Although uterine fibroids (UFs) continue to place a major burden on female reproductive health, the mechanisms behind their origin remain undetermined. Normal myometrial stem cells may be transformed into tumor-initiating stem cells, causing UFs, due to unknown causes of somatic mutations in MED12, found in up to 85% of sporadically formed UFs. It is well established in other tumor types that defective DNA repair increases the risk of such tumorigenic somatic mutations, mechanisms not yet studied in UFs.
Objective:
To examine the putative cause(s) of this stem cell transformation, we analyzed DNA repair within stem cells from human UFs compared to those from adjacent myometrium to determine whether DNA repair in fibroid stem cells is compromised.
Design:
Human fibroid (F) and adjacent myometrial (Myo) stem cells were isolated from fresh tissues, and gene expression relating to DNA repair was analyzed. Fibroid stem cells differentially expressed DNA repair genes related to DNA double- (DSBs) and single-strand breaks. DNA damage was measured using alkaline comet assay. Additionally, DNA DSBs were induced in these stem cells and DNA DSB repair evaluated (1) by determining changes in phosphorylation of DNA DSB-related proteins and (2) by determining differences in γ-H2AX foci formation and relative DNA repair protein RAD50 expression.
Results:
Overall, F stem cells demonstrated increased DNA damage and altered DNA repair gene expression and signaling, suggesting that human F stem cells demonstrate impaired DNA repair.
Conclusions:
Compromised F stem cell DNA repair may contribute to further mutagenesis and, consequently, further growth and propagation of UF tumors.
Cardozo E ClarkADBanksNKHenneMBStegmannBJSegarsJH. The estimated annual cost of uterine leiomyomata in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(3):211.e211–219.
2.
CookJDavisBCaiSBarrettJContiCWalkerC. Interaction between genetic susceptibility and early-life environmental exposure determines tumor-suppressor-gene penetrance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(24):8644–8649.
3.
LeeHNorwitxEShawJ. Contemporary management of fibroids in pregnancy. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;3(1):20–27.
MarkowskiDBartnitzkeSLöningTDrieschnerNHelmkeBBullerdiekJ. MED12 mutations in uterine fibroids–their relationship to cytogenetic subgroups. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(7):1528–1536.
6.
HalderSLaknaurAMillerJLaymanLCDiamondMAl-HendyA. Novel MED12 gene somatic mutations in women from the Southern United States with symptomatic uterine fibroids. Mol Genet Genomics. 2015;290(2):505–511.
7.
MehineMKaasinenEMäkinenN. Characterization of uterine leiomyomas by whole-genome sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(1):43–53.
8.
OnoMQiangWSernaV. Role of stem cells in human uterine leiomyoma growth. PLoS One. 2012;7(5): e36935.
9.
BulunS. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1344–1355.
10.
LoukaMBoutouEBakouV. DNA damage response/repair in cancer stem cells—potential vs. controversies. In: ChenC, ed. Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology » “Advances in DNA Repair”. London, UK: InTech Open; 2015;415–444.
11.
BonnerARedonCDickeyJ. gH2AX and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(12):957–967.
12.
LavinMDeliaDChessaL. ATM and the DNA damage response. EMBO Reports. 2006;7(2):154–160.
13.
SungPKleinH. Mechanism of homologous recombination: mediators and helicases take on regulatory functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006;7(10):739–750.
14.
BranzeiDFoianiM. Regulation of DNA repair throughout the cell cycle. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9(4):297–308.
15.
TomasettiCVogelsteinB. Cancer Etiology. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science. 2015;347(6217):78–81.
16.
AlbanesDWinickM. Are cell number and cell proliferation risk factors for cancer?J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988;80(10):772–774.
17.
TomatisL. Cell proliferation and carcinogenesis: a brief history and current view based on an IARC workshop report. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1993;101(Suppl 5):149–151.
18.
AtkinsonRLYangWTRosenDG. Cancer stem cell markers are enriched in normal tissue adjacent to triple negative breast cancer and inversely correlated with DNA repair deficiency. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(5): R77.
19.
BakerAMGrahamTA. Revealing human intestinal stem cell and crypt dynamics. Molecular & Cellular Oncology. 2014;1(3) e970069.
20.
BlokzijlFLigtJDJagerM. Tissue-specific mutation accumulation in human adult stem cells during life. Nature. 2016;538 (7624):260–276.
21.
Maugeri-SaccaMBartucciMMariaRD. DNA damage repair pathways in cancer stem cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11:1627–1636.
22.
PawlowskaEBlasiakJ. DNA repair—a double-edged sword in the genomic stability of cancer cells—the case of chronic myeloid leukemia. J Mol Sci. 2015;16(11):27535–27549.
