4.7 Article

Comparative genomics reveals that loss of lunatic fringe (LFNG) promotes melanoma metastasis

Journal

MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 239-255

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.12161

Keywords

comparative genomics; CRISPR; melanoma; RNA-Seq

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. ERC Synergy (Combat Cancer) programme
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)/ ERC synergy grant [319661 COMBATCANCER]
  5. Cancer Research UK [10589, 19167, 13031] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metastasis is the leading cause of death in patients with advanced melanoma, yet the somatic alterations that aid tumour cell dissemination and colonisation are poorly understood. Here, we deploy comparative genomics to identify and validate clinically relevant drivers of melanoma metastasis. To do this, we identified a set of 976 genes whose expression level was associated with a poor outcome in patients from two large melanoma cohorts. Next, we characterised the genomes and transcriptomes of mouse melanoma cell lines defined as weakly metastatic, and their highly metastatic derivatives. By comparing expression data between species, we identified lunatic fringe (LFNG), among 28 genes whose expression level is predictive of poor prognosis and whose altered expression is associated with a prometastatic phenotype in mouse melanoma cells. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of Lfng dramatically enhanced the capability of weakly metastatic melanoma cells to metastasise invivo, a phenotype that could be rescued with the Lfng cDNA. Notably, genomic alterations disrupting LFNG are found exclusively in human metastatic melanomas sequenced as part of The Cancer Genome Atlas. Using comparative genomics, we show that LFNG expression plays a functional role in regulating melanoma metastasis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available