
==== Front
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
0171-5216
1432-1335
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

38696003
5757
10.1007/s00432-024-05757-8
Matters Arising
A perspective on tumor radiation resistance following high-LET radiation treatment
Rajpurohit Yogendra Singh ysraj@barc.gov.in

12
Sharma Dhirendra Kumar 1
Lal Mitu 1
Soni Ishu 2
1 https://ror.org/05w6wfp17 grid.418304.a 0000 0001 0674 4228 Molecular Biology Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, 2-46-S, Modular Lab, A-Block, Mumbai, 400085 India
2 https://ror.org/02bv3zr67 grid.450257.1 0000 0004 1775 9822 Homi Bhabha National Institute, DAE- Deemed University, Mumbai, 400094 India
2 5 2024
2 5 2024
2024
150 5 22624 2 2024
22 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
High-linear energy transfer (LET) radiation is a promising alternative to conventional low-LET radiation for therapeutic gain against cancer owing to its ability to induce complex and clustered DNA lesions. However, the development of radiation resistance poses a significant barrier. The potential molecular mechanisms that could confer resistance development are translesion synthesis (TLS), replication gap suppression (RGS) mechanisms, autophagy, epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) activation, release of exosomes, and epigenetic changes. This article will discuss various types of complex clustered DNA damage, their repair mechanisms, mutagenic potential, and the development of radiation resistance strategies. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of careful consideration and patient selection when employing high-LET radiotherapy in clinical settings.

Keywords

Linear energy transfer (LET)
Photon therapy
Relative biological effectiveness (RBE)
Clustered DNA lesions
Translesion synthesis (TLS)
issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcOverview

Cancer emerges as a worldwide health emergency, standing as a primary cause of both mortality and morbidity across the human population (Ferlay 2020). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2020, there were approximately 18.1 million new cancer cases, resulting in 10 million deaths. The WHO predicts a staggering increase in cancer cases over the next two decades, estimating around 28 million cases by 2040. Furthermore, projections indicate 16.3 million deaths, marking a 63.7% increase from the statistics recorded in 2020 (Sung et al. 2021). Thus, these findings and estimates highlight the urgent need for effective cancer treatment strategies. A range of treatment modalities, such as surgery, radiation therapy (RT), chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, stem cell transplantation, natural antioxidants, nanoparticles, ablation therapy, radionics, chemodynamic therapy, ferroptosis and sonodynamic therapy, as well as multidisciplinary approaches, are utilized in the battle against cancer (Debela et al. 2021; Pucci et al. 2019; Arruebo et al. 2011; Moo et al. 2018). Among these treatments, RT is a potent method, especially when combined with other treatment modalities. In principal, RT should be effective against all types of tumor cells. However, individual cells within tumors exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity to radiation, resulting in diverse treatment outcomes (Wang et al. 2018; Baskar et al. 2012).

Biological responses triggered by radiation exposure depend on energy deposition per unit length of radiation track (keV/μm) known as linear energy transfer (LET), along with the cellular and tissue water activity and the composition of the extracellular matrix (ECM). Low-LET radiation (γ-rays and X-rays) is termed "sparsely ionizing" because it causes scattered ionizing events in various directions across space. In contrast, high-LET radiation, exemplified by protons (≤ 50 keV/µm), carbon ions (C-ions) (≤ 200 keV/µm), and alpha-emitting radionuclides (60 to 110 keV/μm), is referred to as "densely ionizing" because its ionizing effect predominantly occurs in the narrow region at the end of the primary path (Bragg peak). This results in more complex and clustered DNA damage, characterized by the presence of more than two lesions per DNA helical turn, including strand breaks, base damage, and abasic sites (Mladenova, et al. 2022; Timm et al. 2018; Kruijff et al. 2015). This feature contributes to its greater relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in causing DNA damage and cell death (Paganetti et al. 2002; Oden et al. 2017; Ray et al. 2018; Busato et al. 2022). Modern therapy techniques utilize this principle by employing spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) (Lin et al. 2018; Akagi et al. 2023; Darafsheh et al. 2021). This approach involves employing multiple charged particle beams with partly overlapping bragg peaks, allowing for the precise delivery of effective doses to the tumor in a three-dimensional fashion. This method reduces harm to healthy tissue situated before and after the tumor, in contrast to conventional low-LET photon therapy (γ-rays and X-rays) (Ray et al. 2018).

High-LET radiation induces dense ionization events that result in a substantial formation of complex DNA damage including lethal lesions such as base alterations, single-strand breaks (SSBs), apurinic/apyrimidinic site (AP sites), double-strand breaks (DSBs), and chromosomal aberrations (Nikjoo et al. 1998; Watanabe et al. 2015; Wilkinson et al. 2023). These lesions, collectively referred to as "clustered lesions," occur in very close proximity, typically within a few nanometers (Hada and Georgakilas 2008; Sage and Shikazono 2017). Among all types of damage, clustered lesions present a significant challenge for DNA repair machinery of the cell and explain why high-LET ionizing radiation has higher RBE and highly effective, despite not necessarily causing a greater overall number of DSBs compared to low-LET radiation (Georgakilas et al. 2013; Lorat et al. 2015; Lorat et al. 2016).

Nevertheless, despite progress in radiation techniques and treatment strategies, the emergence of radiation resistance remains a significant obstacle to enhancing treatment outcomes (Busato et al. 2022; Barcellini 2022). Radiation resistance can arise from several sources, including tumor heterogeneity (differences between tumors of identical types in distinct patients, or difference among cancerous cells within a singular tumor, or difference between a primary and a secondary tumor cells), the tumor microenvironment, TLS, RGS, EMT, and epigenetic alterations within cancer cells (Dagogo-Jack and Shaw 2018). Understanding the mechanisms that drive the development of resistance is essential for surmounting this obstacle in both traditional and novel forms of high-LET RT (Sato et al. 2019). Here, we discuss radiation resistance strategies, repair approaches for clustered DNA lesions, and the possible potential for mutagenesis against clustered DNA lesions. Furthermore, we suggest that clinicians exercise the caution when deciding to use high-LET RT as a treatment for tumors instead of low-LET RT, as there may high risk of tumor resistance developing in the medium to longer term.

Role of DNA damage repair and other molecular mechanisms in radiation resistance against low-LET radiation

Ionizing radiation (IR) exerts a direct impact on the structure of DNA by introducing DNA breaks, specifically DSBs. Additionally, it triggers secondary indirect effects such as the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which in turn oxidize proteins and lipids. These ROS also contribute to various forms of DNA damage, including the creation of abasic sites and SSBs (Borrego-Soto et al. 2015). Out of the diverse types of DNA damage caused by radiation therapy, DSBs are particularly harmful (Huang and Zhou 2020; Deng, et al. 2022). There are four primary DNA repair pathways: recombination repair, mismatch repair (MMR), base excision repair (BER), and nucleotide excision repair (NER). Recombination repair deals SSBs and DSBs, while mismatch repair fixes replication errors. BER addresses oxidation-induced base damage and removes AP sites, while NER corrects bulky adducts and cross-linked DNA damage.

Among these, the DSBs repair pathways, namely, nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) involving DNA-PKs and Ku heteroduplex proteins and homologous recombination (HR) catalyzed by Rad51 and regulated by ATM and ATR kinases, are vital for mending radiation-induced DNA breaks (Dietlein et al. 2014; Dietlein and Reinhardt 2014; Visnes et al. 2018; Zhu et al. 2009). In response to DSBs caused by low-LET radiation, sensor proteins such as Rad24p (Aylon and Kupiec 2003), NBS1/hMRE11/hRAD50 complex (Zhou and Paull 2013), γH2AX (Georgoulis, et al. 2017), Ku (Abbasi et al. 2021), MDC1 (Ruff et al. 2020), and 53BP1 (Noordermeer et al. 2018), initiate downstream signaling responses mediated by sensor kinases (DNA-PKs, ATM, and ATR) (Mladenov et al. 2019a; Mladenov et al. 2019b; Li, et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2010; Goodarzi et al. 2003). Together, this leads to an initiation of the DNA damage response (DDR) triggers a cascade of complex reactions, encompassing cell cycle arrest and DNA repair processes (Marechal and Zou 2013; Cuadrado et al. 2006; Weber and Ryan 2015). In response to low-LET RT, the expression levels of different DNA damage sensors (γH2AX, 53BP1, NBS1, BRCA1/2, and Ku) have the potential to act as predictive biomarkers for assessing the outcomes of RT in cancer patients (Liu, et al. 2020; Stover et al. 2016). Replication protein A (RPA) is a crucial eukaryotic protein involved in binding to ssDNA and has roles in DNA replication, DNA damage repair, replication stress, and cell cycle regulation. RPA may contribute to radiation resistance by utilizing the ATR/Chk1 pathway to alleviate replication stress (Glanzer et al. 2014; Zou et al. 2006). Inhibition of RPA negatively affects the time bound damaged DNA repair, rendering cells radiation-sensitive. XRCC1 (X-ray repair cross-complementing 1), a key BER protein stands out as a significant predictive biomarker for radiation therapy, and mutations within the XRCC1 gene have the potential to heighten sensitivity to ionizing radiation (Hanssen-Bauer et al. 2012; Caldecott 2019; Niu et al. 2013; Eckelmann, et al. 2020). Additionally, p53 gene (a tumor suppressor gene) expression status in cancerous cells profoundly influences the efficacy of RT (Kong et al. 2021).

In addition to DDR mechanisms, poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation (PARylation) and replication stress management are key fundamental processes that play crucial roles in safeguard of genome integrity against DNA damage. PARylation is a posttranslational modification that occurs in response to DNA damage, particularly in nuclear proteins such as histones. It serves to enhance the survival of damaged proliferating cells (Kamaletdinova et al. 2019). PAR is produced from NAD + through the action of Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerases (PARPs), a group of 18 proteins encoded by different genes (Alemasova and Lavrik 2019). These PARPs are linked to promoting tolerance to RT (Seyedin et al. 2020; Higuchi et al. 2015). After exposure to ionizing radiation, PARP-1 activates the AMPK/mTOR pathway, leading to processes such as autophagy and reduced sensitivity to radiation (Bi et al. 2018; Rose et al. 2020).

Replication stress can arise from various sources, including genome integrity perturbation by clustered DNA damage, conflicts between replication and transcription machinery, and oncogenic stress (Nickoloff et al. 2022). Certain difficult to repair clustered DNA damages activate DNA damage tolerance (DDT) pathways, where specialized polymerases like REV1, POL ζ, POL η, POL κ, and POL i bypass damage to facilitate continuous replication and radioresistance with possibilities to introduce mutations (Chatterjee and Walker 2017). Furthermore, if these underlying issues, such as DNA damage, are not promptly resolved, nucleases facilitate the restart of the fork. Several nucleases, including MUS81 (Marini et al. 2023; Chen et al. 2021), FEN1 (Zhang et al. 2022a; Vaitsiankova et al. 2022; Yang et al. 2022a), EEPD1 (Wu et al. 2015), Artemis (Betous et al. 2018), Metnase, EXO1 (Tomimatsu et al. 2017), DNA2-BLM, MRE11 (Vertemara and Tisi 2023), CtIP (Mozaffari et al. 2021), SLX1-SLX4 (Wyatt et al. 2013; Sarbajna et al. 2014), XPG (Trego et al. 2016), and XPF-ERCC1-SLX4 (Betous et al. 2018; Xu et al. 2021) are implicated in replication stress management and play roles in promoting the repair and restart of replication forks (Nickoloff et al. 2022).

