4.7 Article

RNA-seq analysis of 2 closely related leukemia clones that differ in their self-renewal capacity

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 117, Issue 2, Pages E27-E38

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-07-293332

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Cole foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The molecular mechanisms regulating self-renewal of leukemia stem cells remain poorly understood. Here we report the generation of 2 closely related leukemias created through the retroviral overexpression of Meis1 and Hoxa9. Despite their apparent common origin, these clonal leukemias exhibit enormous differences in stem cell frequency (from 1 in 1.4, FLA2; to 1 in 347, FLB1), suggesting that one of these leukemias undergoes nearly unlimited self-renewal divisions. Using next-generation RNA-sequencing, we characterized the transcriptomes of these phenotypically similar, but biologically distinct, leukemias, identifying hundreds of differentially expressed genes and a large number of structural differences (eg, alternative splicing and promoter usage). Focusing on ligand-receptor pairs, we observed high expression levels of Sdf1-Cxcr4; Jagged2-Notch2/1; Osm-Gp130; Scf-cKit; and Bmp15-Tgfb1/2. Interestingly, the integrin beta 2-like gene (Itgb2l) is both highly expressed and differentially expressed between our 2 leukemias (similar to 14-fold higher in FLA2 than FLB1). In addition, gene ontology analysis indicated G-protein-coupled receptor had a much higher proportion of differential expression (22%) compared with other classes (similar to 5%), suggesting a potential role regulating subtle changes in cellular behavior. These results provide the first comprehensive transcriptome analysis of a leukemia stem cell and document an unexpected level of transcriptome variation between phenotypically similar leukemic cells. (Blood. 2011; 117(2): e27-e38)

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