Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

  • Article
  • Published:

STING protects breast cancer cells from intrinsic and genotoxic-induced DNA instability via a non-canonical, cell-autonomous pathway

Oncogene volume 40, pages 6627–6640 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

STING (Stimulator of Interferon Genes) is an endoplasmic reticulum-anchored adaptor of the innate immunity best known to trigger pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in response to pathogen infection. In cancer, this canonical pathway can be activated by intrinsic or drug-induced genomic instability, potentiating antitumor immune responses. Here we report that STING downregulation decreases cell survival and increases sensitivity to genotoxic treatment in a panel of breast cancer cell lines in a cell-autonomous manner. STING silencing impaired DNA Damage Response (53BP1) foci formation and increased DNA break accumulation. These newly identified properties were found to be independent of STING partner cGAS and of its canonical pro-inflammatory pathway. STING was shown to partially localize at the inner nuclear membrane in a variety of breast cancer cell models and clinical tumor samples. Interactomics analysis of nuclear STING identified several proteins of the DNA Damage Response, including the three proteins of the DNA-PK complex, further supporting a role of STING in the regulation of genomic stability. In breast and ovarian cancer patients that received adjuvant chemotherapy, high STING expression is associated with increased risk of relapse. In summary, this study highlights an alternative, non-canonical tumor-promoting role of STING that opposes its well-documented function in tumor immunosurveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: STING promotes intrinsic breast cancer cell survival and resistance to genotoxic stress.
Fig. 2: STING is a positive regulator of the DDR.
Fig. 3: STING impact on DNA integrity and cancer cell survival is independent of its canonical pro-inflammatory pathway.
Fig. 4: STING partly resides in the nucleus of breast cancer cells.
Fig. 5: STING co-localizes with the lamina in breast cancer cells.
Fig. 6: Identification of STING at the INM by electronic microscopy.
Fig. 7: Determination of nuclear STING interactome using mass spectrometry.
Fig. 8: Clinical relevance of STING in breast cancer.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ishikawa H, Ma Z, Barber GN. STING regulates intracellular DNA-mediated, type I interferon-dependent innate immunity. Nature. 2009;461:788–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ishikawa H, Barber GN. STING is an endoplasmic reticulum adaptor that facilitates innate immune signalling. Nature. 2008;455:674–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu S, Cai X, Wu J, Cong Q, Chen X, Li T, et al. Phosphorylation of innate immune adaptor proteins MAVS, STING, and TRIF induces IRF3 activation. Science. 2015;347:aaa2630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ablasser A, Goldeck M, Cavlar T, Deimling T, Witte G, Rohl I, et al. cGAS produces a 2’-5’-linked cyclic dinucleotide second messenger that activates STING. Nature. 2013;498:380–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Abe T, Barber GN. Cytosolic-DNA-mediated, STING-dependent proinflammatory gene induction necessitates canonical NF-kappaB activation through TBK1. J Virol. 2014;88:5328–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ranoa DRE, Widau RC, Mallon S, Parekh AD, Nicolae CM, Huang X, et al. STING promotes homeostasis via regulation of cell proliferation and chromosomal stability. Cancer Res. 2019;79:1465–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bakhoum SF, Ngo B, Laughney AM, Cavallo JA, Murphy CJ, Ly P, et al. Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response. Nature. 2018;553:467–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunphy G, Flannery SM, Almine JF, Connolly DJ, Paulus C, Jonsson KL, et al. Non-canonical activation of the DNA sensing adaptor STING by ATM and IFI16 mediates NF-kappaB signaling after nuclear DNA damage. Mol Cell. 2018;71:745–60 e5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Barber GN. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing pathways. Trends Immunol. 2014;35:88–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Deng L, Liang H, Xu M, Yang X, Burnette B, Arina A, et al. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing promotes radiation-induced type I interferon-dependent antitumor immunity in immunogenic tumors. Immunity. 2014;41:843–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Vanpouille-Box C, Alard A, Aryankalayil MJ, Sarfraz Y, Diamond JM, Schneider RJ, et al. DNA exonuclease Trex1 regulates radiotherapy-induced tumour immunogenicity. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15618.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang H, Hu S, Chen X, Shi H, Chen C, Sun L, et al. cGAS is essential for the antitumor effect of immune checkpoint blockade. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:1637–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Harding SM, Benci JL, Irianto J, Discher DE, Minn AJ, Greenberg RA. Mitotic progression following DNA damage enables pattern recognition within micronuclei. Nature. 2017;548:466–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown JS, Sundar R, Lopez J. Combining DNA damaging therapeutics with immunotherapy: more haste, less speed. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:312–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ahn J, Xia T, Konno H, Konno K, Ruiz P, Barber GN. Inflammation-driven carcinogenesis is mediated through STING. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5166.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu Z, Oeck S, West AP, Mangalhara KC, Sainz AG, Newman LE, et al. Mitochondrial DNA stress signalling protects the nuclear genome. Nat Metab. 2019;1:1209–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen Q, Boire A, Jin X, Valiente M, Er EE, Lopez-Soto A, et al. Carcinoma-astrocyte gap junctions promote brain metastasis by cGAMP transfer. Nature. 2016;533:493–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gaston J, Cheradame L, Yvonnet V, Deas O, Poupon MF, Judde JG, et al. Intracellular STING inactivation sensitizes breast cancer cells to genotoxic agents. Oncotarget. 2016;7:77205–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Li T, Chen ZJ. The cGAS-cGAMP-STING pathway connects DNA damage to inflammation, senescence, and cancer. J Exp Med. 2018;215:1287–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Erdal E, Haider S, Rehwinkel J, Harris AL, McHugh PJ. A prosurvival DNA damage-induced cytoplasmic interferon response is mediated by end resection factors and is limited by Trex1. Genes Dev. 2017;31:353–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Parkes EE, Walker SM, Taggart LE, McCabe N, Knight LA, Wilkinson R, et al. Activation of STING-dependent innate immune signaling by S-phase-specific DNA damage in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:djw199.

