4.5 Review

The molecular pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes

期刊

CANCER BIOLOGY & THERAPY
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 309-319

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/cbt.10.4.12612

关键词

myelodysplastic syndrome; pathogenesis; hematopoiesis; cytogenetic; genetic

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are frequently associated with clonally restricted cytogenetic abnormalities, but until recently, the molecular pathobiology underlying this diverse group of neoplastic bone marrow disorders has been largely obscure. During the last 10 years, many investigative groups have applied the formidable power of new molecular biology techniques to hunt for recurrent genetic alterations in MDS primary cells. Several genetic abnormalities, including mutations in RUNX1 (AML1), TET2, ASXL1 and TP53, have been discovered in a substantial fraction of MDS cases; genes rearranged or mutated less commonly in MDS include IER3, ATRX, RAS and FLT3. Furthermore, haploinsufficiency and expression changes in RPS14, miR-145 and miR-146a, CDC25c, PP2A and SPARC in the absence of point mutations have also been implicated in MDS pathobiology. A major challenge will be to determine which of these mutations are causative drivers either in the development or progression of MDS, which might be therapeutically important because they predict response to treatment, and which are merely passengers along for the ride that alter phenotype but have no effect on the natural history of the disease. While the altered cellular biology of MDS is also increasingly well-understood, many mysteries remain. Abnormalities in iron regulation, microenvironment interactions, regulation of apoptosis and oxidative damage/DNA repair may all play an important pathobiological role. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of these complex and heterogeneous diseases, we will hopefully improve our ability to treat our patients with MDS beyond the therapies with limited effectiveness that are available at present.

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

4.5
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