Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. doi: 10.2478/raon-2022-0014 173 research article Expression of DNA-damage response and repair genes after exposure to DNA-damaging agents in isogenic head and neck cells with altered radiosensitivity Vesna Todorovic1, Blaz Groselj2,3, Maja Cemazar1,4, Ajda Prevc1, Martina Niksic Zakelj1, Primoz Strojan2,3,Gregor Sersa1,5 1 Department of Experimental Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 3 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 4 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Izola, Slovenia 5 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Received 25 February 2022 Accepted 16 March 2022 Correspondence to: Prof. Gregor Serša, Ph.D., Department of Experimental Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloška 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: gsersa@onko-i.si Vesna Todorovic and Blaz Groselj contributed equally to this work. Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Background. Increased radioresistance due to previous irradiation or radiosensitivity due to human papilloma virus (HPV) infection can be observed in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA-damaging agents plays a crucial role in determining the fate of exposed cells. Tightly regulated and interconnected signaling networks are activated to detect, signal the presence of and repair the DNA damage. Novel therapies targeting the DNA-damage response are emerging; however, an improved understanding of the complex signaling networks involved in tumor radioresistance and radiosensitivity is needed. Materials and methods. In this study, we exposed isogenic human HNSCC cell lines with altered radiosensitivity to DNA-damaging agents: radiation, cisplatin and bleomycin. We investigated transcriptional alterations in the DNA- damage response by using a pathway-focused panel and reverse-transcription quantitative PCR. Results. In general, the isogenic cell lines with altered radiosensitivity significantly differed from one another in the expression of genes involved in the DNA-damage response. The radiosensitive (HPV-positive) cells showed overall decreases in the expression levels of the studied genes. In parental cells, upregulation of DNA-damage signaling and repair genes was observed following exposure to DNA-damaging agents, especially radiation. In contrast, radioresist- ant cells exhibited a distinct pattern of gene downregulation after exposure to cisplatin, whereas the levels in parental cells were unchanged. Exposure of radioresistant cells to bleomycin did not significantly affect the expression of DNA- damage signaling and repair genes. Conclusions. Our analysis identified several possible targets: NBN, XRCC3, ATR, GADD45A and XPA. These putative targets should be studied and potentially exploited for sensibilization to ionizing radiation and/or cisplatin in HNSCC. The use of predesigned panels of DNA-damage signaling and repair genes proved to offer a convenient and quick approach to identify possible therapeutic targets. Key words: head and neck cancer; squamous cell carcinoma; radioresistance; irradiation; DNA-damaging agents; gene expression profiles Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents174 Introduction The DNA-damage response (DDR) plays a crucial role in determining the fate of cells after exposure to DNA-damaging agents. DNA-damage sensors, transducers and effectors are involved in tightly regulated and interconnected pathways.1 In the efficient response to DNA damage, the detection of defects in DNA structure is followed by cell cy- cle arrest and the activation of appropriate repair mechanisms via the activation of various DNA- repair pathways. In the event of excessive or irrep- arable DNA damage, cell cycle arrest eventually leads to the elimination of cells with such damage through mechanisms such as apoptosis or mitotic catastrophe. In addition, permanent cell cycle ar- rest in the form of senescence can be induced.2 The main types of radiation-induced DNA dam- age include base damage, single-strand breaks and double-strand breaks.3 Cisplatin (CDDP) is one of the most commonly used anticancer drugs and binds to sequence-specific DNA sites, form- ing intrastrand DNA adducts and interstrand DNA crosslinks.4-6 Similar to radiation, bleomycin (BLEO) induces both single-strand and double- strand DNA breaks.7,8 Spontaneous intracellular activation of both CDDP and BLEO produces reac- tive oxygen species (ROS), which facilitate further oxidative damage to DNA.5,8 Depending on the complexity of DNA damage, different repair path- ways are activated through the DNA-damage sign- aling cascade.1 The ability of tumor cells to induce an effective DNA-damage response immediately after exposure to DNA-damaging agents promotes radio- and chemoresistance. On the other hand, failure to sufficiently activate DNA repair can lead to tumor cell death. Both increased radioresistance and radiosensi- tivity can be observed in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Radioresistant HNSCC is prone to recur in previously irradiated areas from the surviving radioresistant cells.9,10 On the other side of the radiosensitivity spectrum of HNSCC, encouragingly favorable survival outcomes in hu- man papillomavirus (HPV)-induced oropharynge- al SCCs to the standard combination of concurrent combination of irradiation (IR) with CDDP encour- age thinking about modifying therapy intensity.11,12 Indeed, in the last decade, several de-escalation therapeutic approaches have been proposed for the treatment of HPV-positive tumors due to their increased radiosensitivity to reduce treatment-as- sociated toxicities while maintaining therapeutic efficacy.13-15 However, novel and effective therapies as alternatives to IR and CDDP are needed to treat recurrent resistant tumors. BLEO-based therapies are interesting alternatives for the treatment of HNSCC because BLEO, although considered a ra- diomimetic drug, differs from radiation in the way it induces damage.16 Improved therapeutic outcomes can also be achieved through targeted therapies that are based on disruption of the DDR. Such therapies are es- pecially relevant for targeting tumor cells deficient in specific functions of the DNA-damage signal- ing network.17,18 Therefore, attaining an improved understanding of the increased radiosensitivity observed in HPV-positive oropharyngeal tumors could contribute to the development of novel tar- geted therapies for radioresistant HNSCC. In HPV- positive oropharyngeal SCC, increased radiosen- sitivity is related to the HPV-associated perturba- tions of the cell cycle, activation of the immune sys- tem and alterations in DNA-damage repair.14,19-21 In contrast, radioresistance is associated with multiple cellular adjustments conferring traits such as en- hanced DNA repair, altered cell cycle progression, and more efficient ROS scavenging.22,23 Isogenic cell lines with altered radiosensitivity can serve as good experimental and predictive models, as survival differences can be directly attributed to specific modifications in intrinsic cellular features. We previously established a radioresistant HNSCC cell line from parental FaDu cells via re- peated