Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Acquired resistance (1)
- Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (1)
- Acute myeloid leukemia (1)
- CNDAC (1)
- DCK (1)
- EHL concentrates (1)
- Intrinsic resistance (1)
- Leukemia (1)
- SAMHD1 (1)
- Sapacitabine (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
The physiotherapist plays an essential role for people with haemophilia, an inherited bleeding disease responsible for musculoskeletal complications. Yet, with the advent of new and advanced therapies, the medical landscape is changing, and physiotherapy must adapt alongside. This paper considers whether there will still be a need for physiotherapy in the era of advanced therapies, and discusses ways in which services should evolve to complement emerging treatment paradigms for haemostasis in people with haemophilia. Ultimately, physiotherapy will remain an important element of care, even for people with little joint damage and low risks in the era of the new mild phenotype. However, competencies will need to evolve, and physiotherapists in both primary care and specialist treatment centres should work with haematology colleagues to develop more sensitive tools for detecting early joint changes. Physiotherapists will also play a crucial role in counselling and physically coaching, monitoring the musculoskeletal status of people with haemophilia who have transitioned to new treatments.
Background: SAMHD1 mediates resistance to anti-cancer nucleoside analogues, including cytarabine, decitabine, and nelarabine that are commonly used for the treatment of leukaemia, through cleavage of their triphosphorylated forms. Hence, SAMHD1 inhibitors are promising candidates for the sensitisation of leukaemia cells to nucleoside analogue-based therapy. Here, we investigated the effects of the cytosine analogue CNDAC, which has been proposed to be a SAMHD1 inhibitor, in the context of SAMHD1. Methods: CNDAC was tested in 13 acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) cell lines, in 26 acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) cell lines, ten AML sublines adapted to various antileukaemic drugs, 24 single cell-derived clonal AML sublines, and primary leukaemic blasts from 24 AML patients. Moreover, 24 CNDAC-resistant sublines of the AML cell lines HL-60 and PL-21 were established. The SAMHD1 gene was disrupted using CRISPR/Cas9 and SAMHD1 depleted using RNAi, and the viral Vpx protein. Forced DCK expression was achieved by lentiviral transduction. SAMHD1 promoter methylation was determined by PCR after treatment of genomic DNA with the methylation-sensitive HpaII endonuclease. Nucleoside (analogue) triphosphate levels were determined by LC-MS/MS. CNDAC interaction with SAMHD1 was analysed by an enzymatic assay and by crystallisation. Results: Although the cytosine analogue CNDAC was anticipated to inhibit SAMHD1, SAMHD1 mediated intrinsic CNDAC resistance in leukaemia cells. Accordingly, SAMHD1 depletion increased CNDAC triphosphate (CNDAC-TP) levels and CNDAC toxicity. Enzymatic assays and crystallisation studies confirmed CNDAC-TP to be a SAMHD1 substrate. In 24 CNDAC-adapted acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) sublines, resistance was driven by DCK (catalyses initial nucleoside phosphorylation) loss. CNDAC-adapted sublines displayed cross-resistance only to other DCK substrates (e.g. cytarabine, decitabine). Cell lines adapted to drugs not affected by DCK or SAMHD1 remained CNDAC sensitive. In cytarabine-adapted AML cells, increased SAMHD1 and reduced DCK levels contributed to cytarabine and CNDAC resistance. Conclusion: Intrinsic and acquired resistance to CNDAC and related nucleoside analogues are driven by different mechanisms. The lack of cross-resistance between SAMHD1/ DCK substrates and non-substrates provides scope for next-line therapies after treatment failure.