Abstract 247: ADAR1 promotes malignant progenitor reprogramming in chronic myeloid leukemia.

Stem Cell Program, Department of Medicine, Moores Cancer Center, Division of Genome Information Sciences, Department of Pediatrics, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.67). 12/2012; 73(8 Supplement). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1213021110
Source: PubMed


The molecular etiology of human progenitor reprogramming into self-renewing leukemia stem cells (LSC) has remained elusive. Although DNA sequencing has uncovered spliceosome gene mutations that promote alternative splicing and portend leukemic transformation, isoform diversity also may be generated by RNA editing mediated by adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR) enzymes that regulate stem cell maintenance. In this study, whole-transcriptome sequencing of normal, chronic phase, and serially transplantable blast crisis chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) progenitors revealed increased IFN-γ pathway gene expression in concert with BCR-ABL amplification, enhanced expression of the IFN-responsive ADAR1 p150 isoform, and a propensity for increased adenosine-to-inosine RNA editing during CML progression. Lentiviral overexpression experiments demonstrate that ADAR1 p150 promotes expression of the myeloid transcription factor PU.1 and induces malignant reprogramming of myeloid progenitors. Moreover, enforced ADAR1 p150 expression was associated with production of a misspliced form of GSK3β implicated in LSC self-renewal. Finally, functional serial transplantation and shRNA studies demonstrate that ADAR1 knockdown impaired in vivo self-renewal capacity of blast crisis CML progenitors. Together these data provide a compelling rationale for developing ADAR1-based LSC detection and eradication strategies.

18 Reads
  • Source
    • "Recent whole genome and transcriptome sequencing studies of hundreds of prostate tumors have defined novel molecular subtypes and characterized extensive genomic aberration underlying disease initiation and progression [15], [16], [17]. RNA editing deregulation has begun to be linked to cancer, including in hepatocellular carcinoma, where recurrent editing of AZIN1 promotes pathogenesis [8], [18], [19]. However, there have been no reports to date in prostate cancer. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: RNA editing modifies the sequence of primary transcripts, potentially resulting in profound effects to RNA structure and protein-coding sequence. Recent analyses of RNA sequence data are beginning to provide insights into the distribution of RNA editing across the entire transcriptome, but there are few published matched whole genome and transcriptome sequence datasets, and designing accurate bioinformatics methodology has proven highly challenging. To further characterize the RNA editome, we analyzed 16 paired DNA-RNA sequence libraries from prostate tumor specimens, employing a comprehensive strategy to rescue low coverage sites and minimize false positives. We identified over a hundred thousand putative RNA editing events, a third of which were recurrent in two or more samples, and systematically characterized their type and distribution across the genome. Within genes the majority of events affect non-coding regions such as introns and untranslated regions (UTRs), but 546 genes had RNA editing events predicted to result in deleterious amino acid alterations. Finally, we report a potential association between RNA editing of microRNA binding sites within 3' UTRs and increased transcript expression. These results provide a systematic characterization of the landscape of RNA editing in low coverage sequence data from prostate tumor specimens. We demonstrate further evidence for RNA editing as an important regulatory mechanism and suggest that the RNA editome should be further studied in cancer.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e101431. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0101431 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Aberrant regulation of ADAR-mediated editing of coding and noncoding RNA has been associated with many types of cancer. In addition to those discussed in this review, breast cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, neuroblastoma, Kaposi‚Äôs sarcoma, acute leukemia, metastatic melanoma and chronic myeloid leukemia have all been studied in connection with A-to-I RNA editing [25,60,61]. The role of ADARs in carcinogenesis was recently reviewed by Galeano et al.[25]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A-to-I RNA editing is a post-transcriptional modification that converts adenosines to inosines in both coding and noncoding RNA transcripts. It is catalyzed by ADAR (adenosine deaminase acting on RNA) enzymes, which exist throughout the body but are most prevalent in the central nervous system. Inosines exhibit properties that are most similar to those of guanosines. As a result, ADAR-mediated editing can post-transcriptionally alter codons, introduce or remove splice sites, or affect the base pairing of the RNA molecule with itself or with other RNAs. A-to-I editing is a mechanism that regulates and diversifies the transcriptome, but the full biological significance of ADARs is not understood. ADARs are highly conserved across vertebrates and are essential for normal development in mammals. Aberrant ADAR activity has been associated with a wide range of human diseases, including cancer, neurological disorders, metabolic diseases, viral infections and autoimmune disorders. ADARs have been shown to contribute to disease pathologies by editing of glutamate receptors, editing of serotonin receptors, mutations in ADAR genes, and by other mechanisms, including recently identified regulatory roles in microRNA processing. Advances in research into many of these diseases may depend on an improved understanding of the biological functions of ADARs. Here, we review recent studies investigating connections between ADAR-mediated RNA editing and human diseases.
    Genome Medicine 11/2013; 5(11):105. DOI:10.1186/gm508 · 5.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Consequently, a comprehensive study, involving large cohorts and incorporating epigenetics, may reveal additional loci modulating splicing events in murine macrophages. Like AS, mRNA editing is known to contribute to a variety of mammalian phenotypes (Jiang et al. 2013). However, to the best of our knowledge, the genetic basis and variability of mRNA editing in genetically diverse individuals is currently unknown. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alternative splicing and mRNA editing are known to contribute to transcriptome diversity. Although alternative splicing is pervasive and known to contribute to a variety of pathologies, including cancer, the genetic context for individual differences in isoform usage is still evolving. Similarly, although mRNA editing is ubiquitous and associated with important biological processes such as intracellular viral replication and cancer development, individual variations in and the genetic transmissibility of mRNA editing are equivocal. Here, we have used linkage analysis to show that both mRNA editing and alternative splicing are regulated by the macrophage genetic background and environmental cues. We show that distinct loci, potentially harboring variable splice factors, regulate the splicing of multiple transcripts. Additionally, we show that individual genetic variability at the Apobec1 locus results in differential rates of C-to-U editing in murine macrophages; with mouse strains expressing mostly a truncated isoform of Apobec1 exhibiting lower rates of editing. As a proof of concept, we have used linkage analysis to identify 36 high confidence novel edited sites. These results provide a novel and complementary method that can be used to identify C-to-U editing sites in individuals segregating at specific loci and show that, beyond individual DNA sequence and structural changes, differential isoform usage and mRNA editing can contribute to intra-species genomic and phenotypic diversity.
    Genome Research 11/2013; 24(3). DOI:10.1101/gr.166033.113 · 14.63 Impact Factor
Show more