Genomic instability is a common feature of cancer etiology. This provides an avenue for therapeutic intervention, since cancer cells are more susceptible than normal cells to DNA damaging agents. However, there is growing evidence that the epigenetic mechanisms that impact DNA methylation and histone status also contribute to genomic instability. The DNA damage response, for example, is modulated by the acetylation status of histone and non-histone proteins, and by the opposing activities of histone acetyltransferase and histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes. Many HDACs overexpressed in cancer cells have been implicated in protecting such cells from genotoxic insults. Thus, HDAC inhibitors, in addition to unsilencing tumor suppressor genes, also can silence DNA repair pathways, inactivate non-histone proteins that are required for DNA stability, and induce reactive oxygen species and DNA double-strand breaks. This review summarizes how dietary phytochemicals that affect the epigenome also can trigger DNA damage and repair mechanisms. Where such data is available, examples are cited from studies in vitro and in vivo of polyphenols, organosulfur/organoselenium compounds, indoles, sesquiterpene lactones, and miscellaneous agents such as anacardic acid. Finally, by virtue of their genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, cancer chemopreventive agents are being redefined as chemo- or radio-sensitizers. A sustained DNA damage response coupled with insufficient repair may be a pivotal mechanism for apoptosis induction in cancer cells exposed to dietary phytochemicals. Future research, including appropriate clinical investigation, should clarify these emerging concepts in the context of both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms dysregulated in cancer, and the pros and cons of specific dietary intervention strategies.

Histone deacetylases (HDACs) and acetyltransferases have important roles in the regulation of protein acetylation, chromatin dynamics and the DNA damage response. Here, we show in human colon cancer cells that dietary isothiocyanates (ITCs) inhibit HDAC activity and increase HDAC protein turnover with the potency proportional to alkyl chain length, i.e., AITC < sulforaphane (SFN) < 6-SFN < 9-SFN. Molecular docking studies provided insights into the interactions of ITC metabolites with HDAC3, implicating the allosteric site between HDAC3 and its co-repressor. ITCs induced DNA double-strand breaks and enhanced the phosphorylation of histone H2AX, ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) and checkpoint kinase-2 (CHK2). Depending on the ITC and treatment conditions, phenotypic outcomes included cell growth arrest, autophagy and apoptosis. Coincident with the loss of HDAC3 and HDAC6, as well as SIRT6, ITCs enhanced the acetylation and subsequent degradation of critical repair proteins, such as CtIP, and this was recapitulated in HDAC knockdown experiments. Importantly, colon cancer cells were far more susceptible than non-cancer cells to ITC-induced DNA damage, which persisted in the former case but was scarcely detectable in non-cancer colonic epithelial cells under the same conditions. Future studies will address the mechanistic basis for dietary ITCs preferentially exploiting HDAC turnover mechanisms and faulty DNA repair pathways in colon cancer cells vs. normal cells.

BackgroundHistone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors are currently undergoing clinical evaluation as anti-cancer agents. Dietary constituents share certain properties of HDAC inhibitor drugs, including the ability to induce global histone acetylation, turn-on epigenetically-silenced genes, and trigger cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, or differentiation in cancer cells. One such example is sulforaphane (SFN), an isothiocyanate derived from the glucosinolate precursor glucoraphanin, which is abundant in broccoli. Here, we examined the time-course and reversibility of SFN-induced HDAC changes in human colon cancer cells.ResultsCells underwent progressive G2/M arrest over the period 6-72 h after SFN treatment, during which time HDAC activity increased in the vehicle-treated controls but not in SFN-treated cells. There was a time-dependent loss of class I and selected class II HDAC proteins, with HDAC3 depletion detected ahead of other HDACs. Mechanism studies revealed no apparent effect of calpain, proteasome, protease or caspase inhibitors, but HDAC3 was rescued by cycloheximide or actinomycin D treatment. Among the protein partners implicated in the HDAC3 turnover mechanism, silencing mediator for retinoid and thyroid hormone receptors (SMRT) was phosphorylated in the nucleus within 6 h of SFN treatment, as was HDAC3 itself. Co-immunoprecipitation assays revealed SFN-induced dissociation of HDAC3/SMRT complexes coinciding with increased binding of HDAC3 to 14-3-3 and peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerase 1 (Pin1). Pin1 knockdown blocked the SFN-induced loss of HDAC3. Finally, SFN treatment for 6 or 24 h followed by SFN removal from the culture media led to complete recovery of HDAC activity and HDAC protein expression, during which time cells were released from G2/M arrest.ConclusionThe current investigation supports a model in which protein kinase CK2 phosphorylates SMRT and HDAC3 in the nucleus, resulting in dissociation of the corepressor complex and enhanced binding of HDAC3 to 14-3-3 or Pin1. In the cytoplasm, release of HDAC3 from 14-3-3 followed by nuclear import is postulated to compete with a Pin1 pathway that directs HDAC3 for degradation. The latter pathway predominates in colon cancer cells exposed continuously to SFN, whereas the former pathway is likely to be favored when SFN has been removed within 24 h, allowing recovery from cell cycle arrest.

There continues to be interest in targeting epigenetic "readers, writers, and erasers" for the treatment of cancer and other pathologies. However, a mechanistic understanding is frequently lacking for the synergy observed when combining deacetylase and bromodomain inhibitors. Here we identify cell cycle and apoptosis regulator 2 (CCAR2) as an early target for acetylation in colon cancer cells treated with sulforaphane. N-terminal acetylation of CCAR2 diminished its interactions with histone deacetylase 3 and b-catenin, interfering with Wnt coactivator functions of CCAR2, including in cells harboring genetically encoded CCAR2 acetylation. Protein domain arrays and pull-down assays identified acetyl "reader" proteins that recognized CCAR2 acetylation sites, including BRD9 and members of the bromodomain and extraterminal domain (BET) family. Treatment with the BET inhibitor JQ1 synergized with sulforaphane in colon cancer cells and suppressed tumor development effectively in a preclinical model of colorectal cancer. Studies with sulforaphaneþJQ1 in combination implicated a BET/BRD9 acetyl switch and a shift in the pool of acetyl "reader" proteins in favor of BRD9-regulated target genes. Significance: These results highlight the competition that exists among the "readers" of acetylated histone and nonhistone proteins and provide a mechanistic basis for potential new therapeutic avenues involving epigenetic combination treatments.

There is growing interest in the epigenetic mechanisms that are dysregulated in cancer and other human pathologies. Under this broad umbrella, modulators of histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity have gained interest as both cancer chemopreventive and therapeutic agents. Of the first generation, FDA-approved HDAC inhibitors to have progressed to clinical trials, vorinostat represents a “direct acting” compound with structural features suitable for docking into the HDAC pocket, whereas romidepsin can be considered a prodrug that undergoes reductive metabolism to generate the active intermediate (a zinc-binding thiol). It is now evident that other agents, including those in the human diet, can be converted by metabolism to intermediates that affect HDAC activity. Examples are cited of short-chain fatty acids, seleno-α-keto acids, small molecule thiols, mercapturic acid metabolites, indoles, and polyphenols. The findings are discussed in the context of putative endogenous HDAC inhibitors generated by intermediary metabolism (e.g. pyruvate), the yin–yang of HDAC inhibition versus HDAC activation, and the screening assays that might be most appropriate for discovery of novel HDAC inhibitors in the future.