Small-molecule inhibitors identify the RAD52-ssDNA interaction as critical for recovery from replication stress and for survival of BRCA2 deficient cells

Abstract

The DNA repair protein RAD52 is an emerging therapeutic target of high importance for BRCA-deficient tumors. Depletion of RAD52 is synthetically lethal with defects in tumor suppressors BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2. RAD52 also participates in recovery of the stalled replication forks. Anticipating that ssDNA binding activity underlies the RAD52 cellular functions, we carried out a high throughput screening campaign to identify compounds that disrupt the RAD52-ssDNA interaction. Lead compounds were confirmed as RAD52 inhibitors in biochemical assays. Computational analysis predicted that these inhibitors bind within the ssDNA-binding groove of the RAD52 oligomeric ring. The nature of the inhibtor-RAD52 complex was validated through an in silico screening campaign, culminating in the discovery of an additional RAD52 inhibitor. Cellular studies with our inhibitors showed that the RAD52-ssDNA interaction enables its function at stalled replication forks, and that the inhibition of RAD52-ssDNA binding acts additively with BRCA2 or MUS81 depletion in cell killing.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sarah R Hengel

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Eva Malacaria

    Department of Environment and Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Laura Folly da Silva Constantino

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fletcher E Bain

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Andrea Diaz

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Brandon G Koch

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Liping Yu

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Meng Wu

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Pietro Pichierri

    Department of Environment and Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Michael Ashley Spies

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    For correspondence
    m-ashley-spies@uiowa.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Maria Spies

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    For correspondence
    maria.g.spies@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7375-8037

Funding

American Cancer Society (RSG-09-182-01-DMC)

  • Maria Spies

National Institutes of Health (NIH R01-GM097373)

  • Michael Ashley Spies

National Institutes of Health (1S10RR029274-01)

  • Meng Wu

Itallian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC, IG13398)

  • Pietro Pichierri

Nando-Peretti Foundation (2012-113)

  • Pietro Pichierri

CAPES

  • Laura Folly da Silva Constantino

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Taekjip Ha, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 1, 2016
  2. Accepted: July 18, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 19, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 12, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Hengel et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,048
    views
  • 1,000
    downloads
  • 62
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sarah R Hengel
  2. Eva Malacaria
  3. Laura Folly da Silva Constantino
  4. Fletcher E Bain
  5. Andrea Diaz
  6. Brandon G Koch
  7. Liping Yu
  8. Meng Wu
  9. Pietro Pichierri
  10. Michael Ashley Spies
  11. Maria Spies
(2016)
Small-molecule inhibitors identify the RAD52-ssDNA interaction as critical for recovery from replication stress and for survival of BRCA2 deficient cells
eLife 5:e14740.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14740

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14740

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Natalia Dolgova, Eva-Maria E Uhlemann ... Oleg Y Dmitriev
    Research Article Updated

    Mediator of ERBB2-driven cell motility 1 (MEMO1) is an evolutionary conserved protein implicated in many biological processes; however, its primary molecular function remains unknown. Importantly, MEMO1 is overexpressed in many types of cancer and was shown to modulate breast cancer metastasis through altered cell motility. To better understand the function of MEMO1 in cancer cells, we analyzed genetic interactions of MEMO1 using gene essentiality data from 1028 cancer cell lines and found multiple iron-related genes exhibiting genetic relationships with MEMO1. We experimentally confirmed several interactions between MEMO1 and iron-related proteins in living cells, most notably, transferrin receptor 2 (TFR2), mitoferrin-2 (SLC25A28), and the global iron response regulator IRP1 (ACO1). These interactions indicate that cells with high-MEMO1 expression levels are hypersensitive to the disruptions in iron distribution. Our data also indicate that MEMO1 is involved in ferroptosis and is linked to iron supply to mitochondria. We have found that purified MEMO1 binds iron with high affinity under redox conditions mimicking intracellular environment and solved MEMO1 structures in complex with iron and copper. Our work reveals that the iron coordination mode in MEMO1 is very similar to that of iron-containing extradiol dioxygenases, which also display a similar structural fold. We conclude that MEMO1 is an iron-binding protein that modulates iron homeostasis in cancer cells.