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.

LRRC31 inhibits DNA repair and sensitizes breast cancer brain metastasis to radiation therapy

Nature Cell Biology volume 22, pages 1276–1285 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) is a devastating disease. Radiation therapy remains the mainstay for treatment of this disease. Unfortunately, its efficacy is limited by the dose that can be safely applied. One promising approach to overcoming this limitation is to sensitize BCBMs to radiation by inhibiting their ability to repair DNA damage. Here, we report a DNA repair suppressor, leucine-rich repeat-containing protein 31 (LRRC31), that was identified through a genome-wide CRISPR screen. We found that overexpression of LRRC31 suppresses DNA repair and sensitizes BCBMs to radiation. Mechanistically, LRRC31 interacts with Ku70/Ku80 and the ataxia telangiectasia mutated and RAD3-related (ATR) at the protein level, resulting in inhibition of DNA-dependent protein kinase, catalytic subunit (DNA–PKcs) recruitment and activation, and disruption of the MutS homologue 2 (MSH2)–ATR module. We demonstrate that targeted delivery of the LRRC31 gene via nanoparticles improves the survival of tumour-bearing mice after irradiation. Collectively, our study suggests LRRC31 as a major DNA repair suppressor that can be targeted for cancer radiosensitizing therapy.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Fig. 1: A genome-wide CRISPR screen identified LRRC31 as a radiosensitizing gene.
Fig. 2: LRRC31 impairs DNA DSB repair.
Fig. 3: LRRC31 inhibits DNA–PKcs recruitment/activation and disrupts the MSH2–ATR signalling module.
Fig. 4: Characterization of LRRC31 function motifs.
Fig. 5: Validation in additional cells.
Fig. 6: Delivery of the LRRC31 gene sensitizes BCBMs to radiation therapy.