exposure to radiation.23 Additionally, a ra- diosensitive HPV-positive 2A3 cell line was estab- lished from the parental FaDu cells by stable trans- fection with HPV-16 oncogenes E6 and E7.24 The aim of this study was to exploit these isogenic parental, radioresistant and radiosensitive HNSCC cell lines to evaluate the differences among them in the DDR to DNA-damage inducing agents. We investigated the expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in these cell lines in response to DNA damage-induc- ing agents: radiation, CDDP and BLEO. Materials and methods Cell culture Isogenic human pharyngeal SCC cell lines FaDu, 2A3 and FaDu-RR, differing in radiosensitiv- ity, were cultured in a humidified atmosphere at 37°C and 5% CO2. Cells were grown in advanced Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM; Gibco, Thermo Fisher, MA, USA) supplemented with 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco, Thermo Fisher), 10 mM L-glutamine (GlutaMAX, Gibco), Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents 175 penicillin (100 U/mL) (Grünenthal, Germany) and gentamicin (50 mg/mL) (Krka, Slovenia). The cell culture medium for the 2A3 cell line was addition- ally supplemented with 1 mg/mL G418 disulfate salt solution (Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA). The pa- rental TP53 mutated cell line FaDu was obtained from ATCC (HTB-43).25 The HPV-positive cell line 2A3 was established by selection of trans- fected FaDu cells with HPV16 oncogenes E6 and E7 and was obtained as a gift from Prof. Ekaterina Dadachova – the process described in the paper by Harris M, et al.24 The radioresistant cell line FaDu- RR was established in our laboratory from the pa- rental FaDu cells by repeated exposure to radiation as described previously.23 These isogenic cells were authenticated by short tandem repeat profiling using CellCheck 16 – human (IDEXX BioAnalytics, Germany) for the FaDu and FaDu-RR cells and CellCheck 9 – human (IDEXX BioAnalytics) for the 2A3 cells. The genetic profile of the cell lines used in this study was iden- tical to their publicly available genetic profile. Study design To evaluate the expression of DNA-damage sign- aling genes in isogenic FaDu (HPV-negative) and 2A3 (HPV-positive) cells after exposure to radia- tion or a combination of radiation and a low radio- sensitizing dose of CDDP, cells were first exposed to CDDP (0.1 μg/mL, Cisplatin Kabi; Fresenius Kabi AG, Germany) for 4 h. Then, CDDP was as- pirated, and fresh media was added to the cells prior to irradiating the cells at 5 Gy as described previously.23 The established groups were desig- nated control (untreated cells), IR (irradiated cells), CDDP (cisplatin-treated cells) and IR+CDDP (cells treated with irradiation and cisplatin). Based on the observed CDDP resistance in (ra- dioresistant) FaDu-RR cells,23 the expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in isogenic (radi- oresistant) FaDu-RR and (parental) FaDu cells ex- posed to either CDDP (1 μg/mL) or BLEO (5 μM) were evaluated. CDDP or BLEO was added to cell culture media for 2 h. Then, the cell culture media containing the drugs were aspirated from the cell cultures, and fresh media was added to the cells, which were then incubated for 5 h. Final con- centrations of CDDP (Cisplatin Kabi) and BLEO (Heinrich Marck Nachf GmbH, Germany) were prepared in phosphate-buffered saline. The estab- lished groups were designated control (untreated cells), CDDP (cisplatin-treated cells) and BLEO (bleomycin-treated cells). The selection of CDDP and BLEO concentrations was based on our previ- ous studies.26,27 DNA-damage signaling The Human DNA Damage Signaling Pathway RT2 ProfilerTM PCR Array (PAHS-029Z, Qiagen, Germany), which allows profiling of the expres- sion of 84 DNA-damage signaling genes, was used to study the DDR in response to IR, CDDP or BLEO in isogenic cell lines with different radiosensitivi- ties. Total RNA was isolated from the cells 5 h after the last treatment by using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s in- structions. RNA concentration and sample purity (A260/280) were determined spectrophotometri- cally on an Epoch Microplate Spectrophotomer (BioTek Instruments, USA). cDNA was synthesized from 2 μg total RNA using the RT2 First Strand Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instruc- tions. Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR was carried out using RT2 qPCR SYBR Green ROX Mastermix (Qiagen) and cycling on a QuantStudio 3 Real-time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, USA) as described previously.23 Data analysis and statistics GeneGlobe Data Analysis Center (Qiagen) was used to identify reference genes with the most sta- ble gene expression under specific experimental conditions. For the analysis of FaDu cells exposed to IR and CDDP, the expression data were normal- ized to the gene expression of ACTB, B2M, GAPDH, HPRT1 and RPLP0, and for the analysis of 2A3 cells exposed to IR and CDDP, they were normalized to the gene expression of B2M, GAPDH, HPRT1 and RPLP0. For analysis of FaDu cells exposed to CDDP and BLEO, the data were normalized to the gene expression of ACTB, GAPDH and RPLP0, and for the analysis of FaDu-RR cells exposed to CDDP and BLEO, they were normalized to the gene expres- sion of B2M and RPLP0. The geometric mean of the selected genes was used for accurate averaging of the reference genes.28 The ΔΔCT method was used to calculate the fold change in gene expression.29 To identify significantly differentially expressed genes, thresholds of >1.5 (upregulated) or <0.67 (downregulated) fold-change in gene expression and p value less than 0.05 were set. Clustergrams were created in GeneGlobe Data Analysis Center by nonsupervised hierarchical clustering of the entire dataset to generate a heat map with dendrograms indicating coregulated genes within individual Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents176 samples or across treatment groups based on the magnitude of gene expression and average linkage. The magnitude of gene expression was determined by calculating the 2-ΔCT for each individual gene and normalizing to the average 2-ΔCT of all genes across all samples. Average linkage is a measure of the distance between clusters and was calculated using the average of the distances in the distance/ dissimilarity matrix between all pairs of genes in the two clusters. GraphPad Prism 8.1.2 (GraphPad Software, Inc., CA, USA) was used for data visualization and sta- tistical analysis. The data were tested for normal distributions using the D’Agostino and Pearson test. Differences in the overall gene expression data were identified by the nonparametric Kruskall- Wallis test followed by Dunn’s multiple compari- son test. Differences in the expression of specific genes were identified by Student’s t-test (two-tailed test assuming equal variances between groups), with the replicate 2–ΔΔCT values for each gene in each treatment group compared with those in the control cells from 3 independent experiments. Differences were considered significant at p value less than 0.05. Unless stated otherwise, data are shown as the mean and standard error of the mean (SEM). Results DNA-damage signaling in HPV-negative FaDu cells versus HPV-positive 2A3 cell In the FaDu cells, i.e., the parental, HPV-negative cells, an overall increase in the expression of DNA- damage signaling genes was observed in response to the studied treatments (Figure 1). The most sig- nificant changes from control levels were observed in irradiated cells, in which overall gene expression was also significantly increased compared with that of cells exposed to CDDP either alone or in combination with radiation. In the 2A3 cells, i.e., the radiosensitive, HPV- positive cells, the overall expression of DNA- damage signaling genes was less affected by treat- ment than it was in FaDu cells. A nonsignificant decrease in the expression of DNA-damage signal- ing genes was observed in comparison to untreated cells (control), with a significant difference in gene expression observed only between control cells and cells exposed solely to CDDP. Clustergram analysis revealed 9 distinct clusters in (parental) FaDu cells and 10 distinct clusters in (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells at ¼ dendrogram branch height for cells exposed to CDDP, radiation or their combination (Figure 2). The FaDu cells exposed to CDDP either alone or in combination with radia- tion showed the highest degree of similarity in the expression of DNA-damage signaling genes. Gene expression in these FaDu cells exposed to CDDP, either alone or in combination with radiation, was more similar to that of control cells than to that of irradiated FaDu cells. Similarly, (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells exposed to CDDP either alone or in com- bination with radiation showed the highest degree of similarity, whereas gene expression in irradiated 2A3 cells was more similar to that of control cells than to that of CDDP-treated cells. In (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells, 4 genes (NBN, XRCC1, FEN1, and GADD45A) were sig- nificantly upregulated after exposure to CDDP, 16 genes (ATR, ATRIP, BARD1, BLM, BRCA1, FANCG, MDC1, MSH3, PMS1, PRKDC, RAD18, RBBP8, REV1, SMC1A, TP73, and UNG) were sig- nificantly upregulated after IR, and 6 genes (NBN, XRCC1, FEN1, BLM, EXO1, and GADD45A) were significantly upregulated after exposure to the combination of CDDP and radiation. The seven genes (ATR, ATRIP, BARD1, BRCA1, MDC1, RBBP8 and SMC1A) that were significantly up- regulated in response to IR are mainly involved in ATM/ATR signaling (Figure 3). In (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells, no upregulation of DNA-damage signaling genes and no significant changes in the expression of ATM/ATR signaling genes were observed in response to CDDP, IR or CDDP+IR treatment. One gene (PPP1R15A) was significantly downregulated after exposure to CDDP, 1 gene (XRCC3) was significantly down- FIGURE 1. Overall expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in (parental, HPV- negative) FaDu cells and (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells after exposure to cisplatin (CDDP), radiation (IR) or their combination (CDDP+IR). Symbols are mean gene expression for each of the 84 DNA-damage signaling genes included on the Human DNA Damage Signaling Pathway RT2 ProfilerTM PCR Array from 3 independent experiments. The lines indicate the median gene expression of all tested genes. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001 Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents 177 regulated after IR, and 2 genes (PPP1R15A and XRCC3) were significantly downregulated af- ter CDDP+IR (Figure 3). The expression of genes in- volved in various repair path- ways was significantly upregu- lated in response to CDDP, IR or CDDP+IR in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells but not in (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells. The major DDR gene involved in the initiation of the DDR and HR pathway repair, NBN, was upregulated after expo- sure to CDDP, both alone and in combination with radiation. Furthermore, 4 genes involved in the initial steps of the DNA- damage response and the HR repair pathway (BLM, BRCA1, MDC1 and PRKDC) were upreg- ulated in response to IR; among them, BLM was also upregulated in response to CDDP+IR treat- ment. The expression of nucleo- tide excision repair (NER) genes was not significantly affected in either (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells or (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells in response to CDDP, IR or CDDP+IR treatment. The expression of base excision re- pair (BER) genes was not signifi- cantly affected in (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells in response to any of treatment. In FaDu cells, expres- sion of the BER gene XRCC1 and the microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) gene FEN1 was significantly upregulated in response to both CDDP and CDDP+IR, whereas nonsignifi- cant upregulation of these two FIGURE 2. 2-D clustergram analysis of the expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells and (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells after exposure to cisplatin (CDDP), radiation (IR) or their combination (CDDP+IR). Clusters observed at ¼ dendrogram branch height are shown as blocks of different color. Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents178 genes was observed after IR alone. Gene expres- sion of MSH3, PMS1 and TP73, involved in mis- match repair (MMR), was significantly upregu- lated in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells after IR. In (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells, upregulation of EXO1 was observed after exposure to CDDP and IR. In addition, the expression of other repair genes was significantly affected by treatment in FaDu cells. Specifically, 8 genes (ATR, ATRIP, BARD1, FANCG, RAD18, RBBP8, REV1, and SMC1A) were significantly upregulated after IR, whereas GADD45A was significantly upregulated after ex- posure to CDDP or CDDP+IR. In (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells, an important gene for HR, XRCC3, was significantly downregulated after IR or CDDP+IR. The genes ATR, ATRIP, MDC1 and TP73, which are involved in cell cycle regulation, were signifi- cantly upregulated in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells after IR. Additionally, the expression of PPP1R15A in these cells was upregulated 2.1-fold after IR. In contrast, in (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells, PPP1R15A was significantly downregulated after exposure to CDDP or CDDP+IR and was down- regulated 2-fold after IR. The expression of 4 genes (BARD1, BRCA1, PRKDC and TP73), involved in apoptosis, was significantly upregulated after IR in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells. Additionally, the ex- pression of PPP1R15A in these cells was upregu- lated 2.1-fold (p=0.17) after IR. On the other hand, in (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells, PPP1R15A was sig- nificantly downregulated after exposure to CDDP either alone or in combination with radiation. Furthermore, the expression of PPP1R15A was downregulated 2-fold (p=0.18) after IR. DNA-damage signaling in (parental) FaDu cells versus (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells