4.3 Article

Expression of MLL-AF4 or AF4-MLL fusions does not impact the efficiency of DNA damage repair

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 7, Issue 21, Pages 30440-30452

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.8938

Keywords

MLL.AF4; AF4.MLL; t(4;11); DSB; infant leukemia

Funding

  1. European Research Council [ERC-2014-CoG-646903]
  2. MINECO [SAF2013-43065]
  3. Foundation Inocente Inocente
  4. Spanish Association of Cancer Research (AECC)
  5. Deutsche Jose Carreras Leukamie Stiftung
  6. The Obra Social La Caixa-Fundacio Josep Carreras
  7. Generalitat de Catalunya [SGR330]
  8. Ramon y Cajal Grant from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO), Spain [RYC-2014-16751]
  9. Cooperative Research Thematic Networks (RTICC) [RD12/0036/0058]
  10. INNOCAMPUS Program [CEI10-1-0010]
  11. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The most frequent rearrangement of the human MLL gene fuses MLL to AF4 resulting in high-risk infant B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). MLL fusions are also hallmark oncogenic events in secondary acute myeloid leukemia. They are a direct consequence of mis-repaired DNA double strand breaks (DNA-DSBs) due to defects in the DNA damage response associated with exposure to topoisomerase-II poisons such as etoposide. It has been suggested that MLL fusions render cells susceptible to additional chromosomal damage upon exposure to etoposide. Conversely, the genome-wide mutational landscape in MLL-rearranged infant B-ALL has been reported silent. Thus, whether MLL fusions compromise the recognition and/or repair of DNA damage remains unanswered. Here, the fusion proteins MLL-AF4 (MA4) and AF4-MLL (A4M) were CRISPR/Cas9-genome edited in the AAVS1 locus of HEK293 cells as a model to study MLL fusion-mediated DNA-DSB formation/repair. Repair kinetics of etoposide- and ionizing radiation-induced DSBs was identical in WT, MA4- and A4M-expressing cells, as revealed by flow cytometry, by immunoblot for gamma H2AX and by comet assay. Accordingly, no differences were observed between WT, MA4- and A4M-expressing cells in the presence of master proteins involved in non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ; i.e. KU86, KU70), alternative-NHEJ (Alt-NHEJ; i.e. LigIIIa, WRN and PARP1), and homologous recombination (HR, i.e. RAD51). Moreover, functional assays revealed identical NHEJ and HR efficiency irrespective of the genotype. Treatment with etoposide consistently induced cell cycle arrest in S/G2/M independent of MA4/A4M expression, revealing a proper activation of the DNA damage checkpoints. Collectively, expression of MA4 or A4M does neither influence DNA signaling nor DNA-DSB repair.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available