4.7 Review

Perspective: APOBEC mutagenesis in drug resistance and immune escape in HIV and cancer evolution

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 563-572

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy003

关键词

APOBEC; immune escape; drug resistance; human immunodeficiency virus; intratumour heterogeneity

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. Rosetrees
  3. University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
  4. Danish Cancer Society
  5. Swedish Research Council
  6. NovoNordisk Foundation [16584]
  7. Danish National Research Foundation (project CARD)
  8. Danish Council for Independent Research
  9. USAID
  10. National Institutes of Health [NIAID R37 AI064046, NCI R21 CA206309]
  11. Rosetrees Trust
  12. EU [259303]
  13. Prostate Cancer Foundation
  14. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  15. European Research Council
  16. National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
  17. Francis Crick Institute from Cancer Research UK [FC001169]
  18. UK Medical Research Council [FC001169]
  19. Wellcome Trust [FC001169]
  20. Cancer Research UK [22246, 24956] Funding Source: researchfish
  21. The Danish Cancer Society [R124-A7785] Funding Source: researchfish
  22. The Francis Crick Institute [10169] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like (APOBEC) mutational signature has only recently been detected in a multitude of cancers through next-generation sequencing. In contrast, APOBEC has been a focus of virology research for over a decade. Many lessons learnt regarding APOBEC within virology are likely to be applicable to cancer. In this review, we explore the parallels between the role of APOBEC enzymes in HIV and cancer evolution. We discuss data supporting the role of APOBEC mutagenesis in creating HIV genome heterogeneity, drug resistance, and immune escape variants. We hypothesize similar functions of APOBEC will also hold true in cancer.

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