4.2 Article

Involvement of transcribed lncRNA uc.291 and SWI/SNF complex in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

DISCOVER ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12672-021-00409-6

关键词

Epidermis; Basal cell carcinoma; Squamous cell carcinoma; ACTL6A; SWI; SNF complex; LncRNA

资金

  1. AIRC IG Grant [22206]
  2. Italian Ministry of Health, IDI-IRCCS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified a regulatory pathway involving lncRNA uc.291 in controlling the expression of epidermal differentiation genes, suggesting a potential role in cSCC tumorigenesis. Alteration of this pathway may contribute to de-differentiation of tumors and provide direction for clinical biomarker identification.
While non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are the most common tumours in humans, only the sub-type cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), might become metastatic with high lethality. We have recently identified a regulatory pathway involving the lncRNA transcript uc.291 in controlling the expression of epidermal differentiation complex genes via the interaction with ACTL6A, a component of the chromatin remodelling complex SWI/SNF. Since transcribed ultra-conserved regions (T-UCRs) are expressed in normal tissues and are deregulated in tumorigenesis, here we hypothesize a potential role for dysregulation of this axis in cSCC, accounting for the de-differentiation process observed in aggressive poorly differentiated cutaneous carcinomas. We therefore analysed their expression patterns in human tumour biopsies at mRNA and protein levels. The results suggest that by altering chromatin accessibility of the epidermal differentiation complex genes, down-regulation of uc.291 and BRG1 expression contribute to the de-differentiation process seen in keratinocyte malignancy. This provides future direction for the identification of clinical biomarkers in cutaneous SCC. Analysis of publicly available data sets indicates that the above may also be a general feature for SCCs of different origins.

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

4.2
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