Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (35)
Has Fulltext
- yes (35)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (35)
Keywords
- MLL (6)
- Cell biology (4)
- acute leukemia (3)
- AF4 (2)
- Cancer (2)
- IKZF1 (2)
- MLL-r leukemia (2)
- machine learning (2)
- 11q23/MLL rearrangements (1)
- 5-lipoxygenase (1)
Institute
Цель: Оценить влияние локализации точки разрыва в геномной ДНК гена MLL на прогноз острых лейкозов (ОЛ) у детей первого года жизни.
Методы: В исследование было включено 68 детей первого года жизни (29 мальчиков и 39 девочек с медианой возраста 4,8 мес.) с MLL-позитивными острым лимфобластным лейкозом (ОЛЛ) (n = 46), острым миелоидным лейкозом (ОМЛ) (n = 20) и ОЛ смешанной линейности (n = 2).
Результаты: 5-летняя бессобытийная выживаемость (БСВ) детей первого года жизни с ОЛЛ, включенных в исследование MLL-Baby, с точкой разрыва в интроне 11 ДНК гена MLL (n = 29) была статистически значимо ниже, чем у пациентов c локализацией точек разрыва, начиная с интрона 7 по экзон 11 (n = 17; 0,16 ± 0,07 и 0,38 ± 0,14; p = 0,039), а кумулятивная вероятность развития рецидива была значительно выше в группе с точкой разрыва в интроне 11 (0,74 ± 0,09 и 0,52 ± 0,17; p = 0,045). В то же время многофакторный анализ показал, что единственным значимым фактором, связанным с неблагоприятным прогнозом, остается сохранение минимальной остаточной болезни (МОБ) в точке наблюдения 4 протокола MLL-Baby (отношение опасности 5,994; 95%-й доверительный интервал 2,209–16,263; p < 0,001). У 22 пациентов с ОМЛ связи между прогнозом и локализацией точки разрыва в ДНК гена MLL не выявлено.
Заключение: Наличие точки разрыва в интроне 11 гена MLL у детей первого года жизни с ОЛЛ, получавших лечение по протоколу MLL-Baby, вело к статистически значимо более низким показателям БСВ и более высокой кумулятивной вероятности развития рецидива. Однако в многофакторной модели риска это нивелировалось сохранением МОБ в точке наблюдения 4. У детей первого года жизни с ОМЛ взаимосвязи между локализацией точки разрыва в ДНК гена MLL и прогнозом не выявлено.
Unraveling the activation mechanism of taspase1 which controls the oncogenic AF4–MLL fusion protein
(2015)
We have recently demonstrated that Taspase1-mediated cleavage of the AF4–MLL oncoprotein results in the formation of a stable multiprotein complex which forms the key event for the onset of acute proB leukemia in mice. Therefore, Taspase1 represents a conditional oncoprotein in the context of t(4;11) leukemia. In this report, we used site-directed mutagenesis to unravel the molecular events by which Taspase1 becomes sequentially activated. Monomeric pro-enzymes form dimers which are autocatalytically processed into the enzymatically active form of Taspase1 (αββα). The active enzyme cleaves only very few target proteins, e.g., MLL, MLL4 and TFIIA at their corresponding consensus cleavage sites (CSTasp1) as well as AF4–MLL in the case of leukemogenic translocation. This knowledge was translated into the design of a dominant-negative mutant of Taspase1 (dnTASP1). As expected, simultaneous expression of the leukemogenic AF4–MLL and dnTASP1 causes the disappearance of the leukemogenic oncoprotein, because the uncleaved AF4–MLL protein (328 kDa) is subject to proteasomal degradation, while the cleaved AF4–MLL forms a stable oncogenic multi-protein complex with a very long half-life. Moreover, coexpression of dnTASP1 with a BFP-CSTasp1-GFP FRET biosensor effectively inhibits cleavage. The impact of our findings on future drug development and potential treatment options for t(4;11) leukemia will be discussed.
Transcripts of NANOG and OCT4 have been recently identified in human t(4;11) leukemia and in a model system expressing both t(4;11) fusion proteins. Moreover, downstream target genes of NANOG/OCT4/SOX2 were shown to be transcriptionally activated. However, the NANOG1 gene belongs to a gene family, including a gene tandem duplication (named NANOG2 or NANOGP1) and several pseudogenes (NANOGP2-P11). Thus, it was unclear which of the NANOG family members were transcribed in t(4;11) leukemia cells. 5'-RACE experiments revealed novel 5'-exons of NANOG1 and NANOG2, which could give rise to the expression of two different NANOG1 and three different NANOG2 protein variants. Moreover, a novel PCR-based method was established that allows distinguishing between transcripts deriving from NANOG1, NANOG2 and all other NANOG pseudogenes (P2–P11). By applying this method, we were able to demonstrate that human hematopoietic stem cells and different leukemic cells transcribe NANOG2. Furthermore, we functionally tested NANOG1 and NANOG2 protein variants by recombinant expression in 293 cells. These studies revealed that NANOG1 and NANOG2 protein variants are functionally equivalent and activate a regulatory circuit that activates specific stem cell genes. Therefore, we pose the hypothesis that the transcriptional activation of NANOG2 represents a ‘gain-of-stem cell function’ in acute leukemia.
