Article

Identification of benzodiazepine Ro5-3335 as an inhibitor of CBF leukemia through quantitative high throughput screen against RUNX1-CBFβ interaction.

Oncogenesis and Development Section, Zebrafish Core, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Molecular Virology Section, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Laboratory of Molecular Pharmacology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.81). 08/2012; 109(36):14592-7. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1200037109
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Core binding factor (CBF) leukemias, those with translocations or inversions that affect transcription factor genes RUNX1 or CBFB, account for ∼24% of adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 25% of pediatric acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL). Current treatments for CBF leukemias are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with a 5-y survival rate of ∼50%. We hypothesize that the interaction between RUNX1 and CBFβ is critical for CBF leukemia and can be targeted for drug development. We developed high-throughput AlphaScreen and time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer (TR-FRET) methods to quantify the RUNX1-CBFβ interaction and screen a library collection of 243,398 compounds. Ro5-3335, a benzodiazepine identified from the screen, was able to interact with RUNX1 and CBFβ directly, repress RUNX1/CBFB-dependent transactivation in reporter assays, and repress runx1-dependent hematopoiesis in zebrafish embryos. Ro5-3335 preferentially killed human CBF leukemia cell lines, rescued preleukemic phenotype in a RUNX1-ETO transgenic zebrafish, and reduced leukemia burden in a mouse CBFB-MYH11 leukemia model. Our data thus confirmed that RUNX1-CBFβ interaction can be targeted for leukemia treatment and we have identified a promising lead compound for this purpose.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Paul Liu, Jun 20, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    EMBO Molecular Medicine 12/2013; 5(12). DOI:10.1002/emmm.201303483 · 8.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current convergence of molecular and pharmacological data provides unprecedented opportunities to gain insights into the relationships between the two types of data. Multiple forms of large-scale molecular data, including but not limited to gene and microRNA transcript expression, DNA somatic and germline variations from next-generation DNA and RNA sequencing, and DNA copy number from array comparative genomic hybridization are all potentially informative when one attempts to recognize the panoply of potentially influential events both for cancer progression and therapeutic outcome. Concurrently, there has also been a substantial expansion of the pharmacological data being accrued in a systematic fashion. For cancer cell lines, the National Cancer Institute cell line panel (NCI-60), the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE), and the collaborative Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) databases all provide subsets of these forms of data. For the patient-derived data, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) provides analogous forms of genomic information along with treatment histories. Integration of these data in turn relies on the fields of statistics and statistical learning. Multiple algorithmic approaches may be chosen, depending on the data being considered, and the nature of the question being asked. Combining these algorithms with prior biological knowledge, the results of molecular biological studies, and the consideration of genes as pathways or functional groups provides both the challenge and the potential of the field. The ultimate goal is to provide a paradigm shift in the way that drugs are selected to provide a more targeted and efficacious outcome for the patient.
    Human Genetics 09/2014; 134(1). DOI:10.1007/s00439-014-1482-9 · 4.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exome sequencing provides unprecedented insights into cancer biology and pharmacological response. Here we assess these two parameters for the NCI-60, which is among the richest genomic and pharmacological publicly available cancer cell line databases. Homozygous genetic variants that putatively affect protein function were identified in 1,199 genes (approximately 6% of all genes). Variants that are either enriched or depleted compared to non-cancerous genomes, and thus may be influential in cancer progression and differential drug response were identified for 2,546 genes. Potential gene knockouts are made available. Assessment of cell line response to 19,940 compounds, including 110 FDA-approved drugs, reveals ≈80-fold range in resistance versus sensitivity response across cell lines. 103,422 gene variants were significantly correlated with at least one compound (at p<0.0002). These include genes of known pharmacological importance such as IGF1R, BRAF, RAD52, MTOR, STAT2 and TSC2 as well as a large number of candidate genes such as NOM1, TLL2, and XDH. We introduce two new web-based CellMiner applications that enable exploration of variant-to-compound relationships for a broad range of researchers, especially those without bioinformatics support. The first tool, "Genetic variant versus drug visualization", provides a visualization of significant correlations between drug activity-gene variant combinations. Examples are given for the known vemurafenib-BRAF, and novel ifosfamide-RAD52 pairings. The second, "Genetic variant summation" allows an assessment of cumulative genetic variations for up to 150 combined genes together; and is designed to identify the variant burden for molecular pathways or functional grouping of genes. An example of its use is provided for the EGFR-ERBB2 pathway gene variant data and the identification of correlated EGFR, ERBB2, MTOR, BRAF, MEK and ERK inhibitors. The new tools are implemented as an updated web-based CellMiner version, for which the present publication serves as a compendium.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e101670. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0101670 · 3.53 Impact Factor