Abstract
DNA glycosylases involved in the first step of the DNA base excision repair pathway are promising targets in cancer therapy. There is evidence that reduction of their activities may enhance cell killing in malignant tumors. Recently, two tetrahydroquinoline compounds named SU0268 and SU0383 were reported to inhibit OGG1 for the excision of 8-hydroxyguanine. This DNA repair protein is one of the major cellular enzymes responsible for excision of a number of oxidatively-induced lesions from DNA. In this work, we used gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with isotope-dilution to measure the excision of not only 8-hydroxyguanine, but also that of the other major substrate of OGG1, i.e., 2,6-diamino-4-hydroxy-5-formamidopyrimidine, using genomic DNA with multiple purine- and pyrimidine-derived lesions. The excision of a minor substrate 4,6-diamino-5-formamidopyrimidine was also measured. Both SU0268 and SU0383 efficiently inhibited OGG1 activity for these three lesions, with the former being more potent than the latter. Dependence of inhibition on concentrations of SU0268 and SU0383 from 0.05 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L was also demonstrated. The approach used in this work may be applied to the investigation of OGG1 inhibition by SU0268 and SU0383, and other small molecule inhibitors in further studies including cellular and animal models of disease.
Oxidatively-induced DNA damage caused by free radicals and other DNA-damaging agents lead to the formation of a plethora of modifications in DNA (reviewed in1, 2). Many of the DNA base lesions are repaired by the base excision repair (BER) pathway, and some of them are subject to nucleotide excision repair (NER) and nucleotide incision repair (NIR) pathways.2–7 Unrepaired DNA damage leads to many biological consequences in living organisms, including genotoxicity, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis (reviewed in8–12). Over the past two decades, DNA repair pathways, especially BER have become targets for cancer therapy (reviewed in12–16). Cancer cells increase their DNA repair capacity by overexpressing DNA repair proteins, leading to drug or radiation resistance in cancer therapy. Several inhibitors of DNA repair proteins are approved or are under development as potential anticancer drugs (reviewed in17–19).
Several investigations have suggested that the combined use of antimetabolite-based drugs and small molecule inhibitors of DNA glycosylases NEIL1, OGG1, and NTH1 could enhance therapeutic outcomes in cancer therapy.20–22 Thus, synthetic lethal relationships between different repair pathways may have the potential to be less toxic in cancer therapy with a high therapeutic outcome (reviewed in23). Furthermore, ionizing radiation-induced killing in cells within solid tumors was enhanced by depletion of NEIL1 versus control siRNA treatments.24 Similarly, RNAi suppression of both mitochondrion- and nucleus-located forms of OGG1 resulted in sensitization of oral squamous cell carcinoma cell lines to ionizing radiation.25 Three leukemia cell lines with mutated OGG1 or low OGG1 transcript levels were also found to be hypersensitive to ionizing radiation.26 Moreover, inhibition of NEIL2 in colorectal cancers was shown to enhance the efficacy of radiation therapy.27 In addition to their relevance to cancer, the activity of certain BER enzymes, and OGG1 in particular, has been linked to inflammation pathways. Inflammation has long been associated with oxidative stress.28 Mice engineered to lack the OGG1 gene were observed to exhibit attenuated responses to challenge by bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and by allergens,29 and experiments with siRNA-mediated reduction in OGG1 expression resulted in reduced airway inflammation in mice exposed to pollen allergens.30 The binding of OGG1 to chromosomal DNA recruits NF-κB to promoter sequences, resulting in upregulation of other proinflammatory factors.31, 32 In addition, the free excised base 8-OH-Gua itself can upregulate genes essential in experimental asthma.33 Thus, oxidized DNA binding and repair by OGG1 appear to be important contributors to the innate immune inflammatory response.