Data availability

The cDNA array data that support the findings of this study have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus under accession code GSE117453. The data for human rectum adenocarcinoma and breast invasive carcinoma were derived from the TCGA Research Network (http://cancergenome.nih.gov). The dataset derived from this resource that supports the findings of this study is available in Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7. All other data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Barnholtz-Sloan, J. S. et al. Incidence proportions of brain metastases in patients diagnosed (1973 to 2001) in the metropolitan Detroit cancer surveillance system. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 2865–2872 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Davies, M. A. Targeted therapy for brain metastases. Adv. Pharmacol. 65, 109–142 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lu, J. et al. Breast cancer metastasis: challenges and opportunities. Cancer Res. 69, 4951–4953 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhou, J. et al. Activation of the PTEN/mTOR/STAT3 pathway in breast cancer stem-like cells is required for viability and maintenance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 16158–16163 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Arslan, C., Dizdar, O. & Altundag, K. Systemic treatment in breast-cancer patients with brain metastasis. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 11, 1089–1100 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Steeg, P. S., Camphausen, K. A. & Smith, Q. R. Brain metastases as preventive and therapeutic targets. Nat. Rev. Cancer 11, 352–363 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuhnol, J., Kuhnol, C. & Vordermark, D. Radiotherapy of brain metastases from breast cancer: treatment results and prognostic factors. Oncol. Lett. 11, 3223–3227 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Shaw, E. et al. Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 47, 291–298 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morgan, M. A. & Lawrence, T. S. Molecular pathways: overcoming radiation resistance by targeting DNA damage response pathways. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 2898–2904 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Santivasi, W. L. & Xia, F. Ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage, response and repair. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 21, 251–259 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Palmieri, D. et al. Her-2 overexpression increases the metastatic outgrowth of breast cancer cells in the brain. Cancer Res. 67, 4190–4198 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yoneda, T., Williams, P. J., Hiraga, T., Niewolna, M. & Nishimura, R. A bone-seeking clone exhibits different biological properties from the MDA-MB-231 parental human breast cancer cells and a brain-seeking clone in vivo and in vitro. J. Bone Miner. Res. 16, 1486–1495 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanjana, N. E., Shalem, O. & Zhang, F. Improved vectors and genome-wide libraries for CRISPR screening. Nat. Methods 11, 783–784 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Olive, P. L. & Banath, J. P. The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat. Protoc. 1, 23–29 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ayoub, N., Jeyasekharan, A. D., Bernal, J. A. & Venkitaraman, A. R. HP1-β mobilization promotes chromatin changes that initiate the DNA damage response. Nature 453, 682–686 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Riballo, E. et al. A pathway of double-strand break rejoining dependent upon ATM, artemis and proteins locating to γ-H2AX foci. Mol. Cell 16, 715–724 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goodarzi, A. A. et al. DNA–PK autophosphorylation facilitates Artemis endonuclease activity. EMBO J. 25, 3880–3889 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bennardo, N., Cheng, A., Huang, N. & Stark, J. M. Alternative-NHEJ is a mechanistically distinct pathway of mammalian chromosome break repair. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000110 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Nakanishi, K., Cavallo, F., Brunet, E. & Jasin, M. Homologous recombination assay for interstrand cross-link repair. Methods Mol. Biol. 745, 283–291 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang, Y. & Qin, J. MSH2 and ATR form a signaling module and regulate two branches of the damage response to DNA methylation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 15387–15392 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kamdar, R. P. & Matsumoto, Y. Radiation-induced XRCC4 association with chromatin DNA analyzed by biochemical fractionation. J. Radiat. Res. 51, 303–313 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Drouet, J. et al. DNA-dependent protein kinase and XRCC4-DNA ligase IV mobilization in the cell in response to DNA double strand breaks. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 7060–7069 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kobe, B. & Deisenhofer, J. The leucine-rich repeat: a versatile binding motif. Trends Biochem. Sci. 19, 415–421 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Enkhbayar, P., Kamiya, M., Osaki, M., Matsumoto, T. & Matsushima, N. Structural principles of leucine-rich repeat (LRR) proteins. Proteins 54, 394–403 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kobe, B. & Kajava, A. V. The leucine-rich repeat as a protein recognition motif. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 11, 725–732 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gay, N. J., Packman, L. C., Weldon, M. A. & Barna, J. C. J. A leucine-rich repeat peptide derived from the Drosophila Toll receptor forms extended filaments with a β-sheet structure. FEBS Lett. 291, 87–91 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. D’Mello, R. J. et al. LRRC31 is induced by IL-13 and regulates kallikrein expression and barrier function in the esophageal epithelium. Mucosal Immunol. 9, 744–756 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tang, Z. et al. GEPIA: a web server for cancer and normal gene expression profiling and interactive analyses. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, W98–W102 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Anaya, J. OncoLnc: linking TCGA survival data to mRNAs, miRNAs and lncRNAs. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2, e67 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Han, L. et al. Increased nanoparticle delivery to brain tumors by autocatalytic priming for improved treatment and imaging. ACS Nano 10, 4209–4218 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen, Z. et al. Targeted delivery of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated cancer gene therapy via liposome-templated hydrogel nanoparticles. Adv. Funct. Mater. 27, 1703036 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhou, J. et al. Biodegradable poly(amine-co-ester) terpolymers for targeted gene delivery. Nat. Mater. 11, 82–90 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Veiseh, O. et al. Specific targeting of brain tumors with an optical/magnetic resonance imaging nanoprobe across the blood–brain barrier. Cancer Res. 69, 6200–6207 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Carman, A. J., Mills, J. H., Krenz, A., Kim, D. G. & Bynoe, M. S. Adenosine receptor signaling modulates permeability of the blood–brain barrier. J. Neurosci. 31, 13272–13280 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Han, L. et al. Targeted drug delivery to ischemic stroke via chlorotoxin-anchored, lexiscan-loaded nanoparticles. Nanomedicine 12, 1833–1842 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Haber, A. H. & Rothstein, B. E. Radiosensitivity and rate of cell division: ‘law of Bergonie and Tribondeau’. Science 163, 1338–1339 (1969).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sorensen, C. S. et al. The cell-cycle checkpoint kinase Chk1 is required for mammalian homologous recombination repair. Nat. Cell Biol. 7, 195–201 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bernhard, E. J. et al. Inhibiting Ras prenylation increases the radiosensitivity of human tumor cell lines with activating mutations of ras oncogenes. Cancer Res. 58, 1754–1761 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yang, H. et al. Radiosensitization of brain metastasis by targeting c-MET. Lab. Invest. 93, 344–353 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen, Y. et al. EMMPRIN regulates tumor growth and metastasis by recruiting bone marrow-derived cells through paracrine signaling of SDF-1 and VEGF. Oncotarget 6, 32575–32585 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Franken, N. A., Rodermond, H. M., Stap, J., Haveman, J. & van Bree, C. Clonogenic assay of cells in vitro. Nat. Protoc. 1, 2315–2319 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Ma, T. Qin and R. Zhang for assistance with surgical operations and The Youth Innovation Team of Shaanxi Universities for help. This work was supported by NIH grant NS095817 (J.Z.), the State of Connecticut (J.Z.), Projects of International Cooperation and Exchanges Natural Science Foundation of ShaanXi Province of China (Y.C., 2017KW-059) and the Scientific Research and Sharing Platform Construction Project of Shaanxi Province (Y.C., 2018PT-09).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Yanke Chen, Ting Jiang, Hongyi Zhang, Xingchun Gou.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Yanke Chen, Ting Jiang, Cong Han, Xintao Jing, Zhenzhen Wang & Chen Huang

