4.7 Article

Acquired cross-linker resistance associated with a novel spliced BRCA2 protein variant for molecular phenotyping of BRCA2 disruption

期刊

CELL DEATH & DISEASE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/cddis.2017.264

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bloodwise
  2. Cancer Research UK (Clinician Scientist Fellowship) [C18601/A5901]
  3. Kay Kendall Leukemia Fund [KKL 792]
  4. Children with Cancer, UK
  5. Elimination of Leukaemia Fund, UK
  6. Medical Research Council, UK
  7. Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Manchester
  8. Friends of Rosie Childhood Cancer Research Fund, Manchester
  9. Centre for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health
  10. MRC [MR/M008959/1, MR/N00583X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Medical Research Council [MR/M008959/1, MR/N00583X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BRCA2 encodes a protein with a fundamental role in homologous recombination that is essential for normal development. Carrier status of mutations in BRCA2 is associated with familial breast and ovarian cancer, while bi-allelic BRCA2 mutations can cause Fanconi anemia (FA), a cancer predisposition syndrome with cellular cross-linker hypersensitivity. Cancers associated with BRCA2 mutations can acquire chemo-resistance on relapse. We modeled acquired cross-linker resistance with an FA-derived BRCA2-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) platform. Associated with acquired cross-linker resistance was the expression of a functional BRCA2 protein variant lacking exon 5 and exon 7 (BRCA2(Delta E5+7)), implying a role for BRCA2 splicing for acquired chemoresistance. Integrated network analysis of transcriptomic and proteomic differences for phenotyping of BRCA2 disruption infers impact on transcription and chromatin remodeling in addition to the DNA damage response. The striking overlap with transcriptional profiles of FA patient hematopoiesis and BRCA mutation associated ovarian cancer helps define and explicate the 'BRCAness' profile.

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