Jac A. Nickoloff

Dr. Jac A. Nickoloff

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

23Years (2004-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
27 December 2010 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Sheema MirSheema Mir
Sheema Mir
EWElizabeth A. Williamson
Elizabeth A. Williamson
LHLeyma P. De Haro
Leyma P. De Haro
MBMark Brenneman
Mark Brenneman
JWJustin Wray
Justin Wray
RHRobert Hromas
Robert Hromas
Given its significant role in the maintenance of genomic stability, histone methylation has been postulated to regulate DNA repair. Histone methylation mediates localization of 53BP1 to a DNA double-strand break (DSB) during homologous recombination repair, but a role in DSB repair by nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) has not been defined. By screening for histone methylation after DSB induction by ionizing radiation we found that generation of dimethyl histone H3 lysine 36 (H3K36me2) was the major event. Using a novel human cell system that rapidly generates a single defined DSB in the vast majority of cells, we found that the DNA repair protein Metnase (also SETMAR), which has a SET histone methylase domain, localized to an induced DSB and directly mediated the formation of H3K36me2 near the induced DSB. This dimethylation of H3K36 improved the association of early DNA repair components, including NBS1 and Ku70, with the induced DSB, and enhanced DSB repair. In addition, expression of JHDM1a (an H3K36me2 demethylase) or histone H3 in which K36 was mutated to A36 or R36 to prevent H3K36me2 formation decreased the association of early NHEJ repair components with an induced DSB and decreased DSB repair. Thus, these experiments define a histone methylation event that enhances DNA DSB repair by NHEJ.

15 January 2020 in Genes
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JNJac A. Nickoloff
Jac A. Nickoloff
NSNeelam Sharma
Neelam Sharma
LTLynn Taylor
Lynn Taylor
Cells manage to survive, thrive, and divide with high accuracy despite the constant threat of DNA damage. Cells have evolved with several systems that efficiently repair spontaneous, isolated DNA lesions with a high degree of accuracy. Ionizing radiation and a few radiomimetic chemicals can produce clustered DNA damage comprising complex arrangements of single-strand damage and DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). There is substantial evidence that clustered DNA damage is more mutagenic and cytotoxic than isolated damage. Radiation-induced clustered DNA damage has proven difficult to study because the spectrum of induced lesions is very complex, and lesions are randomly distributed throughout the genome. Nonetheless, it is fairly well-established that radiation-induced clustered DNA damage, including non-DSB and DSB clustered lesions, are poorly repaired or fail to repair, accounting for the greater mutagenic and cytotoxic effects of clustered lesions compared to isolated lesions. High linear energy transfer (LET) charged particle radiation is more cytotoxic per unit dose than low LET radiation because high LET radiation produces more clustered DNA damage. Studies with I-SceI nuclease demonstrate that nuclease-induced DSB clusters are also cytotoxic, indicating that this cytotoxicity is independent of radiogenic lesions, including single-strand lesions and chemically “dirty” DSB ends. The poor repair of clustered DSBs at least in part reflects inhibition of canonical NHEJ by short DNA fragments. This shifts repair toward HR and perhaps alternative NHEJ, and can result in chromothripsis-mediated genome instability or cell death. These principals are important for cancer treatment by low and high LET radiation.

1 September 2014 in DNA Repair
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Amanda K AshleyAmanda K Ashley
Amanda K Ashley
MSMeena Shrivastav
Meena Shrivastav
JNJingyi Nie
Jingyi Nie
CACourtney Amerin
Courtney Amerin
KTKyle Troksa
Kyle Troksa
JNJac A. Nickoloff
Jac A. Nickoloff

30 January 2011 in Journal of Molecular Cell Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CAChris Allen
Chris Allen
Amanda K AshleyAmanda K Ashley
Amanda K Ashley
RHRobert Hromas
Robert Hromas
JNJac A. Nickoloff
Jac A. Nickoloff
High-fidelity replication of DNA, and its accurate segregation to daughter cells, is critical for maintaining genome stability and suppressing cancer. DNA replication forks are stalled by many DNA lesions, activating checkpoint proteins that stabilize stalled forks. Stalled forks may eventually collapse, producing a broken DNA end. Fork restart is typically mediated by proteins initially identified by their roles in homologous recombination repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). In recent years, several proteins involved in DSB repair by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) have been implicated in the replication stress response, including DNA-PKcs, Ku, DNA Ligase IV-XRCC4, Artemis, XLF and Metnase. It is currently unclear whether NHEJ proteins are involved in the replication stress response through indirect (signaling) roles, and/or direct roles involving DNA end joining. Additional complexity in the replication stress response centers around RPA, which undergoes significant post-translational modification after stress, and RAD52, a conserved HR protein whose role in DSB repair may have shifted to another protein in higher eukaryotes, such as BRCA2, but retained its role in fork restart. Most cancer therapeutic strategies create DNA replication stress. Thus, it is imperative to gain a better understanding of replication stress response proteins and pathways to improve cancer therapy.

28 March 2017 in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JNJac A. Nickoloff
Jac A. Nickoloff
DJDennie Jones
Dennie Jones
SLSuk-Hee Lee
Suk-Hee Lee
EWElizabeth A. Williamson
Elizabeth A. Williamson
RHRobert Hromas
Robert Hromas
Defects in DNA repair can result in oncogenic genomic instability. Cancers occurring from DNA repair defects were once thought to be limited to rare inherited mutations (such as BRCA1 or 2). It now appears that a clinically significant fraction of cancers have acquired DNA repair defects. DNA repair pathways operate in related networks, and cancers arising from loss of one DNA repair component typically become addicted to other repair pathways to survive and proliferate. Drug inhibition of the rescue repair pathway prevents the repair-deficient cancer cell from replicating, causing apoptosis (termed synthetic lethality). However, the selective pressure of inhibiting the rescue repair pathway can generate further mutations that confer resistance to the synthetic lethal drugs. Many such drugs currently in clinical use inhibit PARP1, a repair component to which cancers arising from inherited BRCA1 or 2 mutations become addicted. It is now clear that drugs inducing synthetic lethality may also be therapeutic in cancers with acquired DNA repair defects, which would markedly broaden their applicability beyond treatment of cancers with inherited DNA repair defects. Here we review how each DNA repair pathway can be attacked therapeutically and evaluate DNA repair components as potential drug targets to induce synthetic lethality. Clinical use of drugs targeting DNA repair will markedly increase when functional and genetic loss of repair components are consistently identified. In addition, future therapies will exploit artificial synthetic lethality, where complementary DNA repair pathways are targeted simultaneously in cancers without DNA repair defects.

6 August 2009 in DNA Repair
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MSMeena Shrivastav
Meena Shrivastav
CMCheryl A. Miller
Cheryl A. Miller
LHLeyma P. De Haro
Leyma P. De Haro
SDStephen T. Durant
Stephen T. Durant
BCBenjamin P.C. Chen
Benjamin P.C. Chen
JNJac A. Nickoloff
Jac A. Nickoloff