Gene expression in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells exposed to either CDDP or BLEO did not dif- fer significantly from that in untreated (control) cells (Figure 4). After exposure to CDDP, cells of the radioresistant line, FaDu-RR, showed a sig- nificantly different pattern of gene expression from control or BLEO-treated cells. Clustergram analysis revealed 6 distinct clusters in (parental) FaDu cells and 5 distinct clusters in (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells at ¼ dendrogram branch height in cells exposed to CDDP or BLEO (Figure 5). CDDP- and BLEO-exposed (parental) FaDu cells were more similar to each other in the expression of DNA-damage signaling genes than they were to control FaDu cells. The expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in BLEO-exposed FaDu-RR cells was more similar to that in control cells than to that in CDDP-exposed cells. In total, in (parental) FaDu cells, 2 genes (CDKN1A, GADD45A) were significantly up- regulated after exposure to CDDP or BLEO. In FIGURE 3. Deregulated expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in (parental, HPV- negative) FaDu cells and (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells after exposure to cisplatin (CDDP), radiation (IR) or their combination (CDDP+IR). Only significantly deregulated genes are shown. Symbols are the mean and SEM from three independent experiments. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 FIGURE 4. Overall gene expression in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells and (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells in response to cisplatin (CDDP) and bleomycin (BLEO). Symbols are mean gene expression for each of the 84 DNA-damage signaling genes included on the Human DNA Damage Signaling Pathway RT2 ProfilerTM PCR Array from 3 independent experiments. The lines indicate the median gene expression of all tested genes. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001 Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents 179 (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells, 1 gene (CDC25C) was significantly downreg- ulated after exposure to CDDP, and 1 gene (XPA) was significantly upregu- lated after exposure to BLEO. In (parental) FaDu cells, none of the genes involved in the ATM/ATR sign- aling pathway were significantly af- fected by exposure to CDDP or BLEO. Furthermore, no significant changes in the expression of ATM/ATR signal- ing genes were observed in response to CDDP or BLEO in (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells. No genes involved in DSB and BER were significantly dereg- ulated in (parental) FaDu or (radiore- sistant) FaDu-RR cells after exposure to CDDP or BLEO. NER gene expression in (parental) FaDu cells was unaffected by exposure to BLEO or CDDP, where- as in (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells, XPA was significantly upregulated in response to BLEO. MMR genes were not significantly deregulated in (radi- oresistant) FaDu-RR cells after expo- sure to CDDP or BLEO. The expression of other repair genes was deregulated in (parental) FaDu cells but not in (ra- dioresistant) FaDu-RR cells. GADD45A expression was significantly upregu- lated after exposure to CDDP or BLEO. In response to CDDP or BLEO, CDKN1A was significantly upregu- lated in (parental) FaDu cells, and CDC25C was significantly downregu- lated after exposure to CDDP in (radi- oresistant) FaDu-RR cells. In response to CDDP or BLEO, CDKN1A, involved in apoptosis, was significantly upregulated while TP73 was significantly downregulated in (parental) FaDu cells. In (radioresist- ant) FaDu-RR cells, gene expression of CDKN1A was nonsignificantly up- regulated after exposure to CDDP or BLEO (Figure 6). FIGURE 5. 2-D clustergram analysis of the expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in (parental) FaDu cells and (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells after exposure to cisplatin (CDDP) or bleomycin (BLEO). Clusters observed at ¼ dendrogram branch height are shown as blocks of different color. Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents180 Discussion Genomic instability is one of the hallmarks of can- cer and is associated with the accumulation of DNA damage.30 Targeting the DDR by tailored cancer therapy offers a possibility to broaden the therapeu- tic window.17 After exposure to DNA-damaging agents, the DDR plays a central role in the sensi- tivity of cells and tissues to these toxic agents and, importantly, it affects the therapeutic outcome. Efficient DDR after therapy with DNA-damaging agents promotes resistance, whereas DDR defects can lead to increased cell death and sensitivity to treatment.31 In radiotherapy of HNSCC both phe- nomena, increased radioresistance and increased radiosensitivity, can be observed in specific differ- ent entities. The radioresistant HNSCC typically arises in previously irradiated areas, and any ad- ditional treatment is associated with a high risk of normal tissue toxicity, impaired quality of life and poor outcome.9,10 Compared to tobacco- and alco- hol-induced HPV-negative tumors, HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCCs display an increased sensitiv- ity to radio- and chemotherapy and are associated with reduced risk of locoregional recurrence and increased survival probability.32-36 For the purposes of the present study, we used the commercially available RT2 Profiler PCR Array, which has been designed to evaluate the expres- sion of 84 genes involved in DNA-damage signal- ing or ATM/ATR signaling, DNA repair, cell cycle and apoptosis. These arrays are designed to enable a quick and reliable gene expression analysis of relevant genes from specific pathway, and repre- sent an important first step in screening for differ- entially expressed genes under specific conditions as an alternative to more expensive and complex microarray analysis. These assays are accurate and easy to use. The expression of the studied genes varied with HPV status. DNA damage signaling and re- pair gene expression in HPV-negative (FaDU) and HPV-positive (2A3) cells in response to CDDP, IR and CDDP+IR was different according to the HPV status. In the parental HPV-negative (FaDu) cells, we observed significantly increased expression of DNA-damage signaling and HR repair pathway genes after CDDP+IR treatment. The opposite trend was observed in HPV-positive (2A3) cells, which exhibited patterns of DNA-damage signal- ing and repair gene expression similar to those of nonirradiated control 2A3 cells. Increased expression of ATM/ATR signaling genes was observed in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells in response to IR but not in response to CDDP either alone or in combination with IR. On the other hand, in (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells, no change in ATM/ATR signaling gene expression was detected after cisplatin, IR or combination CDDP+IR treatment. ATM is primarily activated by DNA DSBs, whereas ATR is activated in re- sponse to various DNA lesions that interfere with DNA replication, such as stalled replication forks, but also DSB.1,37 ATM is therefore required for the early response to