23.
DietleinFThelenLReinhardtH. Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways as targets for personalized therapeutic approaches. Trends Genet. 2014;30(8):326–339.
24.
BlanpainCMohrinMSotiropoulouPPassegueE. DNA-damage response in tissue-specific and cancer stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8(1):16–29.
25.
KappilMLiaoYTerryMSantellaR. DNA repair gene expression levels as indicators of breast cancer in the breast cancer family registry. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(8):4039–4044.
26.
BatarBGuvenGErozSBeseNGuvenM. Decreased DNA repair gene XRCC1 expression is associated with radiotherapy-induced acute side effects in breast cancer patients. Gene. 2016;582(1):33–37.
27.
RibeiroEGanzinelliMAndreisD. Triple negative breast cancers have a reduced expression of DNA repair genes. PLoS One. 2013;8(6): e66243.
28.
MattaJMoralesLOrtizC. Estrogen receptor expression is associated with DNA repair capacity in breast cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11(3): e0152422.
KenyonJGersonS. The role of DNA damage repair in aging of adult stem cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(22):7557–7565.
31.
IsoTWatanabeTIwamotoTShimamotoAFuruichiY. DNA damage caused by bisphenol a and estradiol through estrogenic activity. Biol Pharm Bull. 2006;29(2):206–210.
32.
KitagishiYKobayashiMMatsudaS. Defective DNA repair systems and the development of breast and prostate cancer (Review). Int J Oncol. 2012;42(1):29–34.
33.
YangQElamLLaknaurA. Altered DNA repair genes in human uterine fibroids are epigeniticallly regulated via EZH2 histone methyltransferase. ASRM Abstracts. 2015;104(3, Supplement): e1–e387.
34.
YangQNairSLaknaurAIsmailNDiamondMAl-HendyA. The polycomb group protein EZH2 impairs DNA damage repair gene expression in human uterine fibroids. Biol Reprod. 2016;94(3):1–15.
35.
WeiJ-JZhangX-MChiribogaLYeeHPerleMAMittalK. Spatial differences in biologic activity of large uterine leiomyomata. Fertil Steril. 85(1):179–187.
36.
YatsenkoSAMittalPWood-TrageserMA. Highly heterogeneous genomic landscape of uterine leiomyomas by whole exome sequencing and genome-wide arrays. Fertil Sterl. 2017;107(2):457–466.e459.
37.
MasANairSLaknaurASimonCDiamondMAl-HendyA. Stro-1/CD44 as putative human myometrial and fibroid stem cell markers. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(1):225–234.
38.
MakinenNMehineMTolvanenJ. MED12, the mediator complex subunit 12 gene, is mutated at high frequency in uterine leiomyomas. Science. 2011;334(6053):252–255.
39.
Prusinski FernungLEYangQKumariASakamuroDMasAAl-HendyA. Endocrine disruptor exposure during development increases incidence of uterine fibroids by altering DNA repair in myometrial stem cells. Biol Reprod. 2018; In Press. doi:10.1093/biolre/ioy097
40.
HalderSKBeauchampRDDattaPK. Smad7 induces tumorigenicity by blocking TGF-β-induced growth inhibition and apoptosis. Exp Cell Res. 2005;307(1):231–246.
41.
MariottiLPirovanoGSavageK. Use of the γ-H2AX assay to investigate DNA repair dynamics following multiple radiation exposures. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79541.
42.
SchmidTZlobinskayaOMulthoffG. Differences in phosphorylated histone H2AX foci formation and removal of cells exposed to low and high linear energy transfer radiation. Curr Genomics. 2012;13(6):418–425.
43.
DickeyJRedonCNakamuraABairdBSedelnikovaOBonnerW. H2AX: functional roles and potential applications. Chromosoma. 2009;118(6):683–692.
MarkowskiDNTadayyonMBartnitzkeSBelgeGHelmkeBMBullerdiekJ. Cell cultures in uterine leiomyomas: rapid disappearance of cells carrying MED12 mutations. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2014;53(4):316–323.
46.
TrevigenI. CometAssay(R) HT: reagent kit for higher throughput single cell gel electrophoresis assay. In: Trevigen, ed. (Trevigen, Gaithersburg) 2012;Vol # 4252-040-K2012:1-18.
47.
AzquetaASlyskovaJLangieSGaivaoIONCollinsA. Comet assay to measure DNA repair: approach and applications. Front Genet. 2014;5(288).
48.
Benitez-BribiescaLSanchez-SuarezP. Oxidative damage, bleomycin, and gamma radiation induce different types of DNA strand breaks in normal lymphocytes and thymocytes. A comet assay study. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;887:133–149.
