Chaney Stephen G, Campbell Sharon L, Bassett Ekaterina, Wu Yibing
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Curriculum in Toxicology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7260, USA.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005 Jan;53(1):3-11. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2004.08.008.
The cytotoxicity of platinum compounds is thought to be determined primarily by their DNA adducts. Cisplatin and oxaliplatin are structurally distinct, but form the same types of adducts at the same sites on DNA. However, the DNA adducts are differentially recognized by a number of cellular proteins. For example, mismatch repair proteins and some damage-recognition proteins bind to cisplatin-GG adducts with higher affinity than to oxaliplatin-GG adducts, and this differential recognition of cisplatin- and oxaliplatin-GG adducts is thought to contribute to the differences in cytotoxicity and tumor range of cisplatin and oxaliplatin. A detailed kinetic analysis of the insertion and extension steps of dNTP incorporation in the vicinity of the adduct shows that both DNA polymerase beta (pol beta) and DNA polymerase eta (pol eta) catalyze translesion synthesis past oxaliplatin-GG adducts with greater efficiency than past cisplatin-GG adducts. In the case of pol eta, the efficiency and fidelity of translesion synthesis in vitro is very similar to that previously observed with cyclobutane TT dimers, suggesting that pol eta is likely to be involved in error-free bypass of Pt adducts in vivo. This has been confirmed for cisplatin by comparing the cisplatin-induced mutation frequency in human fibroblast cell lines with and without pol eta. Thus, the greater efficiency of bypass of oxaliplatin-GG adducts by pol eta may explain the lower mutagenicity of oxaliplatin compared to cisplatin. The ability of these cellular proteins to discriminate between cisplatin and oxaliplatin adducts suggest that there exist significant conformational differences between the adducts, yet the crystal structures of the cisplatin- and oxaliplatin-GG adducts were very similar. We have recently solved the solution structure of the oxaliplatin-GG adduct and have shown that it is significantly different from the previously published solution structures of the cisplatin-GG adducts. Furthermore, the observed differences in conformation provide a logical explanation for the differential recognition of cisplatin and oxaliplatin adducts by mismatch repair and damage-recognition proteins.
铂化合物的细胞毒性被认为主要由其DNA加合物决定。顺铂和奥沙利铂结构不同,但在DNA的相同位点形成相同类型的加合物。然而,DNA加合物被多种细胞蛋白以不同方式识别。例如,错配修复蛋白和一些损伤识别蛋白与顺铂-GG加合物的结合亲和力高于与奥沙利铂-GG加合物的结合亲和力,并且顺铂和奥沙利铂-GG加合物的这种差异识别被认为导致了顺铂和奥沙利铂在细胞毒性和肿瘤范围上的差异。对加合物附近dNTP掺入的插入和延伸步骤进行的详细动力学分析表明,DNA聚合酶β(pol β)和DNA聚合酶η(pol η)催化跨损伤合成越过奥沙利铂-GG加合物的效率高于越过顺铂-GG加合物。就pol η而言,体外跨损伤合成的效率和保真度与先前观察到的环丁烷TT二聚体非常相似,这表明pol η可能参与体内铂加合物的无差错绕过。通过比较有和没有pol η的人成纤维细胞系中顺铂诱导的突变频率,这一点已在顺铂的情况下得到证实。因此,pol η绕过奥沙利铂-GG加合物的效率更高可能解释了奥沙利铂与顺铂相比致突变性较低的原因。这些细胞蛋白区分顺铂和奥沙利铂加合物的能力表明加合物之间存在显著的构象差异,然而顺铂和奥沙利铂-GG加合物的晶体结构非常相似。我们最近解析了奥沙利铂-GG加合物的溶液结构,并表明它与先前发表的顺铂-GG加合物的溶液结构有显著差异。此外,观察到的构象差异为错配修复和损伤识别蛋白对顺铂和奥沙利铂加合物的差异识别提供了合理的解释。