title: DNA double-strand break repair: a theoretical framework and its application.
abstract: DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are formed as a result of genotoxic insults, such as exogenous ionizing radiation, and are among the most serious types of DNA damage. One of the earliest molecular responses following DSB formation is the phosphorylation of the histone H2AX, giving rise to γH2AX. Many copies of γH2AX are generated at DSBs and can be detected in vitro as foci using well-established immuno-histochemical methods. It has previously been shown that anti-γH2AX antibodies, modified by the addition of the cell-penetrating peptide TAT and a fluorescent or radionuclide label, can be used to visualize and quantify DSBs in vivo. Moreover, when labelled with a high amount of the short-range, Auger electron-emitting radioisotope, (111)In, the amount of DNA damage within a cell can be increased, leading to cell death. In this report, we develop a mathematical model that describes how molecular processes at individual sites of DNA damage give rise to quantifiable foci. Equations that describe stochastic mean behaviours at individual DSB sites are derived and parametrized using population-scale, time-series measurements from two different cancer cell lines. The model is used to examine two case studies in which the introduction of an antibody (anti-γH2AX-TAT) that targets a key component in the DSB repair pathway influences system behaviour. We investigate: (i) how the interaction between anti-γH2AX-TAT and γH2AX effects the kinetics of H2AX phosphorylation and DSB repair and (ii) model behaviour when the anti-γH2AX antibody is labelled with Auger electron-emitting (111)In and can thus instigate additional DNA damage. This work supports the conclusion that DSB kinetics are largely unaffected by the introduction of the anti-γH2AX antibody, a result that has been validated experimentally, and hence the hypothesis that the use of anti-γH2AX antibody to quantify DSBs does not violate the image tracer principle. Moreover, it provides a novel model of DNA damage accumulation in the presence of Auger electron-emitting (111)In that is supported qualitatively by the available experimental data.
authors.affiliation: Division of Mathematics, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK pmurray@dundee.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Philip J
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0332-5356
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Murray
authors.affiliation: Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: Bart
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Cornelissen
authors.affiliation: Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: Katherine A
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Vallis
authors.affiliation: Department of Mathematics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: S Jon
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Chapman
mesh_terms: D053903:DNA Breaks, Double-Stranded; D004260:DNA Repair; D005260:Female; D006657:Histones / Q000378:metabolism*; D006801:Humans; D061986:MCF-7 Cells; D008954:Models, Biological
chemical_list: D006657:Histones
keywords: DNA damage repair; mathematical model; radiobiology
references.citation: Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2010 Dec;7(4):263-79
references.pmid: 21034408
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2011 Jul 1;71(13):4539-49
references.pmid: 21586614
references.citation: Int J Cancer. 2001 Oct 20;96(5):277-85
references.pmid: 11582580
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5057-62
references.pmid: 12679524
references.citation: Cell Cycle. 2006 Dec;5(24):2909-13
references.pmid: 17172873
references.citation: Radiat Res. 2013 May;179(5):530-9
references.pmid: 23560635
references.citation: Int J Radiat Biol. 2009 Nov;85(11):1032-41
references.pmid: 19895280
references.citation: BMC Cancer. 2010;10:4
references.pmid: 20051134
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Oct;36(17):5678-94
references.pmid: 18772227
references.citation: Adv Space Res. 2009;43(8):1171-1178
references.pmid: 20046946
references.citation: Radiat Res. 2008 Feb;169(2):214-22
references.pmid: 18220463
references.citation: Cancer Lett. 2012 Dec 31;327(1-2):123-33
references.pmid: 22198208
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1998 Mar 6;273(10):5858-68
references.pmid: 9488723
references.citation: Methods Mol Biol. 2011;682:249-70
references.pmid: 21057933
references.citation: Radiat Res. 2013 May;179(5):540-8
references.pmid: 23560631
references.citation: Toxicol Sci. 2014 Jul;140(1):103-17
references.pmid: 24743697
references.citation: Nucl Med Biol. 2012 Nov;39(8):1142-51
references.pmid: 22819196
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jun 11;99(12):8173-8
references.pmid: 12034884
references.citation: Int J Radiat Biol. 2009 Dec;85(12):1061-81
references.pmid: 19995233
references.citation: Science. 2002 May 3;296(5569):922-7
references.pmid: 11934988
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2013 Sep 21;333:135-45
references.pmid: 23735818
references.citation: Mol Cancer Ther. 2013 Nov;12(11):2472-82
references.pmid: 23963362