4.7 Article

Increasing G9a automethylation sensitizes B acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells to glucocorticoid-induced death

期刊

CELL DEATH & DISEASE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41419-018-1110-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R37DK055274, R01DK043093]
  2. National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support [P30CA014089]
  3. Molecular and Cell Biology Core Facilities
  4. NIH/NCI [K99/R00CA149088]
  5. Roy J. Carver Chartiable Trust [01-224]
  6. American Cancer Society-IRG program
  7. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synthetic glucocorticoids (GCs) are used to treat lymphoid cancers, but many patients develop resistance to treatment, especially to GC. By identifying genes that influence sensitivity to GC-induced cell death, we found that histone methyltransferases G9a and G9a-like protein (GLP), two glucocorticoid receptor (GR) coactivators, are required for GC-induced cell death in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) cell line Nalm6. We previously established in a few selected genes that automethylated G9a and GLP recruit heterochromatin protein 1 gamma (HP1 gamma) as another required coactivator. Here, we used a genome-wide analysis to show that HP1 gamma is selectively required for GC-regulated expression of the great majority of GR target genes that require G9a and GLP. To further address the importance of G9a and GLP methylation in this process and in cell physiology, we found that JIB-04, a selective JmjC family lysine demethylase inhibitor, increased G9a methylation and thereby increased G9a binding to HP1 gamma. This led to increased expression of GR target genes regulated by G9a, GLP and HP1 gamma and enhanced Nalm6 cell death. Finally, the KDM4 lysine demethylase subfamily demethylates G9a in vitro, in contrast to other KDM enzymes tested. Thus, inhibiting G9a/GLP demethylation potentially represents a novel method to restore sensitivity of treatment-resistant B-ALL tumors to GC-induced cell death.

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

4.7
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