On the basis of these discoveries, several laboratories have developed small molecule inhibitors of DNA glycosylases, including NEIL1, NTH1 and OGG1, and tested them using different types of methodologies34–38 (recently reviewed in23 ). These three BER enzymes are bifunctional, exhibiting both glycosylase and lyase activities, and possess varied substrate specificities (reviewed in23, 39–41). Using a high-throughput methodology, Donley et al. screened a large number of molecules for the inhibition of the activity of OGG1.35 Five hydrazide-containing molecules with the IC50 values in the range of 0.22 μmol/L to 0.63 μmol/L were identified as effective inhibitors. These inhibitors were also tested using gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with isotope-dilution (GC-MS/MS) and genomic DNA with multiple DNA base lesions. The excision of 8-hydroxyguanine (8-OH-Gua) and 2,6-diamino-4-hydroxy-5-formamidopyrimidine (FapyGua), which are the in vivo substrates of OGG1,39, 40, 42, 43 was efficiently inhibited. No inhibition of the activities of NEIL1 and NTH1 was found. Recently, several other molecules were reported as potent and selective inhibitors of OGG1. A small-molecule inhibitor (TH5487) was developed as a potent selective active-site OGG1 inhibitor with an IC50 of 0.342 μmol/L, and did not affect the activity of other DNA glycosylases.37 TH5487 was also shown to be well tolerated by mice and to suppress proinflammatory gene expression and inflammation. Tahara et al. synthesized a large number of compounds with an acyl tetrahydroquinoline sulfonamide skeleton and tested them using a fluorogenic assay of 8-OH-Gua excision.36, 38, 44, 45 Optimization of the tetrahydroquinoline scaffold yielded a compound, i.e., 4’-(N-(1-(cyclopropanecarbonyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinolin-7-yl)sulfamoyl)-[1,1’-biphenyl]-3-carboxamide (SU0268) with IC50 = 0.059 μmol/L. SU0268 was shown to bind OGG1 both in the absence and presence of DNA and to be selective for inhibiting OGG1 over other BER enzymes. This compound recently showed efficacy in reducing inflammation and mortality in a mouse model of bacterial lung infections.46 Another compound, i.e., N-(2-((2-Amino-5-methylpyrimidin-4-yl)oxy)ethyl)-4’-(N-(1-(cyclopropanecarbonyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinolin-7-yl)sulfamoyl)-[1,1’-biphenyl]-3-carboxamide (SU0383) exhibited dual inhibition activities for both OGG1 and MTH1 with IC50 = 0.49 μmol/L and IC50 = 0.034 μmol/L, respectively.38 Figure 1 illustrates the structures of these compounds. Both SU0268 and SU0383 displayed little or no toxicity in two human cell lines at a concentration of 10 μmol/L. Using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with isotope-dilution, inhibition by SU0268 of OGG1 activity in HeLa cells was shown to increase the level of 8-OH-Gua in DNA.36 Similar results were obtained by using luminescence probes in HeLa and MCF-7 cell lysates.
Figure 1.
Structures of SU0268 and SU0383.
In the present work, we used a different approach to test the inhibition activities of SU0268 and SU0383 using GC-MS/MS and genomic DNA containing multiple purine- and pyrimidine-derived lesions. This approach simultaneously measures a plethora of DNA base lesions in a given DNA sample, and thus enables the determination of substrate specificities and excision kinetics of DNA glycosylases by identifying which damaged DNA bases are or are not excised from DNA (reviewed in39). The details of the GC-MS/MS measurements are given in Supporting Information. In control experiments with no inhibitor present, we identified and quantified 8-OH-Gua and FapyGua excised from DNA by OGG1, confirming previous results.42, 43 Some small excision of 4,6-diamino-5-formamidopyrimidine (FapyAde) was also observed. This lesion is not recognized as one of the main substrates of OGG1. However, the bacterial analogue of OGG1, i.e., E. coli Fpg, excises FapyAde from DNA with excision kinetics similar to those of 8-OH-Gua and FapyGua.47, 48 Despite the low excision, we also measured the inhibition of OGG1 by SU0268 and SU0383 for the removal of FapyAde. First, we used a concentration of 10 μmol/L of both SU0268 and SU0383 to test whether any significant inhibition of the excision by OGG1 of 8-OH-Gua, FapyGua and FapyAde occurs. In the previous work, both inhibitors exhibited little or no toxicity at concentrations up to 10 μmol/L in HEK293T and HeLa cells, and moderate toxicity at the highest concentration of 100 μmol/L.36 Figure 2 illustrates the excised levels of the three lesions by OGG1 alone, OGG1 plus DMSO, and OGG1 plus DMSO and SU0268 or SU0383 at a concentration of 10 μmol/L, along with the p-values indicating the statistical significance between the data points. The control levels of the lesions in DNA samples incubated without the enzyme are also shown. DMSO was added to check its effect on excision because the inhibitors were dissolved in DMSO before addition to the reaction mixture. Some small insignificant increase of excision by addition of DMSO in the case of 8-OH-Gua and FapyGua was observed. SU0268 strongly inhibited the excision of 8-OH-Gua with its level decreasing almost to the control level. A significant inhibition by SU0383 was also observed; however, its effect of inhibition was not as potent as that of SU0268, consistent with prior reports of the relative in vitro activities of the two compounds.36 In the case of FapyGua, approximately 60% inhibition by SU0268 was observed. However, the inhibition by SU0383 was lower, at approximately 30%. Excision of FapyAde was also quite significant with both inhibitors exhibiting almost the same effect.
