Search bioRxivSearch

Biology subjects

MacBeth, K. J.

Publications and source records attributed to MacBeth, K. J..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Isoform switching as a mechanism of acquired resistance to isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibition

Somatic mutations in cytosolic or mitochondrial isoforms of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1 or IDH2, respectively) contribute to oncogenesis via production of the metabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (2HG). Isoform-selective IDH inhibitors suppress 2HG production and induce clinical responses in patients with IDH1- and IDH2-mutant malignancies. Despite the promising activity of IDH inhibitors, the mechanisms that mediate resistance to IDH inhibition are poorly understood. Here, we describe four clinical cases that identify mutant IDH isoform switching, either from mutant IDH1 to mutant IDH2 or vice versa, as a mechanism of acquired clinical resistance to IDH inhibition in solid and liquid tumors.\n\nSignificanceIDH-mutant cancers can develop resistance to isoform-selective IDH inhibition by \"isoform switching\" from mutant IDH1 to mutant IDH2 or vice versa, thereby restoring 2-hydroxyglutarate (2HG) production by the tumor. These findings underscore a role for continued 2HG production in tumor progression and suggest therapeutic strategies to prevent or overcome resistance.

cancer biology

Multi-omics analysis of AML cells treated with azacitidine reveals highly variable cell surface proteome remodeling

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are diseases of abnormal hematopoietic differentiation with aberrant epigenetic alterations. Azacitidine (AZA) is a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor (DNMTi) widely used to treat MDS and AML, yet the impact of AZA on the cell surface proteome has not been defined. To identify potential therapeutic targets for use in combination with AZA in AML patients, we investigated the effects of AZA treatment on four AML cell lines (KG1a, HL60, HNT34, and AML193), representing different stages of differentiation. The effect of AZA treatment on these cell lines was characterized at three levels: the DNA methylome (methylation array), the transcriptome (gene expression array), and the cell surface proteome (glycoprotein capture with SILAC labeling). Untreated AML cell lines showed substantial overlap in their methylomes, transcriptomes, and cell surface proteomes. AZA treatment globally reduced DNA methylation in all cell lines, but changes in the transcriptome and surface proteome were subtle and differed among the cell lines. Transcriptome analysis identified five commonly up-regulated coding genes upon AZA treatment in all four cell lines, TRPM4 being the only gene encoding a surface protein, and surface proteomics analysis found no commonly regulated proteins. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) of differentially-regulated RNA and surface proteins showed a decrease in metabolism pathways and an increase in immune defense response pathways. As such, AZA treatment in four AML cell lines had diverse effects at the individual gene and protein level, but converged to regulation of metabolism and immune response at the pathway level. Given the heterogeneous response of AZA in the four cell lines at the gene and protein level, we discuss potential therapeutic strategies for combinations with AZA.

cancer biology