Cisplatin resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is linked to DNA damage response and cell cycle arrest transcriptomics rather than poor drug uptake
Ketaki Sandu , Rolf Warta , Uddipta Biswas , Wang Zhang , Patrick Michl , Christel Herold-Mende , Johanna Weiss , Dirk Theile
Cancer Drug Resistance ›› 2025, Vol. 8 : 51
Cisplatin resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is linked to DNA damage response and cell cycle arrest transcriptomics rather than poor drug uptake
Aim: Cisplatin resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is thought to involve both reduced drug uptake and altered molecular responses. However, the relative contribution of these mechanisms remains unclear.
Methods: Two HNSCC cell lines with differing sensitivity (HNO97 and HNO41) were analyzed using cytotoxicity assays, atomic absorption spectroscopy-based quantification of intracellular cisplatin, caspase 3/7 assays, Western blotting, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based transcriptomic analysis of DNA damage response and cell cycle arrest pathways, and RNA-seq data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to characterize the resistance phenotype.
Results: HNO97 (IC50 = 440 µM) was 7.6-fold more resistant to cisplatin than HNO41 (IC50 = 57.8 µM; P = 0.0286). After quantifying intracellular uptake (pg Pt/µg protein) and normalizing cytotoxicity to intracellular drug levels, HNO97 (IC50 = 778.9 pg Pt/µg protein) remained 5-fold more resistant than HNO41 (IC50 = 153.5 pg Pt/µg protein), indicating only a partial reduction in resistance (33% decrease, from 7.6-fold to 5-fold; P = 0.0286). At cisplatin concentrations yielding comparable intracellular exposure (HNO97: 440 µM; HNO41: 196 µM; both ≈
Conclusion: Cisplatin resistance in HNSCC appears to be driven primarily by molecular mechanisms involving DNA damage response and cell cycle arrest pathways, rather than poor drug uptake.
Cisplatin resistance / head and neck squamous cell carcinoma / drug uptake / DNA damage / recurrence-free survival
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). Bioanalytical method validation: guidance for industry. 2018. Available from: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070107.pdf. [Last accessed on 4 Sep 2025] |
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |