4.7 Article

Promoter hypermethylation in MLL-r infant acute lymphoblastic leukemia: biology and therapeutic targeting

期刊

BLOOD
卷 115, 期 23, 页码 4798-4809

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-09-243634

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [K23 CA111728, T32 CA060441]
  2. Damon Runyon-Lilly Clinical Investigator Award [30-06]
  3. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society [SCOR 7372-07]
  4. Children's Cancer Foundation
  5. Gabrielle's Angel Foundation
  6. Optimist International Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cooperating leukemogenic events in MLL-rearranged (MLL-r) infant acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are largely unknown. We explored the role of promoter CpG island hypermethylation in the biology and therapeutic targeting of MLL-r infant ALL. The HELP (HpaII tiny fragment enrichment by ligation-mediated polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) assay was used to examine genome-wide methylation of a cohort of MLL-r infant leukemia samples (n = 5), other common childhood ALLs (n = 5), and normals (n = 5). Unsupervised analysis showed tight clustering of samples into their known biologic groups, indicating large differences in methylation patterns. Global hypermethylation was seen in the MLL-r cohort compared with both the normals and the others, with ratios of significantly (P < .001) hypermethylated to hypomethylated CpGs of 1.7 and 2.9, respectively. A subset of 7 differentially hypermethylated genes was assayed by quantitative reverse-transcription (qRT) PCR, confirming relative silencing in 5 of 7. In cell line treatment assays with the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor (DNMTi) decitabine, MLL-r (but not MLL wild-type cell lines) showed dose- and time-dependent cytotoxicity and re-expression of 4 of the 5 silenced genes. Methylation-specific PCR (MSP) confirmed promoter hypermethylation at baseline, and a relative decrease in methylation after treatment. DNMTi may represent a novel molecularly targeted therapy for MLL-r infant ALL. (Blood. 2010;115(23):4798-4809)

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