4.8 Article

Recurrent mutations in multiple components of the cohesin complex in myeloid neoplasms

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 45, 期 10, 页码 1232-U187

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.2731

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  2. KAKENHI [23249052, 22134006, 21790907]
  3. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) [08C46598a]
  4. project for development of innovative research on cancer therapies
  5. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through the Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology, initiated by the Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP)
  6. [NHRI-EX100-10003NI]
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25670446, 21790907, 22134006, 22221009, 23249052, 25730173, 24659458, 24390242] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cohesin is a multimeric protein complex that is involved in the cohesion of sister chromatids, post-replicative DNA repair and transcriptional regulation. Here we report recurrent mutations and deletions involving multiple components of the cohesin complex, including STAG2, RAD21, SMC1A and SMC3, in different myeloid neoplasms. These mutations and deletions were mostly mutually exclusive and occurred in 12.1% (19/157) of acute myeloid leukemia, 8.0% (18/224) of myelodysplastic syndromes, 10.2% (9/88) of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, 6.3% (4/64) of chronic myelogenous leukemia and 1.3% (1/77) of classical myeloproliferative neoplasms. Cohesin-mutated leukemic cells showed reduced amounts of chromatin-bound cohesin components, suggesting a substantial loss of cohesin binding sites on chromatin. The growth of leukemic cell lines harboring a mutation in RAD21 (Kasumi-1 cells) or having severely reduced expression of RAD21 and STAG2 (MOLM-13 cells) was suppressed by forced expression of wild-type RAD21 and wild-type RAD21 and STAG2, respectively. These findings suggest a role for compromised cohesin functions in myeloid leukemogenesis.

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

4.8
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