Figure 2.
Excised levels of 8-OH-Gua, FapyGua and FapyAde from DNA by OGG1, OGG1 plus DMSO, and OGG1 plus either SU0268 or SU0383 at a concentration of 10 μmol/L. Control levels without OGG1 are also shown. Uncertainties are standard deviations. The p-values < 0.05 show the statistical significance.
Next, we measured the inhibition at increasing concentrations of SU0268 or SU0383 from 0.05 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L to measure the effects of lower concentrations of the inhibitors. A concentration dependence of inhibition was observed as shown in Figure 3, where the decreasing excised levels of 8-OH-Gua, FapyGua and FapyAde correspond to the increased levels of inhibition. The p-values indicate the statistical significance between the inhibition by SU0268 and SU0383 at each inhibitor concentration. The data point at 0 μmol/L shows the levels of the lesions excised by OGG1 in the presence of DMSO without the inhibitors. A sharp increase in the inhibition was observed at concentrations up to 1 μmol/L. Subsequently, the inhibition increased with a slower rate. Starting from 1 μmol/L, the inhibition by SU0268 of both 8-OH-Gua and FapyGua was significantly greater than that by SU0383. In the case of FapyAde, this effect was not as pronounced.
Figure 3.
Dependence of the excised levels of 8-OH-Gua, FapyGua and FapyAde on the concentration of SU0268 or SU0383. Uncertainties are standard deviations. The p-values < 0.05 show the statistical significance.
Our data show the potent inhibition of OGG1 for the excision of three purine-derived lesions from DNA by SU0268 and SU0383. This work is unique in that DNA containing multiple purine- and pyrimidine-derived lesions as a substrate was used and the excision of all three lesions and, thus, the inhibition of OGG1 activity was measured simultaneously. In the case of 8-OH-Gua, the results confirmed the previous results obtained using a different experimental approach, a fluorogenic assay.36, 45 Furthermore, SU0268 being a more potent inhibitor than the dual inhibitor SU0383 was also confirmed. The previous work was limited to 8-OH-Gua excision only. However, the other major physiological substrate of human OGG1 and other eukaryotic OGG1s is FapyGua as determined over two decades ago.42, 43, 49–52 These proteins remove 8-OH-Gua and FapyGua from DNA with similar excision kinetics. When compared to 8-OH-Gua, FapyGua is formed in DNA in vitro and in vivo with comparable yields following challenges by various DNA-damaging agents (reviewed in39). Furthermore, it is as mutagenic as 8-OH-Gua, leading to the same G → T transversion mutations (reviewed in53). These facts make the simultaneous measurement of both lesions essential in investigations of DNA damage and DNA repair. For these reasons, biologically active small molecules as possible drug-precursors, such as the two compounds studied in this work should be fully characterized with respect to their scope of inhibition, including analyses of all the known substrates of their presumed DNA repair target enzyme under study. The mechanism through which OGG1 initiates repair of its DNA base lesion substrates is complex, involving non-specific DNA binding, specific substrate binding via nucleotide flipping, an activated water-mediated release of the damaged base and the potential for a subsequent abasic site lyase activity that cleaves the phosphodiester bond (reviewed in23, 54) As such, small molecule inhibitors have the potential to inhibit at any of these steps and thus a full characterization of the enzyme inhibition on different substrates must be provided. For example, prior literature that characterized the inhibition of OGG1 by hydrazide molecules revealed that in addition to inhibition of the glycosylase activity, IC50 values for inhibition of AP lyase activity was ~10-fold lower.35 Germane to this study, prior literature has only reported on the inhibition of OGG1 concerning the excision of 8-OH-Gua. However, such analyses only characterize one of the two major substrates of OGG1, as noted above and thus, leaves the scope of this inhibition open to speculation and conjecture. Therefore, reporting only data for the inhibition on the release of 8-OH-Gua is only telling half of the story. Our work provides a more comprehensive analysis of the inhibition of OGG1 for its physiological substrates, providing a broader basis for understanding their biological effects. These analyses should become routine in the development of anticancer drugs for the inhibition of OGG1. Our methodology is the only one at present that can simultaneously measure enzyme-catalyzed excision of 8-OH-Gua and FapyGua from genomic DNA. Our work has uncovered a second major potential site of action for these inhibitors, which will be important in directing future preclinical studies. Further, such investigations are consistent with meeting regulatory requirements for preclinical and clinical trials.