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Yanke Chen, Hongyi Zhang, Xingchun Gou, Jun Liu, Zeming Chen, Youmei Bao, Mehdi Baqri & Jiangbing Zhou

  3. Key Laboratory of Environment and Genes Related to Diseases, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Ting Jiang, Cong Han, Xintao Jing, Zhenzhen Wang & Chen Huang

  4. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

    Hongyi Zhang

  5. Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Brain Disorders & Institute of Basic and Translational Medicine, Xi’an Medical University, Xi’an, China

    Xingchun Gou & Hong Lei

  6. Department of Pathology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Jianhui Wang

  7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Ann T. Chen & Jiangbing Zhou

  8. Department of Radiology in the First Affiliated Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Jun Ma

  9. School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Yong Zhu

  10. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Ranjit S. Bindra & James E. Hansen

  11. Department of Pathogenic Biology and Immunology, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China

    Jun Dou

Authors
  1. Yanke Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongyi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xingchun Gou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cong Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jianhui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ann T. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zeming Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Xintao Jing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Hong Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Zhenzhen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Youmei Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Mehdi Baqri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Yong Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Ranjit S. Bindra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. James E. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Jun Dou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Chen Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Jiangbing Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.Z. and Y.C. conceived the project. J.Z., Y.C. and H.Z. designed the experiments with the help of C. Huang, J.D., J.E.H., R.S.B., Y.C. and Y.Z. T.J., H.Z., X.G., C. Han, J.W., A.T.C., J.M., J.L., Z.C., X.J., H.L., Z.W. and Y.B. performed the experiments. Y.C. and J.Z. wrote the manuscript, with assistance from A.T.C. and M.B. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Chen Huang or Jiangbing Zhou.

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.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Characterize of lead candidate genes in vitro and in vivo.

a, Schematic of the CRISPR screen. b, Characterization of the proliferation of control or LRRC31-knockout 231BR cells with and without irradiation (6 Gy). c, Schematic diagram of characterization of LRRC31 in mice bearing intracranial 231BR tumors. Cells were engineered to express both luciferase and GFP. d, Changes of tumor volume versus time in mice received subcutaneous inoculation of control or LRRC31-knockout 231BR cells and treated with irradiation (10 Gy). e, f, qRT-PCR analysis of the expression of miR4796 and miR1287 in 231BR cells transduced with lentiviral vectors for expression of the candidate miRNAs or control vector. g, h, WB analysis of the expression of KATNA1 and MYBL2 in 231BR cells transduced with control vector or vectors for overexpression of the indicated gene. Blot is representative of two biologically independent experiments, with similar results obtained. Unprocessed immunoblots are shown in Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1. i-l, Clonogenic analysis of 231BR cells engineered for overexpression of miR4796 (i), miR1287 (j), KATNA1 (g) and MYBL2 (h) 7 days after irradiation. m, Characterization of the proliferation of control or LRRC31-overexpressed 231BR cells with and without irradiation (6 Gy). n, Changes of tumor volume versus time in mice received subcutaneous inoculation of control or LRRC31-overexpressed 231BR cells and treated with irradiation (10 Gy). For b, e, f, i-l, and m, data show the mean ± s.d. (n = 3 biologically independent experiments). For d and n, data show the mean ± s.d. (n = 3 animals). Statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t-test.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Characterize of LRRC31 for its effects on tumor development in vivo, and on cell cycle, proliferation, and apoptosis in vitro.

