Gabi Gerlitz

Resistance to chemotherapy is a leading cause of treatment failure. Drug resistance mechanisms involve mutations in specific proteins or changes in their expression levels. It is commonly understood that resistance mutations happen randomly prior to treatment and are selected during the treatment. However, the selection of drug-resistant mutants in culture could be achieved by multiple drug exposures of cloned genetically identical cells and thus cannot result from the selection of pre-existent mutations. Accordingly, adaptation must involve the generation of mutations de novo upon drug treatment. Here we explored the origin of resistance mutations to a widely used Top1 inhibitor, irinotecan, which triggers DNA breaks, causing cytotoxicity. The resistance mechanism involved the gradual accumulation of recurrent mutations in non-coding regions of DNA at Top1-cleavage sites. Surprisingly, cancer cells had a higher number of such sites than the reference genome, which may define their increased sensitivity to irinotecan. Homologous recombination repairs of DNA double-strand breaks at these sites following initial drug exposures gradually reverted cleavage-sensitive “cancer” sequences back to cleavage-resistant “normal” sequences. These mutations reduced the generation of DNA breaks upon subsequent exposures, thus gradually increasing drug resistance. Together, large target sizes for mutations and their Top1-guided generation lead to their gradual and rapid accumulation, synergistically accelerating the development of resistance.

Objectives SETDB1 is a methyltransferase responsible for the methylation of histone H3‐lysine‐9, which is mainly related to heterochromatin formation. SETDB1 is overexpressed in various cancer types and is associated with an aggressive phenotype. In agreement with its activity, it mainly exhibits a nuclear localization; however, in several cell types a cytoplasmic localization was reported. Here we looked for cytoplasmic functions of SETDB1. Methods SETDB1 association with microtubules was detected by immunofluorescence and co‐sedimentation. Microtubule dynamics were analysed during recovery from nocodazole treatment and by tracking microtubule plus‐ends in live cells. Live cell imaging was used to study mitotic kinetics and protein–protein interaction was identified by co‐immunoprecipitation. Results SETDB1 co‐sedimented with microtubules and partially colocalized with microtubules. SETDB1 partial silencing led to faster polymerization and reduced rate of catastrophe events of microtubules in parallel to reduced proliferation rate and slower mitotic kinetics. Interestingly, over‐expression of either wild‐type or catalytic dead SETDB1 altered microtubule polymerization rate to the same extent, suggesting that SETDB1 may affect microtubule dynamics by a methylation‐independent mechanism. Moreover, SETDB1 co‐immunoprecipitated with HDAC6 and tubulin acetylation levels were increased upon silencing of SETDB1. Conclusions Taken together, our study suggests a model in which SETDB1 affects microtubule dynamics by interacting with both microtubules and HDAC6 to enhance tubulin deacetylation. Overall, our results suggest a novel cytoplasmic role for SETDB1 in the regulation of microtubule dynamics.