These new results also have significant implications in the relevance and mechanism of OGG1 inhibition in suppressing inflammatory responses. Our observation that inhibitors of OGG1 increase levels of not only 8-OH-Gua, but also FapyGua in DNA may introduce a second important factor in the mechanism of such responses. The OGG1 enzyme has been shown to bind DNA at 8-OH-Gua sites and is reported to recruit NF-κB to chromosomal DNA, leading to proinflammatory signaling.31–33, 54 Further, the excised base 8-OH-Gua has been shown to act as a separate proinflammatory signaling agent. However, it is not known whether FapyGua, either in DNA or as the released small molecule, also can mediate such effects or not. Recent studies of OGG1 inhibitors in mice have confirmed anti-inflammatory effects; for example, the compound TH5487 reduced inflammation in mice challenged with LPS and allergens.37 A recent study of SU0268 in mice infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa revealed that the compound reduced both inflammation and proinflammatory cytokines, and improved animal survival from the infection.46 It would be of significant interest to study whether the biological effects of such inhibitors are the result of action at only 8-OH-Gua sites or at FapyGua as well; no data yet exist on the latter. Further studies including cellular and animal models, both in cancer and inflammation, are warranted for the application of SU0268 and SU0383, and the methodology used in this work.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Certain commercial equipment or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify adequately the experimental procedure. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Funding
ETK acknowledges support from the National Cancer Institute (R01 CA217809). RSL acknowledges support from the National Cancer Institute (R21 CA216551) and from the Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences at Oregon Health & Science University via funds from the Division of Consumer and Business Services of the State of Oregon (ORS 656.630).
Footnotes
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
List of materials used; detailed experimental procedures for the production of human OGG1 and for the analysis of DNA lesions by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with isotope-dilution; statistical analysis performed.
Authors
Melis Kant ─ NIST International Associate at Biomolecular Measurement Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, United States
Yu-Ki Tahara ─ Department of Chemistry, ChEM-H Institute, and Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
Pawel Jaruga ─ Biomolecular Measurement Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, United States
Erdem Coskun ─ Institute for Bioscience & Biotechnology Research, University of Maryland, Rockville, Maryland 20850, United States
R. Stephen Lloyd ─ Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, United States
The authors declare no competing interest.
