4.8 Article

Genome-scale analysis identifies paralog lethality as a vulnerability of chromosome 1p loss in cancer

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 937-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0155-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Young Investigator Award from the American Society of Clinical Oncology
  2. National Cancer Institute [1R35CA197568]
  3. American Cancer Society Research Professorship
  4. NIH [U01CA217885, R01HG009285]
  5. Koch Institute from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P30-CA14051]
  6. Ludwig Center for Molecular Oncology
  7. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program
  8. NIH Pathway [K99 CA208028]
  9. Koch Institute Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute (Swanson Biotechnology Center) [P30-CA14051]
  10. [U01CA176058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional redundancy shared by paralog genes may afford protection against genetic perturbations, but it can also result in genetic vulnerabilities due to mutual interdependency(1-5). Here, we surveyed genome-scale short hairpin RNA and CRISPR screening data on hundreds of cancer cell lines and identified MAGOH and MAGOHB, core members of the splicing-dependent exon junction complex, as top-ranked paralog dependencies(6-8). MAGOHB is the top gene dependency in cells with hemizygous MAGOH deletion, a pervasive genetic event that frequently occurs due to chromosome 1p loss. Inhibition of MAGOHB in a MAGOH-deleted context compromises viability by globally perturbing alternative splicing and RNA surveillance. Dependency on IPO13, an importin-beta receptor that mediates nuclear import of the MAGOH/B-Y14 heterodimer(9), is highly correlated with dependency on both MAGOH and MAGOHB. Both MAGOHB and IPO13 represent dependencies in murine xenografts with hemizygous MAGOH deletion. Our results identify MAGOH and MAGOHB as reciprocal paralog dependencies across cancer types and suggest a rationale for targeting the MAGOHB-IPO13 axis in cancers with chromosome 1p deletion.

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