4.7 Article

Suppression of B-cell development genes is key to glucocorticoid efficacy in treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

期刊

BLOOD
卷 129, 期 22, 页码 3000-3008

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2017-02-766204

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute [K99/R00 CA149088, K99/R00 CA181494, K08CA184418]
  2. Stand Up to Cancer Innovative Research grant
  3. V Foundation
  4. Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust [01-224]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glucocorticoids (GCs), including dexamethasone (dex), are a central component of combination chemotherapy for childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). GCs work by activating the GC receptor (GR), a ligand-induced transcription factor, which in turn regulates genes that induce leukemic cell death. Which GR-regulated genes are required for GC cytotoxicity, which pathways affect their regulation, and how resistance arises are not well understood. Here, we systematically integrate the transcriptional response of B-ALL to GCs with a next-generation short hairpin RNA screen to identify GC-regulated effector genes that contribute to cell death, as well as genes that affect the sensitivity of B-ALL cells to dex. This analysis reveals a pervasive role for GCs in suppression of B-cell development genes that is linked to therapeutic response. Inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase delta (PI3K delta), a linchpin in the pre-B-cell receptor and interleukin 7 receptor signaling pathways critical to B-cell development (with CAL-101 [idelalisib]), interrupts a double-negative feedback loop, enhancing GC-regulated transcription to synergistically kill even highly resistant B-ALL with diverse genetic backgrounds. This work not only identifies numerous opportunities for enhanced lymphoid-specific combination chemotherapies that have the potential to overcome treatment resistance, but is also a valuable resource for understanding GC biology and the mechanistic details of GR-regulated transcription.

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