REFERENCES
- [1].Dizdaroglu M, and Jaruga P. (2012) Mechanisms of free radical-induced damage to DNA, Free Radic. Res 46, 382–419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Chatgilialoglu C, Ferreri C, Geacintov NE, Krokidis MG, Liu Y, Masi A, Shafirovich V, Terzidis MA, and Tsegay PS (2019) 5’,8-Cyclopurine Lesions in DNA Damage: Chemical, Analytical, Biological, and Diagnostic Significance, Cells 8, 513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Reardon JT, Bessho T, Kung HC, Bolton PH, and Sancar A. (1997) In vitro repair of oxidative DNA damage by human nucleotide excision repair system: Possible explanation for neurodegeneration in Xeroderma pigmentosum patients, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 94, 9463–9468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Ischenko AA, and Saparbaev MK (2002) Alternative nucleotide incision repair pathway for oxidative DNA damage, Nature 415, 183–187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Shafirovich V, Kropachev K, Anderson T, Liu Z, Kolbanovskiy M, Martin BD, Sugden K, Shim Y, Chen XJ, Min JH, and Geacintov NE (2016) Base and Nucleotide Excision Repair of Oxidatively Generated Guanine Lesions in DNA, J. Biol. Chem 291, 5309–5319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Matta E, Aliyaskorava, Kutnetsova BT, Matrokimov BT, Fedorova OS, Kuznetsov NA, Ischenko and Saparbaev M. (2020) Alternative DNA repair pathways to handle complex DNA damage generated by oxidative stress and anticancer drugs, In DNA Damage DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 1 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 249–278, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [7].Vaughn CM, and Sancar A. (2020) Mechanisms and maps of nucleotide excision repair, In DNA Damage DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 2 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 1–23, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [8].Wallace SS (2002) Biological consequences of free radical-damaged DNA bases, Free Radic. Biol. Med 33, 1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Davidson JF, Guo HH, and Loeb LA (2002) Endogenous mutagenesis and cancer, Mutat. Res 509, 17–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Friedberg EC, Walker GC, Siede W, Wood RD, Schultz RA, Ellenberger T. (2006) DNA Repair and Mutagenesis, ASM Press, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
- [11].Friedberg EC, Aguilera A, Gellert M, Hanawalt PC, Hays JB, Lehmann AR, Lindahl T, Lowndes N, Sarasin A, and Wood RD (2006) DNA repair: from molecular mechanism to human disease, DNA Repair (Amst) 5, 986–996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Helleday T, Petermann E, Lundin C, Hodgson B, and Sharma RA (2008) DNA repair pathways as targets for cancer therapy, Nature Reviews Cancer 8, 193–204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Madhusudan S, and Middleton MR (2005) The emerging role of DNA repair proteins as predictive, prognostic and therapeutic targets in cancer, Cancer Treat. Rev 31, 603–617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Curtin NJ (2012) DNA repair dysregulation from cancer driver to therapeutic target, Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 801–817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Hosoya N, and Miyagawa K. (2014) Targeting DNA damage response in cancer therapy, Cancer Sci. 105, 370–388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Kelley MR, Fishel ML (2016) DNA Repair in Cancer Therapy, Molecular Targets and Clinical Applications, Elsevier, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
- [17].Curtin NJ (2020) The role of PARP and the therapeutic potential of PARP inhibitors in cancer, In DNA Damage DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 2 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 319–360, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [18].Sadiq MT, and Madhusudan S. (2020) Evolving DNA repair targets for cancer therapy, In DNA Damage DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 2 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 254–285, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [19].Gampala S, Caston RA, Fishel ML, and Kelley MR (2020) Basic, translational and clinical relevance of the DNA repair and redox signaling protein APE1 in human diseases In DNA Damage, DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 2 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 286–318, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [20].Martin SA, McCarthy A, Barber LJ, Burgess DJ, Parry S, Lord CJ, and Ashworth A. (2009) Methotrexate induces oxidative DNA damage and is selectively lethal to tumour cells with defects in the DNA mismatch repair gene MSH2, EMBO Mol. Med 1, 323–337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Taricani L, Shanahan F, Pierce RH, Guzi TJ, and Parry D. (2010) Phenotypic enhancement