Article

CpG methylation patterns and decitabine treatment response in acute myeloid leukemia cells and normal hematopoietic precursors.

Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Leukemia: official journal of the Leukemia Society of America, Leukemia Research Fund, U.K (Impact Factor: 10.16). 08/2011; 26(2):244-54. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2011.207
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The DNA hypomethylating drug decitabine maintains normal hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) self-renewal but induces terminal differentiation in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells. The basis for these contrasting cell fates, and for selective CpG hypomethylation by decitabine, is poorly understood. Promoter CpGs, with methylation measured by microarray, were classified by the direction of methylation change with normal myeloid maturation. In AML cells, the methylation pattern at maturation-responsive CpGs suggested at least partial maturation. Consistent with partial maturation, in gene expression analyses, AML cells expressed high levels of the key lineage-specifying factor CEBPA, but relatively low levels of the key late-differentiation driver CEBPE. In methylation analysis by mass spectrometry, CEBPE promoter CpGs that are usually hypomethylated during granulocyte maturation were significantly hypermethylated in AML cells. Decitabine-induced hypomethylation was greatest at these and other promoter CpGs that are usually hypomethylated with myeloid maturation, accompanied by cellular differentiation of AML cells. In contrast, decitabine-treated normal HSCs retained immature morphology, and methylation significantly decreased at CpGs that are less methylated in immature cells. High expression of lineage-specifying factor and aberrant epigenetic repression of some key late-differentiation driver genes distinguishes AML cells from normal HSCs, and could explain the contrasting differentiation and methylation responses to decitabine.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
135 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The widely-cited model of maintenance of DNA methylation at CpG sites implies that DNA methylation is introduced by the Dnmt3 de novo DNA methyltransferases during early development, and methylation at hemimethylated CpG sites is specifically maintained by the Dnmt1 maintenance methyltransferase. However, substantial experimental evidence from the past decade indicates that this simple model needs to be revised. DNA methylation can be described by a dynamic stochastic model, in which DNA methylation at each site is determined by the local activity of DNA methyltransferases (Dnmts), DNA demethylases, and the DNA replication rate. Through the targeting and regulation of these enzymes, DNA methylation is controlled by the network of chromatin marks.
    Trends in Biochemical Sciences 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.tibs.2014.05.002 · 13.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a group of clonal diseases characterized by inefficient haematopoiesis, increased apoptosis and risk of evolution to acute myeloid leukaemia. Alterations in epigenetic processes, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, miRNA and splicing machinery, are well known pathogenical events in MDS. Although many advances have been made in determining the mutational frequency, distribution and association affecting these epigenomic regulators, functional integration to better understand pathogenesis of the disease is a challenging and expanding area. Recent studies are shedding light on the molecular basis of myelodysplasia and how mutations and epimutations can induce and promote this neoplastic process through aberrant transcription factor function (RUNX1, ETV6, TP53), kinase signalling (FLT3, NRAS, KIT, CBL) and epigenetic deregulation (TET2, IDH1/2, DNMT3A, EZH2, ASXL1, SF3B1, U2AF1, SRSF2, ZRSR2). In this review we will try to focus on the description of these mutations, their impact on prognosis, the functional connections between the different epigenetic pathways, and the existing and future therapies targeting these processes.
    British Journal of Haematology 06/2014; 166(5). DOI:10.1111/bjh.12957 · 4.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Approximately 23% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients younger than 60 years of age carry a mutation in the transmembrane domain of the FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3) gene (FLT3/internal tandem duplications [ITD]). In normal karyotype AML, the presence of a FLT3/ITD mutation is associated with poor prognosis, as mirrored by a high risk of relapse even after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The poor prognostic impact along with the observation that FLT3 is frequently overexpressed in the majority of AML cases has formed the platform for the development of FLT3-targeted strategies. To date, several FLT3 kinase inhibitors have been investigated in preclinical and clinical studies. However, as of yet, none of the studied FLT3 inhibitors has received FDA approval for routine clinical use in AML. This is in part due to the 'off target' effects observed with most inhibitors when administered at concentrations needed to achieve sustained levels of FLT3 inhibition, which are required to exhibit substantial cytotoxic effects against leukemic blasts. Furthermore, the development of resistance mutations has emerged as a clinical issue posing a threat to successful FLT3 inhibitor therapy. Areas covered: In this review, the authors provide a brief summary of FLT3 inhibitors investigated thus far, and discuss current treatment approaches and strategies how to best incorporate FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) into therapy. Expert opinion: The combination of a FLT3 inhibitor with conventional chemotherapeutic regimens, epigenetic modifiers or inhibitors of FLT3 downstream and collateral effectors has emerged as a promising strategy to improve treatment outcome. The future of a tailored, molecular-based treatment approach for FLT3-mutated AML demands novel clinical trial concepts based on harmonized and aligned research goals between clinical and research centers and industry.
    Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets 09/2014; 19(1):1-18. DOI:10.1517/14728222.2014.960843 · 4.90 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
78 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014