IR-induced DSB and cells lacking ATM are extremely sensitive to IR.38 Although the upregulation of ATR and ATRIP can be expected due to their involvement in the HR, it could also indicate the presence of ssDNA, since the protein complex ATR-ATRIP is recruited to sites contain- ing single-strand DNA regions.38,39 Increased sensi- tivity to CDDP and IR upon inhibition of ATR has been previously shown in several studies on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells in vitro.40-42 FIGURE 6. Deregulated expression of DNA-damage signaling genes in (parental) FaDu cells and (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells after exposure to cisplatin (CDDP) or bleomycin (BLEO). Only significantly deregulated genes are shown. Symbols are the mean and SEM from three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents 181 Previously, we observed cell cycle delay in S and G2/M phase in FaDu and 2A3 cells 5 h after IR.23 Such delay could be due to HR repair of DSBs in FaDu cells, as indicated by the upregulation of some specific DNA-damage signaling and repair genes (BRCA1, BARD1, RBBP8, and SMC1A) observed in this study. The NBN gene for NBS1 protein is a ma- jor factor involved in the earliest stages of DSB de- tection as part of the MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 protein and as a DNA repair protein of HR pathway.43 NBN expression did not differ among untreated (control) isogenic FaDu, FaDu-RR and 2A3 cells; however, a difference in NBN expression was found in re- sponse to IR, with upregulation observed in (ra- dioresistant) FaDu-RR cells and downregulation observed in the radiosensitive (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells.23 Similarly, Prati et al. observed downregula- tion of NBN and XRCC2 (the latter being a gene for HR paralog protein, similar to XRCC3, discussed below) in HPV-positive cervical cancer cells in comparison to HPV-negative cells.44 In the paper by Girard PM, et al., cellular radiosensitivity in cells lacking NBS1 protein has been established due to repair defect.45 In (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells, gene XRCC3 was significantly downregulated after IR, and significantly downregulated after CDDP+IR. XRCC3 is a major HR protein and the levels of the protein strongly correlate with response to radia- tion. For example, Cheng J, et al., observed a sub- stantial increase in radiosensitivity of esophageal SCC with knock-down of XRCC3.46 BARD1 and BRCA1 are extremely important HR regulators, and their deficiency results in HR defect.1,47 RBBP8 is an important factor in the NHEJ-to-HR switch.48,49 SMC1A is one of the four subunits of cohesin, a pro- tein complex promoting DNA repair by HR and the recruitment of proteins involved in the activation of S and G2/M-checkpoints.50 The present data im- ply that these genes play important roles in HR re- pair in HPV-negative FaDu cells. This implication should be confirmed at the protein level by Western blotting; the lack of confirmation here is one of the limitations of the present study. Since no altera- tion in gene expression in (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells was observed at 5 h after IR, it is possible that the DSBs observed in our previous study at 5 h after IR remained unrepaired,23 due to either damage complexity or inactive/insufficient HR repair, and that such breaks are responsible for the increased radiosensitivity of (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells. MDC1 is required for full size formation of gH2AX foci at DSB sites.1 The upregulation of MDC1 in (HPV- negative) FaDu cells but not (HPV-positive) 2A3 cells could thus indicate a limited formation of gH2AX foci in 2A3 cells, which would impair DSB repair. More efficient DSB repair was observed in FaDu cells than 2A3 cells after IR in the slow phase of DSB repair, which corresponds to the HR repair of DSBs.23 In addition to DSBs, other types of IR-associated DNA damage are repaired by BER.17 The antican- cer effect of IR can be potentiated by CDDP.14,51 CDDP-induced damage to the nucleotides causes distortions in DNA structure and can be repaired by NER.17 In the present study, the expression of the NER and BER genes was not affected in HPV- positive 2A3 cells. In (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells, the BER gene XRCC1 and the MMEJ gene FEN1 were upregulated in response to CDDP. The lack of change in BER gene expression in the HPV-positive cells indicates the possible presence of unrepaired single-strand breaks, abasic sites and modified bases, including damaged bases by ROS. In HPV-positive cells compared with HPV- negative cells, more oxidative damage is expected due to E6-mediated oxidative stress.52 Alterations in DNA-damage signaling are as- sociated with the onset of radioresistance. In ad- dition to radioresistance, CDDP cross-resistance has been observed in some radioresistant cell lines.23,53-57 CDDP resistance is multifactorial and can be classified into the following types: pretarget resistance, affecting the intracellular accumulation of CDDP; on-target resistance, directly influencing CDDP-DNA adducts; posttarget resistance, affect- ing DNA-damage signaling pathways in response to CDDP-induced DNA damage; and off-target re- sistance, affecting signaling pathways not directly linked to CDDP-induced damage.4,5 It is not clear how much each of these resistance mechanisms contributes to overall CDDP resistance. However, the application of CDDP in assumed radiosensitive tumors should be carefully considered, and alter- native approaches might have better therapeutic effect. Posttarget CDDP resistance includes altered DNA-damage signaling pathways in response to CDDP-induced DNA damage. Interestingly, we have observed significantly altered expression of DNA-damage signaling genes after exposure to CDDP in radioresistant and CDDP-resistant FaDu- RR cells but not in (parental, HPV-negative) FaDu cells. Altered expression of DNA-damage signal- ing genes was confirmed by clustergram analysis, which revealed that in (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells, gene expression after CDDP exposure was dissimilar to that after exposure to BLEO. Overall, a trend of downregulated DNA-damage signaling Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents182 genes was observed in (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells in comparison to control (untreated) cells. CDKN1A and GADD45A were upregulated in response to CDDP and BLEO in (parental) FaDu cells, whereas their expression was increased to a lesser degree in (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells. Transcriptional upregulation of these genes can mediate cell cycle arrest.58 GADD45A plays roles in cell cycle regulation, DNA repair and apopto- sis and is associated with increased transcriptional activity.59-61 GADD45 proteins act as stress sensors and tumor suppressor proteins. After cellular expo- sure to toxic agents – e.g. IR or alkylating agent, the members of this protein family are induced. This can cause cell cycle arrest and/or DNA repair in- duction. The role of GADD45 proteins in the DNA repair machinery is still not very clear, but impor- tant proteins