Modulating the cell cycle regulation and distribution by eukaryotic cells is another crucial adaptation for the protection of genome integrity against DNA damage (Morales-Ramirez et al. 2022; Jackson 2002). Upon detecting difficult to repair DNA damage cells may either undergo apoptosis or enter a state of senescence. Conversely, when damage is reparable, cells prolong their cell cycle to facilitate DNA repair and accomplish it. DNA damage induces cell cycle arrest, particularly through the activation of G2/M checkpoints, which are orchestrated by ATM and ATR (Marechal and Zou 2013; Cuadrado et al. 2006; Barnaba and LaRocque 2021; Pai, et al. 2021). These checkpoints play pivotal roles in preventing cells from entering the mitotic phase when DNA integrity is compromised.

Moreover, resistance to low-LET radiotherapy in cancer involves various pathways, such as autophagy (Chaachouay et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2011; Khan et al. 2020), the NF‐κB pathway (Deorukhkar and Krishnan 2010; Li and Sethi 2010), Akt/cyclin D1/CDK4 signaling pathway (Shimura 2017; Shimura et al. 2011; Shimura et al. 2012), and the Wnt/β‐catenin pathway (Yu et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2022). Furthermore, factors contributing to this resistance encompass tumor genetics and epigenetics, tumor metabolism, the tumor microenvironment, and the presence of nonmalignant cells, including fibroblast-associated cancer cells, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, endothelial cells, macrophage-associated cancer cells, and cancer stem cells (Busato et al. 2022; Rycaj and Tang 2014; Peitzsch et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2023; Wu et al. 2023a) (for a more comprehensive understanding, readers are encouraged to consult the cited references). Thus, in a wider perspective, cancer cells have the capability to build resistance against traditional low-LET RT using various mechanisms.

High-LET radiation causes difficult to repair clustered DNA damage

High-LET radiation produces clustered DNA damage resulting in complex clustered DNA lesion sites (CDS) or multiple damage sites (MDS). These sites include clustered DSBs together with base lesions or AP sites, as well as clusters of non-DSB damage comprising base lesions and ssDNA breaks (Sage and Shikazono 2017; Georgakilas et al. 2013; Goodhead and Nikjoo 1989; Sage and Harrison 2011; Eccles et al. 2011; Sai et al. 2023; Bukowska and Karwowski 2018). At the chromosomal level, chromatin compaction reduces the incidence of DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation (Tang et al. 2019). Nevertheless, repair of high-LET-induced heterochromatic region DSBs take substantial period while DSBs caused by low-LET ionizing radiation are promptly restored within 24 h, irrespective of chromatin compaction status (Lorat et al. 2015; Roobol, et al. 2020). The DNA damages caused by low-LET radiation usually dispersed throughout the genome, and repair mechanisms are highly efficient at addressing such damage (Chatterjee and Walker 2017; Tian et al. 2015). However, repair of CDS and MDS showed slower repair kinetics, resulting in inaccurate repair and chromothripsis (a solitary catastrophic incident results in the extensive reorganization of genetic material within one or few number of chromosomes), or sometimes not at all repaired (Sage and Shikazono 2017; Cortes-Ciriano et al. 2023; Voronina et al. 2020; Kozmin, et al. 2021; Danforth et al. 2022). This distinction is a pivotal reason why high-LET carbon ions exhibit a 2–threefold greater RBE than low-LET ionizing radiation (Okayasu 2012; Allen et al. 2011; Tsujii et al. 2004; Okada et al. 2010; Paganetti 2022). From this viewpoint, the heightened cytotoxicity of high-LET ionizing radiation leverages the innate shortcomings of DNA repair systems when confronted with clustered lesions. This limitation attributed to the absence of natural selective pressure that drives the development of cellular repair systems capable of efficiently repairing clustered DNA damage (Lorat et al. 2015; Asaithamby and Chen 2011). Furthermore, from a clinical perspective, the efficacy of carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) relies less on oxygen compared to low-LET RT (Antonovic et al. 2014; Strigari et al. 2018). As a result, CIRT presents as an efficient therapeutic option for hypoxic tumors, found in melanoma, head and neck cancer, and pancreatic cancer, which typically demonstrate resistance to traditional radiotherapy. (Allen et al. 2011; Kamada et al. 2015; Tinganelli and Durante 2020).

Clustered complex DNA damage can be broadly divided into two primary categories: DSBs and non-DSB oxidative clustered DNA lesions (OCDLs) (Hada and Georgakilas 2008). OCDLs can be further classified into two categories: bistranded clustered lesions (where multiple lesions are closely located on both DNA strands) and tandem clustered lesions (where multiple lesions are closely positioned on the same DNA strand). Several factors influence the repair phenomenon of clustered complex damage, including the type of lesion, lesion proximity, and lesion orientation. Synthetic oligonucleotides have been employed to study OCDL repair with known DNA lesions using mammalian nuclear or whole-cell extracts and purified BER proteins (Bellon et al. 2009; Kazmierczak-Baranska, et al. 2021; Mourgues et al. 2007; Lomax et al. 2004a; Harrison et al. 1999; Eot-Houllier et al. 2005; Boguszewska, et al. 2021; Karwowski 2019, 2021). The repair efficiency of bistranded OCDLs decreases when lesions are within five bases of an AP site or SSB (Mourgues et al. 2007; Lomax et al. 2004b). Lesions such as 8-oxoG, thymine glycol (Tg), and 5,6-dihydrothymine (DHT) reduce repair efficiency and may generate DSBs by replication (Bellon et al. 2009; Lomax et al. 2004a). Repair mechanisms also differ depending on the orientation of the bistranded lesions. In cases where lesions are in the negative orientation (with the opposing strand lesion positioned 5′ to the base opposite the reference lesion), both long and short patch BER processes are engaged. Conversely, in the positive orientation (where the opposing strand lesion is positioned 3′ to the base opposite the reference lesion), short-patch BER is the dominant mechanism (Harrison et al. 1999; Eot-Houllier et al. 2005; Paap et al. 2008). The presence of nearby lesions interferes with the initial phase of the BER pathway, which involves the excision of damaged bases by DNA glycosylases. For instance, an AP site or SSB on opposite DNA strand can significantly hinder the excision of base lesions (Georgakilas et al. 2004). The rate of base lesion excision is compromised when another lesion is nearby, mainly due to interference with glycosylase binding (Harrison et al. 1999; Eot-Houllier et al. 2005; Paap et al. 2008; Singh and Das 2013). Tandem OCDLs, also exhibit compromised repair, similar to bistranded clusters (Venkhataraman et al. 2001; Jiang et al. 2009).

To deal with DSBs generated directly by high-LET radiation tracks or DSBs converted by OCDLs, error-prone processes surpass high-fidelity homologous recombination (HR) repair (Mladenova, et al. 2022). Moreover, increased DNA end resection and DNA binding characteristics of Mre11 and Ku are crucial for repair pathway decisions for complex lesions (Yajima et al. 2013; Averbeck et al. 2014; Hays et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2010). Additionally, it has been suggested that the ATM protein, partners with the Artemis repair protein, plays a pivotal role in addressing complex and "dirty / clustered" DSBs introduced by high-LET radiation (Lobrich and Jeggo 2005; Xue et al. 2009). The results also indicate that ATM reacts differently to DSBs caused by high-LET radiation than to those induced by low-LET radiation. For instance, high-LET radiation significantly reduces ATM-specific phosphorylation of pATF2 and pSMC1. In contrast, the absence of ATM results in a noticeable decrease in the phosphorylation of DNA-PKC at Thr-2609 and adversely impacts the formation of Rad51 foci (Okayasu 2012; Whalen et al. 2008). Together, these findings suggest that the presence of clustered DNA lesions, whether bistranded or tandem, or DSBs, can hinder and/or alter the repair machinery's approach to repairing them, potentially leading to an increased lifetime of these lesions or conversion to more severe DNA lesions such as DSB, which poses a difficult task for the repair machinery.

Clustered DNA damage implicated by high-LET radiation has high mutagenic potential

The biological ramifications of OCDLs in mammalian cells are complex and influenced by various factors. The damage caused by OCDLs is primarily repaired through BER pathway (Bellon et al. 2009; Mourgues et al. 2007; Byrne et al. 2009; Cunniffe et al. 2014a), and studies have revealed that specific glycosylases, such as MutY, may determine the mutagenic outcome of clustered base damage (Bellon et al. 2009; Kazmierczak-Baranska, et al. 2021; Byrne et al. 2009; Shikazono et al. 2006). Furthermore, bigger risks arise when bistranded / tandem cluster lesions are converted to DSBs. Studies indicate that levels of repair enzymes, DNA replication status, density of non-DSB damage, and the complexities of the BER pathway may dictate whether these lesions are converted into DSBs or undergo repair without such conversion (Sage and Shikazono 2017; Nikitaki et al. 2016). A firefly luciferase reporter assay uncovered that bistranded clusters featuring opposing furans could transition into DSBs within mammalian cells, with the predominant activity observed from the class II AP endonuclease targeting these lesions. In mammalian cells, other bistranded clusters, such as uracil or 8-oxoG, are not converted to DSBs (Malyarchuk et al. 2009). Additionally, there is only scant evidence suggesting that clustered uracil lesions may be converted into DSBs in mammalian cells (Malyarchuk and Harrison 2005). Why bistranded furans clusters are converted to DSBs more frequently than uracil or 8-oxoG lesions is explained by the concept of “passing the baton”. This involves the cooperation of short BER pathway enzymes, such as DNA glycosylase, XRCC1, AP endonuclease (Ape1), DNA pol β, and DNA ligase 1, which interact to transfer repair intermediates to subsequent repair enzymes, preventing the premature release of repair intermediates. However, disruptions to this seamless transfer, or "passing the baton", can occur when dealing with damage types such as clustered furans that necessitate the involvement of long BER pathway instead short BER pathway enzymes (Wilson and Kunkel 2000).

Together, Bistranded / tandem cluster lesions remain unrepaired, they may encounter replication forks during DNA replication, potentially causing replication-induced DSBs or DNA mispairing, which can eventually lead to collapse of replication or incorporation of adaptive mutations (Sage and Shikazono 2017; Sage and Harrison 2011; Eccles et al. 2011; Kozmin, et al. 2021; Cunniffe et al. 2014a; Cunniffe et al. 2014b; Hsu et al. 2022; Naldiga et al. 2020; Shikazono and Akamatsu 2020). These attributes were experimentally validated in proton-irradiated K-rasLA1 mice (Luitel et al. 2018) and high-LET space-irradiation-exposed Bcl2 transgenic C57BL/6 mice (Xie et al. 2020), where it has been observed that a higher incidence of increased carcinoma and DNA replication stress promotes lung carcinogenesis, respectively.

Does clustered DNA damage introduced by high-LET radiation effectively thwart the radioresistance of cancer cells?