of thymidylate synthetase pathway inhibitors following ablation of Neil1 DNA glycosylase/lyase, Cell Cycle 9, 4876–4883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Romao VC, Lima A, Bernardes M, Canhao H, and Fonseca JE (2014) Three decades of low-dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: can we predict toxicity?, Immunol. Res 60, 289–310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].McCullough AK, Minko IG, Nilsen A, Nagarajan S. and Lloyd RS (2020) Modulation of DNA glycosylase activities via small molecules, In DNA Damage, DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 1 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 323–347, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [24].Rosenquist TA, Zaika E, Fernandes AS, Zharkov DO, Miller H, and Grollman AP (2003) The novel DNA glycosylase, NEIL1, protects mammalian cells from radiation-mediated cell death, DNA Repair (Amst) 2, 581–591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Ueta E, Sasabe E, Yang Z, Osaki T, and Yamamoto T. (2008) Enhancement of apoptotic damage of squamous cell carcinoma cells by inhibition of the mitochondrial DNA repairing system, Cancer Sci. 99, 2230–2237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Hyun JW, Cheon GJ, Kim HS, Lee YS, Choi EY, Yoon BH, Kim JS, and Chung MH (2002) Radiation sensitivity depends on OGG1 activity status in human leukemia cell lines, Free Radic. Biol. Med 32, 212–220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Kobunai T, Watanabe T, and Fukusato T. (2011) REG4, NEIL2, and BIRC5 gene expression correlates with gamma-radiation sensitivity in patients with rectal cancer receiving radiotherapy, Anticancer Res. 31, 4147–4153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Khansari N, Shakiba Y, and Mahmoudi M. (2009) Chronic inflammation and oxidative stress as a major cause of age-related diseases and cancer, Recent Pat. Inflamm. Allergy Drug Discov 3, 73–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Mabley JG, Pacher P, Deb A, Wallace R, Elder RH, and Szabo C. (2005) Potential role for 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase in regulating inflammation, FASEB J. 19, 290–292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Bacsi A, Aguilera-Aguirre L, Szczesny B, Radak Z, Hazra TK, Sur S, Ba X, and Boldogh I. (2013) Down-regulation of 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 expression in the airway epithelium ameliorates allergic lung inflammation, DNA Repair (Amst) 12, 18–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Ba X, Bacsi A, Luo J, Aguilera-Aguirre L, Zeng X, Radak Z, Brasier AR, and Boldogh I. (2014) 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase-1 augments proinflammatory gene expression by facilitating the recruitment of site-specific transcription factors, J. Immunol 192, 2384–2394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Ba X, Aguilera-Aguirre L, Rashid QT, Bacsi A, Radak Z, Sur S, Hosoki K, Hegde ML, and Boldogh I. (2014) The role of 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase-1 in inflammation, Int. J. Mol. Sci 15, 16975–16997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [33].Ba X, Aguilera-Aguirre L, Sur S, and Boldogh I. (2015) 8-Oxoguanine DNA glycosylase-1-driven DNA base excision repair: role in asthma pathogenesis, Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol 15, 89–97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Jacobs AC, Calkins MJ, Jadhav A, Dorjsuren D, Maloney D, Simeonov A, Jaruga P, Dizdaroglu M, McCullough AK, and Lloyd RS (2013) Inhibition of DNA Glycosylases via Small Molecule Purine Analogs, PLoS One 8, e81667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [35].Donley N, Jaruga P, Coskun E, Dizdaroglu M, McCullough AK, and Lloyd RS (2015) Small Molecule Inhibitors of 8-Oxoguanine DNA Glycosylase-1 (OGG1), ACS Chem. Biol 10, 2334–2343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [36].Tahara YK, Auld D, Ji D, Beharry AA, Kietrys AM, Wilson DL, Jimenez M, King D, Nguyen Z, and Kool ET (2018) Potent and Selective Inhibitors of 8-Oxoguanine DNA Glycosylase, J. Am. Chem. Soc 140, 2105–2114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [37].Visnes T, Cazares-Korner A, Hao W, Wallner O, Masuyer G, Loseva O, Mortusewicz O, Wiita E, Sarno A, Manoilov A, Astorga-Wells J, Jemth AS, Pan L, Sanjiv K, Karsten S, Gokturk C, Grube M, Homan EJ, Hanna BMF, Paulin CBJ, Pham T, Rasti A, Berglund UW, von Nicolai C, Benitez-Buelga C, Koolmeister T, Ivanic D, Iliev P, Scobie M, Krokan HE, Baranczewski P, Artursson P, Altun M, Jensen AJ, Kalderen C, Ba X, Zubarev RA, Stenmark P, Boldogh I, and Helleday T. (2018) Small-molecule inhibitor of OGG1 suppresses proinflammatory gene expression and inflammation, Science 362, 834–839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [38].Tahara YK, Kietrys AM, Hebenbrock M, Lee Y, Wilson DL, and Kool ET (2019) Dual Inhibitors of 8-Oxoguanine