  22. Mackenzie KJ, Carroll P, Martin CA, Murina O, Fluteau A, Simpson DJ, et al. cGAS surveillance of micronuclei links genome instability to innate immunity. Nature 2017;548:461–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lan YY, Londono D, Bouley R, Rooney MS, Hacohen N. Dnase2a deficiency uncovers lysosomal clearance of damaged nuclear DNA via autophagy. Cell Rep. 2014;9:180–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hartlova A, Erttmann SF, Raffi FA, Schmalz AM, Resch U, Anugula S, et al. DNA damage primes the type I interferon system via the cytosolic DNA sensor STING to promote anti-microbial innate immunity. Immunity. 2015;42:332–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mazur L, Opydo-Chanek M, Stojak M, Wojcieszek K. Mafosfamide as a new anticancer agent: preclinical investigations and clinical trials. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:2783–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Basit A, Cho MG, Kim EY, Kwon D, Kang SJ, Lee JH. The cGAS/STING/TBK1/IRF3 innate immunity pathway maintains chromosomal stability through regulation of p21 levels. Exp Mol Med. 2020;52:643–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Franken NA, Rodermond HM, Stap J, Haveman J, van Bree C. Clonogenic assay of cells in vitro. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:2315–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gaston J, Cheradame L, Yvonnet V, Deas O, Poupon MF, Judde JG, et al. Correction: intracellular STING inactivation sensitizes breast cancer cells to genotoxic agents. Oncotarget. 2019;10:4249–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Schultz LB, Chehab NH, Malikzay A, Halazonetis TD. p53 binding protein 1 (53BP1) is an early participant in the cellular response to DNA double-strand breaks. J Cell Biol. 2000;151:1381–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lukas C, Savic V, Bekker-Jensen S, Doil C, Neumann B, Pedersen RS, et al. 53BP1 nuclear bodies form around DNA lesions generated by mitotic transmission of chromosomes under replication stress. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13:243–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen H, Pei R, Zhu W, Zeng R, Wang Y, Wang Y, et al. An alternative splicing isoform of MITA antagonizes MITA-mediated induction of type I IFNs. J Immunol. 2014;192:1162–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu H, Zhang H, Wu X, Ma D, Wu J, Wang L, et al. Nuclear cGAS suppresses DNA repair and promotes tumorigenesis. Nature. 2018;563:131–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Burleigh K, Maltbaek JH, Cambier S, Green R, Gale M, Jr, James RC, et al. Human DNA-PK activates a STING-independent DNA sensing pathway. Sci Immunol. 2020;5:eaba4219.

