4.8 Article

RNA-binding proteins of COSMIC importance in cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 131, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI151627

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R00 CA208028, R01 CA196299, U01 CA232563]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that a large number of RNA-binding proteins are mutated in cancer, leading to abnormal RNA processing activities, which is unusual in normal cells. These abnormal activities may create therapeutic vulnerabilities, which are being exploited in the clinic.
Herculean efforts by the Wellcome Sanger Institute, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Human Genome Research Institute to sequence thousands of tumors representing all major cancer types have yielded more than 700 genes that contribute to neoplastic growth when mutated, amplified, or deleted. While some of these genes (now included in the COSMIC Cancer Gene Census) encode proteins previously identified in hypothesis-driven experiments (oncogenic transcription factors, protein kinases, etc.), additional classes of cancer drivers have emerged, perhaps none more surprisingly than RNA-binding proteins (RBPs). Over 40 RBPs responsible for virtually all aspects of RNA metabolism, from synthesis to degradation, are recurrently mutated in cancer, and just over a dozen are considered major cancer drivers. This Review investigates whether and how their RNA-binding activities pertain to their oncogenic functions. Focusing on several well-characterized steps in RNA metabolism, we demonstrate that for virtually all cancer-driving RBPs, RNA processing activities are either abolished (the loss-of-function phenotype) or carried out with low fidelity (the LoFi phenotype). Conceptually, this suggests that in normal cells, RBPs act as gatekeepers maintaining proper RNA metabolism and the balanced proteome. From the practical standpoint, at least some LoFi phenotypes create therapeutic vulnerabilities, which are beginning to be exploited in the clinic.

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