4.8 Article

The noncoding RNAs SNORD50A and SNORD50B bind K-Ras and are recurrently deleted in human cancer

Journal

NATURE GENETICS
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 53-+

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.3452

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development
  2. US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute [CA142635]
  3. US National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [AR49737]
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA142635, T32CA009302] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R01AR049737] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) are conserved noncoding RNAs best studied as ribonucleoprotein (RNP) guides in RNA modification(1,2). To explore their role in cancer, we compared 5,473 tumor-normal genome pairs to identify snoRNAs with frequent copy number loss. The SNORD50A-SNORD50B snoRNA locus was deleted in 10-40% of 12 common cancers, where its loss was associated with reduced survival. A human protein microarray screen identified direct SNORD50A and SNORD50B RNA binding to K-Ras. Loss of SNORD50A and SNORD50B increased the amount of GTP-bound, active K-Ras and hyperactivated Ras-ERK1/ERK2 signaling. Loss of these snoRNAs also increased binding by farnesyltransferase to K-Ras and increased K-Ras prenylation, suggesting that KRAS mutation might synergize with SNORD50A and SNORD50B loss in cancer. In agreement with this hypothesis, CRISPR-mediated deletion of SNORD50A and SNORD50B in KRAS-mutant tumor cells enhanced tumorigenesis, and SNORD50A and SNORD50B deletion and oncogenic KRAS mutation co-occurred significantly in multiple human tumor types. SNORD50A and SNORD50B snoRNAs thus directly bind and inhibit K-Ras and are recurrently deleted in human cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available