Recent studies have shown synergistic cytotoxic effects of simultaneous Chk1- and Wee1-inhibition. However, the mechanisms behind this synergy are not known. Here, we present a flow cytometry-based screen for compounds that cause increased DNA damage in S-phase when combined with the Wee1-inhibitor MK1775. Strikingly, the Chk1-inhibitors AZD7762 and LY2603618 were among the top candidate hits of 1664 tested compounds, suggesting that the synergistic cytotoxic effects are due to increased S-phase DNA damage. Combined Wee1- and Chk1-inhibition caused a strong synergy in induction of S-phase DNA damage and reduction of clonogenic survival. To address the underlying mechanisms, we developed a novel assay measuring CDK-dependent phosphorylations in single S-phase cells. Surprisingly, while Wee1-inhibition alone induced less DNA damage compared to Chk1-inhibition, Wee1-inhibition caused a bigger increase in S-phase CDK-activity. However, the loading of replication initiation factor CDC45 was more increased after Chk1- than Wee1-inhibition and further increased by the combined treatment, and thus correlated well with DNA damage. Therefore, when Wee1 alone is inhibited, Chk1 suppresses CDC45 loading and thereby limits the extent of unscheduled replication initiation and subsequent S-phase DNA damage, despite very high CDK-activity. These results can explain why combined treatment with Wee1- and Chk1-inhibitors gives synergistic anti-cancer effects.

The Wee1 inhibitor MK1775 (AZD1775) is currently being tested in clinical trials for cancer treatment. Here, we show that the p53 target and CDK inhibitor p21 protects against MK1775-induced DNA damage during S-phase. Cancer and normal cells deficient for p21 (HCT116 p21 -/- , RPE p21 -/- , and U2OS transfected with p21 siRNA) showed higher induction of the DNA damage marker γH2AX in S-phase in response to MK1775 compared to the respective parental cells. Furthermore, upon MK1775 treatment the levels of phospho-DNA PKcs S2056 and phospho-RPA S4/S8 were higher in the p21 deficient cells, consistent with increased DNA breakage. Cell cycle analysis revealed that these effects were due to an S-phase function of p21, but MK1775-induced S-phase CDK activity was not altered as measured by CDK-dependent phosphorylations. In the p21 deficient cancer cells MK1775-induced cell death was also increased. Moreover, p21 deficiency sensitized to combined treatment of MK1775 and the CHK1-inhibitor AZD6772, and to the combination of MK1775 with ionizing radiation. These results show that p21 protects cancer cells against Wee1 inhibition and suggest that S-phase functions of p21 contribute to mediate such protection. As p21 can be epigenetically downregulated in human cancer, we propose that p21 levels may be considered during future applications of Wee1 inhibitors.

Inhibitors of checkpoint kinases ATR, Chk1, and Wee1 are currently being tested in preclinical and clinical trials. Here, we review the basic principles behind the use of such inhibitors as anticancer agents, and particularly discuss their potential for treatment of lung cancer. As lung cancer is one of the most deadly cancers, new treatment strategies are highly needed. We discuss how checkpoint kinase inhibition in principle can lead to selective killing of lung cancer cells while sparing the surrounding normal tissues. Several features of lung cancer may potentially be exploited for targeting through inhibition of checkpoint kinases, including mutated p53, low ERCC1 levels, amplified Myc, tumor hypoxia and presence of lung cancer stem cells. Synergistic effects have also been reported between inhibitors of ATR/Chk1/Wee1 and conventional lung cancer treatments, such as gemcitabine, cisplatin, or radiation. Altogether, inhibitors of ATR, Chk1, and Wee1 are emerging as new cancer treatment agents, likely to be useful in lung cancer treatment. However, as lung tumors are very diverse, the inhibitors are unlikely to be effective in all patients, and more work is needed to determine how such inhibitors can be utilized in the most optimal ways.

Hypoxia promotes an aggressive tumor phenotype with increased genomic instability, partially due to downregulation of DNA repair pathways. However, genome stability is also surveilled by cell cycle checkpoints. An important issue is therefore whether hypoxia also can influence the DNA damage-induced cell cycle checkpoints. Here, we show that hypoxia (24 h 0.2% O2) alters the expression of several G2 checkpoint regulators, as examined by microarray gene expression analysis and immunoblotting of U2OS cells. While some of the changes reflected hypoxia-induced inhibition of cell cycle progression, the levels of several G2 checkpoint regulators, in particular Cyclin B, were reduced in G2 phase cells after hypoxic exposure, as shown by flow cytometric barcoding analysis of individual cells. These effects were accompanied by decreased phosphorylation of a Cyclin dependent kinase (CDK) target in G2 phase cells after hypoxia, suggesting decreased CDK activity. Furthermore, cells pre-exposed to hypoxia showed increased G2 checkpoint arrest upon treatment with ionizing radiation. Similar results were found following other hypoxic conditions (∼0.03% O2 20 h and 0.2% O2 72 h). These results demonstrate that the DNA damage-induced G2 checkpoint can be altered as a consequence of hypoxia, and we propose that such alterations may influence the genome stability of hypoxic tumors.

No abstract

Inhibitors of WEE1 and ATR kinases are considered promising for cancer treatment, either as monotherapy or in combination with chemo- or radiotherapy. Here, we addressed whether simultaneous inhibition of WEE1 and ATR might be advantageous. Effects of the WEE1 inhibitor MK1775 and ATR inhibitor VE822 were investigated in U2OS osteosarcoma cells and in four lung cancer cell lines, H460, A549, H1975, and SW900, with different sensitivities to the WEE1 inhibitor. Despite the differences in cytotoxic effects, the WEE1 inhibitor reduced the inhibitory phosphorylation of CDK, leading to increased CDK activity accompanied by ATR activation in all cell lines. However, combining ATR inhibition with WEE1 inhibition could not fully compensate for cell resistance to the WEE1 inhibitor and reduced cell viability to a variable extent. The decreased cell viability upon the combined treatment correlated with a synergistic induction of DNA damage in S-phase in U2OS cells but not in the lung cancer cells. Moreover, less synergy was found between ATR and WEE1 inhibitors upon co-treatment with radiation, suggesting that single inhibitors may be preferable together with radiotherapy. Altogether, our results support that combining WEE1 and ATR inhibitors may be beneficial for cancer treatment in some cases, but also highlight that the effects vary between cancer cell lines.

No abstract

No abstract