Comparison of cell response to chromatin and DNA damage.

DNA-targeting drugs are widely used for anti-cancer treatment. Many of these drugs cause different types of DNA damage, i.e. alterations in the chemical structure of DNA molecule. However, molecules binding to DNA may also interfere with DNA packing into chromatin. Interestingly, some molecules do not cause any changes in DNA chemical structure but interfere with DNA binding to histones and nucleosome wrapping. This results in histone loss from chromatin and destabilization of nucleosomes, a phenomenon that we call chromatin damage. Although the cellular response to DNA damage is well-studied, the consequences of chromatin damage are not. Moreover, many drugs used to study DNA damage also cause chromatin damage, therefore there is no clarity on which effects are caused by DNA or chromatin damage. In this study, we aimed to clarify this issue. We treated normal and tumor cells with bleomycin, nuclease mimicking drug which cut predominantly nucleosome-free DNA and therefore causes DNA damage in the form of DNA breaks, and CBL0137, which causes chromatin damage without direct DNA damage. We describe similarities and differences between the consequences of DNA and chromatin damage. Both agents were more toxic for tumor than normal cells, but while DNA damage causes senescence in both normal and tumor cells, chromatin damage does not. Both agents activated p53, but chromatin damage leads to the accumulation of higher levels of unmodified p53, which transcriptional activity was similar to or lower than that of p53 activated by DNA damage. Most importantly, we found that while transcriptional changes caused by DNA damage are limited by p53-dependent activation of a small number of p53 targets, chromatin damage activated many folds more genes in p53 independent manner.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Is Associated With Poor Overall Survival Among Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) occurs at higher rates among persons with HIV (PWH). This study compares the impact of sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics on outcomes among PWH-HNSCC compared with HNSCC patients without HIV. METHODS: Patient data from HNSCC individuals were collected at a single academic hospital center between 2002 and 2018. Forty-eight patients with HIV (HIV-HNSCC) and 2894 HNSCC patients without HIV were included. Multivariate analysis determined predictors of survival using Cox proportional hazards regression model. HIV-positive and -negative tumors were analyzed by quantitative immunofluorescence for expression of CD4, CD8, CD20 and PD-L1. RESULTS: HIV-HNSCC patients had a lower median overall survival than HNSCC patients without HIV (34 [18-84] vs 94 [86-103] months; P < .001). In multivariate analysis that included age, sex, race/ethnicity, stage, site, tobacco use, time to treatment initiation, and insurance status, HIV was an independent predictor of poorer survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.98 (95% CI: 1.32-2.97; P < .001). PWH with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal tumors also had worse prognosis than HPV-positive oropharyngeal tumors in the population without HIV (P < .001). The tumor microenvironment among HIV-HNSCC patients revealed lower intratumoral CD8 infiltration among HIV+ HPV+ tumors compared with HIV- HPV+ tumors (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: HIV-HNSCC patients had worse prognosis than the non-HIV population, with HIV being an independent predictor of poor clinical outcomes when accounting for important sociodemographic and clinicopathologic factors. Our findings highlight differences in tumor biology that require further detailed characterization in large cohorts and increased inclusion of PWH in immunotherapy trials.