Homologous recombination-mediated irreversible genome damage underlies telomere-induced senescence.

Loss of telomeric DNA leads to telomere uncapping, which triggers a persistent, p53-centric DNA damage response that sustains a stable senescence-associated proliferation arrest. Here, we show that in normal cells telomere uncapping triggers a focal telomeric DNA damage response accompanied by a transient cell cycle arrest. Subsequent cell division with dysfunctional telomeres resulted in sporadic telomeric sister chromatid fusions that gave rise to next-mitosis genome instability, including non-telomeric DNA lesions responsible for a stable, p53-mediated, senescence-associated proliferation arrest. Unexpectedly, the blocking of Rad51/RPA-mediated homologous recombination, but not non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), prevented senescence despite multiple dysfunctional telomeres. When cells approached natural replicative senescence, interphase senescent cells displayed genome instability, whereas near-senescent cells that underwent mitosis despite the presence of uncapped telomeres did not. This suggests that these near-senescent cells had not yet acquired irreversible telomeric fusions. We propose a new model for telomere-initiated senescence where tolerance of telomere uncapping eventually results in irreversible non-telomeric DNA lesions leading to stable senescence. Paradoxically, our work reveals that senescence-associated tumor suppression from telomere shortening requires irreversible genome instability at the single-cell level, which suggests that interventions to repair telomeres in the pre-senescent state could prevent senescence and genome instability.

Non-canonical ATM/MRN activities temporally define the senescence secretory program.

Senescent cells display senescence-associated (SA) phenotypic programs such as stable proliferation arrest (SAPA) and a secretory phenotype (SASP). Senescence-inducing persistent DNA double-strand breaks (pDSBs) cause an immediate DNA damage response (DDR) and SAPA, but the SASP requires days to develop. Here, we show that following the immediate canonical DDR, a delayed chromatin accumulation of the ATM and MRN complexes coincides with the expression of SASP factors. Importantly, histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) trigger SAPA and SASP in the absence of DNA damage. However, HDACi-induced SASP also requires ATM/MRN activities and causes their accumulation on chromatin, revealing a DNA damage-independent, non-canonical DDR activity that underlies SASP maturation. This non-canonical DDR is required for the recruitment of the transcription factor NF-κB on chromatin but not for its nuclear translocation. Non-canonical DDR further does not require ATM kinase activity, suggesting structural ATM functions. We propose that delayed chromatin recruitment of SASP modulators is the result of non-canonical DDR signaling that ensures SASP activation only in the context of senescence and not in response to transient DNA damage-induced proliferation arrest.

Exploiting interconnected synthetic lethal interactions between PARP inhibition and cancer cell reversible senescence.

Senescence is a tumor suppression mechanism defined by stable proliferation arrest. Here we demonstrate that the known synthetic lethal interaction between poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 inhibitors (PARPi) and DNA repair triggers p53-independent ovarian cancer cell senescence defined by senescence-associated phenotypic hallmarks including DNA-SCARS, inflammatory secretome, Bcl-XL-mediated apoptosis resistance, and proliferation restriction via Chk2 and p21 (CDKN1A). The concept of senescence as irreversible remains controversial and here we show that PARPi-senescent cells re-initiate proliferation upon drug withdrawal, potentially explaining the requirement for sustained PARPi therapy in the clinic. Importantly, PARPi-induced senescence renders ovarian and breast cancer cells transiently susceptible to second-phase synthetic lethal approaches targeting the senescence state using senolytic drugs. The combination of PARPi and a senolytic is effective in preclinical models of ovarian and breast cancer suggesting that coupling these synthetic lethalities provides a rational approach to their clinical use and may together be more effective in limiting resistance.

Keeping the senescence secretome under control: Molecular reins on the senescence-associated secretory phenotype.

Cellular senescence is historically associated with cancer suppression and aging. Recently, the reach of the senescence genetic program has been extended to include the ability of senescent cells to actively participate in tissue remodelling during many physiological processes, including placental biology, embryonic patterning, wound healing, and tissue stress responses caused by cancer therapy. Besides growth arrest, a significant feature of senescent cells is their ability to modify their immediate microenvironment using a senescence-associated (SA) secretome, commonly termed the SA secretory phenotype (SASP). Among others, the SASP contains growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular proteases that modulate the majority of both the beneficial and detrimental microenvironmental phenotypes caused by senescent cells. The SASP is thus becoming an obvious pharmaceutical target to manipulate SA effects. Herein, we review known signalling pathways underlying the SASP, including the DNA damage response (DDR), stress kinases, inflammasome, alarmin, inflammation- and cell survival-related transcription factors, miRNAs, RNA stability, autophagy, chromatin components, and metabolic regulators. We also describe the SASP as a temporally regulated dynamic sub-program of senescence that can be divided into a rapid DDR-associated phase, an early self-amplification phase, and a late "mature" phase, the late phase currently being the most widely studied SASP signature. Finally, we discuss how deciphering the signalling pathways regulating the SASP reveal targets that can be manipulated to harness the SA effects to benefit therapies for cancer and other age-related pathologies.

Premature aging/senescence in cancer cells facing therapy: good or bad?

Normal and cancer cells facing their demise following exposure to radio-chemotherapy can actively participate in choosing their subsequent fate. These programmed cell fate decisions include true cell death (apoptosis-necroptosis) and therapy-induced cellular senescence (TIS), a permanent "proliferative arrest" commonly portrayed as premature cellular aging. Despite a permanent loss of proliferative potential, senescent cells remain viable and are highly bioactive at the microenvironment level, resulting in a prolonged impact on tissue architecture and functions. Cellular senescence is primarily documented as a tumor suppression mechanism that prevents cellular transformation. In the context of normal tissues, cellular senescence also plays important roles in tissue repair, but contributes to age-associated tissue dysfunction when senescent cells accumulate. Theoretically, in multi-step cancer progression models, cancer cells have already bypassed cellular senescence during their immortalization step (see hallmarks of cancer). It is then perhaps surprising to find that cancer cells often retain the ability to undergo TIS, or premature aging. This occurs because cellular senescence results from multiple signalling pathways, some retained in cancer cells, aiming to prevent cell cycle progression in damaged cells. Since senescent cancer cells persist after therapy and secrete an array of cytokines and growth factors that can modulate the tumor microenvironment, these cells may have beneficial and detrimental effects regarding immune modulation and survival of remaining proliferation-competent cancer cells. Similarly, while normal cells undergoing senescence are believed to remain indefinitely growth arrested, whether this is true for senescent cancer cells remains unclear, raising the possibility that these cells may represent a reservoir for cancer recurrence after treatment. This review discusses our current knowledge on cancer cell senescence and highlight questions that must be addressed to fully understand the beneficial and detrimental impacts of cellular senescence during cancer therapy.