4.8 Article

EZH1/2 function mostly within canonical PRC2 and exhibit proliferation-dependent redundancy that shapes mutational signatures in cancer

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1814634116

关键词

chromatin; cancer; Polycomb; EZH2

资金

  1. Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
  2. Labex Development, Epigenetics, Epigenetics, and Lifetime Potential
  3. Institut Thematique Multi-Organisme Cancer [EpiNF1]
  4. Dutch Cancer Society (KWF)
  5. INSERM
  6. Agence Nationale de le Recherche (Investissements d'Avenir) [ANR-10-EQPX-03, ANR10-INBS-09-08]
  7. Canceropole Ile-de-France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic mutations affecting chromatin modifiers are widespread in cancers. In malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs), Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2), which plays a crucial role in gene silencing, is inactivated through recurrent mutations in core subunits embryonic ectoderm development (EED) and suppressor of zeste 12 homolog (SUZ12), but mutations in PRC2's main catalytic subunit enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) have never been found. This is in contrast to myeloid and lymphoid malignancies, which harbor frequent loss-of-function mutations in EZH2. Here, we investigated whether the absence of EZH2 mutations in MPNST is due to a PRC2-independent (i.e., noncanonical) function of the enzyme or to redundancy with EZH1. We show that, in the absence of SUZ12, EZH2 remains bound to EED but loses its interaction with all other core and accessory PRC2 subunits. Through genetic and pharmacological analyses, we unambiguously establish that EZH2 is functionally inert in this context, thereby excluding a PRC2-independent function. Instead, we show that EZH1 and EZH2 are functionally redundant in the slowly proliferating MPNST precursors. We provide evidence that the compensatory function of EZH1 is alleviated upon higher proliferation. This work reveals how context-dependent redundancies can shape tumor-type specific mutation patterns in chromatin regulators.

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