4.7 Article

shRNA library screening identifies nucleocytoplasmic transport as a mediator of BCR-ABL1 kinase-independent resistance

期刊

BLOOD
卷 125, 期 11, 页码 1772-1781

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-08-588855

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS) [6086-12, GCNCR0314A-UTAH]
  2. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute [P01CA049639, R01CA178397, 5P30CA042014-24, T32CA093247, P30CA042014]
  3. V Foundation for Cancer Research
  4. American Society of Hematology
  5. LLS [5090-12]
  6. National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms underlying tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients lacking explanatory BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutations are incompletely understood. To identify mechanisms of TKI resistance that are independent of BCR-ABL1 kinase activity, we introduced a lentiviral short hairpin RNA (shRNA) library targeting similar to 5000 cell signaling genes into K562(R), a CML cell line with BCR-ABL1 kinase-independent TKI resistance expressing exclusively native BCR-ABL1. A customized algorithm identified genes whose shRNA-mediated knockdown markedly impaired growth of K562(R) cells compared with TKI-sensitive controls. Among the top candidates were 2 components of the nucleocytoplasmic transport complex, RAN and XPO1 (CRM1). shRNA-mediated RAN inhibition or treatment of cells with the XPO1 inhibitor, KPT-330 (Selinexor), increased the imatinib sensitivity of CML cell lines with kinase-independent TKI resistance. Inhibition of either RAN or XPO1 impaired colony formation of CD34(+) cells from newly diagnosed and TKI-resistant CML patients in the presence of imatinib, without effects on CD34(+) cells from normal cord blood or from a patient harboring the BCR-ABL1(T315I) mutant. These data implicate RAN in BCR-ABL1 kinase-independent imatinib resistance and show that shRNA library screens are useful to identify alternative pathways critical to drug resistance in CML.

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