  34. Ferguson BJ, Mansur DS, Peters NE, Ren H, Smith GL. DNA-PK is a DNA sensor for IRF-3-dependent innate immunity. Elife 2012;1:e00047.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kondo T, Kobayashi J, Saitoh T, Maruyama K, Ishii KJ, Barber GN, et al. DNA damage sensor MRE11 recognizes cytosolic double-stranded DNA and induces type I interferon by regulating STING trafficking. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:2969–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sui H, Zhou M, Imamichi H, Jiao X, Sherman BT, Lane HC, et al. STING is an essential mediator of the Ku70-mediated production of IFN-lambda1 in response to exogenous DNA. Sci Signal. 2017;10:eaah5054.

  37. Xia T, Konno H, Ahn J, Barber GN. Deregulation of STING signaling in colorectal carcinoma constrains DNA damage responses and correlates with tumorigenesis. Cell Rep. 2016;14:282–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Saitoh T, Fujita N, Hayashi T, Takahara K, Satoh T, Lee H, et al. Atg9a controls dsDNA-driven dynamic translocation of STING and the innate immune response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:20842–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Dobrzynska A, Gonzalo S, Shanahan C, Askjaer P. The nuclear lamina in health and disease. Nucleus 2016;7:233–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Britton S, Coates J, Jackson SP. A new method for high-resolution imaging of Ku foci to decipher mechanisms of DNA double-strand break repair. J Cell Biol. 2013;202:579–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sawasdichai A, Chen HT, Abdul Hamid N, Jayaraman PS, Gaston K In situ subcellular fractionation of adherent and non-adherent mammalian cells. J Vis Exp. 2010;41:1958.

  42. Malik P, Korfali N, Srsen V, Lazou V, Batrakou DG, Zuleger N, et al. Cell-specific and lamin-dependent targeting of novel transmembrane proteins in the nuclear envelope. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010;67:1353–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Shang G, Zhang C, Chen ZJ, Bai XC, Zhang X Cryo-EM structures of STING reveal its mechanism of activation by cyclic GMP-AMP. Nature. 2019;389–93.

  44. Gonugunta VK, Sakai T, Pokatayev V, Yang K, Wu J, Dobbs N, et al. Trafficking-mediated STING degradation requires sorting to acidified endolysosomes and can be targeted to enhance anti-tumor response. Cell Rep. 2017;21:3234–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Chen H, Sun H, You F, Sun W, Zhou X, Chen L, et al. Activation of STAT6 by STING is critical for antiviral innate immunity. Cell. 2011;147:436–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Smeenk G, Wiegant WW, Marteijn JA, Luijsterburg MS, Sroczynski N, Costelloe T, et al. Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation links the chromatin remodeler SMARCA5/SNF2H to RNF168-dependent DNA damage signaling. J Cell Sci. 2013;126:889–903. Pt 4

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lans H, Marteijn JA, Vermeulen W. ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling in the DNA-damage response. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2012;5:4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Oliveira DV, Kato A, Nakamura K, Ikura T, Okada M, Kobayashi J, et al. Histone chaperone FACT regulates homologous recombination by chromatin remodeling through interaction with RNF20. J Cell Sci. 2014;127:763–72. Pt 4

