No abstract

No abstract

Chk1 kinase is a critical component of the DNA damage response checkpoint and Chk1 inhibitors are currently under clinical investigation. Chk1 suppresses oncogene-induced replication stress with Chk1 inhibitors demonstrating activity as a monotherapy in numerous cancer types. Understanding the mechanism by which Chk1 inhibitors induce DNA damage and cancer cell death is essential for their future clinical development. Here we characterize the mechanism by which the novel Chk1 inhibitor (V158411) increased DNA damage and cell death in models of human cancer. V158411 induced a time- and concentration-dependent increase in γH2AX-positive nuclei that was restricted to cells actively undergoing DNA synthesis. γH2AX induction was an early event and correlated with activation of the ATR/ATM/DNA-PKcs DNA damage response pathways. The appearance of γH2AX positive nuclei preceded ssDNA appearance and RPA exhaustion. Complete and sustained inhibition of Chk1 kinase was necessary to activate a robust γH2AX induction and growth inhibition. Chk1 inhibitor cytotoxicity correlated with induction of DNA damage with cells undergoing apoptosis, mitotic slippage and DNA damage-induced permanent cell cycle arrest. We identified two distinct classes of Chk1 inhibitors: those that induced a strong increase in γH2AX, pChk1 (S317) and pRPA32 (S4/S8) (including V158411, LY2603618 and ARRY-1A) and those that did not (including MK-8776 and GNE-900). Tumor cell death, induced through increased DNA damage, coupled with abrogation of cell cycle checkpoints makes selective inhibitors of Chk1 a potentially useful therapeutic treatment for multiple human cancers.

Activating stimulator of interferon genes to turn immunologically refractive cold tumor hot is an exciting therapeutic approach to increase the clinical responsiveness of some human cancers to immune checkpoint inhibitors. DNA damaging drugs and PARP inhibitors are two types of agents that have demonstrated this potential. Inhibitors of Chk1 or Wee1 induce DNA damage in cancer cells in predominantly the S‐phase population. Increased cytoplasmic single‐stranded and double‐stranded DNA (dsDNA) from this DNA damage resulted in increased tank‐binding kinase 1 (TBK1) phosphorylation in a range of cancer cell lines. However, despite robust increases in pTBK1, no downstream consequences of TBK1 phosphorylation were observed (namely no increase in pIRF3/7, interferon regulatory factor (IRF)‐dependent gene expression or a type I IFN response). In combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy such as gemcitabine or camptothecin (CPT), Chk1 inhibition increased cytoplasmic dsDNA compared with the cytotoxic alone but attenuated the cytotoxic chemotherapy‐induced increase in IRF1 protein and STAT1 phosphorylation through inhibition of nuclear RelB translocation. Despite increased cytoplasmic DNA and TBK1 activation, inhibition of Chk1, ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3‐related protein, or Wee1 failed to activate a type I IFN response. We discuss the potential underlying mechanisms for this lack of IRF‐dependent gene response and how this might influence the clinical strategies of combining Chk1 or Wee1 inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Transient treatment with small molecule CDK inhibitors is toxic to cancer cells and leads to depletion of anti-apoptotic proteins andChk1, coupled with DNA damage and induction of apoptosis. Here we have examined, which of these phenomena are necessary for CDK inhibitors to have an anti-proliferative effect. We find that 24 hours treatment with either a primarily CDK2-specific, or a primarily CDK7/9-specific, antagonist eliminates proliferative potential even if apoptosis is blocked and the tendency of CDK inhibition to result in DNA damage is overcome by expression of recombinant Chk1. Loss of proliferative potential is correlated with irreversible suppression of biomarkers of cell cycle progression. CDK inhibitors dramatically reduced levels of the anti-apoptotic proteins, Mcl-1 and XIAP, but siRNA-mediated suppression of Mcl-1 and XIAP did not induce cell death in the osteosarcoma cells used in this study. Finally, we found that many literature CDK inhibitors do not effectively suppress the CDK/cyclin complexes responsible for cell cycle progression at the minimum doses required to block proliferation: some are only effective after a substantial delay and may act via inhibition of CDK7.