4.7 Article

Regional identity of human neural stem cells determines oncogenic responses to histone H3.3 mutants

期刊

CELL STEM CELL
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 877-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2021.01.016

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [208402/Z/17/Z]
  2. Children with Cancer UK Charity [15/189]
  3. Science Without Borders Program (CAPES, Governo Dilma Rousseff, Brazil)
  4. European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO)
  5. Cancer Research UK Centre Accelerator Award [A21922]
  6. Wellcome Trust [208402/Z/17/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Point mutations within histone H3.3 are frequent in pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGGs), with distinct mutations arising in different brain regions such as the forebrain and hindbrain. Regional differences in the response of fetal neural stem cells to these mutations suggest a possible role in tumorigenesis and tumor development.
Point mutations within the histone H3.3 are frequent in aggressive childhood brain tumors known as pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGGs). Intriguingly, distinct mutations arise in discrete anatomical regions: H3.3-G34R within the forebrain and H3.3-K27M preferentially within the hindbrain. The reasons for this contrasting etiology are unknown. By engineering human fetal neural stem cell cultures from distinct brain regions, we demonstrate here that cell-intrinsic regional identity provides differential responsiveness to each mutant that mirrors the origins of pHGGs. Focusing on H3.3-G34R, we find that the oncohistone supports proliferation of forebrain cells while inducing a cytostatic response in the hindbrain. Mechanistically, H3.3-G34R does not impose widespread transcriptional or epigenetic changes but instead impairs recruitment of ZMYND11, a transcriptional repressor of highly expressed genes. We therefore propose that H3.3-G34R promotes tumorigenesis by focally stabilizing the expression of key progenitor genes, thereby locking initiating forebrain cells into their pre-existing immature state.

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