Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (36)
Has Fulltext
- yes (36)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (36)
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
IKZF1 deletion (ΔIKZF1) is an important predictor of relapse in childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Because of its clinical importance, we previously mapped breakpoints of intragenic deletions and developed a multiplex PCR assay to detect recurrent intragenic ΔIKZF1. Since the multiplex PCR was not able to detect complete deletions (IKZF1 Δ1-8), which account for ~30% of all ΔIKZF1, we aimed at investigating the genomic scenery of IKZF1 Δ1-8. Six samples of cases with IKZF1 Δ1-8 were analyzed by microarray assay, which identified monosomy 7, isochromosome 7q, and large interstitial deletions presenting breakpoints within COBL gene. Then, we established a multiplex ligation-probe amplification (MLPA) assay and screened copy number alterations within chromosome 7 in 43 diagnostic samples with IKZF1 Δ1-8. Our results revealed that monosomy and large interstitial deletions within chromosome 7 are the main causes of IKZF1 Δ1-8. Detailed analysis using long distance inverse PCR showed that six patients (16%) had large interstitial deletions starting within intronic regions of COBL at diagnosis, which is ~611 Kb downstream of IKZF1, suggesting that COBL is a hotspot for ΔIKZF1. We also investigated a series of 25 intragenic deletions (Δ2–8, Δ3–8 or Δ4–8) and 24 relapsed samples, and found one IKZF1-COBL tail-to-tail fusion, thus supporting that COBL is a novel hotspot for ΔIKZF1. Finally, using RIC score methodology, we show that breakpoint sequences of IKZF1 Δ1-8 are not analog to RAG-recognition sites, suggesting a different mechanism of error promotion than that suggested for intragenic ΔIKZF1.
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.
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.
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.
Background: In recent months, Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 have become dominant in many regions of the world, and case numbers with Omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.2 continue to increase. Due to numerous mutations in the spike protein, the efficacy of currently available vaccines, which are based on Wuhan-Hu 1 isolate of SARS-CoV-2, is reduced, leading to breakthrough infections. Efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy is also likely impaired.
Methods: In our in vitro study using A549-AT cells constitutively expressing ACE2 and TMPRSS2, we determined and compared the neutralizing capacity of vaccine-elicited sera, convalescent sera and monoclonal antibodies against authentic SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 compared with Delta.
Findings: Almost no neutralisation of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 was observed using sera from individuals vaccinated with two doses 6 months earlier, regardless of the type of vaccine taken. Shortly after the booster dose, most sera from triple BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals were able to neutralise both Omicron variants. In line with waning antibody levels three months after the booster, only weak residual neutralisation was observed for BA.1 (26%, n = 34, 0 median NT50) and BA.2 (44%, n = 34, 0 median NT50). In addition, BA.1 but not BA.2 was resistant to the neutralising monoclonal antibodies casirivimab/imdevimab, while BA.2 exhibited almost a complete evasion from the neutralisation induced by sotrovimab.
Interpretation: Both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.2 escape antibody-mediated neutralisation elicited by vaccination, previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, and monoclonal antibodies. Waning immunity renders the majority of tested sera obtained three months after booster vaccination negative in BA.1 and BA.2 neutralisation. Omicron subvariant specific resistance to the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab emphasizes the importance of genotype-surveillance and guided application.
Funding: This study was supported in part by the Goethe-Corona-Fund of the Goethe University Frankfurt (M.W.) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (COVIDready; grant 02WRS1621C (M.W.).