49.
HarperJVAndersonJAO’NeillP. Radiation induced DNA DSBs: contribution from stalled replication forks?DNA Repair. 2010;9(8):907–913.
50.
PaullTTRogakouEPYamazakiVKirchgessnerCUGellertMBonnerWM. A critical role for histone H2AX in recruitment of repair factors to nuclear foci after DNA damage. Curr Biol: CB. 2000;10(15):886–895.
51.
KimJSKrasievaTBKurumizakaHChenDJTaylorAMYokomoriK. Independent and sequential recruitment of NHEJ and HR factors to DNA damage sites in mammalian cells. J Cell Biol. 2005;170(3):341–347.
52.
OlivePBanathJ. Detection of DNA double-strand breaks through the cell cycle after exposure to X-rays, bleomycin, etoposide and 125IdUrd. Int J Radiat Biol. 1993;64(4):349–358.
53.
BurmaSChenBMurphyMKurimasaAChenD. ATM phosphorylates histone H2AX in response to DNA double-strand breaks. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(45):42462–42467.
54.
KuoLYangL. γ-H2AX—a novel biomarker for DNA double-strand breaks. In Vivo. 2008;22(3):305–309.
55.
LavinMKozlovSGateiMKijasA. ATM-dependent phosphorylation of all three members of the mrn complex: from sensor to adaptor. Biomolecules. 2015;5(4):2877–2902.
56.
UzielTLerenthalYMoyalLAndegekoYMittelmanLShilohY. Requirement of the MRN complex for ATM activation by DNA damage. EMBO J. 2003;22(20):5612–5621.
57.
MoravekMBulunS. Endocrinology of uterine fibroids: steroid hormones, stem cells, and genetic contribution. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(4):276–283.
58.
MasAICIGil-SanchisC. Identification and characterization of the human leiomyoma side population as putative tumor-initiating cells. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):741–751.e746.
59.
ChangHSenaratneTZhangL. Uterine leiomyomas exhibit fewer stem/progenitor cell characteristics when compared with corresponding normal myometrium. Reprod Sci. 2010;17(2):158–167.
60.
BehrensADeursenJVRudolphKSchumacherB. Impact of genomic damage and ageing on stem cell function. Nat Cell Biol. 2014;16(3):201–207.
MikiYSwensenJShattuck-EidensD. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science. 1994;266(5182):66–71.
63.
SmithTMillerMLohmanKCaseLHuJ. DNA damage and breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2003;24(5):883–889.
64.
BuchynskaLBrieievaOGlushchenkoNVorobyovaLBilykO. DNA repair deficiency in peripheral blood lymphocytes of endometrial cancer patients with a family history of cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14.
65.
ShahidiMMozdaraniHMuellerW. Radiosensitivity and repair kinetics of gamma-irradiated leukocytes from sporadic prostate cancer patients and healthy individuals assessed by alkaline comet assay. Iran Biomed J. 2010;14(3):67–75.
66.
GentDVHoeijmakersJKanaarR. The DNA double-stranded break connection. Nature Rev Genet. 2001;2(3):196–206.
67.
TubbsANussenzweigA. Endogenous DNA damage as a source of genomic instability in cancer. Cell. 2017;168(4):644–656.
68.
HelledayTEshtadSNik-ZainalS. Mechanisms underlying mutational signatures in human cancers. Nature Rev Genet. 2014;15(9):585–598.
69.
Borras-FresnedaMBarquineroJGomolkaM. Differences in DNA repair capacity, cell death and transcriptional response after irradiation between a radiosensitive and a radioresistant cell line. Sci Rep. 2016;1(6):27043.
70.
ZanniniLDeliaDBuscemiG. CHK2 kinase in the DNA damage response and beyond. J Mol Cell Biol. 2014;6(6):442–457.
71.
OuYChungPSunTShiehS. p53 C-terminal phosphorylation by CHK1 and CHK2 participates in the regulation of DNA-damage-induced C-terminal acetylation. Mol Biol Cell. 2005;16(4):1684–1695.
72.
IIIDOMayoL. Emerging non-canonical functions and regulation by p53: p53 and stemness. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(12):1982.
73.
HartlerodeAMorganMWuYBuisJFergusonD. Recruitment and activation of the ATM kinase in the absence of DNA damage sensors. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2015;22(9):736–743.
74.
MaruyamaTMiyazakiKHHMOnoMUchidaHYoshimuraY. Review: human uterine stem/progenitor cells: implications for uterine physiology and pathology. Placenta2013;34: S68–S72.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