Surveillance by OGG1 and NUDT1, ACS Chem. Biol 14, 2606–2615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [39].Dizdaroglu M, Coskun E, and Jaruga P. (2017) Repair of oxidatively induced DNA damage by DNA glycosylases: Mechanisms of action, substrate specificities and excision kinetics, Mutat. Res. Rev. Mut. Res 771, 99–127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [40].Endutkin AV, Zharkov DO (2020) Substrate specificities of DNA glycosylases in vitro and in vivo, In DNA Damage, DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 1 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 175–203, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [41].Dizdaroglu M, Coskun E, Tuna G, Kant M. and Jaruga P. (2020) Oxidatively induced DNA damage: Mechanisms and measurement, In DNA Damage, DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 1 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 86–116, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- [42].Dherin C, Radicella JP, Dizdaroglu M, and Boiteux S. (1999) Excision of oxidatively damaged DNA bases by the human alpha-hOgg1 protein and the polymorphic alpha-hOgg1(Ser326Cys) protein which is frequently found in human populations, Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 4001–4007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [43].Audebert M, Radicella JP, and Dizdaroglu M. (2000) Effect of single mutations in the OGG1 gene found in human tumors on the substrate specificity of the Ogg1 protein, Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 2672–2678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [44].Edwards SK, Ono T, Wang S, Jiang W, Franzini RM, Jung JW, Chan KM, and Kool ET (2015) In Vitro Fluorogenic Real-Time Assay of the Repair of Oxidative DNA Damage, Chembiochem. 16, 1637–1646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [45].Wilson DL, and Kool ET (2018) Fluorescent Probes of DNA Repair, ACS Chem. Biol 13, 1721–1733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [46].Qin S, Lin P, Wu Q, Pu Q, Zhou C, Wang B, Gao P, Wang Z, Gao A,Overby M, Yang J, Jiang J, Wilson DL, Tahara Y, Kool ET, Xia Z, and Wu M. (2020) A small molecule Inhibitor of 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 regulates inflammatory responses during P. aeruginosa infection, J. Immunol 205, 2231–2242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [47].Boiteux S, Gajewski E, Laval J, and Dizdaroglu M. (1992) Substrate-Specificity of the Escherichia-Coli Fpg Protein (Formamidopyrimidine DNA Glycosylase) - Excision of Purine Lesions in DNA Produced by Ionizing-Radiation or Photosensitization, Biochemistry 31, 106–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [48].Karakaya A, Jaruga P, Bohr VA, Grollman AP, and Dizdaroglu M. (1997) Kinetics of excision of purine lesions from DNA by Escherichia coli Fpg protein, Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 474–479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [49].Karahalil B, Girard PM, Boiteux S, and Dizdaroglu M. (1998) Substrate specificity of the Ogg1 protein of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: excision of guanine lesions produced in DNA by ionizing radiation- or hydrogen peroxide/metal ion-generated free radicals, Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 1228–1233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [50].Dherin C, Dizdaroglu M, Doerflinger H, Boiteux S, and Radicella JP (2000) Repair of oxidative DNA damage in Drosophila melanogaster: identification and characterization of dOgg1, a second DNA glycosylase activity for 8-hydroxyguanine and formamidopyrimidines, Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 4583–4592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [51].Morales-Ruiz T, Birincioglu M, Jaruga P, Rodriguez H, Roldan-Arjona T, and Dizdaroglu M. (2003) Arabidopsis thaliana Ogg1 protein excises 8-hydroxyguanine and 2,6-diamino-4-hydroxy-5-formamidopyrimidine from oxidatively damaged DNA containing multiple lesions, Biochemistry 42, 3089–3095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [52].Hu J, de Souza-Pinto NC, Haraguchi K, Hogue BA, Jaruga P, Greenberg MM, Dizdaroglu M, and Bohr VA (2005) Repair of formamidopyrimidines in DNA involves different glycosylases: role of the OGG1, NTH1, and NEIL1 enzymes, J. Biol. Chem 280, 40544–40551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [53].Greenberg MM (2012) The formamidopyrimidines: purine lesions formed in competition with 8-oxopurines from oxidative stress, Acc. Chem. Res 45, 588–597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [54].Boldogh I, Pan L, Vlahopoulos S, Zheng X, Wang K, Hazra TK, Hegde ML, Bacsi A, Radak Z, Brasier AR and Ba X. (2020) OGG1 at the Crossroads of Inflammation and DNA Base Excision Repair, In DNA Damage, DNA Repair and Disease, Volume 2 (Dizdaroglu M, Lloyd RS, Ed.), pp 75–103, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.



