Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Base excision repair regulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells


Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is a key factor influencing cancer immunotherapy; however, the regulation of PD-L1 expression in cancer cells remains unclear, particularly regarding DNA damage, repair and its signalling. Herein, we demonstrate that oxidative DNA damage induced by exogenously applied hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) upregulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells. Further, depletion of the base excision repair (BER) enzyme DNA glycosylase augments PD-L1 upregulation in response to H2O2. PD-L1 upregulation in BER-depleted cells requires ATR/Chk1 kinase activities, demonstrating that PD-L1 upregulation is mediated by DNA damage signalling. Further analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas revealed that the expression of PD-L1 is negatively correlated with that of the BER/single-strand break repair (SSBR) and tumours with low BER/SSBR gene expression show high microsatellite instability and neoantigen production. Hence, these results suggest that PD-L1 expression is regulated in cancer cells via the DNA damage signalling and neoantigen–interferon-γ pathway under oxidative stress.


  • Exogenous oxidative DNA damage upregulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells.

  • BER deficiency augments PD-L1 upregulation following oxidative DNA damage.

  • Tumour samples with BER/SSBR mutations show high microsatellite instability, neoantigen and PD-L1 expression.

  • PD-L1 and BER/SSBR gene expressions are negatively correlated in clinical specimens.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Data availability

