4.6 Article

Dissecting Mechanisms of Melanoma Resistance to BRAF and MEK Inhibitors Revealed Genetic and Non-Genetic Patient- and Drug-Specific Alterations and Remarkable Phenotypic Plasticity

期刊

CELLS
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells9010142

关键词

acquired resistance; vemurafenib; trametinib; melanoma plasticity; reversible transcriptional reprogramming; growth factor dependence; AXL; NGFR; RBMX; patient-to-patient variability

资金

  1. National Science Center (Poland) [2014/15/B/NZ7/00947]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The clinical benefit of MAPK pathway inhibition in BRAF-mutant melanoma patients is limited by the development of acquired resistance. Using drug-naive cell lines derived from tumor specimens, we established a preclinical model of melanoma resistance to vemurafenib or trametinib to provide insight into resistance mechanisms. Dissecting the mechanisms accompanying the development of resistance, we have shown that (i) most of genetic and non-genetic alterations are triggered in a cell line- and/or drug-specific manner; (ii) several changes previously assigned to the development of resistance are induced as the immediate response to the extent measurable at the bulk levels; (iii) reprogramming observed in cross-resistance experiments and growth factor-dependence restricted by the drug presence indicate that phenotypic plasticity of melanoma cells largely contributes to the sustained resistance. Whole-exome sequencing revealed novel genetic alterations, including a frameshift variant of RBMX found exclusively in phospho-AKT(high) resistant cell lines. There was no similar pattern of phenotypic alterations among eleven resistant cell lines, including expression/activity of crucial regulators, such as MITF, AXL, SOX, and NGFR, which suggests that patient-to-patient variability is richer and more nuanced than previously described. This diversity should be considered during the development of new strategies to circumvent the acquired resistance to targeted therapies.

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

4.6
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