of cell cycle arrest and DNA repair, such as p53 and BRCA1 (a protein of HR pathway) are known to regulate GADD45 expression by in- creasing transcription of the GADD45 gene expres- sion.62 Its role in CDDP resistance is unclear, as si- lencing of GADD45A can either reduce or increase CDDP sensitivity.63,64 Interestingly, after exposure to IR or alkylating agents, cells lacking p53 protein exhibits reduced levels of GADD45 activity. Also, following DNA damage GADD45A stabilizes p53 protein, an important step towards increased p53 activity. It has been reported that GADD45 null mice display increased sensitivity to radiation car- cinogenesis and genomic instability.62,65 CDKN1A encodes cyclin-dependent kinase in- hibitor p21, which acts as a principal mediator of cell cycle arrest in response to DNA damage and as a promoter of apoptosis and transcriptional activ- ity.66 It is directly downstream of p53 protein.67 Upregulation of XPA was observed after expo- sure to BLEO in (radioresistant) FaDu-RR cells. After exposure to CDDP, XPA gene expression was increased, but the increase did not reach sig- nificance. In (parental) FaDu cells, XPA was not significantly increased. Upregulation of XPA has also been observed in radioresistant glioblastoma cells.68 XPA upregulation could indicate active DNA repair through NER, since XPA plays a cen- tral role in this repair pathway, via which CDDP- DNA adducts are repaired. This speculation is supported by the increased expression of XPC ob- served in FaDu-RR cells. Both XPC and XPA are part of protein complexes that participate in the recognition of DNA interstrand crosslinks.69 XPA is also involved in CDDP resistance; by targeting the NER pathway, specifically, its central player XPA, sensitization to CDDP can be achieved.70,71 Most of the up or down regulated genes deter- mined in our study are connected to p53 protein, which is inactivated in about 80% of HNSCC,72 thus representing a major player in the HNSCC carcino- genesis. Increased expression of ATR, which was observed in FaDu cells in response to IR, could lead to increased phosphorylation mediated by ATR ki- nase and thus stabilization of p53 protein, leading to quiescence or senescence.73 NBN expression, for example was down-regulated in 2A3 cells, and up-regulated in FaDu-RR cells in response to IR. NBN modulates the DNA damage signal sensing also by recruiting PI3/PI4-kinase family members ATM and ATR and further influencing the TP53 expression.74 On the other hand, p53 regulates the transcription of cell cycle genes, such as GADD45A gene, which was up-regulated in response to treat- ment with chemotherapeutics and IR in FaDu and FaDu-RR cell, but less in 2A3 cells, again in line with phenotypic features of radiosensitivity of these isogenic cell lines. Furthermore, upregula- tion of XPA, which is involved in nucleotide exci- sion repair, was observed after treatment of FaDu- RR cells with chemotherapeutics, that could also be the result of p53 stabilization. To conclude, the use of predesigned panels of DNA-damage signaling and repair genes proved to be a convenient approach for quickly identify- ing possible therapeutic targets in isogenic HNSCC cells lines with different degrees of radiosensitiv- ity. Based in the described results, we identified several interesting targets, such as NBN, XRCC3, ATR, GADD45A and XPA, that could be exploited for the potentiation of the antitumor effects of IR and/or CDDP in resistant (HPV-negative) tumor cells. Among these genes, NBN and XRCC3 are of particular interest due to their roles in the initiation of DSB recognition and response and in HR activa- tion. One of the major limitations of the presented study is the lack of the evidence at the protein lev- el. Using western blotting technique would allow us to confirm and validate the results at the protein expression level. Also, another approach to vali- date the feasibility of these potential targets should be the knock-down of genes of interest. Acknowledgments The language edition was performed by American Journal Experts. The authors also acknowledge the financial support from the state budget by the Slovenian Research Agency (program No. P3- 0307). Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents 183 References 1. Maréchal A, Zou L. DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2013; 5: a012716. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect. a012716 2. Eriksson D, Stigbrand T. Radiation-induced cell death mechanisms. Tumor Biol 2010; 31: 363-72. doi: 10.1007/s13277-010-0042-8 3. Lomax ME, Folkes LK, O’Neill P. Biological consequences of radiation-in- duced DNA damage: relevance to radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 2013; 25: 578-85. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2013.06.007 4. Hu J, Lieb JD, Sancar A, Adar S. Cisplatin DNA damage and repair maps of the human genome at single-nucleotide resolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2016; 13: 11507-12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1614430113 5. Galluzzi L, Senovilla L, Vitale I, Michels J, Martins I, Kepp O, et al. Molecular mechanisms of cisplatin resistance. Oncogene 2012; 31: 1869-83. doi: 10.1038/onc.2011.384 6. Makovec T. Cisplatin and beyond: molecular mechanisms of action and drug resistance development in cancer chemotherapy. Radiol Oncol 2019; 53: 148-58. doi: 10.2478/raon-2019-0018 7. Chen J, Stubbe J. Bleomycins: towards better therapeutics. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 102-12. doi: 10.1038/nrc1547 8. Allawzi A, Elajaili H, Redente EF, Nozik-Grayck E. Oxidative toxicology of bleomycin: role of the extracellular redox environment. Physiol Behav 2016; 176: 139-48. doi: 10.1016/j.cotox.2018.08.001 9. Strojan P, Corry J, Eisbruch A, Vermorken JB, Mendenhall WM, Lee AWM, et al. Recurrent and second primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: when and how to reirradiate. Head Neck 2015; 37: 134-50. doi: 10.1002/hed.23542 10. Blanchard P, Baujat B, Holostenco V, Bourredjem A, Baey C, Bourhis J, et al. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): a comprehensive analysis by tumour site. Radiother Oncol 2011; 100: 33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.036 11. Benson E, Li R, Eisele D, Fakhry C. The clinical impact of HPV tumor status upon head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Oral Oncol 2014; 50: 565- 74. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2013.09.008 12. Mirghani H, Amen F, Tao Y, Deutsch E, Levy A. Increased radiosensitiv- ity of HPV-positive head and neck cancers: molecular basis and thera- peutic perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev 2015; 41: 844-52. doi: 10.1016/j. ctrv.2015.10.001 13. Wierzbicka M, Szyfter K, Milecki P, Składowski K, Ramlau R. The rationale for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer de-escalation treatment strategies. Contemp Oncol 2015; 19: 313-22. doi: 10.5114/wo.2015.54389 14. Prevc A, Kranjc S, Cemazar M, Todorovic V, Zegura B, Novak M, et al. Dose- modifying factor of radiation therapy with concurrent cisplatin treatment in HPV-positive squamous cell carcinoma: a preclinical study. Radiat Res 2018; 189: 644-51. doi: 10.1667/RR14984.1 15. Kimple RJ, Harari PM. Is radiation dose reduction the right answer for HPV- positive head and neck cancer? Oral Oncol 2014; 50: 560-4. doi: 10.1016/j. oraloncology.2013.09.015 16. Adema AD, Cloos J, Verheijen RHM, Braakhuis BJM, Bryant PE. Comparison of bleomycin and radiation in the G2 assay of chromatid breaks. Int J Radiat Biol 2003; 79: 655-61. doi: 10.1080/09553000310001596968 17. O’Connor MJ. Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Mol Cell 2015; 60: 547-60. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.040 18. Brown JS, O’Carrigan B, Jackson SP, Yap TA. Targeting DNA repair in cancer: beyond PARP inhibitors. Cancer Discov 2017; 7: 20-37. doi: 10.1158/2159- 8290.CD-16-0860 19. Kimple RJ, Smith MA, Blitzer GC, Torres AD, Martin JA, Yang RZ, et al. Enhanced radiation sensitivity in HPV-positive head and neck cancer. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 4791-800. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0587 20. Park JW, Nickel KP, Torres AD, Lee D, Lambert PF, Kimple RJ. Human papil- lomavirus type 16 E7 oncoprotein causes a delay in repair of DNA damage. Radiother Oncol 2014; 113: 337-44. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.026 21. Spanos WC, Nowicki P, Lee DW, Hoover A, Hostager B, Gupta A, et al. Immune response during therapy with cisplatin or radiation for human papillomavirus-related head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg 2009; 135: 1137-46. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2009.159 22. McDermott N, Meunier A, Lynch TH, Hollywood D, Marignol L. Isogenic radiation resistant cell lines: development and validation strategies. Int J Radiat Biol 2014; 90: 115-26. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2014.873557 23. Todorovic V, Prevc A, Zakelj MN, Savarin M, Brozic A, Groselj B, et al. Mechanisms of different response to ionizing irradiation in isogenic head and neck cancer cell lines. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14: 1-20. doi: 10.1186/ s13014-019-1418-6 24. Harris M, Wang XG, Jiang Z, Goldberg GL, Casadevall A, Dadachova E. Radioimmunotherapy of experimental head and neck squamous cell car- cinoma (HNSCC) with E6-specific antibody using a novel HPV-16 positive HNSCC cell line. Head Neck Oncol 2011; 3: 9. doi: 10.1186/1758-3284-3-9 25. Reiss M, Brash D, Muñoz-Antonia T, Simon J, Ziegler A, Vellucci V, et al. Status of the p53 tumor suppressor gene in human squamous carcinoma cell lines. Oncol Res 1992; 4: 349-57. PMID:1486218 26. Prevc A, Niksic Zakelj M, Kranjc S, Cemazar M, Scancar J, Kosjek T, et al. Electrochemotherapy with cisplatin or bleomycin in head and neck squa- mous cell carcinoma: improved effectiveness of cisplatin in HPV-positive tumors. Bioelectrochemistry 2018; 123: 248-54. doi: 10.1016/j.bioelech- em.2018.06.004 27. Zakelj MN, Prevc A, Kranjc S, Cemazar M, Todorovic V, Savarin M, et al. Electrochemotherapy of radioresistant head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells and tumor xenografts. Oncol Rep 2019; 41: 1658-68. doi: 10.3892/or.2019.6960 28. Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, De Paepe A, et al. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geo- metric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol 2002; 3: RESEARCH0034. doi: 10.1186/gb-2002-3-7-research0034 29. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real- time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method Methods 2001; 25: 402-8. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 30. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011; 144: 646-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 31. Blasiak J. DNA-damaging anticancer drugs – a perspective for DNA repair- oriented therapy. Curr Med Chem 2017; 24: 1488-503. doi: 10.2174/09298 67324666170124145557 32. Arenz A, Ziemann F, Mayer C, Wittig A, Dreffke K, Preising S, et al. Increased radiosensitivity of HPV-positive head and neck cancer cell lines due to cell cycle dysregulation and induction of apoptosis. Strahlenther Onkol 2014; 190: 839-46. doi: 10.1007/s00066-014-0605-5 33. Fakhry C, Westra WH, Li S, Cmelak A, Ridge JA, Pinto H, et al. Improved survival of patients with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in a prospective clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 261-9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn011 34. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, Weber R, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen-Tân PF, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 24-35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912217 35. Rieckmann T, Tribius S, Grob TJ, Meyer F, Busch C-JJ, Petersen C, et al. HNSCC cell lines positive for HPV and p16 possess higher cellular radiosensitivity due to an impaired DSB repair capacity. Radiother Oncol 2013; 107: 242-6. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.03.013 36. Masterson L, Moualed D, Liu ZW, Howard JEF, Dwivedi RC, Tysome JR, et al. De-escalation treatment protocols for human papillomavirus-associ- ated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50: 2636-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.001 37. Blackford AN, Jackson SP. ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK: the trinity at the heart of the DNA damage response. Mol Cell 2017; 66: 801-17. doi: 10.1016/j. molcel.2017.05.015 38. McGowan CH, Russell P. The DNA damage response: sensing and signaling. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2004; 16: 629-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2004.09.005 39. Buisson R, Niraj J, Rodrigue A, Ho CK, Kreuzer J, Foo TK, et al. Coupling of homologous recombination and the checkpoint by ATR. Mol Cell 2017; 65: 336-46. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.12.007 Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 173-184. Todorovic V et al. / DNA-damage response of cells after exposure to DNA damaging agents184 40. Leonard BC, Lee ED, Bhola NE, Li H, Sogaard KK, Bakkenist CJ, et al. ATR inhibition sensitizes HPV− and HPV+ head and neck squamous cell carci- noma to cisplatin. Oral Oncol 2019; 95: 35-42. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncol- ogy.2019.05.028 41. Sankunny M, Parikh RA, Lewis DW, Gooding WE, Saunders WS, Gollin SM. Targeted inhibition of ATR or CHEK1 reverses radioresistance in oral squamous cell carcinoma cells with distal chromosome arm 11q loss. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2014; 53: 129-43. doi: 10.1002/gcc.22125 42. Wang H, Wang H, Powell SN, Iliakis G, Wang Y. ATR Affecting cell radiosen- sitivity is dependent on homologous recombination repair but independ- ent of nonhomologous end joining. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 7139-43. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1289 43. Bian L, Meng Y, Zhang M, Li D. MRE11-RAD50-NBS1 complex alterations and DNA damage response: implications for cancer treatment. Molecular Cancer 2019; 18: 169. doi: 10.1186/s12943-019-1100-5 44. Prati B, da Silva Abjaude W, Termini L, Morale M, Herbster S, Longatto-Filho A, et al. Three Prime Repair Exonuclease 1 (TREX1) expression correlates with cervical cancer cells growth in vitro and disease progression in vivo. