Author(s): Chaney SG, Campbell SL, Bassett E, Wu Y
Abstract Share this page
Abstract 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.
This article was published in Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
and referenced in Journal of Clinical Toxicology