Leukemia patients bearing t(6;11)(q27;q23) translocations can be divided in two subgroups: those with breakpoints in the major breakpoint cluster region of MLL (introns 9–10; associated mainly with AML M1/4/5), and others with breakpoints in the minor breakpoint cluster region (introns 21–23), associated with T-ALL. We cloned all four of the resulting fusion genes (MLL-AF6, AF6-MLL, exMLL-AF6, AF6-shMLL) and subsequently transfected them to generate stable cell culture models. Their molecular function was tested by inducing gene expression for 48 h in a Doxycycline-dependent fashion. Here, we present our results upon differential gene expression (DGE) that were obtained by the “Massive Analyses of cDNA Ends” (MACE-Seq) technology, an established 3′-end based RNA-Seq method. Our results indicate that the PHD/BD domain, present in the AF6-MLL and the exMLL-AF6 fusion protein, is responsible for chromatin activation in a genome-wide fashion. This led to strong deregulation of transcriptional processes involving protein-coding genes, pseudogenes, non-annotated genes, and RNA genes, e.g., LincRNAs and microRNAs, respectively. While cooperation between the MLL-AF6 and AF6-MLL fusion proteins appears to be required for the above-mentioned effects, exMLL-AF6 is able to cause similar effects on its own. The exMLL-AF6/AF6-shMLL co-expressing cell line displayed the induction of a myeloid-specific and a T-cell specific gene signature, which may explain the T-ALL disease phenotype observed in patients with such breakpoints. This again demonstrated that MLL fusion proteins are instructive and allow to study their pathomolecular mechanisms.
Leukemia patients bearing t(6;11)(q27;q23) translocations can be divided in two subgroups: those with breakpoints in the major breakpoint cluster region of MLL (introns 9–10; associated mainly with AML M1/4/5), and others with breakpoints in the minor breakpoint cluster region (introns 21–23), associated with T-ALL. We cloned all four of the resulting fusion genes (MLL-AF6, AF6-MLL, exMLL-AF6, AF6-shMLL) and subsequently transfected them to generate stable cell culture models. Their molecular function was tested by inducing gene expression for 48 h in a Doxycycline-dependent fashion. Here, we present our results upon differential gene expression (DGE) that were obtained by the “Massive Analyses of cDNA Ends” (MACE-Seq) technology, an established 3′-end based RNA-Seq method. Our results indicate that the PHD/BD domain, present in the AF6-MLL and the exMLL-AF6 fusion protein, is responsible for chromatin activation in a genome-wide fashion. This led to strong deregulation of transcriptional processes involving protein-coding genes, pseudogenes, non-annotated genes, and RNA genes, e.g., LincRNAs and microRNAs, respectively. While cooperation between the MLL-AF6 and AF6-MLL fusion proteins appears to be required for the above-mentioned effects, exMLL-AF6 is able to cause similar effects on its own. The exMLL-AF6/AF6-shMLL co-expressing cell line displayed the induction of a myeloid-specific and a T-cell specific gene signature, which may explain the T-ALL disease phenotype observed in patients with such breakpoints. This again demonstrated that MLL fusion proteins are instructive and allow to study their pathomolecular mechanisms.
Leukemia patients bearing the t(4;11)(q21;q23) translocations can be divided into two subgroups: those expressing both reciprocal fusion genes, and those that have only the MLL-AF4 fusion gene. Moreover, a recent study has demonstrated that patients expressing both fusion genes have a better outcome than patients that are expressing the MLL-AF4 fusion protein alone. All this may point to a clonal process where the reciprocal fusion gene AF4-MLL could be lost during disease progression, as this loss may select for a more aggressive type of leukemia. Therefore, we were interested in unraveling the decisive role of the AF4-MLL fusion protein at an early timepoint of disease development. We designed an experimental model system where the MLL-AF4 fusion protein was constitutively expressed, while an inducible AF4-MLL fusion gene was induced for only 48 h. Subsequently, we investigated genome-wide changes by RNA- and ATAC-Seq experiments at distinct timepoints. These analyses revealed that the expression of AF4-MLL for only 48 h was sufficient to significantly change the genomic landscape (transcription and chromatin) even on a longer time scale. Thus, we have to conclude that the AF4-MLL fusion protein works through a hit-and-run mechanism, probably necessary to set up pre-leukemic conditions, but being dispensable for later disease progression.