Advancements in research on synthetic clustered DNA lesions have deepened our understanding of the biological impacts linked to these lesions within cellular or tissue environments (Lomax et al. 2004a; Shikazono et al. 2006; Malyarchuk et al. 2004; Malyarchuk et al. 2003; Budworth and Dianov 2003). The clustered DNA lesions exhibit a broad spectrum of diversity and undergo various processing mechanisms influenced by factors such as base modifications, the distance between lesions, and the presence of strand breaks. The mutation spectrum associated with non-DSB clustered lesions encompasses various genetic alterations, including deletions, base substitutions, and insertions/deletions (indels) of 1–2 base pairs, primarily focused on the lesions within these clusters (Mladenova, et al. 2022; Kozmin, et al. 2021; Malyarchuk et al. 2009, 2008). The sequential handling of lesions within a non-DSB cluster results in the formation of SSBs as intermediate repair products. These SSBs can hinder the excision or repair of other lesions within the cluster. Consequently, the repair ability of clustered DNA lesions is diminished, leading to elevated lifetime of these lesions. Notably, the detrimental effects of repair intermediates can be exacerbated during replication, potentially leading to the generation of DSBs from single-stranded DNA gaps (Malyarchuk et al. 2009; Harper et al. 2010; Cannan and Pederson 2016; Kumar et al. 2023; Datta et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2014). While most DSBs caused by low-LET radiation are swiftly repaired during the G1 phase, mainly through the canonical nonhomologous end-joining (cNHEJ) pathway. The role of NHEJ-specific DNA-PKcs in repairing high-LET radiation-induced DSBs in tumor cells has shown (Anderson et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2018). The DSBs caused by high-LET radiation, particularly complex DSBs, exhibit slower repair kinetics and extend throughout the cell cycle and a substantial portion of DSBs undergo repair during the late S-phase and G2-phase through homologous recombination by altering cell cycle checkpoint regulations (Okayasu 2012; Okayasu et al. 2006; Gerelchuluun et al. 2015; Mohammadian Gol et al. 2019). Additionally, complex DSBs repaired slowly and inaccurately through alternative (Alt-EJ) or micro-homology mediated (MMEJ and SSA) DNA end joining, often resulting in deletions ranging from a few base pairs to several hundred bases (Scully et al. 2019; Wang and Xu 2017; Sallmyr and Tomkinson 2018; Hanscom and McVey 2020; Mladenova et al. 2022).

Moreover, high-LET radiation exposure leads to an increased occurrence of ssDNA gaps owing to the clustered pattern of DNA damage. The introduction of persistent ssDNA gaps can trigger cell death pathways. Therefore, many tumor cells have developed mechanisms to avoid and escape ssDNA gaps, such as slowing fork movement (Peng et al. 2018; Cong, et al. 2021), reversing replication forks for repair (Bai, et al. 2020), blocking fork elongation, increasing the presence of RPA, and gaining access to translesion synthesis (TLS) to ensure continuous replication without gaps (Igarashi et al. 2023; Fu et al. 2024; Nayak, et al. 2020; Nayak, et al. 2021; Tonzi and Huang 2019; Saldanha, et al. 2023; Wu et al. 2023b; Li et al. 2019; He et al. 2022; Park et al. 2022; Venkadakrishnan et al. 2023). All of these replication gap suppression (RGS) mechanisms involve distinct players that facilitate ssDNA gap avoidance and may contribute to tumor resistance to high-LET radiation. Recent research has highlighted the role of TLSs in adaptive mutability to evade targeted drugs against EGFR/BRAF (Crisafulli and Siravegna 2023; Russo et al. 2019). The unrepaired complex DSBs lead to cell death, primarily because cells are unable to complete the mitotic process. However, a significant fraction of cells proceed through the cell cycle checkpoint despite the presence of unrepaired clustered DNA lesions, leading to an increased occurrence of chromatid and chromosomal aberrations including breaks in chromatids and chromosomes (Mladenova, et al. 2022; Sadeghi Moghadam et al. 2023). Notably, dynamic movement of DSB repair foci toward less densely packed chromatin, and their aggregation with other repair centers may predispose them to erroneous rejoining, particularly during the late S and G2-phases. Consequently, compared with those exposed to low-LET radiation, cells that survive exposure to high-LET radiation exhibit significant translocations, sister chromatid exchanges, and gross chromosomal abnormalities (Mladenova, et al. 2022; Timm et al. 2018). This leads to more pronounced and intricate reorganization of the chromosomes. Additionally, a study underscores the particular types of DNA damage caused by radiation that evade repair mechanisms, resulting in clustered mutations in germ cells (Adewoye et al. 2015). Thus, ionizing radiation, particularly high-LET radiation, causes additional ssDNA gaps, mutations, and complex clustered DNA damage, leading to the killing of the majority of tumor cells (Du et al. 2022). However, a small fraction of radioresistant tumor cell can survive with increased chromosomal abnormalities and adaptive clustered mutations resulting in radiation resistance against high-LET RT (Sage and Shikazono 2017; Sage and Harrison 2011; Adewoye et al. 2015; Nickoloff et al. 2020).

High-LET radiation therapy: harnessing its potential with caution

RT stands as an invaluable asset in cancer treatment, providing benefits to approximately half of all cancer patients. The clinical applications of high-LET radiation have seen a worldwide expansion, notably in proton and hadron therapy (Mohamad, et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2018; Hayashi et al. 2019; Tomizawa et al. 2023; Shiba et al. 2022a; Shiba et al. 2023; Musha et al. 2022; Kiseleva, et al. 2022). Despite the increasing utilization of high-LET radiation in clinics, there remains a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding the biological mechanisms underlying its effects. The remarkable feature of high-LET radiation lies in its ability to generate clustered OCDLs sites, and DSBs. The present therapeutic strategy involving the use of high-LET radiation combined with inhibitor therapy has shown initial benefits. Clinical evidence supports its effectiveness in treating various nonsquamous cell histologies, including adenocarcinoma, malignant melanoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, hepatoma, early-stage and locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, and bone/soft tissue sarcoma. (Mohamad, et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2018; Hayashi et al. 2019; Tomizawa et al. 2023; Shiba et al. 2022a; Shiba et al. 2023; Musha et al. 2022; Kiseleva, et al. 2022). Synergistic approach of high-LET RT alongside targeted inhibitors of DNA repair pathways (such as BER, HR, and NHEJ) have been adopted (Cesaire et al. 2019; Srivastava et al. 2018; Hirai et al. 2012; Fujisawa et al. 2015; Ma et al. 2015; Bright et al. 2022). Alternatively, targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA4) is explored to counteract resistance (Zhang et al. 2022b; Mondini et al. 2020; Bernal, et al. 2024). Furthermore, high-LET RT option considered effective against hypoxic tumors (Kabakov and Yakimova 2021). However, cancer cells adapted to hypoxic conditions, often due to deregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) (Yeo et al. 2017; Dongre and Weinberg 2019), or heat shock factor 1 (HSF1) / heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) (Dai 2018). Consequently, small-molecule inhibitors of HIF-1 (Gameiro et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2015), HSF1 (Schilling et al. 2015), or HSP90 (Kudryavtsev et al. 2017) demonstrate a radiosensitizing effect on hypoxic tumors treated with high-LET radiation (Li et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2016). Additionally, RT combined with inhibitors targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or HIF-1α pathways has been shown to enhance the radiosensitivity of endometrial cancer (Miyasaka et al. 2015; Song et al. 2024). This enhancement is achieved through the reducing autophagy, induction of apoptosis, inhibition of EMT, as well as suppression of NHEJ and HR repair mechanisms (Mardanshahi et al. 2021; Chang et al. 2014; Chang et al. 2013). Thus, combined approach may induce systemic antitumor immune responses, presenting a promising strategy for treating metastatic and difficult to treat cancer.

Although high-LET RT has been shown to be beneficial over low-LET RT, apprehension and caution is warranted. Existing experimental evidence suggests that exposure to high-LET radiation is associated with an increased likelihood of cancer incidents (Luitel et al. 2018; Xie et al. 2020; Datta et al. 2013; Patel et al. 2020). Furthermore, high-LET RT has been shown to induce elevated levels of mutations, genomic instability, and chromosomal aberrations (Masumura et al. 2002; Yatagai et al. 2002), as well as elevated oxidative stress (Suman et al. 2018; Suman et al. 2013). Moreover, predictions from space exploration studies indicate a two-fold increase in excess relative risk (ERR) for male liver and female breast cancer due to high linear energy transfer (LET) radiation (Cucinotta 2022). High LET radiation also constitutes the primary source of uncertainty in galactic cosmic ray (GCR) studies (Cucinotta et al. 2020). The radioresistance observed against high-LET RT may be attributed to various damage bypass or avoidance mechanisms (Igarashi et al. 2023; Fu et al. 2024; Nayak, et al. 2020, 2021; Tonzi and Huang 2019; Saldanha, et al. 2023; Wu et al. 2023b; Li et al. 2019; He et al. 2022; Park et al. 2022; Venkadakrishnan et al. 2023; Nusawardhana et al. 2024), induction of autophagy (Chaachouay et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2011; Khan et al. 2020), RGS mechanisms (Cantor 2021; Cantor and Calvo 2017; Cong et al. 2024), replication fork reversal/slow movement (Zellweger et al. 2015; Bi 2015), EMT activation (Wu et al. 2023a), release of exosomes (Jokar, et al. 2022; Li et al. 2021a), and epigenetic changes (Kennedy et al. 2018; Perdyan et al. 2024; Tomsia et al. 2024) (Fig. 1). Consequently, the mutagenic potential of high-LET radiation appears to be transiently or persistently heightened. Concerns also arise regarding the delayed repair of clustered DNA damage, which could lead to mutations and the generation of DSBs from halted replication forks, particularly in rapidly dividing tumor cells. Additionally, clustered DSBs may undergo adaptive mutagenic repair, resulting in large and intricate deletions, as observed in cultured cells exposed to high-LET radiation (Michalettou, et al. 2021). Furthermore, genome loss contributes to the genomic instability of tumor cells, potentially leading to the death of the majority of tumor cells. However, rare surviving tumor cells may repopulate tumors with persistent growth due to adaptive mutability induced by high-LET radiation treatment, akin to bacterial cells. In bacterial cells, extensive generation of ssDNA gaps and unrepairable or challenging-to-repair DNA damage activate SOS responses, inducing adaptive mutagenesis (McKenzie et al. 2000; Fuchs 2016). Hence, it is crucial to carefully assess the potential of individual patient cancer cells to activate adaptive mutability and other molecular mechanisms responsible to bypass clustered DNA damage, thereby enhancing survival strategies. A comprehensive understanding of these bypass or survival strategies against clustered DNA damage is imperative on large cohorts studies over extended period for anticipating appropriate therapeutic outcomes from high-LET RT.Fig. 1 The biological effects and possible radiation resistance mechanisms against high-LET radiotherapy (RT). Cellular responses to both low and high-LET radiation offer valuable insights into the biological ramifications. Low-LET radiation (X-rays, γ-rays) causes sparsely distributed DNA damage (DSBs, SSBs, and oxidized bases) (1) in the genome, while high-LET radiation (α-particles, carbon ions, and protons) causes densely distributed clustered complex DNA damage (2). With increasing linear energy transfer (LET) (3), the density of clustered DNA damage increases markedly (4), while the reduction in radiation toxicity to healthy tissues is observed (5). However, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) improves substantially (6). The cell killing and tumor control by high-LET RT are threatened by numerous molecular mechanisms (7). The possible mechanisms could be mutations incorporation, slow repair and altered cell cycle regulation, replication gap suppression (RGS), reversal or slow fork progression, translesion synthesis (TLS), epithelial‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) activation, release of exosomes, and epigenetic changes, which might confer radioresistance to tumor cells against high-LET RT, and may potentially, reduce the effectiveness of high-LET RT

