4.7 Article

Phenotypic, transcriptomic, and genomic features of clonal plasma cells in light-chain amyloidosis

期刊

BLOOD
卷 127, 期 24, 页码 3035-3039

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-10-673095

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Thematic Network of the Red de Cancer (Cancer Network of Excellence) [RD12/0036/0058, RD12/0036/0061, RD12/0036/0048]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III/Subdireccion General de Investigacion Sanitaria [FIS: PI13/02196]
  3. Consejeria de Sanidad, Junta de Castilla y Leon, Valladolid, Spain [557/A/10]
  4. International Myeloma Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis (AL) and multiple myeloma (MM) are 2 distinct monoclonal gammopathies that involve the same cellular compartment: clonal plasma cells (PCs). Despite the fact that knowledge about MM PC biology has significantly increased in the last decade, the same does not apply for AL. Here, we used an integrative phenotypic, molecular, and genomic approach to study clonal PCs from 24 newly diagnosed patients with AL. Through principal-component-analysis, we demonstrated highly overlapping phenotypic profiles between AL and both monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and MM PCs. However, in contrast to MM, highly purified fluorescence-activated cell-sorted clonal PCs from AL (n = 9) showed almost normal transcriptome, with only 38 deregulated genes vs normal PCs; these included a few tumor-suppressor (CDH1, RCAN) and proapoptotic (GLIPR1, FAS) genes. Notwithstanding, clonal PCs in AL (n=11) were genomically unstable, with a median of 9 copy number alterations (CNAs) per case, many of such CNAs being similar to those found in MM. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) performed in 5 AL patients revealed a median of 15 nonrecurrent mutations per case. Altogether, our results show that in the absence of a unifying mutation by WES, clonal PCs in AL display phenotypic and CNA profiles similar to MM, but their transcriptome is remarkably similar to that of normal PCs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据