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Clarke TL, Sanchez-Bailon MP, Chiang K, Reynolds JJ, Herrero-Ruiz J, Bandeiras TM, et al. PRMT5-dependent methylation of the TIP60 coactivator RUVBL1 is a key regulator of homologous recombination. Mol Cell. 2017;65:900–16 e7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Potts PR, Porteus MH, Yu H. Human SMC5/6 complex promotes sister chromatid homologous recombination by recruiting the SMC1/3 cohesin complex to double-strand breaks. EMBO J. 2006;25:3377–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Shin YJ, Kim MS, Kim MS, Lee J, Kang M, Jeong JH. High-mobility group box 2 (HMGB2) modulates radioresponse and is downregulated by p53 in colorectal cancer cell. Cancer Biol Ther. 2013;14:213–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Blackford AN, Jackson SP. ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK: The Trinity at the Heart of the DNA Damage Response. Mol Cell. 2017;66:801–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ochi T, Blackford AN, Coates J, Jhujh S, Mehmood S, Tamura N, et al. DNA repair. PAXX, a paralog of XRCC4 and XLF, interacts with Ku to promote DNA double-strand break repair. Science. 2015;347:185–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Xia T, Konno H, Barber GN. Recurrent loss of STING signaling in melanoma correlates with susceptibility to viral oncolysis. Cancer Res. 2016;76:6747–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Konno H, Yamauchi S, Berglund A, Putney RM, Mule JJ, Barber GN. Suppression of STING signaling through epigenetic silencing and missense mutation impedes DNA damage mediated cytokine production. Oncogene. 2018;37:2037–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Liang D, Xiao-Feng H, Guan-Jun D, Er-Ling H, Sheng C, Ting-Ting W, et al. Activated STING enhances Tregs infiltration in the HPV-related carcinogenesis of tongue squamous cells via the c-jun/CCL22 signal. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015;1852:2494–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Baird JR, Friedman D, Cottam B, Dubensky TW Jr, Kanne DB, Bambina S, et al. Radiotherapy combined with novel STING-targeting oligonucleotides results in regression of established tumors. Cancer Res. 2016;76:50–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bu Y, Liu F, Jia QA, Yu SN. Decreased expression of TMEM173 predicts poor prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0165681.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Song S, Peng P, Tang Z, Zhao J, Wu W, Li H, et al. Decreased expression of STING predicts poor prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7:39858.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Bakhoum SF, Cantley LC. The multifaceted role of chromosomal instability in cancer and its microenvironment. Cell. 2018;174:1347–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Litvin O, Schwartz S, Wan Z, Schild T, Rocco M, Oh NL, et al. Interferon alpha/beta enhances the cytotoxic response of MEK inhibition in melanoma. Mol Cell. 2015;57:784–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Linsley PS, Speake C, Whalen E, Chaussabel D. Copy number loss of the interferon gene cluster in melanomas is linked to reduced T cell infiltrate and poor patient prognosis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e109760.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Chen Y, Wang L, Jin J, Luan Y, Chen C, Li Y, et al. p38 inhibition provides anti-DNA virus immunity by regulation of USP21 phosphorylation and STING activation. J Exp Med. 2017;214:991–1010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Jiang H, Xue X, Panda S, Kawale A, Hooy RM, Liang F, et al. Chromatin-bound cGAS is an inhibitor of DNA repair and hence accelerates genome destabilization and cell death. EMBO J. 2019;38:e102718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Chen H, Chen H, Zhang J, Wang Y, Simoneau A, Yang H, et al. cGAS suppresses genomic instability as a decelerator of replication forks. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eabb8941.

  66. Goodwin JF, Knudsen KE. Beyond DNA repair: DNA-PK function in cancer. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:1126–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Mohiuddin IS, Kang MH. DNA-PK as an emerging therapeutic target in cancer. Front Oncol. 2019;9:635.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Neal JA, Meek K. Choosing the right path: does DNA-PK help make the decision? Mutat Res. 2011;711:73–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Schirmer EC, Florens L, Guan T, Yates JR 3rd, Gerace L. Nuclear membrane proteins with potential disease links found by subtractive proteomics. Science. 2003;301:1380–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Malik P, Zuleger N, las Heras JI, Saiz-Ros N, Makarov AA, Lazou V, et al. NET23/STING promotes chromatin compaction from the nuclear envelope. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e111851.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Katta SS, Smoyer CJ, Jaspersen SL. Destination: inner nuclear membrane. Trends Cell Biol. 2014;24:221–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Sullivan T, Escalante-Alcalde D, Bhatt H, Anver M, Bhat N, Nagashima K, et al. Loss of A-type lamin expression compromises nuclear envelope integrity leading to muscular dystrophy. J Cell Biol. 1999;147:913–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Marnef A, Legube G. Organizing DNA repair in the nucleus: DSBs hit the road. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2017;46:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Oza P, Jaspersen SL, Miele A, Dekker J, Peterson CL. Mechanisms that regulate localization of a DNA double-strand break to the nuclear periphery. Genes Dev. 2009;23:912–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Ryu T, Spatola B, Delabaere L, Bowlin K, Hopp H, Kunitake R, et al. Heterochromatic breaks move to the nuclear periphery to continue recombinational repair. Nat Cell Biol. 2015;17:1401–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Lemaitre C, Grabarz A, Tsouroula K, Andronov L, Furst A, Pankotai T, et al. Nuclear position dictates DNA repair pathway choice. Genes Dev. 2014;28:2450–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Chung DK, Chan JN, Strecker J, Zhang W, Ebrahimi-Ardebili S, Lu T, et al. Perinuclear tethers license telomeric DSBs for a broad kinesin- and NPC-dependent DNA repair process. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7742.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Legrier ME, Bieche I, Gaston J, Beurdeley A, Yvonnet V, Deas O, et al. Activation of IFN/STAT1 signalling predicts response to chemotherapy in oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:177–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Marangoni E, Vincent-Salomon A, Auger N, Degeorges A, Assayag F, de Cremoux P, et al. A new model of patient tumor-derived breast cancer xenografts for preclinical assays. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3989–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Baghirova S, Hughes BG, Hendzel MJ, Schulz R. Sequential fractionation and isolation of subcellular proteins from tissue or cultured cells. MethodsX. 2015;2:440–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Bolte S, Cordelieres FP. A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. J Microsc. 2006;224:213–32. Pt 3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:676–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Schmidt U, Weigert M, Broaddus C, Myers G, editors. Cell Detection with Star-convex Polygons. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2018 (eds. Frangi, A. F. et al.), Springer International Publishing, 2018;11071:265–73.