Characterize of LRRC31 for its effects on tumor development in vivo, and on cell cycle, proliferation, and apoptosis in vitro. a, b, Representative images of tumors in the brain imaged by IVIS (a) and semi-quantification of the bioluminescence signal (b) in mice received intracranial inoculation of the indicated engineered cells with and without irradiation treatment (5 Gy×2). Data show the mean ± s.d. (n = 5 animals). c, Ex vivo imaging the brains isolated from mice received the indicated treatment. d-g, Characterization of the effects of LRRC31 overexpression on cell cycle determined by flow cytometry (d), proliferation determined based on BrdU staining (e), apoptosis determined based Annexin V staining (f), and Caspase-3 cleavage determined based on WB analysis (g) in the indicated cells with and without irradiation at 6 Gy. For d-f, data show the mean ± s.d. (n = 3 biologically independent experiments). Statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t-test. Blot is representative of two biologically independent experiments with similar results obtained. Unprocessed immunoblots are shown in Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 Representative diagrams of flow cytometry analysis of the effects of LRRC31 overexpression on the NHEJ and HR pathways.

Representative diagrams of flow cytometry analysis of the effects of LRRC31 overexpression on the NHEJ and HR pathways. HEK293 cells were co-transfected with LRRC31- pcDNA3.1 plasmid or control vector and pEJ5-GFP or DR-GFP. After 24 hours, the cells were treated with or without irradiation at 4 Gy. After additional 24 hours, the expression of GFP in cells were quantified by flow cytometry. Example gating strategies were included. Three biologically independent experiments were performed. Data are presented in Fig. 2f,g in Main text.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Characterization of the interaction of LRRC31 with Ku70, Ku80 and MSH2 (a) and with DNA-PKcs and ATR (b).

HEK293 cells were co-transfected with Myc-tagged LRRC31 and Flag-tagged Ku70, Ku80, MSH2, DNA–PKcs, or ATR. Cell lysates were prepared and immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag or anti-Myc antibody. The precipitated proteins were then separated using 10% (a) and 6% gel (b) SDS-PAGE, and probed with anti-Myc or anti-Flag antibody. WCE, whole cell extract. Two biologically independent experiments were performed with similar results obtained. Unprocessed immunoblots are shown in Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Characterization of the intracellular localization of LRRC31 with Ku70 and ATR as well as the effects of LRRC31 on DNA–PKcs recruitment.

a, b, Confocal analysis of the intracellular localization of LRRC31 and Ku70 in 231BR cells without (a) and with (b) overexpression of LRRC31. Irradiation was performed at 4 Gy. Scale bar: 10 µm. c, d, IP-WB analysis (c) and semi-quantification (d) of the effect of LRRC31 downregulation or overexpression on DNA–PKcs recruitment in 231BR cells. e, f, Confocal analysis of the intracellular localization of LRRC31 and ATR in 231BR cells without (e) and with (f) overexpression of LRRC31. Irradiation was performed at 4 Gy. Scale bar: 10 µm. g, h, IP-WB analysis (g) and semi-quantification (h) of the effect of LRRC31 downregulation or overexpression on DNA–PKcs recruitment in MCF7 cells. For all the studies, three biologically independent experiments were performed with similar results obtained. Data in c and f show the mean ± s.d. (n = 3 biologically independent experiments). Unprocessed immunoblots are shown in Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Procedures for analysis of chromatin recruitment of DNA–PKcs by biochemical fractionation and Immunoblotting.

Detailed description of the procedures is provided in Methods.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Characterization of LRRC31 as a therapeutic target.

