4.6 Article

Epigenetic therapy of novel tumour suppressor ZAR1 and its cancer biomarker function

期刊

CLINICAL EPIGENETICS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13148-019-0774-2

关键词

Cancer biomarker; ZAR1; Tumour suppressor; DNA methylation; Epigenetics; p53; Zinc finger; Epigenetic editing; CRISPR-Cas9

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG [GRK2355]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG, Research Training Group (RTG) 2355 [325443116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cancer still is one of the leading causes of death and its death toll is predicted to rise further. We identified earlier the potential tumour suppressor zygote arrest 1 (ZAR1) to play a role in lung carcinogenesis through its epigenetic inactivation. Results: We are the first to report that ZAR1 is epigenetically inactivated not only in lung cancer but also across cancer types, and ZAR1 methylation occurs across its complete CpG island. ZAR1 hypermethylation significantly correlates with its expression reduction in cancers. We are also the first to report that ZAR1 methylation and expression reduction are of clinical importance as a prognostic marker for lung cancer and kidney cancer. We further established that the carboxy (C)-terminally present zinc-finger of ZAR1 is relevant for its tumour suppression function and its protein partner binding associated with the mRNA/ribosomal network. Global gene expression profiling supported ZAR1's role in cell cycle arrest and p53 signalling pathway, and we could show that ZAR1 growth suppression was in part p53 dependent. Using the CRISPR-dCas9 tools, we were able to prove that epigenetic editing and reactivation of ZAR1 is possible in cancer cell lines. Conclusion: ZAR1 is a novel cancer biomarker for lung and kidney, which is epigenetically silenced in various cancers by DNA hypermethylation. ZAR1 exerts its tumour suppressive function in part through p53 and through its zinc-finger domain. Epigenetic therapy can reactivate the ZAR1 tumour suppressor in cancer.

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

4.6
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