  84. Guzman C, Bagga M, Kaur A, Westermarck J, Abankwa D. ColonyArea: an ImageJ plugin to automatically quantify colony formation in clonogenic assays. PLoS One. 2014;9:e92444.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Nagy A, Lanczky A, Menyhart O, Gyorffy B. Validation of miRNA prognostic power in hepatocellular carcinoma using expression data of independent datasets. Sci Rep. 2018;8:9227.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by XenTech, annual funding from Inserm and the University Paris Descartes, and ECLER non-profit association. JG and LC were recipient of a CIFRE fellowship from the Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie (ANRT). MM is supported by the Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer. We are grateful to Patrice Codogno, Etienne Morel, Ganna Panasyuk, Thierry Dubois and Frédéric Rieux-Laucat for helpful discussions, to Dr Orgunc and Pr S. Fillatreau for providing biological materials, and to Katheryn Meek for critical reading of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Julie Gaston

    Present address: Yubsis, 4 rue Pierre Fontaine, 91000, EVRY, France

  2. These authors contributed equally: Stefano Cairo, Vincent Goffin.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INSERM U1151, CNRS UMR8253, Institut Necker Enfants Malades (INEM), Université de Paris, F-75015, Paris, France

    Laura Cheradame, Julie Gaston, Marion Pouillard & Vincent Goffin

  2. XenTech, 91000, Evry, France

    Laura Cheradame, Julie Gaston, Jean-Gabriel Judde & Stefano Cairo

  3. Proteomics platform Necker, Université de Paris - Structure Fédérative de Recherche Necker, INSERM US24/CNRS UMS3633, F-75015, Paris, France

    Ida Chiara Guerrera & Vincent Jung

  4. Université de Paris, Institut Cochin, INSERM, CNRS, F-75014, PARIS, France

    Alain Schmitt

  5. Inserm US24 – CNRS UMS 3633, Necker Bio-Image Analysis, F-75015, Paris, France

    Nicolas Goudin

  6. U1240 INSERM/University Clermont Auvergne, Centre Jean Perrin, Department of Pathology, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Nina Radosevic-Robin

  7. Cancer Research Center of Marseille, CNRS UMR7258, Inserm U1068, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, 13009, France

    Mauro Modesti

Authors
  1. Laura Cheradame
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ida Chiara Guerrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie Gaston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alain Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vincent Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicolas Goudin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marion Pouillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nina Radosevic-Robin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mauro Modesti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jean-Gabriel Judde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stefano Cairo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Vincent Goffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: LC, JG, SC, VG. Development of methodology: LC, ICG, NG, AS, SC, VG. Acquisition of data: LC, ICG, AS, VJ, MP. Analysis and interpretation of data: LC, ICG, NG, AS, NR-R, MM, SC, VG. Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: LC, ICG, AS, MM, J-GJ, SC, VG. Administrative, technical, or material support: LC, ICG, AS, VJ, NR-R, J-GJ, SC, VG. Study supervision: SC, VG.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Goffin.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheradame, L., Guerrera, I.C., Gaston, J. et al. STING protects breast cancer cells from intrinsic and genotoxic-induced DNA instability via a non-canonical, cell-autonomous pathway. Oncogene 40, 6627–6640 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-021-02037-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-021-02037-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links