Characterization of LRRC31 as a therapeutic target. a, Analysis of the expression of LRRC31 in the indicated tumors in the TCGA database using Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA). BRCA: breast invasive carcinoma; COAD: colon adenocarcinoma; LIHC: liver hepatocellular carcinoma; LUAD: lung adenocarcinoma; PAAD: pancreatic adenocarcinoma; PRAD: prostate adenocarcinoma; READ: rectum adenocarcinoma. b, Analysis of the correlation of patient survival with LRRC31 expression in BRCA patients using OncoLnc. Analysis was performed by comparing those patients with the expression level of LRRC31 among top 80th percentile (high, n = 805 biologically independent samples) with the rest (low, n = 200 biologically independent samples). c, Analysis of the correlation of patient survival with LRRC31 expression in READ patients. Analysis was performed by comparing those patients with the expression level of LRRC31 among top 80th percentile (high, n = 127 biologically independent samples) with the rest (low, n = 31 biologically independent samples). Statistical analyses for b and c were performed using the Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. d, Schematic diagram of characterization of LRRC31 NP-mediated gene therapy in mice bearing intracranial 231BR tumors. Cells were engineered to express both luciferase and GFP. e, f, Representative images of tumors in the brain imaged by IVIS (e) and semi-quantification of the bioluminescence signal (f) in tumor-bearing mice received intravenous administration of the indicated NPs following with and without irradiation treatment (5 Gy×2). Data in f show the mean ± s.d. (n = 5 animals). Statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t-test. g, Ex vivo imaging the brains isolated from the mice received the indicated treatment. h-j, Representative images of H&E (h), Caspase-3(i), and Ki67 (j), staining of tumors isolated from mice received the indicated treatment. Scale bar: 100 µm. Three biologically independent experiments were performed with similar results obtained.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Validation of the biological effects of LRRC31 in 231BR cells transduced with doxycycline (DOX)-inducible lentiviral vector.

a, WB analysis of the expression of LRRC31 expression in 231BR cells that were transduced with control vector or DOX-inducible LRRC31 overexpression vector and treated with and without DOX (100 ng/ml). Blot is representative of two biologically independent experiments with similar results obtained. Unprocessed immunoblots are shown in Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8. b-d, DOX-induced overexpression of LRRC31 sensitized cells to irradiation (b), and inhibited cell proliferation (c) and DNA–PK activity (d). Data show the mean ± s.d. (n = 3 biologically independent experiments). Statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t-test.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 9 Unrooted phylogenetic tree based on LRRC31 mRNA sequences constructed by the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) method with 1000 bootstrap replicates in MEGA7.

The analysis was performed according to a previously reported method (Kumar S, Stecher G, and Tamura K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets (2016) Molecular Biology and Evolution 33:1870-1874). Branch lengths are proportional to percentage sequence difference. Scale bar: 10% difference.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Validation of the selected LRRC31 antibody in 231BR cells with up- or down- regulation of LRRC31.

Representative fluorescence images of LRRC31 immunostaining in wild type (WT) 231BR cells, and 231BR cells with overexpression or knockout of LRRC31. Scale bar: 25 µm. Two biologically independent experiments were performed with similar results obtained.

Supplementary information

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Table 1. List of genes identified from sgRNA sequencing; Supplementary Table 2. List of genes that are up- or downregulated by >1.5 fold identified by cDNA array. Supplementary Table 3. List of protein candidates identified by mass spectroscopy (MS). Supplementary Table 4. List of antibodies and plasmids used in this study. Supplementary Table 5. Sequences of siRNAs, sgRNAs and primers used in this study.

Source data

Statistical Source Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Fig. 1

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Fig. 2

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical Source Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Fig. 3

Unprocessed western blots and gels.

Statistical Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Fig. 4

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical Source Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Fig. 5

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical Source Data Fig. 6

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Fig. 6

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Extended Data Fig. 1

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Extended Data Fig. 2

Unprocessed western blots.

Unprocessed Blots Extended Data Fig. 4

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Extended Data Fig. 5

Unprocessed western blots.

Statistical source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

Statistical source data.

Statistical source Data Extended Data Fig. 8

Statistical source data.

Unprocessed Blots Extended Data Fig. 8

Unprocessed western blots.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Y., Jiang, T., Zhang, H. et al. LRRC31 inhibits DNA repair and sensitizes breast cancer brain metastasis to radiation therapy. Nat Cell Biol 22, 1276–1285 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-020-00586-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-020-00586-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer