Rositsa Dueva

Dr. Rositsa Dueva


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2020 in NAR Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RDRositsa Dueva
Rositsa Dueva
George IliakisGeorge Iliakis
George Iliakis
Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) forms continuously during DNA replication and is an important intermediate during recombination-mediated repair of damaged DNA. Replication protein A (RPA) is the major eukaryotic ssDNA-binding protein. As such, RPA protects the transiently formed ssDNA from nucleolytic degradation and serves as a physical platform for the recruitment of DNA damage response factors. Prominent and well-studied RPA-interacting partners are the tumor suppressor protein p53, the RAD51 recombinase and the ATR-interacting proteins ATRIP and ETAA1. RPA interactions are also documented with the helicases BLM, WRN and SMARCAL1/HARP, as well as the nucleotide excision repair proteins XPA, XPG and XPF–ERCC1. Besides its well-studied roles in DNA replication (restart) and repair, accumulating evidence shows that RPA is engaged in DNA activities in a broader biological context, including nucleosome assembly on nascent chromatin, regulation of gene expression, telomere maintenance and numerous other aspects of nucleic acid metabolism. In addition, novel RPA inhibitors show promising effects in cancer treatment, as single agents or in combination with chemotherapeutics. Since the biochemical properties of RPA and its roles in DNA repair have been extensively reviewed, here we focus on recent discoveries describing several non-canonical functions.

27 December 2021 in Cells
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FLFanghua Li
Fanghua Li
EMEmil Mladenov
Emil Mladenov
RDRositsa Dueva
Rositsa Dueva
Martin StuschkeMartin Stuschke
Martin Stuschke
BTBeate Timmermann
Beate Timmermann
George IliakisGeorge Iliakis
George Iliakis
The current view of the involvement of PI3-kinases in checkpoint responses after DNA damage is that ATM is the key regulator of G1-, S- or G2-phase checkpoints, that ATR is only partly involved in the regulation of S- and G2-phase checkpoints and that DNA-PKcs is not involved in checkpoint regulation. However, further analysis of the contributions of these kinases to checkpoint responses in cells exposed to ionizing radiation (IR) recently uncovered striking integrations and interplays among ATM, ATR and DNA-PKcs that adapt not only to the phase of the cell cycle in which cells are irradiated, but also to the load of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), presumably to optimize their processing. Specifically, we found that low IR doses in G2-phase cells activate a G2-checkpoint that is regulated by epistatically coupled ATM and ATR. Thus, inhibition of either kinase suppresses almost fully its activation. At high IR doses, the epistatic ATM/ATR coupling relaxes, yielding to a cooperative regulation. Thus, single-kinase inhibition suppresses partly, and only combined inhibition suppresses fully G2-checkpoint activation. Interestingly, DNA-PKcs integrates with ATM/ATR in G2-checkpoint control, but functions in its recovery in a dose-independent manner. Strikingly, irradiation during S-phase activates, independently of dose, an exclusively ATR-dependent G2 checkpoint. Here, ATM couples with DNA-PKcs to regulate checkpoint recovery. In the present work, we extend these studies and investigate organization and functions of these PI3-kinases in the activation of the G1 checkpoint in cells irradiated either in the G0 or G1 phase. We report that ATM is the sole regulator of the G1 checkpoint after exposure to low IR doses. At high IR doses, ATM remains dominant, but contributions from ATR also become detectable and are associated with limited ATM/ATR-dependent end resection at DSBs. Under these conditions, only combined ATM + ATR inhibition fully abrogates checkpoint and resection. Contributions of DNA-PKcs and CHK2 to the regulation of the G1 checkpoint are not obvious in these experiments and may be masked by the endpoint employed for checkpoint analysis and perturbations in normal progression through the cell cycle of cells exposed to DNA-PKcs inhibitors. The results broaden our understanding of organization throughout the cell cycle and adaptation with increasing IR dose of the ATM/ATR/DNA-PKcs module to regulate checkpoint responses. They emphasize notable similarities and distinct differences between G1-, G2- and S-phase checkpoint regulation that may guide DSB processing decisions.

2 July 2022 in Cells
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HXHuaping Xiao
Huaping Xiao
FLFanghua Li
Fanghua Li
EMEmil Mladenov
Emil Mladenov
ASAashish Soni
Aashish Soni
VMVeronika Mladenova
Veronika Mladenova
George IliakisGeorge Iliakis
George Iliakis
The load of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) induced in the genome of higher eukaryotes by different doses of ionizing radiation (IR) is a key determinant of DSB repair pathway choice, with homologous recombination (HR) and ATR substantially gaining ground at doses below 0.5 Gy. Increased resection and HR engagement with decreasing DSB-load generate a conundrum in a classical non-homologous end-joining (c-NHEJ)-dominated cell and suggest a mechanism adaptively facilitating resection. We report that ablation of DNA-PKcs causes hyper-resection, implicating DNA-PK in the underpinning mechanism. However, hyper-resection in DNA-PKcs-deficient cells can also be an indirect consequence of their c-NHEJ defect. Here, we report that all tested DNA-PKcs mutants show hyper-resection, while mutants with defects in all other factors of c-NHEJ fail to do so. This result rules out the model of c-NHEJ versus HR competition and the passive shift from c-NHEJ to HR as the causes of the increased resection and suggests the integration of DNA-PKcs into resection regulation. We develop a model, compatible with the results of others, which integrates DNA-PKcs into resection regulation and HR for a subset of DSBs. For these DSBs, we propose that the kinase remains at the break site, rather than the commonly assumed autophosphorylation-mediated removal from DNA ends.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RDRositsa Dueva
Rositsa Dueva
LKLisa Marie Krieger
Lisa Marie Krieger
FLFanghua Li
Fanghua Li
DLDaxian Luo
Daxian Luo
HXHuaping Xiao
Huaping Xiao
George IliakisGeorge Iliakis
George Iliakis
Replication protein A (RPA) is the major single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) binding protein that is essential for DNA replication and processing of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) by homology-directed repair pathways. Recently, small molecule inhibitors have been developed targeting the RPA70 subunit and preventing RPA interactions with ssDNA and various DNA repair proteins. The rationale of this development is the potential utility of such compounds as cancer therapeutics, owing to their ability to inhibit DNA replication that sustains tumor growth. Among these compounds, (1Z)-1-[(2-hydroxyanilino) methylidene] naphthalen-2-one (HAMNO) has been more extensively studied and its efficacy against tumor growth was shown to arise from the associated DNA replication stress. Here, we study the effects of HAMNO on cells exposed to ionizing radiation (IR), focusing on the effects on the DNA damage response and the processing of DSBs and explore its potential as a radiosensitizer. We show that HAMNO by itself slows down the progression of cells through the cell cycle by dramatically decreasing DNA synthesis. Notably, HAMNO also attenuates the progression of G2-phase cells into mitosis by a mechanism that remains to be elucidated. Furthermore, HAMNO increases the fraction of chromatin-bound RPA in S-phase but not in G2-phase cells and suppresses DSB repair by homologous recombination. Despite these marked effects on the cell cycle and the DNA damage response, radiosensitization could neither be detected in exponentially growing cultures, nor in cultures enriched in G2-phase cells. Our results complement existing data on RPA inhibitors, specifically HAMNO, and suggest that their antitumor activity by replication stress induction may not extend to radiosensitization. However, it may render cells more vulnerable to other forms of DNA damaging agents through synthetically lethal interactions, which requires further investigation.