All relevant data are available from the corresponding author(s) upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Hargadon KM, Johnson CE, Williams CJ. Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: an overview of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors. Int Immunopharmacol. 2018;62:29–39.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Iwai Y, Hamanishi J, Chamoto K, Honjo T. Cancer immunotherapies targeting the PD-1 signaling pathway. J Biomed Sci. 2017;24:26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1627–39.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, Crino L, Eberhardt WE, Poddubskaya E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:123–35.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Dutriaux C, Maio M, Mortier L, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:320–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, Park K, Ciardiello F, von Pawel J, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:255–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Roger A, Finet A, Boru B, Beauchet A, Mazeron JJ, Otzmeguine Y. et al. Efficacy of combined hypo-fractionated radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 monotherapy in difficult-to-treat advanced melanoma patients. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7:e1442166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Qin Q, Nan X, Miller T, Fisher R, Teh B, Pandita S. et al. Complete local and abscopal responses from a combination of radiation and nivolumab in refractory Hodgkinas lymphoma. Radiat Res. 2018;190:322–29.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, Vicente D, Murakami S, Hui R, et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1919–29.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sunshine J, Taube JM. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2015;23:32–38.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, Long GV, Atkinson V, Dalle S, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1789–801.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kim ST, Cristescu R, Bass AJ, Kim KM, Odegaard JI, Kim K, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clinical responses to PD-1 inhibition in metastatic gastric cancer. Nat Med. 2018;24:1449–58.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Shin DS, Zaretsky JM, Escuin-Ordinas H, Garcia-Diaz A, Hu-Lieskovan S, Kalbasi A, et al. Primary resistance to PD-1 blockade mediated by JAK1/2 mutations. Cancer Discov. 2017;7:188–201.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Garcia-Diaz A, Shin DS, Moreno BH, Saco J, Escuin-Ordinas H, Rodriguez GA, et al. Interferon receptor signaling pathways regulating PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression. Cell Rep. 2017;19:1189–201.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Llosa NJ, Cruise M, Tam A, Wicks EC, Hechenbleikner EM, Taube JM, et al. The vigorous immune microenvironment of microsatellite instable colon cancer is balanced by multiple counter-inhibitory checkpoints. Cancer Discov. 2015;5:43–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, Bartlett BR, Kemberling H, Eyring AD, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2509–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, Wang H, Bartlett BR, Aulakh LK, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science. 2017;357:409–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Howitt BE, Shukla SA, Sholl LM, Ritterhouse LL, Watkins JC, Rodig S, et al. Association of polymerase e-mutated and microsatellite-instable endometrial cancers with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and expression of PD-1 and PD-L1. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1319–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Shen J, Ju Z, Zhao W, Wang L, Peng Y, Ge Z, et al. ARID1A deficiency promotes mutability and potentiates therapeutic antitumor immunity unleashed by immune checkpoint blockade. Nat Med. 2018;24:556–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Strickland KC, Howitt BE, Shukla SA, Rodig S, Ritterhouse LL, Liu JF, et al. Association and prognostic significance of BRCA1/2-mutation status with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in high grade serous ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:13587–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Chen MF, Chen PT, Chen WC, Lu MS, Lin PY, Lee KD. The role of PD-L1 in the radiation response and prognosis for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma related to IL-6 and T-cell immunosuppression. Oncotarget. 2016;7:7913–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sato H, Niimi A, Yasuhara T, Permata TBM, Hagiwara Y, Isono M, et al. DNA double-strand break repair pathway regulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mouw KW, Konstantinopoulos PA. From checkpoint to checkpoint: DNA damage ATR/Chk1 checkpoint signalling elicits PD-L1 immune checkpoint activation. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:933–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Vendetti FP, Karukonda P, Clump DA, Teo T, Lalonde R, Nugent K. et al. ATR kinase inhibitor AZD6738 potentiates CD8.T cell-dependent antitumor activity following radiation. J Clin Invest. 2018;128:3926–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Szatrowski TP, Nathan CF. Production of large amounts of hydrogen peroxide by human tumor cells. Cancer Res. 1991;51:794–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Trachootham D, Alexandre J, Huang P. Targeting cancer cells by ROS-mediated mechanisms: a radical therapeutic approach? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:579–91.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100:57–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fiaschi T, Chiarugi P. Oxidative stress, tumor microenvironment, and metabolic reprogramming: a diabolic liaison. Int J Cell Biol. 2012;2012:762825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Reuter S, Gupta SC, Chaturvedi MM, Aggarwal BB. Oxidative stress, inflammation, and cancer: how are they linked?. Free Radic Biol Med. 2010;49:1603–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kumar B, Koul S, Khandrika L, Meacham RB, Koul HK. Oxidative stress is inherent in prostate cancer cells and is required for aggressive phenotype. Cancer Res. 2008;68:1777–85.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Maynard S, Schurman SH, Harboe C, de Souza-Pinto NC, Bohr VA. Base excision repair of oxidative DNA damage and association with cancer and aging. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:2–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Caldecott KW. Single-strand break repair and genetic disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:619–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Chen BP, Li M, Asaithamby A. New insights into the roles of ATM and DNA-PKcs in the cellular response to oxidative stress. Cancer Lett. 2012;327:103–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Wallace SS, Murphy DL, Sweasy JB. Base excision repair and cancer. Cancer Lett. 2012;327:73–89.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Karahalil B, Bohr VA, Wilson DM 3rd. Impact of DNA polymorphisms in key DNA base excision repair proteins on cancer risk. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2012;31:981–1005.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    O’Connor MJ. Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Mol Cell. 2015;60:547–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hutter C, Zenklusen JC. The Cancer Genome Atlas: creating lasting value beyond its data. Cell. 2018;173:283–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Tubbs A, Nussenzweig A, Endogenous DNA. Damage as a source of genomic instability in cancer. Cell. 2017;168:644–56.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lindahl T. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature. 1993;362:709–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Liou GY, Storz P. Reactive oxygen species in cancer. Free Radic Res. 2010;44:479–96.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Schumacker PT. Reactive oxygen species in cancer cells: live by the sword, die by the sword. Cancer Cell. 2006;10:175–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Umar A, Boyer JC, Thomas DC, Nguyen DC, Risinger JI, Boyd J, et al. Defective mismatch repair in extracts of colorectal and endometrial cancer cell lines exhibiting microsatellite instability. J Biol Chem. 1994;269:14367–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Aquilina G, Hess P, Branch P, MacGeoch C, Casciano I, Karran P, et al. A mismatch recognition defect in colon carcinoma confers DNA microsatellite instability and a mutator phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:8905–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Fishel R, Ewel A, Lee S, Lescoe MK, Griffith J. Binding of mismatched microsatellite DNA sequences by the human MSH2. Protein Sci. 1994;266:1403–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Klein HL, Kreuzer KN. Replication, recombination, and repair: going for the gold. Mol Cell. 2002;9:471–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ensminger M, Iloff L, Ebel C, Nikolova T, Kaina B, Lbrich M. DNA breaks and chromosomal aberrations arise when replication meets base excision repair. J Cell Biol. 2014;206:29–43.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Feng W, Jasin M. BRCA2 suppresses replication stress-induced mitotic and G1 abnormalities through homologous recombination. Nat Commun. 2017;8:525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Shibata A. Regulation of repair pathway choice at two-ended DNA double-strand breaks. Mutat Res. 2017;803–5:51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Weren RD, Ligtenberg MJ, Kets CM, de Voer RM, Verwiel ET, Spruijt L, et al. A germline homozygous mutation in the base-excision repair gene NTHL1 causes adenomatous polyposis and colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2015;47:668–71.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Shibata A, Moiani D, Arvai AS, Perry J, Harding SM, Genois MM, et al. DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice is directed by distinct MRE11 nuclease activities. Mol Cell. 2014;53:7–18.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    McGranahan N, Furness AJ, Rosenthal R, Ramskov S, Lyngaa R, Saini SK, et al. Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade. Science. 2016;351:1463–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Li T, Fan J, Wang B, Traugh N, Chen Q, Liu JS, et al. TIMER: a web server for comprehensive analysis of tumor-infiltrating immune cells. Cancer Res. 2017;77:e108–e110.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Cortes-Ciriano I, Lee S, Park WY, Kim TM, Park PJ. A molecular portrait of microsatellite instability across multiple cancers. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15180.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Yoshimi Omi, Akiko Shibata, Yoko Hayashi, Shiho Nakanishi, Yukihiko Yoshimatsu and Yuka Hirota for assisting with the lab work.


This work was supported by the Program of the network-type Joint Usage/Research Center for Radiation Disaster Medical Science of Hiroshima University, Nagasaki University and Fukushima Medical University. This work was also supported by Grants-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan for programs for Leading Graduate Schools, Cultivating Global Leaders in Heavy Ion Therapeutics and Engineering.

Author contributions

A.S. designed the experiments and wrote the paper with T.B.M.P. The experiments including immunoblotting, qPCR and flow cytometry were performed by T.B.M.P., H.S., Y.H. and A.S. The dataset of TCGA was developed by T.Y. The TCGA analysis was performed by T.B.M.P. and Y.H. under the supervision of T.Y. Acquired data was analysed and interpreted by T.B.M.P., H.S., T.Y. and A.S. The manuscript was reviewed by T.O., K.D.H. and T.N. Administrative, technical or material support was provided by T.O., S. G. and T.N. The study was supervised by A.S.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atsushi Shibata.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Permata, T.B.M., Hagiwara, Y., Sato, H. et al. Base excision repair regulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells. Oncogene 38, 4452–4466 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links