Furthermore, high-LET RT combined with various inhibitors approach may also pose risks to individual long-term survival due to increased genomic instability and genome restructuring. These consequences could lead to the resurgence of more aggressive tumor growth, as the tumor cells may develop adaptive resistance. Moreover, late toxicity, secondary cancers, and other adverse effects such as cataracts, fibrosis, vascular damage, immunological changes, endocrine disruptions, neurodegeneration could manifest over time (Ramaekers et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2022b; Nakashima et al. 2022; Hanna, et al. 2020; Shiba et al. 2022b; Chung et al. 2013). Additionally, while the increased energy deposition of high-LET radiation in nearby healthy tissue may not be significantly raised, the ramifications of this alteration remain undetermined (Blakely and Chang 2004). Unlike proton therapy, CIRT exhibits a fragmentation tail, wherein nuclear fragments contribute to the dose beyond the intended target area. This phenomenon introduces additional uncertainty, particularly in tissues situated distally from the target site (Malouff et al. 2020). While existing studies suggest that high-LET radiotherapy propensity to induce secondary malignancies is comparatively low compared to photon therapy, the presence of the fragmentation tail raises concerns. It is plausible that the development of secondary, radiation-induced cancers in adjacent healthy tissue may be facilitated by mutations in tumor suppressor genes (Chung et al. 2013; Dracham et al. 2018; Facoetti et al. 2019; Aherne and Murphy 2018; Kraus and Combs 2019; Yock and Caruso 2012; Mohamad et al. 2019).

Therefore, despite the increasing volume of related research and the proliferation of proton beam therapy (PBT) and/or CIRT centers, the clinical advantages of hadron-therapy treatments compared to conventional photon RT remain uncertain (Jefferson, et al. 2019). Ongoing clinical research may not resolve this uncertainty thus far due to a lack of consensus on appropriate study designs and insufficient collaboration among centers to develop comprehensive research protocols (Apisarnthanarax et al. 2018; Li et al. 2021b). Consequently, there has been a proliferation of small, inadequately designed, and poorly reported studies on this topic. These limitations may raise serious questions for the use of PBT and CIRT in experimental treatments, necessitating full disclosure of the risks and uncertainties to patients considering these therapies (Jefferson, et al. 2019; Goetz et al. 2019; Mishra et al. 2017; Fossati et al. 2018). Hence, it is imperative for clinicians and researchers to meticulously assess the therapeutic advantages of high-LET RT in a more comprehensive manner, considering the long-term suppression of tumor growth while minimizing detrimental health consequences. Researchers should focus on understanding cellular adaptive responses and strive to devise radiotherapy devices capable of inducing sparsely distributed clustered DNA damage instead of densely distributed DNA damage, thereby circumventing extreme cellular adaptive mechanisms such as RGS and the utilization of TLS for DNA damage bypass. Consequently, the notion of eradicating cancer cells without triggering their heightened adaptive mutability and facilitating DNA damage bypass should be prioritized.

Conclusion

RT is a crucial therapeutic tool of cancer treatment, benefiting approximately half of cancer patients worldwide. High-LET radiation, notably in proton and hadron therapy, has gained global traction. However, a thorough comprehension of its biological mechanisms remains elusive. High-LET RT induces clustered DNA lesions through precision delivery of tumor radiation doses, potentially enhancing its tumor cell killing potential. Exploiting repair process vulnerabilities, such as BER and HR, alongside high-LET therapy, shows promise in augmenting tumor cell eradication. Nonetheless, caution is warranted due to cellular adaptive mutability supported by various molecular mechanisms (RGS, TLS, autophagy, EMT, release of exosomes, and epigenetic changes) which may lead to long-term toxicities and tumor relapse in the medium to longer term. Despite ongoing research, the clinical superiority of hadron therapy (high-LET) over conventional photon therapy (low-LET) remains inadequate. Addressing these uncertainties requires robust research protocols and transparent communication with patients. Therefore, a balanced evaluation of high-LET RT benefits and risks is imperative for informed clinical decisions.

Author contributions

YSR- Manuscript idea, writing, editing, supervision DKS- figure prepration, manuscript content, editing ML- data compilation IS- data compilation.

Funding

This study was funded by Molecular Biology Division, Biosciences Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest related to the content of the manuscript.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

Abbasi S The Ku complex: recent advances and emerging roles outside of non-homologous end-joining Cell Mol Life Sci 2021 78 10 4589 4613 10.1007/s00018-021-03801-1 33855626
Adewoye AB The genome-wide effects of ionizing radiation on mutation induction in the mammalian germline Nat Commun 2015 6 6684 10.1038/ncomms7684 25809527
Aherne NJ Murphy BM Radiation-induced gliomas Crit Rev Oncog 2018 23 1–2 113 118 10.1615/CritRevOncog.2018025740 29953370
Akagi T Formation of spread-out Bragg peak for helium-ion beam using microdosimetric kinetic model Phys Med 2023 109 102587 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102587 37087865
Alemasova EE Lavrik OI Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation by PARP1: reaction mechanism and regulatory proteins Nucleic Acids Res 2019 47 8 3811 3827 10.1093/nar/gkz120 30799503
Allen C Heavy charged particle radiobiology: using enhanced biological effectiveness and improved beam focusing to advance cancer therapy Mutat Res 2011 711 1–2 150 157 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2011.02.012 21376738
Anderson JA Participation of DNA-PKcs in DSB repair after exposure to high- and low-LET radiation Radiat Res 2010 174 2 195 205 10.1667/RR2071.1 20681786
Antonovic L Clinical oxygen enhancement ratio of tumors in carbon ion radiotherapy: the influence of local oxygenation changes J Radiat Res 2014 55 5 902 911 10.1093/jrr/rru020 24728013
Apisarnthanarax S Bowen SR Combs SE Proton beam therapy and carbon ion radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma Semin Radiat Oncol 2018 28 4 309 320 10.1016/j.semradonc.2018.06.008 30309641
Arruebo M Assessment of the evolution of cancer treatment therapies Cancers (basel) 2011 3 3 3279 3330 10.3390/cancers3033279 24212956
Asaithamby A Chen DJ Mechanism of cluster DNA damage repair in response to high-atomic number and energy particles radiation Mutat Res 2011 711 1–2 87 99 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.11.002 21126526
Averbeck NB DNA end resection is needed for the repair of complex lesions in G1-phase human cells Cell Cycle 2014 13 16 2509 2516 10.4161/15384101.2015.941743 25486192
Aylon Y Kupiec M The checkpoint protein Rad24 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae is involved in processing double-strand break ends and in recombination partner choice Mol Cell Biol 2003 23 18 6585 6596 10.1128/MCB.23.18.6585-6596.2003 12944484
Bai G HLTF promotes fork reversal, limiting replication stress resistance and preventing multiple mechanisms of unrestrained DNA synthesis Mol Cell 2020 78 6 1237 12517 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.04.031 32442397
Barcellini A Ovarian cancer radiosensitivity: what have we understood so far? Life (basel) 2022 13 1 6 36675955
Barnaba N LaRocque JR Targeting cell cycle regulation via the G2-M checkpoint for synthetic lethality in melanoma Cell Cycle 2021 20 11 1041 1051 10.1080/15384101.2021.1922806 33966611
Baskar R Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions Int J Med Sci 2012 9 3 193 199 10.7150/ijms.3635 22408567
Bellon S Processing of thymine glycol in a clustered DNA damage site: mutagenic or cytotoxic Nucleic Acids Res 2009 37 13 4430 4440 10.1093/nar/gkp422 19468043
Bernal A The current therapeutic landscape for metastatic prostate cancer Pharmaceuticals (basel) 2024 17 3 351 10.3390/ph17030351 38543137
Betous R DNA replication stress triggers rapid DNA replication fork breakage by Artemis and XPF PLoS Genet 2018 14 7 e1007541 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007541 30059501
Bi X Mechanism of DNA damage tolerance World J Biol Chem 2015 6 3 48 56 10.4331/wjbc.v6.i3.48 26322163
Bi Y Radiosensitization by the PARP inhibitor olaparib in BRCA1-proficient and deficient high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas Gynecol Oncol 2018 150 3 534 544 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.07.002 30025822
Blakely EA Chang PY Late effects from hadron therapy Radiother Oncol 2004 73 Suppl 2 S134 S140 10.1016/S0167-8140(04)80035-5 15971329
Boguszewska K How (5'S) and (5'R) 5',8-Cyclo-2'-deoxypurines affect base excision repair of clustered DNA damage in nuclear extracts of xrs5 cells? a biochemical study Cells 2021 10 4 725 10.3390/cells10040725 33805115
Borrego-Soto G Ortiz-Lopez R Rojas-Martinez A Ionizing radiation-induced DNA injury and damage detection in patients with breast cancer Genet Mol Biol 2015 38 4 420 432 10.1590/S1415-475738420150019 26692152
Bright SJ Targeted inhibition of DNA-PKcs, ATM, ATR, PARP, and Rad51 modulate response to X rays and protons Radiat Res 2022 198 4 336 346 10.1667/RADE-22-00040.1 35939823
Budworth H Dianov GL Mode of inhibition of short-patch base excision repair by thymine glycol within clustered DNA lesions J Biol Chem 2003 278 11 9378 9381 10.1074/jbc.M212068200 12519757
Bukowska B Karwowski BT The clustered DNA lesions - types, pathways of repair and relevance to human health Curr Med Chem 2018 25 23 2722 2735 10.2174/0929867325666180226110502 29484975
Busato F Khouzai BE Mognato M Biological mechanisms to reduce radioresistance and increase the efficacy of radiotherapy: state of the art Int J Mol Sci 2022 23 18 10211 10.3390/ijms231810211 36142122
Byrne S 5,6-Dihydrothymine impairs the base excision repair pathway of a closely opposed AP site or single-strand break Radiat Res 2009 172 5 537 549 10.1667/RR1830.1 19883221
Caldecott KW XRCC1 protein form and function DNA Repair (amst) 2019 81 102664 10.1016/j.dnarep.2019.102664 31324530
Cannan WJ Pederson DS Mechanisms and consequences of double-strand DNA break formation in chromatin J Cell Physiol 2016 231 1 3 14 10.1002/jcp.25048 26040249
Cantor SB Revisiting the BRCA-pathway through the lens of replication gap suppression: "Gaps determine therapy response in BRCA Mutant cancer" DNA Repair (amst) 2021 107 103209 10.1016/j.dnarep.2021.103209 34419699
Cantor SB Calvo JA Fork protection and therapy resistance in hereditary breast cancer Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 2017 82 339 348 10.1101/sqb.2017.82.034413 29472318
Cesaire M Sensitization of chondrosarcoma cells with PARP inhibitor and high-LET radiation J Bone Oncol 2019 17 100246 10.1016/j.jbo.2019.100246 31312595
Chaachouay H Autophagy contributes to resistance of tumor cells to ionizing radiation Radiother Oncol 2011 99 3 287 292 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.06.002 21722986
Chang L Acquisition of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cell phenotypes is associated with activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway in prostate cancer radioresistance Cell Death Dis 2013 4 10 e875 10.1038/cddis.2013.407 24157869
Chang L PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway inhibitors enhance radiosensitivity in radioresistant prostate cancer cells through inducing apoptosis, reducing autophagy, suppressing NHEJ and HR repair pathways Cell Death Dis 2014 5 10 e1437 10.1038/cddis.2014.415 25275598
Chatterjee N Walker GC Mechanisms of DNA damage, repair, and mutagenesis Environ Mol Mutagen 2017 58 5 235 263 10.1002/em.22087 28485537
Chen YS Autophagy inhibition contributes to radiation sensitization of esophageal squamous carcinoma cells Dis Esophagus 2011 24 6 437 443 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2010.01156.x 21166739
Chen Y Combining radiation with autophagy inhibition enhances suppression of tumor growth and angiogenesis in esophageal cancer Mol Med Rep 2015 12 2 1645 1652 10.3892/mmr.2015.3623 25891159
Chen S Human MUS81: a fence-sitter in cancer Front Cell Dev Biol 2021 9 657305 10.3389/fcell.2021.657305 33791310
Chung CS Incidence of second malignancies among patients treated with proton versus photon radiation Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013 87 1 46 52 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.04.030 23778197
Cong K Replication gaps are a key determinant of PARP inhibitor synthetic lethality with BRCA deficiency Mol Cell 2021 81 15 3128 3144 e7 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.06.011 34216544
Cong K FANCJ promotes PARP1 activity during DNA replication that is essential in BRCA1 deficient cells Nat Commun 2024 15 1 2599 10.1038/s41467-024-46824-5 38521768
Cortes-Ciriano I Author correction: comprehensive analysis of chromothripsis in 2,658 human cancers using whole-genome sequencing Nat Genet 2023 55 6 1076 10.1038/s41588-023-01315-z 36944733
Crisafulli G Siravegna G Editorial: the impact of genetics on CRC therapy: from adaptive mutability to drug resistance Front Oncol 2023 13 1260158 10.3389/fonc.2023.1260158 37614500
Cuadrado M ATM regulates ATR chromatin loading in response to DNA double-strand breaks J Exp Med 2006 203 2 297 303 10.1084/jem.20051923 16461339
Cucinotta FA Flying without a net: space radiation cancer risk predictions without a gamma-ray basis Int J Mol Sci 2022 23 8 4324 10.3390/ijms23084324 35457139
Cucinotta FA Benchmarking risk predictions and uncertainties in the NSCR model of GCR cancer risks with revised low let risk coefficients Life Sci Space Res (amst) 2020 27 64 73 10.1016/j.lssr.2020.07.008 34756232
Cunniffe S Increased mutability and decreased repairability of a three-lesion clustered DNA-damaged site comprised of an AP site and bi-stranded 8-oxoG lesions Int J Radiat Biol 2014 90 6 468 479 10.3109/09553002.2014.899449 24597750
Cunniffe S Reduced repair capacity of a DNA clustered damage site comprised of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine and 2-deoxyribonolactone results in an increased mutagenic potential of these lesions Mutat Res 2014 762 32 39 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2014.02.005 24631220
Dagogo-Jack I Shaw AT Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to cancer therapies Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018 15 2 81 94 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.166 29115304
Dai C The heat-shock, or HSF1-mediated proteotoxic stress, response in cancer: from proteomic stability to oncogenesis Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2018 373 1738 10.1098/rstb.2016.0525
Danforth JM Provencher L Goodarzi AA Chromatin and the cellular response to particle radiation-induced oxidative and clustered DNA damage Front Cell Dev Biol 2022 10 910440 10.3389/fcell.2022.910440 35912116
Darafsheh A spread-out Bragg peak proton FLASH irradiation using a clinical synchrocyclotron: PROOF of concept and ion chamber characterization Med Phys 2021 48 8 4472 4484 10.1002/mp.15021 34077590
Datta K Neumann RD Winters TA Characterization of complex apurinic/apyrimidinic-site clustering associated with an authentic site-specific radiation-induced DNA double-strand break Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005 102 30 10569 10574 10.1073/pnas.0503975102 16024726
Datta K Heavy ion radiation exposure triggered higher intestinal tumor frequency and greater beta-catenin activation than gamma radiation in APC(Min/+) mice PLoS ONE 2013 8 3 e59295 10.1371/journal.pone.0059295 23555653
de Kruijff RM Wolterbeek HT Denkova AG A critical review of alpha radionuclide therapy-how to deal with recoiling daughters? Pharmaceuticals (basel) 2015 8 2 321 336 10.3390/ph8020321 26066613
Debela DT New approaches and procedures for cancer treatment: Current perspectives SAGE Open Med 2021 9 20503121211034366 10.1177/20503121211034366 34408877
Deng S Targeting the DNA damage response and DNA repair pathways to enhance radiosensitivity in colorectal cancer Cancers (basel) 2022 14 19 4874 10.3390/cancers14194874 36230796
Deorukhkar A Krishnan S Targeting inflammatory pathways for tumor radiosensitization Biochem Pharmacol 2010 80 12 1904 1914 10.1016/j.bcp.2010.06.039 20599771
Dietlein F Reinhardt HC Molecular pathways: exploiting tumor-specific molecular defects in DNA repair pathways for precision cancer therapy Clin Cancer Res 2014 20 23 5882 5887 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1165 25451105
Dietlein F Thelen L Reinhardt HC Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways as targets for personalized therapeutic approaches Trends Genet 2014 30 8 326 339 10.1016/j.tig.2014.06.003 25017190
Dongre A Weinberg RA New insights into the mechanisms of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and implications for cancer Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2019 20 2 69 84 10.1038/s41580-018-0080-4 30459476
Dracham CB Shankar A Madan R Radiation induced secondary malignancies: a review article Radiat Oncol J 2018 36 2 85 94 10.3857/roj.2018.00290 29983028
Du TQ Does particle radiation have superior radiobiological advantages for prostate cancer cells? a systematic review of in vitro studies Eur J Med Res 2022 27 1 306 10.1186/s40001-022-00942-2 36572945
Eccles LJ O'Neill P Lomax ME Delayed repair of radiation induced clustered DNA damage: friend or foe? Mutat Res 2011 711 1–2 134 141 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.11.003 21130102
Eckelmann BJ XRCC1 promotes replication restart, nascent fork degradation and mutagenic DNA repair in BRCA2-deficient cells NAR Cancer 2020 2 3 zcaa013 10.1093/narcan/zcaa013 32776008
Eot-Houllier G Processing of a complex multiply damaged DNA site by human cell extracts and purified repair proteins Nucleic Acids Res 2005 33 1 260 271 10.1093/nar/gki165 15647508
Facoetti A The role of particle therapy in the risk of radio-induced second tumors: a review of the literature Anticancer Res 2019 39 9 4613 4617 10.21873/anticanres.13641 31519558
Ferlay J Cancer statistics for the year 2020: an overview Int J Cancer 2021 149 778 779 10.1002/ijc.33588
Fossati P Radiobiological issues in prospective carbon ion therapy trials Med Phys 2018 45 11 e1096 e1110 10.1002/mp.12506 30421806
Fu X Mechanism of PARP inhibitor resistance and potential overcoming strategies Genes Dis 2024 11 1 306 320 10.1016/j.gendis.2023.02.014 37588193
Fuchs RP Tolerance of lesions in E coli: chronological competition between translesion synthesis and damage avoidance DNA Repair (amst) 2016 44 51 58 10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.05.006 27321147
Fujisawa H VE-821, an ATR inhibitor, causes radiosensitization in human tumor cells irradiated with high LET radiation Radiat Oncol 2015 10 175 10.1186/s13014-015-0464-y 26286029
Gameiro SR Tumor cells surviving exposure to proton or photon radiation share a common immunogenic modulation signature, rendering them more sensitive to T Cell-mediated killing Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016 95 1 120 130 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.022 27084634
Georgakilas AG Processing of bistranded abasic DNA clusters in gamma-irradiated human hematopoietic cells Nucleic Acids Res 2004 32 18 5609 5620 10.1093/nar/gkh871 15494449
Georgakilas AG O'Neill P Stewart RD Induction and repair of clustered DNA lesions: what do we know so far? Radiat Res 2013 180 1 100 109 10.1667/RR3041.1 23682596
Georgoulis A Genome instability and gammaH2AX Int J Mol Sci 2017 18 9 1979 10.3390/ijms18091979 28914798
Gerelchuluun A The major DNA repair pathway after both proton and carbon-ion radiation is NHEJ, but the HR pathway is more relevant in carbon ions Radiat Res 2015 183 3 345 356 10.1667/RR13904.1 25738894
Glanzer JG RPA inhibition increases replication stress and suppresses tumor growth Cancer Res 2014 74 18 5165 5172 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0306 25070753
Goetz G Health technology assessment of carbon-ion beam radiotherapy: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and safety for 54 oncological indications in 12 tumour regions Anticancer Res 2019 39 4 1635 1650 10.21873/anticanres.13269 30952702
Goodarzi AA Block WD Lees-Miller SP The role of ATM and ATR in DNA damage-induced cell cycle control Prog Cell Cycle Res 2003 5 393 411 14593734
Goodhead DT Nikjoo H Track structure analysis of ultrasoft X-rays compared to high- and low-LET radiations Int J Radiat Biol 1989 55 4 513 529 10.1080/09553008914550571 2564863
Hada M Georgakilas AG Formation of clustered DNA damage after high-LET irradiation: a review J Radiat Res 2008 49 3 203 210 10.1269/jrr.07123 18413977
Hanna C Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 3 3 CD013261 32202316
Hanscom T McVey M Regulation of error-prone DNA double-strand break repair and its impact on genome evolution Cells 2020 9 7 1657 10.3390/cells9071657 32660124
Hanssen-Bauer A X-ray repair cross complementing protein 1 in base excision repair Int J Mol Sci 2012 13 12 17210 17229 10.3390/ijms131217210 23247283
Harper JV Anderson JA O'Neill P Radiation induced DNA DSBs: Contribution from stalled replication forks? DNA Repair (amst) 2010 9 8 907 913 10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.06.002 20634148
Harrison L Hatahet Z Wallace SS In vitro repair of synthetic ionizing radiation-induced multiply damaged DNA sites J Mol Biol 1999 290 3 667 684 10.1006/jmbi.1999.2892 10395822
Hayashi K Feasibility of Re-irradiation using carbon ions for recurrent head and neck malignancies after carbon-ion radiotherapy Radiother Oncol 2019 136 148 153 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.007 31015117
Hays E The SWI/SNF ATPase BRG1 stimulates DNA end resection and homologous recombination by reducing nucleosome density at DNA double strand breaks and by promoting the recruitment of the CtIP nuclease Cell Cycle 2020 19 22 3096 3114 10.1080/15384101.2020.1831256 33044911
He J The roles of EXO1 and RPA1 polymorphisms in prognosis of lung cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy Dis Markers 2022 2022 3306189 10.1155/2022/3306189 36277983
Higuchi T CTLA-4 blockade synergizes therapeutically with PARP inhibition in BRCA1-deficient ovarian cancer Cancer Immunol Res 2015 3 11 1257 1268 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-15-0044 26138335
Hirai T Radiosensitization effect of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition in cells exposed to low and high liner energy transfer radiation Cancer Sci 2012 103 6 1045 1050 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2012.02268.x 22404155
Hsu CW A combinatorial system to examine the enzymatic repair of multiply damaged DNA substrates Nucleic Acids Res 2022 50 13 7406 7419 10.1093/nar/gkac530 35776119
Huang RX Zhou PK DNA damage response signaling pathways and targets for radiotherapy sensitization in cancer Signal Transduct Target Ther 2020 5 1 60 10.1038/s41392-020-0150-x 32355263
Huang L High-throughput sequencing reveals Jatrorrhizine inhibits colorectal cancer growth by ferroptosis-related genes BMC Med Genomics 2023 16 1 217 10.1186/s12920-023-01619-3 37710311
Igarashi T An ATR-PrimPol pathway confers tolerance to oncogenic KRAS-induced and heterochromatin-associated replication stress Nat Commun 2023 14 1 4991 10.1038/s41467-023-40578-2 37591859
Jackson SP Sensing and repairing DNA double-strand breaks Carcinogenesis 2002 23 5 687 696 10.1093/carcin/23.5.687 12016139
Jefferson T Hadrontherapy for cancer. an overview of HTA reports and ongoing studies Recenti Prog Med 2019 110 12 566 586 31909760
Jiang Y Wang Y Wang Y In vitro replication and repair studies of tandem lesions containing neighboring thymidine glycol and 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine Chem Res Toxicol 2009 22 3 574 583 10.1021/tx8003449 19193190
Jokar S The footprint of exosomes in the radiation-induced bystander effects Bioengineering (basel) 2022 9 6 243 10.3390/bioengineering9060243 35735486
Kabakov AE Yakimova AO Hypoxia-induced cancer cell responses driving radioresistance of hypoxic tumors: approaches to targeting and radiosensitizing Cancers (basel) 2021 13 5 1102 10.3390/cancers13051102 33806538
Kamada T Carbon ion radiotherapy in Japan: an assessment of 20 years of clinical experience Lancet Oncol 2015 16 2 e93 e100 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70412-7 25638685
Kamaletdinova T Fanaei-Kahrani Z Wang ZQ The enigmatic function of PARP1: from PARYLATION activity to PAR readers Cells 2019 8 12 1625 10.3390/cells8121625 31842403
Karwowski BT The influence of (5'R)- and (5'S)-5',8-Cyclo-2'-deoxyadenosine on UDG and hAPE1 activity. tandem lesions are the base excision repair system's nightmare Cells 2019 8 11 1303 10.3390/cells8111303 31652769
Karwowski BT (5'S) 5',8-Cyclo-2'-deoxyadenosine cannot Stop BER. clustered DNA lesion studies Int J Mol Sci 2021 22 11 5934 10.3390/ijms22115934 34072994
Kazmierczak-Baranska J Effects of 5',8'-Cyclo-2'-deoxypurines on the base excision repair of clustered DNA lesions in nuclear extracts of the XPC cell line Cells 2021 10 11 3254 10.3390/cells10113254 34831476
Kennedy EM Galactic cosmic radiation induces persistent epigenome alterations relevant to human lung cancer Sci Rep 2018 8 1 6709 10.1038/s41598-018-24755-8 29712937
Khan T Autophagy modulators for the treatment of oral and esophageal squamous cell carcinomas Med Res Rev 2020 40 3 1002 1060 10.1002/med.21646 31742748
Kiseleva V Particle therapy: clinical applications and biological effects Life (basel) 2022 12 12 2071 36556436
Kong X Relationship between p53 status and the bioeffect of ionizing radiation Oncol Lett 2021 22 3 661 10.3892/ol.2021.12922 34386083
Kozmin SG Dissecting highly mutagenic processing of complex clustered DNA damage in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cells 2021 10 9 2309 10.3390/cells10092309 34571958
Kraus KM Combs SE The risk of subsequent primary cancer after radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer with carbon ions may be reduced compared to treatment with photons Strahlenther Onkol 2019 195 11 1033 1035 10.1007/s00066-019-01510-0 31420708
Kudryavtsev VA Induction of Hsp70 in tumor cells treated with inhibitors of the Hsp90 activity: a predictive marker and promising target for radiosensitization PLoS ONE 2017 12 3 e0173640 10.1371/journal.pone.0173640 28291803
Kumar K High-LET-radiation-induced persistent DNA damage response signaling and gastrointestinal cancer development Curr Oncol 2023 30 6 5497 5514 10.3390/curroncol30060416 37366899
Lee Y The purine scaffold Hsp90 inhibitor PU-H71 sensitizes cancer cells to heavy ion radiation by inhibiting DNA repair by homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining Radiother Oncol 2016 121 1 162 168 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.08.029 27666928
Li F Sethi G Targeting transcription factor NF-kappaB to overcome chemoresistance and radioresistance in cancer therapy Biochim Biophys Acta 2010 1805 2 167 180 20079806
Li HK PU-H71, a novel Hsp90 inhibitor, as a potential cancer-specific sensitizer to carbon-ion beam therapy J Radiat Res 2016 57 5 572 575 10.1093/jrr/rrw054 27242340
Li S Genetic variants in RPA1 associated with the response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer J Gastroenterol 2019 54 11 939 949 10.1007/s00535-019-01571-z 30923916
Li F Shift in G(1)-checkpoint from ATM-alone to a cooperative ATM Plus ATR regulation with increasing dose of radiation Cells 2021 11 1 63 10.3390/cells11010063 35011623
Li Z Characterization of exosome release and extracellular vesicle-associated miRNAs for human bronchial epithelial cells irradiated with high charge and energy ions Life Sci Space Res (amst) 2021 28 11 17 10.1016/j.lssr.2020.11.001 33612174
Li M Clinical efficacy and safety of proton and carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front Oncol 2021 11 709530 10.3389/fonc.2021.709530 34712607
Lin YF The relative biological effect of spread-out bragg peak protons in sensitive and resistant tumor cells Int J Part Ther 2018 4 3 33 39 10.14338/IJPT-17-00025.1 30283809
Liu X Genistein sensitizes glioblastoma cells to carbon ions via inhibiting DNA-PKcs phosphorylation and subsequently repressing NHEJ and delaying HR repair pathways Radiother Oncol 2018 129 1 84 94 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.04.005 29685705
Liu YP Molecular mechanisms of chemo- and radiotherapy resistance and the potential implications for cancer treatment MedComm 2021 2 3 315 340 10.1002/mco2.55 34766149
Liu J Wnt/beta-catenin signalling: function, biological mechanisms, and therapeutic opportunities Signal Transduct Target Ther 2022 7 1 3 10.1038/s41392-021-00762-6 34980884
Lobrich M Jeggo PA Harmonising the response to DSBs: a new string in the ATM bow DNA Repair (amst) 2005 4 7 749 759 10.1016/j.dnarep.2004.12.008 15978533
Lomax ME Cunniffe S O'Neill P 8-OxoG retards the activity of the ligase III/XRCC1 complex during the repair of a single-strand break, when present within a clustered DNA damage site DNA Repair (amst) 2004 3 3 289 299 10.1016/j.dnarep.2003.11.006 15177044
Lomax ME Cunniffe S O'Neill P Efficiency of repair of an abasic site within DNA clustered damage sites by mammalian cell nuclear extracts Biochemistry 2004 43 34 11017 11026 10.1021/bi049560r 15323560
Lorat Y Nanoscale analysis of clustered DNA damage after high-LET irradiation by quantitative electron microscopy–the heavy burden to repair DNA Repair (amst) 2015 28 93 106 10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.01.007 25659339
Lorat Y Clustered double-strand breaks in heterochromatin perturb DNA repair after high linear energy transfer irradiation Radiother Oncol 2016 121 1 154 161 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.08.028 27637859
Luitel K Proton radiation-induced cancer progression Life Sci Space Res (amst) 2018 19 31 42 10.1016/j.lssr.2018.08.002 30482279
Ma H Combining carbon ion irradiation and non-homologous end-joining repair inhibitor NU7026 efficiently kills cancer cells Radiat Oncol 2015 10 225 10.1186/s13014-015-0536-z 26553138
Malouff TD Carbon ion therapy: a modern review of an emerging technology Front Oncol 2020 10 82 10.3389/fonc.2020.00082 32117737
Malyarchuk S Harrison L DNA repair of clustered uracils in HeLa cells J Mol Biol 2005 345 4 731 743 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.10.079 15588822
Malyarchuk S The mutation frequency of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-oxodG) situated in a multiply damaged site: comparison of a single and two closely opposed 8-oxodG in Escherichia coli DNA Repair (amst) 2003 2 6 695 705 10.1016/S1568-7864(03)00040-5 12767348
Malyarchuk S Two clustered 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-oxodG) lesions increase the point mutation frequency of 8-oxodG, but do not result in double strand breaks or deletions in Escherichia coli Nucleic Acids Res 2004 32 19 5721 5731 10.1093/nar/gkh911 15509868
Malyarchuk S Castore R Harrison L DNA repair of clustered lesions in mammalian cells: involvement of non-homologous end-joining Nucleic Acids Res 2008 36 15 4872 4882 10.1093/nar/gkn450 18653525
Malyarchuk S Castore R Harrison L Apex1 can cleave complex clustered DNA lesions in cells DNA Repair (amst) 2009 8 12 1343 1354 10.1016/j.dnarep.2009.08.008 19800300
Mardanshahi A The PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway inhibitors enhance radiosensitivity in cancer cell lines Mol Biol Rep 2021 48 8 1 14 10.1007/s11033-021-06607-3 34357550
Marechal A Zou L DNA damage sensing by the ATM and ATR kinases Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2013 5 9 a012716 10.1101/cshperspect.a012716 24003211
Marini V MUS81 cleaves TOP1-derived lesions and other DNA-protein cross-links BMC Biol 2023 21 1 110 10.1186/s12915-023-01614-1 37194054
Masumura K Heavy-ion-induced mutations in the gpt delta transgenic mouse: comparison of mutation spectra induced by heavy-ion, X-ray, and gamma-ray radiation Environ Mol Mutagen 2002 40 3 207 215 10.1002/em.10108 12355555
McKenzie GJ The SOS response regulates adaptive mutation Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000 97 12 6646 6651 10.1073/pnas.120161797 10829077
Michalettou TD A Meta-analysis of the effects of high-LET ionizing radiations in human gene expression Life (basel) 2021 11 2 115 33546472
Mishra MV Establishing evidence-based indications for proton therapy: an overview of current clinical trials Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017 97 2 228 235 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.10.045 28068231
Miyasaka A PI3K/mTOR pathway inhibition overcomes radioresistance via suppression of the HIF1-alpha/VEGF pathway in endometrial cancer Gynecol Oncol 2015 138 1 174 180 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.015 25913131
Mladenov E Radiation-dose-dependent functional synergisms between ATM, ATR and DNA-PKcs in checkpoint control and resection in G(2)-phase Sci Rep 2019 9 1 8255 10.1038/s41598-019-44771-6 31164689
Mladenov E DNA-PKcs and ATM epistatically suppress DNA end resection and hyperactivation of ATR-dependent G(2)-checkpoint in S-phase irradiated cells Sci Rep 2019 9 1 14597 10.1038/s41598-019-51071-6 31601897
Mladenova V DNA damage clustering after ionizing radiation and consequences in the processing of chromatin breaks Molecules 2022 27 5 1540 10.3390/molecules27051540 35268641
Mladenova V The high toxicity of DSB-clusters modelling high-LET-DNA damage derives from inhibition of c-NHEJ and promotion of alt-EJ and SSA despite increases in HR Front Cell Dev Biol 2022 10 1016951 10.3389/fcell.2022.1016951 36263011
Mohamad O Carbon ion radiotherapy: a review of clinical experiences and preclinical research, with an emphasis on DNA damage/repair Cancers (basel) 2017 9 6 66 10.3390/cancers9060066 28598362
Mohamad O Risk of subsequent primary cancers after carbon ion radiotherapy, photon radiotherapy, or surgery for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score-weighted, retrospective, cohort study Lancet Oncol 2019 20 5 674 685 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30931-8 30885458
Mohammadian Gol T Rodemann HP Dittmann K Depletion of Akt1 and Akt2 impairs the repair of radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks via homologous recombination Int J Mol Sci 2019 20 24 6316 10.3390/ijms20246316 31847370
Mondini M Radiotherapy-immunotherapy combinations - perspectives and challenges Mol Oncol 2020 14 7 1529 1537 10.1002/1878-0261.12658 32112478
Moo TA Overview of breast cancer therapy PET Clin 2018 13 3 339 354 10.1016/j.cpet.2018.02.006 30100074
Morales-Ramirez P Induction and assessment of persistent radioresistance in murine leukocytes in vivo Biochem Biophys Rep 2022 31 101296 35707716
Mourgues S Lomax ME O'Neill P Base excision repair processing of abasic site/single-strand break lesions within clustered damage sites associated with XRCC1 deficiency Nucleic Acids Res 2007 35 22 7676 7687 10.1093/nar/gkm947 17982170
Mozaffari NL Pagliarulo F Sartori AA Human CtIP: A 'double agent' in DNA repair and tumorigenesis Semin Cell Dev Biol 2021 113 47 56 10.1016/j.semcdb.2020.09.001 32950401
Musha A Carbon-ion radiotherapy for inoperable head and neck bone and soft-tissue sarcoma: prospective observational study Anticancer Res 2022 42 3 1439 1446 10.21873/anticanres.15614 35220237
Nakashima H Takatsu T Imai R Radiation-induced osteosarcoma in the pubic bone after proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a case report J Rural Med 2022 17 2 94 100 10.2185/jrm.2021-047 35432636
Naldiga S Mutagenic effects of a 2-deoxyribonolactone-thymine glycol Tandem DNA lesion in human cells Biochemistry 2020 59 4 417 424 10.1021/acs.biochem.9b01058 31860280
Nayak S Inhibition of the translesion synthesis polymerase REV1 exploits replication gaps as a cancer vulnerability Sci Adv 2020 6 24 eaaz7808 10.1126/sciadv.aaz7808 32577513
Nayak S Calvo JA Cantor SB Targeting translesion synthesis (TLS) to expose replication gaps, a unique cancer vulnerability Expert Opin Ther Targets 2021 25 1 27 36 10.1080/14728222.2021.1864321 33416413
Nickoloff JA Sharma N Taylor L Clustered DNA double-strand breaks: biological effects and relevance to cancer radiotherapy Genes (basel) 2020 11 1 99 10.3390/genes11010099 31952359
Nickoloff JA Nucleases and Co-factors in DNA replication stress responses DNA (basel) 2022 2 1 68 85 36203968
Nikitaki Z Measurement of complex DNA damage induction and repair in human cellular systems after exposure to ionizing radiations of varying linear energy transfer (LET) Free Radic Res 2016 50 sup1 S64 S78 10.1080/10715762.2016.1232484 27593437
Nikjoo H Track structure in radiation biology: theory and applications Int J Radiat Biol 1998 73 4 355 364 10.1080/095530098142176 9587072
Niu Y XRCC1 deficiency increased the DNA damage induced by gamma-ray in HepG2 cell: involvement of DSB repair and cell cycle arrest Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2013 36 2 311 319 10.1016/j.etap.2013.04.009 23708312
Noordermeer SM The shieldin complex mediates 53BP1-dependent DNA repair Nature 2018 560 7716 117 121 10.1038/s41586-018-0340-7 30022168
Nusawardhana A USP1-dependent nucleolytic expansion of PRIMPOL-generated nascent DNA strand discontinuities during replication stress Nucleic Acids Res 2024 52 5 2340 2354 10.1093/nar/gkad1237 38180818
Oden J Eriksson K Toma-Dasu I Inclusion of a variable RBE into proton and photon plan comparison for various fractionation schedules in prostate radiation therapy Med Phys 2017 44 3 810 822 10.1002/mp.12117 28107554
Okada T Carbon ion radiotherapy: clinical experiences at National Institute of Radiological Science (NIRS) J Radiat Res 2010 51 4 355 364 10.1269/jrr.10016 20508375
Okayasu R Repair of DNA damage induced by accelerated heavy ions–a mini review Int J Cancer 2012 130 5 991 1000 10.1002/ijc.26445 21935920
Okayasu R Repair of DNA damage induced by accelerated heavy ions in mammalian cells proficient and deficient in the non-homologous end-joining pathway Radiat Res 2006 165 1 59 67 10.1667/RR3489.1 16392963
Paap B Wilson DM 3rd Sutherland BM Human abasic endonuclease action on multilesion abasic clusters: implications for radiation-induced biological damage Nucleic Acids Res 2008 36 8 2717 2727 10.1093/nar/gkn118 18353858
Paganetti H Mechanisms and review of clinical evidence of variations in relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022 112 1 222 236 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.015 34407443
Paganetti H Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002 53 2 407 421 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02754-2 12023146
Pai JT Induction of G2/M Cell cycle arrest via p38/p21(Waf1/Cip1)-dependent signaling pathway activation by bavachinin in non-small-cell lung cancer cells Molecules 2021 26 17 5161 10.3390/molecules26175161 34500594
Park HA Validation of Genetic Markers Associated with Survival in Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022 31 2 352 361 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0814 34862210
Patel ZS Red risks for a journey to the red planet: the highest priority human health risks for a mission to Mars NPJ Microgravity 2020 6 1 33 10.1038/s41526-020-00124-6 33298950
Peitzsch C Cancer stem cells in radiation response: current views and future perspectives in radiation oncology Int J Radiat Biol 2019 95 7 900 911 10.1080/09553002.2019.1589023 30897014
Peng M Opposing roles of FANCJ and HLTF protect forks and restrain replication during stress Cell Rep 2018 24 12 3251 3261 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.065 30232006
Perdyan A Chromosomal positioning and epigenetic architecture influence DNA methylation patterns triggered by galactic cosmic radiation Sci Rep 2024 14 1 1324 10.1038/s41598-024-51756-7 38225252
Pucci C Martinelli C Ciofani G Innovative approaches for cancer treatment: current perspectives and new challenges Ecancermedicalscience 2019 13 961 10.3332/ecancer.2019.961 31537986
Ramaekers BL Systematic review and meta-analysis of radiotherapy in various head and neck cancers: comparing photons, carbon-ions and protons Cancer Treat Rev 2011 37 3 185 201 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.08.004 20817407
Ray S Comparing photon and charged particle therapy using DNA damage biomarkers Int J Part Ther 2018 5 1 15 24 10.14338/IJPT-18-00018.1 31773017
Roobol SJ Comparison of high- and low-LET radiation-induced DNA double-strand break processing in living cells Int J Mol Sci 2020 21 18 6602 10.3390/ijms21186602 32917044
Rose M PARP inhibitors: clinical relevance, mechanisms of action and tumor resistance Front Cell Dev Biol 2020 8 564601 10.3389/fcell.2020.564601 33015058
Ruff SE Roles for MDC1 in cancer development and treatment DNA Repair (amst) 2020 95 102948 10.1016/j.dnarep.2020.102948 32866776
Russo M Adaptive mutability of colorectal cancers in response to targeted therapies Science 2019 366 6472 1473 1480 10.1126/science.aav4474 31699882
Rycaj K Tang DG Cancer stem cells and radioresistance Int J Radiat Biol 2014 90 8 615 621 10.3109/09553002.2014.892227 24527669
Sadeghi Moghadam M Chromosomal instability in various generations of human mesenchymal stem cells following the therapeutic radiation Stem Cells Int 2023 2023 9991656 10.1155/2023/9991656 37674788
Sage E Harrison L Clustered DNA lesion repair in eukaryotes: relevance to mutagenesis and cell survival Mutat Res 2011 711 1–2 123 133 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.12.010 21185841
Sage E Shikazono N Radiation-induced clustered DNA lesions: repair and mutagenesis Free Radic Biol Med 2017 107 125 135 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.12.008 27939934
Sai S Koto M Yamada S Basic and translational research on carbon-ion radiobiology Am J Cancer Res 2023 13 1 1 24 36777517
Saldanha J The adaptive mechanisms and checkpoint responses to a stressed DNA replication fork Int J Mol Sci 2023 24 13 10488 10.3390/ijms241310488 37445667
Sallmyr A Tomkinson AE Repair of DNA double-strand breaks by mammalian alternative end-joining pathways J Biol Chem 2018 293 27 10536 10546 10.1074/jbc.TM117.000375 29530982
Sarbajna S Davies D West SC Roles of SLX1-SLX4, MUS81-EME1, and GEN1 in avoiding genome instability and mitotic catastrophe Genes Dev 2014 28 10 1124 1136 10.1101/gad.238303.114 24831703
Sato K Shimokawa T Imai T Difference in acquired radioresistance induction between repeated photon and particle irradiation Front Oncol 2019 9 1213 10.3389/fonc.2019.01213 31799186
Schilling D Sensitizing tumor cells to radiation by targeting the heat shock response Cancer Lett 2015 360 2 294 301 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.02.033 25721082
Scully R DNA double-strand break repair-pathway choice in somatic mammalian cells Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2019 20 11 698 714 10.1038/s41580-019-0152-0 31263220
Seyedin SN Combination therapy with radiation and PARP inhibition enhances responsiveness to Anti-PD-1 therapy in colorectal tumor models Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020 108 1 81 92 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.030 32036006
Shiba S Safety and efficacy of re-irradiation with carbon-ion radiotherapy for pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective analysis In Vivo 2022 36 5 2473 2480 10.21873/invivo.12983 36099090
Shiba S Long-term survival of two patients with inoperable post-irradiation osteosarcoma treated with carbon-ion radiotherapy: a case report Radiat Oncol 2022 17 1 68 10.1186/s13014-022-02040-3 35379287
Shiba S Carbon-ion radiotherapy for inoperable solitary fibrous tumor of the skull base: a case report In Vivo 2023 37 2 908 911 10.21873/invivo.13161 36881080
Shikazono N Akamatsu K Strand with mutagenic lesion is preferentially used as a template in the region of a bi-stranded clustered DNA damage site in Escherichia coli Sci Rep 2020 10 1 9737 10.1038/s41598-020-66651-0 32546758
Shikazono N The roles of specific glycosylases in determining the mutagenic consequences of clustered DNA base damage Nucleic Acids Res 2006 34 13 3722 3730 10.1093/nar/gkl503 16893955
Shimura T Targeting the AKT/cyclin D1 pathway to overcome intrinsic and acquired radioresistance of tumors for effective radiotherapy Int J Radiat Biol 2017 93 4 381 385 10.1080/09553002.2016.1257832 27910734
Shimura T Targeting the AKT/GSK3beta/cyclin D1/Cdk4 survival signaling pathway for eradication of tumor radioresistance acquired by fractionated radiotherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011 80 2 540 548 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.12.065 21398050
Shimura T Activation of the AKT/cyclin D1/Cdk4 survival signaling pathway in radioresistant cancer stem cells Oncogenesis 2012 1 6 e12 10.1038/oncsis.2012.12 23552696
Singh V Das P Condensation of DNA–a putative obstruction for repair process in abasic clustered DNA damage DNA Repair (amst) 2013 12 6 450 457 10.1016/j.dnarep.2013.03.002 23582211
Smith J The ATM-Chk2 and ATR-Chk1 pathways in DNA damage signaling and cancer Adv Cancer Res 2010 108 73 112 10.1016/B978-0-12-380888-2.00003-0 21034966
Song B Yang P Zhang S Cell fate regulation governed by p53: Friends or reversible foes in cancer therapy Cancer Commun (lond) 2024 44 3 297 360 10.1002/cac2.12520 38311377
Srivastava P Sarma A Chaturvedi CM Targeting DNA repair with PNKP inhibition sensitizes radioresistant prostate cancer cells to high LET radiation PLoS ONE 2018 13 1 e0190516 10.1371/journal.pone.0190516 29320576
Stover EH Biomarkers of response and resistance to DNA repair targeted therapies Clin Cancer Res 2016 22 23 5651 5660 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0247 27678458
Strigari L Tumour control in ion beam radiotherapy with different ions in the presence of hypoxia: an oxygen enhancement ratio model based on the microdosimetric kinetic model Phys Med Biol 2018 63 6 065012 10.1088/1361-6560/aa89ae 28862152
Suman S Therapeutic and space radiation exposure of mouse brain causes impaired DNA repair response and premature senescence by chronic oxidant production Aging (albany NY) 2013 5 8 607 622 10.18632/aging.100587 23928451
Suman S The effect of carbon irradiation is associated with greater oxidative stress in mouse intestine and colon relative to gamma-rays Free Radic Res 2018 52 5 556 567 10.1080/10715762.2018.1452204 29544379
Sung H Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2021 71 3 209 249 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338
Tang N Influence of chromatin compaction on simulated early radiation-induced DNA damage using Geant4-DNA Med Phys 2019 46 3 1501 1511 10.1002/mp.13405 30689203
Tian H DNA damage response–a double-edged sword in cancer prevention and cancer therapy Cancer Lett 2015 358 1 8 16 10.1016/j.canlet.2014.12.038 25528631
Timm S Clustered DNA damage concentrated in particle trajectories causes persistent large-scale rearrangements in chromatin architecture Radiother Oncol 2018 129 3 600 610 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.07.003 30049456
Tinganelli W Durante M Carbon ion radiobiology Cancers (basel) 2020 12 10 3022 10.3390/cancers12103022 33080914
Tomimatsu N DNA-damage-induced degradation of EXO1 exonuclease limits DNA end resection to ensure accurate DNA repair J Biol Chem 2017 292 26 10779 10790 10.1074/jbc.M116.772475 28515316
Tomizawa K Repeated carbon-ion radiation therapy for intrahepatic recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023 116 5 1100 1109 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.02.036 36870514
Tomsia M Long-term space missions' effects on the human organism: what we do know and what requires further research Front Physiol 2024 15 1284644 10.3389/fphys.2024.1284644 38415007
Tonzi P Huang TT Role of Y-family translesion DNA polymerases in replication stress: Implications for new cancer therapeutic targets DNA Repair (amst) 2019 78 20 26 10.1016/j.dnarep.2019.03.016 30954011
Trego KS Non-catalytic roles for XPG with BRCA1 and BRCA2 in homologous recombination and genome stability Mol Cell 2016 61 4 535 546 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.12.026 26833090
Tsujii H Overview of clinical experiences on carbon ion radiotherapy at NIRS Radiother Oncol 2004 73 Suppl 2 S41 S49 10.1016/S0167-8140(04)80012-4 15971308
Vaitsiankova A PARP inhibition impedes the maturation of nascent DNA strands during DNA replication Nat Struct Mol Biol 2022 29 4 329 338 10.1038/s41594-022-00747-1 35332322
Venkadakrishnan J Implications of translesion DNA synthesis polymerases on genomic stability and human health Mol Cell Biol 2023 43 8 401 425 10.1080/10985549.2023.2224199 37439479
Venkhataraman R Enzymatic processing of DNA containing tandem dihydrouracil by endonucleases III and VIII Nucleic Acids Res 2001 29 2 407 414 10.1093/nar/29.2.407 11139610
Vertemara J Tisi R Dynamic properties of the DNA damage response Mre11/Rad50 complex Int J Mol Sci 2023 24 15 12377 10.3390/ijms241512377 37569756
Visnes T Targeting BER enzymes in cancer therapy DNA Repair (amst) 2018 71 118 126 10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.08.015 30228084
Voronina N The landscape of chromothripsis across adult cancer types Nat Commun 2020 11 1 2320 10.1038/s41467-020-16134-7 32385320
Wang H Xu X Microhomology-mediated end joining: new players join the team Cell Biosci 2017 7 6 10.1186/s13578-017-0136-8 28101326
Wang H Characteristics of DNA-binding proteins determine the biological sensitivity to high-linear energy transfer radiation Nucleic Acids Res 2010 38 10 3245 3251 10.1093/nar/gkq069 20150414
Wang H Distinct roles of Ape1 protein, an enzyme involved in DNA repair, in high or low linear energy transfer ionizing radiation-induced cell killing J Biol Chem 2014 289 44 30635 30644 10.1074/jbc.M114.604959 25210033
Wang JS Wang HJ Qian HL Biological effects of radiation on cancer cells Mil Med Res 2018 5 1 20 29958545
Watanabe R Rahmanian S Nikjoo H Spectrum of radiation-induced clustered non-DSB damage - a Monte Carlo track structure modeling and calculations Radiat Res 2015 183 5 525 540 10.1667/RR13902.1 25909147
Weber AM Ryan AJ ATM and ATR as therapeutic targets in cancer Pharmacol Ther 2015 149 124 138 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2014.12.001 25512053
Whalen MK Specific ATM-mediated phosphorylation dependent on radiation quality Radiat Res 2008 170 3 353 364 10.1667/RR1354.1 18763865
Wilkinson B Hill MA Parsons JL The cellular response to complex DNA damage induced by ionising radiation Int J Mol Sci 2023 24 5 4920 10.3390/ijms24054920 36902352
Wilson SH Kunkel TA Passing the baton in base excision repair Nat Struct Biol 2000 7 3 176 178 10.1038/73260 10700268
Wu Y EEPD1 rescues stressed replication forks and maintains genome stability by promoting end resection and homologous recombination repair PLoS Genet 2015 11 12 e1005675 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005675 26684013
Wu Y Molecular mechanisms of tumor resistance to radiotherapy Mol Cancer 2023 22 1 96 10.1186/s12943-023-01801-2 37322433
Wu W Mitotic DNA synthesis in response to replication stress requires the sequential action of DNA polymerases zeta and delta in human cells Nat Commun 2023 14 1 706 10.1038/s41467-023-35992-5 36759509
Wyatt HD Coordinated actions of SLX1-SLX4 and MUS81-EME1 for Holliday junction resolution in human cells Mol Cell 2013 52 2 234 247 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.08.035 24076221
Xie M Bcl2-induced DNA replication stress promotes lung carcinogenesis in response to space radiation Carcinogenesis 2020 41 11 1565 1575 10.1093/carcin/bgaa021 32157295
Xu X Structure specific DNA recognition by the SLX1-SLX4 endonuclease complex Nucleic Acids Res 2021 49 13 7740 7752 10.1093/nar/gkab542 34181713
Xue L Regulation of ATM in DNA double strand break repair accounts for the radiosensitivity in human cells exposed to high linear energy transfer ionizing radiation Mutat Res 2009 670 1–2 15 23 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2009.06.016 19583974
Yajima H The complexity of DNA double strand breaks is a critical factor enhancing end-resection DNA Repair (amst) 2013 12 11 936 946 10.1016/j.dnarep.2013.08.009 24041488
Yang J Salvage carbon ion radiation therapy for locally recurrent or radiation-induced second primary sarcoma of the head and neck J Cancer 2018 9 12 2215 2223 10.7150/jca.24313 29937942
Yang F Hu Z Guo Z Small-molecule inhibitors targeting FEN1 for cancer therapy Biomolecules 2022 12 7 1007 10.3390/biom12071007 35883563
Yang J Carbon-ion radiotherapy in the treatment of radiation-induced second primary malignancies Ann Transl Med 2022 10 22 1200 10.21037/atm-20-200 36544688
Yatagai F Heavy-ion-induced mutations in the gpt delta transgenic mouse: effect of p53 gene knockout Environ Mol Mutagen 2002 40 3 216 225 10.1002/em.10107 12355556
Yeo CD The role of hypoxia on the acquisition of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer stemness: a possible link to epigenetic regulation Korean J Intern Med 2017 32 4 589 599 10.3904/kjim.2016.302 28704917
Yock TI Caruso PA Risk of second cancers after photon and proton radiotherapy: a review of the data Health Phys 2012 103 5 577 585 10.1097/HP.0b013e3182609ba4 23032887
Yu F Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in cancers and targeted therapies Signal Transduct Target Ther 2021 6 1 307 10.1038/s41392-021-00701-5 34456337
Zellweger R Rad51-mediated replication fork reversal is a global response to genotoxic treatments in human cells J Cell Biol 2015 208 5 563 579 10.1083/jcb.201406099 25733714
Zhang H HIF-1 regulates CD47 expression in breast cancer cells to promote evasion of phagocytosis and maintenance of cancer stem cells Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015 112 45 E6215 E6223 10.1073/pnas.1520032112 26512116
Zhang J Flap endonuclease 1 and DNA-PKcs synergistically participate in stabilizing replication fork to encounter replication stress in glioma cells J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2022 41 1 140 10.1186/s13046-022-02334-0 35414100
Zhang Z Radiotherapy combined with immunotherapy: the dawn of cancer treatment Signal Transduct Target Ther 2022 7 1 258 10.1038/s41392-022-01102-y 35906199
Zhou Y Paull TT DNA-dependent protein kinase regulates DNA end resection in concert with Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 (MRN) and ataxia telangiectasia-mutated (ATM) J Biol Chem 2013 288 52 37112 37125 10.1074/jbc.M113.514398 24220101
Zhu Y Targeting DNA repair pathways: a novel approach to reduce cancer therapeutic resistance Cancer Treat Rev 2009 35 7 590 596 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.06.005 19635647
Zou Y Functions of human replication protein A (RPA): from DNA replication to DNA damage and stress responses J Cell Physiol 2006 208 2 267 273 10.1002/jcp.20622 16523492