Over the last 15 years the Diagnostic Center of Acute Leukemia (DCAL) at the Frankfurt University has diagnosed and elucidated the Mixed Lineage Leukemia (MLL) recombinome with >100 MLL fusion partners. When analyzing all these different events, balanced chromosomal translocations were found to comprise the majority of these cases (~70%), while other types of genetic rearrangements (3-way-translocations, spliced fusions, 11q inversions, interstitial deletions or insertion of chromosomal fragments into other chromosomes) account for about 30%. In nearly all those complex cases, functional fusion proteins can be produced by transcription, splicing and translation. With a few exceptions (10 out of 102 fusion genes which were per se out-of-frame), all these genetic rearrangements produced a direct MLL fusion gene, and in 94% of cases an additional reciprocal fusion gene. So far, 114 patients (out of 2454 = ~5%) have been diagnosed only with the reciprocal fusion allele, displaying no MLL-X allele. The fact that so many MLL rearrangements bear at least two fusion alleles, but also our findings that several direct MLL fusions were either out-of-frame fusions or missing, raises the question about the function and importance of reciprocal MLL fusions. Recent findings also demonstrate the presence of reciprocal MLL fusions in sarcoma patients. Here, we want to discuss the role of reciprocal MLL fusion proteins for leukemogenesis and beyond.
Chromosomal rearrangements of the human MLL (mixed lineage leukemia) gene are associated with high-risk infant, pediatric, adult and therapy-induced acute leukemias. We used long-distance inverse-polymerase chain reaction to characterize the chromosomal rearrangement of individual acute leukemia patients. We present data of the molecular characterization of 1590 MLL-rearranged biopsy samples obtained from acute leukemia patients. The precise localization of genomic breakpoints within the MLL gene and the involved translocation partner genes (TPGs) were determined and novel TPGs identified. All patients were classified according to their gender (852 females and 745 males), age at diagnosis (558 infant, 416 pediatric and 616 adult leukemia patients) and other clinical criteria. Combined data of our study and recently published data revealed a total of 121 different MLL rearrangements, of which 79 TPGs are now characterized at the molecular level. However, only seven rearrangements seem to be predominantly associated with illegitimate recombinations of the MLL gene (~ 90%): AFF1/AF4, MLLT3/AF9, MLLT1/ENL, MLLT10/AF10, ELL, partial tandem duplications (MLL PTDs) and MLLT4/AF6, respectively. The MLL breakpoint distributions for all clinical relevant subtypes (gender, disease type, age at diagnosis, reciprocal, complex and therapy-induced translocations) are presented. Finally, we present the extending network of reciprocal MLL fusions deriving from complex rearrangements.
One hallmark of MLL-r leukemia is the highly specific gene expression signature indicative for commonly deregulated target genes. An usual read-out for this transcriptional deregulation is the HOXA gene cluster, where upregulated HOXA genes are detected in MLL-r AML and ALL patients. In case of t(4;11) leukemia, this simple picture becomes challenged, because these patients separate into HOXAhi- and HOXAlo-patients. HOXAlo-patients showed a reduced HOXA gene transcription, but instead overexpressed the homeobox gene IRX1. This transcriptional pattern was associated with a higher relapse rate and worse outcome. Here, we demonstrate that IRX1 binds to the MLL-AF4 complex at target gene promotors and counteract its promotor activating function. In addition, IRX1 induces transcription of HOXB4 and EGR family members. HOXB4 is usually a downstream target of c-KIT, WNT and TPO signaling pathways and necessary for maintaining and expanding in hematopoietic stem cells. EGR proteins control a p21-dependent quiescence program for hematopoietic stem cells. Both IRX1-dependend actions may help t(4;11) leukemia cells to establish a stem cell compartment. We also demonstrate that HDACi administration is functionally interfering with IRX1 and MLL-AF4, a finding which could help to improve new treatment options for t(4;11) patients.
Chromosomal translocations of the human mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) gene have been analyzed for more than 20 yr at the molecular level. So far, we have collected about 80 direct MLL fusions (MLL-X alleles) and about 120 reciprocal MLL fusions (X-MLL alleles). The reason for the higher amount of reciprocal MLL fusions is that the excess is caused by 3-way translocations with known direct fusion partners. This review is aiming to propose a solution for an obvious problem, namely why so many and completely different MLL fusion alleles are always leading to the same leukemia phenotypes (ALL, AML, or MLL). This review is aiming to explain the molecular consequences of MLL translocations, and secondly, the contribution of the different fusion partners. A new hypothesis will be posed that can be used for future research, aiming to find new avenues for the treatment of this particular leukemia entity.