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 351. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37064-x 45. Girard PM, Foray N, Stumm M, Waugh A, Riballo E, Maser RS, et al. Radiosensitivity in nijmegen breakage syndrome cells is attributable to a repair defect and not cell cycle checkpoint defects. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 4881-8. PMID: 10987302 46. Cheng J, Liu W, Zeng X, Zhang B, Guo Y, Qiu M, et al. XRCC3 is a promising target to improve the radiotherapy effect of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Sci 2015; 106: 1678-86. doi: 10.1111/cas.12820 47. Westermark UK, Reyngold M, Olshen AB, Baer R, Jasin M, Moynahan ME. BARD1 participates with BRCA1 in homology-directed repair of chromosome breaks. Mol Cell Biol 2003; 23: 7926-36. doi: 10.1128/ mcb.23.21.7926-7936.2003 48. Isono M, Niimi A, Oike T, Hagiwara Y, Sato H, Sekine R, et al. BRCA1 di- rects the repair pathway to homologous recombination by promoting 53BP1 dephosphorylation. Cell Rep 2017; 18: 520-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cel- rep.2016.12.042 49. Kakarougkas A, Jeggo PA. DNA DSB repair pathway choice: an orches- trated handover mechanism. Br J Radiol 2014; 87: 20130685. doi: 10.1259/ bjr.20130685 50. Litwin I, Pilarczyk E, Wysocki R. The emerging role of cohesin in the DNA damage response. Genes 2018; 9: 581. doi: 10.3390/genes9120581 51. Basu A, Krishnamurthy S. Cellular responses to cisplatin-induced DNA dam- age. J Nucleic Acids 2010; 2010: 1-16. doi: 10.4061/2010/201367 52. Marullo R, Werner E, Zhang H, Chen GZ, Shin DM, Doetsch PW. HPV16 E6 and E7 proteins induce a chronic oxidative stress response via NOX2 that causes genomic instability and increased susceptibility to DNA damage in head and neck cancer cells. Carcinogenesis 2015; 36: 1397-406. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgv126 53. Harvie RM, Davey MW, Davey RA. Increased MRP expression is associated with resistance to radiation, anthracyclines and etoposide in cells treated with fractionated gamma-radiation. Int J Cancer 1997; 73: 164-7. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19970926)73:1<164::AID-IJC25>3.0.CO;2-F 54. McDermott N, Meunier A, Mooney B, Nortey G, Hernandez C, Hurley S, et al. Fractionated radiation exposure amplifies the radioresistant nature of prostate cancer cells. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 34796. doi: 10.1038/srep34796 55. Skvortsov S, Dudás J, Eichberger P, Witsch-Baumgartner M, Loeffler-Ragg J, Pritz C, et al. Rac1 as a potential therapeutic target for chemo-radioresistant head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). Br J Cancer 2014; 110: 2677-87. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.221 56. Wei QC, Shen L, Zheng S, Zhu YL. Isolation and characterization of radiation- resistant lung cancer D6-R cell line. Biomed Environ Sci 2008; 21: 339-44. doi: 10.1016/S0895-3988(08)60052-5 57. Xie L, Song X, Yu J, Wei L, Song B, Wang X, et al. Fractionated irradiation induced radio-resistant esophageal cancer EC109 cells seem to be more sensitive to chemotherapeutic drugs. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2009; 28: 68. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-28-68 58. Kleinsimon S, Longmuss E, Rolff J, Jäger S, Eggert A, Delebinski C, et al. GADD45A and CDKN1A are involved in apoptosis and cell cycle modulatory effects of viscumTT with further inactivation of the STAT3 pathway. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 1-14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-24075-x 59. Rosemary Siafakas A, Richardson DR. Growth arrest and DNA damage-45 alpha (GADD45α). Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2009; 41: 986-9. doi: 10.1016/j. biocel.2008.06.018 60. Wang BX, Yin BL, He B, Chen C, Zhao M, Zhang WX, et al. Overexpression of DNA damage-induced 45 a gene contributes to esophageal squamous cell cancer by promoter hypomethylation. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2012; 31: 11. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-31-11 61. Barreto G, Schäfer A, Swaminathan SK, Döderlein G, Maltry N, Stach D, et al. Gadd45a promotes epigenetic gene activation by repair-mediated DNA demethylation. Nature 2007; 445: 671-5. doi: 10.1038/nature05515 62. Tamura R, Vasconcellos JF De, Libermann T, Israel B, Medical D, Fisher PB, et al. GADD45 proteins: central players in tumorigenesis. Curr Mol Med 2012; 12: 634-51. doi: 10.2174/156652412800619978 63. Liu J, Jiang G, Mao P, Zhang J, Zhang L, Liu L, et al. Down-regulation of GADD45A enhances chemosensitivity in melanoma. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 4111. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22484-6 64. Zhang X, Xun Qu, Cheng-qin Wang, Cheng-jun Zhou, Gui-xiang Liu, Feng-cai Wei, et al. Over-expression of Gadd45a enhances radiotherapy efficacy in human Tca8113 cell line. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2011; 32: 253-8. doi: 10.1038/ aps.2010.208 65. Hollander MC, Sheikh MS, Bulavin D V, Lundgren K, Augeri-henmueller L, Shehee R, et al. Genomic instability in Gadd45a-deficient mice. Nat Genet 1999; 23: 176-84. doi: 10.1038/13802 66. Cazzalini O, Scovassi AI, Savio M, Stivala LA, Prosperi E. Multiple roles of the cell cycle inhibitor p21CDKN1A in the DNA damage response. Mutat Res 2010; 704: 12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2010.01.009 67. Hutchinson MND Mierzwa M, Silva NJ. Radiation resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: dire need for an appropriate sensitizer. Oncogene 2020; 39: 3638-49. doi: 10.1038/s41388-020-1250-3 68. Sun C, Wang Z, Song W, Chen B, Zhang J, Dai X, et al. Alteration of DNA dam- age signaling pathway profile in radiation-treated glioblastoma stem-like cells. Oncol Lett 2015; 10:1769-74. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.3411 69. Zhao J, Jain A, Iyer RR, Modrich PL, Vasquez KM. Mismatch repair and nucleotide excision repair proteins cooperate in the recognition of DNA interstrand crosslinks. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 37: 4420-9. doi: 10.1093/nar/ gkp399 70. Fu X, Hu J, Han HY, Hua YJ, Zhou L, Shuai W Di, et al. High expression of XPA confers poor prognosis for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 28478-90. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4424 71. Liu Y, Bernauer AM, Yingling CM, Belinsky SA. HIF1a regulated expression of XPA contributes to cisplatin resistance in lung cancer. Carcinogenesis 2012; 33: 1-6. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgs142 72. Leemans C, Braakhuis B, Brakenhoff R. The molecular biology of head and neck cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2011; 11: 9-22. doi: 10.1038/nrc2982 73. Webley K, Bond JA, Jones CJ, Blaydes JP, Craig A, Hupp T, et al. Posttranslational modifications of p53 in replicative senescence overlap- ping but distinct from those induced by DNA damage. Mol Cell Biol 2000; 20: 2803-8. doi: 10.1128/MCB.20.8.2803-2808.2000 74. Stiff T, Reis C, Alderton GK, Woodbine L, O’Driscoll M, Jeggo PA. Nbs1 is required for ATR-dependent phosphorylation events. EMBO J 2005; 24: 199-208. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600504