remarkably, the biomarker prognosticator values of POLQ and NHEJ1 gene expression were validated in TARGET-recurrent AML dataset (Fig. 2B).
In conclusion, using DDR genes as probes we identified novel biomarkers for AML prognostication: co-expression of AIM2 and CDC42BPA genes and sole expression of POLQ. Overexpression of Polθ confers cellular resistance to various genotoxic cancer therapies (ionizing radiation, genotoxic chemotherapy drugs) [14]. The discovery that POLQ is a key prognostic biomarker in AML may have a therapeutic value because cancer cells, including AML cells overexpressing Polθ protein are hypersensitive to Polθ inhibitors which are currently in clinical trials against solid tumors [10, 15].
References
Maifrede S, Nieborowska-Skorska M, Sullivan-Reed K, Dasgupta Y, Podszywalow-Bartnicka P, Le BV, et al. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor-induced defects in DNA repair sensitize FLT3(ITD)-positive leukemia cells to PARP1 inhibitors. Blood. 2018;132:67–77.
Kantarjian H, Kadia T, DiNardo C, Daver N, Borthakur G, Jabbour E, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia: current progress and future directions. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11:41.
Bottomly D, Long N, Schultz AR, Kurtz SE, Tognon CE, Johnson K, et al. Integrative analysis of drug response and clinical outcome in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer cell. 2022;40:850–64.e9.
Benard BA, Leak LB, Azizi A, Thomas D, Gentles AJ, Majeti R. Clonal architecture predicts clinical outcomes and drug sensitivity in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat Commun. 2021;12:7244.
Zeng AGX, Bansal S, Jin L, Mitchell A, Chen WC, Abbas HA, et al. A cellular hierarchy framework for understanding heterogeneity and predicting drug response in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat Med. 2022;28:1212–23.
Gogola E, Duarte AA, de Ruiter JR, Wiegant WW, Schmid JA, de Bruijn R, et al. Selective loss of PARG restores PARylation and counteracts PARP inhibitor-mediated synthetic lethality. Cancer cell. 2018;33:1078–93.e12.
Kumari P, Russo AJ, Shivcharan S, Rathinam VA. AIM2 in health and disease: Inflammasome and beyond. Immunol Rev. 2020;297:83–95.
Celano SL, Yco LP, Kortus MG, Solitro AR, Gunaydin H, Scott M, et al. Identification of kinases responsible for p53-dependent autophagy. iScience. 2019;15:109–18.
East MP, Asquith CRM. CDC42BPA/MRCKα: a kinase target for brain, ovarian and skin cancers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20:167.
Vekariya U, Toma M, Nieborowska-Skorska M, Le BV, Caron MC, Kukuyan AM, et al. DNA polymerase theta protects leukemia cells from metabolically induced DNA damage. Blood. 2023;141:2372–89.
Sallmyr A, Fan J, Datta K, Kim KT, Grosu D, Shapiro P, et al. Internal tandem duplication of FLT3 (FLT3/ITD) induces increased ROS production, DNA damage, and misrepair: implications for poor prognosis in AML. Blood. 2008;111:3173–82.
Trenner A, Sartori AA. Harnessing DNA double-strand break repair for cancer treatment. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1388.
Jackson SP. Sensing and repairing DNA double-strand breaks. Carcinogenesis. 2002;23:687–96.
Chen XS, Pomerantz RT. DNA Polymerase θ: a cancer drug target with reverse transcriptase activity. Genes. 2021;12:1146.
Zhou J, Gelot C, Pantelidou C, Li A, Yücel H, Davis RE, et al. A first-in-class polymerase theta inhibitor selectively targets homologous-recombination-deficient tumors. Nat Cancer. 2021;2:598–610.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NCI R01s CA244179, CA244044 and CA283396, and by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society TRP 6628-21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AK provided bioinformatic analysis, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. TS conceived the idea, supervised the project, and wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Karami, A., Skorski, T. DNA damage response genes as biomarkers of therapeutic outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Leukemia 38, 1407–1410 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-024-02269-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-024-02269-9